↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1556 << 1 2 … 1,554 1,555 1,556 1,557 1,558 … 1,865 1,866 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

BP’s “small people”

The New Neo Posted on June 17, 2010 by neoJune 17, 2010

As if the public’s anger at BP wasn’t already strong enough, the company’s chairman, Carl-Henric Svanberg, put his foot into another pile of steaming doo-doo when he said:

[Obama’s] frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people. I hear comments that sometimes large oil companies are greedy companies that don’t care. But that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people.

But ordinary Americans don’t like being called “small people”—as opposed to what, giants like Obama and Svanberg and Hayward?

Of course, Svanberg can’t be expected to know that. He’s a European (Swedish), and Europeans (and, I suspect, Obama, who has a European sensibility) really do think in those noblesse oblige terms. Svanberg may speak English, but he doesn’t speak American, and he let slip a Europeanism. That part of the world has traditionally been, and still is, far more hierarchical and class-ridden than we in this country.

When I heard the phrase, I recalled that the book They Thought They Were Free, by Milton Mayer (I’ve written at length about the work before, here and here) featured a discussion of a similar expression (“little men”) common in post-WWII Germany. I think it’s of some interest:

These ten men [whom Mayer interviewed in Germany after WWII] were “little men”…And when I say “little men,” I mean not only the men for whom the mass media and the campaign speeches are everywhere designed but, specifically in sharply stratified societies like Germany, the men who think of themselves in that way. Every one of my ten Nazi friends…spoke again and again during our discussions of “wir kleine Leute, we little people.”

This self-consciousness is nonexistent—or repressed—in America. European students of our culture have all cited our egalitarianism as an affectation and an expensive one, producing a national leadership indistinguishable from its constituency. If everybody is little, nobody is little. But the rise of National Socialism involved both the elitist and servile impulses. When “big men,” Hindenburgs, Neuraths, Schachts, and even Hohenzollerns, accepted Nazism, little men had good and sufficient reason to accept it…

Foreigners speaking of the “National Socialist Party” miss the point, said the younger Schwenke [one of Mayer’s German interviewees]; it was the National Socialist German Workers Party, “the party of the little men like me. The only other was the Communist.” Emperor and Fuhrer both
required the consciousness of littleness in the Germans, but Fuhrer, bringing bigness down, lifted littleness up.

No man—or woman—is little in America, although we may feel that way sometimes.

.

Posted in Historical figures, Liberty | 25 Replies

Chris Christie, the un-Obama

The New Neo Posted on June 17, 2010 by neoJune 17, 2010

It’s so refreshing to hear this guy speak:

Christie has a quality rare in politicians, that of a smart guy telling the truth and speaking from the heart. It’s a quality many thought they saw in Barack Obama, but from the first I was puzzled by that reaction to him.

Christie is a guy who seemingly came out of nowhere to score his stunning upset as New Jersey’s first Republican to hold any statewide office in the last twelve years. With Christie, what you see is (apparently) what you get, a half-Italian half-Irish lawyer who is New Jersey born and bred, speaking in the familiar cadences of his home state, and telling it as he sees it.

Without a teleprompter.

Posted in People of interest | 19 Replies

Hanson: Gulf War III

The New Neo Posted on June 17, 2010 by neoJune 17, 2010

If you read just one article on Obama and the oil spill and the current state of his presidency, let it be this one by Victor Davis Hanson.

Posted in Obama | 9 Replies

How hard can it be to be a competent president?

The New Neo Posted on June 16, 2010 by neoJune 16, 2010

I think the left is finally realizing that the answer is: very.

Their hatred and contempt for George Bush made them actually believe that he was every bit as stupid as they said he was. A village in Texas was missing its idiot, to be sure.

So it couldn’t be hard to improve handily on what he’d done as president. And what better person to do so than the smart, articulate, liberal candidate Obama? No experience necessary.

Well, as things have turned out, they are starting to learn that it’s not that simple. Obama’s handling of the oil spill is making Bush’s Katrina response look good, much to their anger and chagrin.

And it doesn’t even matter if his true goal is a Cloward-Piven magnification of the crisis so that he can sweep in with a leftist solution. That’s what he may have been outlining in his address last night. But it seems that, at least so far, he’s been incompetent at that, too—letting the crisis going on for too long, tipping his hand, and alarming the American people, including those useful idiots on the left who aren’t in on the hidden agenda.

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Obama | 67 Replies

Another change story: sports, politics, and life

The New Neo Posted on June 16, 2010 by neoJune 17, 2010

Here’s the story of a man whose political change was sparked by a kids’ basketball game, of all things.

Roland Toy ran up against a group of liberal parents who wanted to protect their fourth-graders from the pain and struggle of a championship game—the thrill (and bragging rights) of victory, as well as the agony of defeat:

Surely we could all agree that the real reason for the competition was to teach the boys cooperation and sportsmanship. Playing the game would mean one of the teams would lose, which would lead the winning team to “bragging rights in the schoolyard.” And that would not be healthy. It would undermine the real lessons to be learned about self-esteem and mutual respect.

This was a turning point for the author of the piece, who realized that the divisions were ultimately political, and that he—a lifelong Democrat—was on the conservative side of this one.

I had a somewhat related although very different experience when my son was young and playing Little League. The community in which I lived back then was unlike Toy’s. Oh, lip service was paid to the Little League idea of fostering self-esteem: coaches were required to let every player into the game for at least two innings and one at-bat, however lousy his skills. In practical terms, however, that meant that a great many players sat on the bench most of the time, in the hot sun or the frigid cold (game weather always seemed to alternate between these two extremes), during the many long hours that constituted the seemingly-interminable Little League games.

In my town (unlike Toy’s), kids’ sports were hugely competitive and the PC contingent was small or nonexistent. It was the sort of place where parents sometimes ended up arguing in the stands about a bad call, or yelling at their kids—or even on occasion slugging it out with each other or the ump, although fortunately I never actually witnessed the latter.

My son was a decent enough player—fair to middling, neither a star nor a goat. Most coaches allowed him to play somewhat more than the two requisite innings. But he was not one of those players who always got to play entire games, although on a good day it could happen.

Things went along just fine until one year he came across a coach I’ll call Mr. Martin (the coaches in our town were always “Mister,” never addressed by first names). Mr. Martin was a volunteer, like all the coaches, and like the rest he had his strong habits and opinions and was not to be crossed.

His son was on the team. His son’s friends were well-represented there, too, and Mr. Martin favored them mightily. No matter what their skills—and some of them were very poor players indeed—Mr. Martin let his son and his son’s friends play for the entire game, every game.

Those who were not of the inner circle—and my son was not—got short shrift from Mr. Martin. He only allowed them to play the minimal two innings, game after game after game (and believe me, there are a lot of games in Little League), no matter how well they might be performing during those two innings.

It was hard on my son. But baseball rules were baseball rules, and we knew from experience that a coach’s decisions were law with no appeal, as long as he followed the Little League rules (our son recoiled in horror at even the idea of our talking to the coach about it, anyway). Sometimes our son said he wanted to quit, and my husband and I were placed in the position of counseling him.

Although our strongest instincts were to protect him (our baby! out in the cold cruel world!) we decided it was far better that he stay in the league and finish the year if he could possibly stand it. We gave him pep talks about Life and Hard Knocks and Learning From Adversity and all those cliches that actually have meaning, and then we gritted our teeth and sat in the stands and watched all the games. Each time he was pulled out after two innings, he’d grit his teeth and look away from where he knew we were sitting, and we’d try to keep our heartrates down below the rapid pace to which they’d suddenly shot up in anger and frustration.

I remember the worst game of all. My son’s team was behind, and even the most solid members didn’t seem to be able to do much of anything with their at-bats. My son, however, had managed to get a very solid hit—an earned double—in his very first at-bat, and then to successfully steal third in a gutsy move, although he remained stranded there at the end of the inning. He had some nice fielding moments, too, and I thought that this time the coach would have to leave him in. After all, he was the only thing going on offensively and defensively for the team that day.

It seemed I was correct, because when it came near the time for his second at-bat (and third inning!), he strode to the on-deck circle and took a few practice swings. Then, when the player ahead of him struck out, he approached the plate.

Mr. Martin, who’d been engaged till then in studying the clipboard on his lap, suddenly looked up and saw my son. The coach quickly stood and waved at him with a frantic come–over-here hand motion, as he yelled my son’s name and yelled “You, out!”

Another kid trotted in to replace him. I could feel my son’s fury as he walked, silent and contained, to the dugout (not really a dugout, of course, but a bench behind a protective wire fence). As for me, I simply could not sit still; I jumped up, climbed down from the stands, and began to pace in back of them, nearly hyperventilating in my own rage and frustration. I found that I could not look, and for the very first (and only) time, I left the game and drove home without staying till the bitter end.

My son, on the other hand, sat there for the whole thing; he had to. I’m not sure what sustained him—perhaps the knowledge that if he left he’d be known as a quitter. When the three of us assembled at home (my brave husband had managed to stay, as well), we all agreed that our son would stick out the season. Which he did.

I bowed to no one in my desire to protect my child. But he was growing up, and I knew I had to try to prepare him for the world as it is, with all of its disappointments, not the world as I might wish it to be. Unfair Little League coaches were a piece of cake compared to some of the things that could happen out there, and there was no way to protect him. All I could do was love him, support him, and try to make him strong—stronger and better than I was. Isn’t that what every parent wants?

Posted in Baseball and sports, Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, Me, myself, and I, Political changers | 37 Replies

Watch the rats leave the sinking ship: Olbermann, et al, on the President’s oil spill speech

The New Neo Posted on June 16, 2010 by neoJune 16, 2010

Please watch this video response to the president’s oil spill speech. I believe that commenter “chemman” at Hot Air has summed it up best:

I think a rogue worm-hole momentarily transported us to an alternate reality.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

.
The only thing that surprises me about the reaction of these formerly Obama-enthralled pundits to Obama’s speech is their vehemence, the naked frustration with which they spit out their rapidfire words of frustration. As I wrote a while back in my PJ piece on the subject, Obama’s handling of the oil spill may represent a watershed for his formerly adoring press:

…[D]isappointment and bitterness and even embarrassment are starting to set in [with the MSM], much of it coalescing around Obama’s performance regarding the oil spill. This particular event has presented the left with a highly visible crisis concerning an issue that means a great deal to them ”” energy and the environment ”” and on which Obama was supposed to lead in a manner completely different from his predecessor Bush.

Did I say “lead”? That’s exactly what Obama has not done, and the left and the press are shocked and stunned…[E]ven the left and Obama’s supporters in the press seem to realize that Obama has come to own the oil spill, and that there has been something really, really wrong with his reaction to it.

That “something” is hard to describe. But it is more character than policy-driven, and more of an absence than a presence. Obama’s supporters were always attracted more to personality traits they saw (or imagined) in Obama than in his actions or his thin resume. And now it is once again personality traits that are the main focus, although this time as a problem: Obama is seen as strangely passive and passionless, tongue-tied and stalled.

How bad an executive and leader Obama has shown himself to be has genuinely surprised the left and the MSM, although neither failing should have been a surprise at all. But as a result the press is now caught in a trap of its own making…

If Olbermann and Matthews and the rest are taking pot shots at Obama now, it is not only because they are angry with him for not being what they thought he was, but because they are desperately attempting to save their own reputations—or whatever tattered shreds may remain of them.

But I’m with commenter “RalphyBoy,” who writes:

They are admitting [Obama’s] a world class boob”¦ Where the hell is our apology? I want some serious, dead serious, friggin ole time begging and gnashing of teeth groveling from these turds. Otherwise, Obama is only one really well written, and teleprompt-orated speech away from being the man of their dreams”¦ again.
–
Nothing less than total admission of their own idiocy and culpability in the fraud that has been perpetrated on our great country will do. They are still preaching from a perch that puts them in a special place of separation from and above their part in this calamity.

[ADDENDUM: Rachel Maddow and Ezra Klein are not happy campers, either.]

Posted in Obama, Press | 57 Replies

Al’s affair?

The New Neo Posted on June 15, 2010 by neoJuly 30, 2010

Now that Al and Tipper have split, the inevitable rumor of an affair is going round.

But the most interesting thing to me is not the possibility of Al’s cheating. I’ve learned that a person who ends a long-term marriage usually crowbars out of it with an affair, or their spouse does. Very few decide to just up and leave in a vacuum; the force of habit and connection is usually too strong.

It’s a little more interesting to me that, if an Al Gore affair has occurred, it appears to have been with Laurie David, Larry David’s supposedly-already-cheating (with the caretaker of their estate) ex-wife. She’s as dedicated an environmentalist as Gore, and that’s saying something—although, like Gore, she also has a huge carbon footprint. In addition, she’s a sometime blogger at Huffington Post (I’d love to see headlines that read “Gore rumored to have affair with blogger,” but alas, I doubt we will).

The most interesting thing to me about the reports in Star, however, is the following statement about the entire episode, allegedly made by an “unnamed insider”:

Al and Laurie went from friends to lovers…It couldn’t be avoided.”

Really? Was no free will involved? I know that Al Gore has a certain density, but surely his gravitational pull is not that powerful.

[ADDENDUM: Laurie David denies any such thing:

“It’s a total fabrication. I adore both Al and Tipper. I look at them both as family. And I have happily been in a serious relationship since my divorce.”

A serious relationship—is there any other kind?

But whatever may or may not be going on between Ms. David and Al Gore, isn’t she bending the truth a mite already when she uses the phrase “since my divorce?” Her affair is supposed to have broken up the Davids’s marriage.

And this is pretty funny, in a sad way.

(Hat tip: Ann Althouse).]

Posted in Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex, People of interest, Theater and TV | 16 Replies

Fashion statement

The New Neo Posted on June 15, 2010 by neoJune 15, 2010

There are many many things one might say about this photo.

But I’ll stick to: the shoes. Why? How?

sjpshoes.jpg

Your turn.

Posted in Fashion and beauty | 40 Replies

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on June 15, 2010 by neoJune 15, 2010

The philosopher-spambot:

Research: What I’m doing, when I don’t know what I’m doing.

Posted in Blogging and bloggers | Leave a reply

Totten and Hanson discuss war and peace

The New Neo Posted on June 15, 2010 by neoJune 15, 2010

Two of my favorite people talk to each other: Michael Totten interviews Victor Davis Hanson.

Here’s Hanson on the value and purpose of studying war, his particular specialty:

Military history is didactic, and those who study it can get some idea why wars break out, how they progress, how they end, and how peace is kept. I can’t think of where you could get that information other than from the study of wars in the past.

There’s also a moral element. Not all history is equal. If people are willing to wage their entire existence in a few brief seconds, those moments are more worthy of commemoration and study than others.

I once wrote a book called Ripples of Battle that traced the great art and literature that came out of just three battles””the Battle of Delium, the Battle of Okinawa, and the Battle of Shiloh. I could have done that with hundreds of battles.

History is not equal, and whether we like it or not, strange things happen during wars that don’t transpire as often in peace time. We have to nurse the next generation on some knowledge of the collective sacrifice of prior generations, otherwise the society won’t understand what it gave up in the past to enjoy in the present. So it’s also a moral issue.

And here Hanson discourses on what the “peace studies” folks think about the war studies folks:

They think we feel that war brings out the best in people, that war is a ritual that’s necessary for society, or that war is a macabre interest like video games are for some people. It’s like assuming an oncologist must like cancer, because why else would he study cancer?

They often don’t agree with supposedly archaic ideas like the balance of power, pre-emption, and deterrence. President Obama is a good example of a product of that kind of thinking. He seems to believe that if he can just sit down with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez that he can talk to them as a reasonable and charismatic person and convince them of the logic of not having a bomb.

But if you take the classical tragic view, it makes perfect sense for Iran to have a bomb. I see it as a win from Iran’s point of view…

It’s a natural expression of the European Enlightenment. Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Locke deified their God, reason. It was a quantum leap in human thinking, in intellectual evolution. We no longer had to explain natural phenomena through superstition. Just as we could explain the tides and eclipses and no longer had to rely on Zeus, so too human existence could be charted and predicted and changed. That really got going in the 20th century with advanced technology, better nutrition, and so on. War is a disease, and since we conquered all these other things, why can’t we conquer war the way we conquered polio?

It’s an attractive idea because the alternative is medieval. Some people have a hard time accepting that we’re no better than medieval man, that the only thing that keeps some of us from clubbing somebody else is the fear that they’ll be clubbed worse.

There’s more, much more, including the following fascinating anecdote:

MJT: It seems to unnerve the Europeans now that Obama is to their left.

VDH: It does.

MJT: They seem uncomfortable being to the right of the United States in some ways.

VDH: I had an interesting conversation two years ago just before Obama’s election with some military people in Versailles. They were at a garden party, and everybody was for Obama. But an admiral said to me, “We are Obama. You can’t be Obama.”

Everybody looked at him. And I said, “What do you mean?”

He said, “There’s only room for one Obama.”

I said, “So we’re supposed to do what? Take out Iran while you trash us?”

And he said, “Right out of my mouth. I couldn’t have said it better. Bush understood our relationship. We have to make accommodations with our pubic, which is lunatic. You don’t really believe there’s going to be an EU strike force, do you? Nobody here believes that. If you become neutral, what are we supposed to do?”

That’s what he said. I was surprised at his candor. And it’s worrisome. On the one hand I like it because they’re getting just what they asked for, but on the other hand, it’s tragic. And it’s dangerous. We shouldn’t be doing this.

Posted in War and Peace | 36 Replies

Pigs fly, and the Times chides Obama on the oil spill

The New Neo Posted on June 14, 2010 by neoJune 14, 2010

Yesterday I noticed what passes for a hard-hitting editorial in the NY Times. Despite the usual boilerplate Obama excuses (“…he took office under an extraordinary burden of problems created by President George W. Bush’s ineptness and blind ideology. He has faced a stone wall of Republican opposition…” blah blah blah), the Times editors criticize Obama for his treatment of the current crisis.

The piece ends this way:

It certainly should not have taken days for Mr. Obama to get publicly involved in the oil spill, or even longer for his administration to start putting the heat on BP…

It took too long for Mr. Obama to say that the Coast Guard and not BP was in charge of operations in the gulf and it’s still not clear that is true.

He should not have hesitated to suspend the expanded oil drilling program and he should have moved a lot faster to begin political and criminal investigations of the spill. If BP was withholding information, failing to cooperate or not providing the ships needed to process the oil now flowing to the surface, he should have told the American people and the world.

These are matters of competence and leadership. This is a time for Mr. Obama to decisively show both.

But the Times editors are forgetting one important thing: a person cannot decisively show qualities he/she lacks. The presidency, or any executive office, is not an acting competition. We are not in the West Wing and Obama is not Martin Sheen.

Earth to NY Times: Obama is not a competent leader. He can pretend to be one during a campaign, and the press can assert that he is one when he has so little record to refute their claims. But that is not reality, it’s a co-constructed narrative that can easily fall to pieces when it faces events in the world.

The Times editors, who still appear to believe that Obama could show these things if he would only choose to do so, fail to understand the principle. But as wordsmiths who’ve most likely never had to show results in their lives (including an increase in circulation; theirs has been in freefall), but who believe something to be so merely by asserting it and/or bluffing, they must be very puzzled indeed.

Posted in Obama, Press | 52 Replies

That old HCR bait and switch

The New Neo Posted on June 14, 2010 by neoJune 14, 2010

Is anyone actually surprised by this news?:

Late last week saw the first leaks of the administration’s draft regulations for implementing the ObamaCare law — and everything is playing out just as the critics warned.

The 3,000-odd pages of legislation left most of the really important (and controversial) policy decisions to the regulations that government agencies were told to issue once the bill passed. Now that those regs are starting to take shape, it’s clear that the Obama team is using its new power to exert tight control over the payment and delivery of all formerly “private” health insurance.

Remember Pelosi’s famous statement about passing HCR first and then finding out what was in it? Well, we’re still only starting to find out. But those who made educated guesses that it would expand the role of government in health care insurance mightily—and that, despite all of Obama’s promises about keeping the health care insurance you have if you like it, vast numbers of people would be forced to change—appear to have been correct.

Fancy that.

The mechanism for this is the discretion given to the Health and Human Services agency, and the 160—count ’em, 160—new agencies created under it by the HCR bill tasked with setting new rules on medical care.

Give a federal agency power and it will take the ball and run with it. According to a leaked report, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is doing just that:

…[T]he draft regs envision more than half of all policies having to change within three years — an unmistakable break with President’s Obama’s oft-repeated promise, “If people like their insurance, they will be able to keep it.”

…Ultimately, these rules force consumers to buy one of just four health policies — which vary mostly only by trading off higher co-payments for lower premiums, while offering essentially the same actual benefits. In arguing for passage of the law, ObamaCare’s defenders claimed the rules were aimed at health plans sold in the “exchanges.” Oops: Now Sebelius is applying them to employer plans. Eventually, this would force all but the very wealthiest Americans into a single government-designed insurance scheme.

…In recent weeks, [Sebelius] has said that the new law gives her authority to review and even set the rates on health policies sold in private markets, a role previously left to state insurance regulators.

I repeat: none of this should come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention. From the start, bait and switch has been the name of the game. I would say that the Democratic legislators and the Obama administration (and their legions of co-conspirators in the MSM) were counting on the gullibility of the American public in order to pass this law, but that’s not strictly true. A majority of the public had caught on to the ruse even before the bill was passed.

Unfortunately, our Democratic members of Congress didn’t care. Their contempt for the wishes of the American people was palpable, and their lust for power profound. And so they passed this bill anyway, knowing that it would be difficult to undo once it became the law of the land.

Posted in Health care reform | 10 Replies

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Your support is appreciated through a one-time or monthly Paypal donation

Please click the link recommended books and search bar for Amazon purchases through neo. I receive a commission from all such purchases.

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Selfy on Open thread 3/19/2026
  • Selfy on Governor Hochul pleads with the former “captives” to return to NY so they can have their assets confiscated
  • Selfy on Open thread 3/19/2026
  • charles on Governor Hochul pleads with the former “captives” to return to NY so they can have their assets confiscated
  • Cindy Simon on Somaliland corroborates the charges against Ilhan Omar

Recent Posts

  • Joe Kent casts his lot with the Carlson/Owens wing of …
  • Somaliland corroborates the charges against Ilhan Omar
  • Governor Hochul pleads with the former “captives” to return to NY so they can have their assets confiscated
  • Open thread 3/19/2026
  • Who is Joe Kent and why was he the director of the National Counterterrorism Center?

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (318)
  • Afghanistan (97)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (161)
  • Best of neo-neocon (88)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (581)
  • Dance (286)
  • Disaster (238)
  • Education (319)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (565)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (510)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (13)
  • Election 2028 (4)
  • Evil (126)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (1,002)
  • Food (316)
  • Friendship (47)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (724)
  • Health (1,132)
  • Health care reform (545)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (329)
  • History (699)
  • Immigration (427)
  • Iran (405)
  • Iraq (224)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (787)
  • Jews (415)
  • Language and grammar (357)
  • Latin America (202)
  • Law (2,883)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,272)
  • Liberty (1,097)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (386)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,465)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (902)
  • Middle East (380)
  • Military (308)
  • Movies (344)
  • Music (524)
  • Nature (254)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (176)
  • Obama (1,735)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (126)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,016)
  • Poetry (255)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,765)
  • Pop culture (392)
  • Press (1,611)
  • Race and racism (857)
  • Religion (411)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (621)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (967)
  • Theater and TV (263)
  • Therapy (67)
  • Trump (1,575)
  • Uncategorized (4,337)
  • Vietnam (108)
  • Violence (1,395)
  • War and Peace (964)

Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
DanielInVenezuela (liberty)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (shrink archives)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor’s Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
Maggie’sFarm (togetherness)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
MichelleObama’sMirror (reflect)
NoPasaran! (bluntFrench)
NormanGeras (archives)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob)
Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (exodus)
Powerline (foursight)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RedState (conservative)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
©2026 - The New Neo - Weaver Xtreme Theme Email
Web Analytics
↑