↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1566 << 1 2 … 1,564 1,565 1,566 1,567 1,568 … 1,880 1,881 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Happy Fourth of July—to liberty!

The New Neo Posted on July 4, 2010 by neoJuly 4, 2022

[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post. It was written in the springtime a few years ago, on a visit to New York. I thought it especially relevant today, though, because I see our liberties as increasingly at risk.]

I’ve been visiting New York City, the place where I grew up. I decide to take a walk to the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights, never having been there before.

When you approach the Promenade you can’t really see what’s in store. You walk down a normal-looking street, spot a bit of blue at the end of the block, make a right turn–and, then, suddenly, there is New York:

brookheights2.jpg

And so it is for me. I take a turn, and catch my breath: downtown Manhattan rises to my left, seemingly close enough to touch, across the narrow East River. I see skyscrapers, piers, the orange-gold Staten Island ferry. In front of me, there are the graceful gothic arches of the Brooklyn Bridge. To my right, the back of some brownstones, and a well-tended and charming garden that goes on for a third of a mile.

I walk down the promenade looking first left and then right, not knowing which vista I prefer, but liking them both, especially in combination, because they complement each other so well.

All around me are people, relaxing. Lovers walking hand in hand, mothers pushing babies in strollers, fathers pushing babies in strollers, nannies pushing babies in strollers. People walking their dogs (a preponderance of pugs, for some reason), pigeons strutting and courting, tourists taking photos of themselves with the skyline as background, every other person speaking a foreign language.

The garden is more advanced from what it must be at my house, reminding me that New York is really a southern city compared to New England. Daffodils, the startling blue of grape hyacinths, tulips in a rainbow of soft colors, those light-purple azaleas that are always the first of their kind, flowering pink magnolia and airy white dogwood and other blooming trees I don’t know the names of.

In the view to my left, of course, there’s something missing. Something very large. Two things, actually: the World Trade Center towers. Just the day before, we had driven past that sprawling wound, with its mostly-unfilled acreage where the WTC had once stood, now surrounded by fencing. Driving by it is like passing a war memorial and graveyard combined; the urge is to bow one’s head.

As I look at the skyline from the Promenade, I know that those towers are missing, but I don’t really register the loss visually. I left New York in 1965, never to live there again, returning thereafter only as occasional visitor. The World Trade Center was built in the early seventies, so I never managed to incorporate it into that personal New York skyline of memory that I hold in my mind’s eye, even though I saw the towers on every visit. So, what I now see resembles nothing more than the skyline of my youth, restored, a fact which seems paradoxical to me. But I feel the loss, even though I don’t see it. Viewing the skyline always has a tinge of sadness now, which it never had before 9/11.

I come to the end of the walkway and turn myself around to set off on the return trip. And, suddenly, the view changes. Now, of course, the garden is to my left and the city to my right; and the Brooklyn Bridge, which was ahead of me, is now behind me and out of sight. But now I can see for the first time, ahead of me and to the right, something that was behind me before. In the middle of the harbor, the pale-green Statue of Liberty stands firmly on its concrete foundation, arm raised high, torch in hand.

The sight is intensely familiar to me—I used to see it almost every day when I was growing up. But I’ve never seen it from this angle before. She seems both small and gigantic at the same time: dwarfed by the skyscrapers near me that threaten to overwhelm her, but towering over the water that surrounds her on all sides. The eye is drawn to her distant, heroic figure. She’s been holding that torch up for so long, she must be tired. But still she stands, resolute, her arm extended.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Replies

OBama’s economic policy is clear, all right

The New Neo Posted on July 3, 2010 by neoJuly 3, 2010

One of Obama’s biggest boosters, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, bemoans the fact that somehow, the great articulator/communicator/orator has failed to clarify his economic policy. Oh, if only he could explain to the slow-on-the-draw people the big picture—which is, which is…what, exactly?

Clift can’t quite articulate it either. The closest she can come is this:

The straightforward Cash for Clunkers and the recently lapsed real-estate rebate are the highlights of his economic program, while the stimulus bill is tarred (unfairly) as wasted money and the administration’s mortgage-rescue program founders in a sea of red tape.

But commenter Richard Lavallee (July 2, 9:58:21 PM) offers to help Clift out, and I think he pretty much nails it:

Obama’s economic policy is crystal clear. Destroy the middle class and small businesses, nurture and seduce large corporations with bailouts in exchange for government control and large party campaign contributions, throttle the credit markets to prevent entrepreneurial activity, use massive unemployment to drive up public payrolls, drive up taxes to soak up investment potential, empower job-killing environmental radicals, force government control of carbon, and thereby control over life itself, rely on the Supreme Court appointments to further erode the property rights of european-americans, and enslave the nation to the communist Chinese with gargantuan debts.

Cloward-Piven, anyone?

[NOTE: In related news, most Americans don’t seem to have gotten the Obama-Pelosi-Reid-Clift-et al memo that the stimulus really helped the economy and created jobs.]

Posted in Finance and economics, Obama | 52 Replies

What are you doing…

The New Neo Posted on July 3, 2010 by neoJuly 3, 2010

…for the Fourth?

Posted in Uncategorized | 29 Replies

First memories

The New Neo Posted on July 3, 2010 by neoJuly 3, 2010

[NOTE: I came across this old post of mine the other day, and thought it might be fun to repeat it, with some added thoughts.]

I’ve always had an excellent recollection for early events in my life, with the peculiarity that my memories tend to be visual as well as auditory and emotional. That is, not only can I remember a great many incidents occurring at a very young age—what happened, what was said, how I felt—but there’s also a sort of theatrical scene-setting. I can often recall where I was standing in relation to the other players—and, more oddly, what everyone was wearing at the time.

It took me a while to learn that most people don’t remember things that way. I would be reminiscing with a friend and would say, “Don’t you remember? You were standing over there, and you were wearing that black and white suit with the red silk blouse,” and the friend would gaze at me in puzzlement, wondering what I was talking about.

Of course, no independent corroboration exists to tell me whether I’m right or wrong. So perhaps I’m full of it; there’s no way to know for sure.

I once participated in a study of first memories. The researcher’s premise was that our earliest memories are not random and that, in particular, a person’s very first memory has some significance and is a sort of theme.

I have no idea what the results of that research were, or whether the concept is true, but I find it fascinating.

As for my first memory—well, first I’ll offer the following, from commenter sergey, posted quite some time ago:

Tolstoy also writes in his authobiographical notes on his rememberance of how he was born—not only all the environment of the room, but also his sensations of the delivery itself. My own first rememberance does not runs so close to the begining, but I do remember very clear how I was weighted after being brought from the clinic to the flat of our family doctor. It was cold being sripped of swaddling bands and put on scales platform, white and cold metal trough, and I was frightened when it begin to rock to and fro under me.

Why am I posting sergey’s first memory? Because it is virtually the same as mine. Although I think mine occurred when I was older, perhaps at ten months or so, I was very surprised indeed when I read his comment. It’s the first memory of another person, one who lives halfway across the world, and yet it represents a fairly accurate rendition of my own first memory.

If so, why this first memory rather than another? The theme in my early life that I think it represents is the idea “you’re on your own, kid”—at least, in the emotional sense.

That may have been my first memory; it’s pre-verbal. There are no words because I didn’t have them yet. But my first memory that involves thinking—and it’s a pretty big thought, actually—took place in the bathroom when I was about two. I was sitting on the john, probably being toilet-trained, and my mother was sitting on the edge of the bathtub, waiting for me. It suddenly struck me that we were two different people, a thought both scary and fascinating, perhaps even exhilarating.

I remarked to her in awe: “You’re you and I’m me.” Come to think of it, it’s another extension of that same theme mentioned above: “you’re on your own, kid.”

Feel free to offer your own first memories in the comments section.

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, Me, myself, and I | 30 Replies

Pelosi is an embarrassment…

The New Neo Posted on July 2, 2010 by neoJuly 2, 2010

…to the Democratic Party and to the nation. The former, however, may not realize that fact, and can’t or won’t get rid of her, due to the power she’s amassed and her ability to pass legislation that an increasingly left-leaning Democratic Congress seems to yearn for despite the fact that most Americans feel quite the opposite.

Pelosi’s latest is—well, watch for yourselves:

Here’s a transcript so you can study and savor her remarks at leisure:

…[U]nemployment insurance, we talk about it as a safety net and the rest—this is one of the biggest stimuluses to our economy. Economists will tell you this money is spent quickly, it injects demand into the economy, and is job-creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name, because again it is money that is needed for families to survive, and it is spent.

So it has a dual benefit. It helps those who’ve lost their jobs, but it also is a job-creator, and for that reason —for those two reasons—it should be passed, and I’m optimistic that it will. It’s impossible to think of a situation where we would have a country that would say we’re not going to have unemployment benefits, and the only people who want them are people who don’t want jobs. That’s just so contrary to what our country is about, and I reject that misrepresentation of the motivation for people to be on unemployment insurance.

Boy, I would have dearly loved for Ms. Pelosi to have directly quoted and mentioned the names of those economists who have touted the enormous and speedy job-creating effect of extending unemployment benefits, because this seems to be one of the oddest assertions I’ve heard in quite some time.

Yes, it’s good for people to have money to spend. And yes, unemployment benefits help to keep the wolf from the door of those who have been let go. But speedy jobs creation, faster than “any other initiative you can name?”

Maybe what Pelosi meant was that it does so faster than any other initiative she can name, or is willing to name, or to even think about or consider. Tax relief for businesses? Perish the thought! Holding off from changing health insurance policy in such a way that businesses become afraid to expand, and even feel it necessary to contract? Not for Nancy! Creating a general climate in which business feels government will not turn on it in a capricious manner? Not on your life!

Note that Pelosi is speaking of a bill that proposes to extend employment benefits for six extra months beyond what is already available, and that Republicans are arguing against it because they feel it would increase the deficit more than we can afford. So what’s up with attacking this straw man of people wanting to do away with unemployment benefits entirely? That’s not the issue here, and “I reject that misrepresentation” of the position of the opposition, as should everyone within earshot of Pelosi’s unctuously Orwellian output.

Meanwhile, back in the real world…even liberal shill Ezra Klein realizes the recent jobs report is sobering stuff. Of course, Nancy would say all the more reason to pass the bill extending unemployment benefits and get that speedy jobs creation thingee going!

Posted in Finance and economics, Politics | 37 Replies

Car beauty is in the eye of the beholder

The New Neo Posted on July 2, 2010 by neoJuly 2, 2010

I’m not a car person. I’ve never been all that interested in them except as modes of transportation to get me from point A to point B in relative comfort.

When people wax eloquent about beautiful cars from the past, I usually draw a blank. Then again, when a really sharp vintage auto passes by, I often notice and admire it, even if I usually haven’t a clue what year or make it may be. And sometimes a current car has such a distinctive profile that I can’t help but look twice and remember.

That’s why, for the most part, this photo gallery of what Business Week’s Damian Joseph considers the fifty ugliest cars of the last fifty years was mostly meaningless to me.

But one leapt out, and in its case I do not agree; au contraire. The PT Cruiser, one of the fifty most hideous? Say it isn’t so, Mr. Joe! The car may not be a winner in many respects—mileage, handling—but it’s got a mellow retro look that spawned countless imitations and was—and still is—its main selling point. Perhaps I’m predisposed to like the Cruiser because it reminds me of the cars that lurked in the background of my baby pictures. But for whatever reason, I think it looks good.

You may differ on this all-important question.

2008-chrysler-pt-cruiser-limited.jpg

Posted in Pop culture | 60 Replies

Abortion and sympathy, men and women

The New Neo Posted on July 1, 2010 by neoJuly 1, 2010

Today I was sent a link to this this piece, which discusses the enraged reaction of some radical feminists to the idea of sympathy cards (or even sympathy itself) for men whose female significant others have had abortions and are grieving about it.

My first response was to think the entire concept of abortion sympathy cards for anyone to be exceedingly odd. My second was extreme annoyance.

Maybe I’m just is a pissy mood today, but women demonizing men and men demonizing women gets my goat. The rage expressed towards men by these women makes me wonder why on earth any of them would want to have heterosexual sex in the first place (I don’t know how many of the most rabid are actually doing that, but I would assume it’s at least a fair percentage).

The same is true, by the way, of those men who spend a great deal of blogosphere time dissing women in general because they think they’re all exploitative golddiggers who will invariably use and abuse men, so it behooves men to play the abuse game better and exploit women first. (I’ve briefly visited a couple of such blogs on occasion, but have happily forgotten their exact names so I can’t provide them).

Why bother, if you hate the opposite sex so much? Yeah, I know the sexual and aggressive/power impulses can be allied, but how much fun could it possibly be (for most supposedly non-psychopathic people) to have sex with someone they absolutely despise?

A long long time ago, with the advent of the Pill, I very naively thought that the new availability of reliable birth control that didn’t have to be used during the actual act of sex would mean that unwanted pregnancies would be few and far between, and abortions very rare. Ha! That dream—of control of pregnancy and limitation of children for the most part to those wanted by both the man and the woman—was, and still is, theoretically within reach, but in actuality (human nature and sex being what they are) far far away from realization.

And although one might think most people ought to understand that an unwanted pregnancy is not a matter of little import to either the potential mother or potential father, whatever one’s position on abortion rights, and that both have some skin in the game, this seems to often be a difficult concept to grasp or accept. Wouldn’t it be wonderful, though if more men and women could muster up some true sympathy—that is, empathy, compassion, and understanding—for the problems each group faces in dealing with the other?

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the so-called “sexual revolution” was a double-edged sword. It promised much, and although it did give couples the tools to responsibly plan pregnancies together if they decide to use them, it failed to deliver almost everything except the freedom to hook up more readily with people we don’t know very well, and probably don’t like very much, and to experience the consequences.

blogsex.jpg

[NOTE: I’ve ruminated before on some related issues (here and here).]

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe | 108 Replies

Obama fatigue

The New Neo Posted on July 1, 2010 by neoJuly 1, 2010

Today I started writing a long piece on Obama’s speech on immigration reform. It was half done—and then a profound weariness overtook me.

So here, you read the text of his address, or take a look at a summary. Because I’m tired of analyzing the the usual obfuscations, the setting up of strawmen, the demonizing and blaming Republicans in a speech that purports to appeal to them for help (which he pretends to absolutely require, to cover up the fact that his own party is not fully behind him), and the general rhetorical trickiness.

[Parenthetical note: whoever says that Obama is a great orator has never read transcripts of his speeches, among the most deadly dull documents I’ve ever had the pleasure of perusing. Or perhaps the fact that some people find him a great orator despite the snoozy texts is the best demonstration of the fact that he is a great orator after all. But I digress.]

So I will pause in my line-by-line analysis of such things. That’s not to say I won’t start again soon—probably very soon. But for now let me just say that, although Obama is IMHO the most fascinating president of my lifetime in terms of his contradictions, personal mystery, and the danger he represents to this country, sometimes one must take a rest from it all.

But you can talk amongst yourselves.

In the meantime, this piece by Noemie Emery says something about Obama I’ve been thinking for quite some time.

Posted in Me, myself, and I, Obama | 66 Replies

Obama is a girly man

The New Neo Posted on June 30, 2010 by neoJune 30, 2010

I didn’t say it—Kathleen Parker did.

And she thinks it may not be a bad thing:

It isn’t that [Obama] isn’t “cowboy” enough, as others have suggested. Aren’t we done with that? It is that his approach is feminine in a normative sense…Obama displays many tropes of femaleness. I say this in the nicest possible way. I don’t think that doing things a woman’s way is evidence of deficiency but, rather, suggests an evolutionary achievement.

Funny thing, though—Parker doesn’t give many details about her basis for calling Obama womanish, although she does offer the idea that he’s used the passive voice a lot in his recent speeches, and also:

Women tend to be coalition builders rather than mavericks (with the occasional rogue exception). While men seek ways to measure themselves against others, for reasons requiring no elaboration, women form circles and talk it out.

(Parker links to research that’s supposedly about this, but all I could find at the link was a fairly interesting (but irrelevant) article about the differences in how men and women navigate spatially and give directions.)

What’s more, Parker fails to differentiate between actually working to achieve compromise, and pretending to be a coalition builder while effectively shutting out and demonizing the opposition, as Obama has done. In addition, anyone who asserts, as Parker seems to, that women don’t “measure themselves” against other women (or even against men) has just not been paying attention.

It’s a funny thing, too, that a great many women in public life today appear more macho than many of the men, and yet they have retained their femininity at the same time. I think, of course, of Sarah Palin or Arizona Governor Brewer. Decisiveness and clarity, as well as the ability to compromise, are neither masculine nor feminine traits. But a good leader—and a good president—must exhibit the real deals, and not just rhetorical simulacrums thereof.

Posted in Language and grammar, Obama | 73 Replies

Government “creating” jobs

The New Neo Posted on June 30, 2010 by neoJune 30, 2010

Yesterday I wrote a post that was about (among other things) Obama’s failure to deal with the unemployment problem. Then I saw this comment from “Ilion:”

This off focus on “jobs” (for “jobs” are not in the bailiwick of government) is one of the primary things which got us into this long-term mess.

Which got me thinking I hadn’t been clear enough. So here’s my effort at more clarity.

The best way for government to help increase employment is to create an economic climate in which business thrives, and has the confidence to hire more people rather than lay them off. This cannot be done by demonizing large corporations and increasing taxes on businesses, or by violating contracts with bondholders (as with the GM takeover), or by increasing spending in unpredictable ways (as with the threatened passage of cap and trade that will probably have the admitted effect of causing utility bills to “skyrocket”)—as the present Congress and administration has done or plans to do.

One of the legacies of the New Deal was the direct government creation of jobs to respond to an unemployment crisis. During the Great Depression, however, a far larger percentage of people were out of work than now, and there was no federal welfare system yet (it was not established until 1935), with its web of vast entitlements. These days there are already enormous governmental programs in place, as well as powerful unions for many types of jobs in the public sector (which form a much greater part of the work force now then during the 1930s). Government is already hugely over-extended.

For these reasons, direct government creation of federally-funded and operated jobs would not appear to be a good idea, and would only lead to an increase in taxes and/or deficits. Taxes are already a large burden on the ordinary citizen and businesses, and a drag on the growth of the economy. Increased deficits threaten the government itself and the future of our monetary system, causing more jitters in the business world and subsequent lack of jobs creation.

One of the many problems is that the Democrats in Congress and this administration are stuck in a “blame business” mentality and are also wedded to the idea that growing federal government is the answer to nearly everything. These thoughts have been supported not just in their rhetoric, but in their actions as well.

How can they turn back from these policies now? These things gave them a winning hand back in the election of 2008, which occurred at the beginning of the financial crisis. And they are ever-popular notions among the liberals whose support (financial and otherwise) was highly instrumental in putting the current crop of legislators (and our president) into power.

Whether Democrats are actually aware that growing jobs would mean they must ally the fears of the small and large business owner—both by words and by deeds—is unclear. But even if they are quite cognizant of that fact, they may be unable to act accordingly, because it would outrage their main supporters and leave them open to charges of “Republicans lite.”

Posted in Finance and economics, Politics | 29 Replies

Disillusionment with Obama grows

The New Neo Posted on June 29, 2010 by neoJune 29, 2010

A deeply disappointed Obama supporter, Bob Herbert has been focusing on the jobs problem for quite some time now, and he continues the same message in his latest column. I was especially interested in this comment to his piece [I’ve taken the liberty of correcting the spelling]:

Thank you, Bob, for speaking truth to power, Obama and the Democrats have been huge disappointments. I can never vote for Obama again, for varied reasons; and today, I feel like it would be next to impossible to vote for any Democrat. I guess I am back to displaying unrealistic character, and voting Green. Though if I thought they could solve unemployment I would vote for the most right-wing Republican. The Democrats seem to care about no-one outside of the public-service employee unions and the Wall Street bankers. For regular working people, the Democrats not only have not been an improvement over the Republicans, employment has become much worse.

I know that, like me, you supported President Obama’s campaign. That was then — and it turns out it was fiction. This is now — and I won’t be fooled again.

A lot of the other commenters are also changing their minds about Obama. But they are not becoming more conservative, they are turning on the Democrats and the president for their misplaced priorities. These people would disagree with most of the posters here on just about every issue, but one thing we all do agree about is jobs, the lack thereof, and the importance of said lack. Whatever happened to that laser focus?

Many people commenting on the Herbert article are liberals who see the present Democrats as elitist and favoring Wall Street. Of the first 45 commenters (all that I read), only a few defend Obama, and they do it by mostly blaming Bush, the weakest but in some ways the most popular defense of all (it’s certainly popular with Obama himself). Quite a few are down on the fact that Obama has decided to keep us in Afghanistan. One person blames the whining press, and one blames the Republicans in general for the problems.

But considering that this is the NY Times and a Bob Herbert column, it’s astounding how many commenters are negative towards Obama. Not only are their defenses of him rare, but they’re tangential; none of these commenters seem to be defending his actual policies. His lack of leadership is also frequently bemoaned.

The poster I quoted is planning to vote Green, which ordinarily is akin to throwing away one’s vote. How many others are similarly disaffected? Will anything change their minds before election day? And, if the results lead to a resounding Republican victory, how will that party keep itself from being corrupted by power once it regains it?

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Obama, Political changers | 103 Replies

The extent of the Russian spy ring…

The New Neo Posted on June 29, 2010 by neoJune 29, 2010

…revealed by the arrest of eleven alleged Russian spies yesterday has shocked our Russian experts, leading me to wonder how “expert” they could have possibly been. Because no one should have been shocked that Russia under Putin is still in the spy biz:

One message from bosses in Moscow, in awkward English, gave the most revealing account of the agents’ assignment. “You were sent to USA for long-term service trip,” it said. “Your education, bank accounts, car, house etc. ”” all these serve one goal: fulfill your main mission, i.e. to search and develop ties in policymaking circles and send intels [intelligence reports] to C[enter].”

It couldn’t have been very difficult to do whatever it was they were supposed to do. The spies blended in quite nicely in such havens as New York and Cambridge, where:

Illegals will sometimes pursue degrees at target-country universities, obtain employment, and join relevant professional associations” to deepen false identities.

And buy homes, one of the perks of spying in the US, which doesn’t appear to have been all that arduous:

In Montclair, when the Murphys wanted to buy a house under their names, “Moscow Center,” or “C.,” the S.V.R. headquarters, objected.

“We are under an impression that C. views our ownership of the house as a deviation from the original purpose of our mission here,” the New Jersey couple wrote in a coded message. “From our perspective purchase of the house was solely a natural progression of our prolonged stay here. It was a convenient way to solving the housing issue, plus ”˜to do as the Romans do’ in a society that values home ownership.”

You cannot make this stuff up—although perhaps someone will use it in a movie.

Posted in War and Peace | 43 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

  • Chases Eagles on New facts about the Correspondents’ Dinner shooter, but gaps remain
  • om on Tucker Carlson’s apology for having supported Trump
  • Chases Eagles on New facts about the Correspondents’ Dinner shooter, but gaps remain
  • CICERO on Tucker Carlson’s apology for having supported Trump
  • sdferr on New facts about the Correspondents’ Dinner shooter, but gaps remain

Recent Posts

  • On portraying Mrs. Danvers
  • The Kentucky Derby …
  • Tucker Carlson’s apology for having supported Trump
  • Did the press get a wake-up call at the Correspondents’ Dinner?
  • Why doesn’t the left care about the Iranian protesters who were slaughtered by the mullahs?

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (319)
  • Afghanistan (97)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (162)
  • Best of neo-neocon (90)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (583)
  • Dance (287)
  • Disaster (239)
  • Education (319)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (565)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (511)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (24)
  • Election 2028 (5)
  • Evil (127)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (1,014)
  • Food (316)
  • Friendship (47)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (728)
  • Health (1,137)
  • Health care reform (545)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (331)
  • History (700)
  • Immigration (432)
  • Iran (437)
  • Iraq (224)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (796)
  • Jews (422)
  • Language and grammar (360)
  • Latin America (203)
  • Law (2,913)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,283)
  • Liberty (1,102)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (388)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,475)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (910)
  • Middle East (381)
  • Military (318)
  • Movies (346)
  • Music (526)
  • Nature (255)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (177)
  • Obama (1,736)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (128)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,023)
  • Poetry (255)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,775)
  • Pop culture (393)
  • Press (1,618)
  • Race and racism (861)
  • Religion (418)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (625)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (967)
  • Theater and TV (264)
  • Therapy (69)
  • Trump (1,601)
  • Uncategorized (4,389)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,411)
  • War and Peace (991)

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
↑