Suicide bombers on Moscow subway

The New Neo Posted on by

Now we read the terrible news that two female suicide bombers have killed 38 people and wounded another 65 in two separate blasts on the Moscow subway.

We should not be surprised by any of this. It is actually more of a surprise that it doesn’t happen more often. Bill Roggio has some information about who may have done it that fits in with my own first (and relatively uninformed) thought—Chechnians:

The FSB believes the attacks were carried out by the ‘Black Widows,’ members of the Caucasus Emirate’s female suicide bomber cadre. The chief of the FSB said the heads of two women have been recovered at the blast sites. The Black Widows are typically wives or daughters of family members killed during the wars against the Russians in Chechnya.

Here’s some background from Roggio:

A cell associated with Sayeed Buryatsky, the slain ideologue of Caucasus Emirate [formerly Chechnya], may have carried out today’s attack. On March 2, Russian security forces killed Buryatsky and five other terrorists during a raid in Ingushetia. Buryatsky was the mufti for the Caucasus Emirate.

During an interview this February with the pro-terrorist Kavkaz Center, Umarov [the current leader of the al Qaeda-linked Caucasus Emirate] threatened to conduct attacks using the Riyad-us-Saliheen [martyr operations] in the heart of Russia. He also reiterated that the Riyad-us-Saliheen was back in action…

“Blood will no longer be limited to our (Caucasus) cities and towns,” Umarov continued. “The war is coming to their cities. If Russians think the war only happens on television, somewhere far away in the Caucasus where it can’t reach them, inshaAllah (God willing), we plan to show them that the war will return to their homes.”

But the world being what it is, and this being Russia in particular, nothing is certain—except that a great many innocent people died today at the hands of terrorists bent on sowing fear and chaos in Russia.

Did you know that Iran will back down?

The New Neo Posted on by

You heard it here first—from Valerie Jarrett, Obama aide and foreign policy expert extraordinaire:

[NOTE: Jarrett has an interesting history. A lawyer, most of her experience has been as a mover and shaker in local Chicago democratic politics, and she was an early friend, supporter, and booster of Obama. But she was born in 1956 in Iran, where her American-citizen father was a doctor who ran a hospital there “as part of a program where American doctors and agricultural experts sought to help jump-start developing countries’ health and farming efforts.” She lived there for the first five years of her life, and learned Persian as well as French when she was a child.

Long ago I noted that Barack Obama seemed to value such experiences of foreign residence in childhood above the foreign policy credentials of so-called “experts.” Remember when he said:

Ironically, this is an area””foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.

It’s ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world…So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa”“knowing the leaders is not important”“what I know is the people. . . .”

“I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college…

So Valerie Jarrett’s early childhood experience of Iran would fit right in with Obama’s theory of what constitutes foreign policy expertise.]

Let’s revisit Obama and Alinsky

The New Neo Posted on by

There were many troubling influences in Obama’s life that were revealed during the 2008 campaign—Reverend Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Alinsky—that conflicted with his calm and reasonable-seeming demeanor and the moderate way he positioned himself. Those of us who looked deeply were disturbed by what we saw.

But our warnings got little or no traction. Most people weren’t paying attention to the details. Obama’s smooth surface disarmed them, and they took it for the whole.

Now even a good many of those who were seduced by the con and voted for Obama are feeling uneasy about him. And those who saw him earlier as a committed leftist, and attempted to warn, have the dubious distinction of being able to claim “I told you so.” Fat lot of good that does now.

The revelation of Obama’s background as a community organizer, and especially his ties to the work of Saul Alinsky (including the fact that he taught workshops in Alinsky’s methods and concepts), had sounded a particularly harsh and jarring bell for people who took the trouble to understand what these things signified. Now that we all look back with clearer hindsight, and read articles such as this Ryan Lizza profile of Obama that originally appeared in March of 2007 in TNR, that bell rings with an almost deafening clang:

The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!”

Galluzzo shared with me the manual he uses to train new organizers, which is little different from the version he used to train Obama in the ’80s. It is filled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: “power analysis,” “elements of a power organization,” “the path to power.” Galluzzo told me that many new trainees have an aversion to Alinsky’s gritty approach because they come to organizing as idealists rather than realists. But Galluzzo’s manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. “We are not virtuous by not wanting power,” it says. “We are really cowards for not wanting power,” because “power is good” and “powerlessness is evil.”

There’s a great deal of talk about whether Obama is an idealogue or a pragmatist, or whether he is a pawn of others. I have never felt the latter was true, although there probably have been powerful mentors and supporters pushing him along. But I have long seen him as both a true-believer ideologue and a tactical pragmatist who takes whatever position he needs to if and when it suits his ends, and abandons it with impunity when it no longer does. Here’s Alinsky again:

At the heart of the Alinsky method is the concept of “agitation”–making someone angry enough about the rotten state of his life that he agrees to take action to change it; or, as Alinsky himself described the job, to “rub raw the sores of discontent.”

“Rubbing raw the sores of discontent,” encouraging class hatred, sequentially stirring up anger at doctors and Wall Street and insurers and whomever might happen to be the targeted scapegoat of the hour, Obama’s demagoguery follows the Alinsky rules he studied and taught so carefully.

It’s only a little over a year into his presidency, and the person we see today barely contains any remnants of the campaign facade, because it is no longer necessary. Obama has shed that old skin like a snake molting, and he’s left it to shrivel on the ground where it lies, unneeded.

Sculpture for our times

The New Neo Posted on by

The Anchoress ponders a new sculpture by Antony Gormley called “Event Horizon,” which has appeared as street art in New York City. It features:

…a naked fiberglass-and-metal naked man at random spots in the city.

From March 26 to August 15, New Yorkers will be encountering this form—made from body casts of the artist—amid their daily meanderings. As morning fog lifts, his eerie-but-beautiful silhouette will be visible. Those texting as they walk may bang into him. Visually tracking a pigeon in flight, he’ll be encountered on a rooftop.

The Anchoress is a contemplative sort, and she muses on the different meanings the viewer might project onto the sculpture:

Some will find reassurance in it: as if appearance of eerie, random naked men are exactly suited to the day, when it seems anything at all can happen.

Some will see these forms and think, “angels watching.” Or even, “herald angels.” And feel reassured.

The paranoid will see them and think: big brother. He’s everywhere and he’s watching.

Some believers will see an advance team: harbingers of the Second Coming.

The race-fixated will see a statement about the melding of melanin in humanity.

The cynics will think: humanity has become form without purpose.

Good art provokes and gets you thinking, and I believe Gormley’s exhibit is going to shake to wakefulness a city that has lately been lulled into a sort of drugged slumber: Here is man, in your midst: what does he mean to you?

I’m not sure what I’d see in this installment of the “eerie, random, naked” man on the roof if I saw it in person:

nysculpture.jpg

But what comes to my mind from the photo is a classical reference (hey, I’m funny that way) from my studies of art history: the Kouros figure, an ancient form of early Greek art. Here’s a typical one (there isn’t all that much variation within the genre):

kouros.jpg

So to me the reference is to the muted (and perhaps dying—Kouros figures were often used in funerary art) influence of classical thought and art in our lives.

Or perhaps to their revival. Who knows what the future has in store?

One of my favorite pieces of New York street sculpture (technically, two) was by Julian Opie, and it (they) appeared in downtown Manhattan at Chambers Street, on the steps of the old Tweed Courthouse (named, by the way, for the famously corrupt Boss Tweed). When I saw it in person, my reaction was wondrous delight:

The work was installed in October of 2004 and visible for only a year; so alas, if you go there looking for it now you will no longer see it. Not everyone liked it at the time. Most of the people interviewed for this article were of the opinion that it was eerie and strange. To me, though, it was magical, and transmitted the idea of movement rather than stasis, activity rather than watchful waiting, playfulness rather than solemnity, light rather than dark. Your mileage may differ.

Obama: Oh, what’s another lie…

The New Neo Posted on by

…among friends?

I’m getting weary of pointing out Obama’s lies; they’re beginning to blur together. But does any person who still puts a check in that “approve” column for Obama ever read or notice, or care?

The wonderfully astute Victor Davis Hanson observes something similar here:

I can’t remember all the presidential prevarications, because it no longer matters. Obama has become the face on the screen that everyone sees for his morning three minutes and no one believes…

A reader of mine wrote me an email recently asking what I thought might be going on with Obama and his lies; is he even aware that he’s lying any more? And is there a name for this sort of lying? I answered that I don’t think there’s a special term for it, but I would refer to him as a “strategic amoral liar.” That is, I believe Obama knows the difference between truth and lies in the abstract sense. But he doesn’t bother to divide the world into “truth” and “lies” because the distinction is not important to him. Utterances—true or false—are of value to him only in terms of whether he judges them likely to help or hinder the achievement of his goals.

Most politicians must be considerably more careful to at least not lie so blatantly and frequently, because the MSM acts as somewhat of a check on them (less so of course for liberal Democrats the MSM wants to promote—but even for most of them, the MSM has its limits in tolerating lying). With Obama, there are seemingly no limits—and what’s more I don’t believe he has ever encountered any such limits throughout his entire adult life (I’m not sure about his childhood). He has been conning people successfully without being called on it for a very long time, and that his made him exceptionally bold. And, although this propensity was already well-developed during the presidential campaign, he gets bolder as his presidency his gone on and he has continued to get away with it. By now he probably feels invulnerable and impervious, and therefore not bound by any rules about truth or falsehood.

His snark is part of it too, and it has spread to his underlings. The chief sets the tone, and the tone is a classless and condescending one. Note how boldly the appalling Robert Gibbs shows his contempt for the spineless press that has never been able to challenge him or his boss effectively. Bullies are like that; they feast on weakness, and like to rub it in:

“The president is signing an executive order on abortion that is a pretty big national issue,” a reporter asked. “Why would that be closed press, no pictures?”

“We’ll put out a picture from Pete [Souza],” Gibbs said.

“But what about a picture from the actual national media, not from — ” the reporter started to follow up.

“On, the picture from Pete will be for the actual event,” Gibbs answered.

“Right, but what about allowing us in, for openness and transparency?”

“We’ll have a nice picture from Pete that will demonstrate that type of transparency.”

“Not the same, Robert,” the reporter said. “Never has been.”

“I know you all disagree with that,” Gibbs answered. “I think Pete takes wonderful photos.”

Gibbs’ suggestion that the press corps thinks Souza is a bad photographer set off the reporters. That’s not what they were saying; the point was that the press was not allowed in.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” the reporter said. “Don’t twist this — it’s not an attack on Pete.”

“Well, I don’t know why you’d want to attack Pete, Chuck,” Gibbs said, “but I’m going to stand up here and defend Pete’s — ”

“It’s not transparent and it’s a vital issue.”

“And you will have a lovely picture from Pete.”

“You really think that’s all it’s worth, is a photograph, on an issue this important?”

“No, I think you’ll be able to see the President sign the executive order.”

“Not hear anything anybody has to say?”

“You’ll have a nice picture.”

Part of the vileness of the Obama administration is precisely this juvenile and undignified tone. But the lies are far worse, as commonplace as they have now become. In his piece, Hanson yearns for just a moment of honesty from the Obama administration or Congressional leaders, even if of a defiant sort. If only Obama or one of his smarmy and distasteful crew of confederates would just come clean and say what they’re thinking, it might go like this:

“Some people screw up or are unlucky. We’re here to ensure they end up the same as you who don’t screw up or are luckier. We can’t say they are in any way culpable, so we blame either the system or you who are better off. The best way to level the playing field is to tax all we can, take our percentage, and redistribute the rest. Lots get hired to administer to even more. The rules don’t apply to ourselves, who are wealthy but not the targeted culpable. We know privately all this is not sustainable, but assume the better off will find a way to save themselves and thus us, before we bankrupt ourselves ”” after we are gone. And we don’t care really whether this is always legal, or fair, or workable, because we know it is moral and we are far more moral people than you.”

Actually, I disagree with Hanson. I don’t think the word “moral” enters into it. I’m not sure what word would fit better, but perhaps “powerful” would do.

And Obama gives a big “FU” to Bibi, too

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, this is hardly unexpected:

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Joshuapundit thinks he knows what’s up:

…[Obama’s] main foreign policy goal is to ingratiate America with the Muslim world, no matter what that entails. And part of that involves attempting to force Israel to accept an Arab dictated settlement or at the very least destroying America’s relationship with Israel.

Netanyahu appears not to have realized how deep this went beforehand, but he certainly must be aware of it now.

So far, the Obama Administration has already trashed previous agreements with Israel, told them they have no right to their religious shrines , threatened an aid cutoff, and instituted what amounts to a de facto arms embargo.

At the same time, Obama is obviously not planning to do anything about the one issue Netanyahu really could use American cooperation on, dealing with a nuclear Iran. Obama has obviously decided that he can live just fine with the Mullahs having nukes, even if Israel can’t.

So, all you Jews who voted for Obama—any regrets?

[ADDENDUM: More here.]

Spambot of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

The cheerful procrastinator:

Very educational – continue to spread the word. Looking forward to an update. For too long now have I had the need to begin my own blog. Guess if I wait any longer I’ll never do it. I’ll be sure to add you to my Blogroll. Cheers!!

A big F-ing deal: the distinguishing characteristics of the HCR bill

The New Neo Posted on by

We keep hearing that the passage of HCR was historical—or, in the immortal words of the great Joe Biden, “A big F-ing deal.”

But “historical”—or even “big F-ing deal”—has no moral valence. It doesn’t mean “good” or “bad.” It just means “big and memorable” and perhaps even “unprecedented.”

World War I was historical, for example. World War II was exceedingly historical. The Great Depression likewise. But no one would call these events good.

We don’t yet know what the ultimate effects of HCR will be, although we can guess. But we do know what’s been historical about it so far.

For starters, it represents the culmination of nearly a century of liberal/progressive/leftist (take your pick) longing (I wrote about this phenomenon here). Now Noemie Emery offers a fine summary of some of the other characteristics that have made HCR so historical:

The bill passed is a historical change, and a massive expansion of government. It was also the first major bill to be passed against the will of the country, to be passed by only one part of one party, and in the face of a wave of public revulsion, expressed over 10 months in such different outlets as mass demonstrations, three big elections, and polls.

It was not only not bipartisan, but it was less than one party, in the sense that the great war of passage was the attempt by the leaders to force their members to vote in a way that outraged their constituents, by way of threats, ultimatums and bribes.

It is the first bill whose supporters say they have to sell it now after passage, as they failed so spectacularly to sell it the first time. It is the first whose passage was greeted with cries for repeal by so many mainstream and respected political leaders, the first to be challenged in court right off the bat by two different state governments, with thirty-plus more in the wings.

I would add to that list the fact that this bill affects people’s lives in the most intimate way possible—their access to health care—and (despite promises to the contrary) the majority of them are concluding that it will ultimately take away from them more than it will give. They judge that it will take not only more money from them, but their present access to medical choice, something most are quite satisfied with now. They calculate that it will take away the high standards of medicine and particularly medical innovation they have come to expect in this country. And it may even take away the country’s solvency, already highly compromised.

All this has been done by the government without their consent—unless you believe that, once an election has occurred, anything that government chooses to do is by definition done with the people’s consent, even if the government’s plans had been misrepresented before the election.

Arguments that Obama campaigned and was elected on this particular bill are ludicrous (worse than ludicrous: transparently duplicitous). The centerpiece of his campaign was a new bipartisanship and transparency, and some general sort of health care reform was going to be part of it. But the specific provisions of this bill (including, for example, the individual mandate, which he had explicitly disavowed) most certainly were not, nor was this process of bill passage. His most oft-stated promise—that you could keep your current health plan if you like it—has become another joke (unless you understood that the promise came with an expiration date of a year or two).

No, there has never been another bill like it. Historical. The comparisons to Social Security or Medicare are laughable as well. Yes, there was some opposition to both among conservatives of the time. But they were very much minority voices and did not carry the day even within the Republican Party. Both bills were hugely popular with large majorities of Americans, and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. No one had to go out afterwards to “sell” them like a snake-oil pitchman; they had already sold themselves.

The process by which the bills passed was the normal one, as well. And, more importantly (even though we see the enormous fiscal costs now), they were mostly seen at the time as “win-win” situations by the American public. Nearly everyone paid into them and everyone would be getting something out of them, and for the vast majority of Americans they did not replace better benefits that were already in place.

In contrast, the current bill is seen as taking from the many to benefit (theoretically, at least) the few, as threatening mightily to endanger the economy of the entire country, and was rammed through against the will of the American people. That’s the sort of “historical” we could have done without.

Big F-ing deal, indeed.