Please note the new Amazon widgets

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’m placing this at the top of the blog for a day or two more, just for those who haven’t seen it yet. Then it will be allowed to fall back down on the page and out of sight. But the wonderful widgets will remain.]

The Amazon connection is now working properly. So go right ahead if you so desire and use the click-throughs here, which you may note I’ve changed and expanded.

I actually had a lot of fun assembling the Amazon widgets you see on the right sidebar, All three of them (count ’em, three!) can be used to click through to Amazon and place an order. Anything you buy there (not just my recommendations) will give me four cents for every dollar you spend—minus a few purchases such as Kindle books, or things you had already placed in your cart.

I’ve spaced the Amazon boxes out at regular intervals on the sidebar, so you will need to scroll down a bit to see all three. The topmost one is for book recommendations. It’s stationary and has a second page you can click on. The second and third* are for music and videos, respectively. Both of those scroll automatically and slowly, although each has a pause button on top. They will also temporarily stop moving if you place the cursor over a selection to view the title and price. Pretty nifty, I think, although a bit busy

The reason I’m calling your attention to all of this is that I’m curious to get some feedback on whether you think all the bells and whistles are a plus, a minus, or neutral. For instance, do the widgets affect your loading speed? Do you find the movement of the latter two attractive or distracting (or neither)?

In other words, what do you think? I plan to change the recommended selections now and then, but I can tweak them in a host of other ways.

*[NOTE: On my lovely Mac, I’ve just noticed that on Safari the two scrolling widgets don’t display consistently; sometimes yes, sometimes no. But they do fine on Firefox. All you MacLovers out there, is that true for you?]

Why was Hasan still in the military?

The New Neo Posted on by

Michelle Malkin has a good round-up of articles about Hasan and the Fort Hood shooting, especially as Islam relates to the event.

Short version: it does. And no, not all Moslems are terrorists, or even the majority. But yes, Islam is a religion that tends to foster and promote these sorts of acts, and with a history of proselytizing through armed conflict.

But what I’m wondering is this: why, with the huge number of red flags raised by Hasan’s prior behavior and remarks (supporting jihadist suicide bombers, for example), was Hasan still in the military? Why was he about to be posted to a war zone, as well? Why was he still practicing psychiatry? I’d like to know more about what attempts were made by the military to investigate him, what the findings were, and why nothing was done.

I realize that hindsight is 20/20. But we are learning things about this man that were already known to the military prior to the shooting, things that common sense dictates should have caused more of a reaction. I’m not putting the main responsibility for the deaths on the military; that responsibility is Hasan’s alone. But the sad reality is that, if we’re going to have Moslems in the service—and of course we are—we cannot let political correctness stand in the way of awareness of the possible dangers involed and appropriate preventative reaction when warranted.

[ADDENDUM: Ed Morrisey asks the exact same question.]

Obama the cool morphs into Obama the cold

The New Neo Posted on by

In discussions on this blog and others about the Fort Hood shooting, quite a few people have noted Obama’s lack of appropriate affect in his remarks right afterwards, as well as in his introduction to those remarks (a light-hearted “shout out” to certain members of the audience, for example).

Here’s a description of the latter:

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a “shout-out” to “Dr. Joe Medicine Crow — that Congressional Medal of Honor winner.” Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned.

I didn’t see or hear the banter, but I did hear his official remarks. I say “hear” because I was in my car at the time and missed the video. Nevertheless, even without the oddness of the introduction, I found his tone strange. It’s hard to describe, but the best I can do is to call it inappropriately flat.

I’m not expecting a president to emote; they all don’t sound like Reagan, who was, after all, an actor. But I cannot escape the impression that there is something missing in the emotional department with Obama. I don’t think this extends to all parts of his personal life (for example, he seems to be a good and loving father). But I feel a coldness in him that is fairly global, a chill that goes pretty deep.

I try to be honest with myself and ask whether it’s because I don’t like his policies that I view him as a cold man, and the answer is no, as best I can tell. In fact, there’s nothing that precludes emotional intensity in an opponent (“the worst are full of passionate intensity“). Take a look at Hitler’s speeches and you’ll see a frightening amount of it, for example.

I think Peggy Noonan nailed it best. She was an early Obama admirer, remember, and in some ways still is. But back in September she wrote this WSJ piece, in which she observed:

I watched with great interest much of Teddy Kennedy’s wake and funeral, and saw in a clearer way than I had in the past a big cultural difference between the elites of the two parties, or rather the Democratic and Republican establishments. Pretty much the entire Democratic establishment was at the Kennedy services, and the level of shown affection among those in the pews and the audience was striking””laughing, hugging, telling stories, admitting weaknesses, weeping. It was Irish, and old-time…

The president walked into the funeral and moved toward the front pews nodding, shaking hands. He hugged Mrs. Kennedy, nodded some more, shook more hands. He was dignified and contained, he was utterly appropriate, and he was cold.

He is cold, like someone who is contained not because he’s disciplined and successfully restrains his emotions, but because there’s not that much to restrain. This is the dark side of cool. One wonders if this will play well with the American people. Long-term it is hard to get people to trust your policies if they think you’re coolly operating on some intellectual or ideological abstractions.

Cold is the dark side of cool. Obama was cold yesterday when speaking about the Fort Hood massacre, but it was not a special case. He is cold in general.

During the campaign this was interpreted by supporters as a good thing; having a cool head in a crisis, for example, and being able to think calmly. It was also an excellent foil to John McCain’s far more emotional style, exemplified in McCain’s suspending his campaign and racing down to Washington to manage the financial crisis, versus Obama’s non-engagement.

But even some of Obama’s previous supporters can’t help but see now that Obama’s coolness is not mere calm; it is an indication that something important is missing. And that should trouble us all.

Please note the new Amazon widgets

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I’m placing this at the top of the blog for a day or two more, just for those who haven’t seen it yet. Then it will be allowed to fall back down on the page and out of sight. But the wonderful widgets will remain.]

The Amazon connection is now working properly. So go right ahead if you so desire and use the click-throughs here, which you may note I’ve changed and expanded.

I actually had a lot of fun assembling the Amazon widgets you see on the right sidebar, All three of them (count ’em, three!) can be used to click through to Amazon and place an order. Anything you buy there (not just my recommendations) will give me four cents for every dollar you spend—minus a few purchases such as Kindle books, or things you had already placed in your cart.

I’ve spaced the Amazon boxes out at regular intervals on the sidebar, so you will need to scroll down a bit to see all three. The topmost one is for book recommendations. It’s stationary and has a second page you can click on. The second and third* are for music and videos, respectively. Both of those scroll automatically and slowly, although each has a pause button on top. They will also temporarily stop moving if you place the cursor over a selection to view the title and price. Pretty nifty, I think, although a bit busy

The reason I’m calling your attention to all of this is that I’m curious to get some feedback on whether you think all the bells and whistles are a plus, a minus, or neutral. For instance, do the widgets affect your loading speed? Do you find the movement of the latter two attractive or distracting (or neither)?

In other words, what do you think? I plan to change the recommended selections now and then, but I can tweak them in a host of other ways.

*[NOTE: On my lovely Mac, I’ve just noticed that on Safari the two scrolling widgets don’t display consistently; sometimes yes, sometimes no. But they do fine on Firefox. All you MacLovers out there, is that true for you?]

Shooting at Fort Hood

The New Neo Posted on by

First impressions (I was busy all day and just started to catch up on the news):

There’s a press conference going on right now, and they just said that the shooter actually is not dead. He is alive, although hospitalized.

It’s shocking to me that that shooter is a psychiatrist, although perhaps it shouldn’t be.

It is not shocking to me (sad to say) that he is apparently a Muslim.

Another very odd tie-in is that the shooter seems to be a graduate of Virginia Tech, a school with a history of an unusual number of violent acts.

They are reporting that the person who wounded the shooter was a female member of the military. Correction: a female civilian officer. She also was first reported to have died, but is hospitalized.

There are reports that the shooter was very vocal about not wanting to be deployed to a war zone, and that he spoke out against the Afghan and Iraq wars. It is also reported in a Fox News interview with someone who knew him in the military that he had hoped that, with the election of Obama, the wars would end, but was disappointed and upset that this had not yet occurred.

Another report: he had gotten previous poor job reviews at Walter Reed. And his entire medical education had been financed by the military; he did not enter the service as a physician.

The drumbeat begins: he was listening to sad stories of vets returning from the war arena. It goes without saying this is no excuse for anything, nor is it PTSD. Listening to war stories? Give me a break.

Here’s more:

He received his medical degree from the military’s Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., in 2001. The Vinton, Va. native served eight years as an enlisted soldier. He also served in the ROTC as an undergraduate at Virginia Tech University in Blacksburg. He received a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry there in 1995, according to the Roanoke Times…

Hasan is the son of Palestinian immigrants and Vinton residents Malik Awadallah Hassan and Hanan Ismail “Nora” Hasan, according to the Roanoke Times. Nora Hasan ran the now defunct Capitol Restaurant on the Roanoke Market. Hasan’s father owned the Mount Olive Grill and Bar and the Community Grocery Store on Elm Avenue. Both parents are deceased.

The Left, the 2009 election spin, and health care

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m not even going to bother linking to the legions of articles from pundits and journalists and bloggers on the Left who say that Tuesday’s election results have no meaning in terms of national politics, and shouldn’t and won’t affect a thing. You’ve seen them yourself, or heard them on TV, if you read or listen to the news at all.

Pay no attention to that huge group of Americans behind the curtain! Progressives onward and upward, to more and more government control of our lives!! Coming very soon to a theater near you on Saturday, when House leaders plan to cut off an illusory debate that never was and pass the Pelosi health care bill.

I wonder, however, to whom it is the Left is really speaking. Is anyone fooled by this into thinking Tuesday was actually not meant to be a repudiation of health care reform and all the other massive spending by this administration and this Congress? Does the Left really have that much contempt for the intelligence of the average citizen, especially the Independents they will need on their side to avoid heavy losses in 2010?

Or maybe they just don’t care, because they don’t need them at the moment. Perhaps it’s more in the nature of a pep rally to shore up the base and give extra strength to the Blue Dog arm-twisting that’s going on behind closed doors. Leftist eyes are on the prize so near at hand, not the distant 2010 elections. If Saturday’s health care bill passes, and then clears the Senate (a more daunting task), the Left is banking that it won’t matter if it’s deeply unpopular, because it will be difficult to repeal.

Perhaps that’s correct. It’s the common mantra, anyway: once this is passed, it will create so many entitlements they’ll be no going back. But I’m not entirely sure.

First of all, there’s the aforementioned Senate hurdle. Then, even if that’s cleared, the vast bureaucracy the bill will implement wouldn’t really get going for quite a few years. So there might be time, if Republicans do well in 2010 and then especially in 2012 (on the legislative and executive levels), to repeal it and undo what’s been done. It would take some pretty massive victories, however; difficult, although not impossible.

But to return to the present: what will happen on Saturday in the House is anybody’s guess. And Pelosi continues to curve the corners of her mouth upwards as she simultaneously grits her teeth (I hesitate to call it a “smile,” exactly) as she declares victory. And maybe, she’s right—if you take the short view, which is Saturday’s vote:

Okay, here’s a question for all you Mac experts out there

The New Neo Posted on by

From the comments on yesterday’s MacHate post, I can see I’ve got some knowledgeable computer people here. So I’ve got a question for you.

If I place my Gateway and my Mac side by side (both are laptops of approximately the same dimensions) and go to the website RealClearPolitics on each, and then make the font size so that I can actually read it (which means taking it up one notch from the default font on the Mac), the fonts look to be approximately the same size. So far so good.

But on the Gateway the page is nicely spaced and balanced. Each article and author is on a single line. The Mac can’t seem to handle it, either in Safari or Firefox. It can’t fit the very same words on a single line; most of the titles and authors of the articles wrap around to the next line, and the whole thing is much less readable and more cluttered.

When I’m composing my blog on WordPress or even just viewing it, there are also font problems on the Mac that don’t exist on the Gateway. All is well on the latter: when the font size is good I can see the entire blog; no problem. But on the Mac it varies wildly, even the text on a single webpage. There are differences on the Mac between Safari and Firefox; Safari comes out only slightly ahead in the font size sweepstakes, but it has other problems.

I won’t bother with more details. Let’s just say it’s extremely annoying and requires constant adjustment of the Mac font size back and forth even on the same webpage, with none of them being satisfactory.

And believe me, I’m not using an unusually large font size either; merely one that isn’t teeny-tiny. Also, this is by no means the only problem I have with the Mac; au contraire. It’s just one of the more annoying and in-your-face.

And don’t tell me to change the display resolution. I’ve tried every single one, and none solve the problem, although some of them create new ones (such as stretched pictures).

So, any suggestions?

[ADDENDUM: And why, oh why, do my nifty new scrolling Amazon widgets fail to display consistently in Safari, although Firefox handles them quite nicely? If the Mac’s so great with graphics, why does Safari fall down on that task?]

Amazon update

The New Neo Posted on by

All seems to be well. It’s just not showing up properly yet because that doesn’t happen until items are actually shipped, or even a bit later. So, Amazon orders should work fine it you click through the box on the right sidebar.

Vietnam: they lost the war, but won the battle

The New Neo Posted on by

Who are “they?” The Left.

What war? Vietnam.

What battle? The one that determines who gets to write history.

It’s said that history is written by the winners, and that’s true. But Vietnam just may have been the first war in which those who opposed the conflict “won” in the forum of public opinion by convincing their fellow citizens and government to abandon the war itself, and then got to write most of its chronicles.

Case in point: this piece in the NY Times Magazine, which states the following foregone conclusion [emphasis mine]:

In the decades after Vietnam, despite having been proved right about the war itself, a generation of Democrats who opposed the war nonetheless struggled mightily to find a credible response to armed conflict, to reconcile the breach that separated the antiwar left from the broader swath of Americans who disdained reflexive pacifism.

Proved right? Hardly. But the Left and even most Democrats consider it axiomatic that those who opposed the war have been “proved” right. I’ve spent many hours and many words discussing the proof that exists for the opposite side: that our abandonment of Vietnam in the mid-70s was an unnecessary tragedy and a shame (see the category “Vietnam” on the right sidebar). And I’m hardly the only one.

But word doesn’t seem to have penetrated a huge swath of liberals and the Left that there still might even be another side—much less that it might have some validity, and that it offers arguments that require responses.

I’ve encountered this “everybody knows” attitude about Vietnam many times before, including on the occasion of John Updike’s death. Updike, a liberal Democrat, had angered most of his fellow literati during the 60s by offering a principled and compelling argument that the war may have been a well-intentioned effort by the US to allow the South Vietnamese to maintain their freedom from tyrannical Northern Communists. Updike got much condemnation and little praise for his pains, even after his death, at which time I wrote the following:

Last night…as I was watching a Charlie Rose tribute to John Updike that featured a panel composed of Updike’s editor Judith Jones, former New Yorker editor David Remnick, and New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus, the latter casually mentioned, amidst the praise and reminiscence, that “of course, Updike was on the wrong side about the Vietnam War.”

Of course. Everybody who’s anybody knows that.

[NOTE: See this for Updike’s position on the war, in his own inimitable words.]

MacHate

The New Neo Posted on by

I am writing this on my Mac, because my other computer is ill.

I got the Mac about a year and a half ago. There were a bunch of reasons, including the fact that I was struggling with some technical issues relating to the podcast and the Mac finally solved them. Little did I know that a few months later PJ would be phasing out podcasts, and I’d find myself left holding a new Mac.

But that didn’t seem so terrible. After all, everybody loves Macs! Macs are sexy, Macs are sleek, Macs are user-friendly, Macs are for the cognoscenti. I would love my Mac, too.

And I tried to, I really tried. I don’t anyone’s ever worked harder on a relationship than I did with my Mac.

But it just wasn’t working out. I told my Mac it wasn’t my Mac, it was me.

But I’m not so sure. I think maybe it was my Mac. Or at the very least, the interface of my Mac and me.

The problems are manifold. For starters, I don’t do well with technological change, and once I’ve laboriously learned a system (Windows, for example) and can practically do it in my sleep, learning a new one doesn’t sit well.

Specifically, one of the worst things about the Mac is the font. The default one is too tiny, and I have yet to find a way (or get a support person) to tell me how to permanently enlarge it in a manner that works for me. I’ve tried about seven different methods, and they all have tremendous flaws. I will not bore you with the details, but trust me: each attempt to change it has been worse than the previous one, and caused new problems.

Then there is the writing program that comes with the Mac, which is nothing like Word. I’m sure it could be tweaked and customized so it would work well, or one could buy another one, but why isn’t it user-friendly from the start?

And speaking of start, don’t get me started on the photos. No photo card slot ; another gizmo to buy. And everyone I know with a Mac says “Oh, of course you have to get some other photo software; the one that comes with the Mac isn’t adequate.” Well, why not? I thought this thing was supposed to be designed by geniuses.

And the keyboard. Ah, the keyboard! The keys are almost level and nearly flat, instead of the moderately raised, slightly cupped ones I’m used to on my lowly, much-maligned, geriatric (three and a half years old!) Gateway. Since I have arm/hand issues, key comfort is paramount, and although the ones on the Mac look sleek and streamlined, the ergonomics don’t work well for me.

Connectivity? Last night, apropos of nothing special, my Mac disconnected itself from my wifi when I was in the middle of a complex (and unsaved) operation, and refused to recognize the perfectly good password that had been programmed into it so long ago. And no, it wasn’t the wifi itself that was at fault—my other, newly-dysfunctional and malware-infected laptop managed to connect quite nicely when I tested it out at the same time. The Mac came back eventually, decided the old password would do after all, and re-connected. But why had it happened in the first place?

There’s more, but I suspect you’ve probably heard enough. All you Mac lovers out there, no doubt you’ll give me a tongue-lashing and tell me just where I’ve erred.