↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1650 << 1 2 … 1,648 1,649 1,650 1,651 1,652 … 1,864 1,865 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

No-politics thread

The New Neo Posted on May 24, 2009 by neoMay 24, 2009

It’s a Sunday in May. The lilacs are still in bloom, although they’re fading a bit.

And the irises are starting to come out:

irises.jpg

What more could you ask for?

Plenty, I know.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Replies

Shutting down Guantanamo is easy…

The New Neo Posted on May 23, 2009 by neoMay 23, 2009

…when you’re just a candidate full of hot air and speechifying.

Posted in Uncategorized | 14 Replies

I think I can top that one, Webutante: more on car breakdowns and rescues

The New Neo Posted on May 23, 2009 by neoMay 23, 2009

Some of you may have seen Webutante’s two-part story (see this and then this) about her “can you top this?” car breakdown and rescue. Driving with a fading alternator and no cell phone in a snowstorm in the Midwest, she was saved by coming upon a serendipitous trucker with room for Webutante in his cab, and for one more car in the trailer of his loaded truck—hers.

Well, I think I can top that—or at least match it. You be the judge.

It was the early 70s, and I was driving back to graduate school after visiting my parents in New York. I said goodbye to them one morning and hopped into my fully-loaded car.

I’d been driving for about forty-five minutes in very heavy but fast-moving traffic on the Belt Parkway. I was in the left lane on an elevated part of the road, and the distance between cars was too short for the high speeds we were traveling. But there was no way around that.

Then with great suddenness and seemingly for no reason, the car in front of me hit its brakes, hard.

I was young and my reflexes were good, and I slammed mine on too and managed somehow to stop about a hair from hitting him. But the car in back of me was not so lucky, and I sat helplessly as it rear-ended me.

The entire episode took only a split second, but it seemed to happen in slow motion as I saw it all—the car ahead I feared I’d hit, the moment of relief when I knew I’d probably avoid contact with it, and then the glance in my rear-view mirror that told me the car behind was coming on all too fast.

After the scary impact, all three of us got out of our cars and stood on the elevated roadway in a high wind, attempting to exchange details of licenses and registrations. The man in front of me—the one who’d started the chain reaction—didn’t speak English and I could only get his license information before he sped off again.

His car was nearly undamaged. But my trunk had caved in considerably, and the lock had broken open with the hood slightly raised but jammed, exposing my suitcases and other paraphernalia. I could neither open it fully nor close it fully. And worse, when I tried to start my engine, it made a strange grating noise and the car wouldn’t budge.

The guy who’d rear-ended me was likewise trapped, and together we traipsed to the two nearest emergency phones which, in those pre-cellphone days, were placed at regular and close intervals along the highway.

But like so many public conveniences in the city, they were broken. The man volunteered to walk to the nearest exit and then to the nearest gas station and call for help. I remained standing on the highway, guarding my open trunk (not that I could have done a thing about it if anyone had chosen to pry it open and walk off with my precious possessions, but still), and shivering. There was no breakdown lane and my car was in the left lane of a three-lane highway with lots of traffic going very fast, so all I could do was press myself against the median rail and hope against hope that a police car would happen by.

Where were they when you needed them? Nowhere in sight. I stood there for what seemed like many hours but was perhaps another forty-five minutes, gazing at the speeding cars and hoping some more.

Then I saw an auto in the distance that was going especially slowly, holding up traffic behind it. As it approached, it began to look familiar—why, my mother had a car like that! And then I realized the reason it was going so slowly. It was my mother’s car.

And my mother was driving it.

A more unexpectedly lovely sight—and a more welcome one—could hardly be imagined. It’s not as though I was near home, either. Nor was this a road my mother frequently traversed. But here she was (as it turned out, on her way into Manhattan with an interior decorator to look at fabrics), and I was saved.

Posted in Me, myself, and I | 13 Replies

In the blue room: dinner party etiquette for conservatives

The New Neo Posted on May 23, 2009 by neoMay 29, 2013

Commenter Oblio offers some suggestions for those occasions when one is trapped in those oh-so-pleasant dinner table or cocktail party or book group discussions with verbally aggressive liberal friends and acquaintances.

I think they bear highlighting:

There are some simple techniques for dealing with dinner party blowhards and social bush-bashers/obamatrons.

1. When they start ranting, just say “Now, now” in a genial tone of voice with a smile on your face. It is amazingly effective, and lots of people will want to talk to you afterward.

2. When someone offers a bumper-sticker sentiment as a deep thought on some issue of the day, ask “Do you study that closely?” in a mild manner. Most often, there will be stunned silence followed by a hasty change of topic.

3. If someone wants to rant on after #2, just keep asking questions about where they get their information, their views of the implications of their position, how they do the cost/benefit analysis, their response to some authority’s (particularly some liberal authority’s) criticism of their position, etc. Force them to clarify their points. In most cases they start embarrassing themselves within about 45 seconds. Very few come back for this treatment twice.

4. Restate their positions without euphemism and in the clearest possible terms: remember Orwell on how people would react to Oxbridge types defending Stalin’s purges if the apologists had to say, “I support killing people when you can get good results by doing so.” It is very gratifying to see how uncomfortable social liberals get when you strip away the euphemisms. Someone will change the topic within 30 seconds.

5. Avoid stating your own position or contradicting the blowhard. If asked whether you agree with the blowhard’s point, you can say no and give two or three reasons why not, then stop. You are not obligated to make a case FOR the opposite, and you shouldn’t bother to ask the blowhard whether he agrees with you. That’s OK, because reasonable people can disagree. If he really pushes for your opinion, you can point out that you weren’t the one who gave the strong opinions in the first place, and you only asked questions.

6. If really pressed, I quote my mother, who told me “There are three things you shouldn’t discuss in company: politics, sex, and religion.” Not too surprisingly the most dangerous and explosive topics manage to combine all three.

The trick in all cases is to stay calm and not to take anything that is said personally, no matter how stupid or offensive it might be. The key is to make social embarrassment work against the blowhard. If male, the blowhard is usually making a dominance display. In that case, refusing to be bullied without losing your temper is normally enough to make him look pretty small. If female in mixed company, the blowhard is probably signaling “in-group” membership: the underlying message might be “I want to belong.” Proceed accordingly.

I have lived for most of the last 30 years in deepest Blue State, academic, ecclesiastical, NGO, and European circles, and I can testify that these tactics are easy, painless, and highly effective.

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right | 59 Replies

Has America gone Left?

The New Neo Posted on May 22, 2009 by neoMay 22, 2009

Commenter FredHjr wonders:

I am very concerned that [Obama’s] popularity is quite high and is sticking there despite everything. This goes to my worry that the nation has indeed turned to the Left.

I share his concern. Those of us in the center or on the Right who follow the news closely are hard pressed to understand the attitude of those who still like Obama and his policies. Has the country really turned so far to the Left? Or are most people just not paying attention to what’s happening? Or do they simply not understand the logical consequences of Obama’s actions, especially in the economic sphere?

I can only answer by looking at those I know best—my friends and relatives—and doing a bit of speculating as well. To begin with, I’ve noticed that most of the people I know are very busy. Just to take one example, a good friend of mine (let’s call her Laurie) has a stressful job at which she works about seventy hours a week. She’s divorced and lives alone, so all the cleaning, shopping, upkeep of the house—everything she needs to do—falls on her. She also has a toddler grandchild whom she loves and visits regularly. The mother of this child (Laurie’s daughter) is pregnant, works full time (as does her husband), is not feeling well, and could use all the help my friend can give.

Laurie expresses an interest in following what’s happening in the news, but she is simply too exhausted. And that exhaustion is real; I can see it. Her priorities are her job and her family and the things she must do, and when she gets the rare chance to relax the last thing she is drawn to doing is to read gloomy news headlines.

Or to read blog posts of mine, even though I’m her good friend. Laurie has made it clear that she is interested in reading them, at least in the abstract. She (unlike many of my other friends) is curious about different points of view. Also, she has told me that she’s actually somewhat conservative economically. But although I’ve expressed my deep concern about Obama especially in the economic sphere, she has told me she doesn’t have the time or energy to read the details even if I were to send them to her.

My guess is that Laurie (and/or many of my other friends, as well as other people who are not Leftists) not only lacks the time and energy to follow all of this too closely, but is almost fearful of doing so. After all, if what I say is true, it would not only challenge many of her assumptions, and make her feel bad about the vote she cast back in November (which was—albeit somewhat reluctantly—for Obama), but it would also greatly increase her already considerable and almost unbearable stress. Who would intentionally seek out such a state? Not very many people.

And so some of what’s going on is a tense avoidance, an immersion in the tasks of day-to-day life, which for most people in the present recession are plenty stressful enough. And there’s a certain amount of reinforcement for this “don’t ask, don’t tell” point of view; after all, hasn’t the US done pretty well so far? Haven’t we dodged a great many bullets, and haven’t most of our fears not come to pass? Is eternal vigilance on the part of every citizen necessary?

That may work in ordinary times. But these are no ordinary times.

I’ve used Laurie as a symbol for one sort of reaction. But there are others. Take Margaret as another example. She is much closer to what one might call a Leftist. She doesn’t hesitate to talk about politics, and if she doesn’t follow events especially closely, she certainly reads the Times and listens to NPR and watches CNN.

Margaret is very happy about what’s going on; she finds Obama refreshing, charismatic, and inspirational, a wonderful corrective to the awful Bush years. She believes that the US has done terrible things for which it must atone, that we need to take our place as only one humble nation among many, and that income redistribution and higher taxes are the way to go.

But when I talk to Margaret, the foundations of her Leftism seem very different from those of the few ideological Leftists I’ve talk to. She has not read nor does she quote any theoreticians on the Left, for example, nor can she express the principles of the Left except in terms more appropriate to social work: she believes the Left will do good in the world. Her beliefs are passionately held, and are expressed in very emotional terms, but she doesn’t see it that way. And although she makes an exception for me and remains my friend, she thinks that those who think other than she does are in general bad and selfish people.

Then there’s Catherine. She is very religious, and she would talk politics with me except that we’ve learned to avoid the subject because the discussion always becomes too heated and never leads anywhere. I learned quite some time ago that, even more than with Margaret, Catherine’s beliefs are faith-based and not subject to argument or what I would call logic. For example, war is just plain unacceptable to her. The fact that her particular religion (Catholicism) has a more nuanced view of war is not the point; she is an absolute pacifist. She also believes in a Christian ideal of self-sacrifice. Catherine most definitely puts her money where her mouth is: she owns very little, and gives away a great deal.

And then there’s Wendy, who’s probably most typical of the greatest number of my friends—and perhaps of most liberals. She’s a very well-educated teacher. She is comfortable but not rich. She lives in a blue state and most of her friends are of like mind; I just might be the only person she has regular contact with who doesn’t identify (anymore) as liberal. She reads the news more or less the way I used to: she skims the headlines in the MSM and reads some of the articles if they happen to interest her. She also watches a bit of cable news (never Fox!), maybe Jon Stewart on occasion, and her face lights up when she says how wonderful the Obama presidency has been so far.

Wendy doesn’t want to talk to me about politics, and so I don’t talk to her about them either. I keep thinking that, if I could be locked up with her in a room for about a month (no waterboarding allowed!) and we could just talk, I could change her mind on a number of very important things. Perhaps that’s just hubris on my part. But at any rate, it’s irrelevant, because she’s not interested in listening even for a few minutes, and so I’m not talking.

My sample is small and non-representative: middle-aged middle class white women. But I somehow think they stand for very many: most are not really on the Left, except for one or two—and even their Leftism is not ideologically based but rather emotionally or even spiritually driven. The others are liberals, displaying varied combinations of traits: fearful avoidance, stress, contentment, disinterest, and/or ignorance.

What would it take to change their minds? A great crisis that happens on Obama’s watch? But my guess is that it would take more than that to have them make the connection between his policies and the consequences, especially if the press doesn’t make that connection explicit for them.

It’s very sobering, but I don’t think the phenomenon represents a grounded ideological turn to the Left so much as a coming together of a group of trends that have been building for decades: MSM bias towards a more liberal and even Leftist point of view, the norming of PC thinking, historic revisionism to emphasize America’s flaws and errors, the glorification of emotion over logic as a mode of thought, and the need to be thought of as a good and kind person and the identification of those traits with liberalism. And it will take a great dose of reality, and the ability to make connections between policies and their effects, to change this drift.

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right | 101 Replies

Obama leans to the Left, leans to the Right, leans…

The New Neo Posted on May 21, 2009 by neoMay 21, 2009

One of the odd things about Obama’s presidency so far is that, although he’s been consistent in his habit of changing his mind, he’s been somewhat inconsistent in the direction he’s gone when he does so.

In the case of the war on terror, he has—at least temporarily and sporadically—tacked somewhat to the Right of his campaign rhetoric, much to the dismay of the Left. It turns out that perhaps the villainous Bush wasn’t so very awful after all; some of the choices he made about wiretaps and military tribunals may have been difficult to accept, but they were probably the best ones possible at the time, since Obama is keeping some of them in place and studying others.

But on the all-important issue of the economy, Obama has veered sharply and consistently to the Left of his campaign persona—except for a few revealing pre-election slips here and there (that only the Right seemed to notice) such as his “spread the wealth” statement to Joe the Plumber. Obama has used the financial crisis as an opportunity to remake this country in a far more radical direction than he initially indicated; one that could be called ultra-liberal, socialist, statist, European welfare model, or all of the above, depending on your inclination.

What’s a person to make of this? Karl Rove observes the following, with which I concur:

Mr. Obama’s appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America’s security interests.

Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.

Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging.

No, not very encouraging.

And the behavior continues. In today’s foreign policy speech, Obama tacked to the Left again on security, indicating that he’s not given up defending his rash promise to close Guantanamo despite the lack of what might be called an exit strategy, and despite the current opposition of much of his own party. Nor has he stopped repeating as an unsubstantiated article of faith that techniques such as waterboarding have enhanced recruitment for al Qaeda rather than detracted from it. Nor has he finally acknowledged the benefits such techniques accrued in terms of protecting the US from planned future attacks.

In his speech, Obama refered to “brutal methods like water-boarding” and explicitly “reject[s] the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation.” Note three things: (a) he refers to “brutal methods” in the plural, although as far as I know there’s been no assertion that any technique other than waterboarding has raised serious objections; (b) he ignores the fact that this particular method was used on a total of three hardened terrorists who had failed to respond to all other methods of questioning, and who were rightly suspected to hold information about imminent attacks on US citizens; and (c) he denies the fact that such methods did yield important information about these attacks, unobtainable by other means that had already been tried on them.

Lofty rhetoric does not change these facts, although it (and the cooperation of the press) can certainly help keep them from the attention of the American public.

Meanwhile, the decidedly uncharismatic Dick Cheney continues his efforts to defend the Bush administration in a speech that immediately followed Obama’s. In his address, Cheney went back in memory to describe the experience of 9/11 and the mindset that followed it, both of which were instrumental in the decisions he and Bush made at the time about national security. He stated [emphasis mine]:

We had a lot of blind spots after the attacks on our country. We didn’t know about al-Qaeda’s plans, but Khalid Sheikh Muhammed and a few others did know. And with many thousands of innocent lives potentially in the balance, we didn’t think it made sense to let the terrorists answer questions in their own good time, if they answered them at all…

CIA personnel trained to deal with a few malevolent men….were carefully chosen from within the CIA, and were specially prepared to apply techniques within the boundaries of their training and the limits of the law. Torture was never permitted, and the methods were given careful legal review before they were approved. Interrogators had authoritative guidance on the line between toughness and torture, and they knew to stay on the right side of it.

Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods. Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative.

I’m not sure that Obama’s outrage is feigned, although I am quite certain that Nancy Pelosi’s and that of many other Democrats is. But feigned outrage or sincere, President Obama is misrepresenting the facts to the American people.

Of course, Obama is free to decide to reject waterboarding as a technique in the future. There are certainly valid arguments to be made for that stance—but one of them cannot be that it didn’t work, or that other methods would have gotten the same results. And it’s no accident that, despite Obama’s release of the so-called “torture memos,” he’s refused to let the American public see the evidence that would prove their efficacy in preventing attacks. That would go against his own “false narrative.”

[NOTE: Here’s an interesting tidbit of information: Dick Cheney’s approval numbers have been going up since he left office, even before delivering today’s speech.]

Posted in Obama | 47 Replies

Know when to hold, know when to fold

The New Neo Posted on May 21, 2009 by neoMay 21, 2009

In what seemed to be a stock market freefall back in March, some people panicked and did exactly what you’re not supposed to do: sell low, at what now appears to have possibly been the bottom of the market drop. They sustained huge losses, of course, but thought they were buying peace of mind—they couldn’t take the bear market heat, so they got out of the bear market kitchen.

Some of them don’t regret it. But many are kicking themselves, since the Dow has rallied 26% since then. But instead of self-flagellation, they should remind themselves that the lows in March are still only the lows so far, and that the rally of the last month or so is reversible.

That’s true of any rally (and any drop), of course; it’s the nature of the market that all trends are temporary, and those who don’t realize that, and who counted on the continuation of the seemingly never-ending bull market of recent years, were fooling themselves. If they lack the stomach to ride the inherent instability of the stock market, they need to get out.

As for me—well, as I’ve written before, I’m inherently risk-averse about investing. And yet, in a post-divorce situation, relying on the counsel of a so-called expert, I found myself buying at a level that turned out in retrospect to have been high. Then, when the crash happened, my instincts were with the people I’ve just described: to bail at the low point. But it’s an urge I’ve managed to resist so far, and thus (at least on paper) I’ve recouped some some of the money I would have lost if I’d succumbed in March and gotten out.

If I had it to do over again I’d have followed my gut and taken on less risk in the first place. But I don’t have it to do over again, and so I’ve decided to hold on for now, far more aware of inherent risks that I always knew were there anyway. I’ve tried to cultivate a philosophical attitude: when I find myself looking back and starting to tell myself some version of “oh, if only I’d (fill in the blank) back in (fill in the blank), then I’d have (fill in the blank) more money than I do now,” I block that thought as best I can.

And yet I understand—boy, do I ever understand!—those who bailed and are kicking themselves right now. Of course, in a little while, they may have the last laugh.

Posted in Finance and economics, Me, myself, and I | 20 Replies

Let’s hear it for the Indiana Teacher’s State Retirement Fund

The New Neo Posted on May 21, 2009 by neoMay 21, 2009

Why? Here’s why.

The group is one of those supposedly greedy first-line creditors that got shoved out of the way and dissed as insufficiently self-sacrificing by President Obama in his mad dash to reward his union friends in the Chrysler restructuring. The Retirement Fund didn’t object when the deal was first announced, but seems to have recovered its fight. Now the group is suing, joined by two other Indiana state pension funds in much the same position.

I say good for them. It will be interesting to see what the court has to say about the following arguments, which seem awfully logical to me:

In a court filing on Wednesday, the Indiana funds accused the government of adopting a strategy of “the ends justify the means”.

They also said the Treasury “has taken constructive possession of Chrysler and is requiring it to adopt a sale plan in bankruptcy that violates the most fundamental principles of creditor rights—that first-tier secured creditors have absolute priority”.

…The funds also allege that Tarp funds were meant to be funnelled only to financial institutions.

“Whatever powers the Treasury department may have under Tarp,” the funds said, “it does not have the power to control the entire restructuring of a company to the detriment of the company’s secured creditors and for the benefit of other interest groups so that certain broader policy and political objectives may be achieved.”

Posted in Finance and economics | 7 Replies

Obama the car czar

The New Neo Posted on May 20, 2009 by neoMay 20, 2009

Here’s an excellent piece from the Wall Street Journal that describes just what’s wrong with Obama taking on the role of car czar:

So far, the Obama administration has yet to lay out its magical thinking on how the homegrown auto makers are to become “viable” when required to subordinate every auto attribute that consumers find desirable in favor of achieving a passenger-car average of 39 miles per gallon by 2016. Nonetheless the answer has quietly seeped out: Taxpayers will write $5,000 or $7,000 rebate checks to other taxpayers to bribe them to buy hybrids and plug-ins at a price that lets Detroit claim it’s earning a “profit” on its Obamamobiles.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be smart. His administration was supposed to be a smart administration. But the policy coming out has not been smart. It has been a brute shifting of power to the president’s political allies, justified by the shibboleths of copybook liberalism.

Here’s another that says much the same thing:

We wish these folks luck “working together” with the Obama auto-design team. One thing seems certain by 2016: Taxpayers will be paying Detroit to make the cars Americans don’t want, and then they will pay again either through (trust us) a gas tax or with a purchase subsidy. Even the French must think we’re nuts.

Is this the hoped-for change that Obama voters so desired? I continue to be surprised that more Americans are not shocked and angered by all of this. The fact that they are not seems to me to be evidence that the majority of Americans (a) no longer understand the most basic economic facts; and/or (b) believe the environment is so threatened that Draconian measures are absolutely necessary; and/or (c) have come to regard big business (including car companies) as the enemy, and the Obama-run federal government as friend.

I don’t happen to agree.

Posted in Finance and economics | 52 Replies

Women, the car breakdown, and the cell phone

The New Neo Posted on May 20, 2009 by neoMay 20, 2009

Commenter “Baklava” started a fascinating conversation yesterday that was (among other things) about women and car breakdowns:

I’ve heard this from many women friends. They simply aren’t interested in entertaining the idea of getting a car that is older to begin with. [My girlfriend] thought she was buying a rock solid machine. She had no idea what Consumer Reports said.

Think about it guys. When you go through life as an attractive woman (put yourself in their shoes) what do you think they have to go through if they were stuck on the side of the road. It’s a situation that isn’t pretty.

Which reminds me of a time long ago (late 70s). I was driving my very old Plymouth (and just to show you how traumatic the experience was, I’ve forgotten the name of the model) along a country road in rural New England. At night.

A very dark night at that, because in the country there are no street lights. It was about nine-thirty in the evening on a Sunday in summer, which meant it had only just gotten dark and so it really didn’t seem all that late.

I was returning from a pleasant visit to a friend who lived about two hours from me. I had my ten-month-old son in his infant seat in the back of the car, but since he was never much of a sleeper he was wide awake.

All was fine until I noticed that the dashboard lights were a little less bright than usual. Or were they? Was it my overactive imagination? I began to feel just a bit jittery.

I knew this road quite well, having traveled it a host of times. There were gas stations seeded here and there, but as I passed the first one I realized that at this time on a Sunday night they were unlikely to be open. Ditto for the very few restaurants and stores.

Things weren’t too bad—yet. I could see clearly enough, and the car was driving fine. But a short while later it became impossible to deny that my all the lights on the car were fading fast, and the power was dropping as well.

The road was single-lane, with no breakdown lane and no shoulder. I couldn’t even see how much grass was on the side of the road before the trees began. If wasn’t winter, but it was chilly, and since I’d only planned to be gone for the day I didn’t have the proper jackets for me or the baby. I was only about forty-five minutes from home, but cell phones didn’t exist, nor did pay phones on this particular road.

There were not many cars either, although I was ecstatic every time one began to approach me from behind. Their headlights provided light for a while, and I had hopes that they would notice that my car not only had no lights but was now going about twenty miles an hour instead of the usual fifty-five. Maybe they would help me, somehow.

But what few cars I encountered sped by with hardly a backwards glance. I didn’t want to pull over to the side of the road; there was no side of the road and I was afraid a car might hit us. Plus, I knew if I stopped the car it probably would not start again, and I’d be stranded with the (now mercifully sleeping) baby in the cold.

Now that I think of it in the calm light of day (and subsequent decades), I realize I could/should at least have pulled into a business parking lot off the road—one of the restaurants or perhaps the gas stations. That way, I’d at least have a choice as to where I stopped rather than letting fate decide—or worse, having an accident.

But looking back, I know I preferred to hope that the power would hold out until I reached a place with people who could help me. I would have felt especially vulnerable sitting in the car in a small parking lot (on that road, they were all small) with a spotlight shining on me, although in retrospect I know I was more vulnerable driving in the dark. But in the latter case I was doing something rather than waiting, which somehow felt better.

And so I drove on. I remember my foot shaking as it pressed on the accelerator, and my teeth actually chattered with fear. I kept going over my alternatives. Was it more dangerous to keep driving, or more dangerous to stop? There was a little bit of moonlight to give me a vague idea of the outlines of the road, but my own lights were completely gone. I knew I’d run out of power soon, although I still had plenty of gas.

And then, and then—just when I thought I’d have no choice but to stop and take my chances—a light! It was a motel, and to this day I cannot pass that place without feeling a rush of gratitude. I stopped there and felt the car heave, almost with a sigh of sympathetic relief.

The rest was relatively easy. The door was open, the proprietors responded to the little bell I rang, and they graciously let me use their phone to call my husband and sit in their office until he came to rescue us. The car (which, just as I had expected, refused to start again) was left in the parking lot and picked up later; as you automotive people no doubt already know (but the details of which I’ve since forgotten), the problem was some sort of electrical belt gone bad.

Later I went back and clocked how far I’d actually driven from the time my lights began to fail until the blessed motel: it was “only” ten miles, one of the longest ten miles of my life.

Many years later, when I got a cell phone, one of my first thoughts was of that night, and the knowledge that with a functioning cell phone the whole thing would have been a mere inconvenience rather than a traumatic experience. I never drive without one now—although I do continue to drive old cars. No more old Plymouths, though, even if they’re given to me for free, as that one was; it’s a 1997 Corolla at the moment.

[ADDENDUM: I fear I’ve grievously libeled Chrysler, which certainly doesn’t need the aggravation. It came to me today while I was driving that the car that broke down that epic night long ago was no Plymouth. It was actually made by GM, one of these suckers.]

Posted in Me, myself, and I | 47 Replies

The NICEities of government health care

The New Neo Posted on May 20, 2009 by neoMay 20, 2009

Here’s a good description of the government agency known as “NICE,” which makes decisions connected with health care and expense in Britain—including how much a life is worth.

Warning: it’s not very nice.

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Replies

Lilac time

The New Neo Posted on May 19, 2009 by neoMay 19, 2009

I live in an area of the country lilacs love.

This time of year when I take my walks, it seems that every few yards I pass tall lilac bushes loaded with blossoms. Their fragrance hits me before I even see them; the aroma more beautiful than any man-made perfume possibly could be, and rich with a thousand memories.

Lest you think that lilacs are only one color or one shape, there’s actually a great deal of variety: white, light purple, darker purple, darkest purple, and even pink; feathery or plain; tall or short; early-blooming or late; powerfully-scented or delicate (here’s everything you might want to know about lilacs).

I used to own some lilac bushes, but right now I don’t. So I have to depend on the kindness of others. Yesterday I was walking past a friend’s house while she was in her yard, and she waved her hand at the many lilac bushes there and said I should cut some blooms. And so I did.

Lilacs don’t last long in vases—but then, they don’t last very long on bushes either. But they make wonderful, if ephemeral, additions to the table or counter or shelf. Here are mine—enjoy them, they may not last another day:

100_2608-1.JPG

In the door-yard fronting an old farm-house, near the white-wash’d palings,
Stands the lilac bush, tall-growing, with heart-shaped leaves of rich green,
With many a pointed blossom, rising, delicate, with the perfume strong I love,
With every leaf a miracle……and from this bush in the door-yard,
With delicate-color’d blossoms, and heart-shaped leaves of rich green,
A sprig, with its flower, I break.

Posted in Gardening, New England, Poetry | 25 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

  • R2L on Pundits unbound
  • mkent on Pundits unbound
  • Wendy K Laubach on One movie after another
  • TJ on Open thread 3/16/2026
  • huxley on Pundits unbound

Recent Posts

  • Pundits unbound
  • Still another update on the SAVE Act
  • I actually watched the Oscars last night
  • Open thread 3/16/2026
  • One movie after another

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 (1,000)
  • 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 (426)
  • Iran (402)
  • Iraq (223)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (785)
  • Jews (414)
  • Language and grammar (357)
  • Latin America (202)
  • Law (2,882)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,271)
  • 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 (1,015)
  • Poetry (255)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,765)
  • Pop culture (392)
  • Press (1,610)
  • 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 (4,332)
  • Vietnam (108)
  • Violence (1,394)
  • War and Peace (961)

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
↑