↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1684 << 1 2 … 1,682 1,683 1,684 1,685 1,686 … 1,864 1,865 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Today is VI Day

The New Neo Posted on November 22, 2008 by neoNovember 22, 2008

It’s pretty much “mission accomplished” in Iraq. But it’s a victory we’re not willing to openly claim.

In another world and time, this war would have been lauded as one of the least brutal in history, although it was fought against some of the most brutal of opponents—Saddam Hussein, the insurgents, and al Qaeda. But thanks to our strange reluctance to credit that there is any good that can come from the horror of a war—or to realistically analyze what victory there might look like—this particular success is being noted not with a bang but a whimper.

I have written at length previously, in a two-part series that begins here, about how and why we have failed to define success in Iraq, and the importance of that omission for the public’s perception of this war.

I am not really suggesting a major celebration. Nor am I saying things couldn’t still turn in a worse direction for Iraq, especially as more of our forces withdraw. “Victory” is never permanent or static. But there is no question that things there are going about as well as any realistic person could have expected, and much better than most did expect.

Ace comments on the victory that has gone nearly unnoticed. And Zombietime has decided to declare today, November 22, VI Day:

Although our governments have chosen to not name any official day marking the end of this war, we the people have taken it upon ourselves to commemorate November 22, 2008 as the day of victory over the forces of tyranny, oppression and terror in Iraq.

Join fellow bloggers and other members of the public in this virtual ticker-tape parade for our brave troops…

VE Day and VJ Day were altogether different from VI Day, of course, and not just because the former were enthusiastically celebrated. One obvious difference between then and now is that World War II was a war against countries that had fought all out for many years and then surrendered—spent and exhausted. These surrenders marked an obvious end to the violence, even though we retained troops in those countries for a long time thereafter in what was a successful rebuilding occupation (in fact, we continue to have a significant number of troops there: see this and this). The people in those countries knew the difference between victory and defeat and they had a deep awareness, after many years of all-out conflict, and death tolls that dwarfed anything in the Iraq War, that they were beaten.

And speaking of all-out conflict, Americans knew that’s what they had been involved in as well, for close to four long years. There was no doubt about it; everyone was on a war footing, civilian and military alike. Almost every family in the US had someone serving overseas because in addition to hordes of volunteers, the draft reached into so many homes.

And it wasn’t just the fact of the draft, it was the huge number of men mobilized. The Vietnam era draft threatened many young men but a far smaller proportion actually served in that theater of war compared to WWII (in Vietnam, about 2.7 million served and about 58 thousand died from a total US population of about 203 million people; in WWII about 16 million served and 418 thousand died out of a total US population of about 130 million people). And in Iraq, not only has there been no US draft, but the actual numbers of those who have served in Iraq are far smaller (this site is somewhat out of date, but it still serves for purposes of comparison).

We have two other elements that have made this war in Iraq different from WWII: negative press coverage during much of its course, and antiwar fervor on the part of one major party for much of its course (the best comparison is to Vietnam, but that opposition got started later in the history of the conflict).

And now that President Bush has become an especially lame duck, and the economy has taken such a terrible turn, the Iraq war is virtually forgotten as it winds to a relatively successful close, although such a development would have been considered almost miraculous less than two short years ago. There will be no parades today, no crowds celebrating, and no exuberant sailors bending pretty girls backwards in a joyous embrace. But still, attention should be paid, and credit given.

Posted in Iraq, War and Peace | 91 Replies

As time goes by

The New Neo Posted on November 22, 2008 by neoNovember 22, 2008

Here’s a re-creation—sort of—of a famous photographic kiss:

wwiinurse.jpg

Here’s the iconic original from VJ Day in Times Square:

wwiinurse2.jpg

The claim is that it’s the same woman. I’ve always loved that black and white Eisenstaedt photo, especially the little twist in the nurse’s posture. Here’s an article on the many claimants for the honor of being the originals.

Posted in Pop culture | 3 Replies

Voting reform: ain’t gonna happen

The New Neo Posted on November 21, 2008 by neoNovember 21, 2008

After 2000, there were many calls for voting reform. Same in 2004, and now again. Voting fraud—or even the perception of it—can’t help but undermine trust in the legitimacy of the government, and that’s not good. So one would think that fixing the problems would have bipartisan approval.

One of the main arguments, and the focus for at least some of the rage, against George Bush was the voting turmoil in 2000. Bush was not responsible for Florida and the butterfly ballot, but he was the beneficiary and it served to channel anger against him and to amplify it, right at the outset. The same is true of Acorn shenanigans in the election of 2008 as they relate to Obama, and his previous connections to Acorn only make the perception worse.

This sort of doubt directed at a President-elect does not bode well for the institution of the Presidency itself, nor for the country. So why wouldn’t both parties do all they could to change it?

“Dream on, neo” you say. And you would be correct. Each party wishes to maximize the number and/or proportion of its own voters, for obvious reasons. For Republicans, this means making rules tougher (or at least keeping them traditionally tough) about who is allowed to vote. No motor voter. Definitely no aliens being able to present a utility bill on voting day. Forget about felons. I happen to agree with these rules, even in the abstract. I think that voting should be restricted to citizens, for example—I’m funny that way. And I am fairly certain I felt that way even back in my liberal Democrat days.

However, Democrats have a strong interest in allowing such people to vote, because they tend to vote Democratic. It’s really not rocket science. As the party encourages expansion of voting rights and winks at fraud that aims to include these voters, and solidifies its power as a result, why would that party ever vote to restrict the practice? And if you think Republicans are needlessly or even nastily or fraudulently restrictive, you would know the same is true of their policies.

It is sad but true that few politicians who are favored by certain voting policies would slit their own throats and vote against them, merely for reasons of justice or fairness or ethics. This is why, once this begins, it is unlikely to end—at least, as long as that party continues to be in power. And that party is more likely to stay in power as long as the voting policies that favor it are in place. It is a vicious cycle, or a wonderful cycle—depending on your point of view, and your party.

[ADDENDUM: Here, by the way, is how India handles potential problems. Sounds like a great system. But I doubt it will happen here, not only because of special interests, but because it is too centralized.]

Posted in Politics | 9 Replies

It’s Neo Day at Google

The New Neo Posted on November 21, 2008 by neoNovember 21, 2008

This must be my day. Not only has Obama turned into a neo-neocon, but Google has decided to honor me. And it’s about time.

Here’s the graphic you get when you do a Google search today:

googlesearch.gif

You say that perhaps Google is actually honoring Magritte? Well, I beg to differ.

Although I must say the Google image is rather reminiscent of Magritte’s “Golconda:”

golconde.jpg

Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

Posted in Painting, sculpture, photography | 5 Replies

Obama is a neo-neocon

The New Neo Posted on November 21, 2008 by neoNovember 21, 2008

Not really, or course. But more than his followers expected.

His antiwar supporters don’t understand it, nor do they like it. But they can’t say he didn’t warn them:

I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.

Let the disappointment begin!

Posted in Obama | 18 Replies

Back to the future: choosing the Obama team

The New Neo Posted on November 20, 2008 by neoNovember 20, 2008

So far Obama’s choices for Cabinet and other advisers seem to be shaping up as Clinton redux.

This is somewhat ironic, considering that Obama ran on a “change” platform and his closest rival was Hillary (Clinton, in case there’s anyone who needs reminding). So even before he’s been officially inaugurated, he’s faced a lot of criticism about this, from both friends and opponents.

Well folks, hold onto your hats, because I’m about to defend Obama. Sorta, anyway.

A new president has a limited number of ways to go in making appointments. He/she (and I will henceforth dispense with this awkward PC pronoun arrangement and just go with the masculine) can either: (a) hark back to earlier administrations’ picks and choose people with federal government experience; (b) select those with no role in previous governments but who (we can hope) are qualified because of jobs they have held in other sectors; or (c) deal in cronyism (this does not necessarily rule out being qualified, but it is more likely to do so).

So far, Obama is trending mostly towards (a). Because of his own rather extreme inexperience, it’s not a bad way to go if he wants to reassure people that he’s not a wild-eyed radical who will appoint other radicals and/or neophytes. His appointments have a grounding effect, at least potentially. However, they also appear to be an early disappointment to those who believed he would somehow wave a magic wand and Change Everything.

The Clinton administration was the most recent Democrat presidency. To go back and try to find non-Clinton Democrats with experience in a previous administration, Obama would had to have reached back to the 70s and Carter. I for one am highly relieved that he has not done so—not only because many of those people would be ancient (or dead), but because I think that for the most part Carter’s policies were more disastrous than Clinton’s. But these two administrations—Clinton’s and Carter’s—are pretty much the only games in town for Obama if he wants Democrats with previous experience at that level.

What of (b), however? When one looks back at history, it’s an approach practiced to a large extent by FDR and JFK. The former had his “brain trust,” a shifting group of academicians who advised him through the long years of the New Deal. According to Wiki, “Many newspaper editorials and editorial cartoons ridiculed them as impractical idealists.” And this may indeed have been true, if the current view of Roosevelt as adopting policies that prolonged the Depression is correct.

An earlier manifestation of the same idea was Woodrow Wilson’s “The Inquiry,” a group of academics who advised him on matters pertaining to negotiations at the end of WWI. Of course, Wilson himself was an academic prior to becoming President, so it’s hardly surprising that he turned to them for advice. But if the Treaty of Versailles and its aftermath are any guide, they didn’t do a very good job.

JFK’s administration was a mixture of all three approaches. Dean Rusk, Kennedy’s Secretary of State, was an example of (a). He had been in the State Department since the Truman Administration, so this was a fairly conventional pick. Johnson kept him on as well (as he did for most of JFK’s appointees).

But Kennedy was famous for his own version of the brain trust, otherwise known as the Best and the Brightest. In fact, fifteen Rhodes Scholars were in high Kennedy administration posts:

“From Eisenhower to Kennedy,” observed a Harvard professor, “is a shift from the “gentleman C’s’ boys to the Phi Beta Kappas.”

The most well-known of Kennedy’s picks without previous government experience were Robert McNamara and McGeorge Bundy. Their policies in Vietnam are not much of a recommendation for method (b), either.

McNamara was appointed by Kennedy and kept on by Johnson as Secretary of Defense. A Harvard MBA and professor who later fought in WWII, he was President of Ford when he was tapped for the government job of Defense. Kennedy had initially offered the post to Lovett, who had been Truman’s Secretary of Defense. This appointment would have been an example of (a). But Lovett turned it down for health reasons and recommended McNamara, who was given the choice of Treasury as a cabinet post, one to which he may have been far better suited. But he turned it down and settled for Defense. On such small pivots does history turn.

McGeorge Bundy was prominent as JFK’s national security adviser. He was an academic who went into government for the first time during Kennedy’s administration, and stayed on through part of Johnson’s term:

Bundy was one of Kennedy’s “wise men,” a noted professor of government””although not a PhD””at Harvard University. He was later appointed Dean of the Faculty at Harvard, the youngest in the school’s history. He moved into public life in 1961, becoming national security adviser in the Kennedy administration. He played a crucial role in all of the major foreign policy and defense decisions of the Kennedy and part of the Johnson administration. These included the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, most controversially, the Vietnam War.

Not a very impressive resume, in the end. This is not to say that choice (b) is always a bad one. But I’ve offered the prominent examples that happened to come to mind for me, and they certainly indicate that (b) is not necessarily a better way to go than (a).

And then of course there is choice (c). I’m especially glad Obama does not seem to be going that route so far, since so many of his allies and confederates during his rise to power have been either shady, Leftist, corrupt, hatemongers, or several or all of the above.

One of the best examples of nepotism in a previous administration was Kennedy’s appointment of his brother Bobby as Attorney General. Widely criticized even at the time, it resulted in the passage (in 1967) of the so-called “Bobby Kennedy Law” prohibiting such nepotism in the future. There is evidence that JFK was initially wary of appointing Bobby as AG, but that his father (speaking of nepotism) insisted on it.

Obama is a fatherless only child, so we don’t have to worry about the undue influence of a Joseph Kennedy or a brother Bobby. As for Obama’s erstwhile “spiritual father,” Reverend Wright, we can assume that Obama will not touch that particular third rail during his administration, at least publicly. But one of the reasons Obama’s associations were examined so closely (at least by the Right; the MSM didn’t much care) was the understandable concern that people such as Wright, Ayers, and Frank Marshall Davis might have input (or, in the case of the deceased Davis, have had input), not in an Obama administration, but as simpatico influences on the formation of his thoughts and policies.

It is still very early, and Obama has made few decisions yet. This is also not surprising; he seems to be a guy who takes his time and then some.

Obama’s delay in choosing a Treasury Secretary has not been reassuring to the financial markets, as they keep plunging in a kind of “how low can you go?” limbo dance. And I think very little of his Attorney General pick Holder, a man with a history of promoting policies that are too liberal for me (read “progressive”) such as the strict DC ban on handguns, as well as many of the very questionable pardons Clinton issued in the last days of his administration.

But I don’t think this automatically means that the appointment of former Clintonites is a bad idea per se for Obama. Consider the alternatives.

Posted in Obama, Politics | 28 Replies

I get it now: those Wall Street whiz kids were practicing alchemy

The New Neo Posted on November 19, 2008 by neoNovember 19, 2008

When I started learning about the underpinnings of the present financial debacle, I kept wondering how they could they have been so stupid.

There was a lot of stupidity to go around, but the “they” in this case were not the consumers who thought house prices would always go up, or who maxed out their credit to get the latest consumer trinkets. Although that is indeed stupid, I could understand how people could do it and fail to understand or appreciate the consequences, although I never participated in either practice. I’m one of those people who pays off my entire credit card every month—at least, so far.

No, the people who puzzled me were the financial “experts” who made bad loans (only some of which were at the behest of the government) and especially the wizards who bundled them and derivatived them and tranched them and turned them inside out and upside down in such a way that the lousy investments now somehow managed to earn great ratings from other wizards at financial institutions such as Moody’s who should have known better.

This was the stupidity that astonished me. On reflection, though, I realize that one reason they may have been not all that stupid was if they were in it just for the short-term gain. Perhaps a great many of these people got out while the going was good and pocketed the profit, a tidy sum.

But it still seemed awfully odd to me that anyone could believe that it would last indefinitely, if they understood the history of the markets—which I expected them to know—or the math of these things.

Early on, when I asked a relative of mine (someone who had spent most of his working life in the banking industry but had retired in 2001) to explain what had happened with these people, he said that during the last ten years or so the “math guys” came in with a bunch of computer-generated proofs that demonstrated all would be well. It didn’t make sense to him, or to many others in the older generation. But the math seemed irrefutable, and the computer number crunchers were supposed to be the experts on that.

And so the previously conservative bankers were persuaded that this was the wave of the future. And it was. Except they forgot the crest-and-trough nature of the wave. Now we’re in the trough.

The whole thing is explained quite nicely, I think, in this article by Niall Ferguson (my relative’s “math guys” are referred to as the “quants”—quantitative analysts—by Ferguson).

This is how Ferguson describes what happened. After presenting a formula that was used by these folks to calculate the value of options, he writes:

Feeling a bit baffled? Can’t follow the algebra? That was just fine by the quants. To make money from this magic formula, they needed markets to be full of people who didn’t have a clue about how to price options but relied instead on their (seldom accurate) gut instincts. They also needed a great deal of computing power, a force which had been transforming the financial markets since the early 1980s.

Math is math, but it can also a case of garbage in garbage out. And just what did the quants forget to factor in? A little thing called common sense, with a generous helping of history. They relied on the idea that diversification would protect them:

Diversification was all about having a multitude of uncorrelated positions. One might go wrong, or even two. But thousands just could not go wrong simultaneously.

Oh, no? Where people and psychology are concerned, they sure can. And financial markets are rife with people and psychology, not just numbers.

The quants were instrumental in the formation of a highly successful hedge fund of the 90s called Long-Term Capital Management. For four years it worked amazingly well. Then in 1998 it all came tumbling down. Ferguson reports:

The problem lay with the assumptions that underlie so much of mathematical finance. In order to construct their models, the quants had to postulate a planet where the inhabitants were omniscient and perfectly rational; where they instantly absorbed all new information and used it to maximize profits; where they never stopped trading; where markets were continuous, frictionless, and completely liquid…When things began to go wrong, there was a truly bovine stampede for the exits. The result was a massive, synchronized downturn in virtually all asset markets. Diversification was no defense in such a crisis.

How could the quants not know this was the way people behave in crises? After all, it’s not as though it was the first time. The answer is not a reassuring one:

The quants’ Value at Risk models had implied that the loss the firm suffered in August 1998 was so unlikely that it ought never to have happened in the entire life of the universe. But that was because the models were working with just five years of data. If they had gone back even 11 years, they would have captured the 1987 stock-market crash. If they had gone back 80 years they would have captured the last great Russian default, after the 1917 revolution. Meriwether himself, born in 1947, ruefully observed, “If I had lived through the Depression, I would have been in a better position to understand events.” To put it bluntly, the Nobel Prize winners knew plenty of mathematics but not enough history.

Not only did they not know history, it seems that no one even understood what was happening in 1998. After this debacle you might think their sort of reasoning would be discredited (pun intended). Instead, hedge funds and derivatives using the same calculus (love these puns!) skyrocketed. Until they fell.

As I was reading all of this it begin to remind me of alchemy. Alchemists were attempting to do many magical things with their pseudo-scientific machinations, but one of the main dreams they had was to find a way to turn base metals into gold. Ah, the riches and the glory that would ensue!

The alchemists had other aims; they were looking for the secret of eternal life, as well. And they can be forgiven their ignorance about basic chemical processes, because such functions hadn’t yet been discovered and studied. In fact, alchemists invented many techniques that were ultimately used in true science, so you might say alchemy was a sort of proto-science.

The quants, on the other hand, were just looking for money. And they found it, for a while. Until people started behaving like people instead of numbers. And there’s no alchemy that can change that.

Posted in Finance and economics | 73 Replies

Invasion of the body snatcher

The New Neo Posted on November 19, 2008 by neoNovember 19, 2008

Judy extols the joys of dieting via Acai Berry and Colon Remedy.

Doesn’t sound like much fun, but who am I to judge? She’s got a fake blog that I’m not going to link to. It’s an advertising ploy that features the following intriguing before and after photos, meant to illustrate the weight she lost in eight glorious weeks of treatment:

dontthinkso.jpg

Weight’s not all Judy lost. There’s her identity, for starters.

Is there anyone on earth who believes this tripe? I guess the same folks who send money in response to emails from perfect strangers in Nigeria that begin “Dearest One.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Replies

You wonder how Obama got elected?

The New Neo Posted on November 18, 2008 by neoNovember 18, 2008

This is at least part of the reason.

Ah, but we’re the stupid and poorly-informed ones, right? Note the poll, as well:

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet…..

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we “gave” one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

Posted in Uncategorized | 117 Replies

Jonestown reflections: 30 years later

The New Neo Posted on November 18, 2008 by neoNovember 18, 2008

The other evening I turned on the TV and came across this CNN documentary entitled “Escape from Jonestown.” I watched for the next two hours, because to my surprise it turned out to be riveting.

Even though I recall Jonestown well and thought I remembered most of the salient facts about it, there was still much more to learn. The story contains facts of tragic relevance even today, November 18, 2008, which is the thirtieth anniversary of that terrible mass suicide.

We call it a mass suicide because the evidence (and there is plenty of it, including an audiotape of the horrendous proceedings) indicates that many of Jones’ followers cooperated in their own deaths. In fact, the term “drink the Kool Aid” derives from that fact.

But what most people don’t know is the extent of the psychological and physical pressure that was placed on these people from the moment they entered the cult, as well as the fact that fully one-third of the nearly one thousand who died there were children who could hardly be said to have freely cooperated. There is also forensic evidence that those adults who did protest or try to escape were forcibly injected with cyanide as they attempted to flee.

So I prefer to call it a suicide/massacre. That places most of the blame where it belongs, on Jim Jones himself.

The first relevant lesson to be learned is the danger of blindly following a charismatic leader. Jones became more deranged later on, but as his congregation grew in the 60s and 70s, he was a respected member of the San Francisco community, with connections to Democratic politicians (I’m not sure there’s any other kind in San Francisco) and a strong reputation for racial equality.

The second lesson is to beware of the trust that gullible and trusting human beings can place in that charismatic leader. Jones required that people give over their lives and their assets when they became followers—a danger sign. Members had varied reasons for joining, but it can probably be safely said that most of them were exceedingly idealistic. According to the testimony of many of the survivors (a small group, but an articulate one), once they realized the true character of the man in whom they’d placed such hope and faith, it was too late. They were in a prison, subject to various forms of physical and psychological torture in Jones’ attempt to control the inmates. And in the final year before the terrible end, the prison we know as Jonestown was at least as isolated as Alcatraz, because it was located in the heart of the Guyanese jungle.

Two forms the psychological torture/indoctrination took are especially instructive. The first is that as Jones became increasingly paranoid, he regularly harangued his followers that they would be under attack soon, either from the CIA or the Guyanese authorities, and that mass suicide would be the only way out. In fact, he had many rehearsals for the killings, which had the effect of getting people used to what would be happening and more ready to accept it, as well as more doubtful when the real thing began to happen that it actually was the real thing; maybe it was another rehearsal?

The second was a particular type of psychological coercion described in Deborah Layton’s very fine and highly recommended book Seductive Poison. I am describing this from memory (I read the book many years ago), but my recollection is that they were encouraged to inform on each other if they heard anyone complain about or criticize Jones or Jonestown. The tattler was then publicly praised, while the complainer was subject to public harangues, physical punishment, withdrawal of privileges, and ostracism. In a totally controlled environment, this was especially difficult to take, even for those with strong personalities.

What was even more terrible—and diabolical—was the fact that Jones made some of his close confederates pretend to be be discontented, confiding their criticism of Jones and Jonestown to others. The listeners had no idea that these were false “confessions.” If they listened sympathetically and perhaps shared their own discontent, they were reported and punished. But worse, if they failed to report the confidences of their “friends”—who were actually, unbeknownst to them, Jim Jones plants—then they were punished as well.

The entire system encouraged extreme distrust of sharing any complaints with or confiding in anyone. Therefore no mass rebellion or escape plans could be hatched. A resident never knew who was telling the truth, or who would go straight to Jones with the news. Even those who hated Jones and Jonestown had to wrestle with their consciences about whether to report on a friend; the consequences for failure to do so could be dire.

I doubt that even the KGB or the Stasi were quite as able to control all aspects of their subjects’ personal lives as Jones was. I mention the latter two organizations because it is not insignificant that Jim Jones was a Socialist/Communist, who greatly admired Cuba and the USSR. This little fact had escaped my memory as well, but it takes on a greater significance in retrospect. It is, quite simply, no accident.

One of the things Jones had been planning and contemplating in his last year was a possible mass exodus to the Soviet Union. He also instructed the Temple’s money to be left to the Soviet Union. Some of the dead left handwritten notes to that effect as well.

Watching the CNN documentary and hearing the survivors’ tell their fascinating stories, it became clear that they (like Deborah Layton) are hardly lacking in brainpower. This is the next lesson: intelligence has nothing to do with it. If these people were susceptible (and they were), it was not because they were not smart. It was because they were insufficiently skeptical of a charismatic demagogue, and of the limits of idealism.

Another lesson is how connected many on the Left were to Jones’ movement. Angela Davis and Huey Newton were involved, for example, in the rehearsals for suicide:

[Jones] set up a false sniper attack upon himself and begin his first series of White Nights, called the “Six Day Siege”, where Jones spoke to Temple members about attacks from outsiders and had them surround Jonestown with guns and machetes. The fiery rallies took an almost surreal tone as Angela Davis and Huey Newton communicated via radio-telephone to the Jonestown crowd, urging them to hold strong against the “conspiracy.”

Mark Lane, the Kennedy assassination conspiricist, was also quite influential as Jones’ lawyer, which I also hadn’t before realized. He helped fan the flames of paranoia:

In 1978, Lane began to represent the Peoples Temple. Temple leader Jim Jones hired Lane and Donald Freed to help make the case of what it alleged to be a “grand conspiracy” by intelligence agencies against the Peoples Temple…

In September of 1978, Lane visited Jonestown, spoke to Jonestown residents, provided support for the theory that intelligence agencies conspired against Jonestown and drew parallels between Martin Luther King and Jim Jones. Lane then held press conferences stating that “none of the charges” against the Temple “are accurate or true” and that there was a “massive conspiracy” against the Temple by “intelligence organizations,” naming the CIA, FBI, FCC and the U.S. Post Office. Though Lane represented himself as disinterested, the Temple paid Lane $6,000 per month to help generate such theories….Lane later wrote a book about Jonestown that repeated his paranoia about CIA involvement, parroting the Jones party line.

Another important lesson that’s also forgotten is that Ryan and his entourage, including the reporters, seem to have been fooled by Jones and Jonestown. This has happened time and again in history, when people go to investigate a controlled environment. Although Ryan, his aides, and the reporters who went with them (almost all of whom were killed by Jones) are to be commended for their heroism and are deeply mourned, they also showed naivete in failing to understand the total control Jones had over his flock, and the depths of his evil. The extent of true evil, and the techniques it can use to coerce and silence, can be difficult for the good to understand:

Before leaving Jonestown for the airstrip, Congressman Ryan had told Temple attorney Charles Garry that he would issue a report that would describe Jonestown “in basically good terms.” Ryan stated that none of the sixty relatives Ryan had targeted for interviews wanted to leave, the 14 defectors constituted a very small portion of Jonestown’s residents, that any sense of imprisonment the defectors had was likely because of peer pressure and a lack of physical transportation, and even if 200 of the 900+ wanted to leave “I’d still say you have a beautiful place here.” Similarly, Washington Post reporter Charles Krause stated that, on the way back to the airstrip, he was unconvinced that Jonestown was as bad as defectors had claimed because there were no signs of malnutrition or physical abuse, while many members appeared to enjoy Jonestown and only a small number of the over 900 residents elected to leave.

It is tempting to think “it couldn’t happen to me.” We all like to think of ourselves as strong, both psychologically and physically. I have very little doubt, for example, that I would never join such a group in the first place. But I can see how anyone would be vulnerable once placed in that environment, with no way out.

I hope and trust I could resist, even then. But extreme isolation, brainwashing to stir up paranoia, constant rehearsal for death, and the sort of coercion and control Layton describes to isolate each person and make him/her think there is no escape, could take an enormous toll. In the case of the Jonestown inhabitants, they were extreme idealists who had ceded a great deal of autonomy to a leader and a group at the outset. Very few of them had a chance.

The survivors are suffused with guilt, and continue to mourn every day of their lives. Time has not healed these wounds. Some of them still live in the San Francisco area, and those who do sometimes visit the site of the mass grave in Oakland, the final resting place of those who died at Jonestown whose bodies were never identified. Many of these were children.

This is a moment to remember them and all who died there, as well as the suffering survivors. We can honor them by attempting to learn the lessons of their lives and deaths:

jonestowngrave.jpg

Posted in Evil, Historical figures | 76 Replies

Physician…

The New Neo Posted on November 17, 2008 by neoNovember 17, 2008

…heal thyself

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Replies

Airing Ayers

The New Neo Posted on November 17, 2008 by neoNovember 17, 2008

One of the saddest effects of this sorry campaign season is that Bill Ayers is a hot commodity again, and the MSM gives him a forum to recast himself as a nice ole pussy cat. Does anyone for a moment think he’ll be honest about himself in the interviews he gives?

It is ironic that attempts to make it clear who he was then—and, far more importantly, what he’s been espousing now and ever since the 80s when he reinvented himself—didn’t quite penetrate most of the voting population because the media wasn’t interested in hurting Obama. But now that Ayers has renewed name recognition, and Obama is the President-elect, Ayers will have an enhanced ability to make it seem like he’s just a nice old educator rather than a terrorist who only abandoned that endeavor to advance the revolution through getting his hands on the minds (I know, mixed metaphor) of our children.

Here’s an excerpt from a comment about Ayers on a thread at Althouse that sums it up quite well:

Pardon me if I ignore Ayer’s bloviations. Pardon me if I am no longer concerned about Ayer’s past or his associations with Obama. Fuck the news media for their exposus interruptus, stalling until after the big Obamagasm to tell us the dirty secrets about their new political lover. Oh! If i’d only known!!

Because it is quite clear that Ayer’s view of the world is prevailing. The radical boomers have indeed won, ‘by any means necessary’ has worked, and now we’ll see what happens. I predict this is gonna really suck, but my opinion and 4 bucks will by me a grande mocha at Starbucks.

And then there’s labor law professor Steve Diamond, a man of the Left who nevertheless has Ayers’ number. His take on Ayers’ recent post-election interviews:

But the larger impression made is of the utter political idiocy of Bill Ayers. He still wants to argue that his violent tactics as a founder and leader of the 70s cult Weather Underground somehow contributed to the peace movement at the time. Instead, of course, he and his wife in arms, Bernardine Dohrn, helped destroy a generation’s efforts on behalf of peace and genuine social justice. But that has not stopped him from re-issuing his apologia for his life, Fugitive Days, as well as co-authoring with Dohrn a new book that makes race the key explanatory variable for what ills America.

The right wing tried, valiantly, to portray Obama as somehow tainted by his association with this political relic. But what is, frankly, more disturbing is how or why Obama would have believed there was any value, whatsoever, to spending any time listening to this guy or his wife, at all.

It is a travesty that the MSM chooses to give this man a bully pulpit to attempt to whitewash his past, present, and future.

Now that Obama is close to being inaugurated, few will know or care about the following. But I wanted to note an exchange between McCain and Obama from the third Presidential debate :

MCCAIN: Well, again, while you were on the board of the Woods Foundation, you and Mr. Ayers, together, you sent $230,000 to ACORN. So — and you launched your political campaign in Mr. Ayers’ living room.

OBAMA: That’s absolutely not true.

From Ayers now:

“We had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I’d made a small donation to his earliest political campaign,” he writes.

Hey, maybe it wasn’t the living room. Maybe it was the family room. Whatever.

Obama has never had to answer for his lies. And neither has Ayers, who doesn’t even claim to be innocent of his crimes [emphasis mine]:

Bill Ayers and [wife] Bernardine Dohrn, best known recently as friends of Barack Obama, disappeared in 1969 after two of their colleagues in the Weather Underground died while building a bomb [that the group had planned to set off to kill serviceman at a Fort Dix dance]. Ayers and Dohrn spent 11 years setting off bombs and putting out statements threatening violent revolution. They promised to kill innocent Americans and praised the lunatic murderer Charles Manson. In 1981 two policemen and a security guard were killed in the botched holdup of a Brinks truck. Fake IDs used to rent getaway cars in an earlier robbery had been traced to a store where Dohrn worked. A grand jury wanted her testimony. She refused. Said she didn’t believe in grand juries. Spent seven months in jail, and then the matter was dropped. Other charges against Ayers and Dohrn were dropped because the evidence was tainted by the Nixon Administration’s illegal wiretaps. Ayers put it well: “Guilty as hell, and free as a bird. It’s a great country.”

Yes, a great country indeed.

No thanks to Bill Ayers.

ayersflag.jpg

Posted in Press, Terrorism and terrorists | 71 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

  • TJ on Trump’s message on Kharg Island and the Strait of Hormuz
  • om on Open thread 3/14/2026
  • om on Mamdani and the leftist mayors
  • om on One movie after another
  • IrishOtter49 on One movie after another

Recent Posts

  • One movie after another
  • Mamdani and the leftist mayors
  • Trump’s message on Kharg Island and the Strait of Hormuz
  • Open thread 3/14/2026
  • Another roundup

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 (580)
  • 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 (12)
  • 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 (2,881)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,270)
  • Liberty (1,097)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (386)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,464)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (902)
  • Middle East (380)
  • Military (308)
  • Movies (343)
  • Music (523)
  • 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 (1,609)
  • 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 (4,331)
  • 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
↑