↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1720 << 1 2 … 1,718 1,719 1,720 1,721 1,722 … 1,933 1,934 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

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

Confessions of a creditholic

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

Ann Althouse says she wanted to smack Edmund L. Andrews, author of “My Personal Credit Crisis“, when she read his article in Sunday’s NY Times Magazine. And it wouldn’t be a love tap, either.

I’m with Althouse.

Andrews begins by saying, “If there was anybody who should have avoided the mortgage catastrophe, it was I. As an economics reporter for The New York Times, I have been the paper’s chief eyes and ears on the Federal Reserve for the past six years.”

And yet, not only did Andrews fail to avoid the catastrophe, and not only did he plunge into it with verve and vigor when he of all people should have known better, he continued to throw good money after bad, refusing to acknowledge his errors and getting ever more deeply into the hole as he covered his overextensions with ever-spiraling credit card debt.

And for what? It’s not as though Andrews and his wife-to-be (who sounds like somewhat of a financial ditz, but at least she’s got an excuse—she’s not an economics reporter for the Times) were poverty-stricken. It was just that they wanted to live in a manner to which their salaries really did not allow them to become accustomed: buying the dream house, taking the dream vacations, indulging the kids in the dream indulgences, and pretending they never had to think about whether they could afford these things.

The banking and credit industry was only too happy to oblige, by lending them more money than they could afford to pay, counting on the fact that their new home would only appreciate. Sound familiar? Andrews and his fiance, despite being highly educated and supposedly sophisticated, continue to plead ignorance and the seductiveness of easy money—pretty strange coming from a man with his job [emphases mine]:

I thought I knew a lot about go-go mortgages. I had already written several articles about the explosive growth of liar’s loans, no-money-down loans…Yet for all that, I was stunned at how much money people were willing to throw at me…

As I walked out of the settlement office with my loan papers, I couldn’t shake the sense of having just done something bad . . . but also kind of cool…It had been so easy and fast. Almost fun…

Meanwhile, neither of us was paying attention to how easy our bank had made it to build up debt…

Patty and I were now unwittingly tapping into our credit line at a terrifying pace…

Our debt spiraled up faster than I had ever dreamed possible…

Between humongous loan balances and high rates, we had hung ourselves with the rope they gave us…

Andrews remains mystified as to how this could have happened to him. I can help him out on that: greed and denial. No one forced him to do any of this, and he of all people ought to have known better. But his story is an excellent example of how far many people in this country have come from any idea of personal responsibility.

And that lack of responsibility continues. Who’s paying now? It certainly doesn’t seem to be Andrews, whose bank is so overloaded with potential foreclosures that it hasn’t gotten around to modifying his loan yet (“don’t call us, we’ll call you”). The last sentence of his piece is “Eight months after my last payment to the bank, I am still waiting for the ax to fall.”

So he and the family are living rent-free in their lovely suburban home while the rest of us idiots pay our mortgages and/or our rents and try to live more or less within our means. Sweet.

Posted in Finance and economics | 86 Replies

Obama meets Netanyahu

The New Neo Posted on May 18, 2009 by neoMay 18, 2009

I’ve read eight articles so far on today’s meeting between Obama and Israeli PM Netanyahu, and I’m convinced that none of the authors knows much of anything about what will happen.

You might say that’s always been true of the Middle East, and most particularly of the Israel/Palestine situation. But it’s especially true right now, because of two wild cards: President Obama and the leaders of Iran.

Netanyahu is more of a known quality, a hardliner on the issue of Israel’s survival against the threat posed by the Palestinians and their supporters on one hand and a potentially nuclear Iran on the other:

A senior aide to Netanyahu, national security adviser Uzi Arad, suggested the Israeli leader might not yield to pressure from Obama for a two-state solution to the Middle East conflict. He also seemed to hint that Israel might consider military action against Iran when he said there was a “sense of urgency” in Israel over the Iranian nuclear threat.

Obama is his usual shifting self. It’s not so much that he’s a blank slate; it’s that he’s given out such a variety of mixed messages, and has changed his tune on so many other things, that there’s no telling which way he’ll jump. However, the preponderance of evidence points in the ominous Jimmy Carteresque direction:

For 30 years, Israel has not had to deal with as difficult—sometimes even hostile—a U.S. administration as the Carter one. I [Yehuda Ben-Meir] can personally attest to the brutal style and blatant threats that characterized the relationship between Jimmy Carter and Menachem Begin. Indeed, Carter is someone whose beginnings can be seen in the way he has ended up.

The Obama White House, meanwhile, has been accepting and welcoming of those who spent years arguing that American foreign policy has been enslaved to Israel’s interests and is influenced by the Jewish lobby, but were unable to get a foot in the door during the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations.

But Obama has previously surprised his Left flank by changing his tune on such matters as the treatment of terrorists and their legal rights. So I don’t consider it outside the realm of possibility that he will be more Israel-friendly than seems likely. I also don’t consider it outside the realm of possibility that he will be even less Israel-friendly than seems likely.

As for Iran, our policy towards that country rests entirely on an analysis of whether its leaders are guided by any remaining pragmatism, or whether they are following the dictates of religious and cultural fanaticism, rampant anti-Semitism, and demonization of the state of Israel. Their rhetoric certainly indicates the latter; they don’t call Israel the “little Satan” for nothing.

How deep is Obama’s belief that Iran can be reasoned with? How far is he willing to go, how patient is he willing to be, how much is he willing to risk, to find out? And how much time is Netanyahu willing to give Obama before he takes matters into his own hands to stop Iran from acting out on what appears to be an existential threat to Israel’s existence?

Anyone who offers an answer to any of these questions right now is only guessing, I’m afraid. So I’m not even going to try.

Posted in Israel/Palestine, Obama | 83 Replies

Surprise! The rich act in their own self-interest when taxed

The New Neo Posted on May 18, 2009 by neoMay 18, 2009

Troubled state governments often look to raise taxes on the rich in their attempt to shore up their depleted coffers.

It’s a no-brainer, right? After all, the rich can afford it, and the rest of us can’t. Plus, it appeals to the current Obama-stoked rage at all those nasty greedy (fill in the perjorative adjective of your choice) financiers who caused all the trouble in the first place, talking the rest of us poor (or poorish, or relatively poor in comparison to the filthy rich) folk into maxing out on credit cards and buying mansions we couldn’t afford.

Oh, but it turns out that the rich actually have brains, and they tend to use them to preserve their own assets. Fancy that; how avaricious of them:

Here’s the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states…

E.J. McMahon, a fiscal expert at the Manhattan Institute, measured the impact of large income-tax rate increases on the rich ($200,000 income or more) in Connecticut, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 5% from 4.5%; in New Jersey, which raised its rate in 2004 to 8.97% from 6.35%; and in New York, which raised its tax rate in 2003 to 7.7% from 6.85%. Over the period 2002-2005, in each of these states the “soak the rich” tax hike was followed by a significant reduction in the number of rich people paying taxes in these states relative to the national average. Amazingly, these three states ranked 46th, 49th and 50th among all states in the percentage increase in wealthy tax filers in the years after they tried to soak the rich.

How can this be? Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore, the authors of the article, and a book entitled Rich States, Poor States write:

We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

I suppose that if all states started adopting the strategy of raising taxes on the rich, the disparities would eventually be erased and people would become less mobile. But unless and until the Obama administration tries to abolish the states’ rights to set their own taxes (or starts attempting to shame those states that don’t ask their rich to “sacrifice” enough), I think we’re safe from that sort of forced equality. And even if all the states (or the federal government, for that matter) were to raise tax rates on the rich, I think we’d see the rich becoming less productive and/or lying on their tax returns, and/or searching ever more assiduously to find effective tax shelters.

Beware the law of unintended consequences.

[NOTE: Laffer is indeed the Laffer, of the famous Laffer curve. He also made a public bet with doomsayer Peter Schiff that the housing bubble wouldn’t burst when it did. Laffer lost, and Schiff had the last laugh.]

Posted in Finance and economics | 21 Replies

Could someone pleaze muzzle Joe Biden?

The New Neo Posted on May 18, 2009 by neoMay 18, 2009

Apparently not. But it’s time.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Replies

Hitchens on Obama’s humor

The New Neo Posted on May 18, 2009 by neoNovember 2, 2012

Christopher Hitchens makes an excellent point about one of the things that’s wrong with Obama’s attempts at humor:

President Bush used to tell jokes about his weaknesses, the most salient of these being his tragic struggle with grammar, itself quite possibly rooted in dyslexia. Many of President Obama’s jokes, his speechwriters should take note, were at the expense of his strengths”””I might lose my cool”””and were thus bordering on the narcissistic. (If I have a fault, and I’m the first to admit it, it’s probably this: I am too sweet and too patient and too tolerant of the mistakes of others.)

My only beef with this would be that Obama’s jokes, like the man himself, don’t “border” on the narcissistic. They most definitely cross that line.

Posted in Obama | 4 Replies

Let’s hear it for the fillies

The New Neo Posted on May 16, 2009 by neoMay 16, 2009

I don’t follow horse racing, but I do take an interest in fillies. And so I’m very happy to hear that Rachel Alexandra (doesn’t really sound like a horse, does it?—even a girl horse) has won the Preakness, the first filly to do do since 1924.

What’s more, she seems in fine fettle after the feat. A far cry from last year’s Kentucky Derby, and the sad memory of what happened to another extraordinary filly of yesteryear, Ruffian.

Posted in Baseball and sports | 14 Replies

Obama and responsibility

The New Neo Posted on May 16, 2009 by neoMay 16, 2009

There have been a number of reversals from Obama lately on what used to be called the “war on terror.” All of these switches are in the same direction, towards Bush’s once-reviled policies and away from the standard liberal/Left line.

In this recent post, I speculated on what might be causing these changes when I wrote, “now that Obama will own whatever happens in Afghanistan, it behooves him to be more careful, doesn’t it?” One can extrapolate from “Afghanistan” to “war on terror,” and theorize that Obama isn’t eager to have another terrorist attack occur here on his watch.

Good, I say; I’m not eager to have that happen, either. But the phenomenon of Obama’s backtracking is an example of something even larger, the general issue of taking responsibility.

So far Obama has been, without question or rival, the President most heavily involved in holding his predecessors responsible for everything that has gone wrong since his taking office. The cries of “don’t blame us for anything we’ve done about the economy; after all we inherited it,” have been nearly unceasing, and are unprecedented for an incoming administration.

This tactic of continual blame fits in with well with, and is fostered by, the MSM, as well as being nicely congruent with widespread Bush Derangement Syndrome in its larger and smaller manifestations. But it also dovetails neatly with Obama’s personality and history: my sense is that the man has almost never before had to take responsibility for his actions and their consequences, at least in the public realm.

Read any summary of Obama’s life and achievements and you will be struck by the fact that Obama always impressed people by his very being; something about the man inspired confidence and conveyed competence. But in each of his career moves, his actual accomplishments were few—although it was hard to notice because he rarely stayed long enough for people to expect him to have shown something for his tenure. You might say that “hope and change” was Obama’s mantra, even back then: people would hope a great deal of him, and then he’d change jobs before they noticed that he hadn’t delivered much.

Now Obama is stuck; there’s nowhere to go after the Presidency but down, careerwise. He’s here for four years at least, and under the sort of constant scrutiny he’s not accustomed to (nor is anyone, really, prior to taking on the office). Even though the press is in his pocket and always has been, there are more rumblings of discontent now coming from that source than Obama has probably ever experienced before in his life. Moreover, he must be aware that, as time goes by, and despite his blame-Bush propensities, at some point more people are likely to start holding him accountable for what goes on while he’s President.

Obama is most vulnerable in the realm of the war on terror. After all, even the most committed Bush-hater has to begrudgingly admit that after 9/11 no more terrorist attacks of any magnitude occurred on our soil, although nearly everyone expected them (of course, some of the most committed Bush-haters think that it was Bush himself who was the perpetrator of 9/11—but let’s assume they’re a mere fringe element). Through hook or by crook, Bush “kept us safe,” and Cheney and company are harping on that fact and suggesting that Obama won’t be able to do the same.

This must haunt Obama and cause him to do a bit of thinking. As time goes on, whatever happens will become more and more difficult to pin on Bush, although he’ll probably continue to try. Thus, the willingness to take some responsibility and defy his own supporters on the Left, who are up in arms about his backtracking on the “abuse” photos, the military tribunals, and indefinite detention.

Previously in his public life, Obama was a senator—first state, then federal. Senators are notorious for being able to pass the buck. They are one of a group, after all, and groups diffuse responsibility.

The presidency is a very different beast indeed. Those who aspire to it can say what they will. But once they are in office, the buck tends to stop at their very own desk—even if they continue to desperately try to pass it.

Posted in Obama | 44 Replies

Why Pelosi must lie

The New Neo Posted on May 16, 2009 by neoMay 16, 2009

Some people have asked why Pelosi hasn’t just said, “Look, at the time of the briefings I thought waterboarding was okay, but now I see the light and I’m against it.” Such a statement would have arguably gotten her in a lot less trouble than the course she’s taken instead: a series of ever-changing and hedgy excuses that read as lies, culminating in her making accusations against the CIA that have roused its formidable defenses against her.

I don’t think Pelosi is stupid, although I agree with almost nothing she stands for or says. She has shown great political savvy and cunning in her long career. Why does it appear to be deserting her now?

I see Pelosi as having been put between a rock and a hard place by Obama’s release of the “torture memos” and the resultant brouhaha. If she were to make the statement I posited in the first paragraph of this post, she would be admitting something that would contradict the entire Democratic Party “narrative” of the Bush administration’s decisions regarding terrorists.

Going that route would destroy the tale the Democrats have ridden to victory and power: that the Bush administration was evil, lying to us (rather than sometimes mistaken), trampling on liberties for the sake of power and even sadism. How can Democrats contradict themselves by acknowledging now that nearly all of Bush’s decisions in the war on terror were arrived at after due deliberation, analysis of the best information available at the time (the conclusion that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs would be a prominent example), acting in the best interests of our country, and with an effort to preserve as much liberty and protection as seemed possible?

For Democrat leaders to do so would be to undercut their own story about Bush, which was (and remains) vital to their own success. So it cannot be done, and Pelosi knows it—even if she also knows it is actually the truth of why she did nothing to stop or protest waterboarding back when she was first informed about it.

[NOTE: Please read this article about the “torture memos” and the legal decision-making behind them.]

Posted in Politics | 23 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

  • huxley on If you don’t vote because you’re tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, you get the greater of two evils
  • Skip on My trusty rusty old car
  • Barry Meislin on If you don’t vote because you’re tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, you get the greater of two evils
  • Barry Meislin on If you don’t vote because you’re tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, you get the greater of two evils
  • Chases Eagles on If you don’t vote because you’re tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, you get the greater of two evils

Recent Posts

  • My trusty rusty old car
  • If you don’t vote because you’re tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, you get the greater of two evils
  • On fraud: New Hampshire turns blue with a tiny purple spot
  • Open thread 11/7/2026
  • So, why am I renewing my passport?

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (330)
  • Afghanistan (98)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (164)
  • Best of neo-neocon (91)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (599)
  • Dance (292)
  • Disaster (244)
  • Education (328)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (566)
  • Election 2018 (33)
  • Election 2020 (513)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (124)
  • Election 2028 (14)
  • Evil (130)
  • Fashion and beauty (324)
  • Finance and economics (1,053)
  • Food (319)
  • Friendship (48)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (737)
  • Health (1,169)
  • Health care reform (546)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (338)
  • History (718)
  • Immigration (452)
  • Iran (467)
  • Iraq (227)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (835)
  • Jews (444)
  • Language and grammar (365)
  • Latin America (216)
  • Law (2,997)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (125)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,334)
  • Liberty (1,119)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (394)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,523)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (934)
  • Middle East (385)
  • Military (327)
  • Movies (355)
  • Music (534)
  • Nature (262)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (185)
  • Obama (1,740)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (132)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,051)
  • Poetry (259)
  • Political changers (179)
  • Politics (2,797)
  • Pop culture (397)
  • Press (1,636)
  • Race and racism (885)
  • Religion (431)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (642)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (983)
  • Theater and TV (266)
  • Therapy (71)
  • Trump (1,637)
  • Uncategorized (4,631)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,465)
  • War and Peace (1,035)

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
↑