The best laid schemes….

The New Neo Posted on by

o’ Mice an’ Men,
Gang aft agley…

Any opportunity to quote and link to one of my favorite poems, “Of Mice and Men” by Robert Burns, can’t be all bad (I’m in a hurry and couldn’t find an annotated version that explains all those strange and archaic Scottish words, so that one will have to do for now).

I’m in NY, having driving down yesterday—pedal to the metal—to attend a friend’s surprise birthday party last evening. The get-together was exceedingly enjoyable and well worth the trip—both the food and the company of people I grew up with, most of whom I haven’t seen for decades. And no, we don’t look a bit older. No way.

So, what’s my beef? Today as I was writing my post and planning a visit to my mother this afternoon, and a visit with more friends this evening, I was pressed into service to help the NY-dwelling college-attending daughter of another good friend of mine deal with the convoluted bureaucratic maze of passport expediting. This involves several trips to various Byzantine offices, and must be accomplished before 3 PM, so I’m off to do it. My presence is necessary as an adult who can vouch that she is indeed who she says she is.

The post must wait for now; perhaps I’ll finish it towards this evening.

But one thing to be grateful for—at least I’m not dealing with the Motor Vehicle Bureau.

Big Story, non-story?

The New Neo Posted on by

Pity the poor Nation.

The magazine, that is, not the country. The Nation’s editors must ache from bending over backwards to prove there’s nothing especially good about the good news in Iraq.

The editors feel it’s their duty to make sure the American public gets the right idea:

The outcome of the domestic debate on Iraq depends in large part on the perception of success or failure: public opinion is liable to swing in favor of staying in Iraq if people think the war is going well. This poses a challenge–and opportunity–for the peace movement, which Tom Hayden outlines on page 11. Without question, it is important to counter GOP propaganda about the surge’s “success.”

Our effort in Iraq must fail for the peace movement to succeed. Makes sense to me. Continue reading →

Venezuela: the loser (and the winner) is—Chavez!

The New Neo Posted on by

My first thought late last night on hearing the news of Chavez’s defeat in yesterday’s referendum was, “Great (and surprising)!”

My second thought was a more cynical one: “How bad must the defeat really have been for Chavez to announce he lost by two points?”

My third: “Why didn’t he just fix the results and say he won?”

My fourth: “I bet he’ll say this proves he’s a real democrat (lower case “d”), and not a dictator at all.”

And indeed, that latter thought has already come true:

Chavez said his respect for the outcome should vindicate his standing as a democrat.

“From this moment on, let’s be calm,” he declared. “There is no dictatorship here.”

Chavez is described as “humbled” by the defeat, saying his proposals may have been too “profound” and “intense.” I doubt that “humbled” is the correct word for what Chavez is feeling, just as “profound” and “intense” don’t quite cut it as a description of his proposals. My guess is that he is more humiliated than truly humbled, as I would also guess that the vote was a lot less close than announced. Continue reading →

Annapolis: for better, or for worse?

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t written at length about Annapolis, and I probably won’t do so now; I’ll leave that to others.

There is hardly an issue more controversial, more heated, and more designed to get the metaphorical blood flowing in the comments section (and elsewhere) than that of Israel, Palestine, and what to do about them. If you want to read what I’ve written on the subject, just go to the right sidebar under “categories” and click on Israel/Palestine; I’ve no intention to engage in the deja vu all over again of repetitive discussions on the subject.

I will observe, however, that I’ve read countless MSM articles in the last few months that begin: “Bush has spent his entire Presidency ignoring Israel and Palestine, and now…” I beg to differ. He hasn’t ignored that area, he made a decision to refuse to regard Arafat as a potential partner for peace, after many tries by his administration and others. The Road Map was supposed to set certain reasonable standards for negotiations which have not yet been met, although the players have changed, including the counterproductive (to say the least) consequences of the Gaza elections.

And yet we have Annapolis. Continue reading →

My late bloomer

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t have much of a green thumb with houseplants. There are some varieties I gave up on long ago—the Boston fern, for instance. A fern in the dry heat of a northeastern home in winter requires a degree of misty tender loving care I can’t or won’t supply.

I used to joke that my home was a hospice for plants, a gentle place where they came to be ministered to while they slowly—or in some cases, quickly (a particularly fragile specimen lasted only a day)—died. Continue reading →

Chavez: what a guy

The New Neo Posted on by

That man of the people, Hugo Chavez, is up to his old/new tricks in Venezuela: using the democratic process to subvert the safeguards built into it (see this for my discussion of the perils involved). An upcoming referendum will let Venezuelan voters decide just how far they’ll allow Chavez to go in his so-far successful bid to assume long-lasting dictatorial powers.

Chavez is the darling of the Left, partly because he is one of the few ascendant Leftists of the old school, whose rhetoric of “let’s-nationalize-everything-and-make-the-poor-richer-and-the-rich-
poorer-and-stick-it-to-the-US-and-by-the-way-I’m-so-well-meaning -that-I-need-to-become-a-dictator-to-expedite-the-whole-process-so-
just-trust-me-I-have-your-best-interests-at-heart” rings true with those who are soggy with nostalgia for the days when Castro and Che seemed to be the wave of the future. Continue reading →

Hierarchies of responsibility: picking and choosing in the blame game

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter bunkerbuster speculated recently about the possible aftermath of a US troop withdrawal in Iraq:

How many people would die in such a withdrawal? There is indeed a risk that fighting could escalate, though predictions of mass killing of the kind that’s gone on recent years are surely overblown. Why are people who’ve been insisting for six long, brutal, deadly years that we’re meeting with “success” in Iraq now arguing that a withdrawal would occassion a bloodbath. Can’t they see the contradiction?

And, as any child could tell you, there is a big difference between bad things you make happen and bad things you allow to happen. It’s called responsiblity and supporters of this war spend more of their time evading it than anything else.

I’m not sure why bunkerbuster states that those arguing we’re meeting with “success” in Iraq have been insisting on this for six long, brutal, deadly years, since the US action in Iraq began in March of 2003, closer to four and a half years ago. How could we have been insisting actions in Iraq were successful prior to the war?

My guess is that bb is instead choosing to make 9/11 his (I’m using the masculine pronouns for convenience sake) starting point. Why do this, since this was not the beginning of the Iraq war? Perhaps because it was the start of our so-called war on terror, the first action of which was the war in Afghanistan, the beginning of our military campaign in reaction to the 9/11 attacks.

I’ve said before that most liberals and the Left are extremely concerned with keeping their own hands clean. Bunkerbuster demonstrates this here by seeming to be especially concerned with the sins of the US. Continue reading →

Framing the Rudd election

The New Neo Posted on by

The headlines blared the recent Australian election news: “Bush Loses Another War Ally” (Chicago Tribune) and “Ally of Bush is Defeated in Australia” (NY Times) were typical.

And true, as far as they go. Prime Minister Howard was indeed a war ally of President Bush, and he was indeed roundly defeated. And there have been other such defeats, such as Britain’s Tony Blair and Italy’s Berlusconi.

Of course, this being the MSM. it doesn’t go all that far, just far enough to produce the effect of chastising President Bush, especially in the all-important opening paragraphs of both articles. There is not enough about Australia itself, and what factors may have combined to produce this particular victory for Rudd and his Labor Party.

Both articles contain lists of other Bush-allies who were defeated, but no list of their opposite numbers. When Sarkozy was elected in France the NY Times article on the subject was headlined “Sarkozy Wins in France and Vows Break With the Past,” with no mention that that past had involved a continual thwarting of US interests, and that Sarkozy was markedly pro-American in comparison with predecessor Chirac and opponent Royal. Continue reading →

Political posturing

The New Neo Posted on by

Advice for the Democrats, from Clive Crook (love that name!) of the Financial Times:

Up to now, Democrats have been stinting in their recognition that the situation in Iraq has improved: “Yes, violence is down a bit, but .”‰.”‰.” That is the wrong posture. They need to celebrate the success, as long as it lasts, as enthusiastically as the Republicans…. Any suspicion that they are rooting for defeat in Iraq could sink them.

I’ve referred before to the growing—if somewhat begrudging—acknowledgment in the MSM that things are going significantly better lately in Iraq, and the fact that, if trends in that country continue in an upbeat direction, the Democrats may need to change course in their attitude towards our efforts there. But the advice in the Crook article demonstrates one of the flaws in that approach, and that is this: even if the Democrats ultimately take his advice, will they be seen as acting on principle, or merely as adopting a strategic new pose designed to further politics as usual—in other words, their own re-elections in 2008? Continue reading →