The Trump/Harris debate: the battle of the mics

The New Neo Posted on by

For the Trump/Harris debate on September 10 – which may end up being the only presidential debate of the 2024 campaign – it was finally decided that the candidates’ mics will be muted when their opponent is speaking. Kamala Harris would love for the mics to have remained open, the better to lure Trump into looking boorish and overbearing by overtalking her, and the better to be able to interrupt him .

Debates are often important campaign tools, but for Harris this may really feel like a make-or-break evening. Her strategy has been to appear as little as possible in unscripted settings and to remain as much of a blank slate as a person who’s been VP for almost four years can manage to do. I believe that she would dearly love to be able to portray Trump as an overbearing lout – a perception that may not be that difficult to engineer, depending on how he behaves at the debate – and to portray herself as simultaneously a victim of the nasty man but able to strongly stand up to him.

So why am I talking about open mics? Wasn’t it already agreed each candidate’s mic would be muted when the other is speaking? There’s the little matter of “assurances” from ABC:

CNN reported Wednesday that Harris accepted the rules after receiving separate “assurances” that mics could be turned on during the debate and the moderators would explain unheard exchanges.

“ABC News has offered assurances to the Harris campaign that if there is significant cross talk between Harris and Trump, the network may choose to turn on the mics so that the public can understand what is happening, the moderator would discourage either candidate from interrupting constantly and the moderator would also work to explain to viewers what is being said, according to the source familiar,” CNN reported.

Well, now. Kamala Harris may not be able to bring her emotional support VP Walz onstage with her, but there are always the good folk at ABC who might intervene with some newsplainin’ on her behalf.

[NOTE: Speaking of “newsplainin'”; remember Candy Crowley and Romney in the second Romney/Obama debate of 2012? See this as well as this.]

Caroline Glick has a very disturbing video on the Biden administration’s sanctions on Israeli citizens

The New Neo Posted on by

I had read about this sort of thing before – that the Biden administration is sanctioning Israelis for fairly trivial (and in many cases only alleged) abuses, in a manner that’s very different from the way it’s treating people in other countries, and especially in countreis that are supposedly considered our allies. But this Caroline Glick video gives the details, and it’s extremely chilling what’s going on. You don’t even have to watch the whole thing (although I recommend that); ten to twenty minutes or so will be enough to get the drift.

Open thread 9/5/2024

The New Neo Posted on by

This little girl is seven. I wish her teacher would restrain her in terms of the exaggeration of her extensions. She’s so naturally flexible that less is more in that regard. But otherwise she has a lovely quality of movement for one so young, especially in her upper body and epaulement which are usually the last elements of a ballet dancer to mature:

Hamas and the murder of hostages, Part II: blaming Bibi

The New Neo Posted on by

Israel is torn right now, but it was already torn before 10/7. The trauma of that day of massive carnage and the ensuing war resulted in a temporary and illusory unity, somewhat like the US experienced after 9/11. Now, in a delayed reaction, the rift has only widened. It draws in part on the left/right split that had already become severe over the topic of what to do about the Supreme Court, which had taken enormous and unbalancing power for itself and for the left. That crisis has not been resolved.

In addition, Netanyahu is as “controversial” a figure as Trump is in this country, with his haters hating him with a white-hot passion. That has only increased. It is understandable to blame Bibi for not having seen 10/7 coming and for failing to protect the people of Israel, although he had plenty of company in that failure from others on both right and left in the government and military and in fact was not fully informed by them. Nevertheless, because he was the prime minister at the time of the attack it makes some sense to blame him, and that anger is piled onto the already-existing rage.

The fact that the hostages have been in captivity almost a year, and more are now being murdered in cold blood, has brought all of this to a fever pitch. Netanyahu is to blame, say many Israelis, who are engaging in an intensely emotional sort of magical wishful thinking. Logic dictates that the demands of Hamas were so extreme that they amount to insisting that Israel surrender to them, and even then they were only promising to release a small number of hostages they wouldn’t even guarantee were alive. What kind of bargain is that? Would any sane leader make it?

The answer is “a terrible self-destructive bargain” and “no, of course not.” But this is not a rational demand on the part of those Israelis blaming Bibi for not capitulating to their murderers, it is a deeply emotional one. Blame the person closer to you, and pretend he is an all-powerful father who can do the impossible just because you so fervently want the impossible to be possible. The truth is that no deal other than surrender would suffice, surrender would yield far more carnage, and Hamas wouldn’t even give all the hostages back alive in exchange for surrender. That’s a reality so terrible it makes emotional – although not logical – sense to deny it.

Which leaves enormous power in the hands of Hamas. They can do what they will with the hostages: parade them, make them denounce Netanyahu, kill them, and show videos of the entire process. And Hamas is well aware that the Israeli demonstrators, pained beyond measure, will continue to blame Bibi.

As will the world, and Joe Biden. Joe Biden, who apparently was able to take a moment out of his busy vacation schedule and pretend to be president again, managed to say one of the most vile and insulting – and destructive – things possible on the killing of the six hostages. This was typical Biden. His remark was that Netanyahu hadn’t done enough in the negotiations to bring the hostages home. And yet Netanyahu had done everything but surrender.

Netanyahu had this response to Biden’s accusation:

“On April 27th, secretary of state Blinken said that Israel made an extraordinarily generous offer for a hostage deal. On May 31st, Israel agreed to a US backed proposal. Hamas refused. On August 16th, Israel agreed to what the United States defined as a final bridging proposal. Hamas refused again. On August 19th, secretary Blinken said, Israel accepted the US proposal. Now Hamas must do the same. On, August 28th, that’s 5 days ago 5 days ago, deputy CIA director said that Israel shows seriousness in the negotiations.Now Hamas must show the same seriousness. I wanna ask you something. What has changed in the last 5 days?”

He went on to remind the world that the Hamas murderers executed the hostages in the midst of negotiation talks, and pressure needs to be put on them, not Israel:

“These murderers executed 6 of our hostages. They shot them in the back of the head. That’s what’s changed. And now after this, we’re asked to show seriousness. We’re asked to make concessions.What message does this send Hamas? It says, kill more hostages, murder more hostages. You’ll get more concessions. The pressure internationally must be directed at these killers, at Hamas, not at Israel. We say yes. They say no all the time, but they also murdered these people. And now we need maximum pressure on Hamas.”

No one has leverage with Hamas except Iran and Qatar, and no one appears to be putting pressure on them to stop Hamas.

Here’s my previous prediction on what Hamas would do with the hostages. It’s from last January [emphasis added]:

The demonstrators in Israel for the hostages plead, “Bring them home!” But why address Israel? After all, Israel isn’t holding the hostages. And it’s been made clear for a long time that Hamas is finished negotiating, except perhaps to ask for a total Israeli surrender in exchange for the hostage release. So how can Israel “bring them home”? Aren’t the costs of such concessions unconscionable?

Israel is being addressed in these pleas, rather than Hamas, because Israel is humane and Hamas is not. Remember William Lloyd Garrison’s famous statement, “With reasonable men I will reason, with humane men I will plead … “. What many – most?- people forget is the rest of the quote, “but to tyrants I will give no quarter, nor waste arguments where they will certainly be lost.” Negotiations with Hamas are “wasted words.”

As far as a military way to bring them home goes – Israel probably doesn’t know where they all are, and even if and when Israel does know where they are (almost certainly not in one place but in many), a military approach would be likely to kill them or precipitate Hamas murdering them.

… If the world was united in stating the obvious fact that the kidnappings are evil and Hamas must release the hostages or face attack or severe sanctions, globally – perhaps that would be enough pressure. But in reality that is very far from happening and Hamas knows it, and knows that the world is actually far more united against Israel. …

I think that Israel must not do any more large prisoner exchanges for hostages. Israel must hang tough against such negotiation and certainly against any long-term ceasefire. But I also think I know what the terrorists would do if Israel made that position clear – plus of course there would be the terrible and yet understandable spectacle of the grief-stricken and angry families of the hostages. The terrorists would then use Israel’s stance as a propaganda point to say that Israel is heartless. The terrorist propaganda would turn the terrorists’ own heartlessness and evil inside out and blame it on the Israelis, and much of the world would stupidly buy that, as they’ve bought so much else the terrorists are selling. In addition, I think the terrorists would start beaming videos of hostage after hostage pleading and pleading, and perhaps being mistreated or even tortured, as well as possibly killed either onscreen – or probably off, the better to claim that Israel’s airstrikes did the deed.

Ah, but it’s Bibi’s fault.

ADDENDUM: I focused on the opposition to Netanyahu, because they contitute a large and exceptionally vocal and active group who get all the publicity, it seems. They give Hamas hope. And Biden, who has undue influence, supports that group.

But they do not constitute a majority in Israel – at least, in terms of support of his position vis a vis a hostage deal – although it’s easy to lose sight of that:

JNS asked respondents: “Do you believe Israel should support or oppose a deal that conditions the receipt of between 18-30 hostages on an IDF withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor for six weeks, during which Hamas will be able to rearm and smuggle hostages out of Gaza?”

Thirty-five percent of respondents overall said that Israel should agree to such a deal, while 62% opposed it. Three percent had no opinion.

Of course, the way the question is worded makes it easy to say “no.” However, the wording is a realistic statement of the risks of such a deal, in my opinion.

More from the poll:

Sixty-one percent of Israelis agreed with the sentence, “Only military pressure on Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and planned military actions including hostage rescue operations can lead to the release of the hostages.” Thirty-three percent agreed that “Continuing IDF operations in the Gaza tunnels endangers the hostages’ lives.”

To me it seems that, unfortunately, the hostages’ lives are endangered no matter what Israeli does and that has been true from the start.

As for the question of whether Netanyahu is to blame for the murder of the hostages, it’s split along coalition lines:

Israelis are sharply split over whether Netanyahu bears responsibility for the execution of the hostages. Opposition voters support the claim 69% to 28%, while coalition voters oppose it 94%-6%.

And even with a deal, “69% of Israelis believe that between 83 and 71 hostages would be left behind in Gaza indefinitely.” I agree.

The pretense of the Democrats’ 2020 and 2024 campaigns

The New Neo Posted on by

In 2020, the Democrats’ pretense was that Joe Biden was healthy and sharp, and that he was a nice-guy moderate.

In 2024, the Democrats’ pretense is that Kamala Harris hasn’t been part of the Biden administration, and that she’s a nice-gal moderate.

And the MSM plays right along. The MSM is probably the most important part of the charade.

There a certain element of symmetry between Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024. Each one was not doing well with the populace but then somehow was selected to be the nominee anyway. In 2020, Joe was doing poorly and then in early March he was endorsed by Clyburn, and most of the others mysteriously and precipitously dropped out. This happened because the party powers-that-be (Obama and company?) were worried that Sanders would be the Democrats’ nominee and was unelectable in the general. With the narrowing of the field, all the non-Sanders votes were consolidated behind Biden and Sanders only lasted another month before he dropped out as well.

In 2024, it was Joe Biden who stood in a similar spot to Bernie Sanders, although Biden was the incumbent. Biden had become the person headed for the nomination but whom the Democrat powers-that-be feared was inelectable in the general. The reason was different with Biden than it had been with Sanders. It wasn’t because Biden was perceived as an old-fashioned leftist, although he certainly was old. It was because he was clearly losing many of his marbles, and the public had noticed. So he was pressured by a host of Democrat bigwigs to drop out of the race. We’re not sure of all the details of how it was accomplished, but the best guess is that it was through threatening to remove him with the 25th Amendment if he didn’t back out “voluntarily.” And then Kamala was chosen to replace him. They could have had an open convention, but that would have been too risky. Kamala was no more popular than Joe had been in 2020, and in some ways she was a harder sell as a “moderate,” but they’re trying. My theory is that she was chosen because she couldn’t be jettisoned without offending too many of the Democrat base, in particular black voters and female voters. So here we are.

Earlier, the same group of Democrats had made sure that RFK Jr. could not be the nominee, fearful that he was gaining on Biden. RFK Jr. was likewise perceived as being unelectable in the general, with the added drawback of not being easily controlled by the party. Both Biden and Harris, on the other hand, were seen by the party as very tractable and likely to toe the party line.

In the meantime, Democrats keep telling us that they’re defending our sacred “democracy.” However, they might just as well have gone back to the smoke-filled rooms of the past, because that’s what all of this has been. In 2020 they managed, by hook or crook, to drag Joe across the finish line. Will they manage to do the same for Kamala in 2024? I fervently hope not.

On the Jewish vote in 2024

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m too busy today to put up Part II of my series on the Israeli hostages; I’ll probably do it tomorrow. There’s a lot to say.

But in the meantime, I happened to see this Caroline Glick piece about the Jewish vote in the US in 2024. That topic seems to occupy a lot of people’s minds, and I’ve written about it before. Over and over I see comments here and elsewhere to the effect of, “And despite everything, the Jews will be voting overwhelmingly for the Democrats, as usual.” It’s sometimes written with sorrow and sometimes with venom, but it’s a standard observation from many people on the right.

I’ve written on the topic before, for example here as well as here, here, and here. Now I want to quote what Caroline Glick said yesterday:

The growth of antisemitic violence in the United States will lead a “significant number” of Jews to vote for Republicans in the upcoming election, Caroline Glick, a former policy adviser for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and currently a senior editor for the Jewish News Syndicate, said Tuesday on Newsmax.

“I think that you’re seeing that already in polls that have come out two or three times over the past several months of Jews in New York, which is the largest Jewish population,” Glick said on “Newsline.”

“You find for the first time that President Trump is getting over 50% of the Jewish vote, which is an earthquake. Those numbers are largely reflected in larger samples that are not specifically about the politics of American Jews.”

Who knows? I guess we’ll see in November – although the only mechanism for that is exit polls, and they are somewhat iffy, especially for small groups like the Jews. I don’t think, for example, that Orthodox Jews – who vote overwhelmingly Republican – are likely to be responding to many exit polls.

Our broken voting system

The New Neo Posted on by

Ever since 2020 I’ve been saying the same thing over and over about our voting system: there is no developed nation on earth with such a loose system in terms of security, and therefore there is no trust in our elections, and that this is very dangerous. I don’t know whether or not Trump lost in 2020 because of fraud by the left. But I do know that people who think he did are well within their rights, because the opportunity was there and the motivation was there, and there is no reason to trust that our system could protect us.

Today I found this article that goes into the situation in depth. It’s long but well worth reading. Here’s an excerpt from the piece:

Whatever happens in November, one-third to one-half of the country is likely to doubt the integrity of the vote. Whether these people are Democrats or Republicans, it will be foolhardy to dismiss them as disinformation-addled cranks. A democracy exists in the minds of its citizens, in the intangible shared belief that the political compact accurately reflects some measurable quantity of the popular will. But the new American voting system is practically calibrated to produce mistrust, and to create broad segments of public opinion that believe the whole thing is fake—regardless of who wins.

I think it’s obvious that if voting fraud occurs it would happen at the hands of the left, for the simple reason that in swing states the left controls the cities and it’s easier to accomplish fraud on a more significant level in the cities, as well as the fact that the left embraces “the ends justify the means.” But if, for example, Trump were to win, the accusations of pro-Trump fraud from the left would follow a different but very familiar route: the influence of foreign powers such as Russia who supposedly favor Trump, the spread of “disinformation” that should be stifled, and/or “racist voter suppression” by the remaining states that still have a relative amount of voting security in place.

The level of distrust has reached a very dangerous level.

Free speech: as Brazil goes, so goes … ?

The New Neo Posted on by

There are growing ominous signs that the leftist governmental forces arrayed against freedom of speech are growing bolder and bolder. Now that the Gramscian march has given them control of the more conventional forms of media, such governments would like to block their citizens from access to other sources of information that could challenge their grip on power.

Prior to the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, it was easier for governments (or, during the time of the Trump administration, anti-Trump government agencies such as the FBI) to muzzle Twitter through a combination of suggestions and threats, as well as deceptions. Now that it’s much more difficult to do, they may resort to outright blocking of the platform – as did Brazil recently.

From Jonathan Turley:

Brazil has not just banned X (formerly Twitter) from the entire country, but citizens will now be fined $9000 a day (more than the average salary in the country) for using VPNs to access the platform. X is the main source of news for Brazilians, who will now be left with government-approved sources or face financial ruin in seeking unfettered information.

The Guardian is reporting that the confiscatory fines are part of a comprehensive crackdown on efforts to get news through X, including ordering all Apple stores to remove X from new phones.

The move puts Brazil with China in the effort to create a wall of censorship between citizens and unregulated information.

For the anti-free speech movement, Brazil is a key testing ground for where the movement is heading next. European censors are arresting CEOs like Pavel Durov while threatening Elon Musk.

However, it is Brazil that foreshadows the brave new world of censorship where entire nations will block access to sites committed to free speech values or unfettered news. If successful, the Brazilian model is likely to be replicated by other countries.

The current administration in Brazil is leftist.

Here’s some reaction from our own left:

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison responded to the ban with a posting declaring “Obrigado Brasil!” or “Thanks, Brazil!” Ironically, he did so on X.

Ellison previously praised the virulently anti-free speech group Antifa and promised that it would “strike fear in the heart” of Donald Trump.

And this from Kamala Harris is ominous:

Hamas and the murder of hostages, Part I: the background

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I plan for this to be a two- or three- part series, sparked by the terrible news of Hamas’ murder of six Israeli hostages who had survived almost a year in captivity.]

First, a bit of background on the early post-10/7 days.

When the enormous carnage and torment (as well as kidnappings) wrought by Hamas on ordinary Israeli citizens (plus a fair number of resident non-citizens, such as workers from Thailand) was revealed, the reaction in Israel was intense grief and rage. Some of the rage was against Hamas, of course. But a great deal was also against the government and the military that had failed to protect its people. That reaction got even more intense when it was learned that there had been multiple prior warnings about what was about to happen, and those warnings were brushed away, although they later turned out to have been spot on.

Not long after 10/7, Hamas threatened to execute hostages. This possibility was always part of the equation, as with any kidnapping by a violent (and in this case sadistic and fanatic) group. It’s easy to forget these threats – after all, so much has happened since. But I remember them, and here’s a refresher in case you’ve forgotten. The dateline of the story is October 9, 2023, two days after the attack:

On Monday, Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades, the terrorist group’s military arm, chillingly declared it would begin killing its prisoners if the Israeli government continues bombing Palestinian lands.

“Any targeting of innocent civilians without warning will be met regretfully by executing one of the captives in our custody, and we will be forced [sic] to broadcast this execution,” said Abu Obeida, a Qassam Brigades spokesman.

“We regret [sic] this decision, but we hold the Zionist enemy and their leadership responsible for this.”

That statement brought into sobering view one of the main reasons Hamas seemed so intent on capturing innocent civilians: the leverage it could provide.

“The cruel reality is Hamas took hostages as an insurance policy against Israeli retaliatory action, particularly a massive ground attack and to trade for Palestinian prisoners,” said Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The only reluctance Hamas has had to killing the hostages is the need to parade them as well as to use them as negotiation leverage against Israel, and for the latter purpose live hostages are better than dead ones, although dead ones will do in a pinch.

I bring all of this up to remind us all that in the early days it was reasonable to assume that we’d be seeing these televised executions, and that the abductors would be taking a leaf out of the book of Daniel Pearl’s killers. After all, inherent in kidnapping and hostage-taking is always a good possibility of murder if the abductors’ demands are not met. But in this case those public executions never happened, because Hamas is smarter than that. They are playing a public relations game, and so far they are winning. So in the post-10/7 phase of the conflict, Hamas has been careful to walk a tightrope of pretend magnanimity versus bloodthirstiness.

The pretend magnanimity came last fall during the hostage-for-prisoners exchanges, in which Hamas gave up the hostages seen as most vulnerable, the ones most likely to garner worldwide sympathy: mothers and children, and older women. In return Hamas got a great many prisoners.

But that’s not all Hamas got. It also was able to give the impression that future negotiations with Hamas (through its proxies such as Qatar) would bring Israel even greater dividends, as time went on, and that all the hostages might be released alive if only Israel gave up more and more. Hamas had every reason to believe that over time the pressure from the Israeli public and the world (including of course the present US administration) would increase to the point where Israel would be pressed to give up just about everything. And in fact, the metrics of the 2011 Shalit deal, in which Israel released 1027 prisoners for one Israeli soldier who’d been held for five years (including 280 prisoners with life sentences, who altogether were responsible for the murders of 569 Israelis) would lead them to believe that. It’s no accident that among those released prisoners was Sinwar, future mastermind of 10/7. If Israel had been willing to agree to a deal so lopsided for one Israeli – and a soldier at that – what might it give up now? It’s easy to understand why Hamas was motivated to take as many hostages as possible on October 7.

Over time – and as I write this post, it’s been about a month short of a year since 10/7 – many hostages have died. We don’t know the exact number, but Israeli intelligence has learned a lot. Even prior to the recent murder of six of the young adult hostages (I’ll be writing more about that in Part II), the dead bodies of some hostages had been found and taken back to Israel for burial. Some were known to have been murdered on October 7 in Israel and Hamas operatives had ghoulishly brought their bodies to Gaza to be used as negotiating currency. Some had died more recently, and Hamas claimed – of course – that they’d been killed by Israeli bombs, although the autopsy evidence and condition of the bodies didn’t indicate that. Then there was the terrible case of three hostages mistakenly killed by Israeli forces during a firefight. And always there was the threat of Hamas murdering more hostages.

Meanwhile, the IDF and/or Israel’s intelligence forces managed to rescue some hostages unharmed. This was cause for great celebration in Israel, and probably a great deal of anger and chagrin on the part of Hamas. There was a basic pattern to the successful rescues, however: nearly all the hostages whom Israel had managed to free previously were in above ground houses, which made it easier to surprise their captors and easier to get intelligence on the hostages’ whereabouts because neighbors might inform or unknowingly give information. The only hostage found alive in a tunnel was the recent case of Farhan al-Qadi, an Israeli Bedouin grandfather who was found alone and apparently had been abandoned by his minders as the IDF closed in – although we don’t know for sure. It doesn’t appear that the IDF knew of his exact whereabouts to begin with, and my guess is that he was guarded by less fanatical Hamas members compared to those guarding the six Israeli captives who were later murdered in the tunnels as the IDF approached.

Unlike many hostage situations, the one that began on 10/7/2023 is apparently somewhat decentralized. Some of the hostage-takers were originally what I call free-lancers, meaning that they were not Hamas regulars but rather Hamas sympathizers trying to cash in on the deal. Not only that, but the hostages have not been kept in one place, and one reason for that was that it guaranteed that at no point could Israel do something heroic to rescue them all or even most of them. All the rescues have been bit by bit by bit. And it is my belief that, at present, the vast majority or maybe all of the living hostages are in the tunnels being guarded by the most coldblooded of minders, because Hamas has learned that rescue is almost impossible under such circumstances – because not only can Hamas kill them as the IDF approaches, but the hostage guards can get out alive afterwards through the warren of tunnels that Hamas has constructed over the years.

Therefore I don’t think we’ll see any more rescues of living hostages, although I hope I’m wrong. And I think we’ll learn of more hostage murders, much like the ones we learned about over the weekend.

Hamas murdered the hostages to further psychologically torment Israelis and their sympathizers, as well because it knew that another result would be that the pressure on the Netanyahu government to surrender to Hamas and/or resign would increase to a fever pitch. That is exactly what has happened. There was a general strike (it’s over now), and the anti-Netanyahu forces have strengthened their protests and machinations. I plan to deal with that phenomenon in more depth in Part II, but till then I suggest you watch the following video by Caroline Glick (especially around minute thirty and after, although the whole thing is well worth watching):

Or if you prefer, please read this very informative article of Glick’s that covers much the same territory.

Happy Labor Day

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a slightly edited version of a previous post.]

Labor Day is the bookend standing at the opposite end of summer from its holiday beginning, Memorial Day.

July Fourth is summer’s early peak, with the promise of long light-filled days ahead. But Labor Day is summer’s last gasp, the moment I dreaded as a child because it marked the end of vacation and the start of the school year. Spiffy new clothes, a shiny bookbag, freshly sharpened pencils, and the promise of the beautiful autumn leaves’ arrival were nice. But they couldn’t make up for the fact that a new school year was beginning. Where oh where had the summer gone?

And it goes even more quickly these days.

Here’s wishing you all a Happy Labor Day, despite the difficult times. Barbecues, picnics, the beach, just hanging out in your yard, whatever you desire and whatever you decide. And for the historically-minded among you, here’s some information on the origins of the holiday.