↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1850 << 1 2 … 1,848 1,849 1,850 1,851 1,852 … 1,861 1,862 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

John Kerry: consistent inconsistence

The New Neo Posted on May 10, 2005 by neoMay 10, 2005

John Kerry, that most consistently inconsistent of politicians, is reinventing himself, according to a Boston Globe article entitled, “Kerry adopting the rhetoric of a DC outsider.” Now, even the Globe sees Kerry as a poseur; “adopting the rhetoric,” rather than having a conviction.

Kerry has always specialized in being the oxymoronic candidate: antiwar war hero, patrician/proletarian (“can I get me a hunting license here?”), teflon maker and breaker of promises and pledges. So, he must be thinking, why not Washington insider-outsider?

It’s a sign of something when even that liberal rag the Boston Globe seems to be getting fed up with Kerry. As the article says: It may seem odd for a man who has been in the Senate for more than two decades — and who has never been known for his common touch — to rail against aloof politicians. Well, there’s no “may” and “seem” about it; it is odd. Very odd. But, as has become increasingly clear, so is Kerry.

Donna Brazile, author of so many Al Gore transformations in 2000, says this of Kerry the common man: ‘As John Kerry continues to reflect on 2004 — and explore options for 2008 — it’s important that he understands that people didn’t really know John Kerry in the last campaign.

First of all, the idea of Kerry running in 2008 sends a chill down my spine; but the idea that we don’t know Kerry at this point is, quite simply, laughable. We know him only too well. Even the locals can see through this particularly embarrassing attempt to repackage old, old goods. Tufts political science professor Jerry Berry is remarkably blunt on this score: ‘He’s the last politician that people are going to buy as an outsider. That dog won’t hunt. John Kerry ran for president, and he has a long record in politics. He just doesn’t come across as an outsider.

You tell him, Jerry, you tell him. But will John listen? I fear the answer is “no.” As a narcissist, it seems Kerry has become addicted to the thrill of the spotlight and the glory of public speaking, and he just can’t stop.

I keep resolving to get off his case, and then he starts up again. So, for the sake of all of us (not the least, me)–please, John, cease and desist!

I bet the Democratic Party wishes he’d keep quiet, too. He can’t be doing them a whole lot of good.

Posted in Uncategorized | 15 Replies

The PC commandments

The New Neo Posted on May 9, 2005 by neoJuly 22, 2010

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna has thoughtfully and helpfully codified the 10 Commandments of PC.

Here they are (please go to his post for further explanation):

1. America is uniquely evil.
2. America is never justified in defending itself.
3. Illiterate people from poor societies are superior to Americans.
4. The Earth would be better off without human beings.
5. Making a profit is always immoral.
6. Differences between individuals or groups are unfair.
7. For Designated Victim Groups, strong feelings excuse all behavior.
8. Policies informed by Judé¦o-Christian principles are inherently suspect.
9. Conservatives are hypocrites; liberals are sincere.
10. There are no acts of God; there are only acts of Government.

I know that ten is a wonderful (not to mention traditional) number for these things. But, with all due respect to the Baron, I’d like to add four of my own.

11) We defend the right to free speech for ourselves, but anyone else whose speech hurts our feelings must be censored.

12) In any conflict between a third-world nation and a first-world nation, the third-world nation is always right.

13) Tyranny in third-world countries is not our concern unless the US (or Israel) can be blamed in some way.

14) All criticism or disagreement with any policy of a third-world nation, culture, or person is, by definition, racism.

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Race and racism | 58 Replies

Bloggers and rappers: separated at birth?

The New Neo Posted on May 9, 2005 by neoMay 9, 2005

I missed this when it first came out. But I think it presents a highly credible thesis–heretofore unremarked upon– on the deep and powerful affinities between rappers and bloggers.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Replies

Don’t know whether to laugh or cry?

The New Neo Posted on May 9, 2005 by neoAugust 28, 2009

There’s a new drug for a syndrome that isn’t actually new, but that’s gotten a new name. The drug is Neurodex, and the syndrome is now known as pseudobulbar effect, or PDA.

The unsettling and positively creepy-sounding symptoms are as follows (as reported in the NY Times):

uncontrollable laughing or crying that can be caused by various neurological diseases or injuries….Pathologic laughter is devoid of any inner sense of joy and pathologic weeping of any feeling of inner sorrow….The cause of the condition is not clear. Scientists suspect it occurs when the brain stem, which generates laughter and crying, loses communication with parts of the brain that control emotional expression.

The article goes on to discuss whether this syndrome should actually be treated. Critics of the development of this drug say no, because those who suffer from the syndrome tend to have a whole host of other serious neurological problems, of which this one is felt to be relatively minor.

Talk about paternalism! I say, let the patients be the judge of that. It sounds like a terribly frightening experience, the divorcing of the expression of emotional affect from the actual feelings. Like something out of a horror movie, the sufferer must feel like a puppet, controlled by some alien force. Or like someone under a spell.

We like to think we are in control of things–particularly, of ourselves. Even when we do lose control–for example, bursting into tears when we’d rather keep a stiff upper lip–ordinarily it’s because we are in the grip of powerful emotions that we can actually feel. Brain injuries and brain disease can shatter that illusion of control, because the self and the will can now be at the mercy of random firings of the brain.

Why would anyone object to a medication that could help to restore some small measure of emotional control to the sufferer from such a grotesque and ego-shattering condition? My guess is that this represents a failure of imagination on the part of the critics; it simply doesn’t sound as though much suffering is involved. It’s a little bit like tickling, which might seem like nothing much if you were to describe it to someone who’d never experienced it. But, taken to extremes, it can be felt as incredibly noxious and almost unbearable.

In fact, now that I think of it, there’s some kindship between this syndrome and uncontrollable tickling. The person being tickled looks to all the world as though he/she is having fun–after all, the person is laughing uproariously, right? But the experience is often not only devoid of humor for that person, it can involve actual suffering–suffering, and lack of control, because the ticklee is being manipulated into exhibiting this fake emotion (joy, laughter) by the tickler.

You may have guessed by now that I’m a younger sister. And I’m beginning to have a theory about some of these critics of Neurodex. Could it be that they’re older brothers?

Posted in Health, Science | 4 Replies

Happy Mother’s Day! (quotes, or lack thereof)

The New Neo Posted on May 8, 2005 by neoAugust 28, 2009

By now you may have noticed that I like quotations. So far, I’ve done Orwell, Churchill, and war (hmmm, is there a theme emerging here?) So, in honor of Mother’s Day (and a break with that theme), I thought I’d compile a list of great quotations about mothers and motherhood.

I did some searching, and found a bunch of websites (here, and here , for example) that initially looked promising. But when I actually read the quotes, one by one, I discovered something interesting–or, rather, I discovered something uninteresting. It turns out there are very few quotes about motherhood worth calling anyone’s attention to.

That may seem a bit curmudgeonly to say, especially on Mother’s Day. I’m not dissing mothers (after all, I’m one myself). That’s far from my intent. But somehow the subject hasn’t inspired much in the way of trenchant thought or pithy statements. I don’t know why, since motherhood is an important (I might even say, vital and absolutely necessary) part of life, and people ordinarily have great intensity of feeling about their mothers.

But quotes about mothers tend to run to the banal–or, even worse, the anti-maternal claptrap of the idealogue. Of the former variety, nearly every site offers us Abraham Lincoln and his “angel mother.” The following, by someone named Alice Hawthorne, is also typical: What is home without a mother? Of the latter type, a representative example is Emma Goldman’s: Morality and its victim, the mother ”“ what a terrible picture! Is there indeed anything more terrible, more criminal, than our glorified sacred function of motherhood? Yeah, Emma, I can come up with quite a few things, and I don’t even have to think really really hard.

Somehow, the topic of motherhood seems to banish wit and the felicitious turn of phrase. There is something so deep about the topic that almost anything one can say about it immediately turns into a cliche. And the poetry, the poetry (at least, the stuff online)! Yikes! Surely, I think, there must be some good poems about motherhood.

But the only one that comes to mind is rather sad, which seems inappropriate for Mother’s Day. I include it here, though, because I really like it, and because it so wonderfully describes the process by which a mother (or any parent) must let go as a child grows up. It also has the distinction of being one of the very few poems written by a man that is utterly and totally successful in capturing a woman’s voice.

THE LOST CHILDREN (by Randall Jarrell)

Two little girls, one fair, one dark,
One alive, one dead, are running hand in hand
Through a sunny house. The two are dressed
In red and white gingham, with puffed sleeves and sashes.
They run away with me. . . But I am happy;
When I wake I feel no sadness, only delight.
That, somewhere, they still are.

It is strange
To carry inside you someone else’s body;
To know it before it’s born;
To see at last that it’s a boy or a girl, and perfect;
To bathe it and dress it; to watch it
Nurse at your breast, till you almost know it
Better than you know yourself—better than it knows itself.
You own it as you made it.
You are the authority upon it.

But as the child learns
To take care of herself, you know her less.
Her accidents, adventures are her own,
You lose track of them. Still, you know more
About her than anyone except her.

Little by little the child in her dies.
You say, ” I have lost a child, but gained a friend.”
You feel youself gradually discarded.
She argues with you or ignores you
Or is kind to you. She who begged to follow you
Anywhere, just so long as it was you,
Finds follow the leader no more fun.
She makes few demands; you are grateful for the few.

The young person who writes once a week
Is the authority upon herself.
She sits in my living room and shows her husband
My albums of her as a child. He enjoys them
And makes fun of them. I look too
And I realize that girl in the matching blue
Mother-and-daughter dress, the fair one carrying
The tin lunch box with the half-pint thermos bottle
Or training her pet duck to go down the slide
Is lost just as the dark one, who is dead, is lost.
But the world in which the two wear their flared coats
And the hats that match, exists so uncannily
That, after I’ve seen its pictures for an hour,
I believe in it: the bandage coming loose
One has in the picture of the other’s birthday
The castles they are building, at the beach for asthma.

I look at them and all the old sure knowledge
Floods over me, when I put the album down
I keep saying inside: “I did know those children.
I braided those braids. I was driving the car
The day that she stepped in the can of grease
We were taking to the butcher for our ration points.
I know those children. I know all about them.
Where are they?”

I stare at her and try to see some sign
Of the child she was. I can’t believe there isn’t any.
I tell her foolishly, pointing at the picture,
That I keep wondering where she is.
She tells me, “Here I am”
Yes, and the other
Isn’t dead, but has everlasting life. . .

The girl from next door, the borrowed child,
Said to me the other day, “ You like children so much,
Don’t you want to have some of your own?”
I couldn’t believe that she could say it.
I thought: “Surely you can look at me and see them.”

When I see them in my dreams I feel such joy.
If I could dream of them every night!

When I sit and think of my dream of the little girls
It’s as if we were playing hide-and-seek.
The dark one
Looks at me longingly, and disappears;
The fair one stays in sight, just out of reach
No matter where I reach. I am tired
As a mother who’s played all day, some rainy day.
I don’t want to play it anymore, I don’t want to,
But the child keeps on playing, so I play.

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe | 2 Replies

An idea whose time has come: the VVLF

The New Neo Posted on May 8, 2005 by neoMay 8, 2005

I’ve learned through Brainster that there’s a newly-formed organization called the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation. Their website is a bit sparse as yet, but this looks as though it could be a fascinating project.

A group of Vietnam Veterans, some of whom were members of the Swift Vets, have joined together and declare the following to be their mission:

to tell the American people the truth about what really happened in Vietnam. Our goal is to continue the work of countering more than three decades of misinformation and propaganda, and to set the record straight.

They envision using a multimedia approach:

The VVLF will serve as a national repository of related materials, information and records of the Vietnam War. We will make this information available and encourage people to learn more about the real history of the war and its impact on those who fought it. This material may include accounts from Vietnam Vets, sworn testimony, oral histories, and personal memorabilia. Specific packages of information will be made available to interested teachers, students and educational institutions.
The VVLF will create independent films and documentaries regarding the events and history of the Vietnam War. Exhibits and visual materials will be made available to museums, libraries and other public places.

They’re asking for donations. Sounds like a worthy cause.

One of the interesting ironies is that none of this might have happened had it not been for the candidacy of John Kerry, and his decision to base so much of his campaign on his Vietnam record.

It seems the wheels of history grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Replies

The British election makes it three

The New Neo Posted on May 7, 2005 by neoMay 7, 2005

British politics is another of the many topics on which my expertise is virtually non-existent.

But I just wanted to say that, about a year ago, on the eve of the Australian elections, I was pretty pessimistic. The three major allies of freedom and the fight against terrorism–as I saw it, anyway– were all coming up for re-election within the next year: Howard in Australia, Bush in the US, and Blair in Great Britain. I thought it very likely that all three would be defeated, and I felt that result might be disastrous for the cause of democracy around the world.

Well, we know what happened with the first two. And now we’ve got the results of the third. And yes, Blair’s majority could have been greater. But with the relentless drumbeat of negativity that’s been pounding ever since the Iraqi war, I’m willing to call this victory a victory, rather than a defeat.

The Freedom Trifecta. Or maybe a better metaphor would be the Freedom Hat Trick.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Replies

Ivan Illych, now and then

The New Neo Posted on May 7, 2005 by neoFebruary 4, 2008

I know it’s not a real cheerer-upper, but I recently read Tolstoi’s The Death of Ivan Illych. Actually, you could say that I re-read it, since my first encounter with the novella was in a Russian literature course I took as a senior in college.

You may remember from Part 4A of “A mind is a difficult thing to change” that this was the year my boyfriend was fighting in Vietnam. Consequently, it was very hard for me to concentrate on anything. But that Russian lit course, and a history course I also took that year entitled ‘Russian Intellectual History,” grabbed me and caught my attention with tremendous force.

Both courses focused on works from the 19th century, which at the time I considered to be more or less ancient history. That’s why I was so amazed at the immediacy and relevance of both courses. Clearly, the Russians didn’t mess around when they wrote; they went for the jugular, the Big Issues, and they didn’t let go. The meaning of life, good vs. evil, that sort of thing. Perfect for a college student, and especially perfect for me at the time because I had no patience whatsoever with anything that didn’t deal with those Big Issues, since I was dealing with quite a few of them myself.

The history course was sobering. It turns out that those old Russians (Bakunin, Herzen, the Slavophiles are the names that now come to mind, although the details have become very fuzzy) had been wrestling mightily with questions such as what sort of society would be best for humankind, and how best to create it. Hmmm. In the 60s, that’s what we were doing, too.

So it seemed that we college students of the 60s were not nearly as unique as we thought we were, after all. Even I could see that, from reading these Russians. Their voices sounded suspiciously like those of the young firebrands who spoke at the local SDS meetings. Since I already knew the endpoint of the path those long-ago Russians had taken, often with great idealism and hope, this made me a lot more skeptical of the modern variety. This was actually the sort of thing that kept me a liberal rather than a leftist in those days.

But back to Ivan Ilych, which I also read that same year. Unlike the others, it’s not about politics, although Tolstoi can’t resist putting in a noble peasant (the only idealized character in the book), and mocking the bourgeousie. The story achieves greatness as a feat of psychological imagination, a relentless study of an “unexamined life.”

Tolsoi himself was an incredibly complex and contradictory man, a titanic figure, and one of the first literary superstars. He could be supremely idealistic and maddeningly cruel all at the same time (read about his treatment of his long-suffering wife, if you want to get an idea of the latter). But boy, could that guy write! Much of his writing in Ivan Illych has an immediacy and an almost brutal honesty, as well as a dry humor, that seems startlingly original and quite modern.

Here’s one of my favorite passages from the work; I recall it from college, and I noted it with a flash of appreciative recognition on my recent re-reading. Just as we students of the 60s had some trouble accepting that we resembled countless others who had come this way before us; so, also, does Ivan Illych have great difficulty giving up his belief in his own exceptionalism:

In the depth of his heart he knew he was dying, but not only was he not accustomed to the thought, he simply did not and could not grasp it. The syllogism he had learnt from Kiesewetter’s Logic: “Caius is a man, men are mortal, therefore Caius is mortal,” had always seemed to him correct as applied to Caius, but certainly not as applied to himself. That Caius — man in the abstract — was mortal, was perfectly correct, but he was not Caius, not an abstract man, but a creature quite, quite separate from all others. He had been little Vanya, with a mamma and a papa, with Mitya and Volodya, with the toys, a coachman and a nurse, afterwards with Katenka and with all the joys, griefs, and delights of childhood, boyhood, and youth. What did Caius know of the smell of that striped leather ball Vanya had been so fond of? Had Caius kissed his mother’s hand like that, and did the silk of her dress rustle so for Caius? Had he rioted like that at school when the pastry was bad? Had Caius been in love like that? Could Caius preside at a session as he did? “Caius really was mortal, and it was right for him to die; but for me, little Vanya, Ivan Ilych, with all my thoughts and emotions, it’s altogether a different matter. It cannot be that I ought to die. That would be too terrible.”

Such was his feeling.

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, History, Literature and writing | 4 Replies

Let’s talk about the weather

The New Neo Posted on May 6, 2005 by neoMay 6, 2005

The weather report for this weekend–Mother’s Day weekend–for virtually all of New England: in the 40’s (that’s the daytime figure, by the way), heavy rain and wind.

This isn’t funny. This is extreme, even for this part of the country. I have nothing intelligent or witty to say about it; I’m just venting my spleen.

There. I feel better already.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Replies

Part 4C progress report

The New Neo Posted on May 6, 2005 by neoMay 6, 2005

Well, here we go again. Excuses, excuses–I’m full of them! I thought I’d be publishing Part 4C of the “Mind is a difficult thing to change” series this week, but it’s not nearly ready, although I’ve been working on it.

I am pretty sure it will be ready by the end of next week. That’s not a promise, that’s a prediction–and, like second marriage, it may represent the triumph of hope over experience. But I have found I can’t rush it. It’s clear that these things always seem to require far more labor than I ever expect.

It is embarrassing to have to display so very publically the fact that my life seems to be ruled by Hofstadter’s Law. For those of you unfamiliar with the extremely useful and brilliant Hofstadter’s Law, here it is:

It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take Hofstadter’s Law into account.

Simple. Elegant. True.

ADDENDUM: Of course, like anything, Hofstadter’s Law is not absolute. One glaring exception is eating–especially dessert, which always seems to take less time than you expect (or want) it to. No doubt you readers can think of other exceptions. But, in general, I stand by Hofstadter’s Law.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Replies

Vietnam revisited–again

The New Neo Posted on May 6, 2005 by neoAugust 28, 2009

Vietnam’s been on my mind recently, for obvious reasons. I’ve been thinking and writing so much about it lately that I’ve only just gotten around to reading this article by Stephen J. Morris, which appeared in the Op-Ed page of the May 1st NY Times.

I’ve never done this before, but I’ve decided to reproduce the entire piece here. I figure that, since the Times is a registration-only venue, many people to whom it might be of interest will have missed it. The article is an excellent example of the type of thing I can’t recall reading at the time the events in it took place–certainly not in the NY Times, one of the newspapers from which I got most of my news for much of my life.

I wanted to present this article because it is a relatively concise summary of the sort of information I’ve been reading lately, information which represents another look at the history of the Vietnam War as it was told in the newspapers of the time. I am very glad–and, to tell the truth, surprised–that the Times saw fit to publish it in honor of the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. As Morris himself writes, “out of respect for the evidence of history, we need to recognize what happened in the 1970’s and why.” I second the motion.

I find the facts in this article and others like it quite compelling. You may or may not agree. Here is the complete text:

The War We Could Have Won
By STEPHEN J. MORRIS

Washington

THE Vietnam War is universally regarded as a disaster for what it did to the American and Vietnamese people. However, 30 years after the war’s end, the reasons for its outcome remain a matter of dispute.

The most popular explanation among historians and journalists is that the defeat was a result of American policy makers’ cold-war-driven misunderstanding of North Vietnam’s leaders as dangerous Communists. In truth, they argue, we were fighting a nationalist movement with great popular support. In this view, “our side,” South Vietnam, was a creation of foreigners and led by a corrupt urban elite with no popular roots. Hence it could never prevail, not even with a half-million American troops, making the war “unwinnable.”

This simple explanation is repudiated by powerful historical evidence, both old and new. Its proponents mistakenly base their conclusions on the situation in Vietnam during the 1950’s and early 1960’s and ignore the changing course of the war (notably, the increasing success of President Richard Nixon’s Vietnamization strategy) and the evolution of South Vietnamese society (in particular the introduction of agrarian reforms).

For all the claims of popular support for the Vietcong insurgency, far more South Vietnamese peasants fought on the side of Saigon than on the side of Hanoi. The Vietcong were basically defeated by the beginning of 1972, which is why the North Vietnamese launched a huge conventional offensive at the end of March that year. During the Easter Offensive of 1972 – at the time the biggest campaign of the war – the South Vietnamese Army was able to hold onto every one of the 44 provincial capitals except Quang Tri, which it regained a few months later. The South Vietnamese relied on American air support during that offensive.

If the United States had provided that level of support in 1975, when South Vietnam collapsed in the face of another North Vietnamese offensive, the outcome might have been at least the same as in 1972. But intense lobbying of Congress by the antiwar movement, especially in the context of the Watergate scandal, helped to drive cutbacks of American aid in 1974. Combined with the impact of the world oil crisis and inflation of 1973-74, the results were devastating for the south. As the triumphant North Vietnamese commander, Gen. Van Tien Dung, wrote later, President Nguyen Van Thieu of South Vietnam was forced to fight “a poor man’s war.”

Even Hanoi’s main patron, the Soviet Union, was convinced that a North Vietnamese military victory was highly unlikely. Evidence from Soviet Communist Party archives suggests that, until 1974, Soviet military intelligence analysts and diplomats never believed that the North Vietnamese would be victorious on the battlefield. Only political and diplomatic efforts could succeed. Moscow thought that the South Vietnamese government was strong enough to defend itself with a continuation of American logistical support. The former Soviet chargé d’affaires in Hanoi during the 1970’s told me in Moscow in late 1993 that if one looked at the balance of forces, one could not predict that the South would be defeated. Until 1975, Moscow was not only impressed by American military power and political will, it also clearly had no desire to go to war with the United States over Vietnam. But after 1975, Soviet fear of the United States dissipated.

During the war the Soviets despised their North Vietnamese “friends” (the term of confidential bureaucratic reference, rather than “comrades”). Indeed, Henry A. Kissinger’s accounts of his dealings, as Nixon’s national security adviser, with President Thieu are models of respect when compared with the bitter Soviet accounts of their difficulties with their counterparts.

In secret internal reports, Hanoi-based Soviet diplomats regularly complained about the deceitfulness of the North Vietnamese, who concealed strategic planning from their more powerful patron. In a 1972 report to Moscow, the Soviet ambassador even complained that although Marshal Pavel Batitsky, commander of the Soviet Air Defense Forces, had visited Hanoi earlier that year and completed a major military aid agreement, North Vietnamese leaders did not inform him of the imminent launch date of their Easter Offensive.

What is also clear from Soviet archival sources is that those who believed that North Vietnam had more than national unification on its mind were right: Its leaders were imbued with a sense of their ideological mission – not only to unify Vietnam under Communist Party rule, but also to support the victory of Communists in other nations. They saw themselves as the outpost of world revolution in Southeast Asia and desired to help Communists in Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and elsewhere.

Soviet archives show that after the war ended in 1975, with American power in retreat, Hanoi used part of its captured American arsenal to support Communist revolutions around the world. In 1980 some of these weapons were shipped via Cuba to El Salvador. This dimension of Vietnamese behavior derived from a deep commitment to the messianic internationalism of Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Vietnam today is not the North Vietnam of 1955, 1965 or 1975. Like post-Mao China it has retreated from totalitarianism to authoritarianism. It has reformed its economy and its foreign policy to become more integrated into the world. But those changes were not inevitable and would not necessarily have occurred had Mikhail Gorbachev not ascended to power in Moscow, and had the Soviet Union and its empire not collapsed. Nor would these changes necessarily have occurred had China not provided a new cultural model for Vietnam to follow, as it has for centuries.

Precisely because Vietnam has changed for the better, we need to recognize what a profoundly ideological and aggressive totalitarian regime we faced three, four and five decades ago. And out of respect for the evidence of history, we need to recognize what happened in the 1970’s and why.

In 1974-75, the United States snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Hundreds of thousands of our Vietnamese allies were incarcerated, and more than a million driven into exile. The awesome image of the United States was diminished, and its enemies were thereby emboldened, drawing the United States into new conflicts by proxy in Afghanistan, Africa and Latin America. And the bitterness of so many American war veterans, who saw their sacrifices so casually demeaned and unnecessarily squandered, haunts American society and political life to this day.

Stephen J. Morris, a fellow at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, is writing a book on the Vietnam War in the Nixon years.

Posted in Vietnam | 11 Replies

Looking like a thug

The New Neo Posted on May 5, 2005 by neoMay 5, 2005

Sometimes when an ordinary, garden-variety murderer is caught (or even a more-than-garden variety serial killer, such as Ted Bundy), I am struck by how normal he looks. Normal, as in “you would pass him on the street and not suspect a thing,” or even attractive, as in the aforementioned Bundy. It proves the truth that Shakespeare wrote so long ago: one can smile and smile and be a villain.

I flatter myself sometimes that if I actually looked into the eyes of such a person, I would see a deadness there that is said to be a giveaway. But that may only be wishful thinking on my part; it’s sobering to think that perhaps these people are simply undetectable by such means.

But those terrorists do seem to be something else, don’t they? Oh, not all of them, surely (in fact, I always think that Bin Laden himself looks rather genial and calm)–but many of them do seem to look exactly like what we would imagine such evil (yes, it is the appropriate word) should look. Mohammad Atta, of course, was one. And Al Libbi, the recent capture in Pakistan, is most definitely another. Take a look.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 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

  • FOAF on Rubio the seer, circa 2015
  • TJ Olson on Open thread 3/5/2026
  • FOAF on Another roundup
  • HC68 on Our intrepid allies: Spain, Britain, Germany, and France
  • HC68 on Another roundup

Recent Posts

  • Another roundup
  • Rubio the seer, circa 2015
  • Our intrepid allies: Spain, Britain, Germany, and France
  • Open thread 3/5/2026
  • If it bleeds, it leads – especially if it makes the US or Israel look bad

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 (564)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (510)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (11)
  • Election 2028 (3)
  • Evil (126)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (998)
  • 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 (698)
  • Immigration (425)
  • Iran (391)
  • Iraq (223)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (782)
  • Jews (411)
  • Language and grammar (357)
  • Latin America (199)
  • Law (2,879)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,269)
  • Liberty (1,095)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (386)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,463)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (902)
  • Middle East (380)
  • Military (304)
  • Movies (342)
  • Music (522)
  • Nature (253)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (176)
  • Obama (1,735)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (126)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,014)
  • Poetry (255)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,764)
  • Pop culture (392)
  • Press (1,608)
  • Race and racism (857)
  • Religion (409)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (621)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (964)
  • Theater and TV (263)
  • Therapy (67)
  • Trump (1,569)
  • Uncategorized (4,321)
  • Vietnam (108)
  • Violence (1,390)
  • War and Peace (952)

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
↑