Joe’s disastrous interview

The New Neo Posted on by

Apparently George Stephanopoulos was selected to administer the coup de grace to Biden by interviewing him:

Driving the news: In the 22-minute interview, Biden insisted he has the stamina to take on Trump and refused to take a cognitive test.

The president rejected polls indicating he’s trailing his Republican rival and minimized the extent to which his Democratic allies have pressured him to withdraw from the race.

And Biden made clear he’s not dropping out: “If the Lord Almighty came down and said ‘Joe, get out of the race,’ I’d get out of the race. The Lord Almighty’s not coming down.”…

Another House Democrat said their colleagues feel Biden’s interview was “not impressive” and that “he’s toast” in November.
Said a third: “The interview hardly inspires confidence. It changes nothing.”

A fourth House Democrat said they were “shocked” by Biden’s “refusal to recognize reality” in terms of polling and his “failure to make an argument about why he wants a second term.”

But that’s not new. If they say it is, they’re either lying or have been in flagrant denial equal to that of Joe Biden. What’s going on is that they’re perceiving the Biden ship as sinking, and some of the rats are leaving. Others are staying and praising Biden.

Those quotes were from an Axios article, but here’s a description from RedState, with the following quote:

Biden has exhibited that sort of bluster and denial for his whole career. In fact, he’s been far more out of touch with reality and full of exaggerations and BS than Trump, although the left usually concentrates on the latter and ignores the former.

And then there’s the “now it can be told” Parkinson’s question:

A top Washington D.C. neurologist had a meeting with President Biden’s personal doctor at the White House earlier this year, visitor logs reviewed by The Post show.

Dr. Kevin Cannard, a Parkinson’s disease expert at Walter Reed Medical Center, met with Dr. Kevin O’Connor, and two others at the White House residence clinic on Jan. 17, according to the records, which emerge as questions continue to swirl about the 81-year-old president’s mental health in the wake of his debate debacle last week with former President Trump.

This may or may not have any significance. But I’ve long thought that Biden has Parkinson’s. The slow and jerky gait, the fogginess, the masklike expression, the balance problems. These are all symptoms of Parkinson’s (I know, because I am very close to two people with it and have read a great deal about it). It doesn’t necessarily mean he has it, however. But it certainly is a good possibility. One of things things about Parkinson’s is that there’s no definitive test for it. Doctors who are experienced in the field go by the symptoms. And if you think Biden can’t have it because he lacks a tremor, Parkinson’s doesn’t always involve that classic symptom.

Other hallmarks of Parkinson’s that are less well-known but very common are extreme fatigue. Biden certainly has that. And cognitive decline is, unfortunately, part of the Parkinson’s spectrum for many sufferers.

Trump wants another debate

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump says he wants another debate, this time with no moderators or rules. I say be careful what you wish for. I think he’s banking on the idea that the proposal won’t be accepted:

This won’t happen, of course. Whoever is pulling Joe Biden’s strings, and that is very likely (let’s say this quietly) Jill Biden, would never let befuddled old Joe anywhere near such an event. But watch for Trump to keep needling him over it, and to use the refusal as another data point for Biden’s manifestly obvious unfitness to serve.

But Joe has nowhere to go but up after the first debate. Maybe Trump should just leave it the way it is, with Biden’s revealing and embarrassing performance in that encounter.

Then again, Trump is a risk-taker.

But many people have observed that the rules and moderators in the first debate actually favored Trump in that they made him look more restrained and presidential. He didn’t need to torment Biden or browbeat him; just letting Biden talk was enough.

No, Biden’s mental decline was not hidden

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s the way it’s being framed, though. It was actually denied, and those who mentioned it were shunned and excoriated in an act of attempted gaslighting.

But the reality was that his decline was noticeable and was evident even in 2020. The left believes it can deny reality, however:

A new bombshell report from New York Magazine exposes with incredibly shocking detail how Biden’s health struggles have been kept secret by many who have gotten close to him. The report, headlined “The Conspiracy of Silence to Protect Joe Biden,” includes longtime Biden family friends and associates who have decided to speak out after months of denial.

Why are they speaking out now? Because reality became undeniable.

More from the New York Magazine report:

Uniformly, these people were of a similar social strata. They lived and socialized in Washington, New York, and Los Angeles. They did not wish to come forward with their stories. They did not want to blow a whistle. They wished that they could whistle past what they knew and emerge in November victorious and relieved, having helped avoid another four years of Trump. What would happen after that? They couldn’t think that far ahead. Their worries were more immediate.

When they discussed what they knew, what they had seen, what they had heard, they literally whispered. They were scared and horrified.

They thought they could fool the rubes and protect their own positions. It all came crashing down one week ago. They obviously also believed that anything – even an addled, confused, cognitive mess in the White House – was better than Trump. Talk about Trump derangement!

More:

“Those who encountered the president in social settings sometimes left their interactions disturbed. Longtime friends of the Biden family, who spoke to me on the condition of anonymity, were shocked to find that the president did not remember their names,” the report continued. “At a White House event last year, a guest recalled, with horror, realizing that the president would not be able to stay for the reception because, it was clear, he would not be able to make it through the reception.”

But none of this was a secret. It was evident that Biden was suffering from cognitive problems and even physical problems. The right has been discussing it since 2020 and the only disagreement on the right was whether he was utterly out of it or only halfway out of it. I’ve been in the latter camp – he’s halfway out of it – but he’s obviously obviously declined further in the last few months. And of course halfway out of it isn’t good enough.

The guest suddenly was in a position where he or she was no longer sure they could vote for Biden, and was now “open to an idea that they had previously dismissed as right-wing propaganda: The president may not really be the acting president after all.”

We supposedly have the 25th Amendment to deal with these situations. But in practice, it’s apparently difficult to invoke when people’s jobs depend on not upsetting the apple cart – and when there’s no politically viable replacement.

UK voters are angry at the Tories for not being conservative enough, so they give the left total power in a landslide

The New Neo Posted on by

I understand being angry. But this doesn’t appear to be the remedy. Then again, British politics is different from ours.

The polls indicated it was going to happen, and it did. Keir Starmer, the new PM, presented the party as a kinder, gentler version of itself:

“Is surely clear to everyone that our country needs a bigger reset, a rediscovery of who we are, because no matter how fierce the storms of history, one of the great strengths of this nation has always been our ability to navigate away to calmer waters.”

“This depends upon politicians, particularly those who stand for stability and moderation, as I do.”

“Whether you voted Labour or not, in fact, especially if you did not, I say to you directly, my government will serve you. Politics can be a force for good. We will show that.”

“My government will fight every day until you believe again.

I can see how that rhetoric would be appealing.

Fourth of July: on liberty

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post from many many years ago. It was written in the springtime during a visit to New York City. Reading it now, it seems almost archaic in certain ways.]

I’ve been visiting New York City, the place where I grew up. I decide to take a walk to the Promenade in Brooklyn Heights, never having been there before.

When you approach the Promenade you can’t really see what’s in store. You walk down a normal-looking street, spot a bit of blue at the end of the block, make a right turn–and, then, suddenly, there is the city.

And so it is for me. I take a turn, and catch my breath: downtown Manhattan rises to my left, seemingly close enough to touch, across the narrow East River. I see skyscrapers, piers, the orange-gold Staten Island ferry. In front of me, there are the graceful gothic arches of the Brooklyn Bridge. To my right, the back of some brownstones, and a well-tended and charming garden that goes on for a third of a mile.

I walk down the promenade looking first left and then right, not knowing which vista I prefer, but liking them both, especially in combination, because they complement each other so well.

All around me are people, relaxing. Lovers walking hand in hand, mothers pushing babies in strollers, fathers pushing babies in strollers, nannies pushing babies in strollers. People walking their dogs (a preponderance of pugs, for some reason), pigeons strutting and courting, tourists taking photos of themselves with the skyline as background, every other person speaking a foreign language.

The garden is more advanced in time than gardens where I live, reminding me that New York is really a southern city compared to New England. Daffodils, the startling blue of grape hyacinths, tulips in a rainbow of soft colors, those light-purple azaleas that are always the first of their kind, flowering pink magnolia and airy white dogwood and other blooming trees whose names I don’t know.

In the view to my left, of course, there’s something missing. Something very large. Two things, actually: the World Trade Center towers. Just the day before, we had driven past that sprawling wound, with its mostly-unfilled acreage where the WTC had once stood, now surrounded by fencing. Driving by it is like passing a war memorial and graveyard combined; the urge is to bow one’s head.

As I look at the skyline from the Promenade, I know that those towers are missing, but I don’t really register the loss visually. I left New York in the Sixties, never to live there again, returning thereafter only as occasional visitor. The World Trade Center was built in the early Seventies, so I never managed to incorporate it into that personal New York skyline of memory that I hold in my mind’s eye, even though I saw the towers on subsequent visits. So what I now see resembles nothing more than the skyline of my youth restored, a fact which seems paradoxical to me. But I feel the loss, even though I don’t see it. Viewing the skyline always has a tinge of sadness now, which it never had before 9/11.

I come to the end of the walkway and turn myself around to set off on the return trip. And, suddenly, the view changes. Now, of course, the garden is to my left and the city to my right; and the Brooklyn Bridge, which was ahead of me, is now behind me and out of sight. But now I can see for the first time, ahead of me and to the right, something that was behind me before. In the middle of the harbor, the pale-green Statue of Liberty stands firmly on its concrete foundation, arm raised high, torch in hand.

The sight is intensely familiar to me – I used to see it frequently when I was growing up. But I’ve never seen it from this angle before. She seems both small and gigantic at the same time: dwarfed by the skyscrapers near me that threaten to overwhelm her, but towering over the water that surrounds her on all sides. The eye is drawn to her distant, heroic figure. She’s been holding that torch up for so long, she must be tired. But still she stands, resolute, her arm extended.

NOTE: I was going to add a photo of the Statue of Liberty here. But instead I was very taken with a video about how the statue was constructed. I’d never previously thought about the challenges involved and how they were surmounted, but I learned about them here. And the video also caused me to reflect, and not for the first time, on how the forces arrayed against the US right now are good at destroying but not at building. Destroying is so much easier:

Merchan delays Trump sentencing

The New Neo Posted on by

Supposedly because of the SCOTUS immunity ruling, Trump’s sentencing in New York has been delayed till September 18.

But I wonder. My guess is that it has at least as much to do with waiting for the political picture to become more clear – especially on the Democrat side – and to see what might be the best way to handle Trump’s sentencing in light of politics.

The legal issue is that Trump was convicted in part on evidence involving what were arguably “official acts” of his as president.

RIP Liora Argamani

The New Neo Posted on by

Israeli hostage Noa Argamani’s mother Liora had terminal brain cancer when her daughter was viciously kidnapped from the NOVA concert and taken to Gaza. Noa was probably the most well-known hostage, because her horrific abduction and terrorized screams were photographed and broadcast around the world. Her mother Liora gave interviews and wrote to world leaders pleading for Noa’s safe return.

A little over three weeks after that return – not through a prisoner exchange but through a daring and dangerous Israeli rescue operation – Noa’s mother died. Here’s is what Noa said at her funeral:

“My mother, the best friend there is, the strongest and most beautiful person I’ve ever known. I’m standing here today and it’s still hard for me to accept it,” Noa said in front of a packed room. “Against all odds, I was privileged to be with you in your last moments and to hear your last words.

“Thank you for being strong and holding on so that I could see you at least one more time, and so that Dad wouldn’t be left alone,” she said. “Thank you for the 26 years I was privileged to spend by your side. I learned so much from you. You took me to travel around the world with you and made me the strong person I am today.

“The tools that you gave me as a child are tools I couldn’t have acquired anywhere else,” Noa continued. “Every time things were difficult, you pushed me forward. I promise you that I will continue to follow your path. I promise you that I will take care of Dad. I promise you that I will be strong just like you.”

I think Noa has already demonstrated remarkable strength, as did her mother. I’m glad her mother got to see her again, and hope that they were still able to communicate.

Noa Argamani has been through so much in her young life, and her boyfriend – abducted to Gaza at the same time as Noa – is still there. Whether he is dead or alive is unknown.

RIP, Liora Argamani.

On clogs – but not in clogs

The New Neo Posted on by

I found this ode to clogs years ago in the New Yorker.

I won’t be joining in, though. I’ve never been successful at wearing clogs, although I tried when I was young. They wrecked my feet, I think because I have naturally high insteps. I’m not sure, but for whatever reason, wearing them for more than a few minutes—and actually trying to walk around in them—caused pain. Besides, they weren’t that attractive, although they had a certain cachet.

I remember the first time I ever saw a clog on a human foot other than those wooden shoes on the Dutch in illustrations from children’s books. A friend of mine went off to an artsy college one year before me, and she came back with a micro-miniskirt and suede clogs. The clogs, if I recall correctly, were bright green, which sounds terrible but on her they looked tremendously cool and avant-garde, which they were at the time. No one else had anything of the sort, although not long after that everyone was sporting them (although not in kelly green). As the article says:

Boho-chic crowds of the early nineteen-seventies adopted the clog. The new iteration of the shoe had a leather upper and, often, an exaggerated heel that paired to marvellous effect with hot pants.

(By the way, what’s up with this Britishized spelling of “marvelous” in the New Yorker, of all places? Has New York relocated?)

My friend was nothing if not boho-chic (whatever that means—actually, she was Soho-chic before Soho even existed as a named entity), and she wore them with a miniskirt rather than hot pants, because she wore them years before the early 70s.

Over the years I’ve tried clogs now and then, but never bought another pair. I cannot understand how some people find them comfy. For me, I get the sense that if I were to persist in wearing them I’d end up like the original clog-wearers of Holland:

In the summer of 2011, a team of Dutch archeologists travelled to the village of Middenbeemster, a region best known for its medium-hard white cheese and whose church and adjoining cemetery were being relocated. The group noticed an unusual pattern in the bones of five hundred skeletons, mostly belonging to nineteenth-century Dutch dairy farmers: a preponderance of chips and craters localized in the bones of the feet. Some of the craters were the size of a jellybean, others as large as a piece of Hanukkah gelt, or even a plum. “It was as if chunks of bone had just been chiselled away,” an astonished-sounding Andrea Waters-Rist, Ph.D., one of the group’s co-leaders, said. Her team determined that the micro-traumas were associated with osteochondritis dissecans, a rare type of joint disorder that is linked to overuse or sustained shock. The academics concluded the source to be the rigors of working on the land, and, more specifically, doing so in klompen, the wooden clogs common to Dutch farmers of the time.

Klompen is a great word for them—because that’s what you do in clogs, you clomp.

NOTE: And yes, this post is much ado about nearly nothing. Sometimes you just have to take a short break from heaviness and go light.

They will not stop trying to get Trump

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: “Banned Lizard.”]

Not so fast, Trump, says the DOJ. Don’t think you’re home free if you’re elected president.

A WaPo report [my emphasis]:

Justice Department officials plan to pursue the criminal cases against Donald Trump past Election Day even if he wins, under the belief that department rules against charging or prosecuting a sitting president would not kick in until Inauguration Day in in January, according to people familiar with the discussions. …

The plan to continue filing motions, seeking court hearings, and potentially conducting a trial between Election Day and Inauguration Day underscores the highly unusual nature of prosecuting not just a former president, but also possibly a future one. In the months after winning election, a president-elect assumes some of the trappings of the office, such as more security and high-level briefings, but that person is not the commander in chief. …

“The Justice Department isn’t governed by the election calendar. Its prosecution of Trump is based on the law, the facts and the Justice Manual — the department’s bible that lays out the post-Watergate norms that have prevented it from being weaponized,” said Anthony Coley, a former Justice Department spokesman for Attorney General Merrick Garland who left the agency last year. “Until those norms change, or they’re ordered otherwise, I’d expect this Justice Department to be full speed ahead. And they should be.”

Of course. Perfectly normal behavior by the DOJ. Not the least bit weaponized against a political opponent, no sirree. And of course, it’s all about protecting “our democracy” – even against a newly elected president.

A bunch of power-mad, Trump-hatred-deranged, megalomaniacs.

Anyone looking at these developments and still believing that this group wouldn’t commit fraud to win an election is incredibly naive. The only question is whether they can succeed, not whether they would be willing to try their hardest.