The leaked Trump audio recording

The New Neo Posted on by

By now you’ve probably read about the leaked audio from 2021 in which Trump discusses some documents he has that are supposedly classifed. Here’s a sampler of varied opinions: this from Andrea Widburg, this from William Jacobson, and this at RedState.

And here are my own questions and observations:

Was the audio edited in any relevant or misleading way, or not?

Who leaked it, and will there ever be repercussions for that? That last part is a rhetorical question, because I strongly believe the answer is ‘no.”

What is the meaning of the auido? I’m pretty sure that those who leaked it want you to think it’s some sort of smoking gun against Trump. And William Jacobson, whose opinion I respect, thinks the audio indicates that Trump was lying in his statements about the documents during his recent Bret Baier interview. I somewhat disagree; this may be the case, but I think there are possible explanations that don’t involve lying. An audio can’t indicate what a certain paper says unless it’s read or specifically described, as in “This paper I’m holding in my hand is classified and contains….”, nor can an audio show what was done with that paper unless you have people saying something like, “Wow! Now that I’m reading this paper on [whatever], I see that it indicates….” Nothing of that sort seems to be on the audio, although prosecutors certainly can claim it proves the document was classified and shown to others.

But I also think that, even if there are such benign explanations (for example, the paper or papers in question weren’t classified after all; Trump actually showed them to no one in a way that they could be read), those things may not matter in the court of law – or in the court of public opinion, which is the court to which the leakers are playing at the moment.

The reason they’re doing all of this – the leaks and the indictment – is twofold:

(1) To distract from Biden’s corruption and cognitive decline.
(2) To elevate Trump in the primaries by causing a backlash on the right that leads to his nomination, and to taint him further in the general.

And I believe that it’s highly possible that voters on the right will fall into that trap, although I hope they won’t.

I also will reiterate that I think Trump has shown poor judgment since he had COVID in October of 2020. I’m not sure what that’s about, but I’ve noticed it and noticed it.

Merrick Garland: criticize the DOJ and you’re attacking democracy

The New Neo Posted on by

From Garland:

“I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department and its components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike,” Garland said. “This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, and essential to the safety of the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

No, it constitutes a criticism of that institution, which is not the same as an attack – a word with tremendous emotional valence. Surely Garland understands the difference, and he understands that blurring the two is what really undermines American democracy, or more accurately the American republic.

When an essential institution goes bad, that undermines the principles on which this country is based. Such institutions are not above criticism; au contraire. They must be criticized when criticism is warranted. And in this case there’s plenty of evidence making the criticism valid.

All the outraged huffing and puffing, and declarations from Garland himself that the accusations aren’t true, do not change that fact. They only reinforce it.

Food for thought from William Blake

The New Neo Posted on by

William Blake was a unique poet and artist. I don’t think he fits into any category except “mystical visionary” and probably “some sort of genius.”

Many people are aware of his poem “The Tyger,” but he wrote a great deal more than that, and I’ve delved into a fair amount of it. And then there are his engravings, which are phenomenal.

Last night I came across Blake’s poem “I Saw a Monk of Charlemaine,” which I’d never read before (written some time around 1800). This particular stanza caught my eye:

The hand of Vengeance sought the bed
To which the purple tyrant fled;
The iron hand crush’d the tyrant’s head,
And became a tyrant in his stead.

There’s no question this sometimes happens, probably far more often than not. Is it inevitable, though? And does it matter whether the motive for “crushing the tyrant’s head” is vengeance or something more lofty?

One thing I’ve observed is that those who have “crushed the tyrant’s head” most always either think that their own motives are pure or pretend that their motives are pure.

Vivek in Sioux City, by “Cornhead”

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a post by commenter “Cornhead”, who went last week to see Vivek Ramaswamy speak and answer questions from the audience. Cornhead – aka David Begley – was impressed, writing that the appearance featured “intensely interesting and intellectually thrilling dialogue.”

I don’t see Vivek as having a chance for the GOP nomination. But he’s clearly a very intelligent guy.

Roundup!

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) This theory (from commenter “mkent”) about about what was happening with the Russian “coup” is as good as any and better than many.

But the jury is still out on what will happen to Prigozhin.

(2) FINA – the international swimming federation – demonstrates some sense about trans athletes:

The governing body of international competitive swimming announced a policy that will only allow athletes who’ve transitioned before the age of 12 [or Tanner Stage 2 of puberty; also see this] to take part in any of the elite international swimming competitions…

“Without eligibility standards based on biological sex or sex-linked traits, we are very unlikely to see biological females in finals, on podiums, or in championship positions,” read the statement in part.

The policy also includes a proposal for a new open competition category, which athletes “would be able to compete without regard to their sex, their legal gender or their gender identity.”

FINA cited coming to the decision after consulting with scientists and policy makers, but the policy still sent shockwaves throughout the world of swimming and beyond. USA Wrestling and the International Rugby League have already followed suit and announced similar policies and other governing bodies are likely to follow suit.

Good. It’s complete common sense, but of course the trans activists and trans women in sports who are actually biological males, such as Lia Thomas, are yelling discrimination.

(3) Kevin McCarthy supports “expunging” Trump’s impeachments.

(4) McCarthy also says now is not the time to impeach Biden:

At Wednesday’s closed door meeting, McCarthy argued that Republicans should let committee investigations play out and warning that jumping to impeachment now could threaten their slim majority, the sources said. The speaker noted that House Republicans have taken back the House five times in the last 100 years, and two of those times lost the majority the next cycle.

“What majority do we want to be,” McCarthy asked his conference, according to a source in the room “Give it right back in two years or hold it for a decade and make real change?”

In addition, the impeachment of Biden would have no chance for conviction in the Senate. That didn’t stop the Democrat with Trump, though. And apparently, with the slim GOP margin in the House, it might not even pass the House because some GOP members are in very purple districts. That’s what McCarthy means about the possibility that this would hurt the GOP in the 2024 election.

I’m not sure what I think about this. I’m somewhat in agreement with McCarthy here, but with one caveat: perhaps impeachment hearings would draw more attention to the charges against Biden than they are currently getting. However, knowing the MSM, maybe not – and whatever press they would get would distort them and turn it into “mean Republicans pounce!”. What’s more, I don’t think most people watch any hearings, and I think the ones who do watch them tend to have their minds made up already.

(5) Fox News has solidified its weekday prime time lineup. I generally don’t watch TV news anyway, nor am I pleased with Fox’s cancellation of Tucker Carlson, so I won’t be watching for the most part.

Mr. Rogers has a message from 52 years ago about boys and girls

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m too old to have watched Mr. Rogers as a child. But as I watched him forty years ago with my own child, I found some of his messages a little obscure. For example, there was the song that follows, which I thought unnecessary at the time. What did “fancy” mean in this context, and why did kids need reassurance about remaining boys or remaining girls?

I have come to think of the song as both important and prescient. Perhaps Fred Rogers was merely concerned at the time with castration anxiety in kids, or something of that sort. The idea that “some are fancy on the outside” and some “on the inside” seems to be a cute-ish way of referring to boys and girls, respectively. The message is of body integrity, goodness, and wholeness, about which today’s children probably need a ton of reassurance. Unfortunately, they’re not watching Mr. Rogers anymore.

If he were to sing this song today, he’d probably be banned. I’m surprised it’s still up on YouTube. Pay particular attention to the second verse:

Now we have “educational” tools such as this workbook for ages starting with five. From one of the negative reviews of the book (most are positive, by the way):

If your child wasn’t confused before he/she will be after going through this “workbook.” Perpetuates gender stereotypes & full of leading questions.

That’s the point, isn’t it?

A few of the many activity titles: Breaking Out of the Binary, My Space In the Spectrum, Is Social Transition Right for Me? And here’s a quote from the first activity:

When babies are born, one of the first things people want to know is, “Is it a girl?” or “Is it a boy?” It’s like people need to know the answer to these questions before they know how to think or feel about another person. Some people think if they know the sex of a person, they know the gender of a person. They believe those two words mean the same thing. Nope. No. Wrongo!

The label of “boy” or “girl” given to a baby at birth and a person’s gender are two different things, and for some people the two are quite different. This might sound complicated, but knowing your own gender can be rather simple. Most importantly, each person has the right to know and declare their own gender. You are the expert when it comes to your gender!

There are almost undoubtedly plenty more books of this sort, gently introducing young children to the idea that body-mind duality is the norm, that body and mind (and soul, which isn’t mentioned) are not in unity but are completely separate, and that a young child is the expert on this – once that child has looked at the workbook, preferably, but possibly even before.

Later on we get this:

People have a mistaken belief that having a penis means you are a boy and having a vulva means you are a girl…The truth is that bodies come in many forms and lots of children don’t fit the mold.

Little children have no way to refute this mendacious propaganda. Actually, sex is not determined only by these two things, penis or vulva (and by the way, “vulva” is an anatomically incorrect word for this purpose because it only refers to the external female genitalia), although those things are an excellent guide in 99.98% of cases. The number of intersex people is vanishingly small (true prevalence is .018%, despite activists’ attempts to artificially inflate those numbers by redefining non-intersex conditions as intersex). And we know a great deal about what causes such conditions and even in the vast majority of those cases are able to discern the person’s actual biological sex, male or female. The system is binary and the existence of very rare cases that are a bit confusing initially has nothing to do with the binary fact of human sexual dimorphism.

Joe Biden for Father of the Year

The New Neo Posted on by

And I suppose you could add Grandpa of the Year.

From Nicholas Kristof comes this astonishing thought:

Even for a toady like Kristof that’s pretty astounding. And the photo that accompanies it – with Hunter’s vacant eyes staring into space – is the perfect illlustration.

From the replies:

How exactly did he tackle his son’s addiction? Other than to set him up as a bagman for the family and then when caught bail him out to retain his silence all while helping him ignore his responsibilities as a father to a child he despises.

Hunter Biden is 53 years old. He’s Joe’s child but hardly a child, and of the age when addictions often have faded away of their own accord, especially after they’ve taken a huge toll. Hunter Biden was an addict for several decades, most of his adult life. During that time no intervention – although the family tried quite a few, plus rehab stints for Hunter – worked. At some point, though, Hunter apparently got clean (that’s the claim, anyway, and it certainly may be true), but that was quite recently and it’s not the least bit clear why it happened. My guess is that it had more to do with age and burnout than anything else.

I’ve noticed that Kristof isn’t the only one trying to frame the Hunter Biden saga as being a case of those mean old Republicans exploiting a family tragedy in the face of a family’s noble efforts to save a wayward but beloved and sensitive son. See for example this.

But, of course, Hunter’s addiction is actually not the issue for the right. I think anyone can sympathize with a family having a member who is addicted to alcohol and/or drugs for a long time. The issue is what crimes Hunter committed, as well as what advantages he got without earning them, and what money he funneled to others leveraging his position as Joe Biden’s son, and what the Bidens gave those people in return for the dough.

More fog of war from Russia

The New Neo Posted on by

Churchill on Russia in 1939: a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.

The larger quote: “I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”

At any rate, the riddle-mystery-enigma part seems to be panning out, and that’s why I have no idea who – if anyone – is making intelligent predictions about what will happen in Russia, or in Ukraine for that matter.

So I’ll just observe that this latest news may represent an indication that the incident will blow over with some sort of accommodation:

Fighters loyal to Russia’s Wagner mercenary group will stop their advance towards Moscow to avoid a devastating civil conflict, the group’s leader Yevgeny Prigozhin said on Saturday.

In a voice recording posted to his Telegram channel, Prigozhin said his troops had got within 200 kilometers of Moscow in a single day, but that they would now stand down.

“During this time we did not spill a single drop of blood of our fighters,” he said. “Taking responsibility for the fact that Russian blood will be shed — on one side — we will turn our columns around and go in the opposite direction to field camps, according to the plan,” he said.

Moments earlier, Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko issued a statement claiming he held talks with the outspoken oligarch throughout the day.

“As a result, they came to agreements on the inadmissibility of unleashing a bloody massacre on the territory of Russia,” the message from his office read.

Was is a bluff? Some sort of theater? Were there concessions, and if so on whose part? Will this pause continue? Will there be any reshuffling of power?

Will the fog ever clear?