What to do about the Smiley Martins of the world?

The New Neo Posted on by

Six people were murdered Sunday in Sacramento:

Sacramento police say that two groups of men began firing at each other in Sunday’s shooting downtown and that at least five shooters were involved in what authorities are now saying was a gang dispute that left six people dead and 12 wounded. “Evidence in the case indicates that at least five shooters fired guns during the shooting, and that an exchange of gunfire took place between at least two groups of men,” police said in an announcement Wednesday. “As detectives continue to identify shooters and weapons involved, the number of identified shooters may grow beyond five…

Law enforcement sources have been saying since Monday that the incident appeared to be a shootout between rival factions rather than the “mass shooting” that officials initially described in the wake of the 2 a.m. shooting that occurred near 10th and K streets as downtown bars were closing and large crowds were emptying out into the streets.

One of the involved men who was wounded, Smiley Martin, is being charged with multiple gun violations. He has been a criminal since his 18th birthday (my guess is that he was involved with the juvenile justice system prior to that, but those records are not available to the public):

Smiley Allen Martin, the second man arrested after Sunday’s mass shooting in Sacramento that killed six, has a criminal record stretching to 2013 and last year was the subject of a plea by Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert’s office that he not win early release from prison, where he was serving a 10-year sentence for domestic violence and assault with great bodily injury. Despite a two-page letter to the Board of Parole Hearings urging that Martin remain in custody, he won his release and was in Sacramento on Saturday night recording himself on a Facebook Live video brandishing a handgun hours before the shooting…

He faces charges of possession of a machine gun and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. A law enforcement source confirmed the machine gun is a handgun that was found at the scene Sunday that had been converted to be capable of firing as an automatic weapon.

He’s a violent career criminal, whether or not he was responsible for the deaths on Sunday. I have no idea whether any sort of three strikes law would have applied to him. But it’s certainly crystal clear that California’s strict gun laws had zero effect:

So what we have here are two prohibited persons with stolen firearms (that’s illegal) one of whom had a machine gun (against the law). They allegedly opened fire on a crowd of people (also illegal) killing six (we’re sure there’s a law against that, too). It’s almost as if criminals don’t give a flying fornication about gun laws…or any other kind, come to think of it…

…[T]he President was handed a note with the administration’s rote talking points on the topic . . .

“We also continue to call on Congress to act. Ban ghost guns. Require background checks for all gun sales. Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability. Pass my budget proposal, which would give cities more of the funding they need to fund the police and fund the crime prevention and intervention strategies that can make our cities safer. These are just a few of the steps Congress urgently needs to take to save lives.”

Apparently no one in the White House is aware that California already has the first four items on Uncle Joe’s wishlist in place. They have for years. Yet those laws did literally nothing to keep a gun out of the hands of a pair of recidivist felons.

It’s obvious that criminals know how to get guns, and they know how to use them, and that gun control laws are a joke to them.

You may have noticed…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that I’m back to blogging more in real time now rather than just pre-scheduled posts from before my surgery. I plan to take it a bit slower for a while, although it really depends on how I feel.

Also, I’m out west. So the posting may be skewed somewhat later in time. I’m usually a latish poster anyway, so any change may not be all that noticeable. I’m probably going to stay out here a few more weeks.

My eye is still pretty much as it was yesterday, which definitely represents an improvement over about the last ten years. For those of you who didn’t see my original posts about my eye surgery, I had a cataract in my left eye removed. But I also had a great deal of scar tissue in that eye, probably from a previous surgery although no one knows exactly. It pinned down much of the lens, which had adhered to it, and therefore presented the doctor with an unusual and significantly more challenging task. This was all known in advance. I plan to write a longer post about that at some point.

It occurs to me that Elon Musk is somewhat the anti-Soros

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that Musk has become the largest shareholder in Twitter, it seems he has plans to change some things:

Elon Musk filed a new disclosure on his Twitter Inc. stake with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday, admitting that he invested in the company with the goal of effecting change and that his stock purchases began months ago.

Musk disclosed Monday morning that he had purchased 9.2% of Twitter’s TWTR, -0.88% outstanding stock, but he did so on a 13G form suggesting the investment was passive, meaning he would not seek change at the company. Tuesday afternoon, he filed a form 13D, more often used by activist investors, that detailed an agreement the Tesla Inc. TSLA, -3.93% chief executive has reached with the social-media company that was disclosed by Twitter earlier in the day.

More here:

Now, it is becoming more clear why Musk did not officially declare passive status, as if his intense passion about how Twitter should be run, his recent outcry about free speech, and his frustration that right-wing zealots have been banned didn’t make that clear enough.

“They know he can buy the whole company,” Ives said. “It’s rare that someone has $300 billion in cash or net worth. That’s why they did that. If they didn’t embrace it, he would just go and buy another 10 % and get more and more control.”

Musk has already shown how he can agitate for change at the company. He recently asked his 80 million-plus followers whether they wanted an edit feature on Twitter. In late March, he had asked whether or not Twitter adheres to free speech, leading right-wing users to clamor for Musk to reinstate the banned Donald Trump to the platform. Users responded with a resounding no to the free-speech question, and a yes to an edit feature.

“Right-wing zealots” – how is that defined, exactly? That’s sarcasm on my part, because of course it’s not defined exactly.

And sacré blue, an edit feature!

We’ll see what happens with Trump and Twitter.

But back to my original contention about Musk being the anti-Soros – as in matter and anti-matter. Soros is supposedly worth 8 billion dollars and is heavily involved in political change, in recent years most particularly changing (that is, destroying, IMHO) our criminal justice system with so-called “Soros DAs,” whom he sponsors and promotes with large donations of money. Musk makes Soros look like a piker, with Musk’s net worth estimated to be somewhere near 300 billion (mostly in stocks, though).

Soros was born in Hungary in 1930 and became a US citizen in 1961. Musk was born in South Africa in 1971 and became a US citizen in 2002, making an interesting parallel in the age at which they both became citizens. They are on different sides of the political spectrum, but Musk does not identify as being on the right:

Politically, Musk has described himself as “half Democrat, half Republican” and “I’m somewhere in the middle, socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” In 2018, he stated that he was “not a conservative. I’m registered independent [and] politically moderate.”

My sense of things is that he leans more to the libertarian side of things, although not the fanatical libertarian side. As such, it makes sense that his Twitter dealings have as a goal the expansion of freedom of expression there.

Here’s more from Musk:

Musk has described the United States as “[inarguably] the greatest country that has ever existed on Earth,” describing it as “the greatest force for good of any country that’s ever been.” Musk believes democracy would not exist any longer if not for the United States, saying that it prevented this disappearance on three occasions through its participation in World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Musk also stated that he thinks “it would be a mistake to say the United States is perfect, it certainly is not. There have been many foolish things the United States has done and bad things the United States has done.”

In September 2021, in response to Texas Governor Greg Abbott saying that Musk supported Texas’ “social policies”, Musk tweeted “In general, I believe government should rarely impose its will upon the people, and, when doing so, should aspire to maximize their cumulative happiness” and “That said, I would prefer to stay out of politics

His opinions re Trump have been somewhat mixed. He’s also on record as being against short-selling, whereas Soros is one of the leading and most successful practitioners of short-selling (see this). There’s tons more about Musk’s politics at this link.

Whatever is going on, the left isn’t happy about Musk and Twitter.

Update on my surgery, the day after

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s been a bit of a roller coaster ride today, but starting this afternoon things have been good with my operated eye (knock wood). I’m going to do a bit of computer work now but not too much. At some point I plan to tell the longer story, but not tonight.

Once more, thanks to you all for your prayers and good wishes!

“Politics is downstream from culture”

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Frederick” asked an interesting question:

[Breitbart said] “Politics is downstream from culture.”

Was he right about this? Take CRT for example. How did people who hold CRT views accumulate so much political power when they are such a tiny minority? They didn’t take over the culture, win elections, and THEN impose CRT when everyone agreed with them. Same with some of these other issues like men competing in women’s sports. Only a very tiny minority of the culture has this huge and outsized political influence. How is this happening if it’s like Breitbart said?

I think it is as Breitbart said, except that it depends what is meant by “culture.” I don’t think culture necessarily means majority culture. It can mean culture within a certain institution. For example, take CRT, which began as an academic formulation. Academia is a subgroup that is very atypical, where quite some time ago the left got a large toehold and then kept expanding until it dominated the culture of academia. Once that happened – combined with a technique of threats, which I’ll get to in a minute – it became a powerful group able to impose its will on the others and eager to impose its will on the others, and then to spread outward into society – into the larger culture.

The spread was accomplished through education rather than persuasion of the population as a whole. Once believers in the value of CRT and its corollaries began to dominate education schools, school boards in many localities, and trainings for businesses and government, they could reach a lot of people. The way this was all accomplished was through a simple threat: the threat of calling those who disagreed racists and bigots.

And that’s where the larger culture was important. Beginning some time in the 60s, by my estimation, being called a racist began to be just about the most dreaded epithet in the world, something people would bend over backwards to avoid. Obama used the threat in fairly subtle but nevertheless powerful ways during his campaign (see this). The false charge was used to torpedo the Tea Party movement. It’s used against the GOP as a whole. It’s in the false Charlottesville narrative against Trump, and that narrative is what Biden led with when he began his campaign.

I could go on and on with examples, but I doubt I have to convince you of the power of accusing people of bigotry. And it is that that became an integral part of the culture and of politics: the idea that bigots were everywhere in the US and that America continues to be a highly racist country. Many people and institutions would do almost anything to deflect that charge. It gave the accusers tremendous power over the culture – at least, until now.

The second example Frederick gave – men who identify as trans women competing in women’s sports – is only slightly different, because it rests on the same foundation: the accusation that those who oppose it are bigots.

I believe that there are signs that the left has taken this about as far as they can, and that people have seen the “racist” and “bigot” accusations used so often and in such absurd ways that the epithets have lost some of their power and people are willing to defy those who would label them that way. In turn, I see this change affecting certain political areas – the Virginia governor race, for example, and later the school board elections in San Francisco. Whether this is the start of a trend that will spread I don’t know, but I think it began with another cultural change: race card fatigue on the part of the public.

I’m back from surgery

The New Neo Posted on by

The cataract was removed successfully, the surgeon seemed satisfied, and now I’m taking it easy. My vision is still funky, but it’s very early yet and the next few days will tell the tale.

Many many thanks for all your good wishes.

A trip back in time: December 9, 2019, the Biden campaign

The New Neo Posted on by

I think Joe Biden owes this guy an apology. So does Time magazine.

He’ll never get one from either of them.

This is the sort of thing I’m talking about (dateline 12/9/19):

Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a tense exchange with a man during a campaign stop in Iowa…[T]he man told the 77-year-old candidate he believed him to be too old to become President.

Fancy that. Fancy that. Why, the nerve of that man! But Joe told him:

“Look, the reason I’m running is because I’ve been around a long time and I know more than most people know and I can get things done,” Biden responded.

And I suppose that’s true. Biden has gotten things done, and in record time. They’re just all the wrong things.

Then Biden challenged him to a physical contest, including pushups. But the exchange wasn’t over:

Biden’s comment was part of a larger exchange that also included the man claiming Biden “sent” his son to work in Ukraine, and accusing the former Vice President of “selling access to the President.”

Now, where did this man get that crazy idea? After all, Hunter’s laptop contents hadn’t yet been revealed, then covered up, and then discovered again. But Joe had a ready answer:

Biden responded by calling the man “a damn liar,” adding “no one has ever said that.”

No one. Ever.

More:

President Trump is currently facing a House impeachment inquiry over claims that he withheld aid to Ukraine while pressuring the country to investigate the Bidens.

Ah yes. Trump was impeached for that. Astounding to look back and reflect on it.

This is what the august Time had to say about the accusation:

Although Biden’s son Hunter Biden did hold a position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, claims about corruption have been debunked.

Utterly and totally debunked. Debunked debunked debunked….

The Gulf of Tonkin hoax: or was it?

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve noticed quite a few recent references to the Gulf of Tonkin incident that occurred during the Vietnam era. The Gulf of Tonkin is treated as though we all know the story: the government lied to get us into a war.

But did you ever wonder why you believe that was a hoax, besides the fact that it’s something “everybody knows” was a hoax? It’s based on the Pentagon Papers, right?

Did you ever read the Pentagon Papers? The actual Pentagon Papers? I discussed that topic long ago (in 2006), but I think it’s time for a repeat of some of it (unfortunately, the first link in the quote is dead):

A fascinating piece on the subject of war coverage by the MSM–both then and now–was written by James Q. Wilson and appeared recently in the Wall Street Journal. Take a look at this, on the Papers:

“Journalist Edward Jay Epstein has shown that in crucial respects, the Times coverage was at odds with what the documents actually said. The lead of the Times story was that in 1964 the Johnson administration reached a consensus to bomb North Vietnam at a time when the president was publicly saying that he would not bomb the north. In fact, the Pentagon papers actually said that, in 1964, the White House had rejected the idea of bombing the north. The Times went on to assert that American forces had deliberately provoked the alleged attacks on its ships in the Gulf of Tonkin to justify a congressional resolution supporting our war efforts. In fact, the Pentagon papers said the opposite: there was no evidence that we had provoked whatever attacks may have occurred.

“In short, a key newspaper said that politicians had manipulated us into a war by means of deception. This claim, wrong as it was, was part of a chain of reporting and editorializing that helped convince upper-middle-class Americans that the government could not be trusted.”

In writing this post, I went back and read a few of the comments to my earlier Vietnam essays. I happened across this one, that deals with the very subject at hand: media coverage of the Pentagon Papers:

“The NYT and WaPo reporters (Neil Sheehan, et al) who provided a highly abridged (paraphrased and quoted) version [of the Pentagon Papers] to the public of that era (’71) distorted the originals in sundry and fundamental ways in order to imply or more directly state that Pres. Johnson and others employed deceptions at critical junctures in the conflict when in fact (as stated in the original document as well as the scaled down version) they did not. A specific example (and a critical one in that era) taken from Michael Lind’s Vietnam: The Necessary War:

“The June 14, ’71 NYT edition of their edited version of the Pentagon Papers indicates Pres. Johnson had virtually concluded his decision to initiate a bombing campaign against the North by Nov. 3, 1964. (If true this would have made Johnson out to be deceitful toward the American public at an early and critical stage in the conflict.) However the Pentagon Papers itself states: “… the President was not ready to approve a program of air strikes against North Vietnam, at least until the available alternatives could be carefully and thoroughly re-examined.” That quote, reflecting November, 1964 circumstances, can be located via a search in this section of the Pentagon Papers.

“This single distortion may not appear to be dramatic in and of itself, but there were other overt and more subtle distortions in the NYT’s and WaPo’s paraphrased versions of this document. In sum they always and consistently distorted the picture in a manner which eroded Pres. Johnson’s (and others) reputation, broadly characterizing him as being willfully deceitful; that general mischaracterization is what proved to be critical at the time rather than any single aspect of the paraphrased report.”

Some of what we think we know, or are even sure we know, are things that are false – or at least have a good chance of being false. It’s pretty easy to ascertain what the Pentagon Papers actually said – just read them. Problem is, they’re long, and most people haven’t read them (and that includes me). Most people base their point of view on the summaries provided by the MSM.

Sleeping Beauty over time

The New Neo Posted on by

I often complain about how ballet has lost much of its charm and art, sacrificed to ever more spectacular technique and tense gymnastics. The greatest of the olden-day dancers didn’t raise their legs as high, and didn’t perform as many turns, but they were more enjoyable to watch because they transcended the doing of steps and they conveyed the fluidity of dance. The greatest of the newer dancers – most of whom I don’t consider great, but others do – show off their poses and extensions (that’s a term for how high the leg lifts) but tend to ruin the line in the process. Who wants to see a 180-degree split in a tutu? Not me.

I think this video shows some of what I’m talking about. You can see a general decline (in my opinion anyway) from the fluid charm of the elegant Fonteyn and the effervescent Sizova in the first two clips, to a more stop-and-go and slightly static sort of movement (is that an oxymoron?) later in time – although the very last dancer does somewhat better than the ones in-between; and Cynthia Gregory, a dancer from the 70s whom I usually like, is somewhat miscast in this role because of her natural restraint and regalness.

The ballet is “Sleeping Beauty” – not one of my very favorites, but it’s good for illustrating what I’m talking about. The occasion is supposed to be the 16th birthday celebration of Princess Aurora, and this is her first entrance. These dancers aren’t 16, of course, but their art is supposed to aid them in suggesting the innocent and radiant joy and energy of a 16-year-old.

Note particularly what Fonteyn does between minutes 1:42 and 2:17. The steps are simple, but it’s the use of the arms and upper body that is so magical (unfortunately the film quality is blurry). Sizova’s clip starts at 2:41, and you can see her amazingly light and airy jump. Her arms movements are more simple for that same portion I called attention to with Fonteyn, though; you can view Sizova’s version from 3:56 to 4:16: