Democrat infighting threatens to derail their transformative agenda – for now

The New Neo Posted on by

For once, Democrat infighting can’t be contained and Pelosi seems to have lost her iron grip on the group. I don’t trust it to be long-lasting, though, because the “moderate Democrat” has become mostly a myth, and the “progressives” (that is, the fanatic left) seem to be in control. But at the moment the party is somewhat stalemated:

If you’ve been following the saga surrounding the Joe Biden-backed $3.5 reconciliation bill, you know things aren’t going well. As RedState reported yesterday, Democrats have moved into a period of open civil war over the “Build Back Better” agenda and a bipartisan infrastructure bill, with progressives refusing to pass the latter unless they get the former.

The problem is that the progressives have no leverage, and having a 50/50 split in the Senate does not, in fact, give one party a broad mandate to completely transform the nation into a socialist paradise. Standing in the gap on the Democrat side for some semblance of sanity, Sen. Joe Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema find themselves facing an onslaught from the far-left of their own party…

Keep in mind that this “bipartisan infrastructure deal” was supported by every single Democrat senator just a month ago. But with the progressives over in the House calling the shots, the left is going to possibly nuke a bill that is full of their priorities, because they can’t get all of another bill that has even more of their priorities. If that sounds self-destructive, that’s because it is.

Is it just these two Democrat senators holding the line? Perhaps, but perhaps they’re providing cover for others (including House members) who don’t really want the more extreme bill passed because that would threaten their re-election chances. I have long been amazed at how often it is that Democrat members of Congress who hold themselves out to be moderate vote for whatever leftist bill the party puts in front of them. Could it be that this is an exception?

One more point – RedState author “Bonchie” writes that a “50/50 split in the Senate does not, in fact, give one party a broad mandate to completely transform the nation into a socialist paradise.” Of course it doesn’t, but since when have the Democrats cared about having a mandate? The only question is whether they have the power and therefore the means to wreak that transformation, not whether the people want it. If they don’t want it, it still may be possible to shove it down their throats.

Failure is an orphan: the generals testify on the Afghanistan withdrawal

The New Neo Posted on by

Generals Milley and MacKenzie testified yesterday that they told Biden that such a precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan was not recommended and would lead to disaster:

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services committee Tuesday, head of U.S. Central Command General Frank McKenzie confirmed that he initially recommended President Biden maintain 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, contradicting the president’s claim that the military unanimously recommended total withdrawal.

McKenzie also warned that a full withdrawal would lead inexorably to the collapse of the Afghan forces and government.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley, also present at the hearing, echoed McKenzie’s assertion, saying they both believed that a small footprint should be maintained until the Taliban complied with certain conditions for withdrawal. While neither general would say explicitly that they conveyed that opinion personally to President Biden, McKenzie said it “would be reasonable to conclude that” their evaluations were delivered to Biden ahead of the withdrawal.

This has been treated as bombshell news, because in a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Biden had said something quite different, which is “No one said that to me that I can recall.”

So here we are, in the land of the liars in which we have to figure out who, if anyone, is telling the truth. Of course an argument can be made that all of them are, because it’s certainly possible that they told Biden at the time and that he cannot recall it anymore. But actually, that doesn’t matter in terms of Biden’s decision-making process at the time, and what responsibility the generals have for the disaster.

They are obviously trying to say, “Don’t blame me!” But it’s possible they’re lying, too. I happen to think they’re telling the truth, though, for two main reasons. The first is that although they are boot-licking CYA cowards and lying is certainly something they’re willing to do, I don’t think they would give military advice that was obviously insane, or insanely stupid, as our military withdrawal from Afghanistan actually was. That plan bears the mark of the stupid, corrupt, and somewhat delusional president – with the help of some of his advisors such as Blinken.

The second reason I think the generals are telling the truth about their advice is because of something I wrote on September 20, which I’ll reproduce here:

…I think it’s instructive to look back and see what people in government were saying. For example, consider this article from April 22, written very shortly after Biden announced his withdrawal schedule.

One of the most curious bits of Congressional testimony to reflect on now was by General MacKenzie [emphasis mine]:…

“’My concern is the ability of the Afghan military to hold the ground that they’re on now without the support that they’ve been used to for many years,’ Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of U.S. Central Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“‘I am concerned about the ability of the Afghan military to hold on after we leave, the ability of the Afghan air force to fly, in particular, after we remove the support for those aircraft,’ he added.

“Pressed later in the hearing on continuing to fund Afghan forces when U.S. troops withdraw, McKenzie said that without ‘some support,’ the Afghan forces ‘certainly will collapse.'”

So MacKenzie didn’t just supposedly say this to Biden. He said it in public, to Congress, in April of 2021, and this was reported in the news at the time. So it’s a matter of public knowledge. I’m not sure why I seem to have been the only one who is noticing at this point, but MacKenzie’s prior public statements seem worth considering as evidence that this is indeed what he also told Biden.

That hardly absolves either MacKenzie or Milley, however. As I’ve written from the beginning of the debacle, they should have resigned if they knew they were carrying out orders that weren’t just some small or even big error of judgment on the part of Biden (or whoever was giving them), but were insanely destructive and so against even common sense that even a small child could see that disaster would follow. They should never have been part of carrying them out, but not only did they implement them but then they made excuses and claimed things were going well. Now they are in CYA mode.

As for Biden, the main issue isn’t what he remembers now, although that of course is an issue. The more important question is what he knew then, back when he made his decisions, and why he made them in spite of both advice and ordinary common sense reasoning. The other issue is, of course, whether it was Biden who made the decisions at all.

What a horrific mess.

John Hinckley is going to be released from supervision

The New Neo Posted on by

John Hinckley, who forty years ago attempted – and nearly accomplished – the assassination of President Reagan (and also wounded several others), is being released without conditions. The idea is that his mental illness is in remission and he is no longer dangerous.

Hinckley’s fate and his release rest on the fact that he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. That means that he was never imprisoned, but has instead spent years in a mental hospital, and then more recently under various types of supervision but outside of that hospital:

In 2015, Hinckley was spending unsupervised time with his mother, and his family made the first petition for him to be released from the custody of St. Elizabeths. In 2016, a federal judge granted Hinckley “full-time convalescent leave” from the hospital to live with his mother, contingent upon Hinckley carrying a GPS-equipped cell phone monitored by Secret Service agents.

Those four years between 2016 and 2020 involved an incremented progression of allowing Hinckley to live outside of his mother’s home, easing of monitoring, and a restoration of his name and speech rights.

The supervision is now supposed to end in June:

Hinckley is now 66 years old, and his mother is ailing, which affected the urgency of this ruling. His court-imposed restrictions include regular doctor and therapist visits to oversee the psychiatric medication he receives, as well as decisions on when and how often he attends individual and group therapy sessions. Once these restrictions are gone, and Hinckley has no family connections, will he be able to continue this maintenance?

This actually is a rather tough case, because an argument could be made – and was made successfully at his trial – that Hinckley was suffering from some variety of mental illness when he committed his crime, and he was judged not guilty as a result under the laws of the time. Those laws have since been changed, in part as a result of Hinckley’s case:

At his 1982 trial in Washington, D.C., having been charged with 13 offenses, Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity on June 21. The defense psychiatric reports portrayed Hinckley as insane while the prosecution reports characterized him as legally sane. Hinckley was transferred into psychiatric care from Bureau of Prisons custody on August 18, 1981. Soon after his trial, Hinckley wrote that the shooting was “the greatest love offering in the history of the world” and was disappointed that Foster did not reciprocate his love.

The verdict resulted in widespread dismay. As a consequence, the United States Congress and a number of states revised laws governing when a defendant may use the insanity defense in a criminal prosecution. Idaho, Montana, and Utah abolished the defense altogether. In the United States, before the Hinckley case, the insanity defense had been used in less than 2% of all felony cases and was unsuccessful in almost 75% of those trials. Public outcry over the verdict led to the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which altered the rules for consideration of mental illness of defendants in federal criminal court proceedings. In 1985, Hinckley’s parents wrote Breaking Points, a book detailing their son’s mental condition.

Changes in federal and some state rules of evidence laws have since excluded or restricted the use of testimony of an expert witness, such as a psychologist or psychiatrist, regarding conclusions on “ultimate” issues in insanity defense cases, including whether a criminal defendant is legally “insane”, but this is not the rule in most states.

Vincent J. Fuller, an attorney who represented Hinckley during his trial and for several years afterward, said Hinckley has schizophrenia. Park Dietz, a forensic psychiatrist who testified for the prosecution, diagnosed Hinckley with narcissistic and schizoid personality disorders and dysthymia, as well as borderline and passive-aggressive features. At the hospital Hinckley was treated for narcissistic and schizotypal personality disorder and major depressive disorder.

Hinckley’s crime was an especially heinous one: attempted assassination of a president. It was only “attempted” not because Hinckley didn’t try very very hard to kill Reagan, but because he didn’t succeed in his goal although he nearly killed him. And press secretary James Brady, whom Hinckley wounded, was disabled for the rest of his life, and his death 33 years was ruled a homicide (although for various legal reasons, Hinckley could no longer be tried for it).

In some basic way, it seems as though Hinckley should not be released, although I’m well aware that on the legal level there’s nothing really holding him anymore since he was never convicted. On the practical level, it seems to me that his dangerousness – and whether he will continue to take his meds – is impossible to predict, and so I don’t think the supervision should have been lifted.

Human nature, liberty, and who “deserves” what

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “DNW” writes, in a fairly lengthy comment:

You say that at some period or periods during your life, those in your circle have accused you of ” arguing like a lawyer” and being guilty of the acts of reasoning and logical analysis. This is if I understood you correctly, nothing new and very mich predated even your law degree. It was many of those you knew from day to day living who maintained this.

You have mentioned that 30 years ago in grad school, alarmed, you pointed out the dire consequences for the rule of law and constitutional governance for a particular trajectory upon with your masters of social work associates ( I think it was) had set. And that they heard you out with an air of polite if not sublime indifference not even bothering to respond or rebut.

You have mentioned that in your grammar school days children were drilled in civics and on the importance of Liberty and personal civic responsibility and that heritage of rights which were theirs to keep or lose; but that they got none of that, so you believed, at home. And after all, “Who did normally, or should?” was the standard operating assumption.

Your progressive minded grandmother friends, you say, are mentally occupied for the most part with doting on their grandkids and enjoying themselves; without ever really thinking too deeply about where their choices at the ballot box are driving us all; trusting to the same class affirming news sources they have always defaulted to, along with their feelings.

So, what are the personal responsibilities in a constitutional polity constructed to ensure a regime of Liberty and personal freedom, of such people? Are they meeting them?

In what sense are they deserving of receiving the benefits of such a life lived in a clearing they expend no effort whatsoever in perptuating?

Are they even ” constitutionally” ( no pun intended) fitted by nature for such a life? In what sense do they deserve the freedoms they are so indifferent to maintaining?

Frankly, I don’t think they do much value freedom for themselves if they have comfort and emotional tickles in compensation, nor do they like it much when others have it.

1. What are the personal responsibilities of these individuals insofar as it comes to being informed and thinking critically …whether they are spoon fed it or not.

2. Is it possible that they are not really fit to be free and don’t want to be, as Sarah Conley suggests?

I think you can see the answer for yourself in the words that loom largest in their minds: ” inclusivity”, “acceptance”, ” affirmation”, “community”, “feelings”.

If I was in error in describing them as effen peasants to the core, as basically clever grazing animals, concerned only with the languid enjoyment of their bodily functions and with not a higher consideration in their heads as Aristotle had asserted, I don’t think I could be shown to be in error by much.

I was planning on responding in a comment, but then I thought it might be a good idea to highlight my answer as a post.

First, I’ll get the simplest point out of the way: people who angrily accuse me of arguing “like a lawyer” are not usually referring to political discussions. They often are engaged in a more personal exchange with me, and are trying to defend themselves. I think most people – even logical ones, no matter what side of the political spectrum they may be on – get flustered if and when they’re emotionally involved in an argument, and are especially annoyed if the other person seems to more easily marshal counter-arguments.

The rest of DNW’s comment seems to me to completely ignore the basics of human nature, and to set up a meritocracy of freedom (perhaps “liberty” would be a better word, however) instead of a natural rights belief that all are entitled to it as their birthright. Obviously, freedom must be taught and defended – at least it’s obvious to me, although I seem to recall that DNW (at least, I think it was DNW; I don’t have time to go back and check and so I apologize if it was actually someone else) felt that it was somehow innate in certain people and not only should not have to be taught but could not be taught.

I disagreed then, and I disagree now. Yes, there are people who appear to just naturally (seemingly naturally, anyway) value liberty much more than others. Those people are not necessarily either peasants or aristocrats, and so I have no idea why DNW would consider them peasants, except as some sort of metaphor (a bad one, IMHO). And I find offensive any characterization of human beings as grazing animals – “clever” or not.

The people DNW are describing don’t share his – and my – fascination with politics. What’s more, they don’t read the same sources as DNW and I, and so what interest they have is skewed to the MSM “narrative” which is incomplete at best and deceptive propaganda at worst. That is the fault of the MSM, a group of people I consider far more guilty than any human being (not grazing animal) living his or her life and trying to be loving and responsible while getting a certain amount of joy out of existence.

I would be highly wary of anyone – and that most definitely includes DNW – who sets him or herself up as the arbiter of who “deserves” freedom or liberty and who does not. Talk about elitism! However, it is indeed the case that if enough people in a society do not value liberty, then liberty probably won’t last long in such a society. That is the situation in which we seem to find ourselves, but part of the reason we are here is that people who do value liberty were not aware enough of the leftist march through the institutions to stop it in time, before it had infected such an enormous number of people and such a huge part of our culture.

When I speak of human nature, I am thinking (once again) of Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor.” Here’s a previous post in which I quoted it at length. The Inquisitor believes that the vast majority of people will willingly give up freedom for security. He uses the metaphor of daily bread, but it can mean any sort of security, such as the hope that the government can protect us from a pandemic, for example. Some people are indeed willing to lay their freedom aside for something like security, but in my opinion most of the people DNW is so incensed at here do not believe they are giving up their freedom in any substantial way. In fact, due to the MSM and other propaganda, they strongly believe it is the right that wishes to take away their freedom.

Lastly, the idea that these people are only “clever grazing animals, concerned only with the languid enjoyment of their bodily functions and with not a higher consideration in their heads” is profoundly mistaken and profoundly narrow-minded. Lack of intense interest in politics, and lack of understanding of what the left is doing, absolutely does not preclude “higher considerations.” Some of these people are religious, many are good spouses and parents, some volunteer to help others, some are into various arts and other pursuits of that nature, and they ponder the meaning of life and all that other non-grazing-animal stuff.

I’m not in the habit of judging people’s lives that way. I figure that’s not my job. My job is to try to live a good life myself, and a responsible one.

[NOTE: I have no idea why DNW wrote that I believed this:

You have mentioned that in your grammar school days children were drilled in civics and on the importance of Liberty and personal civic responsibility and that heritage of rights which were theirs to keep or lose; but that they got none of that, so you believed, at home.

I certainly said we were taught those things in school, but never did I say many of us were not taught those things at home also.

In addition, I’ll add that the people who failed to answer or rebut what I said back when I was in grad school were in an undergrad class with me and members of a much younger generation than I. I was in my forties and they were college-age at the time, between 18 and 21 I’d estimate. So I have no idea what they were taught about liberty when they were growing up.]

“Dr. Sanity” has written a book

The New Neo Posted on by

I bet a lot of you remember blogger Pat Santy, otherwise known as Dr. Sanity. She was a member of the Sanity Squad, back when we did podcasts for PJ Media long, long ago.

Even though Pat hasn’t been blogging for many years (she stopped right after Obama’s re-election in 2012), I’ve kept in touch with her and she’s doing fine and has been busy. Plus, she hasn’t given up writing and I’m pleased to report that she’s written a book.

You may remember that Pat is a woman of great accomplishment – doctor, psychiatrist, jet pilot, NASA member including being the flight doctor for the ill-fated Challenger launch, blogger, and now lay Dominican in a healing prayer ministry. And I probably left something out there; her life has been very full.

Dr. Santy’s book is entitled Prodigal Daughter: A Journey with Mary. It’s a memoir that includes the earlier days of her life plus the more recent re-awakening of her Catholic faith. I haven’t read it yet, but knowing Pat, I would bet it’s fascinating.

I hope to read the book in the not-too-distant future, and will report back on that, but I feel confident recommending it to you even without reading it. Pat’s one of the most interesting people I know, and she’s a good writer, too – as those of you familiar with her blog probably already know.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Merkel’s party has suffered defeat in the German elections, and parties that are more leftist than hers have scored some gains. No party has won enough votes to be able to do anything other than form a coalition government with other parties, however.

I’m wondering – if, as I’ve read, a big factor in Merkel’s downfall was her leftism on illegal immigration, then why has the left gained in strength as a result? Is it that there are no other good ways in Germany to express dissatisfaction with the somewhat-less-left (Merkel and company) than to go even further left?

(2) DHS Secretary Mayorkas admits that most of the Haitians who’ve entered this country illegally in recent weeks have been stealthily released into various communities. He says it’s all under control, though, because they’ve been ordered to appear in court. And maybe some will even do so.

(3) Governor Abbot of Texas says the Biden administration is in dereliction of duty, and promises to hire back any border agents the administration fires for doing their jobs.

(4)AOC has issued a supposed explanation for her “present” vote on Iron Dome, but it’s more of a riff on her crying to mark the occasion:

Yes, I wept. I wept at the complete lack of care for the human beings that are impacted by these decisions, I wept at an institution choosing a path of maximum volatility and minimum consideration for its own political convenience.”…

She continued: “And I wept at the complete lack of regard I often feel our party has to its most vulnerable and endangered members and communities – because the death threats and dangerous vitriol we’d inevitably receive by rushing such a sensitive, charged, and under-considered vote weren’t worth delaying it for even a few hours to help us do the work necessary to open a conversation of understanding.

“To those I have disappointed – I am deeply sorry. To those who believe this reasoning is insufficient or cowardice – I understand.”

This may seem bizarre to you as well as devoid of logic, but I’m pretty sure it is carefully crafted to appeal to her supporters, who value emotion above all and virtue-signaling through the demonstration of emotion. Sympathy for the downtrodden – defined by the left as the Palestinians in any Israel/Palestine issue – is one way to gain virtue. As I said, she doesn’t explain her actual vote – which annoyed those supporters – but she appeals to their feelings.

(5) And somewhat related to #4 directly above we have this gobbledygook from the Biden administration:

In a White House speech promoting his spending plans, Biden said that “the price tag is zero… on the national debt. We’re going to pay for everything we spend. [People say] ‘It started off at six trillion, now it’s 3.5 trillion’… it’s going to be zero.”…

Biden’s allies in the mainstream media are pushing a similar narrative. Appearing on CNN, Washington Post opinion columnist Catherine Rampell argued that “The bill itself will not cost $3.5T in the sense it will be entirely, or at least partly, paid for. So the actual cost, in terms of deficits, will be smaller than that, perhaps zero, although I think that’s unlikely.”

Math is so yesterday. We can change the narrative and it will be fine. What’s more, the administration knows that a lot of people, especially young people, no longer understand math (Biden happens to be one of them, but obviously this isn’t just his doing). So they can spout whatever nonsense they wish, and they also know that for the most part the MSM will back them up.

(6) Young people are terrified about climate change. The left has done its job very well.

The FBI involvement in “the insurrection” and right-wing extremism: the latest is the Proud Boy informant

The New Neo Posted on by

Once again, it should come as no surprise:

The informant’s communications with the FBI [about January 6h and the Proud Boys] show that the group did not have any specific plans once they arrived at the Capitol, but apparently succumbed to a “mob mentality” of the pro-Trump herd of supporters.

Oh, is that what they “succumbed” to? Or was it something urged and facilitated by FBI agents and/or informants?

[The informant’s] federal bureau contact told him to keep communicating and let him know if violence broke out, according to the report.

The revelation that an informant was giving the FBI a blow-by-blow description of the event in real time and that there was no organized planning involved, may derail federal prosecutions already in the works.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, as of Sept. 6, eight months after the incident, more than 600 people have been arrested and charged…

Of the more than 600 charged, 50 have pleaded guilty to “a variety of federal charges” and face jail time, 40 pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges, nine to felonies, and three of those to assault on law enforcement officers which carries a maximum penalty of eight years in prison and a fine of $250,000, according to the agency.

So if the FBI had a real time informant (probably many, actually, as well as real-time participants), why wasn’t the “insurrection” stopped or even prevented in advance? It’s hard to escape the notion that the FBI didn’t want “the insurrection” prevented or stopped. And of course the FBI might even have instigated it, which is the most pernicious possibility of all.

The NY Times has published an article on this – why? The paper usually ignores that which it doesn’t wish its readers to know. When they do publish something that makes a Democrat administration and/or the left look bad, it usually means the news is going to come out anyway – often in some sort of court proceedings – and that the Times is eager to get ahead of the story and frame it in a way that exonerates the government and/or the left as much as possible. I believe that’s the case here.

For example, the article says:

The use of informants always presents law enforcement officials with difficult judgments about the credibility and completeness of the information they provide. In this case, the records obtained by The Times do not directly address whether the informant was in a good position to know about plans developed for Jan. 6 by the leadership of the Proud Boys, why he was cooperating, whether he could have missed indications of a plot or whether he could have deliberately misled the government.

But the records, and information from two people familiar with the matter, suggest that federal law enforcement had a far greater visibility into the assault on the Capitol, even as it was taking place, than was previously known.

In other words, I believe the Times wants to suggest to the readers that (a) informants sometimes are mistaken or lie – and so, for example, in the case of January 6th the Proud Boys might have been planning an insurrection conspiracy without the informant’s knowledge or he could have been hiding that knowledge from the FBI; and (b) perhaps the FBI had visibility into the January 6th events while they were happening, but the agency certainly wasn’t involved in planning or orchestrating those events. Perish the thought!

Here’s some related news:

The report, based on documents seen by reporters, also raises questions about whether FBI Director Chris Wray lied to Congress about the FBI’s lack of foreknowledge of the melee. It also begs the question of why the FBI and other police agencies failed to harden the Capitol in advance.

There were a lot of peaceful protesters there that day. Here’s a man caught on video screaming for the police to call for backup to stop the attack…

Revolver News claims that [another alleged FBI informant] Stewart Rhodes used his position as head of the Oath Keepers to capture others in a conspiracy of his own making and then skated away from any charges.

Oddly, despite the “shock and awe” prosecutions, Rhodes hasn’t been indicted in the Capitol riot case, but, as the publication noted, it was his actions leading up to the Capitol riot for which his underlings have been charged with conspiracy.

“The government has, in effect, built its case against the 16 Oath Keepers in large part by saying “We know you’re guilty of conspiracy because we definitely know your leader Stewart Rhodes is guilty of conspiracy, and it looks like you were following your leader.”

But Stewart Rhodes is not even charged. He is still just “Person One.”

Also related – Howie Carr suggests that the FBI should be abolished. Roger L. Simon has said the very same thing. It’s not going to happen, but it is sadly and outrageously true that the FBI has become a destructive and mendacious force.

Richard Fernandez on China

The New Neo Posted on by

Richard Fernandez has been writing a great many posts about China lately. In fact, his last five were on the subject: here, here, here, here (that one’s indirectly about China, anyway), and here.

One of the essays highlights a quote from John Kerry in the NY Times which goes like this:

“My response to [the Chinese on the subject of energy and climate change] was, ‘Hey look, climate is not ideological. It’s not partisan, it’s not a geostrategic weapon or tool, and it’s certainly not day-to-day politics. It’s a global, not bilateral, challenge,’” he said on a call with reporters. …

“Needless to say, adding some 200-plus gigawatts of coal over the last five years, and now another 200 or so coming online in the planning stage, if it went to fruition would actually undo the ability of the rest of the world to achieve a limit of 1.5 degrees,” he said, adding, “The stakes are very high.”

Not only do the Chinese respond by essentially saying, “Hey, little guy, what are you going to do about it?”, but Kerry’s assertion is absurd on its face. I suppose you could change it to read, “The issue of climate change should not be ideological. Neither should it be partisan, nor a geostrategic weapon or tool, nor day-to-day politics. It’s a global, not bilateral, issue and a possible global, not bilateral, challenge.”

Not that China cares one hoot. And Kerry is also lying through his teeth because climate change long ago became exactly what he says it is not.

Fernandez’s most recent post on China is the one in the group that is of the greatest interest to me. In it he writes:

But the ultimate blow to Biden’s Global World has been to its economic underpinnings. China had been going broke gradually, then all of a sudden. “The roots of the crisis date to [Chinese] tax reforms in 1994 which bolstered central government coffers but left local governments reliant on land financing for revenue.” By China’s own reckoning, the country’s vaunted economic growth rested on three huge bubbles that, once exploded, could threaten the Party’s own legitimacy. “This year, Xi has set out to reform the ‘three huge mountains’ of housing, education and healthcare to rein in soaring costs for city dwellers as a way to shore up legitimacy as the ‘people’s leader’, analysts said.”

The Communist Party encouraged the bubbles in order to tax them. But now, with the stream of new business finally exhausted and the entire edifice threatening to collapse like a house of cards, Chairman Xi has suddenly rediscovered Maoism…

Like Indiana Jones, Xi is pursued by three giant rocks and hopes to reach the socialist bunker leaving Western markets to take the brunt of the impact…

The dissolution of the landscape means the Biden administration isn’t plagued by any one malady anymore but by multiple organ failure. The Guardian writes, “Is Joe Biden failing? Less than nine months into his presidency, rising numbers of Americans and not a few foreign allies appear to think so…

At the heart of the Biden collapse is one major factor: Joe had counted on presiding over a world that no longer exists. He is king, but the king of vanishing empire. The situation can no longer be salvaged by tinkering, but only through a radical paradigm shift that the aged occupant of the White House is neither prepared nor able to undertake.

Fernandez is a very smart guy, and I would always pay attention to what he’s saying. I’m no China expert, but what he writes about that country makes sense to me.

However, I’m puzzled by some things Fernandez seems to be saying about Biden in that essay. One is that he doesn’t emphasize what I think are the two most important elements in Biden’s decline in popularity: the growing perception among US voters that Biden’s mental deficits are huge, and their judgment that Biden (or Biden’s administration) has been responsible for the debacle that was the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Another thing that puzzles me is that Fernandez seems to think – or at least he writes as though he thinks – that Biden is the one who is mainly in charge here and pulling his own strings. I’ve stated several times that I don’t think Biden is as far gone as a lot of people believe, but I do see him as very cognitively challenged and I see his policies as a combination of fairly vague ideas of Biden’s plus a lot of input from “advisors” who are mainly holdovers from the Obama administration (plus some unknown others).

I’m not sure how much credit Fernandez is giving Biden when he writes that Biden “had counted on presiding over a world that no longer exists.” My sense of Biden is that his evaluation of China was as an entity that could be played for money and favors, if not for himself then certainly for his family members such as Hunter. I think that really was as far as it ever went for Biden, who never struck me as especially involved with geopolitical strategies of any sophistication or depth.

And now I think Biden is running on habit as far as his own input into things goes, and although I think he has some input I don’t think it’s very great.

As Fernandez makes clear, these are extremely challenging times, and Biden is not up to handling them. But neither would any Democrat be, in my opinion – and precious few Republicans, as well.

It is said that Otto Von Bismarck stated, “There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.” Let’s hope so.

Two versions of Robin Gibb’s “I Am the World” separated by over 40 years – plus Glenn Gould

The New Neo Posted on by

The Bee Gees began singing and writing songs when they were little children, and they turned pro before they were even teenagers, supporting their entire family of seven. They became sensations while still in their late teens, but they had to move back to England from their adopted Australia to do that.

Right around the time they left Australia for England they had their first huge hit in Australia and New Zealand, “Spicks and Specks,” released in 1966. Follow the link for a humorous video they made at the time, around ages 16 for the twins and 19 for Barry.

The B side of the single was the song “I Am the World.” It’s not one of my absolute favorites of the Bee Gees, but I do like it considerably.

“I Am the World” was recorded when Robin Gibb was 16. He wrote it himself, around then or some time before that. Although most Bee Gees songs were written by all three together, there were quite a few written by each of them alone, and this is one of the first songs Robin ever wrote solo. Perhaps it’s even the very first, which could account for its holding a special enough place in his heart for him to rerecord it much later.

Here’s his version at 16:

And here is Robin’s rerecording in 2008 at the age of fifty-eight, just four years before he died (the album on which it appears was released posthumously). I don’t know whether he was already ill when he made this recording, but I think he may have been, because photos from the time show him to be extremely thin. At any rate, he was certainly never the same after his twin Maurice died suddenly of a heart attack in 2003, and that is also when the Bee Gees ended as a group because of the death and the importance of Maurice (Mo) to their unique sound.

This second arrangement is somewhat different from the first one, and he seems to have taken the key down a notch. In Robin’s voice the ensuing years of experience, love, and loss can be heard; this is no longer an exuberant 16-year-old singing.

I am quite fascinated with the changes in people’s singing as they age. The voices themselves sometimes degenerate at least somewhat in quality (although I don’t hear much of that decline here with Robin, except for his taking it down to a slightly lower register). But they often gain so much in depth that the later versions bring tears to the eyes when the first versions don’t.

Each has its pluses and I’m not sure which one I prefer in this case. I like the soaring high notes of the younger version, but the rich complexity of the bittersweet feeling in his voice in the second is more touching.

The contrast is more touching still.

It reminds me somewhat of the two versions Glenn Gould made of “The Goldberg Variations” by Bach. That may seem an odd comparison to you, but not to me. The “voice” of his piano was quite different when Gould was an energetic and eager wunderkind at the start of his career, compared to when he reflected back at fifty, bringing to his later rendition a wealth of experience not long before he died. I prefer Gould’s later version, although in a few sections I think it verges on being too slow.

Here they are:

Notice that you can sometimes hear Gould singing along very softly. He didn’t want to do it, but he said it just happened. I once read that Gould’s mother, who was his earliest piano teacher, was also a singer, although I can’t find anything on that at the moment. I did find this:

[Gould] often hummed or sang while he played, and his audio engineers were not always successful in excluding his voice from recordings. Gould claimed that his singing was unconscious and increased in proportion to his inability to produce his intended interpretation from a given piano. It is likely that this habit originated in his having been taught by his mother to “sing everything that he played”, as his biographer Kevin Bazzana puts it. This became “an unbreakable (and notorious) habit”. Some of Gould’s recordings were severely criticised because of this background “vocalising”. For example, a reviewer of his 1981 re-recording of the Goldberg Variations opined that many listeners would “find the groans and croons intolerable”.

I find them fascinating, an attempt by Gould to get even closer to the music and to somehow become it. Isn’t that what singing is?