Another changer heard from

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenters “Gothamite” and “Cornhead.”]

Here’s a change story from a lifelong leftist. One of the things his tale highlights is that changers often assume that the left adheres to certain principles and are stunned to discover that most on the left are interested far more in party loyalty, and that for them principles are almost infinitely flexible.

It can be a painful shock.

Excerpt:

You might be living through The Turn if you ever found yourself feeling like free speech should stay free even if it offended some group or individual but now can’t admit it at dinner with friends because you are afraid of being thought a bigot. You are living through The Turn if you have questions about public health policies—including the effects of lockdowns and school closures on the poor and most vulnerable in our society—but can’t ask them out loud because you know you’ll be labeled an anti-vaxxer. You are living through The Turn if you think that burning down towns and looting stores isn’t the best way to promote social justice, but feel you can’t say so because you know you’ll be called a white supremacist. You are living through The Turn if you seethed watching a terrorist organization attack the world’s only Jewish state, but seethed silently because your colleagues were all on Twitter and Facebook sharing celebrity memes about ending Israeli apartheid while having little interest in American kids dying on the streets because of failed policies. If you’ve felt yourself unable to speak your mind, if you have a queasy feeling that your friends might disown you if you shared your most intimately held concerns, if you are feeling a bit breathless and a bit hopeless and entirely unsure what on earth is going on, I am sorry to inform you that The Turn is upon you.

Just as I expected, Ethan Crumbley fooled not only his parents but the school counselors

The New Neo Posted on by

As I’ve written several times in previous comments, I’ve seen nothing about parental or school awareness of any prior mental problems for Ethan Crumbley, who IMHO may have been a sociopath who covered up his pathology very well, and only let it bleed out in various recent social media posts and drawings of which neither the parents nor the school were probably aware until just a few hours before the shootings. And even then, it seems that they only knew about the drawings and notes accompanying them, rather than the social media posts.

As far as previous bullying goes, commenter “Indigo Red” linked this YouTube video that is a very short interview with a student at the high school, and he mentions that Crumbley was bullied. But even this evidence of bullying is extremely weak, mainly because he also says he doesn’t even know Crumbley. He doesn’t appear to have any special knowledge at all, but may be repeating something a lot of people assume about school shooters but which is certainly not always true (see this for a discussion regarding Columbine, about which I’ve written quite a few posts).

There’s also this in support of my “sociopath” theory:

Sheriff Bouchard said investigators had determined no possible motive for the shooting, which he described as “absolutely brutally cold hearted.”…

“We know from physical evidence he shot through doors up and down more than one hallway,” the sheriff said on Wednesday…

The sheriff said the district had no record that the suspect had been bullied at school, and he did not believe specific students were targeted in the attack.

My sense of this kid is that he hid everything until he drew those pictures and wrote those social media posts, and then he denied the significance of the drawings and notes, made up a really good story, delivered it calmly, and conned his parents and the counselors.

Here’s his story, plus a description of his behavior that day. I think you’ll see how it was that he might have fooled all the adults, although I think the school should have had zero tolerance for the drawings and reacted by making sure he was watched for the rest of the day and then suspended from school pending a thorough psych evaluation (he might have fooled a shrink as well, of course) and search of his social media, which would have uncovered recent additional signs of unequivocal disturbance and violent tendencies [emphasis mine]:

The suspect in the deadly shooting at a Michigan high school reportedly told school guidance counselors that the alarming drawings his teacher discovered the morning of Tuesday’s massacre were for a video game he was designing, school officials said.

Hours before authorities allege 15-year-old sophomore Ethan Crumbley fired his father’s semi-automatic handgun in the hallway of Oxford High School, killing four and wounding seven, a teacher saw a note on his desk with a drawing of a semi-automatic handgun pointing at the words, “The thoughts won’t stop, help me,” prosecutors said.

Another section depicted a drawing of a bullet with the words “Blood everywhere” above it, and a drawing of a bleeding person who appeared to have been shot twice, according to prosecutors.

Crumbley reportedly told school guidance counselors that the “concerning” drawings were for a video game he was designing, and that he intended to pursue video game design as a career, Oxford Community Schools Superintendent Tim Throne said…

As they waited for the arrival of his parents — whom Throne notes “were difficult to reach” — Crumbley sat in the counselors’ office doing homework for 90 minutes while the staff “continued to observe, analyze and speak” with him.

“At no time did counselors believe the student might harm others based on his behavior, responses and demeanor, which appeared calm,” Throne said.

When his parents showed up, counselors “asked specific and probing questions regarding the potential for self-harm or harm to others,” according to Throne. The answers from Crumbley and his parents led the counselors to believe there was no threat of violence, to himself or to others, the superintendent said.

“The student’s parents never advised the school district that he had direct access to a firearm or that they had recently purchased a firearm for him,” Throne said.

But it’s my understanding that the school already knew that his parents were gun aficionados, because the day before, when he was found by the school to have done a cellphone search for ammunition, he informed them of this.

On Nov. 29, Mr. Throne wrote, a teacher saw Ethan Crumbley viewing images of bullets on his cellphone during class. A counselor and a staff member met with him, and he indicated that shooting sports were a family hobby, the letter said. The school tried to contact Ms. Crumbley but did not hear back right away. The next day, the parents confirmed their son’s account, the letter said.

Seems to me the school already knew, or at least the parents thought the school knew, and the school – and the prosecutor – are trying to pass the buck to the parents because they are deplorables. Maybe the leftist prosecutor can’t make the state of Michigan pass the gun-control legislation she would like to see, but she can selectively prosecute these people (in a manner never previously attempted in the US, as far as I can see) in order to strike fear into the heart of gun owners. Selective prosecution can accomplish what legislation can’t, right?

The prosecutor couldn’t care less about these facts, because for her it’s not about what the parents knew or their actual culpability, it’s about her political agenda regarding gun control and those who own guns. The Crumbleys are the perfect object lessons, because few people are going to champion them (just like Chauvin, their story isn’t likeable, at least not at this point, although that could change).

In the school systems with which I’m familiar, school counselors and administrators are required to take anything like those drawings very seriously, always, no matter what the previous demeanor of the student was. They are not to stay in school until a full evaluation is done, period.

And this answers another concern of mine:

All three Crumbleys are being held in isolation under suicide watch at the Oakland County Jail. They have pleaded not guilty.

[NOTE: See yesterday’s post which discusses the fact that the Crumbleys’ lawyer claims they did keep the gun locked, and that they were trying to turn themselves in.]

The 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbor

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a somewhat-edited version of a previous post.]

Today is the eightieth anniversary of the December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. The generation that reacted to it by mobilizing and fighting World War II is on its last legs and almost gone. But they were the ones we still call “the Greatest.”

I was reminded of this a few years ago while watching one of those Oliver North “War Stories” TV shows about Pearl Harbor. It featured some of the elderly participants reminiscing about that long ago day. Before each one spoke, there was a photograph of him back in 1941: young, vibrant, handsome, full of life. Now they were ancient, and most only vaguely resembled their former selves. But they still transmitted great moral strength and a kind of Gary-Cooperesque stoicism and understated bravery as they told their stories.

On the 75th anniversary there were still quite a few WWII veterans alive:

The Department of Veterans Affairs doesn’t have data on veterans of individual battles, and an alumni association for the battle disbanded in 2011, at the 70th anniversary, when it believed just 8,000 of the 84,000 uniformed Americans on Oahu during the attack remained alive. Since 2011, roughly half of veterans of World War II who were alive then have died, according to VA projections, leaving fewer than 700,000 alive today. Roughly 400 American WWII veterans die each day.

Obviously the number of Pearl Harbor veterans alive has only gotten smaller since that was written—as it will every year until the number is zero. And then, we will still remember? In fact, do most of us remember Pearl Harbor now?

I’m not really sure what our younger generation today remembers, or wishes to remember – or through what strange leftist prism it will be taught to remember that day if it’s taught at all.

Here’s a post I published twelve years ago on Pearl Harbor Day. It focuses on FDR’s famous speech afterward, and the will and resolve he amply demonstrated.

Here is just a little bit of Roosevelt’s post-Pearl Harbor speech, in case we need reminding of what American resolve used to sound like:

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

“Righteous might.”

Here’s the speech itself:

The memorable phrase that began FDR’s address, “a date which will live in infamy,” wasn’t in Roosevelt’s earlier draft. That draft read “a date which will live in world history.” That sounds like a high school essay; Roosevelt crossed out “world history” and added “infamy” in his own hand. He also changed “simultaneously and deliberately attacked” to “suddenly and deliberately attacked.”

Wise choices.

The earliest sunset

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a slightly edited repeat of an earlier post.]

The earliest sunset is not at the solstice, the shortest day of the year. It comes somewhat earlier (now, for example), and varies slightly depending on latitude. Here’s an explanation for the phenomenon:

The key to understanding the earliest sunset is not to focus on the time of sunset or sunrise. The key is to focus on what is called true solar noon – the time of day that the sun reaches its highest point, in its journey across your sky.

In early December, true solar noon comes nearly 10 minutes earlier by the clock than it does at the solstice around December 21. With true noon coming later on the solstice, so will the sunrise and sunset times…

The discrepancy occurs primarily because of the tilt of the Earth’s axis. A secondary but another contributing factor to this discrepancy between clock noon and sun noon comes from the Earth’s elliptical – oblong – orbit around the sun.

Read the whole thing.

For me, the earliest sunset days are the darkest days, because I’m not an “up with the lark” person. And the reversal to longer days (that is, to later sunsets) starts very soon where I live, which makes me happy.

sun

Oh, and about that gun the Crumbleys kept in an unlocked drawer…

The New Neo Posted on by

…well, maybe not [emphasis added]:

During the arraignment, [the Crumbleys’] attorneys stressed their clients had fully intended to turn themselves in before authorities arrested them Saturday morning, and denied prosecutors’ assertions that their son had unrestricted access to the gun he’s accused of using….

Oakland County Prosecutor Karen McDonald has alleged that James Crumbley on November 26 bought the gun at a store in Oxford, and that the parents gave the weapon to their son as an early Christmas present.
During Saturday’s arraignment, McDonald said, “It’s … clear from the facts that (Ethan Crumbley) had total access to this weapon,” and that the parents “didn’t secure (the gun) and they allowed him free access to it.”

James Crumbley shook his head as McDonald made both statements.

One of the parents’ attorneys, Shannon Smith, countered during the hearing that “the gun was actually locked.”

“When the prosecution is stating that this child had free access to a gun, that is just absolutely not true,” Smith said. “This court is going to see … there is far more going on than what this court has been made aware of.”

Sound familiar? We don’t know which version is true, but my guess is that it’s more likely to be the prosecutor who’s blowing smoke.

In addition [emphasis mine]:

At Saturday’s hearing, Crumbley attorney Smith said she and her colleagues “called the prosecutor’s office throughout the day (Friday) and never got a call back,” and that “we were going to make arrangements to have our clients turn themselves in.” Smith also claimed she didn’t know the precise time of Friday’s arraignment.

“They were scared; they were terrified; they were not at home; they were figuring out what to do, getting finances in order,” Smith said Saturday.

By night, the defense attorneys made plans with the Crumbleys to turn them in to authorities Saturday morning, Smith said.

“We did not announce it, because unlike the prosecution, we weren’t attempting to make this a media spectacle,” she said.

McDonald countered that “these defendants did not need my permission” to turn themselves in.

When I wrote my first post about the charging of these parents, I was highly suspicious of the prosecutor and wrote the reasons for that opinion of mine in some detail. Now it’s only gotten worse.

I’d love for McDonald to explain why the office never returned the defense attorneys’ calls on Friday. I have my own theory, which is that the prosecutor wanted to be able to portray the Crumbleys as fugitives.

[NOTE: Today I started to write a big long post tying together some of the threads of the Crumbley story, but it’s gotten quite late and I’ll probably do it tomorrow instead.]

Maybe the Michigan prosecutor should charge the video game manufacturers with a crime

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s sarcasm, by the way.

I’m referring to this story;

Police say they have found a horde of graphic journal entries and disturbing videos made by Crumbley.

“I would characterize a lot of the stuff we’ve now seen as dark and as cold-blooded,” Sheriff Michael Bouchard told Inside Edition.

One post from Crumbley says, “Now I Am Become Death, The Destroyer of Worlds. See You Tomorrow Oxford.” The same words can be found in a gory video game.

For normal kids, as Kyle Rittenhouse said on the witness stand during his cross-examination: “It’s just a video game, it’s not real life.” For abnormal kids – and Ethan Crumbley was clearly an abnormal kid, although I still can’t find any behavioral signs of it, prior to those recent posts (which I read somewhere were on Instagram, and of which I bet the parents and school were unaware) and also the drawings on the day of the shooting – but for those very abnormal kids, video games can stir up violent imagery and contribute to aggression. The thing is, most kids fortunately are not capable of that, and people like Ethan Crumbley – whom I now believe is a sociopath – are often very good indeed at hiding the signs of their sociopathy in their interactions with those close to them, and even from schools.

When I read that “I am become death the destroyer of worlds” quote, I had a different reference for it. I’m not a video game aficionado, to say the least. But I remember that Robert Oppenheimer used the quote after first seeing desert tests of the atom bomb at the end of WWII. The quote’s origin is actually the Bhagavad Gita: “[Oppenheimer] later remarked that the [Trinity] explosion brought to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita: ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.'”

I very much doubt Crumbley was aware of that particular reference.

The fall of the house of Cuomo

The New Neo Posted on by

Everybody’s writing about Chris Cuomo’s firing, so this is my post about it. But it doesn’t interest my much, so this will be cursory.

Why doesn’t it interest me much? Basically because (a) I’ve never watched him; and (b) I don’t think this is about what it purports to be about. It’s not about his offenses, whatever they may be. Like his brother, the formerly much-ballyhooed governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, the reason Chris Cuomo is being let go, IMHO, is that he became too big a liability in some way or ways, not because CNN is interested in ethics.

In other words, it’s a cost/benefit calculation for them, and for reasons we don’t completely know, the Cuomos became liabilities for the powers that be. Their corruption was already clear long ago, and neither the Democratic Party nor CNN gave a hoot. Now they pretend to care, but they don’t.

Was the liability the fact that they offended someone politically and/or economically big, or an important and influential group of people? Or was the liability a legal one – various sexual accusations were getting traction and might result in embarrassing lawsuits? I don’t think it’s really the latter, because such things would almost certainly have been successfully suppressed if the Democrats wanted them to be.

So I don’t know what happened, but it seems pretty obvious that the word went out that both Cuomos had to go. And so they went. And yet at the beginning of COVID, they were both stars. How the mighty have fallen.

[NOTE: For comparison, Joe Biden and his corrupt family are useful to the Democrats, so he’s still around – until he becomes un-useful.]

One of the only good things about the COVID lockdowns…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is that it’s been two years since I’ve had a cold.

Well, now I have a cold. It’s not COVID (I took a test) – but, like Joe Biden, it’s something I caught from my grandkids, whom I’ve been visiting.

I hate colds. Hate hate hate them, because mine tend to last a long time. But I plan to soldier on with no interruption of service.

Your Love Will Save the World

The New Neo Posted on by

Bee Gees time again!

The Bee Gees wrote over 1000 songs, and many of them were never released. Particularly during the early 70s, when their sound was in transition from their earlier baroque rock British Invasion sound to a more R&B and disco genre, their manager kept rejecting albums and songs. Some of the albums they did release were ignored, although many of those songs have since become big favorites with today’s Bee Gees fans.

At this point I know an awful lot of Bee Gees songs, but I keep discovering new ones from that era. Some are only so-so (although I have yet to find one I’d call bad). But some are quite good, and some of these previously-rejected songs are really really good. I recently came across the following one, called “Your Love Will Save the World” (a rather grandiose sentiment), and I like it quite a bit although it’s not up there with my favorites. But for a rejected song, it’s good, and it’s been growing on me.

I’m putting it up here as an example of the sort of thing they regularly threw in the wastebasket. It features Robin’s warbly upper-range (but not falsetto) “blue-eyed soul” voice and Barry’s “raspy-gruff” voice. Each Bee Gees member had a large variety of voices he could employ, and if you’re only familiar with Barry’s falsetto, you’re in for a surprise here.

The song also shows how well the Bee Gees could sing not just the harmonies they’re known for as a group, but how they could use the unique solo voices of Robin and Barry to play off each other in contrast to add texture and interest. Robin sings the verses here and Barry the choruses; I think Maurice chimes in a bit, too, but I’m not sure. If you don’t like Robin’s voice – and many people don’t – you probably really won’t like this. But I love all their voices.

The song was written in 1975 and never released. But it’s on YouTube, and that’s where I found it (if you’re having trouble understanding the lyrics, you can find them here)

This is just a demo, by the way, not a polished and finished version:

It actually was soul singer Percy Sledge who first released the song, in 1994. Here’s his version, which I also think is good although I somewhat prefer the Bee Gees. Quite a few soul and R&B singers had success with Bee Gees covers: