Update on my ex-husband

The New Neo Posted on by

I spent the earlier part of today sitting in on my ex’s first home sessions with a nurse and then a speech therapist. So I decided it might be time for an update here for those of you who are curious how he’s doing.

The answer is that he’s making slow progress. He seems stronger on almost every dimension, although he’s still got a long way to go. I’m still quite involved in dealing with it, although the pressure on me has somewhat lessened. I choose to keep the details vague when I write about the situation here, in order to protect his privacy. But it’s really been a difficult experience for me – and of course for him.

He was in the hospital for a couple of days and then a rehab hospital for two weeks, and the latter recommended that he go to a step-down rehab facility for a few more weeks after that. They were very negative about the idea of his going home, but he insisted. At the time, I didn’t think he made the right decision, but at this point I’ve changed my mind because (knock wood) he’s doing better at home than they predicted and than I imagined. The visit from our son helped a great deal, too. He lives so far away, and he has a demanding job and a family, but he took four days off to devote to his father and I’m so so glad he did.

The program of home visits for a while from physical therapists and the like is one of the great benefits of Medicare. Of course, success depends on the patients’ practicing the exercises at home between visits, and I bet a lot of patients don’t manage to do that, especially if they live alone and have no one to nag them. My ex lives alone, but he has me to nag him.

Denmark’s experience with Palestinian arrivals

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, one thing you can say is that in Denmark it didn’t go as badly as it did in Jordan and Lebanon, where they tried to overthrow the governments. Then again, the number of Palestinians welcomed by Denmark was a lot more limited.

In 1992 the Danish Parliament gave asylum to 321 Palestinian refugees from Lebanon already living in Denmark illegally, and in 2017 they decided to study the results. Apparently, the report issued is now circulating on social media, and it’s quite interesting, to say the least:

… 67 of the 321 had received prison sentences of some kind, while 137 were subject to legal fines larger than $200. That is, more than 60 percent carried criminal records.

Welfare dependency was also widespread. A majority of the refugees received welfare benefits, according to the report, which tracked those benefits from 2007 to 2016. No fewer than 180 of the refugees, or 56 percent, received welfare benefits during the 10-year span. That figure peaked at 189 in 2016.

I don’t know how this compares to other immigrant groups in Denmark, but it certainly seems high.

There’s also this:

Denmark passed an integration law in 1999, seven years after it granted residency to the Palestinian refugees. It mandated a three-year introduction program for refugees that includes language lessons.

I’d be curious what the results of that law were; seems that although language lessons are good, they just scratch the surface.

Assimilation into a new country and culture depends on various things: the previous culture from which the immigrants (illegal or not) come, how different that culture is from that of the host country, how willing and eager they are to leave not just their home country but their culture, what their reasons for coming are, how many arrive, whether they live in homogeneous enclaves in the new country, how generous the welfare system is, and what the assimilation demands are in the new country. Clinging to the old ways, depending on welfare, and in particular coming in order to spread one’s own culture and/or take over the new country would be a no-no (for example – with Palestinians in Jordan, the culture and background were similar, but the aims were to take over).

All lawfare isn’t created equal

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Variant” writes, on the Bolton raid thread:

Trump is simply trying to settle petty personal grudges via Lawfare and we’re trying to justify it because it was done to him.

I prefer intellectual consistency on the right. I realize Trump isn’t conservative or consistent, but doesn’t mean we have to applaud this.

Regarding the second sentence of that comment, I suppose it depends what you mean by “conservative.” If “conservative” means playing it safe and being predictable, Trump certainly isn’t that. If it means being patriotic, being Jacksonian in foreign policy, wanting to shrink the cost of the federal government, being tough on crime, and advocating traditional definitions of man and woman, he’s quite conservative. But I doubt most people agree on the definition.

He’s strangely consistent as well, although unpredictable in his approaches. He’s very quirky and often insulting. But if you look at interviews with Trump on politics, starting when he was a fairly young man during the 1980s, his actual positions are – for the most part – remarkably consistent (see this).

But I’m especially interested in that first sentence of the comment, because it’s the sort of thing a great many people are saying – most are anti-Trumpers but not all of them. It rests, I believe, on the definition of “Lawfare” and whether it might sometimes be appropriate, and if so when.

Lawfare is defined here in this manner: “the use of legal action to cause problems for an opponent.” But if that’s lawfare, and one is against it in all circumstances, then there wouldn’t be consequences for political figures breaking the law unless the lawbreakers’ supporters would be the ones to bring charges. And although such things are not beyond the realm of possibility, they’re not at all common and not to be expected of politicians. The reality is that perps in one’s own political party who haven’t turned against the people in power in that party are very rarely going to face any consequences at the hands of that party, and therefore it’s usually up to the opposition to press charges when they are in power, even if the offenses are fairly egregious.

There need to be consequences for lawbreaking by politicians and in particular for serious lawbreaking by politicians. But at what point has the lawbreaking crossed the line at which it needs to be prosecuted? How serious does it have to be? And even when the legal charges against various politicians are the same, the particular fact situation in each case can make the seriousness of the offense very different.

For example, let’s think about classified material. Has a statute been violated merely by taking it and storing it? What level of classification is involved? Is the person authorized to take it and to even declassify it? Does it matter if the person shows it to another person, and to whom? And what about leaking it to the press? These questions differentiate the Trump classified material case from the Biden classified material case from the Hillary Clinton classified material case from the Bolton classified material case, and the details of the answers are highly important in deciding whether bringing charges would be justified and whether bringing charges might even be necessary in order to establish that there are consequences for lawless behavior.

The classified material case was the only one of the legal cases brought against Trump that wasn’t based on an absurdly novel and twisted interpretation of the law. Those other cases were what one might call pure lawfare undertaken for revenge and in order to prevent Trump from being elected. Those cases ended up backfiring, of course, but that was never a foregone conclusion and the people who brought them certainly believed there was a good chance the cases (or at least one of them) would either bankrupt Trump, and/or keep him from a second term, and/or even send him to prison.

As for the investigation of Bolton in a case involving classified material, we simply don’t know enough yet to decide how valid the investigation might be and whether any charges will come of it. But the allegations against Bolton being discussed are that “he sent ‘highly sensitive’ classified documents to his family from a private email server while working in the White House.” That seems potentially serious, if true. Sending them to family? From a private email server? If laws protecting classified documents are to have any meaning whatsoever, it seems as though behavior like that would need to have negative consequences.

It remains to be seen whether there are any legs to the allegations, and whether Bolton will be charged with anything.

Red boots

The New Neo Posted on by

I first saw professional Russian folk dancing when I was a child in the late 1950s, when during Khrushchev’s cultural “thaw” the Moiseyev Dance Company came to New York. The performance I attended (with my family, of course) was in Madison Square Garden, and the place was jam-packed. I already had been taking ballet lessons and loved dance, and I was enthralled by the Moiseyev, as was most of the audience. I developed a desire to learn whatever it was that they were doing, but such dance classes were few and far between and although I took one or two I never had any sustained training in the genre.

But what I wanted most of all, I think, were the red boots that featured so prominently in Russian (and I believe Ukrainian, which was part of the USSR back then) dance. In that part of the world, the pyrotechnics of dance belong to the men. The women and girls are there for decorative charm, grace, lightness, and speed. But oh, the boots!

Stories that don’t much interest me

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the main tasks of a blogger is deciding what topics to cover. It’s not as simple as it may seem.

Sometimes there are stories so huge they cry out for coverage, even if everyone else is writing about the same thing. Sometimes there’s just a quirky idiosyncratic topic that strikes my fancy. Sometimes I choose a story to which I think I can bring an unusual angle. Certain themes keep attracting me, although they aren’t current, such as ballet.

I’m only one person here, so I can’t do what Instapundit or RedState or other group blogs do, which is to cover all the stories or most of them, and keep churning out many posts each day. What I usually end up doing is writing about what most interests me, and what I think might interest my readers. Sometimes I guess right and sometimes I guess wrong.

So, although the following are big (or fairly big) stories around the blogosphere and social media, I’m giving them short shrift:

(1) Sydney Sweeney’s body.

Your mileage may differ, especially if you’re a male.

(2) “I’m an AG!!!” Entitled Democrat behaving badly – what else is new?

(3) The expensive bag the woman who accompanied the woman in #2 was carrying.

(4) Ghislaine Maxwell’s testimony. Much of it may indeed be true; in fact, all of it may be true. Problem is, she can’t be trusted, so I don’t see that her statements are worth much of anything.

(5) The Cracker Barrel rebrand and stock loss. I confess I’ve never been to a Cracker Barrel. I was surprised to learn just now that they even exist in New England.

(6) Obama’s hypocrisy. We certainly don’t need more proof, but we have it.

A raid on Bolton

The New Neo Posted on by

John Bolton was Trump’s National Security Advisor from April 2018 to September 2019. It seemed an odd choice, because Bolton is a hawk and Trump is a Jacksonian on foreign policy, which is not the same thing. Bolton had good credentials, having served under both Reagan and Bush, and had been Bush’s hard-nosed UN Ambassador for about a year and a half.

At a certain point Bolton openly turned against Trump – although I’m not sure he was all that supportive even from the start (here’s an article that claims to describe the downward trajectory of their relationship). But by the time he ended his tenure in the administration, Bolton was Trump’s enemy who wrote a book in 2020 excoriating Trump.

That’s not the issue. The issue is whether he leaked classified information. The proceedings against Bolton are framed by the left in this way: “the justice system is being turned on Trump’s political critics.”

Gee whiz, CNN; did you notice the lawfare against Trump and anyone with the temerity to support him? Did you notice the weakness of their cases? Do you remember “no one is above the law”? I suppose you think Trump’s enemies should get immunity from any prosecution, and a medal?

The real question is whether Bolton is guilty of leaking classified materials and whether his actions fit the definition of a crime, without gymnastics by prosecutors to make it somehow fit when it doesn’t.

From Fox News:

FBI agents raided the Maryland home and Washington, DC office of President Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton Friday morning in a high-profile probe of allegations that he sent “highly sensitive” classified documents to his family from a private email server while working in the White House. …

Bolton has not been arrested and is not currently charged with any crimes, the administration official added. …

Investigators reopened a dormant probe into Bolton’s alleged use of a private email to send classified national security documents to his wife and daughter from his work desk before his dismissal by Trump in September 2019, according to a senior US official.

“While Bolton was a national security adviser, he was literally stealing classified information, utilizing his family as a cutout,” this person charged.

The probe was initially opened in 2020, and continued into the Biden administration, which froze the investigation. …

Justice Department officials who also served during the Biden administration purportedly told Trump officials that they had been “trying to prosecute this case for four years, and the [Biden DOJ] shut it down,” according to the senior official.

So this may end up with no charges, or it may turn into something big.

NOTE: Many years ago – I think it was in 2012, when he briefly was a presidential candidate – I went to a presentation by Bolton. There was almost no one there. That meant that after the lecture I was able to have a very long talk with him. I don’t remember the content, but I recall him as smart, personable, and responsive to questions. Of course, that was prior to the Trump years.

It’s about time: Trump wants to add more accountability to the visa system

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s the plan:

The State Department said it was looking [at the 55 million visa holders] for indicators of ineligibility, including people staying past the authorized timeframe outlined in a visa, criminal activity, threats to public safety, engaging in any form of terrorist activity or providing support to a terrorist organization. …

The administration has steadily imposed more restrictions and requirements on visa applicants, including requiring them to submit to in-person interviews. The review of all visa holders appears to be a significant expansion of what had initially been a process focused mainly on students who have been involved in what the government perceives as pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel activity.

Officials say the reviews will include all visa holders’ social media accounts, law enforcement and immigration records in their home countries, along with any actionable violations of U.S. law committed while they were in the United States.

A visa is a privilege, and I have no problem with deporting people who violate that privilege.

When I read about these announcements the first thing that came to mind was 9/11. I distinctly recalled that many of the suicide hijackers/murderers exploited defects in the visa system, including the fact that some overstayed their visas and were not caught.

At the time, I was shocked that the visa system was so poorly administered with so many vulnerabilities, but now it doesn’t shock me; it seems par for the course. If you’re curious about the 9/11 perpetrators’ visa violations, please read this.

Some quotes:

Three [9/11] hijackers were known or knowable by intelligence authorities as al Qaeda terrorists in early 2000, but their biographical information was not fully developed and communicated to border authorities for watchlisting at U.S. consulates abroad (by the State Department) and at the border (by immigration and customs border inspectors). The travel plans of all three also were known or knowable in 2000, in part because of cooperation from Arab and Asian country intelligence services and border authorities. …

Three were carrying Saudi passports containing a possible extremist indicator present in the passports of many al Qaeda and other terrorists entering the United States as early as the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. This indicator had not been analyzed by the CIA, FBI, or our border authorities for its significance. …

Two hijackers were carrying passports that had been manipulated in a fraudulent manner. They contained fraudulent entry-exit stamps (or cachets) probably inserted by al Qaeda travel document forgers to hide travel to Afghanistan for terrorist training. …

Thirteen of the hijackers presented passports less than three weeks old when they applied for their visas, but the new passports caused no heightened scrutiny of their visa applications. Two hijackers lied on their visa applications in detectable ways, but were not further questioned about those lies. Two hijackers were interviewed for reasons unrelated to terrorism. Most simply had their applications approved and their passports stamped with a U.S. visa. Consular officers were not trained to detect terrorists in a visa interview. …

One of the two nonpilots admitted on business was granted a one-month stay; he, along with another of the nonpilot operatives, was in violation of immigration law for months before the attack. The one pilot who came in on a student visa never showed up for school, thereby violating the terms of his U.S. visa. Another of the pilots came in on a tourist visa yet began flight school immediately, also violating the terms of his U.S. visa. This pilot came in a total of seven times on a tourist visa while in school. In both cases, the pilots violated the law after their entry into the United States.

The following is especially relevant, I think:

On August 23, 2001, the CIA provided biographical identification information about two of the hijackers to border and law enforcement authorities. The CIA and FBI considered the case important, but there was no way of knowing whether either hijacker was still in the country, because a border exit system Congress authorized in 1996 was never implemented. One of the two overstayed his visa by less than six months. Without an exit system in place at the border tied to law enforcement databases, there was no way to establish with certainty that he remained in the United States. Thus, there was no risk that his immigration law violations would be visible to law enforcement, and there was no risk of immigration enforcement action of any kind.

It’s strange to look back so many years and recall how lax the system was – including the ability to walk right onto a plane without a TSA search. So many of our onerous TSA rules have been reactions to pre-9/11 errors – reactions that perhaps have thwarted or at least discouraged repeats of that terrible day, although there’s really no way to know and many people doubt it. The visa system, however, could obviously use quite a bit of tightening up, and this new directive aims to address that.

20 billion dollars for leftists through the EPA

The New Neo Posted on by

From Lee Zeldin, on the Inflation Reduction Act’s grants to the EPA:

And when Democrats had one-party rule in Washington, D.C., they passed this bill called the Inflation Reduction Act that had tens of billions of dollars to go out through EPA.

Well, EPA didn’t know how to spend tens of billions of dollars, so they decided to park $20 billion at an outside bank and have that bank send the money through eight pass-through entities.

All these NGOs—pass-through entities—were riddled with self-dealing and conflicts of interest, former Obama and Biden officials, Democratic donors, as you pointed out. And the EPA was a party to the account control agreement with those prime recipients.

But here’s the thing: when the money goes through the prime recipients to others, in many cases also pass-throughs, EPA is no longer a party to the account control agreement. EPA is losing oversight — by design, intentionally, these grant agreements and arrangements were set up to tie EPA’s hands behind its back.

Zeldin went on to say that it’s still not known exactly how the money was spent after it passed through the pass-through entities, but he aims to claw it back.

The Israeli left, the NY Times, and Netanyahu

The New Neo Posted on by

This Tablet article by Gadi Taub is terribly depressing, although nothing in it is new to me and nothing should be a surprise. I think it’s especially disheartening, though, because it puts it all together in fairly succinct fashion: the self-destructive fantasy world of the left, which in some leftists is a result of naive idealism that flies in the face of reality and in others is merely a cover for the lust for power and hatred of the right; and the continual willingness of media outlets such as The New York Times to serve leftist purposes (and to get awards for it). In post-10/7 Israel, which is the topic of the article, the hatred of the left for Netanyahu rivals any Trump derangement in the US.

Some excerpts follow:

October 7 presented the Israeli left with a daunting challenge: how to prevent the Hamas massacre from sounding the death knell of its most cherished dream, the so-called two-state solution. …

But how could the left leverage an event that showed its side was wrong in its fundamental assumptions about Israel’s neighbors against the right, whose position was vindicated? The answer is simple: Lay Oct. 7 at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s feet.

That was the tactic from the start. As the article points out, the New York Times has been pressed into the service of attacking Netanyahu and presenting him as a monster:

A recent example of this revisionism is an 11,000-word New York Times Magazine piece by Patrick Kingsley, Ronen Bergman, and Natan Odenheimer, titled “How Netanyahu Prolonged the War in Gaza to Stay in Power.” …

The piece puts forward a neat storyline that echoes the Israeli left’s articles of faith: Netanyahu could have ended the war with a hostage deal in April 2024. However, he keeps prolonging the war to satisfy the radical, irrational hawkish wing of this coalition, all to stay in power. The real reason Netanyahu is desperate to remain in office, the piece argues, is so that he can appoint a new attorney general and thereby quash his prosecution on corruption charges.

Only, there isn’t a single true link in this imaginary chain of political logic.

The article goes on to demolish every one of the points the left makes against Netanyahu – who of course isn’t perfect but is hardly guilty of the charges the left mounts. It’s well worth reading for an overview. But perhaps the most poignant and mendaciously twisted lie by the left regarding Netanyahu and the war is this:

But the piece’s most egregious deception is its distortion of the historical record regarding the responsibility for the immense intelligence failure that led to the Hamas invasion. Kingsley, Berman, and Odenheimer exonerate the security officials directly responsible and blame the man whom these officials didn’t bother to brief until after the attack was underway.

In the authors’ rendering, military and Shin Bet intelligence saw the attack coming, but Netanyahu refused to heed their warnings. …

Israel’s responsible adults, such as former IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, the piece adds, “tried to reach Netanyahu, in a previously unreported effort to get the prime minister to read Saar’s findings,” to no avail. Netanyahu stubbornly ignored repeated, written warnings by the security establishment. Shin Bet head Ronen Bar also tried to convince Netanyahu that real danger was looming, the piece adds. Netanyahu turned a deaf ear to his warnings, too.

This is not a misinterpretation. It is a falsification of the record. … These officials were so confident that no danger from Gaza was imminent that, even after the signs of an impending invasion were accumulating during the night between Oct. 6 and 7, they dismissed them and left the soldiers in the perimeter sound asleep to be slaughtered in their beds by Hamas.

The security chiefs’ mutiny against civil authority persisted until 6:29 a.m. on Oct. 7, as they did not inform the minister of defense or the prime minister of what was happening throughout the night. We now know from the little we can glimpse of their considerations that they seemed to have been more worried about “miscalculation”—a euphemism for their fear that their hawkish boss would overreact to intelligence and start a war—than they were about an impending Hamas attack. …

We now know that IDF intelligence had the full Hamas plan of attack and that the intelligence brass dismissed it as “fantasy.” The women at the scouting centers watching the border up close, some of whom were slaughtered or taken hostage on Oct. 7, likewise warned of Hamas training in plain sight at the border fence. The confidence of the security chiefs in their mistaken assessment never wavered. They overruled this evidence, too.

They were far more worried about Netanyahu than about the slaughter.

The left clings to its delusions, because giving them up is too difficult and too filled with guilt and shame. As I’ve said before, a mind is a difficult thing to change – especially if it involves saying you were wrong.