The Nashville Christmas Day bombing was very very odd

The New Neo Posted on by

Several people have pointed out that the Christmas Day bombing in Nashville had extremely unusual characteristics. When I heard that prior to the explosion an evacuation warning had been broadcast from a loudspeaker mounted on the RV that subsequently blew up, it brought to mind long-ago politically motivated bombings involving prior warnings such as the King David Hotel. Also, the IRA sometimes did this.

But not only did such cases occur in countries other than the US, but they involved situations in which the bombers and their agenda were no mystery at all. The Nashville incident is a complete mystery, at least so far. Here’s Andrea Widburg’s take on it:

Even if a person other than the bomber ended up dying, this bomb blast was not meant to take human life. The street would have been relatively deserted on Christmas morning and the RV itself warned people to leave the area. I therefore doubt that this was Islamic terrorism…

Unlike the Oklahoma City bombing, this bomb did not target a government building. Despite the usual Trump haters conflating Trump supporters and Nazis, this fact alone probably means that one of the vanishingly small numbers of actual white supremacist groups in America was not involved…

This wasn’t the usual anti-corporate bombing. To begin with, those are usually “message bombings (“don’t ship chemicals,” “don’t cut down trees,” “don’t build weapons to hurt third world countries,” etc.). The destruction was also insufficiently showy for the Antifa crowd, which views violence as theater…

In sum, it’s unlikely (although never impossible) that the bomb was Islamic terrorism, or anti-government, anti-corporate, or anti-media terrorism. In some ways, the bomb was so exquisitely done – a huge explosion that wasn’t meant to take any lives – that it seems like showing off. That is, it seems like someone made a point that, if he really wanted to, he could have done much worse.

My conclusions as well. I believe the bombing itself may have been a warning of some sort. But if so, it’s a cryptic one, unless the message is that we are vulnerable. But didn’t we already know that?

Alex Little has more on Twitter about the various possibilities. Also, Nashville police have identified a person of interest, a fact which may or may not lead to anything.

Merry Christmas! (another golden oldie from the neo archives)

The New Neo Posted on by

holiday-cheer-christmas-tree.gif

On Christmas Day—blog?
I’d rather have grog,
Or maybe eggnog,
Then go walk the dog.
Or watch a Yule Log,
And eat like a hog,
Then go for a jog.
Blogging’s a bog.
My mind’s in a fog,
Or maybe agog
From much dialogue.
I’ll return to the slog
Tomorrow, and blog.

[NOTE: On the words “the dog,” the link goes to a photo of the dog we had when my son was growing up.]

The best way to cook salmon?

The New Neo Posted on by

I came across this article purporting to compare methods for cooking salmon. Salmon can be tricky, especially to get it the way I like it: somewhat crisp on the outside but tender and not dry on the inside.

Part of it depends on the type of salmon one gets. Where I live, I find that the best kind is the farmed type, although connoisseurs probably think that’s terrible of me. But that kind is typically more moist and therefore more forgiving of a little overcooking.

I haven’t tried the methods in the article. But here’s how I ordinarily cook salmon. I put olive oil, lemon, salt, and dried tarragon (or fresh, if I have it) in an oval baking dish like this one, turn the oven to 425 and put the dish in there until it gets up to speed. Then when it’s hot and sizzly I put the fish in there, making sure both sides get coated with the liquid. Cooking time depends on the size and shape of the fish.

It’s really really good.

[NOTE: I don’t feel like writing about politics anymore today, so I’m not going to. That’s my Christmas present to you.]

Wealth “extraction” in San Francisco

The New Neo Posted on by

An article about the tech drain from San Francisco includes this:

…[A] moral argument for tech’s responsibility to California, and specifically the Bay Area, has recently been produced. It goes something like this: young ambitious people moved to the state, and struck gold. But rather than “give back” to the land, they’re leaving with resources they “took” from the region…

I take extreme issue with the notion that industry leaders have taken something from the “community,” defined here as the “talent,” the “incubators,” and the “mentors.” This is precisely the opposite of reality. The men and women leaving are the talent, they have started the incubators, they have built the companies, they have funded the startup ecosystem, and they have mentored countless young people. This is the “network.” They are the network. Technology workers do not “extract” value from the region, they are what makes the region valuable.

The left has a strange idea of how economics work. But paradoxically, the perpetuation of that idea has in part been made possible by the success of capitalism in creating wealth. I think it gives people the idea that wealth is just there, like ore, to be extracted – or perhaps even stolen – from others.

The author of that piece feels that tech workers who are complaining about what has happened to a once-proud city like San Francisco should have participated more to change local politics:

…[H]ad tech workers actually assumed a significant measure of political influence, and led in local politics, San Francisco would today be one of the greatest cities in the world. But not only was such political influence not achieved, it was never attempted. Throughout the most recent technology boom of the last fifteen years, there has been almost no meaningful engagement in local politics from the industry.

The author mentions that California is a “one-party” state, and that this is a good part of the problem. But it’s curious that the author never mentions what party that might be. He never mentions either party by name, nor does he mention left or right. However, from my limited but not nonexistent knowledge of the politics of the tech world of the Bay area, I would guess tech workers almost certainly vote strongly Democrat. And from my likewise limited but not nonexistent knowledge of the Bay area as a whole, it’s my guess that anyone with sensible solutions could not be elected there even as dogcatcher.

Someone with more knowledge of this than I have, please correct me if I’m wrong about that.

I also believe that this exodus we’re seeing from California and other deep blue states bodes ill for the states to which the exiles move. I hope I’m wrong about that, because I’d like to think that the people leaving are those who would vote for someone with practical and sensible approaches, someone not of the left. But I tend to doubt that people have learned that particular lesson from the fall of California.

I have plenty of friends and relatives in California, lived there for a while back in the 70s, and have gone there countless times over the past 50 years. I’ve seen what has happened to San Francisco, a city I used to love. It’s not just sad, it’s tragic, and it’s caused by the bad policies that keep being perpetuated by the voters of the area. And yet over the years it’s only gotten worse and worse and worse, and other leftist cities have followed in San Francisco’s footsteps right into the mire of leftist quicksand.

‘Twas the blogger’s night before Christmas

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This small poetic effort of mine has become somewhat of a holiday tradition at the blog. So here it comes again—just like the holiday itself. Merry Christmas Eve to you all!]

‘TWAS THE BLOGGER’S NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS

‘Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the ‘sphere
Bloggers were glad to see Christmas draw near.
Their laptops were turned off and all put away
The bloggers were swearing to take off the day.

Their children were nestled all snug in their beds
While visions of extra time danced in their heads
With a father or mom not distracted by writing
No posts to compose, and no links to be citing.

But we all know that vows were just meant to be broken
And the vows of a blogger can be a mere token.
There’s always a chance that some sort of temptation
Will rise up to make them of fleeting duration.

For instance, there might be found under the tree
A sleek Mac; well, what better sight could there be?
And who could neglect it and wait the whole day?
It cries to be tried out, one just can’t delay.

Or maybe somewhere there’s a fast-breaking story
Important, and possibly leading to glory.
It can’t be ignored, there’s really no choice,
So add to the din every blogger’s small voice.

And then there are some who may just like to rhyme
(I’m one who at times must confess to this crime),
And it’s been quite a while since Clement Clarke Moore
Wrote his opus (though authorship’s been claimed by Gore).

So it seems about time it was newly updated
And here’s my attempt – aren’t you glad you all waited?
Forgive if it sounds a bit awkward to read.
In writing, I set a new record for speed.

I had to get under the wire and compose it
Before Christmas Day. Now it’s time that I close it.
But let me exclaim (or, rather, I’ll write)
Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!

Here’s a video of the original, with some 50s-type nostalgia for those who remember. There are a few odd anomalies (“safe in their beds” instead of “snug in their beds”). But it brought back memories of pincurls, and the days when parents were assumed to sleep in twin beds (even though I don’t recall that most people did).

I think I had the book on which this is based. The illustrations look very familiar:

The Everly Brothers: “Let It Be Me” in three acts with long intermissions

The New Neo Posted on by

The incomparable Everly Brothers were probably my favorite group while I was growing up. I love harmony, and harmony doesn’t get much better than the Everly brothers.

Like many groups that employ close harmony, they were siblings (duh – “Everly Brothers“). Siblings have two advantages, and you can probably guess what they are: nature and nurture. They often inherit musical ability from musical parents – that was true of the Everlys, whose father and mother were professional musicians – and it’s not unusual for them to have been performing professionally together since childhood or teen years. That was true of the Everlys, as well. DNA and other factors such as similar regional accents often make the voices of siblings blend particularly well.

And of course, there’s all that early rehearsal time in that musical family. And by “rehearsal time” I don’t just mean formal rehearsals. Siblings are around each other a lot, and in the days before the internet – or even much TV – fooling around with music and singing together filled a lot of time and even could be fun.

As part of my new obsession with singing – a skill I’ve tried to learn but which eludes me, except in the most basic way – I’ve become interested in family groups. More about some of the others later, but for now I’ll just say there are patterns and parallels.

One sad pattern – and it’s a pattern shared by many groups that are not related, such as the Beatles – is later breakup and enmity, after the fame hits. Sadly, this was also true for the Everlys. The usual stresses of fame and clashes of ego (who gets more attention and adulation from the public?) are often exacerbated by the old childhood rivalries. Substances enter into it, too. I read one piece on the Everlys that said that they had been “yoked together” since childhood, and I think that’s apt. There’s a yearning to be free of that deep connection which is responsible for achieving almost everything you ever wanted but which can become a heavy burden.

That’s what happened to the Everlys. They broke up very publicly (during a concert) in 1973 after years of conflict, and they never reconciled except for intermittent professional appearances.

Their hit song “Let It Be Me” was released in 1959 and was based on a French song from a few years earlier. You probably know the original version; it’s a thing of aching beauty:

This next version was almost twenty-five years later, performed live at their 1983 reunion concert ten years after they had their acrimonious split up. The emotional tenor of the song is very different, and I actually prefer it although I’m not sure most people would agree with me:

This is six years later, in 1989. Time and age have taken further tolls, but the emotion is heightened, if anything:

COVID lockdowns: the suffering of those in nursing homes

The New Neo Posted on by

One of the consequences of the COVID restrictions is the alarming and destructive effect it has had on the elderly in nursing homes and other facilities. Yes, they are at risk for COVID and some may even die from COVID. But they are all at great risk from isolation.

Actually, it’s not just the elderly. Everyone I speak to feels it. But those in nursing homes are already isolated and already vulnerable to depression and cognitive declines from lack of stimulation. And then there is the vile abomination of not allowing families to be there when their beloved mother or father or grandparent is dying.

It seems to me that the risk/benefit analysis is very much out of whack. But that’s true of our entire response to COVID, which seems to treat the restrictions as having no negative consequences. Au contraire.

I know that some readers of this blog have spoken about the suffering their elderly relatives have endured as a result of this. My heart goes out to you.

Here’s a beautiful essay by journalist John Kass, about his 90-year-old mother who is in a nursing home. An excerpt:

“But here, we don’t talk about missing everyone so much,” she told me last week. “Our thoughts are with our children and grandchildren. Whining and crying just won’t do. You just don’t mention it because others might feel sad.

“We just walk around the halls with our walkers, we talk about the weather, the food, but we don’t discuss what we miss outside,” she said. “I suppose prison inmates are like this.”

Much much more at the link. And you might want to have your Kleenex at the ready.

Who’s against the stimulus bill?

The New Neo Posted on by

Six hundred dollars of stimulus for Americans versus gazillions for pork, over five thousand rushed pages, and Congress has passed the stimulus bill at last. Trump has threatened to veto it if the amount of relief isn’t raised and if a great many extras aren’t removed.

In crisis there is opportunity, and Congress has taken the opportunity to pass this behemoth. When was the last time Congress passed a “clean” bill of this sort? I don’t know, but my guess is that it was a long long time ago.

The number of members of Congress who voted for the bill is more than enough to override any veto. But there would have to be another vote taken to actually do so, and I wonder if more GOP members wouldn’t join in a “no” vote, now that they’ve seen the backlash. Do they care? Would they see voting “no” as being in their own interests? And of course, assuming Biden (or Harris) is inaugurated in January, the bill would almost certainly pass in the next session (even if the GOP manages to hold the Senate, they would probably need every single vote to thwart its passage). It could be even worse at that point, and it would be veto-proof from Biden.

I wonder whether that is part of the calculations of some GOP members for passing it as is; they figure if it’s not passing now, it will pass later in a worse form. Of course, I’m being kind here and probably giving them credit that many of them don’t deserve.

But there are many who do deserve credit. Here are the six GOP senators who voted against it. And they didn’t mince words, either:

Sens. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Ron Johnson, R-Wis., Mike Lee, R-Utah, Rand Paul, R-Ky., and Rick Scott, R-Fla., all stood firmly against the bill, which had been bundled with a $1.4 trillion spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. Their criticisms largely focused on the size of the legislation, both in terms of the dollar amount and the bill’s page count.

“To so-called conservatives who are quick to identify the socialism of Democrats: If you vote for this spending monstrosity, you are no better,” Paul said on the Senate floor.

“When you vote to pass out free money, you lose your soul and you abandon forever any semblance of moral or fiscal integrity,” he said, targeting his fellow Republicans.

Quotes from the other GOP senators at the link.

In the House, fifty Republicans voted against it (as well as two Democrats, Tlaib and Gabbard).

The new stimulus bill…

The New Neo Posted on by

…has outraged nearly everyone on the right. Simply put, its ratio of pork to relief is high. Articles like this one are fairly typical; you can read them at almost every site.

This kind of action has been typical of DC government for a long time, and it’s bipartisan. But that article and so many others seem to focus the ire towards the right, stating that there is no different between the two parties.

I’ve written about this before, so this post will be short: the fact that both parties are extremely flawed is not news, but it doesn’t make them the same. We are on the brink of total leftist control of our government if the GOP loses the Senate. Gaining the Senate merely buys time, but time is important if anything is to be done about the problems we face. Try to reform the party, challenge the party, or change the party during that time. But if the Democrats take control, we may have run out of time.

Who is George Gascon, LA’s newly-elected DA?

The New Neo Posted on by

I wrote about LA’s Soros-backed DA George Gascon previously in this post, and you can read more here. In summary, Gascon supports a sweeping leftist overhaul of the entire prosecution system in LA County in a way similar to that of other Soros-funded prosecutors – which is to say, he wants to practically dismantle that system by expanding prosecutorial discretion to the breaking point.

The policy advocated by prosecutors (or should we call them unprosecutors?) such as Gascon is the opposite of “broken windows.” The latter idea was to prosecute even minor crimes in order to get across the message that chaos and lawlessness will not be tolerated. The Gascons of the world believe in shrugging their shoulders instead. One of my favorite (and that’s a sarcastic use of the word “favorite”) policies he plans to implement in LA is this one, which appears to put in place a bail sliding scale:

When cash bail is being requested under the limited circumstances delineated in this memo (felony sexual assault, violent felonies), DDAs shall recommend cash bail amounts that are aligned with the accused’s ability to pay.

LA County, where Gascon holds sway, is bigger than many states and is the biggest county in the US, encompassing not just the city limits of LA but most of the suburbs. It has a population of over 10 million people.

Looking at Gascon’s Wiki page, I was surprised to see that he is the child of Cuban immigrants and that he came here at the age of thirteen. So many Cuban immigrants lean right, but not Gascon. Gascon also was in the Army, and then a police officer. That’s not exactly the classic leftist profile. So, what happened? Perhaps some clues are here:

During his tenure with the Los Angeles Police Department, he attained the rank of Assistant Chief of Police under Chief William Bratton. In 2006, Gascón was appointed as Chief of Police for the Mesa Police Department. He had frequent clashes with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio over immigration sweeps targeting Latinos. In 2009, then-Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed Gascón as the Chief of Police for the San Francisco Police Department. In 2011, after Kamala Harris was elected California Attorney General, Newsom appointed Gascón to be the San Francisco District Attorney. In 2019, Gascón announced he was running to be the District Attorney for Los Angeles County.

So perhaps he became more radicalized over the immigration issue.

Gascon had gotten a law degree in 1996 from Western State College of Law, while he was with the LAPD.

In 2000, he took command of the LAPD training unit at the height of the Rampart scandal.

That was a huge case of police corruption. Gascon was in charge of an overhaul:

One of his first orders as training commander was to create an ethics training manual for the LAPD. He also implemented problem-based learning and posted a copy of the bill of rights in every LAPD classroom. Michael Gennaco, the former head of the United States Justice Department’s civil rights division said at the time: “He fundamentally changed the way the LAPD teaches its officers about civil rights.”

It seems that experience must have been formative. But once he became San Francisco’s DA, he was in another role entirely:

During Gascon’s time as [SF] District Attorney, property crime increased by 49%. Some of Gascon’s critics have blamed this increase on his office’s reluctance to file charges against low-level offenders; during Gascon’s tenure, misdemeanor charges were only filed in 40% of cases presented by the San Francisco Police Department. Having worked with Gascon, San Francisco Mayor London Breed and City Attorney Dennis Herrera declined to endorse him in his bid to become the District Attorney of Los Angeles County; Breed and Herrera instead endorsed his opponent, the incumbent Jackie Lacey.

But it’s this that especially stuns me about Gascon’s tenure as SF’s head prosecutor [emphasis mine]:

…Gavin Newsom appointed him the interim District Attorney when Kamala Harris was elected to Attorney General. Even though he’d never tried a case, let alone prosecuted a case, Gascon’s statement on his qualification to be the District Attorney was telling. He stated, “Running a D.A.’s office is not the same as prosecuting cases on the floor. They’re different skill sets. I believe I have the organizational skills, and I have an understanding of the criminal justice system not only today, but where we need to be in the future.”

Herein lies one of the most basic flaws with George Gascon being the chief prosecutor in San Francisco — the gross misconception that being the head of an office of prosecutors is little more than a management position…

For those of you who have been in the trenches, who know what it’s like to do battle in the courtroom, who know that our role is to do what’s right, you know that your elected District Attorney is your leader, not a manager. When the head of your office hasn’t spent a day in your shoes (and never cared to understand what a courtroom prosecutor does), as a line prosecutor, you don’t get what you need to succeed and it’s demoralizing….

So, Los Angeles County, take a look at the state that Gascon left San Francisco as a cautionary tale. It’s no wonder he didn’t seek re-election in the county where he was an incumbent. It’s because he could never win another term here. He left the city in such shambles that even San Francisco’s Mayor and City Attorney took the unusual step of endorsing his competitor, incumbent DA Jackie Lacey. George Gascon wreaked havoc on the San Francisco DA’s Office and the City as a whole. I just hope he doesn’t get an opportunity to ruin Los Angeles as well.

Obviously, that was written prior to November 3, 2020.