Crime drops in Washington DC

The New Neo Posted on by

Who would have thought?

According to the union, which represents the Metropolitan Police Department’s 3,000 personnel, carjackings are down 83% since federal control was enacted, while robberies dropped 46%.

Violent crime fell 22% in the seven days since federal law enforcement began patrolling D.C.’s streets, and car theft came down 21%. Assault with a deadly weapon and property crime are also each down 6%.

“While federal assistance gives us a boost, we must repeal the misguided Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Act in order to make these changes permanent,” the union wrote on X, Monday morning.

It’s not a mystery that cracking down on criminals might actually reduce crime. But Democrats seem to think that shouldn’t be the way.

The thing about crime rates, though – rising or falling – is that they are statistics, and statistics depend on how things are reported and defined. We all know they can be manipulated. So at the moment we have dueling statistics about what’s really going on in DC and elsewhere. The police have been saying that recent DC statistics – prior to Trump’s action – were artificially low.

NOTE: Here’s an interesting article on the lethality of crimes in DC.

Israel’s Hobson’s choice

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Barry Meislin.”]

I’m in complete agreement with this:

… [Israel] is caught in an equation deliberately made insoluble. On October 7th, by massacring civilians and abducting hundreds of hostages, Hamas triggered a war with no bearable outcome. Israel was not only surprised. It was trapped.

It is important to understand: Hamas is not seeking victory, it seeks the destruction of Israel. They do not care if Gaza burns, as long as Israel bleeds. This is an eschatological strategy: lose everything, as long as the other falls with you. And their strategy relies on entanglement, on emotion, on manipulating Western consciences. Their strength is not military, it is dramaturgical.

And perhaps the most chilling thing is this: they have understood the West better than many Israeli strategists. Their real front is Western public opinion, not the IDF.

By taking hostages, they forbid peace. By hiding among civilians in the most densely populated territory in the world, they forbid war. Hamas has invented a geometry of the trap: Israel is locked in a war where every victory is a loss. In this asymmetrical, post-modern war, it is not reality that counts—it is the image of reality.

This trap could not work without the cooperation of Western democracies. By reversing the pressure—not on the hostage-takers, but on those trying to rescue them—they legitimize blackmail. By recognizing a Palestinian state unconditionally, they turn a terrorist strategy into political capital. …

The hostages are trophies, levers, spotlights trained on Gaza to keep the war going. They will not all be returned: that is precisely why they were taken.

This strategy was apparent almost from the start, when the West – and most especially the Western MSM – began to play its role with perfection. The template was set early on, with the fake news on October 17, 2023, of the bombing of the Al-Ahli hospital, which was picked up and spread by Western media without questioning the obvious impossibility of the Gazans having a body count in no time at all, and without even trying to ascertain whether the hospital was even damaged (it was not) or investigating the provenance of the explosives (Hamas in origin). Hamas could put out any lie whatsoever that would make Israel look bad, and the propaganda would be promulgated by the MSM and then amplified on social media. It was a winning formula – “winning” in the sense of making Israel look bad in the eyes of so much of the gullible, Israel-hating world.

Many many times I’ve heard it said, and read it written, that Israel is terrible at communicating its message. This is usually stated with a condescending and deprecating air, as though there’s something Israel could do that it isn’t doing. But these criticisms almost always ignore what I think is glaringly obvious, which is that it is actually impossible to accomplish this. The reason? It’s the old saying: a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots on. Lies are easy to tell and no proof is demanded if the recipient is already predisposed to believe the lie. The truth countering it requires facts, and facts take time. Plus, they are brushed away as self-serving lies by those who don’t want to see.

Israel has indeed been in a trap since 10/7, and the hostages are the key to the trap. It would be bad enough to wage the war against Hamas even without them, because lies like the one about the Al-Ahli hospital explosion would be continually told by Hamas and believed by those who demonize Israel. But the hostages make the dilemma far far worse because they make it very difficult to prosecute the war in a timely and effective fashion.

Hamas has always known this. As I wrote on April 10, 2024, about six months after the hostages were taken [emphasis added]:

… [T]he remaining hostages (except for the Bibas family) are in two major categories: military members and civilian men over 18. I believe (but cannot prove) that these two groups – especially the military – were singled out by Hamas for harsher treatment from the start. “Harsher treatment” can mean many things, including death. But Hamas was always going to keep these groups back and use them to bargain for the entire prize: the release of all Palestinian prisoners (numbering in thousands) held in Israel, the end of Israel’s offensive in Gaza, and the continuation of Hamas’ own powerful death grip on Gaza.

That’s how valuable the hostages are to Hamas.

NOTE: According to this article, Hamas has recently accepted a deal for about half of the hostages, but Israel is demanding them all. Israel is correct to demand them, but I doubt Israel will ever get them. The alternative is more war.

Traffic here has been somewhat down …

The New Neo Posted on by

… and I wonder why. It had been stable for years and years, but has dropped off about twenty or twenty-five percent.

Maybe people on the right are taking a breather, now that Trump has been elected.

Maybe it’s just the usual summer downturn, although it started before the summer and just a couple of months after his election.

Maybe I’ve become boring.

Maybe blogs are passé, even among the more – ahem, mature readership in which I seem to specialize.

I also worry that – for the same reason of an older readership – some unknown number of readers have died or are ill. So folks, please take good care of yourselves and stay healthy! And I say that not just for selfish reasons.

Trump is planning voting reform

The New Neo Posted on by

A new announcement from Trump:

In a lengthy post on Truth Social, Trump announced, “I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we’re at it, Highly ‘Inaccurate,’ Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES.” He argued that such machines cost “Ten Times more than accurate and sophisticated Watermark Paper, which is faster, and leaves NO DOUBT, at the end of the evening, as to who WON, and who LOST, the Election.”

Trump said the United States stands alone in continuing to use widespread mail-in voting. “We are now the only Country in the World that uses Mail-In Voting. All others gave it up because of the MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD ENCOUNTERED,” he wrote.

The president made clear that he intends to act quickly, pledging to use executive authority to move the plan forward. “WE WILL BEGIN THIS EFFORT, WHICH WILL BE STRONGLY OPPOSED BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THEY CHEAT AT LEVELS NEVER SEEN BEFORE, by signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER to help bring HONESTY to the 2026 Midterm Elections,” Trump said.

He also challenged the notion that states hold full control over election administration.

I assume the plan is that the EO is just the beginning to set the tone, and that Congress would need to act. It’s not even clear to me that Congress could keep states from having their own rules about mail-in voting, because although states don’t hold full control over federal election rules in their own states, they definitely have some. How far does that control go? I don’t think it’s clear.

When the Democrats were in power, they kept trying to pass HR1, which would have eliminated the states’ ability to impose certain aspects of voting security on federal elections, and been in some ways the reverse of what Trump is now trying to do. The measure didn’t pass, and therefore its constitutionality or unconstitutionality was never determined. Same with any bill a GOP-led Congress might pass in order to control mail-in voting and the like – its constitutionality would almost certainly be challenged. It’s definitely worth a try, though, because I think the reforms are needed.

What’s happened in the Ukraine negotiations so far, and what’s next?

The New Neo Posted on by

The MSM says “Trump got played!” in his meeting with Putin. But that’s meaningless, because it’s their kneejerk reaction.

Secretary of State Rubio called some of the recent coverage a “stupid media narrative”:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio didn’t hold back Sunday when CBS’s Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan tried to push the tired media line that President Donald Trump is “bullying” Ukraine into a bad peace deal with Russia. …

“This is such a stupid media narrative that [European leaders] are coming here tomorrow because Trump is going to bully Zelensky into a bad deal,” Rubio shot back. “We’ve been working with these people for weeks… We invited them to come.”

The truth is that we don’t know where this is heading. Even the participants probably don’t know, although they know more than we do (at least, I hope they do). My opinion? Trump is a good negotiator, but the situation seems intractable to me. If he can pull off something that is realistic and doesn’t badly hurt Ukraine I would consider that an impressive accomplishment.

Yesterday Zelensky said the following:

Speaking ahead of his meeting with President Trump on Monday, Zelensky told reporters in Brussels that while Kyiv would be open to “land swaps” in exchange for peace, Putin’s demands to cede the entirety of the Donetsk region — including parts under Ukrainian control — is off the table.

“We need real negotiations, which means they can start where the front line is now,” Zelensky said.

In other words, he’s willing to give up something, just not as much of Russia wants. This is no surprise.

More from Zelensky:

“Since the territorial issue is so important, it should be discussed only by the leaders of Ukraine and Russia at the trilateral Ukraine-United States-Russia,” Zelensky added.

“So far, Russia gives no sign that trilateral will happen, and if Russia refuses, then new sanctions must follow,” he added.

Trump and Zelensky are meeting in bilateral talks today.

The following seems important, or at least potentially important:

Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff said Sunday that Putin agreed to allow the US and Europe to provide Ukraine with assurances that it will never again be invaded by Russia, similar to NATO’s “Article 5” agreement that allows member nations to defend each other if one is ever attacked.

Right now, searching for what’s presently going on with that meeting, I see headlines such as this from the WaPo: “Live updates: Trump pledges ‘a lot of help’ to Ukraine in congenial Oval Office meeting,” and this from Newsweek: “Trump Refuses To Rule Out Sending US Troops to Ukraine: Live Updates.” Those are certainly more pro-Ukraine than the dire predictions from the MSM. And then there’s this:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky arrived at the White House on Monday wearing an all-black suit without a tie, a change of style after months of criticism over his usual military-inspired outfits. Trump greeted him warmly, placing an arm around his shoulder and praising the choice of clothing. “I can’t believe it, I love it,” the US president said as they entered the Oval Office.

.

Optics.

Time will tell. The meeting with the European leaders is going on right now. Will there be a trilateral meeting? Unknown.

“I’m going to grab your vitals”

The New Neo Posted on by

I recently had the experience of spending a great deal of time visiting a hospital and a rehab hospital due to the illness of my ex-husband and the fact that I was the only person geographically on the scene. I learned a lot of things, but one of the them was the current ubiquity of the phrase, “I’m going to grab your vitals” or the more polite “Is it okay if I grab your vitals?”

This was uttered many times a day, usually by young or middle-aged women to the older man who is my ex-husband. I don’t know what it conjures up for you, but to me it seems a bit – well, a bit forward. After all, as the very first Google result states, the definition is “the body’s important internal organs, especially the gut or the genitalia.”

Indeed.

Yes, I’m aware that these women meant vital signs such as blood pressure, temperature, and oxygen levels, which they proceeded to take (not to “grab”). But I find my levity where I can.

And then the other day, when I was waiting in the checkout line at the market, a young woman employee reached across me and bent down, asking, “Can I steal these baskets?” as she took the handbaskets that were on the floor near the counter.

Grab and steal. What’s with these young women today? – asks the old curmudgeon.

On the decline of The New Yorker: case in point, Doreen St. Félix

The New Neo Posted on by

I subscribed to The New Yorker from around 1975 to 2005. I loved the magazine for most of those years and if I recall correctly it was the only magazine to which I subscribed. Many weeks I read it cover to cover. The fiction was usually pretty good, as were the nonfiction and the reviews. For years it featured the best dance critic in the US, Arlene Croce. And then of course there were the cartoons, often funny and sometimes very funny. It was an event to get my copy in the mail every week.

Those days were gone by 2002 or so. I don’t remember the exact date, but I noticed that the subject matter seemed to become more political and more partisan; to the left, of course. I believe I noticed this even before my own political change, but I’m not sure and there’s nobody else to consult on the matter. What I do know is that I finally stopped my subscription around 2005 or so. I did it with a heavy heart. The divorce was painful but necessary, because it had gotten to the point where I was writing little messages in the margins of each article, and my copies were filled with those scribblings, which were far from love notes. The relationship had become toxic.

I’ve read random articles in the magazine in the years since. Therefore I’m aware of how DEI has taken over, and seems to reign. But I was unfamiliar with staff New Yorker writer Doreen St. Félix until now, when Ed Driscoll wrote this post about her writing, particularly her comments on X which are straight up anti-white and anti-Jewish. St. Félix was born in Brooklyn but is of Haitian parentage, and her X output (now shuttered) features pearls of wisdom such as these (see the Driscoll post):

Of course white people don’t bathe. It’s in their blood. Their lack of hygiene literally started the bubonic plague, lice, syphillis [sic] etc.

ALSO “all humans” are not the reason the earth is in peril. white capitalism is. we lived in perfect harmony w/ the earth pre whiteness.

And then there’s this gem:

it’s tricknological, when white people invoke the holocaust, allows them to step out of their whiteness and slip on fake oppression.

Needless to say, if she wrote anything of the sort about anyone other than white people in general (and Jews in particular, who are the implied though unstated subjects of that last quote), Félix wouldn’t be on the New Yorker’s payroll.

I see that most of these tweets seem to have been written in 2014 (or starting in 2014), three years before she was hired by The New Yorker. She is now thirty-three years old, so she was either twenty-two or twenty-three at the time; no child. As far as I can tell, neither she nor the magazine have made statements in response to the highlighting of these tweets, except that she has now deleted her X account.

Trump and Putin rendezvoused in Alaska and aren’t telling

The New Neo Posted on by

Their words after the meeting were cautiously optimistic and purposely vague. We don’t know if any real progress was made although they seemed to be saying there was: “productive” according to Trump; “a starting point” according to Putin.

I certainly didn’t expect much more, especially since – as I wrote yesterday – Trump tried to lower expectations prior to the meeting by saying it had a twenty-five percent chance of failure, and, “Twenty-five percent chance of failure is Trump’s version of ‘pretty high chance of failure.'”:

So what now? After the meeting, Trump stated:

Trump said Putin’s observations were “profound,” and added that he would talk to NATO and Zelenskyy to update them about the discussions with Russia. “It’s ultimately up to them,” he said.

“Many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there,” Trump said, without elaborating.

The two didn’t take questions.

NOTE: I don’t know where else to put this essentially meaningless observation, so I’ll put it here: Both Trump and Putin have surnames with five letters, and they share three of those letters.

And still another thing about the Democrats’ spin on DC crime – it’s imagology

The New Neo Posted on by

The Democrats’ message that violent crime isn’t bad in Washington DC is a prime example of what Milan Kundera called “imagology.” I’ve written about imagology before; it’s one of the earliest themes on this blog, with my first post on the subject occurring in 2005. Here’s an excerpt that’s very relevant now, twenty years later [emphasis added]:

Here’s a quote from Kundera’s 1990 work Immortality that I think bears another look. He is talking about the ascendance of imagery (which he refers to as “imagology,” meaning suggestive images and slogans) over ideology, or even over reality :

“For example, communists used to believe that in the course of capitalist development the proletariat would gradually grow poorer and poorer, but when it finally became clear that all over Europe workers were driving to work in their own cars, [the communists] felt like shouting that reality was deceiving them. Reality was stronger than ideology. And it is in this sense that imagology surpassed it: imagology is stronger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was for my grandmother, who lived in a Moravian village and still knew everything through her own experience: how bread is baked, how a house is built, how a pig is slaughtered and the meat smoked, what quilts are made of, what the priest and the schoolteacher think about the world; she met the whole village every day and knew how many murders were committed in the country over the last ten years; she had, so to speak, personal control over reality, and nobody could fool her by maintaining that Moravian agriculture was thriving when people at home had nothing to eat. My Paris neighbor spends his time an an office, where he sits for eight hours facing an office colleague, then he sits in his car and drives home, turns on the TV, and when the announcer informs him that in the latest public opinion poll the majority of Frenchmen voted their country the safest in Europe (I recently read such a report), he is overjoyed and opens a bottle of champagne without ever learning that three thefts and two murders were committed on his street that very day.”

Democrats would like the American public to be like that Paris neighbor of Kundera’s, the one who doesn’t know about the murders in his own neighborhood because the government doesn’t want him to know and the press is cooperating with the government. The left believes it can create an alternate reality that would override the actual reality that people face, and/or convince them that their reality is an illusion, and/or get them to reframe their own reality. In other words, the left is counting on the idea that – as Kundera wrote – “imagology is stronger than reality, which has anyway long ceased to be what it was.” They are counting on people’s willingness to be shaped by the party line, and they are counting on the press (and leftist commentators on social media) to parrot and amplify the party line.

It’s apparent that the leftist imagology process hasn’t quite gotten to the point in the US that the left would prefer. The left keeps striving towards the goal, however, and I see no signs of them giving up. Trump’s election and especially his re-election – and his curious ability to tell blunt and basic truths in language anyone can understand – is a huge threat to them. Trump is counting on reality triumphing over leftist imagology; that is, if he fixes the border, if he reduces crime, if he helps bring peace to warring nations, the majority of Americans will reject the leftist imagology that says that he can’t do it or that it can’t be done or that it’s not even a problem that needs fixing.