No doubt you’d love to hear about my root canal

The New Neo Posted on by

A couple of weeks ago it was decided – after some sort of panoramic dental X-ray on a machine that played “Fur Elise” in beeping digital sounds – that I needed to have a root canal performed on an upper back molar.

“You need a root canal” is a phrase that no one wants to hear. I had it done on Tuesday, and it was an “interesting” experience.

For one thing, the initially rather chirpy and perky endodontist worked in utter silence. I prefer dentists who give some sort of running account – not constant chatter, but just general intermittent guidance as to what’s happening and how far along in the process I might be. This dentist, a woman who came highly recommended, maintained a strict policy of no talking. I had no problem observing the rules myself, since she’d placed some sort of large rubber boot in my mouth, one that made me feel very grateful that we have noses and nostrils.

The noxious tuneless muzak played on, the dentist drilled and scraped and picked at my tooth, and the whole thing seemed to go on for a longer time than I had expected. Perhaps an hour and forty-five minutes? I keep telling myself, “don’t be a wimp,” but my efforts to relax were about as effective as my Lamaze breathing had been during labor many a long year ago – which is to say, not very.

I also kept hearing her sigh. Why is she sighing? I wondered. At the end, she told me that it had been a very difficult process and I’d have to return in two weeks for more. Why so difficult? Apparently my beleaguered tooth had thrown up barriers, surrounding the nerve roots with some sort of extra bony layer that took forty minutes (and lots of strength) to drill through rather than five. Plus, one of the roots seemed to have gone into hiding.

Please wish me luck.

The ceasefire and hostage release are challenges for the left – but they’re up to it

The New Neo Posted on by

The ceasefire is what they screamed that they wanted, for so long. But what they wanted far far more was for Trump to fail – hopefully, with a large dose of humiliation. So now they’re either ignoring the ceasefire, pivoting to how it will fail, or giving Blinken and Biden credit for it.

It’s not the first time they’ve had to be creative.

Tariffs were going to sink us immediately. Maybe they still will – the jury remains out on that. But it must be hard for the left to wait patiently in eager anticipation of catastrophe.

Many district judges have been ruling the left’s way, but appeals haven’t been going all that well for them.

Their own lawfare against Trump and those close to him has made their subsequent outraged cries of “Trump is weaponizing the justice system!” ring hollow to anyone who remembers the last few years. Fortunately, leftists are able to do that mind trick Orwell wrote about so well, where O’Brien counseled Winston on how to forget what the party doesn’t want him to remember.

With all the assassination attempts against Trump, Scalise and GOP members of Congress, and SCOTUS justices, only one attempt worked – that of Charlie Kirk – and he’s become more well-known and his videos have gotten more popular.

No new stars on the horizon except Mamdani, who’s only winning because New York is so deeply blue and perhaps because he has two opponents rather than one. I don’t think he’d work on the national level; at least, I sincerely hope not. AOC has big ambitions, but I don’t think she’d work on the national level, either.

I could go on, but you get the idea.

NOTE: I haven’t yet talked to any of my Democrat friends about the hostage deal, and not one has mentioned it to me, either. Interesting,no?

The feminization of everything

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s been a lot of buzz about this article. An excerpt:

This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

Not everything. Many cultures have some form of shunning and some institutions have some type of ostracizing process, and both men and women participate. But I think there’s little doubt that women – and the fact that women now form the majority in so many fields in which that previously wasn’t the case – are key in the process. In particular, women tend to initiate canceling for petty reasons or idiosyncratic personal reasons. Yes, “mean girls” are a thing, and so are mean women.

Initially, when women were a minority in so many professions, women played by men’s rules. But, helped greatly by affirmative action and DEA, once they’ve become majorities or close to majorities the rules change more to women’s rules. I’m a women (I”m even a heterosexual woman, of all things) but I’ve noticed the problem with women’s workplaces for a long time and I’ve had my own difficulties in some of those environments; I’ve been targeted, and my sense is that it’s because of my unwillingness to play by those women’s rules.

I say I noticed the problem in workplaces. But actually, the first time I noticed the problem was in an all-female summer camp. When I was about ten years old and in a cabin with other girls for two entire months, they tried to pick on me. I had grown up in a harsher, more male environment than they, and so I fought back and they left me alone after that. But there was a more gentle soul among my cabinmates who became their natural target. Her persecution by them was an awful thing to watch, and I spent as much time as I possibly could elsewhere. I even tried to coach her in defying them. But she never could summon up the requisite defiance – she cared too much – and so finally I blew the whistle on them and told the higher-ups.

So I suppose I’ve long thought it’s obvious that female-dominated professions will have the problems inherent in female groups. It’s not that male groups don’t have problems – they certainly do – but they’re different problems.

In addition, it’s not just that we now have so many female-dominated groups, it’s that the females in them so often ascribe to leftism and its propensity to get rid of opposing points of view.

The essay goes on to track the process by which different professions became female-dominant. Law school, for example, something to which I can attest. When I entered law school my class was seven percent female, but within just a few years entering classes were nearly 50/50.

From the essay:

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

It’s not so much women who are valuing feelings over rules – it’s leftist women. I think that’s quite clear if you look at judges. I’m not sure which is more important – the “women” part or the “leftist” part. I suspect they’re intertwined, as women are more likely than men to vote on the left these days. But I really don’t see any difference in the decisions of leftist female judges and leftist male judges.

NOTE: The author begins with a discussion of how Larry Summers lost his position as Harvard president back in 2005. I wrote on that at the time it happened, in this post.

On a personal note – you know why I originally put up a picture of myself on the blog? Because when I was first blogging and didn’t have a photo on the website, everyone assumed I was a man.

It’s donation time! [I’ll be bumping this up for about a week, so scroll down for new posts]

The New Neo Posted on by

Ah yes, here we go again.

It’s been awhile since I’ve asked for donations. In the meantime, many readers have donated anyway, and I thank you all profusely. Some of you even have a setup whereby you make a monthly payment, which is also great. I appreciate it so very much, and it helps to keep this blog going.

If anyone wants to contribute to thenewneo, please click on the “Donate” button either to the right or at the bottom of the page, depending on what sort of device you use when reading the blog. If the Donate button is not showing, disable your adblocker and that should make it visible.

I thank everyone in advance. If it weren’t for you readers and commenters, I’d probably be doing something other than this in my dotage.

Middle East pessimists versus Middle East optimists

The New Neo Posted on by

The Middle East pessimists have certain things in common with each other, and a prominent one is that they think Trump is a gullible fool.

I don’t see evidence for that description, although I know a lot of people believe it. It seems absurd to me that Trump didn’t expect what just about every blogger and commenter on the right expected – which is that Hamas would not comply with the deal and disarm, and probably would not cooperate in myriad other ways. I think it was always part of Trump’s expectation.

But the deal accomplished three very important things:

(a) It got some other Middle Eastern countries to commit to backing it. And they might end up being in non-compliance, too, although they have some economic incentives to fulfill their part of the deal.

(b) It got the hostages back at the outset. That was vitally important to untie Israel’s hands.

(c) It gave the world notice that it’s the Israelis who are willing to “give peace a chance.” It throws the spotlight on the continuing violence of Hamas, and if and when Israel has to go back to dealing with them harshly, Israel’s justification will be clear – not that most of the world will ever give them credit. I’ll add that the NeverNetayahu crowd in Israel will never give Bibi credit, either.

None of these things mean the deal will work out. But it’s part of the plan’s brilliance that it accomplishes these three things at once. Neither Trump, Kushner, Rubio, or Witcoff are naive enough to not understand the perils and risks, which are obvious. I doubt they are without a plan for contingincies, although they’re not telegraphing exactly what it is.

In other words, as this article says, “No one is under any illusions.” From the piece [emphasis mine]:

A total of 154 of the 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences or lengthy terms who were freed in the first stage of the hostage deal and the end of the war were transferred through the Rafah Crossing to Cairo. They are currently under Egyptian supervision in a hotel, in coordination with Israeli security officials. These prisoners, classified as deportees, are undergoing medical checks and receiving humanitarian support under the oversight of Red Cross representatives.

Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence continues to monitor those who have returned to their homes in the West Bank. “The terrorists understand that the situation has changed, but no one is under any illusion—they are not lovers of Zion,” a senior security official said. …

Palestinian sources estimate that some of the released prisoners may eventually settle in Turkey, Qatar, or other Arab states, while others are expected to remain in Egypt and rebuild their lives there. The 154 exiles are staying in a Cairo hotel under Egyptian security supervision, undergoing medical checks and humanitarian processing.

Turkey and Qatar have both expressed willingness to receive some of the released prisoners, though no official announcements have been made. Each prisoner’s destination was preapproved by Israel and included in the release agreement, and permission to remain in Cairo depends on the Egyptian authorities. …

Alongside the operational deployment, the IDF continues real-time intelligence collection and sensitive outreach to the families of released prisoners to prevent potential friction or violent incidents. Monitoring of the prisoners and their relatives will continue closely, with increased military presence in certain areas.

And that’s just what’s being reported. I’m going to assume there’s a lot more going on.

On many websites I’ve seen jokes about equipping the released prisoners with beepers. No, that’s not happened. But I wouldn’t underestimate the Israeli authorities and their creativity.

I repeat: all of this doesn’t mean everything will be as rosy as the rhetoric has been. But I don’t think that either the Israelis or Trump and his negotiators are naive about the nature of Hamas and the Palestinians.

Bolton’s been indicted

The New Neo Posted on by

We knew this was coming:

John Bolton, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser-turned-adversary, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in Maryland.

He now faces 18 charges: eight counts of transmission of national defense information and 10 counts of retention of national defense information.

Prosecutors wrote in the indictment that during the time he was national security adviser to Trump, Bolton shared “more than a thousand pages of information about his day-to-day activities” with two unauthorized individuals. Both of those people were related to Bolton and didn’t have the authority to access classified information, prosecutors said.

He pleads persecution and Trump-vengeance, of course. But why should he not be subject to the rules? Did he violate them or not? I don’t know the answer, but I certainly don’t assume he didn’t. I find it fascinating that he claims this as evidence that he did nothing wrong [my emphasis]:

He said that his book, “The Room Where It Happened,” was reviewed and approved by “the appropriate, experienced career clearance officials” and that the FBI was made fully aware of his email hack in 2021. In the four years of the prior administration, he said, no charges were filed against him.

You mean, when Bolton was dumping on Trump, Biden’s FBI and Biden’s DOJ didn’t indict him for anything? Well then, since we know how very evenhanded they were, that must mean Bolton is innocent.

Bolton goes on to add:

“Then came Trump 2 who embodies what Joseph Stalin’s head of secret police once said, ‘You show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime,’” Bolton said.

Funny thing, we used to say that about Trump’s prosecutors/persecutors. And what did Bolton say about them? Well, let’s see what Bolton said back in August of 2022 about the FBI’s search of Mar-al-Lago for classified documents:

Former national security adviser John Bolton on Thursday said the Department of Justice (DOJ) is “overwhelmingly” professional, pushing back against claims the agency conducted a politically motivated search of former President Trump’s Florida estate this week.

On CNN’s “New Day,” Bolton told hosts John Berman and Brianna Keilar he’s had “long experience” with the DOJ and believes in the integrity of the department.

“Overwhelmingly, they are professional in carrying out of their duties,” he said. “I don’t recognize a lot of the criticisms that are being made of these institutions.”

I guess he “recognizes” those criticisms now.

Also, in February, 2024, Bolton had a curious evaluation of Trump’s pursuit of the presidency, in light of the fines levied on him through lawfare:

In an interview with MSNBC’s Jen Psaki on Sunday afternoon, Donald Trump’s former national security adviser John Bolton said the former president’s growing debt amid his legal cases makes him vulnerable to foreign influence and unfit for office. …

“I think this is one of the demonstrations why Trump is really not fit for office because he is consumed by these troubles, his family is consumed by them, and I think foreigners will try to take advantage of it one way or another. They may be doing it already.”

Bolton added that the financial impact will affect Trump as he could see the former president needing to liquidate some of his properties.

Unfit for office because ridiculous and vindictive lawsuits in deep blue venues might bankrupt Trump. Sounds like justice, right?

Senator John Fetterman …

The New Neo Posted on by

… makes me nostalgic for a time when the sort of reasonable opinions he expresses about the opposition were commonplace in Democrats. Back then, I was a Democrat, too.

It’s ironic that it’s Fetterman who’s not on the “Republicans are evil fascists” bandwagon, because when he was elected no one would have predicted this; at least, I certainly didn’t predict it. In addition, his physical health seems to have improved far more than expected. So, color me surprised.

Here’s the latest from Fetterman:

Fetterman made several comments during NewsNation’s live town hall at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday that demonstrate why he is considered a maverick among Democrats in the Senate.

“I follow country, then party,” he explained. …

“You don’t hold the government hostage,” Fetterman added, noting that the Schumer shutdown is “what the Democratic Party wants to do.” …

“It’s the wrong thing for the country, and in a period of chaos, I refuse to shut our government down,” he said. …

“I know and I love people who voted for President Trump. But they are not fascists, they’re not Nazis, they’re not trying to destroy the Constitution and those things,” he insisted. “I refuse to call people Nazis or fascists. I would never compare anybody — anybody to Hitler.” …

“Let people grieve [Charlie Kirk] — give people the space. I’m not going to use that terrible thing and that tragic assassination to make my argument and try to put out my views,” he told a now-hushed crowd.

Fetterman went on to point out that the country was almost plunged into utter chaos when President Trump narrowly avoided a bullet in Butler.

“It’s like, my God, he’s a father that had his neck blown out by a bullet. And now people have forgotten President Trump was — in my state — was shot in the head. Could you imagine where our nation would be if he were hit in the same way with Kirk?” he asked.

“We’ve really got to turn the temperature down.”

I read those words and felt a sense of relief that at least one prominent Democrat was saying them. Yes, Fetterman votes with the Democrats on policy. But he seems to be a very decent human being who’s not afraid to express sentiments that used to be expected of all politicians, and used to be demonstrated by many. No more.

I said that Fetterman is with his party on policy – but that’s not completely true, because he’s probably its most pro-Israel member. That’s another stance of his that’s a throwback to an earlier time, when both parties agreed on strong support for Israel.

The apparent result of Fetterman’s outspoken disagreements with the current party line is that Democrats are planning to primary him. Can’t have that sort of kindness extended to the GOP enemy, or to the genocidal Israel:

According to a Thursday report in Axios, Democrats are in active recruitment mode in their efforts to take out Fetterman.

-Potential Democratic challengers are already bashing Fetterman — and each other — years ahead of schedule.
-Some Democratic officials are openly contemplating running against Fetterman or keeping the door open to a Senate bid in the event he retires.

Some names being bandied about to take on Fetterman in the primary include current Reps. Brendan Boyle and Chris Deluzio and former Rep. Conor Lamb.

It’ll be a long wait. Fetterman was elected to the Senate in 2022 and therefore doesn’t go up for re-election until 2028. Meanwhile, he may continue to be a thorn in Democrats’ side. His political future really depends on which path the Democrats choose to take, and at present they seem determined to go ever and ever leftward.

Curtis Sliwa: ego or principles?

The New Neo Posted on by

From NY GOP mayoral nominee Curtis Sliwa:

Said Sliwa: “I’m the only one standing between Zohran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo, who I call Zohran lite.”

I suppose it’s the case that Sliwa is standing between them, since otherwise it would be a 2-person race. But calling Cuomo “Zohran lite” obscures the fact that “lite” is different from “heavy.”

More importantly, though, it depends what’s meant by “stand between.” You can stand between two people and get crushed, which is what it appears will almost inevitably happen to Sliwa. His polling hovers in the teens, but if he dropped out and all his support went to Cuomo – which certainly might happen if Sliwa were to drop out – “Zohran lite” would be the victor rather than Zohran heavy.

If I’m reading Sliwa correctly, he has no intention of dropping out. But the net effect of his staying in the race is to assure the election of Mamdani. Therefore you might say he’s acting as a Mamdani enabler.

Why? Is it ego? If so, does he really think there will be such a late surge for him that he will win?

Or perhaps he feels it’s his duty to give New Yorkers on the right a choice, and if there aren’t enough of them and as a result Mamdani wins, that’s the voters’ fault and not Sliwa’s. He may just think that New York will get what it deserves if it rejects him.

Or maybe he really does feel that Mamdani or Cuomo, it doesn’t matter which because they’re so similar (a sentiment with which I don’t agree). So why drop out just to enable Cuomo?

Then again, perhaps I’m reading Sliwa wrong and he will drop out. I just don’t think so.

According to Obama …

The New Neo Posted on by

… Republicans are trying to steal seats and rig the next election:

I guess it’s okay when Democrats say it.

What a pernicious influence he’s been on this country. And even though his influence has waned, unlike other ex-presidents before him he’s remained very heavily in the game for a long time. Also, he moved the Overton window substantially on many fronts, and for the most part that window is quite resistant to being moved back in the opposite direction.