And wow

The New Neo Posted on by

Just wow:

Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe is a leftist and an extreme Trump-hater. If he says this, you better believe the Democrats are regretting pulling Mueller back into the spotlight.

[ADDENDUM: By the way, Tribe and the rest remain firmly convinced that Trump is guilty of everything that has been alleged. They just are disappointed that this particular hearing didn’t fulfill their hopes and dreams. And some of the responses to Tribe’s tweet are from people who think all kinds of wonderful things did happen at the hearing. Hope dies hard.]

[ADDENDUM II: Much more here; please read the whole thing.]

Here are two highlights from the post I just linked; there are plenty more there:

And this:

ADDENDUM III:

And what can you say about these quotes from none other than Michael Moore? Well, I can say this: Moore still believes that Trump is guilty as the day is long, but he’s bitterly disappointed in Mueller’s performance today and hopping mad at those who thought grilling Mueller in front of the world would be a peachy keen idea. Moore also seems to think that Trump will win in 2020:

“Trump must be gloating in ecstasy,” he added. “Not because of the failure that is Robert Mueller — his Report is still a damning document of crimes by Trump—but because Trump understands the power of the visual, and he understands that the Dems aren’t street fighters and that’s why he’ll win.”

“Dems aren’t street fighters.” I wonder what he’d like them to do now to prove that they are. Maybe he’d like Cory Booker to pump up the old testosterone some more and follow through on this threat?

More on political change and what it requires

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember the film “Annie Hall”? You may not be fond of Woody Allen—I’m not fond of Woody Allen—but that’s still a great film and a very entertaining one. I loved it at the time.

Remember the spider-killing scene? Funny, funny, funny. But I bet you don’t remember a certain aspect of it that came to my mind when I was writing this post on liberals and political change.

First, a quote from that post of mine:

Some liberals are not the least bit interested in getting more information, especially from sources on the right. In fact, this is a large group, I believe. One big reason for this is that, by a certain age, people’s views generally are rather set and become so entrenched that they see no particular need to revisit them, and they have other more pleasant things to do with their time.

Also, one of the ways the left trades on and relies on that is the practice of continually discrediting sources on the right, even relatively mainstream ones like Fox News (excuse me: Faux News), as being a bunch of lying, racist, hatemongerers. So why waste one’s time listening to such pig swill?

So there is little interest in hearing or reading anything that isn’t the usual MSM or even further left fodder. And a corollary of that is that a source such as CNN, for example, which the right finds to be unreliable at best and purposely deceiving at worst, the usual liberal finds relatively trustworthy. These are very hard beliefs to break, particularly if they are so strong the person will not even give another news source a try.

But what on earth does all of this have to do with the spider scene from “Annie Hall”? Watch (and for those who absolutely don’t want to watch this short scene, go to around 1:08 and you’ll see the exact part I’m referring to):

Mueller’s testimony

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t watched it, because unless the circumstances are extraordinary (and these are not) I cannot stand lengthy Congressional testimony. I find it suffices for me to read about it and to watch selected clips later.

In the case of Mueller, I also can’t imagine what he could say that would change anything for anyone, unless that person has recently returned from a trip to Mars or perhaps further away.

So, why did the Democrats ask Mueller to testify? I think it’s because they became addicted to their Mueller news fix and have been having withdrawal symptoms. They were talking about his investigation and expecting it to be the smoking gun for so very long that once it was out it was an almost shocking anticlimax and faded away all too soon. They just can’t let it go.

Oh, I have little doubt they’ll find some nuggets of supposed Trump-awfulness to gnaw on for a while. But there certainly don’t seem to be many forthcoming.

The consensus is that Mueller looks tired and old. I’ve never gotten the impression that he’s a man who likes to be in front of the cameras. Some takeaways can be found in the following links at Legal Insurrection: this, this, and particularly this one. I’d also recommend this at Powerline and this at RedState.

That’s just a sampler on the right. For the left, there’s this sort of thing: “Robert Mueller Says Donald Trump Could Be Charged When He Leaves Office.” Ya think? So could any president—any of whom could be charged with any crime whatsoever, if there was sufficient evidence and a prosecutor wanted to go that route.

[ADDENDUM: By the way, this article mentions that Mueller was asked if Trump had been exonerated and he said “no,” and then was asked if he could be charged with obstruction when he’s out of office and Mueller said “yes.”

Both, however, are fake questions, asked merely for propaganda purposes. That’s because it is impossible (as I wrote when the Mueller report first came out) to exonerate anyone, ever, except in something like a murder where there are fingerprints or DNA that belongs to someone else and the accused is eliminated because he or she has an airtight alibi as well. Even then, prosecutors cannot possibly “exonerate” anyway. They can only charge and try to convict. That’s the very basis, the central core, of our criminal justice system. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a fool, a knave, or actually both.

And as I wrote in the body of this post, any president can be charged criminally for anything at all, if there is evidence, once he or she leaves office. That has nothing to do with whether sufficient evidence exists. It is quite clear that for Trump it does not.

Newspapers or people who report on this without making those points clear are in the business of propaganda. But that’s probably most people in politics and most newspapers.]

Boris Johnson…

The New Neo Posted on by

…becomes the Tory Party’s head and will be the new prime minister, as expected.

Brexit to follow?

“We are going to get Brexit done on 31 October and take advantage of all the opportunities it will bring with a new spirit of can do.

“We are once again going to believe in ourselves, and like some slumbering giant we are going to rise and ping off the guy ropes of self doubt and negativity.”

That’s a mixed metaphor, I think. Or maybe just a Gulliver reference.

But I get the message.

Waxing rights: more evidence…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that the world has gone stark raving mad.

See this:

A born male who identifies as female, and whose male genitalia is still intact, is suing female-only waxers on the basis that their refusal to wax his bollocks — sorry, her bollocks — is an act of discrimination. Yes, this person believes that because he identifies as female he should therefore have access to every female service, including the most intimate female services. Any female beautician who refuses to tend to his testicles is being ‘transphobic,’ apparently, because they are denying his womanhood. Even though he has a penis. And testicles. And is a man. That’s hate speech, I know.

This is the case of Jessica Yaniv, born Jonathan Yaniv, who has filed complaints against more than a dozen female waxers with the Human Rights Council (HRC) in British Columbia. Yaniv claims that the women’s refusal to give him a Brazilian– that is, to handle his penis and testicles and to remove his pubic hair, activities these women did not want to carry out — is discrimination. Yaniv says that self-identifying as a woman is sufficient to be treated as a woman and to get access to services typically reserved for women…

You can now be a bigot simply for believing in reality itself, in this case that people with penises are not women. Pressuring women to handle male genitalia against their will is dreadful and it suggests woke politics has now crossed the line from irritating to disgusting.

I think it crossed that line quite some time ago.

This case is in Canada. And perhaps the plaintiff will lose, even there. I am also quite sure that there are many trans people who find a demand and a lawsuit like this to be terrible. But there are also activists such as this plaintiff who are determined to be just as aggressive about their needs as the law will allow, and to push the legal envelope more and more to get their needs met.

Political change: the liberals

The New Neo Posted on by

In the “long slow march of leftism” thread there was a discussion about the distinction between leftists and liberals. Commenter “R.C.” and I initially disagreed on whether the friends I often talk about and call “liberals” are really liberals at all rather than leftists masquerading as liberals. I state my case here:

I know some leftists, and I know a great many liberals—and what’s more, I know the difference.

Most of the liberals I know are not all that politically oriented. They read and watch some of the news, but they don’t explore things in depth, and they know what the Times, NPR, and their friends tell them.

I’m not even knocking them for that. I never used to be especially interested in politics, and that description in the last paragraph could have described me through the end of the 20th century. I was busy with other things, and my politics had been formed years earlier and I thought they were pretty set. I wasn’t poorly informed but I wasn’t well informed either, and a great deal of what I thought I knew wasn’t true.

I was never never a leftist or even close to it.

That is the description of most of my friends.

And here is R.C.’s response:

In this day-and-age, it takes a bit of effort for me to overcome the suspicion that, for every open leftist ready to drive dissenters off campuses or out of tech companies, there are a half-dozen “liberals” who’re too well-salaried and middle-aged to bother mobbing and milkshaking the opposition, but who’re perfectly comfortable cheering on the ones who do.

I’m happy to hear that the folks you describe as liberal really are. I guess that means that if they could only learn about how their side of the aisle is really behaving, and how many of the news stories about right-wing misbehavior are blatant hoaxes, they’d start speaking up in opposition to it. I gather that, in your view, the problem is epistemological: They just don’t know.

How, then, can one “raise their awareness?”…

What do you think it would take for a standard liberal to conclude that their world-picture is incomplete in important ways, and start looking seriously at what they could learn from the other side of the aisle?

I know that 9/11 got the change rolling for you, Neo. (But, reading your old “A mind is a difficult thing to change” series, it seems to me you’d had a tickle or two of cognitive dissonance, as far back as the late 80’s, which 9/11 triggered into fuller activity.)

I hope that the liberals you know are similarly aware that there are gaps in their worldview, and merely underestimate their importance. Perhaps some future events, or even current ones, might stimulate a cascade of mind-changing?

(I just hope it won’t always take an act of war and thousands of tragic deaths.)

Here’s my response to those thoughtful observations and questions.

Some liberals are not the least bit interested in getting more information, especially from sources on the right. In fact, this is a large group, I believe. One big reason for this is that, by a certain age, people’s views generally are rather set and become so entrenched that they see no particular need to revisit them, and they have other more pleasant things to do with their time.

Also, one of the ways the left trades on and relies on that is the practice of continually discrediting sources on the right, even relatively mainstream ones like Fox News (excuse me: Faux News), as being a bunch of lying, racist, hatemongerers. So why waste one’s time listening to such pig swill?

So there is little interest in hearing or reading anything that isn’t the usual MSM or even further left fodder. And a corollary of that is that a source such as CNN, for example, which the right finds to be unreliable at best and purposely deceiving at worst, the usual liberal finds relatively trustworthy. These are very hard beliefs to break, particularly if they are so strong the person will not even give another news source a try.

People on the right have a different experience. Because so much of the MSM is leftist, a person on the right may find it nearly impossible to block exposure to what the left is saying. The right is far more familiar with leftist thought than liberals are with actual bona fide opinions on the right. For liberals it is far easier to have zero exposure to the viewpoints of the right unless it is something filtered through the prism of the left by distorted MSM reporting on it. This all favors the leftist or liberal message being solidly incessant for liberals, and limits their exposure greatly to the actual views of the right.

How many liberals have actually read items in even the more moderate press on the right, such as for example National Review? I would wager the percentage is extremely small. But who on the right hasn’t read the NY Times, for example?

That has to do with the consuming of information, which helps to form opinions. How can an opinion change without new information, or a new way to see old information? Political conversation between those who are on opposite sides doesn’t usually convince anyone of anything, in part because it generally gets too heated and emotional too quickly. Still another reason conversation doesn’t tend to work is because a political belief system is an edifice built brick by brick over time, made of thousands and thousands of perceptions, stories, lived experiences, attitudes, and facts we think we know. It is a difficult and sometimes lengthy process to dismantle that edifice.

Sometimes it happens. But that’s rather rare. And I believe that first in order for that to happen, a person also has to have a mind that is open to change. I’m not sure what goes into the making of such a mind or such a person, but I suppose I must have had that characteristic to begin with or I never would have undergone my political change. One thing I know is that I had always had the habit of countering my own arguments, of challenging them by reading opposing material if I could find it—a sort of natural skepticism, even about myself.

Maybe that can’t be taught. But if it’s an already-existing characteristic of a person, then new information has a chance of getting through and changing things—if that new information is viewed by the person as reliable and relevant. A new building gets constructed, brick by brick. In much of my “A mind is a difficult thing to change” series, I deal with how that happened to me.

[NOTE: There’s more to add—including the idea of political identity and membership in a political group, and the question of emotions vs. thought as being predominant in the person making political decisions. Maybe good for another post some time; this one’s long enough for now. But feel free to discuss it all in the comments.]

Moving that Overton window: hey, let’s gerrymander the state boundaries to game the Electoral College

The New Neo Posted on by

That’s not exactly what this article at FiveThirtyEight actually says, at least not up-front. The author, Ella Koeze, is just speculating what it would be like to have different state boundaries than now, rather than abolishing the Electoral College entirely to change the way presidential elections go:

Our current state borders are fairly arbitrary. Throughout American history, people have been proposing new states, but most don’t appear on the map today, either because they once existed but were later redrawn, or because they simply never caught on. But what if some of these would-be states were around today? Would moving those state borders, without changing any votes, change our political reality?

The short answer is probably not, at least in 2016: Of the 13 maps we tested, none of them flipped the outcome of the last presidential election. These new maps did shift the Electoral College vote margin by as much as 38 votes, but since President Trump won by more than 70 votes, it wasn’t enough to swing the election to Clinton.

But it was enough to help, and it certainly could change things in the direction of a Democrat win in some future close election. So the effect would be as I stated it in the title of this post.

And here’s another point the author makes:

While none of those fake maps would have produced a different outcome in 2016, there is a relatively easy way to rewrite the past — if we free ourselves from the constraints of history and instead do a little strategic shuffling. By reallocating two protuberant state parts (the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the Florida Panhandle) to their neighbors (Wisconsin and Alabama, respectively), we can flip the outcome of 2016 with a single click.

As I read this, it is clear to me that what is happening has several dimensions. The first is the idea—not equivocally stated but nevertheless implicit—that the Electoral College is in need of change. The second is that a goal of such change could or would or should have been to make Hillary Clinton president. The third is that there is nothing sacred about not only the Electoral College but also the state boundaries. They are mere tradition, perhaps ripe for change as political needs warrant. Let’s “free ourselves from the constraints of history,” shall we?

These points also have to do with getting people to consider not just the changes detailed in the article, but whatever other changes might be possible. There’s no attempt to discuss the reasons we might have an Electoral College or in particular why it might still be desirable, or why we might have these particular state boundaries (the latter described as “arbitrary)—what purpose the whole edifice serves, and what would be gained or lost by changing. The thrust of the piece is how such changes would work in the political sense in terms of who would win a presidential election.

The article ends this way [emphasis mine]:

This is all fun, but the states won’t be shifting their borders anytime soon. For better or worse, we will return to the same old red-and-blue map on the next election night, and we’ll simply be watching to see if any states change color. But even if the Electoral College isn’t going anywhere, it’s still worth remembering that nothing about our political map is inevitable.

“Worth speculating,” indeed.

Comey’s moles

The New Neo Posted on by

See this.

One thing I have to say is that I await IG Horowitz’s report with interest. If only half of what’s alleged to be in it is really in it, it will still make fascinating reading.

[NOTE: Now, somebody somewhere is probably going to say I didn’t use the word “mole” properly. But it’s close, anyway, and I like the sound of “Comey’s moles.”]

The offending shoe: 3rd go-round

The New Neo Posted on by

In one of the previous shoe threads, this comment caught my eye:

Once you start thinking about it, it does become rather gross to sit on a pro-shoe carpet. Someone literally may have walked in dog urine, or bubble gum residue, or some homeless guy’s whatever not 5 minutes ago, and now you’re sitting in it, getting all that sticky goodness onto your hands.

Actually, once you start thinking about almost anything connected with hygiene you almost invariably wind up in deep, deep do-do (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun).

I think the idea of this dog-poop-on-the-shoes discussion is that some people consider that shoes always are carriers of microscopic dog poop or the bacteria in the dog poop or whatever makes dog poop noxious. That is probably true, and it extends to human poop because not everyone has great hand-washing habits. So it also may be true of hands, doorknobs, seats, whatever we touch really.

I don’t think we’re talking about people stepping in a stinking pile of dog poop and then walking right into your living room and onto your rug (although I suppose that could happen, particularly with kids). I think what we’re talking about is the idea of shoe soles as inherently dog poopy, as constant vectors of dog poop and other nefarious but invisible dangers.

That gets us into the realm of OCD. Constant hand-washing and the like.

We are surrounded by gazillions of bacteria that live on and in us. Some are harmful and some are not. Walking outside in shoes and then walking inside in shoes does not ordinarily cause disease. Children sit on the floor all the time. There is evidence that exposing oneself to bacteria in moderation is a good thing for health.

And there are also common-sense ways to avoid getting sick from exposure to them under ordinary circumstances. Wash hands now and then, particularly after encountering someone with a cold, for example. If someone is known to have a serious contagious disease, quarantine. Otherwise, most people are perfectly fine with ordinary shoes in ordinary homes, doing ordinary things.

I don’t sit on the rug, either, although I know lots of people do (especially kids) and I certainly used to do it without any bad effects, in houses where people did not remove their shoes—and even owned dogs.

And don’t get me started on cats, who wade into cat litter and move it around with their little cat paws.

The rest is aesthetics. I choose to be kind to guests rather than having a clean clean spotless sparkling floor. Floors are meant to be walked on. Shoes protect feet, particular outside but also indoors (splinters, glass, or the feet of people like me with nerve damage). And I wouldn’t put a floor or rug in my home that is so delicate it can’t be walked on in shoes without damaging it.

Your mileage may differ.

[NOTE: Who knew that shoes in the house would turn out to be such a fertile topic?]

Ilhan Omar believes she doesn’t need to answer any questions she doesn’t feel like answering

The New Neo Posted on by

Ilhan Omar is dealing with a lot of accusations, but she has one way of dealing with them, and it’s an approach that worked very very well for her so far and may continue to do so: calling anyone who questions her a racist and refusing to dignify their questions with an answer.

Sound familiar?

National media had largely kept away from judging the merits of the accusation that [Omar] was related to her second husband, which have circulated since her entry into politics in 2016, but after Trump’s comment many came to quick conclusions. CNN’s Jim Acosta jumped in immediately to criticize Trump for diving in on “disgusting lies.” The Daily Beast‘s Will Sommer published a lengthy piece on Friday that did little to nothing to debunk what he calls a “baseless smear.”…

Omar has consistently been unwilling to answer questions since the allegation first surfaced. Her team’s first on-the-record statement regarding whether she was married to her brother, to a PowerLine reporter in August 2016, was a refusal to answer questions.

“There are people who do not want an East African, Muslim woman elected to office and who will follow Donald Trump’s playbook to prevent it,” a campaign spokesman said, months before she was first elected. “Ilhan Omar’s campaign will not be distracted by negative forces and will continue to focus its energy on creating positive engagement with community members to make the district and state more prosperous and equitable for everyone.”…

Her office’s only recent comment on the marriage issue has been an attempt to dissuade “legitimate media outlets” from investigating it.

“Whether by colluding with right-wing outlets to go after Muslim elected officials or hounding family members, legitimate media outlets have a responsibility not to fan the flames of hate,” her office said. “Continuing to do so is not only demeaning to Ilhan, but to her entire family.”

The accusations about Omar’s marriage to a man who possibly is her brother is actually not a charge of incest, because part of the accusation is that it was a marriage in name only, perhaps for the purpose of immigration fraud. Omar’s position is that answering such charges is beneath her because they are slurs. Well, they do indeed reflect poorly on her if true, but there is actually a lot of evidence that’s been amassed that they may indeed be true, and it is indisputably true that she is guilty of filing fraudulent tax returns based on who her legal spouse may have been at a particular time.

Omar is counting on the fact that it has become nearly impossible to accuse a “person of color” of anything bad. Evidence doesn’t matter, even actual guilt doesn’t matter. Racism accusations have long been a powerful tool, and in recent years such charges have been elevated to almost unassailable.

But perhaps the public is tiring of this. I know I am. Perhaps the general public sees that the charge of “racism” has become all-purpose, and constitutes a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone in a designated victim group.

That’s not the way it should work. If equality under the law means anything, it should mean that. But hey, isn’t equality under the law just one of those white-supremacist notions now, if it is used in a way that doesn’t suit the left’s purposes?

Another day…

The New Neo Posted on by

…another race hoax.

At least this one didn’t involve a large and expensive police investigation.

On the other hand, the accuser is Democrat Erica Thomas, who is the Minority Vice Chair of the Georgia House of Representatives.

You can read about the incident at the link. I’m not going to waste much more time writing about it except to say that these things are becoming more common, and are seen as a way to get Trump, blame Trump, hurt Trump, and advance the general narrative.

Also, it’s pretty humorous that the “white man” Erica Thomas accused says he’s actually a Cuban-American (which now qualifies as “brown” whatever one’s skin color—unless one is George Zimmerman, in which case the person is a “white Hispanic”) who is a lifelong and loyal Democrat and can’t stand Trump.

And when did “go back where you (or your ancestors) came from” become a racial slur? It’s many things, but hardly that and certainly not obviously that. My maternal grandmother used to say it to my paternal uncle with some regularity, and they were from the exact same ethnic group. The difference? He had been born elsewhere and came here as a toddler, and her family had been here for many generations. The reason she said it? Not to beat around the bush—he was a Communist and she most definitely was not.

[NOTE: I told the story about my grandmother and uncle at greater length here.]