↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 731 << 1 2 … 729 730 731 732 733 … 1,776 1,777 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

More news on the blue wave front

The New Neo Posted on May 11, 2018 by neoMay 11, 2018

At least in the Senate, here’s more evidence it might be rough going for the Democrats:

Among more than 200 experts and veterans of Florida politics surveyed in the latest Tampa Bay Times Florida Insider Poll, nearly six in 10 this week said they expect Scott to unseat the three-term Democratic Senator. Just over two months ago, more than 57 percent of the Florida Insiders surveyed expected Nelson to win.

“I’m very worried about Sen. Nelson,” said a Democrat. “I think the Democrats need to reevaluate our candidate and Gwen Graham should jump to the Senate Race immediately.”

A Republican had a similar thought: “Bill Nelson’s best chance is a run for Governor. He should pivot now before Scott pastes his face to the floor. At least Nelson would win his party’s nomination. Better chance to win in the general than any other declared candidate in his party.”

“Rick Scott is focusing on Hispanics way before Nelson is…”

Then again, how can you believe the experts anyway, especially when they’ve reversed themselves that much in about two months?

Posted in Politics | 6 Replies

The “Trump bump”

The New Neo Posted on May 11, 2018 by neoMay 11, 2018

I’m not referring to the possible effect of Trump’s presidency on the economy, which is the way the expression has sometimes been used. I’m using it more like a sort of speed bump in the narrative—that little obligatory hiccup in which the speaker on any given topic must pause to make a pejorative reference to Donald Trump before going on, in order to establish his or her bona fides as a good person.

Posted in Language and grammar, Politics, Uncategorized | 41 Replies

Lawsuit: free speech in academia

The New Neo Posted on May 11, 2018 by neoMay 11, 2018

The University of Michigan has a comprehensive anti-free-speech policy.

Oh, the school doesn’t call it that. They say it’s:

…a disciplinary code that prohibits “harassment” and “bullying,” and increases the penalties if such actions are motivated by “bias.”…Michigan defines harassment as “unwanted negative attention perceived as intimidating, demeaning, or bothersome to an individual.”… Michigan has created a Bias Response Team that receives complaints of “bias” and “bias incidents” from offended students and is tasked with investigating and punishing those who commit offenses.

More than 150 reports of alleged “expressions of bias”””through posters, fliers, social media, whiteboards, verbal comments, classroom behavior, etc.””have been investigated by the university’s bias response team since April 2017. According to Michigan, “bias comes in many forms,” can be intentional or unintentional, and “can be a hurtful action based on who someone is as a person.” In the school’s words, “the most important indication of bias is your own feelings.” As a result, a student whose speech is seen by another student as hurtful to his or her feelings may receive a knock on the door from a team of school officials threatening to refer the student for discipline unless he or she submits to “restorative justice,” “individualized education,” or “unconscious bias training.”

Back when I was at school, if someone had told me this was the future for a place like the University of Michigan, I would have thought they were stark raving mad or describing the plot of some dystopian novel. But we here are.

Progress. Progressive progress.

The website I linked in this post is for a group called Speech First, which I just heard about for the first time today and which has filed a lawsuit challenging the University of Michigan’s speech code as a violation of the First Amendment, and asking “the court to declare that Michigan’s speech code is unconstitutional and to enjoin the bias response system.”

Good for them for fighting the pernicious effects of a policy that can’t help but have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, all in the name of protecting the feelings of students who profess to be grownups.

I went back to school in the early 1990s to get my graduate degree, and noticed these trends were already in place for faculty, although they had not yet taken root in codes that targeted the students themselves. I wrote this post about an experience I had back then that opened my eyes to the problem:

I discovered it when the young women in an undergraduate class I was required to take for my Master’s””a class which, being in the social sciences, consisted almost entirely of women””were virtually all in favor of a definition of actionable offensive speech that went something like this: “speech that offends any person in the subjective sense, rather than speech that is in fact objectively offensive.” In vain I stood up in front of the 100-or-so students, most of them around twenty years younger than I, to ask what the limits of this might be, to suggest that it was wrong to allow the most sensitive among us to dictate what was unacceptable, and to speak up for free speech in general. I was met with uncomprehending stares and impatient dismissal, a fossil in my own time.

I realized that something was terribly, terribly wrong. Not one person appeared to agree with me, or if they did they weren’t saying so publicly or privately.

I also remember saying something about the dangers of using a subjective measure of what was offensive speech. It all fell on deaf ears.

I wish the Speech First people well. Here is a description of the organization:

…[W]e’ve created a nationwide community to reassure students that they won’t fight these cases alone ”“ and that they’ll be supported every step of the way: on campus, in the media, and in court. We’re a membership association of students, parents, faculty, alumni, and concerned citizens from across the country who’ve had enough, and who want to fight back.

We believe that free and open discourse is an essential component of a comprehensive education. We are committed to restoring the freedom of speech on college campuses because we believe that by exposing students to different and challenging ideas, they will emerge stronger, smarter, and more resilient.

Speech First will protect students’ free speech rights on campus. Through advocacy, litigation, and other means, we will put colleges and universities on notice that shutting down unwanted speech will no longer be tolerated.

I’m glad to see a growing number of such organizations fighting the pernicious effect the left has had on freedom of speech on campus and elsewhere (see also this).

[NOTE: England is way ahead of us. And I don’t mean that in a good sense.]

Posted in Academia, Law, Liberty, Me, myself, and I | 12 Replies

I wouldn’t count my Senate chickens yet

The New Neo Posted on May 10, 2018 by neoMay 10, 2018

The GOP still might find a way to lose it all.

But it was always the case that the Democratic dreams of taking over the Senate in 2018 faced a possibly harsh reality, considering which seats were up for grabs.

Simply put, the map has never favored the Democrats in 2018. In the Senate, only a third of the seats are in contention in any one even-numbered year, unlike the House were everyone must be re-elected (or not) every two years. Big difference.

Posted in Politics | 18 Replies

Very good news: prisoners released

The New Neo Posted on May 10, 2018 by neoMay 10, 2018

Here.

More here.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Replies

Foreign policy and naiveté

The New Neo Posted on May 10, 2018 by neoMay 10, 2018

I’m with Iowahawk, who said on Twitter (April 30), referring to some of Obama’s foreign policy aides such as Ben Rhodes, “I have a hard time believing a foreign policy brain trust made up of America’s top failed novelists and campaign van drivers could get things wrong.”

Anyone who read Ben Rhodes’ resume (as I did, in 2013) would not be the least bit surprised at how events have panned out for him and the policies he pushed.

But Rhodes would have been nothing without Obama, who not only chose him but shared his worldview. And as far I can see, the worldview of Obama hasn’t changed much since he was in college, a phenomenon I wrote about here. In it, I discussed an article he wrote for a student newspaper at Columbia—one of the few pieces of early writing we have from Obama, who kept a light paper trail—and how it combined ignorance, idealism, leftism, and arrogance. I’d say the same for Rhodes; Obama chose advisors who agreed with him (which of course is his prerogative).

Of course, one could say that Trump has no foreign policy experience either, and one would be right. This was one of the things that worried me so powerfully during the 2016 campaign. I still wonder about it. But he’s certainly chosen people to advise him who have plenty of experience in the arena, and what I’ve seen so far I mostly like.

What’s more, one thing you can say about Trump is that, although some of his behavior (and many of his Tweets) may seem and sound sophomoric and/or crass, his world-view on foreign policy is not. It’s cynical, hard-nosed, and it’s based on a ton of practical real-world experience in negotiating in a somewhat different but perhaps-related area, that of international business.

During the campaign and since, I’ve also been worried that Trump’s experience in the latter world would not transfer to the former world. But so far it appears that some of the negotiating skills are similar. And they’re a great deal more similar than writing novels and/or student articles are to negotiating foreign policy in the real world. A lot more similar.

I have no idea how the current approach towards Iran will work out. But I am firmly convinced that no one does. And the objections of Obama et al do not move me one iota. They have absolutely no credibility with me.

Posted in Obama, Trump, War and Peace | 19 Replies

How the Lyme vaccine got banned

The New Neo Posted on May 10, 2018 by neoMay 10, 2018

Basically, it was part of the anti-vaccine hysteria.

Where I live, Lyme disease is a very real possibility if you go outside in the countryside or even suburbia. People have to dress with great care to avoid it, and I personally know several people who’ve had it and had to have rather elaborate treatment. I had no idea that an effective vaccine had been developed decades ago but became unavailable, based on reasoning that sounds deeply flawed.

Thanks, anti-vaccers.

Posted in Health, Science | 4 Replies

Iran: let’s unmake a deal

The New Neo Posted on May 9, 2018 by neoMay 9, 2018

I was listening to MSNBC for about 15 minutes last night, shortly after Trump announced that he was ending our participation in the Iran deal. The show featured a bunch of talking heads telling us in very dire tones that this was an awful thing that would lead to war, and that Israel wants war but wants the US to do its dirty work, and variations on such themes.

The message was similar to the idea suggested in this CNN headline: “Trump withdraws from Iran nuclear deal, isolating him further from world,” or worse:

Trump’s decision could have explosive consequences, straining longstanding US alliances, disrupting oil markets and boosting tensions in the Middle East, even if the US reversal doesn’t lead Iran to restart its atomic program…

While Trump supporters praised the move, analysts and critics said it undermines Washington’s credibility in future negotiations — particularly with North Korea — and potentially empowers the very hardliners in Iran that Trump vilified in his remarks.

It also further isolates Trump on the global stage, where he has angered even the staunchest US allies by reneging on US commitments to the Paris climate accord and pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

This is the way the left will go at it: the notion that we are now a pariah in the community of nations (as opposed to how beloved we were under Obama), that Obama’s successor is constrained from changing Obama’s foreign policy even if he/she strongly disagrees with it (because we must have continuity or other nations won’t trust us), and that any future development of a nuclear weapon on Iran’s part is Trump’s fault because of course the Iran deal would have prevented that from happening.

I bet these same people thought it was just hunky-dory when Obama changed US policies on agreements such as this. And in particular, I bet they ignored and will continue to ignore the reasons that the Iran deal is called a deal rather than a treaty: that it was a mere executive agreement engineered by Obama with very little support from the legislature or from the American people at the time. It was Obama’s deal, and one of the reasons that Trump was elected was his promise to end it.

The Iranians knew that it was a deal rather than a treaty going in, and everyone else knew it as well. They knew that the continuation of the deal depended on Democrats retaining power and on the election of an Obama successor who thought the way he did.

I’ve read a number of sites on the right that emphasize that the Iran deal was not a treaty because it couldn’t get the 2/3 vote to pass as a treaty. But what was particularly remarkable about it was that Congress almost managed to find 60 votes to stop it; they came very close. The House rejected it with bipartisan support, meaning that all GOP members voted against it (except one who voted “present” because he thought it should have been voted down as a treaty instead of a deal) and were joined by 25 Democrats. And in the Senate, 42 Democrats in support of the deal managed to stop a vote by the majority against it. Not exactly resounding support; more like resounding (although in the end ineffective) opposition.

That was the politics of the deal, creating a foreign policy situation that as far as I know was unprecedented. To agree to an extremely important foreign policy with a country that is our sworn enemy, and have a strong majority of Congress—all of the opposing party and some from your own party—against it was an extraordinary move by Obama.

As far as the actual merits of the deal go, what you think of Trump’s withdrawal from it depends on whether you trust that the deal accomplished the aim of making it much harder for Iran to develop nuclear weapons or whether you think any such perception has been based on lies. In addition, it depends on what you think of other results of the deal—such, as, for example, as Andrew C. McCarthy writes:

In point of fact, war was not the alternative to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. War was the result of the JCPOA [the acronym for the official name of the Iran deal].

Obama said the mullahs would use the windfall to rebuild their country (while Kerry grudgingly confessed that a slice would still be diverted to the jihad). Instead, billions of dollars poured into Iran by Obama’s deal promptly poured out to Syria, where it funded both sides of the war. Cash flowed to the Taliban, where it funded the war on the American-backed government. It flowed to Hamas and Hezbollah for the war on Israel. It flowed to Yemen, funding a proxy war against Saudi Arabia.

The JCPOA made Iran better at war than it has ever been ”” and that’s saying something.

What does the future hold on Iran? I think I can safely say this: no one knows. But here are two competing articles to read, both from Vox. The first one gives us the negative point of view about Trump’s withdrawal, and the second one gives the positive. Please read.

[ADDENDUM: We know the deal was not a treaty. But was it even an “agreement”? See this:

Not only was [the deal] not a treaty, the State Department said that it was not an executive agreement, either. According to Obama’s State Department, this was a “political understanding” between Barack Obama and the other parties to the agreement and was not legally binding.

Another point constantly made by the left—as detailed in the piece by streiff I just linked—is the iea that Trump has no plan B. But as streiff writes, there is a Plan B, and it’s described here.]

Posted in Iran, Obama, Trump, War and Peace | 38 Replies

Blankenship out

The New Neo Posted on May 9, 2018 by neoMay 9, 2018

Thank goodness the voters in the GOP primary in West Virginia saw fit to eliminate Blankenship from the running in the Senate race to challenge Joe Manchin. Blankenship was virtually certain to lose if by some chance he was nominated. His defeat—he came in third of three, with approximately 20% of the GOP vote—averts another one of those terrible situations in which a split contest winds up nominating a terrible, terrible candidate and forfeits an opportunity to hold onto (or in this case, gain) an important seat.

In fact, in all the primaries yesterday involving the US Senate, the results look pretty good for the GOP:

A night Republicans feared would end in disaster in at least one state instead produced Senate nominees that party leaders are pleased to run against three vulnerable Democratic senators in November’s midterm elections.

President Donald Trump welcomed the results in a Wednesday morning tweet, calling it a “great night” for the Republican Party.

But don’t discount the stupid party’s ability to be stupid yet. It’s a pretty long way to November.

Posted in Politics | 15 Replies

There’s still hope for Pluto the planet

The New Neo Posted on May 9, 2018 by neoMay 9, 2018

Maybe someday:

In 2006, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) announced an attempted redefinition of the word “planet” that excluded many objects, including Pluto. We think that decision was flawed, and that a logical and useful definition of planet will include many more worlds…

Most essentially, planetary worlds (including planetary moons) are those large enough to have pulled themselves into a ball by the strength of their own gravity. Below a certain size, the strength of ice and rock is enough to resist rounding by gravity, and so the smallest worlds are lumpy…

At the 2006 IAU conference, which was held in Prague, the few scientists remaining at the very end of the week-long meeting (less than 4 percent of the world’s astronomers and even a smaller percentage of the world’s planetary scientists) ratified a hastily drawn definition that contains obvious flaws. For one thing, it defines a planet as an object orbiting around our sun ”” thereby disqualifying the planets around other stars, ignoring the exoplanet revolution, and decreeing that essentially all the planets in the universe are not, in fact, planets.

Even within our solar system, the IAU scientists defined “planet” in a strange way, declaring that if an orbiting world has “cleared its zone,” or thrown its weight around enough to eject all other nearby objects, it is a planet. Otherwise it is not. This criterion is imprecise and leaves many borderline cases, but what’s worse is that they chose a definition that discounts the actual physical properties of a potential planet, electing instead to define “planet” in terms of the other objects that are ”” or are not ”” orbiting nearby. This leads to many bizarre and absurd conclusions.

So, they drummed Pluto out of the planet roll call by waiting till there weren’t many scientists left at the meeting before they took the vote? Sounds like politics to me. Give us back our Pluto, the ninth planet!

Posted in Science | 8 Replies

Protect me from bad jokes, please!

The New Neo Posted on May 8, 2018 by neoMay 8, 2018

It’s come to this:

[Ned Lebow] says he was joking when he asked to be let off an elevator at the ladies’ lingerie department. A female scholar who was attending the same annual meeting of the International Studies Association was not amused, and neither was the association when she complained.

Now his refusal to formally apologize has touched off the latest skirmish in the #MeToo battles rocking academe. At issue is whether a comment made in jest rises to the level of a punishable offense, and what happens when a complaint some deem as trivial results in a vicious online backlash against the offended party.

Have all feminists turned into Nurse Ratched these days?

She said she offered to press the floor buttons for people in the elevator, whom she described as mostly conference attendees and all, except one other woman, white middle-aged men. Instead of saying a floor, Lebow smiled and asked for the women’s lingerie department “and all his buddies laughed,” Sharoni wrote in a complaint, the details of which he disputed, to the association later that day.

“After they walked out, the woman standing next to me turned to me and said, ”˜I wonder if we should have told them that it is no longer acceptable to make these jokes!” she said in her complaint.

Sharoni, who wrote in her complaint that she has experienced sexual harassment in academe in the past and was shaken by the incident, said it took her a while to figure out that Lebow thought it was funny “to make a reference to men shopping for lingerie while attending an academic conference. I am still trying to come to terms with the fact that we froze and didn’t confront him,” she wrote.

Maybe if you’re so fragile, you shouldn’t be out in the world entering elevators where “white middle-aged men” make silly jokes and laugh at them. And maybe, just maybe, before you get on your high horse and complain to the International Studies Association, you should get a little perspective and sense of proportion, and maybe even the courage to say something to the person himself first:

After glancing at Lebow’s name tag, Sharoni says she went back to her hotel room to check out the association’s code of conduct. She then wrote to Mark A. Boyer, the association’s executive director. He forwarded the complaint to the group’s Committee on Professional Rights and Responsibilities, which determined that Lebow had violated the conduct code.

Lebow insists it never should have gotten to that point because he tried to resolve the problem informally, as the association’s conduct code recommends. After being informed that his conduct was under investigation, Lebow wrote Sharoni an email assuring her that “I certainly had no desire to insult women or to make you feel uncomfortable.”…

Boyer informed Lebow that his remarks had been deemed “offensive and inappropriate.” An even “more serious violation,” than the elevator remarks, Boyer wrote, was “that you chose to reach out to Prof. Sharoni, and termed her complaint ”˜frivolous.’”

Lebow was told to write an “unequivocal apology” to Sharoni and submit a written copy by May 15 to the association’s executive committee. The apology should focus on Lebow’s actions, rather than Sharoni’s perceptions of them, it said, adding that if he failed to comply, the executive committee would consider appropriate sanctions.

Lebow has refused.

He also sent an email to colleagues calling his treatment “a horrifying and chilling example of political correctness” that “encourages others to censor their remarks for fear of retribution.”…

He said it was a man, not a woman, who asked for the floors and that the other men in the elevator were not his “buddies” as she had described them. He wasn’t smiling, he said, and she wouldn’t have known if he was because he was standing in the back and she was in front of him.

Doesn’t matter, Ned. She sees you when you’re sleeping, she knows when you’re awake, she knows if you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness sake.

So you better watch out. No public place is safe, especially if you’re wearing a name tag.

Oh, and “Lebow added that he felt he was the ‘aggrieved party,’ as someone who has supported, mentored, and coauthored with women in the profession for 53 years.” Doesn’t matter; won’t protect you.

I suggest that Lebow have a talk with Jordan Peterson on this. It might be helpful.

For Sharoni’s complaint to reach this level, the cooperation of an organization like the International Studies Association is required. It’s no accident this occurred in the context of academia, the epicenter of political correctness and the campaign against free speech.

[NOTE: I also want to call your attention to this news of the passage of a law attempting to protect free speech at Arizona universities (public state-supported ones, I’m assuming).]

Posted in Academia, Liberty, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex | 32 Replies

The economy, stupid

The New Neo Posted on May 8, 2018 by neoMay 9, 2018

Commenter and forecaster extraordinaire “Cornhead” (aka attorney David Begley) writes about a question-and-answer session with Warren Buffett that he attended:

In response to another question Buffett said that while he spent his own money backing Hillary Clinton, it would have been completely wrong (and illegal) to spend corporate money backing one political candidate. I can say with complete confidence that Warren Buffett is not part of the Resistance and he has moved on from Hillary’s defeat.

I found it very interesting that Buffett seemed to back President Trump on some of his trade policies and particularly on steel. Warren rattled off some numbers about how much of our economy is dependent upon foreign trade and how it is generally good for America…

Many times Warren and Charlie [Munger] spoke favorably of the Trump tax cuts. Their point is that the corporate tax cuts will be channeled into more investment in America and higher wages for workers as confidence in the American economy grows. Buffett thinks that the full effect of the tax cuts is still not fully priced into the market.

From Buffett’s Wiki entry:

Buffett is a notable philanthropist, having pledged to give away 99 percent of his fortune to philanthropic causes, primarily via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He founded The Giving Pledge in 2009 with Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, whereby billionaires pledge to give away at least half of their fortunes. He is also active contributing to political causes, having endorsed Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election; he has publicly opposed the policies, actions, and statements of the current U.S. president, Donald Trump

Here are more details of Buffett’s political point of view; he seems like a garden-variety liberal to me. I wonder whether his (perhaps grudging) support of the tax cuts, as reported by Cornhead, is representative of the reasons behind recent upticks for Trump in polls such as the one reported on here [emphasis mine]:

…But 52 percent of Americans approve of the president’s handling of the economy of the economy. And 57 percent say things are going well. That’s eight percentage points more than earlier this year, and it’s the highest mark since January 2007, before the last recession…

The improvement in the “how are things going” number is driven mostly by Democrats, though. 40 percent of the Dems in the survey say America is doing well. Only 25 percent said so in February. And 26 percent of Democrats approve of Mr. Trump’s handling of the economy, compared to 15 percent three months ago.

The pocketbook can be a heavy persuader.

Posted in Finance and economics, People of interest, Trump | 21 Replies

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Your support is appreciated through a one-time or monthly Paypal donation

Please click the link recommended books and search bar for Amazon purchases through neo. I receive a commission from all such purchases.

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Kate on Open thread 5/16/2025
  • huxley on Open thread 5/16/2025
  • Jay Bergman on Trump gets down to business in the Arab world
  • huxley on Trump gets down to business in the Arab world
  • SHIREHOME on Open thread 5/16/2025

Recent Posts

  • Roundup
  • Open thread 5/16/2025
  • Trump gets down to business in the Arab world
  • SCOTUS will be considering the legality of nationwide injunctions
  • Politics as “mental illness”

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (310)
  • Afghanistan (96)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (155)
  • Best of neo-neocon (88)
  • Biden (519)
  • Blogging and bloggers (561)
  • Dance (278)
  • Disaster (232)
  • Education (312)
  • Election 2012 (359)
  • Election 2016 (564)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (504)
  • Election 2022 (113)
  • Election 2024 (396)
  • Evil (121)
  • Fashion and beauty (318)
  • Finance and economics (941)
  • Food (309)
  • Friendship (45)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (698)
  • Health (1,088)
  • Health care reform (544)
  • Hillary Clinton (183)
  • Historical figures (317)
  • History (671)
  • Immigration (371)
  • Iran (345)
  • Iraq (222)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (690)
  • Jews (366)
  • Language and grammar (347)
  • Latin America (183)
  • Law (2,711)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (123)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,194)
  • Liberty (1,068)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (375)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,381)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (870)
  • Middle East (373)
  • Military (279)
  • Movies (331)
  • Music (509)
  • Nature (238)
  • Neocons (31)
  • New England (175)
  • Obama (1,731)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (124)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (24)
  • People of interest (971)
  • Poetry (239)
  • Political changers (172)
  • Politics (2,672)
  • Pop culture (385)
  • Press (1,562)
  • Race and racism (843)
  • Religion (389)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (603)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (916)
  • Theater and TV (259)
  • Therapy (65)
  • Trump (1,443)
  • Uncategorized (3,984)
  • Vietnam (108)
  • Violence (1,268)
  • War and Peace (862)

Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
DanielInVenezuela (liberty)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (shrink archives)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor’s Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
Maggie’sFarm (togetherness)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
MichelleObama’sMirror (reflect)
NoPasaran! (bluntFrench)
NormanGeras (archives)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob)
Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (exodus)
Powerline (foursight)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RedState (conservative)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
©2025 - The New Neo - Weaver Xtreme Theme Email
↑