↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 776 << 1 2 … 774 775 776 777 778 … 1,778 1,779 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Spengler on Jewish humor

The New Neo Posted on November 9, 2017 by neoJuly 24, 2019

Spengler uses the abominable and extremely unfunny joke of Larry David on Saturday Night Live recently as a springboard for a discussion of the special qualities of Jewish humor—the kind of Jewish humor that is funny, and is characteristically Jewish: “All characteristically Jewish humor has a profoundly religious foundation: It stems from the absurdity of the encounter of finite humanity with infinite divinity.”

I especially enjoyed this one, which I’d never heard before I read his piece:

During the Days of Awe before the Day of Repentance, Yom Kippur, the rabbi is meditating in the synagogue. He prays, “Lord, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! Or the son of man, that thou makest account of him! Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away. Lord, I am as nothing in thy sight.” The cantor is moved, and he also prays, “Lord, what is man, that thou takest knowledge of him! Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away. Lord, I am as nothing in thy sight.” And the janitor hears, and he is moved, and he starts to pray: “Lord, what is man, that thou makest account of him! Man is like to vanity: his days are as a shadow that passeth away. Lord, I am as nothing in thy sight.” The cantor nudges the rabbi and says, “Look who thinks he’s nothing in the sight of God!”

I told an old Jewish joke at the end of this post:

In the olden days, pharmacies often had soda counters, too. An elderly woman walked into that kind of pharmacy and goes up to the pharmacist, and asks (best done with a Yiddish accent), “Do you do test the pee here?” The pharmacist answers (best done with a generic American accent), “Yes, we do urine analysis.” Then she asks, “And do you test the spit, too?” He answers, nodding, “Yes, we do sputum analysis.” Then she asks, “And how about the kaka? Do you test that, too?” He nods and solemnly says, “Yes, we do fecal analysis.”

She says, “Okay, then – vash your hands and make me a chocolate malt.”

I’m not one of those people with a huge storehouse of set jokes in my head. I know maybe five, and I can tell maybe one of them effectively. But I’ve heard plenty, Jewish and otherwise, and I disagree that “all characteristically Jewish humor has a profoundly religious foundation.” I see the joke I just related as characteristically Jewish, and it seems to me it has little to no religious foundation, as do many of the jokes I can think of. Some of them have to do with foolish people. Some have to do with self-deprecation. This one has to do with the joys of complaining:

A tall man,6’3”, somewhat overweight, is attempting to get comfortable in the small space of an upper-birth Pullman Sleeper on a train between Chicago and New York. He turns on his right side, then on his left, then on his stomach, then on his back. He plumps his pillow. Finally, the clackety-clack of the tracks begins to put him to sleep when from the other end of the sleeper car he hears a female voice: “Oy, am I thirsty! Oy, am I thirsty!” Over and over, at regular but all-too-short intervals, the voice calls out, “Oy, am I thirsty! Oy, am I thirsty!”

The man, realizing that sleep will be impossible if this woman’s thirst isn’t slaked, climbs out of his sleeper, puts on his bathrobe, and walks to the end of the car, where there is a water cooler and paper cups, one of which he fills. Following the sound of the voice – “Oy, am I thirsty! Oy, am I thirsty!” – he walks to the other end of the car and knocks gently. An older woman pulls back the drape that encloses her sleeper.

“Excuse me, Madame,” the man says, “I couldn’t help overhear that you were thirsty, and I thought perhaps this cup of water might help.”

“You, sir,” the woman says, “are a real gentleman. Thank you so much.” She takes the cup, and closes the drape.

The man climbs back into his own sleeper. Once again he struggles to find a comfortable position, turning and twisting every which way. Once again he plumps his pillow. Once again the rhythmic clacking of the tracks works its hypnotic spell and he is about to fall asleep when he hears the same voice call out: “Oy, was I thirsty! Oy, was I thirsty!”

I know a much longer and more elaborate version of that joke, one I think is superior. But it can only be told really successfully orally, because it relies in part on accents for its humor. In this version, instead of one man trying to sleep in another berth on the train and hearing the complaining woman, it involves a group of men playing poker in an adjacent club car. They hear the woman moaning about being thirsty (Brooklyn accent: “Oy, am I thoisty!). The joke-teller is supposed to draw it out much longer; they hear her over and over in an ever-escalating wail, from a soft moan to finally a really annoying yell (the joke teller must demonstrate this), over a period of a half-hour or so. Finally, one of the guys takes the cigar out of his mouth and yells back, “Lady, I’ll get you a drink if you just SHUT UP!” and he gets her the drink of water. She thanks him. A half-hour passes peacefully. And then they hear the low moan, “Oy, VAS I thoisty!”

This became a running joke between me and my husband and our son. Whenever something (mildly) unpleasant happened, and we were thinking back on it and about to say something about it, it was fun to preface it with “Oy, vas I thoisty!”

The Commentary challenge was to connect the joke with some Talmudic wisdom. I don’t know what it would be, but perhaps something to do with remembering Biblical travails so that we don’t forget our deliverance by God?

Sure enough, when I looked up the winning response, that was the gist of it. Along with another very funny joke:

Three rabbis, meeting over lunch, are discussing problems in their respective synagogues: gossip, fundraising, the fees for guest speakers.

“Excuse me, gentlemen,” one of the rabbis interjects, “I hope you won’t think this too trivial, but our synagogue has of late had an infestation of mice, which has been very disturbing, especially for our female congregants.”

The eyes of the other two rabbis light up, and each admits that his own synagogue has had the same problem. One asks the first rabbi what he has done about it.

“I arranged through our shammes to set more than 75 mouse traps throughout the synagogue. But it didn’t work out. The traps would sometimes go off during services, which was most distracting. The net result was that we caught four mice and still have the problem.”

“I called in Orkin, the exterminators,” says the second rabbi. “They caught a dozen or so mice and charged us $1,100. But we, too, still have mice in the synagogue. Most unpleasant.”

“Gentlemen,” announces the third rabbi, “I don’t mean to brag, but I was able completely to solve the mice problem in our synagogue, and at minimal cost.”

The first two rabbis eagerly ask how.

“Very simple,” the third rabbi says. “What I did was buy a 25-pound wheel of Chilton cheese, which I set on the bima. Lo, in no time at all, 243 mice appeared. I bar-mitzvahed them all, and, gentlemen, they never returned.”

If you don’t get that one, I’ll explain (although explaining a joke does not generally enhance it; you either get it or you don’t). For many American Jews, they take religious instruction until their Bar or Bat Mitzvahs and never again return to the synagogue.

Posted in Jews, Language and grammar | 24 Replies

Hey, let’s get rid of the Star-Spangled Banner!

The New Neo Posted on November 9, 2017 by neoNovember 9, 2017

Not for the reason you might think we should get rid of it—that it’s nearly unsingable.

No, the reason is because the third verse—the one virtually no one had ever heard of before, much less sung—is supposedly racist. Maybe or maybe not. After all, the NAACP of California says it is, and that the whole anthem should therefore be jettisoned.

Historians differ greatly on the matter, and if you care to see their arguments, read this and this, for example.

I’m pretty old, and I still remember learning the song in school—not all four verses (which no one ever sings), but the first and fourth, which I still can sing from memory. Not only that, before yesterday I can’t remember having even heard or read verses two and three (the latter being the one with the disputed meaning), and I would wager most people have never heard them either.

So I have a novel idea. If the third verse offends, then how about cutting it from the song? No one would have even noticed without the big brouhaha. But this is about proving America is an irredeemably racist country, steeped in racism, macerating in racism, and for penance the anthem can’t be expurgated; it must be expunged.

I’ve not seen an article that suggests what should replace it. I’ve long been rather partial to “God Bless America,” but that’s out for obvious reasons. “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” is really “God Save the Queen,” so that won’t do. And then there’s always “America the Beautiful”—but its lyrics mention the deity as well.

Hey, let’s just do away with a national anthem. We don’t really deserve one, do we?

Posted in Historical figures, Language and grammar, Race and racism | 36 Replies

Montreal bagels

The New Neo Posted on November 8, 2017 by neoNovember 8, 2017

A while back I sang the praises of the Montreal version of the pastrami sandwich, sampled on a recent visit to that city. Sublime.

I’d heard similar over-the-top praise for the bagels there. Now, bagels are one of those things that come in many different styles, and unfortunately their extreme popularity has led to the proliferation of a sort of cakey soft type in the US rather than the chewy toothsomeness of the original (and best!) kind. Even in the fairly Jewish city of Los Angeles, the softish cakey kind are pretty much the only kind you can get—or the only kind I’ve been able to find.

Bagels have also grown remarkably in size, like so many modern food items.

So I was looking forward to the Montreal version, rumored to be authentic and authentically modest in size. After walking about five miles to get to the very best bagel place in the city (don’t remember the name), I was initially encouraged. They looked good; they looked right. And the method, boiled and then baked, was correct. But they were cakey, like most US bagels in supermarkets, albeit with a hard chewy crust and a nice irregular shape, and not swollen to gargantuan proportions like so many modern-day bagels. They were also sweetish.

Bummer. I threw the remainder of mine out.

Anyone had a good bagel lately in Montreal? Or anywhere?

Posted in Food, Me, myself, and I | 41 Replies

On the phenomenon of racist graffiti in schools

The New Neo Posted on November 8, 2017 by neoNovember 8, 2017

Another one bites the dust:

An Air Force Academy cadet candidate once thought the victim of racial slurs at the preparatory school on campus was actually the vandal who scrawled the threatening messages across the note boards outside his room and the dwellings of classmates.

The academy confirmed that finding Tuesday afternoon, and stood by a stern speech given by its top general in the wake of the incident. Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria gathered cadets and staff members for a speech that has gone viral in videos posted across the internet. He said that those who can’t respect others “need to get out.”

“Regardless of the circumstances under which those words were written, they were written, and that deserved to be addressed,” Silveria said in a Tuesday email. “You can never over-emphasize the need for a culture of dignity and respect – and those who don’t understand those concepts, aren’t welcome here.”

I’ve noticed over the years that nearly every incident of racist graffiti at colleges and universities gets a huge amount of attention and outrage and turns out to be self-perpetuated, a kind of racism Munchausen’s syndrome. I guess the perpetrators consider that it’s worth the publicity and works as propaganda, and maybe it does. It’s certainly long been a favorite ploy of the left. After all, how many people hear only the initial report and never get the memo on the correction?

However, I am certain that racism exists and that there are racists on college campuses. They come in all races, and some are obviously going to be white people who are racist towards black people. But most of them are not scrawling racist graffiti in public places, whatever might be going on in their secret heart of hearts.

It has gotten to the point where every time I hear one of these stories about graffiti, and hear administrators solemnly lecture their student bodies about it, I think “Wait and see.”

In this case, the student involved (who is unnamed) may have been…:

…[acting] in a bizarre bid to get out of trouble he faced at the school for other misconduct. The prep school offers a year of training for academy prospects who need academic help. The school is primarily used to fill athletic rosters for the academy’s 37 NCAA teams.

This is not the only problem at the school:

Several players and coaches from the academy lacrosse team were suspended last month for unspecified misconduct.

Additionally, the school is investigating 13 freshmen accused of cheating on a test of basic military knowledge. The test includes simple questions, some asking cadets to recite quotes and name key military leaders.

This is very disturbing. The rot seems rather widespread. The Air Force is not having a good week otherwise, either, having been implicated in negligent mishandling of the reporting of offenses committed by the Texas church shooter while in the service, thereby failing to stop him from legally purchasing a gun when he should not have been able to do so. It also follows major problems at West Point.

What’s going on here? I’d say the Gramscian march is going on.

Posted in Academia, Military, Race and racism | 30 Replies

One year later: Trump the unlikely populist

The New Neo Posted on November 8, 2017 by neoNovember 8, 2017

[NOTE: Today is the one-year anniversary of the 2016 election, so I thought I’d repeat a post I wrote about Trump in August of 2015, when it was beginning to dawn on me that he was a very serious contender.]

I watched Trump’s speech in Mobile last night without ever planning to do so. I was flipping around looking for something to watch on TV (in the background while I was doing some cooking) and noticed that CNN was showing it with comprehensive, wall-to-wall coverage, as though it was of the same importance as a State of the Union message.

That in and of itself got my attention. Not only that, the commentary at CNN seemed surprisingly respectful and even serious—not a lot of mocking and derision. So I watched, despite the fact that (as regular readers here know) I don’t like to listen to political speeches.

Of course, Trump giving a political speech is not like anyone else giving a political speech. He’s in his element in front of a crowd. And even in Alabama, the New York shtick that you would think wouldn’t play so well there seems to be something they love when Trump does it. People are really really really sick of feeling impotent as Obama has thumbed his nose at them and lied to them, as the GOP has either disappointed or outright betrayed them, and as PC thought has taken over our values, education, the press, some churches, and many novels and movies.

Trump seems immune from PC considerations and also from the ubiquitous need to be beholden to conventional donors. He has the advantage of his familiarity to the public and his relaxation in front of the camera gained from years of being a showman and a TV personality. Trump has a populist appeal—you could see it very clearly during his speech—but he’s a rich-as-Croesus populist who doesn’t trash the rich as so many populists do; au contraire. Nor does he apologize for being mega-rich himself; he brags.

Trump has mastered not just the “art of the deal” but the art of giving a speech that sounds like ad-libbing stream-of-consciousness but is not. As he went along it occurred to me that what he is doing is cheerleading for America, reiterating over and over what he would do for America and what he would do for the people he is speaking to, and fitting his words to their desire that America be what it once was. It’s the flip side of Obama’s hope and change: they hope that he can change things back to a time when America was great, and that’s his explicit message and the slogan on the very flyover-country-looking hats he wears and sells. This is a guy who knows marketing, and it’s no accident that the slogan is also pretty much what Reagan used in 1980 (Reagan put the word “let’s” at the beginning of the phrase, but otherwise it was exactly the same).

Trump is a happy warrior, or at least talks like one. “I will rebuild the military so it’s so strong and so powerful that we’ll never have to use it. No one will ever mess with us” is a typical utterance. He lists stuff—trade, health care, women’s health issues—and says “we’re gonna fix it.” And I guess people believe him, or at least believe he’s sincere about trying. How he’ll get around the impediments that stand in the way is unclear, but people don’t want clarity. They like his style. They like his spirit

“We have a great lack of spirit,” said Trump, and he’s right; and he’s out to provide it, and he does. He says he had thought Obama would be “a great cheerleader,” (hmmm, I thought; I just perceived him as a cheerleader a moment ago, and now he’s using the word). Instead, Obama is “a great divider.” But Trump? “I am going to make this country bigger and stronger and better and you’re gonna love it, and you’re gonna love your president…and you’re gonna be so proud.”

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I’m not a Trump supporter, but that I also get his appeal. Watching him speak at length, I “got” it even more. He makes all other politicians look boring and stilted (hey, many of them are boring and stilted). He makes it all sound so simple—just as Obama did, but in a completely different direction and with a completely, and I mean completely, different style. Populist appeal is a neat trick in a man who’s a multi-billionaire and who grew up in enormous wealth and graduated from Wharton. But he’s got it, and although I’m sure he carefully nurtures it he manages to make it look natural.

From the start of Trump’s rise in the polls I’ve taken him very seriously as a phenomenon. I haven’t understood those who casually asserted “He’s never going to win the nomination.” I’ve long thought he could, because the force of that appeal is obvious, and he’s somehow made himself immune to being criticized for anything he says. His niche is “the more outrageous, the better,” and the more extreme his utterances the more his supporters seem to like him—although not all of what he says is extreme, of course, and some is just common sense.

If I were one of the other Republican candidates I’d be very very scared. And if I were one of the Democratic candidates I’d be scared, too.

ADDENDUM, November 8, 2017:

The Trump victory was nevertheless unexpected, and it was accompanied by GOP control of the US Congress. Since then, the GOP has not managed to unite and the Democrats—though also warring between their own (leftist) “establishment” wing and their (even more leftist) Sanders/Warren wing—seem more united at the moment than the GOP. Trump gives the Democrats something to hate, and hatred is a great unifier.

I wonder whether Trump’s victory last year was merely a function of his very idiosyncratic personality and qualities, plus a backlash to eight years of Obama as well as the unusual dislikability of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Can a lasting GOP trend be built on that? I don’t think so; the GOP probably won’t find such a combination of favorable factors again. I am very worried about the results of yesterday’s legislative elections in Virginia, and what they might portend for the future. That Gramscian and demographic march of the left does not seem to have abated, and the GOP doesn’t seem to know how to fight it.

Sorry to be so pessimistic.

Posted in Election 2016, Politics, Trump | 19 Replies

Virginia: a tide election?

The New Neo Posted on November 8, 2017 by neoNovember 8, 2017

I wasn’t very concerned about yesterday’s Virginia gubernatorial election, because I figured that Northam the Democrat would win and it probably had more to do with Gillespie being a poor candidate than anything else, plus I consider Virginia a basically blue state.

But the results in the state legislative races—and the fact that, as of this sitting, the Virginia House is poised to be controlled by Democrats for the first time in many years (I’m having trouble getting figures on how long it’s been since they had the majority there)—is what is particularly disturbing to me. The magnitude of that victory is unexpected and represents a big change; prior to this election the GOP held approximately a 2-1 majority there.

What does it all mean? I don’t have my finger on the pulse of Virginia politics, but from what I’ve read today in various blogs and newspapers, neither does anyone else, although there’s no lack of theories.

Regarding the governorship, I’ve read that it’s about Gillespie’s RINOism and lack of support of Trump; all RINOs must go! I’ve read it’s a rejection of Trump, and anyone who allies with him (as Gillespie ultimately did) will fail because the people hate Trump. Needless to say, those two things are diametrically opposed—although in my more pessimistic moments I suspect that both of them are correct, reflecting the potentially fatal split in the Republican Party, a split I first noticed long ago but which has been widening and deepening for years. Candidates need to figure out which it is—with Trump or against him?—in order to know how best to approach the 2018 midterms. But one thing of which I’m pretty sure is that a lot of GOP office-holders running for re-election will be primaried and replaced by other candidates, some of whom will be better and some worse.

It’s difficult to get an idea of whether the Virginia House really will end up flipping to the Democrats as a result of yesterday’s vote, but indications are in that direction:

Virginia Democrats have picked up 10 House of Delegates seats and lead in seven more races, putting them within striking distance of taking the majority in the state legislature.

Democrats needed to flip 17 seats heading into Tuesday to retake the majority. And while the gubernatorial contest between Democrat Ralph Northam and Republican Ed Gillespie has dominated national attention, the 100 seats in the state’s House of Delegates could end up being the true bellwethers to gauge Democratic Party’s strength ahead of the 2018 midterms.

In the same article, the Virginia Democratic House leader calls it a “tsunami,” and points out that such a magnitude of Democratic victory hasn’t happened since 1975. What’s going on here? My guess is that it mostly reflects two things. The first is the changing demographics of Virginia, increasingly favoring Democrats. The second is that the Democrats put out a highly organized drive to do this in yesterday’s election and caught the Republicans of Virginia unprepared and flat-footed. For example, there’s this sort of thing. My guess (and I haven’t followed it closely enough to know) is that the state GOP candidates complacently assumed they were safe when they were not, and didn’t put out the same kind of effort.

The Virginia elections are not an isolated phenomenon, either. If you look at special legislative election in other states in this last few months, you will see it start to look like a trend (the following was written in September of 2017:

Of 35 special elections for state legislature since President Donald Trump’s election, Democrats overperformed in 26, meaning they did a lot better than expected, given how Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton did in the same district last fall. In one Oklahoma seat in May, Republican Zach Taylor squeezed out a 50-48 win against his Democratic opponent, Steve Barnes ”“ even though Trump won the district by 50 points last November, indicating Barnes should have lost by much more.

And upcoming races later this month and into November could put Democrats on the path of retaking state legislative bodies. The Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee is optimistic about a Washington state Senate race in November that ”“ if it flips from red to blue ”“ will give Democrats control of the chamber. Democrats already have control of the state House and the governor’s office. The party sees important pickup opportunities as well in Florida, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota and New York’s state Senate, a chamber now narrowly controlled by Republicans.

The races matter because state legislatures are making a great deal of policy where Congress has been unable to reach agreement. State legislatures will also be redrawing congressional districts after the 2020 U.S. Census. And the contests also provide a political window into how congressional candidates are positioned next year, experts say.

The article goes on to note the Democrats are far more enthusiastic than Republicans, and candidate recruitment is high in the Democratic party. Trump-hatred is a powerful motivator for them, and they want payback for November of 2016, whereas Republicans are feeling angry at legislators of their own party, or at best tepid.

It may seem odd—in fact, to me it does seem odd—to take out one’s rage against a party’s US representatives by failing to turn out to vote for your local, state representatives of that party, but that may be the way it’s working. My sense is that the GOP Congress will be in big trouble in 2018 if something doesn’t change—and pretty soon, too.

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Politics | 12 Replies

Virginia governor’s race

The New Neo Posted on November 7, 2017 by neoNovember 7, 2017

Everyone keeps saying this is a very meaningful race.

I’m not so sure. I consider Virginia a fairly—although not entirely—blue state. If Ralph Northam (D) wins, I don’t think it has much meaning. If Ed Gillepsie (R) wins, it has a bit more meaning because it would be a come-from-behind win. But I still don’t think it tells us much about what will happen a year from now in Senate and House on a nationwide basis.

A year is a long long time in politics.

UPDATE PM: It’s looking pretty bad for Gillespie.

If he loses (and I believe he will) the Democrats will talk incessantly about how significant it is for 2018.

Posted in Uncategorized | 25 Replies

Tales of Democratic Election Night woe

The New Neo Posted on November 7, 2017 by neoNovember 7, 2017

Here are some reminiscences by political operatives and media people about Election Night 2016 (hat tip Ace). They vary from the delighted to the devastated. The surprise and shock was enormous for Hillary supporters, as you can imagine. Here are just a few examples of the quotes, from earlier in the evening to later:

Zara Rahim, Clinton campaign national spokeswoman: We were waiting for the coronation. I was planning my Instagram caption…

Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight: When I was coming in on the train at 5 p.m., according to our model, there was one-in-three chance of a Clinton landslide, a one-in-three chance of a close Clinton win, and a one-in-three chance of a Trump win. I was mentally preparing myself for each of those outcomes.…

Ashley Parker, The Washington Post, formerly of The New York Times: The RNC thought they were going to lose. The Trump campaign supporters thought they were going to lose. They were rushing to get their side out of the blame game. I spent part of my day lining up interviews for later that night or the next morning to get their version of events.…

Jerry Falwell Jr., president of Liberty University, Trump’s religious adviser: I called Sean Hannity and said, “I really think he’s going to win tonight.” Sean said, “Well, I’m glad you do, because the exit polls don’t look good.” I found out later that Trump was very pessimistic, too.…

Steve Bannon: Jared [Kushner] and I were out on this balcony in Trump Tower. We looked at it on Jared’s iPhone. And the numbers were so bad that we regrouped inside. We look at each other and we go, “This can’t be right. It just can’t.” And Jared goes, “I got an idea, let’s call Drudge.” And Drudge says, “The corporate media””they’ve always been wrong the entire time””these numbers are wrong.”…

Sen. Tim Kaine: Based on the returns from one bellwether Virginia county I know well, I realized that we would win Virginia by a significantly larger margin than President Obama four years earlier. This was a huge feeling given all the work that Anne and I have done for 30-plus years to help make Virginia more progressive. It struck me for the first time, “I will probably be vice president.” That feeling lasted about 90 minutes.…

Van Jones: You got smoke coming out of every gear trying to figure out what the heck is happening out there. And you’ve got John King who had said, over and over, that there is no pathway for a Trump victory. Suddenly, that whole thing starts to come apart.…

Jim Margolis: I finally called Steve Schale, who ran Florida for us in the Obama campaign. I said, “Steve, what’s going on here? Is this just a lack of information?” He said, “I think you’ve got a problem.”…

Bret Baier: At 8:30 I turned to Chris Wallace, who was sitting next to us on the set, and said, “This does not look like it’s lining up.” We came back from commercial break and Chris said, “Donald Trump could be the next president of the United States.”…

Ana Marie Cox: I did a couple of on-camera news hits where I was told, “What you need to do here is tell people not to panic.” Meanwhile, I was panicking.…

David Remnick: Not only did I not have anything else ready, I don’t think our site had anything, or much of anything, ready in case Trump won. The mood in the offices, I would say, was frenetic.…

Desus Nice, Desus & Mero: It’s one thing to find out Donald Trump is president, but another to be on TV with people watching you watch Donald Trump become president.…

Joshua Green, Bloomberg Businessweek correspondent and Devil’s Bargain author: At 9:05 p.m. I sent Bannon an email and said, “Holy shit, you guys are gonna win, aren’t you?” He sent a one word reply: “Yes.”…

Dave Weigel: I had told my parents, who are Clinton supporters””my dad actually knew Clinton growing up as he’s from the same town in Illinois she is. I texted him early in the night saying, “These Florida counties seem to be going the way they usually go.” But once I realized there was no way for Clinton to win, I called them saying, “I’m sorry, this is what I do for a living and I was wrong.” My dad said, “Well, I’m still holding out hope.” And I said, “Don’t bother. Process this, and figure out what you’re going to do next, because it’s not going to happen.”.

Many of you may enjoy a rush of schadenfreude when you read the quotes from Hillary supporters. For me, though, it’s a bit different. First of all, so many of my friends and loved ones were suffering greatly, and I was worried for them. Secondly, I wasn’t exactly what you’d call happy that night, myself—except for the fact that Hillary Clinton would not be president. That, I was happy about. I was also happy that Congress had passed out of Democratic hands.

Unlike many people, though, quite early in the campaign I had thought that Trump was a very serious contender. From August 2015 on I thought Trump had a chance to win it all (see this).

However, although I’d never been a never-Trumper, I thought that his chance of winning it all was a tremendous longshot, highly unlikely. Therefore I greatly feared that his nomination would led to a Hillary Clinton victory, while at the same time I also feared he might be an unstable loose cannon who if elected might govern either as a tyrant or a liberal (why I thought that was amply documented on this blog in posts during the campaign year, particularly prior to him winning the nomination). Kind of like “the food is bad, and such small portions.” I certainly did not think Trump would be reliably conservative, although I thought there was at least a chance of some conservative moves (and no chance for them if Hillary won). But I didn’t trust him as far as I could throw him.

So I’d spent almost a year before the election in a state of alarm at either prospect: a Hillary Clinton presidency was awful to contemplate and a Donald Trump presidency, although it might be better, could possibly be even worse.

I was stunned at Trump’s election, but I was happy at Hillary’s non-election. So I was way ahead of the Hillary supporters I know, who had absolutely nothing to be happy about and who were just beginning their adjustment that very evening. I had a natural advantage (happy at the Hillary non-victory) and a running start on them in terms of time (by a year).

Since then, as the Trump presidency has unfolded and we have actions of his in the political/presidential realm (more important than words, promises, threats) I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the fact that Trump has mostly governed as a conservative and has not done anything as crazy as I’d feared, although he’s still himself and still periodically demonstrates his very own unpleasant style.

But I retain a certain amount of sympathy for those who are still in shock. There’s never been a political upset like it. And there’s never been a president like Trump. He offends the opposition every moment of every day, and frightens them, too. He’s not only a coarse and crass and loose-cannonish guy (not all the time, of course, but it still happens often enough), he’s thwarting them at every turn politically, and he’s dismantling the Obama legacy as much as he can.

Let me add one more thing that surprised me and still surprises me, although it’s a fairly minor thing and no one else seems to care about it. For decades—decades—I’d been hearing how no New Yorker could ever become president again. The country just didn’t like New York. Maybe the liberals on the coasts would vote for a New Yorker, but not the great middle, not flyover country! The fact that Trump—a bona fide New Yorker (unlike Hillary Clinton, who’s a fake New Yorker), with an accent even—managed to be so strong in the very middle that was supposed to hate New Yorkers is something I continue to find fascinating. The billionaire as populist Everyman.

Posted in Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Me, myself, and I, Politics, Trump | 47 Replies

Gun control law: the Air Force messed up

The New Neo Posted on November 7, 2017 by neoNovember 7, 2017

The question of how the Texas church killer purchased his guns is now answered. There was a failure to report his previous offense by the organization tasked with doing so, the Air Force:

A day after a gunman massacred parishioners in a small Texas church, the Air Force admitted on Monday that it had failed to enter the man’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the rifle he used to kill 26 people.

Under federal law, the conviction of the gunman, Devin P. Kelley, for domestic assault on his wife and toddler stepson ”” he had cracked the child’s skull ”” should have stopped Mr. Kelley from legally purchasing the military-style rifle and three other guns he acquired in the last four years…

The Air Force also said it was looking into whether other convictions had been improperly left unreported to the federal database for firearms background checks.

Logic would dictate from this set of circumstances that the answer to better prevention is enforcement of existing laws.

But although both sides might agree that this would be a good thing, the anti-gun groups also want to use each incident of violence to advocate for more restrictive laws in general rather than take the logical lessons of incident one more narrowly.

I actually think that mass murders such as the one in Texas are so disturbing that everyone wants to prevent them, but that the two sides (for the most part, anyway) sincerely differ on how to go about it. Yes, indeed, there are leftists (many of them) who have a plan to disarm ordinary people in order to better effect control of and power over the population. But most people who support more gun control are not activist leftists, they are people who are truly frustrated and distraught at the number of murders in this country. And most people on the right are likewise frustrated and distraught at the same phenomenon, but they believe that enforcement of the current rules they feel are reasonable (such as the one that would have prohibited Kelley from obtaining a firearm) as well as more gun training and ownership among the general populace are the ways to go.

What’s more—and this seems so obvious that I wouldn’t think it would need repeating, but I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again—it’s not so hard to purchase a gun illegally if a person is determined to do so, and there are other pretty effective ways to kill people (bombs, for example), even large numbers of people.

Posted in Law, Military, Uncategorized, Violence | 12 Replies

Trump the conservative?

The New Neo Posted on November 6, 2017 by neoNovember 6, 2017

Unexpected (and certainly unexpected by me) but so far true:

In assessing Trump’s accomplishments, let’s not get too distracted by his unconventional conduct. This hitherto ideologically unmoored man has set in motion an administration arguably more conservative than Ronald Reagan’s.

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Trump | 37 Replies

On carrying guns in church: thou shalt not kill, or thou shalt not murder?

The New Neo Posted on November 6, 2017 by neoNovember 6, 2017

In today’s previous post, I began to tackle the question of whether the parishioners in the Texas church where yesterday’s mass murder took place were banned from carrying guns. In it I quoted the following rules in Texas:

Churches in Texas may prevent handgun license holders from carrying handguns inside church buildings as long as the church gives proper notice. Each church may decide for itself whether to allow:

Both open and concealed carry of handguns
Concealed carry of handguns but not open carry
Open carry of handguns and not concealed carry
No handguns regardless of whether they are carried openly or concealed

A church does not need to take any action if it wishes to allow handgun license holders to conceal carry or open carry in church buildings. If permitting handgun license holders to conceal carry or open carry on church premises is a cause of concern to your church, Texas Penal Code Sections 30.006 and 30.007 provide clear rules for notifying handgun license holders that your church is a gun-free zone or concealed carry only.

I added that it was a church-by-church decision, but I didn’t know which rules were followed by the church where the massacre occurred. Obviously, if there was a no-gun rule there, it didn’t deter the gunman and may have actually encouraged him.

Now I’ve discovered that (if the information on this “progressive” website is correct, as I believe it probably is) this question is actually a hotly debated topic in Christianity:

Whereas states like South Carolina ban guns in church in most instances, Texas allows firearms in sanctuary halls unless a church explicitly says otherwise. And a new Texas law signed in September allows houses of worship in the state to arm their congregations as a security measure.

However, while it’s certainly not unusual for churches to have security precautions or personnel, many faith leaders rebuke Paxton and Jeffress’ ideas that guns should be allowed in Sunday morning services. A 2012 PRRI poll found that 76 percent of Americans oppose allowing concealed weapons in church; This includes pastors in Texas, where many churches opted to ban guns on their premises after open-carry became the law of the land there in 2016. The Catholic Bishop of Dallas, for instance, banned guns in all his diocese’s parishes that year, following the lead of Catholic leaders who took similar steps in Georgia. Other Catholics also spoke out against open carry.

“This policy [of banning guns in church] is rooted in the belief that our churches, schools and other places of worship are intended to be sanctuaries ”“ holy sites where people come to pray and participate in the ministry of the Church,” Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell wrote at the time.

Religious leaders have long been one of the loudest, most consistent voices calling for legislation that would restrict gun sales and use””not increase them

I followed some of the links in the article, and found statements that seem to me like an invitation to terrorists and other mass murderers. For example, see this:

Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Savannah Bishop Gregory Hartmayer issued a decree prohibiting guns and knives with blades longer than 5 inches from parishes, churches, schools, administrative offices and other buildings owned or used by the Catholic community effective July 1.

In a statement, the bishops said Catholic places of worship are sanctuaries where “ways of peace and reconciliation” should be the rule.

“This decree is rooted in the belief that our churches and other places of worship are intended to be sanctuaries — holy sites where people come to pray and to worship God. In this nation of ours, they have seldom been the locations where violence has disrupted the otherwise peaceful atmosphere. Should it be necessary, we will seek the assistance of trained law enforcement personnel for protection, but among ourselves we will first seek ways of peace and reconciliation.”

That statement was issued back in July of 2014. It seems to me that it doesn’t make sense to wait to protect yourself until a certain quota of innocent people are killed. And if you are going to “seek the assistance of trained law enforcement personnel for protection” if the death toll in churches meets your standard for activating self-defense, then why not let your church members protect themselves? After all, an armed guard can be more easily shot or disarmed than a church full of armed—or possibly armed—worshipers. How many guards are you going to hire?

More here:

Other critics of gun violence include Shane Claiborne, a prolific Christian speaker and writer who works with an initiative that literally melts down AR-15s””weapons similar to the one reportedly used by Sutherland shooter””and turns them into plowshares, in keeping with a biblical reference.

When asked about Paxton and Jeffress’ comments, Claiborne responded by citing various Christian scriptures decrying violence and weaponry.

“Jesus carried a cross not a gun,” Claiborne told ThinkProgress. “He said greater love has no one that this””to lay down their life for another. The early Christians said ”˜for Christ we can die but we cannot kill.’ When Peter picked up a sword to protect Jesus and cut off a guys ear, Jesus scolded him and put the ear back on. The early Christians said ”˜when Jesus disarmed peter he disarmed every Christian.’ Evil is real but Jesus teaches us to fight evil without becoming evil. One the cross we see what love looks like when it stares evil in the face. Love is willing to die but not to kill.”

Hey, unlike Claiborne I’m no Christian speaker/writer, prolific or otherwise. But I’ve always been under the impression that that “swords into plowshares” verse—and the Book of Isaiah in general—is a prophecy, not a description of the way things are now. Not only that, but if Christians were to disarm themselves prior to the apocalypse there will be an awful lot of dead Christians.

Apparently, the Crusaders didn’t get the memo, either.

By the way, that story about Jesus, Peter, and the ear (with which I was previously unfamiliar) appears to be not a general call for complete non-violence, but a specific call to allow the process by which Jesus was arrested, sentenced, and later crucified to unfold:

According to the Bible, one of the disciples, Simon Peter, being armed with a sword, cut off the servant’s ear in an attempt to prevent the arrest of Jesus…

Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?

I would add that the Commandment that is often cited as being “Thou shalt not kill” is a mistranslation of the Hebrew, which originally said “Thou shalt not murder.” As far as I know, there is no Torah (Old Testament) prohibition against self-defense:

The Torah chooses its language very carefully, and indeed, every dot and tittle is parsed to understand the full meaning. G-d chose the root R-Tz-Ch for the Ten Commandments to make it clear and explicit: murder is an evil, heinous crime, a crime that — like the others in the Ten Commandments — is destructive of civilization itself. But killing, while a grave action that must be seriously evaluated, is at times a necessary action — one that is a sanctioned last recourse under prescribed circumstances and one that is occasionally morally appropriate as in the taking of life as penalty for a capital offense.

I never thought Christianity was a pacifist religion in terms of self-defense, but apparently there is a pacifist strain. It reminds me of Gandhi’s advice to the Jews to allow themselves to be slaughtered, or to the Hindus of Lahore to do likewise (and if you haven’t already read this post describing both, I urge you to do so).

Lastly, the Texas church killing made me think of this scene from “High Noon.” It’s not really analogous—there is no mass murderer coming to the church—but it’s a discussion in the church about whether the parishioners are going to assist Sheriff Kane in fighting off the Miller gang that is coming to take revenge. Note particularly the pastor’s speech at the end, which I originally thought didn’t ring true, but I’m now thinking he represents a certain strain of more pacifist Christianity (the pastor speaks at 2:34, but it’s worth watching the whole thing):

Here’s a little bit more that constitutes the end of the scene:

Gary Cooper as Kane remains silent for most of the scene, with lasts about four minutes. But his face is more expressive than speech would be. He is not totally silent, however; he says this:

Which in turn reminds me of one of my favorite movie moments:

Posted in Law, Movies, Religion, Violence | 62 Replies

More on the Texas shooting

The New Neo Posted on November 6, 2017 by neoNovember 6, 2017

More news is coming out today on the Texas church shooting, and as often is the case the British papers seem to have more details. We still don’t know the motive, but there are reports that the attacker was an atheist whose Facebook page called churchgoers stupid, and that his former wife and former in-laws had sometimes attended services at the church but were not present on the day of the shooting.

Two intrepid Texans seem to have given chase and been responsible for cornering the perpetrator till police arrived:

The inevitable calls for more gun control have come from the left. Reading the article and seeing the quotes in it, I don’t see a single statement that indicates exactly what gun control measure ought to have been passed, or ought to now be passed, that would have stopped this particular crime. That’s true of an awful lot of these shootings, I might add.

It’s been difficult so far to get much information on how the shooter obtained his weapon. Or rather, it’s been easy so far to get too much information on it, much of it conflicting and some (or all) of it wrong. For example, I’ve read that he tried to buy a gun in Texas and was refused:

The shooter who killed at least 26 people in a small church in rural Texas had previously tried to get a gun license in the state, but was denied.

“So how was it that he was able to get a gun? By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott told CNN’s Chris Cuomo, citing the director of Texas’ Department of Public Safety. “So how did this happen?”

It wasn’t immediately clear why Devin Kelley, who was shot by an armed neighbour of the church after the massacre, was denied a firearm license. But, initial reporting suggests he had a troubled life, and had committed crimes in the past that could have conceivably barred him from legally obtaining a gun.

So either he obtained a gun illegally somewhere else despite the fact that gun laws worked to deny him one, or someone slipped up later on and didn’t follow the law and sold him a gun without properly checking. Perhaps the latter, because I’ve also read that he obtained a gun in Texas legally, but this should not have been allowed:

The federal government’s firearm transaction record, which buyers must legally fill out, asks about felony convictions. Kelley bought a Ruger AR-556 rifle, used in the attack on the church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, in April of last year from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, a law-enforcement official told CNN.

As far as I can see, the jury is still out on how he obtained this gun, and therefore we don’t know if any law would have changed anything. It’s very possible that the law should have stopped him but didn’t because of human error. I’ll add that whatever the law, I believe this guy (who also had a history of stalking ex-girlfriends) would have obtained a gun illegally if he couldn’t have managed it legally, or would have used other weapons such as a bomb.

Just four days ago I wrote a post on gun-free zones. So today I ask: was the church where the massacre occurred a gun-free zone? I haven’t seen any reports on this yet, but I wonder. If it was, this was another case of sitting ducks. Here’s what I could find about the rules on carrying guns into churches in Texas:

Beginning January 1, 2016, Texans with a handgun license will be allowed to openly carry their handguns. Churches in Texas may prevent handgun license holders from carrying handguns inside church buildings as long as the church gives proper notice. Each church may decide for itself whether to allow:

Both open and concealed carry of handguns
Concealed carry of handguns but not open carry
Open carry of handguns and not concealed carry
No handguns regardless of whether they are carried openly or concealed

A church does not need to take any action if it wishes to allow handgun license holders to conceal carry or open carry in church buildings. If permitting handgun license holders to conceal carry or open carry on church premises is a cause of concern to your church, Texas Penal Code Sections 30.006 and 30.007 provide clear rules for notifying handgun license holders that your church is a gun-free zone or concealed carry only.

So it’s a church-by-church decision. My guess is that more of them will be allowing people to carry legally obtained guns into church after this incident. Quite obviously, there’s no way to prevent a killer from entering with a weapon. Among other things, a killer can kill guards, especially if they are surprised. But it seems to me that a congregation where some of the people were armed might have at least reduced the death toll, if not deterred the perpetrator.

[ADDENDUM: There’s a report that the shooting followed some sort of domestic dispute:

At a press conference Monday morning, Freeman Martin, a regional director of the Texas Department of Safety said the shooting was tied to a domestic situation inside the family of the shooter, identified by authorities as Devin Patrick Kelley.

Martin said Kelly’s in-laws attended the church, but weren’t at the church at the time of the shooting. He said that Kelly’s mother-in-law had received threatening texts from him.

That leads me to believe that the report I referenced in the post that Kelley’s ex in-laws sometimes attended the church may have been wrong. Maybe it was his present in-laws. Or maybe it actually was both (or neither, I suppose).

In addition, there’s this:

[Authorities] said Kelley also used his cellphone to tell his father that he had been shot and didn’t think he would survive.

That indicates to me that one of his pursuers inflicted a serious wound, and that Kelley may have lost control of his car in part because he was starting to bleed out. It’s also not clear whether the fatal wound was self-inflicted, although I’m pretty sure that can be easily ascertained by examination of the bullet.

Also:

Tim Miller is the director of security at a mega church in Florida, one of the largest in the country. He says churches are soft targets.

“Everybody gets it that you need to spiritually protect your people, you need to pray for, but in today’s world you need to have a plan to protect them,” Miller said. “In times past churches have not felt the need. i think this last month has been a huge wake up for churches across the country.”

Last September, Miller hosted a two-day seminar on church security at Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, attracting representatives from 35-area churches.

I don’t see any reason you can’t pray while carrying a weapon on your person for self-defense.]

Posted in Law, Violence | 22 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

  • Grunt on AI: is it real or is it Memorex?
  • Bob Wilson on Open thread 5/23/2025
  • huxley on AI: is it real or is it Memorex?
  • Niketas Choniates on Here I am – a bit late to the party today
  • voice in the wilderness on Here I am – a bit late to the party today

Recent Posts

  • AI: is it real or is it Memorex?
  • Here I am – a bit late to the party today
  • Open thread 5/23/2025
  • More information on the DC murder
  • The autopen-wielders may face interrogation

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 (526)
  • Blogging and bloggers (561)
  • Dance (279)
  • Disaster (232)
  • Education (312)
  • Election 2012 (359)
  • Election 2016 (564)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (504)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (397)
  • 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 (1,092)
  • Health care reform (544)
  • Hillary Clinton (183)
  • Historical figures (317)
  • History (671)
  • Immigration (373)
  • Iran (345)
  • Iraq (222)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (692)
  • Jews (367)
  • Language and grammar (347)
  • Latin America (184)
  • Law (2,715)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (123)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,195)
  • Liberty (1,068)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (375)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,384)
  • 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 (974)
  • Poetry (239)
  • Political changers (172)
  • Politics (2,672)
  • Pop culture (385)
  • Press (1,563)
  • Race and racism (843)
  • Religion (390)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (604)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (916)
  • Theater and TV (260)
  • Therapy (65)
  • Trump (1,445)
  • Uncategorized (3,993)
  • Vietnam (108)
  • Violence (1,271)
  • 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
↑