Drudge

The New Neo Posted on by

I find Drudge very depressing today. It’s probably due to the prominent place given to the Democrats being sworn into power in the House, and the sense of deja vu combined with a sinking feeling that I’ve often had in the last decade or two, of things slipping away and time running out.

But I happened to notice something on the page I’d never seen before. I’m not a daily Drudge devotee, but I go there now and then just to see what people are talking about. Today I noticed a little line in the lower right of the page that says this:

VISITS TO DRUDGE 1/3/2019

029,718,569 PAST 24 HOURS

I knew Drudge was influential and had enormous traffic, but 30 million a day?

Anyone able to tell me why? There are plenty of other news aggregates, but what’s his secret?

I know the page started as a gossip column (back in 1995) and in some ways retains aspects of that. I recall that Andrew Breitbart was part of its early growth. I know that Drudge was instrumental in breaking the Lewinsky story.

But why is it still so popular? It’s got an archaic design—hey, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Is it mostly habit that accounts for the huge amount of traffic, or is there something else I’m missing?

That Drudge Wiki entry describes the site as conservative. I think that used to be more true than it is now. It also says the site has 3 million visitors a day, which seems more in line with reality; probably the disparity in figures represents the difference between visits and visitors. Perhaps a lot of people check the site over and over and over, compulsively, during a single day.

Oh, and about that foreign-influences-on-the-elections thing

The New Neo Posted on by

We have ballot harvesting by DREAMERS in California:

Voting up until now has been a practice reserved for citizens. Today, non-citizens vote – by getting hold of indifferent Americans and in a perfectly legal setup in California, filling in the ballots by proxy, with no fingerprints visible. Who knows what kind of coercion may be employed by some of them?

And even more disturbingly, if DREAMers can do that to promote their own political agenda, what’s to stop other foreigners, with far more malign agendas, from doing it?

The growth of political anger and the idea of political illegitimacy

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Phoenix” wrote:

I believe that Scott Adams is correct in saying that we are watching two movies – The one where the Orange Man is Bad, and the one where Our President Trump takes on the evil Powers that be. And in my personal opinion that split occurred during the aftermath of the 2000 election when Al Gore refused to concede to George W. There are still democrats who, to this very day, believe that the election was stolen from them.

And Mike K adds:

I agree that the anger and hate by Democrats began in 2001 when Bush was elected.

I wouldn’t date the beginning of that polarization to the Bush-Gore election.

Just in my own lifetime, Nixon was very hated and actually considered evil by a great many Democrats. As knowledge of the events of Watergate unfolded it was considered merely confirmation of what they already believed of him, which was that he was downright vile and dangerous. Then Reagan—a very different personality—received an enormous amount of hatred on a very personal level as well. In addition, the Bork nomination featured a lot of hatred on Democrats’ part and was a very vicious undertaking.

Then when Clinton was impeached the Democrats were exceedingly angry in response, feeling it was an unfair frame-up and perhaps even payback for what had happened to Nixon. The impeachment of Clinton wasn’t exactly a lovefest on the part of Republicans, either.

But the Bush presidency was probably the beginning of the widespread idea that the Republican president wasn’t validly elected. However, it’s a bit understandable, if you look at the way the voting went in 2000—the extreme closeness of the vote made it almost impossible for quite some time to know who actually had been elected, and I believe that whichever party had lost would have felt a great deal of ire and might have decided that the winner had gained the office through unfair means and should not be president.

The birther movement during the Obama years was a continuation of this idea of fighting a president one doesn’t like by insisting that his presidency itself is illegitimate, although the argument and methods were different. That is what I believe is the newer element that was introduced as a result of the 2000 election: the notion of almost automatic illegitimacy for whatever reason. And this idea of an illegitimate Republican president has followed big time in connection with Trump’s election, and taken on new dimensions of hatred, bile, and accusation as well as nearly endless legal machinations in an attempt to prove his illegitimacy or at least punish and/or frighten those who have associated with him.

So I separate out the two phenomena that sometimes go together and both of which reflect political polarization and distrust: (a) hatred towards a president, and (b) the idea that a president is illegitimate. The first is more common and of greater antiquity, whereas the second is a more recent trend, probably beginning in 2000 and affecting every president since. Another change is that I believe (without having any statistics) that the Trump presidency is the first time a majority of the opposing party ascribes to the notion of the president’s illegitimacy.

[ADDENDUM: I did find a poll of the 18-to-30 age group back in 2017 that says that group considered Trump an illegitimate president by a 57-42 margin. The numbers thinking he’s illegitimate were much higher among certain ethnic groups in that age range: 74/25 among young black Americans and 71/28 among young Hispanics, for example. I have no idea what the figures would be now. And that’s not just Democrats, although of course Democrats predominate in that age group and very much dominate in those ethnic groups whatever the age.]

The Democrats…

The New Neo Posted on by

…take over the House today, and Pelosi will become Speaker.

The House alone won’t actually be able to implement all that much without the Senate, and yet they can do quite a bit. For one thing, they can impeach Trump with a simple majority, although without enough Republican allies in the Senate—and a great many would be needed—that will go nowhere except to stir up the Democratic troops in their anger and provide them with entertainment, as well as take up resources and time that could be spent in more productive ways. I actually doubt that the House Democrats will bother, but it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if they did.

What else can they do? They certainly can keep Republican causes from being approved. Bipartisanship is dead except on certain issues that happen to appeal to both parties, but those issues don’t involve the big hot-button items such as the wall (which they are determined to stop not only to please their base but most particularly to thwart Trump’s chances of re-election). Democrats have very good political discipline, too, and Pelosi is extremely experienced at keeping in line those who might be even thinking of straying.

Many House members who are on the more extreme political left, such as Ocasio-Cortez, will also be basking in the limelight, issuing inflammatory rhetoric to keep themselves in the news. And the MSM will fawn over them.

Former NY Times editor Jill Abramson bashes the paper…

The New Neo Posted on by

…for anti-Trump bias:

Former ‘New York Times’ executive editor Jill Abramson rips her former publication, slams the media as “anti-Trump,” and complains that younger employees throw out standards in her new book, ‘Merchants of Truth.’

“The more anti-Trump the Times was perceived to be, the more it was mistrusted for being biased,”…

Well, duuh.

Only thing is, this probably reflects an old feud between Abramson and the current head Dean Baquet, who basically was responsible for her precipitous firing. No love lost there. I covered the story at length, and here’s a post of mine to refresh your memory.

What’s more, are we to believe that Abramson would have done any differently? I tend to doubt it, considering that last March she admitted to the following:

Jill Abramson, 63, the former executive editor for The New York Times from 2011 to 2014, claimed she keeps a therapy doll of the 44th president to get her through the Trump Administration, she wrote in The Guardian Mar. 7th. The Harvard educated journalist previously wrote a book about the Obama administration, “Obama: The Historic Journey,” published in 2009.

Abramson discussed a so-called “Trump rebellion,” alleging there is a solid chance Democrats will win the Senate, House and possibly the White House in 2020. The Ivy League educated journalist is carrying the “little plastic Obama doll” until the possible Democratic victory.

“It’s easy to look at what’s happening in Washington, D.C., and despair. That’s why I carry a little plastic Obama doll in my purse. I pull him out every now and then to remind myself that the United States had a progressive, African American president until very recently. Some people find this strange, but you have to take comfort where you can find it in Donald Trump’s America,” Abramson wrote.

I call Abramson on hypocrisy in her recent criticism of her former paper, and I doubt very much she’d be running it any differently if she’d been the one in charge during the Trump years.

And in this corner, there’s Romney

The New Neo Posted on by

The incoming freshman senator from Utah, former governor of Massachusetts, and failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed critical of President Trump that appeared in the WaPo today. Trump’s retort was basically “I’m president, and you’re not.”

Actually, that’s a relatively restrained retort from Trump, who is basically saying “Get on board.” But what was Romney saying? He started by criticizing some of Trump’s recent foreign policy moves (a la Syria, for example) which appear to have alarmed him. But mostly Romney’s op-ed is about what he calls “character” but is more about what I’d call “tone,” although character is related to it:

After [Trump] became the nominee, I hoped his campaign would refrain from resentment and name-calling. It did not. When he won the election, I hoped he would rise to the occasion. His early appointments of Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Nikki Haley, Gary Cohn, H.R. McMaster, Kelly and Mattis were encouraging. But, on balance, his conduct over the past two years, particularly his actions last month, is evidence that the president has not risen to the mantle of the office.

It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years. But policies and appointments are only a part of a presidency.

To a great degree, a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

Compared to the usual NeverTrumper rhetoric, or the typical Two Minutes Hate of the typical Democratic critic of Trump, that’s tepid fare. Romey’s not a NeverTrumper, but why would he do this at the outset of taking office? Well, perhaps he’s positioning himself to primary Trump in 2020. But I don’t that’s what’s going on, although he certainly might end up supporting someone who does (depending on the person). I think Romney is just showing exactly what he doesn’t like about Trump and what he hopes will change. In the process, he’s also showing us what he thinks that he, Mitt Romney, would have offered America had he been elected in 2012: a gentleman president.

He’s right and he’s wrong. Yes, Romney would have been a gentleman president (had he won, which he did not, in part because he was such a gentleman), and Trump is most decidedly not a gentleman in the conventional sense. And I think that all the nostalgia demonstrated at George H. W. Bush’s recent funeral indicates a poignant yearning for a time when presidents were gentlemen, or at least appeared to be gentlemen.

But in much of Romney’s op-ed he reminds me of Horton the Elephant of Dr. Seuss fame:

And it should be,
it should be, it SHOULD be
like that!
Because Horton was faithful!
He sat and he sat!

Here’s Romney in the op-ed:

A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.

To quote the last line of another great literary work—Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises—Isn’t it pretty to think so?

I think there’s something far more broken than that in the US today. I’m not even going to try to pinpoint exactly when it began—there have been many points of increase along the way—but I know that it’s been building and building and building for much of my lifetime, and I don’t believe that any Republican could set a tone that would actually unify or inspire us, because (as the attacks on Gentleman Romney himself during his candidacy demonstrated) anything and everything will be used against such a candidate, who will be perceived as weak. Whether a Democrat—with the help of the press behind him or her—could do some uniting is questionable, if only because such people are now dinosaurs who’ve been drummed out of the party a la Joe Lieberman.

So those days are gone, and Romney is dreaming. It’s a cliché to say it, but Trump is the symptom rather than the cause.

And right on cue, the WaPo itself demonstrates this, albeit in a somewhat subtle way. On the very day of Romney’s op-ed—which must have had them chortling with glee—they have also published this piece by their very own correspondent Philip Bump entitled “Timeline: Romney’s criticisms of Trump have always been moderated by his own ambitions.” It’s long and detailed, and must have taken some time to research; probably Bump was given the assignment as soon as Romney’s op-ed was received and the decision made to print it.

Bump’s piece attempts to show Romney as a craven opportunist whose stated opinion of Trump waxes and wanes depending on whether he needs him or not. In this, of course, Romney shows himself to be what he is: a politician. And the WaPo shows how it repays Republican gentlemen such as Romney.

“They Shall Not Grow Old”

The New Neo Posted on by

I didn’t see the movie “They Shall Not Grow Old” in its limited 2-day run. In fact, I didn’t know what it was about until a few people recommended it in the recent movie thread here. It’s a documentary with a WWI theme, a subject already of great interest to me. But it’s the techniques used to make it that sound positively brilliant and even magical in bringing the past to vivid life.

Director Peter Jackson had access to 100 hours of old British black-and-white silent film of soldiers in the First World War, as well as interviews with WWI vets during the 1950s and 1960s when so many of them were still alive and kicking. But it’s not a conventional documentary. Instead of explaining what Jackson and his crew managed to do, I’ll show you.

Here’s the trailer:

And here’s a discussion by the director:

[NOTE: Here’s a review in National Review. And if you missed the first two screenings like I did, keep checking, because apparently there will be two more showings in limited theaters, one on January 11 and one on February 1.]

Auld lang syne around the world

The New Neo Posted on by

The lyrics were written in Scots dialect by the poet Robert Burns in 1788. That’s a lot of auld lang syne ago.

But the song—set to a traditional folk tune—has endured, particularly at New Year’s to be sung right after midnight. Nostalgia is a common theme at the turn of the year.

What I hadn’t known till I read that Wiki entry is that the song has spread all over the world, either in translation or just the tune:

“Auld Lang Syne” has been translated into many languages, and the song is widely sung all over the world. The song’s pentatonic scale matches scales used in Korea, Japan, India, China and other East Asian countries, which has facilitated its “nationalisation” in the East…

—In West Bengal and Bangladesh, the melody was the direct inspiration for the popular Bengali folk song[23][24] “Purano shei diner kotha” (“Memories of the Good Old Days”), composed by Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore, and forms one of the more recognisable tunes in Rabindra Sangeet (“Rabindra’s Songs”), a body of work of 2,230 songs and lyrical poems that form the backbone of Bengali music.

—In Denmark, the song was translated in 1927 by the famous Danish poet Jeppe Aakjær. Much like Robert Burns’ use of dialect, Aakjær translated the song into Sallingbomål, a form of the Jutlandic dialect often hard for other Danes to understand…

—In Thailand, the song “Samakkhi Chumnum” (“Together in Unity”), which is set to the familiar melody, is sung after sporting fixtures, and at the end of Boy Scout jamborees, as well as for the New Year. The Thai lyrics are about the King and national unity, and many Thais are not aware of the song’s “Western” origin…

Auld Lang Syne has been used in other works such as movies and poems. My favorite reference is in a poem by Edwin Arlington Robinson, one you may have encountered in poetry anthologies, “Mr. Flood’s Party.” It’s a poem about time and age and isolation. Old Eben Flood climbs a hill and drinks from a jug, talking to himself—that’s the gist of the poem. But of course it’s much more than that.

Here’s the reference (the last 3 stanzas of the poem). It begins with Flood talking to himself as though conversing with an old friend:

…“Well, Mr. Flood, we have not met like this
In a long time; and many a change has come
To both of us, I fear, since last it was
We had a drop together. Welcome home!”
Convivially returning with himself,
Again he raised the jug up to the light;
And with an acquiescent quaver said:
“Well, Mr. Flood, if you insist, I might.

“Only a very little, Mr. Flood—
For auld lang syne. No more, sir; that will do.”
So, for the time, apparently it did,
And Eben evidently thought so too;
For soon amid the silver loneliness
Of night he lifted up his voice and sang,
Secure, with only two moons listening,
Until the whole harmonious landscape rang—

“For auld lang syne.” The weary throat gave out,
The last word wavered; and the song being done,
He raised again the jug regretfully
And shook his head, and was again alone.
There was not much that was ahead of him,
And there was nothing in the town below—
Where strangers would have shut the many doors
That many friends had opened long ago.

Happy New Year!!

The New Neo Posted on by

Today the spirit moves me to comment on New Year’s Eve, one of my least favorite holidays even when I was young. In part it’s because I’m not a drinker (have I told you that I’m not a drinker?). In part it’s because I’ve always been hyper-conscious of the passage of time. And as I’ve gotten older, and time has curiously accelerated, that consciousness has only increased.

2019??? Excuse me, but how on earth did we get that far into the 2000s? I’ve only recently gotten it into my head that the 1900s were a long time ago (almost 20 years), but it still doesn’t feel that way to me. I still have to do the math to remind myself.

One thing I must say is that the past year has been exceedingly interesting. I have a hunch that 2019 will be, as well.

Tonight I’m having a very quiet evening. Maybe seeing one friend. I’ll stay up till midnight because I always stay up till midnight. And I’ll hope the year 2019 turns out to be interesting in a good way.

And to all of you: Happy New Year!!

animated-happy-new-year-image-0094

[NOTE: This is an edited version of a previous post.]

Translating Trumpian tweets

The New Neo Posted on by

For example:

Translations follow quotes:

—“I’m in the Oval Office. Democrats, come back from vacation now.”

I work, you don’t, you lazy blowhards.

—“…give us the votes necessary for Border Security, including the Wall.”

Many people have criticized Trump’s penchant for capitalizing words that in English are ordinarily not capitalized unless they begin a sentence. But I think he does it for emphasis of the concepts therein, and to show that they’re a big deal. Border security? Big deal. The wall? Not just any wall; the Wall.

—“You voted yes in 2006 and 2013.”

A historic reference to remind them of their current hypocrisy and their previous support.

—“One more yes, but with me in office…”

C’mon Democrats, do do do what you done done done before. Hey, just one more “yes,” but now I’m president so you can’t bear to give me the satisfaction, because of your hatred of me. So you’re not just hypocrites, you’re spiteful petty hypocrites, willing to sacrifice our country’s security for vindictive political reasons.

—“I’ll get it built, and Fast!”

I’m the doer and not the talker. I’m the man of action, not the empty promiser. I have a track record as a builder, too; before I became president, that’s what I was famous for.

That tweet is only 44 words long in its entirety. But hardly a word is wasted. And I do think he wrote that one himself.

Whether a person hates Trump, loves him, or has mixed feelings, I can’t understand why anyone would actually think him stupid. Oh, I understand why his opponents might call him stupid, but a lot of people I know honestly and truly think he is stupid. I never have thought so, even back when I was writing posts very critical of Trump during the primaries.

[NOTE: Nor, by the way, did I ever think either Obama or Bush were stupid, although opponents of each called them that.]