Border deal?

The New Neo Posted on by

We’ve heard a lot of deal rumors. This is what’s being reported lately, as the Friday deadline looms:

House and Senate negotiators late Monday struck a bipartisan deal “in principle” that would dodge a second partial government shutdown by providing President Trump $1.375 billion in funding for physical barriers along 55 miles of the Rio Grande Valley.

The accord, which must pass the House and Senate and receive the president’s signature, resolved a weekend impasse over illegal immigrant detentions.

By Monday night, both sides were claiming victory in the talks, although the exact details of the agreement weren’t yet clear, and two of the major claims seemed to contradict each other…

Much of the disagreement over what was decided seems to involve whether there is a possible cap on the number of detainees and/or beds for detainees.

And this amount of money for the wall is chump change. So far, whatever the actual deal involves, the Trump camp says he hasn’t decided whether to accept it or not.

One thing that might happen—and that might not be a bad idea—is for Trump to take the money, avoid the shutdown, and get more money from another source, as many say he legally could:

A week ago [written on 12/24/2018], the White House put out a call to federal agencies to look for “pots of money” in their existing budgets that could be cobbled together to pay for border wall construction. Immediately, Sen. John Thune, the Republican whip in the upper chamber, shot down the idea of shifting funds from executive departments to the border, saying, “I’m not a big fan of moving money.” Like it or not, there are sources of revenue in the executive branch that the president has authority to use without congressional approval.

There’s been a lot of discussion of Trump declaring a national emergency, which is a much more problematic way to go. I think if he can do it without that it would be a far better resolution. I’m assuming that this is what he’s working on—shut down the shutdown itself, and get moving on the solution.

I watched some of Trump’s El Paso speech yesterday

The New Neo Posted on by

Unusual for me to watch a speech. I happened to come across it while channel surfing, and I noticed a couple of things in particular.

The first is that Trump seemed to be enjoying himself immensely. He loves this sort of speech, similar to his stump appearances, with the crowd yelling back at him and a lot of ad libs. This characteristic of real enjoyment isn’t quite as common in politicians as one might think. He’s relaxed up there.

Trump makes the audience have fun, too. In fact, he alluded to this in his speech when he said something like “Is there anything that’s more fun than a Trump rally?” and the crowd roared back its approval.

One of the specific things Trump said that struck me—and that might become some sort of recurrent theme in his 2020 campaign—was something like “Democrats have to stop being so angry.” Democrats would of course counter with “We have an awful lot to be angry about,” followed by a list of what they consider injustices and outrages committed by Trump and the GOP, or at least what they think they can convince you to consider injustices and outrages committed by Trump and the GOP.

But “Democrats=angry” would be an interesting approach by Trump, one that might be effective. One of the reasons people liked Reagan was that he was happy and upbeat. Trump remains happy and upbeat as well for the most part, despite all the challenges he’s experienced as president. The Democrats are many things, but upbeat is not generally one of them—although I actually think that Obama’s conveying an upbeat message is one of the things that attracted people in 2008 to the “hope and change” mantra, and one of the things that attracts people even today to none other than AOC, who conveys energetic and optimistic faith in her most preposterous and destructive policy proposals at the same time she conveys pessimism about a future without those proposals.

Erick Erickson, former NeverTrumper, has a change of heart

The New Neo Posted on by

Never say “never”?

Erickson writes:

This week in 2016, I declared I would be “Never Trump.” A friend suggested I use a hashtag that had started circulating on Twitter, i.e #NeverTrump. The piece exploded and pushed me into a whirlwind of coverage. Despite lots of pressure, protestors literally on my front porch, and harassment directed towards my family, I did not vote for Donald Trump in 2016. I voted third party.

Some of my concerns about President Trump remain. I still struggle on the character issue and I understand Christian friends who would rather sit it out than get involved. But I also recognize that we cannot have the Trump Administration policies without President Trump and there is much to like…

…In 2016, we knew who the Democrats were and were not sure of who Donald Trump was. Now we know both and I prefer this President to the alternative.

Trump’s approval rating hits 50+

The New Neo Posted on by

I actually don’t pay all that much attention to the ups and downs of approval ratings. People are fickle; they forget what happened last week and ask “what have you done for me lately?” And people are unfickle (yes, I know that’s not a word), and some will never desert their candidate no matter what (as Trump himself famously said).

Nevertheless I thought I’d point out that Trump’s approval numbers went up shortly after his SOTU speech. It doesn’t surprise me; the speech was excellent.

But the smallness of the bump doesn’t surprise me, either, because most people probably didn’t listen to it and most of those who did are probably already pretty set in their opinions of Trump.

Donald Trump’s job approval rating among likely U.S. voters hit 52 per cent on Monday in a daily tracking poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports, the polling organization he uses most frequently to promote himself.

That number is his highest since March 6, 2017, less than seven weeks after he took office. It has been even longer since Trump’s ‘strongly approve’ and ‘strongly disapprove’ numbers weren’t under water. They were even at 39 per cent on Monday.

Can you imagine what his numbers might be if the press wasn’t engaged in a 24/7 effort to destroy him?

Friday is the deadline—the “looming deadline”—for the budget negotiations and possible shutdown. I don’t see a solution on the horizon, and if there’s another shutdown I’m unsure how it will go. The public tends to blame shutdowns on the Republicans no matter whether the current president is a Republican or not.

I’m also not sure whether Trump will be successful in his efforts to come up with alternative funding for the wall. But I do know that the left must be feeling quite frustrated at the moment at his rising poll numbers. Of course, they take the long view—the really long view—so they’ll keep their spirits up.

[NOTE: This isn’t really all that related, but I wanted to mention that I’ve spoken recently to two leftists I know (one a close friend and the other a bare acquaintance) who love, love, love AOC.]

Sandmann’s lawyer announces Nathan Phillips to be sued, despite his shallow pockets

The New Neo Posted on by

Good:

One of the attorneys representing Covington High School student Nick Sandmann and his parents confirmed to LifeSiteNews that Native American activist Nathan Phillips, and some of the others who have received notices from the attorneys, “will be sued.”

Lin Wood, an Atlanta-based lawyer, told LifeSite yesterday that Phillips’ “lies and false accusations” against Sandmann and the other Covington students are “well documented.”

They’re well-documented, all right. And most people—even many of those who’ve followed the story plenty closely—don’t know how extremely vicious Phillips was towards the boys, as I pointed out in this post. He repeatedly committed the malicious and purposeful character assassination of a bunch of high school students, and would have gotten away with it if the longer videos hadn’t surfaced.

He deserves to be sued, even though he almost certainly doesn’t have the money to pay. It’s important to set a precedent about defamation and its consequences—although perhaps the precedent set will be that, if you defame someone and you’re not rich, you won’t suffer much and you’ll get more than your 15 minutes of fame. I have little doubt that many leftist groups will fall all over themselves to provide good attorneys for Phillips.

Gladys Knight will survive

The New Neo Posted on by

Gladys Knight’s been in the news lately for her great rendition of the national anthem at the Superbowl, and for showing what a tool Don Lemon is:

That sent me on a stroll down YouTube memory lane in search of some Gladys Knight oldies. Among them I found a 1982 cover by Knight that I’d never heard before. In it, she’s singing a song made famous by Gloria Gaynor during disco’s heyday (1978), “I Will Survive.”

Gaynor’s version, the original and her most famous hit, was upbeat and had a distinct disco flavor. And although it had no backup singers and a simpler production than most disco numbers—or maybe because of those things—it was extraordinarily popular. Here’s Gaynor (and some funky skater; don’t know what’s up with that). The video has almost 60 million views, which is pretty darn good for an oldie:

Knight’s version is different. Very very different—although like Gaynor, she wears a fabulous sparkly gown, a sleeveless one this time. Knight’s version is much slower (up until the last minute, when she picks up the pace and becomes celebratory), and there’s an emphasis on acting out the lyrics. Knight’s telling a story—masterfully—and not just singing a song. And you believe her story, which is of survival over pain, a story that becomes more powerful over its course. Yes, perhaps she’s overacting, but it’s utterly convincing to me. Just watch her eyes as she says, “Oh no, not I!” at 1:30-1:34:

Brilliant.

[NOTE: The song became something of an anthem for women after being dumped or having other disappointments, but it was written by two men, Freddie Perren and Dino Fekaris. It was Fekaris who wrote the bulk of the lyrics:

…Dino Fekaris revealed [the song] was about getting fired by Motown Records, where he was a staff writer.

He told Songfacts: “They let me go after almost seven years. I was an unemployed songwriter contemplating my fate. I turned the TV on, and there it was: a song I had written for a movie theme titled ‘Generation’ was playing right then (the song was performed by Rare Earth).

“I took that as an omen that things were going to work out for me. I remember jumping up and down on the bed saying, ‘I’m going to make it. I’m going to be a songwriter. I will survive!'”]

Sex on the decline around the world

The New Neo Posted on by

Sex is a strong drive in human beings for a reason: the life of the species depends on it. But in this age of what might seem like no-holds-barred sex, sex has lost its luster for an enormous number of people.

The phenomenon is extremely widespread, and particularly common in Asia:

The Atlantic recently described a “sex recession” in the United States and most western countries, with fewer people dating and even those in relationships getting intimate less often than in the past, while fewer enjoy regular bonds of any kind. Even ogling seems out of fashion, as the decline of Hooters suggests. The family may have been stressed by the “sexual revolution,” but the “sex recession” could ultimately erode the very existence of familialism in our time.

The most extreme cases of libidinous decline are in Asia. In 2005, a third of Japanese single people ages 18 to 34 were virgins; by 2015 this expanded to 43 percent. A quarter of men over 50 never marry. This “sex recession” even impacts places like Hong Kong’s famous Wan Chai “red light” district, now being reinvented as an upscale hipster area as the sex trade plummets. China’s current generation of men are so socially disconnected that the Communist Party, and some private firms, now teach them how to date; similar attempts have been made, with apparently little effect, in Singapore.

The article goes on to explore many possible reasons; this seems to be one of those multiply-determined events. The ubiquity of online porn, the widespread availability of sex toys and robots, the imbalance between numbers of men and women in some countries (China, for example), the rise of social (virtual) media and concurrent fall in face-to-face social skills among young people, the higher cost-benefit ratio of raising children—they’re all part of the picture and discussed in the article.

But I want to add a few more:

(1) Feminism and leftism in general have played down the importance of family and procreation.

(2) There is a worldwide decline in testosterone, as well. Since testosterone (for both men and women) is the hormone fueling the sex drive, this must have some sort of dampening effect.

(3) Increasing obesity can reduce the sex drive as well—and I’m not talking about esthetics here, I’m talking about biological reasons.

(4) Men have become increasingly fearful of the increased risk of ruinous accusations from females as a result of sexual interactions that had appeared to the man to be consensual.

(5) When something like sex is forbidden or at least restricted, it can become more attractive: forbidden fruit. When all is allowed sexually, sex can seem to lose its value and appeal.

On that last point, I would like to recommend the closing chapter in Milan Kundera’s masterful The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. The story is entitled “The Border.” Here’s an excerpt that appears towards the end, set on a nude beach (“Jan” is a man, by the way; Kundera is a Czech author), describing what Jan is imagining and thinking as he lies on the sand, nude. The excerpt can’t convey more than a glimpse of what the story itself conveys, but here it is anyway:

Jan remem­bered Daphnis. He is lying down, spellbound by Chloe’s nakedness, aroused but with no knowledge of what that arousal is summoning him to, so that the arousal is endless and unappeasable, limited and interminable. A great yearning gripped Jan’s heart, a desire to go back again. Back to that boy. Back to man’s begin­nings, to his own beginnings, to love’s beginnings. He desired desire. He desired the pounding of the heart. He desired to be lying beside Chloe unaware of fleshly love. Unaware of sexual climax. To transform himself into pure arousal, the mysterious, the incomprehensible and miraculous arousal of a man before a woman’s body. And he said out loud: “Daphnis!”

Jan’s friend and companion on the beach, a woman named Edwige, responds that “we need to go back to a time before Christianity crippled mankind. Is that what you mean?” This is a total misunderstanding of what Jan actually means, but he lets it slide. The story concludes:

…Edwige said [to a group of people on the beach]: “Jan was just saying that it’s Daphnis Island. I think he’s right.”

All of them were delighted by that stroke of inspiration, and a man with an extraordinary paunch developed the idea that Western civilization is going to perish and that humanity will finally be liberated from the enslaving burden of the Judeo-Christian tradition. These were phrases Jan had heard ten, twenty, thirty, a hundred, five hundred, a thousand times before, and those few meters of beach soon turned into a lecture hall. The man spoke, all the others listened with interest, and their bare genitals stared stupidly and sadly at the yellow sand.

That was published in 1978, over forty years ago.

Of all the Virginia officials in trouble, Justin Fairfax may be the one on the way out

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s hard to say what will happen politically in Virginia these days, there have been so many surprises lately. But it seems that of all the accused public officials in the state, it’s Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax who may be the one to go. Even the Democrats are asking him to resign, and yet when the news of Governor Northam’s youthful blackface escapades (or at least, a photo of someone’s escapade on his med school yearbook page) surfaced, it was widely held that Fairfax would be an excellent replacement.

But then a credible allegation (see this for my discussion of the word “credible”) of sexual assault surfaced against Fairfax. Now, “credible” doesn’t mean “true”—it merely means “possibly true.” But then a similar accusation against the lieutenant governor was made by another woman, and this one seems to have turned the tide against Fairfax:

The thing that makes the accusation of the second woman, Meredith Watson, especially strong is that she apparently wrote about it to a friend in an email dated 2016, long before the accusation by Fairfax’s other accuser Vanessa Tyson became public, and that they seem to be describing incidents that were similar. Here’s more about Watson’s email:

The statement also says Watson told her friends about the incident in a “series of emails and Facebook messages” that are in the firm’s possession. In one of those emails, obtained by The Daily Beast, Watson told a Duke alumni who invited her to a 2016 Fairfax fundraiser that Fairfax raped her…

“Justin raped me in college and I don’t want to hear anything about him,” Watson responded to the email on Oct. 25, 2016. “Please, please, please remove me from any future emails about him please.”

In Facebook messages also obtained by The Daily Beast, Watson sent someone a link to an article about Fairfax running for the state’s lieutenant governor spot in March 2017. “This is absolutely disgusting! This dude raped me,” she wrote.

Watson then went onto say that she wanted “to say something” because she thought he “shouldn’t be running for office but she didn’t know what to do. When the individual suggested she speak out, Watson expressed doubt.

“But let’s face it, rape accusations barely carry any weight” without a name attached, she wrote.

The firm, Smith Mullin, also claims they have corroborating statements from Watson’s former classmates.

I am not, and never have been, in the camp of “believe the woman.” And even now, it is possible that both of Fairfax’s accusers are lying, and that they had some sort of motive to lie to friends earlier. But an email with a date is evidence of a different order—it establishes the strong likelihood that Watson made the claim before she had ever heard Tyson’s claim—unless of course they knew each other and had been in communication in some way.

That latter sort of possibility is one of the reasons we ordinarily have trials to establish guilt or innocence. A story can seem airtight on the surface and yet fall apart on investigation. But in the court of public opinion—which is where this is being tried—the story of this particular accuser and the documentation behind it makes a much stronger case than the accusations against someone like Kavanaugh, for example, which were remarkably weak.

As I wrote back in 2014 in a more general discussion about evaluating such he-said/she-said accusations:

I don’t care how many women pile on with similar stories; it’s the quality and timing of their stories that matter. Yes, women (and men, and children) sometimes lie, and not all that infrequently either. They also often tell the truth. However, I would be more convinced it was the truth if the people telling these rape stories were coming forward before the other stories had been publicized.

Timing and documentation of that timing are of the utmost importance in evaluating such stories. And with the Fairfax accusations, we have something that many of the other cases lack: an early and documented second accuser unlikely to have been influenced by the first.

Does that mean that both accusers are telling the truth? No. They could both be lying, and it could be a coincidence that their stories seem similar. They could both be mistaken. Their memories could be flawed, or if not their memories then their perceptions at the time. They may not have communicated their reluctance for such sexual contact, even though they think they did.

As I indicated earlier, those are the sorts of questions lawyers could explore in a court, with many protections for the defendant. But I don’t think this will ever come to that, and in the absence of a full exploration of the evidence, I’d say it appears more likely than not that Fairfax committed these acts, although he strongly denies them. That opinion of mine rests almost entirely on the timing and documentation of Watson’s (the second accuser’s) accusations.

Is a border deal in the offing?

The New Neo Posted on by

This is being reported:

Democrats appear willing to agree to funding for some new fencing in targeted areas as well as upgrades to existing barriers, they told the Washington Examiner.

The deal is likely to cover far fewer miles than Trump wants, however, and the barriers will be far less robust than the steel slat wall Trump favors.

Shelby would not disclose whether Trump would agree to less than the $5.7 billion he has requested for border barriers, or a wall, as he calls it. But he hinted Trump may be willing to make a deal on price.

Blah blah blah. I don’t buy any of these reports; I’ll believe a deal when I see one. I really don’t see Trump caving as much as this report says, particularly on the issue of wall vs. fence.

Why on earth do the Democrats care whether it’s a wall or fence? Simple: they don’t, really. But since a wall was such a signature part of Trump’s campaign and SOTU promises, they are determined to deny it to him.

The Green New Deal and the left’s grand plan [Part I]

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is such a huge topic that I’m splitting it into parts.]

There’s a lot of derision on the right about the Green New Deal. It goes something like this: it’s so stupid, and so against what the American people want, that it exposes the left to ridicule and will ultimately facilitate the re-election of Donald Trump.

Well, maybe. Maybe that will happen. But I have grave doubts, and I don’t think the GND is stupid. Yes, it may be stupid in the sense of violating our current knowledge about energy generation, or what is practical, as well as financial reality, and the like. But it’s not meant to make sense in that way; it’s meant to make political sense.

But how can that be, if most people can see through it? My answer is that I don’t think most people can see through it, and certainly not enough to make it a losing proposition for most Democratic candidates to hop on board.

But how can I say that? Isn’t it very very extreme, so extreme it will alienate people? For the answer, just do what I did: spend a few hours reading MSM sites and seeing reactions from Democrats. It’s an education in how the GND is being responded to, and why the Democratic candidates have all hopped aboard the extremist green social justice jobs for everyone train.

Last night I watched a clip of some liberal spokesperson or other being quizzed by a conservative as to what she agreed with in the details of the GND. “Its spirit” was all she could come up with, but for her it was enough. She seemed embarrassed when asked about particulars and couldn’t endorse any, but she pooh-poohed—almost ridiculed—the need for details.

I doubt there are many Democratic politicians able to defend many (if any) of the GND manifesto’s specific provisions. And yet many have endorsed it. Why is that? For example, Kamala Harris is all in; she is the proposal’s co-sponsor, and tweeted this after its release:

California senator Kamala Harris (D.) has signed on as a cosponsor of Green New Deal legislation unveiled on Thursday morning, writing in an email to supporters that climate change is an “existential threat to our country, our planet, and our future.”

Harris announced her support for the plan shortly after she launched her presidential run last month, but the details of the proposed federal government-led economic overhaul of the country were not released until Friday…

“Bold action takes bold leadership,” said the 2020 presidential contender, “and I’m grateful to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez [D., N.Y.] and Senator Ed Markey [D., Mass.] for leading the charge on this critical resolution.”

Nancy Pelosi is no dummmy; she seemed on the one hand to look down on the GND, but on the other hand she apparently set the tone for the spokesperson I saw on the show (liking the spirit). Pelosi had stated this:

“Frankly, I haven’t seen it, but I do know it’s enthusiastic, and I welcome all the enthusiasm,” Pelosi told reporters, just hours before Green New Deal sponsors Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) held their own press conference…

It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi told Politico. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?”

See? She is playing both ends here, and AOC played her own part of the game quite well in response:

…I think it is a green dream. I don’t consider to be that a dismissive term,” she said. “Nancy Pelosi is a leader on climate, has always been a leader on climate, and I will not allow our caucus to be divided up by silly notions of whatever narrative. We are in this together.”

The article makes it clear that Pelosi wants some climate change legislation. My guess is that it’s just as I wrote yesterday—hers will seem mild compared to AOC’s. They are indeed in this together.

Since virtually all the Democratic candidates are on board with the GND, this should be used in 2020 by Republicans in the campaign against them. That’s obvious. So why are so many Democratic candidates doing it (and read this article for a refresher on how awful the GND is)?

They know their base will love it—especially young people, but more about that later. And Democrats are counting on the notion that most of the rest of the public will not be paying much attention to the details of the GND, or at least will like the “enthusiasm.”

I was very curious how on earth the MSM would spin this to make it sound plausible. I had little doubt that they would, however, because their goal has been to support the Democrats. I decided to read this New Yorker piece as an example, and I learned exactly what I wanted to know.

If you had read it without reading the Green New Deal text, you’d think the GND to be a rather moderate, ho-hum, slight extension of things that had gone before (ABC took a similar approach). You would have no idea of its lunacy, its extreme radicalism and sweep, and its utter impossibility of implementation without beggaring the country. And of course, most people will almost certainly not read the text of the Green New Deal; they will rely on the MSM to tell them what it really is, and the MSM will keep the focus soft and fuzzy and friendly.

From that article:

It is an even clearer sign than growing Democratic support for single-payer health care that the era of Clintonian triangulation is over—that the question leading Democrats are asking is not whether the Party should move left but how far left it should go.

The resolution is also in keeping with the Democratic Party’s longstanding strategy on climate—the Party has long assumed, probably correctly, that major climate action is unlikely unless addressing the crisis is woven securely into the Party’s economic agenda. A job guarantee, as radical as it seems, is an extension of the same logic that led the Obama Administration to tout the creation of green jobs.

The job guarantee is not some thing that was arbitrarily tacked on; it is integral and a way to sweeten the attraction to the average voter. Another big clue is here:

Of course, no bill they propose will be taken up unless Democrats win the White House in 2020, unseating a President who has claimed repeatedly that climate change is a hoax.

Got it? This GND initiative is a counter to Trump, that troglodyte non-believer in AGW. The GND is not meant to be serious legislation for now, but to burnish the Democrats’ reputation as caring about climate change and the Republicans’ reputation for not caring. And the Democrats are counting on just about no one—except the right, and the far left—to read what’s actually in the GND.

Meanwhile, think about this: the Democratic Party wins these days by appealing to blocs of voters who will vote nearly monolithically for Democrats. Just as one example, black voters. “Young people” are also a bloc that puts Democrats over the top in many races. And many many of today’s young people are terrified of AGW. They have been taught in school from early grades on that it is a dire problem staring us in the face, and that—as AOC has helpfully pointed out prior to releasing the GND—the planet is at risk in the next decade and something drastic must be done or the world is in dire peril. If a person believes that, and believes that science supports it, that person will almost certainly vote for people advocating extreme measures—particularly if that person is unaware of the science and math and history that make those measures very very dangerous as well as unlikely to succeed. The idea is that desperate measures require desperate defenses, and the Democrats are at least willing to take measures that the GOP will not.

Do not estimate the powerful appeal of this to many many people. The Democrats have no intention of passing anything like these proposals for now. The plan for now is to use it all for a cudgel in 2020 and gain more power, and then they can do just about anything they want.

It may not work, but it’s not stupid—not if your goal is power and control.