↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 905 << 1 2 … 903 904 905 906 907 … 1,892 1,893 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Men and women and the sex and marriage market

The New Neo Posted on September 5, 2017 by neoSeptember 5, 2017

There’s a new book out, entitled “Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy.” But the message that lies therein is actually fairly old news. I’ve written about similar ideas before, for example here, here, and in particular here.

However, it bears repeating:

In generations past, women generally made men wait until marriage to have sex. To get a wife (and, therefore, sex), men had to be clean and presentable and have a good job. This, Regnerus reasons, gave men all the motivation they needed to become respectable members of society…

Regnerus backs this theory up with a quote from social psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs, who study this phenomenon. “Nowadays young men can skip the wearying detour of getting education and career prospects to qualify for sex,” they write. “Sex has become free and easy. This is today’s version of the opiate of the (male) masses.”

Regnerus argues that while women have maintained their role as sexual gatekeepers, men control the marriage market. And given the ease with which sex can be accessed, Regnerus believes that men’s motivations for marriage have all but disappeared.

I know plenty of young people who are still getting married. But I have little doubt that the statistics that show marriage as declining are correct, and I deeply believe that the phenomenon the book describes (although I haven’t read the book) is one of the reasons it is happening. I called one of my previous posts on the subject “Getting the milk for free.” It’s an old saying, one I heard in my youth. It was told to young women in order to discourage them from having cheap and easy sex; the idea was that men wouldn’t buy the cow if they could get the milk for free. It’s crass, but it makes the point.

Of course, even today’s women can refuse to have sex unless there is commitment. But the big problem with that approach is that, although some young men will value that standard in a woman, unless it’s the practice of a majority of women (or at least a large percentage) then men can—and often will—turn elsewhere. If women want to withhold casual sex, there’s strength in numbers. Society used to back them and even advocate this practice—but no more.

Posted in Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex | 56 Replies

Blue on blue: now Hillary’s blaming Bernie

The New Neo Posted on September 5, 2017 by neoSeptember 5, 2017

I have to say I’ve been very very happy not to have to talk about Hillary Clinton ever since the 2016 election. And it’s also true that I don’t have to talk about her, even now.

So, why am I talking about her? Well, this caught my eye:

Hillary Clinton casts Bernie Sanders as an unrealistic over-promiser in her new book, according to excerpts posted by a group of Clinton supporters.

She said that his attacks against her during the primary caused “lasting damage” and paved the way for “(Donald) Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.”

Clinton, in a book that will be released September 12 entitled “What Happened,” said Sanders “had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character” because the two Democrats “agreed on so much.”

What I get from that—among other things—is that Hillary cannot seem to stop blaming others for her loss. I wonder if anything in this new book indicates at least a modicum of awareness of her own responsibility and her own very real failings that made her vulnerable to those attacks on her extremely questionable and suspect character. I doubt it.

But I don’t wonder enough to wade through a book that is purported to be a 500-pager. This woman has written—or has had ghost-written—an awful lot of verbiage, hasn’t she?

Here’s some of the verbiage from the new book:

Clinton wrote that President Barack Obama counseled her to “grit my teeth and lay off Bernie as much as I could,” according to the excerpts. That strategy, Clinton wrote, made her feel she was “in a straitjacket.”

Poor, poor Hillary. One big bad guy (Obama) told her to lay off another big bad guy (Sanders) while the latter abused her. Oh, if only she’d taken the gloves off!

And now I’ll tiptoe out, and leave you with Hillary and Sanders and Obama…

Oh, one more thing. I have a feeling Sanders isn’t going to be much of a force in 2020, although his supporters will be, and they will be looking for a very progressive—although younger—person to run.

Posted in Election 2016, Hillary Clinton, Politics | 32 Replies

Trump to Congress on DACA: the ball’s in your park now

The New Neo Posted on September 5, 2017 by neoSeptember 5, 2017

Take a look:

I am here today to announce that the program known as DACA that was effectuated under the Obama administration is being rescinded,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday at the Justice Department…

In a statement after his agencies and attorney general announced the decision, President Donald Trump blamed former President Barack Obama for creating the program through executive authority and urged Congress to come up with a solution.

“It is now time for Congress to act!” he said.

Trump said that winding down the program would be more considerate than letting the courts end it, but emphasized he stands by his “America First” agenda.

“As I’ve said before, we will resolve the DACA issue with heart and compassion — but through the lawful Democratic process — while at the same time ensuring that any immigration reform we adopt provides enduring benefits for the American citizens we were elected to serve,” Trump said. “We must also have heart and compassion for unemployed, struggling and forgotten Americans.”

The administration also announced a plan to continue renewing permits for anyone whose status expires in the next six
months, giving Congress time to act before any currently protected individuals lose their ability to work, study and live
without fear in the US.

That strikes all the correct notes—not that it will matter to Trump’s critics on the left, who will say he’s heartless and cruel, and on the right, some of whom will say he passed the buck to a worthless GOP Congress that is no different than the Democrats. To me, the correct notes that were struck include first and foremost the idea that this should be a Congressional function and that Obama overstepped. Other good notes are the postponement of the effects of the announcement, the compassionate consideration of the very real problems around the situation that “Dreamers” face, and the setting of a deadline of sorts by which Congress needs to act.

It’s that last part that worries me. What will Congress actually do? My hope is that they manage to find a middle ground that substantially reduces and tightens the categories of persons allowed to stay and work here.

Let’s take as a starting point the Obama-era DACA eligibility provisions:

—are under 31 years of age as of June 15, 2012;
—came to the U.S. while under the age of 16;
—have continuously resided in the U.S. from June 15, 2007 to the present. (For purposes of calculating this five year period, brief and innocent absences from the United States for humanitarian reasons will not be included);
—entered the U.S. without inspection or fell out of lawful visa status before June 15, 2012;
—were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making the request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS;
—are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a GED, or have been honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed forces;
—have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor, or more than three misdemeanors of any kind; and
—do not pose a threat to national security or public safety.

The new bill could—just as an example—change the requirements to state that the age of entry would have to have been younger (12, for example, instead of 16). It could tweak any of the dates of numbers to make them more restrictive. It could (and absolutely should, IMHO) add an English language proficiency requirement. Allowing people to stay here who came here illegally as children and lived here virtually their entire lives, and who are well-assimilated into this country and its culture and mores, seems like a decent (although flawed) compromise in a tough situation. And yes, it does send a message that if you somehow get here, even if illegally, and stay here illegally, your child will be allowed official status and be allowed to work. This constitutes a troubling incentive, and it bothers me. That’s the big drawback as I see it. But if the bill is crafted correctly and it is made crystal clear that this only grandfathers in people who have already been here a long time, I think the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

I am not certain about that, though, and I understand the arguments for a much more Draconian bill. That said, I don’t think either Congress or Trump would support a bill that didn’t allow some leeway for the people known as Dreamers. Trump has been back and forth on the issue, but the bulk of his statements on the subject have made it pretty clear to me that he is at least somewhat in favor of the sort of bill I’m talking about, as long as it’s passed by Congress.

Posted in Immigration, Politics, Trump | 27 Replies

The North Korean conundrum

The New Neo Posted on September 4, 2017 by neoSeptember 4, 2017

[NOTE: I’ve already had a busy day, having come home last night on the redeye from the West Coast. Since I didn’t sleep on the plane, I tried to stay up this afternoon in order to reset my bioclock. No dice. Instead, I was overcome with exhaustion, staggered to my bed, and fell asleep for four hours. I just woke up. Therefore this will be less comprehensive than I’d like. I probably will write more on the subject of North Korea tomorrow.]

With North Korea, all solutions are bad ones. The real question is which one is the least bad?

And there’s almost no reason to trust the experts on what to do. Experts on all sides have been wrestling with this problem for decades and not had any success. They haven’t even managed to stall North Korea for a significant amount of time, and certainly have had no success in deflecting the country from its bellicose and increasingly-powerful nuclear path.

I don’t envy President Trump. As Ambassador Nikki Haley said yesterday:

And here’s some news from South Korea:

Here in Seoul, the defense ministry warned that Pyongyang might be preparing to launch another missile into the Pacific Ocean, perhaps an intercontinental ballistic missile theoretically capable of reaching the mainland United States.

President Trump and his South Korean counterpart, Moon Jae-in, spoke on the phone for 40 minutes Monday night, Korean time ”” some 34 hours after the nuclear test and more than 24 hours after Trump took to Twitter to criticize Moon’s “talk of appeasement.”

The two agreed to remove the limit on allowed payloads for South Korean missiles — something Seoul had been pushing for ”” as a way to increase deterrence against North Korea, according to a read-out of the phone call from South Korea’s Blue House.

They agreed as well to work together to punish North Korea for Sunday’s nuclear test, pledging “to strengthen joint military capabilities,” a White House statement said, and to “maximize pressure on North Korea using all means at their disposal.”…

Haley ruled out the “freeze for freeze” proposal backed by China and Russia, which would suspend U.S. joint military exercises with South Korea in return for suspension of North Korean nuclear and missile tests.

“When a rogue regime has a nuclear weapon and an ICBM pointed at you, you do not take steps to lower your guard. No one would do that. We certainly won’t,” she said.

Instead, she reiterated a White House threat from Sunday to cut off trade with any countries that also trade with North Korea. That would presumably include China, with which the United States had nearly $650 billion worth of trade in goods and services last year.

But at this point I wonder how much leverage China really has over North Korea on this particular issue, and I wonder whether the Chinese will ever use what they do have. China has its own reasons for wanting Kim Jong Un to stay in power in North Korea, because they don’t want the country destabilized:

The fall of the North Korean regime would send vast numbers of refugees pouring into China, and in the long run, Beijing fears that a unified Korea would mean a permanent U.S. military presence right on its border.

Meanwhile, the longer the world waits, the less empty Kim Jong Un’s threats become. He definitely has nuclear weapons and he talks as though he also has the will to use them, even preemptively if he sees fit. Is it just bluster, or does he mean it?:

Kim Jong Un has been very open about his regime’s ambitions. North Korea regularly issues apocalyptic warnings to the U.S. and its allies. Last month, the regime’s official Rodong Sinmun newspaper said the U.S. would be “catapulted into an unimaginable sea of fire” if it imposed more sanctions or threatened military action. In May, the paper said the North was “waiting for the moment it will reduce the whole of the U.S. mainland to ruins” after President Donald Trump dispatched a naval strike group to the region.

Such threats have been a staple of Kim’s regime since he took power after his father’s death in 2011.

In October, top North Korean official Lee Yong Pil told NBC News that “a preemptive nuclear strike is not something the U.S. has a monopoly on.” He added: “If we see that the U.S. would do it to us, we would do it first.”

The conventional responses have been previously tried by the US and the West—and tried, and tried, and tried. I agree with John Bolton that they don’t work:

…Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said Sunday that economic sanctions against North Korea is a useless gesture, because North Korea is more like a huge prison than a real country that can be hurt by sanctions.

“It’s a 25 million person prison camp,” he told Fox News.

“The sanctions simply give people a warm and fuzzy feeling that we’re doing something about North Korea. We are not,” he said.

If this administration follows the same policies as Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations of carrots and sticks, and efforts to persuade North Korea, it will fail just like they did,” Bolton added.

The option—some sort of military action—could spark a huge attack on South Korea. What are South Korea’s defenses against that kind of action?:

The First Terminal High-Altitude Area Defence (Thaad) systems were installed on a South Korean golf course in April and now more will be installed. Thadd is intended to be able to stop missiles from hitting their targets. This is how the system works.

Developed by Lockheed Martin, the Thaads system is designed to detect missiles flying through the sky. It is essentially a rocket system mounted on the back of a truck that fly into other missiles and destroy them. This is done in four steps: using radar to spot an object, identifying it as a missile, firing a counter Interceptor missile, and using kinetic energy to obliterate the target…

Thaad isn’t the only missile defence system in South Korea. US armed forces also have the Patriot 3 system, which it started upgrading earlier this year and is designed for shorter ranges than Thaad.

Barrie says this approach is a layered defence technique using different systems to cover a variety of firing ranges.

How effective would this be in the event of an attack? These defenses seem to work pretty well as long as they’re not faced with a great many missiles at once, but we just don’t know how well they’d do against a barrage.

The dilemma is profound.

Posted in War and Peace | 46 Replies

Five reasons why Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, is pregnant again

The New Neo Posted on September 4, 2017 by neoSeptember 4, 2017

(1) You can never have too many heirs to the throne. Actually, I suppose you can; in the very olden days, when the throne really meant something, heirs sometimes duked it out rather than Duking it out. But those days are long gone.

(2) No baby sitter problem.

(3) The kids they already have are awfully cute

(4) Kate gets to wear a whole new wardrobe.

(5) Kate has no problem losing the baby weight.

On the other hand, I salute Kate’s bravery, because in pregnancy she suffers greatly from something known as Hyperemesis Gravidarum, an extreme form of morning sickness in which the mother-to-be is so severely nauseated for so long that hospitalization is often necessary. Nausea and vomiting is such a noxious feeling that most people would do anything to avoid it.

You might ask me why I’m writing about this. Yes, I know it’s not important news. But it’s nice news.

Posted in Uncategorized | 26 Replies

Happy Labor Day!

The New Neo Posted on September 4, 2017 by neoSeptember 4, 2017

Labor Day is the bookend on the opposite end of summer from its holiday beginning, Memorial Day.

July Fourth is summer’s early peak, with the promise of long light-filled days ahead. But Labor Day is summer’s last gasp, the moment I dreaded as a child because it marked the end of vacation and the start of the school year. Spiffy new clothes, a shiny bookbag, freshly sharpened pencils, and the promise of the beautiful autumn leaves’ arrival were nice. But they couldn’t make up for the fact that a new school year was beginning. Where oh where had the summer gone?

And it goes even more quickly these days. But let’s celebrate the fact that we don’t have to worry about the start of school anymore””except, perhaps, for the teachers among you.

Here’s wishing you all a Happy Labor Day! Barbecues, picnics, parades, beach, just hanging out in your yard, whatever you desire. And for the historically-minded among you, some information the origins of the holiday.

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Replies

YouTube’s switcheroo

The New Neo Posted on September 2, 2017 by neoSeptember 2, 2017

I hate, hate, hate the new YouTube format. I am not alone in this, although plenty of people like it as well.

You may not have noticed it, but it happened a few days ago. It happens now and then—you’ve been going along for years, happily using a site, accustomed to the way it looks, knowing how to navigate around and get to what you want, and then suddenly things are upended and most of the old familiar landmarks are gone.

Not only that, but the current online trend is to hide things—to purposely hide things to make a site look “cleaner” or some other rubbish.

Now, I have to say I’m probably not your typical YouTube user, so I’m not surprised if YouTube doesn’t care what I think or what I want and doesn’t cater to my needs. I tend to generally dislike technical change unless it’s obviously and unequivocally an improvement, and much of what I see that constitutes change online is merely cosmetic. I especially hate the tendency to hide things, something I’ve seen on site after site and which seems to originate in the limitations of mobile viewing. Now those mobile limitations have become the dominant esthetic, and we all have to play “button, button, who’s got the button?” as we search for something that used to be quite easy to see.

I’m not alone in that sentiment, either. This commenter expresses my sentiments exactly, and better than I have:

This trend of hiding a UI element (e.g. the comment menu) until the user hovers over it is bad, bad, bad. I see this sort of thing confusing people all the time. Unless you know it’s there, you won’t know where to find it.

Google keeps doing this all the time, and it’s a terrible design practice. I think it reflects how they assume users are well-versed in their platform, so they’d know where to look, but a good chunk of their users aren’t in that boat, and end up just lost about how to do things.

And there’s a lot of chatter about the wonderful new YouTube logo. Logos are something I don’t tend to notice and when I notice them I tend to not care about them. But here’s the stunning and revolutionary new YouTube logo design (and yes, that’s sarcasm):

But fortunately, although I had to be told about it (and not by YouTube, I can assure you), there’s a way to go to “settings” and restore old YouTube, which I promptly did. I wonder how long they’ll let us do that before they force permanent change, just like Yahoo email did.

Grrrr.

[NOTE: More about the change here.]

Posted in Pop culture | 35 Replies

Trump and Ryan and DACA

The New Neo Posted on September 2, 2017 by neoSeptember 2, 2017

So, what’s going to happen with DACA?

I’ve read a number of articles on the right recently that mull over what Trump will do—will he preserve it or won’t he?—and a bunch more about the pernicious Republicans in Congress wanting to save it.

I won’t even bother to link to most of the articles; they’re easy enough to find. But this one is fairly typical, and it ends with a familiar sentiment: “It’s time to primary these Republicans. We did not elect them to provide amnesty.”

But I recall two things from way back when DACA was announced by President Obama. Continue reading →

Posted in Immigration, Politics, Ryan, Trump | 27 Replies

Interesting change story with great quote about the process of political change

The New Neo Posted on September 2, 2017 by neoSeptember 2, 2017

The young man in the following video tells his political change story, and in doing so he describes a process that I think—having contemplated the process of political change myself for about a decade and a half—is the heart of the matter. The quote begins around 1:06 or so, and I’ve transcribed it:

So it became fairly evident very quickly that these people [many of his fellow progressives, who he describes as being proponents of “an authoritative sort of progressivism”] weren’t actually standing up for anything relating to liberty. They were just standing up for a divisuve brand of politics that would tolerate no dissent whatsoever.

I’ve always tried my best to think as clearly and logically as I can. And that necessarily entails poking as many holes as I can in my own beliefs, until I’ve managed to narrow in on the beliefs that best model the world, or at least that model the world a little more accurately than my beliefs did before.

What I think is so marvelous about that quote is that it describes two elements very well. The first element is that it’s quite obvious that this man sets a premium on liberty. I’ve referred to liberty as “the great dividing line,” and noted that some liberals value it and others don’t, and that this particular difference is an enormously important one:

I don’t know the relative size of the two groups, because I don’t seek out political discussions with my friends and family; I don’t want get-togethers to degenerate into the useless, repetitive, unproductive arguments I witnessed in my youth, which they easily could, with me now as the sole conservative. But I know that those two groups exist, and I think that what differentiates them are (a) the person’s need to control others and/or society; and (b) the degree that the person thinks he/she can do so effectively and get the desired results.

Among most of my friends their motives are “good”””that is, they want people to be happier, healthier, and in general just better. Some leftists I know have the same motivation (I would add that most of the people who think they are doing good are also motivated by the need to feel that they are good people for wanting that). But many leftists””we’re talking about quite a few of the leaders of the movement, and certainly people such as Stalin””have a different motivation: they are motivated almost purely by the desire for power and control.

There is an unholy alliance between the two groups. The first is the much-larger pack of would-be do-gooders who believe that liberalism is the way to go about it, whose minds are formed by a combination of their families growing up, present-day peers, the MSM, eduction, politicians, literature, the entertainment business, and in some cases their “progressive” churches and synagogues. The second is the smaller but extremely influential group of leftist activists, some proudly out as unrepentant “progressives,” and some just quietly going about their business, some motivated by the desire for power/control plus the idea that they’re doing “good,” and the rest just wanting the power/control part.

I believe that this dividing line of liberty represents two very different types of people, and that it’s rare that someone from one group turns into someone from the other although it might happen on occasion. It’s also my observation that left-to-right political changers tend to be disproportionately drawn from the group that highly values liberty. What’s more, during the last decade in this country, the Democratic Party has become more and more populated by people who do not.

The second element the man in the video talks about is also key: the desire to poke “as many holes as I can in my own beliefs, until I’ve managed to narrow in on the beliefs that best model the world.” Long ago I used to think everyone felt like that, but it became abundantly clear to me about fifteen years ago that it wasn’t that way at all. Many or perhaps even most people ( (on left or right, I might add) cling tenaciously to what they already believe, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. That’s why a mind is a difficult thing to change. And so change is much more likely in people who already have the habit of challenging their own beliefs.

[NOTE: You may have noticed that this video has a subtitle: “My Red Pill Story.” That’s a reference to the movie “The Matrix.” It refers to a moment in your life that completely changes your outlook about the makeup of the world or politics (and not just politics). Here’s the quote from the movie:

“You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.” ”•Morpheus, to Neo [not me; the character in the movie] The term redpill refers to a human that is aware of the true nature of the Matrix.

There are a ton of videos at YouTube on the subject, and although it sometimes refers to a left-to-right political change, it more often refers more specifically to leaving feminism or rejecting feminist beliefs:

The term “red pill” has been used by people in the men’s rights movement as a metaphor for the specific moment when they come to the belief that certain gender roles they are expected to conform to (e.g. marriage, monogamy) are intended to benefit women, not themselves…

The term “red pill” or “red-pilling” is common on 4chan’s “politically incorrect” /pol/ board, where taking the red pill refers to being presented with both sides of an issue (usually with a particular focus on the controversial or unpopular opinion).]

Posted in Leaving the circle: political apostasy, Liberals and conservatives; left and right, Liberty, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex, Political changers | 33 Replies

Viral video du jour

The New Neo Posted on September 1, 2017 by neoSeptember 1, 2017

This one:

Looks bad for the cop, who is a Salt Lake City police detective. He must have known it was being recorded, too.

I can’t find anyone defending this guy, but if you go to the YouTube comments for that video, you’ll see a lot of 60s/early70s stuff like people calling him “pig” and saying they hope he dies.

The most complete treatment of the story I’ve seen so far can be found here.

Posted in Law, Violence | 69 Replies

On memorizing poetry (redux)

The New Neo Posted on September 1, 2017 by neoJune 29, 2025

Molly Worthen has written an article in the the NY Times recommending the memorization of poetry:

Since ancient times, humans have memorized and recited poetry. Before the invention of writing, the only way to possess a poem was to memorize it. Long after scrolls and folios supplemented our brains, court poets, priests and wandering bards recited poetry in order to entertain and connect with the divine. For individuals, a poem learned by heart could be a lifeline – to grapple with overwhelming emotion or preserve sanity amid the brutalities of prison and warfare.

Yet poetry memorization has become deeply unfashionable, an outmoded practice that many teachers and parents – not to mention students – consider too boring, mindless and just plain difficult for the modern classroom. Besides, who needs to memorize when our smartphones can instantly call up nearly any published poem in the universe?

In fact, the value of learning literature by heart – particularly poetry – has only grown.

This is not unlike my own post on the subject, one of the earliest things I wrote on this blog. But I am rather puzzled by Worthen’s notion (and seemingly she assumes most people agree with her) that poetry is hard to memorize. No it’s not; it’s prose that’s hard to memorize. Poetry is relatively easy, like song lyrics—if it rhymes or has meter, that is. And older poetry (that’s the type Worthen seems to be talking about for the most part) almost always has rhyme or meter or both. That should make it easy to memorize.

I always found it so, anyway. But maybe, as a poetry lover, I’m not typical.

What follows is the text of my earlier post.

I think it may be a lost pedagogical device, but when I was in grade school, we were forced by our teachers (mostly elderly women, as it happens) to memorize poetry. Lots of poetry. Most of it doggeral, but not all of it, not by any means.

There was an old-fashioned quality to their choices: patriotic and seasonal verse, concerning Presidents and holidays (“If Nancy Hanks came back as a ghost, seeking news of what she loved most”; “There is something in the autumn that is native to my blood”).

I was a good poetry memorizer. I’m not trying to brag here, since I don’t think this ability implies any particular merit on my part. But no sooner had I written the thing down, copied from the blackboard on which the teacher had slowly and laboriously written it in her beautiful handwriting, then it was firmly ensconced in my head.

And there much of it stays. To this day, actually. Fortunately, along with the Edgar Guest and the others (“It takes a heap o’ livin’, in a house t’ make it home”) we were assigned some very fine poetry, mostly in junior high. Shakespearean sonnets and Wordsworth and Milton, some Robert Frost and Shakespeare, the Gettysburg Address (not poetry, but it might as well have been).

Much of this I simply memorized by rote. I understood the basic meaning, but it had no real significance to me, no depth. I had no context for it.

But since it had been filed away, somewhere, I experienced a curious phenomenon later on. I found that in crises or emotional times, a line of poetry would suddenly come to me—a phrase I’d never paid much attention to before—and I’d have one of those “aha!” moments.

At one point I sustained a serious and chronic injury. My physical limitations were such that for long periods of time I could not work, nor even read or write in any sustained way. I took to visiting a park near where I lived and slowly walking around a track there. Nearby was a small wooded area, and it was wintertime and snow was on the ground. Looking at the trees, the following line suddenly came to my mind, unbidden, (“Whose woods these are I think I know…”) memorized so long ago, and hardly thought of since.

But the words were all there, waiting for me, and when I came to the lines, “The woods are lovely, dark, and deep” they hit me with the force of near-revelation. Frost seemed to be talking about wanting to give up, to surrender to something dark and restful (what? death?) in a time of great weariness such as I was experiencing. And then the next line came, too, offering hope and resolution, “But I have promises to keep…”

This sort of thing kept happening to me. Keeps happening to me, actually. In situation after situation, a line or passage of poetry will announce itself—something that I’d apparently held in my mind, in suspended animation as it were, without any true reflection or understanding—and suddenly, it would be freighted with deep and poignant meaning.

So I’m hereby declaring myself in favor of the practice of poetry memorization in schools. I know there are many many children—adults, too—who hate poetry. I don’t think that will change; I’m not imagining that poetry will gain a lot of converts from the mere act of children being required to memorize it. But for the rest, I think there’s great value to be had in carrying around a small library of poetry in one’s head, to draw upon in the hard times—or even the joyful times.

Right after 9/11, Yeats’ “The Second Coming” was the poem that kept swirling around in my brain. It doesn’t really offer any comfort; it’s a very bleak vision, after all. But for me, even the act of recalling the lines, somber and frightening as they are, had its own sort of solace, saying to me, “Others have had this fear, others have passed through terrible times of chaos,” and, paradoxically, lending words of great beauty to the description of that terrifying state:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…

Posted in Me, myself, and I, Poetry | 28 Replies

Going to war with the populace you have

The New Neo Posted on September 1, 2017 by neoSeptember 1, 2017

Commenter “parker” writes:

…it is simple, but it seems simple is difficult to understand. Never go to war unless we are prepared to use all of the force we can muster to bring the enemy to a state of being where they grovel, kiss the dust, and ask how high we want them to jump.

A succinct statement of what Walter Russell Mead called the Jacksonian point of view:

Walter Russell Mead begins his indispensable 1999 essay, “The Jacksonian Tradition” by describing American savagery in war. “In the last five months of World War II, American bombing raids claimed the lives of 900,000 Japanese civilians.”…

Mead goes on to explain the political tradition that underlies this ferocity, which he names after President Andrew Jackson. Jacksonians, Mead argues, view America as a country that just wants to be left alone. They have little interest in the “Hamiltonian” project of prying other countries open to American commerce or the “Wilsonian” project of spreading democracy and liberty across the globe. But when attacked, especially by what they consider dishonorable foes, Jacksonians believe that “wars must be fought with all available force. The use of limited force is deeply repugnant.”…

For Jacksonians, the problem comes when America does not fulfill it. When that happens, they often blame leaders for making America’s troops fight with one hand tied their backs. On the right, this remains the dominant explanation for America’s loss in Vietnam.

That description was written in May of 2016, before Trump became president, and it appeared in The Atlantic. The article isn’t pro-Trump by any means, and it’s not pro-Jacksonian either, although it does try to “understand” both.

When I first read Mead’s article about 15 years ago, I remember thinking that I was sort of a Jacksonian, because in many ways I agreed with the sentiment expressed: if you’re going to fight a war and let people die in that war, you need to be committed to that war and prepared to stay the course. Knowing what happened in Vietnam, I was very worried when we invaded Iraq that something similar would happen. And that’s the way it has played out, for the most part.

But I also somewhat disagree with parker, because I think I am being realistic in saying that although the mentality he expresses is not rare in the US, it is not the predominant point of view and if we followed parker’s prescription we would not fight any wars at all because such an approach would be successfully thwarted. What’s more, in a nuclear age, does fighting such a war include nuclear weapons?

In other words, are there any limiting factors? I think there should be as a general rule (exceptions might be made), but what would the limiting factors be?

In other words, what sort of fight is Jacksonian enough for the Jacksonians? And wouldn’t the left and the majority of Americans oppose such a war? Or if that’s not strictly true, it would be difficult to know what sort of war, if entered into, would not ultimately be undermined before it was won. And we’d be back where we started.

World War II was a special case, I think, in which the enemy was so clear and so evil, and its global ambitions so obvious, that the US was relatively united on the nature of the fight. Oh, there were those who objected, but they were nowhere near as numerous as today. Therefore we were able to mobilize for a total war. I’m not sure whether, given the exact same circumstances, that would be possible today. But it would take something just as big as WWII to do it, and of course there’s plenty of argument about whether the war on Islamic terror (can we call it that, for instance?) is just as big.

Posted in Politics, War and Peace | 33 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

  • TR on Enoch Powell again: on how third-world immigration to Britain got going
  • RigelDog on David Hockney dies at 88
  • AppleBetty on Today’s Iran news
  • SENNACHERIB on David Hockney dies at 88
  • Charles R Harris on Today’s Iran news

Recent Posts

  • Today’s Iran news
  • The leader of Tren de Aragua is no more
  • Enoch Powell again: on how third-world immigration to Britain got going
  • David Hockney dies at 88
  • Open thread 6/13/2026

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (320)
  • Afghanistan (97)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (162)
  • Best of neo-neocon (91)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (585)
  • Dance (288)
  • Disaster (240)
  • Education (321)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (565)
  • Election 2018 (32)
  • Election 2020 (511)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (49)
  • Election 2028 (9)
  • Evil (129)
  • Fashion and beauty (323)
  • Finance and economics (1,024)
  • Food (316)
  • Friendship (47)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (730)
  • Health (1,141)
  • Health care reform (545)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (334)
  • History (707)
  • Immigration (437)
  • Iran (448)
  • Iraq (225)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (807)
  • Jews (429)
  • Language and grammar (361)
  • Latin America (205)
  • Law (2,936)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,288)
  • Liberty (1,106)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (390)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,480)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (916)
  • Middle East (382)
  • Military (322)
  • Movies (348)
  • Music (528)
  • Nature (257)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (178)
  • Obama (1,737)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (130)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,027)
  • Poetry (256)
  • Political changers (176)
  • Politics (2,780)
  • Pop culture (395)
  • Press (1,627)
  • Race and racism (869)
  • Religion (423)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (629)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (968)
  • Theater and TV (265)
  • Therapy (69)
  • Trump (1,615)
  • Uncategorized (4,447)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,427)
  • War and Peace (1,005)

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
©2026 - The New Neo - Weaver Xtreme Theme Email
Web Analytics
↑