Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Author: New Neo

Profile photo

New Neo

Neo is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at the new neo.

Posted by New Neo on May 17, 2015 12 Comments
On the first weekend in May I attended a conference held in Boston entitled "GenerationCaliphate: Apocalyptic Hopes, Millennial Dreams and Global Jihad." The conference was organized by Richard Landes, millennial scholar, inventor of the term "Pallywood," blogger at The Augean Stables, exposer of the suspect nature of the claims about al Durah's death, author of the book Heaven on Earth, brilliant and original thinker, and a person I'm glad to call my friend. One of the strongest impressions I got from the conference is how many people there are who have dedicated their lives to studying the history of Islam and Islamic thought and how much information they have gleaned about how that thought informs the motives and expectations of modern terrorists. Many non-experts tend to think of terrorists as more grounded in the present than they apparently are, to minimize what seem to be their wild fantasies about the end of the world, and to fail to appreciate how very much those apocalyptic dreams are informed by Islam and its history. Something else that struck me about the conference was how it illustrated that although many of us tend to think everyone fighting terrorism is on the right, there are some people on the left who are very concerned about terrorism and take it very seriously, but that there are some rather large rifts between those of the right and left who share this common cause and common interest in combating terrorism. There were too many erudite and engrossing speakers at the conference to describe each one, but some highlights (in addition to the aforementioned Richard Landes) were, in no particular order:

Posted by New Neo on May 09, 2015 37 Comments
The Pamela Geller incident, and the reaction to it amongst pundits and the press, has demonstrated some disturbing yet important truths. Mainly, it has highlighted how many people are willing to offer what Salman Rushdie called (in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders) the "Yes, but..." defense of free speech, which he rejects as no defense at all. Free speech means freedom for speech with which you disagree, by people you don't much care for. The incident also brought out the virulence of the verbal attacks against Geller by her critics in this country. Both those who defend Geller's right to free speech and those who shy away from it don't necessarily break down neatly into the left vs. right camps. There are certain liberals like Jonathan Zimmerman, for example, who absolutely loathe Geller, and yet pause in the midst of their vilification* to heartily and strongly defend her right to speak. His article is even titled "Je Suis Pamela Geller;" at the same time, though, he's also calling her an "appalling bigot" and "hateful" in it. And yet some on the right (or who are often regarded as being on the right) and who might actually agree with some of her premises have said she should have kept quiet and not offended Muslims' sensibilities.

Posted by New Neo on May 06, 2015 1 Comment
Passengers appeared to have noticed nothing out of the ordinary, but Alps-crash copilot Andreas Lubitz had practiced his descent-programming skills on a previous flight. He apparently waited until the pilot stepped out of the cabin, after which Lubitz set about his nefarious business:
Over the course of three or four minutes, Lubitz...designate[d] "100 feet" as the selected flight level. He did this several times, while the pilot was out of the cockpit. But this was just after the plane had already begun its descent. After each occasion that he chose "100 feet" he then corrected himself and entered the correct flight level. The course of the plane was not altered at all.
So no one noticed at all. Here's how it went: LubitzProgram

Posted by New Neo on April 27, 2015 13 Comments
Rand Paul said it just a couple of weeks ago, but a lot of people have thought it for a long time:
I think the thing is about the Clintons is that there’s a certain sense that they think they’re above the law.
There are some good reasons the Clintons might have come to believe that. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bill Clinton have always been powerful people, even as young adults. As early as college and law school they were both widely considered to be brilliant and charismatic, albeit in somewhat different ways. Recall, for example, that Hillary was chosen to give a commencement speech in her graduating year at Wellesly, a very unusual honor. The main speaker was Senator Edward Brooke, but she stole his thunder:
Clinton, then just Hillary Diane Rodham, was chosen by her peers to be the first student speaker to deliver a commencement address at Wellesley College. Clinton electrified 400 of her peers at the women’s liberal arts college with a fiery speech that captured the young generation’s disillusionment over President Richard Nixon’s war in Vietnam.

Posted by New Neo on April 18, 2015 35 Comments
This could be added to the list of reasons some conservatives don't want Jeb Bush as the Republican nominee in 2016. But it's a pretty big one, IMHO:
Jeb Bush says that the Senate should confirm the nomination of Loretta Lynch, President Barack Obama’s choice for attorney general. A number of Senate Republicans oppose her nomination. “I think presidents have the right to pick their team,” Bush said, according to reports of his stop at the “Politics and Pie” forum in Concord, New Hampshire, on Thursday night. The former Florida governor made sure to get in a few digs at current Attorney General Eric Holder, saying that Republicans should consider that the longer it takes to confirm Lynch, the longer Holder stays.
Now, what's wrong with Bush's statement? Nothing much---that is, if it were the olden (pre-Bork) days. The Bork nomination in 1987 is often considered the beginning of the current hyper-partisan attitude towards nominations, be they Supreme Court or otherwise:
Within 45 minutes of Bork's nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring, "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens."

Posted by New Neo on April 11, 2015 96 Comments
The killing of Walter Scott by Officer MIchael Slager was caught on video, leaving no doubt that he was shot in the back while fleeing from a traffic stop. A commenter on my blog asked whether the hue and cry that has resulted means that "if you can run away from a cop, you can get away with any crime because any effort to stop your pursuit using a weapon is unlawful and wrong?" No, but unless some very unusual mitigating information emerges, this was too much firepower considering the offense and the situation surrounding it. But don't take my word for it; here are the rules:
The Supreme Court held in a 1989 case, Graham v. Connor, that the appropriateness of use of force by officers “must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” rather than evaluated through 20/20 hindsight.

Posted by New Neo on April 08, 2015 15 Comments
Remember this? It's one of the few papers that Obama wrote while in college or law school that is still available, a 1983 article that appeared in the Columbia campus paper. The article is mostly straight reportage and quotes about the Nuclear Freeze Movement, featuring organizations called "Arms Race Alternatives" (ARA) and "Students Against Militarism" (SAM). But Obama reveals his own attitude in a few comments such as, "Generally, the narrow focus of the Freeze movement as well as academic discussions of first versus second strike capabilities, suit the military-industrial interests, as they continue adding to their billion-dollar erector sets." Note the superior tone and the contempt for the military, already present in Obama at a relatively young age. To him, the "military-industrial interests" are just boys playing with expensive toys. Obama quotes one activist as saying "everyone's asking for peace, but no one's asking for justice," which (in Obama's words), causes "one...to wonder whether disarmament or arms control issues, severed from economic and political issues, might be another instance of focusing on the symptoms of a problem rather than the disease itself." To Obama, the real problems appear to be economic and political issues involving a lack of justice, and the arms race is a mere symptom of that deeper concern (shades of this far more recent policy statement).

Posted by New Neo on April 03, 2015 7 Comments
Religious wars continue:
Islamist gunmen burst into a Kenyan university before dawn Thursday, shooting students and taking hostages in a terror attack that left 70 dead, Kenyan officials said. Two attackers were killed in the ongoing security operation, and one was arrested, authorities said.... Joel Ayora, who was on the campus and witnessed the attack, said gunmen burst into a Christian service. Taking hostages from the service, they then "proceeded to the hostels, shooting anybody they came across except their fellows, the Muslims." The attackers separated students by religion, allowing Muslims to leave and keeping an unknown number of Christians hostage, Agence France-Presse reported... The dangerously porous border between Somalia and Kenya has made it easy for Al-Shabaab militants to cross over and carry out attacks.
The attack is now said to be over, with four terrorists killed and over 140 students murdered. Fifty or so who had been held hostage (mostly females) have been freed.

Posted by New Neo on March 20, 2015 42 Comments
It would be so very transformative, you know. Hope and change:
"If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country," Obama said, calling it "potentially transformative." Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would "counteract money more than anything."... Obama said he thought it would be "fun" for the U.S. to consider amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the electoral system. But don't hold your breath. "Realistically, given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition," he said.
I'm surprised he's even mentioning something as old-fashioned as an amendment. Surely he can think of something more creative, so we can join the following countries with mandatory voting laws that they actually enforce: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Cyprus, Ecuador, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Nauru, Peru, Singapore, Uruguay, and Schaffhausen canton in Switzerland. I've noticed four things about mandatory voting laws. The first is that only half the places that have them bother to enforce them. The second is that with the exception of Australia, the ones that do aren't places you'd especially wish to emulate (although that canton in Switzerland might be nice). The third is that it seems to be a real vogue in Latin America, especially if you count the countries that have such laws but don't enforce them. And the fourth is that they often contain exceptions for illiterate voters and the elderly, and I doubt Obama would want to allow that.

Posted by New Neo on March 15, 2015 3 Comments
United States officials report that ISIS has lost 25% of the territory it once held. Although it would be good if that were true---and perhaps it is---the announcement sounded a bit hesitant:
...a U.S. assessment...determined that Kurdish fighters are responsible for the majority of the territory retaken from ISIS in northern Iraq. “We assess ISIL’s front lines have been pushed back in northern and central Iraq,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said at a Pentagon briefing today, referring to the militant group also known as ISIS. “ISIL no longer has complete freedom of movement in roughly 25 percent of populated areas of Iraqi territory where they once operated freely.”... Warren said the term "freedom of movement" equates to losing territory “if they don’t have freedom of movement they don’t control it.”... But he cautioned that the assessment was “not an exact science,” pointing to what he described as the “fluid battleground” inside Iraq.
Note the emphasis on Kurdish fighters. As for Iranians, Warren denies that the US is working with them, although he admits there's an "alignment of some interest between ourselves and Iran" in fighting ISIS. Note, also, how Warren uses the administration-approved term "ISIL" in referring to the group rather than the more generally used "ISIS."

Posted by New Neo on March 12, 2015 49 Comments
I had thought that the press would stand by Hillary Clinton in the same way they've stood by Obama---through thick and thin. After all, Obama has committed acts far worse than Hillary's, has covered up more, and has been just as egregious in his lies. And yet I can't recall Obama having been subjected to questions even remotely as difficult as the ones Hillary faced (and answered poorly) this week, although the press could have grilled him that way any time he appeared before them. They chose not to do that, but they chose to ask some real questions of Hillary Clinton. Why the differential treatment? As soon as the email story broke, the NY Times led the attack. Originally it seemed that they may have wanted to get it over with in a perfunctory way and then let her candidacy continue, or that this was being done at the direction of Obama who wanted another candidate for various reasons. But now I've come to think that the first reason isn't operative (at least, not any more), and that although the second may be true, it doesn't account for the fervor of the criticism. Perhaps part of the reason this thing has gotten bigger is that Clinton has handled it poorly. Perhaps the MSM is piling on because they thought Hillary would be better at dealing with it than she has demonstrated so far, and they're panicking because her performance means she will be a bad candidate come 2016. Or perhaps they know of other scandals, and they want her out before the revelations multiply (and end up reflecting poorly on their favorite, Obama, or on liberalism itself?) If they can't put out this fire they may want to fan the flames so that the sacrifice happens more quickly and a new and more viable candidate is chosen, and they can get credit for "objectivity" (for hurting one of their own) into the bargain.

Posted by New Neo on March 05, 2015 10 Comments
In a previous post at Legal Insurrection, I suggested that the terrorist attacks in Paris and Copenhagen and the Salman Rushdie fatwa issued in 1989 by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran are analogous. In the case of the fatwa, a Muslim leader and cleric called on Muslims to kill a Western author deemed to be guilty of blasphemy towards Islam, more or less the same action the modern-day terrorists have taken on themselves against Western cartoonists who lampoon Mohammed. In light of Obama's repeated insistence that terrorists do not act as agents of Islam, doesn't he need to answer some questions about the Rushdie fatwa? The questions appear in an essay of mine in the Weekly Standard, and whether or not Obama ever addresses them (please do not sit on a hot stove until he does), they point out the absurdity of his denial of the connection between such killings and Islam. Here's an excerpt:
The fatwa Khomeini issued makes chilling reading even today. Here’s a translation: "I would like to inform all the intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book entitled ‘Satanic Verses’. . . as well as those publishers who were aware of its contents, are hereby sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Moslems to execute them quickly, wherever they find them, so that no one will dare to insult Islamic sanctity. Whoever is killed doing this will be regarded as a martyr and will go directly to heaven."

Posted by New Neo on February 26, 2015 76 Comments
Is there anyone who is surprised that the FCC has voted in favor of net neutrality, and that the vote followed party lines? I doubt it. The general trend has been for greater and greater control by agencies in matters that may seem innocuous, technical, and/or unimportant at the time but can have wide-reaching effects, especially when they are followed by ever-expanding restrictions. The net neutrality rules don't sound so bad. And maybe they'll stay that way. But I wouldn't bet a dime on it. Here's the "neutrality" part:
The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.
Trouble is that it gets the camel's nose in the tent (although actually, I suppose the camel's nose was already in the tent):

Posted by New Neo on February 26, 2015 16 Comments
From the headline of this AP article, "Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape," the casual reader would be hard-pressed to tell whether the deal was good, bad, or indifferent for the US. The article goes on to offer the usual quotes alternating between those who laud the potential agreement and those who criticize it, and closes on a note of optimism about the talks and sympathy for Iran:
Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association said that with the IAEA's additional monitoring, the deal taking shape leaves "more than enough time to detect and disrupt any effort to pursue nuclear weapons in the future." In exchange, Iran wants relief from sanctions crippling its economy and the U.S. is talking about phasing in such measures.
Contrast that with this piece by David Horovitz in The Times of Israel. He observes that, although the Obama administration has been engaged in denying Israeli rumors of what might be in the agreement and accusing Israel of "misrepresenting the specifics for narrow political ends," the pending agreement that the AP article describes not only contains many of the things Israel had been complaining about, but is even worse than was previously thought. According to Israel’s "most respected Middle East affairs analyst," Ehud Ya’ari, the deal would be likely to have some catastrophic consequences:

Posted by New Neo on February 21, 2015 9 Comments
Obama spokespeople Marie Harf and Jen Psaki have come in for a certain amount of ridicule lately, as well as Josh Earnest and Jay Carney before him. But I admit to a sneaking sort of awe of what they do, although it's not a good sort of awe. People are fond of saying that Harf or Psaki are airheads, for example. I beg to differ. What they are---and what all on that list are---is loyal party apparatchiks with a fair amount of facility (some more than others) at keeping their stories and talking points straight, firing off a flurry of glib words to get those points across, and sticking relentlessly to message in the face of some difficult questions and no small amount of mockery and potential embarrassment. They are buoyed and driven not only by personal ambition, but also by their dedication to whatever they think their party and their boss stand for, so much so that they believe that manufacturing spin and telling some lies in the service of that spin are noble callings. This accounts for their triumph over any lingering shame they might feel. As with Winston Smith's interlocutor O'Brien, they not only say that 2 + 2 = 5, but they come to actually believe that on a certain level it's true as soon as they decide to say it.

Posted by New Neo on February 16, 2015 11 Comments
So now we know the identity of Copenhagen shooter Omar Abdel Hamid El-Hussein, whose crime has mirrored the recent terrorist attacks in Paris but with a smaller death total and a single perpetrator. More details will no doubt emerge, but already it seems fairly clear what's going on here: a continuation of the assault on the West's freedom of speech, perpetrated by a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist (or one in sympathy with fundamentalist Muslim terrorists). The idea is to silence what they see as blasphemy against Islam, as well as to exert a chilling effect on anyone who would sympathize with or support such freedom of speech. In addition, it is an attack on Jews and those who would protect them. The goal? Non-Muslims should not be free to criticize Islam in ways that the group deems blasphemous; Jews would not be free to practice Judaism; and the penalty for both crimes would be death. The moment when the West should have become aware of the growing seriousness of the threat to Western free speech was the 1989 fatwa against author Salman Rushdie. Perhaps some people were able to minimize it at the time by reminding themselves that Rushdie had been born a Muslim in India, which made him an apostate when he renounced the religion. But he was definitely a Westerner, having lived in Britain since the age of fourteen, and his books were written in English and aimed at a Western audience. To refresh your memory:
Many Muslims accused Rushdie of blasphemy or unbelief [for his novel The Satanic Verses] and in 1989 Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie. Numerous killings, attempted killings, and bombings resulted from Muslim anger over the novel. The Iranian government backed the fatwa against Rushdie until 1998, when the succeeding government of Iranian President Mohammad Khatami said it no longer supported the killing of Rushdie. However, the fatwa remains in place.
Accessibility by WAH