Image 01 Image 03

Author: New Neo

Profile photo

New Neo

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

This small poetic effort of mine has become somewhat of a holiday tradition. Merry Christmas Eve to you all! 'TWAS THE BLOGGER'S NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS 'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the ‘sphere Bloggers were glad to see Christmas draw near. Their laptops were turned off and all put away The bloggers were swearing to take off the day. Their children were nestled all snug in their beds While visions of extra time danced in their heads With a father or mom not distracted by writing No posts to compose, and no links to be citing.

Trump has now scandalized people by using a Yiddish expression to describe what happened to Hillary Clinton at the hands of the Obama forces back in 2008:
She was favored to win and she got schlonged, she lost.
Now, for those of you who aren't especially up on Yiddish, "schlong" is one of the many Yiddish words used to describe the male member, as in genitalia. I won't bother to list the others; you can probably do it yourself. But, even as an ex-New Yorker, although I'm familiar with the word, I can't ever recall it being used as a verb before---which is the way Trump is using it here, as an equivalent of "screwed."

Why indeed? After all, 9/11 was far, far worse in terms of loss of life. The attacks themselves during 9/11 were far more high-tech and fiendishly clever, as well. There have been many, many terrorist attacks since, and they have all caused outrage and consternation. But something about the Friday the 13th attacks in Paris and the recent one in San Bernardino seems to have affected people more deeply than any other attacks except 9/11. 9/11 was so spectacular, so creative in a near-diabolical way, that it seemed almost otherworldly or like science fiction. The targets were major national symbols. Paris and San Bernardino were relatively pedestrian, as evil inspiration goes. They were fairly low-tech, and involved the sort of places we go to every day: random cafes and restaurants, a stadium, a concert hall, a business meeting and holiday party. Places to relax and enjoy, the sort of places nearly all urban people go to on a regular basis, or at least on occasion. That's why it took very little imagination to put ourselves in the place of the unlucky (and mostly young) people who lost their lives there.

The number of Syrian Christian refugees the United States has taken in is extremely small. And yet this is a group that ought logically to be first in line because members face the most obvious danger and persecution---not only in Syria, but in several Arab or Muslim countries to which they might have fled. Syrian Christians would also have little chance of being terrorists. We already have seen how little Obama has said or done about the plight of Christians in the Middle East today, both rhetorically and in terms of action. So it's no stretch to imagine that the lack of Syrian Christian refugees may be the result of a deliberate policy of this administration. However, at least some of the lack of Christians among the Middle Eastern refugees to the US is a reflection of the way the system works vis-a-vis the UN, which usually does the initial vetting for us---a system that, by the way, desperately needs changing:

President Obama used his regular weekly radio address on Saturday to discuss the San Bernardino shootings, which now have been categorized---although not by Obama---as the worst terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. He will give a televised speech from the Oval Office Sunday night. In the radio address, Obama offered very tepid stuff in terms of the terrorist connection, as one might expect from Obama. The speech began with praise for the police and rescuers and sympathy for the victims and families (and prayers; notify the Daily News that the president has gone off the reservation). But when Obama starts discussing the causes of the attack, he defers to the investigators---although those very investigators have now said they are investigating it as a terrorist attack. All he has to say about that is the following:

Violent actions against Muslims in the US are Loretta Lynch's biggest fear as a prosecutor:
With terrorist attacks in Paris and a shooting spree in California prompting alarm on the part of many Americans, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Thursday that her "greatest fear" is that expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment will lead to attacks on Muslims in the U.S. "The fear that you have just mentioned is in fact my greatest fear as a prosecutor, as someone who is sworn to the protection of all of the American people, which is that the rhetoric will be accompanied by acts of violence," Lynch told a dinner hosted by a Muslim civil rights organization. "My message to not just the Muslim community but to the entire American community is: we cannot give in to the fear that these backlashes are really based on."

The DNC recently took the extraordinary step of making an ad that included a clip of President Bush saying "We do not fight against Islam." In the video, the Democratic Party was using Bush to convey the idea that he was more in line with their own denials about Islamic terrorism than today's Republicans are. But, unlike today's Democrats, Bush never denied the existence of any connection between Islam and the terrorists. By distinguishing between radical (or "extremist") Islam and Islam, Bush made a distinction that was politically correct at the time and for years to come---until the Obama administration decided that Bush's formulation was unacceptable, and it was forbidden to draw the obvious connection between Islam and terrorists who said they were acting in the name of Islam. In the immediate post-9/11 weeks and months, Bush faced a very different situation than today: he was dealing with a country and a Congress playing catch-up in learning about the menace of Islamist terrorism and what it really was capable of, a need to rally together all Americans in the wake of a terrorist attack that has still never been surpassed in magnitude and daring, the very real fear of a major backlash against innocent Muslims in the US, and the goal of gaining worldwide allies (including many Muslim countries) in fighting the country that had harbored Bin Laden---Afghanistan---as well as fighting Islamic terrorists as a whole.

Canada joins the liberal leaders of the US and much of Europe and plans to go ahead with the admission of many thousands of Syrian refugees:
Canada plans to fly in 900 Syrian refugees a day as of next month, according to media reports, as the defense minister said showing compassion for these people sends a message to Islamic State extremists. Canadian officials said details of a plan to take in 25,000 Syrian refugees by year's end would be announced Tuesday. The Canadian media reports come amid fears that IS jihadists could slip into the country posing as refugees, in the wake of last week's attacks in Paris that killed at least 130 people.
The bill is projected to be 1.2 billion Canadian dollars. Canada has come up with a stupendous rationale for what they're doing. The liberal Canadian Minister of Defence (who is a Sikh, by the way, with what appears to be a pretty strong resume) has made some statements that are similar to the reasoning of liberals in this country as well:
This crisis is not just about a humanitarian project," he said in his opening remarks to military commanders and defense ministers from around the world. "This also sends a great message to ISIS that you might create this environment for us, but we will not let you take advantage of this," he said, using an alternate acronym for the IS group. "By doing our part for this, we are actually hitting ISIS in a different way as well."

Here's a fascinating article (to me, anyway) written by a man named Teun Voeten who moved to the Molenbeek section of Brussels back in 2005 and lived there for nine years. In case you haven't heard, Molenbeek is the area mostly populated by Muslim immigrants and their offspring, and it was the home to the terror cell that planned the Paris attacks. Voeten came there for the low rents and brought with him some idealistic and naive hopes (is idealism always naive?):
I was part of a new wave of young urban professionals, mostly white and college-educated — what the Belgians called bobo, (“bourgeois bohémiens”) — who settled in the area out of pragmatism. We had good intentions. Our contractor’s name was Hassan. He was Moroccan, and we thought that was very cool. We imagined that our kids would one day play happily with his on the street. We hoped for less garbage on the streets, less petty crime. We were confident our block would slowly improve, and that our lofts would increase in value. (We even dared to hope for a hip art gallery or a trendy bar.) We felt like pioneers of the Far West, like we were living in the trenches of the fight for a multicultural society.
Those nine years were an eye-opener for Voeten, who seems to be the classic liberal mugged by reality:
Hassan turned out to be a crook and disappeared with €95,000, the entire budget the tenants had pooled together for our building’s renovation. The neighborhood was hardly multicultural. Rather, with roughly 80 percent of the population of Moroccan origin, it was tragically conformist and homogenous...

Obama's taunt that Republicans "are scared of widows and orphans" takes on an ironic twist in light of the fact that one of the dead in Wednesday morning's Paris raid was a female suicide bomber, Hasna Aitboulahcen [Featured Image]. We also know that, in some of the earliest conflicts in which a significant number of female suicide bombers and other terrorists were involved (Chechnya), many of these women terrorists were in fact widows. That status inspired the group's Russian name, which means "Black Widows":
Shahidka,...sometimes called "Black Widow" or Chyornaya Vdova in Russian, is a term for Islamist Chechen female suicide bombers, willing to be a manifestation of violent jihad. They became known at the Moscow theater hostage crisis of October 2002...

The best approach to addressing the ISIS threat would have been one of prevention---an ounce of it worth far more than a pound of cure. An obvious move would have been to keep a small residual force in Iraq, back when even Obama was crowing about the successful transition there. Another good move would have been to not do anything in Syria without knowing exactly who and what was going to replace Assad. I wrote a piece on that very topic in June of 2013, and although I don't pretend to be a strategic genius on the subject, it wasn't hard to predict the problems:
My strong suspicion is that there are few good guys here. It was the same question I asked about Egypt and Libya. In both places there were some “good guy” elements mixed among the Islamicist fanatics, although I suspected the latter would be the ones to end up with the power, just as they had long ago in Iran. And that seems to be the way it’s trending, although news from both countries has died down for the moment.

How the Republican candidates react to the vicious terrorist attacks in Paris tells us something about their attitude towards Islamic terrorism in general (for example, do they use the phrase?) and what to do about it. The first response I read early today was from Ben Carson. An excerpt:
I think America's involvement should be trying to eliminate them completely,' he said. 'Destroy them!' "There are those out there who have a thirst for innocent blood, in an attempt to spread their philosophy and their will across this globe... "I would be working with our allies using every source known to man – in terms of economic resources, in terms of covert resources, overt resources, military resources, things-that-they-don’t-know-about resources, in an attempt not to contain them, but to eliminate them before they eliminate us.

As a result of protests that included a hunger strike by a graduate student and the pressure of a threatened boycott by members of the football team, President Tim Wolfe and Chancellor R. Bowen Loftin of the University of Missouri announced their resignations yesterday. The protests occurred after a series of alleged racial incidents at the university. Here's a quick summary of the events leading up to their departures:
The protests began after the student government president, who is black, said in September that people in a passing pickup truck shouted racial slurs at him. In early October, members of a black student organization said slurs were hurled at them by an apparently drunken white student. Frustrations flared again during a homecoming parade, when black protesters blocked Wolfe's car, and he did not get out and talk to them. They were removed by police. Also, a swastika drawn in feces was found recently in a dormitory bathroom. The university did take some steps to ease tensions. At Loftin's request, the school announced plans to offer diversity training to all new students starting in January, as well as faculty and staff.

Obama likes to mock the opposition:
"Have you noticed that everyone of these candidates say, 'Obama's weak. Putin's kicking sand in his face. When I talk to Putin, he's going to straighten out,'" Obama said, impersonating a refrain among Republican candidates that he's allowed Russian President Vladimir Putin too much leeway. "Then it turns out they can't handle a bunch of CNBC moderators at the debate. Let me tell you, if you can't handle those guys, then I don't think the Chinese and the Russians are going to be too worried about you," Obama said.
Of course, Obama has never had to handle anything even remotely like the questions at that CNBC debate, since the MSM is respectful to him to the point of obsequiousness, and debate moderators have gone so far as to carry his water when he seems about to falter. In 2007, he and Hillary Clinton boycotted a debate that had been scheduled to be co-hosted by Fox News; the other co-host was the Congressional Black Caucus, but apparently even that hosting balancing act wasn't quite friendly enough.

Jonah Goldberg points out something that the MSM has been purposely ignoring:
Carson has the highest favorables of any candidate in the GOP field. But...most analysis of Carson’s popularity from pundits focuses on his likable personality and his sincere Christian faith. But it’s intriguingly rare to hear people talk about the fact that he’s black. One could argue that he’s even more authentically African-American than Barack Obama, given that Obama’s mother was white and he was raised in part by his white grandparents... He was a towering figure in the black community in Baltimore and nationally — at least, until he became a Republican politician. And that probably explains why his race seems to be such a non-issue for the media... How strange it must be for people who comfort themselves with the slander that the GOP is a cult of organized racial hatred that the most popular politician among conservatives is a black man. Better to ignore the elephant in the room than account for such an inconvenient fact. The race card is just too valuable politically and psychologically for liberals who need to believe that their political opponents are evil.
Not strange at all.

The moment I heard they were perfecting the self-driving car, it gave me very serious pause. Maybe that's because in some essential way I don't trust handing over the decision-making process to a machine, even though I don't like driving all that much and even though the evidence is that self-driving cars would almost certainly result in fewer accidents and fewer deaths overall. There's just something very basic about the thechnology that I don't trust, and it may be the very same very basic thing in me that makes me especially concerned with protecting liberty and autonomy. But I hadn't spent all that much time thinking about the details. It turns out others have---they must, if they're going to program these cars. And it's no surprise that there are some knotty ethical problems involved. Here's one hypothetical:

It turns out that instead of a snoozefest, the third debate was fascinating. And it was all thanks to the incredibly clear anti-GOP bias of CNBC. What am I talking about? Group dynamics, that's what. I've studied groups and I've run groups. Groups don't happen just because you get a bunch of people together in a room, even if they're sitting in a circle, holding hands and singing "Kumbaya." There comes a time in the life of a collection of people when they become a group, even if only temporarily---even a group of people that's pitted against each other in competition, like the candidates last night. If you give them a common enemy against which to unite, they sometimes become a group, and that's what happened Wednesday evening. It took a little time. Even though the candidates knew they were in enemy territory with these moderators, I think even they were surprised at the extent of the bias and the sharpness of the "gotcha" questions. So it took a while to know how to react. Trump had already called one question "not nicely asked," but Cruz was most definitely the leader, the first to go on a lengthy offensive against the moderators. And what an attack it was! Take a look: