Bevin wins in Kentucky

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s a win for Bevin (R), who was not thought to be a strong candidate, and whose opponent had been leading in the polls.

And Bevin’s win is decisive:

The last Bluegrass Poll before the election showed Conway with a 5-point edge over Bevin, who only won the Republican primary for governor by 83 votes.

Bevin’s win comes the same day outgoing Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear predicted Democrats will run on Obamacare in 2016 and “pound the Republicans into dust.”…

The centerpiece of Bevin’s campaign for Senate in 2014 was defunding Obamacare and as a gubernatorial candidate this year he pledged to roll back Beshear’s acceptance of the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. Democrats argued throughout the campaign that his election would place thousands of Kentuckians’ health insurance in jeopardy.

Another thing about this race: Jenean Hampton, who is Bevin’s running mate, is Kentucky’s first African-American lieutenant governor and its first black statewide elected official. A black Republican, I might add.

Michael Barone writes:

[The win] comes despite Bevin’s own particular weaknesses ”” his lack of experience in public office and some impolitic statements. It comes despite the fact that, as Harry Enten of fivethirtyeight.com noted Monday, governor elections have not followed presidential voting patterns as closely as elections to Congress have done in recent years. Enten, an excellent analyst, wrote, “You shouldn’t be surprised if the race is as close as the polls suggest.” Actually, it looks like it won’t be close ”” and that the candidate who was behind in four of five public polls and tied in the other will end up with a solid margin…

What’s interesting is that the polls in the 2014 Senate race, like those in the 2015 governor race, showed the Republican running just about even with or even behind the Democrat, but the final returns showed or, at the moment, show the Democrat getting just about what he or she was polling and the Republican running far ahead of his poll numbers. Tentative conclusion: lots of Republican-inclined voters, as reflected in national polls on the party and its leaders, are reluctant to tell pollsters how they’re voting; maybe in their disgruntlement they haven’t really decided to pull the Republican again. But they end up voting Republican anyway,

Republicans and conservatives who comment on blogs often mention that they don’t like to cooperate with pollsters. But till now, I hadn’t seen it reflected consistently in election results; for the most part, polls tend to predict results rather well. Could this type of disparity be the start of a larger trend?

[ADDENDUM: Jenean Hampton’s bio reminds me a little bit of Dr. Ben Carson’s. Take a look:

Born on Detroit’s west side in 1958, Jenean Hampton grew up in a less than ideal financial situation. One of four daughters born to Donald and Marie Hampton, Jenean learned to get by with very little as she watched her parents struggle to support the family.

At the age of 7, things became more difficult for Jenean when her parents divorced, leaving her mother with few opportunities to provide for the children. Without a high school diploma, Marie Hampton found work where she could, cleaning houses to help support her daughters. Although for many years the family lacked basic ‘luxuries’ like new clothes, a car, or a television, Jenean fondly remembers learning from her mother how to live within a tight budget. Jenean taught herself to sew so she could make her own clothes, and developed a love of reading with books borrowed from the public library.

As a minority female growing up in inner-city Detroit, Jenean’s prospects seemed bleak. However, she found inspiration in NASA’s space program. When the family acquired a television, Jenean never missed an opportunity to watch space mission launches and landings…

After high school, Jenean worked in the automotive industry five years to help pay for college, and earned an Industrial Engineering degree from Wayne State University in 1985. Shortly after graduation she joined the U.S. Air Force as a computer systems officer, writing computer code and testing software…

Both were born in the Detroit inner city during the 50s, both grew up under very reduced circumstances financially, with divorced parents and mothers who worked at housecleaning jobs. But clearly, both had their heads on straight and worked very hard to fulfill their dreams. The role of religion looms large in their lives. And of course, both are conservative blacks, which in and of itself takes a certain amount of courage.

Both are liberal Democrats’ worst nightmare.]

[ADDENDUM II: Still another thing about these candidates that contradicts the Democratic narrative about bigoted Republicans: both the Bevin and the Hampton families are interracial. Hampton is married to a white man, and among Bevin’s nine children are four children he and his wife adopted from Ethiopia.]

Are you willing to give Speaker Paul Ryan a chance?

The New Neo Posted on by

A quote from Ryan:

Speaker Paul D. Ryan, R-Wis., would not rule out the House including policy riders in an omnibus appropriations bill.

“We fully expect we’re going to exercise that power,” Ryan said Tuesday at his first news conference as speaker, regarding the legislative branch’s latitude to direct spending how it sees fit.

…Ryan, appearing Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” declined to answer a question about whether the omnibus bill would defund Planned Parenthood. He said the congressional committees, particularly a new investigative panel, are in the driver’s seat and that he’s unsure how it will play out.

I’m unsure too. Past experience says it will play out as it so often has before, with the Republicans slinking off quietly into the night. I’d like to be pleasantly surprised.

Left and right in Britain

The New Neo Posted on by

Looking at this video on the “refugee” crisis in Europe, I see that some aspects of the left/right divide don’t seem so very different there as compared to the US. There’s a cast of very familiar characters, even though they have British rather than American accents (and in one case, Scots). The last lady who speaks in this clip is my very favorite, a real classic:

(If you take a look at the YouTube commentary—which I’m not necessarily recommending—it’s loaded with anti-Semitic references.)

The most talkative liberal on the panel in the clip is Simon Schama. His articulate antagonist, Rod Liddle, writes about the exchange here. A quote:

What I realised after that edition of Question Time is that the facts, the practicalities, the realities of the situation, do not matter one jot. There is a small minority of British opinion ”” the polls suggest that the overwhelming majority of the population…do not wish to see more migrants entering the country ”” which is absolutely impervious to the facts which show that letting more people in the country will make things worse both for them and for us. And clearly anyone who doesn’t agree is unaware that the migrants are ”˜human beings’ and is thus a borderline psychopath…And yet ask them for a course of action and none is forthcoming.

But it is the imperviousness to reason that is most striking ”” and which convinces me that in some strange way they are articulating this ectoplasmic rubbish (we must ”˜do more’!) in order to make themselves feel better, without any thought of the consequences for either the migrants or our country.

Read the whole thing.

[NOTE: By the way, although I wasn’t familiar with Liddle before writing this post, and although I characterized his point of view as expressed in this post as representing that of the right, I’m well aware that he’s not really of the right. He’s a more complex figure politically, somewhat akin to the late Christopher Hitchens. That is, he’s an iconoclast who likes to be non-PC. Liddle is very much to the right on immigration—the subject matter here—but his politics are all over the place. For example, in the recent British election he voted Labor. But as he describes his reasons, they are extremely idiosyncratic, to say the least. He’s a bit like Orwell in that regard, upset by issues of class and supporting Labor for that reason. Liddle was also a Socialist in his youth, so he’s somewhat of a changer.]

Standing up to moderators, standing up to Putin

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama the class act likes to ridicule 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.

Obama has been protected from anything like those CNBC questions from the press for much of his public life, and as president he has assiduously avoided (and criticized, as well as banned) press members who might even come close.

As for his assertion that the Republican candidates “can’t handle” the moderators of CNBC, the overwhelming consensus among all but the most extreme pundits on the left was that the Republicans’ attack hit its mark and drew metaphoric blood.

And then there are the Chinese and the Russians. Does anyone on earth except Obama (and perhaps Valerie Jarrett) believe that the Chinese and Russians are afraid of him, even one iota? They might be afraid that his policies will end up causing some sort of conflagration, and/or the escalation of Islamic terrorism, of course. But afraid of negotiating with Obama, or of him calling their bluffs? It’s laughable. And we can certainly include the Iranians in that group, as well.

I would wager that the Chinese and Russians would be a great deal more afraid of the toughness of almost anyone on that debate stage last Wednesday than of dealing with Obama. Which of the Republican candidates would they be most afraid of? I’m not sure, but it wouldn’t be Bush and it wouldn’t be Kasich. Trump, Cruz, and Fiorina might be the leaders in that regard, with Christie and Rubio somewhere after that. I’m not sure about Carson, but I think he’d ultimately be intimidating, too, of the “speak softly and carry a big stick” variety.

[NOTE: Obama is using an interesting technique—Alinsky’s rule #5 advocating the use of ridicule as a potent weapon—to attack Republicans in their strong suit. In other words, he’s well aware, I believe, that the Republicans are considered more intimidating to China and Russia than he is. He’s also well aware of—and has been instrumental in orchestrating and using—the fact that the press is generally very friendly to him. But he sees the CNBC debate as an opportunity to cut into that narrative by making a false and mocking assertion that Republicans backed off from and were somehow fearful of the CNBC moderators, and then another false equivalence between dealing with press insults during a debate that’s supposed to be a showcase for your thoughts in front of the American people, and the very different process of negotiation with a geopolitical enemy or rival.

Remember this example of Obama’s ridicule?]

On Cruz and auditory memory

The New Neo Posted on by

This tidbit about Cruz (from commenter “Orson”) is certainly interesting, and it explains a lot:

According to Sean Hannity, Cruz has eidetic aural memory. He remembers everything he hears ”“ and thus, at the debate, segmented his complaints with perfect reference to the targets and what was said to them in proper serial order.

Hannity further explained (on his radio show) that this helps to explain how Cruz can seem robotic in stump speech delivery. Because Cruz, almost literally to himself, inserts a given audio file and simply performs it.

His apparent lack of spontaneity is in direct contrast to Trump’s style. People speculate on whether Cruz can reach populist appeal, given this difference in style.

“Eidetic” means: “an ability to recall images, sounds, or objects in memory after only a few instances of exposure, with high precision for some time after exposure, without using mnemonics.” The word is usually applied to visual memory (for passages in books, for example), but I suppose it could apply to spoken words. Cruz was indeed impressive in that debate passage, which was done without notes.

I have to say that, although I’m not in Cruz’s league, I have some pretty decent skills in that area myself. In terms of visual memory for passages in books, when I was back in school I often used to be able to remember where on the page I had read a certain fact. And it was the bane of my husband’s existence (and my mother’s, I might add) that I was usually able to remember conversations—if not always verbatim, then at least in terms of what generally had been said and in what order.

That certainly assists with arguments. But it was particularly useful when working with clients, a situation (especially with couples or groups) where the ability to process conversations and remember who said what and when is extraordinarily helpful. It also is good to be able to remember something a client said—an important story from his/her life, for example—from many sessions earlier, and to be able to relate it to something new that the same client is saying now.

I have no idea what gives a person this skill. But I’ve always thought it has something to do with intense concentration on the exchange. For some of my memories of my own conversations, it also has to do with intense emotion. For many people, the more emotional they are during an exchange, the less likely they are to remember what happened and when. For me, strong emotion has usually heightened the ability to remember.

Post-debate polls

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve been curious to see some non-internet post-debate polls on the Republican side, particularly ones for primary states. Here’s a new one for New Hampshire:

One-in-four (26%) likely GOP primary voters in New Hampshire continue to back Donald Trump for the presidential nomination. Ben Carson (16%) places second and Marco Rubio (13%) comes in third, followed closely by John Kasich (11%). Other contenders include Ted Cruz (9%), Jeb Bush (7%), Carly Fiorina (5%), Chris Christie (5%), and Rand Paul (3%).

Most of these results are within a few points of each candidates’ vote share back in September, except for Marco Rubio whose support has tripled from 4%. In the past two months, Christie’s support has increased by 3 points, while support for Trump and Fiorina have each decreased by 2 points, all within the survey’s margin of error.

Interesting. I have no idea why New Hampshire voters are so strong for Kasich, except that I think he’s spent a lot of money on ads there.

This is even more interesting, I think:

Currently, only 1-in-5 (20%) likely primary voters say they are completely decided on who they will support, 39% say they have a strong preference but are willing to consider other candidates, 22% have only a slight preference, and 19% say they are really undecided. Just 1-in-3 voters say they would be very (11%) or somewhat (21%) unhappy if their chosen candidate did not win the Republican nomination. Half (50%) say they would be okay with a different outcome and 18% say their feeling would depend on who becomes the nominee. Among the front runners, Rubio supporters (18%) are the least likely to feel unhappy if someone else won the nomination.

In other words: it’s early.

Leaving the light on

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that we’ve turned the clocks back—boy, it’s getting dark earlier.

And it will be getting dark even earlier before it starts reversing itself. That’s one of the things I dislike about this time of year, and here up north it’s accentuated. Of course, that only makes it sweeter when the days get longer again.

Yesterday I was in the car listening to the radio, and a song came on with a lyric about leaving the light on, and about the fall season and loss. It was by a woman, but I missed the announcement of the artist’s name. I figured that I’d just Google the lyric when I got home and it would pop up. I’ve been so spoiled by Google that I automatically assume this will happen; I’m no longer used to the frustration and mystery of not knowing. But this time, no dice. No song.

That doesn’t mean there weren’t a lot of songs about leaving a light on—for somebody else, often someone whose gone but who the singer wishes would return. And I know a couple of classics, like this yearning one:

Jesse come home
There’s a hole in the bed
where we slept
Now it’s growing cold
Hey Jesse, your face
in the place where we lay
by the hearth, all apart
It hangs on my heart

And I’m leaving the light on the stairs
No I’m not scared – I wait for you
Hey Jesse, I’m lonely, come home…

Or this more bitter one, by the person leaving:

And it ain’t no use in turning on your light, babe
The light I never knowed
And it ain’t no use in turning on your light, babe
I’m on the dark side of the road…

Maybe someone out there knows the one I’m looking for. As best I remember it, the refrain was “I’ll leave the light on for me,” followed by something like “I think somebody should.” Any takers?

Meanwhile, here’s another of my recent photos of fall. This one was taken during a trip to the Hudson River near West Point:

HudsonRiverHighlands2015 028-001

[NOTE: On the theme of fall, you also might like to revisit this post on poetry.]

Searching for the truth: those H-1B visas and STEM employment

The New Neo Posted on by

The subject of H-1B visas* came up during last Wednesday’s Republican debate, most particularly regarding Rubio, who advocates an expansion of the program with some restrictions. So I decided to try to find out the truth about what’s involved and whether the program is being abused.

As with most such quests, it’s easier said than done. In fact, much easier. I could spend a few days or more doing in-depth research and maybe I would find the illumination and clarity I seek (I tend to doubt it, actually). But since I don’t have that sort of time to write this post, I’ll just show you what I found—which is the usual war of statistics being used by both sides, with the truth somewhat elusive. Perhaps it’s buried in those statistics, and those of you who have the time and inclination (and the ability to be objective, which can often be the most difficult) to tease it out, please be my guests. Meanwhile, this is what I found.

The H-1B visa program—which offers temporary visas for “specialty” occupations (often including, but not limited to, STEM jobs) is just one portion of the visa system by which foreign workers come to this country legally. The other two are H-2A (the temporary agricultural worker program) and H-2B (the same for non-agricultural workers). All of these programs require, on paper at least, that the employer show that there aren’t enough American workers to fill the need, and that the hires aren’t undercutting American workers in terms of wages (you can go to the links to read the regulations that are built into each program and supposedly guarantee that they won’t be abused, and your guess is as good as mine as to how often that happens—which may be rather often). The H1-B program has similar built-in protections of no small complexity, which are alleged to also be abused but which on paper aim to protect US workers.

You can see why this would be a book.

By the way, quite a few of Donald Trump’s companies make liberal use of the H-2B visa program (for example, a resort in Florida requesting waiters and cleaning people, mostly from Latin American countries), some use of the H-2A program (vineyard workers), and use of the H-1B program for hiring foreign models.

In another aside—just as an example of how hard it is to locate the facts on this, a search to find the actual numbers of visas issued each year in each class turned up this AFL-CIO “fact” sheet, which states that “Temporary work visa laws do not have provisions to protect guest workers or American workers.” On the contrary, they all provide such provisions, and extensive ones at that. Whether or not these regulations are properly enforced, and how often they are subject to fraud, is another question. But each program does have extensive protections in place, contrary to the assertion on that website.

As to the numbers, here’s a chart for 2012, which may be outdated but it’s what I could find:

hchart

As you can see, the numbers aren’t huge. But it adds up, and to someone displaced in an industry (or someone who believes he/she has been displaced) I am sure it is infuriating.

So, what is the H-1B program doing, and what would happen if its numbers were increased, as Rubio and some others are suggesting? This US News article presents the pro-H-B1 argument:

But experts say the visa system is not damaging American salaries or their chance at getting a job in Silicon Valley. Jonathan Rothwell, a fellow at the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, points out that “H1-B workers are paid at least as well as their American counterparts” and the unemployment rate for computer workers is not high relative to other occupations. Salaries for tech occupations have also increased faster than wages for other jobs during the past decade despite the use of the skilled immigrant workers, he says, citing research he completed in 2013.

“Skilled computer jobs are among the hardest to fill and the vacancies stay open for the longest period of time,” he says, adding that Rubio’s proposal for companies to wait 180 days is “an absurdly long period of time to wait to fill a skilled position.”

Indeed, a recent report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics states that the U.S. is not graduating enough students with skills in science, math and technology to meet the growing demand for tech company workers ”“ a point confirmed by data from the 2015 U.S. News/Raytheon STEM Index. The U.S. will need “approximately 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S. will produce at the current rate over the next decade if the country is to retain its historical preeminence in science and technology,” according to the BLS report.

You can follow those links and take a look if you want to crunch the numbers. The article adds:

Data from MyVisaJobs shows that the top 25 companies sponsoring H1-B visa workers ”“ including Google, Apple and Microsoft ”“ offer foreign workers an average salary that is competitive with wages offered to Americans for tech occupations.

The article also states that most of these Silicon Valley H-1B workers are from China and India (we can assume that most of the H-2B and and H-2A workers are likely to come from Latin American countries).

Jeff Sessions makes the case against the H-1B program:

Microsoft even signed a letter urging passage of the I-Squared H-1B increase, asserting that “there are tens of thousands of unfilled jobs requiring highly skilled individuals. Four high-tech companies alone ”“ IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Oracle ”“ have combined 10,000 openings in the United States.” But consulting firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas recently noted that “employers in the computer industry saw the heaviest downsizing of the year, announcing a total of 59,528 planned layoffs. That is 69 percent more than a year ago.” Perhaps these companies, instead of lobbying for H-1B workers, should hire some of the thousands of tech workers who are being laid off?

As Microsoft’s layoffs show, there is a surplus””not a shortage””of skilled, talented, and qualified Americans seeking STEM employment. Each year, universities graduate twice as many students with STEM degrees as find STEM jobs. According to the Census Bureau, more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees are not employed in STEM jobs””or 3 in 4 STEM degree holders. Among recent graduates, about 35 percent of science students, 55 percent of technology students, 20 percent of engineering students, and 30 percent of math students are now working in jobs that don’t require any four-year college degree””let alone their area of specialty.

The truth is that, as Professor Ron Hira testified, “the H-1B visa has become a highly lucrative business model of bringing in cheaper H-1B workers to substitute for Americans”¦ Most of the H-1B program is now being used to import cheaper foreign guestworkers, replacing American workers, and undercutting their wages.”

So, which is it: same salaries, or lower for the guest workers in the tech industries? Just try to find Ron Hira’s actual testimony and the context in which he said that, by the way; I couldn’t, at least not in a quick Googling. What I did find for Hira was this sort of thing:

There are two reasons these firms hire H-1Bs instead of Americans: 1) an H-1B worker can legally be paid less than a U.S. worker in the same occupation and locality…

Confusing, to say the least. At least on paper, the program contains protections against that sort of thing:

By signing the LCA, the employer attests that:

The employer pays H-1B non-immigrants the same wage level paid to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for that specific employment, or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of employment, whichever is higher.
The employment of H-1B non-immigrants does not adversely affect working conditions of workers similarly employed…

That’s the sort of maze one enters when trying to get at the truth. And the truth as alleged by Sessions or Rubio or Trump or Hira or as written into the law is probably something quite different from the truth as it is actually practiced. Good luck with finding statistics that can tease that out, though.

This, however, was of interest to me. It’s a summary of the report Sessions cited (or at least, it’s very similar to the report Sessions cited; Sessions did not provide a link, of course) which found that most STEM graduates aren’t employed in STEM industries.

Certain things about it leaped out at me when I took a look. The first is that it’s not limited to recent graduates; it appears to include everyone between the ages of 25 and 64 who has a degree in a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) discipline. The second thing that struck me is that unemployment in general in this group is low. So we can conclude that they’re employed, maybe even happily employed (the study doesn’t seem to ask that question), although not necessarily in a STEM field. The study sheds no light on what I would consider the all-important question of whether these people wanted to be in a STEM field, were looking for work in a STEM field and were denied it, once worked in a STEM field and had made a switch (for example, those older employees), or what’s actually going on with their job situations. We also don’t know from that Sessions quote whether the downsizing in the tech industry (Microsoft) involved the same or similar jobs that the H-1B workers filled, or whether there was little or no connection between the two.

You may be shocked (as I was) to learn that the STEM designation includes social sciences such as psychology, anthropology, and sociology. Although I can’t find a list of what STEM occupations the census research that Sessions quoted used, it is likely that these social sciences were included (they are on the NSF lists of STEM subjects, and they are also included in the list used by immigration, for example).

To be even remotely meaningful for the purposes of evaluating the H-1B program and how it actually works in real life, and its impact on companies and the American worker, we’d need to know a great deal more than I’ve been able to uncover by reading what Sessions wrote or that report on the census research. But the fact that a 50-year old who graduated years ago with a degree in psychology (which is a very popular degree for those who have no idea what they want to do when they get out of school, or at least it used to be) is not necessarily employed in a psychology or tech field is hardly a surprise, and hardly relevant to the subject at hand.

I was thinking of titling this post “Finding the truth: those H-1B visas and STEM employment.” But I decided to change it to “Searching for the truth: those H-1B visas and STEM employment.” I could go on and on and on with this, but I think you get the idea.

[ *NOTE: The program keeps being referred to in the media and by many politicians as H1-B, but my research indicates that all these programs follow the same form, and that it’s actually H-1B.]

The n-word and me

The New Neo Posted on by

I noticed that there’s a proposal to ban the n-word in Boston public schools:

“The critical thing is making sure the students understand that we want to do this with them and that this is not about punishing them,” said Sadiki Kambon, director of the Black Community Information Center.

“We don’t want them suspended or expelled — we just want them to get on board with us,” Kambon said.

Kambon and Imam Abdullah Faaruuq of the Mosque for the Praising of the Lord in Roxbury emerged from an hour-long meeting with Chang at school headquarters saying they were encouraged by the enthusiasm to support The Coalition to Ban the N-Word.

Kambon’s effort was quickly praised by other black community leaders.

“I think it’s critically important. They’re trying to create an atmosphere where the word will not be tolerated, and I think that makes all the cultural sense in the world,” said Darnell Williams, director of the Urban League of Eastern Massachusetts.

My guess is that this is aimed more at black students’ use of the word than white ones, because the word has become rather casual among young black people today, partly as a result of rap music. Banning words is a very dangerous and slippery slope, although a school system has the power to ban lots of things that are usually considered rights (dress codes are standard in schools, for example). Schools maintain decorum, and trying to discourage the flinging of certain words around is part of that.

This is dangerous and troubling, though (and note some of the players, which makes me wonder what’s next for banning). When I was growing up, we kids would never even think of using such words or a host of others, in school or elsewhere. They were powerful and scary, and we didn’t ordinarily hear adults using them, either; it was a rare rare exception. You may have grown up in a different atmosphere, but that was the milieu in which I was raised, and my public high school was no stranger to minority students, either.

I’ve never used the n-word myself (except perhaps when directly quoting someone using it). Except for rap music—which I cannot stand and don’t voluntarily listen to—and movies and television and the like, I’ve never personally witnessed a person using it to address anyone.

Except for one time.

And that one time, the person was referring to me.

It happened when I was three years old. The elderly man across the street (who had probably been born in the 1870s, by my current calculations) said to me jokingly that I looked like “a little n***** baby.”

I had absolutely no idea what that was. But it didn’t sound like a pretty word, and the manner in which he said it didn’t sound nice, either. But when I asked him what the word meant, he just sort of chuckled at me.

By the way, this is what I looked like around that time. It was in the summer, when I played outdoors nearly every day and always got a very dark suntan (and no, I didn’t ordinarily carry a paper umbrella around; this was a gift I had been given and it only lasted a day before it broke):

parasols1-001

My mother often used to call me something quite different, which she meant to be affectionate: sullen cherub.

raphaelSullenCherub

That day, though, when I got home from across the street and asked her what the word n***** meant, she was very sharp with me.

“Where did you hear that?” she asked, frowning.

I told her that the old man across the street had called me that. She said it was a very very bad and rude word that meant the same as Negro people (which was the “right” word back then), but that I should never ever say it. And that was that.

But it scared me that a mere word could have such power, and I’ve remembered the incident all these years.

How to Be Right

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t read it or talked to a single person who has, but this new book by Greg Gutfield sounds interesting.

It’s called How To Be Right, and it’s about persuasive techniques for arguing with liberals.

Now, Gutfield is a smart and funny guy. Perhaps his book is mainly jokes and funny one-liners, or perhaps it’s truly substantive. I do know that we can use all the help we can get in that arena, so I think it’s worth a look. Read the comments at Amazon and decide for yourself.

Voter appeal

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Oldflyer” writes, comparing reactions to Obama and Rubio:

In 2008 we elected a first term Senator from a minority ethnicity because he was smooth, hip, and glib; and of course, a minority. Now, people seem to think we should elect another first term Senator from a minority ethnicity because he is smooth, hip and glib.

I respond briefly here, and commenter “parker” points out that one big difference is that Rubio loves this country.

Later Oldflyer adds

Neo, I realize that there are great differences between Rubio and Obama; but there are disturbing similarities in the way people react to attributes that have little to do with governing.

The question Oldflyer raises involves the tension between what we imagine would be a more ideal world (whether it really would be more ideal is another question, one I’ll not take up in this post—but see Leibniz for starters) and the world in which we find ourselves. In that latter world, voters don’t soberly analyze the candidates with their brains, they react strongly with their guts as well. In fact, we humans do this all the time, and I’m not at all sure it’s such a bad idea, because it’s when gut and brain work in tandem that I think we make our best decisions. It’s when the gut overrides the brain (as with the more naive of Obama’s supporters, the ones who should have known better) that we run into big trouble.

But I actually don’t see similarities in attitude towards Rubio and Obama, except extremely general ones that are just statements of fact (they’re both seen as young, telegenic, minority, and somewhat hip). The differences between them are huge; parker has pointed out one, but there are many, and another is that Rubio is no leftist, although he may not be quite as conservative as you’d like.

One of the main differences between Rubio and Obama in terms of people’s reactions (the thing Oldflyer is concerned with) is that many voters seemed mesmerized and almost seduced by Obama—under a spell, as it were. I don’t see anything even remotely like that with Rubio. Nor does he encourage that sort of thing in any way (unlike Obama)—which is an important distinction, too, that goes to the question of degree of narcissism. Lightworker? Hardly.

And all the praise for Rubio’s youth and relative hipness is not really praise for those things per se, as they were with Obama—as though these traits confer on the bearer some special abilities to govern, or particular wisdom (they do not!). In evaluating Rubio, the praise for those attributes comes from how they could enhance his appeal to the low information voter, the moderate/Independent voter, and/or even the disaffected Democrat voter.

In other words, the traits don’t necessarily appeal to conservatives in and of themselves, but they are considered pluses by the more practical among us because they can attract people to the GOP side who otherwise might not be attracted. This may not be what elections are all about, but it’s a huge part of what they’re about, especially because the GOP is not a majority party in this country.

That doesn’t mean other factors should be ignored; I don’t choose candidates merely in terms of electability (a word that’s become anathema to some, and a concept I tend to shy away from). But that’s what we’re talking about here, at least in part. I also happen to think that Rubio is a smart guy with basic conservative principles (yes, he made a mistake on immigration a couple of years ago, but I accept his explanation although you may not) and a rare ability to get concisely to the heart of the matter. There are abilities he’s been displaying more frequently recently.

I’m not in the least disturbed by his ability to appeal to the young and those who are looking for a regular guy who “understands” them. I’m heartened by it, because I acknowledge that—since voters seem to care about these things—it’s better to have a candidate who displays them.

[NOTE: Don’t take this post to mean that Rubio is now my #1 candidate. If I were voting in a primary today, I’d face a tough choice. I know my top three are Cruz, Fiorina, and Rubio, but I’m not sure of the order. Maybe that’s the order, but I expect it to change over time. It already has. And I am virtually certain that whoever is the Republican nominee, I will vote for him or her in the general. Some of the candidates would make that almost excruciatingly difficult, though).]

[ADDENDUM: Rubio is now starting to exhibit donor appeal, which is also important unless you’re Donald Trump (and there’s only one Donald Trump, except for Michael Bloomberg). The Times reports that a prominent conservative donor has now thrown his support to Rubio:

Mr. Bush and several other candidates, including Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, had competed fiercely for Mr. Singer’s blessing.

In a letter that Mr. Singer sent to dozens of other donors on Friday, which was obtained by The New York Times, Mr. Singer described Mr. Rubio ”” who was elected to the Senate in the Tea Party wave but has been embraced by the party’s Washington elite ”” as the only candidate who can “navigate this complex primary process, and still be in a position to defeat” Hillary Rodham Clinton in a general election.

He praised Mr. Rubio’s message of optimism about America’s future, his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his ability to make a persuasive case to voters as key reasons to support him…

Mr. Singer…gave more money to Republican candidates and causes last year than any donor in the country…

In recent years, he has frequently deployed his network to cultivate up-and-coming Republicans who he believes can help expand the party’s demographic appeal. Among them are Representative Elise Stefanik of New York, the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, and Mr. Rubio himself, whom Mr. Singer backed early in his 2010 race when many of Mr. Singer’s peers sided with Charlie Crist, then Florida’s Republican governor ”” a moment that was seen as a turning point in the race.

Expect more donors to follow. Here’s Singer’s bio.]

After Wednesday’s debate, it’s attack-Rubio time for Jeb and the left

The New Neo Posted on by

Have you noticed that Rubio is now more of a target since his performance in the Wednesday debate?

I think it’s obvious why the left finds him a formidable opponent: young, quick, able to deliver a blow without looking mean, Hispanic, and the closest thing the Republican roster has to hip. Does that mean he’s my favorite candidate at this point? No; I prefer Cruz. But my gut tells me Rubio will go further.

You can see the way the left’s attack on Rubio is likely to proceed, because it’s now picking up. Oh, and Jeb Bush (not exactly the left, but one of the very bottom tier of candidates in my book if not the bottom) is using the same approach, because even after Wednesday evening’s debacle for him he continues to see it as in his best interests to attack Rubio.

William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection describes the reports in US News and the NY Times:

…[T]eam Jeb is selectively “leaking” it’s oppo-research files on Rubio…

There’s nothing inherently wrong with oppo-research dumps. That’s why oppo-research is done. And if there is a damaging skeleton in Rubio’s closet, let’s find out now.

But in this case it smells vindictive and petty, a way to overcome Jeb’s downward spiral not by attacking the leaders in the polls ”” Trump and Carson ”” but by attacking Rubio out of spite.

Looking at the substance of the articles, Ed Morrissey of Hot Air notes that:

…[N]one of this [the accusations the Bush campaign has released about Rubio] is a secret, and Rubio has already answered these issues ”” repeatedly, in some cases. But another line hinted to donors that Mitt Romney and his campaign got scared off of Rubio when they looked deeper: “Those who have looked into Marco’s background in the past have been concerned with what they have found.” The “those” in that quote apparently is supposed to refer to Romney’s people, who back in 2012 vetted Rubio, among many others, as a possible VP candidate. The Romney people—in the person of Beth Myers, a till-now Bush supporter who was in charge of Romney’s VP vetting process—vehemently deny the claim.

I had thought that one of Bush’s assets (with whoever thinks he has assets) was his rep as a nice guy and a Party man (as opposed to party animal). But he seems all too willing to trash one of the party’s up-and-coming possible leaders in order to supposedly help himself. But it’s not going to help him—IMHO, nothing will help him because, as I noted a year and a half ago, he is a candidate without a constituency and without appeal.

Look for more and more and more articles in the future from the liberal and leftist press on Rubio’s finances (here’s a beginning). Another thing I’ve noticed is “helpful” newcomers to blogs, who have suddenly arrived post-Wednesday-debate in order to drop some sharply-worded comments about Rubio.

It’s not just Rubio, of course. Whoever becomes the frontrunner or is considered a particular threat will become the target. This is politics, and the candidates had better be ready for it.