The Republican field: and then there were—how many?

The New Neo Posted on by

And then there were seven on tonight’s debate stage.

Seven is still way too many. What on earth is Kasich doing there, except as a foil to annoy us? If you look at national polls, the reason is not apparent; Fiorina still seems to be slightly besting him. Apparently, you can blame New Hampshire for his inclusion.

As far as I’m concerned, it could be just five people up there: Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson, and Christie. And a person could make a good argument to limit it to just the first three, although I think it’s premature for that. But I am eager to see the field get winnowed down, so we can finally see how it will shape up when the various wings of the party are not split.

There’s the angry disaffected “burn it down!” (with the “it” being the Republican Party) wing, most of which goes to Trump and some to Cruz. There is the more traditional conservative wing, owned pretty much by Cruz. There’s the somewhat-conservative and somewhat-moderate wing, split among Rubio, Bush, and Christie. The libertarian wing, which one would have imagined would have gone for Paul, seems not to be as interested in him as they were in his father, and I believe a great many of them have been siphoned off by Trump.

Which is the biggest wing, and what candidate can best consolidate that group under his wing? (I’m discounting Fiorina at this point, because I don’t think she can do it). It is my opinion, based on polls that ask which candidate is a person’s second choice and which candidate a person would never consider voting for, that Trump may be getting close to a ceiling on that. But I would never sell him short and say it’s not possible that he could be the nominee. It’s very possible that he could be, but I also see strong possibilities for Cruz or Rubio.

I think Carson will continue to fade, and I see a possible resurgence for Christie or Bush, but I don’t think either has a real chance of going the distance (except moneywise for Bush, which will keep him in the race no matter what his poll numbers are). Of the two, I’d absolutely be rooting for Christie over Bush. But in the end I think it will be Trump for the truculent, Cruz for the conservatives, and Rubio for the rest.

Alan Rickman, RIP

The New Neo Posted on by

Are they calling in all the cool British guys in the arts, aged 69? I certainly hope not. But first David Bowie, and now Alan Rickman, have died at age 69 of cancer:

Alan Rickman, one of the best-loved and most warmly admired British actors of the past 30 years, has died in London aged 69. His death was confirmed on Thursday by his family who said that he died “surrounded by family and friends”. Rickman had been suffering from cancer.

A star whose arch features and languid diction were recognisable across the generations, Rickman found a fresh legion of fans with his role as Professor Snape in the Harry Potter films.

Well, I never saw the Harry Potter films (fanstasy genre; not my cup of tea). I think I saw “Robin Hood,” at least on TV, in which he played a deliciously and memorably riveting Sheriff of Nottingham.

The film I know best of Rickman’s was the less-well-known “Truly, Madly, Deeply,” a very quirky movie about bereavement. In it, Rickman takes somewhat of a back seat to Juliet Stevenson. He plays the quirky ghost of her deeply-mourned husband who comes back to gently haunt her and give her a little shove back into involvement with life. Rickman is a bit muted there, but still riveting in a film that has a tone that veers from deeply tragic and moving to very funny in a dark way.

Here’s a clip; I’ve cued it up to start when the Rickman character—Jamie, a cellist—first appears as a ghost to his startled wife, who until then has been in such profound mourning at his death that she’s nearly been undone by it. At first she thinks she’s just imagining him, as she plays the piano part of a piece they used to play together:

Here’s a more animated Rickman as the Sheriff:

Rickman had that thing called “presence,” and he brought it to everything he did. I saw him on the Broadway stage in 2011, in a play called “Seminar” which was mostly forgettable—except for him.

RIP.

Star Wars: the force doesn’t quite awaken

The New Neo Posted on by

I went along with family to see the new Star Wars movie over the holidays. I’m probably not the best person to talk to about it, since I’ve been lukewarm (hmmm; a pun?) about the entire franchise since the very beginning, when I saw the first installment in a way-too-loud Los Angeles movie theater.

So the current effort is pretty much like all the rest of them for me: mildly entertaining and mildly amusing—and then it evaporates, leaving hardly a trace. Oh, and I thought Daisy Ridley, the actress who plays the new heroine, was extremely good and made the most of what she was given to do. Very intense. And as usual, I liked the droid.

What I did notice, though, was Carrie Fisher in her role as Princess (now “General” in the Resistance) Leia. Apparently, I’m not the only one; Fisher and her looks (particularly weight and age) have been the subject matter of a lot of internet chatter.

In the original movie, Fisher as Leia (she of the cinnamon-bun hair) was cute. Kind of girl-next-door (or next-galaxy), although never a great Hollywood beauty. However, I hear tell that the metal bikini she wore in “Return of the Jedi” apparently figured in the erotic life of quite a few young men of the time.

Any actress who decides to put herself out there when older invites comparison with her younger self. Same for men, to a somewhat lesser but still significant extent. I would hate to have my older mien plastered up there on the big screen in full and dramatic detail, every wrinkle and sag highlighted and broadcast the better to compare with my younger visage. Fisher, plus Ford and Hamill, had to know they were going to invite comparison to their younger selves and that the best they were ever going to hear is that they are well-preserved for their respective ages (the two men are older than Fisher at 73 and 64 to her 59). Harrison Ford has gotten accolades for his state of preservation, although having seen the movie I can say that the marks of time are most definitely there, even in him. But how could they not be?

As far as Fisher goes, I noticed that she’d lost weight recently (I knew that she had gained quite a bit over time) and grown older. I expected both of those, but what I didn’t expect to see was that she was acting in a ponderous fashion, her gravitas tremendously out of place among the others, and with a bizarre frozen quality to her face. It didn’t even seem like the usual botox, because the problem appeared to concentrate around her mouth, giving her a sort of almost-pained lockjaw.

It was alarming to me. Could she open her mouth? Could she smile? I don’t think I saw either thing occur during the movie, and it troubled me in every scene that included her. I was alarmed for her, and when I tried Googling “Carrie Fisher frozen jaw” and the like, I was further alarmed that I seemed to be the only one alarmed by it.

So, all of you who’ve seen the movie: did you notice what I’m talking about? Am I the only one?

Germany and the New Year’s Eve attacks: Merkel tries to offer some solutions

The New Neo Posted on by

Now that the New Year’s Eve attacks in Cologne and other parts of Western Europe have become publicized, there have been some glimmerings of an attempt in Germany to crack down at least a bit (or what passes in Germany for cracking down these days). Yesterday it was announced that Merkel’s government has suggested some changes in Germany’s sexual assault laws:

At present the courts can only order deportations when criminals are given custodial sentences of at least three years. The legal changes would allow deportations to go ahead for people given suspended sentences or jail-terms as short as one year, as well as for offenders aged under 18.

However, even those small changes may be hard to implement, because in Germany such deportation is only legal “to a limited range of states and only if the home country government agrees and the convicted person has travel documents.” This could easily rule out most of the refugees. And of course, it’s only an after-the-fact remedy: a crime must be committed first, and a perpetrator successfully identified and prosecuted. How often will that be happening, how many women will be sacrificed first, and how much money will be spent in an increased police presence?

Over one million asylum seekers arrived in Germany last year, and Merkel so far refuses to allow Germany to impose its own further limits, but insists on an EU-wide solution “through redistributing refugees inside the bloc, tighter external EU frontier controls and a deal with Turkey to reduce inflows from the Middle East.” Meanwhile, the newcomers continue to arrive.

This article (by David A. Martin, an international law professor at the U. of Virginia, and not a conservative) suggests that Merkel and Germany might have considered a “refugee” system (instead of an asylum system, which is what they have now), whereby would-be immigrants to Germany were vetted in Turkey and other Muslim countries where they had taken shelter in the camps there before being allowed into Germany. That’s more or less our own system at present; not that it’s so great, or that effective vetting is so very possible. But it’s also the case that in Europe, the refugees began to arrive by sea in droves without being vetted, and apparently there are laws there against merely turning them back, laws that originated when such arrivals were relatively rare. The laws have yet to be adapted to the present very-changed circumstances:

…[A] quota resettlement program, even if desirable, would not do much to rein in the current unruly flow, in part because European law, as construed by the European Court of Human Rights [ECHR], will not permit maritime interdiction or other blocking measures needed to discourage spontaneous asylum seekers…

Decisions from the ECHR over the last few years…have taken a strikingly inflexible stand against maritime interdiction or other barriers to access by asylum seekers. The human rights logic of these rulings holds considerable appeal on first glance. But they have never been tested on anything like the current scale…At some point there are inescapable capacity limits. And if anti-immigrant parties come to power, there may be far wider damage to the overall human rights structure within Europe, including withdrawals from ECHR jurisdiction.

Let’s pause for a moment to ponder the assertion in that very last sentence. “Overall human rights” would be damaged by anti-immigrant parties? Seems to me there’s more threat to German (and/or European) human rights from continuing to allow the entry of a large number of unvetted immigrants from countries where many of the people appear to have little or no respect for human rights.

The author continues:

…I]t is not beyond the realm of possibility that the Court, now chastened by the magnitude of the recent flow and cognizant of the risks exposed by the Paris attacks, might construe its earlier rulings to find room for carefully executed access restrictions.

On reading this, I feel gratitude for the fact that (so far) this country is not bound by the ECHR and its rulings. I have little doubt that we would be, however, if Obama and the left had their way.

Well, what do you know—people are gaming the Obamacare system

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, what else did its supporters expect? It was always obvious that this sort of thing could happen, and that if it could happen, it would happen:

Obamacare customers are gaming the system, buying coverage only after they find out they’re ill and need expensive care ”” a trend insurers warn is destabilizing the fledgling health law marketplaces and spiking premiums for everyone.

Insurers blame the problem on lax rules that allow more than 900,000 people to sign up for coverage outside the standard enrollment season ”” for instance, when they change jobs or move ”” without sufficient proof they are eligible. No one knows precisely how many might be manipulating the system, but the plans say they run up much higher medical bills and then jump ship, contributing to double-digit rate increases and financial losses.

Health plans also complain some customers are exploiting a three-month “grace period” ”” when they can keep getting subsidized coverage even if they’ve stopped paying their share of premiums.

Both those trends make the risk pools skew toward sicker, costlier customers ”” and under Obamacare, plans can no longer deny coverage to those with expensive medical conditions. That problem has been exacerbated by the large numbers of healthier people who are choosing to stay uninsured rather than shell out money for coverage.

So you mean that, prior to Obamacare, insurance companies weren’t just mean sons of bitches out to get you? Same for Republicans? There was actually, like, a reason insurance companies found it hard to cover pre-existing conditions? Not that a lot of states didn’t manage to do that, with high-risk pools (and some subsidizing of the high-risk pools) that—unlike Obamacare—didn’t disrupt the entire system of health insurance for healthier people, but merely supplemented it.

I know, I know, it’s all just a blip on the road to glorious single payer.

Iran and the US: first, the abasement

The New Neo Posted on by

Next, the self-abasement. (See also this.)

However, US officials have denied apologizing to Iran. Who’s telling the truth about that? I don’t know, but it doesn’t matter to the world, which can easily perceive that the US has been humiliated.

Coming soon, the payoff.

[ADDENDUM: Ace has a post with more detail, including some footage that apparently shows the US commander of the sailors is shown issuing an apology while in captivity. I wonder whether any member of the press will point that out to administration officials who have said there were no offical apologies, and none from Kerry.]

Iran continues…

The New Neo Posted on by

…to toy with Obama, prior to his State of the Union address this evening:

Iran was holding 10 U.S. Navy sailors and their two small boats that drifted into Iranian waters with mechanical problems. Iran accused the sailors of trespassing but American officials said Tehran has assured them that the crew and vessels would be returned safely and promptly…

U.S. officials said that the incident happened near Farsi Island in the middle of the Persian Gulf. They said some type of mechanical trouble with one of the boats caused them to run aground and they were picked up by Iran. The sailors were in Iranian custody on Farsi Island at least for some time, but it’s not certain where they are now.

The semi-official Iranian news agency, FARS, said the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s navy has detained 10 foreign forces, believed to be Americans, and said the sailors were trespassing in Iranian waters. FARS also reported that one of the 10 sailors was a woman.

Iran clearly has no fear whatsoever of Obama. And why on earth should they?

Obama is also not planning to address the subject in tonight’s SOTU speech.

Taharrush has come to the West

The New Neo Posted on by

I’d never heard the term till now, but I was aware of the phenomenon of “taharrush”. Anyone who read the story of what happened to Lara Logan in Egypt back in 2011 should have been well aware of the same phenomenon.

Now, however, we learn (as we did not then; at least, I don’t recall it) that it has a name in Arabic: taharrush gamea.

Definition:

The name of the practice translates to ‘collective harassment’ and is carried out by large groups of men who sexually assault lone women, either by groping, or in some instances, raping them.

The men first surround their victim in circles. Some then sexually assault her, while others not directly involved watch or divert outsiders’ attention to what is occurring.

Sometimes the terrified victim – in a state of shock and unable to respond – is also robbed during the ordeal.

And the attack usually goes unpunished because the large number of perpetrators and chaos of the attack means authorities are unable to identify those involved.

There remains debate about what defines ‘taharrush’ – some still insist it is a reference to flirting – though scholars argue its definition changed after the attacks seen in Egypt from 2011 onwards.

German authorities have stated this was the phenomenon seen in Cologne city centre on New Year, when hundreds of women reported they were sexually assaulted.

The practice is only carried out in public and almost always at demonstrations or large public gatherings where the attackers find safety in numbers and disorder.

The attack on Logan was reported as though it was an isolated incident, perhaps an anomaly. It was not:

Angie Abdelmonem, a doctoral candidate at Arizona State University, recently published a study into the instances of ‘taharrush’ seen during the Egyptian Revolution.

She said the ‘violent nature of sexual harassment and assault in Tahrir Square captured global attention’, but many locally initially believed the state was hiring thugs to harass women and stem public protest.

‘This [perception] shifted on February 11, the day Mubarak stepped down, with the mob assault and rape of CBS correspondent, Lara Logan,’ she wrote.

‘Between 2011 and 2013, sexual harassment became common at protests in Tahrir Square, exemplified by a number of highly publicized violent attacks that demonstrate how women’s bodies became objectified and dehumanized during the uprising.’

One seeming constant in this phenomenon is not only the practice itself, but the coverup by the press. When it was “only” occurring in foreign countries, that was easier to do. Now that it has come to Europe—along with the “refugees”—it has burst the bonds of the previous silence.

This is an interesting phenomenon for so many reasons, not the least of which is how it feeds into so-called “xenopobia.” But what if too many of the strangers who come to your shores really do have different—and dangerous and in fact reprehensible—customs? Is it not reasonable to be fearful, and how can that be called a phobia? If you can’t figure out who among the newcomers is going to do this sort of thing and who isn’t, what is the remedy? Bar the door? Or spend an inordinate amount of time and money finding the offenders and jailing them, after the fact? Is that even possible? Or do you sacrifice your women and your way of life and your safety, for the sake of hospitality?

I hate to put it in such stark terms, but that’s the very, very unfortunate reality of the choices the West faces.

[NOTE: I’ve already linked to one post I wrote about the attack on Logan, but here’s another, this one focusing on the reaction of the press. In my memory, I had thought that the press wrote about Logan’s attack because she was one of theirs and the attack shocked them. However, I had forgotten that I wrote this:

Why did CBS first try to suppress the story of the assault on Logan, only coming out with it after it realized it couldn’t be kept quiet because other media outlets were aware of it? The network says the motivation for the initial secrecy was to protect Logan’s privacy. But could it be that they were also trying to shape Western perceptions of the Egyptian street, and to keep them as positive as possible?

So there was an attempt at a press coverup there, too, by CBS.]

We are pleased to announce the engagement of…

The New Neo Posted on by

…Jerry Hall and Rupert Murdoch.

Yep, Jerry Hall and Rupert Murdoch. Thus proving Kissinger’s old adage that power (and let’s add money) is a great aphrodisiac—sometimes quoted as the “ultimate aphrodisiac.”

I want to pause for a moment and add that I’ve observed that to be true for women vis-a-vis men (that power tends to enhance the attractive power of a man) rather than men being sexually attracted to powerful women. For women, beauty, glamour, and youth tend to be attractive power in the sexual sense.

And I’ll add that these are generalizations. Let me just say that I’ve never been sexually attracted to really old guys with power, but then I’ve never hobnobbed with them in the first place; those aren’t the circles in which I move. I’ve sometimes been fascinated by them, and I value achievement and drive, but to be frank I don’t think I could marry Rupert Murdoch if he gave me all his money and then some.

Not that I think Murdoch is crying in his beer at the loss of me, cause he’s got Jerry:

hallmurdoch

Murdoch is estimated to be worth about $11 billion, while Jerry Hall (prior to this marriage) is worth about $15 million. Former Hall partner and father of her four children, Mick Jagger, is estimated to be worth about $305 million. Chump change.

[NOTE: I have written before about Murdoch’s marital history, here.]

Will the most telegenic candidate please stand up?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Rufus T. Firefly” makes this observation:

In a national campaign always bet on the most telegenic. Been that way since Kennedy-Nixon.

Here, he points out Hillary Clinton’s lack of that telegenic quality. Then he throws out a challenge: “name a Presidential election since Nixon-Kennedy where the most telegenic candidate lost.”

Okay, will do.

Nixon in 1968 versus Humphrey. Now, neither were what you would call “telegenic.” But Nixon was worse than Humphrey.

Nixon, 1972. McGovern was much more telegenic. I was there; I remember. Of course, most people on earth are more telegenic than Nixon was.

Carter, 1976. Carter won over Ford. Neither was particularly telegenic, but Carter was always a bit goofy-looking, and Ford looked like a regulation guy.

Bush, 2000. This one was somewhat of a tossup, but at the time Gore was quite good-looking, and I thought he was more telegenic (and articulate) than Bush. Of course, the election was very close.

Obama, 2012. Romney is one of the most handsome men on the planet, particularly for his age, and he cuts a fine figure, as well. I realize that many people find Obama telegenic, but I really don’t know why—particularly in 2012, when his every word should have rung bitingly false.

Now, you can define “telegenic” in a way so that none of the above fits your definition. But I submit that by the usual definition (looking good and/or appealing on TV), these are exceptions to that telegenic rule, so many exceptions that I don’t think it’s actually a rule.

In addition, I question the idea that Trump is more telegenic than Hillary. To her supporters, Hillary comes across as forceful, strong, articulate, and attractive for an older woman. Not so (at all!) to those who don’t like her. To his supporters, Trump comes across as funny, incisive, strong. He is no more physically attractive than she is; although both were good-looking when young, neither is young anymore. But to his detractors, Trump’s a comical figure, full of bluster and bombast and meandering in his words, as well as insulting and crass and juvenile.

Sometimes a candidate is clearly and indisputably telegenic, even to his/her detractors. Kennedy was one obvious example, and Reagan another—and to a somewhat lesser extent, Clinton. The rest of them may have been cases of “telegenic is in the eye of the beholder.” Trump definitely is a person who has been successful on television. Does that make him telegenic as a candidate and a presidential prospect? My answer is that it certainly seems to have done so for a certain group, but it does absolutely the opposite for the group that finds him unpleasant and untrustworthy, narcissistic and loud-mouthed—the rather large group responsible for his very high unfavorables.

In other words, it seems you either like him or hate him, and the real question is how many people are in each group.

Much the same is true for Hillary. She’s every bit as familiar a figure as Trump, although for different reasons. She’s been in the public eye nearly as long. People have mostly made their minds up about her. Her unfavorables are high, although not as high as his.

As with Trump, it seems you either love her or hate her, and the real question is how many people are in each group.

[NOTE: If it’s telegenics you’re after on the Republican side, I think Rubio’s your candidate. But of course, telegenics are not everything.]

No, Trump is not a liberal

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve written a lot about Donald Trump on this blog. And when I write, I try to be clear. So I figure that those of you who are regular readers ought to know pretty well what I think about him.

But as Karl Popper famously said, “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.” And if I ever needed further proof of that, this blog provides it.

Just as an example, I have never said that Trump is a liberal. Now, have I gone through everything I’ve ever written about the man in order to make sure I’ve never expressed that idea? No; it would probably take an inordinate amount of time to read every post and every comment I’ve ever made. I’ve gone through a great many of my major posts on Trump, though, and haven’t seen any statement like that. I can be fairly certain I’ve never said it, however, and the reason is because I’ve never thought it, and I try very hard to express what I think and to express it with some clarity.

Thus, this post of clarification, since several people in the comments section to this post seem to think I see him as a liberal.

In that post, I did write:

Trump is not a doctrinaire conservative, to say the least. One could even say he’s a RINO of sorts, albeit an idiosyncratic RINO who is very conservative on certain issues and somewhat of a liberal on others.

Note the relative emphasis there: very conservative on some issues and somewhat of a liberal on others. The link on “somewhat of a liberal” goes to an article with a quote of Trump’s where Trump says “I’m a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health.” That’s an example of what I mean, in Trump’s own words.

Now, it’s hardly being a liberal, but it’s exactly what I say it is: being somewhat of a liberal on some issues, while being conservative on others.

So to a commenter who writes: “come back and tell me [Trump] is a liberal in sheep’s clothing, that he has no policies and it’s all personality and no substance.”

I doubt I’d come back and say such a thing, because I haven’t been saying it in the first place.

What have I actually said? Here’s a sample, and I stand by it:

I have said Trump’s a “self-aggrandizing narcissist” who over the years has contributed to some liberals and supported some liberal causes.

I have said that Trump, like Obama, appeals to emotion in his supporters and does it very well, and that they fill in the blanks to make him what they want him to be and think he can somehow do what they want him to do.

I have used his own words to illustrate his vagueness about his policies or how he would actually accomplish things. I am aware that he has other people write policy papers that appear on his website, but he seems to have little interest in discussing them when asked, and in some cases has shown a lack of familiarity with them.

I have said that Trump’s record of attacking George W. Bush is abominable (saying Bush is “evil” and that he should have been impeached).

I have called him a battering ram.

I have pointed out some of his appeal but also his high unfavorable ratings.

I have called him a “happy warrior” and defined him politically as a populist.

I have pointed out the inconsistencies in the attitude of people like Mark Levin towards Trump a few years ago versus today, and I have also quoted Trump’s previous praise of Democrats and excoriation of George Bush.

I have pointed out that those conservatives who’ve been saying for years that they want a conservative candidate have one in Cruz and I would think they would support him if they meant what they said, because he is more conservative than Trump (which, by the way, does not make Trump a liberal).

I have also written many posts—so many I won’t bother to link to them—analyzing the polls, and Trump’s results in those polls.

I have pointed out Trump’s support of Kelo and an almost unlimited right of eminent domain for government, which is not a conservative position. I have also pointed out his lack of experience as a politician, which means that unlike the candidates who’ve been in Congress, he has no record of votes to pin him down and therefore can position himself as he wishes.

I have pointed out that Trump doesn’t talk about conservative principles, and also that:

I believe that Trump’s radical methods would include bypassing Congress and doing everything by executive order, much like Obama. I actually see him as very much resembling Obama in that and several other respects.

Trump is used to being the boss. He would consider himself the boss.

Conservatives have always considered methods and process to be as important as ends.

In other words, although Trump definitely espouses some conservative causes—prominent among them is cracking down on illegal immigration—he is not a conservative because not only does he espouse a few liberal causes (such as Kelo for example), but he is willing to use liberal methods.

In summary: he supports some conservative causes and some liberal causes, but he’s not a conservative in his methods. That does not make him a liberal. What is he? If I had to summarize (and a summary hardly does justice to him) I would call him a pragmatic populist who is exceedingly full of himself.

Some of his supporters find that appealing, of course; they want to fight fire with fire (there is an interesting discussion on that in the comments section to this post, which was entitled “What is a conservative?”). That is their prerogative. Many of them are the “let it burn” people. I happen to think such a burn would result in a conflagration that would not have a good end.