Hillary is still way ahead in the Democratic race

The New Neo Posted on by

For all her political wounds, Hillary Clinton is still miles ahead in the race for the Democratic nomination. I’ve never felt her standing to be seriously threatened by anything.

Quite literally, anything. Although Clinton is very different in personality from Barack Obama (or at least, presentation of personality, which is mostly what the public sees), she excites/inspires the same sort of devotion in many of her supporters, to wit: she could eat a puppy raw on the steps of the White House, and they would call her a gourmet.

Why? Why is this? Many people would answer that liberal and leftist Democrats are so eager to see the first female president (who of course must be a Democratic in order to be counted as a female) that they are willing to ignore all of Clinton’s negatives. That’s certainly a huge part of it; huge. But I think there some other factors that are not insignificant, either.

Fame. Hillary Clinton has been a public figure—and a major one at that—for nearly a quarter of a century. Her name recognition is through the roof.

And for most if not all of those years she has been hyped as many things, but the main one is “smart.” Actually, “brilliant.” Like Obama. We don’t have to consider whether she (or he) is actually all that head-and-shoulders-above-the-rest smart. What matters is that it is what we’ve been told for umpteen million years, and a great many Democrats believe it’s absolutely true.

Hillary was always adept at political coverup and evasion. But she used to think a number of things before she watched Obama’s presidency. She used to think she had to present herself as somewhat of a centrist in order to keep the American people in her corner. No more. She used to think she had to answer at least some questions in order to keep the press at bay. No more. She used to think a certain modicum of traditional foreign policy hawkishness was in order. No more.

Also, for many Democrats Clinton’s very name conjures up a happy time for them, the Clinton years. The Lewinsky scandal meant nothing to them except as a demonstration of how mean and underhanded Republicans can be in their attempts to “get” a sitting Democratic president, and Hillary’s election would be a wonderful FU to the nasty old GOP.

Last but far from least, Democrats have got nobody else—and they know it.

Happy post-modern, Indigenous Peoples, Columbus Day

The New Neo Posted on by

There, did I cover enough bases? Did I get it right (I mean left)?

Like many things, Columbus Day has evolved. And here’s a discussion of the postmodern Columbus Day (from Dr. Sanity, circa 2009).

As for me, since I live up in New England and the weather has been good, I’ll should just play it safe and call it Leafpeepers Day. They’re out in force now (both the leaves and the human peepers).

I plan to take an official leafpeeping drive some weekday this week in order to try to avoid the worst of the vehicular congestion over the holiday itself.

Here are some photos I’ve taken during previous New England falls. The first isn’t a leaf, it’s a berry in its fall raiment. But let’s not get technical:

100_2449-001

The most spectacular colors are always the reds, which come first:

100_2437-001

In the mist:

100_2442-002

Fini:

100_2483-001

The very extraordinary Anthony Dowell

The New Neo Posted on by

Anthony Dowell was a British dancer of rare qualities. I write “was” because, although he’s still alive, he’s in his seventies. But those who saw him in his heyday—and that includes me—remember.

Dowell wasn’t known for bravura technique, although his technique was certainly strong enough. He was never showy, unless it’s “showy” to demonstrate elegance and lyricism with every move. His line was simple, clean, and uncluttered, and his musicality was never rushed or hurried.

In this variation for Siegfried (otherwise known as “the Prince”) from Act I of “Swan Lake,” the choreography has never appealed to me. It’s painfully slow—and I mean painfully, because it requires tremendous concentration, control, and strength to create a legato line that’s so drawn out in time. The dancer can’t hide under flash; he is completely exposed, and nothing can be jerky or harsh. Dowell turns it into a tour de force of style and acting; his every movement expresses some understated emotion with the utmost refinement and introspection. Dowell dances as though for himself alone, lost in thought, and he manages to express the yearning and vague enuii the prince feels as he is on the brink of something, although he knows not what. We know he is about to meet his tragic destiny—as was Romeo before the ball, poised on the edge of a similar moment:

…my mind misgives
Some consequence yet hanging in the stars
Shall bitterly begin his fearful date
With this night’s revels, and expire the term
Of a despisé¨d life closed in my breast
By some vile forfeit of untimely death.
But he that hath the steerage of my course,
Direct my sail. On, lusty gentlemen.

Next is a recent clip of Dowell coaching Royal Ballet dancers in the same ballet. This section they are rehearsing is at the very end of the ballet, where the Prince and the Swan Queen fight the magician’s power and choose to commit suicide together (I don’t think I’m telling you anything you don’t know, if you know anything about Swan Lake at all). Dowell’s coaching isn’t about the steps, it’s about the emotion, the timing, the phrasing, the mime, the emphasis, the connection between the two characters. There’s not a moment that’s careless or thoughtless; every motion expresses something. Here Dowell works just as hard as the dancers, maybe harder, to create a great work of art, and I think you’ll agree that he succeeds. It’s one of the finest examples of coaching I’ve ever seen:

And here is Dowell in his prime, dancing this same section with the great Natalia Makarova. You can see the moves he talked about years later when coaching—how he hangs onto his lover, how he almost never lets her out of his sight, how they pull at each others’ hands. The boat at the end represents their ascension to heaven, by the way; it doesn’t mean they survived and took a ride on the swan boats at Boston’s Public Garden:

Editorials and foreign policy: what a difference four years makes (not exactly)

The New Neo Posted on by

The NY Times is having one of its rare intermittent lapses into (relatively mild) sanity. Don’t worry; it’s unlikely to last long. But, like it or hate it, the Times still moves a great many liberal Democrats, who still consider it the paper of record:

The Obama administration’s $500 million initiative to train and arm so-called moderate rebels to take on the Islamic State never seemed promising when it was rolled out last year. Having acknowledged that this plan has failed ”” largely because Syrian opposition groups are more interested in taking on President Bashar al-Assad ”” the White House on Friday unveiled a plan that is even more incoherent and fraught with risk.

The Pentagon will stop putting rebel fighters through training in neighboring countries, a program that was designed to ensure that fighters were properly vetted before they could get their hands on American weapons and ammunition. The new plan will simply funnel weapons through rebel leaders who are already in the fight and appear to be making some headway.

The initial plan was dubious. The new one is hallucinatory, and it is being rolled out as the war enters a more perilous phase now that Russia has significantly stepped up its military support of Mr. Assad’s forces.

From “dubious” to “hallucinatory”; those are pretty strong words for the Times re Obama. Why now? What about Syria has got the Times’ goat, as compared to the thousands of other dubious and hallucinatory (and worse) things this administration has done?

Note how the Times just sneaks in a word or two about that pesky Russia stuff right at the very end there. I wonder whether the editors remember their own words from just four and half years ago:

Two decades after the end of the cold war, Mitt Romney still considers Russia to be America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.” His comments display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender.

The Times gets to throw around a lot of words and a lot of adjectives; that’s what the Times is good at. But when does the Times have to answer for its own dubious, hallucinatory, reckless, and unworthy editorial stances? Some of you might say they already have gotten their comeuppance, in their sinking revenues. Ah, but but I think you might misunderstand their aim. They’re business people and would like to make some money, to be sure; but far more important is the way they serve the liberal/leftist cause as its principal and hoary propaganda organ.

That, they have done quite nicely. And, despite temporary glitches such as today’s editorial criticizing Obama, that status is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

A very ominous sign

The New Neo Posted on by

Suicide terrorists have killed at least 86 (probably more) at a Turkish peace rally in Ankara:

The explosion, which caused chaos and bloodshed, took place during a peace march involving, among others, the pro-Kurdish HDP, or People’s Democratic Party.

The casualties, reported by the interior ministry, consisted primarily of people gathered outside the main train station to attend a lunchtime demonstration to call for an end to the renewed conflict between the Kurdish PKK organization and the Turkish government.

Candidates for the perpetrators are Kurdish separatists or ISIS. I’d place my money on ISIS.

The prime miniester of Turkey had this to say:

Davutoglu called for three days of national mourning and urged the country to fight terrorism.

“This is an attack that does not target a specific group; it is an attack on the entire nation and (an) attack on our unity. Turkey is a country that has managed to maintain peace in the region,” he said.

Why would ISIS strike in Turkey now? Here’s one theory:

Turkey has avoided conflict with ISIS, perhaps in exchange for the release earlier this year of dozens of Turkish hostages seized in the Iraqi city of Mosul…

However, Turkey recently changed its stance and allowed the U.S. to launch strikes on ISIS from the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey.

The setting of the mass murder—a peace rally—is particularly ironic. These bombers spit on peace. Immediately, a phrase from this speech by an American patriot (in a different cause) came to mind:

Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun.

And quite some time ago.

Obama showed the way to executive tyranny, and Hillary plans to follow

The New Neo Posted on by

I wrote about this topic yesterday in discussing the Matt Yglesias piece about Hillary Clinton’s ruthless use of power. Today proves that Yglesias is not alone. In fact, his praise for the idea of a president “liberally” using executive action to get around Congressional opposition was a bit tame and restrained compared to this about the coming Hillary dictatorship written by Jonathan Allen.

Obama’s been boiling the American frog for six and a half years now, slowly but surely, and the public has gotten nice and cooked. Now it’s ready for more of the same, please, and ready to applaud it. Ends justify means; doesn’t everybody know that? After all, those obstinate nasty Republicans won’t do what the Democratic president wants, just because they’re the majority in Congress. How dare they!:

Sure, there are some Democrats who chew their nails when thinking about Clinton’s Machiavellian side, but most are nonetheless glad to see signs that she’s not going to get rolled by a Republican Congress. The scope of what she’s promising to do by herself is unprecedented from a top candidate for the presidency.

The view from inside the campaign, said one official, is that it’s important to be specific about how Clinton would use the unilateral powers of the presidency “because of the level of frustration” Democrats have felt when Obama’s priorities have been blocked by Republicans in Congress. Even if Democrats are able to elect one of their own as president in 2016, he or she is all but assured of facing a Congress in which one or two of the chambers are controlled by Republicans.

It used to be that when the American people expressed their wishes for a certain party to control Congress, and a president was from a different party, that president took it to mean that he had to work with Congress. Clinton’s husband Bill—remember him?—sometimes actually seemed to understand that principle. Little did he know that it was okay to do away with it. But Obama has shown the Democrats how. This is the way it is now, according to Center for American Progress head Neera Tanden:

“I think Democrats are definitely in a more feisty mood than they’ve been in the past, so they’re willing to take on more fights with the Republicans,” Tanden said. “I don’t think they’re concerned that doing an executive action offends the other side.”

It’s not about offending the “other side.” It’s about respecting the Constitution as well as the will of the American people.

The Democrats don’t need an enabling act; they’ll do it without one. There used to be a consensus between the parties that certain lines were not to be crossed, because the foundation of the republic rested on them and no one wanted to undermine what was one of the best governments on earth (or, as Churchill might say, the worst government on earth except for all the others). But that political social contract is now officially over.

[NOTE: I realize that presidents have long used executive actions for many things. But—and correct me if I’m wrong—until Obama, they did not habitually use them to accomplish aims that a majority Congress [addition: of the opposing party] had explicitly rejected, in arenas that were usually considered under Congressional control.]

So here’s my question…

The New Neo Posted on by

If McCarthy was ineligible for Speaker because of an affair (that’s one rumor, anyway), why would Newt Gingrich be okay? He’s certainly had affairs.

Or, for that matter, Donald Trump has certainly had em, as well (I realize he’s not running for Speaker; he’s running for president).

Seriously—in this day and age, I’m not sure what affairs mean any more in politics. Have we not arrived at the European attitude on that, too, since we’ve Europeanized ourselves almost beyond recognition in so many other ways?

Affairs and other sexual dalliances and peccadilloes are usually trotted out to take down conservatives rather than liberals, because the conservatives who act that way are considered (or at least are accused of being) hypocrites, whereas the liberals are just doing what they do. But Newt is a conservative, and it doesn’t seem to be an issue these days, and Trump pretends to be a conservative, and his history of affairs doesn’t even seem to be on anyone’s radar screen. Is it all part of his “charm”?

My own views on whether affairs should disqualify politicians from office have got to appear somewhere on this blog, but darned if I know where to find them. So I’ll just restate: all else being equal, I’d prefer someone squeaky clean. But it’s not a requirement; I recognize that affairs happen quite often, and I think that cheating in the sexual realm in one’s private life does not necessarily transfer to corruption or untrustworthiness in public life. Each person should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I realize that many people would disagree with that. But it’s been my observation that the two realms are often, although not always, compartmentalized.

“Improving” the King James Bible

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: This is a post that originally appeared in 2008. I came across it today while responding to a comment, and I thought it worth repeating.]

As a child who loved poetry, I memorized it almost without intending to. Just a few readings of a poem I liked and its cadences seemed to stick in my brain. Lines and phrases came to me at odd times and repeated themselves, the way song lyrics often do.

The best of them had a strange and hypnotic power. As I got older they took on meanings and subtleties I hadn’t understood as a child. But I had always understood the beauty of the words and the way they fit together, sound complementing sense.

The same was true of certain prayers and Bible passages—the Psalms, for instance, which I knew were also poems, although they didn’t rhyme.

Their language was archaic. I learned the King James Version, even though I didn’t know at the time that it was called that. But it was easy to understand, not hard at all. And to me, all those “thys” and “thous” and “eths” and “ests” made it seem as though the psalms came not from the olden days, but from a place beyond and outside of time.

Then I went to a service that used a revised and modernized version of the Bible. I could still recognize the prayers and psalms, but now they had a jarring pedestrian quality, almost like a Dick and Jane reader. I was still relatively young, but even then I felt the tug of nostalgia for the beautiful language of the past, despite the fact that I couldn’t articulate what was missing or why I minded so much.

Well, maybe now I can articulate it. Here’s the 23rd Psalm in the King James Version:

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.

He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

And here’s the same 23rd Psalm in the New American Standard version, written in 1971 with the twin goals of translational accuracy and modernization of the language.

It’s not necessarily identical with the first new version I encountered. But it’s typical of versions that make changes that are relatively minimal and yet still seem to me to represent a loss, however slight, of something very beautiful that was part of what made the earlier version so compelling. Is that loss compensated for by any gain in accessibility? You be the judge:

The LORD is my shepherd,
I shall not want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures;
He leads me beside quiet waters.
He restores my soul;
He guides me in the paths of righteousness
For His name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I fear no evil, for You are with me;
Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
You prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies;
You have anointed my head with oil;
My cup overflows.
Surely goodness and lovingkindness will follow me all the days of my life,
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever.

It doesn’t take too many liberties with the older version, not really. Mostly it clears out the “thous,” and substitutes the modern “you,” in addition to removing the archaic endings from the verbs. So it oughtn’t to be so bad, right? And yet, and yet…it feels so much flatter, although you may disagree.

The revisers have made a few other changes that seem to me to be gratuitous, although I imagine they have something to do with translating more literally and correctly from the original Hebrew (of which I understand only a few words, although I’ve heard it’s the very best way of all to appreciate the splendor and poetry of the work, as well as its meaning).

There are a couple of changes that jump out at me in jarring fashion. I feel something akin to a pang at the missing words and phrases, and come close to wincing at the additions.

Why oh why, in line 4 (corresponding to line 2 in the older version), are the waters described as “quiet” instead of “still?” Surely the phrases indicate close to the same thing in English, but “still” has the added virtue of conjuring up other references such as “still waters run deep,” as well as the repetitive “s” sound that harmonically resonates with the “s” at the end of the word “waters” and the one in the middle of “beside.” That’s poetry.

Then there’s the worst offense of all, at least to my ears: the omission of the word “Yea” in line 4 of the old version (it would be line 8 in the new). “Yea” was a great change of pace, a dramatic stopping point where the rhythmic variation of the unstressed and stressed syllables stood still for a moment, like a rest in music, before charging forward again. It worked as wonderful emphasis: yes, indeed; hear hear!

The substitution of “Even though” for “Yea, though” not only fails to serve this rhythmic function, it doesn’t even have the same meaning. “Yea” is an affirmation and an emphasis, underlining the thought to follow. The “even” is weak, tentative: “despite the fact that I walk through the valley….”

I can’t imagine anyone caring quite the same way about the newer version as the older one. It’s hard to imagine anyone wanting to memorize it for the sheer beauty of it, although some of the poetry still comes through. Perhaps there’s even someone who prefers it, just as there are people who prefer frozen french fries to the real thing. But that someone isn’t me.

The changes for the sake of accuracy seem so minimal that I can’t believe they make much of a difference, although in some other parts of the Bible they may be more important. I say keep the important ones and ditch the rest.

I challenge anyone to prefer an even newer version, though, one that departs far more from King James. It’s called the Contemporary English Version, written in 1995 with the purpose of simplicity and ease of reading:

You, LORD, are my shepherd.

I will never be in need.

You let me rest in fields

of green grass.

You lead me to streams

of peaceful water,

and you refresh my life.

You are true to your name,

and you lead me

along the right paths.

I may walk through valleys

as dark as death,

but I won’t be afraid.

You are with me,

and your shepherd’s rod makes me feel safe.

You treat me to a feast,

while my enemies watch.

You honor me as your guest,

and you fill my cup

until it overflows.

Your kindness and love

will always be with me

each day of my life,

and I will live forever

in your house, LORD.

One might just as well call it the Hallmark greeting card version and be done with it. Or maybe it’s the “You Light Up My Life” version.

This version simplifies to the point of boredom. Nearly all the things that make the first (and even the second, to a certain extent) version uniquely vivid are blanded out. I have no idea why the water is now “peaceful,” for example, but it’s certainly the most dull choice of the three.

But perhaps the worst offense in the passage is totally eliminating the specificity of the image of anointing the speaker’s head with oil, substituting instead the generic and soporific (big yawn) “You honor me as your guest.” Yes, I get the reason: the meaning of the ritual, along with all its rich associations, has been lost. But I don’t think it’s that difficult to guess at in context or to teach, even for a child. For what shall it profit a religious text, if it shall gain a small modicum of enhanced comprehensibility, and lose its own power?

The King James Bible was once new and modern, I suppose, back in the early 1600s when it was first written. But there’s a reason why it’s so popular and has stood the test of time: it’s a masterpiece (and wonder of wonders, it’s a masterpiece produced by a committee).

And yet the urge to improve on the King James Version is nearly irresistible, it seems. There are no fewer than twenty other English-language versions listed at the BibleGateway site, and no doubt there are more on the way. That’s progress for you.

Hillary and TPP: not for her the hobgoblin of little minds

The New Neo Posted on by

Hillary Clinton’s audacious renunciation of the trade agreement she helped negotiate and has bragged about and praised highly in the past is a naked political move that she must have calculated would help her:

With news leaking out that organized labor, the Teamsters in particular, are withholding an endorsement and might even endorse a Republican next year, Hillary is desperate to keep unions in the fold. Even if she holds off Bernie Sanders and Slow-Joe, without strong union support she probably can’t win in November.

So today Hillary announced that she opposes the new Pacific trade agreement that she helped negotiate while she was secretary of state. So she’s not only running against the free trade legacy of her husband and against President Obama””she’s running against herself.

Those of you who read my blog regularly know that I believe it’s possible to change one’s mind and be sincere. But Clinton’s history of repeated duplicity means that she’s forfeited the right to that presumption. However, just as a hypothetical, let’s say she is telling the truth. If so, she would have another problem to explain: how could she have shown such poor judgement as to advocate for the agreement again and again and again—in fact, 45 times between 2010 and 2013, when she was Secretary of State?

Here’s how she attempts to explain:

In July, Clinton told CNN that she never worked directly on the deal.

“I did not work on TPP,” Clinton said Thursday. “I advocated for a multi-national trade agreement that would ‘be the gold standard.’ But that was the responsibility of the United States trade representative.”

While technically true — Clinton’s State Department was not the lead negotiator on the deal — the former secretary of state regularly trumped up trade deals, including what would become the TPP…

…Clinton specifically cited currency manipulation enforcement, benefits for pharmaceutical companies and impacts on American workers as the reasons she was disapproving the deal.

Clinton’s Democratic opponents in the 2016 presidential race are against the deal, unions are against the deal, and now she’s against it too. It’s hard to imagine that a single thinking human being would be convinced that her change of heart and mind is on the merits here. For example, even Ezra Klein finds himself a mite perturbed:

Of late, Clinton is again looking like the kind of candidate who puts polls in front of policy.

First, she came out against Obamacare’s Cadillac tax ”” a policy that enjoys wide support among health economists. Clinton knows the problems of the massive deduction for employer-provided health insurance well; decades ago, her health-care plan wiped out the tax code’s preference for employer-based health care, and in 2008 she had a smaller, more targeted, version of the Cadillac tax in her proposal.

I want to be clear here. Lots of people oppose the Cadillac tax, and for lots of reasons. What I have trouble believing is that Clinton and her policy advisers really think the Cadillac tax is a bad idea. Her past policies embrace its theory, her past advisers helped pass it into law, and virtually everyone who spends their days thinking about how to control health-care costs considers it one of Obamacare’s most promising provisions.

On Wednesday, Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, saying that she’s concerned with the provisions around pharmaceuticals and the absence of provisions around currency manipulation. But as Tim Lee notes, Clinton strongly supported early versions of the deal ”” she called the TPP “the gold standard in trade agreements” ”” that were worse on pharmaceuticals and identical on currency manipulation…

I don’t truly know what’s in Clinton’s heart ”” perhaps I’m wrong, and despite all evidence to the contrary, she holds all these positions deeply ”” but as a close reader of her record, I’m not convinced that Clinton, in office, wouldn’t support policies like the Cadillac tax or negotiate trade deals like the TPP. And as someone trying to understand Clinton’s likely governing philosophy, it’s unnerving.

And this is a broader problem for Clinton. Her political weakness, fairly or not, is that the voters and the media ”” or maybe it’s the media and, thus, the voters ”” have decided that she’s unusually poll-tested and calculating, even for a politician.

Klein is not enough of a Clinton devotee to be able to say that 2 + 2 = 5 in this case, and he doesn’t even think it would help her to say so, because her flaws have become so obvious. But that doesn’t mean that many of her supporters will abandon her for this sort of thing. In fact, quite a few of them probably agree with this chilling yet revealing piece by Matt Yglesias, which is a must-read if you want to understand the heart/mind of the left:

Clinton is clearly more comfortable than the average person with violating norms and operating in legal gray areas.

This is normally portrayed as a political weakness of hers, and in many ways it is. She can’t credibly portray herself as the kind of outsider who’s going to clean up a broken and corrupt Washington system, because she is very much a part of that system and has been for years.

But it’s also an enormous source of potential strength. Committed Democrats and liberal-leaning interest groups are facing a reality in which any policy gains they achieve are going to come through the profligate use of executive authority, and Clinton is almost uniquely suited to deliver the goods. More than almost anyone else around, she knows where the levers of power lie, and she is comfortable pulling them, procedural niceties be damned.

Democrats have almost no chance of securing a majority in the US Senate and even worse odds of securing a majority in the House. So if there is a future for making progressive policy, that future is executive action.

So, there it is. Vote for Hillary! She’ll continue to trash the Constitution just like Obama in order to get what we want, because how else can we be successful in going around the will of the people?

For their own good, of course.

[NOTE: The title of this post is a reference to the famous Emerson quote about “a foolish consistency” being the “hobgoblin of little minds.”]