↓
 

The New Neo

A blog about political change, among other things

  • Home
  • Bio
  • Email
Home » Page 1112 << 1 2 … 1,110 1,111 1,112 1,113 1,114 … 1,916 1,917 >>

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

“Truth”: the press, the movies, and the present-day Minitrue

The New Neo Posted on September 16, 2015 by neoSeptember 16, 2015

The title of this post is taken from George Orwell’s dystopian masterpiece Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book’s genius is in part its nomenclature, and most definitely its insight into the political propaganda process.

Thus, the Ministry of Truth, or “Minitrue” for short:

As with the other Ministries in the novel, the Ministry of Truth is a misnomer and in reality serves the opposite of its purported namesake: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. In another sense, and in keeping with the concept of doublethink, the ministry is aptly named, in that it creates/manufactures “truth” in the Newspeak sense of the word. The book describes a willful fooling of posterity using doctored historical archives to show a government-approved version of events.

The government in the US does its share of that sort of thing, but under President Obama the practice has reached new heights (or depths, if you want to look at it that way). But the left is not limited to governmental publications. It now has the full cooperation of the press, an institution that is supposed to bring us the truth and can serve to counter government propaganda (well you might bitterly laugh). The left also has the movies, TV and other popular entertainment, and the vast majority of entertainers.

That can serve as an introduction to the latest movie wonder, a film called—oh-so-appropriately—“Truth.” Its subject is the Rathergate scandal of 2004. Here’s the movie’s take on it:

It was the great Henry David Thoreau who once said, “Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.” And it’s the Thoreauian tenets of self-reliance””the pursuit of unvarnished truth and resistance to institutional authority””that motivates many in the journalism profession. If James Vanderbilt’s new film Truth is to be believed, this quest led 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes and veteran CBS News anchor Dan Rather to air the segment “For the Record,” which questioned then-President George W. Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. The controversial 60 Minutes piece aired on September 8, 2004, just two months before the presidential election, and ultimately led to the dismissals of Mapes, several other producers, and Rather forced into an early retirement.

Vanderbilt’s film is based on Mapes’s memoir, Truth and Duty: The Press, The President, and The Privilege of Power, so it provides a very sympathetic portrait of Rather (Robert Redford, charming) and his longtime producer Mapes (Cate Blanchett, electric).

Sure, let’s base a movie about one of the most egregious journalistic errors/frameups/hitpieces ever run—which had as its aim the defeat of a president running for re-election—on the memoir of one of its self-serving perpetrators. And let’s call it “Truth.” Why not? After all, the vast majority of the young people we can reach with this revisionist “history” were kids in 2004, when it occurred. They will think that our history is the reality, our truth will become their truth. We will certainly reach far more young people than the real story, the details of which have faded into distant memory for most people, and never were heard of by the generation coming of age.

It’s been done by Hollywood many times before, most notably by Oliver Stone.

More on “Truth”:

…[T]hough the documents themselves may be falsified, both Mapes and Rather view them as more a piece of corroborative evidence, and continue to believe in the general veracity of the story””which isn’t questioned. Nevertheless, CBS brass orders Rather to issue a public apology on-air for the story.

A CBS-appointed panel to review the 60 Minutes segment is depicted in the film as the final insult, a show trial of sorts co-led by Dick Thornburgh, who served as Attorney General under Bush Sr…

Mapes is seen as a victim in all this””both of Burkett’s ruse and of the CBS brass, who throw her directly under the bus. The film’s finest scene sees Blanchett deliver a blistering monologue to the Thornburgh review panel detailing how difficult it would be to and how much inside information would be required to falsify the Killian documents.

So difficult to do what was obviously done. So difficult to be skeptical and properly fact-check such a juicy, ripe, appealing story that verified your own pre-existing prejudices and political positions. And so difficult to let go of the “fake, but accurate” narrative that this movie appears to champion:

After the film’s premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, Rather choked up discussing Truth in a post-screening Q&A. He called Vanderbilt’s film “very accurate,” and, when asked by an audience member if there’s anything in his career he would have done differently, he replied, “Journalism is not an exact science.”

Well, that’s for sure. Journalism is no more an exact science than are the movies. They have both effectively become organs of Orwell’s Minitrue.

[Hat tip: commenter “Ann”]

[NOTE: For those of you who would like to brush up on Rathergate, please see this for a rather (pun intended) brief look. There’s plenty more, both online and off.]

Posted in History, Literature and writing, Movies, Press | 30 Replies

Tonight: the second debate

The New Neo Posted on September 16, 2015 by neoSeptember 16, 2015

I suppose I’ll bite the bullet and watch tonight’s Republican debate, which looks to have some verbal fireworks and a huge listening audience. I may even live-blog it, if I can stomach it.

Those of you who read this blog a lot may know what I’m referring to—the fact that I tend to hate debates as well as speeches. In fact, I’ve written a post on the subject of my hatred of speeches, and when I looked at it just now, I thought it might be worth a reprise. So, here it is.

A while back, as I listened (or tried to listen) to the President’s State of the Union address, it struck me once again that I’m just not very good at listening to speeches. Unless it’s Winston Churchill, I much prefer to read them.

Even though I was always a good student, I rarely enjoyed classes. In retrospect, I think one big reason was the “sit in your seat and listen while we talk—and talk—and talk” format. In college, I was one of those people who sat at the very back of the room during lectures, swinging my leg restlessly, doodling and smoking.

Ah yes, kids: smoking. We used to be allowed to do that in classrooms. I was never much of a smoker—I really didn’t inhale—but I liked to light up, and to amuse myself by making perfect, long-lasting smoke rings, like the old Camel’s ad in Times Square (mine were much better than his).

The point of all this is that I’m most definitely not what is known as an auditory learner. A speaker has to be riveting—and, preferably, very, very funny—to catch my attention. I’ve been to several authors’ book and/or poetry readings, and despite my best intentions and resolve (and love of books and poetry), I find that I ordinarily drift off within five minutes or less of the moment the author opens his/her mouth, “coming to”—unaware of any lapse in time—only when the applause starts that signifies the reading has ended.

On the other hand, when I’m reading or writing, I concentrate hard. Time tends to pass very quickly, but my mind does not wander. I’ve been known to try to fix a problem with a single line of poetry for what I would estimate to be ten minutes–but then, when I look at my watch, two hours have somehow passed.

In the olden, pre-computer days, when I used to work at a word processor (and before that, an electric typewriter) in a room without a clock, I’ve been known to think it was about midnight and then to hear the birds chirping as a soft light slowly filled the room and I realized it was actually dawn. Now, with computers that have built-in clocks, that’s not going to happen. But I still experience the phenomenon of time passing extraordinarily quickly without my realizing it.

I used to experience the same sort of concentration back in my ballet dancing days. Classes usually involved an hour and a half of intense physical activity. But what isn’t commonly known is that dancing is a mental activity as well, although of an utterly different sort from that involved in writing or in listening to a lecture.

A ballet class consists of a series of graduated exercises that follow a certain strictly determined order, aimed at warming up all the major (and minor) body parts in a way that’s thought to be least likely to lead to injury. The first portion is boring but utterly necessary, the barre. It’s the equivalent of scales for the musician or singer, and it often used to go rather slowly, especially those long intervals of holding the leg up very high and still.

The only thing that got me through the barre was the music. Most of the time we had a live pianist playing classical music (most often Chopin), with the odd Scott Joplin rag thrown in to keep us on our toes (sorry, couldn’t resist). The music transformed the whole exercise into something other than an exercise; it became an art.

Next we took our positions away from the barre for what was known as “center work.” First, a port de bras; mostly arm movements and slowly changing body positions, nothing too difficult. Then, an adagio, or series of slow unfolding movements, ordinarily very very difficult, but lyrical. Then, turns in place. Then some faster movements in place, then small jumps in place. Then bigger jumps in place. And then what was the payoff, the raison d’etre for the whole thing: moving combinations, usually across a diagonal from corner to corner.

Big sweeping jumps that crossed an imaginary stage coupled with linking steps, a series of small ballets that the teacher would choreograph on the spot. Turns that covered space were incorporated into these combinations. Sometimes we’d revolve in a great big circle, faster and faster, until some of us had to stagger out of the group and rest on the sidelines.

The combinations were difficult, and they had to be memorized on the spot, one after the other. The teacher would tell us the steps, then we would “mark” them (do them in a sort of shorthand movement, not full blast). Then the music would start, and off we’d go. And it wasn’t just steps that we had to memorize; it was steps coordinated with arm movements, head movements, body positions, all set down for us in a few moments and then integrated into the body memory and performed full out.

Then, the same thing to the other side. Where the right leg had led before, now it was the left. Where the left arm had been raised during a certain leap, now it was the right. These changes had to be accomplished instantaneously and automatically, almost without thinking.

One of my favorite parts of all was when the teacher would say “reverse the combination.” This was not everyone’s favorite part, to be sure. It was like a tongue twister; the best way to describe it would be that we were required to turn the steps inside out. It was fiendishly difficult; if a jump had featured the back foot leading and ending in front, now the front foot led and ended up in back. If a one-legged turn had been an “inside” turn (that is, turning in the direction of the supporting leg), now it had to be an “outside” turn (turning away from the supporting leg).

We would usually end the big combinations with the largest of leaps on the diagonal, across the room. It was a totally ordered and controlled set of movements; every angle of each part of the body was dictated by tradition. But, within that structure, the utter sense of freedom and expansion—of soaring and flying and oneness with the music—was phenomenal. And, at the end, it was amazing that an hour and a half had passed with my hardly being aware of time at all.

There is nothing like it on earth. I miss it still.

O body swayed to music, O brightening glance
How can we know the dancer from the dance?

To end this piece, I want to describe how a ballet class always ends, with something called a reverence (it’s French, which is the language of ballet). A reverence is a stylized bow, very courtly in nature–which is only fitting, since the origin of ballet lies in court spectacles.

But the reverence that ends a class is very simple. After all the frenetic activity of the minutes before, the students assume their places in the center again. They may be huffing and puffing, they are almost certainly soaked in sweat and exhausted, but all calms down as the music changes to slow and lyrical. To its strains, the students bow in a prescribed manner: first to one corner, then swivel and bow to the other (the corner where the pianist is sitting, ordinarily). Then bow to the center, where the teacher stands, who bows back in return. Each bow is a thank you, and also a grounding.

Sometimes I would experience a feeling of relief as the strains of the reverence music began, relief that a very difficult class was over. Sometimes I’d feel regret, because the class had been so much fun it seemed to end all too soon.

But always, a feeling of gratitude would come to me in synchrony with the body language of the bow. And once in a while, tears would even spring to my eyes at the beautiful coming together of all these things: the movement, the feeling, the music, and the people gathered around me and dedicated to the pursuit of excellence and transcendence in this particular form.

ADDENDUM: When I first wrote that post, I didn’t know how to embed a YouTube video. But now I do, so here’s an example of a reverence at the end of a class, although this one reverses the order of the bows:

Posted in Dance, Me, myself, and I, Politics | 1 Reply

This seems to be a key thought

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

From commenter “Eric”:

The “LIV” is a conformist. To marshal the “LIV” to your agenda, set the zeitgeist to your agenda. The “LIV” will conform to it. Engineering the zeitgeist is an activist function.

I would phrase it differently, but I’ve been thinking about that lately.

Most people don’t question what they hear; they take it in. And the vast majority don’t want to think differently from their friends or from what the smart people writing in the newspapers or teaching at the university or writing the novels say. It’s threatening and unpleasant to disagree, and ideas about politics aren’t important enough to them anyway, or at least not interesting enough to them. They aren’t motivated to spend a lot of time and energy on the topic.

Why this changed for me I don’t know, but it started (slowly) after 9/11. After that, I found myself—much to my great surprise, dancing outside the ring.

From Milan Kundera’s The Book of Laughter and Forgetting:

Circle dancing is magic. It speaks to us through the millennia from the depths of human memory. Madame Raphael had cut the picture out of the magazine and would stare at it and dream. She too longed to dance in a ring. All her life she had looked for a group of people she could hold hands with and dance with in a ring. First she looked for them in the Methodist Church (her father was a religious fanatic), then in the Communist Party, then among the Trotskyites, then in the anti-abortion movement (A child has a right to life!), then in the pro-abortion movement (A woman has a right to her body!); she looked for them among the Marxists, the psychoanalysts, and the structuralists; she looked for them in Lenin, Zen Buddhism, Mao Tse-tung, yogis, the nouveau roman, Brechtian theater, the theater of panic; and finally she hoped she could at least become one with her students, which meant she always forced them to think and say exactly what she thought and said, and together they formed a single body and a single soul, a single ring and a single dance.

As I wrote ten years ago:

We all want to dance in a ring, to a certain extent. It’s wonderful to be part of a coherent movement, a whole that makes sense, joined with others working for the same goal and sharing the same beliefs. But there’s a price to pay when something challenges the tenets of that movement. When that happens, there are two kinds of people: those who change their ideas to fit the new facts, even if it means leaving the fold, and those who distort and twist the facts and logic to maintain the circle dance.

“Eric” says we need to change the music of the circle dance, because people won’t give up the strong desire for dancing in a ring. I’d think I’d rather give up circle dancing entirely, because I see circle dancing itself as a lack of critical thinking, and dangerous. But expecting any significant number of people to give it up may be a distant and impossible pipe dream.

Posted in Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe, Liberty, Me, myself, and I | 52 Replies

One of these things is not like the other

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

There was a large demonstration in Poland Saturday to protest the possibility that the government will let in many thousands of refugees from Syria—that is, people who claim to be refugees and claim to be from Syria.

There was also a smaller counter-demonstration in support of letting the newcomers in. Here what one participant in that demonstration said:

“I became a refugee when I had to flee Warsaw as the Germans invaded during the war,” 80-year-old Danuta Chomiak told AFP as she marched with the crowd. “I have a duty to be here today.”

There’s that WWII analogy again, as well as the false equivalence between intra-European migration versus inter-continental migration of people whose culture is warring and disparate from the place where they are heading.

I’d like to ask Danuta Chomiak where she went to when she left Warsaw. My guess is that it wasn’t to Syria. Nor was it to Pakistan or Iraq any of the other countries from which the new potential Polish residents originate. My guess is that she went to some Western country.

Now, Poland may have felt very different from wherever it was that Danuta fled to when she became a refugee. Maybe she went to a country that wasn’t so predominantly Catholic as Poland, for example; maybe it was more Protestant. Maybe she had to learn a new language. I’m sure the move was wrenching and difficult. But I’m pretty sure it didn’t remotely compare to the total upheaval she would have felt if somehow she’d ended up in one of those Middle Eastern Muslim countries I mentioned. The cultural and religious divide between her old country and her new would have not only been much wider, the culture and religion of her new country would have in many ways been opposed, and openly so, to the culture and religion of her old.

The modern myth is that all cultures are roughly equal. They are not. For example, all human beings are created equal, but some countries and cultures don’t even pay lip service to such niceties. Nor are they interested in what we might call human rights. Let in enough people from those countries with those beliefs, and fail to require that they adhere to the the culture of the new, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Posted in History, Immigration | 15 Replies

“Frankly, Afghanistan was nothing like that train”

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

This is the best interview I’ve seen with the three heroes of the French train terrorist attack. It’s with Megyn Kelly, and it’s the first time I’ve heard the three tell their story in such detail. Their characters really shine, and you can see the depth of their friendship and the way their personalities complement each other: Anthony Sadler, the articulate, calm, thoughtful one; Alek Skarlatos, the affable, smiley, fun-loving good guy; and Spencer Stone, the strong, silent, quick, decisive all-around hero. They also describe in greater detail the role of their British helper, Chris Norman.

These guys are almost endlessly fascinating to me. They are like archetypes of the old-fashioned classic American hero: humble, polite, and strong, coming to the rescue of the Europeans in a pinch. They also remind me a little of the Three Musketeers—not just the mystic number three, but the “all for one and one for all” mentality.

It was their first trip to Europe, and that was to be their exciting adventure. Then unexpectedly they seemed to be facing another adventure, albeit a frightening one: sudden death. Still another adventure quickly took its place: their actions saved their own lives, the life of another man who’d been shot and was bleeding to death before their eyes, and the lives of all the passengers on the train. They managed the disarm and capture the terrorist alive as well.

Their next adventure is fame and honors for a heroism that they all steadfastly deny. But isn’t that what real heroes do?

Posted in People of interest, Terrorism and terrorists, Violence | 8 Replies

The Bergdahl plot thickens

The New Neo Posted on September 15, 2015 by neoSeptember 15, 2015

Just when you thought the Bergdahl story couldn’t get any worse—it does.

Did the White House scuttle, or at the very least ignore, a better Bergdahl prisoner exchange deal and replace it with the one we got, in order to free the five Taliban, which was the real goal?:

Until this past January, Amerine worked at the Pentagon, where he led an Army team ordered to bring home Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, a mission that was expanded to include several civilian hostages held by Taliban-aligned militants in Pakistan. Bergdahl had been captive for nearly four years by the time Amerine got involved, making him the longest-held prisoner of war since Vietnam and a key to any end-of-war negotiations. In 2013, Amerine lured the Taliban to a series of secret talks that identified a solution, but then hit a wall in Washington’s bureaucratic maze. As he wrangled more with federal agencies in D.C. than with the Quetta Shura in Pakistan, Amerine reached out to Representative Duncan Hunter, a Marine veteran and Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee.

Hunter wrote letters to then”“Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and President Barack Obama pleading that someone cut through the interagency squabbling between the Army, the State Department, the FBI, the intelligence community and the Department of Defense. When Bergdahl was finally released last year in a trade for five Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Hunter complained that a far better deal brokered by Amerine was ignored. Worse still, six Western civilians, including two Canadians and a newborn child, were left behind, held by terrorist groups protected by the Pakistani government, a pivotal U.S. ally in the global war on terror.

Seems rather conspiracist, doesn’t it? Start with the freeing of the Taliban as the goal, and then work backward?

Well, it’s what I suggested from the start. One day after Bergdahl’s release, I wrote:

Obama has been winding down the Afghan War, and one of his stalled goals in connection with that is negotiations with the Taliban. So it may be that the release of these particular prisoners wasn’t just a reluctant move in order to free Bergdahl, it may be more accurate to say that Bergdahl’s release was negotiated at this point in time in order to free the Taliban Five…

[Hat tip: Richard Fernandez.]

Posted in Military, Terrorism and terrorists | 6 Replies

Parties committing suicide (case study: Labour?)

The New Neo Posted on September 14, 2015 by neoSeptember 14, 2015

Britain’s Labour Party commits suicide by electing extremist Jeremy Corbyn to be its leader, according to Dan Hodges of The Telegraph. If what the paper says is true, Corbyn makes our own Bernie Sanders look like Hubert Humphrey.

I often think when people announce the death of a political party they are exaggerating. Political parties have a funny way of confounding that judgment. But this time it may be true, at least for a while:

Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents can’t begin to picture Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Jeremy Corbyn’s own cheerleaders can’t begin to picture Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. Even Jeremy Corbyn can’t begin to picture Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister. How in God’s name are the voters supposed to picture it?

They aren’t, of course. The voters were the last people under consideration when Labour’s new army of £3 activists pumped out their fusillade of electronic ballots.

Labour has not just relinquished any prospect of being a party of government. It has just relinquished any prospect of being a party of opposition…

Something may still emerge from the ashes. But the Labour Party as we know it ”“ and as some people once loved it ”“ died today.

I don’t pretend to know a whole lot about British politics. But I know a single party system isn’t usually a good thing. What’s more, I also know that British politics has moved to the left and that even their Conservative Party there isn’t what we’d call “conservative” in the US.

I also know that this is the sort of thing many frustrated conservatives in this country would love to happen to our own Republican Party:

Political parties die because they want to die. None of this had to happen. Labour could have elected a solid but unremarkable interim leader. Yvette Cooper’s steel. Liz Kendall’s courage. Whatever it is that’s left of Andy Burnham after three months of remorseless self-abasement. They would not have enthused or energised anyone. But at least they would have kept the flame alive.

But that’s not what Labour Party members wanted. They wanted to see their party go out in a final blaze of uncompromising glory.

Sound familiar?

[NOTE: I want to clarify something. At the end of this post, I’m not necessarily talking about Trump supporters, although it fits some of them. Other Trump supporters, however, think that Trump can win (and perhaps will win) and they think he’d make a good president. I happen to differ with them, but they are not the ones I’m talking about here. Nor is the group I’m talking about here limited to Trump supporters. The group I’m referring to is what I’ve previously called the Cloward-Pivens of the right, or the apocalypse-seekers.

What’s more, the group I’m referring to doesn’t necessarily want to nominate a candidate who, like Corbyn in Britain, represents the most extreme and uncompromising version of their views. Sometimes they want to support a candidate they hate (the liberal Democrat), either by staying home during the election or actively voting for that person. This, they believe, will hasten the disaster and the recovery from it.]

Posted in Liberals and conservatives; left and right | 46 Replies

As the billionaire Trump goes, so go…

The New Neo Posted on September 14, 2015 by neoJanuary 27, 2016

…the other billionaires:

But Trump’s rise shows billionaires don’t have to constrain themselves anymore. They can cut out the middleman. It’s the art of the deal on the campaign trail.

And if you’re a billionaire with business sense, a flair for the dramatic and a reality TV background, well, you’re within reach of the nomination.

Whatever else Trump does on the campaign trail this year, his legacy just may be in nudging other billionaires off the sidelines and into politics. Just one billionaire is campaigning in 2016. How many will run in 2020?

And now, right on cue, is Mark Cuban:

In an email exchange with CNBC, Cuban revealed his thoughts on the presidency, how he’d structure his campaign and what it would mean for the nation to have, in his words, a “three-comma POTUS””as in $1,000,000,000.

Asked whether he’d ever run for president, Cuban wrote: “I get asked every day. It’s a fun idea to toss around. If I ran as a Dem, I know I could beat Hillary Clinton. And if it was me vs. Trump, I would crush him. No doubt about it.”

What could possibly go wrong? Aren’t these billionaires free of the taint of being beholden to the big money donors? Isn’t that A Good Thing?

In the abstract, yes. Of course, as I wrote in a joking sort of way here, in the future:

Only multi-billionaires will be able to run for president…?

Oh, that will work out really well.

Does anyone really think that billionaires are less corrupt because they only worry about their own fortune and what might be of benefit to it? I don’t. I agree about the donor problem in general, but I certainly don’t think billionaires are the remedy.

Cuban himself explains the advantages of being so very, very rich, as well as being a media-savvy TV reality star (in Cuban’s case, it’s “Shark Tank”):

To Mark Cuban, all this makes sense. Having a billion dollars””that famous “three-comma” net worth””gives a candidate a certain swagger. “Rich people just have a little more arrogance to think we know more than everyone else,” Cuban wrote.

And just as John F. Kennedy had an instinctive grasp of the new media””television””that was coming to dominate his political era, Cuban thinks that the social media era will play to the strengths of a different group of candidates.

“There is no question the game has changed and Donald has a much stronger command of it than the rest of the candidates,” Cuban wrote. “Most future voters will get their news from their Facebook, Snapchat, Cyber Dust, Instagram, Twitter feeds,” Cuban said (Cyber Dust is his own messaging app). “They open their apps and see what’s there. They don’t go looking for depth and explanations.”

In my original joke I said that in the future, successful candidates would be limited to multi-billionaires. So I’ll add that they will be limited to multi-billionaire reality TV stars who know how to use Twitter and other social media.

Works for me. Idiocracy, here we come!

Posted in Election 2016, Finance and economics, People of interest, Trump | 19 Replies

That NH primary poll

The New Neo Posted on September 14, 2015 by neoSeptember 14, 2015

Perhaps you’ve seen it. You know, the one that shows Trump way ahead of the rest of the Republican field at 40%?

The poll is somewhat odd, however. For example, the number of Republican voters in it is 472, not a very big number. I know New Hampshire’s a small state—but still, that’s pretty tiny, as polls go. It means that Trump’s 40% is a grand total of 188 people, while Carson’s 12% is 56 and Fiorina’s 8% is 37. The announced margin of error is large, plus or minus 5.1% (the smaller the sample in a poll, the more likely that the results are inaccurate, although other factors come into play as well in determining accuracy).

Another possible problem is that, of poll respondents who say they are likely to vote in the Republican primary (question 19), only about a third describe themselves as “strong Republicans,” a third as “lean Republican,” a fifth as “not very strong Republican,” and a smattering as “not sure.” Is this actually a representative group of Republican primary voters? It doesn’t quite sound that way to me, but I don’t know. Who are these people?

Let me just add that one of the reasons I’m wondering about all of this is that I remember that in 2008 the polls were way off in predicting the New Hampshire primary results, and I’m talking about polls taken very close to the primaries themselves, not far away like the one the other day:

One of the biggest stories of the NH primary is the failure of the polls to have accurately predicted the results. It’s not that it’s so unusual for polls to be incorrect, but for so many to be incorrect in exactly the same way””predicting about an 8% Obama victory and getting a result of Clinton by 3%, off by a factor of approximately 11%””is highly unusual.

In that post of mine, by the way, I stated that, in my group of liberal female friends, Hillary was not favored over Obama, and I predicted that she’s run into trouble despite her NH win.

The reason I remember that poll/primary disconnect back in January of 2008 is because the NH polls had been so massively wrong:

On Monday and Tuesday, seven independent polls showed Obama ahead by an average of 8.3 percentage points, according to the RealClearPolitics website. When the votes were counted, Clinton won by 2.6 percent.

What happened? The pollsters have theories, but no one is sure.

“It was a total shock,” said Scott W. Rasmussen of the independent Rasmussen Reports, whose final three-day tracking poll – a total of 1,200 likely voters through primary eve – showed Obama ahead by seven points, down from 10 the day before.

“I can’t remember a time when the entire polling industry showed a similar result and it was wrong,” he said.

That’s pretty dramatic. The rest of the article tries to explain, but in my opinion it fails. But here’s a possible clue, though:

While the wayward polling this season is dramatic, it happens with regularity in New Hampshire, where voters aren’t shy about expressing their contrariness – electing dark horses or upstarts, and smacking pollsters upside the head…

“Do Granite State voters enjoy fooling pollsters that much?” Nolan [Globe columnist in 1984) asked. “Is massive mendacity part of the local color?”

Food for thought.

[ADDENDUM: By the way, for all you Trump supporters out there, I’m not questioning the fact that Trump is the frontrunner. I believe that he is. I’m questioning the accuracy and meaning of this particular poll saying he’s at 40% in New Hampshire. I’m also questioning state polls in general, particularly with rather small samples and a very large field of candidates.]

Posted in Election 2016 | 5 Replies

Scott Walker has just further endeared himself to federal public-sector unions

The New Neo Posted on September 14, 2015 by neoSeptember 14, 2015

Not.

Walker has announced a plan to abolish federal public-sector unions, among other things:

That would take an act of Congress, but Walker said he’s for it because “big-government unions should have no place in the federal workplace.”

Walker also announced his intention to do the following:

-Impose right-to-work laws, under which workers can’t be forced to pay union dues as a condition of their employment, nationwide. Twenty-five states, including Wisconsin, already have such laws. Walker’s proposal, if passed by Congress, would require states to vote to opt out of the right-to-work requirement.

-Prohibit unions from automatically deducting dues from state public employees that are used to pay for political activity. Walker said if the Supreme Court does not address the issue in a pending case, he will send a bill to Congress to change the law.

There’s more, lots more.

The Walker announcement is potentially huge, and transformative. By the way, it would bring us back to FDR’s position on the issue*, although most liberals either don’t know that or would like to keep it hush-hush.

[* The liberal “Politifact” did acknowledge two years ago, albeit reluctantly, that FDR’s position was against public-sector unions having any sort of collective bargaining rights.]

[ADDENDUM: For clarification, I’d like to add that I don’t think Walker has actually made the announcement officially yet, which is to come in a speech. He did make an announcement about his announcement, and in it he cited the FDR precedent. See this:

This idea is not new. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of America’s most revered liberals, realized just how counter-intuitive it is to allow union bosses to advocate against the best interests of the government. Union bargaining, Roosevelt said, “cannot be transplanted into the public service.”

In fact, until 1962, federal law explicitly prohibited federal workers from collectively bargaining. President Kennedy, however, shrewdly realized that by allowing public sector employees to unionize at the federal level, Democrats would stand to gain votes and hefty political contributions. He was right.

This is an issue on which Walker is well-versed, to say the least.]

Posted in Politics | 20 Replies

The real life case of Beauty and the Beast

The New Neo Posted on September 12, 2015 by neoSeptember 12, 2015

This is a case of deception, love, and sex (not an unusual trio) that has caused a lot of startled and skeptical reactions. You may have to concentrate a bit to follow it at first:

A woman accused of pretending to be a man to lure a fellow student into bed has told a jury that her alleged victim was in on the deception and was a closeted lesbian.

Gayle Newland, 25, has admitted creating a fake Facebook profile in order to meet girls, using a photo of a good-looking Asian man she called Kye Fortune. But she denies misleading a woman who claims she was sexually assaulted by Newman wearing a prosthetic penis after they had intercourse, during which the woman wore a blindfold.

Newland denies five counts of sexual assault between February and June 2013. The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had earlier testified to having willingly worn the blindfold during numerous sexual encounters with someone she believed was Kye Fortune. She said Kye told her he was recovering from a brain tumour and did not want her to see his scars. Opening the case earlier this week, the prosecuting barrister, Matthew Corbett-Jones, told the jury the complainant was “by her nature a very gullible and naive person…

The court heard that the pair spent at least 100 hours together in person after striking up an intense online relationship over two years, and even became engaged. At each meeting, the complainant wore a blindfold, not just when they had sex but when they sunbathed or watched films together and even on one occasion when they went out in Kye’s car. The woman told the court she only uncovered the deception after ripping her blindfold off and seeing she had actually been having sex with Newland.”

The unnamed plaintiff was either gullible and naive, say some; or stupid or desperate, say others; or lying and in on it, say still others. I don’t profess to know the truth. But for me, the story conjured up another story, or set of stories, which are of great antiquity and power. One might call the original story and all its variations “the myth of the hidden lover.”

They are all stories in which the heroine is loved, and in some cases made love to, by a man who for some reason has to remain hidden, and asks her to trust him. Remember “Beauty and the Beast“? It’s not a traditional tale; it was written in 1756:

The Beast receives [Beauty] graciously and informs her that she is now mistress of the castle, and he is her servant. He gives her lavish clothing and food and carries on lengthy conversations with her. Every night, the Beast asks Beauty to marry him, only to be refused each time. After each refusal, Beauty dreams of a handsome prince who pleads with her to answer why she keeps refusing him, to which she replies that she cannot marry the Beast because she loves him only as a friend. Beauty does not make the connection between the handsome prince and the Beast and becomes convinced that the Beast is holding the prince captive somewhere in the castle. She searches and discovers multiple enchanted rooms, but never the prince from her dreams.

That story in turn echoes older stories from a folk and mythological tradition. The first is “East of the Sun West of the Moon” and its variants, which I delighted in as a child:

Well, after she had eaten, and it became evening, she felt sleepy from her journey, and thought she would like to go to bed, so she rang the bell. She had barely rung it before she found herself in a room, where there was a bed made as fair and white as anyone would wish to sleep in, with silken pillows and curtains, and gold fringe. All that was in the room was gold or silver. After she had gone to bed, and put out the light, a man came and laid himself alongside her. It was the white bear, who cast off his pelt at night; but she never saw him, for he always came after she had put out the light. Before the day dawned he was up and off again. Things went on happily for a while, but at last she became quiet and sad. She was alone all day long, and she became very homesick to see her father and mother and brothers and sisters. So one day, when the white bear asked what was wrong with her, she said it was so lonely there, and how she longed to go home to see her father and mother and brothers and sisters, and that was why she was so sad, because she couldn’t get to them.

“Well,” said the bear, “that can happen all right, but you must promise me, not to talk alone with your mother, but only when the others are around to hear. She will want to take you by the hand and lead you into a room to talk alone with her. But you must not do that, or else you’ll bring bad luck on both of us.”

But earlier still was one of my favorite ancient tales (from Apuleius, but I read it in a children’s book of myths), that of Cupid and Psyche:

The transported girl awakes to find herself at the edge of a cultivated grove (lucus). Exploring, she finds a marvelous house with golden columns, a carved ceiling of citrus wood and ivory, silver walls embossed with wild and domesticated animals, and jeweled mosaic floors. A disembodied voice tells her to make herself comfortable, and she is entertained at a feast that serves itself and by singing to an invisible lyre.

Although fearful and without sexual experience, she allows herself to be guided to a bedroom, where in the darkness a being she cannot see makes her his wife. She gradually learns to look forward to his visits, though he always departs before sunrise and forbids her to look upon him, and soon she becomes pregnant.

The stories have slight variants, but are remarkably similar. There is a young woman who gets lost or is taken away to a palatial place where unseen hands serve her. At night, a man (or beast?) enters her bedroom to lie with her, either chastely or sexually, and although she comes to love him, he says she cannot be allowed to look on him and she must trust him. At some point she is homesick and is allowed to visit her family, who plant seeds of doubt in her mind as to the man’s identity. Is he a man, a beast, a con artist, a monster? Finally, when she returns (the “Beauty and the Beast” story is a bit different on this point), she breaks the trust and one evening she takes a candle and tries to gaze on her lover’s sleeping face. When she does so, she is elated—he is a prince, or in the case of Psyche, he is Venus’ handsome son Cupid. But alas, she has broken the trust, and woe befalls them—at least for a while.

The plaintiff suing Newland was told that her lover felt self-conscious about looking like a beast of sorts (“was recovering from a brain tumour and did not want her to see his scars”). She was told to trust him, but ultimately she betrayed that trust, ripped off her blindfold and was confronted, not with a handsome prince or the god Cupid, but with Newland—a woman.

Life’s not a fairy tale. But the tales themselves have a power, and they often speak great truths about the human…Psyche.

cupid and psyche

eastofsun

Posted in Law, Literature and writing, Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex | 13 Replies

Self-parody, squared

The New Neo Posted on September 12, 2015 by neoSeptember 12, 2015

[Hat tip: commenter G6loq]

The interesting thing about that video is that while it’s parody, it’s very close to the actual substance of Trump’s campaign. It makes me wonder whether his entire campaign might be a form of parody.

Perhaps he could choose Jimmy Fallon as VP? But only if he keeps the makeup and wig, of course.

Posted in Election 2016 | 21 Replies

Post navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post→

Your support is appreciated through a one-time or monthly Paypal donation

Please click the link recommended books and search bar for Amazon purchases through neo. I receive a commission from all such purchases.

Archives

Recent Comments

  • AesopFan on Some leftists are celebrating the murder of a young woman in New York because she’s a bank executive
  • om on The latest on my ex
  • Wendy K Laubach on The latest on my ex
  • Aggie on The latest on my ex
  • Stayin_Alive_555 on The latest on my ex

Recent Posts

  • The latest on my ex
  • In case you haven’t followed what Tucker Carlson’s been saying lately (and I can understand it if you haven’t), he seems to be heartily endorsing El-Sayed
  • Nature was once a premier scientific journal …
  • Open thread 9/3/2026
  • The Strait of Hormuz

Categories

  • A mind is a difficult thing to change: my change story (17)
  • Academia (328)
  • Afghanistan (98)
  • Amazon orders (6)
  • Arts (8)
  • Baseball and sports (164)
  • Best of neo-neocon (91)
  • Biden (536)
  • Blogging and bloggers (593)
  • Dance (292)
  • Disaster (244)
  • Education (323)
  • Election 2012 (360)
  • Election 2016 (566)
  • Election 2018 (33)
  • Election 2020 (513)
  • Election 2022 (114)
  • Election 2024 (403)
  • Election 2026 (91)
  • Election 2028 (13)
  • Evil (129)
  • Fashion and beauty (324)
  • Finance and economics (1,042)
  • Food (317)
  • Friendship (48)
  • Gardening (18)
  • General information about neo (4)
  • Getting philosophical: life, love, the universe (734)
  • Health (1,160)
  • Health care reform (545)
  • Hillary Clinton (184)
  • Historical figures (337)
  • History (716)
  • Immigration (448)
  • Iran (464)
  • Iraq (227)
  • IRS scandal (71)
  • Israel/Palestine (821)
  • Jews (437)
  • Language and grammar (365)
  • Latin America (212)
  • Law (2,972)
  • Leaving the circle: political apostasy (124)
  • Liberals and conservatives; left and right (1,321)
  • Liberty (1,117)
  • Literary leftists (14)
  • Literature and writing (393)
  • Me, myself, and I (1,496)
  • Men and women; marriage and divorce and sex (929)
  • Middle East (384)
  • Military (324)
  • Movies (353)
  • Music (533)
  • Nature (261)
  • Neocons (32)
  • New England (183)
  • Obama (1,738)
  • Pacifism (16)
  • Painting, sculpture, photography (131)
  • Palin (93)
  • Paris and France2 trial (25)
  • People of interest (1,043)
  • Poetry (258)
  • Political changers (178)
  • Politics (2,793)
  • Pop culture (397)
  • Press (1,635)
  • Race and racism (882)
  • Religion (428)
  • Romney (164)
  • Ryan (16)
  • Science (640)
  • Terrorism and terrorists (971)
  • Theater and TV (266)
  • Therapy (71)
  • Trump (1,630)
  • Uncategorized (4,551)
  • Vietnam (109)
  • Violence (1,443)
  • War and Peace (1,027)

Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
DanielInVenezuela (liberty)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (shrink archives)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor’s Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
Maggie’sFarm (togetherness)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
MichelleObama’sMirror (reflect)
NoPasaran! (bluntFrench)
NormanGeras (archives)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob)
Pamela Geller (Atlas Shrugs)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (exodus)
Powerline (foursight)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RedState (conservative)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org
©2026 - The New Neo - Weaver Xtreme Theme Email
Web Analytics
↑