A science fiction giant…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is gone:

[Bradbury] attributed his success as a writer to never having gone to college–instead, he read and wrote voraciously. “When I graduated from high school in 1938, I began going to the library three nights a week,” he said in an interview with The Paris Review. “I did this every week for almost ten years and finally, in 1947, around the time I got married, I figured I was done. So I graduated from the library when I was twenty-seven. I discovered that the library is the real school.”

His book Fahrenheit 451 makes even more sense knowing that, doesn’t it?

RIP, Ray Brandbury.

Recalling the recall

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night I was listening to some talking heads nattering on about the results of the Wisconsin recall. What it means for Obama, what it means for public sector unions, what it means for Democrats, what it means for Romney. I noticed that the heads on the left were making so many excuses that I began to wonder whether they actually believed any of them.

I’ve read quite a few articles by liberal pundits about yesterdays results, too, and I have yet to find one that really deals with the actual issues that were at stake, the ones that the voters may have thought they were considering. Here’s an article by John Nichols that nicely encapsulates the gist of the arguments offered by the left to explain what happened in Wisconsin, and apparently it wasn’t about issues. Walker won because he spent eight times more money than the challenger. He won because the Democrats weren’t as good at “messaging.” And this just might be my favorite, because it seems to make no sense at all:

Yet, against overwhelming odds, Wisconsin’s recall movement fought its way to a dead heat, losing only narrowly in its effort to remove a “right-wing rock star” whose reelection became the top priority of the Republican party, the conservative movement and the 1% billionaires who made Walker’s reelection a national priority.

So now a 7-point spread is known as a “dead heat”? What twisted logic can lead to a conclusion like that? Is that something like 1984‘s O’Brien’s two plus two equals five if the party says it does?

So, do the talking heads and pundits such as Nichols, author of the Nation piece, actually believe what they’re writing? My answer would be “yes and no, simultaneously,” if that makes any sense (and see this for an in-depth discussion of how that can work). It serves them to believe it, and even if they are also aware on some level that there might be deeper problems that explain their loss, it’s too threatening to acknowledge that—to the public, and perhaps even to themselves. And of course they’re also acting as cheerleaders for the left, rallying the troops.

If you think (or want to think—which isn’t exactly the same but can have a similar effect) that elections can be bought by throwing enough money into them even if the policies you advocate don’t resonate with the majority of voters, then all you need to do is raise more money rather than change your message. If you think elections can be won by framing the pitch better, even if the underlying principles you’re advocating go against what the majority of people believe is right, then all you need do is hire better media consultants to manipulate them. And if you think a 7-point spread is close, neither you nor the rank and file need despair.

The alternatives may be too difficult to contemplate. They might require having respect for the fact that most people can actually think. They might require accepting the fact that the majority of people, even in a liberal state like Wisconsin, aren’t on the same page as you ideologically. Nor are they mere putty in your hands, who would come over to your side if only you had enough money and skill to say it properly.

Nichols takes it as a given that the electorate of Wisconsin was manipulated by the right into thinking, as Nichols says, that “up was down, right was left,” and to believe the right’s “fantasy and fabrication.” If you see your opponents as having no valid substantive message, that their entire campaign has been built on convincing the public of a fantasy, then all you have to do is create and sell a better fantasy.

Strategy and money are all very well and good in politics. They are necessary. They are influential. But they are not everything. Perhaps they are not even all that important above a certain basic threshold that is necessary to get the message out to the public. But if the message doesn’t resonate with people, they’re not going to buy it no matter how much you advertise.

[NOTE: Even Nichols’ assertion that Walker outspent Barrett 8-1 may be a self-deluding (or public-deluding? or both?) fabrication. As this commenter points out:

They are comparing Walker and all the independent PAC money on his side to the money that Barrett had left for his campaign after a tough primary. They’re excluding all the dough that the unions spent collecting recall signatures with their paid, out-of-state operatives. The union money that paid for GOTV efforts and advertising also isn’t counted. Nor are the expenditures from the progressive PACs. If you include all this money spent on the left, it goes a long way towards bringing this back to parity.

If that’s true, and the money amount spent by each party wasn’t all that different, then what good does it do you to fool yourself into thinking that the financial disparity was the cause of your defeat? Maybe you’re more interested in saving face than in actually winning next time.

The whole thing reminds me very much of the Scott Brown victory (what is it about these Scotts?), The Democratic Party denied and made excuses for that one, too. Look where that got them—the election of 2010.

None of this is to say that propaganda and lies don’t sometimes work. They certainly do. But hopefully, in this day and age, they don’t work as well or as effectively or as often as they used to. “You can fool some of the people…”—well, you get the idea.]

One of these things…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is not like the others:

The above photo was taken at the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebration on June 3. On the left, the Queen; in the middle, Camilla (aka the Duchess of Cornwall—it’s been a long and winding road for her to reach this point, hasn’t it?); and on the right, Prince William’s wife Kate (aka the Duchess of Cambridge).

You really think this was a gaffe?

The New Neo Posted on by

President Obama commits the gaffe of calling Romney by Mitt’s father’s name, George:

During a speech at the New Amsterdam Theater in Times Square, the president mixed up his Republican opponent with former Michigan Governor George Romney while contrasting their economic policies.

“We are not going back to a set of policies that say you’re on your own and that’s essentially the theory of the other side. You know, George Romney,” Mr Obama said.

Gaffe, or canny political move? After all, one of the consistent Obama campaign ploys has been to paint Mitt Romney as Retro-Man, a Don Draper-ish troglodyte caught in the outdated 60s. What better way to do this than to call him by the name of his father, a famous 60s politician?

I bring you Draper, Mitt, and George (in that order, in case you can’t tell the difference):

What other associations might Obama want to conjure up in the mind of the listener by calling Mitt “George”? Well, there’s an obvious one:

I’m being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in this post, but not entirely. Slips of the tongue are sometimes much more complex than they appear.

And while I was doing the photo research here, I noticed how much Mitt resembles his father posturally. They share an unusual way of dipping their heads down when in earnest thought or observation, and a certain way of holding their shoulders. A fine example of the phenomenon is in this photo of the youngish Mitt with his dad (See, son—someday all this will be yours!). They actually are looking down here, so it seems more natural, but they both do it very commonly under other circumstances, too:

ADDENDUM: Here’s a recording of the slip. Now that I actually have watched it, I am leaning more towards the idea that it was deliberate.

In addition, it doesn’t really make sense as a slip of the tongue. It would make sense if Obama was of an age to remember George Romney as a politician. But he’s not. He was just a little child in George Romney’s heyday, and lived nowhere near Michigan. If it is a slip, it’s a mighty odd one.

The significance of today’s Wisconsin recall vote

The New Neo Posted on by

Succinctly put:

Unless the voters in Wisconsin decide to surprise us all [today], the trouble in the Badger State means trouble ahead for public sector unions across the country. A Scott Walker victory would reshape not just Republican politics but Democratic politics as well; leaders like Andrew Cuomo in New York and Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago will be paying attention. If Walker wins handily, more Democrats will see the writing on the wall: Support for public sector unions simply isn’t the political winner it once was. This could presage a larger post-blue shift in the Democratic party for decades to come.

One caveat: if Walker wins, some portion of the vote—and I’m not sure how large or how small that portion would be—might also represent voters’ hesitation to submit elected officials to endless recall possibilities. Only nineteen states allow recall of state officials, and there’s probably a reason for that. The traditional remedy for egregious wrongdoing is impeachment, and for less severe problems it is failure to re-elect. Many states appear to believe that governors should not be subject to the whim of a bare majority in their every act as governor, and that the bar for removal should be set higher than Wisconsin’s.

In fact, Walker is only the third governor in the US ever to endure a recall vote. And quite a few residents are none too happy about the brouhaha that’s ensued there:

“It’s going to be a big one today,” said Lois Altmann, 83, a volunteer poll worker, as she taped maps of the county on walls inside the garden’s visitor center where voting booths were being erected. “Soon we can stop hearing about this.”

For months, Wisconsin residents ”” those on both sides of the debate ”” have complained that this fight has changed what was once mostly a gentle, civil political climate and turned friends and neighbors against one another.

“I’m looking forward to this being over,” said Adam Crandall, 45, who declined to say who he was backing, but stressed the need for Wisconsin to balance its budget and attract new businesses. “Frankly, I’m disappointed for the state of Wisconsin that we had to go through this, but it’s time to move forward.”

If Walker keeps his job today, most of the voters—perhaps even some who voted to recall Walker—will see the recall effort as a futile and unproductive waste of time and money. Of course, the left won’t be giving up on this sort of endeavor, but it may have a bit more trouble raising as much money for the battle next time.

[NOTE: It goes without saying—and so I neglected to say it—that today’s recall vote also has some significance for a guy named Barack Obama. The Democrats have been backtracking on that idea, and some creative souls are even flipping it upside down by saying a Walker victory might mean that people want to stick with the status quo (including Obama in November, who’s become the candidate of No Change). But it’s still the case that if Walker stays in office it probably isn’t a good sign for the president’s chances.]

More Nanny Bloomberg…

The New Neo Posted on by

…this time defending his proposed banning of the 16-ounce size of sugared drinks.

His article is an almost perfect illustration of how to slide down the slippery slope. In it, he shows no awareness of the difference between bans that are intended to protect those other than the perpetrator (such as the prohibition on smoking in restaurants, which supposedly was instituted because of second-hand smoke—which in itself is a somewhat controversial finding) and those (such as the sugar drink limit) that only protect a person from his/her own acts (the argument that obesity affects everyone by raising health premiums is not one he advances in this article, although it’s a favorite one of the left).

What’s more, Bloomberg seems not to understand the very real difference between rules that expand choice and those that contract it, although he touches on the issue of choice. Bloomberg writes:

Critics claim [banning the 16-ounce size] restricts choice. But, currently, people almost never have the choice to purchase as small as an 8-ounce beverage, which was considered adequate for decades.

Under our proposal, people could still choose to drink as much soda as they want. If 16 ounces (promoted as enough for three people in the 1950s!) is not enough, people could purchase two portions. Is that too much an inconvenience to reverse a national health catastrophe?

Rather than wringing our hands about the obesity epidemic, we in New York City are once again taking action to improve the lives of our residents.

That’s practically a perfect storm of what’s wrong with liberal do-goodiness. Is it even true that a person can’t purchase a small sugared drink in NY? I don’t know, since I never drink the stuff myself, but if so then a nanny-state truly interested in expanding choice would mandate the selling of smaller drinks as well as larger.

But don’t sit on a hot stove until Bloomberg offers that directive. And of course people can choose to drink as much soda as they want, but they can’t choose to buy it in one drink, even if the seller wants to sell it that way.

If Bloomberg actually thinks that banning the 16-oz size drink will “reverse a national health catastrophe,” he’s even more of a fool than I already think he is. And he also doesn’t even deal with the all-important question of whether it is the proper function of city government to take “action to improve the lives of our residents” at the cost of their liberty, even in small things. He’d rather we not bother our pretty little heads about that.

Tomorrow…

The New Neo Posted on by

…is the Scott Walker recall election in Wisconsin.

Should be interesting. Here’s a roundup, including some new polls (valid or not).

And I wonder: do you agree with me that there seems to be a slight lull in the presidential election battles?

White/Jewish

The New Neo Posted on by

In the ever-expanding interests of diversity in academia and elsewhere, we’ve hit a new high (that is, low):

Touting a move to make its faculty more diverse, CUNY administrators have broken out Jews into a separate minority group: “White/Jewish.”

CUNY insists “some faculty” want the label, instead of being lumped in as just white. But the theistic tag has outraged both Jewish and non-Jewish professors, and sparked a furor.

Surely the folks at CUNY must know that they’re stepped on a third rail here, with a long and non-illustrious history. The definition of Jewishness—race, nation, religion?—and the use made of compiling statistics on such things is both controversial and well-known. So, why wade into it? The only possible use in this circumstance would be to limit the hiring of Jewish professors, who (let me take a wild guess here) are probably over-represented rather than under-represented on CUNY’s faculty.

But I’ll entertain the topic, if only briefly. One of the real problems with defining Jews as a religion is that although they are indeed that, they also regard themselves as a nation, which can easily be confused with a race but most assuredly is not. And in turn that concept is complicated by the fact that some, although hardly all, of Jews were somewhat isolated genetically for a long time and exhibit shared characteristics and tendencies that are at least partly genetic (including, perhaps, the tendency to be college professors at CUNY).

Any person of any ethnic or racial origin can convert to Judaism, and many do. And there are Jewish groups—some of them of great antiquity—from every major race on earth. “White/Jewish” as a special diversity category makes about as much sense as “White/Catholic” does—meaning, none at all. But making sense was never the point, I’m afraid.

Around the world with Jews:

Alien spam

The New Neo Posted on by

I got some spam email in my mailbox that began this way:

Who I am? Shiny green eyes, twenty two years…

It went on to catalogue her other enticing body parts—“C cup,” for example, which I would have thought was considered relatively meager these days. It was signed with a woman’s name like “Brandy” or “Candy” or “Natasha” or “Vanessa” whatever the porn name du jour might be.

But after I’d deleted it, I kept wondering about those shiny green eyes. Not “shining,” mind you, but “shiny.” Was this an extra-terrestrial come-on? Or perhaps she was offering—true love?

:

I have to say that till I wrote this post I’d never heard of this song or the group that sings it, The Kelly Family. They seem to be awfully popular in Europe, which tells you something about European pop music tastes. Please try to forgive me if this gives you a very disagreeable earworm.