Hard-wired politics: what about changers?

The New Neo Posted on by

New York magazine’s Sasha Issenberg has a weak article on a topic that interests me, the difference between liberals and conservatives, and whether it’s hard-wired.

In it, he (and some of the researchers he quotes) not only displays the typical stereotypes about right and left, but shows a good deal of ignorance about what would constitute strong evidence for nature in the nature-nurture fight. Most interestingly of all, for me, is that fact that he also ignores the formidable problem that changers such as yours truly present to anyone who would consider politics to be hard-wired. Did we changers all get updated wiring in mid-life?

The phenomenon is dismissed this way:

Rare midlife conversions aside, our parties are groups of two different kinds of people, [certain researchers] said, divided not by class or geography or education but by temperament.

Rare? Not really. It may be somewhat rare to change at the advanced age I did, but I’ve certainly come across the phenomenon time and again. More importantly, such conversions are actually pretty standard in early adulthood, as in the famous observation (sometimes attributed to Churchill), “A man who isn’t a liberal at 20 has no heart, and a man who isn’t a conservative at 40 has no head.”

Personally, I think nurture has a great, great deal to do with politics, although I would imagine that basic personality types (including where one falls on the heart/head continuum) come into play too. So do gender, age, and the ability to gather and process information. But it’s not a simple heart/head thing either; I know quite a few liberals with very formidable powers of thinking and analysis, and quite a few conservatives who lack them—and of course the opposite as well, people who conform to the standard “liberals who feel and conservatives who think” dichotomy.

The Hunger Games

The New Neo Posted on by

What do you get when you cross the TV show “Survivor” with the Roman Colosseum, “The Lottery,” dystopian sci-fi, Lord of the Flies, “The Most Dangerous Game,” and “The Wizard of Oz,” and then pitch it to the audience for the Twilight Saga? Why, the movie “The Hunger Games,” of course.

Which I went to see last night. I’d been assigned the novels (count ’em, three) for my book group, and they’d held my interest long enough for me to read them, albeit quickly. The first in the trilogy is the best, and that’s the one this movie depicts.

The books have become astonishingly popular, and although they’re not great works of art, they’re pretty well done. When I’d absorbed just a few pages of the first one I realized it was destined to become a blockbuster movie, and had almost certainly been written with that exact purpose in mind, so cinematic were its plot and characters. The film has to simplify some of the more complex thoughts in a book not known for complexity in the first place, but that’s nearly always the way of movies.

Although there are some things wrong with the film, one of them is certainly not lead actress Jennifer Lawrence, who is perfection itself in the role of heroine Katniss Everdeen. “Spunky” doesn’t even begin to describe her; this girl is fierce. Katniss isn’t a big talker, but Lawrence doesn’t need many words to convey a lot more than is in the script.

I was worried that the movie would be a visual bloodbath, because the book certainly describes killing after killing after killing, and there would be no way for the film to avoid this major plot device. But when the first deaths came I immediately realized the distractingly jerky camerawork was meant to obscure the violence rather than reveal it, the better to earn its PG-13 rating. I experienced this as a relief, because I don’t like graphic violence, but it had the curious effect of muting the thrust of the story, which relies in good measure for its intensity on the extremity and viciousness of the deaths. These kids seemed like they were just playing, and the outcome was never in doubt.

District 12, the impoverished coal-mining area where Katniss and her family live, looked for all the world like Walker Evans photos of the Depression come to life, including even the style of the clothing. The design of the Capitol where the Games and the pageantry for their opening ceremonies are held drew on several evocative sources, including Rome and Nazi Germany, with a bit of Oz’s Emerald City thrown in. The Capitol’s residents, on the other hand, were straight out of a Fellini movie. I was expecting something similarly over-the-top for the Games themselves, but somehow that part seemed more like a low-budget made-for-TV afternoon special for teens, filmed in a local state park.

So, what about the politics? Is a dystopia of the left or the right being depicted? Well, I don’t think the Hunger Games’ political philosophy was well-thought-out enough to answer that question, although you could claim that it lauds a vaguely libertarian ideal. And the fact that the heroine is a hunter indicates it’s not entirely an anti-right screed. The film’s villains are part of the central government. On the other hand, the plot emphasizes the evil of class differences. But mostly it depicts a dystopia of the mean, since its comic book perpetrators seem to relish doing evil for its own sake.

The strongest element of the book was its treatment of the ethical dilemmas that Katniss and the others in the Game face: in a situation that seems to call for inhumanity in order to survive, what compromises can a moral person make and stay moral, and which are worse than death? Now, that’s a good question, and the book—with its more leisurely pace—has time to explore it in greater depth than the movie ever does.

Today is the day…

The New Neo Posted on by

…when Easter candy is half price.

Just sayin. Of course, I wouldn’t ever go out and buy any.

No, I wouldn’t. Wouldn’t…shouldn’t…couldn’t…[trails off, staring into space]…

Those conservative candidates who would have won instead

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an interesting comment (the language is not quite what I’d use, but the sentiment is):

there is no evidence, in the modern era, that a person more conservative than Reagan can win on a national level.

the last person who did so successfully was fuckin’ Coolidge in the 20’s.

and Reagan, as we all know, was an abortion flip-flopper, signed international climate change treaties, was pro-amnesty, raised taxes, and was a former Democrat.

now if you want to say “hey, the country has shifted further to the right, so maybe we are ready for a guy more conservative than Reagan” – fine, make that argument. but in doing so you are purposefully going for a riskier strategy than simply “I want SCOAMF out unconditionally”. you are saying instead “I want SCOAMF out, but only if it means a *real conservative* is elected, otherwise, no thanks”.

A while back I ran a post with a list of every Republican who has run in the primaries since 1976 (at least all those who stayed in for any length of time, and even some who didn’t). Let’s take another look at it, and please tell me what available winner-conservative candidate should have been nominated instead of loser-RINO candidates Bush I (1992), Dole (1996), and McCain (2008).

Because I don’t see it. Really, what you’ve got there for conservative candidates after 1980 is Pat Buchanan (several times), Alan Keyes, Steve Forbes, Mike Huckabee—and (drum roll, please) Mitt Romney in 2008, when Romney was considered a conservative alternative to McCain:

2008: McCain, Romney, Huckabee
2004: Bush was the incumbent
2000: Bush, McCain, Alan Keyes (originally running but early dropouts were the likes of Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes, Orrin Hatch, Lamar Alexander, Elizabeth Dole, John Kasich, and Dan Quayle).
1996: Bob Dole, Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes
1992: incumbent George H.W. Bush was primaried by Pat Buchanan
1988: VP George H.W. Bush (one of the few VPs running in recent years), Bob Dole, Pat Robertson
1984: no challenge to incumbent Reagan
1980: Reagan, George H.W. Bush, John Anderson (an interesting primary in which Reagan was hugely popular and his nomination a foregone conclusion, based on his showing in 1976 when he primaried incumbent Gerald Ford and did well).

So I’d love for people to stop railing that if those real conservative candidates had been nominated during those years, he/she would have won, and how the Republican establishment shoved this or that candidate down your reluctant throats. It’s somewhat moot, because there were no winner-type conservative candidates running in those years—unless you think the good ones were being held in some basement and forcibly restrained from running by the nefarious Republican establishment.

Repeat after me: in 2008, the alternative conservative candidates running against McCain were Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. Which one of those would have beaten Obama?

By the way, I happen to think Romney actually might have done better against Obama than McCain did in 2008, for the same reason that McCain lost: the financial crisis that came right before the election and turned the tide for Obama. McCain was perceived (and even self-identified) as being ignorant about economics and finance, whereas Romney was considered knowledgeable and experienced on that topic. But that’s moot, too, because the nomination process locks someone in long before mid September, when the crisis hit the fan.

Autism and…maternal obesity?

The New Neo Posted on by

This seems an odd and unexpected finding:

Children born to obese or very overweight mothers are at higher risk of having autism or developmental delays, new research suggests.

The study of more than 1,000 children found that the offspring of obese mothers had a 67 percent higher risk of autism than the children of normal-weight moms, and more than double the risk of having developmental delays, such as language impairment.

That sort of thing—“double the risk”—sounds huge. But the rarer a phenomenon is, the less big a deal such an increase would be in practical terms. For example, if the incidence of something is generally one in ten thousand, double the risk would make it one in five thousand.

Autism, of course, is more common than that, perhaps one in eighty-eight. It is not only still basically a mystery as to cause, but it’s a diagnosis that has lent itself to wild speculation about its genesis. When I was a child, the whole thing was blamed on cold, rejecting moms. Now that’s not considered the case at all. And the once-popular vaccination theory has been debunked, too, but that doesn’t stop a lot of people from believing in it. Now it could be blame-the-mother time again (at least in the popular imagination), only the new cause would be obesity.

Well, although it may be a contributing factor, it’s certainly not the cause: most autistic children do not have obese mothers, and most obese mothers do not have autistic kids.

The headline of the article emphasizes the obesity link, but buried in the text is something else quite interesting:

Indeed, other research published last week identified several spontaneous genetic mutations as the cause of a fraction of autism cases. Parents’ ages, especially fathers older than 35, were also associated with autism in those recent studies, published online in the journal Nature.

[NOTE: Here’s a post I wrote on the phenomenon of the rising incidence of autism and what might explain it. And here’s one I wrote about the fake vaccination link.]

To Obama, the precedent is Wickard v. Filburn, not Marbury v. Madison

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Bumped up. Scroll down for new posts.]

My new article is up at PJ.

I urge you to go there and read it. Not just because I wrote it, but because I think it deals with something vitally important: what the Obamacare Supreme Court battle is actually about.

You think it’s about health care insurance in this country, and who will pay and how? You’re right. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. This case is much much bigger than that, and one of the reasons the left is so angry that the Supreme Court even decided to hear it in the first place is what it threatens to overturn: seventy years of extremely liberal precedent.

If you think Obama was dumb when he referred to precedent in his remarks about the case to SCOTUS, and must have been ignorant about Marbury v. Madison, think again. He does know constitutional law, and he has bigger fish to fry.

Have you noticed…

The New Neo Posted on by

…the Peeps explosion? They’re everywhere, in a profusion of colors and shapes that will make your head spin and your mouth water—if you happen to like them, that is.

I don’t. What’s more, I never have, even as a child. They promised so much and yet delivered so little.

Although the Peeps dioramas are mighty nifty:

Would you like some Peeps history and lore? Your wish is my command:

Peeps are produced by Just Born, a candy manufacturer founded in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania by Russian immigrant Sam Born. In 1953, Just Born acquired the Rodda Candy Company and its marshmallow chick line, and replaced the painstaking process of hand-forming the chicks with mass production. The yellow chicks were the original form of the candy ”” hence their name ”” but then the company introduced other colors and, eventually, the myriad shapes in which they are now produced.

An annual “Peep Off” competition is held in Maryland on the first Saturday after Easter, when Peeps are greatly discounted, to see who can eat the most in 30 minutes.

Ugh.

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s another in my series of “Rescue 911″ reprises. In this one it’s the adorable and very bright little boy Armando (who plays himself) who is so very very touching.

You also might say this has an Easter theme because, if you think about it, his pet bunny Robin had a role in saving the mother. Sort of, kind of, anyway (and also an effect on interstate commerce, no doubt).

The perfect jelly bean

The New Neo Posted on by

There is only one jelly bean worth eating at Easter or any other time of year.

No, not those weirdly flavored “gourmet” Jelly Bellys (I consider the term “gourmet jelly bean” to be an oxymoron). The traditionalist in me abhors them, despite Reagan’s reported fondness. As for those jelly beans placed on the endless supermarket aisles of Easter treats that tempt us from Valentine’s Day until tomorrow—when the remnants go on sale and those get scarfed up as well—the vast majority should not be consumed by anyone above the age of four. Maybe even by anyone below the age of four.

What should? I submit these, which are a tad more expensive but probably will not break the bank:

jellybeans.jpg

Traditionally fruit-flavored, made with smooth and succulent pectin, with a lovely and slightly translucent sheen, they go down easy. Maybe too easy; it is possible to eat quite a few before realizing what’s happening. Take it from one who knows.

How did jelly beans come to be associated with Easter? It seems a no-brainer because of their egglike shape, but apparently the tradition didn’t really get going until the 1930s. Jelly beans are far older than that, however, making their debut as the confection promoted by Schrafft of Boston for sending to Union soldiers during the Civil War (a crafty man, that Schrafft).

A little-known jelly bean fact (at least to me) is that, “in United States slang in the 1910s and early 1920s a ‘Jelly bean’ or ‘Jellybean’ was a young man who made great efforts to dress very stylishly, presumably to attract women, but had little else to recommend him…The word was also used as a synonym for pimp.”

Returning to the actual candy, I offer a caveat: there is hardly anything worse than the shock of thinking you’re biting into a normal fruit-flavored jelly bean and getting a spicy one. They should be identified by special markings, like those insects that are bad to eat, as a warning to others. I suggest racing stripes.

But if you buy the Russell Stovers, there’s no need to be on the spice alert. And remember: Monday the sales begin! Although, come to think of it, it’s a sign of this particular jelly bean’s superiority that not only are they generally available year-round, but at most stores they are exempted from the post-Easter markdowns. They’re that good.

[NOTE: This is a repost.]

It occurs to me…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that with my new and more effective spam filter, I may be retiring the “spambot of the day” feature for want of high-caliber candidates.

Pity, isn’t it? Although I won’t be shedding too many tears for the little buggers.

And I hope you’re all satisfied with the preview function so many of you have been requesting for years—although I’m a little sad that some of the more colorful errors will be going the way of the bots, down the rabbit hole.