Living alone: weirdness unleashed

The New Neo Posted on by

Live alone? Watch out; you may find yourself getting a mite too weird for comfort:

In a sense, living alone represents the self let loose. In the absence of what Mr. Klinenberg calls “surveilling eyes,” the solo dweller is free to indulge his or her odder habits ”” what is sometimes referred to as Secret Single Behavior. Feel like standing naked in your kitchen at 2 a.m., eating peanut butter from the jar? Who’s to know?

Let me state here and now that I never eat peanut butter from the jar—but only because, alas, peanut butter (like chocolate) gives me migraines. But I shamefully confess that I often eat other treats from the jar, at 2 AM, while standing up—although fully clothed in my favorite mismatched-but-no-doubt-adorable sweats.

However, I hasten to add that I am so unapologetically weird that I do all of that even when living with someone. I don’t let those “surveilling eyes” stop me from almost any eccentricity I care to display—perhaps because my various roomies/mates/boyfriends have all been pretty darn eccentric themselves.

Heartlandgate, memos, and writing styles

The New Neo Posted on by

What does Heartlandgate prove about AGW? Absolutely nothing.

But it does say something about what AGW’s more fanatical proponents are prepared to do in furthering the cause—at least, what one of them, Dr. Peter Gleick, a noted freshwater scientist and recipient of a MacArthur “genius” award in 2003, was prepared to do.

First, a summary:

In an obvious attempt to inflict a symmetrical Climategate-style scandal on the skeptic community, someone representing himself as a Heartland Institute insider “leaked” internal documents for Heartland’s most recent board of directors meeting to a fringe environmental blog, along with a photocopy of a supposed Heartland “strategy memo” outlining a plan to disseminate a public school curriculum aimed at “dissuading teachers from teaching science.”

It was the latter document, the “strategy memo,” that contained the controversial remarks that supposedly showed how the science-Neanderthals at right-leaning Heartland think and act. But, after several AGW “skeptics” found anomalies in the provenance of the memo and accused Gleick of having something to do with the document dump, it turns out that Gleick has now confessed that he obtained them under false pretenses, although he says it all started when the “strategy memo” was sent to him by an anonymous source. What’s more, although Heartland has acknowledged that the more benign documents are indeed theirs, the Institute has denied authorship of the only incriminating one, that strategy memo, claiming that it’s a forgery.

There is some rather intense irony in this:

Even before his mea culpa, Gleick…had resigned last Thursday as chairman of the American Geophysical Union’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics.

Here’s Gleick’s explanation for his motivation in obtaining the documents:

My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists … and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved…

One of these efforts that so riled Gleick was probably Climategate. Many AGW proponents and their political supporters in the press and elsewhere have alleged that the Climategate emails were hacked, although there’s no evidence of this and most on the right believe that dump was an inside job. But in Gleick’s mind, all was probably fair in love and war—and climate science, which appears to contain elements of both.

People can become fanatical when they believe in a cause and are thwarted in some way. But scientists are supposed to be above all that, as Gleick no doubt knows. There’s reason to believe he’s still lying, and that he forged the strategy memo as well (see this, for example), although it’s possible it came from another source, just as he says. But since Gleick has undermined his credibility in general, there’s really no reason to believe him on this or any other matter.

It’s also ironic that much of the fallout of Climategate was not about whether the science was right or wrong (although there certainly was discussion of this), but the lengths to which AGW proponents would go to harm their opponents, those “skeptics.” If Gleick was trying to reverse this perception by creating the idea that skeptics do the same, and worse, his plan backfired entirely.

This sort of activity is so completely antithetical to the purposes of science that it destroys—or should destroy, anyway—Gleick’s career. And if I were an AGW-supporting climate scientist, I’d be hopping mad at him for actions which have the possibility of casting doubt on the integrity of scientists in the entire field—or even on science as a whole, which rests on truth-telling.

Another aspect of Heartlandgate is the question of the memo itself. The mystery is not just who forged it, but how the person could do such a poor job. It reminds me to write a memo to myself about writing memos: if you’re going to forge one, make sure you take into account a few technicalities like using the right font (see Rathergate), the right language (part of the problem with the Heartland memo is that it was written in an idiosyncratic style that seems to match Gleick’s own), and timing (techies could tell that the new memo was scanned at a different time and date than the other materials).

Now, I don’t know much about the computer tech stuff, but I do know something about writing style. It’s almost like a fingerprint. For example, after writing this blog almost every day for all these years, I know many of my little stylistic quirks, whether you do or not. I won’t mention what they are, but believe me, I’m aware of them.

And that’s how a mathematician-turned-environmental-fanatic, the Unabomber, got caught, if you recall (I am not equating Gleick with Kaczynski, by the way; just pointing out the fact that writing styles can do seemingly smart people in—as Jack Cashill would like to prove re Obama and Bill Ayers). Kaczynski wanted very badly for his magnum opus, the 50-page Manifesto, to be disseminated to the public [emphasis mine]:

There was a great deal of controversy as to whether the document should be published. A further letter threatening to kill more people was sent, and the United States Department of Justice, along with FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General Janet Reno, recommended publication out of concern for public safety and in hopes that a reader could identify the author.

You can rag on the Justice Department, the FBI, and Janet Reno all you want, but in this case they were brilliantly prescient, because that’s exactly what broke the case:

Before the publication of the manifesto, Theodore Kaczynski’s brother, David Kaczynski, was encouraged by his wife Linda to follow up on suspicions that Ted was the Unabomber. David Kaczynski was at first dismissive, but progressively began to take the likelihood more seriously after reading the manifesto a week after it was published in September 1995. David Kaczynski browsed through old family papers and found letters dating back to the 1970s written by Ted and sent to newspapers protesting the abuses of technology and which contained phrasing similar to what was found in the Unabomber Manifesto…

In early 1996, former FBI hostage negotiator and criminal profiler Clinton R. Van Zandt was contacted by an investigator working with Tony Bisceglie [an investigator hired by Kaczyniski’s brother David]. Bisceglie asked Van Zandt to compare the manifesto to typewritten copies of handwritten letters David had received from his brother. Van Zandt’s initial analysis determined that there was better than a 60 percent chance that the same person had written the letters as well as the manifesto, which had been in public circulation for half a year. Van Zandt’s second analytical team determined an even higher likelihood that the letters and the manifesto were the product of the same author. He recommended that Bisceglie’s client immediately contact the FBI.

In February 1996, Bisceglie provided a copy of the 1971 essay written by Ted Kaczynski to the FBI. At the UNABOM Task Force headquarters in San Francisco, Supervisory Special Agent Joel Moss immediately recognized similarities in the writings. Linguistic analysis determined that the author of the essay papers and the manifesto were almost certainly the same. When combined with facts gleaned from the bombings and Kaczynski’s life, that analysis provided the basis for a search warrant.

In an ironic addendum, David Kaczynski wished to remain anonymous so that his brother would never learn he was the one who’d turned him in. But that didn’t last very long. His identity was leaked to—guess who?:

…[David Kaczynski’s] identity was leaked to CBS News in early April 1996. CBS anchorman Dan Rather called FBI director Louis Freeh, who requested 24 hours before CBS broke the story on the evening news.

Yes: Dan Rather, who gave his name to the Rathergate forged-memos scandal, was instrumental in outing David Kaczynski. And the moral of the story is: beware those writing quirks, and pay attention to the font, too.

Primary 2012: observation du jour

The New Neo Posted on by

Perusing the headlines about the Republican primary featured at RealClearPolitics or memeorandum, I feel an immense weariness come over me.

It’s not just that I’ve been writing about this stuff now for months and months and months. It’s that for quite a while nearly everything I read has seemed like spin—that is, pundits writing about the campaign not to describe things clearly, but in order to cause a certain result to occur, sometimes a covert one (just to take one small example, there’s Paul Krugman writing today about how Romney is a hidden Keynesian, which I’m fairly certain is intended to make Republicans hate Romney even more than they already do).

And lest you say that’s the way it always is, let me just state that I agree with you but I think this season is worse than usual. I’m not exactly sure why, although I’ve been mulling it over. But it seems as though a lot of people have finally snapped; years of frustration with government doing either too much (the conservative view) or the wrong things (the bipartisan view, although which things are wrong are defined differently by each side) or too little to “help” (the liberal view). Years of a Congress that nobody likes. Economic hardship. Lowered standards for public and private life.

There’s also the sense on the Republican side that all of the candidates are no good. Nobody’s quite satisfied, either because these candidates really are inferior as a group, or because we’re expecting too much of mere mortals, or because we’re just feeling pissy after the strain of the contentious Bush years and the tension-ridden Obama years. So the Republican electorate is cooperating in the liberal MSM’s task, which is to encourage disillusionment and/or apathy in voters on the right. And the candidates are doing their level best to help, as well.

I dunno. Maybe it’s just that it’s a gloomy day here. And maybe once the primary season is over (can’t wait!), the right will settle down to become more unified, and gather some positive energy for the November showdown. Because if that doesn’t happen, Obama will indeed be re-elected, and then the even more bitter finger-pointing on the right will start.

A tall story: surgical leg lengthening

The New Neo Posted on by

I wasn’t able to embed this video on my blog, but perhaps it’s just as well, because some of the footage is rather disturbing, especially if you’re a mite squeamish, like me. It shows the lengths (literally) to which some people will go to become taller, utilizing a procedure by which the leg bones are broken and rods placed in them that are then periodically manipulated so that new bone will grow in the break and cause an increase in height that can amount to several inches.

The surgery is both disturbing and ethically interesting. It was originally developed to help people with dwarfism and other serious height issues, and even in that arena it is controversial because it runs counter to the idea of acceptance and celebration of the condition, as well as causing some potential health problems:

The 7,400-member Little People of America says the risk of nerve and vascular damage in the years after the surgery is great. Besides, they say, a short stature makes them unique, and limb lengthening implies there’s something wrong with being “a little person.”

“Do you just go along with the crowd or teach people difference is OK?” said LPA activist Colleen Gioffreda. She, her husband, Jim, and their 2-year-old son, Connor, all were born with achondroplasia. “It scares me to think people want to become more and more the same,” she said.

Michael Ain, an orthopedic surgeon at Johns Hopkins Hospital, says premature arthritis is just one possible complication. “There’s an enormous amount of risk,” said Ain, himself a dwarf who decided against the surgery. “Nobody really knows what’s going to happen to them.”

Paley’s patients believe they know. One of them is Gillian Mueller, 26, of Columbia, Md., who has been living with longer limbs for 13 years.

“It’s one of the best decisions I’ve ever made,” Mueller said.

The procedure was developed in Russia about 50 years ago, and in dwarfs of the type with extremely short limbs it also makes the body proportions seem more normal. It can be started in childhood, when the results tend to be better, and the height gained can be profound: for example, from 4′ to 5′ 3″, if begun early enough. In dwarfs the procedure is covered by insurance, and it runs around $150,000 for multiple surgeries, which are only done in a few places in the world.

So, is this a cosmetic procedure or not, if done in childhood to a person born with this condition? It can change the person’s entire life, including the chances for a good job and the choices for a spouse. Typically the decision would be made by the child and/or his/her parents, and paid for by insurance. Should this be allowed? And would the answer be different if it were paid for out-of-pocket? Those who lack compassion for the situation might want to watch this slideshow. However, I’m not so sure a whole lot of families will want to avail themselves of a surgery that involves so much suffering and risk.

Then there are the non-dwarf but short adults with whom I began this post, who are now undergoing the surgery, too. In a way their decision should be even easier to support because they are grownups and they are all paying out-of-pocket (although of course their condition is less extreme). So the libertarian stance would be that they should be allowed to do whatever they wish, and that’s pretty much my point of view. But what of the surgeons? If you were an orthopedist specializing in this procedure for children born as dwarfs, what would you think if a man of 5’6″—the height of the guy featured in that first video—came to you and asked for help? He is getting a second procedure, as well, and believes his final height will be 6′ or above.

The article doesn’t say, but my guess is that among the adult candidates there would be more men than women, because men tend to find low stature more of a drawback than women do, and there is a lot of research to show they’re correct. But it’s a slippery slope, and no doubt many women would want it too, although they can avail themselves of 6-inch heels instead if they can manage to walk in them.

Here, for example, is the diminutive (5’1″) Lady Gaga with an extreme example:

And lest you think this is merely a modern-day Western obsession, take a look at the oiran geta, footwear traditionally worn in ancient Japan by women trained as a high-class prostitutes/entertainers:

Obligatory post-debate political post

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night was the last debate of this Republican primary season, which I did not watch. But I read about it, and the consensus is that Newt did fairly well but it won’t matter, Santorum did rather poorly (especially on his defense of earmarks), Ron Paul did the way he always does (foreign policy madman), and Mitt did quite well but it won’t convince those who don’t like him and who distrust him to feel any differently.

So there we have it. In the next two weeks or so, after Super Tuesday (March 6 this year), things will almost certainly become clearer and perhaps we’ll have a real frontrunner.

I’ve written so much about this primary race that most of you know that I favor Romney, and why. So I won’t belabor the point any more, except to add a few observations:

Here’s one of the reasons it’s important to defeat Obama in his bid for a second term.

Sometimes I wonder about this sort of thing, too, at least on the part of some. It seems to me that there’s a significant minority of conservatives who don’t want to win the election if it means someone they consider less than a very strong conservative will be in charge. And they don’t even mind losing Congress in the process, because they think the whole thing will constitute a sort of purging fire for the country. Needless to say, I disagree strongly.

Romney mentioned a bunch of stuff he did as governor that was conservative. But again, I don’t think it will convince the unconvinced. Just the fact that he was governor of a very liberal state, and had to compromise in order to get things done, is considered evidence that in your heart, you know he’s not a conservative, and everything he says to the contrary is considered evidence that he’s a liar as well.

This new “Rubio-was-a-Mormon-from-age-8-to-age-13″ story makes me remember how disinterested the MSM was in Obama’s similar story about being a Muslim in Indonesia as a child. It also reminds me of the peculiar fact that, except for JFK, all our presidents have been Protestants. We elected a black president before we elected a second Catholic. Of the major GOP candidates this year, one’s a Mormon and two are Catholics, although Gingrich is a convert. Ron Paul’s the only Protestant in the bunch, but he’s not really a major candidate, IMHO.

Library love

The New Neo Posted on by

I have a weakness for books. If I freely indulged myself, I’d be poverty-stricken in no time flat. I’ve got such long lists of books to read that if I were to actually to get to all of them it would take several lifetimes, and if I didn’t keep myself under strict control (where, oh where are the 12-step programs for book addicts?) I’d be crowded out of house and home, or could be featured on the show “Hoarders” as a warning to others.

But the library provides just the right outlet for my book-acquiring urges. I always take more out than I can read, but not too many more (after all, there’s a limit to what I can carry), and there’s really no downside to it unless I manage to incur fines—which I do periodically, but just a few dollars here and there, which I consider a small donation to the cause.

As a child, I looked forward to library day as though it were a holiday. I’d prevail on my mother to take me there, and once we arrived I’d get down to business and collect my treasures. Until I was twelve and could go to the adult room, I had to abide by the cruel rules that limited me to six books a pop. Oh, the solemn deliberations! I’d pile up the candidates on an empty table and weigh their attributes, contemplating which was worth more to me, the book on geology or the next volume in Noel Streatfeild’s “Shoes” series—and wondering whether, if I passed one of them up this time, it would still be there next time I tried to find it or whether some other rival child would have claimed it.

At home, I could hardly wait. There they sat, like a bunch of unopened but gaily-wrapped presents on Christmas morning, bright with promise. Then I’d choose the most enticing (the biggest? the most colorful?), turn to its first page, and begin.

I’d try to stretch out the pleasure—in the same way I gamely tried to save my Halloween candy so that it would last longer. But, as with the sweets, I’d succumb quickly to my desires. Typically I’d read all the books in the first couple of days, slowed down only by my mother standing over me periodically and wringing her hands, ordering me to go outside and play.

What was she so worried about? A lot of things. I might atrophy into a sitting or reclining position (I tended to read while sprawled on couch or bed). I might need glasses some day. I might be abnormal (maybe I already was!). I might even become that dread thing, a female intellectual.

What can I say; it was a long time ago. But I still love the library. And when I was in my thirties I discovered a new (at least to me) treat: inter-library loan. Like the genie in the fairy tales, the library was saying to me, “Your wish is my command!”, honoring requests to the best of its ability, scouring the land for the titles of my choice.

I’d often stay up all night reading, even when I was the mother of a young child and I knew I’d be exhausted the next day. Books are company, books are learning, books are interacting with other interesting minds, books are escape. Books are—well, here’s Emily Dickinson, who knew a thing or two about the subject:

There is no Frigate like a Book
To take us Lands away
Nor any Coursers like a Page
Of prancing Poetry ”“
This Traverse may the poorest take
Without oppress of Toll ”“
How frugal is the Chariot
That bears the Human Soul ”“

[ADDENDUM: Here’s a previous post of mine about a formative library experience of my youth, featuring the NY Public Library and my mother as the stars.]

Obama: I lowered corporate taxes before I raised them

The New Neo Posted on by

No, Obama didn’t actually say that. But I wonder how many people will read past the headlines—“Obama proposes lowering corporate tax rate to 28 percent”—and see that the tax paid by corporations will go up, not down:

The plan would lower the nation’s corporate tax rate to 28 percent. At the same time, Obama wants to boost overall revenue from corporate taxation by banning numerous deductions and loopholes that save companies tens of billions of dollars a year on their tax bills.

In other words, the corporate tax rate will go down as the total amount of tax gleaned from corporations will go up (theoretically, anyway). Now, if Obama and the Democrats want to do that, it’s certainly well within their right to do so, if they have the votes to do it. Nor am I suggesting there is anything deceptive about it. I just wonder whether it’s clear to most people what it’s about.

For example, there’s the phrase “deductions and loopholes.” Somehow it always sounds as if there’s something shady about them, even though they’re perfectly legal, and tend to be put into the tax code in the first place to encourage some sort of result that’s deemed good at the time, either to the country or society or the economy or business as a whole. Some of them no doubt can be dispensed with without negative consequences, but I don’t have a clue which ones they are, and I wonder whether Tim Geithner knows either:

The president’s plan targets oil and gas companies for tax increases while promising special breaks for manufacturing companies.

And in a slap at U.S. multinational corporations that shelter profits overseas, Obama wants those firms to pay a minimum tax on their foreign earnings. He also wants to end tax breaks for companies that outsource and give new tax incentives to firms that move jobs back home.

Marguerite Higgins of the conservative Heritage Foundation argued that such a tax would hurt competition.

“Once again, Obama is going in precisely the wrong direction,” Higgins said in a statement. “Rather than in-sourcing jobs, he would outsource the headquarters and top management of U.S. multinational companies.”

The article also mentions this little tidbit [emphasis mine]:

Obama has not offered a detailed blueprint for overhauling the personal income tax code ”” also full of loopholes and deductions ”” other than calling for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Such a blueprint is not expected to come before the November presidential election.

Here’s an example of the sort of thing that may be in store—the dividend tax:

Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new [higher dividend tax] rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you’re a greedy couple. We’re all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it.

The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here’s why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.

When the rate fell to 15% on January 1, 2003, dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion from $103 billion the year before the tax cut. By 2006 dividend income had grown to nearly $337 billion, more than three times the pre-tax cut level…

Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.

But all American shareholders would lose. Higher dividend and capital gains taxes make stocks less valuable. A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the future earnings stream after taxes. Stock prices would fall over time to adjust to the new after-tax rate of return. And if investors become convinced later this year that dividend and capital gains taxes are going way up on January 1, some investors are likely to sell shares ahead of paying these higher rates.

The law of unintended consequences—it’s a bitch.

Speaking of which—take a look at what’s happening in Britain with a higher corporate tax rate. Tax revenues are going down. Quelle surprise!

Concert fashion

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I commented on Julia Fischer’s concert decolletage. But perhaps I’m behind the times in classical music fashion, as commenter “Les” pointed out in that thread, when he directed me to highly-acclaimed pianist Yuja Wang’s orange minidress that rocked the Hollywood bowl last summer:

All I can say is that it’s fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how much of Ms. Wang you’d like to see) that she’s not a cello player. As a former student of the instrument, I know whereof I speak.

I wondered how Ms. Wang managed to sit in the shorter dress. I can’t find a video of it, but here’s a triptych that includes a sitting position. She does a pretty good job under somewhat challenging circumstances:

Here’s Yuja in more conventional dress, playing a piece I once (laboriously) learned, and love very much:

Wang has a beautiful touch. But I still prefer Rubinstein’s version, especially in the allegro passages:

But Rubinstein had it relatively easy. He didn’t have to worry about his pants riding up as he played.

You might have noticed…

The New Neo Posted on by

…that lately I seem to need to counter my political posts with an arts post, as a palate refresher.

Politics still interests me, of course. But it’s been an exhausting topic recently, and a somewhat depressing one, and I find I almost must counter it with something that gives energy rather than sapping it. For me that would most often be the arts, most particularly dance and music.

Perhaps you feel the same way, although maybe for you it’s sports, or food (let’s hear it for food!). Or mindless reality TV, which I’ve been known to watch on more than one occasion (see this for just one example; I’m too ashamed to link to the others, but believe me, they exist).

Enjoy.

Julia Fischer, Suzanne Farrell, music and dance, dance and music

The New Neo Posted on by

I came across this video by accident, because YouTube in its infinite wisdom had recommended it for me. I was struck first by the beauty of the piece, then by the intensity of the performers, then by the gorgeous youthfulness of Ms. Fischer, and finally by her low-cut gown. I hadn’t seen that in a classical musician before; I always thought they were supposed to dress less provocatively so as not to distract the audience from the music. But I guess the times they have a-changed:

Ms. Fischer also looked strangely familiar. It struck me that, impressive cleavage notwithstanding, she moves like a dancer and stands like a dancer. Sure enough, look at the following moment in a piece about her:

If she’s not a dancer, she’s a gymnast or contortionist, on top of her fabulously virtuosic violin playing.

I finally realized that she also she reminds me of someone in the dance world: the inimitable Suzanne Farrell. Farrell’s in her 60’s now, as this video attests, but look at the footage of the youthful Farrell and I think you’ll see the strong resemblance (and Farrell was known for her musicality as well). Did Farrell have a love child in Germany thirty-odd years ago?:

Farrell was a completely unique dancer with a lush quality of movement, expansive and ethereal at the same time. Unfortunately, there’s not a whole lot of video on YouTube of her glorious Balanchine years. Grainy and truncated though this is, the following shows something of what made her so special. Those developpes a la seconde of Farrell’s that end the segment are high, but that’s not what they’re about, it’s their quality. They seem like pointers that go on forever, into infinity:

What we think we know: Romney and Michigan

The New Neo Posted on by

In the last decade, ever since I’ve been paying closer attention to the MSM, I’ve been astounded at the number of things that are stated as facts and accepted as such that really don’t make a whole lot of sense when you examine them.

I know, I know; why should I be surprised, after all this time? I shouldn’t. But quite often, when I hear a “fact” repeated over and over as though it’s a self-evident tautology, a little warning bell goes off somewhere in my brain and I think hmmm, really?

Case in point: Romney and Michigan. Now, I want to offer a caveat: this post isn’t about whether Romney will win Michigan or not, nor is it about who would be a better candidate, Santorum or Romney or Gingrich, or whether any or all or none of them can beat Obama in November. That’s all in a state of flux, and besides I’ve written a ton about it already anyway.

This is about the expectation that of course, Romney ought to do very well in Michigan, and if he doesn’t he’s toast because it will mean he can’t even win a state that should be a cakewalk for him. The basis of this belief, as far as I can tell, is that Romney is from Michigan originally and his father was governor there. So let’s take a look at the facts.

George Romney, Mitt’s dad, was governor from 1963-1969. I hate to say it, because I remember those years pretty well, but that was a long time ago in electoral terms (although not in geological ones). Before that, Romney senior was an auto industry executive, and after his governorship he had a brief tenure as a member of Nixon’s cabinet and then became a private citizen involved in volunteering and church activities. To how many present-day Michigan voters could his political career possibly matter?

What’s more, George Romney was a moderate Republican and not a fiscal conservative, and if anyone really does remember him in the present-day Republican Party, which has grown more conservative, I would imagine that the recollection might have more of a tendency to hurt his son than help him.

Mitt Romney grew up in Michigan (where, by the way, despite his father’s success, he “had a steady set of chores and worked summer jobs, including being a security guard at a Chrysler plant”), but went away to college—Stanford and then Brigham Young—and on to grad school at Harvard. For the rest of his adult life, both business and political, and except for a short stint in Utah to manage the 2002 Winter Olympics, Mitt Romney has been a Massachusetts guy all the way.

Now “Michigan” and “Massachusetts” both begin with an “M,” and they are both in the same time zone, but other than that they really don’t have a great deal in common. Looking at Romney’s actual history rather than his supposed history as Michigan’s favorite son, I really can’t see why people in present-day Michigan would have especially warm feelings about him. Michigan is a blue-collar state that’s hurting, and the Santorum/Romney split is one that has been presented (whatever the reality) as a contrast between a blue-collar guy and a rich elitist. In fact, Michigan should be Santorum’s to win, not Romney’s, at least by my calculations.

Ah, you say, but Romney won hands down there in 2008. Let’s see:

Romney: 38.92%
McCain: 29.68%
Huckabee: 16.08%
Ron Paul: 6.27%

There were some other miscellaneous candidates with a few percentage points, but that’s the picture. Then there was no populist, blue-collar candidate like Santorum to mount a strong challenge, and still Romney came nowhere near to getting half the votes. And lest you say that this only points to how weak a candidate Romney is—because of course as a favorite son, he should have been well in the lead—please read the earlier part of my post again. And then for this year, add to it the fact that Romney has consistently opposed the auto company bailouts—a conservative position, but one unlikely to help him in Michigan.

One big question during this primary season is which candidate will blink first, and when—and if he does, who will get his voters. The race has been so volatile that I hesitate to make any predictions, but right now it seems to be coming down to Romney vs. Santorum. A goodly part of Santorum’s surge is that he has drawn the not-Romney vote that previously had been concentrated on others.

I don’t see Ron Paul dropping out at all. Will Gingrich? Not as long as he’s got the money to keep going. If and when he does drop out, if he endorses anyone I’d imagine it would be Santorum, but that doesn’t mean his voters will go there. If there’s one thing I’ve learned during this primary season, it’s that all bets are off.