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.

Villella: dance and guys

The New Neo Posted on by

Edward Villella’s position at the helm of the Miami Ballet appears to be in trouble.

You might ask: Who? What? If you read the piece, you’ll see that the issue seems to be one that pervades the arts these days, where the money people often don’t quite get what the arts are all about, and quality suffers.

But although that’s an idea that interests me, what interests me even more about the article is Edward Villella.

Ah Villella! He taught a master class I attended once; don’t remember where. I had a long and jumungous crush on him (my ex-husband actually looked something like him, and I think that was no accident). Villella was that rarity: a seemingly “regular guy” who nevertheless danced ballet with great energy and flair. His technique wasn’t perfect (he’d taken time off to get a college degree, at his father’s request) but it was plenty good enough.

Strangely enough, I can find no videos of Villella dancing in his heyday. Pity. But these photos may give you a rough idea of what I found so compelling:

It turns out that age has been very, very kind to Villella. Or perhaps he’s been kind to it. Or maybe he’s got a great plastic surgeon, but I see no evidence of that (although hair dye is probably part of the deal). Here’s a talk Villella gave in Chicago when he was 74 years old (no, that’s not a typo). It’s long, but just watch the first minute or two and I think that his personal story (which lasts only for about the first 10 minutes) will fascinate you (it starts with a longshot but fairly quickly moves to a closeup):

His story reminds me so much of this, from “A Chorus Line”:

I don’t know why it’s so hard to find any video sof Villella dancing; after all, it’s not as though he was famous back in 1850. But in my search I came across this video, which was supposed to feature him but has nothing to do with him. But it’s pretty great anyway; Gene Kelly tapping away with Sugar Ray Robinson, and Sugar Ray gives him a very creditable run for his money:

Conservatives for big government

The New Neo Posted on by

Stop the presses: E.J. Dionne has a good point:

This Republican presidential campaign is demonstrating conclusively that there is an unbridgeable divide between the philosophical commitments conservative candidates make before they are elected and what they will have to do when faced with the day-to-day demands of practical governance. Conservatives in power have never been — and can never be — as anti-government as they are in a campaign.

I certainly don’t agree with everything Dionne says in the rest of his article, but that’s not the point. The point is that Dionne happens to be right in this case—and not only that, but that it’s difficult for politicians to act any differently and stay in power, because people almost demand it. It’s human nature to want to be given something for what seems like nothing, or to covet the possessions of others (or else there would have been no need for that Tenth Commandment*).

When there’s a liberal candidate, the game is right up front and center, naked and out in the open: elect me and you’ll get X, Y, and Z. Repbulicans and conservatives don’t tend to do that. But many (although not all) conservative candidates talk the fiscal austerity talk and then have trouble walking the walk. Just as a small example, Gingrich, Santorum, and Romney all have records that belie their small government and fiscal austerity pledges in one way or another.

What would any of them do if elected president? And what would they even have the power to do; after all, it’s mainly up to the legislature, although presidents can offer guidance and vetoes. Hard to say. I’m not writing this post in order to get into the minutiae of each man’s record on this score (that would become a book), but I do want to say that there’s support for arguments that each one might be telling the truth or that each one might be either incorrect or lying.

A majority of people may think we need to cut spending and keep taxes low, as well as lower the deficit, but the reality of what the results of that would actually be on a personal basis doesn’t seem quite as attractive. “Do it to him, not to me!” is the cry when the time for tough-love action really comes around.

You can say (as the liberal Dionne does) that it’s an example of the hypocrisy of Republicans, but the truth is that the public seems to demand it. And that’s just human nature, as the Founding Fathers seemed to be well aware, if this quote (supposedly by Ben Franklin but whose provenance is somewhat sketchy) is any indication:

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

[* The anti-coveting commandment is sometimes given just as number 10, but sometimes it includes 9 and 10, depending on the religion and denomination doing the numbering.]