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.]

Knopfler’s voice

The New Neo Posted on by

Mark Knopfler, founder of Dire Straits and now solo artist, is known as an astounding guitar player.

And that he most certainly is. His playing is unusual, too, in that he almost never uses a pick. His riffs are especially melodic and quite beautiful as well as virtuosic.

But I also love his voice, which may surprise you if you’re familiar with it. No one would ever call his singing melodic.

Knopfler also illustrates my point about the attraction of uniqueness in voices. Knopfler’s certainly is instantly recognizable—as is his phrasing, and his seeming offhand understated casualness that masks the art behind it. No, he’s not got a beautiful voice, and yet he’s got a fabulous voice that does exactly what he wants it to do.

Sometimes what he wants it to do is to convey emotion. Knopfler is over sixty now, and this video was made not that long ago (perhaps about 10 years), although I’m not sure of the exact date. Enjoy; the really moving stuff starts at around 5:26 and goes right to the end:

The lyrics are here.

The Killers did a cover of this recently—tremendously popular but substantially inferior, IMHO, although the singing is more melodic and conventional:

]

The candidates and the internet detectives

The New Neo Posted on by

It used to be that candidates would make stump speeches and have debates, and that was the best guide you had to their intentions if they were to win—that, and their records. The latter consisted of the jobs they’d held and the actions they’d taken, and maybe a few major speeches they’d given.

But it would have been too much work to scour their every public utterance for errors or slips, or something they had said many years ago, before they were presidential candidates, that now could be used against them. Either the record didn’t exist, or it was too difficult to find and study.

But with the advent of the internet it has became a great deal easier. Now there are legions of hired hands, freelancers, and amateurs devoted to just that: the task of catching someone doing something that would turn the public against him/her. No matter if it’s twenty years or more ago, and they say they’re changed; it’s all grist for the gotcha mill.

Obama was more immune from that than most when he was running for president. It’s partly because he was the press’s darling, but it’s partly his own doing. It’s hard to escape the idea that Obama was purposely keeping a low profile and making sure he had as little a paper and video trail as possible, and that the record he did leave was as generalized and innocuous as possible, and that he had complete control of it (his books, for example). Maybe he knew even then that being too vocal or too well-documented could be used to damage a candidate and reveal him/her in unfavorable ways. And of course, the MSM has cooperated in keeping whatever record might exist as hidden as possible, if it could implicate Obama in a way that would reflect badly on him.

It’s a good thing Reagan’s candidacy was before the rise of the internet. Otherwise, we’d have probably been treated to videos of his old speeches praising Helen Gahagan Douglas, back when he was a liberal Democrat, in order to damage his conservative bona fides.

Over 50% of births to mothers under 30 are outside marriage

The New Neo Posted on by

What a sad milestone:

After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage…The fastest growth in the last two decades has occurred among white women in their 20s who have some college education but no four-year degree, according to Child Trends, a Washington research group that analyzed government data.

Among mothers of all ages, a majority ”” 59 percent in 2009 ”” are married when they have children. But the surge of births outside marriage among younger women ”” nearly two-thirds of children in the United States are born to mothers under 30 ”” is both a symbol of the transforming family and a hint of coming generational change.

One group still largely resists the trend: college graduates, who overwhelmingly marry before having children. That is turning family structure into a new class divide…

What’s going on here? In this day of multiple choices for effective birth control, it’s clear that people are either being incredibly negligent about using it, or are purposely having these children. What’s more, whatever your stand on abortion, it’s apparent that a lot of people are foregoing that too, for whatever reason.

The fact that illegitimate births are still in the minority overall probably reflects the fact that a higher percentage of first pregnancies are now occurring in the over-30 group than used to be the case, especially in the well-educated. These women and men are postponing childbearing because birth control improvements allow them to do so effectively if it suits them—and it does suit this particular group, more and more, because both women and men are solidifying careers beforehand.

There’s little doubt in my mind that part of the trend towards more illegitimacy in the under-30 crowd is that it no longer has much social stigma at all. When I was growing up it was almost never done, except among the very poor, and even then the woman was looked down on. It was far more common to either give the baby up for adoption or to have a shotgun wedding (I knew of quite a few of the latter, some of which have lasted to this day).

Still another factor is something that you can easily see if you peruse blogs about the relationships between young men and women: the pluses of marriage have become less and less evident for both sexes, but most particularly for men (see this, this, and this for some heated discussions of the subject on this blog alone). The economics for women have changed a lot, too; as the Times piece points out, women no longer are in as much need of men economically.

Meanwhile, the high divorce rate has made young people wary and cynical:

Most of my friends say it’s just a piece of paper, and it doesn’t work out anyway.

Unwed motherhood is more common in all age groups, races, and classes than it was when I was growing up. But by far the greatest increases have occurred in three groups: non-whites, non-college graduates, and couples who live together.

The Times article briefly mentions this, but the more detailed data is startling. The good news (and really, the only good news) is that teen unwed births have declined in recent years, especially as a percentage of all unwed births. The bad news is the skyrocketing rates in the 20-somethings, and in fact in all age groups except teens (see Figure 2 at the previous link), and especially among blacks and Hispanics (see Figure 3). And although we’ve heard a lot about the illegitimate birth rate in blacks (a staggering 72%), it seems that Hispanics actually have the highest rates of all as a group.

All of this bodes very poorly for children in particular and for society as a whole. And it’s hard to see what would realistically happen to reverse the trend in a major way. Can Humpty Dumpty ever be put back together again?

Primary timing

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve been unhappy with the primary system for a long time.

I don’t like the fact that so many states allow voters to cross over, rather than limiting voting to those registered in each party. I don’t like the long, long, long drawn out season. And I don’t like the fact that the results are usually locked in long before the convention, and therefore they can’t be responsive to breaking developments.

The unusual volatility of this year’s primary season—with its ever-changing frontrunners du jour—has exacerbated the problems that have always existed. Each state primary is a snapshot taken at a moment in time, and especially this year, voters might be deciding something entirely different only a few weeks earlier or later.

And these objections of mine have nothing to do with whether my favored candidate wins or loses. These rapid ups and downs are the problem; they signify the dissatisfaction of the voters with the entire field (which I share) and an almost desperate casting around for a better alternative. Although I hate to be so gloomy, I must say that this doesn’t bode well for November.

And I don’t think a brokered convention would necessarily help. First of all, I don’t think it will happen, although I believe it to be more likely now than I did a month ago. Those of you who hate the “establishment” Republicans shouldn’t be all that happy if they take over, should you?

Although I can certainly imagine better candidates being drafted by that “establishment” after a bunch of trading and dickering, whoever would be selected would be a person who didn’t have the drive and the guts to declare in the first place, and would only have a few short weeks to sell him/herself to the American public and to deflect the storm of excrement that would come his/her way. The only good part is that choosing someone that close to the election in time would at least allow the selection process to be responsive to recent events.

Sigh.

Leaving the fold

The New Neo Posted on by

The process of political change, aptly described by Ace:

It’s called a paradigm shift. It’s going to seem a little weird and scary at first, but it will also be thrilling and ultimately liberating.

A lot of things that have bothered you for…years — which haven’t seemed to make sense to you, because your brain was screening the truth from you — are suddenly going to make a lot of sense indeed. And you’re going to be kicking yourself for not seeing it sooner, like an optical illusion that suddenly changes from a lady’s face to a candle.

I think it’s a great description of a process I know well. But Ace, what’s with this “lady’s face to a candle” business? I always thought it was either two faces to a vase:

Or maybe a young lady to an old crone:

But you get the picture.

ADDENDUM: If you want to view more optical illusions, go here. This is a great one I’ve never seen before. Close up, it’s Albert Einstein. But back away a few feet from your computer and—well, you’ll see:

So, what did Einstein and Monroe have in common, besides this picture? The easy answer is that they were both Jewish, Einstein by birth and Marilyn by conversion.

But wait, there’s more. Letters a rabbi who supervised her conversion wrote that [emphasis mine]:

…Marilyn[‘s] desire to become Jewish was self-motivated, although her relationship with Arthur [Miller] was clearly an influential one.

“She indicated that she was attracted to Judaism by being impressed with Jewish people that she knew, especially Mr. Miller,” the rabbi writes. “She said that she was aware of the great characters that the Jewish people had produced and that she had read selections from Albert Einstein’s Out of My Later Years… She indicated that she was impressed with the rationalism of Judaism — its ethical and prophetic ideals and its concept of close family life.”…

She often identified with the ‘underdog’ and at the same time had an enormous respect and admiration for intellectuals. … besides Arthur, her ‘hero’ was Albert Einstein … [who] represented for her the great scientist-humanist-Jew-Socialist-dissenter … “

So that Einstein-to-Marilyn-and-back-again portrait isn’t quite as odd as it seems after all.

Revisiting Al Durah: the father’s wounds

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “expat.”]

Remember the Mohammad al Durah case? There’s a new court ruling with an angle I’d not heard much about before:

The [French Supreme Court] vindicated a doctor who was sued by al-Dura’s father for saying the wounds he claimed to have suffered on the day of his son’s death were not the result of Israeli fire…

This case stemmed from Jamal al-Dura’s claims he had been wounded during the firefight between Palestinian Authority gunmen and Israeli soldiers in an incident at the Netzarim Junction near the border between Israel and Gaza on September 30, 2000. An Israeli doctor, Dr. Yehuda David, took issue with the elder al-Dura’s claims his scars were the result of wounds inflicted in the shooting, arguing instead they were clearly the result of tendon surgery he had performed on the father years earlier. Al-Dura sued Dr. David and won a judgment in a French court, but France’s Supreme Court has now overturned the decision and validated the Israeli’s argument.

But if you watch the following video, you’ll see that the irony is even greater than Jamal al-Dura blaming Israeli soldiers for inflicting gunshot wounds on him that were really the result of an Israeli doctor operating to save his arm six years earlier—and that’s because the original damage to Jamal was actually inflicted by ax-wielding Palestinians:

It makes one wonder whether Jamal al-Dura was in some difficulty with his fellow Palestinians, and if his cooperation in the shooting incident and its aftermath was a way to get them off his back.

[NOTE: Those interested in the topic, and unfamiliar with my previous writing on it and coverage of the France2 trial, go here and scroll down to find the earliest articles. You can also read Richard Landes’ fine work on the subject of the al Durah incident, here and here.]

Companion pieces: Millay and others

The New Neo Posted on by

When I hear a song or read a poem, other songs and poems often spring unbidden into my mind. They have some relation to the first, as a sort of harmonic vibration or echo.

Sonnets are a particular form of poetry I happen to love, and of course songs are—well, most of us are very drawn to songs. Here’s a post of mine in which I not only describe sonnets and what it feels like to try to write them, but offer a sonnet of own in praise of them. It goes like this:

I write some poetry from time to time,
And gravitate to forms, I must confess.
I crave some meter and a bit of rhyme.
Free verse can be illusory progress.
The sonnet with its prescribed fourteen lines
Presents a special challenge to be met,
A game that Frost, my hero, thus defines:
No point in playing tennis with no net.

Ah, freedom! It’s a lofty modern goal.
And rules? Meant to be broken, don’t you see?
Let’s shed the last vestiges of stiff control
And revel in a life and art that’s free!
But rules are guides, not just constraints or chains.
Throw all out, and mere anarchy remains.

I can’t think of a song that reminds me of that one. But the following sonnet by Edna St. Vincent Millay, one of the foremost practitioners of the sonnet form in the 20th century, sure has that effect:

What lips my lips have kissed, and where, and why,
I have forgotten, and what arms have lain
Under my head till morning; but the rain
Is full of ghosts tonight, that tap and sigh
Upon the glass and listen for reply;
And in my heart there stirs a quiet pain
For unremembered lads that not again
Will turn to me at midnight with a cry.
Thus in the winter stands a lonely tree,
Nor knows what birds have vanished one by one,
Yet know its boughs more silent than before:
I cannot say what loves have come and gone;
I only know that summer sang in me
A little while, that in me sings no more.

Here’s the song, by the McGarrigle sisters:

Then there is this pairing—again, a pensive sonnet by Millay (video of Tyne Daly reading it can be found here; the video can’t be embedded, unfortunately):

Only until this cigarette is ended,
A little moment at the end of all,
While on the floor the quiet ashes fall,
And in the firelight to a lance extended,
Bizarrely with the jazzing music blended,
The broken shadow dances on the wall,
I will permit my memory to recall
The vision of you, by all my dreams attended.
And then adieu,””farewell!””the dream is done.
Yours is a face of which I can forget
The color and the features, every one,
The words not ever, and the smiles not yet;
But in your day this moment is the sun
Upon a hill, after the sun has set.

The song is by Leonard Cohen (of course!):

[NOTE: Millay had a pretty raucous sex and love life, as you might imagine. I’ve written about her politics here; another interesting change story.

And then there’s this, about Millay’s voice.]

Rent control in the Big Apple

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a column by George Will that tackles New York’s very odd rent control/stabilitzation laws—which have been in effect in one form or other for far longer than my lifetime, and which are being challenged in court:

The tenants in the Harmons’ three rent-controlled units [in their owner-occupied building] are paying an average 59 percent below market rates. The Harmons would like to reclaim one apartment for a grandchild, but because occupants of two of the units are over 62, the Harmons would have to find the displaced tenant a comparable apartment, at the same or lower rent, in the same neighborhood.

In addition to rent control’s random dispersal of benefits ”” remember, half of the Harmons’ apartments are uncontrolled ”” rent control is destructive because it discourages construction of new apartments and maintenance of existing ones.

Here are more details about the Harmon case.

I must confess that, even were I the beneficiary of these laws, I would have to (reluctantly) acknowledge their basic unfairness. Of course, life is unfair, but the law should strive to be as fair as possible, and rent control seems extraordinarily arbitrary, a sort of squatter’s rights to rental real estate at greatly reduced prices, and the subsidy of some renters at the expense of the others who happen to have come later.

The question is: what’s the remedy? Is the law really unconstitutional? Remember, it’s a state law at this point (see the details and the history here).

Will’s argument for its unconstitutionality is the Fifth Amendment:

Rent control is unconstitutional because it is an egregious and uncompensated physical occupation of property. The Constitution says that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

A property right in a physical thing is a right to possess, use and dispose of this thing. Because government-compelled possession of property by a third party is an unambiguous taking, the Harmons’ property right has been nullified.

Of course, these apartments were not “taken.” If the government had commandeered the Harmons’ brownstone and forced them to convert it to apartments and take in tenants, that would be the case, but the Harmons (or their parents and/or grandparents) seem to have freely decided to take on these tenants (or their parents; rent-controlled apartments in NY can be inherited) before the current stabilization law went into effect. So it’s hard to see this as a government taking exactly, since the government did not take over the units entirely, and the Harmons still own the building and can sell it if they want.

The “public use” part of the law, though, would probably apply, because it has been liberally interpreted to mean practically anything that’s arguably in the public interest or to promote the public good, and rent control laws were originally intended to do that.

The best remedy would probably be repeal of the law by the NY state legislature, or for New York to opt out at the city level. Neither of those things is likely to happen, although legislators in the state have been slowly watering the rent control and rent stabilization laws down over the years. Repeal would have the virtue of being clear, but it wouldn’t answer the question of the constitutionality of such laws.

Why am I writing about all of this? Well, as an ex-New Yorker, I’ve long known about the city’s strange rental situation. But it’s part of a larger issue which has reared its ugly head lately: class warfare. The city’s rent-control laws were originally intended to protect the poor from the allegedly rapacious rich, and although they’ve long ceased to have any real relationship to that, if you read the comments on message boards about rent control issues, you’ll see that that’s what’s driving the discussion.

It’s a lot like the sort of thing we’ve become familiar with during the Obama administration, and in the Republican primary as well. At stake is the direction the country will take vis a vis capitalism and free markets. How unfettered should they be? Do people need protection from exploitation, and if so who, and from whom, and how can it best be accomplished without gumming up the whole works? Even those who advocate and support rent control laws must recognize the unintended consequences for the entire housing market, if they’re being honest.

Funny thing—I set about to write this post because I’m so tired of the primaries, and I wanted to tackle something completely different. But in the end it’s not so different after all, is it? It all comes down to how much the government should intervene to control our financial lives—and even our lives in general.

Attack of the attack ads

The New Neo Posted on by

The Republican primaries seem to have ground down to a war of the attack ads.

Most (if not all?) are the work of PACs, so it’s a bit hard to tell how involved the candidates are. It would be naive to think there is no connection, and it would be equally wrong to imagine the candidates responsible for everything said in their name and on their behalf, whether it be though PACs or the ubiquitous anonymous “advisers.” Candidates are, of course, far more responsible for the words that come out of their own mouths, and for the ads that are officially in their name and approved by their campaign.

But let’s face it: attack ads are used because they work. Yes, sometimes they backfire, and/or sometimes they just don’t gain traction. But very often they undermine the attackee and benefit the attacker, and that’s why they’re so common in political campaigns.

At the beginning of this primary season, when there were so many candidates jockeying for position, things were a lot more polite. There was no one focus for negativity, and the way to stand out was to be more articulate and forceful in debate than the others. But with the narrowing of the field, sequential one-on-one rivalries have broken out, and with them the negative ads.

That’s to be expected. But I think the term “attack ad” is overused. Although I’m using it in a very general manner here, I’d much prefer to see its use confined to ads that distort or lie about the candidate targeted, rather than those that merely criticize him or her. When there are glaring flaws in a person’s record, it would be wrong for a rival not to raise a red flag, wouldn’t it? That’s fair game.

Trouble is that it’s hard to distinguish lies from the truth. And perhaps an even greater difficulty is that, in a primary as opposed to a general, a very negative ad campaign can—and I predict will—come back to bite the eventual Republican nominee, whomever he may be.

Some say that all this nastiness would have happened anyway, and I agree. Obama has shown himself (or those “surrogates” of his) to be a ruthless campaigner. But the groundwork is being laid by Republicans themselves. Will the public grow weary of the charges and will that make Obama’s attacks more toothless when they come, as some have hopefully alleged? Only if the charges have been successfully rebutted; otherwise all the repetition will probably serve to drive the negative perceptions deeper into voters’ minds.

Jennifer’s abs

The New Neo Posted on by

This must-read (not!) article, putting down the recurrent Jennifer Aniston pregnancy rumors, refers to the 43-year-old actress’s “amazing rock-hard abs.” And lest you think this focus on Aniston’s abs is unusual, here’s another article that does the same.

Here’s the photo that seems to have prompted all this ab-worship (it’s in GQ, and has some other eccentricities that seem to have gone unremarked, although I assume the plot of the new movie being promoted would reveal just why Aniston is leading co-star Paul Rudd around on a makeshift leash):

Hey, I’m not impressed. Forty-three is practically childhood, especially in a woman who hasn’t given birth, and who can devote hours a day to maintaining those abs because it is her livelihood.

What’s more, I’m a lot older than 43, and I’ve got rock-hard abs too. You’ll have to take my word for it, though, because I’m not posting a photo on this blog. I’m not posting that photo for 2 very good reasons: modesty, and the fact that my rock-hard abs are a bit, shall we say, under wraps. They’re in there all right, somewhere; I just know they are. But I would have to lose about twenty pounds for them to be visible.

A woman can actually have very strong stomach muscles, but if there’s even a bit of fat on top of them—something most women naturally possess, young or old, whether they’re strong or not, unless they’re very very thin—then you won’t see those abs no matter how rock-hard they are. I’ve got nothing against Aniston’s abs, but there’s nothing special about them except for the fact that her fat percentage is so low that they’re right out there for all the world to see and admire.

I also remember a time when we weren’t quite so ab-centric as a society. For example, this was thought to be a very lovely abdomen indeed:

Bardot, Cannes, 1953, before she became a blond. She’s certainly very slender—at least as slender as Aniston, if not more—but the abs are still under a tiny bit of cover.

[ADDENDUM: And I call BS on this sort of article, so ubiquitous that, serendipitously, that one appeared on Yahoo’s main email page today. The only way to get rid of belly fat and have a flat middle is to lose a ton of weight, have a ton of liposuction, or to have genes that mean it’s not deposited there in the first place. And the latter only works when you’re pretty young; even the leanest-bellied among us have a tendency to get at least a small paunch when older, unless literally starving.]