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.]

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.