SCOTUS will rule on health care reform…

The New Neo Posted on by

…in March of 2012, in plenty of time to influence the election.

The court will allow an “extraordinary” 5 1/2 hours of oral argument:

In the modern era, the last time the court allotted anywhere near this much time for arguments was in 2003 for consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. That case consumed four hours of argument. This argument may spread over two days, as the justices rarely hear more than two or three hours a day.

I hadn’t known that oral arguments are ordinarily so limited before SCOTUS. Of course, the justices will be relying not merely (or even mostly) on oral arguments; they will have read a great deal about the case before the big day (or days) comes.

As for how they will vote, your guess is as good as mine (or anyone’s), but I don’t think there’s any chance that the liberal justices won’t uphold the individual mandate and HCR. The real question is what the conservative ones and swing justice Kennedy will do.

It’s often said that, with this court, you could just ask Kennedy what he thinks and skip the rest. Everyone else is relatively predictable, although this time—perhaps because the questions to be decided in this case are rather unusual—it’s more difficult to prognosticate:

Legal experts have offered a range of opinions about what the high court might do. Many prominent Supreme Court lawyers believe that the law will be upheld by a lopsided vote, with Republican and Democratic appointees ruling in its favor. Still others predict a close outcome, with Justice Anthony Kennedy, a Republican who sometimes joins his four Democratic colleagues, holding the deciding vote.

I certainly agree with this:

The case could become the high court’s most significant and political ruling since its 5-4 decision in the Bush v. Gore case nearly 11 years ago effectively sealed George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential election victory.

The fact that the court will hear the case before the 2012 election is telling; the justices don’t seem to be shying away from exerting political influence. Another case that had extreme political significance (and IMHO was one of the worst SCOTUS decisions handed down in my lifetime) was Clinton v Jones, where the court opined that suing a sitting president in civil court for actions prior to taking on the presidency would not be disruptive.

Ha! Just another demonstration of the fact that the law is an ass and an idiot—although, , in regard to whether a civil suit against a sitting president is likely to be disruptive, its eyes most likely have been opened by experience, as Mr. Bumble hoped.

Newt: new soloist in the Republican jazz combo?

The New Neo Posted on by

So now it’s Gingrich who’s up in the polls, at least somewhat.

It seems to be his turn. Sometimes the Republican candidates remind me of a jazz combo (although not an especially mellifluous one):

In between these statements of the theme, [the members of the jazz combo] usually take turns soloing. The musicians often employ visual signals to cue the next soloist or a return to the head. This approach is referred to as a head-solos-head arrangement, or simply a head arrangement. These are especially popular in combos because they can be put together during the performance without the need for prior rehearsal or written music other than for the head itself. Other types of arrangements are possible as well, but this general outline is most common.

Depending on the number of horn players and how long they tend to solo, they may or may not all solo on each tune. While one horn player is soloing, the others rarely play at all. If they do play during a solo by another horn player, it is generally limited to unobtrusive background parts, which may be written or improvised.

Yeah, I know, it’s not a perfect metaphor by any means. For starters, the candidates are not agreeing on this; there’s no head arrangement, or any other arrangement.

But it happens anyway. Sometimes it’s the novelty that seems to cause it—a person is the frontrunner until the electorate finds out more about him/her and decides no, not The One after all.

With Gingrich, though, it’s most definitely not novelty. It’s a process of elimination of the others and a second look at a guy with a steamer trunk full of baggage, but who’s undoubtedly smart and doesn’t mind a slugfest. There’s something pleasant (a word I don’t usually use in connection with Gingrich) at the thought of Newt facing Obama in a debate.

But what I said here about Gingrich still holds true—except that I’m now beginning to think he could win the nomination, almost by default.

And I’ll go on record as saying that I’d prefer Romney, although I predict that most of the commenters here will jump down my throat for saying so. One of the posts for which I have a preliminary draft but haven’t yet written is why Romney’s role in Romneycare wasn’t as bad as most conservatives think, and why characterizing him as proponent of big government as a solution for everything is a mischaracterization of his position and history. I also happen to think that a president with a strong business and managerial background would be a good thing, especially now.

And yet most conservatives detest Romney as a RINO, flip-flopper, Democrat in disguise. But my gut tells me that the Republicans who trash him are making Democrats very very happy, because they’re doing their work for them.

Perry and the performing candidates

The New Neo Posted on by

Perry’s attempt at damage control was to appear on the Letterman show and joke about his lapse. It may be the best approach at this point; we’ll see whether it actually works:

What strikes me about the whole thing is how the last few decades have featured a slow and steady loss of dignity for presidential candidates. Nixon and Kennedy were the first to appear on the talk show circuit, but unlike Perry I don’t think they were doing standup comedy.

Although later on, Nixon wasn’t above a little TV comedy to help his election cause:

On the other hand, musical interludes from politicians (such as Bill Clinton’s famous sax-playing on Arsenio Hall) have a more lengthy history. Harry Truman, for example, wasn’t half bad:

And here’s Nixon, in one of his non-candidacy years:

And even though she’s not a candidate, I’ll throw in Condoleezza Rice, who’s a very accomplished classical pianist (and a great dresser; nice outfit, Condi!):

A few words about child sexual abuse

The New Neo Posted on by

In response to some speculation in the comments section of this post, here are a few facts about how the sexual abuse of children usually works, especially when the perp (like Sandusky) is a serial abuser of unrelated children:

(1) The perp is often in a position of authority over the child, which would predispose the child to obey.

(2) The perp is often an experienced and almost uncanny judge of character, and chooses his (or her) prey carefully. The children tend to be insecure and shy, and to come from troubled and/or single parent homes. Therefore an organization such as Second Mile, the one Sandusky founded that served underprivileged children and from which he drew his victims, would be a perfect source.

(3) The victim is usually approached carefully over time in a series of escalating moves in order to test his/her receptivity and passivity in the face of the abuse. If the victim is too resistant or defiant or uncooperative, the perp moves to another victim.

(4) The perp counts on shame and/or fear to keep the child quiet. Sometimes (although I don’t think this was one of the allegations in Sandusky’s case) the perp overtly threatens that something bad will happen to the child or the child’s parents if the secret is found out or told: either the child will be punished or the perp will harm or kill him/her or his/her parents. Or there can even be just the milder threat that of course no one will credit the child’s word against the adult’s. In many cases the child has already had the latter experience—of not being believed or heard in smaller matters—so it is very believable for the child. It is speculated that the entire spectrum of the problem, including the fear, secrecy, shame, and sense of betrayal on the child’s part, can be even more damaging than the act of sex itself, although the latter is certainly damaging as well.

(5) Sometimes the evidence that the child is being abused is very subtle and easy for parents to miss. This is especially true in a home where parents are harried and not paying a lot of attention, but it can be the case even with attentive parents. Sometimes children, in their shame (or fear) at what has happened to them, are quite adept at hiding any evidence, even (or perhaps especially) from parents. Sometimes the changes in the child are limited to increased nonspecific anxiety and/or behavior problems. There is often no physical evidence (although in the case of anal rape, as alleged in the Sandusky case, there tends to be—but again, children can be determined and successful at hiding it).

(6) It is commonly thought that the spouse of the perp ought to suspect, especially if (as in the Sandusky case) some of the abuse occurs in the perp’s home. For example, Sandusky had many of the kids to his house on overnights before outings. They slept in a basement room, and he is alleged to have gone done there to abuse them around their bedtime. Many people in comments sections around the blogosphere have blamed his wife for not noticing this, especially if he was absent around bedtime. But a child’s bedtime is not the same as an adult’s, and if the perp times his approaches well (which Sandusky almost certainly did), he can easily accomplish the abuse fairly quickly, and while his wife is busy cleaning up or on a computer or reading or engaged in any number of solitary evening activities. The perp’s demeanor can otherwise seem rather ordinary and non-suspicious, and the married sex life of perps can actually be quite “normal”-seeming as well.

People who look at the phenomenon of child sexual abuse from the outside often prefer to think that the signs are clear, and that—had it been their spouse—they would have known. But sadly, that is just not the case. Perps can be very sly and able to present a convincing facade of normalcy. In other words, in addition to being sexual predators, they are often excellent con artists.

Guide to living to extreme old age…

The New Neo Posted on by

…while remaining healthy: have the right genes.

The study in the article was on exceedingly old Ashkenazi Jews. But that particular group is no more likely to live past 100 than other groups. It was just a convenient population for the NY-based scientists to recruit.

And if you don’t know the meaning of the Yiddish phrase in the tag line underneath the headline, “secrets of the alter kockers”—here you go:

An alter kocker is a man who can no longer do something that he once could. He’s an old guy, over the hill, past his prime.

In literal terms, an alter kocker is from German and means “old defecator.” It doesn’t sound very nice in translation, but it’s a common expression, and sounds gentler and more humorous in Yiddish conversation. Its sense is usually of someone who is inept at whatever he is trying to do. It often has to do with forgetfulness. As soon as somebody says hello to a man but he can’t remember his name, the other guy says, “You alter kocker.” The other guy can’t admit to himself that he’s not too well liked, or not worth remembering. So he blames you.

Another thing an alter kocker is famous for is playing golf. There are certain activities that are recognizable for old people that only an alter kocker gets involved in and golf is one. A man wants to go for a walk, but he doesn’t want to feel like he’s just going for a plain walk, so he takes a stick with him. He doesn’t have to do anything, but now he convinces himself that he’s an athlete. He can feel young. If he takes a walk, he holds a stick and he swings it. He doesn’t remember is there was a ball there or not. It’s not that important. He misses the ball by three feet but he’s still happy.

[NOTE: Come to think of it, Perry’s problem last night was that he sounded like an alter kocker.]

Perry: oops?

The New Neo Posted on by

The blogosphere is agog with talk about how Perry’s gaffe in the debate last night has finished him.

And it did look bad, although it’s the sort of senior moment (or semi-senior moment) many of us of a certain age are quite familiar with, unfortunately.

Now, what was I saying?

Oh yes…

That sort of lapse is just not okay in a presidential candidate, especially one who’s not doing so well in the first place. Just think what the Obama campaign could do with this clip:

Paterno and the duty to report

The New Neo Posted on by

What did Joe Paterno know and when did he know it?

And what was his duty based on what he knew, and did he shirk it?

I won’t mince words here: what is alleged to have taken place at the hands of Jerry Sandusky in the Penn State locker room in 2002, the anal rape of a child, is a terrible sexual crime of great magnitude. If Paterno knew that had happened and had any part in covering it up, he shirked his duty in a major way and his firing is a mild punishment.

Of course, even Sandusky himself is innocent until proven guilty. But the allegations in the grand jury indictment against him are compelling (and revolting), and seem to point very strongly towards guilt (a witness, many seemingly independent reports of other instances of Sandusky abusing children and using a similar m.o. in some of the cases). But even if Sandusky is innocent—which does not appear to be the case—that would not affect Paterno’s duty to report when he got word of the allegations of child rape.

And therein lies the conundrum: what word of child rape did Paterno get? He says he was told something much more vague—that something untoward and inappropriate but only possibly sexual happened in the shower at Penn State, involving Sandusky and a male child:

…[E]ven if the grad assistant [who reported the offense] in question, Mike McQueary, was too traumatized or intimidated to tell Paterno the unfathomable particulars of what he saw (and we’ll see how that story develops), Paterno knew a naked Sandusky didn’t belong anywhere near a naked grade schooler in the shower.

In his original statement on the case, after denying that McQueary informed him of “the very specific actions contained in the Grand Jury report,” Paterno went on to concede that “it was clear that the witness saw something inappropriate involving Mr. Sandusky.”

The former defensive coordinator stands accused of something that “inappropriate” couldn’t begin to describe. Sandusky was indicted on felony charges of sexually abusing eight boys, and experts believe the damage inflicted on child victims in these cases can be everlasting.

However, no one alleges that Paterno knew about the other victims. But it is indeed the case that, had a proper investigation been launched at Paterno’s request in 2002, at least some of those victims—the ones who came after the incident of which he had been informed—might have been spared their terrible experiences.

What did Paterno do when he was told whatever he was told by McQueary? He launched an internal investigation—within the athletic department—hardly worthy of the name. And that, I think, is where his major wrongdoing lies.

Why not tell the police? Why not tell Child Protective Services? And why such tepid findings resulting from the internal investigation, given the extreme nature of the allegations? One cannot help but think there was a coverup, at least on the part of Tim Curley and Gary Schultz:

Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, the school’s vice president for business and finance, were charged with perjury and failure to report the allegations. Curley and Schultz each face up to seven years in prison if convicted…

Pennsylvania law requires that anyone who comes into contact with children in the course of their employment to report evidence of abuse to “appropriate authorities.” Failure to do so is a third-degree misdemeanor.

The statute specifically lists teachers, nurses, doctors and child-care workers, among others, as those required to notify authorities when they suspect children in their care have been molested.

Paterno apparently followed the letter of the law by telling Curley about what McQueary had witnessed. But if Paterno had notified law-enforcement officials once it became clear university officials had not shared the allegation with police, Sandusky may have been arrested, sparing at least one of the boys whose abuse was detailed in the grand jury report.

Paterno does seem guilty of extremely poor judgment and excessive trust in the internal mechanism of the university, and a simple lack of common sense. He had no legal duty to report to the police, but he should have done so:

Penn State football icon Joe Paterno probably adhered to the letter of the law when he told the school’s athletic director – but not the police – that former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky allegedly sexually abused a boy in the Nittany Lions’ locker room in 2002.

But attorneys familiar with child abuse statutes say that while the venerable college coach may not face criminal charges, he is hardly an innocent bystander…

Paterno issued a statement late Sunday that said he “did what I was supposed to do with the one charge brought to my attention.”

But he also claimed that a graduate assistant who told him he witnessed Sandusky having anal sex with a boy in a locker room on the Penn State campus “at no time related to me the very specific actions contained in the grand jury report.”…

“After learning that school officials were not reporting the matter to police, Joe Paterno should have reported it himself,” [attorney] Garabedian said. “It is simply common – and ethical and moral – sense.

Agreed.

Perhaps Paterno wanted to protect his beloved Penn State and the athletic department there (although Sandusky had stopped working for the university in 1999 and was no longer an employee at the time of the offense). Perhaps Paterno was naive and didn’t believe Sandusky capable of anything so terrible. But there’s no “perhaps” to the fact that Paterno committed a terrible lapse of judgment in not reporting the allegations to the proper authorities—which were most definitely not the athletic department at Penn State.

Yahoo: back to the Classic

The New Neo Posted on by

Instead of wandering around fruitlessly at the Yahoo site, looking for a way to get back to Yahoo Classic email, it finally dawned on me that I might be able to actually write to the folks at Yahoo and request a return to the tried-and-true.

And so I did—and got the following almost immediate reply:

Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Mail.

We have received your request to return to a previous version of Yahoo!Mail, and we will switch the email service of your account to Yahoo! Mail Classic within two business days. We apologize for any inconvenience you may have experienced while using our new Yahoo! Mail, and we hope this change helps.

The speed and the cooperative tone of Yahoo’s reply indicate to me that I’m not the only one who’s been deeply unhappy with the forced change they instituted back in September. Here are some of the problems others have encountered with it. The right click problem mentioned at the end is definitely among the very worst faults of the new, “improved” system:

As the new Yahoo! Mail became mandatory for users, a number of previously satisfied users of Yahoo! Mail started to report slow typing speeds with the new Yahoo! Mail,[citation needed] running contradictory to Yahoo!’s claims that the new Yahoo! Mail would perform “2x” faster. Yahoo! offered no resolution to the problem as of September 12, 2011, and continued to advertise that Yahoo! Mail “provides performance that is 2x faster than the previous versions of Yahoo! Mail” and runs at “lightning speed.” Further slowing down user productivity, users cannot copy and paste email addresses from the sender box but must navigate to the Contacts tab and search for a contact to be able to copy and paste an email address. This is because now recipient email addresses convert to the name of the recipient highlighted inside a box, without an immediate option for accessing the email address to copy and paste like in traditional email clients. Although it is not mentioned, upgrading to the new version disables the use of the secondary addresses provided in the previous version. Thus users will not receive emails sent to a secondary address anymore. The new interface overrides the browser’s right mouse button (e.g., making functions such as opening mails in new tab windows unavailable).

Plus é§a change, plus c’est la méªme chose.