The joys of amateur musicals

The New Neo Posted on by

In the comments section of this thread from a while back, a number of people praised the old Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals, and especially the charms of amateur productions. I’m in complete agreement. The librettos may be outdated in many ways, but the wholes are so far superior to anything written today that it’s no surprise that these old chestnuts are revived again and again.

I was raised on those scores, played on a shaky old player until the records had so many scratches on them that I sang along more from memory than from anything I could hear. I still can recite nearly every word of most of the lyrics of the classics.

I don’t know why I started perusing YouTube versions of the songs from “Carousel” a while back—culminating in the aforementioned post, as well as this one—but YouTube provides an almost endless supply of wonders for anyone who wants to do that sort of thing. Watching amateur production after amateur production, I was heartened by the fact that these musicals are still being performed and enjoyed, and that even today’s high school students aren’t too jaded to bring to their roles the dewy wonder of youth. Their versions very often make up in transcendence what they might lack in polish, power, and even in pitch.

Case in point—watch and listen to the glowing Julie in this high school production of “Carousel.” Her Billy Bigelow is a little callow and a little pompous (not an oxymoron in his case) and a little pitchy at times. But no matter; there’s something about the way she shines—and there’s something about him that’s engaging and touching, too.

Note also the almost operatic quality of the song with its recitatives; and I especially love the poignant and symbolic lines Julie delivers around minute 9:47, “The blossoms are just coming down by theirselves. It’s just their time to, I reckon.”:

The actors in the following clip of another song from “Carousel” aren’t high school students. But they’re amateurs. And what a voice on this Enoch (she’s no slouch, either)—although, unfortunately, the audio quality of the recording could be a bit better.

And since this is, after all, a mostly political blog, I can’t resist noting that the beginning of this song is a testament to capitalism, and the rest is a tribute to married life and parenthood. What could be more conservative?

Reagan’s eleventh commandment

The New Neo Posted on by

Remember Reagan’s eleventh commandment, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican?”

This year the interminable debate format and the large size of the field has made it almost inevitable that just about everybody’s been violating it, and it will end up hurting whomever is the eventual nominee (there will be a nominee eventually, won’t here? Won’t there?)

About the commandment:

In his 1990 autobiography An American Life, Reagan attributed the rule to Parkinson, explained its origin, and claimed to have followed it.:

“The personal attacks against me during the primary finally became so heavy that the state Republican chairman, Gaylord Parkinson, postulated what he called the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. It’s a rule I followed during that campaign and have ever since.”

The goal was to prevent a repeat of the liberal Republican assault on Barry Goldwater, attacks which contributed to Goldwater’s defeat in the 1964 presidential election. East Coast Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller labeled Goldwater an “extremist” for his conservative positions and declared him unfit to hold office. Fellow Republican candidate for Governor George Christopher and California’s liberal Republicans were leveling similar attacks on Reagan. Hoping to prevent a split in the Republican Party, Parkinson used the phrase as common ground. Party liberals eventually followed Parkinson’s advice.

The rule’s a problematic one, though. After all, it’s not as though the candidates are above criticism. The public has to figure out a way to tell them apart, judge them, and then vote in the primaries; and the MSM, the Democrats, and Republican pundits have been ever-so-helpful in assisting us—as have been (in the case of Herman Cain) a number of women we’ll never, never ever (mark my words) hear from or about again.

Sometimes the Republican candidates have joined in. But the net effect has been to do at least some of the Democrats’ dirty work for them. And it makes for all those great sound bites to be used by Obama in his campaign. But the debate format practically requires it.

As for Reagan—recently I was thinking that Reagan was governor of a somewhat liberal state (like Romney), although it’s nowhere near as liberal as Massachusetts. Could he be elected today?

I’m certainly not the only one who ever wondered that:

As governor, Reagan was the biggest California spender of the last half century. Under him, state spending leaped 177%…His first year as governor, Reagan raised taxes equal to 30% of the state general fund, still a modern record…As governor, Reagan protected the spectacular John Muir Trail in the Sierra from highway builders and Central Valley business interests. He blocked dam building on the Eel and Feather rivers. He and Republican Gov. Paul Laxalt of Nevada set aside their aversion to centralized, intrusive government and created a bi-state agency to control growth at Lake Tahoe. Reagan signed legislation creating the California Air Resources Board, leading to the nation’s first tailpipe emissions standards.

…As governor, Reagan signed the nation’s then most liberal abortion rights bill. (He later called it a mistake.) He opposed a ballot initiative that would have permitted the firing of teachers for being gay.

President Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to illegal immigrants.

I happen to think, however, that Reagan actually would be likely to be nominated again, even in today’s more doctrinally rigid climate. Why? Reagan was inspiring both rhetorically and personally—in other words, charismatic—to a degree that today’s candidates not only are not, but don’t even begin to approach.

Why do I keep harping on personal intangible characteristics, as I did in my recent piece in which I found Newt particularly lacking in that arena (although Romney’s not great either)? Because that’s what I see as political reality. It’s not the only thing, of course; candidates are indeed evaluated on their policy statements and their records of accomplishment. But not nearly as much as one might think, or wish. We are continually reacting on a nonverbal gut level to candidates, as we do to all the people in our lives. We may not always be able to explain what draws us to some people and repels us from others, but it’s powerful, and it matters in politics too. Usually, a lot.

[NOTE: It’s interesting, though, that Gingrich—one of the least personally pleasant candidates on that gut level of which I speak—is the candidate most explicitly intent on not violating Reagan’s eleventh commandment.]

Congress strikes a blow for liberty—and incandescent light bulbs

The New Neo Posted on by

Congress finally does something worthwhile, giving the incandescent light bulb we all know and love a stay of execution:

The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs.

GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department’s standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient.

DOE’s light bulb rules ”” authorized under a 2007 energy law authored signed by President George W. Bush ”” would start going into effect Jan. 1. The rider will prevent DOE from implementing the rules through Sept. 30.

I positively detest all fluorescent light bulbs. And those energy-efficient mercury-based ones that go on ever-so-slowly are especially irritating (not to mention toxic in a landfill). What’s more, since waiting for them to come up to full power is so very annoying, I suspect many households (like some I’ve visited) keep them on all hours of the day and night just to avoid the delay, thus doing away with their purpose in the first place.

And I’ll believe this when I see it:

“In the real world, outside talk radio’s echo chamber, lighting manufacturers such as GE, Philips and Sylvania have tooled up to produce new incandescent light bulbs that look and operate exactly the same as old incandescent bulbs, and give off just as much warm light,” said Jim DiPeso, the [Republicans for Environmental Protection’s] policy director. “The only difference is they produce less excess heat and are therefore 30 percent more efficient. Same light, lower energy bills. What’s not to like?”

I can think of a few things, and so can he—although our objections might be moot if these new bulbs really work on the incandescent principle. But do they, and if so what do they look like? I can’t seem to find anything that addresses that question when I Google it—all the links seem to be about the ban.

[ADDENDUM: I found this, which mentions that the new bulbs are incandescent but doesn’t say what they are actually like, because the author has not yet seen them.]

[ADDENDUM II: Aha! Found some already-existing energy-efficient incandescent bulbs here, with consumer reviews. The opinions are not raves, although some people like them. And these bulbs are somewhat less energy-efficient than the standards Congress wants to impose. That doesn’t mean that the newer, not-yet-for-sale products won’t be better. If companies can manufacture a good incandescent bulb that is more energy efficient and not exorbitant, I would think most people would buy it without being forced to do so by Congress.]

RIP: Christopher Hitchens

The New Neo Posted on by

The fact that Christopher Hitchens’ death has long been expected doesn’t make it any easier to see it announced.

I disagreed with him nearly as often as I agreed with him. But he was a writer of inimitable style and flair, always interesting, never boring, never offering the expected or the trite. Few if any ever emerged the victor from a verbal sparring with Hitchens, because he was as gifted and witty in extemporaneous speech as he was with pen and computer.

Hitchens was a political changer who started out a socialist and ended up somewhat to the right of that—although exactly where, it’s hard to say. But he was first and foremost an iconoclast, taking palpable delight in skewering idols of all kinds with his biting intelligence.

I’ll miss him. No one could write like him.

[NOTE: Here’s a little piece I wrote a while back that featured Hitchens describing an encounter he once had with Margaret Thatcher.]

[ADDENDUM: Here’s a heartfelt tribute by Christopher Buckley, one of Hitchens’ many friends. Hitchens sounds like an extremely entertaining (although challenging) person to know—but anyone who ever saw him speak could guess that. What most people may not have guessed is what a good friend he was to those who, like Buckley, were among those close to him.]

Sarkozy and Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve never thought of Sarkozy and Obama as being similar. But an article about the former in the December 12 New Yorker contained a paragraph that, although about Sarkozy, could just as easily apply to the present attitude of a certain segment of the left towards Obama. Maybe not quite as strongly—but still, the same phenomenon:

“He’s hated,” Said Mahrane, a political reporter at the weekly magazine Le Point, told me. “And why is he hated? First of all, because he aroused crazy hope.” It is easy to forget the excitement that Sarkozy once inspired as a figure of national renewal and transformation. But the fervor with which he is now rejected can be properly understood only in relation to his original appeal—as a measure of disillusionment. “I adore Sarkozy,” a former member of his staff bold me, “but I’m very very very disappointed with his Presidency.” He had over-promised, and then he did not deliver on his program, the ex-staffer said: “I think that, in reality, he had no intention of doing so. At bottom, finally, he’s an old-school politician…a man of campaigns, a man of war, a man for taking power.” But he never learned to harness the machinery of government, the ex-staffer said, so “there are many battles he didn’t join because he didn’t know how to fight them.” As a result, “he hasn’t done anything—nothing but nothing.”

Let me emphasize that this isn’t my opinion of Obama. He never aroused hope in me, and I think that—unlike Sarkozy—he had every intention of doing many things that would be transformative and would take the country in a very leftward direction. But he didn’t have the expertise to do so—yet. Hopefully, he’ll never get the chance.

Wrinkles

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s how to retard the growth of wrinkles, for all of you folks of a certain age, or those of you who plan someday to be of a certain age and want to prepare yourselves.

Strangely enough, I already do most of those things (except cocoa—can’t eat anything chocolate because of the migraines) including the “sleep on your back” one, although it never occurred to me it would have any effect on wrinkles at all. It does, however, forestall those temporary creases one sometimes gets from contact with a crumpled pillowcase—although that’s not the reason I do it.

Romney, the non-Newt

The New Neo Posted on by

Is Newt’s star of the mere shooting variety, like the short-lived ascendancies of Bachmann and Perry and Cain before him? One would think so, from today’s editorials in the Washington Examiner and the National Review. The first comes right out and endorses Romney, the second stops just short of that officially, but effectively does it just the same.

Ah, who cares about editorials? That’s just the Washington establishment, right? They hate Newt and have been in Romney’s pocket from the start.

Actually, I don’t care about editorials. Arguments from authority mean nothing to me—except when what they make sense, and to me these do. I’ll tell you why—and it’s certainly not because I’m a Washington insider.

I long ago faced the fact that while I’m not enthusiastic about any of the Republican candidates, I like candidate Obama a great deal less. So this was always going to be an election in which my usual nose-holding was going to have to be performed in a firmer fashion than ever. So be it.

I am a pragmatist, and my humble evaluation of Newt Gingrich’s chances for election is that they are non-existent—for two reasons, neither of them being his conservatism, which is not the problem.

Newt’s first flaw is character, and the second is personality. These may sound alike, but they are not. Clinton, for example, was a good example of a candidate who lacked the first but had the second in spades. Obama is an example of a person who might lack both but was very very good at pretending to have both, enough to fool enough of the people enough of the time. Romney is an example of a candidate who has the first (at least, in the personal sense if not the political, if you think political character involves steadfastness) but lacks the second.

Unfortunately, Gingrich has neither. And he has neither in a rather spectacular way. He has a history of ethics violations, trumped up and exaggerated or no. More troubling (at least to me) is the enormous amount of money he received from Fannie and Freddie. Think that won’t be a huge problem for voters when Democrats sink their teeth into it? And that’s just his political character; I don’t think I need to reiterate the problems with his personal character vis a vis wives and other women.

Then there’s personality. If Romney is slick and robotic, Newt is downright unpleasant. Republicans and conservatives may see him as feisty and combative enough to handle Obama, but the visuals of a scowling Newt vs. Obama will not win over many independents, and whether you like it or not (or admit it or not) that’s a good part of the general election game.

Romney’s a flip-flopper? Newt, likewise. Romney’s a career politician? He spent far more time in the private sector than Newt, and knows a great deal more about business. And they both have a history of supporting individual mandates for health care, if that’s what upsets you most about Romney.

At this point there is no viable Republican candidate who is conservative and who has both character and personality. I wish it were otherwise, but it’s not. So at the moment and until further notice—these things are always subject to change right up until the moment of nomination—I reluctantly support Romney as the Republican candidate for president.

This non-earth-shattering news will affect far fewer people than the Examiner and NR endorsements, and those affect precious few already. But hey, this is a blog, and I’ve got opinions—opinions with which many, many, many of you will no doubt disagree.

As a well-known Republican figure once said, bring it on.

Foods people hate

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an article about certain foods many people hate, and why.

Among them are some of my favorites: cilantro, for example, which I fell in love with the first time I ever tasted it, some time in my twenties (“where have you been all my life, cilantro?”). I’ve often been puzzled by some people’s hatred of it, as well as of raw tomatoes and raisins. I know plenty of people who can eat cooked tomatoes (as in sauce) but can’t abide raw, and/or who love grapes but carefully pick raisins out of any pastry in which they might find them.

I can’t say the article really explains all this; do people really dislike raisins because they resemble feces, for example? And whose feces do they resemble, pray tell? Perhaps, if you stretch it a bit, those of mice. But I can’t say that’s anything that ever occurred to me before.

And fennel? Who doesn’t like fennel? Especially roasted or braised.

Now licorice: that’s another story. It’s one of the few foods I detest.

At least Barack and Michelle are consistent about this

The New Neo Posted on by

I wonder what important things Obama thinks he’s doing for the people at this point, and what important things he plans to do for them/us in a second term:

I also wonder why he and Michelle are so down on their quality of life as First Couple. But at least they are consistent. Here’s Michelle Obama during the 2008 campaign:

There’s an inconvenience factor [in running for and becoming president], and if we’re going to uproot our lives, then let’s hopefully make a real big dent in what it means to be president of the United States.”

And what it means to Mrs. Obama is sacrificing many of the things she holds most dear, in favor of a larger goal. Although she has concluded that this mission is worth what it takes, achieving such acceptance has been difficult, and the adjustments are ongoing.

I feel terribly sorrow for their sacrifices. But maybe we can relieve them of the burden by not re-electing them.

Speaking of re-election, Newt Gingrich isn’t polling well against Obama. If Gingrich becomes the nominee, and people become more familiar with him, I’m not sure whether that will change for the better or the worse.

Tolstoi on Chekhov

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: Ann Althouse.]

Excerpt by Peter Gnedich, “Memories,” from The Book of Life (1922):

Lev Tolstoy sincerely loved Chekhov, but did not like his plays. He told Chekhov once, “A playwright should take the theater-goer by the hand, and lead him in the direction he wants him to go. And where can I follow your character? To the couch in the living-room and back””because your character has no other place to go.” They both””Tolstoy and Chekhov””laughed at these words.

Chekhov told me later, “When I am writing a new play, and I want my character to exit the stage, I remember those words of Lev Nikolaevich, and I think ”˜Where will my character go?’ I feel both funny and angry.” Chekhov’s only consolation was that Tolstoy also did not like the plays of Shakespeare.

I never liked Chekhov’s plays, and I find myself agreeing with Tolstoy about them, although most certainly not about Shakespeare’s works. When I was younger, I was annoyed by the way Chekhov’s plays circle lazily around themselves, featuring boring people doing mostly boring things. I’d had enough of that in real life! It was only later that I realized his plays were about ennui and boredom, and had something to say about depression and loss, missed opportunities and lives of regret.

But I still don’t like them. And they are almost impossible to act (unless, perhaps, you’re Russian), especially for high school or college students.