This is the way…

The New Neo Posted on by

…one wing of the attack on Gingrich will go: he may seem to be an articulate intellectual, but he’s really a stupidhead.

And now that Gingrich is officially the Republican frontrunner du jour, Joan Walsh chimes in right on schedule (and as predicted in the last sentence of this post of mine) with that old canard:

Gingrich is probably best known for serving his wife with divorce papers while she was recovering from cancer surgery, so he could marry his mistress, whom he later divorced to marry a staffer. But he’s also probably the only politician, who when you’re asked “What’s the worst thing he’s done?” has done a lot of things that rival leaving his cancer-stricken wife for his mistress.

Why tell the truth when a lie will do a lot better for your purposes? The correction—which any journalist worth his/her salt ought to know about—can be found here.

And don’t sit on a hot stove till Walsh issues a retraction. Note, also, in the comments section of her article that her readers seem blissfully unaware of her error.

Dance interlude: meet Moses Pendleton

The New Neo Posted on by

The following is a long video. You might want to watch the whole thing, or only a portion. But either way you’ll get an introduction to a gifted and exceedingly quirky individual: dancer Moses Pendleton, New Englander, scion of the Pendleton woolen company, and founding member of the acclaimed and ground-breaking modern dance troupes Pilobolus and Momix (he’s still the artistic director of the latter).

I enjoyed the following documentary about Pendleton when I saw it on television in 1982, and tried to record it on an old and scratchy Beta videorecorder (yes, Beta). That tape is all but irretrievable and unwatchable, so imagine my delight when I round it online recently.

Be patient; I think this video will reward you if you watch it. Pendleton is that rarity, a dancer who is intentionally and successfully comic, and yet also at times quite reflective. His life has not been altogether easy, as you will see, and he’s been blessed (or cursed) with a unique sensibility that I would imagine can at times be trying, both to himself and those who might have the guts to live with him.

So here he is, the man from Momix, Moses Pendleton, about thirty years ago:

MOSES PENDLETON PRESENTS MOSES PENDLETON from J. Mitchell Johnson on Vimeo.

Is the milk of human kindness genetic? (plus: update on the Sandusky case)

The New Neo Posted on by

Research indicates that some people seem to naturally have more empathy than others, and onlookers can tell the difference by watching them listen to people relating tales about sad events in their lives.

That would explain a lot, but perhaps not as much as one might think. The somewhat less empathic people aren’t sociopaths; they just lack as much natural ability in this arena. Nurture can change things. And of course it remains to be seen whether this research will be validated and repeated over time.

I’ve long puzzled over a phenomenon I’ve noticed: that some people who have been abused (either sexually or emotionally or physically or some combination of the three) will vow never to do that to another human being, and in some cases choose to enter professions where they try to prevent further abuse and/or heal others who have suffered in the same way. But a not insignificant percentage of abuse victims will take a very different path, going on to re-enact their own abuse by inflicting it on others. It’s as though they lack empathy, not just towards others but towards their former selves, and instead identify with and take on the mantle of the aggressor.

What accounts for the different choices between these two groups? A moralist would say the first chooses good and the second evil. But when we ask “why” in psychological terms, the answer is that we don’t know, although perhaps this kindness gene may come into play in some fashion.

Speaking of abuse, there are some new developments in the Sandusky cse. He has denied being an abuser, which should come as no surprise whatsoever. But even the mere fact that the guy has repeatedly showered with young boys (to which he’s admitted) makes him exceedingly suspect.

In general, I try to preserve the presumption of innocence, and were I one of Sandusky’s jurors I would certainly do so. But I’m not, and there’s so much smoke there (and of a certain type: eyewitnesses for several incidents, and many children coming forward separately with reports of abuse that resemble each other in approach and venue) that one is almost forced to assume a rather large and nasty fire.

Nevertheless, we’ve also got the fact that Sandusky’s lawyer (who has his own somewhat troubled past) reports that the child in the 2002 shower rape incident (or someone the lawyer has supposedly identified as having been that child) says it never happened and that there was no rape. That could mean either that (a) it’s not the same person; or (b) the lawyer is lying and the alleged victim is not saying that; or (c) the alleged victim is frightened of the publicity or was paid off to be quiet; or (d) the alleged victim has repressed the memory; or (e) the rape actually did not occur and it was McQueary who was lying or mistaken when he reported that he witnessed it.

Hard to believe, though, that McQueary would have any motivation to lie in order to implicate Sandusky as a rapist—and, by implication, himself, for not doing enough to stop him.

And now, just to make things even more complex, there are reports that McQueary has changed his story to make himself out to be more of a hero than before [hat tip: commenter “Wolla Dalbo”]. He’s purportedly been sending out emails to friends saying that, rather than walking away, he intervened to stop the rape before reporting it.

So now it’s McQueary who appears to have changed his story, at least part of it. Do this impeach him as a witness? Remember that, according to the grand jury, the report of the incident with Victim 2 (the anal rape in the shower) rests entirely on McQueary’s say-so, because the child (who would now be grown up, like all the other victims) never testified and never was interviewed. Also, it was McQueary’s word against that of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, who all said that McQueary had not reported a crime such as anal rape to them, but rather some vague suspicious behavior in the shower.

Of course, Victim 2’s testimony is not needed in order for us to believe Sandusky guilty. The entire body of evidence is quite convincing: many victims, now in their early twenties, have testified to a wide range of sexually abusive behavior on his part—from inappropriate and suspicious touching all the way to oral sex and one attempt (rebuffed) at anal sex. Most of this behavior occurred in the shower, as with alleged Victim 2. But in order to understand exactly what happened at Penn State—what McQueary saw and especially what he told Paterno and the others about what he saw—his own veracity is important. And it just may have become more questionable.

The holidays are coming! Buy from Amazon through neo-neocon!

The New Neo Posted on by

How’s that for shameless self-promotion?

It’s November. It’s almost Thanksgiving. And that means that Christmas, Chanukah, and whatever other holiday might suit your fancy are all coming up sooner than you think.

This post is to encourage you to feel their hot breaths on your neck and solve all your gift-giving dilemmas by turning to that online colossus, Amazon.

And if you use those widgets on my right sidebar to click through for all your Amazon purchases (now and at any other time of year) you will also be giving a small but still not insignificant gift to neo-neocon (it adds up, folks), and all without spending any extra money! What could be more wonderful?

This announcement will appear at my blog again a few times between now and Christmas, as a gentle yet mercenary reminder. And notice that there already are special holiday deals at Amazon, even prior to Thanksgiving and Black Friday.

What’s more, you can get free shipping with a free trial of Amazon Prime for a month. Why not time it for the holidays?

The Republican field

The New Neo Posted on by

Gingrich is continuing to have his day as the front runner. The debate forum is one in which he particularly shines, plus the other candidates have been the subject of relentless media attacks. But Gingrich is such old news that there’s not that much new dirt to be dug up on him.

That will change, of course, if and when he becomes the nominee. Then you can rest assured that all the old offal—both truth and lies—will be excavated and heaped on his not-all-that-telegenic head. And new stuff will either be found or manufactured.

The way I see the Republican field so far is that the bulk of the electorate is uncomfortable with each these candidates for one reason or other. Although the front runners have constantly shifted, none of them has consistently (or even inconsistently) gained the support of more than a third of poll respondents. This reflects not only this uneasiness but also the large number of candidates; if the race were to shake down to two, one would likely emerge more consistently with a majority.

But that’s quite a ways off. In the meantime, if a great many of the candidates stay in the race for a long time, it could skew the results because the votes the weaker candidates hold onto could have gone to a stronger candidate and changed the outcome.

One thing you’ve got to say about Gingrich, though: he’s shown perseverance. His entry into the race was initially greeted with derision, but he’s benefited from his obvious intelligence and the fact that none of the more charismatic Republican candidates decided to enter the fray.

[NOTE: I saw a comedy bit on TV the other day that suggested some slogans for Newt’s campaign. The best one was, “After all, it’s not like you’re marrying him.”

And yes, it’s a lie that Newt served divorce papers on his wife while she was in the hospital for cancer surgery. But the correction has been out there for quite some time, and it’s hardly made a dent in the perception that he did just that. Do you really think the lie won’t be repeated ad nauseam—and successfully—if Gingrich were to become the Republican nominee?]

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.