The Jackie interviews

The New Neo Posted on by

The NY Times offers some excerpts from a series of interviews Jackie Kennedy granted Arthur Schlesinger in early 1964, just a short while after her husband was assassinated. The content of those talks has been sealed all these years, but if the Times article is any indication, the about-to-be-released recordings and book about them will generate a certain amount of soundbite chatter and not a whole lot else.

The excerpts are puzzling. Not because in talking to the trusted Schlesinger Jackie makes some observations that seem petty or catty, or because she is careful to mention her marriage only in glowing terms. After all, she was a 34-year-old woman who had recently undergone a profoundly stressful and traumatic—even searing and bloodcurdling—event. The puzzlement is that Jackie ever wanted some of the more gossipy parts (example: calling Indira Gandhi a “a real prune ”” bitter, kind of pushy, horrible woman”) made public, even a half-century later. She constructed her public image as carefully as she coiffed her hair, and whoever she was when among friends and family (and all indications are that she was bitingly witty, entertaining, and charming), she seemed an intensely private person who guarded her public persona and clothed it in dignity for the majority of her life.

Maybe she just wanted to let her hair down and cut loose, even if this side of her would only air posthumously. And yet the tapes seem carefully crafted: nothing about the assassination, nothing about her husband’s affairs, nothing about his Addison’s disease. We don’t even know how much she knew about those last two things, but it’s probably safe to assume she knew something, and perhaps a great deal. But whatever she knew, she seems to have taken it to the grave.

A soda by any other name…

The New Neo Posted on by

…would taste as sweet. The survey that demonstrates this is not especially scientific, but it’s fun.

Growing up in New York, the operative word for carbonated beverages was “soda.” Later I learned that in the midwest “pop” was much preferred. I’ve never really heard the survey’s generic “Coke” of the south.

But in New England it’s long been “tonic.” The survey bore this out, with “tonic” being one of the most popular “other” responses. It seems to be used in a fairly circumscribed area of New England: the north. In other words, Red Sox as opposed to Yankee territory.

Whatever you call it, I don’t drink any of it except for club soda. But of course, you already knew that.

[Hat tip: Maetenloch at Ace of Spades.]

9/11: ten years

The New Neo Posted on by

Ten years ago today.

That’s a long time. So long ago that there are now teenagers who were so young back then that they don’t remember it. To them, 9/11 is just a piece of history, not part of their life experience. It’s something that was always there, part of the background of the world as they know it.

For those of us who were grownups when 9/11 happened, it’s also been transmuted—not to something that was always there, but to something that’s been incorporated into our view of the world. We’ve all done that differently. But for us, the shock and surprise and horror reoccurs (to a somewhat diminished extent, of course; there’s no shock like the first shock) whenever we see the footage, or when we think—really really think, without the protective shield of familiarity—of what actually happened on that day.

Enormous passenger jets cleaving into skyscrapers at speeds of over 500 mph, bursting into orange flame fiery against the bluest of skies. Firefighters and police going up the WTC stairs while everyone else was coming down. The jumpers. Bereft relatives desperately searching for the lost, papering New York with notices that finally fluttered down from their posts, taking the last hopes for survival with them.

The temporary near-unity the country felt (and it was always illusory; there were those willing to blame us from the start) has dissipated as though it never happened. That’s not surprising, because the rifts were already deep. But they have only become deeper since.

Perhaps that’s a good thing. Things are clearer now. In general, people are more alert and interested in what’s going on. I know I am. I would not be a blogger but for a chain reaction of internal events that began for me on the day. That’s very small in the larger scheme of things, but for me it’s big.

What do I hope for the future? That we continue to remember. That we not have any sort of repeat. That the repercussions of that day will enhance the spread of liberty both in this country and around the world, so that none of the people who perished on 9/11 will have died in vain.

The 9/11 memorial opens

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, the 9/11 Memorial was a long time coming, but it will be opening tomorrow on the 10th anniversary of that fateful day.

Take a look, and perhaps you’ll agree with me that it’s a fitting tribute, classic and moving in its respectful and timeless simplicity. A tower or any structure erected in the WTC footpath would not have been nearly as appropriate:

Here’s a host more information about the Memorial. I especially like the thoughtful way the names were arranged, and the fact that the Pentagon and Pennsylvania victims are included as well:

As part of the 9/11 Memorial’s official names verification process completed in 2009, victims’ next-of-kin made specific requests for names to appear adjacent to their loved one’s name (“adjacency requests”). Some of these requests were for relatives, friends, and colleagues; others were for loved ones to be listed with people they may have barely known or just met, but with whom intense bonds were quickly formed as a result of shared response. Over 1,200 of these requests were made and all are reflected on the Memorial. In fact, these requests drive the ordering the groupings on around the Memorial pools, the affiliations within them, and in many places, the placement of the names themselves.

[NOTE: I’m not sure of the best way to categorize this post. My initial impulse was to put it under “terrorism and terrorists,” and it certainly is that. But it’s so much more; after ten years it really does seem as though we have transcended that category, although it still is a huge part of it. Well, “history” will just have to do, as well as “painting and sculpture.”]

[ADDENDUM: I was thinking that the trend in monuments ever since the Vietnam memorial has been anti-vertical. They are still monumental, but not in an upward direction. Rather, the emphasis is horizontal or even downward.

Maya Lin’s groundbreaking—in more ways than one—design to commemorate the Vietnam conflict began the trend. It was actually set in a depression in the earth, very controversial at first but later accepted as a properly somber tribute. Its beauty, majesty, and mystery are not apparent in photos; its impact is best seen in person.

People may criticize this trend as anti-heroic, and they may be correct. But I cannot help but think it is fitting for the 9/11 Memorial. The original towers soared to the sky, as did the airplanes that took them down. Water soothes and heals, and the depression calls attention to the terrible absence, which is the point of the Memorial. As the poet Edwin Markham once wrote of a different traumatic national loss, that of Abraham Lincoln:

And when he fell in whirlwind, he went down
As when a lordly cedar, green with boughs,
Goes down with a great shout upon the hills,
And leaves a lonesome place against the sky.

The new WTC towers that are still being built will retain the upward thrust of the old ones, reasserting the country’s desire to soar again. But the 9/11 Memorial retains the grief of that “lonesome place against the sky.”]

Fighter pilots are made of different stuff…

The New Neo Posted on by

…than you or I. Unless you happen to be a fighter pilot.

Case in point: Heather Penney, one of the fighter pilots who scrambled on 9/11. The entire interview is of interest, but it really gets going around minute 21:00.

No question that she’s brave. But what impresses me the most is her incredible composure, both in the interview and certainly when in the actual 9/11 situation (“We wouldn’t be shooting it down; we would be ramming the aircraft”). She says that she didn’t have to control her emotions, she just didn’t have any emotions, although there was “significant adrenalin” in her system. But that adrenalin was focused on action and performance, and her main prayer was that she wouldn’t screw up.

An astronaut’s view of 9/11

The New Neo Posted on by

…[O]n the morning of Sept. 11, Culbertson, who had been in space for 30 days, had called down to mission control for a routine medical check-in.

“I asked the doctor how things were going. He responded: ‘We’re not having a very good day on Earth,'” Culbertson recalled.

Culbertson later discovered he had a more direct connection to the events of 9/11:

The next morning, he found out that a former Naval Academy classmate and good friend, Charles Burlingame, was the captain of American Airlines Flight 77, which had crashed into the [Pentagon] the day before.

A little light fashion distraction

The New Neo Posted on by

Lots of criticism for Gloria Estefan (who’s 54—now, when did that happen, I ask you?) in attempting this dress by Stella McCartney (Paul’s daughter, by the way):

The dress is designed to emphasize the curves of hourglass figures, and the article points out that it was recently worn more successfully by the twenty-years younger Kate Winslet:

I think it’s an ugly dress, although I once owned and wore a more refined version of the same thing (less tight, less clingy material, a few buttons for decoration) at my sixteenth birthday party. But here, even Winslet looks like she’s got a wet-suit without legs on.

Estefan is at a disadvantage not just because of her age and lack of the extreme body perfection that now seems to be required of all stars or has-been stars or would-be stars of the female persuasion. She’s at an additional disadvantage because she’s photographed in more harsh natural sunlight that sheds all sorts of unfortunate shadows on her, and because, unlike Winslet, she’s in the act of walking rather than posing. Some of this is merely a matter of poor posture. So, note to self and all other women out there except the rail-thin: if you’re going to wear a skin-tight sheath dress made of white neoprene—and I would heartily suggest that you think twice before you do so—then you better remember to stand up extra-straight and suck in that gut good and tight.

[Hat tip: Ann Althouse.]

Reaction to Obama’s jobs speech

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, Obama finally kept the promise he’s been making for years and focused like a laser on jobs—at least, in his speech last night to Congress and the nation.

Reaction varies. There’s commenter “West” from this blog:

I’ll Summarize ”“ Pass the bill I haven’t written yet so I can spend 450 billion dollars we don’t have, and if you oppose this , you hate babies and Grandma. And Lincoln built the Transcontinental railroad or something.

With Paul Krugman, you can never get enough stimulus. He cries for madder music and stronger wine (and, of course, for an end to Republican contrariness):

O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending ”” much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs ”” and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t.

Michael Barone notes Obama’s mood—angry and buck-passing:

He bitterly assailed one straw man after another and made reference to a grab bag of proposals which would cost something on the order of $450 billion””assuring us on the one hand that they all had been supported by Republicans as well as Democrats in the past and suggesting that somehow they are going to turn the economy around…Obama assured us that this would all be paid for. But as far as I could gather, he punted that part of it to the supercommittee of 12 members set up under the debt ceiling bill. He now blithely charges it with coming up with more than its current goal of $1.5 trillion in savings by Christmas. Oh, and he’s going to announce “a more ambitious deficit plan” that will “stabilize our debt in the long run”–11 days from now.

In the meantime, he called for higher taxes on “a few of the most affluent citizens”””as if this could pay for all the spending he’s been backing.

The AP, of all things, agrees with Barone about whether Obama’s proposals will pay for themselves.

Republicans such as Cantor concede that they plan to pass some of Obama’s proposals such as trade agreements, small business relief measures, and revamped unemployment insurance. Many Democratic pundits label this as a slight change from Republicans’ former intransigence and lack of cooperation, and as a conciliatory gesture. Call me naive, but I think that at least some of this agreement by Republicans is because these proposals are actually moves that they think will help the economy; after all, it’s not all about Obama and cooperating with or opposing him.

Democrats may believe that Republican “concessions” on these points would amount to a victory for Obama. I agree. But I also sense that most voters wonder (as I do) why Obama waited so very long and took so many detours along the way. In addition, I don’t see why a certain amount of Republican “cooperation” wouldn’t be seen as a victory for Republicans as well.

[NOTE: Here’s the text of Obama’s speech for those of you who want to catch up with what was said.]

Perry works New Hampshire

The New Neo Posted on by

Does Perry have a chance in the New Hampshire primaries? He certainly seems to think so. But of course, candidates have to talk a good game.

But Perry is way behind Romney in New Hampshire right now. New Hampshire tends to be regionally loyal, and it doesn’t seem to like Texans much—George W. Bush lost there in the 2000 primary to a John McCain who “kicked his butt.” Ironically, although New Hampshire went for Hillary rather than Obama during the 2008 primary, at election time in 2008 when New Hampshirites finally had a chance to vote for McCain for president they failed to do so, going for Obama over McCain with a 9.6% margin of victory.

I will now go out on a limb and make a prediction that Perry will lose to Romney in NH, but like Bill Clinton before him (who lost there to Tsongas in 1992), he will frame his second-place finish as a win of sorts—although I doubt he’ll use the phrase “comeback kid.” And that’s the end of my predictions for the moment.

So, is Social Security a Ponzi scheme, as Rick Perry said in the debate?

The New Neo Posted on by

No, not exactly. As this article points out, a Ponzi scheme has to attract investors, whereas Social Security has a captive investor-audience: all Americans who work. And Social Security can keep asking for more from them, not just in absolute terms but as a percentage of their income as well:

Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.

On the other hand, initial investors get rich from a Ponzi scheme, and no one gets rich off Social Security—unless you count the government itself, which uses the money for a host of things that were not originally intended when the legislation was passed. And of course, Social Security is not illegal, while Ponzi schemes are.

Nor was Social Security originally set up as a Ponzi scheme, although it does partake of some of its characteristics (mainly, that beneficiaries are paid not from profits, but from the “investments” of later payees). If the monies had been kept in a lockbox (that famous Al Gore phrase), the situation would have been somewhat better. But changing demographics are a big part of the problem; when the system was implemented, no one expected such a high percentage of people to live past the age of 65 and to be able to collect on their investments.

[NOTE: The WSJ weighs in.]