The fall of the house of Pahlavi

The New Neo Posted on by

The sad news of the suicide in Boston of Alireza Pahlavi, the youngest son of the late and last Shah of Iran, is the most recent chapter in the sorrowful saga of the family.

Here they are in happier days. He’s the one being held in his mother’s arms:

shahfamily.jpg

His father died in exile of lymphoma at the age of 60, when Alireza was a boy of thirteen. And the little girl in the above photo, younger sister Leila, what of her? Dead at the age of 31 in London of a drug overdose.

The family appears to carry a tendency to depression; Leila had a serious case, and Alireza reportedly also suffered from it after her death. Two other children of the Shah by their mother, former Empress Farah, remain alive, as does Farah herself, who must be overwhelmed with grief.

I hadn’t heard of Farah Pahlavi in decades, but suddenly a distinct memory from my childhood came back—of the Shah’s fiance, movie-star beautiful and featured on the cover of Life, bearing the memorable and euphonious maiden name of Farah Diba. A veritable fairy tale.

But fairy tales always have their dark sides, and I was aware even back then that this one was built on a sad situation.

Did I say Farah looked like a movie star? Indeed:

farah-pahlavi.jpg

But Farah’s predecessor Soraya (another lovely name, and another Life favorite, as I recall) also looked like a movie star, and a specific one at that—Ava Gardner. Take a look:

soraya3.jpg

Oh, take two:

soraya2.jpg

Why did the Shah divorce the beauteous Soraya? I remembered that, too, because even as a child I thought it exceptionally sad: she could not have children. And being a shah, he needed a male heir. So Soraya was divorced after she refused to let him take a second simultaneous wife.

Soraya never had children, but she went on to become an actual actress, at least for a little while. She died at 69 under mysterious circumstances in 2001, just a few months after Leila’s death. To compound the sorrow, Soraya’s younger brother died suddenly only a week after her, in a strange foreshadowing of the deaths of Farah’s daughter and son so many years later.

[NOTE: Please see this series of mine about the Iranian Revolution.]

The vaccine/autism connection was a fraud

The New Neo Posted on by

Not an error: a deliberate fraud.

Let that sink in a minute.

It’s not been an inconsequential fraud, either; I completely agree with the contention, voiced in the British medical journal BMJ, that Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s original study purporting to make the connection between autism and vaccinations “has done long-lasting damage to public health” (see this and this).

But it couldn’t have been done without a willing and for the most part scientifically ignorant public, clamoring for easy answers to medical mysteries. In an editorial in BMJ, editor Fiona Godlee writes that the furor against vaccines continues to be:

…fueled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals and the medical profession…

Andersen Cooper is helpfully giving Dr. Wakefield a forum in which to defend himself; the good doctor will be appearing on “Anderson Cooper 360” tonight. Wakefield will be saying that it’s his work that’s being distorted, by ruthless people determined “to crush any attempt to investigate valid vaccine safety concerns.”

Wakefield is accused of falsifying case histories in his study, whose findings have never been replicated since, either by himself or others. The lack of replication alone should have been enough to discredit it. But once the public thinks it has an explanation for something—and a “scientific” one at that—it is hard to change minds that have become set in stone.

[NOTE: Related case in point: remember Erin Brockovitch and PG&E? Well, it turns out Brockovitch was almost certainly wrong, and that the town of Hinckley has had no more cancer cases than would have been expected by chance.

Hey, but we saw the movie! How many people will get the corrected news?]

[ADDENDUM: More thoughts.]

The wheels of justice: Dupree freed

The New Neo Posted on by

The wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine:

A Texas man declared innocent Tuesday after 30 years in prison had at least two chances to make parole and be set free ”” if only he would admit he was a sex offender. But Cornelius Dupree Jr. refused to do so, doggedly maintaining his innocence in a 1979 rape and robbery, in the process serving more time for a crime he didn’t commit than any other Texas inmate exonerated by DNA evidence.

“Whatever your truth is, you have to stick with it,” Dupree, 51, said Tuesday, minutes after a Dallas judge overturned his conviction.

Dupree might have gotten out in 2004 if he had just agreed to submit to a re-education program for sex offenders that required the “4 R’s:” recognition, remorse, restitution and resolution. He couldn’t do it; couldn’t recognize or show remorse for a crime he did not commit. Now the DNA evidence has exonerated him.

Like so many others who have been wrongly convicted, Dupree’s verdict rested almost entirely on eyewitness testimony. Eyewitnesses sound good and are often quite sincere, but unfortunately their testimony is not anywhere near as reliable as people tend to think it is. In Dupree’s case, only one eyewitness fingered him; the other did not. And yet he served thirty years.

It is always upsetting to hear something like that. But it is always good to know that an innocent person has finally been freed. And it helps that the state of Texas will be paying Dupree over two million dollars, tax-free, for his pain, although it will never be able to give him those thirty years back.

If Michele Bachmann runs…

The New Neo Posted on by

…for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, will she split some of the Palin-hatred and deflect it onto herself? Or will she magnify it?

I’ve noticed that, although Bachmann has a smaller public profile than Palin, she taps into some of the same virulence as Palin, for somewhat similar (although also somewhat different) reasons. Like Palin, she’s not afraid to speak her mind, and is very conservative. Like Palin, she’s a Tea Party favorite. Like Palin, she’s got five children.

And like Palin, she’s a very attractive woman, a brunette with long hair, a style that used to be a no-no for politicians but is now not uncommon. But unlike Palin, she has a law degree, which makes her more immune–although hardly completely resistant—to the charges of “dummy.”

We won’t have Robert Gibbs to kick around any more

The New Neo Posted on by

Except that we will; Gibbs is leaving the White House press secretary post only to become a political adviser to the president and his re-election campaign.

It will still be very pleasant not to have Gibbs as Obama’s public face and mouthpiece. It is no surprise that he will stay on as a trusted adviser, because he’s had that role in addition to the press role for quite some time. The only meaningful change in Obama’s Gang of Four so far appears to have been the departure of Rahm Emanuel, who was the member least close to Obama to begin with (Axelrod, like Gibbs, changed venues but remains as a trusted confidant and helper).

Gibbs’ departure is probably part of Obama’s shift to a kinder, gentler facade of compromise and moderation. It will be interesting to see his replacement, but my guess is that it will be someone less offensive and less combative. Of course, that’s pretty easy to accomplish; it would be hard to find someone more offensive and more combative. But make no mistake about it; Gibbs will remain very influential behind the scenes.

The bleak, baroque, berserk “Black Swan”

The New Neo Posted on by

“Black Swan” was one of those movies I just had to see. After all, it’s described as a psychological thriller about ballet. So, what’s not to like?

Well, just about everything. I didn’t merely dislike this film, I loathed it.

“Black Swan” is suspenseful, all right. But the non-stop suspense involves one thing and one thing only: exactly when will the next flesh-rending Grand Guignol moment occur? It’s difficult to make viewers feel simultaneously horrified, exhausted, and bored, but the film’s relentless one-note assault manages to accomplish that mean feat.

The characters consist of cliché after cliché after cliché: the sexually predatory ballet company director; the shy, bulimic, repressed underling dancer who finally gets her Big Chance; the pretend friend and rival who just might be an enemy in disguise; the jealous older dancer who’s all washed up; the enmeshed and controlling ballet mother who sacrificed her career to…well, you get the idea.

And the sex—let’s not forget the sex. The movie certainly doesn’t. Every sexual encounter between two people (although the movie’s specialty is actually sex for one) is decidedly unpleasant. The obligatory lesbian sex scene is probably the only one of its kind in which viewers are justifiably afraid that one of the actresses is literally going to eat the other—as in “sink teeth into, draw blood, and devour.”

If that doesn’t strike your fancy, there’s the dancing. After all, this is a dance movie, right? All dance films must face the question of whether to cast dancers in the leading roles and sacrifice the acting, or cast actors in the leading roles and sacrifice the dancing. “The Red Shoes” and “The Turning Point (see this for a personal note) resolved the dilemma in favor of dancers who could act somewhat. In “Black Swan,” it’s actresses who can dance somewhat.

Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis do a pretty good job—good but not great, since it’s an impossible task to fake artistry and/or professional technique. The camera obsessively follows the movements of Portman’s slender, flexible upper body in claustrophobic closeups which make her seem convincing as a dancer, although a relatively uninteresting one. She can rise on her toes and perform simple movements respectably, as well. But when bravura technique is required, it’s a long shot and a body double to the rescue.

But in fact, none of the dancing in the film is of interest as dance per se, and there really isn’t that much of it anyway. But dance is not what this movie is about—it’s “Rosemary’s Baby” crossed with “Repulsion,” sur les pointes. If that seems like a mixed metaphor—well, it is.

[NOTE: In the life-imitates-art department, star Portman is now pregnant and engaged to the NYC Ballet dancer who plays the brief role of the Prince in the film, handsome Benjamin Millepied. Until the filming began, Millepied had a live-in girlfriend, American Ballet Theatre dancer Isabella Boylston. This would make Portman the Other Woman, just like Odile, the Black Swan is in “Swan Lake.” Does that make Boylston Odette, the White Swan?]

Huck loses the n-word

The New Neo Posted on by

It was only a matter of time, I guess. A new edition of Twain’s classic Huckleberry Finn will be coming out minus the offending n-word, which will be replaced by the term “slave.”

In related news, the same edition will eliminate the word “Injun.” I can’t find a report of what term will replace it; perhaps nothing.

Alan Gribben, a Twain scholar who is behind the new Bowdlerized version, believes he had to change Huck in order to save him from oblivion; the PC police have spearheaded multiple and successful drives to ban the book, all because of the n-word. The publisher of the new version calls the revised terminology “less hurtful, less controversial,” but it’s certainly controversial among Twain literature lovers.

It’s funny, isn’t it, how at this point children’s minds are deemed too sensitive to withstand the barrage of the n-word in a classic book, even when the thrust of the book is to show the innate humanity and worthiness of the person in question. But at the same time their ears are not deemed too delicate to be exposed to a steady diet of the n-word in rap music. And most of this latter-day use of the word is by black people themselves, in songs that are often offensive in many other ways as well. It’s enough to make your head spin.

Being mega-old

The New Neo Posted on by

Susan Jacoby has a lot of relatives who lived to be old. Mega-old, in fact. And, from what she’s seen of the debilities of extreme old age, she doesn’t much like the prospect of getting there herself.

Oh, it’s okay if mental and physical health are intact. Most of us like to think that, were we to live well into our 90s, we’d also be living well. But most of us like to think a lot of things that aren’t all that likely.

On the bright side, it’s not impossible to make it to the 100-year mark with a fair amount of vigor, and faculties largely intact or at least functioning. In fact, half of centenarians are not significantly disabled by dementia or physical illness; the other half are.

With a mother who’s pushing 97, I’ve witnessed a lot of the 90-plus segment of the population. There’s no question that some are living active, happy lives, although I can’t seem to conjure up any statistics just now on what percentage of the whole they might represent. I do know that the conditions of extreme old age vary enormously from person to person, with some living a life that in their younger days they would have begged to be released from, and some hale and hearty and going strong.

My mother, fortunately (knock wood) is somewhere in that huge area in-between, but fairly functional and fairly happy, and seemingly well-cared-for in assisted living. She sometimes expresses surprise at still being alive, but also says she’s quite content to be so. But I’ve seen her lose almost every friend she ever had (and she had plenty) and most of her acquaintances, too, and that’s hard.

My mother once told me that her own grandfather, born in the early 1870s and fairly healthy till he died at 93, used to remark wistfully, “It’s hard to be the last leaf on the tree.” I think she may obliquely be saying the same thing. But, thankfully, she’s nevertheless glad she’s still sticking around.

And so are we.

The new Congress has plans

The New Neo Posted on by

The House will take up the issue of repeal of HCR.

It’s an act of theater, because Obama has veto power and would almost undoubtedly use it. And repeal is doomed in the Senate, anyway. But it’s nevertheless a good idea to try, because a vote would force members to lay their cards on the table. It will be especially interesting to see what House Democrats from purplish districts will do.

Another task for the new session: investigations by the oversight committee, including Fannie Mae, Wikileaks, corruption in Afghanistan, and FDA recalls.

And then there’s the filibuster and what’s known as “reform.” I don’t even know which article to link to on that topic, there are so very many calls (now that the Democrats have only a slim majority) for changes. The goal is to make it easier to pass legislation in the Senate by simple majority, through making it harder for the minority to block such votes.

This could come back to bite the Dems in two ways. The first is obvious: if they lose that majority in the next election, the rule change will come to favor the Republicans. The second way is perhaps a little less obvious: a few of the Democrats in the Senate are so-called moderates who might be persuaded to vote with Republicans if they see it as benefiting their own re-election chances in 2012 (see this list of those up for re-election in 2012). If the Republicans are united in their votes, and even just a few Democrats join them, then the Democrat leadership might come to regret those reforms.