Krauthammer: Obama’s nuclear policy is “either insane or ridiculous”

The New Neo Posted on by

Hey, why not both? And remember, Krauthammer is a psychiatrist, so he doesn’t use the term “insane” lightly.

Krauthammer also asks a question: “If you’re an ally, what are you going to think about America as your defender and America as a deterrer of an attack on you?”

Good point. With this policy Obama has achieved the feat of managing to betray all of our allies simultaneously.

Krauthammer’s words also remind me of something I asserted in this post, that Obama has negated a certain continuity and predictability that the US has long had, despite many changes of administrations and parties over the years. Obama may think he’s presenting himself as a man of peace, but he’s really the first loose cannon president.

[ADDENDUM: Tunku Varadarajan calls it “auto-emasculation.”]

Obama’s new policy on nukes: I guess he wants to earn that Nobel ex post facto

The New Neo Posted on by

There’s a new thrill on the roller coaster ride that is the Barack Obama presidency: “Obama limits when US would use nuclear arms” [emphasis mine in the following excerpt]:

President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Just when you think Obama cannot shock further, he goes ahead and surprises you with the depth of his knavery/foolery.

It’s almost as though our country is now being run by a leftist college sophomore, a guy who’s used to getting really good grades and thinks that means he’s smarter than anybody else because his gift of gab helps to wow people in those bull sessions at midnight in the dorm. He’s full of nifty ideas about how the world works, and wants to try them out—based on the “understanding” acquired during a few childhood years in a foreign country and a trip to Pakistan to visit friends.

That’s fine for a person who really is a sophomore in college, because the damage he/she can do is usually quite limited. But putting somebody like that in charge of the country was a really, really, really bad idea. And that’s giving him the benefit of the doubt, and imagining his intentions are good, although there’s no particular reason to think they are.

The phrases I highlighted in the article all point to the transformative nature of what Obama is announcing, breaking with decade upon decade of policy that his predecessors—both Democrat and Republican—have supported. His own Secretary of Defense is against it. But what do those pikers know? Not as much as Obama the Great.

No new nuclear weaponry; that’s a good way to be prepared for anything. Plus an engraved invitation for nonnuclear states to use chemical or biological weapons against us without their previous fear of nuclear retaliation. No doubt the lion will now finally lie down with the lamb, everyone will beat those swords into plowshares, and—well, you get the idea.

Now granted, it might be that even in the past we wouldn’t actually have retaliated with nuclear weapons if we had been attacked biologically or chemically. Then again, we might have. That’s why I highlighted the word “deliberately” in the sentence “It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war.” To deter effectively, the possibility of the strongest retaliation needs to remain on the table.

Of course, it’s possible that enemy nations won’t believe that Obama can be so stupid, and that they’ll assume he’s lying through his teeth; after all, it’s not as though the man has earned a reputation for veracity. They might think this is a clever rope-a-dope strategy, and proceed with caution.

I sincerely hope so, because otherwise it’s an invitation to disaster, a telegraphing of weakness the likes of which even the notorious Jimmy Carter never attempted.

It is instructive to look at the comments responding to the article, which appeared in Monday’s NY Times. The piece had already been linked by Drudge, so that (unlike most Times discussion threads), the preponderance of the responses (at least the first few hundred; I got no further than that) were of the “WTF?” variety. A lot of them said Obama is a fool. Others called his act treason, and said he should be impeached (no surprise there; it’s the dichotomy of the old “fool vs knave?” question).

The reaction of the regulars at the Times was to alternate between praise of Obama’s impressive moral stance, anger at the unwelcome influx of knuckle-dragging tea partying outsiders to their comments section, and ridiculing the newcomers as fraidy-cats lacking the resolute intestinal fortitude of the superior liberal temperament.

A few—just a few—comments were of the “I voted for Obama but I regret it; this is the last straw” variety. I assume they may be real, but it’s hard to tell.

Those who praised Obama’s announcement offered remarks that indicate they seem to be living in a benign dreamland, one the word “naive” does not even begin to describe. I offer a few of these for your study:

…[I]t is the “Holier than thou” attitude of the US that has been the major obstacle in global nuclear disarmament. Whilst US Foreign Policy continues to be fundamentally flawed on many counts (which other nation has military bases around the world, all in the name of corporate definitions of Freedom and Liberty, for Pete’s sake!), this move allows Pres. Obama to look at the other leaders of the nuclear club squarely in the eye.

While I continue to observe an astute politician in the President, there are clear indications that, notwithstanding the cant of the naysayers who do so because they can’t but, Mr. Obama’s accomplishments are going to be truly monumental!

It is way passed [sic] time to take this position on use of nuclear weapons. I unhesitatingly support the president in the adoption of this humane new stance on reduction of threats. It is time to take a chance on the ability of other countries to see the wisdom in threat reduction and respond in kind. Might makes right is, and always has been, an overly simplistic way of interacting with the rest of humanity and indeed, the planet.

It is time for the binary (either/or) thinkers to broaden their horizons. Everything is not as they seem to prefer to interpret it. There is more to life in this country than left or right, up or down, good for me and my family or completely wrong. There are shades and subtlety to everything.

He’s right to do this. In retrospect, historically, this will be seen as a daring, bold, and controversial move toward a better world. I guarantee it.

The innovators are always heckled and screamed at. This isn’t a move of weakness by Obama. This is courage to do the right thing, even when he knows the ignorant will be further enraged and fueled by such actions.

This world should NOT have nuclear weapons. A true visionary with power would do something about it.

And that’s what he is.

And what he’s done.

This is totally symbolic, but it is welcome. There is nothing legally binding about this– if attacked, the President can still use nuclear weapons if the circumstances warrant. But it also messages that we will think before we act. The fact that Obama is stating that the most powerful nation in the world can react with strength and restraint, and not mindless rage like an injured animal, will reduce the impulse of other nations to act out of fear, and take the world one step back from the road to annihilation. Make no mistake about it– nuclear weapons are attractive to other countries only because they fear our unbridled rage. Take away that fear, and we are all safer.

…[W]e need to lead by example. Many countries that do not currently have nuclear arms wish to develop them because they are threatened by the big powers. By removing the looming “we can bomb whoever we want when we want attitude”, we are leading by example. Its just like parenting. You can’t expect your children to treat others with respect and stay out of fights if you as a parent are incapable of acting as an adult. Finally we have a president intelligent enough to realize when and where force is needed, while backing down in other areas. It is wise diplomacy. Less is more in the long run.

USA is the strongest country militarily and economically. To lead one should lead by examples. If it wishes to have a nuclear free world it should first declare never to be the first to use nuclear weapon under whatever the situation as a sign of its sincerity. One reason why so many nations are going for the nuclear options is powerful military countries like USA not making a clear and unequivocal declaration of no-first-use nuclear option in any war or warlike situations. By having complicating nuclear policies whereby nuclear weapon is used under this ambiguous situation and not that ambiguous situation it leads to misunderstanding and more importantly lack of trust. Lack of trust is precisely why there are so many nuclear countries in this world today.

It would be wonderful if the world worked that way, wouldn’t it? I too wish the world worked like that. But even when I was a liberal Democrat I knew it didn’t, and I continue to be puzzled at those who do.

Do they lack all historical context and any sense of the ruthless power struggles that have always existed among nations? Have their personal lives been so protected that they are not aware of the nature of aggressiveness and how it works? Do they believe in the power of their own thoughts to create reality? Have they been hypnotized by Obama? Or some or all of the above?

I also think that one of the psychological mechanisms operating in this group is that many find it too terrible to contemplate that the world is a dangerous place full of dangerous people, and believes that—much as an abused child blames him/herself for the conduct of a bad parent, and thinks that if he/she only acts good enough, the mistreatment will stop—the US is the source of the problem and thus can be the source of the solution if it’s just kind enough and moral enough.

In much the same way, the child blames him/herself but maintains the illusion of control in a dangerous situation. If nuclear proliferation only happens because countries are afraid of the big bad United States, then all that needs to occur in order for things to get better is for the US not to be so big and so bad any more.

Unfortunately, if our president actually thinks the same and acts on it, then we are in enormous trouble, because that would mean he’s a fool. And if he doesn’t think the same or something like it and is still acting as though he does, then we are also in enormous trouble, because that would mean he’s a knave.

We are in enormous trouble.

[ADDENDUM: John Hinderaker at Powerline thinks the main problem with Obama’s announcement is the end of ambiguity and the loss of deterrence. He asks, “Does anyone doubt that the administration would use nukes in a heartbeat if it considered such measures necessary? I don’t.”

Actually, John, I do. And I hope we don’t ever have to find out which one of us is correct, although I agree with you that Obama’s actions today make it more likely that we may.]

[ADDENDUM II: The execrable Robert Scheer agrees with the title of this post—only he means it as a compliment to Obama.]

Are older people happier?

The New Neo Posted on by

Do people get happier as they get older? I’d like to think so, at least. And if this sort of research can be believed, there’s a fair amount of evidence that it’s true.

But it seems to me there’s a huge glaring flaw in many of these studies. Any research that compares the attitudes and/or reactions of present-day young people to those of present-day old people would be comparing apples to oranges. Even if the populations are matched socioeconomically, educationally, and in every other which way, one cannot ignore the huge elephant in the room represented by generational differences.

Since the world in which today’s young people were raised is exceedingly different from the one in which today’s old people were raised, there’s no reason to believe any variations found between the experimental groups are not due to such distinctions, Longitudinal studies—in which the same people are followed from youth to age—would avoid that problem. But the obvious drawback is the length of time needed to get results.

Another problem with non-longitudinal research on this issue is that there’s no reason to believe that old people represent a random group. After all, the elderly are by definition survivors, and perhaps those who last longest and manage to get old were happier to begin.

Retrospective self-reports—as in one of the studies at the link, in which 6 out of 10 elderly respondents said “they get more respect and feel less stress than when they were younger”—rely on memory (and you know what they say about old people’s memories!) and are therefore suspect.

And of course there’s also the question of how “elderly” is defined. For some of the studies it’s somewhere in the 60s (too close for comfort, if you ask me). But in today’s world, 65 is the new—well, I’m not sure, but it’s not the old geezerhood it used to be. Let’s hope so, any way.

Here are some of my favorite old people from the past—who don’t look quite as old to me as they used to when the ad was first made in 1984:

Looking back at Obama the narcissist

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s another trip back in time, to an article about Obama written before the election, in September of 2008. The author, Ali Sina is an ex-Iranian who remembers Khomeni’s ascension to power, and especially his effect on the people.

Sina gets to say “I told you so”—bigtime—because looking at his piece in retrospect he nailed a lot about the man. I don’t agree with everything in his article, but I do agree with its main points about Obama’s narcissism.

Sina writes:

This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

I hate to sound alarmist, but one must be a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evinces symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton, for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them trecherous.

Vaknin says, “When the narcissist reveals his true colors, it is usually far too late. His victims are unable to separate from him. They are frustrated by this acquired helplessness and angry at themselves for having failed to see through the narcissist earlier on.”

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party.

Let’s hope it at least puts an end to the dominance of its progressive wing. But as events have transpired, that is by no means certain. Sina probably did not foresee the cooperation of Congress in thwarting the will of the people, nor the possible swelling of Democratic voter rolls by 2012 through the mechanism of amnesty.

In his piece, Sina quotes this article by Vaknin, who is the author of several books on narcissism. Vaknin is describing what often happens when the will of the narcissist is thwarted by public opinion turning against him:

The pacific mask crumbles when the narcissist has become convinced that the very people he purported to speak for, his constituency, his grassroots fans, the prime sources of his narcissistic supply – have turned against him. At first, in a desperate effort to maintain the fiction underlying his chaotic personality, the narcissist strives to explain away the sudden reversal of sentiment. “The people are being duped by (the media, big industry, the military, the elite, etc.)”, “they don’t really know what they are doing”, “following a rude awakening, they will revert to form”, etc.

When these flimsy attempts to patch a tattered personal mythology fail – the narcissist is injured. Narcissistic injury inevitably leads to narcissistic rage and to a terrifying display of unbridled aggression. The pent-up frustration and hurt translate into devaluation. That which was previously idealized – is now discarded with contempt and hatred.

If Obama’s polls continue to fall (as I sincerely hope they do), will we see this phenomenon occur? Although I think Obama is at bottom an angry man, I also think he is an extremely well-controlled one. He already has contempt for the people, but so far he has been careful not to verbalize too much of it; it only emerges in the rare off-the-cuff statement (like “bitter clingers”), and is usually couched not in rage but in condescension. So I don’t know.

The blank screen Obama initially tried to project cannot help but be filled in over time, as he reveals himself to the American public. The picture that emerges has not been a pretty one, although some who study Obama saw its outlines long ago (I can claim some small prescience on that score myself).

Ryan’s ready to rumble

The New Neo Posted on by

Representative Paul Ryan gave a rousing speech describing the campaign ahead to block the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.

Ryan’s a wonky guy. He can crunch the numbers with the best of them. But he’s also pretty eloquent, and in touch with what’s going on with Americans right now, as well as our proud history. It’s a good combination.

Ryan summarizes what’s been going on with Congress in a single sentence:

Has any Congress in history enacted, or tried to enact, so many foolish, squalid, and counterproductive programs?

On HCR, he’s a bit more verbose, but very pointed:

The drama that brought this creature to life was unedifying … part tragedy and part farce. Ethical categories went out the window. Never in history have the deliberations of Congress been subverted on this scale. The secrecy, the lack of transparency, the half-truths were stunning. The votes called at midnight … the 2 and 3 thousand page bills members of Congress had no time to read before the votes … the sordid backroom deals, the Cornhusker Kickback that shamed Nebraska, the Louisiana Purchase, the “Gator Aid” Medicare privilege for Florida, the additional Medicare dollars for states whose wavering representatives only yesterday were ferociously denouncing earmarks … the federal judgeship dangled for one lawmaker’s brother … the raid on the Medicare piggy bank … the lie that $250 billion for “doc fix” shouldn’t count as a Health Care cost … the double-counted deficit estimate scam that would land any accountant in jail … the proposed Slaughter rule that Congressmen not record a vote on a bill their constituents hate, just “deem” it passed and vote on the amendments…and to complete the farce, the phony Executive Order pretending not to fund abortions when the Health Care bill, as “the supreme law of the land,” does fund abortions. The level of political corruption to buy the votes for this debacle makes all past examples look penny ante by comparison.

And here is his warning. Those of you who follow the blogosphere will find its message familiar. But I think it’s brave of a mainstream Republican public figure such as Ryan to state it so boldly and clearly:

Self-government stands or falls on integrity, not only in those who represent you but in the enactment of law. This indecency soiled our freedom and embarrassed the democracy we promote in other nations. And this may not be the last of it. To enact its transformative agenda, this leadership employs the Machiavellian saying that the end justifies the means. America was born in a revolution against that whole idea. Soon it will be the norm.

The Constitution and the consent of the people are all that stand between limited and unlimited government power. Zealous ideologues with the best of intentions brush aside the limits on power in order to get whatever they believe is good for the people … no matter what the people believe. Our system of freedom can survive an assault, but it won’t survive if the people are frightened, or angry, or asleep at the switch. A great Democrat, President Andrew Jackson, once said: “eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty.” We can thank our current leaders at least for this: they have awakened the nation to the danger of taking self-government for granted.

Read the whole thing.

Happy Easter!

The New Neo Posted on by

Happy Easter to all my celebratory Christian readers, and to all those who just enjoy the holiday as well!

One year when my son was little, I spent the week prior to Easter blowing out eggs and dying them. Now that he’s grown and away, the eggs are packed away in boxes and stored in parts unknown. If I could get my hands on them I’d photograph them for you, because even all these years later they are beautiful, with dyes both subtle and unsubtle, interesting etched patterns and rainbow effects—definitely one of my finest crafts hours (to tell the truth, I didn’t have so many fine crafts hours, although there was also a gingerbread house we made that was stored in the attic and alas, eaten by small creatures–and not human ones, at that.)

Blown-out eggs are well worth the trouble, and why? Because they last. And nothing eats them. You only have to make them once, and you’re all set. They are a bit fragile, but not so very.

So here’s my Easter present to you (not that you couldn’t find it yourself): the instructions for blowing eggs:

First, you’ll need to make a tiny pin hole on each end of the egg. A pin works well, or a wooden kitchen skewer or even the tip of a sharp knife. Gently work the tip of the pin/skewer/knife in a circular motion until a tiny hole appears. Repeat on the other side. Then insert the pin or skewer (the knife will be too big here) far enough into the egg to break the yolk. Use your mouth [blow] to expel the contents of the egg.

And here is a more complex–but perhaps better–way, for those obsessive-compulsives among us.

These aren’t mine, but they’ll have to do as substitute:

[NOTE: This is a repost from Easters past. But it still works for me.]

HCR: maybe the public’s not so stupid after all

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama and his cohorts love to claim that the public’s dislike of the HCR bill is just “misinformation,” and that the more they learn about the bill the more they’ll like it. Funny thing though; so far, the more the public has learned about HCR, the more they seem to dislike it.

Must be very frustrating for Obamites, so accustomed to reaping the benefits of spin that they don’t understand that sometimes reality overcomes their efforts. They would have done well to have read the book The Wisdom of Crowds. The following is from a review of the book:

While our culture generally trusts experts and distrusts the wisdom of the masses, New Yorker business columnist Surowiecki argues that “under the right circumstances, groups are remarkably intelligent, and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.” To support this almost counterintuitive proposition, Surowiecki explores problems involving cognition (we’re all trying to identify a correct answer), coordination (we need to synchronize our individual activities with others) and cooperation (we have to act together despite our self-interest). His rubric, then, covers a range of problems, including driving in traffic, competing on TV game shows, maximizing stock market performance, voting for political candidates, navigating busy sidewalks, tracking SARS and designing Internet search engines like Google. If four basic conditions are met, a crowd’s “collective intelligence” will produce better outcomes than a small group of experts, Surowiecki says, even if members of the crowd don’t know all the facts or choose, individually, to act irrationally. “Wise crowds” need (1) diversity of opinion; (2) independence of members from one another; (3) decentralization; and (4) a good method for aggregating opinions. The diversity brings in different information; independence keeps people from being swayed by a single opinion leader; people’s errors balance each other out; and including all opinions guarantees that the results are “smarter” than if a single expert had been in charge.

Of course, crowds are hardly always correct. Would that they were; it would make elections (and life) a lot easier. Case in point: the most recent presidential and Congressional election, which led us to this sorry pass. Of course, the MSM did their best to make sure that most people did not get the correct information on candidate Obama. If they had received it, I feel nearly certain that the results would have been a great deal different.

And it’s even easier for the aggregate of the population to be correct if the “experts” are as obviously inexpert as our president, who sounded a bizarre note in his rambling 17-minute non-answer to the clear and concise question asked by a woman in the crowd during his Charlotte talk.

We all know that Obama is in love with the sound of his own voice, and believes that others automatically are, too. That’s part of what was going on here. But he was also stalling and setting up a smokescreen, hoping the question would get lost in a sea of words, because he really had no answer at all.

Here’s the entire thing, if you’ve got the stamina to last all the way through. Obama’s hoping that you don’t.

The difficulty of demonizing the Tea Partiers: less than six degrees of separation

The New Neo Posted on by

The word has gone out that, now that HCR has been passed and President Obama is spending his precious time going around the country to “sell” it, the Tea Partiers must be further demonized in any way possible, including of course that perennial favorite, the race card.

But if the Tea Partiers hadn’t already been discredited, it’s not for lack of trying. From the start they were mocked as hate-filled extremists and racists, and given the sexual epithet “teabaggers” as their name instead of the honorable and historically-based one they devised for themselves. They were considered to be similar to those “bitter clingers” Obama had described during his 2008 campaign to supporters in San Francisco.

The idea was (and still is) that, if the ad hominen attacks can be made to stick, the substance of the Tea Party message could be discarded, and the hope of the administration and its supporters was/is that more Americans would be dissuaded from joining up with this bunch of crazy racists.

With a willing press as co-conspirators (or at least cooperative in the coverup), proof was not necessary, and accusations could be made up. Right out of the Alinsky handbook. But what did we expect when we elected a president who had taught Alinsky methods in workshops?

One of the many things the Democrats may have forgotten, however, is that (outside of true-blue monolithic liberal bastions such as Berkeley and NYC), most people actually know a few Tea Partiers, and are aware of who and what they are, and what they are actually protesting, and why. What’s more, those who attend a tea party can report on what they saw there, and they’re not reporting anything like what the media and Democratic leaders are describing.

And, because the Tea Parties are actually rather sedate except for cries of “Kill the bill!” (the ones I attended featured such radical acts as singing “God Bless America”), the would-be demonizers are having trouble finding much evidence for their accusations. Mark my words, however: if they don’t find more of them, they will have to invent them. And they will have no moral reservations about doing so.

There may not be a lot of people attending Tea Parties in terms of percentage of the population of the US. But every person who does attend stands for a host of others who sympathize but do not. It’s easier to demonize a fake populist movement. But it’s much more difficult to successfully demonize a real one.

And the Obamites know this one’s real. That’s why they fear it so.

Obama: mockery in Maine

The New Neo Posted on by

Two days ago President Obama was in Portland, Maine, to give a speech promoting the HCR bill.

I’ve observed before that sometimes Obama will put two contradictory assertions in the same address, hoping the discrepancies in logic will go unnoticed. But he usually places them some distance apart from each other. This time, however, they followed one another in fairly rapid succession in his speech.

Judge for yourself. Here’s Obama in his familiar folksy, sarcastic, and contemptuously mocking mode, having a fine old time egging the crowd on to laugh at those who’ve had the audacity to criticize the bill by pointing out its profound dangers (I’m not sure whether the relevant parts of his address were scripted or ad-lib):

THE PRESIDENT: You turned on the news, you’d see that those same folks who were hollering about [HCR] before it passed, they’re still hollering, about how the world will end because we passed this bill. (Laughter.) This is not an exaggeration. John Boehner called the passage of this bill —

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: — no need to — we don’t need to boo, I just want to give the facts — called this passage of this bill “Armageddon.” You had others who said this is the end of freedom as we know it.

So after I signed the bill, I looked around. (Laughter and applause.) I looked up at the sky to see if asteroids were coming. (Laughter.) I looked at the ground to see if cracks had opened up in the earth. You know what, it turned out it was a pretty nice day. (Laughter and applause.) Birds were still chirping. Folks were strolling down the street. Nobody had lost their doctor. Nobody had pulled the plug on Granny. (Laughter.) Nobody was being dragged away to be forced into some government-run health care plan.

But the thing is, though, you have to love some of the pundits in Washington. Every single day since I signed the reform law, there’s been another poll or headline that said “Nation still divided on health care reform. Polls haven’t changed yet.” Well, yeah. It just happened last week. (Laughter and applause.) It’s only been a week. (Applause.)

Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm? (Laughter.) You planted some seeds, and they came out the next day, and they looked, and nothing’s happened! (Laughter and applause.) There’s no crop! We’re going to starve! Oh, no! (Applause.) It’s a disaster! (Laughter.)

Let’s review: those who warned that Obamacare would have severely negative results are birdbrained idiots because the first week after it was signed life goes on as before. And those who point out that his polls numbers haven’t risen as a result of the passage of Obamacare are birdbrained idiots because of course nothing about it has gone into effect yet.

I’m sure many if not most in that cheering crowd got caught up in the giddy delight of the whole enterprise of gleefully mocking one’s critics after a victory. Who cares that the coach is speaking nonsense, completely contradicting himself, when it’s so much fun to spike the ball in the endzone and do a jubilant victory dance?

Mocking his serious critics is one of Obama’s favorite activities. I can’t say I recall hearing any previous president (Democrat or Republican) do it very much in public (although in private it no doubt was a very different matter). The only person who comes to mind—although I don’t think Obama would like this comparison very much—was Nixon’s Vice President Spiro Agnew, who had to resign amidst bribery and tax evasion charges in 1973.

Agnew was known for relishing a verbal battle. But looking back, Agnew was the soul of sophisticated wit compared to Obama:

With the help of White House speechwriters Pat Buchanan and William Safire, Agnew developed a distinctive, jeering speech style that mixed some heavy fun into the contempt.

In a 1969 speech against war protesters, he said, “A spirit of national masochism prevails, encouraged by an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.” “In the United States today,” Agnew told a 1970 audience in San Diego, “we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.” He went after “pusillanimous pussyfooters” and “vicars of vacillation” and “the hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history.”

Agnew (or perhaps Safire or the offputting Buchanan) apparently was fond of alliteration. Obama is not.

One thing Obama is fond of, however, is delivering the usual nonsensical reassurances without actually answering his critics’ analyses of the issues. You know the drill: you can keep your insurance if you like it. The Republicans want total deregulation of the insurance companies; no controls at all. Obamacare will be good for the elderly. It will reduce the deficit. And so on and so forth.

And the crowd cheered on.

Ice skating: jumping, turning, spinning

The New Neo Posted on by

In both ballet and ice skating, the best jumpers tend to be more compact. Jumping not only takes extreme athleticism and coordination, it also requires exceptionally strong legs—particularly the thigh and butt muscles. Conversely, the more elongated the torso and extremities, and the taller the dancer or skater, the more difficult it is to pull it all together to get the elevation and make the required rapid revolutions simultaneously (as required in skating).

But it’s the taller dancer or skater who often has the more lyrical flowing line. I’m about to post a video (hat tip: Beverly) featuring an unusual skater of years past—although not so many years past; the performance is from 1999.

Her name is Lucinda Ruh. Ruh managed to achieve a merely serviceable jump, with only a modest number of revolutions. Although her jumps would have drawn gasps of pleasure and astonishment back in 1956, when she skated in 1999 they really were weak compared to the opposition.

Ruh’s problem with jumps most probably was caused by the fact that she was 5’9″, (her height according to the seemingly knowledgeable You Tube skating aficionados), enormously tall for a female skater or dancer. It certainly wasn’t due to any problems with turning itself, though, because Ruh was the best spinner ever—which is also somewhat unusual because spinning, like turns and jumps, tends on the whole to favor the short and compact, although not as strongly.

But spin Ruh did, and in extraordinary fashion. She hardly moves off a single spot as she whirls at speeds high enough to cause her image to blur. I once wrote a piece on the concept of the natural turner; some people have it and some don’t, and Ruh had it. Turns and spins are something you can learn and you can even improve, but natural turners and/or spinners are born rather than made. It probably has a great deal to do with the inner ear and the brain as much as the muscles of the body. Watch, and marvel (and stay with it right to the end of her performance at minute 4:15—you’ll be glad you did). Her costume is lovely as well: