O’Donnell the stupid weirdo: the meme spreads

The New Neo Posted on by

The pattern is becoming clear:

Take one attractive woman politician on the right.

Dig into every facet of her past, especially quotes related to her Christian religious beliefs.

Mock and revile her, preferably distorting what she said.

In particular, make it seem as though she is intent on legislating those beliefs.

Do it quickly, as soon as the person is nominated, before she has a chance to counter the growing “narrative.”

I’m wasn’t a big O’Donnell fan during the primary, as I wrote recently here and here. But now that she’s won the nomination, I support her candidacy and want her to win the general election. And I’m glad to hear she’s done well so far at raising money.

I’m fascinated by the process that’s going on right now by those determined to destroy her. The first time it happened, with Sarah Palin, it seemed new. Now it’s deja vu all over again.

Therein lies the left’s problem—perhaps. Maybe the charges will stick, of course; it really depends on how credible O’Donnell is as a candidate from now until election day, and what the people of Delaware decide. But because the approach of her detractors is so familiar, it has lost some of its punch, at least for now.

The fact that much of the Republican establishment has joined in with attacks of its own doesn’t help matters for O’Donnell. Then again, maybe it does. Would she have gotten this much attention, and this many donations, if they hadn’t gone against her? Public opinion these days is not just anti-Democrat, although it is most certainly that. It is more generally anti-incumbent and anti-establishment, the same sort of impetus that almost launched a permanent third party in 1992 via Ross Perot—who, unfortunately, did turn out to be a bona fide loon.

And the moral of the story is: don’t confide in Carla Bruni

The New Neo Posted on by

Did Michelle Obama really tell Carla Bruni that being First Lady is hell, and that she can’t stand it?

Who knows? It makes a big splash, though, and that’s what Bruni is all about.

But just in case it’s true, I’ve got some advice for Michelle—the lovely French First Lady with the colorful past is not exactly the girlfriend I’d be confiding in:

Comparing herself to other leaders’ wives, Miss Bruni says: ”˜I’m so different. I was a model. I sing, and I want to continue to sing. And on top of that you expect me to be subtle?’ And she admits: ”˜I am a femme fatale, my dear.’

Black, intelligent, and feeling guilty about it

The New Neo Posted on by

This is a disturbing article on a confusing topic: racial diversity in education for the academically gifted.

Hunter College High School is an elite public school in New York City, grades 7-12, that accepts students based on a test administered prior to entry (it also has a lower school that has an exam-based entry). It just so happens that the percentage of minority students at Hunter is small. One of them, Justin Hudson, spoke at the most recent graduation ceremonies, and said the following:

I feel guilty because I don’t deserve any of this. And neither do any of you. We received an outstanding education at no charge based solely on our performance on a test we took when we were 11-year-olds, or 4-year-olds. We received superior teachers and additional resources based on our status as ‘gifted,’ while kids who naturally needed those resources much more than us wallowed in the mire of a broken system.

And now, we stand on the precipice of our lives, in control of our lives, based purely and simply on luck and circumstance. If you truly believe that the demographics of Hunter represent the distribution of intelligence in this city, then you must believe that the Upper West Side, Bayside and Flushing are intrinsically more intelligent than the South Bronx, Bedford-Stuyvesant and Washington Heights, and I refuse to accept that.

Hudson is tapping into one of the huge and enormously heated controversies of our times, whether measured racial differences in intelligence are completely environmental or are the result at least partly of heredity. Let’s just say for the purposes of this post that we will not settle the question here; and that there’s a great deal of overlap among racial groups, all of which have plenty of highly intelligent members, many of whom (black, white, or whatever color) are not raised in an environment that allows them to take full advantage of whatever intellectual gifts they might possess (just take a look at the true story behind this movie if you don’t believe me).

I’m interested right now in other issues, such as what motivates a student such as Hudson to experience so much guilt that he feels the need to include this sentiment in a graduation speech, and to ignore the fact that he and other students at Hunter are not merely lucky, but have almost certainly worked long and hard to do the work there in order to graduate. My guess is that he has been exposed to a relentless barrage of PC thought that dictates that there are no innate differences—even between individuals—except for those of privilege and good fortune, and that achievement is a zero-sum game where his own advancement can only have been accomplished at the expense of others.

I was puzzled by the fact that Hudson was described in the article as a “graduation speaker.” I wondered what that meant, and why neither of the traditional terms “valedictorian” or “salutatorian” was used. So I did some research, and discovered that even Hunter has abandoned those concepts in favor of a different and less score-bound process:

To relieve some of the pressure on its students, the school does not name a valedictorian; instead, it invites seniors to submit proposed graduation speeches and a faculty committee selects one to be read. This year, it chose Mr. Hudson’s, to his surprise.

So we learn two things here: despite Hunter’s still being wedded to its old-fashioned admissions test, it has succumbed to the modern trend away from having the students with the highest and second-highest averages deliver the commencement speeches. That may relieve pressure on the students, but it also gives the faculty leeway to select whomever it pleases based on other criteria, which can include ethnic diversity—unless, of course, the speeches are submitted anonymously; but even then the content of Hudson’s speech would have been a possible clue to his racial identity.

The process reminds me somewhat of changes at the Harvard Law Review during the 70s that made it possible for students to be selected for the prestigious journal on the basis of a student vote on special writing samples rather than grades, and allowed the HLR president to be elected rather having the post go to the best student. The changes were explicitly designed to encourage the selection of minorities to the posts, and Barack Obama was one its beneficiaries.

It seems that the Hunter faculty may have used Hudson to deliver a message to the administration by proxy. They read his speech and knew its content before they selected him to give it. The test admission process had already become a bone of contention at Hunter, as its minority enrollment fell in recent years, and the disagreement breaks down as faculty vs. administration:

The events fanned a long-standing disagreement between much of the high school faculty and the administration of Hunter College over the use of a single, teacher-written test for admission to the school, which has grades 7 through 12. Faculty committees have recommended broadening the admissions process to include criteria like interviews, observations or portfolios of student work, in part to increase minority enrollment and blunt the impact of the professional test preparation undertaken by many prospective students.

Eliminating the test, which has remained essentially unchanged for decades, is not on the table, said John Rose, the dean for diversity at Hunter College. The test, he said, is an integral part of the success of the school…

It seems to boil down to an old-fashioned disagreement between liberal faculty and more conservative administration on the mission of the school. An interesting side question is what the explanation might be for the drop in minority enrollment since the 90s:

As has happened at other prestigious city high schools that use only a test for admission, the black and Hispanic population at Hunter has fallen in recent years. In 1995, the entering seventh-grade class was 12 percent black and 6 percent Hispanic, according to state data. This past year, it was 3 percent black and 1 percent Hispanic; the balance was 47 percent Asian and 41 percent white, with the other 8 percent of students identifying themselves as multiracial. The public school system as a whole is 70 percent black and Hispanic.

Interesting; the administration of an admissions test is a practice many decades old at Hunter, and certainly predated the year 1995. Why, then, has minority enrollment dropped so precipitously since then? I don’t know the answer, but I ask the question.

One possible explanation is related to the point Hudson made: apparently, the Hunter test may not have been well-publicized in schools in heavily black and Hispanic areas. Was there perhaps a fall-off in knowledge of the test’s existence in those communities in recent years?:

Until recently, individual schools in New York were responsible for making sure their kids knew about the test. Essentially, teachers had to know about the test, know about which students to recommend and connect them to the test through a very personally [sic] process. As a result, black and Latino children have often been left out of the pool of those selected to receive the opportunity to apply to Hunter College High School and receive an amazing education for free.

That problem was corrected this year when, “for the first time, the school this year sent mailings directly to all city fifth graders who scored in the top 10 percent on both the state English and math tests, the criteria to take the Hunter test, rather than relying on schools to pass the word. Hunter High also started a mentoring program for promising third graders. One-quarter of the city students qualifying for the test this year were black or Hispanic, according to an analysis by The New York Times.”

This seems like an excellent change, although it may take a few years for the full results to show up in the student body. But this sort of thing seems to be the way to approach the problem, rather than watering down the admissions criteria because of PC considerations, laying guilt trips on hardworking students, or using graduation speakers to channel the grievances of the faculty.

Attacking Boehner: why it’s probably a futile effort

The New Neo Posted on by

The White House and its willing handmaiden the NY Times have a new and unscintillating strategy: attack House Minority Leader John Boehner for being connected to lobbyists and special interest groups that “contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his campaigns, provided him with rides on their corporate jets, socialized with him at luxury golf resorts and waterfront bashes and are now leading fund-raising efforts for his Boehner for Speaker campaign.”

I’m going to make a bold prediction here: this will not gain traction with the American people, who have bigger things on their minds—such as what the President and the House Majority Leader have done (and failed to do) in the last year and a half, as well as who they and other influential Democrats might be connected to.

Most of America will yawn and say “Boehner who?” When was the last time a large number of people could be bothered to care about a Minority Leader, in the absence of some hugely egregious offense? Even if that person stands poised to become Majority Leader if his/her party gains control of the House?

And lobbyist connections? Pul-eeze. Democrats who live in glass houses are ill-advised to throw stones.

Further thoughts on Castle vs. O’Donnell

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve got a very busy day today and have only had time to briefly skim the comments section. So this will be short. But to those who think I’m missing something about the long view, and believe I don’t understand why O’Donnell’s primary victory might be a good thing, I want to try to clarify what’s motivating me.

As I said in my previous post, I would vote for O’Donnell in the general if I lived in Delaware, although I would have preferred a better candidate than either Castle or O’Donnell. And I understand the strategy of the long view, and the objection to semi-RINO Castle.

But there’s a reason I’m especially interested in the short view—Republican Party domination of both houses of Congress in 2010—and why I think that short view is of the utmost importance this year. I have believed for some time that the 2010 Congressional elections are a watershed moment, and that they represent what might be the last chance to stop some of the most pernicious actions of the previous Congress. I refer in particular to HCR (which, by the way, Castle voted against).

It’s a complex situation that I’ve written about in several previous posts (see the category “health care reform” on the right sidebar; I deal with some of the issues there). Although repeal is not possible because Obama could veto any such attempt, it might be possible to block the implementation of Obamacare through defunding, and it would be extremely helpful to have a majority for that purpose.

But you say, what about the filibuster? As long as there are fewer than 60 Democratic senators, Republicans can use the filibuster to block things, right? Well, don’t be too sure. If the Democrats retain a Senate majority, they might try to implement what’s known as the nuclear option. They are just that determined and just that desperate.

Let’s review:

[The nuclear option is] a technique by which the need to have a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules (such as the filibuster) could supposedly be overcome at the beginning of a new session of Congress by a simple majority vote. The argument goes this way:

“”¦[O]n the first day of a new Congress, Senate rules, including Rule XXII, the cloture rule, do not yet apply, and thus can be changed by majority vote. Under this argument, debate could be stopped by majority vote as well.”

That’s why I believe every Republican seat is of the utmost importance in 2010.

[ADDENDUM: For those curious about some of the finer points of how the defunding might work, see the last half of this previous post.

Back then I was under the impression the president could veto a budget bill. Apparently he cannot, according to this site:

The budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, and therefore does not go to the President for his signature or veto. It also requires only a majority vote to pass, and its consideration is one of the few actions that cannot be filibustered in the Senate.

That makes the defunding process even more possible, as long as the Republicans have a simple majority in both House and Senate.]

[ADDENDUM II: Commenter “Steve” has recommended this website for information about how defunding might be accomplished.]

More on the Castle defeat and O’Donnell victory

The New Neo Posted on by

Fred Barnes gives a credible account of why Castle lost. Sounds as though he ran an elitist, entitled, ultimately stupid campaign. Why was a smart guy so dumb?

And not a class act, either. Castle appears to be refusing to back O’Donnell.

In other news, the National Republican Senatorial Committee reverses itself and cuts O’Donnell a check. Interesting.

[NOTE: See my earlier post today on the Delaware Republican primary results.]

Impersonation fun with Kevin Spacey

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s one of my favorite actors, Kevin Spacey, doing some nifty impersonations. I cannot stand unctuous interviewer James Lipton, but I’ll grit my teeth and bear with him in order to watch Spacey quick-change into each persona.

He sets the body language and physical mannerisms of the face first, before he speaks. Spacey sometimes seems to be using a recording of the person’s actual voice, so close does he manage to match it (note in particular the sound of his Al Pacino):

[NOTE: Yes, I know, I know: Spacey’s a big old liberal. I still like him.]

Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Partiers, and the Republicans

The New Neo Posted on by

So.

Christine O’Donnell has won the Republican primary in Delaware, handing Mike Castle a defeat. In a way, she also handed a defeat to the Republican establishment itself, serving notice that the usual rules do not apply this year, and that being anointed by the party not only does not have the usual clout, it’s more akin to the political kiss of death.

I’m not happy that she won, for the simple reason that I don’t think she can win the general (see this for some of the accusations that will come her way). And it’s the general I care about, not the internecine intra-Republican battles that her victory represents.

What profit if conservatives win the battle but lose the war? Mike Castle may have been a RINO of sorts, but he was only a half-RINO or semi-RINO who represented a vote against Obamacare. And he was very likely to have won the election against his Democratic opponent Coons, whereas O’Donnell is very likely to lose. That’s what’s called a Pyrrhic victory.

I know the purists among you say, “so what?” It’s an old argument, one we’ve had here before, and one we’ll probably take up again. Back in May of 2005 I wrote:

I don’t think that conservatives really have a death wish for the Republican Party. It’s that the extreme wings of either party are just that: extreme. As such, they tend to be inherently less practical, less willing to compromise, and more inclined towards ideological purity and purges.

But that’s not the whole story. I have become convinced that the purists believe that their ideas are so inherently logical and so obviously right (as in “correct”), that if the electorate were to just listen to candidates articulating those positions properly, even in blue states (with the possible exception of Minnesota and Massachusetts, so deeply blue as to be indigo) the scales would fall from voters’ eyes and they would elect the conservative candidates.

Back then the situation was different; the Republican Party was not in the ascendance. Now it is (look at what happened in Massachusetts, one of the two states I mentioned as being the bluest of blue). The electorate is now so upset with the political establishment on both sides that it is possible—although unlikely—that even a candidate as extreme as O’Donnell could win in blue Delaware. But the problem is that not only is O’Donnell extreme, she is also very flawed as a candidate.

It is the opposite of the situation in Massachusetts last winter. Back then we had a Republican nominee, Scott Brown, who was articulate, savvy, likable, and with very few skeletons in his closet (and those were rather attractive ones, such as his nude-ish magazine layout years ago in his modeling days). His opponent Coakley was a poor and arrogant campaigner who helped him out by committing a series of gaffes that offended even the Democratic voters of Massachusetts. Plus, Brown was no extremist; he was Republican-lite, and not really that much of a stretch for Democrats in the state to vote for.

Couldn’t the Tea Party in Delaware have come up with someone better than O’Donnell to carry the conservative flag against Coons? I don’t know, not being familiar with internal Delaware politics. But at any rate they did not, and O’Donnell is the candidate we have. And of course it is possible that she could even win, with the electorate feeling as angry as it does, and her proven ability to come from behind. Stranger things have happened.

If I were in Delaware, I’d cast my vote for her in the general. But I wouldn’t be all that happy about it.

[NOTE: The national Republican Party is refusing to give O’Donnell money because they don’t think she has a chance (probably also because they don’t like her). You might recall that the same thing happened to Scott Brown, who didn’t seem to suffer a bit from the problem because a big internet campaign was launched to support him. It may be somewhat harder to get the same thing going for O’Donnell, but we’ll see. ]

Those good-bad study habits

The New Neo Posted on by

This NY Times article discusses some research on good study habits that indicates that several of the time-honored recommendations don’t hold water. Apparently it’s better to switch venues rather than stick to one tried-and-true setting, and to vary subject matter rather than focus on a single skill at a time.

I’m not surprised. I was an excellent student in my day, but I was a poster child for bad study habits.

I was a nightowl and procrastinator. I abhorred silence, needing a radio or TV for company, and sometimes even a friend on the phone. My desk was just a storage bin for paper; I did my real work sprawled on bed or floor. I took frequent restless breaks for food and drink. And I was a notorious last-minute crammer for exams.

The latter was my particular specialty in college, via the mechanism of the all-nighter or even the multiple sequential all-nighter (not recommended). With a laser concentration enhanced by the knowledge that it was the last possible opportunity, I would absorb the material in one big gulp, the better to spit it out the next day.

As for exams, as soon as the bluebook was on the desk before me and my poised pen was energized by the word “begin,” I entered a zone of focused intensity. Time seemed to both stop and move at lightning speed as I became an automaton, watching my pen write words that seemed to flow without any special will on my part. Almost before I knew it, the exam would be over.

A week or two later I’d received my bluebook back, with the addition of professorial commentary and a grade. I’d read what I had written with interest, as though seeing it for the first time.

Not bad, I’d think. Not half-bad. But who was it who’d written it?

Polling: how go the Independents?

The New Neo Posted on by

A new Quinnipiac poll highlights some recent trends on hot-button issues such as illegal immigration and the Ground Zero mosque. On most of the questions, there is a huge disconnect between Republicans and Democrats.

This is unsurprising; it’s the stance of Independents that is of most interest, because as Independents go, so goes the nation. And for the most part right now, Independents are going with the Republicans. That there is the story.

Look at the data. On question 9, approval/disapproval of Obama’s handling of the oil spill, Independents are where you’d ordinarily expect them to be, about evenly split between the Democrat and Republican positions of approval and disapproval. But on most of the other policy questions, including several concerning illegal immigration, and on whether Ground Zero mosque is a good idea and approval of how Obama is handling it, Independents stand on the Republican side of the equation.

However, staying true to their descriptive title, Independents don’t always side with the Republicans. On questions related to Islam in general, such as whether in its mainstream—as opposed to extremist—form it is a peaceful or a violent religion, Independents are squarely with Democrats.

The trend seems pretty clear, and it may indeed be the difference that makes a difference in the 2010 election: on policy questions, Independents come down fairly consistently on the Republican side of the equation. Seven weeks from today, that has a good chance of translating into Republican victories at the ballot box.