Davis and White: ice dancing, with an accent on the “dancing”

The New Neo Posted on by

Ice dancing is a funny sport. Even more than other types of ice skating, it accentuates the showbiz aspects and plays down the athleticism—although just try it yourself for a moment and you’ll see how much of the latter is involved.

Much of it is too showbiz and over-the-top for me. But I watched the ice dancing competition at last night’s Olympics, and one couple stood out among the rest: the eventual winners of the silver medal, Americans Meryl Davis and Charlie White. The duo has an unusual balance of flair and strength, with some real artistry thrown in. Their synchrony, flow, speed, power, and the emotion they conveyed were glorious things to watch.

The Byronic White is especially mesmerizing. With most ice dance couples it’s the woman who draws the eye. But I can’t take mine off White. Perhaps it’s his hair (shades of the 60s) waving in the breeze. But I don’t think so. He conveys the intensity of a Nureyev along with something Nureyev never had—the ability to present his partner and complement her perfectly, and to act as though he really is in love with her (to me, Nureyev always made it seem as though he was mostly in love with himself).

Here’s a clip of an earlier rendition of the same performance that so impressed me. Notice especially the fast part that begins at 3:50 and last for about a minute. I think this is the closest humans can come to flying under their own power:

All ice dancing couples have be musical, but White and Davis seem especially so. Compliments to the choreographer as well. Ice skaters usually need to chop up the music in their programs in order to have the requisite variety of slow and fast, and this program is no exception. But so often the music seems an afterthought, a sort of spliced-in accompaniment for the steps. White and Davis use their music fully, and express it so masterfully that (even though I’m not a “Phantom” fan) I was taken in by the sheer romance and lyricism of it all.

White and Davis have been skating together since the ages of 8 and 9. He also has been an ice hockey player, who played on some championship teams. I think that may be where he gets his sweep and power, the feeling of absolute freedom and ease. And here’s a video that shows how good they were even as little tykes:

That health care “summit” on Thursday should be interesting

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s see: I want to compromise with a group of people, get their ideas on solving a joint problem. I call a meeting with them, and ask others to witness it (I even get cameras to film us and broadcast the proceedings).

But first, I announce that I’ve got a plan, and I say what it is. The plan contains everything I want and nothing they want. And I say that if they don’t accept it, tough. I’ll put it into play anyway, even if I have to break the rules (or invent some new ones to do it).

The other people would be forgiven if they don’t think I’m making a good faith effort to actually get their input and maybe even adopt some of it. The other people would be forgiven if they thought the meeting and the broadcasting of it was just for show.

The WSJ has a chilling summary of what we can now officially refer to as Obamacare, since these proposals come straight from the President’s mouth. The WSJ has this to say about his accomplishment:

…[It] manages to take the worst of both the House and Senate bills and combine them into something more destructive. It includes more taxes, more subsidies and even less cost control than the Senate bill. And it purports to fix the special-interest favors in the Senate bill not by eliminating them””but by expanding them to everyone. The bill’s one new inspiration is a powerful federal board that would regulate premiums in the individual insurance market….

The coercive flavor that animates this exercise is best captured in the section that purports to accept the Senate’s “grandfather clause” allowing people who like their current health plan to keep it. Except that “The President’s Proposal adds certain consumer protections to these ‘grandfathered’ plans. Within months of legislation being enacted, it requires plans . . . prohibits . . . mandates . . . requires . . . the President’s Proposal adds new protections that prohibit . . . ban . . . and prohibit . . . The President’s Proposal requires . . .” After all of these dictates, no “grandfathered” plan will exist.

Got that, everybody? The Democrats love to label the Republicans as the party of “no,” but how could anyone who understands the provisions of this bill (and is not already a “progressive”) ever say “yes” to it?

[NOTE: I don’t usually listen to the radio, but yesterday I was in my car and happened to tune into Newt Gingrich speaking to Hannity. When I heard Gingrich’s suggestions, it occurred to me that if the Republicans followed them, they might have at least a tiny chance of making the Democrats look like “the party of ‘no.'”

How? (1) come to the meeting and immediately say to Obama that if it were to be truly bipartisan, the Republicans should get half the time to speak and present their plan. If Obama says “no,” point out the hypocrisy of his bipartisanship and walk out. (2) if he says “yes,” present their own plan point by point. Reiterate that they have been suggesting these things over and over and they have not been incorporated. Explain how they have been frozen out of previous meetings. (3) point out the actual ramifications of Obamacare; quote the WSJ and other reliable sources. Be sure to include the fact that it will destroy the private insurance business and violate Obama’s oft-repeated promise.

Will this help? I’m not at all sure, but it’s better than just sitting there and having Obama and the Democrats set the whole agenda.]

What’s the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?

The New Neo Posted on by

No, that’s not the lead-in to a joke.

It’s the question that was asked of Senator Everett Dirkson in this 1967 video. He gives a pretty good (and still relevant) answer, I think, although many Republicans erred by violating his first principle during the administration of George Bush:

[Hat tip: Ann Althouse.]

Creative euphemisms for “Obama is a liar”

The New Neo Posted on by

Few people had any difficulty leveling charges of “liar” at George Bush during his administration. We’ll skip the arguments on the merits right now, since it’s all been discussed before ad nauseam; suffice to say the accusations came trippingly off the tongue.

Obama—now, that’s another story. Joe Wilson couldn’t help blurting out “You lie!” during Obama’s September 2009 address on health care, when the president asserted that Congress’s health care bill du jour would not provide free coverage for illegal immigrants. But it was primarily Wilson who got excoriated for it, not Obama.

So people became more creative in their accusations. Last month, during Obama’s SOTU address, Justice Alito merely shook his head and voicelessly mouthed “not true” when former-law-instructor Obama misstated and blasted the majority SCOTUS ruling in Citizens United. This left open the possibility that he was accusing Obama of simply making an error rather than lying. But that didn’t save Alito from the usual criticism.

Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, a member of Obama’s own party, was more delicate and convoluted in his syntax in mid-February of this year, but the message was the same. After pointing out disparities in Obama’s promises on coal, Rockefeller added, “he’s beginning to not be believable to me.”

Beginning? Anyone paying attention—and not hopelessly partisan—would have noticed Obama’s disingenuousness way back in June of 2008, when he broke his campaign financing pledge. Or how about Obama claims during the campaign about having sat in Reverend Wright’s church and listened—or rather, not sat and not listened—to all those hateful sermons over the course of twenty years?

For Rockefeller to now claim that he’s just beginning to “not believe” Obama seems (how shall I put it?) unlikely to be the truth. Perhaps what Rockefeller really meant was that, until now, he believed that Obama would not lie to him.

The latest manifestation of clever and circumspect circumlocutions around the “lie”-word is the following, by Republican Rep. Paul Ryan, which shows a light touch: he called Obama “very insincere” for first praising Ryan’s budget proposals as serious and then almost simultaneously attacking them.

It should not be news that Obama is a con artist. And no matter what you call it, that’s the single most important factor for the decline in his public support.

Finally: Obamacare unveiled

The New Neo Posted on by

And it looks pretty much like the Senate version, with a few minor tweaks.

See this and this for some interesting analysis.

In related news, the White House says that if Republicans try to filibuster health care reform, reconciliation is the way to go. Truth? Dare? Bluff? You be the judge.

It’s all so very bipartisan of Obama. What’s that Thursday meeting all about, again? Showtime!

[ADDENDUM: And about those outcome studies…]

[ADDENDUM II: Summary version of the plan: balloon mortgage (hat tip: American Digest). ]

Paul Krugman, up close and personal—if you can stand it

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m not sure whether this New Yorker piece about Paul Krugman is meant to be admiring or denigrating. But I would sum its message up as follows:

Krugman used to be an insufferable intellectually arrogant and politically clueless person gifted in a particular (non-political) area of economics, who has almost no non-academic real-world experience. Since 2000, with the help of his wife and a whopping case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, he’s become a very angry insufferable intellectually arrogant and politically clueless person gifted in a particular (non-political) area of economics, who has almost no non-academic real-world experience.

Oh, and he’s always right, and those who disagree with him are idiots.

Any questions? Class dismissed.

Still working on that comments preview function

The New Neo Posted on by

A great many commenters here have asked for a comments preview capability. I’ve tried before to find one that works, but there were a number of glitches.

Recently someone suggested this one. But alas, it seems to not be compatible with this blog design, although it’s a WordPress plug-in. For some reason, it gives an error message. So I (along with my trusty tech helper) am still working on the problem, but it hasn’t been fixed yet. Sorry for the inconvenience.

The undead: the public option, rising from the grave?

The New Neo Posted on by

Let’s see if I can follow this: Harry Reid says that if reconciliation is used to pass health care reform, he’ll cooperate and work for a public option provision.

And you thought the public option was through. Seems the stake has not been driven into its heart after all.

What’s really going on here? One possibility is that Reid knows his re-election chances are virtually nil in 2010, so freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose. Why not help in ramming through something people don’t want? (And yes, in manipulated polls that posit some sort of ideal generalized public option, people seem to favor it. But in real-life bills, they don’t.)

Another factor in the push is the enormous importance health care reform and the public option has for liberal Democrats; they would do almost anything to finally pass it, and their days are numbered right now so they think this is their last best chance for the foreseeable future.

Another possibility is (and these are not mutually exclusive choices) that they still believe that, if only a public option were to actually be put into law, the American people would realize how much they love it and how very well it works.

Still another is that the whole thing is a strategic bluff designed to trap the Republicans into a position where they can be accused of blocking a bill pretending to be bipartisan but actually completely crafted by Democrats.

This latter theory is aptly described here:

This bill is really designed to get Republicans to say “NO” and stymie the reconciliation process with amendments. The true goal is to give Obama and the Democrats cover with their base by saying: “the Republicans killed healthcare reform”.

If there were 51 votes in the Senate and 217 votes in the House to pass ObamaCare 2.0, why even bother having the Healthcare Summit with Republicans? If bi-partisanship is the reason for the summit, then why craft a bill design to be passed with reconciliation? Again, the answer is to blame the Republicans. Obama and the Democrats cannot have their base realize the truth, healthcare reform died because of Democrat bungling and Democrat cold feet.

So perhaps the Democrats are crafting a plan whereby nothing ends up happening, but they can say, “We tried our best, we really did. But those mean old Republicans…”

This might have worked a year ago. It might even have worked six months ago. But I’d be very surprised at this point if it convinced anyone who’s not already firmly of that opinion anyway.

[NOTE: In a related story, Reid and Obama seem to be playing a game of chicken on the subject.]

The confessions of Hitler’s secretary

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night I watched “Blind Spot,” a filmed interview with Traudl Junge, who was Hitler’s secretary during his last year and final days.

It’s a remarkable document, although a very simple one: Ms. Junge, aged eighty or so at the time of the interview, talks into the camera with no interruption in what appears to be three different sessions (marked by changes of outfit and the slight passage of time).

That’s all. But it’s quite a bit. The young and relatively apolitical Junge was selected for her job almost by chance—and the fact that she scored high in a typing test—but ended up being a witness to a very dark history. She describes her isolation from information other than Nazi propaganda, the growing desolation of the people in the bunker, and her own increasing numbness in the bizarre and grisly atmosphere.

Junge is quite composed and even dignified; the only time she breaks down at all is when she describes the Goebbels children (see this). She says that it is mostly since the 1960s, and then increasingly as time went on, that she has come to deeply reflect on her own guilt, and to be shocked at her failure to question what she saw and her hero-worship of a Hitler who seemed avuncular to her (she had been raised without a father).

Because I am particularly concerned with how people come to question previous assumptions and ultimately to change their minds, especially about politics, the part of Junge’s narrative that interested me most came during the war’s immediate aftermath. She had been given a cyanide pill in the bunker at her request, and had considered ending her own life because she had heard stories of what would happen at the hands of the Allies post-war: like something out of Hieronymous Bosch, she said. The men would be castrated, the women raped, and Germany would be returned to a very primitive technological existence by the vengeful victors.

But she took her chances and escaped, and although she was imprisoned (for a fairly short time, it turned out) by first the Russians and then the Americans, she encountered a world of Care packages and was well-treated by good people, especially the Americans, and saw Germany (she escaped to the West) become a free country. Junge observes that it was the beginning of her discovery that what she had been told by Hitler, “was all a lie.” In fact, she learned that the premise for the war itself was a big lie, and spent the rest of her life trying to come to terms with how she could have believed in, gotten caught up with, denied the warning signs of, and participated in such a grievous set of lies that perpetrated so much evil in the world.

Traudl Junge died not long after the film was made. She is reported to have said shortly before her death, “Now that I’ve let go of my story, I can let go of my life.”