Obama’s Nobel speech

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve said before that I don’t think much of speeches in general, unless the speaker happens to be Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln.

Obama is neither. But I certainly can’t criticize him for that particular failing. And the text of his speech today on accepting the Nobel Peace Prize appears to be far better than his usual. Somewhat surprisingly. it offered the most robust defense of American military action I’ve ever heard him give:

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason…

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms.

Perhaps Obama offers these words at this time because he feels the need to defend himself, since he’s just ordered more troops into Afghanistan. Still, the words are good ones, long overdue for this particular president. The problem is that they are just words, and this is just a speech—and Obama has given many other speeches, and spent much of the first year of his presidency, contradicting them.

Emerging Medicare buy-in program “could have costly unintended consequences”…

The New Neo Posted on by

…writes the WaPo in a spasm of rare thoughtfulness:

Presumably, the expanded Medicare program would pay Medicare rates to providers, raising the question of the spillover effects on a health-care system already stressed by a dramatic expansion of Medicaid. Will providers cut costs — or will they shift them to private insurers, driving up premiums? Will they stop taking Medicare patients or go to Congress demanding higher rates? Once 55-year-olds are in, they are not likely to be kicked out, and the pressure will be on to expand the program to make more people eligible. The irony of this late-breaking Medicare proposal is that it could be a bigger step toward a single-payer system than the milquetoast public option plans rejected by Senate moderates as too disruptive of the private market.

The WaPo has noticed that this proposal is a shell game. But I wonder why it is that the paper considers that these consequences would be unintended.

Virtually every non-public-option Democratic suggestion for health care reform so far has been an effort to look like it will—as President Obama has been so fond of saying—preserve the private insurance arrangements most Americans already have and like. But every one of them has been a Trojan horse that contains, hidden within it, the mechanism of that system’s destruction.

This cannot be an accident. One can only conclude it’s a plan.

[NOTE: If you really want some depressing reading about health care reform, try this. And then send it to everyone you know.]

Mr. Obama regrets…

The New Neo Posted on by

…he’s unable to lunch tomorrow with King Harald of Norway.

President Obama cancels the traditional prizewinners’ lunch with the Norwegian monarch. In his continuing effort to needlessly offend even those previously disposed to like him, Obama has not only insulted the King of Norway, he also plans to skip the special concert on Friday in his honor, as well as foregoing the usual visit to the Nobel Peace Center.

Norwegians are not happy. Europe is slowly learning what Americans already know: that this president is either intentionally (or ignorantly) rude and arrogant, when he’s not being inappropriately obsequious.

[ADDENDUM: And then there’s Britain.]

The WaPo goes rogue…

The New Neo Posted on by

…and publishes (gasp!) an op-ed on Climategate by Sarah Palin.

If you glance at the comments, you’ll see a great deal of outrage by the WaPo’s readers at the newspaper’s heresy.

[NOTE: I think the op-ed’s title, “Copenhagen’s Political Science,” is clever. But I know enough about newspapers to know that was probably some WaPo editor’s work. Of course, there’s no dearth of people saying the whole op-ed was probably ghost-written, since we all know that Sarah Palin is functionally illiterate. But it’s not very slick, and it sounds like her to me, especially the word “clobbered” in the fourth paragraph.]

Public option or no?

The New Neo Posted on by

Only Harry Reid knows for sure—and he’s not telling.

Or maybe even Reid doesn’t know. I’ve spent some time today trying to get the scoop on the latest version of the Senate health care reform bill, and I’ve given up for now. Our illustrious Democratic senators have had a similar problem, and they are privy to more information than I (at least, one would hope):

Even senior members of the party said late Tuesday that they did not know if an agreement had been reached. “I have no idea,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the assistant Democratic leader.

It fills one with trust and eager anticipation, doesn’t it? The best I can figure out from the myriad reports is that the current bill involves some sort of trigger, a la Olympia Snowe, and a Medicare buy-in for certain people aged 55 to 64. But since that hasn’t been clearly and officially stated, and since Reid and others appear to be waiting for a CBO scoring (and Joe Lieberman has reiterated his opposition to a trigger), your guess is as good as mine as to what’s really up.

Here are some further links:

Talking Points memo: the bill according to an unnamed aide.

The WaPo’s take.

Bill Kristol.

Everyone seems to agree—and I do, too—that Reid is trying to create a sense of harmony and inevitability for this bill, while stalling for time to see what the CBO will say. However, harmony and inevitability are only two of the things lacking in the Senate (common sense is another that comes to mind) and in the Democratic Party. One thing that’s clear is that this thing is far from a done deal.

How dare they not stock my favorites!

The New Neo Posted on by

In the Natalie Wood thread, commenter “Adrian” rightly wonders:

I’m not sure I quite get your complaint. I’m certainly sympathetic to your reverence for the classics. I live off them. I don’t watch television and see very few new movies. I have often said the studio systems, in their heyday, turned out more good movies in a week than now see release in a year. This is why I have a huge DVD library…Still, all things being equal if the movie is available…and can be rented on Netflix, what more can you ask for…“Splendor In the Grass” doesn’t get enough pulls to justify sitting on [a video rental store] shelf. I understand that.

Well, Adrian, I understand it too. I’m not knocking the video store.

I’m not sure what I’m knocking, because I’m aware that my stance is somewhat irrational about this, a sort of narcissistic “Why aren’t my favorites everybody’s favorites, and available everywhere?” kind of thinking.

It’s not as though most video stores don’t sport a smallish area devoted to the classics. But what they usually stock is random schlock, apparently what was on hand at some remainder store—plus “Casablance” and “The African Queen,” two oldies that have so far avoided sliding down the forgetfulness rabbit hole that seems to have affected so many other wonderful movies of the past.

“Splendor” is one of those sliders. It’s not just that it’s not available at stores, it’s that few people have even heard of it now, much less seen it. Yes, it’s outdated in many ways, with all its furor about “good girls” and “bad girls” and its prohibition on premarital sex. But the performances are—or should be—timeless.

Why do certain movies survive and not others? I don’t know. I seem to recall that, even when “Splendor” first came out, it got somewhat mixed reviews. I didn’t even see it until years later when it was shown on TV, and when I did I was stunned at how moving it was, particularly Woods’s performance, which I consider one of the best (perhaps even the best) acting in American cinema history. That such a work would be made, released, and then lost to later generations through neglect, while other extraordinarily inferior films line the walls of video stores, makes me both sad and even somewhat angry.

These feelings are probably silly, because I know that ’twas ever thus. Only a few masterpieces survive the march of history, and the art that fills any age is usually inferior, because no era can produce uniformly great work. I happen to think that the present two decades have been some of the worst ever for art of all kinds, but I’m also aware that something like that has been a common perception throughout history: nostalgia for the past, and the idea that things were so much better back when.

This viewpoint of mine is hardly limited to films. Don’t get me started on books! But what the hey—last spring, I recommended one of my favorites, and I’ll do so again [emphasis mine]:

A work of great art that was spawned by the 1918 pandemic is the long short story “Pale Horse, Pale Rider,” by Katherine Anne Porter. Porter herself was nearly a victim of the disease, as she describes in this work of fiction that is based on her own experiences. One of the now-neglected masterpieces of American literature (and a beautiful love story as well), it explains better than anything I’ve ever read what the horror of those times must have felt like to those who were there.

In my opinion, there should never be a call to use the phrase “neglected masterpieces.” Of course, I understand there always will be such a need. But still, it makes me sad.

Climategate: the data guards

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t think you can find any better demonstration of the profoundly anti-science mentality of the Climategate “researchers” than the following, which appeared in today’s WSJ:

In 2004, retired businessman Stephen McIntyre asked the National Science Foundation for information on various climate research that it funds. Affirming “the importance of public access to scientific research supported by U.S. federal funds,” the Foundation nonetheless declined, saying “in general, we allow researchers the freedom to convey their scientific results in a manner consistent with their professional judgment.”

Which leaves researchers free to withhold information selectively from critics, as when CRU director Phil Jones told Australian scientist Warwick Hughes in a 2005 email: “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

Why, indeed. Well Dr. Jones, there’s a little something called “science” that dictates that the point of the whole endeavor is to allow—nay, even welcome—that fault-finding process, in order to arrive at something approximating “truth.”

[NOTE: I didn’t know whether to place this post in the category of “science” or “religion.” In the end, I designated it as both—but the “religion” involved is the “science” of AGW itself.]

The Splendor of Natalie Wood

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s some momentary relief from the dubious pleasures of Climategate.

I was doing some You Tube surfing the other night, and as way led on to way, I began wondering whether Natalie Wood’s transcendent work as Deenie in “Splendor in the Grass” appears there. Sure enough, it does, and I offer this clip to you as one of the finest examples of acting in cinematic history. Wood achieves the most difficult of things here: makes it appear as though she is not acting at all.

A little bit of background, for those who haven’t seen the movie. Wood’s character Deenie is a high school student deeply in love with classmate Warren Beatty (in his film debut). Just prior to this scene, she has found out that he’s two-timed her with the school “bad” girl, the redhead who is sitting in the seat in front of her in this classroom.

When I tried to rent this film at my local video outlets, none of them carried it. This is the fate of many great works of the past—to be marginalized (“Splendor” is still available to purchase, and at Netlflicks) and then tossed into the dustbin of history, to make room for the inferior new.

For those who trust the UN to fix global warming…

The New Neo Posted on by

…dream on.

Even if the science of AGW were true (which does not at the moment appear to be the case), the idea that the UN could do anything positive about it is laughable. After all, their track record is so exemplary—is it not?—as is the track record of governmental management of economies around the world.

[ADDENDUM: Copenhagen, AGW, and Western collective suicide.]

[ADDENDUM II: Could it be that the western industrialized nations don’t want to commit suicide after all? A leaked document has angered the third world representatives at Copenhagen.]

Climategate: who are the skeptics?

The New Neo Posted on by

It is interesting to me that people who doubt AGW are often referred to as skeptics—and that’s one of the nicer things they’re called.

What is the definition of a skeptic? Let’s see:

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy
a. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
b. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? b.c.).

We can safely discount meaning number three here. But if we take the first definition, it’s clear that inherent in the use of the word “skeptic” to refer to those who question AGW is the idea that AGW is generally accepted truth. As for the second definition, it encompasses the oft-expressed perception (by the AGW-“skeptics,” that is) that AGW in now functioning more as a religion than a science.

And after all, isn’t a fair amount of skepticism inherent in the practice of science? Isn’t questioning previously held ideas and subjecting them to rigorous empirical, mathematical, and logical analysis one of the main functions of the scientific method? When does a working hypothesis turn into a full-fledged theory, and then become accepted as a leading theory, and then perhaps even become a law? It ordinarily takes an amount of evidence far more vast, impeccably reasoned, and proven, with a foundation far more firm, than AGW appears to have at this point.

And even then, is not a theory always susceptible to new information requiring revision? And is not one of the most basic functions of science and scientists to open the mind to this new information, evaluate it with an objective eye, and adjust the theory accordingly?

So, who are the skeptics and who the scientists here? Who is working on faith and who is working on logic? I would submit that logic is now quite strongly on the side of the so-called skeptics—and that the AGW-believers, especially the ones who say that there’s no reason to doubt the findings of the CRU team at this point, are the faith-based ones.

The call to Copenhagen: Climategate who?

The New Neo Posted on by

This Guardian editorial will be published in 56 newpapers around the world. It issues a clarion call to Copenhagen; did you realize we have only fourteen days to save the world?

And Climategate? Never heard of it.

Today 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.

Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security….

Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down ”“ with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of “exported emissions” so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than “old Europe”, must not suffer more than their richer partners.

The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance ”” and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.

Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles.

And on and on it goes…