Haiti: at least…

The New Neo Posted on by

…it’s warm there. Can you imagine how much worse it would have been if this had occurred in a cold climate during winter? On top of all the other problems, people would be freezing to death.

That’s small comfort, though, considering the scope of the disaster. The United States is in the forefront of relief efforts, but this is a grim and overwhelming task.

Some say that we shall never know and that to the gods we are like the flies that the boys kill on a summer day, and some say, on the contrary, that the very sparrows do not lose a feather that has not been brushed away by the finger of God

””-Thornton Wilder, The Bridge of San Luis Rey

[NOTE: Here’s some relief information if you would like to donate.]

[ADDENDUM: Here’s some speculation on why Haiti has been so poor.]

Non-shocker of the day: Boston Globe endorses Coakley

The New Neo Posted on by

As inevitably as death and taxes, the Boston Globe has come out for Martha Coakley for Senator from Massachusetts.

What’s far more interesting than the completely expected endorsement is the way the paper did it: tepidly. The editors could barely muster up an ounce of energy for the job. What a lackluster writeup! It reads as though it took them every ounce of spin they possessed in order to find some semi-nice things to say about Coakley, and some semi-bad things to say about Brown. They barely made it, and to do so they had to leave out a host of negatives about Coakley, some of them previously covered in the pages of their own paper.

But best of all are the comments. A locustlike swarm of Brown supporters seems to have descended on the Globe to feed off its rotting carcass.

Here’s an idea: get Joe Kennedy to drop out of the race

The New Neo Posted on by

[UPDATE: I got word from a commenter that Kennedy’s campaign manager, Dave Galusi, had written back to him that Kennedy is forbidden by law to drop out. Perhaps a better tack, then, would be to write to Galusi (dave@joekennedyforsenate.com) asking that Kennedy endorse Brown. E-mail to Kennedy himself is not getting through.]

Those of you who’ve been following the increasingly close Coakley vs. Brown special election in Massachusetts may not have heard there’s a third party candidate, an Independent libertarian named Joe Kennedy. He could be the spoiler in the race, drawing enough votes from Brown to allow Coakley to go to the Senate.

I’ve been mulling that one over, and I’ve come to the conclusion that flooding Kennedy’s office and email address with calls for him to drop out of the race wouldn’t be a bad thing. Not that he’s likely to do so, of course.

Third-party candidates tend to be purists who don’t think the perfect is the enemy of the good. But Kennedy got into this race when he didn’t see himself as a spoiler. Brown didn’t seem to have a chance back then, and Kennedy probably saw the campaign as a way to get his own message heard in a larger forum.

But now things have changed. And if there’s even a miniscule chance of getting Kennedy to withdraw, it’s worth a try.

Here’s the contact info. And here are some of the most important addresses and phone numbers:

Joe Kennedy: joe@joekennedyforsenate.com

His campaign manager Dave Galusi: dave@joekennedyforsenate.com

Press and events: Press & Events: 617.899.0846

Fund Raising: 907.250.5503

Address: Committee to Elect Joe Kennedy
P.O. Box 368
Needham Heights, MA 02494

Here’s Kennedy’s Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Joe-Kennedy-For-Senate/141067507133

And Twitter: http://twitter.com/joek4Senate

[NOTE: And please spread the word. Volume is important.]

[ADDENDUM: And Queen Coakley shows her elitest bona fides by dissing Fenway and its fans.]

Haiti devastated by earthquake—and more

The New Neo Posted on by

As if tiny Haiti didn’t have it bad enough, now it has been hit by an earthquake of magnitude 7.0. Buildings in Haiti are flimsy even without a temblor, and many have fallen, with extremely high casualties very likely. Communication is so poor we don’t know what the death toll might be, but it looks very bad.

Haiti has had a bad time of it almost since its beginning. Violence, corruption, poverty, thy name is Haiti, and it’s been that way for centuries.

Haiti is a very beautiful country, as I know from personal experience. I was there for a single day on a trip with my parents at the age of fourteen, during the rule of corrupt dictator Papa Doc Duvalier. I well remember the island’s exotic, lush vegetation; its attractive people, the graceful women going to market with huge loads on their heads; the green mountain that constituted its landscape; and the grinding poverty that was everywhere visible.

We don’t ordinarily think of the Caribbean as a huge center for earthquake activity, but they occur there with some frequency and severity. Jamaica, for example, was once the home of a large and flourishing city of 6,000 known as Port Royal, destroyed by an earthquake and subsequent landslide and tsunami in 1692, during which the bulk of the city virtually slid into the sea.

This 2005 article describes the considerable risk of earthquake in the Caribbean:

With nearly twenty million people now living in this tourist region and a major earthquake occurring on average every 50 years, scientists say it is not a question of if it will happen but when…In a new study published December 24, 2004 in the Journal of Geophysical Research from the American Geophysical Union, geologists…report a heightened earthquake risk of the Septentrional fault zone, which cuts through the highly populated region of the Cibao valley in the Dominican Republic…In addition, they caution, the geologically active offshore Puerto Rico and Hispaniola trenches are capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 7.5 and higher…The Hispaniola Trench parallels the north coast of the Dominican Republic and Haiti…The island of Hispaniola faces a double risk: an earthquake from the Septentrional fault on the island itself as the plates move past each other, and an earthquake deep in the earth in the subduction zone on which the island sits.

But what can a poverty-stricken, disorganized country like Haiti do about such warnings? Nothing. It already had more than enough to worry about, and precious little money and organizational ability with which to do it. This is a terrible blow to a people who have already suffered more than most. If you’re the praying sort, now might be a good time to do so.

Humanitarian aid is already streaming in, and there will be more. But Haiti has always been a broken country, even before the earthquake. And once countries are so broken, can all the king’s horses and all the king’s men ever put them together again?

[ADDENDUM: Richard Fernandez reflects.]

Coakley would fit right in

The New Neo Posted on by

If Sarah Palin had said what Martha Coakley did, it would be headline news everywhere, and Saturday Night Live would devote at least one program to it, maybe several.

Here’s the quote from Coakley’s debate with Brown:

“I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I’m not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.

Coakley has never held national office, but she’s also never held any office except Middlesex DA and Attorney General for the state of Massachusetts. I would imagine that her background on foreign affairs is abominable, and unlike Sarah Palin she’s probably not felt the need to bone up because Coakley did not foresee a high level of scrutiny in this race. But even for an intelligent layperson with a modicum of interest in the foreign policy of the US for the last couple of years, her level of ignorance is shocking.

Coakley’s treatment of subsequent questions about her Afghanistan/Taliban response is congruent with the current “transparent” climate in Washington, however:

A reporter asked Coakley about that [Taliban] claim after a Capitol Hill fundraiser on Tuesday. “Do you stand by that remark?” he asked.

Coakely, standing before a small cluster of reporters and cameras, listened to the question, then quickly looked in a different direction.

“I’m sorry,” she said. “Did anybody else have a question?”

Coakley then went on to mention, in response to the next question;

We are facing a candidate from Massachusetts who is being supportive by extreme right groups including many Republican groups who are pouring money into Massachusetts attacking my record and distorting my record. I’m doing everything that I need to be competitive in this race.

It’s almost comical that Coakley accuses others of “distorting her record” while at the same time she distorts who those others are. Much of Brown’s support is from independents, as her polling must tell her, not “extreme right groups.” Much of it is from individuals and small donors rather than groups, as she also must know. And as for distorting the record, it’s Coakley who has tried to do that to Brown, in a fairly egregious manner (i.e. she flagrantly lied about it; see this).

I hope Coakley never gets a chance to sit in Ted Kennedy’s seat—or anyone else’s seat—in the United States Senate. But if she does, unfortunately she’ll fit right in.

[ADDENDUM: Here’s some video of a Weekly Standard reporter getting roughed up while trying to question Coakley (hat tip: Bill West).

Michael Meehan, Boston Democrat and Obama appointee, was the shover to reporter John McCormack’s shovee. And—no surprise—Democratic spokesperson Eric Schultz says it’s all a Republican dirty trick. Nothing to see here, move right along.

Here’s a thought-provoking comment to the “Republican dirty tricks” article above (can’t do a link, but it came in today at 11:29 AM):

The new tone in Washington DC, ”¦good old fashion Chicago thuggery. Physically attack a reporter if you do not like their line of questions, and then blame it in the opposition. These bullies have the balls to cry foul and blame this on GOP dirty politics. The GOP had nothing to do with this Democratic staffer, Bostonian, and Obama appointee to the Broadcasting Board of Governors shoving that reporter to the ground. This is the stuff of Saul Alinsky. These liberal thugs if they cannot whine their way of their dirty deeds, then shift the focus of their dirty deed and blame the opposition. This is truly pathetic. Can you imagine if a GOP staffer had shoved a reporter to the ground? The fact is the liberals are being who they always have been; they have just taken things up a notch since Obama has been elected, because they have been emboldened by this president’s thugocracy that is operating out of the White House.]

It takes a lot to kill a strong man

The New Neo Posted on by

Pound for pound, Joe Rollino was one of the strongest men who ever lived. Five-foot five inches tall, weighing between 125 and 150 for most of his life, he set records for all sorts of muscular feats: lifted 475 pounds with his teeth, 635 pounds with a single finger, and a whopping 3,200 pounds with his back. He had a varied career as a boxer, longshoreman, and performer at Coney Island.

Rollino was born in 1905, but still walked five miles every single day. Here’s a photo of Joe at a party for his 103rd birthday, an event at which he entertained the guests by bending quarters with his thumb:

joerollino.jpg

But alas, death must come to all, whether weak or strong—and so it came to Joe Rollino, at age 104. But not in the way you might expect.

It takes a lot to kill a strongman; even extreme old age wasn’t enough to fell Mr. Rollino. He was struck down by a minivan on one of his daily walks, and suffered injuries that proved to be fatal.

What an original. What a life. RIP, Joe Rollino.

Coakley attacks, Brown responds

The New Neo Posted on by

An interesting contrast in approaches.

First Coakley, in traditional negative-ad style:

Nothing in there about why Coakley is good, only about why she thinks Brown would be bad. Coakley doesn’t even appear in the ad, nor do we hear her voice, except in the boilerpate intro in which she says her name and that she approved the ad. It attempts to tar Brown with the worn-out “Bush-Cheney” brush, even though all his elective experience so far has been local.

In contrast, here’s Brown’s response. Note the use of the candidate himself, speaking in his kitchen, directly addressing the voter:

Brown uses his own personal attractiveness to advantage. And by the word “attractiveness,” I don’t just mean the physical. He has a manner that is exceptionally telegenic and reads very well, smooth and relaxed but not slick. He’s sincere without being overly dramatic, and he knows how to deliver the proletarian touch without overdoing it. Most importantly, he understands the current populist sentiment of disgust with business as usual and Washington as usual, and is able to harness this in his message of independence—and yes, of change.

It would be a very good thing for the country if he were to win. But even if he doesn’t, my prediction is that he has some sort of national political future ahead of him.

Although he may have to leave Massachusettes to get there.

[ADDENDUM: Oh, and by the way—here’s a dissection of one of the flagrant lies in the Coakley ad.]

[ADDENDUM II: The Boston Herald reminds us that it was only because the Democrats of Massachusetts didn’t want Massachusetts Republican Governor Mitt Romney appointing a Kerry successor in 2004 that the law was changed in the first place by the Massachusetts legislature. That same law change is what has allowed Scott Brown to run for the “Kennedy seat” in the first place. Otherwise, Massachusetts Democrat Governor Deval Patrick could have just appointed a Democratic hack as Kennedy’s successor and we wouldn’t be having any special election now. As it was, because of Kennedy’s death the Massachusetts legislature hastily amended the law it had voted in a few years ago, in order to allow Patrick to appoint interim Kennedy successor Kirk, so that the Democrats could reach the magical 60 votes in the Senate and vote in Reidcare.

It’s pretty convoluted, and pretty ironic.]

Earth’s a distant second to the world of “Avatar”

The New Neo Posted on by

In my “Avatar” post, I wrote:

[The movie] fits in so nicely with the current notions of many of the AGW and PETA folks””that humans (especially of the first-world variety) are the scourge of an otherwise wonderful earth””that it makes me think the idea of humankind as a cancer on the planet has gone mainstream.

Well, I wasn’t too far off. CNN reports (hat tip: Artfldgr) that a number of “Avatar” moviegoers writing on an “Avatar” forum page are having post-Pandora letdown. Among them is Sweden’s Ivar Hill, a 17-year-old who writes:

“When I woke up this morning after watching Avatar for the first time yesterday, the world seemed … gray. It was like my whole life, everything I’ve done and worked for, lost its meaning,” Hill wrote on the forum. “It just seems so … meaningless. I still don’t really see any reason to keep … doing things at all. I live in a dying world.”

Well, Ivar does live in Sweden in the wintertime, and it’s pretty dark and cold this time of year. But still, this is an extreme reaction. Ivar added, when reached by CNN via e-mail:

“One can say my depression was twofold: I was depressed because I really wanted to live in Pandora, which seemed like such a perfect place, but I was also depressed and disgusted with the sight of our world, what we have done to Earth. I so much wanted to escape reality.

Hill is not alone. Some fans have even contemplated suicide, fantasizing that they will be reborn on Pandora. Others [emphasis mine] “have expressed feelings of disgust with the human race and disengagement with reality.”

[NOTE: And because we just can’t seem to leave well enough alone, now the movie is being charged with racism. Not because it’s against the human race, either, a point I asserted in my earlier post on the subject. And not because it’s against the white race, although the majority of the white people in it are villains in comparison to the noble blue Na’vi.

No; apparently it’s racist because a white man is a hero who saves the blue people—even though most of the other white characters are villains, all the blue ones are good and participate in their own “saving,” and the white hero inhabits a blue body for most of the movie and at the end of the movie decides [spoiler alert!] to permanently go over to the blue side.]

[ADDENDUM: As if that’s not enough, in another outbreak of bizarre and convoluted racism, ex-governor Ron Blagojevitch is accused of racism—for calling himself black: “blacker than Barack Obama” is the actual quote. Or is it that he’s calling Obama white?

You can’t make this stuff up. At least, I can’t.]

Note to Martha Coakley: spell check is your friend

The New Neo Posted on by

What do Martha Coakley and Dan Quayle have in common? Well, let’s see:

(1) They are both lawyers.

(2) They both have been affiliated with their states’ AG offices (she as Attorney General, he as an investigator for the Consumer Protection Division).

(3) He was a senator, she aspires to be one.

(4) They like to add an extra “e” on the end of words.

Quayle was famous for his “potatoe” gaffe. But Coakley goes him one better; her new attack ad on Brown gets the spelling of her own state wrong. The end of the ad reads:

Paid for by Massachusettes Democratic Party and Authorized by Martha Coakley for Senate. Approved by Martha Coakley.

Granted, Coakley herself didn’t write it. Nor do I really, deeply care how good or bad a candidate’s spelling happens to be—after all, JFK was a notoriously poor speller, although he was certainly an intelligent man. Even when I didn’t like Quayle (that was back in my Democrat days) I never thought his spelling faux pas had much to do with anything essential, nor do I think Coakley’s does either. She has enough negatives that are far more important.

But still, it’s kind of funny, since it makes the state of Massachusetts into a sort of feminine diminutive, a girl group like the Ronettes or Ray Charles’s backup singers the Raelettes.

So folks, let’s hear it for the Massachusettes!

[NOTE: You can bet I spell checked this post pretty carefully, including “spell check” itself (there is not complete consensus on whether it’s one word or two, hyphenated or not, capitalized or lower case). There’s a general rule in blogging: in a post criticizing someone’s spelling, there’s at least a 50% chance you’ll make a spelling error yourself.]

Can Mr. Brown go to Washington?

The New Neo Posted on by

Check this out, from tonight’s debate in the Massachusetts Senatorial race:

In case you missed the money quote, Scott Brown said:

With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.

So please, people of Massachusetts, send Brown to Washington to fill your seat.

[UPDATE: Here’s WHDH’s pundit Andy Hiller on tonight’s debate:

Republican Scott Brown went for it all tonight, and I think he got a good part of it.

Martha Coakley was Martha Coakley — a lawyer who looked and sounded like a teacher. As always she was calm, measured and unemotional, but unlike always, she sometimes seemed tentative, even taken aback.

It was Scott Brown who made her that way. Brown knew what he wanted to say and said it. He was confident and personable. He was aggressive, but not so aggressive that he crossed any gender line…

Frankly, I was surprised by tonight’s debate. Brown was stronger and Coakley weaker than I anticipated.]

[ADDENDUM: And I love this comment at Ann Althouse’s:

Gergan [sic], who could hardly conceal his bias, called it “Teddy Kennedy’s seat.”

Brown to Gergan [sic]: Thanks for the opening I could drive my truck through, you Kennedy School of Government at Harvard meathead.

Although actually, some of best friends went to a certain Ivy League school that shall remain nameless…]

Democrats forever

The New Neo Posted on by

A great many of us on this blog have been saying this sort of thing for quite some time, about why the Democrats don’t seem too worried about a voter backlash. In the article, John F. Gaski speculates about the Democrats’ game plan to win future elections despite voter unrest.

Note the comments to the article, as well. Most posters do not appear to be shocked by Gaski’s points; they seem to already have been thinking along those same lines themselves. However, I’m with those commenters who believe Gaski is wrong in the depth of his pessimistic assessment at the very end of the article. It’s not over yet.