The NY 23 race: does Joe Biden really think…

The New Neo Posted on by

…he speaks to rank and file upstate New York Republicans when he asks them to show conservatives a lesson by voting for Owen? I’m not a Biden fan, but I thought he had a little more political savvy then that after all these years.

This Biden quote’s a lulu:

We are just saying join us in teaching a lesson to those absolutists who say no dissent is permitted within your own party.

It would be even more ironic if Biden had eliminated the words “within your own party,” because the Obama administration has made itself notorious for stifling dissent, especially outside its own party.

Meanwhile, RINO extraordinaire Dede Scozzafava, in a fit of understandable pique (and after being heavily courted by influential Democrats), continues to campaign for her previous Democrat opponent, Bill Owens, as well as to contemplate a change of party for herself.

The only problem is, Hoffman appears to be opening up his lead.

Let’s sit back and watch the sausage being made.

We don’t need no steenking tort reform?

The New Neo Posted on by

It comes as no surprise that, as the monster health care reform [sic] bill is slowly digested by those with stomachs strong enough to bear it, we discover what it has to say about tort reform:

Not only will there be no meaningful tort reform, but the bill will provide economic incentives to make sure that no states attempt it.

A pretty sweet deal for the trial lawyers, and it once again demonstrates that their large, collective payments to the Democratic Party were a worthwhile investment…

[I]f you already put something on the books to try to deal with [tort reform], you are immediately ineligible for the federal payments as long as it remains on the books.

So there actually appears to be a disincentive for tort reform.

[NOTE: see the comments section here for more discussion of the finer legal points.]

The hubris of the incompetent: the Dunning-Kruger effect could explain quite a lot

The New Neo Posted on by

Take a look:

The Dunning”“Kruger effect is an example of cognitive bias in which “people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it”. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to a perverse result where less competent people will rate their own ability higher than relatively more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. “Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.

You may mock social science research and claim it’s riddled with flaws inherent to the study of human beings, and I would agree with you. But it’s not worthless, and every now and then it comes up with something exceedingly interesting.

[NOTE: See this and this for other research of special note in the social sciences.]

Conclusion: the Democratic Party does not want to make private health care insurance work

The New Neo Posted on by

I find it difficult to believe that the Democrats (with the possible exception of the Blue Dogs) have any interest in reforming the health care insurance business so that private insurance works better.

It would be relatively easy to pass a bipartisan bill that actually made a bona fide attempt to do this. No, it wouldn’t get all the Republican votes, and it might lose some of the most stubbornly ultra-liberal Democrats who want to make a pro-public-option protest. But if Obama (and Pelosi and Reid) were to push a bill that focused on the private sector and actually tried to improve it, I have little doubt that most Democrats and Republicans would work together and it would be passed.

But if—after all the problems they’ve had with the public option so far—the Democratic leadership in Congress has not abandoned it and embraced reform of the private system, and if Obama has not offered leadership in that direction, it is because they are uninterested in doing so. After all, if they were to actually improve the system of private health care insurance, make it more affordable and transportable, and even extend coverage to the poverty-stricken citizens who need it and can’t afford it, America might find it works fairly well.

What would be wrong with that? Nothing, in my book. Quite a lot, in the Pelosi/Reid/Obama one. It would annoy their Left wing (the one they belong to). And it would vindicate the idea of private sector (albeit government-guided) solutions over public ones.

That would mean abandoning the real dream, which is not to make private health insurance more affordable and reasonable (crossing state lines, for example, and catastrophic insurance being available), but to create a government-run system with greater and greater government control over our lives, as well as one that spreads the wealth.

[NOTE: Michael C. Burgess, MD, member of the House from Texas, has this to say about the process by which the present bill came to be:

Furthermore, the process leading up to today in the House of Representatives has been the most secretive and opaque since I was elected to Congress in 2002. House Republicans, including the thirteen of us who are medical professionals, were denied the opportunity to participate in the legislative process from the beginning, despite our continued efforts to provide real ideas for meaningful reform based on our years of experience. Democrats have completely ignored the millions of Americans who voiced their strong opposition to a government takeover of America’s health care system by pushing ahead with a ”˜public option’ and a drastic expansion of Medicaid.

“I will continue my efforts to help enact pro-patient reforms to America’s health care system that will increase choice and access to health insurance and health care, lower costs, encourage patient involvement, and ensure that the world’s best health care system remains intact. House Republicans, including myself, have introduced no fewer than 100 bills that would accomplish these goals, fixing what is broken in our health care system without allowing the federal government to completely take over. I look forward to reading all 1,990 pages of this bill over the next few days and doing the work North Texans sent me to Washington to do. I will continue to fight on behalf of responsible health care solutions Americans support.”

Anybody listening?]

A blast from the past: my normblog profile

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: In response to some queries on this thread, I went back to look at an interview I gave four and a half years ago, towards the beginning of my blogging career. On reading it, I decided it might just be fun to reprint it here, after all this time.]

The normblog profile 79: neo-neocon

Born in New York and now living in New England, ‘neo-neocon’ spent her formative years collecting degrees from various fine academic institutions. She likes to read and then sit around and think (or walk on a treadmill and think), but hasn’t yet figured out a way to make a lot of money doing that. She is a generalist and synthesizer – in other words, a jack of all trades and master of none. ‘neo-neocon’ has been (and in some cases, still is) a social science researcher, writer, editor, ballet teacher, law school graduate, theatre critic, marriage and family therapist, wife, mother, gardener and friend. She blogs at neo-neocon.

Why do you blog? > The moment I found blogs I was drawn to their energy, intellect, wit and camaraderie. After a while it seemed I was spending so much time in the comments section of various blogs that I thought I might as well start my own.

What has been your best blogging experience? > Being a recipient of the kindness of other bloggers. Discovering I actually have a few readers who appreciate what I have to say.

What has been your worst blogging experience? > Exhaustion. I had no idea how much time it takes.

What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger? > I am a novice blogger. ‘Do as I say, not as I do’ – keep it short and punchy.

Who are your intellectual heroes? > The Founding Fathers; Orwell; Primo Levi; Newton; Darwin; Einstein.

What are you reading at the moment? > I wish I had more time to read. Next up – when I get a free decade – is William Shirer’s The Collapse of the Third Republic: An Inquiry into the Fall of France in 1940.

What is the best novel you’ve ever read? > Do you ask a mother to choose her favourite child? Too hard! But one of my favourites is the story/novella Pale Horse, Pale Rider by Katherine Anne Porter.

What is your favourite poem? > ‘The Lost Children’, by Randall Jarrell, an extraordinary poem about parenthood and the passage of time.

What is your favourite movie? > The subtitled version of The Emigrants and its sequel The New Land, by Jan Troell. The most beautiful movies ever.

Who is your favourite composer? > Chopin.

Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you’ve ever changed your mind? > That’s one of the main themes of my blog: the post-9/11 transformation in my political thinking from lifelong liberal Democrat to independent/social-libertarian/Bush-voting/neocon. The realization that the Enlightenment’s continued existence is not assured, and that it is currently being threatened both externally and internally.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to disseminate? > ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…’ Not only very wise, but beautifully stated, like poetry.

What philosophical thesis do you think it most important to combat? > The idea that, because total and complete truth can’t be known on this earth, all truth is therefore relative and all truths personal and equal.

Can you name a work of non-fiction which has had a major and lasting influence on how you think about the world? > Eleni by Nicholas Gage. A step-by-step depiction of the process by which movements beginning in idealistic fanaticism can end up destroying themselves and nearly everything in their paths, and an emotionally shattering but unforgettable story of the power of maternal love.

Who are your political heroes? > Presently, any ordinary Iraqi policeman. Historically, Churchill.

What is your favourite piece of political wisdom? > ‘Democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been tried.’

If you could effect one major policy change in the governing of your country, what would it be? > Put an end to gerrymandering.

What would you do with the UN? > Tell it to get out of Dodge, because I think it’s corrupted beyond repair. That’s sad, because I grew up revering the UN, visited it many times as a child, and loved the idea of an organization working for world peace (not to mention those magical simultaneous translation headphones).

What do you consider the most important personal quality? > Generosity of spirit, love of life.

What personal fault do you most dislike? > Sadistic cruelty.

What, if anything, do you worry about? > Anyone who knows me knows that this is something I do rather well. I am quite eclectic in my worrying habits.

Where would you most like to live (other than where you do)? > On the ocean in any beautiful place, but it has to have at least four seasons. Hmmm – sounds like New England, after all!

What would your ideal holiday be? > Having a driver take me around the Italian and French countrysides, stopping in every little town along the way and exploring at my leisure – and, of course, hitting all the pastry shops.

What do you like doing in your spare time? > Being with friends and eating any sort of ethnic food. I also admit to the secret vice (not so secret anymore, I guess) of watching American Idol.

What talent would you most like to have? > To be able to sing – especially opera. To have that big rich effortless full-throated sound come out of my mouth.

Who is your favourite comedian or humorist? > I liked Richard Pryor when he was in his prime, and also the classic early Saturday Night Live crew.

Who are your sporting heroes? > That one’s easy: Arthur Ashe.

Which baseball team do you support? > Easier still. I’m a rabid member of Red Sox Nation. Last season was wicked awesome, as we say here in New England.

If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for? > That the whole neocon project actually succeeds, and that democracy really does spread and lead to greater amity among nations and less tyranny.

If you could have any three guests, past or present, to dinner who would they be? > Churchill, Lincoln, Dorothy Parker. Think of the jokes, think of the stories!

Swallowing the leviathan: the House health care reform bill

The New Neo Posted on by

The news is full of commentary on the House health care reform bill released yesterday. Since it consists of 1990 dense and legalistic pages, I’m not about to read it soon. Others will, however, and in days to come I hope to bring you their analyses and my own reflections. For now, I thought I’d just start a thread so that you could talk about it to your hearts’ delight in the comments section.

To get started, you might want to look at this, this, and these.

And here, Paul Krugman rallies the troops. He thinks he’s got the key to conservative objections:

For conservatives, of course, it’s an easy decision: They don’t want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don’t want President Obama to succeed.

Of course, Paul, you’ve got the picture; you understand the conservative mindset so well! The economic consequences of this particular bill, plus government expansion into realms of our lives previously unheard of, has absolutely nothing to do with their objections.

The White House’s new war: with Edmunds

The New Neo Posted on by

The White House is now at war with the Edmunds.com car site, disputing its critique of Cash for Clunkers. Business Insider writes:

Seriously, what’s the point of this? Clunkers is over. It just makes The White House look thin-skinned, though it’s great publicity for Edmunds.

I’ve got news for Business Insider: it doesn’t just make the White House look thin-skinned. The White House is thin-skinned.

This White House is arrogant. But arrogance is not the same as quiet confidence. Those who are arrogant and narcissistic may appear confident, but an over-sensitivity to criticism is often evidence of deep insecurity.

And unfortunately, this administration has a lot to be insecure about.

Germany waits…

The New Neo Posted on by

…while Obamalet dithers.

From Spiegel:

What the US military wants is clear. General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, has called for up to 40,000 more troops…

So far Obama has only made it clear that he doesn’t intend to withdraw any troops and that he hasn’t decided yet whether to add more soldiers. But this smells more like a lazy compromise than a clear statement of intent…

Obama’s silence stands in contrast with the impassioned rhetoric that carried him into the White House. He risks squandering the biggest advantage of his term in office: the serious attempt to make an honest assessment of his predecessor’s legacy [sic]. It also represented a great opportunity to restructure the Atlantic alliance. But why should countries like Germany and France believe the verbose promises of a president who is not even sending a clear message at home, even though he has a majority in both houses of Congress?

There is no doubt that hardly a day passes in Europe without criticism of US policy. This has become a trans-Atlantic ritual. But despite this ritual, Europeans are still looking for one thing from the White House: leadership.

Once again, we see that odd reversal we first noticed when Sarkozy criticized Obama’s Iran policy: Europe begging an American president to show some spine.

One can almost smell the whiff of fear across the Atlantic at the dawning realization that Obama is exactly what the despised Right said he was: an empty suit, whose flowery and uplifting rhetoric consisted of mere empty words to match it. Europeans are finding that, although they chafed at the previous leadership (much as children do towards firm parents), now that they are leaderless they’re feeling more than a bit nostalgic for those olden days (Dad wasn’t so bad after all, now that he’s gone and you’re on your own).

A rudderless free world might not remain free for very long.

[NOTE: In case you missed it first time around, here’s a reprise of my Obama-ready reworking of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy:

To surge, or not to surge: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous battles,
Or put down arms against a sea of troubles,
And by withdrawing end them? To retreat: to fight
No more; and by retreat to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To retreat, to leave;
To leave: perchance to lose: ay, there’s the rub;
For in that leaving, what defeat may come
When we have shuffled off this Afghan soil,
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of a long war;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of polls,
The oppressor’s wrong, the talking head’s contumely,
The pangs of pacifists, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his swift exit make
With a curt order? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary war,
But that the dread that some would cry “defeat,”
That vicious accusation from whose bourn
No politician returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. – Soft you now!
The fair Nobel Committee! Wimps, in thy orisons
Be all my sins forgotten.]

[ADDENDUM: Krauthammer reflects.]

Finally: Obama gets a foreign policy success—unfortunately, it’s in Honduras, not Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

Fausta reports that Honduras has caved to Obama’s pressure and agreed to reinstate Chavez’s protege Zelaya in a power-sharing interim government. Apparently, Honduras got more than a taste of the Chicago Way, and it wasn’t very appetizing:

El Heraldo (in Spanish) makes it clear that US State Dept. envoy for Latin America Thomas Shannon went to Honduras to twist arms: his position was that the November 29 elections would not be recognized unless Zelaya was returned to power. I guess nothing ensures democracy like restoring to power the guy who did his outmost to undermine democracy, at least in Shannon’s eyes.

The bad news is that, when our President has finally shown some international cojones, it’s in the wrong venue and for the wrong reasons.

The good news is that Hondurans will be going to the polls in a month, and Zelaya won’t be running. Now that the US and the international community have decided to recognize the results, one can hope that the beleaguered Hondurans will finally be left alone to decide their own destiny according to their own very adequate constitution.

And then there’s Iran. Would that Obama could show just a bit of the courage there that he showed against the wrong people in Honduras. Robert Kagan wonders:

Tehran apparently will not accept the [previously arranged] deal but will propose an alternate plan, agreeing to ship smaller amounts of low-enriched uranium to Russia gradually over a year. Even if Iran carried out this plan as promised — every month would be an adventure to see how much, if anything, Iran shipped — the slow movement of small amounts of low-enriched uranium does not accomplish the original purpose, since Iran can quickly replace these amounts with new low-enriched uranium produced by its centrifuges. Iran’s nuclear clock, which the Obama administration hoped to stop or at least slow, would continue ticking at close to its regular speed.

Tehran is obviously probing to see whether President Obama can play hardball or whether he can be played. If Obama has any hope of getting anywhere with the mullahs, he needs to show them he means business, now, and immediately begin imposing new sanctions.

The test Obama faces in Iran is two-pronged, because it involves Russia as well. Kagan reminds us that Obama undercut the Czech and Polish governments when he reneged on the already-agreed-on missile defense there, but the justification at the time was that he’d won certain promises from the Russians that they would cooperate with sanctions on Iran if they became necessary:

Russia joined France, the United States and ElBaradei in agreeing to the proposal on Iran’s low-enriched uranium. Iran is now rejecting that proposal. If the administration’s engagement strategy is working, then Moscow should come through by joining in sanctions. If, on the other hand, Moscow declares that Iran’s counterproposal is satisfactory, or calls for further weeks or months of negotiations, then we will know that Russia, too, is playing Obama. Here again, Obama will have to show whether he is someone whom other powers have to take seriously, or if he is an easy mark in a geopolitical con game.

Somehow I can’t quite picture Obama making a strong move in this particular game of chess. But we should be finding out soon enough.

[NOTE: Fausta’s post also contains many links on the Honduran situation, if you’d like to know more.]

[ADDENDUM: Of possible interest (hat tip: commenter “perfected Democrat”).]

My friends the liberals

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday there was a big discussion here about one of our perennially favorite topics—liberals, and whether or not they really have good intentions.

For example, Steve G. wrote:

Most people are of good will and that includes having good intentions. But…[t]o acknowledge that liberals have good intentions is to buy into their mantra. Liberals are haters and control freaks, because they are “smarter” and know better than you how to live your life…I have been called a nazi because I questioned a liberal acquaintance how his liberal ideas could work in the real world, and this most offensive word rolled so effortlessly out of his mouth that I almost missed it. Liberals don’t realize or even care how offensive they are.

LIBERALS NEVER HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS .

LIBERALS ARE EVIL BUT HAVE NO IDEA WHY.

LIBERALS LEAVE ONLY MISERY IN THEIR WAKE.

Well now, I find I have to do at least a little bit of defense of the liberals I know—and I know an awful lot of them. First, a caveat: I believe there is a distinction between liberals and those on the far Left, and although it’s a continuum and it can be difficult to draw a clear line between the two, there is a difference.

Most of my friends are liberals, with just a few segueing into the hard Left. Most of them are also women, so perhaps what I’m describing is the subset “female liberals.” All but one were Obama supporters, and remain so (the one was a Hillary supporter who distrusted Obama from the start), although some are disappointed that he hasn’t accomplished more of his agenda, and a few have become skeptical and consider him more of a typical politician than they once did.

But in general they have good intentions. Very good intentions. And in fact, as individuals, some of them actually do a great deal of good in the world, and not only on a personal and familial level. They contribute to charities, some of which don’t just give handouts, but teach people skills and promote cottage industries that help them economically for life. Some of these friends have actually gone to Africa to put their mouths where their money is. Some are in the helping professions, and they really do assist their clients or students to build better and more productive lives.

But yes, they support public policies that, as Steve G. said, leave misery in their wake, and they are completely unaware of this and resistant to evidence that it might be so. Almost to a woman, they also sprinkle casual putdowns of the United States into their conversations when one least expects it. And many (not all) have a real hatred of what they consider the Right, an anger they manfully (womanfully, that is) attempt to swallow for my sake when I’m around.

As far as I can tell, all of them get their news from the liberal press. They read liberal newspapers. They watch CNN, if they watch cable news at all. They listen to NPR. They go to Michael Moore movies. They don’t read much about history and may not have studied it since college or even high school, where they got the usual cursory smattering of platitudes. They hate war and killing, which is another sign of how nice and how well-meaning they are.

Most of their friends think likewise, and so most of the conversations they engage in feature views similar to their own, voiced by other kindly, well-educated, well-meaning people who are liberals too. No doubt they also are acquainted with a few people on the Right and even some conservatives (besides me, that is; I’m a special case and a conundrum because they know I used to be a liberal too, and by some mysterious process I’ve unaccountably gone over to the dark side). But those conservatives tend to either be sensitive to their own odd-man/woman-out status within the group, and politely quiet when the conversation rolls around to politics, or loudly bombastic and unconvincing.

I mentioned that my liberal friends often diss America. This happens so often that it is almost a verbal tic. Often, their fellow countrymen/women are contrasted to those wonderful Europeans, who are (take your pick): cultured, sophisticated, linguistically diverse, international, pacifist, non-imperialist (now, anyway—since history began post-WWII). Americans? The opposite.

Therefore, one of the things my friends love most about Obama is his European-style America-bashing. They see it as a refreshing breath of much-needed humility, a realistic assessment of how America has behaved for at least a century, and a requisite redress of the wrongs that have been perpetrated by an arrogant and powerful nation. The fact that Obama projects a dangerous weakness, and that America and its actions may have often been a force for good in the world—a sort of “good cop” that has helped peace and freedom rather than hindered it—is too paradoxical, too foreign to the way they think.

If someone tries to point out certain things that are unequivocally and more conventionally “good” about America, such as the fact that the US was in the forefront of international relief after the tsunami, it is brushed off as a very small and insignificant matter compared to the manifest wrongs we’ve committed. Their belief in the general evil perpetrated by the US around the world is not built on a single event, nor can it be eradicated by pointing out a single fact, or even a few. It is a huge edifice built on thousands of smaller bits of supposed knowledge, and to mount an assault on it would take several courses and piles of reading matter, and might not be successful even then.

I know. After all, I was one of them once. And I know how much it takes to effect a change in perspective. But I also know that the sort of liberals I describe here are very well-intentioned indeed—for what that’s worth. Unfortunately, it’s not worth a whole lot, when the results so often are bad.

Thanks again

The New Neo Posted on by

You may have noticed that I’ve allowed the post about donating to PayPal to migrate down to its rightful place on the page. The “Donate” button remains, of course, and feel free to use it to your heart’s delight.

But I just wanted to repeat myself and say to all who donated a deeply appreciative “thank you.” I’ll try to be worthy!