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 Yes, it’s outdated in many ways, with all its furor about “good girls” and “bad girls” and its prohibition on premarital sex.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…

Pearl Harbor Day

The New Neo Posted on by

Today is the sixty-eighth anniversary of the December 7, 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. The generation that reacted to it by mobilizing and fighting World War II is on its last legs. But they were the ones we still call “the Greatest.”

I was reminded of this while watching one of those Oliver North “War Stories” TV shows, about Pearl Harbor. It featured some of the elderly participants reminiscing about that long ago day. Before each one spoke, there was a photograph of him back in 1941: young, vibrant, handsome, full of life. Now they were ancient, and most only vaguely resembled their former selves. But they still transmitted great moral strength and a kind of Gary-Cooperesque stoicism and understated bravery as they told their stories.

A couple of facts: it’s become fashionable to believe that FDR knew about the attack in advance and let it happen anyway. But those 12/7-truthers are almost undoubtedly wrong. Roosevelt wanted to get us into the war, and he knew a Japanese attack was coming at some point, and informed his generals to that effect, but he knew none of the particulars in advance.

It’s odd how this idea of a government in cahoots with the enemy, willing to let innocent Americans die, keeps coming up again and again. A certain not insignificant segment of the population appears to favor such conspiracy theories, probably because we don’t like feeling vulnerable to sudden attack. We’d rather think Daddy in the White House could have stopped it but chose not to—that makes him powerful but amoral, rather than powerless to protect us.

Here’s a post I published last year on Pearl Harbor Day. It focuses on FDR’s famous speech afterward, and the will and resolve he amply demonstrated. Will and resolve in war remain extremely relevant these days, in Afghanistan (at least Obama hasn’t made any references yet today to “the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor,” his gaffe from July, 2008).

Here is just a little bit of Roosevelt’s post-Pearl Harbor speech, in case we need reminding of what American resolve used to sound like:

”¦No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

Here’s the speech itself:

[NOTE: The memorable phrase that began FDR’s address, “a date which will live in infamy,” wasn’t in Roosevelt’s earlier draft. It reads “a date which will live in world history.” That sounds like a high school essay; Roosevelt crossed out “world history” and added “infamy” in his own hand. A wise choice.]

The lonely fight of an AGW “denier”

The New Neo Posted on by

Read his cri de coeur here:

I find it rings flat with me to have to face people asking where the scientists were when we were overcoming so many many obstacles to get a rare fair hearing. The scientists have been tied up and gagged in the back room…We were there screaming our lungs out all along.

[ADDENDUM: The NY Times covers itself in glory by pretending that Climategate is all about a few emails where scientists got a little carried away with the rightness of their cause. Once again, the Times shows its contempt for its readers and their knowledge of the facts, as the editors say “run along now children; it’s okay, the Times has spoken.” Anyone with even a glancing familiarity with the scope of the Climategate files knows it’s about far more than the emails, but the Times is counting on its ignorant readers to remain so.

“No one should be misled by all the noise,” write the editors. And it’s true; no one should be misled by their noise any more, although many undoubtedly will. But the Times is increasingly a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.]

[ADDENDUM II: How to write an entire WaPo op-ed about the dire need for massive government intervention to stop global warming, without ever once mentioning Climategate.

And watch Times’ public editor Clark Hoyt bob and weave as he pretends to answer questions, all the while resolutely following the current MSM meme and claiming that Climategate is all about the emails. The code and the messy and manipulated database are never even mentioned. But hey, as Hoyt quotes another Times editor as saying, “We here at The Times are not scientists.”

You can say that again. Of course, the same increasingly seems true of the researchers at CRU.]

The worst and the dimmest

The New Neo Posted on by

[McChrystal’s] chance came at an Oct. 8 meeting of Obama’s principal advisers, presided over by Jones — the “dress rehearsal” for a full-scale National Security Council gathering the president would hold the next day. Speaking by video link from Kabul, McChrystal began with the policy underlying his approach, established by the White House review, hastily compiled in February, that led to Obama’s March 27 strategy announcement and the deployment of nearly 22,000 new troops through the spring and summer.

In June, McChrystal noted, he had arrived in Afghanistan and set about fulfilling his assignment. His lean face, hovering on the screen at the end of the table, was replaced by a mission statement on a slide: “Defeat the Taliban. Secure the Population.”

“Is that really what you think your mission is?” one of those in the Situation Room asked.

On the face of it, it was impossible — the Taliban were part of the fabric of the Pashtun belt of southern Afghanistan, culturally if not ideologically supported by a significant part of the population. “We don’t need to do that,” Gates said, according to a participant. “That’s an open-ended, forever commitment.”

But that was precisely his mission, McChrystal responded, and it was enshrined in the Strategic Implementation Plan — the execution orders for the March strategy, written by the NSC staff.

“I wouldn’t say there was quite a ‘whoa’ moment,” a senior defense official said of the reaction around the table. “It was just sort of a recognition that, ‘Duh, that’s what, in effect, the commander understands he’s been told to do.’ Everybody said, ‘He’s right.’ ”

“It was clear that Stan took a very literal interpretation of the intent” of the NSC document, said Jones, who had signed the orders himself. “I’m not sure that in his position I wouldn’t have done the same thing, as a military commander.” But what McChrystal created in his assessment “was obviously something much bigger and more longer-lasting . . . than we had intended.”

Whatever the administration might have said in March, officials explained to McChrystal, it now wanted something less absolute: to reverse the Taliban’s momentum, deter it and try to persuade a significant number of its members to switch sides. “We certainly want them not to be able to overthrow the government,” Jones said.

[NOTE: The title of this post is a riff on this.]

Foxy lady Paloma Faith

The New Neo Posted on by

This is Paloma Faith, an English actress and singer. I’d never heard of her before, but the following outfit was probably designed to remedy that condition. If so, it succeeded admirably:

palomafaith.jpg

And here’s a closeup, which I sought because I couldn’t quite believe my eyes, and couldn’t figure out what I was looking at:

palomacloseup.jpg

So, what sort of animal tail is Ms. Faith sporting? I’m still not sure, although I tried some Google image searches to find out. Are those squirrel tails? (Don’t think so; they seem a bit too thick). Or raccoon tails (to go with the eye makeup)? (Don’t think so; they’re not striped enough.) I have finally come to the conclusion that Paloma might be displaying three fox tails on her breast, for reasons best known only to her.

The entire hideous ensemble puts me in mind of a dark memory from my youth: the fox fur stole, a fashion still popular in the 50s although it originated earlier. I had a deep horror of those little beasties, which consisted of the entire fox skin (yes, including the feet, head, and all, eyes replaced by glassy orbs) wrapped around the neck and hanging casually down the front, the fox jaw somehow securing the whole thing by its teeth being used as clamps.

And here is a photo of the real thing. You can’t get its full measure unless you see it being modeled, however (I couldn’t find a good photo of that; please provide a link in the comments section if you do):

foxstole.jpg