RIP Michael Jackson

The New Neo Posted on by

It seems it’s all the cable news stations can talk about right now. The demise of a mega-celebrity—especially if untimely, as so many such deaths seem to be—is treated as the story that trumps all other news of the day. After all, that’s what celebrity is all about, isn’t it?

I understand that Michael Jackson was huge, perhaps even bigger than Elvis in his time. But I was somewhat immune to the Elvis hoopla back then. The Beatles, yes. But although I appreciated some of Elvis’s music, I was neither a big fan nor a follower of his life.

The same was true of my attitude towards Michael Jackson, whose notoriety and strangeness eventually surpassed even that of his predecessor as King of Rock, whose own notoriety and strangeness was quite considerable. Jackson’s life seemed mostly sad to me, all that talent and work squeezed down to an existence that appeared in the end to have become as pinched and tormented as the face he worked so hard to perfect and ended up nearly destroying.

Did his death result from drugs he used to kill the pain, as has been widely reported but not yet confirmed? Sad sad sad sad—but hardly surprising.

RIP Farah

The New Neo Posted on by

This is the poster that once graced a gazillion teenaged boys’ bedrooms:

farahfawcett.jpg

The news that Farah Fawcett has died came as no surprise today; she’s been seriously ill a very long time. But it’s still a shock, somehow, for those who remember her as the hot young blond with the sumptuous tresses, the chiseled features, and the sexy athletic body.

I hardly watched any of her performances. But one would have had to be off on a desert island to have remained unaware of her during her heyday. I recall that despite her early bimbo roles she later emerged as a serious and very capable actress, not an easy transition to make. And at sixty-two, she died much too young.

Political fools for love—or sex

The New Neo Posted on by

Mark Sanford is the latest politician confessing to cheating on his wife. You might say it goes with the territory.

Politicians tend to be egotistical and aggressive. They also encounter a great deal of opportunity to stray; as Henry Kissinger said, “power is the great aphrodisiac”—and if power could get women to fall for the likes of Kissinger, he must have been correct.

The list of erring political husbands (yes, it’s usually husbands, although no doubt there are woman in public life who do the same) is long. But usually love’s got nothing to do with it. I wasn’t in their bedrooms to find out for sure, but I think we can safely say that for John Kennedy and Elliot Spitzer and John Edwards and John Ensign (what’s up this with all these “John’s”?) and Bill Clinton (whose bedroom/office we practically were in, thanks to Ken Starr’s report), the aim was to satisfy several lusts at once: conquest, power, excitement, and sex for fun and frolic.

Not so for Governor Sanford, who seems to have been in a star-crossed-lovers situation. This makes him far more sympathetic, and far more rare. So why didn’t he just get divorced and marry his Argentine paramour? Perhaps she didn’t want to leave her country. Perhaps he felt too much guilt about his wife and especially his children (although not enough to stop him from having the affair in the first place). Perhaps he thought it would ruin his political career to divorce and remarry, although paradoxically, keeping the affair secret and acting so oddly and irresponsibly has probably sunk it far more in the end.

People know that politicians often cheat on their wives, and that it’s an equal opportunity offense; both parties indulge. That doesn’t stop the crowing from one side or the other when a prominent member of the opposing party gets caught. Democrats say the indiscretions of culturally and religiously conservative Republicans are much worse than those of Democrats because the former are hypocrites as well as cheaters. But I believe that demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of the concept of sin among the religious, who usually understand that high standards are difficult to meet, and human beings will err. Seeking forgiveness—which was a big theme in Sanford’s press conference—is what matters most, and a chance to learn from mistakes and not repeat the offense.

The larger question is whether all of it matters in regard to what politicians are actually elected to do, which is their jobs. To the extent that extramarital sex is a distraction from that, or affords an opportunity for blackmail or harassment of employees, it’s clearly a danger. But many people also view it as a general character issue: the argument is that if a politician will cheat on his wife he’ll cheat us as well.

There’s a certain logic to that, and I’m sure in some cases it’s true. In others it’s not. Cheating or lying to the public is not necessarily linked to cheating or lying to family about personal matters.

For example, although nothing would surprise me, I am almost certain that Barack Obama is a faithful husband. But I also think he is amoral when it comes to politics, lying strategically and misrepresenting his positions and the economic effects of his policies without feeling a qualm of remorse. Although JFK was a notorious womanizer, and although one can certainly disagree with aspects of his presidency, I’ve never seen evidence that he was especially into lying in his official capacity. Nixon was another president who seemed to be the very model of a faithful husband. But despite the rather spectacular opportunities it afforded for double-entendres, his moniker “Tricky Dick” was given him in his political rather than his sexual capacity.

So I throw it open to you. Do you think infidelity disqualifies for high political office? Does it matter if it’s love or just lust? Or if it’s just with one person, as opposed to a pattern of behavior? Does it have to directly affect the politician’s job (as I believe Sanford’s behavior did) to be important?

Obama the African colonial

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s an article offering a unique point of view: Obama as African colonial. The piece was written by an American woman whose parents came to this country from Nigeria in the 1970s, and who still travels there frequently. She writes:

Barack Obama is nothing more than an old school African Colonial who is on his way to turning this country into one of the developing nations that you learn about on the National Geographic Channel. Many conservative (East, West, South, North) African-Americans like myself — those of us who know our history — have seen this movie before…

The African colonial politician (ACP) feigns repulsion towards the hegemonic paradigms of Western civilization. But at the same time, he is completely enamored of the trappings of its aristocracy or elite culture. The ACP blames and caricatures whitey to no end for all that has gone wrong in the world. He convinces the masses that various forms of African socialism are the best way for redressing the problems that European colonialism motivated in Africa. However, as opposed to really being a hard-core African Leftist who actually believes in something, the ACP uses socialist themes as a way to disguise his true ambitions: a complete power grab whereby the “will of the people” becomes completely irrelevant.

Barack Obama is all of the above. The only difference is that he is here playing (colonial) African politics as usual.

I’m not sure this adds a whole lot to what is already known about Obama. But it’s interesting.

[Hat tip: commenter Wolla Dalbo.]

More brutality in Iran

The New Neo Posted on by

If anyone had any lingering doubt about the intentions of Iran’s leaders towards the demonstrators, today’s reports of brutality would certainly resolve them.

Will the cycle of demonstrations and crackdowns continue, or will the protesters be cowed? And either way, is Iran’s administration fatally undermined in some way, perhaps even by internal rifts?

I have no idea, but I welcome the discussion.

This is what I have to say about Mark Sanford—and Argentina

The New Neo Posted on by

I found the Mark Sanford disappearance bizarre from the start. What governor and public figure thinks he can vanish for five days and have nobody notice or care?

That fact alone seemed to indicate that there was something very very wrong here. And today’s news conference that the Governor called to clear things up only muddies the waters a bit further: whatever was he thinking of?

Here’s the full text of the Governor’s meandering address, in which he confesses that when he went AWOL for five days he was actually seeing a woman in Argentina with whom he’d been having an affair. I didn’t watch him as he delivered his confession, but on reading his words I can’t help but feel that this is a man who is unbalanced in some way. And I don’t just mean the obvious moral sense of betraying his wife, sons, the people of the state of South Carolina, and the Republican Party. My sympathies go in particular to his wife and family; what a mess Sanford has made of things.

But there are certain details to his story—especially the Argentina angle, and in particular his rambling and nearly incoherent statement “And so, oddly enough, I spent the last five days, and I was crying in Argentina so I could repeat it when I came back here, in saying, you know, while, indeed, from a heart level, there was something real…” that rang a faint bell.

It was a bell that grew louder and more insistent, and led me inexorably here.

Which in turn led me to compose the following song parody. As you read it and compare it to the original (and to his press conference), you may notice the curious fact that I hardly had to change a word to make it fit.

It won’t be easy
You’ll think it strange
When I try to explain how I feel
That I still need your love
After all that I’ve done
You won’t believe me
All you will see
Is a man you thought you knew
Although he’s confused to the nines
At sixes and sevens with you

I had to let it happen
I had to change
Couldn’t stay all my life as governor
Looking out of the window
Staying out of the sun
So I chose freedom
Running around trying everything new
But nothing impressed me at all
I never expected it to

I cried five days in Argentina
The truth is I never had a clue
All through my wild days
My mad existence
I broke my promise
Don’t keep your distance

And as for fortune and as for fame,
Yes, I invited them in,
Though it seemed to the world
They were all I desired
They are illusions
They’re not the solutions
They promise to be
The answer was here all the time
I loved her and went off on a spree

I cried five days in Argentina
The truth is I never had a clue
All through my wild days
My mad existence
I broke my promise
Don’t keep your distance

Have I said too much?
There’s nothing more I can think of to say to you
But all you have to do
Is look at me to know
That every word is true

Obama, Reagan, and the power of words

The New Neo Posted on by

Some in Obama’s camp seem to think that the protests in Iran were precipitated, or at the very least encouraged, by Obama’s words in his Cairo speech.

Not the actual living breathing example of the dawn of freedom and democracy in Iraq, which is right next door to Iran. No— a single speech, and one that actually didn’t much feature a call to rise up against the tyrants themselves. Ace helpfully points out that all Obama said in it about Iran was the following:

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I’ve made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It’s about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that’s why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I’m hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

Now I don’t know about you, but I’m sure that such inspiring words would motivate me to risk death to demonstrate against the mullahs and Ahmadinejad, to whom Obama shows such respect, and whose right to nuclear power (and even to complain about not having nuclear weapons) Obama so champions.

Does Obama himself actually believe his speech caused the people of Iran to protest the elections and to demonstrate for their freedom? I don’t know. But if he does, it would fit in with something I’ve noticed before, both in Obama and on the Left in general: their elevation of the power of words over acts. After all, it’s worked that way for Obama his whole life so far. (see this for a discussion of why wordsmiths tend to go ga-ga over Obama).

When the Right, in trying to figure Obama out, says “watch what he does, not what he says,” they’re using a principle that seems self-evident. But it’s not that way for liberals and the Left, who are often far more interested in declarations of intent, in eloquence rather than achievement. If a person has the right goals in mind, if a person sounds like a good person, that’s the most important thing. And if liberals and the soft Left (the hard Left is quite different) are moved so mightily by words and speeches, they tend to conclude that everyone in the world shares that tendency.

Aha, you might ask, but what about Reagan? When conservatives credit Reagan’s bold words in a speech for the fall of the Soviets, they’re making the same mistake, aren’t they? But when Reagan said “tear down this wall” the words were not spoken in isolation. There was conviction behind them, but far more importantly, they were not “mere words.” They were embedded in a lengthy policy of many years’ duration towards the USSR (he made the speech in June of 1987), plus knowledge of Russia’s own internal weaknesses and the ascension of Gorbachev the reformer.

It is highly instructive to take a closer look at at this article from Time, which describes Reagan’s fight to retain those now-famous words in his speech [emphasis mine]:

[O]n the morning of June 12, 1987, Reagan arrived in Berlin, on the occasion of the city’s 750th birthday. He was scheduled to speak on the Western side of the Brandenburg Gate, for years the city’s symbolic dividing line. His speechwriters had drafted an address intended as much for Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, with whom Reagan was forging a close relationship, as for the 20,000 people who gathered to hear him speak. In the speech, Reagan would call on Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall, but that language was opposed strongly by Reagan’s National Security Council and the State Department, who feared it would be used by hard-liners in the Kremlin to discredit Gorbachev. When the President’s entourage arrived in Berlin, Reagan’s team was still arguing over the final wording. State and NSC submitted yet another draft of the speech. But in the limousine ride to the Wall, Reagan told his deputy chief of staff, Kenneth Duberstein, that he intended to issue the fateful challenge to Gorbachev. “It’s the right thing to do,” he said.

This is of great interest, too:

Earlier in the day Reagan had looked across the wall into East Berlin from a balcony of the Reichstag. He later said that his forceful tone had been influenced by his learning that East German police had forced people away from the wall to prevent them from hearing his speech over the loudspeakers…

At the time, the Soviet news agency TASS called Reagan’s visit to the Wall “openly provocative, war-mongering.” But listen closely to a recording of it today: the speech sounds as much like an invitation as it does a challenge. “There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace,” Reagan says. As he goes on, you hear scattered claps and hollers. “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate!” Reagan says. The crowd starts to erupt. “Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate!” At this point, 20,000 Berliners are cheering Reagan on.

Now, there are words that move people, spoken with passion and conviction. The addressee was a specific person, one who was likely to be responsive: Gorbachev (imagine the effect of the same words on Stalin. If there had been such a wall in his time, he probably would have laughed and built it higher.) The words were uttered by Reagan in the place in question, Berlin, in front of the gate itself. The crowd understood exactly and precisely what Reagan meant; there was no ambiguity and nothing to intuit.

That speech truly was inspirational. But it would have had no effect at all if the pre-conditions for the Soviet capitulation had not been in place already, partly as a result of Reagan’s efforts over the length of his presidency, and partly because of long-term forces brewing in Russia itself.

[NOTE: Interestingly enough, the Time article (written in 2007, for the 20th anniversary of Reagan’s speech) features an interview with then 86-year-old George Schultz, who had been Reagan’s Secretary of State. He mentions Iran briefly, and comes down in favor of finding ways to “communicate” with the mullahs. But he also makes it clear that any such efforts would only be part of a long-term and comprehensive attempt to change the Islamic world.]

I dunno about Flo

The New Neo Posted on by

You may think you don’t know Flo, but of course you do. She’s the woman in the Progressive Auto Insurance ads, the one with the retro makeup and 60s-ish hair and the attitude.

Those ads, and Flo, happen to set my very teeth on edge. But in one of the most basic functions of advertisements, they sure get my attention. Isn’t that what it’s all about?

I’m not alone in being irked by Flo. But I don’t share another common reaction—among a very different demographic, heterosexual males: sexual attraction. Who knew?

Flo is played by an actress/comedienne named Stephanie Courtney, a veteran of improv comedy who adds a bit of her own flair and style—and some off-the-cuff quips—to her pitchlady’s character. And the makeup and hair? It takes a full two hours, handy information to have if you happen to want to be a Flo lookalike.

Yes, Obama’s president—and you’re not

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama won, as he keeps reminding us.

Today in his press conference, he said:

“I think John McCain has genuine passion about many of these international issues,” Obama said, adding that they share a desire to see free speech respected. “But only I’m the president of the United States.

I cannot in my lifetime recall a previous president feeling the need to remind the opposition and the public that “I won,” and “Only I’m the president of the United States.” The latter in particular has a “nah nah nah na nah” teasy juvenile quality, especially since Obama is comparing himself to John McCain, the man who ran against him in 2008 and would have liked to have been president instead.

It reminds me of this:

chevychase.jpg

Neda: martyrs, mourning, and propaganda

The New Neo Posted on by

By now you’ve heard the story of Neda Agha-Soltan, killed last weekend in a demonstration in Iran, and seen her photos—alive, dying, and dead. Her fiance and witnesses report that she was purposely targeted by Baseji paramilitaries who shot her in the chest.

When I heard of Neda’s death from a friend several days ago, my first thought (after “how horrible”) was that her image would almost surely be used to rally others under the banner of her martyrdom. This has come to pass, and not just in Iran. Even President Obama referred to her death in his press conference today

As Stalin famously said: The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic. There is no question that Stalin was correct.

The way our minds and hearts seem to work is that it’s difficult to encompass and appreciate the scope of large tragedies involving vast numbers. Perhaps it’s best that way; otherwise we’d have a lot more trouble sleeping soundly at night. But in this respect we’re somewhat like those tribes whose counting ability is somewhat limited: one, two, three…many.

That’s why a story such as Neda’s captures the imagination: she’s a person we can identify with rather than a mere statistic. Why Neda and not the others who’ve died? Perhaps because her demise was so very well-documented, and also because she was young and beautiful and female. This makes her a particularly apt symbol of the opportunities lost by the multitudes of young people in Iran who’ve been under the thumb of the mullahs for their entire lives.

The mullahs are cognizant of the power of the martyr in their culture and religion. That’s why they’ve banned funeral celebrations for Neda. The NY Times explains that the mullahs themselves have made excellent use of such things in the past:

Funerals have long served as a political rallying point in Iran, since it is customary to have a week of mourning and a large memorial service 40 days after a death. In the 1979 revolution, that cycle generated a constant supply of new protests and deaths.

But the narrative of death has also been important in the lore surrounding the existence of the Islamic republic.

The government portrayed itself in the role of Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad killed by a far larger army during the seventh-century struggle within Islam, which gave birth to the Shiite sect that predominates in Iran.

Days for prophets and saints believed killed in the service of the faith dot the holiday calendar, taking up 22 days of the year.

So the very public adulation of Ms. Agha-Soltan could create a religious symbol for the opposition and sap support for the government among the faithful who believe Islam abhors killing innocent civilians.

I’ve written before about the power of iconic news photos to change (or at the very least to rally) public opinion (see this, this, and this). Photos and/or videos have the power of graphic simplicity; they get us in the gut. It’s an emotional place that the words in news stories, however dramatic, can rarely touch.

Photos seem to never lie, but of course they can. In the case of Neda, however, it appears fairly clear—from the context, the preponderance of the photographic evidence, and the large number of witnesses—that what is reported to have happened is exactly what did happen.

In the past this has not always been true. For example, in some of my posts I linked to above, the photos were of very real events but the news stories about them distorted what was actually happening at the time. And then in recent years we’ve seen the growth of two other variations: faked Photoshopped photos, and real photos and/or videos of faked events.

For example, I’ve written at great length about the al Durah case, where the video was real but drastically edited, and the preponderance of evidence (including the more complete footage, as well as forensics) pointed strongly to the fact that the event had been staged for a compliant news cameraman in order to create a martyr (or more likely the illusion of a martyr) and to frame Israeli soldiers as murderers (see also this).

The al Durah incident was wildly successful in doing just that. And, in a terrible irony, the boy’s photo was used to inspire the murder of innocent Israelis by suicide bombers in supposed retaliation, as well as being shown as part of the introduction to the video of the beheading of Daniel Pearl. The people who arranged the al Durah incident knew how incredibly powerful the al Durah photos were.

As human beings, we are all susceptible to the pull of propaganda, both for good and evil, and we know that photos are among the most effective propaganda tools of all. Just because we are in sympathy with a cause does not mean everything that is said in that cause is the truth. We have to retain a healthy skepticism—accent on the word “healthy”—and to use our judgment to evaluate each case on its merits.

That Neda was in fact killed by the repressive forces of the mullahs is not in serious doubt, although that doesn’t stop some people from spreading the idea that this is another lie (I’m not going to dignify them with links, but just Google “Neda hoax” to see some). But the mullahs themselves are no strangers to lies—in fact, their election results were an example of a Big Lie that they thought they could pull off successfully.

And maybe, in the end, they will pull it off in the sense of their guy, Ahmadinejad, retaining power. That wily old Stalin knew a thing or two about such games, as well:

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

Perhaps. We’ll see.

[NOTE: This article points out the the Financial Times has compared Neda to al-Durah without seeming to have any idea of the debunking of the al Durah story. No surprise there.]

Obama hazy on smoking

The New Neo Posted on by

President Obama has signed a bill designed to give government more sweeping powers to regulate cigarettes, especially the way they’re marketed to attract teens, citing his own experience as a young smoker.

But on the question of whether he’s still puffing away now that he’s reached a more mature state, he’s about as forthcoming as he is about so many other aspects of his life and history—which is to say, hardly at all:

But he didn’t say how his own struggle was coming since he moved into the White House. And aides were no more forthcoming.

As senator, candidate and now president, Obama has veered between frank and cagey about his personal battle with smoking.

He promised his wife, Michelle, more than two years ago that he would quit if she let him seek the White House.

He has often acknowledged since that he has “fallen off the wagon.” But he hardly ever provides specifics. And though White House aides pack nicotine gum in their jackets to help him resist, they also refuse to give a clear answer to the question of whether the president still sneaks a smoke now and again…

“I don’t, honestly, see the need to get a whole lot more specific than the fact that it’s a continuing struggle,” Gibbs said. “He struggles with it every day.”

Honestly, Mr. Gibbs, I bet you don’t see the need. I wouldn’t either, to tell you the truth (I assume the White House is amply equipped with smoke alarms), except that it is typical of Obama’s cageyness (love that word!) or downright secretiveness on other aspects of his life that are far more relevant.

As far as cigarettes go, however, methinks Obama is following the example of St. Augustine, who said (albeit about a very different subject): “Make me chaste—but not yet.”

Iran: why now?

The New Neo Posted on by

What’s going on in Iran right now is the result of many forces coming together. But I have little doubt that the most powerful of them are specific to Iran and its people rather than being international in scope.

The Iranian people (especially the huge percentage of the population that is young) are fed up with many things about Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, most prominent being the former’s flagrant mishandling of the Iranian economy, and the social repressions that have been going on for decades since the 1979 revolution at the hands of the latter.

The government’s transparent lies about the recent election results have merely acted as a tipping point, making it crystal clear to the people that they have no voice at all in the selection of their government, and destroying the pretense that Iran’s leaders (at least, the figureheads; not the mullahs themselves who pull their strings) were democratically elected.

That said, what of the influence of other countries? It’s commonplace to put down neocons these days, but if you look at the map you will see that Iran is situated between Iraq and Afghanistan, two nations that have achieved enhanced freedom (although differing in degree, both are freer than they were before) as a result of our interventions there. Those who think that Obama’s Cairo speech had more of an effect on Iran’s elections are dreaming; it’s much more likely that, just as the neocons said, freedom is contagious (even a little bit of it).

But I do think that Obama’s election may have played two small roles. First, it possibly emboldened the mullahs to become more flagrant in negating the will of the people in the election, knowing that Obama wouldn’t do much to protest. In this the mullahs may have underestimated the reaction of the Iranian people and their anger at what had transpired; time will tell whether theirs was a miscalculation or not.

But I do give Obama credit for the second thing: Bush has been a very polarizing figure around the world, and Obama is definitely a more charismatic and less strident one. His tone of conciliation and apology (which I believe also communicates weakness) does have the advantage in this situation of making it much harder for Ahmadinejad or the mullahs to successly demonize him and to blame the present uprising on the US and have it stick—although Khamenei’s been trying anyway.

This doesn’t mean that, if the present demonstrations were to succeed and Mousavi were to take control, the demonstrators would get the freedom and representation they appear to crave. Mousavi himself is still somewhat of a cipher (read his recent praise of Khomeini and the glorious early days of the 1979 revolution here, for example, if you want to get a cold chill).

All revolutions are loose cannons; their courses cannot be predicted or controlled. Revolutionaries know what they intend, but they often are part of coalitions that combine forces with very different agendas. They can’t know ahead of time what they will actually build if successful in overthrowing the current regime. And sometimes (in fact, very often) revolutionary leaders manipulate the people by saying they plan one thing, and then end up doing something quite different—something that can exceed in repression what went before.

[ADDENDUM: Will a general strike be called for tomorrow?]