The willingness to believe that two plus two makes five

The New Neo Posted on by

I read Orwell’s masterful dystopic political vision 1984 when I was about twelve years old, old enough to get what it was aiming at but young enough to be especially frightened by some of its most memorable images, which have stuck with me ever since.

Of course, there was Room 101 with the rats—who could forget that? But another image that made a deep impression, but that described a concept I didn’t quite understand at the time, was that of Winston Smith’s manipulative and brilliant interrogator O’Brien torturing Winston in order to force him to say—and what’s more to believe—that two plus two makes five if the Party willed it.

Here’s the relevant passage:

“Do you remember,” [O’Brien] went on, “writing in your diary, ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four’?”

“Yes,” said Winston.

O’Brien held up his left hand, its back toward Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended.

“How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?”

“Four.”

“And if the Party says that it is not four but five — then how many?”

“Four.”

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston’s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O’Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

“How many fingers, Winston?”

“Four.”

The needle went up to sixty.

“How many fingers, Winston?”

“Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!”

The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.

“How many fingers, Winston?”

“Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!”

“How many fingers, Winston?”

“Five! Five! Five!”

“No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?”

“Four! Five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!”

Abruptly he was sitting up with O’Brien’s arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O’Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O’Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O’Brien who would save him from it.

“You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O’Brien gently.

“How can I help it?” he blubbered. “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

“Sometimes, Winston, sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

If that doesn’t send a chill down your spine, you haven’t got one.

At this point in my life, I think I understand the passage all too well. It ties directly into observations such as the following one by Hilton Kramer (he is referring to Stalinism, but he could just as well be talking about the most rabid adherents of any sort of Leftism):

It is in the nature of Stalinism for its adherents to make a certain kind of lying—and not only to others, but first of all to themselves—a fundamental part of their lives. It is always a mistake to assume that Stalinists do not know the truth about the political reality they espouse. If they don’t know the truth (or all of it) one day, they know it the next, and it makes absolutely no difference to them politically For their loyalty is to something other than the truth. And no historical enormity is so great, no personal humiliation or betrayal so extreme, no crime so heinous that it cannot be assimilated into the ‘ideals’ that govern the true Stalinist mind which is impervious alike to documentary evidence and moral discrimination.

I saw this propensity first-hand myself as a child, in an uncle of mine who was a pro-Communist and whom I’ve described in this essay. My uncle had no problem integrating any new fact about Communism into his pro-Soviet world view.

At the time, my uncle’s behavior was a puzzlement to me. But now I know that he was a true believer, and the goal was the most important thing. If the ideals of Communism (or progressivism, or socialism, or whatever far-Left movement one is considering) are considered the greatest good—equality, “fairness,” help for the poor—then one never has to notice all the evils that are knowingly committed in its name, or all its dreadful although unintended (and yet inevitable) consequences, even for the poor people it is supposedly designed to help. In fact, one is obliged to deny them, no matter how strong the evidence.

To keep one’s eyes on the prize, whether that prize be the idealistic goals cited above or the simple drive for absolute power voiced by the fictional O’Brien when he tells Winston “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power”—it is necessary for the follower to filter out reality and to believe whatever is seen as bringing the world closer to the goal.

The mental gymnastics involved are described very well in another literary work, this time one of nonfiction, the autobiography of Communist-turned-government-informant Whittaker Chambers, entitled Witness [emphasis mine]:

When I first knew him, Harry Freeman [who later become the assistant US chief of Tass, the Soviet news service] was just out of Cornell University, where he had brilliantly majored in history…the best mind that I was to meet among the American Communist intellectuals. It was an entirely new type of mind to me. No matter how favorable his opinion had been to an individual or his political role, if that person fell from grace in the Communist Party, Harry Freeman changed his opinion about him instantly. That was not strange, that was a commonplace of Communist behavior. What was strange was that Harry seemed to change without any effort or embarrasment. There seemed to vanish from his mind any recollection that he had ever held any opinion other than the approved one. If you taxed him with his former views, he would show surprise, and that surprise would be authentic. He would then demonstrate to you, in a series of mental acrobatics so flexible that the shifts were all but untraceable, that he had never thought anything else.

O’Brien would be proud—now that’s the sort of mental flexibility that the Party needs and desires.

Of course, rationalization and denial of facts that don’t fit a person’s previously held beliefs is not just a province of the Left. It’s a general human trait, and that is why a mind is a difficult thing to change. But the Left carefully nurtures, fosters, advocates, and even requires this sort of denial, whereas it is my observation that the Right (and this was something that was formative in my own change experience), while hardly immune, is much less demanding that its adherents dismiss and deny logic and inconvenient facts.

[ADDENDUM: You might find this video to be of related interest (hat tip: commenter “gcotharn”).]

Let’s have a Lynn Seymour interlude

The New Neo Posted on by

If you want to take a break and watch a glorious dancer you’ve probably never heard of, take a look at a 1979 clip of Lynn Seymour performing the bedroom scene from Macmillan’s “Romeo and Juliet” with David Wall’s Romeo, to Prokofiev’s brooding music.

The Canadian-born Seymour was an oddity as a dancer. Although famous as a principal with the Royal Ballet, she was known for her dramatic flair and an intensity and abandon that was at variance with the ordinarily restrained British style. She also appeared bigger than the usual ballerina, although it can be hard to tell with dancers, who tend to look much taller on stage than off (I discuss this phenomenon here).

Whatever her height, Seymour had a solidity that was also unusual for a ballet dancer, a weighted groundedness that made it difficult for her to look lighter than air. She also famously struggled with her actual weight, a situation made more difficult by the fact that she was injury-prone, and had three children by the time she was in her mid-30s.

But none of this mattered when she danced. Here you see her as the fourteen-year-old Juliet, although she’s forty at the time this film was made. Juliet is a role usually more suited to diminuitive dancers who can more easily look young; Seymour is clearly a woman.

Why do I say her size and age didn’t matter? Well, take a look. There probably has never been a more fluid and supple dancer, one so musical and deeply immersed in her roles. Not a single moment here comes off as a pose; Seymour’s movements are one seamless, sensual flow.

And Romeo? Oh, he’s there, too.

Even though I’m a dance fan, I think the ballet “Romeo and Juliet” suffers in comparison to Shakespeare’s work (I’ve written about the latter here). After all, Shakespeare was a genius of extreme rarity, and even very talented choreographers can’t quite match that. What’s more, words can tell a story of complexity that simply cannot be conveyed in movement—which can only deal with simple plots, although it can evoke deep and complex feelings. The dancers must convey their yearning without a single word, but I think they do a pretty good job.

Here’s a clip of another outstanding dancer, Alessandra Ferri, in the same role not too long after. She is very young here, probably in her late teens, and that and her petite size help her to convey the youthfulness that Seymour lacks (Ferri’s Romeo Wayne Eagling, on the other hand, seems a bit old for his part). Like Seymour, Ferri is remarkably lyrical and smooth, a great actress, and her technique is superb; better in fact than Seymour’s. But despite all of this I am always aware that Ferri is dancing and posing, albeit beautifully. For me, Seymour transcends all of that and enters a very different realm. You may have a different response.

Oops! Polanski’s appeal weakens still further

The New Neo Posted on by

It turns out that one of the pillars of the Polanski defense (and the Polanski defenders’ arguments) has crumbled.

In an HBO documentary made last year about the 1977 Polanski rape case, the shocking assertion was made by a former prosecutor David Wells that he improperly colluded with the judge on sentencing. But now Wells pulls an Emily Litella and says “never mind.”

Wells apparently used a certain amount of creativity when he spoke for the film cameras and made his previous claim of wrongdoing. His excuse? He was asssured the HBO piece would air only in France (what does that say of his opinion of the French?)

Here’s how Wells tells it:

David Wells, the prosecutor who last year told an HBO documentary that he colluded with Mr Polanski’s judge to increase his jail sentence, has now called that claim a complete fabrication. “I’m a guy who cuts to the chase,” he said yesterday. “I lied.” …

He’d been persuaded to embellish his story after the makers of the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired ”“ which was co-produced by the BBC and won an Emmy for director Marina Zenovich ”“ said it would only be shown in France. “I know I shouldn’t have done it, but I did,” admitted Mr Wells. “The director told me it would never air in the States. I thought it made a better story if I said I’d told the judge what to do,” he told legal journalist Marcia Clark.

I’m wondering what that “persuasion” by the documentary makers involved. Did they, for instance, know the truth, and suggest that he lie in order to strengthen the case for film darling Polanski? Or were they innocent dupes?

Blame it on Rio

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s official: Rio in 2016 for the Olympic Games.

When I first heard the news that President Obama was flying to Copenhagen to plead that Chicago be tapped as the venue for the 2016 Summer Games, I was flabbergasted. Despite having come to a low opinion of his sagacity, I hadn’t thought he’d spend time, money, and energy on something so relatively minor as well as uncertain.

It’s that last bit that made the jaunt especially disturbing but especially telling: the poor judgment reflected in the fact that he was doing this with no assurance (and no reason to even expect, as far as we know) that it would bear any fruit. Just a quick look at who the main competition was, the city of Rio de Janeiro—told me that Chicago had virtually no chance.

I mean, really, which would you choose? Chicago or Rio? C’mon, give me a break.

Nothing against Chicago (well, actually, something against Chicago—its weather is pretty awful both in winter and in summer), but it’s no contest with the glamorous, sultry, exceptionally beautiful Brazilian metropolis. Add to that the fact that the US has hosted the Olympics countless times, and no country in South America ever has done so, and you’ve got what amounts to a no-brainer.

Obama’s participation in this fool’s errand wouldn’t be important except that it is emblematic of three things: his poor judgment, his boundless egotism, and the disrespect he’s quickly gaining around the world with his far more vital errors on the international stage.

[NOTE: The title of this post came to me quickly when I heard the news that Rio had won and Chicago lost; it seemed appropriate since Obama so likes to blame his failures on others. But since I didn’t quite remember what “Blame It On Rio” referred to, I had to look it up. Much to my surprise I discovered that it was a 1984 movie with a theme that resonates with another topic that’s been hot this week: older men and teenagers having sex. Odd. Here’s a clip (embedding disabled, so I couldn’t post it here). It seems even more offensive now than it might have before the Polanski case came back into the news.]

[ADDEMDUM: Ben Smith agrees.]

Polanski as Byronic hero

The New Neo Posted on by

Studying the Polanski brouhaha, and most especially reading the columns and comments of his defenders and champions, puts me in mind of certain Romantic heroes and artists of old. I refer to the poet whose exploits—sexual and otherwise—were famous in their day for violating taboos in the name of what you might call poetic license: Lord Byron.

We all read about him somewhere along the line, and maybe even had to memorize (or at least study) a poem or two of his such as “She Walks In Beauty.” But if your English class was anything like mine, the juicier parts of his life were for the most part glossed over.

But take a look. Byron, the original Bad Boy of Art, shocked the society of his times (late 1700’s to early 1800’s) with his flouting of conventional behavior, especially of the sexual variety. And many of his shenanigans would still be considered shocking today, including living in what was then called sin followed by an open marriage with multiple concurrent affairs, incest, and young teenagers as the object of sexual attraction (Byron’s fancy was much taken at one point by a 12-year old Greek girl, for whose favors he reportedly offered five hundred pounds and was refused. Unlike Polanski, he seems to have taken “no” for an anwer.)

There are many differences between Byron and Polanski, not limited to the fact that Bryon was physically beautiful and died so young that his beauty could never be seen to fade, or that his art was greater than Polanski’s. For example, I haven’t come across any examples of rape in Byron’s repertoire, although one certainly can’t be sure. And passionate (if temporary) love seems to have been a more common motivator for Byron than what appears to have been the overwhelmingly sexual nature of so many of Polanski’s exploits (not all, however; Polanski seems to have genuinely loved his wife Sharon Tate, although—like his poetic predecessor—not enough to remain faithful to her during their marriage).

Byron set the tone for a certain segment of the public to admire or at least forgive a particular sort of acting-out on the part of a Great Artist, the art justifying the bad behavior in many people’s eyes. Here’s Wiki’s list of the characteristics of what came to be known as the Byronic Hero, based on both Byron’s own life and the charcters in much of his poetry:

* high level of intelligence and perception
* cunning and able to adapt
* criminal tendencies
* sophisticated and educated
* self-critical and introspective
* mysterious, magnetic and charismatic
* struggling with integrity
* power of seduction and sexual attraction
* social and sexual dominance
* emotional conflicts, bipolar tendencies, or moodiness
* a distaste for social institutions and norms
* being an exile, an outcast, or an outlaw
* “dark” attributes not normally associated with a hero
* disrespect of rank and privilege
* a troubled past
* cynicism
* arrogance
* self-destructive behavior

And here’s some more about the Byronic hero. The only characteristic that doesn’t really seem to fit Polanski is handsomeness; the rest (“‘wandering’, searching behavior; haunted by some secret sin or crime, sometimes hints of forbidden love; modern culture hero” who “appeals to society by standing apart from society, superior yet wounded or unrewarded”) certainly does.

We don’t need no steenking photo IDs for health care benefits

The New Neo Posted on by

Guess what? Surprise, surprise: applicants won’t have to show a picture ID to register for health care benefits.

Of course, it’s the Democrats in the Senate who struck down this particular provision, not Obama, but it fits in with the hypocrisy of Obama’s statement about illegal immigrants in his speech to a joint session of Congress about health care reform. You know, the one that made Joe Wilson famous for at least fifteen minutes when he objected by calling out, “You lie!.”

Now comes the news that:

Senate Finance Committee Democrats rejected a proposed a requirement that immigrants prove their identity with photo identification when signing up for federal healthcare programs…The bill, authored by committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), would require applicants to verify their names, places of birth and Social Security numbers. In addition, legal immigrants would have to wait five years, as under current law, after obtaining citizenship or legal residency to access federal healthcare benefits such as Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program or receive tax credits or purchase insurance through the exchange created by the legislation.

But the [bill] would not require them to show a photo ID, such as a drivers license. Without that requirement, the bill “remains dearly lacking when it comes to identification,” Grassley said. “Frankly, I’m very perplexed as to why anyone would oppose this amendment,” he said.

Senator Grassley, be perplexed no more. Many similarly reasonable requests for photo identification have been shot down by Democrats (this particular one went down along straight party lines) because they have no real interest in putting teeth into enforcement. They want to make it possible for the system to be gamed, because this appeals to many of their constituents.

And please, don’t sit on a hot stove waiting for Obama to veto this bill if it happens to get passed without a provision for photo-ID checking.

Reagan on oration

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s one of the many differences between Obama and Reagan, both considered effective orators. In Reagans’ farewell speech he said:

And in all of that time I won a nickname, “The Great Communicator.” But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn’t a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn’t spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation – from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in the principles that have guided us for two centuries.

That’s true humility, as opposed to fake.

A (female?) chicken in every pot

The New Neo Posted on by

[WARNING: the following post may put you a bit off your feed.]

On this thread I noticed a discussion in the comments section about chicken. Inquiring minds wanted to know whether we eat female birds only, or males and females equally (and by the way, “chicken” refers both to female birds and to the generic species as a whole).

Sorta-kinda-trusty old Wiki has the scoop, although the following may be more (much more) than you wanted to know:

In the United States, laying hens are butchered after their second egg laying season. In Europe, they are generally butchered after a single season. The laying period begins when the hen is about 18”“20 weeks old (depending on breed and season). Males of the egg-type breeds have little commercial value at any age, and all those not used for breeding (roughly fifty percent of all egg-type chickens) are killed soon after hatching. Such “day-old chicks” are sometimes sold as food for captive and falconers birds of prey. The old hens also have little commercial value. Thus, the main sources of poultry meat a hundred years ago (spring chickens and stewing hens) have both been entirely supplanted by meat-type broiler chickens.

And speaking of too much information: please don’t watch this video (I certainly didn’t)—but apparently it demonstrates how male chicks are killed not long after they hatch.

Ignoring the financial experts: where have you gone, Larry Summers?

The New Neo Posted on by

With all the news swirling around lately it seems that Obama’s approach to the financial crisis, a topic that was the main focus of the early months of his presidency, has gone on the back burner. But as his more Leftist financial proclivities have become more obvious, I’ve wondered how some of his more moderate financial advisors are doing.

What, for instance, is going on these days with Larry Summers? He’s hardly a man of the Right, I know, but neither is he a conventionally wild-eyed tax-and-spend liberal. Oh yes, I note that in his recent public appearances Summers is hewing to the party line, praising the Obama administration’s agenda and making excuses for its failures. But I’ve wondered whether Summers (and others of his ilk, such as Volcker) haven’t become essentially Hillarized (or perhaps McChrystaled) by the Obama administration.

Is Summers (and the others) being consulted by Obama, and if so how much? Is he really in agreement with what’s happening, or is he being a hypocrite when he defends it?

Short of being the proverbial fly on the wall when Summers and the others speak privately, there’s no way to tell. But this recent article in the NY Post by Charles Gasparino tackles the question.

Gasparino reports what is essentially gossip, so his piece must be read with a caveat about unnamed sources But if you take a look at Gasparino’s profile it seems he may indeed have access to quite a bit of knowledge, and informants in high places.

His piece describes Wall Street’s general disillusionment with President Obama. Before the election many movers and shakers thought Obama would be a moderate on the economy—although to do so they must have ignored those statements about spreading the wealth or bankrupting the coal industry and making utility rates skyrocket.

But hindsight is 50-50 and all that. Gasparino reports that these financial wizards have come to say (in private conversation, not in public) that they feel as though they’ve been had.

Not surprising, although their initial naivete is. The meat of the article—as far as I’m concerned—is the following allegation:

I’m told that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers have both complained to senior Wall Street execs that they have almost no say in major policy decisions. Obama economic counselor Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, is barely consulted at all on just about anything — not even issues involving the banking system, of which he is among the world’s leading authorities.

At most, the economic people and their staffs get asked to do cost analyses of Obama’s initiatives for the White House political people — who then ignore their advice…

As one CEO of a major financial firm told me: “The economic guys say that when they explain the costs of programs, the policy guys simply thank them for their time and then ignore what they say.”

In other words, the economic people feel that they have almost no say in this administration’s policy decisions.

Why does this not surprise me? I get the distinct impression that it’s Obama, Emmanuel, and Axelrod all the way, who don’t need no steenking experts.

Oh, and add Valerie Jarrett to that aforementioned threesome. Gasparino reports the following disclosure about Obama’s reliance on Jarrett from:

…a former Wall Street executive and longtime Democrat who anxiously recounted a recent conversation with Obama.

The executive said he told the president that he’s at a disadvantage because he’s relatively inexperienced in economic matters during a time of economic crisis. “That’s why I have Valerie,” came Obama’s reply.

“Valerie” is senior adviser Valerie Jarrett — a Chicago real-estate attorney and one of Obama’s closest friends, who has deep ties to the Windy City’s Democratic political machine.

Now you know why Wall Street is so nervous.

Not exactly reassuring, if true. Jarrett is an especially well-connected (in Chicago terms) lawyer and long-time friend and booster of Obama, but her financial background seems to be limited to having been head of a real estate company and Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Stock Exchange.

It is certainly in line with my own observations of Obama’s patterns of decision-making that she would be the person on whom he relies most for financial policy advice, rather than the more acknowledged experts in the field whom he has appointed to serve him. Her loyalty is not at issue; she has been devoted to the Obama cause for a long time.

Why might Obama have a tendency to ignore experts, even those he has appointed? Arrogance and hubris on his part would certainly be one explanation, and not a bad one at that. But another phenomenon may be in play, best summed up by this comment made by “Artfldgr” in the thread yesterday about Hillary Clinton [I’ve taken the liberty of making the punctuation, spelling, and capitalization more conventional for ease of reading]:

Expertise has no place in power. It is irrelevant and an opposing force. so no one under the despot can have expertise except for the lowest proles who have no other options and no way to leverage their expertise except in the service of the power above.

This is why these states fall apart”¦ at first. Power loves a servant, and an independent capable person is a power of opposition, not servant. So they move incompetents into place. The incompetents owe all they have, since they can’t do that well on their own. So their morals are easy to corrupt and they know whom they serve.

Makes sense to me. Listen only to those loyal to you, but appoint and retain the experts for window-dressing, and then ignore and marginalize them. Figure they’ll be likely to stay on board through moral cowardice and/or the persistence of the “if Stalin only knew” phenomenon—that is, their thought that if only, if only they could get the undivided attention of the leader and plead their case so that he could truly hear, they’d finally have the influence they so rightly deserve.