Whatever Caroline wants, Caroline gets?

The New Neo Posted on by

It came as a surprise to me to hear that Caroline Kennedy is pushing to be appointed as the replacement for New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

I had always been under the impression that Caroline was a quiet and retiring sort, eschewing the public limelight for the more private joys of literature and the arts, philanthropy, and above all family. She was also a person who had learned only too well the perils of political fame. She seemed to step into an official role only reluctantly and intermittently, although with her lineage she could easily have run for office long ago.

Welcome to the new Caroline. Except for her name and her law degree, she appears to lack any particular qualifications for the job, although it must be said that she is a bona fide New Yorker, unlike her late-arrival predecessor Hillary or earlier relative and NY Senator Bobby Kennedy.

Does her lack of experience matter? As Roland Martin points out, Hillary had similarly meager qualifications when she first sought the same office. What Martin fails to mention is that Hillary ran for Senator in an election. It was up to the people to decide if her experience was suitable. An appointment is different, however. That decision is up to one person, not the electorate.

In New York, the situation is compounded by the fact that Governor Paterson himself, the man doing the appointing, only came to be governor because of the wrongdoings of his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer. Paterson, however, already had a long history of elective office in the state, even before being elected Lieutenant Governor and then succeeding Spitzer to the governorship.

There is a certain hubris to the Caroline Kennedy request, an idea that she somehow should not have to pay her political dues at all. Is there a precedent for this? If one looks at previous recent appointees to the Senate—which are quite numerous, by the way—there are at least a few.

If you look at the chart at the link, you will see that most appointees to the Senate have the expected and customary political chops. The list is replete with members of Congress, state legislators, mayors, and the like. But interspersed are several spouses (or other family members) of deceased Senators, and most of these appointees had never held elective office before (Jean Carnahan is a well-known and recent example; Muriel Humphrey is an earlier one I had forgotten).

This seems to be the closest precedent to the Caroline Kennedy caper. Of course, Caroline is not the spouse of Hillary Clinton, nor is Hillary deceased. So the analogy is a very poor one. But the similarity is that Caroline is part of one of the largest and strongest political dynasties in the United States, in which the most influential present member—Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts—does indeed appear to be dying. Thus, her desire to be Senator may reflect more of an intent to replace him than to replace Hillary, and if so her appointment would fit roughly in the traditional mold.

Does this make it a good idea? I actually think Caroline would be up to the task. She’s a smart woman, and I would guess that she is politically astute, based on what she’s observed in her life. But the whole idea of governors appointing Senators sticks in my craw (and that was even before the Blogajevich fiasco), and the appointment of Caroline would be an enormous stretch—almost to the breaking point of what’s reasonable. I’m not a New Yorker anymore, but if I were I would welcome a special election, especially for an office as important as Senator.

Will Caroline be appointed? Sounds as though she’s the current front-runner. It also sounds as though she got the politics bug recently, now that her kids are grown or almost-grown.

And speaking of kids, this is the way I remember her:

jfkcaroline.jpg

Let there be lights

The New Neo Posted on by

My power came on yesterday afternoon. By the time I got back home, it was toasty warm and everything was working again. It was like watching something that had been dead come back to glowing life.

I need to chase away the memory of the transformation of my warm, cozy place into a cold and offputting darkness. And so I find that, at least for now, my usual frugality about having too many lights on has been jettisoned in favor of lights, lights and more lights. I love having them on, especially in the evening. And the pleasure of the hot shower is immense. Not to mention being able to microwave a cup of tea.

I cranked the heat way up for a while at the beginning and basked in the unaccustomed pleasure. I don’t want to be cold, not even for a moment, not even a little bit. I’m sure this will pass and I’ll go back to the usual, but for now it seems to be the best way to undo the last four days of cold and wandering.

Obama’s slowness to pass judgment

The New Neo Posted on by

Steve Chapman calls Obama’s 48-hour delay in strongly denouncing Blogajevich a “my pet goat moment.”

Wrong analogy. Bush’s “moment” lasted only a few minutes. He was awaiting further word from aides after getting incredibly shocking news while in front of a group of schoolchildren. What’s Obama’s excuse?

In this case, the person I am reminded of most is not Bush but rather Mike Dukakis, Democratic Presidential candidate in 1988. It is widely thought that his bloodless answer to the far less important (and hypothetical) question about what his response would be if his wife had been raped turned the election tide against him. People perceived him as too wonky to be truly human—or to be President.

As for Obama, his slow response time seems to be a pattern. His delays in condemning the offenses of former friends or associates (Blogajevich, who was endorsed by Obama, would have to qualify as at least the latter) has been noticeable. One might even call it a character trait: when in doubt, Obama reserves judgment and speaks cautiously and generally. His stronger words come only after the evidence is overwhelming, usually long past the point where most people would have spoken out.

Obama has been described as emotionally cool and cerebral. Despite his soaring rhetoric, there is something excessively calculated and controlled about him. In crises so far, much of the time he simply mouths generalities and does nothing. Sometimes this works out in his favor, such as during the beginning of the financial crisis prior to the election, when the contrast with John McCain’s emotionality—and frenetic, although largely unproductive, energy—could not have been more stark.

It’s not that Obama did or said anything that was especially intelligent or helpful (and some of what he said was decidedly unhelpful, IMHO). But many people liked the way he said it, and his calm demeanor that indicated he could not be easily rattled.

I agree that composure under fire is a good trait for a President to have. But Obama’s foot-dragging slowness in denouncing the Reverend Wrights and Blogajevichs of this world, even when the evidence of wrongdoing is clear, is not. It bespeaks a cloudy moral code and a difficulty in making judgments and decisions. These are most assuredly not good traits for a President to have.

The frustration of the long-distance rower

The New Neo Posted on by

This story was frustrating to even read about.

Italian Alex Bellini set out to row across the Pacific from Peru to Australia. To contemplate the execution of this sort of feat is beyond the comprehension of most people—certainly beyond mine—and to achieve it requires a force of will and an ability to endure that is extraordinary. Actually, I think it can sometimes border on the pathologically obsessional. A person has to be able to judge when enough is enough.

Bellini apparently made that judgment. He rowed almost the entire distance of 9,500 nautical miles for ten months before giving up. Yes, he gave up—within sixty-five nautical miles of his goal.

Nowadays, even solo adventurers such as Bellini are in some sort of contact with the outside world, and he “contacted his wife Friday to say he was too exhausted to row his 25-foot (7.5 meter) boat any further, despite being nearly in sight of the eastern Australian town of Laurieton.”

It’s that “nearly in sight” part that made me gnash my teeth. I can only imagine how wiped out Bellini must have been to have abandoned his goal when he was so close to achieving it. I would dearly love to have been able to listen in on that conversation with his wife, though.

The night without artificial light

The New Neo Posted on by

The ice storm that hit most of New England and some of New York last week is long gone. In most places, the shimmering coat that covered everything for a day has melted, and the downed branches and power lines have been cleared.

But that doesn’t mean the power is on. In most states, there are still whole towns without power. In most towns, there are still pockets of people without power.

Well, lucky me. I’m one of those still without power. As I write this, I’m sitting in the warm dining room of a good friend who has kindly consented to let me visit every day for as long as I want. I eat, recharge my batteries (literally), take a shower, and just generally get comfortable.

I’ve learned that the most important thing to have in a power outage of any duration is a good and generous friend. The second is patience (wearing thin, I must say). The third is an appreciation of the strange beauty of it all.

Beauty? Yes. At night, driving through the part of town that was (and still is) without street lights or traffic lights, I feel transported back to another time and place—except, of course, for the fact that I’m driving a car. The moon has been full and luminous, and it’s the only light there is in that area of town. The dark seems darker than usual, and the moon brighter in contrast, much more of a presence.

In the day, during the hours the sun is out, it seems a wonderful thing to have natural light and not have to function with candles and flashlights when inside. But at night, when I’m in my place and padding about in my down jacket, I notice how beautiful candlelight is but how little it actually illuminates. Just the bit in its immediate proximity—so very different from the uniform brightness of electric lights, which must have seemed a miracle when they were first invented. They seem like a miracle again to me right about now.

Mind change on climate change?

The New Neo Posted on by

This is interesting.

And here’s something related. It’s from a year ago, when a number of previously convinced scientists were having doubts about the proof that global warming is generated by human activity. That number seems to have increased since—and in my opinion a scientist who once believed and now does not is of even more significance that one who was always a doubter.

One recanter, Dr. David Evans of Australia, said:

“As Lord Keynes famously said, ”˜When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’”

This is right up my alley, being a specialist of sorts in what it takes to change a person’s mind in the face of a strongly entrenched belief system. Answer: a great many facts, forming a pattern strong enough to mount a powerful challenge. And even then, only some minds will change.

More fascinating stuff from Dr. Evans:

Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote.

This is another example of how difficult it is, and how much courage it takes, to dissent or even to withhold final judgment on this highly politicized scientific issue. As a layperson, I have followed the arguments for quite some time now, and I believe the jury is still out.

[NOTE: See this and this for previous discussions.]

Snowflakes: no two alike?

The New Neo Posted on by

Want to photograph snowflakes? The approach of winter makes it seem an attractive proposition.

If so—and if you can follow these incredibly complex instructions—no doubt you’ll be rewarded with some wonderful photos. And if you can, no doubt you are also a more painstaking and patient person than I am, because I balked at even reading the directions (and speaking of painstaking and patient, consider the life of the father of snowflake photography, Vermont’s Wilson Bentley).

That doesn’t mean I don’t think about snowflakes from time to time. I remember one extraordinary night when I was in graduate school. I emerged from a February evening class and encountered a rare snowfall in which each flake was seperate and dry, its regular crystal form clearly evident to the naked eye. It was as though nearly-weightless white diamonds had somehow fallen from the sky and were there for the taking. They stood outlined for a moment on our coats and hats and hair and gloves, but disappeared at the touch of a warm human hand.

To form that sort of snow it can’t be overly wet. But it must be very very cold. Where are these conditions best met? Sometimes here in New England, but this snowflake seeker says they’re more likely to be encountered in the midwest, around large lakes. Also Antarctica, but that’s a bit more difficult to visit:

The pole is very cold, very dry, and at high altitude, and snow crystals found there tend to be small, nearly perfect, hexagonal prisms. The very low temperatures produces sharp crystal facets (no chance of melting), while the very slow growth tends to produce small solid prisms.

It turns out that memorable snowfall I saw long ago was most likely composed of stellar dendrites and ferned stellar dendrites, as especially magical storms often are. “Storm” might be the wrong word, though; to make the most perfect flakes, a calm snowfall is best. I recall that on that night there was hardly any wind at all:

stellardendrites2.jpg

fernlikestellardendrite.jpg

And this is what the aggregate looked like:

dendritesnowfall.jpg

So, are no two snowflakes alike? I heard that in my youth, and wondered how it could ever be proven. Wouldn’t a person have to study them all, and wasn’t that impossible? The answer, unsurprisingly, is that it depends on what your definition of “alike” is. We can safely say, however, that at least for complex snowflakes, there have never been two alike in the history of the world.

Here’s one of them, though. It’s a movie of a snowflake growing under lab conditions. I am so stunned that I managed to figure out a way to get this onto my blog that I can’t muster any more tech savvy to figure out how to shrink it down to the proper size.

dendrite

    Valerie and Cecilia and…

    The New Neo Posted on by

    Ah, those bad girls, Valerie and Cecilia. They remind me a bit of each other.

    First we have Valerie:

    Now Cecilia (I looked for a live version, but the few on You Tube were really bad, so I settled for this):

    And then there’s Layla. Now Layla, she ain’t so bad (be patient; it takes close to a minute to really start):

    Since the last two songs feature girls names that end in “a,” the next one that happened to come to mind was “Lalena” by Donovan.

    Donovan. There’s a name I hadn’t really thought about in decades. The quintessential hippie, he seemed dated and mired in the 60s, full of flower power and vibrato, bells and beads.

    So imagine my surprise to find an oldish video of him (1983) at You Tube. And imagine my surprise to find on watching it that I thought he acquitted himself—and sadder-but-hardly-wiser Lalena, and that extraordinary quaver in his voice (how ever does he do it?)—very nicely indeed:

    Gun control and Mumbai

    The New Neo Posted on by

    Remember the discussion (here and here) about the ineffective cops who confronted the very effective terrorists in Mumbai?

    Not only were the terrorists probably well aware of the lack of training and poor equipment of the Mumbai forces. It seems likely that they also counted on the fact that India has a poorly-armed populace.

    This piece in American Thinker by Abhijeet Singh describes gun ownership in India. It is edifying to learn that, although even Gandhi was in favor of having a clause in the constitution of the new state that would protect the right of the ordinary citizen to bear arms, when independence was granted in 1947 such a passage was absent.

    The resultant laws controlling gun ownership in India, as well as the economics involved, have discouraged most of its law-abiding residents from owning firearms:

    …[T]he Indian government has…used state policy to ensure that firearms and ammunition prices are probably some of the highest in the world. Domestic production of rifled firearms is a state monopoly, churning out crude products that are priced at 7 (or more) times their cost of production. Similarly domestic production of ammunition is a state monopoly with inconsistent supplies, poor quality, and very high prices. This combined with the fact that imports have been virtually banned since 1986 means that an ordinary snub nosed .357 Colt revolver will sell (legally) for a mind boggling US $20,000 or more.

    A tight licensing regime combined with the high price of acquiring a legal gun has meant that very few Indians own weapons. Unsurprisingly these restrictions have also meant that there is a thriving black market for arms and ammunition, ensuring a steady supply to all manner of criminals…

    The result of Indian gun ownership policy is exactly the opposite of what one would hope. It keeps guns out of the reach of the law-abiding citizen and makes acquiring one a simple thing for criminals.

    Here’s another scene from Mumbai,an excellent illustration of the old saying “don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.” Only in this case, substitute “stone” for “knife”:

    At the Jewish outreach centre, bystanders pelted the terrorists with stones in a vain attempt to ward off the attack, but had to retreat when the terrorists opened fire with automatic rifles.

    Now it’s true that stones can be lethal, especially when hurled by a sizable crowd in sizable numbers. But the process takes time, and time is what a crowd facing terrorists armed with automatic weapons lacks.

    Mumbai, unfortunately, is a microcosm of the problems to which bad gun laws inevitably lead. It’s a bit like the line from Yeats’ “The Second Coming:”

    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity.

    Gun laws such as those in India ensure that “the best” will lack the weapons to defeat the “passionate intensity”—backed by firepower—of “the worst.”

    [NOTE: There is research indicating that violent crime declines in states with concealed carry laws. But the evidence, and the researcher involved (John Lott), are so controversial that I refer you to this webpage if you want to immerse yourself in the pros and cons.]

    Mother nature, frosty in tooth and claw

    The New Neo Posted on by

    Posting will be delayed today due to widespread ice-generated power outages all over New England, including my home. It’s spotty though—I’m at a nearby friend’s house right now, and it’s a little oasis of power. I probably will do some sort of posting later today, so stay tuned.