More Bush mansions

The New Neo Posted on by

Dean Esmay has kindly linked to my post about Bush “mansions,” privilege, (extreme or otherwise), and family political dynasties. In his link, he also kindly offered to post the photo of the other Bush “mansion” if I send it to him, since he is aware of my posto-photo-phobia.

Thanks, Dean! But I figure it’s time for me to try to end this damsel in distress thing, bite the bullet, and tackle the task.

So here, for your viewing pleasure, is the home (actually, it’s a townhouse with minimal yard area) in which GW and Laura lived when they began married life in Midland. My informant, once again, is Pancho of Midland, Texas.


Posted by Hello

Well, that wasn’t so very hard. Maybe I’ll try it more often.

The failed suicide bomber and the “kitchen accident”

The New Neo Posted on by

This is my question: was her “kitchen accident” an accident?

Suicide bombers are a bizarre and deeply upsetting phenomenon, even in their “ordinary” manifestations (although there is absolutely nothing ordinary about the suicide bombings).

But this latest suicide bomber–or attempted suicide bomber, because fortunately this woman succeeded in neither blowing herself up nor in destroying anyone else in the process–is in the realm of the exceptionally strange. She is in line with the latest trend in suicide bombing, which seems to run in the direction of commandeering the halt and the lame, the damaged and/or the mentally ill, to be pawns (willing? unwilling?) in the terrorists’ schemes.

It is hard to know the truth about this woman. This is the story as it has emerged so far: she had been engaged to be married, was burned in a kitchen accident, and treated in an Israeli hospital. Her fiance then rejected her, and she was caught in the act of returning to try to blow up those who had saved her, along with whatever other innocents might happen to be around at the time. There is dramatic video of the actual moments of her failure-to-detonate, and the reports are that she told contradictory accounts during her interrogation.

Perhaps with time this story will be sorted out; perhaps not. Perhaps it even will be forgotten rather quickly, as so many are–after all, no one was killed, or even hurt. I don’t know whether we’ll ever find out the truth. But I am especially suspicious of some of the details of this story.

The following is just a theory, and may be very farfetched. It’s based on nothing but a hunch, and a tentative one at that. But the thought that occurred to me when I first read that the would-be suicide bomber, Wafa al-Biss, had suffered severe burns in a kitchen accident five months ago was whether this had indeed been an accident at all.

The “kitchen accident” is a commonplace occurrence, and no accident, among women in the third world, particularly in Afghanistan and in India. Sometimes it represents a suicide attempt (more likely in Afghanistan), while sometimes it is homicide with a financial motive involving dowries (the situation in India). Here’s an article to read on the Afghan situation, and here’s another on what tends to happen in India.

I don’t think it’s a common phenomenon among the Palestinians, however, or in the Arab world in general (although, apparently, as you will find if you Google “dowries Arab,” the dowry does seem to exist in Arab countries). But it’s the so-called “honor killing” that is prevalent in the Arab world, although I’m not sure whether “cooking accident” is ever the method of choice.

Something about this particular case makes me wonder. Is someone trying to murder this woman–first directly, in the “accident,” and later indirectly, by forcing her to become a suicide bomber? Or was her “kitchen accident” really a botched suicide, and this checkpoint event a ghastly attempt of hers to finish the job and become a martyr to boot?

In the photos, this woman seems hysterical. In the interrogation, likewise. Is this a case of the sickness of Palestinian society, with its glorification of the grisly suicide bomber, giving an already-suicidal woman an opportunity to make her death “mean something” by murdering others? Or is it something even more macabre, if such a thing be possible, a double attempt to murder her, and get a “twofer” by making her a suicide bomber?

Or perhaps she’s just the “ordinary” suicide bomber, after all.

Karl Rove: all he needs is an editor and some qualifiers

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s simple–Karl Rove just needs an editor.

Democrats and liberals are in an uproar about some statements Rove made Wednesday at a Manhattan fund-raiser. In case you were on planet Xenon and missed them, here they are:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, “We will defeat our enemies.” Liberals saw what happened to us and said, “We must understand our enemies.”

Well, it’s not quite up there with comparing the US military guards at Guantanamo to Nazis. But I may finally be able to prove my former-liberal bona fides (and to anger some on the right) by saying that I can understand at least some of the Democrats’ upset.

First let me say that a great deal of this Democratic outrage, particularly among politicians, was no doubt self-serving strategic, histrionic tit-for-tat for the flak Rebublicans made over Durbin’s recent remarks. Even the NY Times article indicates as much:

On Thursday, Democrats seized on Mr. Rove’s comments, clearly hoping to put Republicans on the defensive by issuing harsh criticisms throughout the day in press releases, at a hastily arranged news conferences in the Capitol and in remarks delivered on the Senate floor.

But some of the Democrat anger at Rove’s remarks was probably genuine, especially among rank and file. What was the problem? The statement was a sweeping generalization that offended many liberals who had in fact been angered by 9/11 when it happened, were harmed and scarred by it (think of all those liberals in New York, for example), and who disagree with Bush because they don’t think his approach is the best way to fight terrorism, and not because they are interested in “understanding” the attackers. Such liberals do indeed exist, although how numerous they are I have no way of knowing.

So I hereby humbly offer myself as Rove’s new speechwriter, or at least his editor. Here is my revision of his words, complete with qualifiers that make it a simple truth, albeit a somewhat less hard-hitting statement:

Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11and the attacks and prepared for war; some liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers. Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, “We will defeat our enemies.” Some liberals saw what happened to us and said, “We must understand our enemies.”

The word “some” can work wonders. Even the word “many” would have helped.

Or, substitute the word “leftists” for “liberals,” and make the qualifier “most.” Then it would all be fine. Or somewhat fine. Perhaps.

Non-news of the day

The New Neo Posted on by

Non-news of the day: the majority of Americans oppose reinstating the draft, by a margin of about 2.5 to 1. Surprise, surprise!

The AP article also reports that “over half” of Americans would discourage a son from joining the military right now, and two-thirds would discourage a daughter. The poll results are tied in to evidence that the war in Iraq is losing support in this country, and the failure to meet military recruiting goals.

That is certainly no surprise, either. As the war wears on, particularly as it is portrayed in the press with the emphasis on the negative, how could it be otherwise? Even if the media were more positive about the Iraq war, I would imagine that most parents wouldn’t be eager to have their children race over there. The most important data, though, is missing from the article, and that is: how does this compare to previous years? How many people ordinarily say they would encourage sons/daughters to enlist?

I haven’t a clue, and we’re not given one from the AP article, despite the spin that ties these results into dissatisfaction with the war. I would love to actually have a sentence or two comparing results of this poll to previous ones, which wouldn’t seem to be too much to ask, and would give the reader the chance to judge for him/herself.

Also, it would be nice to have the actual figure as to how many would discourage a son from joining up, rather than the general “over half.” That covers a pretty wide range: from 51% all the way to 100%. Somehow, methinks it’s closer to the former than the latter. But again, it would be helpful to know.

ADDENDUM: Finally found a story that answers the latter question, in Newsday. The answer: 55% would discourage a son from enlisting now. Not so very high, considering. The more surprising figure is that 32% would encourage a son to enlist at the present time.

But now I’d like some more information: what percentage of each category actually have sons of about the right age to enlist? That would be an interesting statistic; perhaps there would be differences, perhaps not. And perhaps some of us could do a better job at designing these poll questions.

By the way, I’m not being critical of anyone here–except, of course, the pollsters and the AP. One can indeed support a war without being eager to have one’s child fight it, just as one can support a police and fire department, or search and rescue team, without wanting to encourage one’s child to join up. I wouldn’t expect most parents to be active in pushing a child into the line of fire, like those Spartan mothers who told their sons to come back with their shields or on them. What’s far more important is whether a person supports a child who does decide to join up.

(Link to Mudville Gazette open post.)

Political genetics? Zell has the final word

The New Neo Posted on by

On June 21, the NY Times published this article headlined, “Some politics may be etched in the genes.”

Wow, I thought. What are neocons, genetic mosaics?

However, it turns out the research was more about concepts that influence politics than about political affiliation itself. Here’s an excerpt:

…on the basis of a new study, a team of political scientists is arguing that people’s gut-level reaction to issues like the death penalty, taxes and abortion is strongly influenced by genetic inheritance…

From an extensive battery of surveys on personality traits, religious beliefs and other psychological factors, the researchers selected 28 questions most relevant to political behavior. The questions asked people “to please indicate whether or not you agree with each topic,” or are uncertain on issues like property taxes, capitalism, unions and X-rated movies…

The researchers then compared dizygotic or fraternal twins, who, like any biological siblings, share 50 percent of their genes, with monozygotic, or identical, twins, who share 100 percent of their genes.

Calculating how often identical twins agree on an issue and subtracting the rate at which fraternal twins agree on the same item provides a rough measure of genes’ influence on that attitude. A shared family environment for twins reared together is assumed…

On school prayer, for example, the identical twins’ opinions correlated at a rate of 0.66, a measure of how often they agreed. The correlation rate for fraternal twins was 0.46. This translated into a 41 percent contribution from inheritance…

But after correcting for the tendency of politically like-minded men and women to marry each other, the researchers also found that the twins’ self-identification as Republican or Democrat was far more dependent on environmental factors like upbringing and life experience than was their social orientation, which the researchers call ideology. Inheritance accounted for 14 percent of the difference in party, the researchers found.

Here’s the part that starts being relevant to what’s going on with neocons (perhaps):

A mismatch between an inherited social orientation and a given party may also explain why some people defect from a party. Many people who are genetically conservative may be brought up as Democrats, and some who are genetically more progressive may be raised as Republicans, the researchers say.

In tracking attitudes over the years, geneticists have found that social attitudes tend to stabilize in the late teens and early 20’s, when young people begin to fend for themselves.

Some “mismatched” people remain loyal to their family’s political party. But circumstances can override inherited bent. The draft may look like a good idea until your number is up. The death penalty may seem barbaric until a loved one is murdered.

That’s quite simplistic, but it’s a version of the old “mugged by reality” line about neocons (one I’ve been guilty of using, although in retrospect I think it’s glibly misleading, as further segments of my “change” series should wind up demonstrating. The true situation is far more complex.)

But here’s my very favorite part. I’m with Zell Miller on this one, although I wish I could say it as well as he does:

Other people whose social orientations are out of line with their given parties may feel a discomfort that can turn them into opponents of their former party, Dr. Alford said.

“Zell Miller would be a good example of this,” Dr. Alford said, referring to the former Democratic governor and senator from Georgia who gave an impassioned speech at the Republican National Convention last year against the Democrats’ nominee, John Kerry.

Support for Democrats among white men has been eroding for years in the South, Dr. Alford said, and Mr. Miller is remarkable for remaining nominally a Democrat despite his divergence from the party line on many issues.

Reached by telephone, Mr. Miller said he did not see it quite that way. He said that his views had not changed much since his days as a marine, but that the Democratic Party had moved.

“And I’m not talking about inch by inch, like a glacier,” said Mr. Miller, who makes the case in a new book, “A Deficit of Decency.” “I’m saying the thing got up and flew away.”

My sentiments exactly. The blasted thing just got up and flew away.

Cold feet about the eyes

The New Neo Posted on by

For those of you who read this post a while back, you might be wondering how my laser eye surgery went.

Well, I postponed it. I got a second opinion, and was advised there is no rush at all with this. The actual words were, “If you were my wife, I’d tell you to wait.” So I decided to take my time.

Of course, I didn’t think to ask him what kind of relationship he has with his wife.

A Bush’s home is his castle: political family dynasties and dynamics

The New Neo Posted on by

Hold the presses, I got a scoop from Pancho, who happens to hail from Midland, Texas, the home town of one George W. Bush. (Okay, maybe it’s not exactly a scoop, since all this information is in the public domain–but it was news to me.)

After reading the recent discussion here of GW’s life of “most extreme privilege,” Pancho kindly e-mailed me a couple of photos, along with an explanation of what they represent.

Take a look:


Bush Mansion Posted by Hello

According to my expert informant:

This is the Bush home on Ohio St in Midland that George “Dubya” grew up in. Actually it was the second home that the Bush family lived in, here in Midland. The first being even smaller and less palatial than this. This one, I suppose is at best 1200 s.f.

In another letter, Pancho mentions that, when George first returned to Midland after going East to school, he lived for a while in a garage studio apartment (which I assume is a garage converted to a one-room apartment). When he and Laura were first married they lived in a small townhouse. Pancho kindly sent me that photo, also, and it isn’t much, believe me (townhouse, not photo). I could use a tutorial on posting photos to my blog, however. Posting that first one took so much out of me, and was so headache-provoking, that I’m swearing off picture-posting for a while. So you’ll just have to imagine the fairly modest establishment in which the newlyweds resided.

Now I don’t for a moment think that this means George W. Bush hasn’t had a life of privilege. His grandfather was a wealthy banker and Senator, his father was in the oil business and then rose in the Republican Party to finally become President. If you Google words like “Bush family wealth privilege,” you will be led to a plethora of websites that describe the Bush family as its own little (or big) evil empire, a secret world power broker right up there with the Elders of the Protocols.

But even those writers who demonize the entire family tend to agree that, although wealthy and influential, the Bushes never possessed great and towering wealth like the Kennedys or Rockefellers. And certainly these photographs bear that out.

Clearly, the Bushes never had to worry about starving; there was definitely a family safety net of major proportions. But, as this article, written as part of the introduction to an admittedly sympathetic Bush family portrait, points out:

Prescott Bush [W’s Senator grandfather] was also proud of the fact that the Bush boys, unlike the Kennedys, were expected to go out and earn a living in the marketplace. Work was the great democratizer, an experience unfamiliar to the Kennedys.

Yes indeed, it is easier to earn your way when you know you’ll be bailed out if you fail. Not to mention how the fact of having deep and broad family connections among the powerful, and having the old-boy Yale/Harvard Business School network on which to draw, can help smooth the way.

But I don’t quite see this process as the essence of evil. I do believe it is one of the things that those who hate Bush are angry at him about (although I wonder how many of them would have failed to use such connections if they’d had access to them–or even how many of them do use such means to further their own careers).

Here’s a relevant quote from the same article (well worth reading in its entirety, by the way, particularly for some interesting family dynamics, although I’m sure many will see the article as a Bush puff piece):

The Bush hostility to the very notion of dynasty runs deep because it runs contrary to the myth that they are self-made. Although they are certainly more self-made than the Kennedys and have a strong drive to prove their worth, family members don’t think twice about going to family and friends in their climb to the top.

And the following seems to me to be a particularly telling passage. The contrast to the Kennedy clan is marked; although both families are wealthy political dynasties, the similarity stops there. The following depiction of the Bush family rings true with the photos of their Midland home and the descriptions of the other Bush residences there:

The young charges in the Bush clan are never told or pushed to run for office. George W. Bush is fundamentally, at his core, a rebel. His life before politics was guided in part by a deep vein of rebellion against his father and the expectations that he believed were weighing on him. Even during his rise to power, he often made decisions that his parents disagreed with. It is not too much to say that had George W. Bush followed the guidance of his parents, he might never have appeared on the national political stage. Once in the White House, he has continued in a manner to buck the family tradition. In a top-down dynasty, this political success would have been doubtful.

The Bushes are also unique in that, for this family, success needs to happen far from home in order to be seen as success. Fiercely and loudly competitive in sports, the family is also quietly competitive in the realm of business and career. Striking out on your own in a new land garners greater respect than staying close to home and inheriting the old man’s business. It is this impulse to establish themselves as self-made men that has led the last four generations of Bushes to stay clear of their father’s home and actively seek out opportunities elsewhere. Pres Bush left Ohio for Connecticut; George H. W. Bush left Connecticut for Texas; George W. and Jeb Bush stayed clear of Washington, D.C., where their father effectively lived from 1970 on.

This sense of individual accomplishments is motivated in part by the simple fact that the Bushes lack the fabulous wealth of dynasties such as the Du Ponts and Kennedys. Were future generations of Bushes to stay at home and try to live off the family wealth, it would dissipate rather quickly. While the Bushes have over the course of the past century run in the social circles of the super-rich, their own wealth has been comparatively limited. Criticism that they are “out of touch” and living in an insular world simply does not ring true; their level of wealth doesn’t make such insulation possible.

It also should be noted that GW’s father’s personal political power and influence (as opposed to family power and influence) did not begin until GW was grown. If you do the math, Bush the elder’s first term in Congress began in 1966, when Dubya was twenty years old. Until then, GHW Bush had been a businessman, primarily in oil, as far as I can determine. His two terms in the House began in 1966, and were followed by an unsuccessful Senate run, and then a series of political appointments from Republican presidents: UN ambassador, head of Republican National Committee, head of CIA, and finally Vice President (and then, on his own, election as President). But all of this was not part of GW’s growing up years, although the family influence, money, and ethos were.

So it seems that these rather modest homes were part of a family tradition of going it on one’s own for a while, knowing that the connections and the back-up system were always available. Sounds fairly reasonable to me for a successful family, and not all that terribly unusual or extreme for the upper echelon of movers and shakers in this country. GW’s early history of business failures and bailouts from his family are very much in this tradition, but so are his rather modest early homes.

Whether this constitutes “extreme privilege” is in the eye of the beholder. I’d eliminate the “extreme” part myself; others will differ on that. But I have very little doubt that at least some of the hatred of Bush comes from simple raw envy.

ADDENDUM: I finally managed to post the other photo here.

Terra infirma in California

The New Neo Posted on by

I lived in Los Angeles for a year in the 70s, and I still have a bunch of friends and relatives there that I visit there periodically. So when I read in the NY Times about the recent spate of small quakes there, I feel a bit of reminiscent fear and trembling myself.

There’s quite a lot of that going around in California. Can you blame them? If you’ve ever been in an earthquake (and I’ve been in several, fortunately relatively minor, although a couple of them didn’t feel that way at the time), you may understand the feeling. People are jittery and want to know what’s going to happen next.

Scientists don’t lack for opinions about what’s going on, but it’s hard (actually, impossible) to know who’s right:

Like those who visit the doctor when a familiar ailment acts up, Californians pained by earthquakes turned to seismologists on Friday for answers and a little comfort…But just as medicine can produce differing opinions, seismology is not always as precise as some might hope…Steve Walter, a seismologist, and Rufus Catchings, a research geophysicist, looked at data on one of this week’s earthquakes, a 4.9-magnitude temblor on Thursday in Yucaipa, and reached opposite conclusions about what it might mean for the San Andreas fault, the most notorious and dreaded in the state.

Mr. Walter said it was a good sign that the Yucaipa quake appeared to have struck closer to another fault, the Banning, because it indicated that the San Andreas, which has been more or less locked in place since the middle of the 19th century, remained inactive. “That’s good,” Mr. Walter said. “It’s not going to unlock gently.”

But Dr. Catchings shook his head with concern as he examined a map of fault lines, suggesting that it would have been better if the Yucaipa quake had struck closer to the San Andreas and allowed it to release some stress.

“That means stress is still building, building, building and building,” Dr. Catchings said. “And it’s overdue for a really big one.”….

Well, that’s what happens when you get a second opinion; it doesn’t always agree with the first. But there is agreement on one point:

The four quakes since Sunday, two off the northern coast and two in the southern desert, caused minor damage and no deaths. Scientists generally concurred that there was no relationship between those in the north and those in the south, which was one of the biggest worries.

As with so many things, people’s reactions depend partly on what they’re used to. Some seem blase:

Having lived in Los Angeles for more than four decades, Joe Malkin said he considered earthquakes as much a part of life as breathing. He felt the Yucaipa temblor on Thursday afternoon, but only for a couple of seconds.

“I couldn’t understand what all the hullabaloo was about,” said Mr. Malkin, 83, a retired computer programmer.

But those for whom a shaking earth is very much a novelty have a very different attitude:

Steve and Laura Dayan were visiting Santa Barbara this week from Chappaqua, N.Y., with their sons, Ari, 7, and Ian, 4. The family was watching a baseball game on television in a waterfront hotel when the tsunami warning flashed on the screen Tuesday night. “My mom was going berserk,” Ari said. “She kept saying, ‘We’ve got to get out of here!’ “

Nothing like a berserk mom. I went through a period when my son was very small when, several years in a row, we experienced a noticeable earthquake within twelve hours of our arrival in LA. The first time it happened, he was sleeping on a pullout couch in his grandparents’ house. There were shelves all around the room above the bed, laden with heavy books and even a life-sized plaster head of some sort, as well as a very large wall clock. When the quake began, at least half of these items tumbled down onto the bed, very fortunately missing my son’s tiny two-year old frame. Carefully hiding my considerable berserkness, I took every one of the remaining objects off those shelves, immediately.

The next year, we had arrived late the night before and he was in a small bed in the same room in which I was sleeping. The temblor hit at about 5 AM. I sprang out of bed and a sharp jolt threw me off balance, almost to the floor, so that I couldn’t seem to cross the room to get to my son. I still remember seeing his startled face, so near and yet so impossibly far, and the wordless, animal fear I felt as the quake went on and on, seeming to stop and then start again, even more violently, about twenty seconds of motion before it stopped for good.

Twenty seconds doesn’t sound like much, but it can be an exceptionally long time when you are across the room from your three-year-old son in an earthquake. It’s an overwhelming feeling of shock (they don’t call them “aftershocks” for nothing) and powerlessness. And, even though I knew that my visits had nothing to do with the forces by which eathquakes come to happen, the timing of it all very much spooked me.

(ADDENDUM: By the way, the ever-helpful Spellcheck wanted desperately for me to replace the word “Yucaipa” with the word “yeshiva.”)

On Bush-hatred and its causes

The New Neo Posted on by

I recently received an e-mail expressing some thoughts about Bush that seem fairly representative of those who detest the man, and offering up a theory as to why:

Isn’t his shallow narcissism obvious every time he opens his mouth? After all, this is a guy who has always lived in a bubble of the most extreme privilege…I don’t think he’s ever doubted his right to privileged status, and I think there’s something pathological in that. I think this is why so many people hate him so.

Here is an edited and shortened version of my reply:

I’d rather have a President with what you describe as Bush’s “shallow narcissism” than Kerry’s extraordinarily deep narcissism any day. Just about all politicians are narcissists, as far as I can see—doesn’t it take narcissism to do what they do? Bush is a narcissist on that typical level, in my opinion—he just conceals it less well than most.

I think that many people hate Bush for stylistic reasons. The way he talks, the way he smirks, the frat-boy persona—he represents the kind of person they simply detested in high school and college (particularly if they were the intellectual or literary sort). They distrust and dislike him in a very visceral way.

I am old enough to remember the reaction among Democrats to Lyndon Johnson after Kennedy’s assassination. They detested him—his good ol’ boy accent, his picking up his dog by the ears, his showing off his surgical scars—man, they just hated him; he had no class. Kennedy was the absolute personification of smoothness and class, so witty and bright and charming, and that New England accent!

But, in the end, that’s all surface stuff. Was Kennedy’s actual record as President much better—or really all that much different—than Johnson’s? Of course, we can’t know whether Kennedy would have done any better with the Vietnam war than Johnson did, but from books such as The Best and the Brightest, I think the answer is at least “probably not.” Perhaps, though, he may have ultimately done better because he would have had a more friendly press.

FDR and Kennedy were also children of great privilege—as great, or greater, than Bush. But they had that Eastern style, and great personal magnetism, that he lacks. And, of course, many people hated them–but not the press, and not academics.

But at this point, I couldn’t care less what sort of style a President has. What I care about are his policies. It’s easy to find fault with Bush’s policies—and yes, the war is far from perfect; it’s all far from perfect. But I’m not interested in holding anyone up to some unrealistic ideal. Most of the arguments I’ve read on the left about what should have been done range from the pipedream (the UN, internationalism) to the extreme pipedream (the Iraqis should have risen up against Saddam themselves) to the ridiculous pipedream (everything should have been planned perfectly, as no doubt it would have been had they been in charge).

It’s easy to say, ex post facto, that it would have been better to have done…(fill in the blank). But that can be said of any enterprise. The hard part is to have the courage to do it in the first place, to make the inevitable mistakes, and to try to correct them as the events unfold in real time. I actually think the Bush administration has done that rather well, and I see no evidence that the opposition could have done anywhere near as well. Au contraire.