A big “thank you”…

The New Neo Posted on by

…to all of those who wrote so many kind words in yesterday’s thread about comments and the blog. And to all who might be new here or returning: Welcome!

Commenter “dnaxy” wrote:

I would never start such a commitment. Too much work. My brain keeps switching interests…

My response is that I never set out to make such a commitment. If at the outset someone had told me I’d still be doing this sixteen years later, to the tune of 2 or 3 posts a day (except Sundays), I would have run screaming in the other direction or laughed in that person’s face at the ridiculousness of the prognostication.

And yet here I am, sixteen years later. Blogging has its own rewards and satisfactions. One of those rewards is the ability to follow the whims of a “brain that keeps switching interests.” Not all readers are going to share an interest in all those interests (I bet a number of them are thinking they’ve heard quite enough about the Bee Gees lately, for example, but I soldier on in my love for them).

But that’s okay too. In time, I often circle back (thanks, Jen Psaki, for that useful and amusing phrase if for nothing else) to something that same person might find more engrossing.

Open thread 4/7/21

The New Neo Posted on by

This was a big hit for Eddie Holman in 1969-1970, one of the most memorable falsetto songs ever. And here he is in 2012 (age 66), still wowing them in a tour de force:

The prototype:

Blog comments: here, there, and everywhere

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s come to my attention that Ann Althouse has ended comments on her blog. I’ve noticed a trend in that direction on a lot of sites in the past few years. Those who run the sites have their reasons, although the reasons may be quite different for different people.

Ann is a blogger who’s about my age and with a similar background in many ways, and we both have been doing this for many years. She has continued to have a blogspot blog, which is a platform I started on but abandoned long ago. If I’m not mistaken, Althouse never migrated from there to WordPress or anywhere else because the technical problems seemed insurmountable. I had some problems with that, too, when I first made the switch back in 2007,even though the blog was of course much smaller back then compared to now. I got someone to help me at the time, and fortunately, for whatever reason, the migration worked. But all the comments appeared on the new site in upside-down order, so that for each post prior to 2007 you’ll see the most recent comments at the top of each thread rather than at the bottom.

But it was a small price to pay for the freedom to control the comments section, which was the main reason I made the switch although there were other benefits as well. My comments had gotten utterly out of control, and at that time blogspot didn’t provide many tools to ban trolls. WordPress gave me many more ways to do that, and although I don’t talk about it much here, I continue to have to ban people on occasion. That means I also have to scrutinize the comments to a certain extent, although some days I’m better at doing it than other days; it tends to depend on how busy I am. But it must be done, or the trolls and the abusive stuff takes over.

Perhaps if I had a ton more traffic, I wouldn’t be able to do a good enough job, and I’d have to switch to some other method. Perhaps, for example, I’d have registration-only comments, the way Legal Insurrection (a blog I sometimes contribute to as an author) does.

But I can’t imagine doing away with comments. To me, that’s unacceptable on this blog. I hope I never have to eat those words. But one of the main reasons I started this blog and one of the main reasons I continue to do so is because of the comments. Perhaps I’m unusual in that regard, but to me a blog without comments is a lonely lonely place.

When I first began to blog I had a plan, which was to make this blog a haven and a community (overused word, but I think it’s appropriate) for political changers in particular, and to mainly explore the process of political change. I’ve done that, but it turned into much more and exceeded my expectations and is broader in scope and theme. I definitely never expected to still be doing it sixteen years later, but one step (and day) at a time really does add up. And the comments remain very very important to me. In fact, about a decade ago I got an offer to write for the online version of a well-known conservative magazine that didn’t have comments at the time, and I declined it in part because it would mean I’d have to close down the blog and do without comments.

Even as a young child, I often had a running monologue in my head in which I opined on things. But very few people were interested (or interested at all, for the most part) when I talked to friends or family about some of the things that fascinated me. Then for many years, as an adult, I wrote essays, short stories, and poetry, and submitted some of them for publication. A few poems got published in literary journals, but I discovered something surprising, which is that after they were published I experienced a “so what?” feeling. I wanted at least a few people to tell me what reactions the poem sparked in them. I wanted to know that someone was out there reading it, and what that person thought. If a poem gets published in a journal and no one responds, did that poem get published at all?

Comments on a blog are a wonderful way to get that response, good or bad or indifferent, argumentative or otherwise. I still get rid of abusive (truly abusive, not just a bit nasty) comments (even between commenters in addition to those aimed at me), and obvious trolls and spammers, but other than that I tend to let it go and to encourage comments.

I have no intention of changing that and making the blog into a place where it’s just my voice echoing in a vast silence. I think that would be something like this wonderful but frightening poem of Robert Frost’s:

THE MOST OF IT

He thought he kept the universe alone;
For all the voice in answer he could wake
Was but the mocking echo of his own
From some tree-hidden cliff across the lake.
Some morning from the boulder-broken beach
He would cry out on life, that what it wants
Is not its own love back in copy speech,
But counter-love, original response.
And nothing ever came of what he cried
Unless it was the embodiment that crashed
In the cliff’s talus on the other side,
And then in the far distant water splashed,
But after a time allowed for it to swim,
Instead of proving human when it neared
And someone else additional to him,
As a great buck it powerfully appeared,
Pushing the crumpled water up ahead,
And landed pouring like a waterfall,
And stumbled through the rocks with horny tread,
And forced the underbrush–and that was all.

On post-COVID-vaccination positives

The New Neo Posted on by

Several people mentioned this sort of report in the comments section:

Over 100 people in Washington state have tested positive for COVID-19 more than two weeks after becoming fully vaccinated against the disease, officials said.

The Washington State Department of Health is investigating reports of the so-called breakthrough cases, which it said are expected with any vaccine.

Out of the 1.2 million people who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 in Washington, epidemiologists have reported evidence of 102 breakthrough cases in 18 counties since Feb. 1, representing less than 0.01% of all fully vaccinated individuals in the northwestern U.S. state. Most cases were patients who experienced only mild symptoms, if any, according to a press release from the Washington State Department of Health.

However, at least eight people with breakthrough cases have been hospitalized. The Washington State Department of Health is also investigating two potential breakthrough cases where the individuals died. Both patients were over 80 years old and suffered from underlying health issues.

One problem with articles like that is that a lot of people don’t do math very well. Another is that we have also been encouraged during the last year to want 100% protection from this disease even though that’s never been the case before with something like pneumonia or flu, both of which can also kill previously healthy people but are more likely to kill those with pre-existing health problems. So although the small number of breakthrough cases ought to be read as being reassuring, I think a sizeable number of people will find it alarming.

I’ll add that some of these cases may have involved people who were exposed to COVID before the vaccine took full effect, even though the positive test only occurred somewhat after that period. We don’t get much information about that. In addition, we don’t even learn whether those two people who died and were over 80 actually died of COVID rather than with COVID. What’s more, we may never know.

And then there’s the fact that the vast majority of those who tested positive post-vaccine had mild or no symptoms. Of course, that’s also true of COVID itself, even in the elderly.

The thrust of public health and federal government advice seems to be designed to get people to continue to act abnormally, masks and distancing and the like. Why? If vaccinated people are unlikely to ever get a serious case, they don’t need protection anymore. People who are not vaccinated are supposedly protecting themselves already. So I believe that the net result is that articles like this are more likely to engender fear than to reassure – both in the vaccinated and the un-vaccinated. I would wager that they discourage some people from ever getting vaccinated.

Even if COVID is mostly conquered – and I think we’re well on our way to that – some people may continue to die of it, just as they will continue to die of pneumonia or flu. Will the commands to mask up never end? It’s a very real possibility, now that government has been flexing its control muscles, and people have gotten used to the expectation of zero risk before we drop the supposedly protective actions to which we’ve grown accustomed.

Covering the Chauvin trial

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t think you’ll find better coverage of the Chauvin trial than Andrew Branca’s work at Legal Insurrection. In the past, he’s covered all these racially-tinged trials involving police, as well as the Zimmerman trial, and he’s done so thoroughly and fairly.

It also probably won’t surprise you that Branca’s take is often different from the story the MSM tells, although Branca has correctly predicted the outcomes (all the outcomes,if I’m not mistaken) so far. Yesterday Branca described these differences between how the MSM tends to cover the Chauvin trial and the way he does it:

From what I’ve seen of media coverage, which for me occurs only when the case recesses during the day and the talking heads pop up during the break, is that the media effectively only covers the direct questioning of the state’s witnesses. As a result, the public only hears the state’s version of the facts.

Well, just like if you only hear one side of any argument, it’s natural for the public to conclude that the state is KILLING IT!!!! in this trial, and that it’s SUPER OBVIOUS!!!! that Chauvin is a RACIST POLICE MURDER ER!!!! You NAZI!!!!

There’s a reason that our legal system is adversarial in nature, however, and that’s for the obvious reason that there’s always two sides to every story. It’s only by listening to both sides, with their individual strengths and weaknesses, that one can have an overall informed opinion about what likely happened.

The jury in this trial will get both sides, and hopefully arrive at a verdict based on both sides.
The public, especially the public willing to riot, loot, and arson (arson must be a verb by now, right?), is however hearing only the narrative of guilt in this case. That means that anything other than a guilty verdict can only come as a complete shock to their sense of justice, and therefore a complete justification of any terror they wish to bring to bear to the public generally.

And who is responsible for this? Well, the rioters, looters, and arsonists are responsible for their own conduct, for certain. It’s kind of hard to not also assign blame to the media pouring out the gasoline across the public square and sparking the matches.

Branca usually writes two posts on the trial every day, and the second one from yesterday can be found here. In it, he discusses some video clips shown in the trial:

Perhaps the most notable line of questioning of Addarondo by Nelson occurred when Nelson showed the Chief two videos of Chauvin’s knee near Floyd’s neck, but with the videos shot from different angles—one was the bystander video, the other a body worn camera video.

When asked if the bystander video made it appear that Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck, the Chief answered that it did appear to be located there.

When then asked if the body worn camera video made it appear that Chauvin’s knee was not on Floyd’s neck, but on Floyd’s shoulder blade, the Chief agreed that this also appeared to be the case.

The state would respond on re-direct by having Addarondo claim that he noticed this discrepancy only in the last few seconds before the paramedics swept up Floyd, and that prior to that point it appeared throughout that Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s neck—but I can’t help but wonder if this video angle disparity might not encourage some of the jurors to view the videos with more skepticism than might otherwise have been the case.

Much more at the link, and new posts every day (today’s first post can be found here).

For our own good: liberty and health

The New Neo Posted on by

Coercion is so tempting when one has the excuse of having good intentions:

CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen warned the Biden administration that it has a very “narrow window” for inoculating as many people as possible to COVID-19 as states begin lifting coronavirus restrictions, urging that messaging should tie vaccinations to Americans’ “freedoms.”

“if everything is reopened, then what’s the carrot going to be? How are we going to incentivize people to actually get the vaccine? So that’s why I think the CDC and the Biden administration needs to come out a lot bolder and say, ‘If you are vaccinated, you can do all these things. Here are all these freedoms that you have.’ Because otherwise, people are going to go out and enjoy these freedoms anyway.”

This sort of statement should surprise no one. The camel of social control by health bureaucrats got its nose in the tent, and now the camel’s entire body is in there and looking to dominate the space. We Americans cannot be trusted to make our own health care decisions, and any amount of COVID virus in the population is a reason for continuing the crackdown and deprivation of liberty. What was initially sold as a very temporary two-week situation has segued into over a year, and even the vaccine won’t be allowed to liberate us until it has more or less eliminated the risk entirely.

Which is unlikely to ever occur – and even if it did, there would always be another virus and another reason to control us.

It’s easy to criticize Dr. Wen by saying “what do you expect; she was born in China, where this sort of coercion for social credit is a commonplace from of social control, and there is no tradition of liberty like ours.” But I think that’s too simplistic. Dr. Wen came here from China in 1991 at the age of eight, when her parents were granted political asylum. So she is mostly a product of our own school system. She grew up in the Los Angeles area, so we’re talking specifically about the California school system. She also raced though her education, getting a college degree in biochemistry at the age of 18:

Attending the Early Entrance Program (EEP) at California State University, Los Angeles starting at age 13, Wen graduated summa cum laude at age 18 with a bachelor’s degree in biochemistry, in 2001. She received a Doctor of Medicine from Washington University School of Medicine and has two master’s degrees, one in Economic and Social History and another in Modern Chinese Studies, both from the Merton College, Oxford in England where she was a Rhodes Scholar.

I’m not sure when she got her basic grounding in what we used to call Civics, but my guess is that it had a very “progressive” slant. I believe that this, more than her country of birth, had the biggest effect on her disregard for liberty. It is something that seems to be shared nowadays by the vast majority of people in charge, whatever their ethnicity and whatever their brainpower.

I keep being reminded of the work of Sarah Conly, which I’ve written about many times (see this, and the links in the first paragraph there). Those who would protect us for our own good are nearly everywhere these days, and much of the public seems to have gotten quite used to it. As C.S. Lewis wrote:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

[NOTE: And by the way, speaking of robber barons – I haven’t read this book, but it sure sounds interesting:

The Myth of the Robber Barons describes the role of key entrepreneurs in the economic growth of the United States from 1850 to 1910. The entrepreneurs studied are Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, James J. Hill, Andrew Mellon, Charles Schwab, and the Scranton family. Most historians argue that these men, and others like them, were Robber Barons. The story, however, is more complicated.

The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn in the side of the market entrepreneurs. Interestingly, the political entrepreneurs often failed without help from government they could not produce competitive products.

More at the link.]

Lies and the press; lies of the press

The New Neo Posted on by

I think we can all agree that the information people receive is usually a huge factor in determining our opinions regarding public events and politics. And I think we can also agree that a lot of that information comes through the press, and/or online writing and videos, books, and to a lesser extent the people we meet in our daily lives who are also for the most part basing their opinions on what they glean from similar sources. Even when we hear a politician speak – when we see that person’s demeanor and hear for ourselves what he or she is saying – later that experience is usually filtered through the MSM or other commentary and evaluation.

So I think we can also safely say that for many if not most people, media and those who write and speak on media, and their choices about what they read and listen to, have a significant effect on their thought processes.

Long long ago – before my time – the press for the most part consisted of highly partisan writers who were open about their partisanship. So if a person wanted to get at the objective truth it was necessary to read offerings from both sides, and that person knew it. But by the time I was growing up, the MSM claimed objectivity, at least in its reporting. Were they in fact objective? No, but for the most part, they were more objective then now, and at least as importantly, they were far more willing to separate fact stories from opinion articles and to be upfront about which was which.

But now, although the MSM is utterly partisan and the line between reporting and opinion has been nearly obliterated, most of the press continues for the most part with the pretense that they are objective and that they cover the news and politicians in an objective manner, only reluctantly crossing the line into partisanship in opinion pieces where they must do so in order to combat the evil nature of the right.

This has a far more pernicious effect than either previous arrangement, because I am convinced that a great many people still think they are reading something close to objective truth when they read the Times or the WaPo or NPR or AP stories or any number of other outlets. I list pro-Democratic sources because the vast majority of media outlets are indeed on that side. And a huge number of readers believe that “misinformation” is what those outlets label as such rather than what those outlets peddle.

Or they don’t care if these sources are not objective – what matters is that they are progressive and woke. Especially among the younger crowd, they’ve been taught there is no objective truth, only differing opinions and power. The MSM has opinions, all right, and it has power, and its pundits and reporters are using that power to influence people’s perceptions of reality and the decisions people make as a result of those perceptions. That power can be exercised through what stories they cover and also what they quash.

Social media isn’t the same as the MSM, but its gatekeepers function similarly and amplify the effect. Social media started out by allowing nearly all opinions. That way, people advocating different ideas and perceptions could duke it out among themselves on social media, and readers could pick and choose which among the arguments seemed most correct and most convincing. But after a while, those who run social media sites decided to censor some viewpoints while maintaining that by doing so they were just filtering out “misinformation.” They were the judges of what was misinformation and what was not, and the reader would no longer be trusted with information that had been judged wanting. The reader was no longer allowed to decide for himself or herself. And this was done while all the time maintaining the fiction that what the social media companies were doing was objective and unbiased.

Iowahawk described the basic principle back in 2015:

I wouldn’t say that social media was previously “a respected institution,” but one aspect of it that was respected by most – and that initially helped it gain so much popularity – was its bipartisan aspect. And many MSM outlets such as the Times had indeed been very respected.

How many voters actually believe that the MSM and the social media giants are being objective in what they report and what they block? You might wonder how anyone can think so at this point, but from talking to people I know, I think a great many people are still under that impression – more than are reflected in polls. And if you ask people of that ilk to do something like watch Tucker Carlson for a few nights, or read some of the articles on the right if you send them links, they’ll often respond by saying that whatever is on that TV show or in those links is a lie. They know it already without watching and without reading because the MSM, the people they read on Twitter, and all their friends say so.

So far I think this system is working very well for the left.

“Mr. Bojangles”

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: Some commenters requested I write about different versions of this song, so your wish is my command.]

Here’s Jerry Jeff Walker, who wrote the song:

The song is based on a true encounter Walker had with a man in a New Orleans jail cell. I’d always conceptualized the Mr. Bojangles figure in the song as an old black man, although I was well aware that it wasn’t Bill Robinson. But Walker has made it clear it was an old white man; no matter, the song is one of those classics that’s been covered by tons of people. Here’s Walker’s version (Walker was born Ronald Clyde Crosby, and try as I might I couldn’t find a reason he’d change his name to Jerry Jeff Walker from the seemingly equally serviceable Ronald Clyde Crosby):

I give Walker major respect for writing this wonderful song that paints such a vivid picture and has such a lovely tune. But I have to confess that even though I very much like his version, and even though I often prefer originals to covers, this isn’t one of those times. I think the reason is that I just don’t find his voice tremendously interesting, although it’s fine.

The first version I ever heard was the one that became most famous, from the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band. And it remains my favorite. Perhaps it’s that way for you, too. There are two main reasons I really like it: the high harmony that comes in the second half of the song (I love harmony, as you know) and the mandolin. The arrangement is genius, and adds poignancy and punch:

The story of how the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band came to record “Mr. Bojangles” is stranger than the story of how Walker came to write it (from 00:18 to 4:49):

I also heard Neil Diamond’s version early on and liked it. It seemed improbable to me that his voice would be well-suited to the song, but it was, and the arrangement has a guitar part that I find especially wonderful at 1:25-1:42, setting up a theme that repeats several times throughout the rendition:

I suppose I should mention Sammy Davis, Jr., who made the song a sort of anthem for himself. He did a very show-biz version that doesn’t appeal to me, but the song obviously meant a lot to him, probably because of his own vaudeville roots (he started as a toddler in a family act, traveling around the country with his father and uncle). For Davis – unlike the other singers – the dance aspects of the song loomed large.

So here he is:

I see that John Denver did a version, too; I hadn’t known that before. I couldn’t quite picture that crystal clear high voice singing this song, but I was surprised at what he does with it. It’s an understated version with a very simple guitar arrangement, both beautiful and touching:

It’s not really a woman’s song, but Nina Simone is always interesting and is incapable of singing anything that’s not good:

But for me it’s still the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band that leads the rest.

[ADDENDUM: Funny thing – this thread really brings home to me something I already knew, which is that reactions to any sort of art or performance (and perhaps especially music) are highly individual and differ greatly. But for me, this song is not especially maudlin or even sentimental – although I may be in the great minority in that reaction.

For example, the part about the dog has nothing to do with the song’s appeal for me, although when I researched this post I learned that the dead dog looms large in the minds of many who love the song (possibly for that reason) and in the minds of many who hate the song (possibly for that reason).

I’m very fond of dogs, but I barely noticed the dog in the song. Why do I like the song? As I said, I like the tune and the high harmonies. I also find the song somewhat moving, but the moving part for me has to do with the idea of art. The song is set in a jail cell for people rounded up for public drunkenness. The guy being described is basically an old vagrant drunk, but he’s got a skill: dance. That skill is something that means a lot to me. And so he entertains by dancing a bit in front of the other drunks cooling off in the cell. And they enjoy it.

That’s what the song’s about to me – the power of skill and art to persist in the face of decline, and to continue to mean something to people.]