Love at first sight – in the movies

The New Neo Posted on by

Of course, it helps to have Shakespeare writing your lines.

But still, words – even Shakespeare’s – are not enough to convey the experience (one that some deny, but that does truly exist) of love at first sight. Not just lust, not just attraction, but love.

You say it can’t happen that way? I’ve seen it happen, and not just in the movies. But now I’m going to talk about the movies – in particular, this scene from Zefferelli’s “Romeo and Juliet” (unfortunately the first line and a half is missing; it’s Romeo saying “If I profane with my unworthiest hand/This holy shrine…”):

It helps that the actors are both extraordinarily beautiful. That’s the lust part, which happens instantaneously. But the thing that has always impressed me about this scene and this dialogue and this version is that you see two distinct processes. You see them looking at each other and being smitten with the way they match physically. Juliet’s eyes especially convey this, although there’s an earlier scene where Romeo sees her for the first time and something similar happens to him.

But the real transition to love comes from their words, their delighted discovery – through some rather sophisticated and highly flirtatious banter – that their minds match as well, and their emotions. They are both intense, intelligent, poetic, and quick. Not only is their dialogue a sonnet, but the images they use and the juxtaposition of religion with romance is poetic and clever and a bit daring. Again, in Juliet’s eyes (she’s younger than Romeo) you see her seriousness alternating with the playful joy of discovery. Why, he’s not just the handsomest guy I ever saw, but he’s on my wavelength too!

Here’s the dialogue in sonnet form:

R: If I profane with my unworthiest hand
This holy shrine, the gentle fine is this:
My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand
To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss.
J: Good pilgrim, you do wrong your hand too much,
Which mannerly devotion shows in this;
For saints have hands that pilgrims’ hands do touch,
And palm to palm is holy palmers’ kiss.
R: Have not saints lips, and holy palmers too?
J: Ay, pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer.
R: O, then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do;
They pray, grant thou, lest faith turn to despair.
J: Saints do not move, though grant for prayers’ sake.
R: Then move not, while my prayer’s effect I take.

So brilliant, so perfect!

[NOTE: The movie changes the word “fine” in the second line to “sin.” I don’t know why they did that, but it’s not a good change.]

Victor Davis Hanson on the impeachment inquiry/coup

The New Neo Posted on by

Victor Davis Hanson lists 10 reasons why the ongoing impeachment is really a coup. I’m particularly interested in the following items on his list, which all seem quite obvious to me and yet the MSM has been somewhat successful at protecting the public from either knowledge of them or understanding of their significance:

(2) False whistleblowers. The “whistleblower” is no whistleblower by any common definition of the noun. He has no incriminating documents, no information at all. He doesn’t even have firsthand evidence of wrongdoing…

He wasn’t disinterested but had a long history of partisanship…

3) First-term impeachment. The Clinton and Nixon inquiries were directed at second-term presidencies, when there were no more electoral remedies for alleged wrongdoing. By contrast, Trump is up for election in less than a year. Impeachment, then, seems a partisan exercise in either circumventing a referendum election or in damaging a president seeking re-election.

4) No special-counsel finding. In the past, special counsels have found felonious presidential behavior, such as cited in Leon Jaworski’s and Ken Starr’s investigations. By contrast, special counsel Robert Mueller spent 22 months and $35 million, and yet his largely partisan law and investigative team found no “collusion” and no actionable presidential obstruction of that non-crime…

7) Thought crimes? Even if there were ever a quid, there is no quo: Unlike the case of the Obama administration, the Trump administration did supply arms to Ukraine, and the Ukrainians apparently did not reinvestigate the Bidens.

That last one, number 7, is especially troubling. It’s something I’ve thought about quite a bit, and it seems to have become common when Trump’s opposition talks about him. Mind-reading has substituted for evidence, and not just during the impeachment inquiry. Courts have now institutionalized it, most obviously in a decision I wrote about here as well as here. From the latter:

In other related news, the legal reasoning several judges used to invalidate Trump’s immigration EOs – that his campaign statements were extremely relevant and indicated his supposedly discriminatory intent in issuing the orders as president – leads inevitably to preposterous conclusions such as these:

“ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat, arguing today before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, told the court that President Trump’s travel order ‘could be constitutional’ if it had been written by Hillary Clinton…

“The last part of the audio is rather funny. Jadwat, asked whether the order on its face is valid, says No. Why? ‘I don’t think so, Your Honor, because the order is completely unprecedented’ To which one of the Fourth Circuit judges replies, with astonishment that seems mostly genuine: ‘So the first order on anything is invalid?'”

In his post, John Hinderaker calls that kind of legal argument “lawless nonsense.” But such lawless nonsense follows directly from the judicial decisions handed down against Trump’s EO. As the rulings were issued it became clear – because of the liberal judges’ reliance on Trump’s supposed thoughtcrime, as evidenced in some of his campaign statements – that no subsequent EO of Trump’s on immigration that involved any majority Muslim country would ever be held constitutional by these judges, no matter how carefully and fairly drafted. Trump had committed the original sin during the campaign, and all the perfumes of Arabia cannot sweeten that little hand.

Now we have an entire impeachment drive predicated on the idea that Trump committed another thoughtcrime. He didn’t tie the withholding of financial aid to the investigation of Hunter Biden, Ukrainian officials didn’t even know aid was being withheld at the time, and in fact the aid was given without the investigation occurring. But the Democrats get around the obvious flaws there but saying what they think Trump meant to do or wanted to do whether he actually did it or not.

Dangerous, dangerous high-stakes game the Democrats are playing.

The Democrats are running the impeachment show, but now a few Republicans get a chance to speak

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t actually watched the hearings in real time, although every day I check the stories and exchanges that have emerged from them. Most of the focus until recently has been on the testimony of the witnesses and the behavior of the Democrats, especially Adam Schiff-who-must-be-obeyed.

But ever since the hearings have begun to be aired publicly, I’ve noticed that the Republican participants have been uncharacteristically focused and aggressive in their questioning. In particular, Elise Stefanik has been especially impressive (there are several videos worth watching at the link).

Is Trump’s fighting spirit catching? Seems that way.

Culture war 2.0

The New Neo Posted on by

Peter Boghossian writes:

The correspondence theory of truth basically states that objective truth exists and we can know something about it through evidence and reason…

In Culture War 2.0 the correspondence theory of truth—with its commitment to the idea that there are better and worse ways to come to knowledge about an objectively knowable world—is no longer common ground. For those on one side of this latest fight, the correspondence theory of truth has been replaced with more subjective ways of knowing. But this is not merely a turn away from objectivity to subjectivity. Culture War 2.0 is marked by one side’s turn toward understanding knowledge as determined by identity markers like race, gender, disability status, and sexual orientation. And—so the theory goes—the more “oppression variables” comprise one’s identity, the clearer one’s understanding of reality becomes.

So in the most recent iteration of culture wars, it isn’t just the idea that truth is relative. It’s that some truths – those stated by groups defined as oppressed – are much truthier than other truths, or at least much more worthy of respect and even of action.

Those people who accept the correspondence theory of truth (even though they may not know it by name) agree on the traditional rules of engagement (discourse, debate, dialogue) and do not view intersectionality as a necessary model for getting to the truth…These individuals are on one side of Culture War 2.0, and they include many liberal atheists and conservative Christians.

Those on the other side of 2.0 do not subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth, believe speech should be shut down if it’s hurtful or potentially harmful, and think intersectional, transformative approaches are necessary to refashion systems. These people are also predominantly atheists and Christians: intersectional “woke” atheists and intersectional “woke” Christians.

As a point of contact, I am a non-intersectional, liberal atheist. If a conservative Christian believes Jesus walked on water—and believes this either is or is not true for everyone regardless of race or gender—and if she values discourse and adheres to basic rules of engagement, then she is closer to my worldview than an atheist who believes race and gender play a role in determining objective truth and that her opponents should not be allowed to air what she considers harmful views.

Many conservative Christians understand this intuitively. So do many liberal atheists. And that’s what makes this Great Realignment of Culture War 2.0 so bizarre. It’s no longer liberals and atheists versus conservatives and Christians. It’s some atheists aligning with some Christians and other atheists aligning with other Christians. And each, in turn, believes that what’s at stake is no less than the future of Western Civilization. How this will play out depends on who wins Culture War 2.0.

It’s true that this doesn’t break down into strict divisions between Christians (or even believers) and atheists. But why should it? And what about all the agnostics in the world? Actually, those who believe intersectionality is the way to truth (or who pretend to think that) are political leftists whatever their religious beliefs may be. And although one can easily find some religious people among the leftists, the irreligious are more numerous on the left than the right (you can see how the numbers shape up here).

Religion vs. no religion is hardly the only divide in the culture wars. There’s age, sex, race, and level of education – with the college-educated more inclined these days to believe the “intersectionality” standard for truth.

Which is odd, because it used to be that universities in particular valued logic and were dedicated to the pursuit of objective truth. Back then, if professors acknowledged that the whole truth and nothing but the truth might be unknowable in many arenas, they nevertheless felt that we needed to strive to come as close as we can to the truth.

And yet now it is the university in particular that has backed away from such notions – which are felt to be racist, sexist, Westernist (is that a word?), and therefore an affront to the diversity which now seems to be the university’s most cherished and desired goal.

The Democrats want to define Trump being president as a high crime and misdemeanor

The New Neo Posted on by

I think the outrage the left feels towards Trump boils down to two main issues. The first is that he’s president at all, and does what presidents do with all the attendant powers of a president. The second is that he is not afraid to use those powers in ways that stand to harm the Democrats and their interests and/or the Deep State and its interests.

They find this state of affairs unconscionable. So they redefine whatever Trump does that they don’t like and/or that may harm them politically as unacceptable, unprecedented, offensive, and even at times criminal.

And always, always impeachable.

But of course all presidents regularly do things that are in their political interests. That’s what they strive for. However, as with Trump, those things almost always have other motivations, as well – most often, that the president believes that such actions will also benefit the country or even the world.

It’s really not rocket science to understand that. And among those things can be something described as “fighting corruption,” including corruption that occurs at the hands of people opposed to that president. To do otherwise – to give corrupt and/or illegal actions a pass because they are committed by political opponents or those who support those opponents- would itself be a terrible thing to do, and as far as I know it has never even been asked of any president before.

In addition, it’s Government 101 that presidents get to set foreign policy and do things like appoint ambassadors. But Trump is apparently not allowed to do such things:

…[F]or those who had the patience to sit through it on Wednesday, the testimony of veteran State Department officials William Taylor and George Kent did help clarify what this impeachment inquiry is all about: a disagreement between President Trump and a coterie of career State Department bureaucrats about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine.

To put it more bluntly, the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry is about whether the president or unelected officials in the State Department should be able to determine U.S. foreign policy and define U.S. national interests abroad.

What we heard Wednesday was a lot of opinions from Taylor and Kent about what U.S. policy should be in Ukraine and what serves the national interest there. But if President Trump has a different view, whose opinion should matter? Clearly, the president’s opinion is the one that counts because the president, not State Department officials, sets U.S. foreign policy.

Much more at the link. See also this; the president can fire ambassadors for any reason or no reason.

Trump is president, and many people find that unconscionable. Some of those people sit in positions of power and are not at all averse to using that power in any way they can to make sure he does not continue to be president.

Bashing Bain

The New Neo Posted on by

Deval Patrick has entered the Democratic race, and John Hinderaker writes:

…[I]t is worth noting that Patrick resigned from Bain Capital the day before he announced.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with working for Bain; it is a perfectly good company. But remember the abuse that the Democrats heaped on Mitt Romney for running Bain Capital? He was a “vulture capitalist.” He caused one woman to die of cancer. He fired many more from their jobs. (Never mind the jobs Bain both created and preserved.) We see revealed here the utter cynicism of the Democratic Party. The leaders of that party don’t mean the things they say. They knew their attacks on Bain Capital were stupid, they just didn’t care. Just as they do not, more generally, believe their own demagoguery of Wall Street, when in fact, Wall Street has been among their biggest financial supporters.

True.

As far as it goes, that is – but it doesn’t go quite far enough. I remember the Democratic attacks on Romney regarding Bain, and I also remember that similar attacks originally came from Romney’s Republican rivals for the nomination, in particular Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry as well as some of their supporters and defenders.

I remember it because it was a battle fought on this blog, as well. There are many things to criticize about Romney, both then and especially now, but his work at Bain isn’t one of them, IMHO. If you want to see what I’m talking about, go here and read both the post and the comments. Here’s an excerpt from the post:

…[T]he Gingrich/Perry v Romney/Bain business has fascinated me far more than I expected it would, and much more than the usual campaign imbroglio. I think the reason is that it conjures up a host of deeper issues to ponder—about capitalism and free enterprise in general, and about the business of finance and how that fits into the mix.

So I may come out with quite a few posts related to this before it’s done. Not that I expect it to be done all that soon. And even if the Republicans start leaving the topic alone (which I doubt), the Democrats will be sure to pick it up if Romney is nominated. Of that you can be certain, if you can be certain of anything at all in this election.

And that turned out to be quite correct, as you can see from this. As I wrote in that post:

Politics can be (and often is) a vicious slugfest full of distortions and even outright lies about the opponent…These lies and distortions are the problem, not the subject matter itself (be it Wright or Bain), and it’s the function of the press to set us straight with the truth, although much of the MSM abdicated that effort long ago and joined in the mendacious festivities.

That was written in 2012, and it’s only gotten worse since then.

[NOTE: Let me add that I would amend this by saying that one of the functions of the press is to present the truth as best and as objectively as it can be determined. And if they’re not going to be objective, at least be truthful about their biases and own up to them openly.]

More black people are discovering they’re actually Republicans

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: Artfldgr]

Here’s an interesting interview with two black women explaining how they realized they were actually Republicans. It takes a particular kind of courage:

Parker: Well, I came to believe what I believe by reading a proverb a day. I was believing the lies of the left for a very long time. I believed all that we even hear today, that my problems were somebody else’s fault. That America was racist and I shouldn’t mainstream. That I was poor because others were wealthy…

Look, the polls have been showing forever that a third of African Americans say publicly that they’re evangelical and conservative. A third. This has been 25 years. This is Republicans’ fault they don’t have more…

Then we had a war on poverty [in the Sixties] that basically said, “Don’t think about any natural consequences that come from these decisions you’re now making without religion and without family, because we have safety nets.” Over time, those safety nets evolved into three rules: Don’t work, don’t save, don’t get married, and we’ll keep you addicted to a government …

…Don’t get married, and now we’ll keep you enslaved to our poverty plantation…

In the ’60s, black marital rates were at 70%. Today, they’re at 30%. You can’t have 30% of your adult population married and wonder why your kids don’t know what to do.

It’ a long double interview, and there’s much much more. But here are some excerpts from the answers of the other woman interviewed:

Sears: Well, I am a Marine and I had had my last child, my husband and I, and we were living in California at the time. It was right around the time of the election and George Bush Sr., he was running, he was a candidate and I was still a Democrat. I’m black …

…I’m black, I’m supposed to be a Democrat. It rhymes, OK. The whole family’s full of Democrats, so what am I? I am what I am. [Mike] Dukakis, his commercial came on and he said, “I’m going to expand welfare. I’m going to make sure that this, that, the other, we’re going to give you money and we’re going to… ” I thought, “But if that happens, my folks, they’re just going to be living on what they get. There’s nothing to propel them.” Then he said, “For abortion, I’m going to make sure abortion is this and legal and expanded and do this and public monies and public…” I had just had my baby and I thought, “Well, I don’t believe that.”

Then right behind him came George Bush Sr. with his commercial, and he said, “If all you have is welfare, is what the government gives you, you will never have anything to pass onto your children.” Then he said, “As for abortion, I’m going to try and make it less and less and less.” Then I said, “Oh my God, I’m a Republican.”…

The next thing was, “How am I going to tell my family?” Because it’s almost as if I was changing my religion. It was a shock to me and I think to many black people; they really are Republicans because we are the most conservative, really, group. It’s just a matter of me getting in there and people like Star and everybody else getting in and saying, “Let us be who we want to be. You don’t get to tell me how to run my politics and I don’t get to tell you either. Just let us be free.”

That’s also the message of Kanye West and Candace Owens. And it’s a message that strikes the greatest fear into the hearts of the left. The left depends heavily on the monolithic support of black voters in order to win elections. Without it, they would be far less likely to get elected, and they know it. Even a small percentage of black voters hearing the message from Parker and Sears and West and Owens would have large repercussions, and Trump has made it quite clear that this is one of his goals.

Impeachment can be preventive…

The New Neo Posted on by

…says AOC:

Ocasio-Cortez said on CNN’s Situation Room that House Democrats need to move quickly, citing the “potential compromise of the 2020 elections,” that could lead to “a potentially disastrous outcome.”

“This is not just about something that has occurred, this is about preventing a potentially disastrous outcome from occurring next year,” she said.

What a great idea, like so many of her ideas.

Nothing the Framers would object to, either. And AOC is just the person to decide when and on whom it should be used.

Professor Jacobson: on students and free speech

The New Neo Posted on by

Professor William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection has been doing tremendous work promoting free speech. Two years ago he spoke at Vassar on the subject, amidst turmoil from activists spreading lies about him and seeking to silence him.

Recently he reflected on that experience, and what he has to say may surprise you [emphasis mine]:

So we were in what I think is the largest classroom there, lecture hall…It was over capacity, students overflowing into the hallways. So we probably had close to 300 students, and as soon as I started speaking, they realized, I think, they’d been had, that I was not who I was portrayed to be.

I spent 45 minutes with a basic lecture about the First Amendment, the history, why it’s important, why historically it’s actually protected left-wing speech, that the anti-war movement and the other movements could not have developed if not for the protections.

…And then I went through the rest of the Bill of Rights and I went through each of the rights of the Bill of Rights and I said, “While they may not technically apply here on campus, I’m sure you don’t want the college administration to take your stuff without some process by which you could contest it, some due process.” I said, “You don’t want to give up that right here.”…

I went through all of these and I said, “Why is it you want all of these rights in the Bill of Rights on this campus, even if it technically doesn’t apply, but the one right you’re so willing and eager to give up are your free speech rights?” I said, “Why is that?” I said, “Maybe it’s because on this campus, you have power and therefore your speech is not going to be stifled. But go outside those gates and guess what? That’s Trump country, and you wonder why the nation—or at least half the nation—voted that way even though you don’t know anybody who voted for him.”

I said, “So if you give up First Amendment rights on this campus and you are willing to suppress speech on this campus, you have no right to complain if somebody does it to you beyond the fence and beyond the gate.”

It was a great 45 minutes, no interruptions, although they came ready for a fight…and then we had question-and-answer. [An] hour and 15 minutes, the students lined up to ask [questions], including someone dressed in black. There were mostly good questions. I mean, I think questions that reflected that they’d never really had to think about these things before, but they were, let’s say, good-faith questions.

…it was one of the best nights I’ve ever had on a campus.

One thing it taught me is that there is a hunger out there on behalf of students to learn about what you would think are basic civic lessons that they’ve never had. And they’ve never had anybody explain it to them, and why it’s important, and why even allowing speech you consider offensive is really important.

Our educational system has become a complete failure in terms of giving students the truth and the foundations for this country’s system. But that’s no accident; the trashing was intentional.

Hillary Clinton: “I think about what kind of president I would have been all the time”

The New Neo Posted on by

In an interview with the BBC, Hillary Clinton said this:

“I think about what kind of president I would have been all the time…How, obviously, I would have been different. How I think I would have been a better, more successful president…”

Hillary is not alone. The right thinks quite often about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would have been like, and 99.9999% of them are ecstatically happy that it never came to pass, and hope to continue that fortunate streak.

Her supporters probably think about it even more, grinding their teeth in woe and sympathy for her and for the country at its enormous loss.

Hillary went on:

“And I think about the presidential campaign of 2016. I thought I was as gutsy as I could be, but I probably could have been gutsier — if I figured out a way to reveal what was happening in a more effective way.”

“You know when we talked about how the Russians were behind the theft of material, a lot of people thought, ‘What are they talking about?’ They just dismissed us in both the public and the press…”

Again with the Russia, Russia, Russia. And again with the “we just didn’t communicate well enough,” which was an ongoing refrain of the Obama administration whenever anything went wrong. Everything was a framing problem, a narrative problem, and so every solution was to tweak the message.

I think Clinton is polling madly to see what her chances might be in 2020. She doesn’t want another laborious run with an ignominious ending. She’d rather carp and blame.

[NOTE: This is a small point of grammar, but Hillary should have put the “all the time” after “I think,” as in: “I think all the time about what kind of president I would have been.”]