What is it about Alysa Liu?
Commenter “RigelDog” has this request:
Neo, have you seen the video of Alysa Liu’s skating at the Olympics? I am so impressed by her dance/ movement, and I can’t describe why it seems different, and wonderful. I would be interested in hearing your informed opinion, as I have come to appreciate the art of dance to some extent from the videos and comments that you have presented over the years.
First, the video (it can’t be embedded, but this will lead you to it on YouTube):
Many things combined to make Liu’s performance golden. One was, of course, that she skated what’s called a “clean” program in the technical sense, meaning that she made no obvious errors (or even subtle ones, as far as I can see, although I’m no skating expert). That was absolutely necessary.
But some of the other skaters did the same. And anyway, her special qualities weren’t just technical. Liu skated with remarkable fluidity and ease. That requires an ability to be somewhat relaxed at the same time you’re marshaling all your finely-honed physical forces. It’s a quality even some of the best skaters (or dancers or other performers) lack, and it’s something that helps the audience relax as they watch. They trust that she will do well and not give them any cause to feel tense. And her radiant smile helps, too.
But Liu has another special quality, which for want of a better term I’ll call unity. It comes from a very solid core – the center of the body from which all movement emanates – and it means that the movements of every part of the body are integrated into a seamless whole. There are no unincorporated parts, no herky-jerky movements. The head, hands, arms, back, every cell of the body is always part of a seamless whole that the watcher’s eye reads as satisfyingly one.
That can’t really be explained, although I just tried. Baryshnikov had it more than any other human being I’ve ever seen, before or since. The man was incapable of making a false move.
With Liu, it also helped that her music was fun: Donna Summer. Many of the other skaters used music that was extremely uninspiring.
Trump has other tariff tricks up his sleeve
After the SCOTUS decision against Trump’s tariffs comes this:
Among the options he mentioned were parts of some existing laws, and hinted that he would “sign an order later today to impose a 10% global tariff over and above our tariffs already being charged… We’re also initiating several sections, 301 and other investigations to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”
Pres. Trump added that “[o]ther alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected.”
It is now official, with the White House releasing the text of a new proclamation signed by the president, in which he “invok[es] his authority under section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974” to impose the 10 percent tariffs, beginning Feb. 24, for 150 days.
Trump also signed a separate executive order that “reaffirmed and continued the suspension of duty-free de minimis treatment for low-value shipments, including goods shipped through the international postal system, which will also be subject to the temporary import duty imposed under section 122.”
In an additional action, according to the White House, “the President has directed the Office of the United States Trade Representative to use its section 301 authority to investigate certain unreasonable and discriminatory acts, policies, and practices that burden or restrict U.S. commerce.”
I can’t predict which of these will be found constitutional, or if any will be, but I think we can safely predict that Democrats will challenge them ASAP.
I’ve got a question, though: why weren’t these statutes used in the first place, instead of authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act? It’s my impression – without being expert on the law and precedent involved – that these orders probably have a better chance of getting through SCOTUS.
[NOTE: Here’s a piece about Kavanaugh’s dissent in yesterday’s tariff decision by SCOTUS.]
Spain, the end of nationhood, and the wonderful migrants
A remarkably candid column appeared in the New York Times this week by Spain’s left-wing Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who recently announced his government would grant amnesty to half a million illegal immigrants living in Spain. Framed as an argument for “why the West needs migrants,” Sánchez’s essay is really an admission of moral collapse, and a frank declaration that he intends to destroy his nation in exchange for short-term economic gain.
It is an admission of moral collapse because the Spanish government has signaled its willingness to erase their country, put the interests of foreigners above those of native citizens, and turn Spain into a magnet for Third World migration.
There is some irony in this, because Sánchez claims the primary reason to enact mass amnesty is moral. He argues that because so many Spaniards emigrated to the United States and Europe beginning in the middle of the last century, and because Spain’s economy is now flourishing, the country must grant amnesty to hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants: “It is our duty to become the welcoming and tolerant society that our own relatives would have hoped to find on the other side of our borders.”
Tellingly, Sánchez does not mention the moral duty the Spanish government has to his own people. Nor does he even attempt to explain why Spain has a moral obligation to legalize these migrants. The parallel he draws between Spanish nationals emigrating to Europe and the United States, and migrants from South America and Asia illegally entering Spain, is disingenuous to the point of absurdity. There is no more similarity between the two than there is between a guest one invites over for dinner and a thief who breaks into one’s home.
This brings up the question: what is a nation these days? Nations make decisions about how many immigrants to let in legally, but it seems that more and more often these limits are ignored in favor of open-door compassion – or what Gad Saad calls “suicial compassion.”. And of course, these days some of the immigrants (legal and illegal, but probably more of the latter) are coming with takeover in mind. An undoing of the Reconquista?
Many leftists appear to consider illegal aliens as sacred cows – quite wonderful and to be protected at all costs. The virtue-signaling is immense. But it’s not just virtue-signaling, as Sanchez’s Times piece goes on to say:
But the moral duty argument isn’t the only one Sánchez proffers. He also claims that the West “needs people.” Unless western countries embrace mass migration, “they will experience a sharp demographic decline that will prevent them from keeping their economies and public services afloat. Their gross domestic product will stagnate. Their public health care and pension systems will suffer.” The only way to avoid decline, he says, is to accept mass migration and integrate migrant groups as much as possible.
What Sánchez hints at but does not say outright is that he thinks Spain needs an low-wage underclass …
The demographic decline has to do mostly with birthrates, I believe, which have fallen precipitously in most developed nations. It’s a real problem, but importing newcomers who don’t share the values and belief system of the host country, and who have no intention of assimilating into those values and beliefs, is not the answer although it’s the answer a great many national leaders give these days.
There’s a great deal more at the link, but this is especially insightful, I think:
That is to say, the leftist regime in Spain, much like regimes across western Europe, has essentially decided to impose on their own people an imperial form of government that they once imposed overseas, and to govern their nations like colonies full of squabbling tribes and ethnic groups.
And some leaders are quite honest about the goals:
Irene Montero, Spain’s former Minister of Equality and leader of Podemos, celebrates replacing native Spaniards:
“Of course I hope for replacement theory, I hope we can sweep this country of fascists and racists with immigrants.”
Give her points for honesty – and little else.
Today …
… some of you may have again encountered the “too many requests” message blocking the site for about an hour or so. My apologies; it’s very frustrating. However, today I spoke with a tech person from the host who was a great deal more helpful than usual. She not only fixed it for now, but she gave me some pointers for the future that I hope will work.
Time … will … tell …
Open thread 2/21/2026
Susan Rice’s threats
Susan Rice hasn’t held elective office, but she’s been heavily involved in diplomacy, government, and Democrat politics as the ultimate insider. Now she’s trash-talking – not especially diplomatic, to say the least – in anticipation of holding the reins of power once again:
What [Trump] is doing, whether on the economy and affordability or on immigration, now, is not popular, and that there is likely to be a swing in the other direction, and they are going to be caught with more than their pants down.
They’re going to be held accountable by those who come in opposition to Trump and win at the ballot box. And I can tell you, Preet, you know, as I talked to leaders in Washington, leaders in our party, leaders in the states, if these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to, you know, play by the old rules, and, you know, and say, oh, never mind, we’ll forgive you for all the people you’ve fired, all the policies and principles you’ve violated, all you know, the laws you’ve skirted. I think they’ve got another thing coming because, you know, just like when Trump thought, “Okay, I’ll redistrict and the Democrats won’t have the guts to play hardball.”
They’re going to be surprised. Democrats have had a belly full, and we’re not going to play by, you know, the old set of rules. When these guys are playing by a very different set of rules, we’re going to play by the law, but that’s, we’re not going to violate the law the way they do, but we’re not going to be suckers.
Yes, indeed – Democrats are finally going to take those gloves off. They’ve been so restrained till now. It would be funny if it weren’t serious.
Who does she think she’s fooling with this “we’ve been so virtuous till now” routine? Democrat voters, that’s who. I believe most of them sincerely believe this.
And the idea that Democrats never gerrymandered till now is also ludicrous. But Rice is counting on people’s ignorance, and it’s not a bad bet.
And no, she’s not even especially old. Although it seems she’s been around for a long long time, I was surprised to see that she’s only 61. By today’s political standards, practically a teenager.
Talk about clickbait
I simply had to click on this headline in the NY Post: “Skull of ‘dinosaur from Hell’ discovered with sword jutting from its head.”
Alas, not a sword. No duel with a dinosaur. The find was, “the skull of a supersized dinosaur from ‘hell’ with a swordlike horn protruding from its head … ”
There’s quite a difference between a sword and a swordlike horn. Not that I imagined there really would be a sword in a dinosaur, but I was curious to see the article anyway. This was the discovery:
According to the researcher, the primeval predator was a formidable-looking specimen, boasting a distinctive sail-finned back, and perhaps, most uniquely, a 20-inch scimitar-like bone jutting from its dome. …
In real life, this gangly creature was more akin to an oversized egret, pursuing fish and other aquatic prey, which it trapped using its long snout and rows of interlocking teeth.
In the photo, the “sword” looks something like a rhino horn to me.
Virginia gerrymandering halted – for now
A Virginia judge on Thursday blocked an April 21 referendum in the state on redrawing the state’s congressional maps, marking the latest legal hurdle in a string of challenges to the Democratic-led initiative.
The Tazewell County Circuit Court ordered a halt to voting after the Republican National Committee and state GOP filed a challenge to the vote. …
It remains unclear how the referendum will proceed, though the state Supreme Court has previously declined to block the vote altogether and a separate case is expected to continue on the merits.
So the fat lady hasn’t even begun to sing on this.
The hearing appears to be scheduled for March 18; that’s why I wrote “for now.”
More here:
In his written ruling, [Judge] Hurley found the plaintiffs have an “extraordinarily high likelihood of success on the merits,” including their claim that the referendum violates the timing requirement of Article XII, Section 1 of the Virginia Constitution because early voting is set for “sooner than 90 days after” the January passage of House Joint Resolution 4.
Hurley also found the ballot language — particularly the phrase “restore fairness” — is likely misleading and violates the Constitution because it “would lead a voter to believe he or she were doing something unfair by voting against the proposed amendment.”
The order states that “the equities of this case warrant temporary relief ‘for the limited purpose of preserving the status quo between the parties pending a hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction.’”
The referendum was scheduled for April 21, with early voting scheduled to start March 6.
Alongside California, Virginia has become one of Democrats’ best opportunities to gain U.S. House seats in the upcoming midterms through redistricting. Under the current map, Democrats hold a narrow 6-5 edge in Virginia’s congressional delegation. The proposed map would boost that advantage to 10-1.
President Donald Trump received 46% of the vote in Virginia in 2024, Republicans note, but they contend the new map would reduce GOP representation to roughly 9% of the delegation.
Is there anything gerrymandering can’t do?
SCOTUS strikes down Trump’s claim to tariff powers under the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act)
It seems a lot of people on the right who have followed this case closely are not especially surprised. I didn’t follow it closely, but I still am not especially surprised. It seems that he can still impose tariffs under other statutes – perhaps.
The power to impose duties is the power to create revenue streams, and the framers of the Constitution understood the dangers of allowing the executive as both head of state and head of government its own independent revenue. Kings had those powers before Parliament became supreme in England, and for a while afterward as well. Trump and his team had proposed at times that he could exert full authority over tariff revenue without seeking approval from Congress, which makes this a very apt concern about crossing those boundaries. Tariffs imposed by Congress create revenue streams they control, and can then appropriate as they see fit, allowing them to use the power of the purse to oversee and check executive authority.
This is the reason I have always been skeptical that Trump would succeed in a challenge to these tariffs, at least under the emergency powers of the IEEPA. However, that’s not the only way in which Trump could justify these tariffs. Jonathan Turley reminded Fox viewers that Trump has other statutes on which he can rely, although those come with restrictions, and Bruce Mehlman laid them out on Twitter as well …
The ruling was 6-3, with Alito, Thomas, and Kavanaugh dissenting and Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts joining the liberals to make the majority.
What are these other ways that might be used impose tariffs? You can find a list here, but I have no idea how SCOTUS would react to them.
Trump has criticized the justices who voted against him, particularly the ones who are supposedly on the right; I think that’s a bad move for many reasons, and one of them is practical: it won’t make them more inclined to vote in his favor in the future. They’re only human. Trump added:
But at the same time, Trump said the ruling allows him to take other routes, and possibly impose stronger tariffs. So I cannot tell if he is happy or mad, especially since he said he should have used these alternative routes in the first place:
“Effective immediately, all national security tariffs under Section 232 and existing Section 301 tariffs remain in place… Today, I will sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
See also this from Turley:
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley called the Supreme Court’s Friday decision on tariffs a “blow to the administration” and argued justices feared a “slippery slope” when it comes to President Donald Trump’s authority. …
Turley said Trump’s team did a “terrific job” and “could not have argued the case better,” but Chief Justice John Roberts and others viewed the emergency tariffs as a tax and under the authority of Congress.
“The night is hardly over for the administration,” Turley warned, arguing there are still other statutes the president can use to impose tariffs.
The latest decision, he added though, could have sweeping effects on both the economy and the administration’s foreign policy, which has sometimes included using the threat of tariffs against other countries.
See also this from John Hinderaker:
I think it is worth noting that the financial markets did not react to today’s decision, either positively or negatively. If it were true that tariffs would devastate our economy, as liberals have claimed, today’s news should have caused the markets to skyrocket. Conversely, of course, if the tariffs were seen by sophisticated observers as a great boon to our economy, the markets should have tanked. The fact that neither happened suggests that the overall impact of tariffs, at least in the short term, was close to being a wash.
Open thread 2/20/2026
I looked up a few of these, and they were indeed the wedding dresses the real people actually wore. So different from today:
Tucker Carlson says the mean Joos detained him in Israel
Taking a leaf out of Greta Thunberg’s book, Tucker Carlson made the claim that the Israelis “detained” him at the airport:
“Men who identified themselves as airport security took our passports, hauled our executive producer into a side room, and then demanded to know what we discussed with Ambassador Huckabee,” Carlson stated in his Wednesday interview with The Daily Mail.
A spokesperson for the US Embassy in Israel told The Daily Mail that Carlson’s claims were inaccurate and clarified that he only received the same passport-control questions that many visitors to Israel encounter.
Israel Airports Authority further confirmed that Carlson was “politely asked a few routine questions, in accordance with standard procedures applied to many travelers” in a late Wednesday X/Twitter post.
The questions were asked in a private, VIP lounge to protect his and his party’s privacy, the authority said, adding that “no unusual incident occurred” and it rejects any such claims.
Not the first time Carlson has lied about Israel and Jews. And I doubt it’s the last. It’s his stock in trade, his clickbait.
Oh, and then there was this:
Tucker Carlson was seen hugging and taking a photograph with a Ben-Gurion Airport employee, according to footage circulating on social media on Thursday, contradicting his claim to The Daily Mail that he was detained and hauled off by security.
In the video, he was seen smiling and hugging staff at the airport. He appeared to be unaccompanied, further contradicting his claims that he was travelling with security guards.
Sources confirmed to The Jerusalem Post that Carlson did not leave the airport during his visit and conducted the interview with US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee there. He departed Israel around 3 p.m., concluding a trip that lasted only a few hours.
An in-depth fact-finding mission for the intrepid investigative reporter.
I also came across this today:
