I don’t know the year, but I estimate this to have been filmed about 100 years ago. Pavlova had a poor turnout and weak ankles; her technique would be utterly unacceptable in a professional ballet dancer today. But she sure could dance, although in a very different style:
Still time to order Christmas gifts from Amazon
It’s the last night of Chanukah, but there’s still time to order Christmas gifts from Amazon and have them arrive before December 25. If you’re like me, you’ve probably postponed your shopping – I just did some of mine last night. If you use Amazon, please click on the Amazon portal on the right sidebar on desktops and laptops, and towards the bottom of the site as it displays on cellphones and the like. I get a small percentage from every purchase. The Amazon graphic may not display if you don’t disable your ad-blocker. Thanks very much!
Those Hamas leaders – are they still in Qatar?
Here’s an Israeli comedy bit about them:
Brilliant! Latest clip from @Eretz_Nehederet on Gaza and Hamas. pic.twitter.com/0vjceF8HB8
— Arsen Ostrovsky ?? (@Ostrov_A) December 13, 2023
But is it outdated? Have they left sunny Qatar for parts unknown? Your guess is as good as mine, but here’s the story:
Several Hamas leaders recently left Qatar together with their entourages, cutting off communications including cellphones.
The leaders left for Algeria, Lebanon, Iran and other countries, according to sources cited by Kan News’s Arabic channel. …
They live a life of luxury in the Gulf state even as most Arabs in Gaza live in abject poverty.
The article goes on to say that the number two man of Hamas, who ordinarily lives in Lebanon, has moved to Turkey.
SCOTUS will be hearing a J6 case
This is good news – I think:
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about an obstruction law that over 300 January 6 defendants have been charged with by the DOJ.
The case is Fischer v. U.S. The statute is 18 U.S. Code 1512(c)(2):
“Whoever corruptly…otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
The law came into effect due to the 2002 Enron scandal.
It was never meant to apply to anything like J6, and no attempt had previously been made to apply it to a demonstration. But prosecutors took it out, dusted it off, and made it oh-so-useful. The SCOTUS ruling will not only impact many of the J6 defendants, but president Trump himself. The law is, among other things, confusing for vagueness and much too general.
More here [emphasis mine]:
Defense attorneys say the government is using the power of law enforcement to misinterpret, and even weaponize, nebulous language in the legal code.
In three separate motions filed on Oct. 23, Trump’s lawyers repeatedly raised objections based on the “vagueness” factor of the four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Jan. 6 criminal indictment against Trump. Those four charges are: conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct, conspiracy against rights, and obstruction of an official proceeding. …
[Among the J6 defendants] Jacob Chansley, the so-called “QAnon Shaman,” was the first protester charged for obstruction of an official proceeding, on Jan. 11, 2021.
Some of the accused never entered the Capitol or went inside after Congress recessed. Enrique Tarrio, leader of the Proud Boys, was in a Baltimore hotel on Jan. 6 following court orders to stay out of the nation’s capital. Trump himself never set foot on Capitol Hill that day.
The same cannot be said for Thomas Robertson, a Virginia police sergeant at the time. (He was immediately fired from his job.) The government indicted Robertson, a former Army Ranger with no criminal record, on six federal crimes including 1512(c)(2). Despite Robertson’s facing no charge related to assaulting a police officer or vandalizing property – and being inside the building for roughly 20 minutes – U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper revoked Robertson’s bond in July 2021.
Before his April 2022 trial, Robertson filed a motion to dismiss the charge related to 1512(c)(2). Robertson argued, as others have in similar dismissal motions, that Congress’ work on Jan. 6 was outside the fundamental scope of the law. “The electoral count is a ceremonial and administrative event that is not an ‘official proceeding’ contemplated in §1512; it is not an adjudicative proceeding involving witness testimony and evidence,” his lawyer wrote.
These J6 obstruction cases are examples of what one might call the Beria approach to prosecution: “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” I’d like to believe that SCOTUS will do the right thing and rule that the law is being misapplied here, and is so vague as to make it possible to charge people for almost any protest. And I tend to think that’s the way it will go, although it’s impossible to tell and we’ve been disappointed by the Court many many times.
SCOTUS may also rule on an issue connected with another Trump case:
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan paused almost all proceedings concerning former President Donald Trump’s election interference case in D.C. as the courts above her decide on his claim that he has presidential immunity.
… Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity.
This one only affects Trump’s case, of course, rather than the J6 defendants. And at the very least, it will probably delay the Jack Smith court case.
Roundup on Israel/Palestine
(1) There’s a certain inconsistency in the message the Biden administration is giving out regarding Israel. It’s almost certainly based on the fact that Democrat voters are split on the subject, and the administration is faced with the dilemma of trying to placate both the pro-Israel and pro-Hamas wing of the party in an election year.
The bobbing and weaving tends to take the general form of Blinken = somewhat good cop and Biden = somewhat bad cop, but each man also is inconsistent within his own utterances and moves back and forth between the two stances.
(2) The Times of Isreal has a heartbreaking series on each of the people who were murdered by Hamas on October 7. It reminds me somewhat of the series the NY Times had on the dead of 9/11. So many beautiful young people, seemingly with their lives ahead of them. In Israel, however, you have the added horror of instances of many members of families being killed, and it was done up close and personal with extreme savagery. On 9/11, a fairly small number of terrorists were able to kill large number of people en masse in four airplanes, but in Israel there were thousands of perpetrators who killed their victims one by one.
(3) Switzerland’s lower house of parliament has voted to cut off the country’s funding of UNRWA. Switzerland has been UNRWA’s ninth-largest donor. How about it, US?
(4) Speaking of Europe:
Several Hamas-linked terrorists were arrested in a series of raids in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands, the European media reported Thursday.
#Breaking Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) says they worked with law enforcement in Denmark, who arrested seven terrorists working with Hamas to plan a terrorist attack in Europe.
— Lahav Harkov ?? (@LahavHarkov) December 14, 2023
(5) As though things weren’t bad enough in crime-ridden Oakland, California, there’s this:
A large menorah erected at Lake Merritt’s amphitheater was torn apart and thrown into the water early this morning by vandals who, according to Jewish leaders, also spray painted anti-Israel and antisemitic graffiti on the sidewalk nearby.
This morning, a crew of city workers recovered the menorah’s metal parts while police waited nearby for local Jewish leaders to arrive.
“I feel afraid,” said Rabbi Dovid Labkowski, of the Chabad Center of Oakland, which set up the large outdoor display. “It makes me feel angry that this would happen in Oakland, a place with so much diversity.
That statement seems ironic to me, since “diversity” probably contributes to the problem.
Open thread 12/14/23
[Hat tip: Ace]
I'm scared ?pic.twitter.com/z8i8HGFFjN
— Epoch Animal Lovers (@EP_AnimalLovers) December 12, 2023
The nine countries which voted with Israel in the UN
It’s a strange combination. Aside from the US, we have Austria and Lithuania, two countries extremely cognizant of the Holocaust; Czechia; two Latin American countries, Guatemala and Paraguay; Liberia; and three Micronesian republics.
That’s it.
Twenty-three other countries abstained, but I’m having trouble locating a list of them.
The resolution passed resoundingly by a huge majority, and did not even mention Hamas:
– The resolution also reiterated the General Assembly’s demand that all parties comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, “notably with regard to the protection of civilians”
– Prior to the resolution, two amendments making specific reference to extremist group Hamas were voted down by members
The resolution also demanded the release of hostages – but again, it doesn’t even mention Hamas or terrorism.
The UN is an utterly discredited institution, and has been for a long long time. Also, its demands are meaningless, except as propaganda.
From the Israeli UN delegate, words of truth:
Israel’s Permanent Representative, Gilad Erdan, said that the General Assembly finds itself “about to vote on another hypocritical resolution.”
“Not only does this resolution fail to condemn Hamas for crimes against humanity, it does not mention Hamas at all. This will only prolong the death and destruction in the region, that is precisely what a ceasefire means,” he said.
He added that the only intention of Hamas is to destroy Israel and that the group has declared that it will repeat its atrocities again and again until Israel ceases to exist.
“So why would anyone want to aid Hamas in continuing their rule of terror and actualizing their satanic agenda?”, he asked.
“We all know that the so call humanitarian ceasefire in this resolution has nothing to do with humanity. Israel is already taking every measure to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza,” he added.
Why “would anyone want to aid Hamas in continuing their rule of terror and actualizing their satanic agenda?” The question is rhetorical. The answer is some combination of cowardice, leftism, ignorance, Jew-hatred, and evil, in differing proportions for different people.
Signs of hostage life: Naama Levy and others
Naama Levy was the young woman last seen in a video, being dragged away by terrorists and with the crotch area of her pants bloodied. Here is some slightly encouraging news, courtesy of the freed hostages:
In addition to all the other dangers, any wounded hostage is potentially subject to an infection that can kill.
Self-admitted voter fraud
This Rasmussen poll is certainly interesting, and it’s only what people are admitting to. It’s not the type of organized, institutionalized voter fraud alleged to have been witnessed in the 2020 election, but it’s the type that is alleged as part and parcel of the move to mass mail-in voting without proper safeguards:
More than 20% of voters who used mail-in ballots in 2020 admit they participated in at least one form of election fraud.
A new national telephone and online survey by Rasmussen Reports and The Heartland Institute finds that 21% of Likely U.S. voters who voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election say they filled out a ballot, in part or in full, on behalf of a friend or family member, such as a spouse or child, while 78% say they didn’t. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Thirty percent (30%) of those surveyed said they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election. Nineteen percent (19%) of those who cast mail-in votes say a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf. Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. All of these practices are illegal, Heartland Institute officials noted.
“The results of this survey are nothing short of stunning,” said Justin Haskins, director of the Socialism Research Center at the Heartland Institute. “For the past three years, Americans have repeatedly been told that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. But if this poll’s findings are reflective of reality, the exact opposite is true.
I have repeatedly said that the way mail-in voting was expanded and used in 2020 – with security rules so relaxed as to be crying out for violation – undermined Americans’ faith in the election whether or not massive fraud occurred, and was dangerous for that reason alone. Nothing in this report should be surprising except for the fact that many people admitted it in a poll.
The following may not earn me any popularity points, but I nevertheless wonder if some of the respondents to this poll were people on the right lying in their fraud confessions in order to establish the idea of a fraudulent 2020 election. The following results indicate to me that this actually might be the case – for some, anyway:
Among those who cast mail-in ballots in 2020, nearly equal percentages of Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated voters admitted to fraudulent activities. For example, 19% of Republicans, 16% of Democrats and 17% of unaffiliated voters who cast 2020 mail-in ballots say they signed a ballot or ballot envelope on behalf of a friend or family member. On the question of voting in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident. more Republican mail-in voters (24%) than Democrats (17%) or unaffiliated voters (11%) admitted doing so.
Of course, fewer Republicans than Democrats voted by mail in 2020, so higher percentages don’t necessarily mean greater absolute numbers. But the parties weren’t all that far from each other in terms of voting by mail itself:
More Biden voters (36%) than Trump voters (23%) say they voted by absentee or mail-in ballot in the 2020 election. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of Democrats voted by mail in 2020, as did 24% of Republicans and 27% of voters not affiliated with either major party.
So, what does it all mean? I’m not sure, except that I continue to believe that (a) we’ll never know how much mass, institutionalized, organized fraud occurred in the 2020 election; it may have been a lot or not so much, but there are reasons to suspect the opportunity was there to a greater extent than in previous elections (b) personal election fraud of the type measured by this survey probably occurred in record numbers as well, but it’s not clear that this poll is accurately measuring it.
And I remain in strong favor of increasing election security, but it will not be happening in blue states and blue cities.
Boston’s POC Christmas Party echoes Eddie Murphy’s famous SNL bus sketch in reverse
First, the old Eddie Murphy sketch. On watching it again after many years, I’m struck by the fact that, although I had remembered the first two bits – in the store; and the party on the bus – I had forgotten the third one: the bank loan. The last one in particular mimics what later happened with mortgages, except in reverse as far as “people of color” went:
Now, the recent news (Wu is the mayor of Boston):
A Wu administration official, on behalf of the mayor, mistakenly sent all Boston city councilors an email Tuesday inviting them to a holiday party that was meant exclusively for “electeds of color,” prompting an apology and mixed reactions.
Denise DosSantos, the mayor’s director of City Council relations, told the body’s “honorable members” that, “on behalf of Mayor Michelle Wu,” she was cordially inviting each of them “and a guest to the Electeds of Color Holiday Party on Wednesday, Dec. 13 at 5:30 p.m. at the Parkman House, 33 Beacon St.”
Approximately 15 minutes later, however, DosSantos sent out a follow-up email to city councilors, apologizing for the prior email, which was apparently only meant for those who were invited. The body includes seven white councilors and six of color.
Oopsies and double oopsies.
Wu is Asian, and DosSantos is black. The “apology” said this:
I did send that to everyone by accident, and I apologize if my email may have offended or came across as so. Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
May have offended? How about “I’m sorry that my email was offensive” – the sort of real apology one seldom sees. Or how about “I’m sorry that even entertaining the idea of such a secret racially restrictive party is deeply offensive, and actually planning such a party in secret is doubly so”? Nah, that sort of apology won’t be seen.
And as far as resultant “confusion” goes, the only confusion I can imagine is the white recipients wondering why they got the email, and some of the rest of us wondering why there probably will be no serious repercussions for the senders.
Open thread 12/13/23
A seasonal Sugarplum.
I know who my favorite is, and why:
You can see one of the differences even in the thumbnail comparison photos. The dancer on the left employs beautiful épaulement, so very rare these days.
AI on the blog?
Commenter “huxley” writes:
A tiny heads-up.
Within months you are going to start getting Chat-generated comments. I have no idea what you should do.
I don’t know either, but here’s my take on it.
If I understand the definition of AI, spam comments are a very primitive form of AI that’s been generating comments on blogs almost as long as blogs have been in existence. Spam blockers do fairly well with that sort of thing, although now and then something sneaks through. I don’t know what algorithm spam blockers use to detect them, because although most are quite easy to detect, others are more difficult.
However, present-day AI is far more sophisticated and getting more so every day. I like to think I could detect it anyway, but the truth is that maybe I couldn’t. My sense of how I could tell which comments are AI has to do with the nearly twenty years I’ve been reading comments here, and after all that time I notice that each person has a “signature” – an idiosyncratic and personal style. Could AI mimic that well enough? Perhaps. Or would it remain just a mite tone-deaf? I don’t know.
For now, I usually recognize when a troll has come back under a different moniker. It works on the same principle – recognizing a style. There are other ways to tell, too, trade secret methods that I won’t describe here because I don’t want to give them away.
AI worries me very much though, particularly fake videos. It’s difficult enough now to tell what is true and what is false. AI may make it impossible. Where will we be then?