O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright

The New Neo Posted on by

I felt a catch in my throat when I heard that Olivia Hussey had died at 73. She will always be Juliet to me, a role I saw her play in a movie theater in 1968 when the Zefferelli film first came out.

I was already very familiar with “Romeo and Juliet,” because we had studied it in depth in junior high school, acting out every scene in classroom readings. I described the process in this 2007 post:

[Our teacher] Mr. Jones tackled the whole thing by making us read every single word aloud. He called on some students to act out each part for a few pages, then switched to other students, and on and on, right to the last line. It took months. No matter how embarrassed we were, or what poor actors we were, or how we stumbled and faltered, we had to read those words. And he was big on non-traditional casting, too; he’d sometimes call on the boys to read the female parts and vice-versa. Talk about embarrassment!

One boy, Carl Anderson, who had the platinum hair and fair skin of his Norwegian forebearers, blushed scarlet every time he was called on to read. Then he’d blush even more startlingly scarlet as embarrassing words were revealed (“Sleep dwell upon thine eyes, peace in thy breast! Would I were sleep and peace, so sweet to rest!”). But read he did.

Some read in monotones, some gave it pizazz. And then, after every couple of lines, Mr. Jones would have them pause and try to explain the meaning. If they couldn’t guess, the class would tackle it. If all else failed, Mr. Jones would tell us. But, line by line, the wonderful and sorrowful story emerged, and we slowly got better at deciphering it.

As the characters came alive for us, line by line, Shakespeare (and Mr. Jones) managed that feat at which the writers of so many modern movies fail abysmally: making us care about the characters, and making us believe the lovers actually love each other, and showing us why. We loved Romeo and Juliet, too; and we could see that they were exceptionally well-suited to one another, each able to express emotions in ways no other teenagers ever have or ever will.

But when I saw the 1968 movie I was stunned at how beautiful both Hussey and her Romeo, Leonard Whiting, were. They were good actors, too, and the movie was heartrending at conveying the desperate intensity and joy of young love. I cried a great deal when I watched it, and you know what? I still cry when I watch it. Zefferelli cut some of the lines to make the movie’s pace quicker, but it’s a brilliant movie and the casting of Hussey and Whiting was especially so.

Here’s the scene where Romeo and Juliet first see each other:

And of course there’s the death scene. I can’t find a video that shows all the parts I want, so I’ll post this in two segments:

RIP, Olivia Hussey.

Jimmy Carter dies at 100

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ll start with RIP, as well as the observation that I voted for him twice.

And yet I think he did a lot of harm as president. The harm was not driven by animus towards America, however; it was just poor judgment.

I’ve written a great deal about Carter and Iran, which was probably his most serious and long-lasting mistake. You can find most of those posts here, as well as many others about Carter. Here’s a post from 2021 that features a comparison Trump made back then, comparing Carter to Biden:

“I see that everybody is comparing Joe Biden to Jimmy Carter,” Trump noted. “It would seem to me that is very unfair to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy mishandled crisis after crisis, but Biden has CREATED crisis after crisis.”

You might say, however, that in a way Carter helped to create the Iran crisis. This is what I’m talking about:

The Shah lived in what’s known as a “rough neighborhood.” This meant that, in order to implement the modernization of Iran, he felt he needed to be harsh in dealing with the opposition. Jimmy Carter was dedicated to the cause of spreading human rights throughout the world, and he decided to put pressure to bear on the Shah to expand civil liberties and relax his policies towards those in his country who were against him.

Carter threatened the Shah with cutting arms shipments, and in response:

“The Shah…released 357 political prisoners in February, 1977. But lifting the lid of repression even slightly encouraged the Shah’s opponents. An organization of writers and publishers called for freedom of thought, and 64 lawyers called for the abolition of military tribunals. Merchants wrote letters requesting more freedom from government controls. Some people took to the streets, perhaps less fearful of being shot to death, and they clashed with police. A group of 120 lawyers joined together to publicize SAVAK torture and to monitor prison conditions. Dissident academics formed a group called the National Organization of University Teachers, and they joined students in demanding academic freedom. Political dissidents started disseminating more openly their semi-clandestine publications.”

As events spiraled out of control, there were demonstrations throughout Iran. Police reacted harshly, and many protesters were killed, which led to more demonstrations and more deaths, which led to–well, you get the idea.

A genie of dissent had been unleashed–a valid one, because there was much to protest. But as things escalated, and the Shah eventually lost the support of the army and the police (a turning point), few seemed to be prescient enough to predict what forces would replace his regime–not what was hoped for, but what was likely to do so. There were only three choices, and two of them–the mullahs and the Marxists–could reasonably be expected to be far more repressive than the Shah.

Jimmy Carter was probably sincere in wishing that his pressure on the Shah would lead to greater civil liberties, not fewer. But if so, it was one of the gravest miscalculations in history. Be careful what you wish for.

And then there’s Israel. A great deal of the damage Carter did to Israel occurred after he was president, in particular around the time he wrote the book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and called the wall Israel built to defend itself an “imprisonment wall” (the link and the following quotes are from a post I wrote in 2006) What a way with words Carter had:

Jimmy Carter, peacemaker extraordinaire, has called the wall Israel has built an “imprisonment wall.”

A strange notion of imprisonment, indeed. How can a wall designed to keep murderers out of a single small country (Israel), and yet allowing them freedom of movement elsewhere, be considered a prison?

I wonder if Jimmy locks his doors. Because if he does, isn’t he imprisoning someone? Locking out those who might want to steal from him, or murder him? Isn’t that the main reason we all lock our doors (although I have to say, in New England, I know quite a few people who don’t)?

Did Carter even notice the number of suicide bombers blowing Israelis to bits before the wall was erected, and has he compared it to the number of such bombings since?

But no. Carter is almost as demented as Gandhi was when he counseled the Jews to allow Hitler to murder them so that they might claim the moral high ground and set an example of peace/love. Ah, these wonderful peace advocates, always wanting the Jews to sacrifice themselves for the cause! Jimmy, likewise, would like Jews to die in order to give Palestinians freedom of movement within Israel–the freedom to come there and slaughter Jews with impunity.

I haven’t read Carter’s book, but according to this review in the Washington Post, he managed to write the entire thing–which focuses on the topic of the wall–without once conceding that it was built to prevent the murder of Jews.

Astounding. But not surprising.

[NOTE: on the topic of the inflammatory title of Carter’s book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, read Michael Kinsley in Slate.]

There’s plenty more, but I’ll leave it at that.

ADDENDUM: More details here.

Those fouettés

The New Neo Posted on by

You might say that the turns in ballet known as fouettés are a sort of parlor trick. They’re neither beautiful nor interesting – at least, not to me – and are mostly a physical feat that requires great skill. In that sense, I admire modern-day ballet dancers who not only can do them in abundance but casually throw in doubles and triples, something you never used to see when I was a child. Now they are almost routine.

In this clip of many segments of fouettés done by different dancers, you can not only see the doubles and triples, but variations on the arms, some of which make the whole operation more and more difficult. The closer to the body the arms are held, the easier the turns are; not that they’re ever easy. But whenever you raise the arms or place them away from the body, it slows down momentum and becomes even more difficult. There is also one dancer who varies the direction in which she looks or “spots” as she turns, and some dancers turn faster than others.

Enjoy:

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Biden met with Hunter’s Chinese business associates, and it’s being treated as news – at least by media on the right, although I really think we already knew this. On the left, as far as I can see, it’s being pretty much ignored.

(2) The MSM is happy to report that there’s a “feud” or a “war” between DOGE and MAGA on the subject of H-1B visas. There’s certainly a heated disagreement:

-President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday sided with key supporter and billionaire tech CEO Elon Musk in a public dispute over the use of the H-1B visa, saying he fully backs the program for foreign tech workers opposed by some of his supporters.

Trump’s remarks followed a series of social media posts from Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, who vowed late Friday to go to “war” to defend the visa program for foreign tech workers.

Trump, who moved to limit the visas’ use during his first presidency, told The New York Post on Saturday he was likewise in favor of the visa program.

“I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program,” he was quoted as saying.

Musk, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in South Africa, has held an H-1B visa, and his electric-car company Tesla obtained 724 of the visas this year. H-1B visas are typically for three-year periods, though holders can extend them or apply for green cards.

(3) Another person on fire in NYC, this time in Grand Central Station. This time the person was burned but is still alive. In this case, the man is believed to have set himself on fire.

(4) Meanwhile, the illegal alien who is believed to be the person who set a woman on fire in the NYC subway has been indicted for her death.

(5) Dave Barry’s year in review.

Biden’s Christmas message

The New Neo Posted on by

I very much doubt that this message, which purports to come from Biden, actually was written by him. But whoever composed it has no sense of irony. Here’s the section to which I’m referring [emphasis mine]:

Yes, even after 2000 years, Christmas still has the power to lift us up, to bring us together, to change lives, to change the world. It speaks to all of us as human beings who are here on this earth, to care for one another, to love one another.

And too often we see each other as enemies, not as neighbors, not as fellow Americans. So my hope this Christmas season is that we take a few moments of quiet reflection, find that stillness in the heart of Christmas and look at each other as who we really are, fellow Americans, fellow human beings, worthy of being treated with dignity and respect, because there’s so much that unites us as Americans, so much more that unites us than divides us.

Biden’s campaign and Harris’ campaign conveyed the antithesis of that sentiment.

Hamas won’t give Israel a list of living hostages

The New Neo Posted on by

You would think it was the very least Hamas could do: provide a list of living hostages who might be freed in any deal with Israel. But apparently even that is too much, according to Hamas:

On Wednesday, Israeli officials charged that Hamas had backed away from a softened stance that could have enabled a deal, and instead returned to a position that is holding up progress. The allegation came after the terror group accused Israel of making new demands in the negotiations and causing a delay.

An unnamed Hamas official told the Qatari-owned Al-Araby Al-Jadeed outlet on Thursday that Hamas has provided a partial list of living hostages to negotiators, but is unable to communicate with all the groups holding captives.

The terror group will be in a better position to provide information on the hostages once a ceasefire has begun and communication in Gaza becomes easier, he said.

What complete garbage. “Oh, just let’s have a ceasefire and we’ll find out for you, because your nasty little war is all that’s holding us back from perfect communication with our minions holding people captive.”

Of course, Hamas knows that it works to blame Israel for everything that goes wrong. It works both on the international stage and also with Israel’s left, and with many of the hostage families who have suffered terribly all this time. They want answers and they want their loved ones back, and who can blame them?

But at what cost? That has always been the question. Hamas wants the cost to Israel to be exponentially high. The hostages are their final trump card and they are playing it for all it’s worth.

Do they actually not know where all the hostages are and who is alive and who is dead? I think that is probably one case in which they are telling the truth – there are some hostage-taking freelancers and there is also some disorganization. That does not excuse Hamas in any way. They are 100% to blame for every casualty and injury in this war that began with mass murder on 10/7.

And then of course there is the ever-present question of how many hostages remain alive. I do not think the answer is zero, but the true figure is completely unknown. If I had to guess, I’d say somewhere in the thirties, but that is a complete guess.

When is an insurrection not an insurrection? When the left does it

The New Neo Posted on by

And notice that to these two lawyers, “our democracy” isn’t so very precious:

Evan Davis, the former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review, and David Schulte, the former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal, argue in a joint column in The Hill that Congress not only has the power to block Trump from taking office but should.

Their column doesn’t cover much new ground. It references Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which disqualifies individuals who have engaged in insurrection from holding office, despite the fact that Trump did no such thing. Heck, he hasn’t even been charged with such an offense, and when you consider the fact that rogue left-wing prosecutors have charged him with all sorts of made-up crimes, that says something. …

Not only is the foundation of their argument weak, but they’re relying on partisan cases that all failed. They’re calling on Democrats to do exactly what was once considered an unprecedented attack on democracy, which not only undermined the will of the voters but also subverted the entire electoral process. The authors insist that it’s not okay to have doubts about an election where the Democrat was declared the victor, yet it is more than okay to use bogus arguments to prevent a Republican from taking office.

“The unlikelihood of congressional Republicans doing anything that might elect Harris as president is obvious,” they write. “But Democrats need to take a stand against Electoral College votes for a person disqualified by the Constitution from holding office unless and until this disability is removed. No less is required by their oath to support and defend the Constitution.”

Actually, I don’t think “insurrection” is the proper word for their suggestion. I think “coup” is – but then again, there have been so many coup attempts against Trump ever since he won the 2016 election that I’ve lost count.

Not to mention the successful coup against Joe Biden, the rightful Democrat nominee as selected in the primaries, running for the presidency in 2024.

Coup, schmoo. The left wants what it wants and will bend the rules till they break in order to get it. However, it’s pretty easy to predict that the suggestions of these law professors won’t be carried out, as they themselves admit. I’m not really sure why they wrote the article, except to give succor to the voters still grieving for Kamala’s loss, and to keep moving that Overton Window.

It occurs to me that …

The New Neo Posted on by

… the 25th Amendment is crying out for revision. It clearly doesn’t work in its present form. Despite the amendment and despite Joe Biden’s obvious mental decline and inability to discharge the duties involved in being President of the United States, it hasn’t been invoked and that has allowed a nameless and faceless bunch of unelected aides to run the country.

Why? Because that’s the way the Democrats wanted it.

Let’s look at the relevant elements of the amendment. First we have Section 3:

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

This part is fairly straightforward and is about voluntary relinquishment on the part of the president. It was never activated by Biden – either because he refused or because those in power wanted him to remain in place as a convenient figurehead.

Then there is Section 4. It’s more complex and involves actions by a president and actions by the Cabinet and Congress:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

But during the Biden administration, despite the Cabinet and Vice President knowing of his disability, nothing was done. In fact, there was a huge effort by the Cabinet, Harris, and the MSM to cover up the entire situation. It’s really quite extraordinary; politics, in the sense of “what’s good for the Party and bad for Trump?” took precedence over everything else.

It’s an example of the truism that laws are only as good as the people executing them. That’s why, even though I started out this post by saying the 25th Amendment needs improvement, I can’t think of a way to do it that wouldn’t fall prey to the same basic problems. I doubt very much that the amendment’s drafters ever thought of the particular situation we’ve found ourselves in during the Biden administration and particularly in this lamest of lame-duck periods since the 2024 election.

Did they or didn’t they?: Russia and the Azerbaijani airplane

The New Neo Posted on by

I haven’t written anything about the Azerbaijani airplane crash and Russia because I’ve been waiting for more clarity on the story.

But so far, clarity hasn’t come. So I’ll link to this:

Early indications suggest a Russian anti-aircraft system may have downed the passenger jet that crashed in Kazakhstan on Christmas Day, a US official told CNN, as authorities recovered a second black box that they hope will shed light on the cause of the disaster that killed dozens of people.

The signs point to a Russian system striking Azerbaijan Airlines flight J2-8243 before it crashed near the city of Aktau, the US official said Thursday.

This is the first time the US has offered an assessment of Wednesday’s crash, which killed at least 38 of the 67 people aboard the plane.

If the early indications are ultimately confirmed, it may have been a case of mistaken identity, the US official said, in which poorly trained Russian units have fired negligently against Ukraine’s use of drones.

Officials from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Russia urged people not to speculate about the crash until investigations have concluded.

Of course people are going to speculate. There are all sorts of conflicting stories and possibilities; read the link for more of the details.

There are some survivors:

At least 38 of the 67 people on board the plane were killed in the crash, Kazakh authorities confirmed, including two pilots and a flight attendant.

Some 29 survivors, two of whom are children, were pulled from the wreckage, Bozumbayev said.

RIP.