…[T]he most investigated man in America is set to walk away from another grand jury with no charges brought against him.
“A six-month grand jury convened to hear evidence in the investigation into the business dealings of former President Donald Trump has reportedly ended, and no charges are expected to be filed as the investigation appears to be waning.
“Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg recently ceased sending evidence to jurors.”
The Musk acquisition of Twitter continues to panic the left
You can see what’s going on here:
While discussing the Musk take-over on CNN’s potato time with Brain Stelter, “media analyst” David Zurawik proclaimed that Musk is “dangerous” and shouldn’t be allowed to restore free speech on the platform.
Zurawik suggested that the U.S. look to Europe, which has recently brought in new laws to limit social media, and even threatened to ban Twitter if Musk doesn’t play ball.
“There’s a bigger problem here about how we’re going to control the channels of communications in this country,” Zurawik frothed, panicking at the notion of the likes of CNN not being able to dictate what Americans think.
Musk has them very very frightened. They are accustomed to having controlled the “narrative” for so many people for so long that the prospect of losing at least some of that control is terrifying them and causing them to want to clamp down further.
I keep wondering whether they believe in their own virtue and self-righteousness, or whether that’s an act and they are simply Machiavellian. I suppose the answer isn’t all that important – what matters is the damage they have done and are still trying to do – but I continue to wonder. I suspect it’s about 50/50: half believe in their own virtue and half do not.
Roger L. Simon on the D’Souza film “2000 Mules”
Here’s some of what Roger Simon writes:
…[W]hat Engelbrecht and Phillips have done is to turn on its head what concerns many American citizen…that our government and Big Tech, separately and together, have been spying on our activities and whereabouts for years…
This is done in our case largely through our ubiquitous cellphones that, if the right apps are on board, and often we don’t know which is which, are able to track us even when the phone is turned off…
…[T]his tracking information has been gleaned by many local private companies and could be bought for a price.
True the Vote did that and used the geo-tracking to follow many “mules” in their nighttime travels from dropbox to dropbox. These peregrinations were matched with large numbers of videos of the ballot stuffing—staggering numbers, actually—that are available from several of the states, notably Georgia. Others seem to have “lost” them (Arizona).
You get to watch many of these videos in the film. I predict your mouth will be open, as was mine.
“2000 Mules” offers several mathematical formulations—depending on number of drop boxes, number of “mules,” how many ballots per “mule” and so forth—for how this stuffing of the drop boxes affected the overall election…
In case you’re interested, the “mules,” according to a whistleblower, got $10 per vote, more during the Georgia Senate runoff…
Guess whose activities and movements amazingly matched that of the “mules” in several instances via that same geo-tracking?
Ever heard of “Antifa”?
I haven’t seen the film, but I certainly plan to do so. Here’s the website with information on how to do that.
The left canceled D’Souza long ago and even pursued him legally for violations that are almost never prosecuted. This means that most Democrats you know – and even some independents as well as NeverTrumpers – will almost certainly dismiss the film out of hand as a lie without watching it.
Coming out as a conservative at Harvard, but very late in the game
Is this young woman courageous, or not, or something in-between? I suppose in-between:
Carine Hajjar dealt with ideological homogeneity at Harvard University for three-and-a-half years mostly in silence, but in the spring semester of her senior year, she finally came out as conservative. She said she has no regrets…
…Hajjar said what she experienced after coming out as conservative by becoming a columnist for the Harvard Crimson in her final months as a student at the Ivy League school in the spring of 2021 was camaraderie.
She received a lot of quiet agreement from peers, friends, teaching assistants and professors, including private emails, texts, and even people coming up to her in person expressing their approval and concurrence.
She also said some of her very liberal friends thanked her for writing her column, as they felt like they “couldn’t say anything anymore” due to today’s stigma and intense analysis of everything people say. Others told her to make sure she continued to write it, saying a contrarian point of view was sorely needed.
This shows a lot of people are fed up but are too scared to speak out due to the “progressive orthodoxy that’s a very vocal minority that rules over discourse,” she said.
But she already knew that, because for the bulk of the four years she was there, she was one of them: too scared to speak out. I’m not unsympathetic, but why did she take the easy way out for so long? Why so very much fear? I understand fear, but isn’t the cost of pretending to believe something you don’t believe way too great? Is status in the Harvard world, and the jobs that go with it, really worth that sort of moral compromise?
I don’t go round advertising my views to everyone; I pick and choose my battles. But I never have spoken or written something with which I disagree, just to get ahead. Of course, I never got that far ahead – my ambitions were rather muted. But even in graduate school in the 1990s, by which time my views were already somewhat to the right of the norm in academia, it never occurred to me to shut up and shy away from a fight, although I don’t like fighting.
Back then I saw other students be silent on issues and then come up to me privately and say they agreed with what I’d said but didn’t want to speak up themselves because of potential harm to their careers. The issues were smaller back then and the stakes lower, but they still were afraid. Nor am I holding myself out to be some brave Profile In Courage. By that point in time I simply didn’t care. I was middle-aged and I was not the support of an entire family, so I could afford not to care.
But something about the youngest generation as described in that link seems craven to me. Hajjar says:
“People are just afraid. It’s not that there are necessarily rules against saying conservative things; there’s just a social structure and an unspoken speech code that makes people really scared to express their views,” she said.
“It goes to show that there is probably a silent majority that is still liberal but thinks that things have gone too far on campus.”
If it’s a silent majority that thinks things are too far gone, then with their acquiescence they have allowed the unsilent and highly vocal radical minority to silence them.
More from Hajjar:
Hajjar also said many students are too scared to argue against loud, progressive voices in their classes due to the fear of being canceled if they said the wrong thing.
“It’s so easy just to take an extremely progressive stance. You know you’re never ever going to get in trouble for it, everyone has to nod along; instead of doing the hard thing and putting yourself out there,” she said.
It’s a cliche to say these people have been coddled all their lives and are afraid of any conflict or stress or what they call “harm”. I really don’t know if that’s true, though. I see the younger generation as having had a tough time: little to look up to and admire in government or the press or so many of our institutions, families that commonly feature divorce, drugs readily available, the sexual standards and mores that protected children in my day declining, social media pressures, arts that are so often decadent or empty – and that’s hardly an inclusive list.
I don’t envy them anything except their youth.
Open thread 5/2/22
The Bee Gees not only have had tons of hits, but they’ve had many many songs that either were unreleased or never promoted that I think are excellent, many of which could have been hits. Here’s just one of them (which happens to be from 1993) with some catchy hooks:
Dance teachers I have known: Natasha Boskovic
[NOTE: This is part of a series I’ve done. So far I’ve featured dance teachers Stanley Holden and Finis Jhung. There are plenty more I could write about.]
Last night I was musing about the changes in dance in my lifetime, a topic I’ve written about many times and which boils down to the sacrifice of art to gymnastics. Three of the most astounding ballet dancers I’ve ever seen – and I’ve seen many – are Violette Verdy, Carla Fracci, and Galina Ulanova, all of whom I’ve written about and all of whom had a transcendent essence that could not be captured on film. Verdy was the most fleet and musical dancer I’ve ever seen, Fracci the most charming and other-worldly – like an old ballet lithograph come to life – and Ulanova the best at naturalistic believability with a gossamer and fluid technique to support it. There’s no one today anything like them. The entire aesthetic that trained and elevated them is gone.
But I remember, and so do a lot of other people who aren’t young.
Which brings me to a dance teacher I’ve known: Natasha Boskovic. At the ages of fourteen and sixteen I attended an arts camp in Canada at which she was the ballet mistress. I spent many hours under her tutelage every day but Sunday, and even some Sundays when extra rehearsals loomed. She was a colorful old-world figure, with a cabin of her own that included a trunkful of memorabilia and old costumes, and many scrapbooks with wonderful clippings from around the world and marvelous photos of her with famous people in the ballet world of the 1930s.
Natasha had a Slavic accent (it turns out she was originally from Yugoslavia, although I was unaware of it at the time). Her favorite phrase when exasperated was German, however: “Gott in Himmel!” – and considering her task, which was to teach nearly every day and organize a huge end-of-summer dance production with students whom it would be kind to call amateurs, she had plenty of cause for exasperation. But most of the time she was wonderful to us all, although demanding.
Natasha was somewhat crippled, like so many of my early ballet teachers. She wasn’t young but she wasn’t very very old, nor were the rest of them. Dance had injured them way back when, and the injuries never quite healed. This was the case for Natasha, whose partner had dropped her several times (that’s what I recall her saying, anyway), and she had danced through the injuries and paid the price. Now she couldn’t really demonstrate steps but instead indicated them – and of course used the French nomenclature that every ballet student must learn. Sometimes she had one of the more advanced students demonstrate. But her own legs never went higher than a couple of inches off the floor, if that, and she walked with a limp.
One day she was engaged in teaching a friend of mine the Russian Dance from Act III of “Swan Lake,” the ballet we were performing that summer. The third act features dances from around the world, and the Russian variation is one. My friend was having trouble learning the style, which should appear effortless but was hard to pick up, and Natasha got out of her chair to demonstrate.
She hardly bothered with the feet, which didn’t feature pyrotechnics (and the dance was not on pointe; it was meant to be a character dance of the folkish variety). She was showing the arms, head, position of the body, and style.
But first she did the most extraordinary thing. I remember it still, very vividly. She turned on a spotlight inside herself.
I have never seen anyone do that before or since. Suddenly she glowed, although nothing external to her had changed. She radiated some tremendous power that was charismatic and enchanting and made you forget whatever was missing with her feet, or her considerable age. It was riveting, and no one – including the near-professional dancers in our midst – could begin to imitate it.
I have searched online for a video or photo of Natasha and can’t find even one. I doubt photos could capture what I’m talking about anyway. I did find some videos of more recent dancers performing that Russian Dance, but they’re not worth watching. They’re stiff and strange – at least to me – and they dance on pointe which I’m pretty sure was not the original way the dance was done. They strike pretty poses and wave their arms around, but it is nothing – and I mean nothing – like the transcendent artistry I saw in that room on that day.
Here’s the best one I’ve found. This is probably from the 1980s – I see Princess Diana is in the audience – and the dancer is Russian and not all that young. So it’s a bit more old-fashioned than other renditions you’ll see. Some even eliminate the obligatory handkerchief.
Please note the little hand waves that begin at 1:38. They were incredibly hard to perform naturalistically, and Natasha was especially masterful at imbuing them with charm. At around 2:58, note the funny hand rolls that make little sense; in Natasha’s version this was a forceful clap with the hands a la folkdance tradition:
Some years later when I was in my early 20s I attended some weekend classes at Natasha’s New York City studio. The classes were large and featured everyone from the likes of me to professional dancers, attracted by her knowledge and in particular the fabulous combinations she gave in the last half of the class, more like little ballets. I recalled that she had a notebook full of them to which she sometimes referred, but usually she did it completely from memory.
I was there in the summertime, and summer in Manhattan can have heat that’s brutal. Summer in Manhattan in a dance studio could be especially brutal – no air conditioning, ventilation only on one wall, and a room full of sweaty dancers. One day it was so hot that even before the class began we were all sweating. I took a moment, while we waited, to go into the hallway for a little more air.
As with many New York dance studios, this one featured a long long climb “up a steep and very narrow stairway.” At the bottom, I saw Natasha, but she didn’t see me because I was partially hidden by the door. She climbed very laboriously, a few steps at a time, looking alarmingly worn and tired. She frequently stopped to rest and get her wind back, and I believe she may have muttered “Gott in Himmel!” a few times.
I stepped back even further but I could still see her. But then, not many steps from the top, I saw her turn on the floodlights within again, just as I had years earlier. I ducked back into the entrance to the studio as she swept in, a huge smile on her face, looking twenty years younger and glowing from within, as the students applauded. Only I had witnessed the spectacular transformation.
Natasha Boskovic died just a couple of years later. Here is her obituary in the New York Times; it’s short. But in my memory she looms large.
The summer we did “Swan Lake,” I danced a few roles and among them was the Neapolitan Dance, another ethnic offering in Act III. She loaned me an old costume of hers for the occasion, a beautiful thing and easily the most wonderful costume I’ve ever worn, with satin appliques on a wide skirt. Here I am at sixteen:
RIP, Natasha, and thank you. You were rare and wonderful.
Roundup
(1) The New Hampshire Senate passes 1431, creating the New Hampshire Parents Bill of Rights. The text of the bill can be found here. My guess is that more states are contemplating something similar or with even more teeth. New Hampshire is not a red state anymore, either; it’s quite purple and is currently blue on the national level and red on the state level.
(2) Another incredibly bad idea from the Biden administration: forgive student loans. Democrats think it’s a great idea, though, because they believe it will buy them lots of votes from the younger crowd who are paying off such debts (some of them are even middle-aged by this time). No matter how much harm it stands to do the economy, as well as the whole concept of debt, the Democrats believe it will help them stay in power and nothing is more important than that. But I have my doubts about whether it will have the desired effect. Just to take one example, won’t people who already paid off their debts at great sacrifice to themselves be spitting mad?
(3) Everybody’s favorite head of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, has mentioned this idea as a possibility:
During his recent testimony before Congress, Mayorkas slipped in one option that Joe Biden is reportedly considering. In order to provide better care for the tens of thousands of illegal aliens streaming across the border, the White House is looking at the possibility of diverting funding from the Veterans Administration for that situation. Additionally, some of the doctors and nurses tasked with caring for our veterans could be reassigned to providing care for the illegals.
Priorities, priorities.
(4)Derek Chauvin has appealed his state conviction. Good. If you click on the link you’ll see what a strong case he has. But anyone who followed the trial – covered extensively at Legal Insurrection – should already know that. The list of irregularities, violations, and biases involving his trial is very long.
However, there are several problems, first and foremost among them that I don’t think any judge will dare to grant him a new trial for fear of riots. Nor do I think a new trial would change the verdict. Chauvin was tried immediately in the MSM and the verdict was rendered, and most people closed their eyes to any facts that might challenge that. Another problem is that he has already pleaded guilty to federal charges, probably because he and his family consider that a federal prison would be much better for him than state prison, if he must be incarcerated. I have no idea how his federal plea would complicate the appeal of the state verdict, although it’s clear that the two are related and that he never would have pleaded guilty if not for the state guilty verdict that was already rendered.
In October, Chauvin was denied when he asked to have a court-appointed attorney for his appeal. That may have delayed such an appeal. Powerline’s Scott Johnson explains:
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin was unaccountably denied a public defender to appeal his convictions in the death of George Floyd. Bill Mohrman answered my call for a Minnesota attorney to represent Chauvin on appeal. Bill filed his brief on behalf of Chauvin this week. It is posted online here. Derek Chauvin’s mother has set up a page to support the expenses of appeal here.
At least she didn’t make the error of using GoFundMe.
(5) Further doom and gloom on the left over Musk’s acquisition of Twitter.
The real “war on women”…
…is being waged by the left, and it’s on the very word “woman” and “women” and on the concept itself.
The left has supported transgender political and cultural activism to such a great extent that not only are biological men such as Lia Thomas allowed to enter women’s sports and compete there by claiming to be women, but the word “woman” itself has undergone a transformation for health professionals, who are now discouraged from using it.
Certainly it’s good for medical professionals to be aware that a person who looks like a man or a woman may have biological organs that don’t match his or her outward presentation and that it can be medically important to consider that possibility at times. But that’s a far far cry from eliminating the basic concepts of men and women and surrendering to the reduction of people to their genitalia.
The Massachusetts school [Wheaton College] has issued a language guide for professors…
Under the heading of “Natural Sciences,” the instructions explain, “Gender identity has a complicated relationship to biology and bodies.”
“Instructors in the natural sciences who teach about sex differences, sexuality, and/or reproduction may wish to consider using terms that are both more precise and which better account for these bodies and experiences.”
[Examples given are as follows]:
–Penis/testes/vulva/clitoris/etc. instead of “male genitalia” and “female genitalia”
–Assigned [male/female] at birth (AMAB or AFAB), instead of “born female” or “biological male”: acknowledges that which physical characteristics we use to assign sex at birth are determined by social norms and technological capabilities (in the U.S., for example, we rarely test hormone levels or chromosomes unless physical genitalia appear ambiguous), as well as the fact that this is an assignment, not the individual’s own self-identification.
–People with uteruses/people who menstruate/pregnant people/etc., instead of “women” or “females”: helps to specify the relevant organs or biological processes, instead of making assumptions about the identities of the people in question. “People with uteruses,” then, would include most (but not all) cisgender women, as well as many transgender men and nonbinary AFAB people. This specificity matters for trans and nonbinary students in class, but also for anyone who, for example, might become a healthcare worker — inability to access competent and sensitive medical treatment (not just transition-related health care, but also basic preventive and acute medical care) is a persistent problem for transgender people.
Since “women” are now defined only as “people who believe they are women,” actual bodies and their characteristic are excluded, and we must pretend that when we look at someone like Lia Thomas we don’t see a man when we clearly and unequivocally see a man who is in fact a man anatomically as well as chromosomally. But in the real world of health care (it still is at least somewhat in the real world, isn’t it?) bodies unavoidably enter the picture and therefore cannot be ignored. This results in an attempt to change the nomenclature into something tortuously complex with troubles all its own.
Note also that in this rush to defer to a very small number of transgender people (and by no means do all transgender people have any objection to using words such as “women” in a health care setting), actual women who lack uteruses for whatever reason are excluded by certain new definitions. The manual’s suggestion that “people with uteruses” includes “most but not all” of cisgender women (otherwise known as females) is the sort of thing I mean. The number of women without a uterus is hardly tiny, because not only are a very few women born without a uterus, but a great many women have had hysterectomies.
How many? This many:
Every year in the United States, over half a million women have a hysterectomy. By age 60, approximately one in three women in the U.S. have had one.
They’re not “people with uteruses.” But they are women.
The left’s war on language is a war on ideas. The traditional and universal concepts of “man” and “woman” are themselves a threat to the left and must be changed. I don’t even think this is about transgender rights; not really. It’s about something bigger: the desire of the left for control of every factor of society, including (and perhaps even especially) language and thought.
[NOTE: And this sort of insanity is a further example of how bizarre and stupid things have become.]
Open thread 4/30/22
On the Russian mindset
I found this quite fascinating. I was already familiar with this guy – Konstantin Kisin – from his “Triggernometry” podcasts, but I was previously unaware of much of his personal history as discussed here.
Just what we need – a recession
It’s been expected for quite some time. How bad will it be?:
The Fed maintains that it can thread the needle and raise interest rates just enough to clear away that pesky inflation, but not so much as to crush the economic recovery from the catastrophic COVID-19 shutdown policy. But The Street reports:
“Deutsche Bank economists don’t think it will play out that way. Led by Chief Economist David Folkerts-Landau, they see the Fed having to raise the federal funds rate to 5%-6% to get inflation under control. The fed funds rate is now 0.25%-0.5%.
Rate increases, Fed balance sheet reduction and the “financial upheaval that accompanies [them] will push the economy into a significant recession by late next year,” the economists wrote in a commentary.
“Something stronger than a mild recession will be needed to do the job” of controlling inflation.”
That quote is followed by other quotes from other sources saying that there won’t be a recession.
Financial prediction is most definitely not my field of expertise. I’m not even sure that it’s anyone’s field of expertise, but that certainly doesn’t stop a lot of people from making plenty of predictions. I’m not really able to evaluate whether the optimists or pessimists are more correct, but all you have to do is search for the term “recession” and you’ll get tons of prognostications.
Flying the unmasked skies
Commenter PA Cat asked me: “How does it feel to have the mask mandate on planes ended?” after learning that I’m now home. So I’ll oblige.
I started out yesterday at LAX, which still has a mask mandate even though the FDA does not. The mandate was announced on loudspeakers periodically. But interestingly enough – at least to me – I’d estimate that about 20% of the people in the airport were not wearing masks and I didn’t witness anyone being stopped and reprimanded for that (which doesn’t mean it didn’t happen; just that I didn’t see it).
Once on the plane I was wedged between my ex-husband, who had kindly accompanied me out west to help me out, and a middle-aged woman. He had taken off his mask, but she had hers on. At first I decided, out of deference to her, to keep mine on. But about an hour into the flight I took it off for comfort’s sake, and kept it off for the duration.
In back of us was a very talkative child of about five years old. She kept up quite a chatter, and towards the end of the flight she started talking about COVID. Either someone she knew had COVID, or she had COVID, or some family member did – I couldn’t hear her clearly enough to get the story straight. This made me nervous. But then again, I figure it’s everywhere and I’m probably exposed to it on a daily basis if I’m out of the house, masked or unmasked. It’s just a fact of life at this point.
In Boston while waiting at the carousel for the luggage to arrive, I noticed that – even in that solidly blue city – maybe only 5% of the people were masked. I was actually surprised the number was so low. But I think the explanation is that people are simply exhausted with all of it and have decided to accept its presence on the scene and live more normally, after two years of restrictions. This seems to be true despite politics, at least in Boston.
The flight was great, by the way: Jet Blue, perfectly on time, and pretty smooth. It was jam-packed and I don’t think there was an empty seat. It’s amazing how much faster the west-to-east trip is than the reverse, because of tailwinds. The difference is nearly two hours saved.
On arriving home, just as I thought would happen, I started noticing things in my place that I realize I need to tend to that weren’t noticeable to me before. First up was the bathroom sink, which had looked perfectly clean to me when I left. Now with my operated-on left eye, I could see that it had very faint stains. They were incredibly difficult to get off and took many scrubbings, but I accomplished it. Of course, there was an easier way to make them go away – simply close that eye and looks at them with my right eye.
And then there was the phenomenon of the mirror.

