I’m not especially good at this sort of thing, but I’m planning to study this article about how to adjust your settings so that Google doesn’t track you quite as assiduously.
Dershowitz is completely fed up with Mueller
From Dershowitz [emphasis mine]:
The statement by special counsel Robert Mueller in a Wednesday press conference that “if we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that” is worse than the statement made by then-FBI Director James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign…
Comey was universally criticized for going beyond his responsibility to state whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Clinton. Mueller, however, did even more. He went beyond the conclusion of his report and gave a political gift to Democrats in Congress who are seeking to institute impeachment proceedings against President Trump…
Until today, I have defended Mueller against the accusations that he is a partisan. I did not believe that he personally favored either the Democrats or the Republicans, or had a point of view on whether President Trump should be impeached. But I have now changed my mind. By putting his thumb, indeed his elbow, on the scale of justice in favor of impeachment based on obstruction of justice, Mueller has revealed his partisan bias. He also has distorted the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system.
To Dershowitz—who, whatever his politics (and he remains a Democrat as far as I can tell) is a strong defender of liberty and the safeguards against abuse of power by the legal system—that latter offense, “distoring the critical role of a prosecutor in our justice system,” may even be worse than the first offense, because it is systemic. When you destroy a system of protection, there is danger to everyone, not just to partisans.
Dershowitz continues [emphasis mine]:
Virtually everybody agrees that, in the normal case, a prosecutor should never go beyond publicly disclosing that there is insufficient evidence to indict. No responsible prosecutor should ever suggest that the subject of his investigation might indeed be guilty even if there was insufficient evidence or other reasons not to indict. Supporters of Mueller will argue that this is not an ordinary case, that he is not an ordinary prosecutor and that President Trump is not an ordinary subject of an investigation. They are wrong. The rules should not be any different.
Remember that federal investigations by prosecutors, including special counsels, are by their very nature one-sided. They hear only evidence of guilt and not exculpatory evidence. Their witnesses are not subject to the adversarial process. There is no cross examination. The evidence is taken in secret behind the closed doors of a grand jury. For that very reason, prosecutors can only conclude whether there is sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution. They are not in a position to decide whether the subject of the investigation is guilty or is innocent of any crimes.
And that is why, whatever a person’s feelings are about president Trump, all people should be outraged at this. But they are not; not at all. And that’s a terrible sign of the ignorance of the populace, and the partisanship that would overrun basic guarantees of liberty to us all.
I keep putting this video out there, but it keeps (unfortunately) being relevant:
Of course, the way the impeachment rules are written in the Constitution, it’s pretty clear that the House can impeach by saying a president committed a certain high crime/misdemeanor, and if the Senate is willing to convict, the president will be removed from office. But that’s a separate issue from the one here, which is that a special counsel should say only what Dershowitz indicates: whether there is “sufficient evidence to commence a prosecution” and if so, what that evidence might be. To suggest there is insufficient evidence but that the prosecutor can’t prove innocence, and therefore the political remedy is to impeach, goes way beyond whatever a special counsel should be doing and is an abuse of power.
Another nail in the coffin of women’s sports
Here we have another example of a phenomenon that’s become more common lately [emphasis mine]:
A transgender woman who competed as a man as recently as last year won an NCAA women’s track national championship on Saturday.
Franklin Pierce University senior Cece Telfer beat the eight-woman field in the Division II women’s 400-meter hurdles by more than a second, with a personal collegiate-best time of 57.53…
As recently as January 2018, Telfer had been competing as an athlete for Franklin Pierce men’s team as Craig. Telfer finished eighth in a field of nine in the Men’s 400 meters at the Middlebury Winter Classic in Vermont.
The NCAA allows male athletes to compete as women if they suppress their testosterone levels for a full calendar year…
According the NCAA’s Transgender Handbook, “According to medical experts on this issue, the assumption that a transgender woman competing on a women’s team would have a competitive advantage outside the range of performance and competitive advantage or disadvantage that already exists among female athletes is not supported by evidence.”
Does anyone believe that last bit, including the “medical experts” themselves? I’ve read some of their arguments, and they just don’t hold up (I discussed it somewhat here and here). Simply put, particularly if a person has gone through puberty as a male (and most of these athletes have), then some of the changes are quite permanent and cannot be reversed by taking hormones or suppressing hormones afterward.
However, of course not all trans women are going to beat all the biological women against whom they compete. The trans woman must be a really good athlete to begin with. But once that is accomplished, that person has a tremendous advantage that is conferred not by training alone or natural talent alone but by virtue of having been a male. The reason we divide competitions into male and female divisions in the first place is because there is an undeniable advantage to being male, and if women competed against men then virtually all the qualifiers and not just the winners would be male. People seem to want and like women’s sports, too, and so we have different divisions just as we do within each sex for weights in boxing, for example.
The only reason transgender women don’t totally dominate women’s sports is because there aren’t so many yet who are highly-trained athletes, and because allowing transgender women to compete against biological women is also not a universal at present.
Mueller’s parting shot
William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection writes this about Robert Mueller’s final remarks (supposedly final) on the guilt or innocence of Donald Trump:
Robert Mueller’s statement today could have served only one purpose — to breath life into Democrat attempts to commence impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Mueller didn’t add any substance to the 400-page report, and most of his statement was related to procedures…
The substance of the statement on Russia collusion/conspiracy was brief and shut the door…
But most of the substance was on obstruction. Mueller reiterated that the Office of Special Counsel could not clearly determine that Trump did not commit a crime, or it would have said so. “‘If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
This is a completely unfair standard and not what prosecutors normally due — investigations are not to find that a person did not commit a crime, but to find if the person did commit a crime.
More important, Mueller made clear that he considered the Special Counsel’s Office bound by DOJ policy against charging a sitting president with a crime, so his office never reached a determination one way or the other. Mueller made clear that under the Constitution, there were other mechanisms for dealing with a president accused of wrongdoing. Without mentioning impeachment proceedings, Mueller certainly must have intended to suggest it.
If that is Mueller’s view, that his office’s hands were legally tied from even reaching a decision, then why investigate at all? And why issue an opinion that he could not find “with confidence” the president was not guilty? Mueller could have expressed an opinion on guilt short of charging the president, much as he expressed an opinion that he could not find the president clearly not guilty.
In other words, Mueller declared orally what the Mueller Report had declared in writing and in a great many more words: Despite the usual legal standard of innocent until guilty, we require Trump to have proven his innocence and he could not do this [impossible] task. Therefore, impeach him!
Professor Jacobson goes on to indicate he thinks this forces Pelosi’s hand and makes it necessary for her to give in to the baying impeachment hounds in her party. I still don’t think so, although that may indeed end up being the case. I think she’s too politically savvy for that and knows how unpopular such a move would be among the general public. She also knows that the Senate would make short shrift of it:
GOP senators say that if the House passes articles of impeachment against President Trump they will quickly quash them in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has broad authority to set the parameters of a trial.
While McConnell is required to act on articles of impeachment, which require 67 votes — or a two-thirds majority — to convict the president, he and his Republican colleagues have the power to set the rules and ensure the briefest of trials.
“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).
The original impeachment idea was that Trump would do so many awful things, or that the attacks against him would be so successful—or both—that a great many GOP senators would join in the vote to convict him after impeachment. It sure doesn’t look as though that would happen. Even Mitt Romney, who appears to detest Trump, has gone on record saying “no.”
[ADDENDUM: Links to more can be found here.]
Christopher Steele won’t cooperate with the investigation by US Attorney Durham
Christopher Steele, author of the dossier that played a key role in the Trump-Russia inquiry, will not assist Attorney General William Barr’s investigation of the investigators, according to a new report.
…[T]he British ex-spy “would not cooperate” with nor answer questions from U.S. Attorney John Durham, whom Barr has tasked with reviewing the origins of the counterintelligence investigation into President Trump’s presidential campaign and the way that the Justice Department and FBI conducted the inquiry.
…The report said Steele “might cooperate” with DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s independent investigation, signaling a shift in Steele’s thinking.
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that Steele is a real person but that “Christopher Steele” is not his real name, and that we know little about him? When the entire episode first came out, it struck me that the name sounded like a character in a romance novel.
Martin Luther King’s feet of clay
It came to general public notice quite some time ago that the revered civil rights leader of the mid-20th Century, Martin Luther King, had many flaws as a person. He was a womanizer who was serially unfaithful to his wife. He was most likely a plagiarist, and also veered ever more leftward politically as he grew older (of course, some would consider that last bit a feature, not a bug).
As I wrote in this previous post:
I have some trouble with the hagiography of Martin Luther King. I agree that he was a great man who did a great thing for which he should be duly honored: he was an inspirational figure in the non-violent civil rights movement in this country, as well as a remarkable speaker…
As for the rest of it—well, I think it can be summed up by saying that King was a flawed human being—that is, a human being. Perhaps MLK himself would be the first to agree; he was a preacher, after all, and he knew a lot about human sin and error…
Does that diminish his achievements? I don’t think so, if we keep it in perspective. I’ve always been more interested in real human beings who accomplish great things despite their own weaknesses than I am in a pretended (and mostly unachievable) perfection.
I wrote that in 2012. But what’s been alleged now is worse—if true:
…[N]ow, David Garrow, who won a Pulitzer Prize in 1987 for his biography of King, has unearthed previously classified FBI documents showing that King was genuinely sexually depraved. From the Times of London (behind subscriber paywall):
“In another incident said to have been recorded by FBI agents, King is alleged to have ‘looked on, laughed and offered advice’ while a friend who was also a Baptist minister raped a woman described as one of his ‘parishioners’.
Details of the assault are believed to have been captured on tapes that are currently being held in a vault under court seal at the US National Archives.”
Although King isn’t alleged (as far as I can tell) to have raped anyone, the incident described is terrible on many levels and goes beyond infidelity. Laughing at rape and offering advice while watching it (and I assume the advice wasn’t “STOP IMMEDIATELY!”)—not to mention the fact that here we have clergy sexually abusing parishioners—would have been universally condemned long before the #MeToo movement made much lesser things objectionable.
More:
At the same hotel the following evening, King and a dozen other individuals “participated in a sex orgy” including what one FBI official described as “acts of degeneracy and depravity.
When one of the women shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King and several of the men discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect. King told her that to perform such an act would ‘help your soul’.”
Are there really recordings of this, and what was actually said? I don’t know. But King’s biographer David Garrow, the one now reporting these things, has until now been a person who admired King. This is from an American Greatness article by Rod Dreher:
I wish none of this were true, and perhaps we will learn when the recordings are eventually released that these claims are not true, but I very much doubt it. David Garrow’s reputation as a civil rights movement historian is beyond reproach, and as a Democratic Socialist, Garrow cannot be said to have political motives for trying to discredit King. Given his professional background and political convictions, one imagines that it must have been excruciating for Garrow to have written this. But Garrow is a historian, not a hagiographer. Besides, it’s better to face the painful truth and to deal with it than to remain sheltered by a canopy of lovely lies.
I have long observed not only how many great people—that is, people who accomplished great things in the public arena—have private flaws that are sometimes small and sometimes very large and numerous. Martin Luther King is one of the latter, apparently: flaws large and numerous.
But it’s worse in the case of King because he wasn’t just a public figure who accomplished great things. He was a minister as well as admired for his moral force. In his presentation to the world he exuded a strength and righteousness that seemed obvious and powerful. That’s why revelations of his massive feet of clay are so profoundly disturbing. If King could do this, how can we trust anyone? Should we trust anyone?
I think that, if these allegations are true, the message of the story goes like this:
People sometimes compartmentalize their lives, and the division into public and private lives is one common way to do this. It’s not that “never the twain shall meet,” but you certainly can’t count on the two lives being in sync.
Sex is a powerful force and particularly subject to this public/private dichotomy
Power often corrupts.
Look up to a person for what you know about his or her accomplishments, but don’t make assumptions about that person’s private character unless you know the person well. In other words, don’t idealize your heroes; keep it in perspective and retain some skepticism without becoming utterly cynical.
Germany: kippas off, kippas on
There’s been a brouhaha in Germany over the wearing of the skullcap by traditional Jews:
At the weekend, Felix Klein, the country’s commissioner on anti-Semitism sparked uproar when he said in an interview with the Funke regional press group that he could not “advise Jews to wear the kippa everywhere all the time in Germany.”
Israeli President Reuven Rivlin voiced shock at Klein’s warning and said it was a “capitulation to anti-Semitism” and evidence that Jews are unsafe in Germany.
Late Monday, Klein reversed course after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s spokesman intervened.
“The state must see to it that the free exercise of religion is possible for all… and that anyone can go anywhere in our country in full security wearing a kippa,” Steffen Seibert told a press conference.
How are they going to do that? Unless a cop or an entourage of cops follow every Jew around, I don’t see how it can be done. Let me add that, well over a decade ago, I was told by Orthodox Jews who visit Europe that they already were wearing innocuous secular caps over their kippas (in Hebrew, kippot) for safety’s sake. So it seems to me that Klein was actually voicing what a lot of kippa-wearing Jews had already been doing for quite some time.
More:
In his latest statement to Funke, Klein said: “I call on all citizens of Berlin and across Germany to wear the kippa next Saturday if there are new, intolerable attacks targeting Israel and Jews on the occasion of al-Quds day in Berlin.”
Al-Quds is an annual event against Israeli control of Jerusalem and will take place on Saturday.
Implicit in all of these remarks is that the majority of attacks on Jews are committed by Muslim residents of Germany rather than people of ethnic German descent, which is a strange irony (although a common one these days, I think).
Klein’s call for citizens to wear the kippa in solidarity with Jews reminded me of a story from World War II which turns out to have been apocryphal. You may recall it:
The legend of Denmark’s King Christian X and his wearing of the yellow star is our most stirring example of non-violent opposition to evil: ordinary citizens (following the example of a courageous leader) defy their military overlords by selflessly putting themselves in harm’s way to prevent the persecution of a defenseless minority. If only more people exhibited such moral fortitude nowadays, we reason, the world would be a much better place. Perhaps if more people had exhibited such moral courage back then, we think, the Holocaust might never have happened.
Although the Danes did undertake heroic efforts to shelter their Jews and help them escape from the Nazis, there is no real-life example of the actions described by this legend. Danish citizens never wore the yellow badge, nor did King Christian ever threaten to don it himself. In fact, Danish Jews never wore the yellow badge either (except for the few who were finally deported to concentration camps), nor did German officials ever issue an order requiring Danish Jews to display it.
Please read the whole thing.
The Danes actually did manage to rescue most of their Jews by ferrying them out to Sweden in 1943.
[NOTE: Please read my discussion of the differential treatment of different occupied countries by the Nazis, and how it made defiance less difficult in a country such as Denmark, which was allowed relative autonomy. This shouldn’t take anything away from the Danes, but it does explain a lot.]
Yahoo email degenerates further in the name of progress
I know, I know—you’re going to tell me to change email addresses if I don’t like the latest iteration of Yahoo email. But it’s a royal pain to do so, and I’ve had my Yahoo email for so so long.
Also, I’ve got other email addresses (Gmail, for example) and they’ve got their own problems and are no better, just different. With every “improvement” in recent years, each email format has gotten worse. Your mileage may differ, but that’s been my observation. I’m not going to bore you by listing my complaints, but I’ve had a particular beef with the trendy never-ending scroll that long ago replaced pages on Yahoo, and slows loading down to a crawl as well as jumping around.
But much worse is the fact that, after a period of allowing consumers to keep the old format if they wish, there’s a forced change to the new. That forced change is usually preceded by some weeks or months when every single time a person goes to the site he/she is presented with a pop-up asking if the person wants to change to the new, improved email. They’re hoping you say “yes” just out of sheer exhaustion—just to get that pop-up to stop—or that one time you’ll slip up and carelessly and unintentionally activate the new format from which there’s no turning back.
This is the way they currently do it on Yahoo email. The pop-up reads:
It’s time to upgrade your inbox
This version of Yahoo Mail will no longer be available. We encourage you to upgrade to the newest version of Yahoo Mail now.
In other words: we’ll get you sooner or later, so you might as well surrender now and it will be easier for you in the long run. Resistance is futile.
This is followed by the “choice” between two tabs:
Upgrade now / Automatically upgrade next time
Where’s the “never never never upgrade” tab? Yes, I know; that’s not one of your choices.
But each time you see the pop-up, if you keep your wits about you and don’t absent-mindedly click on one of those two ever-so-helpful tabs, you can click on that little “x” in the upper corner and make that little sucker go away. But it’s surprisingly difficult to avoid the blandishments of the tabs, because we do so many things online almost automatically, and the people who design these things know all about how to gently coax you into doing what they want you to do.
So far I’ve stuck to my guns and clicked on that little “x.” But someday that “x” will disappear and the message will just say, “Welcome to the new and improved Yahoo email…” [emphasis mine]”:
Mirrors on the ceiling
The pink champagne on ice
And she said: “We are all just prisoners here
Of our own device”
And in the master’s chambers
They gathered for the feast
They stab it with their steely knives
But they just can’t kill the beast
Last thing I remember, I was
Running for the door
I had to find the passage back
To the place I was before
“Relax,” said the night man
“We are programmed to receive
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave!”
Note the use of terms such as “device” and “programmed.” Prescient?
Anti-EU forces triumphant in the EU elections
Europeans seem to have gotten tired of being told what to do by a centralized EU that gives them virtually no say. It’s a trend:
The overall result in the European (EU) Parliamentary Election reflects massive gains for conservative nationalists in Italy, Greece, France, Poland, Hungary, Austria, U.K. and others…
In the comments to that article, a Canadian commenter writes “Trump is changing the world.” Trump’s election was a reflection of the same movement, a forerunner of sorts, even though it had little to nothing to do with the EU. And I believe his presidency has also had some effect (not sure exactly how much, but some) on other countries, because it has helped others to see it’s possible to give their leftist controllers the boot.
The leaders of the EU went too far left too fast, ignoring the nationalist feelings that still exist and the threats people feel at the hands of the EU. In their ivory towers (or whatever the more apt metaphor would be) the leaders couldn’t hear the rabble down below, muttering in frustration.
There are plenty of articles giving some of the details of the election results in various countries: this and this, for example.
As for Boris Johnson—the front-runner to become the next Prime Minister of the UK after Theresa May steps down—he seems to be quite a character and colorful public figure. Although he’s rather different from Trump, in this photo he has a Trumpish air in the physical sense. Kind of a big guy with a long tie.
And strangely enough, Johnson is another New Yorker:
Johnson — full name Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson — is among that rare club of politicians instantly recognizable by one name only — “Boris.”
Born in New York’s Upper East Side [to British parents], he held U.S. citizenship until 2006. He was educated at Eton — Britain’s most prestigious private school — and Oxford University, before starting a career in journalism in the 1980s.
Here’s what Wiki has to say about him:
Johnson is a controversial figure in British politics and journalism. Supporters have praised him as an entertaining, humorous, and popular figure with appeal beyond traditional Conservative voters. Conversely, he has been criticised by figures on both the left and right, who accused him of elitism, cronyism, dishonesty, laziness, and using racist and homophobic language. Johnson is the subject of several biographies and a number of fictionalised portrayals.
There are quite a few familiar descriptors there, several words that have come to be applied to almost anyone slightly on the right with any pizazz. Controversial. Dishonest, lazy, racist.
This election should send shock waves through the left and the EU, as well as the Tories who supported May’s broken promises. But I don’t think any of those parties can regroup or change effectively, despite the wakeup call.
Memorial Day: If you’re reading this…
I’ve posted this song before, but I think it bears repeating, especially on Memorial Day.
It’s Tim McGraw’s extraordinarily moving song “If You’re Reading This:”
If you’re readin’ this
My momma’s sittin’ there
Looks like I only got a one way ticket over here.
I sure wish I could give you one more kiss
War was just a game we played when we were kids
Well I’m layin’ down my gun
I’m hanging up my boots
I’m up here with God and we’re both watchin’ over youSo lay me down
In that open field out on the edge of town
And know my soul
Is where my momma always prayed that it would go.
If you’re readin’ this I’m already home.If you’re readin’ this
Half way around the world
I won’t be there to see the birth of our little girl
I hope she looks like you
I hope she fights like me
And stands up for the innocent and the weak
I’m layin’ down my gun,
I’m hanging up my boots
Tell dad I don’t regret that I followed in his shoes…
The first time I ever heard the song I got the chills as the lyrics unfolded and I realized what it was about, and then again and again as the heartstrings were jerked harder and harder as the song went on.
I say “the heartstrings were jerked,” which sounds as though I’m being critical and the song is manipulative. Well, it’s manipulative in the sense that it means to affect the listener emotionally, and it means to sell songs. But I see nothing wrong with that, if the emotion is sincere and deep. Most of us do, or should, feel a very strong gratitude to the young men and women who sacrificed their lives to defend liberty here and abroad, and a very strong sorrow that it was necessary. On Memorial Day, we thank them.
For Memorial Day: on nationalism
[NOTE: This is a slightly edited version of an older post. It seems to me that it’s only become more relevant over time, rather than less.]
The story “The Man Without a Country” used to be standard reading matter for seventh graders. In fact, it was the first “real” book—as opposed to those tedious Dick and Jane readers—that I was assigned to read in school.
The plot was exciting compared to Dick and Jane and the rest, since it dealt with an actual story with some actual drama to it. It struck me as terribly sad—and unfair, too—that Philip Nolan was forced to wander the world, exiled, for one moment of cursing the United States. “The Man Without a Country” was the sort of paean to patriotism that I would guess is rarely or never assigned nowadays to students.
Patriotism has gotten a bad name during the last few decades.
I think part of this feeling began (at least in this country) with the Vietnam era and the influence of the left. But patriotism and nationalism seem to have been rejected by a large segment of Europeans even earlier, as a result of the devastation both sentiments were seen to have wrought on that continent during WWI and WWII. Of course, WWII in Europe was a result mainly of German nationalism run amok, but it seemed to have given nationalism as a whole a very bad name.
Here’s author Thomas Mann on the subject, writing in 1947 in the introduction to the American edition of Herman Hesse’s Demian:
If today, when national individualism lies dying, when no single problem can any longer be solved from a purely national point of view, when everything connected with the “fatherland” has become stifling provincialism and no spirit that does not represent the European tradition as a whole any longer merits consideration…
A strong statement of the post-WWII idea of nationalism as a dangerous force, mercifully dead or dying, to be replaced (hopefully) by a pan-national (or, rather, anational) Europeanism. Mann was a German exile from his own country who had learned to his bitter regret the excesses to which unbridled and amoral nationalism can lead. His was an understandable and common response at the time, one that many decades later helped lead to the formation of the EU. The waning but still relatively strong nationalism of the US is seen by those who agree with him as a relic of those dangerous days of nationalism gone mad without any curb of morality or consideration for others.
But the US is not Nazi Germany or anything like it, however much the far left may try to make that analogy. There’s a place for nationalism, and for love of country. Not a nationalism that ignores or tramples on human rights (like that of the Nazis), but one that embraces and strives for and tries to preserve them here and abroad, keeping in mind that—human nature being what it is—no nation on earth can be perfect or anywhere near perfect. The US is far from perfect, but it is a very good country nevertheless, always working to be better, with a nationalism that recognizes that sometimes liberty must be fought for, and that the struggle involves some sacrifice.
So, I’ll echo the verse that figured so prominently in “The Man Without a Country,” and say (corny, but true): …this is my own, my native land. And I’ll also echo Francis Scott Key and add: …the star-spangled banner, O long may it wave, O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
How to do an entrechat quatre
In the dance of the little swans thread, commenter “Paul in Boston” asked:
What’s the step where they all jump in the air together and “clap” their feet 4 times. How do they do that?
I’ll let these pictures (videos) take the place of a thousand words. I’ll just add that although the entrechat quatre (that’s what it’s called) is plenty difficult, as is just about everything in ballet, it’s one of the rare ballet steps that’s not quite as difficult as it looks. In other words, I used to be able to do an acceptable entrechat quatre or even a series of them, although you wouldn’t want to have paid money to see me do it.
Here’s a regular speed and slow motion demo:
And here are some mighty impressive ones, male and female versions. The man is actually doing a more complex jump with an extra beat (or actually two, since each leg beating is counted separately) to make a step called the entrechat six. Both of these clips (widely separated in time) are from the ballet “Giselle,” in which spirits known as Wilis are trying to dance the prince to death, and the loving spirit of his betrayed love Giselle is trying to save him: