Ulanova was sui generis

The New Neo Posted on by

Galina Ulanova was a prominent dancer during the USSR’s ballet heyday in the 1940s and 1950s. But she wasn’t typical of anything; she was completely sui generis. At her Wiki page I found this quote from Sergei Eisenstein:

Ulanova — cannot be grouped together with, compared to other dancers. In terms of what is most cherished, By the very nature of her secret…She belongs to a different dimension.

And Margot Fonteyn, probably the greatest British dancer of the same era, said this:

I cannot even begin to talk about Ulanova’s dancing, it is so marvelous, I am left speechless. It is magic. Now we know what we lack.

How did she do it? I don’t really know. Ulanova had a more delicate musculature than today’s dancers; it concealed the strength required and emphasized the artistry. It’s a rare quality although more common back then. However, Ulanova herself was always unique. She seemed to be dancing with some internal impetus that had little to nothing to do with performing for the audience or showing off.

Ulanova specialized in portraying people rather than otherworldly beings. And yet she could do the latter just as well. She could dance anything with a fluidity and subtlety that made you forget technique or tricks. I chose this short clip of her Swan Queen Odette, which she dances in a manner evenly poised between human and swan – unlike most modern Swan Queens who lean towards the swan, the better to show off their remarkable and almost inhuman flexibility. That’s not what Ulanova was about:

Trump: loose cannon or wily negotiator?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Hubert” states my own thoughts on the matter quite well when he writes:

Now comes news that Trump is threatening Putin with more sanctions to get him to the negotiating table. Unlike mkent, I suspect there is method to Trump’s behavior. There better be, because mkent is correct when he says that Trump is disrupting the entire postwar and post-Cold War security system. I think it badly needed to be disrupted, but this is turning into a queasy-making rollercoaster ride. Dangerous times; high stakes.

The question is whether Trump actually is a loose cannon or whether there is method to his madness – and if the latter, whether that method will work.

Is Trump talking about leaving NATO? Ending America’s nuclear protection entirely for Europe? Withdrawing all troops from Europe? If so, I haven’t seen it. What I do see is that Trump is aiming to have Europe participate more in its own defense. The idea is that we are spread too thin. As Hubert also writes:

I think it was the Polish PM who recently pointed out that “Europe (450 million people) is demanding that the United States (300 million people) defend it against Russia (140 million people).” That’s ridiculous and unsustainable. Mkent referred on the other thread to Tusk talking about maybe developing a Polish nuclear deterrent, like that’s a bad thing. I think it’s a good thing. It shows that some of the Europeans are getting serious about their own defense. As for mkent’s fear that proliferation will inevitably lead to WWIII and nukes flying all over the world, I would point to India and Pakistan. Two nuclear powers that hate each other’s guts but have somehow managed to avoid going to all-out war. Strategist Bernard Brodie rightly called nuclear weapons “the absolute weapon” in his 1946 book of the same name. By that token, they’re the ultimate deterrent.

This is one of a host of reasons why I’m glad I’m not president. I could not even begin to make decisions of that magnitude.

However, change is inherently frightening because all change can backfire. 9/11 sparked a big change here, because I don’t think that without it George W. Bush would have started wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 9/11 changed the trajectory of his entire presidency in terms of foreign policy. And during Obama’s presidency, foreign policy changed a great deal also, and I’m hard-pressed to find that any of it was for the better; same for Biden and company. All of those events made it clear that US foreign policy could change on a dime between one president and another.

Western European leaders can’t stand Trump. But they felt the same way during his first term. They laughed at him when he warned them they were too dependent on Russian energy sources – a warning which turned out to be very prescient indeed. But Western Europeans already had a great deal of resentment and contempt for the US even prior to Trump. Remember that cowboy George W. Bush in 2001?:

George W. Bush is highly unpopular with the publics of the major nations of Western Europe. By wide margins, people in Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy all disapprove of his handling of international policy, and the American president does not inspire much more confidence in these countries than does Russian President Vladimir Putin.

More than seven-in-ten of those in each country say Bush makes decisions based entirely on U.S. interests, and most think he understands less about Europe than other American presidents. In that regard, Bush’s foreign policy approval rating runs 40-60 percentage points below former President Bill Clinton’s, when judged in retrospect.

These are the principal findings of a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center …

And Reagan in 1981:

A remark by President Reagan that he could envision a nuclear war limited to Europe has unleashed a political storm among Europeans that U.S. and allied officials sought yesterday to bring under control.

Also in 1982:

President Reagan will meet presidents, prime ministers, a pope and a queen during his trip to Europe for the NATO summit, but will also be exposed to thousands of angry Europeans who despise him — and some who may try to kill him.

In Paris, the president’s first stop on his 10-day, 4-nation tour beginning Wednesday, grand boulevards and winding alleyways alike are lined with posters showing a combat commando gripping a submachine gun and saying ‘the terrorist Reagan must be welcomed with hatred, raised fists and loaded arms.’

Bombs exploded last week at the Rome office of Pan American airlines and an insurance company with U.S. links. The communist group that claimed responsibility for the blast said, ‘This is our greeting to the hangman Reagan.’

The president’s personal safety has been most directly threatened in West Germany, cradle of the European peace movement that views Reagan as a warmongering nuclear cowboy.

We survived that. Hopefully we’ll survive this.

But I’ve never been keen on roller coaster rides. Trump’s unpredictability is both a strength and a weakness. But if he threatens too many times and his bluff is called and he doesn’t follow through, he loses the power engendered by his threats. Plus, he can get into a macho-threat contest with some people and win, but Putin couldn’t care less, IMHO.

However, Trump has pulled many rabbits out of many hats before – so sit tight during the bumpy ride.

ADDENDUM:

I just noticed these:

How Gene Hackman and his wife died is both surprising and sad

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s what happened, according to medical authorities: she died of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, probably a week before her husband. He died of cardiovascular disease complicated by severe dementia.

The thought is that Betsy Hackman – who probably had no idea how very ill and at risk she was and probably thought she had the flu at most – dropped dead and could not care for her husband, who needed quite a bit of assistance. And no one realized it because no one was in daily contact with them. Therefore he probably wandered around for a week afterward, confused and perhaps even unaware of her death, until he himself expired.

As for the dog, it probably died of lack of water, although that hasn’t been proven yet. Two dogs outside survived; they probably found some source of water.

Here’s the Wiki entry on hantavirus. Apparently the death rate among sufferers is rather high, and death can be sudden. It’s primarily a disease of the western states, and New Mexico (where the Hackmans lived) has more than its share of cases per capita. But it is overall an extremely rare disease.

Mouse droppings and urine are vectors, and I already knew this because two summers ago, when I was helping my ex-husband go through things in his storage unit, I noticed quite a bit of evidence that mice had gotten in. This included their droppings and a couple of dead bodies, which caused me to withdraw my assistance and leave him to his own devices. But I discovered, on looking it up, that hantavirus was a possibility from any exposure to mouse effluvia, although an exceedingly remote one where I live.

Naturally, questions arise as to why the Hackmans had become so isolated. Perhaps it was at least partly their own choice, despite his condition. And after all, Betsy Hackman was only 65, and I doubt they considered that she might expire before her husband, and do so with little to no warning.

RIP.

I’m a big fan of Daylight Savings Time …

The New Neo Posted on by

… and if you’re not, I’d wager it’s because you’re a morning person – whereas I’m a nightowl, and have been since early childhood. Circadian rhythms and all that.

Or, perhaps you have a job that dictates that you get up very very early even if you’re not naturally a morning person.

Or, perhaps you live in an area of the country where the night/day seasonal changes aren’t so dramatic. I live in a part of the country where they are very dramatic indeed, and in winter the darkness comes extremely early. Therefore what I’d like to see is permanent Daylight Savings Time. I have little doubt that many of you will find that idea abominable.

Here’s an article on the history of the practice.

Try, try again: Ukraine peace talks

The New Neo Posted on by

I take this as a hopeful sign. I’ll take any hopeful signs I can get:

Senior U.S. and Ukrainian officials are planning to meet next week to discuss the first steps of a deal to end the war.

Both President Trump’s team and President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine confirmed the meeting, which is expected to take place in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia? Hey, why ever not.

More:

President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, also confirmed the meeting, saying the purpose was “to get down a framework for a peace agreement and an initial cease-fire as well.”

Witkoff indicated that Zelensky had bent the knee trying to repair the damage.

““President Zelensky has demonstrated that he’s intent on that good-faith path back. He’s apologized. He’s said he’s grateful. He said he wants to work toward peace.” Mr. Witkoff added that he believed Mr. Zelensky was willing to sign a minerals deal to create a U.S.-controlled fund that would receive revenue from Ukraine’s natural resources.” …

[Trump] said U.S. negotiators had “made a lot of progress with Ukraine and a lot of progress with Russia over the last couple of days” and showed optimism about a peace agreement.

He said Ukraine “wants to make a deal because I don’t think they have a choice.” But he also said in another way, Russia had no choice either.

Time will tell whether this is just a lot of blah-blah-blah or whether it will lead to something. I’m glad to know that talks are continuing, which I had assumed anyway. Witkoff is certainly a busy guy.

ADDENDUM: Here’s an interesting development: “Trump Threatens Russia With Sanctions, Tariffs Until Putin Agrees to Ceasefire.”

The American political divide

The New Neo Posted on by

Today I came across a reference to this 2009 speech by Charles Krauthammer, where he said this:

I said some years ago that the genius of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes was to have discovered a niche market in American broadcasting — half the American people.

It’s still more or less that 50/50 split, although TV cable news in general has become less influential and there are more varied alternatives, particularly online. There are also lone voices on the right at other networks, such as CNN’s Scott Jennings, who apparently is getting a well-deserved raise.

The leftward skew of most of the news on TV and elsewhere is driven by a number of things. I am pretty sure that the main one is that many or most of the people writing it and broadcasting it are true believers in their cause. They think they are helping to make sure that that stupid and unwashed 50% on the right doesn’t swell to become a far greater majority, and they are hoping that by reducing the American public’s exposure to any truth that might help the right, they are ultimately helping to shrink that 50% (and yes, I know; it might already be more than 50%).

I don’t ordinarily talk about politics to my friends. That’s not new for me; it’s something I can’t ever remember doing. It’s not that I didn’t have any interest in the topic for all those years. It’s just that I had no need to talk to friends about it. Friends were for other things – and besides, did we even differ? I didn’t know and apparently I didn’t care.

I recall, for example, that when I went back to graduate school in the 1990s, I’d been in school for two years in a very small program where I knew all of my fellow students very very well indeed but until the election of 1992 I didn’t know their politics. And the only reason I learned their politics was that the day after the election of Bill Clinton people came into class and mentioned that they were happy about the results. I remember being a bit surprised that everyone seemed to be a Democrat, but it had no special emotional importance to me and I saw it mostly as a curiosity.

It’s not that way anymore for so many people. Recently I lost another friend, not to death but to politics. This was someone I’d been close to for nearly forty years but who stopped talking to me with the election of Trump to a second term. She’d been aware of my differing politics for twenty years, but her TDS apparently finally reached a point where she is consumed by some combination of dread, fear, and hatred so powerful that she simply cannot talk to anyone on the right. And this is the case even though I virtually never talked about politics to her and she cites no specific offense on my part. It was enough merely to know that I am on the side of something she has come to feel is incredibly evil and dangerous.

And please don’t respond by saying something like “she was never really a friend” and “you’re better off.” She was a very good friend for almost four decades, and I don’t feel the least bit better off. As I get older, the loss of friends for any reason is extremely painful, and I find old friends to be irreplaceable.

I’ll close with this:

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) Mysteriously, Hunter Biden’s paintings have fallen out of favor. Can’t imagine why.

(2) The cries of “Trump=Hitler” are a “grotesque banalization of Hitler and Hitlerism”:

When Trump held a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden on October 27, a little over a week before the election, many Democrats, and the increasingly hysterical talking heads on CNN and MSNBC, compared that rally to a meeting of the pro-Nazi German-American Bund in that same venue in 1939. Completely disregarding the impressively multiracial character of the MAGA supporters gathered to hear Trump, as well as the large contingent of Orthodox and Hassidic Jews also in attendance, the media incessantly identified Trump with Hitler and “fascism.” Not only was the deep-seated evil that was National Socialism trivialized beyond recognition, and not only was fascism crudely (and absurdly) identified with any opposition to a hard Left agenda, but crucial distinctions between fascism, National Socialism, and democratic conservatism were elided in a deeply misleading manner.

This drumbeat continues to this day. The Trump/fascism/Nazism elision is commonplace in leftist discourse.

I’m so old I can remember “Bushitler”. I also think that most Americans under fifty know very little about the historical person known as Hitler.

(3) Trump has a message for Hamas:

“‘Shalom Hamas’ means Hello and Goodbye – You can choose,” Trump writes on Truth Social.

“Release all of the Hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is OVER for you,” he says.

“Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted!”

“I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you don’t do as I say,” he warns.

“I have just met with your former hostages whose lives you have destroyed.”

“This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance,” Trump says.

“Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful Future awaits, but not if you hold Hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a SMART decision. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW, OR THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY LATER.”

I don’t think this will have any deterrent effect on Hamas. And I believe his threat is that the war will resume, with more powerful weaponry that Biden had denied Israel.

(4) Meanwhile, Trump’s people are talking with Hamas:

After the White House confirms that the Trump administration has been holding direct talks with Hamas, Israel says that it has let its feelings be known to Washington about the contacts but provides no further details.

“In our contacts with the US,” says Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office, “Israel expressed its stance on direct talks with Hamas.”

The White House said earlier this evening that Israel was consulted on the talks.

Direct talks with terrorist entities are unusual.

(5) Trump has paused some tariffs on Mexico and Canada for a month:

President Donald Trump on Thursday signed executive actions that delay for nearly one mo?nth tariffs on all products from Mexico and Canada that are covered by the USMCA free trade treaty, a significant walkback of the administration’s signature economic plan that has rattled markets, businesses and consumers.

The executive actions follow a discussion Trump held Thursday with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and negotiations between Canadian and Trump administration officials.

Are Mexico and Canada getting whiplash, metaphorically speaking?

Ukraine, Trump, and Europe: what in the world?

The New Neo Posted on by

I have a very uneasy feeling about world events. Of course, I wouldn’t exactly call that a new phenomenon. The Biden administration featured errors and weakness of such magnitude that aggressors felt emboldened and acted on it. Biden was certainly not the only factor, but I believe his presidency was an important element in at least three disasters (to a much greater extent in the first two compared to the third): the Taliban takeover when the US withdrew from Afghanistan, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Hamas attack on Israel.

Trump made many promises during his campaign. One of them that seemed absurd to me was that if elected he would end the Ukraine war in one day. It was Trumpian hyperbole on steroids.

Did he actually believe he’d do it? Trump has a massive ego and in some ways it’s justified, but this claim always seemed divorced from reality and events have certainly not proven him correct. At the moment, we’ve “paused” military aid to Ukraine as well as intelligence-sharing (or some intelligence-sharing; I’ve read differing reports about that), and Putin is probably chuckling to himself – as the war continues.

Of course, Trump might get the last laugh in the end. I realize all these actions are designed to “persuade” Zelensky to cooperate, but it’s nerve-wracking to watch and I don’t have some sort of blind faith in Trump. On the other hand here’s what Trump’s Ukraine envoy says (and by the way, “Trump’s Ukraine envoy” is not a job I’d covet):

Asked what Ukraine will have to do to turn intelligence sharing and flow of military aid back on, Kellogg pointed to the proposed minerals deal between the US and Ukraine.

“The reason he came to the White House was to sign a document that was going to say this is us going forward — it’s not signed,” Kellogg said of Zelensky. “My point would be, and my personal belief would be, you don’t move forward until you get a signed document. Period.”

“But he’s offering is offering to do it,” Brennan said. “He is offering publicly at least to do it.”

“There’s a difference between offering to do it and doing it,” Kellogg replied.

Indeed. Not only did Zelensky offer to do it earlier, but he came to the White House to do it and then, with the cameras rolling, explained why he wasn’t going to do it. No wonder Kellogg is pointing out the difference. Kellogg added:

“When I was in Kyiv two weeks ago, I was very clear to President Zelensky the outcome if we didn’t have a signed agreement,” Kellogg later added. “I was absolutely— I was blunt, and clear, that this was a thing that could have happened.” …

“We’re going to end this war, and this is one way to make sure you understand we’re serious about it,” Kellogg said Thursday. “So is it hard, of course it is, but it’s not like they didn’t know this was coming. They got fair warning it was coming.”

Meanwhile, Macron gets into the act with this:

European leaders showed a cautiously receptive ear to President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal to debate extending the French nuclear umbrella to Europe on Thursday, though some were reluctant to draw a line under years of U.S. protection.

In an address to the nation on Wednesday, Macron said he would launch a strategic dialogue over extending the protection offered by France’s nuclear arsenal to its European partners, seizing on comments from future German leader Friedrich Merz.

Although both France and Britain are nuclear powers, most European countries’ primary nuclear deterrence comes from the United States, a decades-old symbol of trans-Atlantic solidarity.

But the radical shift engineered by U.S. President Donald Trump’s new administration, which has made overtures to Russia, pressured Ukraine to make peace with Moscow, and adopted a more aggressive stance towards traditional allies, has focused minds.

Trump definitely wants NATO nations to pay more, and he doesn’t want to be the sole protection for Europe, but has he threatened to withdraw Europe’s nuclear protection? If so, I missed it. Is Macron trying to scare or pressure Trump? Does Macron include Ukraine in his definition of “European partners,” or is he just talking about NATO or EU nations?

Sites such as Foreign Policy are no help. For example:

A deep sense of powerlessness and outright panic has beset Europe. Leaders seem shell-shocked by the speed of Washington’s pivot to Russia, the relentless steps toward a trans-Atlantic divorce, and U.S. President Donald Trump’s comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine and much else. Should the United States continue on this path, it will have existential consequences not only for Ukraine, but also for Europe itself—including an increasingly likely next war that it will have to fight without help from the United States. Trump’s public blow-up with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky last Friday and the U.S. decision to halt weapons shipments to Ukraine have reinforced fears that the struggle against Russia may already be lost.

The first sentence seems on point to me, but after that it seems like typical anti-Trump leftist talking points. A “trans-Atlantic divorce“? More like a cooling of ardor. “Comprehensive adoption of the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine”? Stopping the war with the ceding of some land Russia already has held for quite some time and is unlikely to lose if the war continues, and establishing an American business presence in Ukraine in order to deter future invasion – is adopting the Kremlin’s views on Ukraine? I think Putin has much greater aims for a Ukraine takeover than that. And what is the “much else” in terms of point of view that Trump shares with Russia? Does the author have any idea what the “blow-up” with Zelensky was actually about, and about Zelensky’s part in it? And yes, I believe “the struggle” with Russia is already lost and has been for quite some time – if you define “winning” as regaining all the land Ukraine had prior to Russia’s invasion.

I won’t even try to make a prediction here.

European “conservatives” are not like American conservatives

The New Neo Posted on by

The article is behind a paywall, but you can find a lengthy excerpt at Instapundit:

True American conservatism is not just a political leaning. It is a philosophy rooted in the preservation of individual liberty and our God-given inalienable rights. Meanwhile, European conservatism is mere branding. What passes for “conservatism” in Europe depends entirely on the alternative, which often makes it little more than a nationalistic version of its left-wing opposition with a half-hearted call for marginally lower taxes and a growing opposition to unfettered illegal immigration.

Many years ago, somewhere along the line in my early blogging career, I learned that the words “left” and “right” do not mean the same in Europe as in the US. Exactly what they mean in Europe I’m not completely sure, but the above may be as good a summary as any.

Europe has never placed the same sort of importance as the US has on free speech, for example. Vance was correct about that – and it’s not a new phenomenon. I learned about it as long ago as 2006, when I did some research on defamation law in France and discovered huge differences.

The current article goes on:

Sure, these European conservative parties might occasionally borrow from the American conservative playbook in terms of their rhetoric, speaking passionately of freedom or tradition or liberty, but they lack the ideological backbone and the political will to turn these words into action. Let alone the fact that American conservatism is tied to the ideology that birthed the nation itself. European conservatism is tied to nothing.

I don’t know if I agree with that last sentence. Perhaps European conservatism is no longer tied to anything. But traditionally, wasn’t it tied to the status quo – institutions such as the church, the monarchies of old, the state itself? Perhaps it’s now divorced from all that and searching for a guiding principle. The guiding principle at the moment, at least for conservatives in some European countries, seems to be nationalism and a retreat from globalism.