What Norah O’Donnell said during the Trump interview after she quoted the shooter’s “manifesto”

The New Neo Posted on by

Trump gave an interview to 60 Minutes in which Norah O’Donnell asked him to comment on the shooter’s written letter, the so-called “manifesto.” This article is typical of the coverage of the incident:

O’Donnell on Sunday began reading a portion of the reported manifesto to Trump, saying, “The so-called manifesto is a stunning thing to read, Mr. President. He appears to reference a motive in it. He writes this quote, ‘Administration officials, they are targets.’ And he also wrote this, ‘I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes.’”

“Yeah, he did write that. I’m — I’m not a rapist. I didn’t rape anybody,” Trump said. “I’m not a pedophile. You read that crap from some sick person? I got associated with all — stuff that has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated,” he said, later calling the CBS News senior correspondent “disgraceful.”

“You know, he’s a sick person,” Trump continued. “But you should be ashamed of yourself reading that because I’m not any of those things.”

Critics of O’Donnell on the right agree with Trump that it was a kind of “Have you stopped beating your wife?” question that amplified the quote on a major TV program, without O’Donnell remarking on the obvious falsity of the allegations – probably because the media and Democrats have fostered such allegations. “Pedophile” is connected to the constant Epstein misrepresentations, “rapist” is a misreading of the court case won by E. Jean Carroll, and “traitor” could apply to anything from fake Russiagate to fake Nazi.

So yes, O’Donnell’s question was both inappropriate and designed to harm Trump. But I’m surprised that no articles and no videos I’ve seen discussing the exchange mentioned her truly pernicious followup question, which I bring you here:

Did you catch the statement of O’Donnell’s that has commonly been left out, the one I’m referring to as her followup question?: “Oh, you think, you think he was referring to you?” coupled with a mildly incredulous look? That sentence in particular reveals the duplicitous, disingenuous nature of O’Donnell’s approach. She knows full well that Trump would interpret the manifesto quote as referring to him because of course it does (for one thing, it levels charges that have become common against him, and for another the charges are against a single person and not a group). And yet she pretends the subject of the quote is in doubt and she uses Trump’s understandable interpretation – really, there is no other one possible – to imply some sort of consciousness of guilt on Trump’s part.

That’s what tells me what a nasty piece of work O’Donnell is, even more than the “pedophile, etc.” quote itself. And she sets it up by starting with another manifesto quote, “Administration officials, they are targets.” This is an attempt to establish that the shooter was also targeting the entire group, so that her later “oh, you think he was referring to you?” question might give her pose of feigned doubt some supposed credibility.

The entire thing was a setup, IMHO. O’Donnell almost certainly knew that reading the quotes might get a rise out of Trump – as well it should – and would cause the interview to be discussed and watched more widely.

NOTE: If you watch the whole clip, instead of just the part I cued up, you’ll see how the left is spinning it.

Monk bust

The New Neo Posted on by

I must say this story rather surprised me:

Twenty-two Sri Lankan monks returning from Thailand were arrested on Sunday at the main international airport in Sri Lanka with a record 242 pounds of powerful cannabis, officials said.

A Sri Lanka Customs spokesman said the group, returning home after a four-day vacation in the Thai capital, had Kush — a potent strain of cannabis — hidden in their luggage.

“Each carried about five kilos of the narcotic concealed within false walls in their luggage,” the spokesman said, adding that the monks had been handed over to police. …

The monks were mostly young students from temples across Sri Lanka and had been on a holiday sponsored by a businessman.

I didn’t know monks went on vacation, much less on a vacation sponsored by a businessman – although perhaps these were actually student monks. Then again, this seems to have been something of a working vacation.

However, had I been keeping up with recent monk events, I probably wouldn’t have been quite as surprised by the drug bust:

In 2022, every single monk at a Buddhist temple in central Thailand was defrocked after they tested positive for methamphetamine. The monks were sent to a health clinic to undergo drug rehabilitation.

In 2017, police said a Buddhist monk was arrested in Myanmar after authorities found more than 4 million meth pills in his car and in his monastery.

Meth surprises me even more than cannabis. But both go against the monks’ general prohibition on the use of any intoxicants.

How political hatred works

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “phsicsguy” has a request:

,,, [I]n every other aspect of [the lives of the Democrats I know who want Trump dead], they act within the general morality of our culture. They don’t beat puppies and babies, they don’t steal, they’ll lend a helping hand to their neighbors, etc. My BiL is extremely active in the Catholic Church. Yet…..when it comes to Trump, and now through the relentless propaganda, conservatives and republicans in general, the “violent minds” turn on. I keep wishing that someone well-versed in psychology could explain this phenomenon to me, and also provide a solution. I haven’t seen such. If it exists it might even save the country from some terrible consequences.

It does certainly seem like a contagion, but there seems to be no antibiotic to employ.

I have no solution. But I’ll have a go at an explanation. The analogy to contagion is a good one, although obviously there are no microbes involved. People come to believe Trump is a Hitler equivalent, tremendously evil and otherwise unstoppable politically, so it follows that he must be killed. The analogy to Hitler is not an idle one because there were indeed many failed attempts on Hitler’s life and most people consider those who tried to do so to be heroes. The fact that Trump bears no resemblance to Hitler is irrelevant, because most people don’t evaluate things for themselves and their sources – their trusted sources – say Trump is tremendously evil, Hitlerian, and out to destroy our country and must be stopped.

Why those sources are trusted is another story. It’s different for different populations. For older people, it’s the news media amplified by social media. For younger people, the source is other online platforms such as TikTok and Twitch (Hasam Piker is a huge Twitch personality, for example). For many of all ages, they live in communities where pretty much everyone thinks this way, whether it be a blue city or just their own family or their own ethnic group. Often a clergyman or church or synagogue group is part of the echo chamber (in which case Trump-hate is not a religious substitute but is considered consistent with their religion as a sort of “just war”), and of course many Democrat politicians and spokespeople, as well as celebrities, artists, authors, and public intellectuals.

In my case I am often the only Trump supporter friends and family members know. Some have cooled, but some have “grandfathered” me in, as it were, because they’ve known me so long and know I’m not evil.

In addition, some of my Democrat friends simply don’t care. It’s not that they don’t care about politics, but they don’t care in the same very personal way. They never talk politics to me and never mention my curious support of Trump; it simply is not an issue they take into the personal realm. They are my friends (at least so far), they’ve been my friends for years, and that’s that. Nor do they ever mention wanting to kill Trump or wanting him dead, although they’ve made a few remarks indicating they detest him.

What distinguishes these two groups from each other? I think it’s the personalization of politics and the transformation of it into a religious substitute, plus the intensity with which they view it. But why do people belong to one group rather than another? I don’t know. I have found no specific characteristics that I can see that differentiate between the two groups: neither is predominantly male or female, neither is religious, nor do they differ in education or the way they habitually vote. They also do not differ in the intensity of their personalities in other areas of their lives.

Qatar isn’t so fond of Hamas at the moment

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “sdferr.”]

Of interest:

The gist of it is that Hamas’ sponsor Qatar is withdrawing some of its support from Hamas, due to Hamas’ tepid response to the Iran War in which Iran decided on the brilliant move to attack Qatar.

It’s become the norm to talk about wanting to kill Trump or at the very least wanting him to die – and to be proud of it

The New Neo Posted on by

It was early in Trump’s first term that I noticed people talking about killing Trump. These were people I knew and had known for five decades or more. I’d never talked about politics before with these people, and I hadn’t been aware that they’d had any especially deeply-held feelings about politics. But all of a sudden, each of them stated in a casual manner that they wanted Trump killed.

It was the casual manner that got me. Neither knew my political leanings, but it was assumed that I agreed with them – didn’t everyone who didn’t sport a tail, horns, and a swastika tattoo? With the first person I was so stunned I said nothing. But later, with the second person, I challenged him – to no avail.

You’ve probably seen similar public statements from Trump-haters over the years – on TV and on social media, for example. It’s become standard. In the last year I’ve heard it again from two different friends, each of them people I’ve known for many years and who’ve never spoken this way before. Neither have any history of being leftist firebrands and in fact each have long been political moderates.

But not on the topic of Trump, apparently. The first was over the phone, and my long-time friend said that if she ever was given a terminal diagnosis she would try to kill Trump. This seemed only slightly tongue-in-cheek and deeply unfunny. She went on to vent quite a bit on how much she hated him. My response was that I hope she never receives a terminal diagnosis.

The most recent person to express this was even more disturbing. This was from an old friend who’s one of the most mild-mannered people I know – ordinarily. We were having lunch and catching up, since I hadn’t seen him in a long while, and towards the end of the meal he said that if he had a rifle (which he doesn’t) and if Trump came anywhere on his property (which Trump won’t) he would kill him. With the previous people saying this, they’d only given very general reasons why; I guess they thought his evil was so very obvious it needed no explanation. But this time I asked him why, and his answer stunned me: it was that Trump wasn’t even human. This was said with vehemence and a kind of fervor and certainty that indicated a very deeply held belief.

Again, I asked why he said that. I wish I could remember his exact words, but it was something to the effect that it was obvious just by looking at him – that he cared about no one and nothing but himself, and that he didn’t love America but hated it. He offered no particular evidence and I didn’t press it; to pursue the conversation was going to be counterproductive. This was a person who already knew my general politics, but I think he assumed that despite being on the right that I, as a moral and upright person, would be a Trump-hater too.

There are a great many people like this, and their sentiments are considered perfectly okay and even moral by other people just like them, people I would never have described as political activists or leftists, but who want Trump dead and probably are surrounded by others who want him dead too. The sentiment has been mainstreamed, and it happened quite early in Trump’s first term although it’s only gotten worse..

A couple of days before the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jimmy Kimmel did a sketch about the coming festivities. It was supposedly funny, and there certainly were plenty of people or bots in the comments to this video who seem to think it was indeed funny. Here are a few seconds that got a lot of attention in retrospect, for obvious reasons:

Today Melania Trump issued a reaction:

“Kimmel’s hateful and violent rhetoric is intended to divide our country. His monologue about my family isn’t comedy- his words are corrosive and deepens the political sickness within America.” …

“People like Kimmel shouldn’t have the opportunity to enter our homes each evening to spread hate. A coward, Kimmel hides behind ABC because he knows the network will keep running cover to protect him,” she said. “Enough is enough. It is time for ABC to take a stand. How many times will ABC’s leadership enable Kimmel’s atrocious behavior at the expense of our community.”

Good luck with that; I don’t think it’s going to happen. There’s an audience for it and an appetite for it, and although Kimmel doesn’t have high ratings I don’t see them pulling him.

Last night I came across the following video and clicked on it because of the title. I kept watching it because it periodically featured people – I believe mostly from TikTok? – expressing the most outrageous death wishes on Trump, with a venom that is extraordinary and no sense of needing to hide their sentiments. For example, two very short segments:

Those aren’t even the worst ones. Here’s the whole thing, in case you’re interested:

There’s plenty more where that came from. What’s happened is not just a norming of such behavior – although there’s that – but a message that it’s not only okay but that’s it’s cool and virtuous, something of which to be proud.

It spreads like a contagion. Some people are more vulnerable to it than others, but I couldn’t have predicted in advance who among my friends would be most vulnerable to it. I also have plenty of friends and relatives who are Democrats and who detest Trump, but at least I’ve never heard them wish him dead.

The line of succession vulnerability at the White House Correspondents’ Dinnner

The New Neo Posted on by

I heard the news of the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner shortly after it happened – hot off the press, as it were. First I saw photos of Trump, then Vance, and I thought “Oh wow; Vance was there too.” Almost immediately after that I saw a photo of Rubio, and thought with growing alarm: “Rubio too?”

So right at the outset I wondered how many people in the line of succession were there at once, and I found this:

At least twelve of the cabinet officers at the top of the line of succession for the presidency were reportedly in attendance at the 2026 White House Correspondents Dinner when shots rang out and President Trump was rushed from the stage.

The line of succession refers to who becomes responsible for carrying out the duties of the office of the president if the president is no longer able to serve. …

The line of succession is listed below along with the name of who currently holds the position and whether it is known if they were in attendance at the dinner.

1. Vice President – JD Vance – Was in attendance

2. Speaker of the House – Mike Johnson – Was in attendance

3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate – Chuck Grassley – Unknown

4. Secretary of State – Marco Rubio – Was in attendance

5. Secretary of the Treasury – Scott Bessent – Was in attendance

6. Secretary of Defense – Pete Hegseth – Was in attendance

7. Attorney General – Todd Blanche (acting) – Was in attendance

8. Secretary of the Interior – Doug Burgum – Was in attendance

9. Secretary of Agriculture – Brooke Rollins – Unknown

10. Secretary of Commerce – Howard Lutnick – Unknown

11. Secretary of Labor – Keith Sonderling (acting)- Unknown

12. Secretary of Health and Human Services – Robert Kennedy Jr. – Was in attendance

13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – Scott Turner – Unknown

14. Secretary of Transportation – Sean Duffy – Was in attendance
“>this one
15. Secretary of Energy – Chris Wright – Was in attendance

16. Secretary of Education – Linda McMahon – Was in attendance

17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Douglas Collins – Unknown

18. Secretary of Homeland Security – Markwayne Mullin – Was in Attendance

So, had the shooter been far more successful, we might have had a 92-year-old President Grassley.

Fortunately no one was hurt and the incident will be only a footnote. But the attendance of so many high officials at one venue – particularly one that is public – dictated an extremely high level of security that was not met. This wasn’t business-as-usual even for a presidential appearance; this was of a higher level even than that.

When I say the security level was not met for such an event, I’m also relying on eyewitnesses. I’ve read several eyewitness accounts that very much agree with this one from attendee Stephen Moore, who is an economist:

I had anticipated a very long security line and about an hour wait to enter the hotel. I brought my paper ticket and my passport identification.

To my surprise the security was lax, to put it lightly. Wearing my tux, I walked in the front door by flashing the paper ticket. There was no code to be scanned and I never once was asked for my ID.

The room was packed at 7pm when President Trump entered to shallow applause. What shocked me was that, after the National Anthem and military color guard, Trump and the First Lady sat for dinner front and center in front of 2500 people. That didn’t strike me as safe or advisable. For a sniper, God forbid, it seemed he was a sitting duck.

It also struck me that the President, the VP and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson were all in attendance. I am told five of the six in succession to the presidency were there. …

Trump was right in praising the agents on site were amazing in keeping us safe and restoring order.

But this was clearly a major security breakdown on multiple levels. It was easier to get into the Hilton to see the president and to get 30 feet from him than to attend a Wizards basketball game down the street.

As I said, I’ve read very similar observations from others. I’ll also add something I’ve written before, which is that for quite a while after 9/11, when I stayed in hotels in a few big cities, there were stringent ID checks and metal detectors going in or out and only one or two entrances were even open. These were ordinary large hotels with no special functions going on.

The WH Correspondents’ Dinner was a one-night event, but it’s also obvious that anyone wanting to attack might come there earlier to check in. So the security would need not to just be the day of, but at least a day or two earlier. Obviously, security can’t be perfect and it’s a judgment call when the enhanced security would begin. But I continue to believe that some very obvious precautions were not taken, considering the unusual nature of the get-together.

In previous years, of course, it had occurred without incident. But Trump had never attended as president during his first term, and it is Trump and his aides who are targets even more than previous administrations. That is obvious.

Actually, security last night was terrible – plus, the shooter’s manifesto is exactly what you might expect

The New Neo Posted on by

I titled last night’s post, “I guess the security was effective at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.” That was an initial response to the fact that no one was killed – not even the shooter, who was taken down alive and well. But of course, the earlier security had to have been abominable for anyone to get as far as would-be assassin Cole Tomas Allen did.

And, since Allen helpfully sent his family a manifesto of sorts ten minutes before he started his attack, we have it straight from the horse’s mouth, if this document is authentic (and I have no reason to believe it’s not). The relevant excerpt:

Ok now that all the sappy stuff is done, what the hell is the Secret Service doing? Sorry, gonna rant a bit here and drop the formal tone.

Like, I expected security cameras at every bend, bugged hotel rooms, armed agents every 10 feet, metal detectors out the wazoo.

What I got (who knows, maybe they’re pranking me!) is nothing.

No damn security.

Not in transport.

Not in the hotel.

Not in the event.

Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance.

I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.

The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before.

Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.

Like, if I was an Iranian agent, instead of an American citizen, I could have brought a damn Ma Deuce in here and no one would have noticed shit.

Actually insane.

Oh and if anyone is curious is how doing something like feels: it’s awful. I want to throw up; I want to cry for all the things I wanted to do and never will, for all the people whose trust this betrays; I experience rage thinking about everything this administration has done.

Can’t really recommend it! Stay in school, kids.

Even before I read that, it had become crystal clear that although security was good at the very endpoint, it was disgraceful prior to that. As with earlier incidents such as Butler, it is hard to fathom what could explain such overwhelming negligence. Some say that security forces’ incompetence is purposeful and out of malice towards Trump, and although I do not think it’s that I can see why people would believe it.

That quote I gave comes at the end of the shooter’s document. There’s much much more earlier on, describing the reasons that he feels he must do this. I plan to write more on the subject either tonight or tomorrow. But right now I’ll just say that several things are apparent.

The first is that Allen is intelligent. The second is that he’s not at all crazy. The third is that his letter of explanation reads exactly like the sort of thing we see every day, many times over, on “X” or other social media – what has become almost garden-variety hatred of Trump and accusations that he is evil and does evil (pedophile, rapist, traitor). Sound familiar? It should; it’s commonplace commentary on MS NOW (once MSNBC) and other leftist stations and talk shows, in the halls of academe, in social gatherings, and on the aforementioned social media. I know many perfectly ordinary people who are probably nodding along now with what Allen wrote, wishing he had succeeded. I predict he will become a hero to millions, just as Mangione has but even more – except for the fact that Allen was unsuccessful. But the effort will be applauded.

I hold Allen responsible for his actions. But it is tragic and outrageous that he has been fed propaganda so relentless and so vile that he felt that what he was planning to do was something noble and good: taking out the evil empire of Trump. His targets seem to have been the whole administration.

He also says something quite prescient:

Secret Service: they are targets only if necessary, and to be incapacitated non-lethally if possible (aka, I hope they’re wearing body armor because center mass with shotguns messes up people who *aren’t*

One Secret Service agent was hit in the chest but was wearing body armor and will survive.

NOTE: Here is a critique of the abominable security measures. I think the average child could have designed something better. It is mindboggling.

ADDENDUM: Some history:

On March 30, 1981, Ronald Reagan, the president of the United States, was shot and wounded by John Hinckley Jr. in Washington, D.C., as Reagan was returning to his limousine after a speaking engagement at the Washington Hilton hotel.

Same hotel 45 years earlier. Reagan was very seriously wounded but survived after surgery. Another big difference, however, was that although there was plenty of hatred towards Reagan, that’s not what motivated Hinckley, who was actually fairly crazy and shot Reagan because Hinckley had become convinced that assassinating a huge public figure would impress Jodie Foster, with whom he was obsessed. Earlier, Hinckley had considered killing President Carter.

I guess the security was effective at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner [scroll down for UPDATES]

The New Neo Posted on by

Never a dull moment:

President Donald Trump never left the White House Correspondents’ Dinner venue and remained nearby following the security scare that briefly disrupted the event, Fox News can confirm.

Trump was moved to a secure holding area as a precaution and “wants the show to go on,” according to Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich.

Sources familiar with the situation told Fox News an individual attempted to get through security screening with a gun but was stopped by Secret Service before entering the ballroom. The suspect has since been taken offsite.

Apparently shots were fired, but not in the room where the even was being held. Is the would-be assailant alive?

It must have been quite a scene, one we could have done without:

Attendees were eating a spring pea and burrata salad, and waiters began preparing to bring out the next course when a security detail appeared on the ballroom floor and yelled for everyone to get down. Journalists in gowns and tuxedos ducked near tables as wine splattered onto white tablecloths and glasses clinked in the hurry to seek safety.

Armed security burst through the doors of the ballroom and raced toward the dias where Trump sat as attendees ducked or crouched under tables. At one point, someone in the room shouted, “USA!”

Trump said that a “shooter has been apprehended” in a post to Truth Social …

Sounds as though the shooter is alive, but I assume more information will be forthcoming.

The event was held at the Washington Hilton, which may explain how it is that the shooter got that far, if other guests were permitted in other parts of the hotel. Vance was also at the dinner, as was Rubio. This was also Trump’s first time attending the dinner as president.

Someone apparently thought it was a target-rich environment. I’m extremely glad no one was hurt.

UPDATE 12:10 AM

The Daily Mail has a series of articles and photos.

This:

The president confirmed that the suspect has been apprehended and that a Secret Service agent wearing a protective vest was shot, but is in ‘great shape.’

‘Tonight, they had everything covered very quickly. And he was fast. He was running full blast, and they got him before they got any further,’ the president said of the shooting.

The gunman has been identified and is alive:

Cole Tomas Allen, 31, from Torrance, California near LA is the alleged shooter who opened fire at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night.

The educator from the Los Angeles area was quickly apprehended by law enforcement moments after breaching a security checkpoint. He faces firearms and assault charges.

Police revealed the suspect had a number of weapons on him including a shotgun, handgun and multiple knives.

President Trump shared a stunning image shortly after the shooting, showing the suspect shirtless and lying face down on the carpet. Law enforcement confirmed he was not struck by gunfire while being stopped but has since been taken to the hospital for evaluation. [see photo at link, along with many other photos]

The suspect appears to be a young black or Hispanic man.

One of the many people in attendance was Erika Kirk, who was understandably visibly upset by the frightening incident.

I have to say it’s practically a miracle that no one was killed. The suspect was well-armed, and he was fast:

And typical responses to the YouTube video; I didn’t have to search for them, they were right up there:

@CuttinBlade
16 minutes ago
You cannot believe anything that you see or hear coming from the Trump administration

@Ag23445
3 minutes ago
Just another false flag because his ratings are down. We still haven’t seen close-up damage of his ear from the supposed gunshot wound. They sure shut those investigations down quick as well.

@blkvixon
31 seconds ago
Did this to distract the first fake assassination and bring attention to the Ballroom

UPDATE 12:48 AM

On the suspect:

Allen lists his employment as a teacher in a $25 donation to Kamala Harris in 2024. He is registered to vote in California as “no party preference.”

His LinkedIn profile indicates he’s been a part-time teacher at C2 Education in Torrance, California. C2 is a national tutoring and college counseling provider.

Allen posted on LinkedIn he received his bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering from Caltech in 2017 and his master’s degree in computer science from California State University-Dominguez Hills in 2025. …

In December 2024, Allen’s employer C2 named him the Teacher of the Month and posted a photo on the group’s social media.

Before that job, Allen listed his employment as a self-employed video game developer. The PC game he developed was listed on the website Steam for download tied to his name.

Before that, Allen says he worked for a year as an engineer at IJK Controls based on South Pasadena. And before that he was a teaching assistant at California Institute of Technology in Los Angeles.

UPDATE 4/26 2:40 PM

I’ve written a new post on the subject that can be found here.

Osipova versus Plisetskaya

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a very short clip that compares Natalia Osipova with Maya Plisetskaya. It’s from the ballet Laurencia. The Bolshoi-trained Osipova is a very fine dancer, still performing at 39. Plisetskaya was a star of the past who had her heyday in the late 1950s, 1960s, and part of the 1970s. Both are known for their drama and intensity, but their differing techniques reflect the different times in which they danced, with Osipova featuring today’s high extensions and nearly-perfect lines.

Osipova may come closer than most dancers of today do to Plisetskaya’s athletic jumping and “attack,” and in fact may surpass her jumps in height. But I prefer Plisetskaya. Of course, every dancer is different and we don’t want duplicates – although I think I’d make an exception in the case of Plisetskaya.

There is something very naturalistic in Plisetskaya’s movement and flow, although ballet choreography is anything but natural. Nevertheless, she seems to be free in her movements, departing from strict style in order to convey something of the character’s personality. Here, that something is joyful abandon, and I think the key to what she does – and what Osipova does not do – is that little head and upper body dip that Plisetskaya makes as she runs into her preparation for the leap. Osipova keeps her regal ballet posture right through, and it gives the movement a somewhat stilted although beautiful effect. It’s subtle, but that’s what I see.

There are longer clips of each dancer doing the same variation. You might notice other things – for example, as is very common with today’s dancers, Osipova dances somewhat more slowly, which I think takes away from the dramatic effect but allows for more posing and her technical perfection as well as her jump’s height

Here’s Plisetskaya in a somewhat longer clip that shows more of her acting ability and upper body freedom and fluidity; the variation in question begins at 3:47:

On lying in politics

The New Neo Posted on by

We all know that politicians lie. Maybe all politicians, or maybe not. But I think we’re on safe ground in saying that most do.

They typically lie about any number of things, exaggerating their accomplishments and minimizing their flaws. The degree to which they are sexually faithful to a spouse would be a favorite arena for mendacity. They might lie about their financial dealings. You know, the usual.

They also might “flip flop” on issues. You don’t hear that term too much these days, but it used to be a big deal – for example, during Kerry’s presidential run.

But it wasn’t until Obama’s candidacy that I noticed a person running for US high office who didn’t just flip-flop but lied about his basic political orientation. He was and remains a dedicated leftist, but he covered that up to a great extent when he was running for office in 2008. He ran as more of a centrist and as a racial healer, but he was neither. With the help of a fawning and compliant press, hints that he was actually a leftist (Ayers and Wright and Alinsky connections, for example, or what “community organizer” actually meant) were covered up or explained in the most benign terms possible.

I wrote about it at the time: for example, here. There were certainly strong hints; what does “fundamentally transform” mean?

Being on the left doesn’t mean you must lie about who you are and what you intend to do. For example, it seems to me that Bernie Sanders has been fairly upfront about his leftist orientation and intentions. But Sanders became a senator by running in Vermont, where such positions didn’t really hurt him, and by the time he ran for national office he couldn’t have covered his history up if he’d tried. Obama had less of a track record, although it was there for those who really looked.

In this post from 2013 I quoted David Horowitz on the subject:

There is a marked difference between the radicals of the Sixties and the radical movement Obama is part of. In the Sixties, as radicals we said what we thought and blurted out what we wanted. We wanted a revolution, and we wanted it now. It was actually very decent of us to warn others as to what we intended. But because we blurted out our goal, we didn’t get very far. Americans were onto us. Those who remained on the left when the Sixties were over, learned from their experience. They learned to lie. The strategy of the lie is progressives’ new gospel. It is what the progressive bible – Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – is all about. Alinsky is the acknowledged political mentor to Obama and Hillary, to the service and teacher unions, and to the progressive rank and file. Alinsky understood the mistake Sixties’ radicals had made. His message to this generation is easily summed up: Don’t telegraph your goals; infiltrate their institutions and subvert them; moral principles are disposable fictions; the end justifies the means; and never forget that your political goal is always power.

An SDS radical wrote in the Sixties: “The issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution.” The Alinsky version is this: The issue is never the issue; the issue is always power: How to wring power out of the democratic process, how turn the process into an instrument of progressive control. How to use it to fundamentally transform the United States of America – which is exactly what Barack Obama warned he would do on the eve of his election.

Horowitz knew whereof he spoke, having been a 1960s radical who later turned to the right. But most people in the US didn’t know what Horowitz knew, and they were fooled by Obama – just as they recently were fooled by Abigail Spanberger. The latter phenomenon is what has gotten me to reminisce about the topic:

It works.

NOTE: The Ayatollah Khomenei was not a leftist, but he operated like one in this sense. I wrote this 2016 post on the subject. An excerpt:

Just as an example, in November of 1978 [Khomeini] said, “Personal desire, age, and my health do not allow me to personally have a role in running the country after the fall of the current system.” Then on his return to Iran about a year later: “I will strike with my fists at the mouths of this government. From now on it is I who will name the government.”

Here’s another later quote:

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world. . . . Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them [the non-Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [non-Muslims] overcome us?…Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors!”