…or what?

Compare and contrast.

And enjoy.

Both of these dancers are Russian, and both are excellent. The first is Svetlana Zakharova, and although the clip doesn’t have a date it looks relatively recent (the dancer only turned 34 a few days ago). The second is of Maya Plisetskaya, a dancer I’ve written about several times before. It was taken in 1967 when she was 42, probably not at the absolute peak of her powers as Zakharova is in her clip, but not all that far off either.

As I said, both are excellent. They emphasize different things and have different qualities, and Zakharova demonstrates the more extreme extension and flexibility that has become the hallmark of ballet today. But to me, one of them is Carmen and the other is not.

I’ve cued the first video to begin at the proper time (2:41) for this particular “Habanera” variation, which finishes at about 5:54. The second video is complete in itself and contains only that variation. See what you think:

Note that Plisetskaya is not the least bit afraid of looking awkward in certain poses, because gracefulness is not her paramount aim. Note also that Zakharova’s partner looks a bit like Putin, doesn’t he? And you might want to compare the difference between the way Zakharova falls backwards towards her partner at minute 4:59 and again a few seconds later with the way Plisetskaya does the same thing at minute 2:14 and again a few seconds later. Surprising, isn’t it, since Plisetskaya’s version was probably over forty years earlier?

I never heard of him before. But I’m impressed with his message and the clarity with which he articulates it:

This statement by Boehner seems a bit encouraging.

But I’ve learned not to put my faith in the Republicans in Congress. It’s like Lucy and the football.

So far what I’ve heard at the NSA hearing today is pretty straightforward and pretty interesting. The testimony makes the programs sound reasonable. Nor is this information new, although some of the detail is. But we’ve known the general outlines for years, whether people have paid attention or not.

Libertarians, of course, usually have objections to a program like this on general principles even if there are no abuses. The rest of us are more inclined to a cost-benefit analysis: we’ll give up a little to get something we consider worth it. Is this worth it? Well, it depends on whether you believe the testimony or not and how much you trust the methods described to be safe from abuse, and it depends whether you think there are alternative ways to combat terrorism that would be better.

It is somewhat ironic that it may have been the very success of the NSA program that has lulled Americans into a false sense of security that it’s not needed. Do you believe that (as has been testified to today) over 50 terrorist attacks have been thwarted as a result of this program? I do, actually, and although they probably all were not serious some probably were. For the most part, the terrorist attacks we hear about are the ones the government has failed to intercept and prevent, so it’s easy to forget that there may be serious plots that are thwarted by these programs. We have noticed that most of these successful plots seem to be more homegrown or “rogue”; it’s possible that’s no accident, because the NSA program is focused on communications with foreign nationals. So if no foreign national is involved, it is a plot that’s less likely to be discovered this way.

The larger problem with this program and so many others is, of course, trust. People who hated and distrusted Bush and Cheney assumed they were doing nefarious things with the data. But we have learned that under the Obama administration IRS data actually has been grossly misused against Obama’s political enemies, and members of the press have been investigated under the auspices of national security considerations (by the Obama Justice Department in that case, rather than the NSA) with very weak justification. So the distrust is justified, and it infects all programs and all government bureaucracies.

And then there’s Snowden, speaking of trust. We’ve seen only a fraction of the information he dumped on the Guardian, but so far the actual files (or slides, or whatever they are called) that have been published don’t really reveal all that much that was not already known. His most inflammatory and alarming remarks, that make assertions that are new, have been undocumented by anything else, and include explosive statements that he had the authority to wiretap anyone’s phone. Snowden was implying that he could do that if he merely judged it necessary, but the testimony today emphatically contradicts any such assertion, as well as several others he made about his own authority at NSA.

Ever since the Snowden story broke, one of the things I’ve been worried about is one that, for want of a better term, I’ll call the hacker issue. I have doubted whether Snowden really had the authority to do what he said he could do, and wondered whether it is possible for a determined and adept computer geek (Snowden, for example?) to hack the system and get information he/she is not cleared to get. The fact that Snowden was somehow able to get this information off his computer and to take it out of the building on a thumb drive is very, very disconcerting. By that evidence alone, we can conclude that security at the National Security Agency is not all it should be.

I hate to be so pessimistic, but…

Prediction: “reform candidate” Hasan Rowhani, who won big in Iran, will not actually be able to pull off any reforms of import.

Here’s Barry Rubin on the subject:

Did the Tehran regime put in a seemingly moderate but actually helpless or compliant front so it could claim moderation and thus stall for time to build nuclear weapons? Or did he masses simply overwhelmed the regime so that his victory was undeniable? Perhaps the regime figured that a second straight election stolen by the regime from the reformists–the previous one was in 2009–would set off a revolt.

New York Times correspondent Thomas Erdbrink reported that Tehran has turned into a massive street celebration…

No matter what the regime’s intentions or acceptance, the outcome will be this:

1. Rowhani will have little power. Remember that a moderate already served eight years as president and accomplished nothing. Rowhani is clearly loyal to the regime or he wouldn’t have been the only reformist candidate who was approved for the election by the regime.

2. A lot of Iranians will be very happy. One big thing they will hope for is better management of the economy.

3. There will be many analysts and politicians and government officials saying that since Iran has now turned in a moderate direction, it must be given a chance to show whether this is true. Rowhani is a very articulate and glib man. He will know how to make things look good in Washington especially compared to Ahmadinejad’s outrageously radical style.

4. Therefore, the Obama Administration will spend the rest of 2013 in exploratory negotiations as Iran moves forward toward nuclear weapons. People will talk about gestures toward Iran like reducing sanctions and certainly not increasing them. Russia, Turkey, and China will continue to get waivers on sanctions.

Please read the whole thing. It seems rather sensible to me.

[ADDENDUM: And in somewhat related news, more on the Syrian "rebels."]

Glenn Greenwald could be prosecuted.

I don’t think Glenn Greenwald will be prosecuted.

But do you think Glenn Greenwald should be prosecuted?

It depends in part on how damaging the information turns out to be. But isn’t there an argument to be made that if this offense is winked at, the next one will be worse? Is there any reason to let the security of the US hang on the judgment of journalists such as Greenwald and newspapers such as the Guardian as to what classified information is damaging to national security and what is not?

[NOTE: The law in question criminalizes the publication of:

...any classified information— (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or (2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or (3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or (4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes...

I refer you also to a previous and much more lengthy piece I wrote on the subject. Also note that Britain---the place where the Guardian and Greenwald are operating---has much more stringent laws on this than we do. But since the present violation involves US secrets rather than British ones I don't see how British laws would apply.

Here's an excerpt from my previous post, written in 2006, but I suggest you read the whole thing:

]Did McCarthy (or whoever the leaker actually was) really have no avenue but the press? If the leaker’s conscience was troubled by confidential information gained in the line of duty, didn’t that person also have a duty to go through internal channels or to Congress? Was this ever done in the detention center case, or did the leaker simply cut to the chase (and the press), assuming an internal investigation would go nowhere?

When that process is short-circuited, the leaker unloads his/her information in the most public way possible, which can end up being the most damaging way. Right now the only people deciding how bad that damage might be before it occurs are the leaker him/herself–hardly the most objective judge of that–and the press (ditto). Once the story is published, it’s too late: the cat is out of the bag, the horse is out of the barn.

The judiciary was meant to act as the check and balance on potential leakers and the press–and in the past, of course, we also had more self-imposed restraint on the part of the press, especially in times of war. Now, however, not only does the press see itself in the role of government adversary and whistleblower, but personal repercussions are few and far between, short of treason (a very hard case to make in most situations).]

You knew it was coming didn’t you? An article by Zeus Leonardo (great name, actually), a “scholar of critical race/whiteness studies,” and Alice A. Broderick, a disability studies expert, which explores:

…”smartness” as an ideological system and particularly…the ways in which it intersects with whiteness as ideology. Using Cheryl Harris’s analysis of whiteness, the authors argue that smartness works as a form of property, with all the advantages that come with membership in the group…

Conclusions/Recommendations: Analogous to Roediger’s claim about whiteness, the authors argue that smartness is nothing but false and oppressive, and as such, attempts to theoretically rearticulate or rehabilitate smartness may serve to illuminate, but ultimately fail to dissolve, the normative center of schooling.

Lest you think this is The Onion, it is not—unless you think the Teacher’s College Record, “a journal of research, analysis, and commentary in the field of education…published continuously since 1900 by Teachers College, Columbia University” is merely a front for the humor magazine.

And this video has got to be one of the saddest things I’ve ever seen. In it, an education professor (who happens to be a black man, an obviously intelligent guy) discusses research he did in which he interviewed about a dozen male black teachers who had been hired in predominantly black schools in order to be strong male role models, asking them about their experiences. If you watch the whole thing (it’s only about three minutes long), it seems his recommendation is that they go to the gender re-education camps. You’ll see what I mean; it’s pretty ironic, although he doesn’t mean to be.

Columbia is one of the most influential education schools in the United States. It not only churns out a great many graduates, but it sets the tone for a great deal of education-education in the country. This sort of thing has been going on for many decades somewhat under the radar. But it’s my impression it’s getting worse by the minute, like a virus that’s been spreading exponentially,

I read this entire article about the release of murderer Paula Cooper without learning a word about why it’s happening so soon.

I understand why her death penalty was set aside, which according to the article happened in 1988 (Wiki says it was in 1989 due to a SCOTUS case that barred execution of criminals 16 and under). I actually don’t have any difficulty with that part of the decision.

Cooper, who is black, was 16 in 1985 when she stabbed 78-year-old Bible school teacher Ruth Pelke 33 times in the course of a robbery committed with 3 other girls (net take was $10). Her death penalty sentence was changed to 60 years because of her age at the time of the murder (again, Wiki says it was changed to life, which makes much more sense to me, but Wiki also contradicts itself by saying later that her new sentence was 60 years).

So, why is Cooper being released now? When last I checked, 1985 to 2013 was only 28 years. Well, Indiana law says that offenders get a day taken off their time for each day of good behavior. Now, that’s what I call an incentive. But it means that most criminals will only be serving half their sentences, which seems unconscionable to me.

Who knew murder came so cheap in Indiana?

And yes, Cooper has had a very difficult life. That’s too bad, and very sad. But it really should have no bearing on these issues.

[NOTE: This a slightly edited version of a previous post of mine.]

It’s Father’s Day. A sort of poor stepchild to Mother’s Day, although fathers themselves are hardly that. They are central to a family.

Just ask the people who never had one, or who had a difficult relationship with theirs. Or ask the people who were nurtured in the strength of a father’s love and guidance.

Of course, the complex world being what it is, and people and families being what they are, it’s the rare father-child relationship that’s entirely conflict-free. But for the vast majority, love is almost always present, even though at times it can be hard to express or to perceive. It can take a child a very long time to see it or feel it; but that’s part of what growing up is all about. And “growing up” can go on even in adulthood, or old age.

Father’s Day—or Mother’s Day, for that matter—can wash over us in a wave of treacly sentimentality. But the truth of the matter is often stranger, deeper, and more touching. Sometimes the words of love catch in the throat before they’re spoken. But they can still be sensed. Sometimes a loving father is lost through distance or misunderstanding, and then regained.

There’s an extraordinary poem by Robert Hayden that depicts one of these uneasy father-child connections—the shrouded feelings, both paternal and filial, that can come to be seen in the fullness of time as the love that was always, always there. I offer it on this Father’s Day to all of you.

THOSE WINTER SUNDAYS

Sundays too my father got up early
and put his clothes on in the blueblack cold
then with cracked hands that ached
from labor in the weekday weather made
banked fires blaze. No one ever thanked him.

I’d wake and hear the cold splintering, breaking.
When the rooms were warm, he’d call,
and slowly I would rise and dress,
fearing the chronic angers of that house.

Speaking indifferently to him,
who had driven out the cold
and polished my good shoes as well.
What did I know, what did I know
of love’s austere and lonely offices?

Assuming this is true, I’ll also assume I’ll have more to say about it anon:

The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls, a participant said.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed on Thursday that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed “simply based on an analyst deciding that.”

But it’s more likely that Nadler misunderstood what the briefing was getting at (see the “update” here):

Here’s [Nadler's] new statement to BuzzFeed:

“I am pleased that the administration has reiterated that, as I have always believed, the NSA cannot listen to the content of Americans’ phone calls without a specific warrant.”

Read the transcript of his exchange with Mueller to see where he erred. The NSA told him that they could get “specific information” about a suspicious phone number without a FISA warrant. Nadler somehow took that to mean that they could tap that phone number and listen in. As Kevin Drum and Julian Sanchez noted last night, though, “specific information” may simply have meant metadata and phone records for the number, not the actual contents of phone calls. To actually tap a line, they need FISA approval. That’s what Mueller was trying to tell him.

So as Emily Litella would say: “Never mind.”

But I think we should continue to mind, because if a vast apparatus with vast powers is assembled, there is every reason to believe it will be used, and that some day those who are just itching to abuse it will find a way to abuse it. And if that apparatus is secret, there would be all the more ability to do so under cover of that secrecy. It all rests on trust, and we have come to distrust our government more and more as time goes on.

On the other hand, all intelligence operations are secret. That’s their very nature. And so all are subject to abuse; that’s one of the most frightening things about them. And until the day comes when the lion lies down with the lamb (a day I can’t see ever coming) we need intelligence.

It’s a conundrum. But as I’ve said before, the advantages of this particular program don’t seem worth the dangers. Life contains dangers; enemies are out to get us. How much protection do we demand, how much liberty and privacy are we willing to give up to get it, and is that sacrifice even worth it because the protection we get is so imperfect and perhaps even inadequate?

In addition, banning these programs wouldn’t necessarily end them. What technology allows, people will probably find a way to accomplish, either legally through the NSA or illegally through some more clandestine means. Unless we all go off the grid simultaneously, I don’t see that electronic spying will ever stop (and even then, there probably would be other ways for people to get into our business). And I’m not just talking about the federal government, either.

Mark Steyn; read it.

Give that man the prescience award.