Yesterday, the radio opera was another comic one – +Falstaff” by Verdi (based on Shakespeare’s “The Merry Wives of Windsor.”) “The Merry Wives” is said to have been written because Queen Elizabeth I told Shakespeare she wanted to see “Sir John in love.” That seems odd to me, because a total jerk in love is still a total jerk, and an unmarried queen must see hundreds, if not thousands, of those. But maybe she meant she wanted them to be able to see themselves – that would at least fit with the way Falstaff acts and how the women react. But I kind of doubt that most jerks are self-aware enough to recognize themselves when they see them. Oh well, at least the rest of us can happily mock them. (Shakespeare, and Verdi in turn, were clearly aware that for Falstaff and his ilk, “in love” actually means “kind of in heat and definitely looking for a mark to grift.”) After beig subjected to various minor indignties (e.g., crawling into a laundry basket to hide because “the husband” is arriving, and then being thrown into the river), at the end, by which time it appears the whole town is in on the joke, he does get the bejeesus scared out of him and then is totally embarrassed – which all depends on the audience being aware that in Shakespeare’s day “fairies” were thought to be real and malevolent supernatural beings, and not tiny, but the size of humans. Much of the final scene is like something out of Margaret Murray (author of “God of the Witches”). But it does end with everyone happy.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Mother Jones – “Alito Was Using Phrases We Had Invented as Bumper-Sticker Slogans in a Supreme Court Decision”
Quote – By all rights, Rob should have pushed all my buttons. He was born and raised a secular Jew but accepted Jesus as a teenager. And he embraced his new faith with an extremism that we have seen among the religious right: he became an evangelical minister and one of the key architects of the anti-abortion movement, not only in protests across the country, but in the White House, the halls of Congress and, yes, the Supreme Court. He and his organization were responsible for some of the most provocative language and actions in the campaign against Roe vs. Wade. All sorts of other fundamentalist positions, such as opposition to gay marriage, came along with him. Shortly before we met, he had changed profoundly.
Click through for full interview with Rev. Rob Schenk – it’s from July but is of current interest in light of recent news about Alito.
The Daily Beast – The Complicated Relationship Between Kevin McCarthy and Hakeem Jeffries
Quote – It’s a new era of leadership in the House of Representatives, but the problems will be the same—maybe even worse. On the right, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) is set—maybe—to ascend to the role of speaker. On the left, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) is virtually guaranteed to become the minority leader for House Democrats. The move would make two fiftysomething men, both long been rumored for the top spots, the heads of their respective sides of the House chamber. Just don’t expect them to be chummy about it.
Click through for article. I’m not saying McCarthy will be the SPeaker, but I’m not saying he won’t. The Speaker must be elected by the full House, not just his/her party, although if there’s party unity, it might as well be just his/her party. The thing is, there isn’t party unity on the right. House Democrats therefore are a wild card.
PolitiZoom – A Clarification On My “Trump Is A Legal Imbecile” Article Yesterday
Quote – Here it is. In the federal statute of limitations, there’s a waiver clause for a little something called availability of a subject or target. Here’s how it works. Let’s just say I rob a bank and clean the place out. It doesn’t take long before you’re hot on my heels. Not wanting to go to the Crossbar Hilton, I cop the next flight to Bolivia. God knows I’ve got enough lucre to survive comfortably until the statute of limitations runs out. Except no, that’s where the waiver kicks in.
Click through for details. Though he refers to an earlier article, this one stands alone, since it is about the federal Statute of Limitations, and an analogous provision in New York. So it’s pertinent to the Daniels case, and possibly also E. Jean Carroll.
Food For Thought
