Yesterday, I worked on educating myself for today’s opera – “Dead Man Walking” by Jake Heggie. Obviously it is based on the book, but has probably also taken a thing or two from the movie. The book was published in 1993, the movie produced in 1995, and the opera premiered in 2000. Considering all that, I’d say the Met was dragging its feet. And I’m not alone in that – because this season is being different. Thankfully. The book is purely non-fiction, and includes Sister Helen’s experiences with two death row inmates … and their families. For both the movie and the opera, these two men were conflated into one and given the name Joseph de Rocher, which is far from close to either real name.It struck me as interesting (probably meaningless) that at the premier in San Francisco Sister Helen was sung by Susan Graham and the convict’s mother by Frederica von Stade. In the 2023 Met production 23 years later, Susan Graham is singing the convict’s mother and Sister Helen portrayed by Joyce di Donato – she’s a trifle older than Graham was when she sang it, but she also has real experience working with convicts in at least one prison that I know of – Sing Sing in New York. This opera is set in the Louisiana State Penitentiary, which, if you are aware of it, it’s probably under another name – Angola. Wikipedia has a fairly detailed sumary, and I will probably keep it open while listening. It certainly doesn’t appear that the opera shies away from anything. And, as if to demonstrate that capital punishment is an issue which has not gone away, here is a petition written by Sister Helen herself, sponsored/promoted by Move On, with whom Robert Reich works so much.
I haven’t mentioned Loper Bright v. Raimondo yet, but you may have heard about it anyway. It’s been before the Supreme Court this week. If it is decided wrongly (and of course the crazy justices are leaning that way), regulatory agencies will not be allowed to regulate. I can hardly begin to describe how catastrophic that would be. Little Sammy is calling regulation “the administrative state” as if it were a bad thing. It actually isn’t – it’s far preferable to an “anarchic state,” which is what we are likely to get. This quote is from Wonkette’s newsletter , and is chock full of links to blogs by people who actually have the credentials to have opinions:
What smart things do we need to know about Loper Bright v. Raimondo (the Supreme Court case in which they’re probably about to ban “agencies doing regulations”) today? Here’s Madibe K. Dennie on Samuel Alito’s latest power grab disguised as a legal theory. (Balls and Strikes) Here’s Justice Kegs pretending not to understand that agencies have different policies during different administrations because voters chose a new administration to make different policy — plus some bullshit on the “major questions doctrine” (made up) and delegation. (Dorf on Law) The Only Republicans Are Allowed to Govern Doctrine. (Lawyers Guns & Money) Chris Geidner says it’s one of the most disingenuous arguments he’s ever seen. It must have been SOMETHING. (Law Dork)
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-labels-party-2024-presidential-ballot-access-effort-complaint/
Some people are saying that “No Labels” has lost, or is losing, it’s collective mind. Personally, I am not sure that No Labels has a mind to lose. It has made a complaint to DOJ with the premise that anyone who doesn’t want to see their candidate, whoever that may be (they don’t even have a clue yet), on the November ballot is part of a RICO conspiracy against them. The Justice Department has not yet responded. Hopefully someone will tell them that, because the Constitution directs them to, states have laws in place covering every aspect of elections, including who may and may not appear on the ballot, and that if the No Labels candidate doesn’t qualify, it is the duty of the state not to put them on it.
