Yesterday, the radio opera was “Nixon in China” by John Adams.I’ve heard and/or seen it several times, although always in the same production (original cast). This production was from the Bastille Opera in Paris, and a totally different cast, including Renee Fleming and a baritone, Thomas Hampson, equally well known among opera lovers, but I think not so much outside opera. During the week, the opera came into my mind from time to time, and it occurred to me that we tend to put plays and operas into the pigeonholes of comedy, drama (tragedy), and history, as Shakespeare’s plays are categorized. One would naturally call this one a history, but, although it’s all three to some extent, I suspect eventually it will come to be seen as a comedy. The only character who is not mocked (and mocked in the most effective way – through his or her own words and actions) is Zhou Enlai. Kissinger in particular is pilloried in the second half through the mechanism of Madame Mao putting on a ballet and casting the villain as a dancer who looks like him (played by the same singer who sings the “real” Kissinger.) But there’s comedy all through, some gentle, some less so. In the meeting with Mao, Zhou, Nixon and Kissinger, three of them are attempting actual diplomacy, but Mao is telling philosophical jokes, causing Nixon and Kissinger in particular to become very confused (this, by the way, is how the real life meeting actually went, as a former aide of Nixon’s has confirmed. But it’s a hoot.) Pat is shown getting so:into: the ballet I mentioned that she leaves her seat to offer aid to the suffering heroine, which is sweet, but also humorous. And the foxtrot called “The Chairman Dances,” which was cut from the opera but has become an often-played concert piece, would have been a monumental joke in that context. Of course, it’s only been 51 years since the actual events happened, and many of us remember them as serious historical events. But within another fifty years, I suspect it will be perceived as a comedy – or at the very least as historical comedy.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
Crooks and Liars – TX Gov. Greg Abbott Signs ‘Death Star’ Bill Overriding Local Laws
Quote – These are among dozens of local policies that could be targeted by a sweeping new Texas law that limits the power of cities to make their own rules. The unprecedented legislation, which was signed by Governor Greg Abbott, prohibits cities from enforcing or creating regulations that are stronger than the state’s in broad policy areas including labor, finance, agriculture, occupations, property and natural resources.
Click through. I am not trying to beat up on Texas here. There doesn’t need to be any more od that. I just want to note howlike the SCOTUS this is – bigots at the top requiring people under them to perform acts of cruelty. This whole mindset just has to go.
I don’t have a link for these few paragraphs from The New Yorker. They appeared in an email which did link to four articles on the subject. But I wanted to share this general overview instead, so, figuring emails are fair game, here it is:
Wielding a version of the controversial “major questions doctrine,” which it has used to neuter the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal bodies, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court tossed out the Biden Administration’s student-loan forgiveness plan today. In a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled that the Administration exceeded its authority in introducing the $430 billion program under a post-9/11 law that granted the Secretary of Education the power to modify student-loan programs during a national emergency.
The ruling raises many legal, financial, and political questions. Most immediately, it means that millions of Americans, many of them on low or modest incomes, who were expecting to get their student loans partially or wholly wiped out may now have to repay them in full. And the ruling comes just weeks before the pandemic-related pause in student-loan payments is due to come to an end, on September 1st.
While some conservatives may celebrate the sight of the Supreme Court swinging its wrecking ball at another Democratic program, today’s ruling does nothing to resolve the underlying affordability problem that gave rise to the Biden initiative—indeed, it only makes it starker. With tuition costs rising inexorably, the loan-based American system of financing higher education is broken. By pushing the burden of rising costs onto private borrowers, the system “regularly offers loans to students knowing full well that they will never be able to repay those loans, at institutions and programs where students rarely complete a degree; at low-quality institutions, online programs, or certain degrees that provide little value in the job market and no boost to earnings,” Adam Looney, a professor of finance at the University of Utah, noted in congressional testimony earlier this year. A similarly perverse logic also applies, Looney noted, “at élite master’s and professional-degree programs, where the quality of education is strong but where the tuition charged is simply too high.”
Fixing these problems would require concerted action over a long period from the executive branch, Congress, states, and educational institutions. Of course, this isn’t likely to happen. After today’s decision, the problem will just get worse.
Food For Thought
