"Sherlock Holmes Faces Death"

I have for many years been a great fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories.  I have read all of the original Doyle stories and books, and I have seen many of the movies and dramatizations.  My favorites are the 1940s movies starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes, and Nigel Bruce as Watson (and Mary Gordon as Mrs Hudson, and Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade), and the 2010+ movies starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Watson (and Una Stubbs as Mrs Hudson, and Rupert Graves as Lestrade).  As a side note, Benedict Cumberbatch's biological parents, both of whom are actually actors, also appear in two of those movies, and Una Stubbs is in reality a long time friend of Cumberbatch's mother.

The Cumberbatch series, created and written by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, are very modernized, but actually more closely related to some of the Doyle stories, and the Rathbone series contains some modernized stories (set during WWII, when they were made), and more loosely related to the Doyle stories.  But several of them contain devices from Doyle's stories.  I have watched both series many times.

The screenplay for "Sherlock Holmes Faces Death" was written by Bertram Millhauser, and is loosely adapted from "The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual."  In this movie, a family of two brothers and a sister own and occupy Musgrave Manor.  The convention among the Musgraves, going back to the 16th C, is that when the most senior Musgrave dies, the next in line must repeat what amounts to a poem.  It appears mysterious, and no one seems to know what it means.  The Musgrave siblings had decided to allow servicemen to live in their home, and they engaged two doctors to look after these veterans, most of whom had a form of PTSD.  One is a somewhat younger Dr Sexton, and the other is Dr Watson, who has agreed to volunteer to help these veterans.  Of note, one of the servicemen lodging in Musgrave Manor is an American airman there for some R&R.  He's played by Milburn Stone who many years later played "Doc" in the "Gunsmoke" series, and who in "Sherlock Holmes Faces Death" had fallen in love with the Musgraves' younger sister (and vice versa).

Not long into the story, Dr Sexton suddenly enters the room injured from a neck wound reportedly inflicted by some mysterious person who then ran away.  Not long after, the older Musgrave brother is found murdered.  Shortly after that, the younger Musgrave brother is found murdered.  Finally, Brunton, the Musgrave's butler, is discovered murdered, after Holmes figures out what the mysterious poem means, and finds the document to which it refers.

Sally Musgrave is now in line to inherit the Musgrave estate, which is generally thought to be worthless, but which the document Holmes has now seen shows that the Musgraves are multimillionaires, unbeknownst to any of them.  It turns out they have a "crown grant," which means they own 80,000 acres of highly productive land in that part of England.  Sally Musgrave wonders if there aren't people living on that land, and Holmes informs her that there certainly are, not to mention farms and towns.  But it turns out that Dr Sexton had also figured out about the Musgraves' holdings, and it was he who killed Sally's brothers and Brunton, and inflicted a minor injury on himself, to make himself seem like a victim, too.  Dr Sexton imagined that he would marry Sally (and take her away from Milburn Stone's character), and either join her in the inheritance, or perhaps kill her, too, and keep it for himself.  But Holmes tricks him into confessing everything, so the police would hear his confession.

Sally decides she could not possibly throw all these people off the land, and she burns the crown grant.

As Holmes and Watson are driving away, Holmes gives the following speech: "There's a new spirit abroad in the land.  The old days of grab and greed are on their way out.  We're beginning to think of what we owe the other fellow, not just what we're compelled to give him.  The time's coming, Watson, when we shant be willing to fill our bellies in comfort while other folk go hungry, or sleep in warm beds while others shiver in the cold.  When we shant be able to kneel and thank 'god' for blessings before our shining altars, while men anywhere are kneeling in either physical or spiritual subjection."

Watson replies "You may be right, Holmes.  I hope you are."

And Homes concludes, "And 'god' willing, we'll live to see that day, Watson."

I don't know if it was Doyle or Millhauser who wrote those lines, but it was a long time ago, in 1942 or 1943, when most of the world was fighting against fascism, and most countries felt united in the fight.  None of the Allies wanted to be "first," and none of them crowed about how "great" they thought they were.  They just wanted peace, and Millhauser let his audience know that peace for anyone meant peace for everyone.  Of course, it's possible Holmes/Millhauser were just being prematurely optimistic, and that of course there would be legions more "grab and greed" people to come later.

What Goes Around, Comes Around. When Turnabout No Longer Feels Like Fair Play.

A year or two ago, there was a story from Colorado, regarding some baker's refusal to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple's wedding, because the baker didn't approve of homosexuality.  Very recently, there was an almost identical story about some other baker's refusal to bake a cake for someone's transsexual "coming out" party.

Federal laws prohibit this kind of discrimination, but only in the public sector.  These were private sector bakers, and if they wanted to pass up business because of their own personal beliefs (no doubt religiously-motivated), they could.  And did.

Some people (prospective and hopeful/joyful customers) were left frustrated and insulted.  Other people got to feel smug and self-righteous.

And now, there's this: Another conservative faces public shunning. Liberals grow bolder with their intolerance. (msn.com).  So, if you're a "conservative," and some private establishment doesn't want to have to deal with you, or listen to your spoutings off, it's suddenly oh, so unfair.  "No matter your politics," the offended Gianno Caldwell sputtered, "you should not be discriminated against."  And then, Caldwell, who is African-American, suggested this treatment was somehow racist.  The restaurant Caldwell and his posse were asked to leave was in North Miami.  As best I know, there are at least a few other African-Americans in North Miami.  And the reason the proprietor gave for asking them to leave was that "the language they were using was unwelcome in our space."  That was essentially exactly what the bakers argued.  I wonder if Caldwell, or anyone else with whom he associates, complained about that argument when he wasn't downwind of it.

And a similar incident was noted from just last month in Virginia.  Restaurant staff felt uncomfortable having to serve a bible-toting right wing group, so the get-together at the restaurant was canceled by the restaurant.

The argument made by Caldwell and others, and supported in the USA Today report, was that unless someone is "causing a scene," they should be allowed to think, and say, what they like.  Sort of like First Amendment guarantees.  The question is why is spouting right wing rhetoric not "causing a scene," but ordering a cake that says "Happy Wedding, Steve and Bob" is causing a scene?  It's notable that the USA Today mentioned only the instances in which conservatives were limited, or expelled, or denied, and none of the instances where those identical things happened to people who were perhaps, or presumably, not conservatives.

And if the partisanship wasn't screamingly obvious enough, the USA Today column author said "All this is happening against a backdrop of progressives pushing for tolerance and measures to ban discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation."  That's generally true.  Progressives do make that tolerance argument.  But they get a lot of pushback from people like Gianno Caldwell, who suddenly doesn't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.  Have conservatives dumbed down liberals, or at least gotten them so filled with resentment that they give conservatives a taste of their own medicine, even though they don't believe in it?  Maybe.  So, conservatives' suggestion is what?  That liberals keep turning the other cheek, and wind up with a badly bruised face?  How about conservatives match their behavior to their rhetoric?  And if they won't do that, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me I'm wrong to think conservatives are hypocrites, dishonest, or both.

I Know It's Late, But DO...YOURSELF...(And Your Family)...A...FAVOR!!

It's a good thing the movement against cruelty to animals has been even somewhat effective.  One of the "casualties" of this movement is a reduction in animal acts in circuses.  Ringling Bros, Barnum and Bailey Circus went out of business, I understand, because they could no longer have animal acts.  I hope the aquaria, like the Miami Seaquarium, also have to release their animals, or place them in other and less abusive settings, and that they, too, will go out of business.

But circuses haven't stopped existing.  There's just a new kind of circus, and the "performers" are only people.  The presentations are what most people would probably call acrobatics.

I was in Massachusetts from early May until the end of September in 2022, and one day, I saw a sign advertising something called "Circus Smirkus."  It seemed potentially interesting, or at least like something different to do, so I went.  Circus Smirkus is an organization based in Vermont, and their mission is to offer training, and education, to young people who want to learn circus arts.  I think the youngest member last year was nine, and the oldest were about 18.  Circus Smirkus is residential and full time, so they provide normal school education, but also training in the skills you'd see people demonstrate in circuses.  I asked one of the high school age staff what is the ambition of participants, and she said they hope to perform in...circuses.  It's a real thing, and it is what it presents itself to be.  The show, by the way, was very good, and I added the donation they hoped people would give (since the ticket price was low anyway).  This past November, during Give Miami Day, I noticed there's another organization like Circus Smirkus, and it's local.  Yes, of course I donated to them.

Last night, I attended a show called Circa.  It's like Circus Smirkus "on steroids," and these are professionals.  The show was general acrobatics, sometimes with appliances like a trapeze, and recorded background music.  The organization -- Circa -- is from Australia, and this was their first appearance ever in Miami.  The venue was South Miami-Dade Cultural Arts Center, which has been unnecessarily and irrelevantly renamed the Dennis C Moss Cultural Arts Center.  I know them, and will always know them, as SMDCAC, and their web address is smdcac.org, and probably also something to do with Dennis C Moss.  (You detect that I protest this renaming, and have a bad attitude about it?  Good eye.)

I've been a faithful attender of very many events of many kinds for maybe 10 years or so at SMDCAC.  I'm a little bit selective -- there aren't enough hours in the day, or days of the year, to go to everything, and some things seem like they're not as appealing (to me) as others.  But I've never been to anything I didn't like, and I love most of what I attend.  This is a magnificent venue, and the person who manages it, and chooses the performers, has spectacular taste.

It is very possible that Circa was the best thing I have ever attended at SMDCAC.  It's likely in the running for the best thing I've ever attended anywhere.  It was totally captivating.  It was jaw dropping.  There were times I couldn't remember to clap, and other times I couldn't remember to stop clapping.

And today is the last show.  I don't know if last night was the first show.  It's just the one that was relatively convenient to attend.  Today's show is at 3:00 this afternoon.  I looked up the ticket prices.  I don't pay much attention to them, because they're always lower than anywhere else anyway, and the parking is free, so it really doesn't matter.  I see the full price, without possible discounts, is $47.50.  As I said to the SMDCAC manager last night after the show, whatever I paid wasn't enough.  I go to so many things there that I get a volume discount.  There are discounts for old people (senior citizens).  There are shocking discounts for kids, through the Culture Shock program.  Those tickets are $5.

Here are your four reasons not to attend this show this afternoon.  1) You're out of town.  Sorry to hear.  I hope you're having a great time, because it cost you attendance at Circa.  2) You have other plans you already made.  If I can give you a piece of advice, cancel your other plans.  3) It's at SMDCAC, which is really far away.  It's about 28 miles from here if you take I-95, then US 1, and it will take you most of an hour to get there.  Don't be deterred.  This is bigger than that.  Please go to this show.  4) Today is Sunday.  Maybe you go to church.  Maybe it's your day of rest.  Let me be clear with you about something, and I know I have a well-developed reputation about this.  If you think there's such a thing as "god," "god" is not at your church.  "God" is at SMDCAC.  If I was capable of agreeing with you that there's such a thing as "god," I witnessed him/her/it last night.

I don't know if this company will be back.  I don't know when they might be back.  But they're here now.  Today.  This afternoon.  DO...YOURSELF...(And Your Family)...A FAVOR!!

Although Other Good Things Come in Large Packages.

Orchestra Miami is presenting a concert On Saturday night, February 4, at 8:00, and again on Sunday afternoon, February 5, at 3:00.  It will be at Temple Emanu-El on Miami Beach on Washington Avenue just north of Lincoln Road.  The link to buy tickets -- you should buy tickets, instead of just showing up, because seats are reserved, not general admission -- is https://orchestramiami.org/road-of-promise, and the price, depending on where you sit, is $60-$25 per seat.  If you're old, as...I am...you get a 20% discount on any but the $25 seats with the code SENIOR.

So, here's the long press release:

Orchestra Miami presents Kurt Weill’s The Road of Promise

a Discover Miami Through Music event at Temple Emanu-El

January 5. 2023- MIAMI

A Unique Musical Experience

Join Orchestra Miami for a rare opportunity to hear a lost musical masterpiece! You can “discover Miami

through music” as Orchestra Miami present’s Kurt Weill’s rarely-heard oratorio The Road of Promise at Temple

Emanu-El on Miami Beach on February 4th and 5th, 2023. Adapted from Weill’s mammoth opera, The Eternal

Road, by Ed Harsh, The Road of Promise is a piece of living history. Conceived as a method of raising the

American public’s awareness to Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in 1937, The Road of Promise is set in a

synagogue where Jews hide as a pogrom rages outside. The story combines Biblical & pre-World War II Jewish

history, set to Weill’s unique and unforgettable musical language, with influences of cantorial lamentations,

classical fugues and showtunes, among other styles.

The Road of Promise is a part of Orchestra Miami’s Discover Miami Through Music series, which brings

appropriately themed concerts to Miami’s landmarks and places of historic interest so that we can learn more

about our city, and each other, through music. With its impressive & eclectic Byzantine & Moorish architecture

and copper dome, Temple Emanu-El is widely considered to be one of the most beautiful synagogues in the US.

Orchestra Miami’s performances on Saturday, February 4th at 8 PM and Sunday, February 5th at 3 PM will be only

the second time that this incredible masterwork will be performed professionally, outside of its Carnegie Hall

premiere in 2015.

A Starry Cast

The Road of Promise cast features stars from the Metropolitan Opera and a combined choir of over 100 voices.

The cast is led by internationally renowned tenor Allan Glassman in the role of the Rabbi. A regular at The

Metropolitan Opera, Mr. Glassman triumphed as Herod in Strauss’ Salome and has since been heard in more

than twelve different productions there. His impressive career includes many titular roles in some of opera’s

most notable works, including Samson in Samson et Dalila at the former Opera Pacific, Sacco in Sacco and

Vanzetti at the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center, Hoffmann in Les contes d’Hoffmann, and Idomeneo at Los

Angeles Opera. Hailed as the Otello of his generation: “Glassman is a full-on Verdian tenor... Glassman is more

than equal to the demands of the role, conveying Otello’s pain and suspicion vividly.” In past seasons, he has

performed the role with Opera Company of Philadelphia, Arizona Opera, Palm Beach Opera, Dallas Opera, Des

Moines Metro Opera, and at Chautauqua Opera.

Baritone Mark Delavan appears in the roles of Abraham/ Moses/ Jeremiah and is sought after throughout the

United States and Europe for the most demanding roles in his operatic repertoire. He regularly appears in the

title roles of Der fliegende Holländer, Falstaff, and Rigoletto, and as Iago in Otello, Scarpia in Tosca, Jochanaan

in Salome, and Amonasro in Aida, and has sung the pinnacle role of Wotan in Der Ring des Nibelungen to

critical acclaim at the Metropolitan Opera. The New York Times describes Elizabeth Caballero, who will

perform the role of Rachel, as a “plush-toned, expressive soprano” and The Wall Street Journal exclaims

that “Ms. Caballero is a find: her opulent soprano rings freely and lyrically throughout her range.”

Elaine Rinaldi, Founder & Artistic Director

The cast also features David Margulis as Jacob/David, Stephanie Newman as Miriam/Ruth, Philip Kalmanovitch

as Soloman, Neil Nelson as the Dark Angel and Gerardo Jose Ortega as the Voice of God. These outstanding

guest soloists will perform alongside a large ensemble cast of local professional singers. The performance will

be conducted by Orchestra Miami's Artistic Director, Elaine Rinaldi, with stage direction by Vernon Hartman,

and accompanied by the 48 musicians of Orchestra Miami. The choir of over 100 voices is made up of students

from the New World School of the Arts, under the direction of Megan Barrera, St. Thomas University, under the

direction of Dr. Elizabeth Turner, Broward College, under the direction of Brock Burback, along with volunteer

choristers from the community.

There are two opportunities to catch this “must-see” event: Saturday, Feb. 4, 2023 at 8:00 PM and Sunday, Feb.

5, 2023 at 4 PM. Tickets are priced at $60, $40, $30, $25 and $20 (partial view) and are reserved seating only. A

20% discount for seniors is available in Sections A-C. For tickets and information, please visit

www.OrchestraMiami.org, or call (305) 274-2103.

This concert is being sponsored in part by the Kurt Weill Foundation for Music, Inc. New York, NY, the Funding

Arts Network, and is presented with the support of the Miami-Dade County Department of Cultural Affairs and

the Cultural Affairs Council, the Miami-Dade County Mayor and Board of County Commissioners, and

sponsored in part by the Department of State, Division of Cultural Affairs, the Florida Council on Arts and

Culture and the State of Florida, and with the support of the City of Miami Beach, Cultural Affairs Program,

Cultural Arts Council.

What: Discover Miami Through Music: The Road of Promise presented by Orchestra Miami, led by Artistic

Director Elaine Rinaldi and staged by Michael Yawney. Featuring Anthony Dean Griffey as the Rabbi, Mark

Delavan as Abraham, Moses & Jeremiah and Elizabeth Caballero as Rachel. Also featuring David Margulis as

Jacob/David, Stephani Newman as Miriam/Ruth and Philip Kalmanovitch as Salomon.

When: Saturday, Feb. 4, 2023 at 8:00 PM AND Sunday, Feb. 5, 2023 at 3:00 PM

Where: Temple Emanu-El, 1701 Washington Avenue, Miami Beach, 33139

How Much: Tickets are $20 (partial view)/ $25/ $30/ $40/ $60 with a 20% discount offered for seniors.

#####

Elaine Rinaldi, Founder & Artistic Director

About Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi

Elaine Rinaldi, Founder and Artistic Director of Orchestra Miami, is a Miami native who has chosen to return

home and reinvest in her community. Under her artistic supervision, Orchestra Miami has performed high

quality classical music concerts to literally thousands of people through its annual “Beethoven on the Beach”

Free Outdoor Concerts and introduced over 29,000 school children to classical music through its collaboration

with the MDCPS Cultural Passport Program and In-School Performances and the Nicklaus Children’s Pinecrest

Outpatient Center Family Fun Concert series. Her “Discover Miami Through Music” series has encouraged

scores of Miamians to learn more about their city through music. In addition to her work in Miami, Ms. Rinaldi

is one of the nation’s top vocal coaches, focused on training the next generation of opera singers, and is a

frequent guest conductor at opera companies and summer music festivals, most recently at Opera in the

Ozarks, conducting performances of Mozart’s The Magic Flute, and the Miami Music Festival, conducting

Mozart’s Die Zauberflöte and L’Incoranazione di Poppea by Monteverdi. She recently led the world premiere

of Sergio Assad’s Concerto for Guitar at the 2022 Miami International GuitART Festival at FIU, and will make

her debut at the Fort Worth Opera in 2023 with Aida.

About Director Vernon Hartman

Vernon Hartman maintains a diverse career spanning nearly fifty years as a performer, director, educator,

producer and administrator. He was a leading baritone at the Metropolitan Opera for two decades, and as a

guest artist has sung with virtually all of North America’s major opera companies, orchestras and festivals, mixed

with frequent appearances in Italy, Germany, Spain, Norway, Austria, France, Japan, Mexico, China and

elsewhere. Mr. Hartman has produced and directed opera and musical theater for over thirty organizations

worldwide and has also guest directed for numerous academic institutions.

About Orchestra Miami

Founded in 2006 by Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi, Orchestra Miami is celebrating 16 seasons of bringing

affordable concerts of quality symphonic music to all people in Miami-Dade County. Orchestra Miami’s

mission is to provide people with opportunities to experience art, build community and educate through

music. Orchestra Miami’s signature programs include its “Beethoven on the Beach” free outdoor concerts, its

“Discover Miami Through Music” series, its many collaborations with the Miami Dade County Public Schools

and its Family Fun Concert Series. Orchestra Miami consists of a select group of professional musicians, all

permanent residents of South Florida, whose collective body is unparalleled in terms of excellence and

experience. Led by Founder and Artistic Director Elaine Rinaldi, Orchestra Miami continues to exceed

expectations in terms of programming and artistic quality. Please support our mission by making your

donation today at www.OrchestraMiami.org.

[Continued]

Elaine Rinaldi, Founder & Artistic Director

About Allan Glassman

Tenor Allan Glassman has thrilled audiences throughout America and Europe for decades with his vibrant timbre

and committed interpretations of roles. Critics exclaim “his very presence on stage made those around him

sound better.” A regular at The Metropolitan Opera, Mr. Glassman triumphed as Herod in a production

of Salome and has since been heard in The Met’s productions of Billy Budd as Red Whiskers; Die Frau ohne

Schatten as The Hunchback Brother; Salome as the First Jew; Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk District as The Shabby

Peasant; and in productions of Boris Godunov, The Great Gatsby, Carmen, Elektra, Káťa Kabanová, The Ghost

of Versailles, Mussorgsky’s Khovanshchina, and Wozzeck.

Mr. Glassman has performed the role of Herod in Salome to wide acclaim in opera venues throughout the world.

Critics wrote: “His fear and distress seemed to come from his heart and soul.” Some notable engagements as the

patriarch include productions with San Diego Opera, Fort Worth Opera, Opera San Antonio, the Ravinia Festival

(under the baton of Maestro James Conlon), with Cape Town Opera in Cape Town, South Africa, and most

recently with Los Angeles Opera. This season, he returns to The Metropolitan Opera for their productions of Die

Zauberflöte and Hänsel und Gretel.

International performances include Manrico in Il trovatore with the Deutsche Oper Berlin; Samson in Samson et

Dalila at the New Israeli Opera in Tel Aviv; the Prince in Rusalka in the Czech Republic; title role in

Verdi’s Ernani, Don José in Carmen, and I vespri siciliani with L’Opéra de Nice; I vespri siciliani with Den Norske

Opera; Cavaradossi in Tosca at the Belleayre Music Festival; Carmenwith Opera Valencia in Spain; and the Prince

in Rusalka with Oper Frankfurt.

Sought after by orchestras, both domestic and international, Mr. Glassman maintains an active concert calendar.

Notable engagements include: Prince Osaka in Mascagni’s Iris with the Münchner Philharmoniker,

Verdi’s Requiem with L’Opéra de Nice, Mahler’s Lied von der Erde with the Orquesta Sinfónica de Xalapa in

Mexico, Rusalka with The Fort Worth Symphony, Erik in Der fliegende Holländer in concert with the Syracuse

Opera, Das Lied von der Erde with Grand Rapids Symphony, and Boito’s Mephistofele with Boston Concert

Opera.

Mark Delavan

Mark Delavan, a singer of “incisive vocal power and fierce theatrical acuity,” is sought after throughout the

United States and Europe for the most demanding roles in his operatic repertoire. He regularly appears in the

title roles of Der fliegende Holländer, Falstaff, and Rigoletto, and as Iago in Otello, Scarpia in Tosca, Jochanaan in

Salome, and Amonasro in Aida. In addition, as a strong character actor on stages throughout the country, he has

proved himself a crossover artist of immense skill, starring as Phil Arkin in Milk and Honey with York Theatre

Company, to critical acclaim.

This season, Delavan returns to Maryland Lyric Opera for the title role in Falstaff, and to the Dallas Opera as

Father in Hansel and Gretel. He will also return to Dallas Symphony in 2024 as Wotan in their concert

performances of Der Ring des Nibelungen under the baton of Maestro Fabio Luisi.

At the Metropolitan Opera, Mr. Delavan took his interpretation of Wotan in Der Ring des Nibelungen to critical

acclaim, under Fabio Luisi. He has also performed at the esteemed house the title roles of Simon Boccanegra

and Nabucco, and has appeared as Scarpia in Tosca, Amonasro in Aida, Tomsky in Pique Dame, Alfio in Cavalleria

rusticana, Carlo in La forza del destino, Gianciotto in Zandonai’s Francesca da Rimini,

Elaine Rinaldi, Founder & Artistic Director

About Elizabeth Caballero

The New York Times describes Elizabeth Caballero as a “plush-toned, expressive soprano” and The Wall Street

Journal exclaims that “Ms. Caballero is a find: her opulent soprano rings freely and lyrically throughout her

range.” Ms. Caballero’s dramatically compelling interpretation of her signature role, Violetta in La traviata, led

to recent engagements to perform the role for houses across the country, such as The Metropolitan Opera,

Opera Carolina, la Compañía Lírica Nacional in Costa Rica, Florentine Opera, Madison Opera, Pacific Symphony,

and the Orlando Philharmonic.

Ms. Caballero recently made a series of house debuts including her Staatsoper Stuttgart début as Mimi in La

bohème, her début with The Palacio de Bellas Artes in Mexico City as Desdemona in Otello, and her Madrid

début at Teatro de la Zarzuela singing the title role of the European Premiere of Cecilia Valdés based on the

Cuban novel of the same name. 2020 engagements were to include a return to Staatsoper Stuttgart for Boito’s

Mefistofele, Mahler’s 8th Symphony for Pacific Symphony, Verdi’s Requiem for Portland Symphony, the

Metropolitan Opera for their production of La Traviata, and her role debut as Tosca.

This season, Caballero joins Stadttheater Klagenfurt as Amelia in Un ballo in Maschera, performs Mimi in La

bohème at the Seiji Ozawa Music Academy, and the Countess in Madison Opera’s Le nozze di Figaro. Last

season’s engagements included returns to Staatsoper Stuttgart as Cio-Cio San in Madama Butterfly, Florida

Grand Opera as Blanche in A Streetcar Named Desire, and Madison Symphony for their Christmas Gala Concerts.

Further concert engagements were as the soprano soloist in Bruckner’s Te Deum and Beethoven’s Symphony

No. 9 for the Colorado Symphony.

They Really, Really, Honestly, Sincerely Don't Get It. (Unless They're Hypocrites, Dishonest, or Both)

Reps/cons are mobilized against student loan forgiveness.  And I agree with them.  For one thing, as with "health care," how to retire the unrepaid amount is not the right question.  The question is why it -- "health care" or higher education -- is so expensive.  If either one was priced as it should be, there would be no crushing loans, nor the defaults and bankruptcies that follow them.  

Also, if you borrow money, then you agree to pay it back.  So, pay it back.  If you can.  And the "if you can" part means that repayment, especially of debts of these sizes, ought to be means tested.  Some people with a level of debt can afford to repay it.  So, they should.  That's what they agreed to do when they requested and accepted the money.

For these kinds of reasons, Reps/cons are not wrong, at least in part, to resist blanket debt forgiveness.  But now, at the same exact time, they're talking about reducing things like Social Security and Medicare benefits.  There are several things wrong with this line of thinking.  For one thing, the Social Security Administration's revenue is not part of the general federal coffer.  It's a separate fund.  Reducing Social Security, for example, does nothing for, let's say, the deficit.

Second, anyone should look at Social Security the same way they might look at something like student loans.  In the latter, let's say I borrow money to go to college or graduate school.  I requested and took the money, and I'm expected to pay it back.  With interest.  That's what I agreed to do.  Social Security works the other way around.  I give the government (SSA) money over the course of my working life, and the government is supposed to return it to me, if I live long enough.  So, return it.  With whatever increase should apply to the fact that the government has been holding onto it for decades.  Don't short me.  I'm expected to repay my debts, and the government is not expected to repay its debts?  Who came up with that philosophy?

But there's an elephant in the room.  These conversations are about the federal deficit, and it's phony and unnecessary.  We -- Reps/cons in particular -- complain bitterly about the deficit (although Reps/cons are selective about when they complain, and specifically about who's in office when they decide we have a horrible problem), but we cause the deficit by spending more than we have.  It's not easy to spend less, but it's very easy to have more.  Taxes need to be raised.  Reagan should not have lowered them, unless he was going to reduce government-funded services, which he didn't.  W/Cheney were completely out of their minds by overturning a manageable budget with an unnecessary tax reduction, and totally insanely starting some meaningless and invented war on a reduced budget.  No one does that.  No one ever has.  It can't be done.  It causes a very high deficit, which is what Reps/cons now complain about, even though they don't complain about what caused the deficit.  And after the deficit got higher, because Obama didn't raise taxes, Trump lowered them again.  This is nonsensical.  It's grossly irrational.  And the people who are now complaining about the deficit, and want to lower it by some means that won't lower it, need to be in "rubber rooms."

Hypocrisy You Didn't See Coming, Or a No-Win Situation? The Ruling and the Explanation Will Be Interesting.

The Supreme Court (five hard line right wingers and a not uncommonly reliable conservative) are about to consider the case of Gerald Groff.  Supreme Court takes up Christian postal worker's religious claim (msn.com)  Groff is described as an evangelical Christian, and he complained that the USPS assigned him to work Sunday shifts, which would have conflicted with his "day of worship and rest."  (We are given no information as to what else Groff may have done with his Sundays, such as go on family outings, play golf, watch football games, or anything else.  All we're told is that he didn't want to have to work at his job.  Initially, he was spared Sunday shifts, but this changed in 2015, when the USPS was given the responsibility to deliver "(Sc)Amazon" packages on Sundays.  Who demanded that the USPS deliver "(Sc)Amazon" packages on Sundays, when the USPS does not deliver mail, and what persuaded them to impose this responsibility, is another matter for another time.)  Groff's complaint was that the USPS had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and created workplace discrimination and an "undue hardship," by assigning him to a shift that conflicted with what he said were his religious preferences.

In any event, let's go back, before we go forward.  Everyone knows that the Pilgrims came to the "New World" to escape religious persecution, and that the US Consitution guarantees separation of "church" and state, and prohibits the establishment of a federally imposed religion.  Most Americans know this very well, and don't complain about it, even if some of them less formally tell themselves that the USA is somehow a Christian country.  (It isn't.)  So, more or less from the outset, apart from proselytizing and beating up on Native Americans, whose spiritual orientations were neither adequately known nor considered of any importance or relevance (still today, among the non-Native Americans), and apart from various forms of personal prejudices, including religion-based ones, we have agreed that up to a point, people can carry out their religious beliefs as they wish.  We do not, of course, agree to allow any religionists to engage in religion-based human sacrifice, nor do we allow polygamy, and if anyone good enough to be a professional football player, for example, said he refused to play in games that occurred on Sundays, we (the government; the Supreme Court) would not honor that self-restriction.  And frankly, there are no doubt many Christians in professional football, but they're devoted enough to their (usually short) careers that they are pleased to play in Sunday games.  They figure out some other way to satisfy whatever they think are their religious obligations or preferences.  Was Groff frankly not that devoted to working for the USPS?  It may be a good question.  He is described as an auxiliary, non-career, fill-in for other employees who were sometimes unavailable, like ON WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS!.  That doesn't exactly sound like the recipe for a deeply devoted worker.  And now that the SCOTUS is as hard right as it is, it has suddenly taken more of an interest in accepting these religion-based cases.  Hence, our look back, and the problematic title of this post.

The commonest reference case for this problem (dealing with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) is Trans-World Airlines vs Hardison in 1977.  Hardison is described as having been a member of something called the Worldwide Church of God, and he said that his church considered Saturday the "Sabbath."  TWA attempted to accommodate Hardison's claim of religious restriction by transferring him from one work setting to another, but his seniority level didn't transfer with him.  That was his complaint. Trans World Airlines v. Hardison | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu)  The SCOTUS ruled against him, saying that the employer had made a reasonable attempt to accommodate his religious wish, and he just couldn't have everything (the transfer that kept him from working Saturdays, and his seniority level).  It's as if someone bought a Kia, because they couldn't afford a Rolls Royce, but then decided the Kia wasn't car enough for them.  So now, they wanted the Rolls Royce after all, but since you can get a car for the cost of a Kia (they knew that for a fact, because they had one), then they expected to receive the Rolls Royce for the price of a Kia.  It don't work like that, as Hardison learned.

The nasty and difficult part of this is if we look further back, to the Civil Rights Act of 1875.  The construction of this Act was begun by "radical Republicans" (today, we would call them left-leaning Democrats) in 1870, and it was sort of aimed at two things.  One was the treatment of Native/indigenous Americans, and the other was the treatment of African-Americans.  One of the important sticking points of this Act was the insistence of enough people in Congress that the Act only apply to the federal government, but not to the private sector.  So a lot of anti-civil rights mischief continued to get made.  Until...

From Wikipedia: "In the 1930s, during the New Deal, the majority of the Supreme Court justices gradually shifted their legal theory to allow for greater government regulation of the private sector...thus paving the way for the federal government to enact civil rights laws prohibiting both public and private sector discrimination."  If there's anyone Reps/cons hate as much as they hate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it's...FDR.  And he signed Executive Order 8802, and established the Fair Employment Practices Committee.  In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled segregation unconstitutional, southern Democrats (they're Republicans today) responded with "massive resistance," and Eisenhower ("RINO" today) signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957.  There were some attempted and some completed reworkings after that, when Kennedy and then Johnson were presidents.  There were various SCOTUS cases after that, too.

And that will be part of the basis for the now hard right SCOTUS to decide what to do about Gerald Groff's complaint.  If they give him all the religion-based accommodation he wants, they'll owe it all to left wingers.  And these "originalists" will have to ignore the facts that 1) Americans are all about not being pushed around by religion, especially someone else's, 2) they can practice whatever they tell themselves are their religious preferences, and the government won't stop them, but they can't use their religious preference to control other Americans any more than the US can use religion to control them, and 3) there are limits.

It's an interesting problem, and it will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS tries to deal with it.

Or Maybe They Just Can't See the Forest for the Trees.

I always say that no one can adopt the modern Rep/con agenda without being a hypocrite, dishonest, or both.  And frankly, I haven't had any evidence that that's not true.  But I thought it over again.

Earlier today, I read an article about Representative Scott Perry (R).  Perry reportedly leads the House "Freedom Caucus."  George Stephanopoulos was interviewing him, and Perry was getting defensive.  At one point, he said elections should be "easy and fair."  His complaint, as is true of many in the so-called "Freedom Caucus," was that recent elections were not fair.  The main one far right wingers claim was so faulty as to have been unfair was the presidential election of 2020.

Perry is of course absolutely right that elections should be easy and fair.  The problem is that no one has any evidence that elections in this country are not fair.  And it's not for lack of looking for evidence.  There were 60 or 61 court cases over that election, and no one found any evidence of unfairness.  To the extent that anyone ever found any imperfections at all, they seemed always to favor Republicans.  I doubt Perry is complaining about that, and neither he nor any other Republican expresses concern about any election won by a Republican.

As I said, my usual conclusion is that they're hypocrites, dishonest, or both.  But maybe they truly believe their complaints, and they just fail to see the flaw in their approach.

A little later today, I watched a video interview of Representative Nancy Mace (R) of South Carolina.  She describes her district as "very purple," and she says she has to represent Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.  The interview was on one of the media that is commonly associated with a left leaning approach, and the main purpose of the interview seemed to be to showcase Mace's characterization of Matt Gaetz as a "fraud."  But she also happened to use the term "fiscally responsible."  She didn't claim that it's Republicans who are fiscally responsible, but very many Republicans describe themselves that way.

There is no one in this country, and possibly no one in the world, as fiscally irresponsible as American Republicans.  In my memory, it started with Reagan.  GHWB, who was running against Reagan in the primaries, described Reagan's approach as "voodoo economics."  Others described it as "trickle down economics."  I don't know much about voodoo, but nothing trickled down.  Reagan promised lower taxes, but no reduction of services.  Whoever did that math didn't consider that the country would be left with a large deficit.  But it was.  And when GHWB, who succeeded Reagan's second term, lost his nerve, and acknowledged (again) that American finances were not sustainable, and that he would, in fact, have to raise taxes, he got himself unelected to a second term.  He got replaced by Clinton, who turned the deficit into a surplus.  W/Cheney then took over, lowered taxes, started a random war (no government in the history of civilization has ever gone to war and lowered taxes, because it can't be done), and reinstated a now greater deficit, coming up with some insane theory that the war would somehow (for the first time in civilization) pay for itself.  Um...no...it didn't.  Obama did not increase taxes, as he should have, so the deficit continued to grow.  Trump lowered taxes again, and the deficit is somewhere in the stratosphere.  And Biden hasn't touched that "third rail," either.  But someone is going to have to do it.  In theory -- their own theory! -- it should be those "fiscally responsible" Republicans.  Don't hold your breath.  I'm not holding mine.

But again, my reflex assumption is that they know that what they're saying is nonsense, and they're hypocritical, dishonest, or both.  Scott Perry looked it.  Nancy Mace didn't.  It made me wonder whether she, and they, really just don't get it.

My go-to assumption is always the hypocritical, dishonest, or both one.  But maybe they're just dim.  You'd think there must be some Rep/con who understands this level of arithmetic.  GHWB did.  If they don't care about this country, or the people who live here (except for the "1%" and the donors), then that explains it.  But if they really believe what they say, then maybe they're not hypocritical, or dishonest.  Maybe they're just not too bright.  Maybe in their frenzy to lower taxes, they've lost sight of the forest, because each tax reduction just looks like a pleasing tree.  Never mind what the government can't do for the people, because Republicans are focused on keeping as much as possible of their money, and those who have so much that they can use it least get to keep the most.  It's hard to think of those people simply as stupid.  It's much easier to think of them as hypocrites, dishonest, or both.

(The relatively recent Republican who understood this best, and cared the most about this country, was Eisenhower.  He made tremendous inroads -- sorry for the pun -- in constructing the interstate highway system, because it was good for Americans, and he oversaw tax rates that maxed out in the 90s%, because that's what it took to finish rebuilding after WWII and build all those interstates.  I suppose today, he'd be written off as a "RINO.")

Oh, Right. It's That Time of Year Again.

This morning, I awoke to an e-mail thanking me for the $1 a month I give Wikimedia/Wikipedia, and providing the year end accounting of my donations.  They referred to it as "generous support."  $12.  So, I wrote back to them. 

But before we get to that, I actually did another blog for a short time.  I intended it to be about things other than BP, I never established a new post circulation, and I sort of abandoned it.  The last post was in 2015.

The 2/11/13 post was called "Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, or Personal Pork."  The post was as follows:

It's mid-February, in the quarter of the year between New Year's resolutions and Tax Day.  Tax Day being that balancing act where the exposure created by income is mitigated by the protections of our deductible expenses.

No one likes to pay taxes.  Even liberals, who claim to understand why the public sector is important, and appreciate the supports and benefits it provides, don't like to pay taxes.  The guy in the booth next to mine at breakfast this morning was explaining to his companion how he "plays the system" and "flies under the radar."  It seems he's paid by check, with no withholding, and he essentially invents an income and expenses, allowing him to take advantage of all possible tax benefits, and avoid any changes from one year to the next, changes that might trigger the dreaded tax audit.

Most people aren't quite as sociopathic as that, but there is, as they say, a little larceny in everyone.  We all tend to cut a corner here or there, or direct money so as to shelter it if we can.  It's not quite as simple as wanting to avoid taxes, so we can keep the money ourselves.  Some people give money away, to avoid paying taxes on it.  And this is the crux of a problem.

Our system, of society, government, and taxes, is set up so that the government spends money on what we're all supposed to agree is in the common interest, whether it's paying for government itself, constructing a system of highways, providing support for the poor and impaired, declaring war on Iraq, or anything else.  We're all supposed to pay a fair share of taxes to support those aims.  But we're welcome to pursue other interests, which are not necessarily agreed for the common good.  These are our private and personal interests, and can include anything "charitable," as long as it doesn't lobby.  Our taxes are deductible, and so are these other contributions.

If there is anything most people dislike more than they dislike taxes, it is "pork," or pork-barrel legislation.  Absolutely everyone complains about it.  Pork is those narrow interests that are forced upon others, who must support them, despite the fact that the vast majority of supporters gain no advantage at all from the narrow interests.  In fact, sometimes it seems that no one at all gains any advantage from them.  Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" is a recently discussed example.  These cuts of pork do nothing except funnel money into an area that could not independently attract the money, because few Americans would be interested, and the projects do not provide anything representing the general welfare.  Except in the very local area of the project.

Aren't charitable and related contributions precisely like that?  If I'm not a member of your church or synagogue, and I don't favor the ACLU, and I think the national park service provides protection enough, so conservation groups are superfluous and might have narrow agendas that are beyond what is of value to the public, why should I have to pay for part of your interests in these things?

I think I shouldn't.  And I think you shouldn't have to pay for part of my devotions.  So I have made a resolution from now on.  I no longer take tax deductions for donations I make to anyone for anything.  The only exception I make is for donations I make to the public sector.  The municipality where I live has an extremely limited ability to raise revenue.  I make extra "contributions," of one kind or another, and for one excuse or another.  I will deduct those "contributions," because I intend them as extra and voluntary taxes.  I will not deduct contributions to public radio, Feeding America, Amnesty International, Southern Poverty Law Center, or any of the several other organizations to which I choose to give some of my money.  That's on me, not on you.  And if you choose to give some of your money to a religious organization (I'm atheist and anti-religious) or anyone else of interest to you, I would appreciate your making that your own business.  You shouldn't have to eat my pork, and I shouldn't have to eat yours.

So, I wrote back to Wikimedia today as follows:

Wikimedia Foundation,

I have not provided "generous support."  I have provided minimal support.  (Also, I do not generally take tax deductions, because any support I give anyone is my business, and I do not ask other taxpayers to share in the donation with me, or to compensate the government for the decisions I make.  So I do not need an end of year accounting of how much I donated.)

Wikimedia has at least many millions of users.  It could be tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions.  If a significant proportion of Wikimedia's users made the minimal donation I make, Wikimedia would be awash in support/(money).  That's what should happen.  I know other people who rely on Wikimedia, and I always encourage people to consult Wikipedia, and to donate.  No one I know will miss a dollar a month, and everyone who values you at all should contribute.

It would be hard for me to imagine that you don't look things up on Wikipedia.  It's an endlessly extensive source of information about almost anything you can imagine.  And it's free, unless you want to donate to them.  (Someone has to research these things, and deal with proposed edits, and manage whatever is the cost of the site.)  So, I encourage you to donate.

 

I Still Think I Was Right.

Several months ago, a companion and I went to dinner with another couple.  The husband of the couple was ex-Air Force, his son is current Air Force, and he talked about how he and his son liked to fly fighter jets together, side by side.  You get the image, right?

I don't remember what led me to say this, but I said I think women are smarter than men.  The husband of the other couple quickly, and defensively, said men are smarter, because women can't focus as well as men can.

I was out to dinner with a couple I had recently met, and I didn't feel like getting into what started to feel like an available argument, so I just dropped it.

If I had responded, I would have said that the (male chauvinist) husband's idea that women can't focus is what makes them smarter than men.  They take more into account, because they're receptive and attentive to more adventitious sources of input or information.

Nancy Pelosi is resigning from any leadership role, including Speaker, in the House of Representatives after 20 years as the leader of House Democrats.  She's 82, her husband was recently badly injured in an attack, and she wants someone younger to take up the responsibility.  She wants someone to be prepared to replace her.

In an article I read about this transition, Pelosi said this about working with colleagues, or perhaps even Representatives on "the other side of the aisle:" "I call it a kaleidoscope. You just turn that dial, and one day all of you will be opposing all of them. And then, the next day, it will be all of them opposing all of these. And then it will be some conglomeration … But you never want to diminish the strength of anybody because they are a source of strength for you on the next vote."

Pelosi described herself as naturally shy, but she adopted assertive stances, because her job required it.  Her comment makes clear that she never lost the ability to observe, be patient, and take into consideration changing dynamics.

On the other hand, Pelosi also said this: "I want women to have confidence.  So sometimes when I act a little more, shall we say, like myself, it’s because I want them to know it’s okay to assert yourself, to have confidence in what you bring to the table, and also to understand your uniqueness.”

I assume that "like [her]self" means assertive.  She was talking about challenging Democratic House members, like the "Squad."

And there's this: "You have to compromise. So the members have been spectacular in respecting each other … So, one day, you don’t get your way. The rest of us come to a compromise. You’re annoyed. You’re some fringe element. But you vote with us because tomorrow might be your day, right?"

And this: "My one piece of advice is always be yourself. The authenticity of you is so very important. And I guess what has served me well is respecting … our Members, each and every one of them, even if I disagree with them."

Not everyone has this kind of capacity.  Women, whether it's due to "maternal instincts," on average less aggressiveness and need to dominate than men, or the appreciation of subtlety and varying viewpoints -- what looks to some like lapse of focus -- have it more than do men.  It's what makes them smarter.

Constituents

I'm disgusted with American politics, because our system is supposed to be a democracy, and it isn't.  It's a plutocracy.  In this country, candidates rely on campaign contributions, and whoever makes the larger contribution carries the most weight in what candidates do once they get elected.  It's not uncommon that bills offered in legislative bodies are written by the donors/corporations, not by the elected legislators.  If the donors have donated enough, the bill they write will be considered, and it will be passed.  And that bill favors the donors.  It doesn't favor you.  As I always say, the constituents of electeds are the donors, not the voters.  Voters, people who didn't vote, and people who can't vote (age, or whatever), can take a hike.  Or drop dead.

Of course, it's not entirely the fault of the donors.  Donors donate money so candidates can advertise themselves.  Prospective voters are, I'm sorry to say, stupid enough to be swayed by which candidate has the most ads, or the most signs.  We're in sound bite world, and prospective voters can't be bothered to pay attention, and wade through arguments and debates.  Candidates can tell prospective voters any stupid thing, or lie, as in the case of "George Santos," they want, and if the candidates are visible enough, the prospective voters will become brain dead, and just accept what they're awash in.

So, the question, to bring this "home," is who are the constituents of our current Commissioners?  As best I can tell, none of them, except Mac Kennedy, ever campaigned.  When I ran, I funded my own campaigns.  Maybe they did the same thing, regarding buying yard signs.  I have no evidence any of them, again except Mac, ever reaches out to anyone.  Some of them have lived in the Village a very short time (two of them for only three years), and none, except Mac, and very briefly Jonathan, ever involved him- or herself on a Board, or anything else that would provide insight as to how the Village functions.  My only input from any of them (except Mac), regarding the Village, and what are their understandings of Village issues, and goals for how to address them, came from watching the Meet the Candidates event, which was completely unrevealing of anything.  And now, three of these detached newcomers are on the Commission.  Taken together, they're a majority of the Commission.  So, whom, and what, do they represent?  What do they think?  What do they want?  What's their constituency?

They're going to have to deal with Village business of various kinds, at least once a month, and they're going to have to have some theory that will guide their decision-making.  On the surface of it, I have not the slightest idea what that theory will be, and from where it will come.  I can't assume it will reflect what I think, or what you think, because these Commissioners don't bother to find out what you or I think.  With that one exception, as always.

There's good news and bad news.  It's sort of the same news.  Mac Kennedy is not shy, he is not without opinions and vision, and he's highly goal-directed.  He's also highly influential over other people.  The immediately preceding Commission quickly became the Mac Kennedy Show, and I strongly suspect this one will, too.  His colleagues have neither grounding nor interest, and it will become clear to them that Mac is smart, does more than his homework, and will guide these other electeds as to what decisions they should make.  It wouldn't be unfair to say that he'll let them know what are the "right" decisions.  And Mac does care what you and I think.  He sends e-blasts with some frequency, and I doubt I have ever responded to one without getting a conversation back.  I don't always agree with Mac, but I always trust him.

The bad news, which, as I say, is the same as the good news, is that the current Commission is the Mac Kennedy Show.  Mac, technically rightly, says he doesn't force anyone else to do anything.  His Commission colleagues can determine, and vote, as they wish.  But I have no reason to think these four will buck Mac any more than did the four before them.  And at least two of the previous other four were essentially hostile to Mac.  But they went along with him anyway.  It quickly became easier than arguing.  So, we'll have a Commission of one voice, which is what we had just before.

As I said, I don't always agree with Mac.  I think that on occasion, he makes what I consider to be a mistake.  But I don't vote on the Commission.  If Mac does occasionally make a mistake, but there's no one there to challenge him, then the mistake stands, and the Village takes the consequences of it.

So, maybe when things get as tenuous and thin as they are now, the constituent of four Commissioners is Mac Kennedy.  It's vastly better than if the constituent of three or four Commissioners was Tracy Truppman, or even when the constituent of four Commissioners was Ed Burke, but it's not the system we're supposed to have.  These people don't get elected unless we vote for them, and we pay them, albeit just a little.  We take the consequences of what they decide to do, or what they let Mac convince them to do.  We're entitled to representation, which we never had from them, even from day 1, when they couldn't even be bothered to meet us and campaign for our support.  The fact is we really never voted for any of them.  We just had to fill Ginny O'Halpin's seat, and we voted against Dan Samaria and Judi Hamelburg.