Studying up on the Ring

Well, seeing I am on my way to 15 odd hours of Wagnerian opera in a few months time, I should probably start getting a better idea of what its about and how it's been interpreted over the years, and why it seems particularly appealing (according to this very interesting article) to politicians (and not just Nazi ones.)   I didn't know GBS was a fan, for example:

...the first point to make is that Wagner’s music has inspired political interpretation since it was first performed. The 35-year-old anarchist who befriended Bakunin and took part in the Dresden Uprising of 1849 was 63 when the Ring cycle was first performed. By then, Marx felt able to mock the former firebrand as a “musician of state”, a court composer remote from the social realities of the age; deaf to the first whispers of modernity. Yet the notion that the Ring is essentially a critique of capitalism has always had its adherents – most obviously George Bernard Shaw, whose The Perfect Wagnerite (1898) declares the Ring to be a dramatised allegory of “shareholders, tall hats, white-lead factories and industrial and political questions looked at from the socialistic and humanitarian points of view”. In this scheme of equivalence, Alberich is the wicked capitalist and Nibelheim his industrial Hades. Siegfried shimmers into being as an avatar of Bakunin, the great rebel whose struggle for freedom ends in defeat.

Well, given it went on to become a Nazi favourite, it's a wonder they haven't been duels in the street over conflicting interpretations.  (Actually, I suspect there may have been.)

On the perhaps more mundane matter of staging, the production I am (hopefully) going to see is said to be a "digital" production:  

Towering, moving digital panels create an immersive virtual world. Astonishing costumes and props imagine an unknown future.  

Given that the QPAC performance space is not the largest on the planet, perhaps that will work well, but I would be curious to see a more traditional production, too.  This article goes into detail about the history of its staging, with this amusing bit:

From 1896 on (when Bayreuth finally mounted its second Ring ), critics took issue with the fixed, semaphoric style of acting Cosima imposed there, which many thought more forced and unnatural than what her late husband's actors had done twenty years before. In 1889 Shaw wrote, "Bayreuth has chosen the law of death. Its boast is that it alone knows what was done last time, therefore it alone has the pure and complete tradition, or, as I prefer to put it, that it alone is in a position to strangle Wagner's lyric dramas note by note, bar by bar, nuance by nuance ." In 1896, he judged the Bayreuth style of acting to be an amateurish display of tableau-vivant attitudes, the striking of stupid poses by singers who were often little more than "animated beer casks." (From earliest days, Ring tourists mocked the girth of "youthful" Siegfrieds and "enchanting" Brünnhildes. Romain Rolland, at Bayreuth in 1896, described "the vast padded bulk" of a Sieglinde: "From bust to backside she is as wide as a city wall.")

Forget your downtrodden Humanities degrees

Instead, Australia should introduce something like this:

Japan university awards first-ever ninja studies degree 

Japan has produced its first ninja studies graduate after Genichi Mitsuhashi spent two years honing his martial arts skills and absorbing the finer traditions of the feudal martial arts agents.

The 45-year-old completed the master’s course at Mie University in central Japan, the region considered the home of the ninja.

In addition to researching historical documents, Mitsuhashi said he took the practical aspect of being a ninja to heart.

“I read that ninjas worked as farmers in the morning and trained in martial arts in the afternoon,” he said.

So Mitsuhashi grew vegetables and worked on his martial arts techniques, in addition to copious ninja study in the classroom.

As far as our government's policy to fiddle with the cost of going to University, I was surprised to see that the two most cost reduced courses are maths and agriculture.  I can understand the need for more maths teachers, but there is a problem with not enough tertiary qualified farmers?

As for the other changes:  I am not really bothered by the fee increase for some areas of oversupply (we could do with a lot less law graduates who have little hope of finding a job - not to mention every university under the sun setting up a law school because it is relatively cheap to do), but I am bit annoyed at the way all possible Humanities studies have been lumped together. 

Why pro-mask now?

I would still bet money on the reason Fox News has started to promote mask wearing is because of concern about being the target of litigation.

This article argues that such litigation has low chance of success - but I would not put it past litigious America to try it, and still it would risk costing the network in legal fees and embarrassing publicity.

Republicans on the coming dis-aster

Paul Waldman at WAPO looks again at the stupid Republican/conservative rhetoric about how Democrat control of government would be a communistic disaster:

Republicans are getting very worried about what might happen if Democrats win big this November. The polls look bad for President Trump, Democrats enjoy a lead in the battle for the House as big as the one just before the 2018 blowout, and the GOP’s Senate majority looks increasingly imperiled.

Faced with that kind of situation, some are spending less time arguing that their policy preferences are superior to Democrats’ policy preferences, and have instead gone to apocalyptic predictions of catastrophe should the Democrats take control. Here’s a striking one from conservative writer Rod Dreher:

You can smell the panic. And he’s not alone.

If your memory stretches all the way back to 2009, that kind of thing may sound familiar. When Barack Obama — a center-left president who spent years trying to win Republican support for his agenda — took office, many on the right absolutely lost their minds with fantasies of oppression and dictatorship.

Republicans said over and over again that Obama was a “tyrant,” when all that was happening was that he was enacting the policies he ran on. As Jon Stewart said in April 2009 after running through a litany of conservatives decrying Obama’s tyranny, “I think you might be confusing tyranny with losing."

“When the guy that you disagree with gets elected, he’s probably going to do things you disagree with,” Stewart continued. “Now you’re in the minority. It’s supposed to taste like a s--t taco.”

But Republicans never seemed to get their minds around that idea. It was never enough to say “This is a very bad thing Obama is doing.” He had to be a tyrant who was moments away from rounding us up, imposing martial law, and putting us in FEMA concentration camps.

How on Earth do we get the American Right to stop this catastrophising BS?    Where are the Republican who will decry paranoia and put national unity and goodwill over political scaremongering?   (OK, there are some -  look at those campaigning that they will vote for Biden.)  But how can they overcome the sick feedback loop between Right wing media making money from encouraging paranoid conspiracy amongst the grass roots, and the politicians who see their endorsement as essential? 

Update:  what a sick worry this is -

GOP Candidates Open To QAnon Conspiracy Theory Advance In Congressional Races

As predicted, Trump takes the worst possible line on the Russia story

This response by Trump makes  no political sense whatsoever:

Congressional Republicans who blew a two year fuse trying to prove that Obama and Hillary did not have American soldiers' interests at heart in Benghazi now have a President who is openly saying that the briefings they are getting directly from intelligence sources about the danger American troops are in is a hoax.

I reckon that the low regard most of them already hold (in private) for Trump as their useful idiot will plummet to new levels.

I said the other day that the worst outcome would be for Trump to say he spoke to Putin who denied it, and that's the end of the matter as far as he is concerned.   But this apparent attempt to even pre-empt that he would even need to talk to Putin about it is arguably worse.   It shows that if he doesn't like the way he found out about something because it makes him look bad, he will simply go into complete denial instead of doing anything responsible.  

What line are his Fox News puppet masters taking on this?   Because this is going to be next to impossible to spin.

Greg Sargent's piece in WAPO explains in more detail:

Trump is now defending himself not just by claiming he wasn’t briefed on that intelligence, or just by contesting the significance of that intelligence. Instead, he’s declaring that the entire story simply doesn’t exist — that is, he’s suggesting no intelligence ever actually indicated anything like this.

Yet this defense is itself deeply self-incriminating. It only underscores what critics are saying — that at minimum, Trump should be taking this intelligence seriously and trying to get to the bottom of what it actually does indicate, even if the worst interpretation proves wrong....

There is a great deal we don’t know about the Russian bounties, and we should be exceptionally cautious. But one thing we can state right now is that the president of the United States should be taking a lot more of an interest in this and should be saying publicly that he is doing so....

Even the most charitable interpretation here is incriminating. If you stipulate that Trump is merely demonstrating an instinct to protect himself politically — and is just lashing out at the “deep state” or whatever — then this instinct is itself preventing him from seeking a full accounting. Such a narcissistic reflex itself ensures that Trump won’t act for the good of the country.

 Update:

Jordan and the Nazis

A long article criticising how (and why) conservative hero Jordan Peterson has played loose with the facts about Hitler and his party has appeared in Haaretz.   Found via Bernard Keane on Twitter.

It's funny how the conservative Catholics and Jews who comment at Catallaxy have been Peterson admirers.   They are the ones who most need to read it:  I already thought Peterson was an unreliable flake.

It is done

I explained back in August that I was tempted to leap into opera not by dipping my toe into just any kid's pool of the genre, but by taking a running leap off a Germanic mountain and into the depths of the Rhine via the Ring Cycle.

I thought the production would be cancelled - the director is Chinese, but maybe he is already in Australia?   I would have guessed that some of the performers live overseas and their presence would be in doubt too.

Yet, they are still selling tickets, and in fact there are very few of the cheapest left.   (No, I am not spending $2000 plus dollars on this experiment in how much cultural enrichment I can endure over 4 nights.)

So, it is done.  I have bought a ticket, and can now start considering an appropriate horned costume, if I become an instant fan and want to come in cosplay for the last one.

As it happens, there is still a seat available next to me, if anyone is going to be in Brisbane in November, virus free, and offers to nudge me awake if my head is drooping. 

Hoyotoho!

Irony alert

Sinclair Davidson defending Facebook today:

Facebook does not amplify hate etc. Those people being ‘hateful’ on your Facebook page are the people you have chosen to ‘friend’ – by definition they are your friends, your family, your associates.

A few posts later, by his former RMIT buddy Steve Kates, referencing Democrats:

These lice will do anything to win the election, but what will be left of America if they do?

OK, I didn't have to "friend" Kates at all to read that bit of Nazi level dehumanisation of his political enemies (ironically, from a person I have been told in comments - by Sinclair? - is Jewish).   So am I allowed to think that Catallaxy amplifies hate by friends of Sinclair?   Yes, yes I am. 

Update:  Sinclair continues to host racist Mick Gold Coast, I see.  

Insult the host or his besties who he jokes around with, and you're banned from commenting there.  Post clearly racist comments repeatedly and they'll be quietly deleted, but (unless it's about Jews) never face a ban.   That's how Sinclair rolls. 
 

Things watched

*  I haven't finished it yet, but gee, the second series of Korean zombie, old timey fashion, and palace intrigue series Kingdom has been really good - really well made action, plot surprises (not always welcome ones, actually) and (for its kind of show) well acted.   My only criticism is that it should come with a map - the geography of where the zombie hoards are chasing the heroes to gets very unclear.  

* Have started watching the Belgium made (yes, another foreign show) slightly science fiction-y present day apocalypse show Into the Night, and I'm enjoying it so far.   It has a pleasing narrative push to it which comes inherently from the scenario - the sun has gone rogue and started shooting out gamma rays which kills life at sunrise, and one passenger plane - an Airbus 320 I think (it is Europe, after all) -  has to keep flying West to avoid the sun catching up with it.   Not entirely plausible, in more than one respect, but I hope it keeps up the quality of the first couple of episodes.   Here's a positive review that seems accurate to me.

* Also just started watching Tiger King.  Yeah, it's good, the first episode, but I do get the feeling that the story to be told shouldn't take 8 episodes.   I am anticipating tiring of it.

* On Youtube, recently discovered the idiosyncratic travel vlogger Bald and Bankrupt.  He's a very unusual character, naturally good at the narration to camera on a selfie stick that is his thing (no beautiful drone footage on this channel, that's for sure), and I see that he is pretty well known.   It's odd to see a more mature age character who seems to want to experience somewhat dangerous situations for the fun of it.  And who is the woman he is with sometimes?  Why would she follow him into some of the crappiest countries around?   This video was one of the most remarkable ones I have seen:

I'm calling it

Unless there are some major errors going on in today's reporting about Trump and the Russia activities in Afghanistan, I reckon it's extremely likely that this is the scandal that is the nail in the coffin of the Trump presidency:

Top officials in the White House were aware in early 2019 of classified intelligence indicating Russia was secretly offering bounties to the Taliban for the deaths of Americans, a full year earlier than has been previously reported, according to U.S. officials with direct knowledge of the intelligence. 

The assessment was included in at least one of President Donald Trump’s written daily intelligence briefings at the time, according to the officials. Then-national security adviser John Bolton also told colleagues he briefed Trump on the intelligence assessment in March 2019.

Update:

Yes, I think this is right, even though I have already seen some Republicans saying that you can't expect a President to read what's in the briefing book every day.  

Still, if, as some predict, this ends up with Trump saying "I've spoken to Putin and he denies it, and you know, that's good enough for me",  that example (on top of others) of Trump disbelieving his own intelligence services over what an autocrat tells him may be the straw that breaks Republican support.

Hell revised

Oh, back to a favourite topic - how reliably Christian is the idea of a never ending Hell, as discussed by that Eastern Orthodox theologian I have mentioned before, David Bentley Hart.  This is from a review of a book of his on the topic:

A member of the Democratic Socialists of America, hardly a radical leftist, Hart is nevertheless on the side of the angels. In recent years, he has thrown the traditionally minded into a tizzy, principally via two arguments: that hell is not eternal—that all shall be saved—and that an honest adherence to the Gospel of Jesus Christ would require Christians to be “communists,” in the strict sense given by the Acts of the Apostles (“omnia sunt communia”—a favorite verse of Müntzer’s).

 As Hart expounds in That All Shall Be Saved, it is impossible to wrest a coherent doctrine of hell from Jesus’s and Paul’s scattered and figurative references to a final judgment, or from Revelation’s fevered phantasmagoria. As the biblically literate know, since the Wycliffe Bible, which appeared in the fourteenth century, the words that English translators of the New Testament have rendered as “hell” are “Hades,” the familiar realm of the dead, and “Gehenna.” This last is the Greek form of “Ge-Hinnom,” the Valley of Hinnom, which is a real place near Jerusalem. This valley had long been associated with child sacrifice and evil gods and perhaps served as a charnel pit for burning carrion. Readers of the New Testament wishing to extrapolate the conventional picture of hell have very little to go on:

Certainly no one now can say with confidence precisely what Jesus’s understanding of the Gehenna’s fire was . . . what duration he might have assigned to those subjected to it, or even how metaphorically he intended such imagery to be taken. It is obvious that metaphor was his natural idiom as a teacher, and that he employed the prophetic and apocalyptic tropes of his time in a manner more poetic than precise.

Hart traverses this ground in order to construct a daedal and extremely learned defense of the doctrine of apocatastasis (the word means “restoration”), which is as old as Christianity itself, though it has always been a minority position. It is the belief that all souls—even Old Scratch himself—will ultimately be reconciled to God through Christ. Its proponents in the early church include Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, two of the subtlest minds in the history of Christian thought. Though they arrive at universalism by very different routes, a touchstone for both is 1 Corinthians 15, in which Paul writes that at the end of days God will be “all in all.” For these early Christians, as for Hart, the first preachers of universal salvation in the Christian tradition were Jesus and Paul. On this view, there is no eternal perdition. If hell exists, it is a state of temporary purgation. Gregory insisted that this would not be “a harsh means of correction,” as the “thoughtless” speak of it, but “a healing remedy provided by God, to restore his own creation to its original grace.”

I will skip some paragraphs then get to this:

And predestination, that pillar of Reformed theology, doesn’t enter the picture. Hart reserves his most damning rhetoric for Reformed arguments about humanity’s exposure to destruction. Would that every Christian might read Hart’s elegant exegesis of Paul’s notoriously complex language of election in Romans 9–11, often read as justifying a division of humanity into called and rejected. Unlike the Augustinian tradition’s tortured interpretations of this epistle, Hart’s reading allows Paul’s promise that God will “have mercy on all” to mean what it plainly says. Hart is similarly attentive to 1 Timothy 4, where Paul (more likely a later author writing in Paul’s name) calls Jesus “the Savior of all human beings, especially those who have faith”—all human beings, and what could that “especially” mean if only believers are saved?

I lack space to address all of Hart’s arguments for universal salvation. For me, and I suspect for many of this magazine’s readers, his book is hardly of pressing doctrinal concern anyway. But a lot of folks sure do like them some hellfire. The editors of First Things, an influential conservative Christian journal, ran no fewer than three attacks on That All Shall Be Saved, the last one accusing Hart of having committed “theological fraud.” It would be unchristian to suggest that this enthusiastic response might be related to Hart’s having broken with the journal, to which he used to contribute a frequently delectable column, because he “could not remain on good terms with a collection of editors who had embraced the politics of the alt-right.”

Unsuprising

Carl Bernstein writes at CNN:

In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.

The calls caused former top Trump deputies -- including national security advisers H.R. McMaster and John Bolton, Defense Secretary James Mattis, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and White House chief of staff John Kelly, as well as intelligence officials -- to conclude that the President was often "delusional," as two sources put it, in his dealings with foreign leaders. The sources said there was little evidence that the President became more skillful or competent in his telephone conversations with most heads of state over time. Rather, he continued to believe that he could either charm, jawbone or bully almost any foreign leader into capitulating to his will, and often pursued goals more attuned to his own agenda than what many of his senior advisers considered the national interest.

As I have said for a long time, if White House insiders have been so willing to talk now about how terrible Trump is in the job, can you imagine how much more will come out when he is no longer there? 

They really need to stop doing that

This report is from the Jerusalem Post, so it's not an anti-Semitic source:

A three-weeks-old baby is currently in serious condition at the Bnei Zion Medical Center in Haifa due to a herpetic infection, which began in the genital area and has spread to the brain, leading to convulsions and seizures.

Laboratory tests found that the infant likely contracted the Type 1 herpes virus during his brit, directly from the mohel, who performed the ceremony using the controversial Orthodox method of blood cleaning known as "Metzitzah B'Peh," or oral suction....

 

The professor explained that "evidence of newborn herpes infections accompanied by brain infections, and their connection to the oral suction in circumcisions, have been widely described in medical history for the past 200 years.

 

"The herpes virus can cause a skin infection, which can spread to the brain and cause severe inflammation of the brain and even death," Sarugo said.

Do you think Graeme might make a comment about this?  He (along with everyone else) is in comment moderation, so I'll let you know...

Too stupid to be told

This may well be the explanation:

Are cult members always this stupid?

I love it when Trump cult member Steve Kates goes on about how everyone else is wrong (climate scientists, economists, anyone who doesn't support Donald Trump) about everything, and that's because they're like cult members:

It is like dealing with members of a cult, except they are now the mainstream.

He's at it again today.  He's citing an article from American right wing, pro market think tank sort of place I have never heard of before.

Seems that the idea that the mainstream might be mainstream because they are not the ones analysing everything with intense bias has never occurred to him.