A long interview with Bernie Sanders, about the insurrectionist's threat to end democracy in the US, and related issues.

The coral reef heat damage warning system has added new levels of warning that will be required by the higher ocean temperatures our greenhouse emissions have brought about.

Thailand has forbidden campaigning to change the law that forbids speaking of the monarch or the monarchy in a less than respectful way.

A campaign based on what some call "ableism" condemns the plan by a women to play Richard III. Peculiarly, not because of a gender difference, but because she is not "disabled".

Can a non-disabled 21th-century actor properly play a powerful but physically disabled 15th-century noble? Can a disabled 21th-century actor properly play a powerful non-disabled 15th-century noble? I think we can only answer, "Maybe — try and we'll see."

This production raises a similar issue about gender: Can a 21th-century woman play a 15th-century male king? Is it reasonable for her to try? Can a 21th-century man play a 15th-century reigning queen? Is it reasonable for him to try? I think we can only answer, "Maybe — try and we'll see."

Interestingly, the article does not even mention that question. It accepts that a woman can play a male character. If society accepts that, why object? Try it, and we'll judge your acting ability. So why not do the same for disability?

The dispute may be based on confusion about the 15-th century facts. Was Richard III "disabled" as we understand the term? I can't be certain but it seems that he was not.

He had scoliosis, but a doctor says this would not have been apparent in the court because clothing could hide it.

Whatever pain or inconvenience scoliosis caused him, it did not interfere with his physical activities. He could ride a horse in battle, wield a sword in battle, and lead an army to victory. He impressed people through success in vigosous sports.

My conclusion is that he was not disabled in any practical sense.

I think that disabled actors will be better off if they are accepted for playing any and all roles, rather than guaranteed all the disabled characters' roles.

As the British state cuts funds to universities, it makes them turn increasingly to wealthy foreign students, whose money keeps them afloat.

This is, of course, bad for British students. But that's the general pattern: right-wing budget cuts are bad for nearly all the non-rich.

The cits were started by the Tory party when it stood purely and simply for dooH niboR (take from the poor and give to the rich). Now that the Tory Party has moved towards the extreme right, it sees this as an opportunity to knock down the non-rich and weaken them. The Labour Party of the past would have offered to undo the cuts, but now that it has become a center-right party it is not interested. (Here's the latest example of Labour's new alignment.)

Labour is also about to eliminate most of its planned investment in avoiding environmental disaster even as it courts business with deregulation.