Category: English

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By E. Andrew Taylor, Associate Professor and Director of Arts Management, American University

President Donald Trump announced on Feb. 1, 2026, that he would shut down the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts for two years. Trump said this closure would begin on July 4 and was necessary for “Construction, Revitalization and Complete Rebuilding.” The next day, he denied that this meant he would demolish the facility altogether. The multi-venue arts center has endured cancellations by performing artists and boycotts by patrons throughout the first year of Trump’s second term, during which he made himself chairman of its board. Trump’s handpicked board members then voted to rebrand the center to include his name.

To help readers understand what this upheaval means, The Conversation U.S. asked E. Andrew Taylor, an arts management professor at American University – which like the Kennedy Center is located in Washington, D.C. – to explain whether Trump has the power or justification to carry out a complete overhaul of this living memorial to President Kennedy.

Does Trump have the authority to shut the center?

Trump wears many hats in this drama.

None of them give him individual or direct authority over the Kennedy Center’s buildings, grounds or operations. However, those hats give him multiple points of leverage.

As president of the United States, Trump has authority to appoint about half of the members of the Kennedy Center governing board – which he stacked with his appointees in February 2025. As chair, appointed by that newly constructed board, Trump has significant influence over how the governing body works.

By law, the Kennedy Center is governed by its full board, while its federal funding for operations and facilities is reviewed and approved by Congress. In practice, both the board and Congress appear to have deferred to the President, as have most of the enforcement agencies that might challenge him here.

In yet another twist, the center’s board reportedly changed its bylaws in 2025 to limit voting by the 23 board members not appointed by the president. One of those members, Rep. Joyce Beatty, an Ohio Democrat, sued the board and the center’s executive leadership team in December. In her lawsuit, she claimed the board had exceeded its statutory authority and improperly excluded active board members when it renamed the center to add the president’s name. That lawsuit is pending in federal court; no rulings have been issued.

Why is his actual authority hard to define?

The Kennedy Center was established by Congress as “a living memorial to John Fitzgerald Kennedy.” Since its opening in 1971, it has remained a complex public-private enterprise that is both a part of the federal government and a tax-exempt nonprofit.

The center was built with a and long-term revenue bonds held by the Treasury Department. Its ongoing operations have always been funded by a mix of public money, private contributions and earned revenue from ticket sales, events, food service, parking and the like.

To oversee this complex enterprise, Congress established and authorized a governing board, granting it authority to “plan, design, and construct each capital repair, replacement, improvement, rehabilitation, alteration, or modification necessary to maintain the functionality of the building and site at current standards of life, safety, security, and accessibility.”

Until now, major expansions and updates of the campus have been approved by Congress.

Is Trump’s claim that the center needs major upgrades accurate?

There are two claims here that deserve separate attention.

One is that the center needs major upgrades. That is true. The other is that those upgrades require full closure of the entire campus for multiple years. That is suspect.

As for upgrades, the original Kennedy Center building is a sprawling and complex facility with more than 50 years of wear and tear.

A comprehensive engineering and architectural review of the center in 2021 identified 323 capital and minor repair projects that would cost roughly US$252 million to carry out. Only about $45 million has been spent on those projects so far.

The remaining big-ticket items include fully replacing seats in the Concert Hall, replacing the original Opera House pit lift system, dealing with parking garage and loading dock structural issues, and attending to long-deferred elevator repair and replacement.

At the same time, many parts of the Kennedy Center campus are fairly new. The REACH, a $250 million complex with all new buildings and infrastructure, opened in 2019 to increase capacity for community and educational events.

While the need for major upgrades is well supported, the dramatic and disruptive closure of the entire campus for two years is not. A thoughtful, phased renovation and repair strategy would allow for major improvements while the lifeblood of the center – the artists, audiences and donors – could still flow through the campus with at least some performances, programs and events taking place.

In fact, that phasing was the plan in the most recent budget request the center delivered to Congress, until Trump pivoted.

How have Trump’s interventions affected the center so far?

That depends on who you ask.

Ticket sales and attendance have reportedly dropped dramatically, and multiple artists and arts organizations have canceled their planned performances, including singer Renée Fleming, composer Philip Glass, banjoist Béla Fleck and “Wicked” composer Stephen Schwartz. The Washington National Opera, a longtime resident organization, announced its separation and departure from the center in January.

Kennedy Center communications leader Roma Daravi blamed declining attendance on “liberal intolerance.” She also claimed the center’s renaming “recognizes that the current Chairman saved the institution from financial ruin and physical destruction.” Kennedy Center President Richard Grenell dismissed the artists canceling their shows as being “booked by the previous far left leadership.”

What would happen should the center shut down altogether?

The Kennedy Center is not only a venue for its own productions, programs and touring performances.

It’s a hub for live performing arts and arts education for the entire region and the nation as a whole. Independent producers and promoters rent its venues for their performances and events. Each year, it serves over 2.1 million students, educators and school administrators in all 50 states with professional development, summer intensives for young artists and performances for young audiences. And its free and public performances have been a mainstay of cultural life in Washington for decades.

Where all of this activity would relocate for years is unclear. There are few comparable venues in the region, and those available are already booked with productions and tours that were bypassing the Kennedy Center. The National Symphony Orchestra would be particularly vulnerable to a two-year closure of its primary venue. It is not obvious where a large ensemble with such an active rehearsal and concert schedule would be able to perform.

There are also touring productions currently scheduled to perform after the proposed closing date, including “The Outsiders,” “Back to the Future: The Musical” and “Mrs. Doubtfire.” Although those tickets were still for sale as of Feb. 3, whether those performances will take place is now in doubt. Those shows’ national tours may be disrupted if the center shuts down.

The center itself, like all such arts venues, survives and thrives on an enduring and connected network of relationships – among artists, touring productions, artist managers, production teams, technical staff, venue management, audiences and donors.

These relationships are sustained through trust and consistency. My three decades of experience teaching and studying arts management suggest that once those relationships are betrayed or delayed, it’s a long road to build them back.

What might be next? And what does it mean?

It’s anyone’s guess whether Trump’s Truth Social post about closing the center will prove true or merely provocative. The board, the center’s leaders, its staff and the people scheduled to perform there after July 4 appeared to be surprised by the announcement.

As a rule, any multi-hundred-million-dollar renovation or demolition requires deliberate and collaborative effort, rather than a decree.

In the short term, the sudden announcement is yet another twist in a wrenching narrative for makers and lovers of the arts across the Washington region and around the country. While a few years and a few hundred million dollars might restore the building’s physical infrastructure, it may take much more time, effort and energy to restore its reputation.

E. Andrew Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Trump wants to shutter the Kennedy Center for 2 years – an arts management professor explains what that portends – https://theconversation.com/trump-wants-to-shutter-the-kennedy-center-for-2-years-an-arts-management-professor-explains-what-that-portends-274906

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Thomas A. DuBois, Professor of Scandinavian Studies, Folklore, and Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison

At the outset of the Kalevala, Finland’s national epic, a singer bemoans his separation from a beloved friend who grew up beside him. Today, the friends rarely meet “näillä raukoilla rajoilla, poloisilla Pohjan mailla” – lines which translator Keith Bosley renders “on these poor borders, the luckless lands of the North.”

The Kalevala, a poetic masterpiece of nearly 23,000 lines, first appeared in 1835. Now, nearly 200 years later, those “luckless lands of the North” are an increasingly tense border zone.

On one side sits Finland, affluent and famously “happy.” The Nordic nation of 5.6 million is a member of the European Union and, more recently, the NATO alliance. On the other side sits the Republic of Karelia, with a population of around a half-million. Originally home to the Karelians, a people closely related to the Finns, today Karelia is part of the Russian Federation – and the percentage of Karelian speakers is in the single digits.

Finland celebrates Feb. 28 as Kalevala Day, or the “Day of Finnish Culture.” Yet the epic’s songs were collected in both Finland and Karelia, reflecting a cultural affinity sundered by the politics of empire. And as Russia’s war in Ukraine drags on, that border zone has become more tense.

Shared roots

The people of Finland and Karelia – “Suomi” and “Karjala,” in their own languages – have lived in the forests, lakes, marshes and farmlands of northeastern Europe since time immemorial. Their languages are closely related, but they differ markedly from Swedish and Russian, the idioms of the empires that usurped control over the region in the Middle Ages. Finns came under the dominion of Sweden and were converted to Roman Catholicism – and later Lutheranism. Karelians came under the dominion of Russia and were converted to Orthodox Christianity.

Centuries of wars and saber-rattling between the Swedish and Russian empires created hardship for Finns and Karelians alike. Their lands became battlegrounds for warring forces, and their men served as conscripted soldiers for opposing sides in conflicts like the Great Northern War of 1700–1721, which devastated both lands and populations.

Despite the enmity of rival emperors, over the course of centuries daily life and culture had remained remarkably similar for Finns and Karelians. Both sang songs of a mythic past, colorful heroes and powerful magic using a distinctive poetic meter – one that Henry Wadsworth Longfellow later imitated in “The Song of Hiawatha.”

Mythic songs

In 1809, after yet another war, Russia acquired Finland as an autonomous grand duchy, bringing its people under the same crown as Karelians.

Finnish physician and admirer of folklore Elias Lönnrot took advantage of this political union to collect folk songs across the region. Wandering from village to village, writing down songs from dictation, he amassed a body of texts out of which to make an epic.

The contents of the Kalevala are varied and intriguing – starting with the creation of the Earth from an egg, and the felling of a primordial oak tree that threatened to block out the sun.

One of the epic’s most famous tales is the forging of a mysterious object, the Sampo – a sort of magic mill that will produce whatever its owner wishes. It becomes an object of conflict between the people of “Kalevala” and the people of “Pohjola,” the “north.”

The Kalevala hero Väinämöinen, a wizened worker of magic – along with Ilmarinen, the skilled but brooding blacksmith who originally created the Sampo, and their incorrigible friend, Lemminkäinen – attempt to steal the Sampo away from Pohjola, where Louhi, the stern Mistress of the North, has sequestered it. The resulting struggle destroys the Sampo, and its promised life of ease and prosperity.

Lönnrot hoped to unearth a history and an identity for Finns and Karelians, one separate from that of either Sweden or Russia. On the Finnish side of the border, in particular, the epic helped convince people that they were a valuable and creative nation, distinct from the empires that sought to control them.

As the 19th century wore on, the Russian government became less friendly to its cultural minorities. Authorities attempted to “Russify” Finland and other parts of the empire. But Finns resisted, drawing on images from Lönnrot’s Kalevala to articulate their cultural and historical independence.

The paintings of Akseli Gallen-Kallela drew on the epic for themes and inspiration at the turn of the 20th century. Composer Jean Sibelius’ famed Lemminkäinen Suite of 1896, or “Four Legends from the Kalevala,” made elements of the story familiar to audiences around the world and helped bolster international awareness of Finland’s culture. An early Finnish photographer, I.K. Inha, retraced Lönnrot’s wanderings through Finland and Karelia in a book entitled “Finland in Pictures.”

Independent Finland

Finland achieved independence in 1917, in the aftermath of Russia’s Bolshevik Revolution. But civil war soon broke out between the “Finnish Whites” and socialist “Finnish Reds.” It was the first of several conflicts that shifted borders and forced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.

After the Whites’ victory in Finland’s civil war, many socialist-minded Finns moved to Karelia hoping to build a workers’ paradise. After the rise of Soviet leader Josef Stalin, however, they were labeled as dangerous foreign influences. Thousands were arrested and deported, as Stalin sought to replace the population with Russian-speaking loyalists.

After decades of Russification, assimilation and migration, Karelian-speakers today represent only a small minority of the Republic of Karelia. Another small population resides in Finland, where they were resettled after the wars.

During World War II, Finland fought the Soviet Union several more times, striving to maintain its independence and even incorporate parts of Karelia. Finland managed to remain outside of the Soviet Union, but lost portions of its territory close to the Karelian border.

The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, signed in 1948, encouraged cultural exchanges between Finland and the Soviet Union. The first joint Finnish-Soviet feature film, 1959’s “Sampo,” was a recounting of the Kalevala spearheaded by Aleksandr Ptushko, the “Disney of Soviet film” – but stripped of any nationalist symbolism.

Rising tension

In the years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Finnish-Karelian border became once again a place of lively meeting and exchange. Through the work of organizations like Finland’s Juminkeko foundation, the heritage of the Kalevala has been explored and celebrated on both sides of the border. Finnish and Karelian folk revival and heavy metal bands drew on the Kalevala for inspiration and materials. Shopping centers developed in border towns, and tourists began crossing the border in ever increasing numbers.

Yet Russia’s war in Ukraine has turned the Finnish-Russian border once again into a place of tension. Finland became a member of NATO in 2023, concerned by Vladimir Putin’s regime’s disregard for the rights of other sovereign nations. In December 2023, the Finnish government indefinitely closed the 835-mile (1,344-kilometer) land border, and is now building a fence along part of it. Meanwhile, Russia is expanding military infrastructure near the border, as European countries raise alarm about threats to NATO.

On Feb. 28, the anniversary of the day on which Lönnrot completed the first edition of the Kalevala, public buildings in Finland will fly the country’s flag. Schools and cultural institutions will organize events to celebrate the Kalevala and the cultural and political independence it helped achieve. On the other side of the border, perhaps Karelian speakers and some other inhabitants will celebrate as well. In a Russia where cultural and ethnic minorities’ activism can attract suspicion, though, any observance is likely to be far more muted: The situation remains regrettably tense “on these poor borders, the luckless lands of the North.”

Thomas A. DuBois does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. An epic border: Finland’s poetic masterpiece, the Kalevala, has roots in 2 cultures and 2 countries – https://theconversation.com/an-epic-border-finlands-poetic-masterpiece-the-kalevala-has-roots-in-2-cultures-and-2-countries-261444

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Grace Mackleby, Research scientist of Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California

Medicare has launched a six-year pilot program that could eventually transform access to health care for some of the millions of people across the U.S. who rely on it for their health insurance coverage.

Traditional Medicare is a government-administered insurance plan for people over 65 or with disabilities. About half of the 67 million Americans insured through Medicare have this coverage. The rest have Medicare Advantage plans administered by private companies.

The pilot program, dubbed the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction Model, is an experimental program that began to affect people enrolled in traditional Medicare from six states in January 2026.

During this pilot, medical providers must apply for permission, or prior authorization, before giving 14 kinds of health procedures and devices. The program uses artificial intelligence software to identify treatment requests it deems unnecessary or harmful and denies them. This is similar to the way many Medicare Advantage plans work.

As health economists who have studied Medicare and the use of AI in prior authorization, we believe this pilot could save Medicare money, but it should be closely monitored to ensure that it does not harm the health of patients enrolled in the traditional Medicare program.

Prior authorization

The pilot marks a dramatic change.

Unlike other types of health insurance, including Medicare Advantage, traditional Medicare generally does not require health care providers to submit requests for Medicare to authorize the treatments they recommend to patients.

Requiring prior authorization for these procedures and devices could reduce wasteful spending and help patients by steering them away from unnecessary treatments. However, there is a risk that it could also delay or interfere with some necessary care and add to the paperwork providers must contend with.

Prior authorization is widely used by Medicare Advantage plans. Many insurance companies hire technology firms to make prior authorization decisions for their Medicare Advantage plans.

Pilots are a key way that Medicare improves its services. Medicare tests changes on a small number of people or providers to see whether they should be implemented more broadly.

The six states participating are Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas and Washington. The 14 services that require prior authorization during this pilot include steroid injections for pain management and incontinence-control devices. The pilot ends December 2031.

If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers Medicare, deems the pilot successful, the Department of Health and Human services could expand the program to include more procedures and more states.

Introducing a hurdle

This pilot isn’t changing the rules for what traditional Medicare covers. Instead, it adds an extra hurdle for medical providers before they can administer, for example, arthroscopic treatment for an osteoarthritic knee.

If Medicare issues a denial rather than authorizing the service, the patient goes without that treatment unless their provider files an appeal and prevails.

Medicare has hired tech companies to do the work of denying or approving prior authorization requests, with the aid of artificial intelligence.

Many of these are the same companies that do prior authorizations for Medicare Advantage plans.

The government pays the companies a percentage of what Medicare would have spent on the denied treatments. This means companies are paid more when they deny more prior authorization requests.

Medicare monitors the pilot program for inappropriate denials.

What to watch for

Past research has shown that when insurers require prior authorization, the people they cover get fewer services. This pilot is likely to reduce treatments and Medicare spending, though how much remains unknown.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services chose the services targeted by the pilot because there is evidence they are given excessively in many cases.

If the program denies cases where a health service is inappropriate, or of “low value” for a patient’s health, people enrolled in traditional Medicare could benefit.

But for each treatment targeted by the pilot, there are some cases where that kind of health care is necessary.

If the program’s AI-based decision method has trouble identifying these necessary cases and denies them, people could lose access to care they need.

The pilot also adds to the paperwork that medical providers must do. Paperwork is already a major burden for providers and contributes to burnout.

AI’s role

No matter how the government evaluates prior authorizations, we think this pilot is likely to reduce use of the targeted treatments.

The impact of using AI to evaluate these prior authorizations is unclear. AI could allow tech companies to automatically approve more cases, which could speed up decisions. However, companies could use time saved by AI to put more effort into having people review cases flagged by AI, which could increase denials.

Many private insurers already use AI for Medicare Advantage prior authorization decisions, although there has been limited research on these models, and little is known about how accurate AI is for this purpose.

What evidence there is suggests that AI-aided prior authorization leads to higher denial rates and larger reductions in health care use than when insurers make prior authorization decisions without using AI.

The bottom line

Any money the government saves during the pilot will depend on whether and how frequently these treatments are used inappropriately and how aggressively tech companies deny care.

In our view, this pilot will likely create winners and losers. Tech companies may benefit financially, though how much will depend on how big the treatment reductions are. But medical providers will have more paperwork to deal with and will get paid less if some of their Medicare requests are denied.

The impact on patients will depend on how well tech companies identify care that probably would be unnecessary and avoid denying care that is essential.

Taxpayers, who pay into Medicare during their working years, stand to benefit if the pilot can cut long-term Medicare costs, an important goal given Medicare’s growing budget crisis.

Like in Medicare Advantage, savings from prior authorization requirements in this pilot are split with private companies. Unlike in Medicare Advantage, however, this split is based on a fixed, observable percentage so that payments to private companies cannot exceed total savings, and the benefits of the program are easier for Medicare to quantify.

In our view, given the potential trade-offs, Medicare will need to evaluate the results of this pilot carefully before expanding it to more states – especially if it also expands the program to include services where unnecessary care is less common.

Grace Mackleby receives funding from Arnold Ventures and the Commonwealth Foundation.

Jeff Marr receives funding from Arnold Ventures and the National Institute on Aging.

– ref. Medicare is experimenting with having AI review claims – a cost-saving measure that could risk denying needed care – https://theconversation.com/medicare-is-experimenting-with-having-ai-review-claims-a-cost-saving-measure-that-could-risk-denying-needed-care-273754

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By William Bahnfleth, Professor of Architectural Engineering, Penn State

Recently, the German term “lüften” has been circulating on social media and trending on Google. The term refers to the practice of opening windows and doors to replace stale indoor air with outdoor air, a longtime practice in many European homes. Americans have dubbed it “house burping” in many videos on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.

William Bahnfleth, a professor of architectural engineering at Penn State, has personal and professional experience with lüften. He spoke to The Conversation’s Pittsburgh Editor Cassandra Stone about the science behind it and how Pittsburgh homeowners can best navigate the “house burping” trend.

What does “lüften” actually mean in Germany and other parts of Europe, and how is it different from the way Americans typically ventilate homes?

Literally, “lüften” means “to air out.” It refers to opening windows – and sometimes doors – to rapidly flush a house with outdoor air, typically at least twice daily. This improves indoor air quality and controls humidity to prevent condensation, which can damage buildings and promote mold growth.

The practice is not unique to Germany, although it may not go by that name in other regions. I spent a sabbatical leave at the Technical University of Denmark in Copenhagen, and upon arriving at the house I’d been assigned, I found instructions to air it twice a day for about 15 minutes. The stated purpose in this case was to prevent excessive humidity, because the climate in Denmark can be cool and damp. Moisture produced by bathing, laundry and cooking can raise indoor humidity to high levels if not controlled. The house also had a shower squeegee to remove water from walls and a sensor-controlled bathroom exhaust fan. Without mechanical cooling, opening windows for a bit early in the day kept the house comfortable as weather warmed.

Lüften is uncommon in the U.S., even in older, naturally ventilated homes. Americans tend to rely on HVAC systems for thermal comfort with windows closed, disconnecting indoor air quality from temperature control. The way American buildings are heated and cooled actually discourages window opening. After returning from Denmark, I started opening windows during mornings in cooling season – and leaving them open until it became too hot or humid indoors – and briefly in winter. This reduced summer cooling costs and improved indoor air quality all year – I was surprised how many days I could skip the air conditioner.

Is there scientific evidence that short, intense “airing out” improves air quality more effectively than just cracking a window all day?

It depends on whether a “cracked” window admits a lot of outdoor air or a little. Opening windows continuously provides better ventilation than brief, 5- to 10-minute periods, but with potential downsides for thermal comfort and energy use.

The best approach today is continuous outdoor air supply at design standard levels via an energy recovery ventilator. The ventilator uses fans to bring in a reliable outdoor air supply that’s partially conditioned by exchanging heat and moisture with exhausted air, providing good indoor air quality with low energy impact and stable indoor conditions. Researchers have also investigated “smart ventilation” systems that maintain desired average ventilation rates by bringing in more outdoor air to reduce operational strain and reduce energy costs– a kind of “next-generation lüften.”

One important aspect of indoor air quality that may not be improved by lüften is indoor particle control. Small particles that come from cooking, some cleaning activities or burning candles, for example, are the most harmful contaminants in most indoor environments. In urban areas, outdoor particle levels may exceed acceptable limits, so opening windows may release indoor pollutants such as cooking fumes and lower humidity inside, but it can also let in bad air from cars and industry.

Pittsburgh struggles with outdoor air pollution at times. How should locals think about the trade-off between bringing in outdoor air and introducing pollutants into the home?

“Fresh air” isn’t a synonym for outdoor air because it’s not actually “fresh” in many locations. It’s best to filter outdoor air to remove particles before bringing it into the house, which can be done with an energy recovery ventilator. Unit prices range from $600 to $1,500 on average, but these ventilators can reduce utility bills by 10% or more by preconditioning incoming fresh air with the outgoing air’s energy.

If that isn’t possible, portable air purifiers are a good solution with many benefits, such as a reduced risk of transmitting airborne respiratory infections, control of seasonal allergens such as pollen, resilience during wildfires, better air quality when you are using your wood-burning fireplace, and capturing emissions from cooking.

Can lüften make an older, damp home more comfortable?

It can lower humidity in the air, which reduces the potential concentration, but it doesn’t eliminate indoor sources of moisture. If a house is damp, especially if there are specific wet spots, the owner should try to identify and fix the causes. Lüften, and ventilation in general, are mitigation measures, not solutions.

Why do you think practices like lüften persist culturally?

The simplest answer is that they actually work. It’s a good place to start with taking responsibility for managing the air quality in your home. The better understanding of the causes and effects of poor indoor air quality, and the technology available to measure and control it, can beneficially update a good historical practice to obtain even more value from it.

William Bahnfleth does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Lüften sounds simple – but ‘house-burping’ is more complicated in Pittsburgh – https://theconversation.com/luften-sounds-simple-but-house-burping-is-more-complicated-in-pittsburgh-274507