CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been slowly climbing toward 400 ppm for a good while, and now at long last we’ve finally managed to bump above that level in some locations. This is the kind of shit that happens when proper legislation to prevent such measurements is lacking. Oh well, too late now.
IPS has the story;
UXBRIDGE, Canada, Jun 1, 2012 (IPS) – The planet’s climate recently reached a new milestone of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the Arctic.
Thanks to some preemptive legislative efforts, this melting glacier will be prevented from contributing to rising sea levels on the North Carolina coast.
The last time Earth saw similar levels of climate-heating carbon dioxide (CO2) was three million years ago during the Pliocene era, where Arctic temperatures were 10 to 14 degrees C higher and global temperatures four degrees C hotter.
Research stations in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia all broke the 400 ppm barrier for the first time this spring, scientists reported in a release Thursday. A global average of 400 ppm up from the present 392 ppm is still some years off. If today’s CO2 levels don’t decline – or worse, increase – the planet will inevitably reach those warmer temperatures, but it won’t take a thousand years. Without major cuts in fossil fuel emissions, a child born today could live in a plus-four-degree C superheated world by their late middle age, IPS previously reported. Such temperatures will make much of the planet unlivable.
Why do these scientists hate business so much? Isn’t it time we introduced some reason into science curricula in our universities? Don’t these people understand that this kind of scaremongering is an extrapolative attempt to include non-linear phenomena, and that sensible people distrust such things, not least because they don’t know what the hell they mean?
Thank god the good people in North Carolina (previous post) have cottoned on to this brazen attempt to destroy America, and are doing something about it.
We simply cannot allow ourselves to be diverted by this kind of hysteria. The markets have not yet recognized it as a problem, thus it simply cannot exist.
If it did exist, and if making appropriate preparations for such conditions involved a multi-generational re-tooling of modernity, as some foolish people have the temerity to suggest, then markets would have already imposed immense pressure to begin that project in earnest, right? You know, just to be sure we didn’t run out of time.
But they have not, so therefore the problem is not pressing and the science must be wrong. Nothing to be concerned about.
Right?
Interesting. Wither, then, the insistence that the Office of the President should be accorded such respect, even unto the condemnation of criticism thereof? Or the fear at the President bowing to other Heads of States? Or the displaying of photos of the President in govt offices, in the same manner as we do our Queen? Or the carving of the heads into mountains?
I suspect that statement is not quite as true in practice as you wish it to be. Or if it is, it applies equally to Her Maj for us.
And as to the implication that living as citizen in a constitutional monarchy means not everyone is equal or equal under the law…in practice, you’d struggle to make a case that my range of ambition is more sorely limited here than in the US.
As things stand, of course, I’m not eligible for the throne. Meh. Not a role I want. Admittedly, it is harder to become Head of State in the UK than the US, because we restrict the role to offspring from a wealthy family, whereas…you…er…?
Or the fear at the President bowing to other Heads of States?
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”
We don’t expect other heads of state to bow to our president either. As far as i’m aware anyway. In fact, i don’t believe any of our citizenry is expected to bow to either the president, or to any foreign head of state.
And as to the implication that living as citizen in a constitutional monarchy means not everyone is equal or equal under the law
Your royal family is equal under the law then? Subject to the same law as the general populace?
Admittedly, it is harder to become Head of State in the UK than the US, because we restrict the role to offspring from a wealthy family, whereas…you…er…?
Have to work for it and actually get elected.
Given that Her Maj as Monarch is the legal fount of authority, I don’t believe she could bring a criminal case against herself as Monarch, but it could possibly be done if it’s possible to separate the person of Elizabeth from the role. That’s one for the legal beavers. Other than that, I’m not aware of any legal restrictions? Feel free to enlighten me if you know otherwise?
And I’m not aware that bowing to the Queen means I believe the Queen to be of more worth than me? It’s a question of respect, not worth [I imagine this was a very different thing back in the days of absolute monarchy]. Is there any nation for which bowing does mean that the bowee is worth more than the bower? Doesn’t in Japan, as far as I’m aware, and they do like their bowing.
In practice, I have the ability to become part of a wealthy family, should I be so fortunate, without the tedious necessity of having to watch boats parade on the Thames in bad weather. Not having the ability to be a Royal affects me not one bit.
So the differences between the two political systems are slight. Yours works for you – and has clearly had massive influence worldwide, as a cursory glance at the French constitution will show; ours works for us, and appears to be flexible enough to encompass quite a bit of positive societal change without requiring dreadfully inconvenient and noisy things like revolutions, which I’m not sure we’d even have time for nowadays…
Did that one sail by you unnoticed, or are you playing it straight?
Sib,
Non-wealth-inheriting presidents since FDR: Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Ford*, Carter**, Reagan***, Clinton, Obama. Wealth-inheriting presidents: Kennedy, Bush, Bush (yes, “the dynasties”).
The more important point concerns the confusion between representative presidents and Presidential Symbols of Americanness (PSAs). PSAs resemble political life after death. All presidents are about equally supported and reviled during their terms of office. Once gone — and, especially, once dead — they become eligible for election to the Pantheon of Lost American Greatness (the PLAG). Only very, very dead presidents are secure in their places in the PLAG. Most serve their first few years there as apprentice symbols of past greatness squandered by the other party.
*Had some money in his background but came up a bit hard.
**Inherited a successful farm but not until he was a successful naval officer, and then he had to actually run it to keep the rest of the family going.
***Made a pile in Hollywood, of course, but couldn’t have come up much harder.
Nat, yes, I know. My comments should be read with a wry smile to them…although I do think the Bush and Kennedy dynasties (or, possibly, never-quite-dynasties, in the latter case, and hopefully the not-to-be-continued-dynasty, in the former) are an amusing counterpoint for a nation that has done more than any in history to promote equality and meritocracy.
And it’s had a massive effect worldwide effect: our Major Royals are now marrying Commoners. Still millionaires, obviously, but still commoners! What will we become?
Sib,
One possible future for Citizens United is the disappearance of the advantage that personal wealth now confers on a candidate. Would Romney have made it if he hadn’t been able to seed his fundraising from his own kitty? Seems doubtful but only because that’s what he did. Maybe we glimpsed this version of the future when we watched the Adelson/Gingrich show. Admittedly it was an inept production but many prototypes are. I’m sure we’ll get better at it. When all that matters is the ability to pump wealth into a campaign, where’s the necessity to keep on seeking the combination of wealth and electability in a single person?
I don’t know if there’s still an unwritten rule in Tory politics that only members of the one’s own class can be trusted to represent it; is there, by the way? That sense once ruled here too but it’s long gone. Too many Teddy Rs and Rockefellers and Cabot Lodges have gone native. Nowadays a lucky, nakedly pure hireling like Scott Walker has just as much access to campaign cash as the richest ex-patrician (“ex”, because the real patrician class — the class of TR — is gone, lost forever in the rampaging swamp of the arbitrageurs).
But if we are looking at an up and coming generation of Scott Walkers, they will only be transitional lifeforms. Expect the truly capable sons and daughters of Reagan to emerge in its wake, people with impeccable good looks and a way with very simple but unfailingly stirring words*. Sure, there will always be a chance that one of them will go rogue on us once we’ve bought him the job, but nobody said the system is perfect, only perfectible.
*Republicans will tell you that Obama is a perfect harbinger of that but of course they’d deny Reagan’s paternity; candidate envy is a truly dreadful thing.
Sib -
As things stand, of course, I’m not eligible for the throne. Meh. Not a role I want.
With you there. I can’t imagine a more awful job than to be the president or head of state. But, many of my countryfolk do want the job and are willing to run for office. A very tiny percentage of them actually want the job for the right reasons too. And even smaller percentage would actually do a very good job, for the benefit of the nation. I’d rather slit my throat than run or have the job, but i’m glad that others do and we have the choice. Even though it’s generally a choice between the lesser of the evils.
Now you may have no interest in becoming head of state, and i do believe that attests to your sanity. But some of your own countryfolk may wish for the opportunity, and again, in rare instances, may actually be for the right reasons, and they might be brilliant at it, or even simply decent. And some of those who have no wish for the job themselves may still wish for a choice in the matter.
As to laws our presidents have to follow – they have to file income tax returns. Declare gifts, capital gains taxes, the whole shebang. They can be impeached. They can be indicted. etc, etc. They don’t have veto power over legislation that affects their own personal interests. They do of course have presidential veto power. That can be sent back into congress to try for a majority. It can (I believe) be repealed by the courts, or by a subsequent congress. We have checks and balances, and we should use them more more than we do.
Here is our oath sworn by new citizens -
Don’t see any president in there. Although maybe it’s time to leave the god bit out, and the arms bit too.
Yours i believe have to swear an oath to support the monarch, although the pledge sounds more like ours, loyalty to the UK and support of Democratic values. You get to leave out the guns and god bit too i believe.
Our national anthem is the Star Spangled Banner. Nothing about a potus in there either. Yours is God Save the Queen, not the UK.
*income from capital gains, not capital gains taxes.
I don’t know if there’s still an unwritten rule in Tory politics that only members of the one’s own class can be trusted to represent it; is there, by the way?
Wasn’t Maggie the daughter of a grocer?
Amy, I think the difference between the principles of allegiance in the US in the UK is that a US citizen has to swear allegiance to the United States as an unembodied principle. Whereas a UK citizen, should they have to pledge their allegiance (we don’t have an equivalent of reciting the Pledge at school, as I’m sure you’re aware), swears it to the United Kingdom embodied in the current monarch. The allegiance itself is to The Crown, which is just an abstract a concept as a Country.
While the President, is not, in the senses you’ve been saying, “the US” in a similar manner to Liz/the UK, it stills works as an embodying device in practice, because otherwise there’s no focus of loyalty. At least, that’s what appears to happen from the outside!
Our HoS is essentially powerless. The power consists in precisely not using those constitutional powers which remain. If you’ve ever read any of Discworld, the relationship between the City and the Unseen University is not dissimilar: ‘the University agreed to pay taxes, providing the City never actually required them to pay any.’ It’s pretty likely that an attempt to use any constitutional powers by the monarch would cause a real problem, at which point Republic would become a possible option.
Which implies that access to the levers of power, as currently constituted in the UK, is not restricted by birth. Our PM has much more de facto executive power than may seem to be the case. Education (esp. Eton) helps, of course, but things are changing.
America’s had quite an effect on Old Europe lo these last decades – you’d be surprised at how much we share in practice, even if the scaffolding is old, creaky and generally thick with verdigris.
America’s had quite an effect on Old Europe lo these last decades
Don’t let them kill off your NHS.
HM is just ‘head of state’, titular head of the armed forces and the civil service. (Plus, in tricky political circumstances — like an indecisive general election — a kind of independent arbiter; forgotten for the moment who serves that function in the US.
I’m leaving out signing bills into law, because the prospect of a constitutional monarch refusing to sign is pretty well inconceivable by now. Has been for a century and a half at least. About the only imaginable circumstance would be if a government attempted to prolong its own existence and/or turn itself into a kind of dictatorship or tyranny against the clear wishes of the population. (I’m a bit hazy about how it would work, I think it’s purely theoretical, but if she didn’t do it off her own bat for constitutional reasons, I think it’s a petition to the reigning monarch that can set it off.)
(It would be total havoc of course: that’s where the constitutional bit about the monarch, not the head of government, being head of the armed forces — and police, actually — would come in. As a friend of mine in the RAF would point out — quite seriously — his oath and duty of obedience is to the monarch/head of state in the last resort, not the government.)
The monarch in a constitutional monarchy represents the law, but is not above it. Can’t be tried in her won courts (‘Regina v.Regina’ would be like ‘The united States v. The United States) but can be impeached before Parliament (acting as “The High Court of Parliament” which it can do, it would be then the highest court in the country). Precedent, really, the trial of Charles I. And (i get a bit hazy here, as they say “it’s not my period’, but I think James II was threatened with impeachment before Parliament, but he got the idea and buggered off anyway.) Queen Victoria was the last one who tried to get a government to do the odd thing the way she preferred, and as far as I remember (not my period again) lost every time.
It’s the Prime Minister who actually controls all the power and the influence; it’s the PM who is actually the equivalent of the US President. And actually, the American War of Independence/American Revolution (depending) wasn’t George III’s war (he was actually in favour of repealing the Stamp Acts that were a bone of contention before the tax on tea) it was Lord North’s (and his government’s.) In a way it was a rather odd precursor of the 20th century: if the British government hadn’t just won against the Spanish over the Falklands, it might not have been as keen to have another war.
Well, I don’t know if there is such a rule, since I haven’t seen it written down, but have you seen the makeup of the current cabinet? Not that Labour is truly much better.
And here’s the real issue in the UK: not the monarchy, but class. It’s not as it was, thankfully, but the corridors of power are so much more accessible to those who went to the right schools. Which means money.
The French are miles ahead of us with the whole meritocracy/ENArche thingy.
On Thatcher – she was really ahead of her time. A working class woman (although, again, Oxford helped) as PM? Literally unheard of. We’d only stopped giving the PM job to titled lords sixty years before.
But she was also sui generis. The relationship between the current Tory party and her memory is precisely the same as that between the Rs and Reagan.
Not while I still have breath in my body.
Although, I’m living in a safe Tory seat, so my vote itself won’t have much affect. I do wonder about my fellow citizens sometimes…
not the monarchy, but class
But class stems pretty directly from the monarchy, does it not? You have queen, prince and princes, but also Duke of Cornwall, York, Edinburgh, etc. And so on down the scale. And when the Duke of Cornwall has veto power over any legislation that affects his own interests, you don’t see that as a problem?
Now if, say, the Duke of York committed a murder, i have little doubt that you’d find a way to have him tried. But what if he, say, engaged in bribery, or rape of a minor. Might be a bit more protection there.
You still have an unelected house of Lords, still with some heredetaries. Not to mention clergy, no matter how decent a man Rowan Williams may be. You may even argue that it works. And that there’s a working class Lord Prescott now. But it’s still there, and the monarchy is still at the top of the heap.
I looked ours up (never having had to take one, obviously):
Oath of allegiance
I (name) swear by Almighty God/do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm [you get to choose which] that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.
[My Italics . . .Laws can change . . .As in "the next three generations are all as mad as Mad Queen Joanna and one's worse than Prince Carlos (more my period) so we've passed a law saying we can all ignore them for the time being until we can find a sane substitute."]
Pledge
I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.
Nope; nothing about shouldering pitchforks and marching off to defend Betty, or the white cliffs of Dover. I suppose it’d come under “observe its laws” and “obligations”, but it looks to me as though it leaves a fair bit if space for arguing. (given that we’re signatories to EU and International law as well.)
What I didn’t know was that the US pledge of allegiance was invented by a Baptist (and a ‘Christian Socialist?!) in 1892, God got into it via the Catholics and the Daughters of the American Revolution (!!) in 1954, and, amazingly, this salute wasn’t replaced by that hand on heart thing until 1942.
I think your pledge is rather lovely. Reciting the pledge here isn’t mandatory at all, but encouraged, by only around half the states. There have been challenges to the god bit, but sadly haven’t held up in the courts to date. The arms bit in the citizenship oath is pretty cringeworthy though.
our Major Royals are now marrying Commoners. Still millionaires, obviously, but still commoners! What will we become?
Less likely to have a Carlos or Joanna in the next generation or so anyway.
That would be the assumption. But the reality is that the advantages of class have become greatly diluted when considered separate from the monarch. Death and estate taxes helped somewhat there. The fact that the heir to the heir to the throne married the offspring of a self-made, non-ennobled millionaire shows that the boundaries are becoming ever-more fluid. Which, in turn, implies that the power of the landed so-and-sos has lessened.
This is an ongoing process. I know it’s taking a while, and there’s more yet to do. But you’d be surprised about the HoL in practice – they voted down several of the more egregious govt bills this year, to great public acclaim. People on the Guardian describing the Lords as ‘our last hope’. Didn’t stop the bills, because of the way Commons-Lords authority is structured (the Lords can only veto something when the Commons let them, basically*), but again, the Lords and the interests of the nation as a whole are often closer than you might first surmise. They are they primarily as a legislative break on the whole process. Like the Senate, but functional (joke!).
So we’re in flux, and fairly comfortable with it. The political history of the last two hundred years in the UK has been one of those in power giving up power to the populace with great reluctance, and only the minimal possible. (Fine, we’ll give people the vote, but only if they’re male, rich and sane. OK, fine! Perhaps not so rich! What’s that? Well, if you must – all males, but only the sane and not criminal ones. Women? My goodness? Not until they’re thirty! OK, twenty-one like the men! Yes, suffrage at eighteen, whatever you want*). It’s done all right, so far.
Of course, it’s a terrible hodgepodge I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemies (can I apologise to all the Commonwealth countries currently having fun with the Westminster system?), but it does OK. Restrictions on voting and standing for office are the same as in most other Western nations, and we haven’t had to off a lot of toffs.
In essence what you’re saying is ‘ugh! how can you live with that Monarchy stuck there?’, to which my reply is ‘oh, that? I hardly notice it, and it doesn’t really have any effect. A harmless appendage.’
*this is a horrible, horrible simplification
Our PM has much more de facto executive power than may seem to be the case.
Does he (or she) have veto power or executive order power like ours does?
Not so sure about that. They’re not that easy to get into either, without the right family, right history, or right connections: and in some ways they’re just as self-perpetuating and clannish as Oxbridge. And they can be even more condescending than those Tories from there who believe they were ‘born to rule’. Thing is, they actually do. Don’t know if it’s changed, but not that long ago, Sciences-Po was practically entirely (8 or 9 out of ten) upper-class rich Parisian offspring.
Sarko had a huge chip on his shoulder about not having been one of that elite; but they won in the end. He fucked over university education and — especially — university research in France big time from what I’ve been told, but the Sciences-Po/ENA and their bureaucrat output seem to have survived unscathed. And are safe in their monopoly of government and industry again. Hollande is one of them, after all: went straight into a cozy government sinecure after ENA.
I hardly notice it, and it doesn’t really have any effect. A harmless appendage.’
Kinda hard to not notice them over the past half year or so!
But here’s the deal though. You quite rightly and admirably went after the MP’s in the expenses scandal. Now you’re getting there in going after the Murdoch brigade. Up to and including the PM if it comes to that. So why would you turn a blind eye to the royal family’s influence and escapades?
Short answer: because the behaviour and influence of the royal family has much less possible negative effect on the welfare and wellbeing of the country than its parliament or media.
The most that can be shown recently about the royals is that Charles possibly used influence to turn down a planning application which meant a bunch of really wealthy people couldn’t earn a wodge of cash redeveloping a posh expensive London landmark. It’s not exactly oppressive.
I’m not sure I’m turning a blind eye, but seriously, have you followed the travails of our royals over the last twenty years? They have taken a battering in the press. And there have been lots of changes as a result. Towards a more perfect monarchy, as it were.
As to the veto power of the PM – you need to be clear about the differences between the legislative and executive split between US and UK. In the UK the question of veto does not arise.
In the UK, the PM controls which legislation gets put before the house. He essentially is the executive focus, working from within the leg. branch. So there’s no formal power of veto, but it’s not necessary. No PM gets put in a position of having to bring a vote on a bill they vehemently oppose. It’s just not politically possible.
Likewise, no government can be in a position of not being able to get legislation passed (for very long, or possibly in exceptional circs), because our definition of PM, and hence govt is ‘one who can command a majority in the house’.
In many respects it’s easier being the PM than the President. You only have to fight with one party to get legislation passed, not two!
Does he (or she) have veto power or executive order power like ours does?
Nope. Not needed. If a backbencher (or the Lords) bring in a bill the government doesn’t like or want, since they’re usually elected with a majority, they can simply vote it down in Parliament.
What tends to happen is that contentious bills get amended before the final vote, or (though not often enough with this one) the governing party simply abandons one if it looks out-and-out unpopular.
Again, in theory, the Queen could veto a bill by not signing it, but wouldn’t. (Unless it was utterly outrageous, like making squirrel genocide mandatory, in which case one hopes she would, and then dissolve parliament and have an election called. Obviously, the first bill after that happened would be one to make it impossible.)
“Executive orders” though, is strange to us, I think. All ministers are, constitutionally, subject to parliament. So (I think) where Obama might issue an Executive Order applying sanctions to Iran or Syria, if UK or international law allowed it, the Foreign Secretary would apply them but announce them in the House of Commons. Where the opposition could, if it wanted, demand a vote and vote against them.
(That’d also apply to anything similar to Obama’s ‘kill list’: there might be a tacit secret agreement, but if there is and it came out, there’d be trouble, because ministers (and MI6) have said over and over again ‘targeted’ or ‘political’ assassinations, or ‘collective punishment’ are illegal under UK law and international treaties. There’s still a kerfuffle going on (and investigations by the police) about MI5 people having connived at torture.)
I should add, on this note, that the billing for this week on the Leveson enquiry includes not one but two former PMs, and the current PM, deputy PM and chancellor. Live and unabridged, free streaming. It’s going to be epic. Cameron is going to go very purple indeed.
Not that he has anything to hide, of course.
“that the billing for this week on the Leveson enquiry includes not one but two former PMs, and the current PM, deputy PM and chancellor. Live and unabridged, free streaming”
ooh ooh! can’t wait. I’m obsessed with phone hacking. There doing a bit on it here, and slowly getting there, but i think they’re waiting to see what you come up with over there first.
As to executive orders here – they are issued for some much more benign issues than foreign policy. Obama has issued 126 so far. Executive orders become law if unchallenged by congress within 30 days.
Illegal immigration is a big one. Apparently the house Republicans just shot down one of Obama’s directives. Illegal immigrants and advocates are petitioning for Obama to issue a directive to prevent deportation of some categories. That he probably won’t do, it would most likely lose him a good chunk of votes from his base. That’s one republican issue that has a lot of support from liberals and Indys.
“Again, in theory, the Queen could veto a bill by not signing it, but wouldn’t. “
But this isn’t really about the queen as head of state.
Sorry, but the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/30/prince-charles-offered-veto-legislation
It’s not as though ‘The Royals Inc.’ have been buslly setting up SuperPacs . . .or could, even.
Anyway, the Jubilee’s over, and we’re getting back into the important stuff, like loathing Cameron and despising Clegg again. Funny, really, our politicians usually nose into these things expecting a bit of the general bonhomie to rub off, but with this lot, though they’re as impervious as a tanned hippopotamus hide, even they spotted it just wasn’t gonna be worth a try
They’re amazing; they’ve now managed to piss off the police. Somehow, they’ve already pissed off practically every section of the population they normally expect to vote for them as well as a lot who wouldn’t touch them with a bargepole anyway.
Most of our governments get this way eventually if they’re in long enough — shut their eyes and say “Well, we’re going to crash into that iceberg anyway, so what the hell, if we put on speed and hit it really hard maybe it’ll sink instead” but I think this one’s already getting that way sooner than any other we’ve had in donkey’s years.
(Off to bed; the squirrel spine has been particularly troublesome for a week now. Good job the weather’s so rotten: doesn’t seem quite so bad being curled up moping with tail wrapped around a book in bed. Quite enjoyed the gales, though, from inside: reminds me of home in the Pennines.)
It is worryingly gripping. Alas, the chances of a true smoking gun I think are nil. But at least we’ll be treated to several highly highly-powerful and highly-paid personages making the now familiar ‘I wasn’t criminally negligent, just utterly incompetent‘ defence (‘pulling a Gonzales’, as it were).
So apparently incompetence isn’t a barrier to high office in the UK either. Not, of course, that it ever was (hellooo, hereditary absolute monarchy!), but at least you generally had to pretend.
This isn’t going to explode. But it’s an insidious acid, which is just going to keep dripping. Cameron hasn’t been able to (can’t?) cut himself off from it; now more of the Tory movers and shakers are being drawn in. It’s had disastrous affects on family Murdoch, and there’s more to come!
What happened? Climate change segueing into the constitution of the United Kingdom.
The diamond jubilee I suppose.
Thank you Gunny.
Having been away I was expecting a critique of the Wisconsin recall and CU.
The diamond jubilee I suppose.
Or more specifically, the abuse of the citizenry in service of.
Sib -
This isn’t going to explode.
Probably not in Levenson. In trials perhaps, but i believe Squirrel told me they’re basically closed affairs there. Bribery is the key that’s going to cook their goose over here. So pay attention to anything up that alley that surfaces. Say, with police. That’s our FCPA. And also any possible hacking that may have occurred on our soil, but i think that may be a longer shot.
Squirrel -
the squirrel spine has been particularly troublesome for a week now. Good job the weather’s so rotten:
Glad to hear that soggy weather is not troublesome to the squirrel spine – i would have thought the opposite. Be well.
Yes, it does look that way. The details are less stinky, but still grubby:
The prince was consulted on these issues, apparently, because they relate to the Duchy of Cornwall (DoC), which the prince holds. The reason the issues relating to the DoC have to have prince’s consent is because the estate itself belongs to the Crown. The prince is just the ‘current’ holder as it were. The key point is that it’s about the Duchy, not the Prince. If he were not the holder, he wouldn’t be consulted.
Is there a conflict of interest? Damn straight. It’s the source of the Prince’s living. Ditto with Queen’s Consent for the Crown Estates and Duchy of Lancaster.
I’d like that changed! Happy for the current holders of the Crown Estates to give advice – after all, the bulk of the income from them goes to the Treasury, so it’s in all our interests. But veto is inappropriate. Although any change would be constitutionally fraught, but that’s par for the course.
This is, I’m aware, terribly overcomplicated. There’s the possibility that parliament could draft an order requiring all residences slept in by the Queen to pay a tax, and this would require Queen’s consent because Buck House is part of the Crown Estates, and so is held in trust by the current monarch, but
if parliament drafted a more restrictive law saying that only Balmoral has to pay a tax if the Queen sleeps there, the question of Queen’s consent does not apply, since Balmoral is privately owned by the current Monarch and does not form part of the Crown Estates (it’s owned by the Queen qua Windsor, rather than the Queen qua Sovereign)…
Did I mention it was overcomplicated?
Is there a conflict of interest? Damn straight. It’s the source of the Prince’s living.
Damn straight. And may very well conflict with the interests of the good folks of Cornwall as well. Who have fa say in the matter, apparently.
Expat,
Inexplicable, I agree. But around the time you left, the climate change somehow just seemed to lose its edge.
Perhaps that’s what happens when everyone agrees Nat.
Ah- ha ha ha…lucky for us that Indians are savages and blacks are slaves thus not eligible. Then lets add women, immigrants,anyone who is not white christian and live in this country we’re good to go.
I personally think having kings, queens, dukes, lords, knights, earls is kind of fun. You’d have to smile addressing someone that way and if they thought they were special because of it it would be even more fun. It may be bit of fantasy but it’s a fun one…and colorful.
What the hell have we got? Fear based bigoted thugs parading as benevolent supermen on white horses? Used car salesmen on the take dressed up as government officials?
Our national identity is fear and greed. Our national symbols are on the scale of blind justice, money on one side and guns on the other. But we do put presidents faces on the money as a farcical comic. Oh, and we can vote for the salesman of our choice.
If you see our flag abroad it means we just took something from someone who was not created equal. Our flag at home is waved by the people of advanced fantasy, unless upside down.
So thanks UK for the pomp and pageantry…I smiled.
I wish our country got bombed during the blitz…it might have woke us up…
Cochise:
I remarked to Bill that all those people crammed around the Palace and stretching down the mall waiting to see the Royals on the balcony, [did you see that bit?] are regular working/middle class folk. There wouldn’t have been many well offs in the crowds…There are a lot of us.
Thank God we can still pull together occasionally without a war.
BTW? Is the bread making still going well? I made a cheese and onion loaf for Bill yesterday. Not sourdough, just little lumps of cheese and finely chopped onion in a regular bread recipe.
I shall leave him to eat it. Cheese hates me…
Expat, well I saw a couple of things, but neither are very helpful. One said 90+ per cent of Latin American cities are making long term plans on the basis of climate change/global warming predictions, 85% of European cities and only 59% of US ones are.
But what sort of plans? What do they amount to? (After all, that North Carolina ‘law’ is kind of ‘planning for climate change isn’t it?) And on what basis? The IPCC? Or something like the UK’s Stern Review? (Anybody want to read their way through Britain’s latest risk assessment?)
And there’s a long thing somewhere else about changes to the ocean (in the Atlantic?) but it’s a mash-up of bits of everything, from tuna fish full of mercury to strangled dolphins, to ocean current change: one of those articles that waves a large blunt instrument around on the assumption for every reader who doesn’t give a damn about dolphins, doesn’t eat tuna, isn’t scared by hurricanes, isn’t bothered by dodgy pesticides, and so on and so on, there’s got to be one thing somewhere that’ll make ‘em sit up.
So you shove it all in and just kind of make a global conclusion that in total it’s all a total fuck up. I hate that sort of thing. It’s what provides easy fodder to the anti-greens, anti-environmentalist, and anti-climate change folks.
Very worrying piece by Tomasky, btw, on a poll on the ACA. the results look very depressing for the future of health insurance* in the USA; but (as usual) I weant to pore over the fine print, not take the ‘headline’ results on trust. When/if I get around to it I’ll post something on a healthcare thread,
* When, btw (and more importantly why) did it become the Affordable Health Care Act when it was still health insurance?
Pornstar:
Weather doesn’t affect it. Damaged vertebrae, lot of scar tissue, damaged sciatic nerve, and osteo-arthritis. I always feel better when the temperature’s over 20 C, and nearly delirious if it gets up to 30+, but I think that’s psychological, just the Italian squirrel genes.
Weird, ‘cos I was orn and brought up in the windy wet and cold north of England, and I pine at any temperature less than 20, go into a serious decline at half that, and my Arab friend who was born in Lebanon (where it can easily hit 30-38) wilts and weeps and whines when it gets up to anywhere near 25. . . .
Oh, I didn’t say court hearings on phone tapping charges were closed, only that we can’t publicly discuss what might be evidence that may turn up in the trial until it does. (Not, sadly, that Cameron et al are likely to be arrested and charged with anything. Though there’s good potential for them getting very embarrassed and looking stupid: they aren’t like Tony Blair who still remembered enough of his training as a barrister to weasle out of awkward questions without either quite lying, or not quite giving an answer, and not quite refusing to . . . . I’m pretty sure the QC asking the questions at the inquiry is a lot subtler and cleverer than this bunch.
(Breaking news! Friend’s just told me there are four fire engines outside the Electric Cinema on Portobello Road, lots of hoses. Hope it isn’t too bad: it’s supposed to be either the oldest or nearly-oldest cinema in Britain.1900 or a bit later? It’s more than a hundred years old, anyway.)
Jeebus Cochise. And i thought that i was a miserabilist.
That’s the bit that i thought got a rough time from the damp. Arthritis runs in my family – i’m hoping that i get out of that one.
Had a look at that poll on the ACA I mentioned; Squirrel Thoughts are in ‘speaking of health care . . .’ Be interested in what you think.
Pornstar:
Think that’s rheumatoid arthritis. Not sure. In my case, the osteo-arthritis is probably an unintended consequence of what they did to my spine so I could walk again. Doesn’t happen to everybody, I was just a bit unlucky.
Squirrel -
I peeked at that poll, but it’s down to the courts now, and not to the electorate. I don’t think – unless it can go back to congress for repeal.
This article spells things out a bit more -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/supreme-court-ruling_b_1582251.html
Hi Di
Yes it is. I seem to have settled in to making 4-8 loaves a week. Sourdough for myself and oatmeal for everybody else. It is my weekend meditation.
PS
Politics and religion seem to me to be the septic tank of the human experience. They must be a nasty necessary,because they exist, but definitely not somewhere I like hanging out .
They generally bring out the absolute worst in mankind.
You all seem to enjoy discussing and keeping up on it so I generally stay quiet and wait for some music, art or human interest, bread etc.
Cochise:
Top tip of the week.
Use a shower cap instead of wrestling with Saran wrap? [we call it clingfilm] to cover your bowl as the dough is rising. And it’s washable.