Her wedding to the Prince of Wales on 29 July 1981, held at St Paul's Cathedral, reached a global television audience of over 750 million people. While married, Diana bore the titles Princess of Wales,Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester, and Baroness of Renfrew. The marriage produced two sons, the princes William and Harry, who were then respectively second and third in the line of succession to the British throne. As Princess of Wales, Diana undertook royal duties on behalf of the Queen and represented her at functions overseas. She was celebrated for her charity work and for her support of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. She was involved with dozens of charities including London's Great Ormond Street Hospital for children, of which she was president from 1989.

Diana remained the object of worldwide media scrutiny during and after her marriage, which ended in divorce on 28 August 1996. Media attention and public mourning were extensive after her death in a car crash in Paris on 31 August 1997 and subsequent televised funeral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales

A flame of decency amongst that lot above. Read from top.

WASHINGTON—Like all special interests in the nation’s capital, the defense industry is spending millions of dollars this election season to ensure a front-row spot at the federal trough—and in the case of the most powerful military-industrial contractors, a chance to influence the national-security policies that will keep production lines humming and profit margins growing.

Defense contractors took a keen interest in the Republican and Democratic primaries, backing candidates for reasons both ideological and commercial. How they will divide their dollars between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the general election remains to be seen, though there are reasons to think one of the major-party nominees will be especially receptive to industry support. For the military-industrial complex, however, the race for the White House is not the whole story—and in the ways that matter most, this year’s elections mean business as usual.

♦♦♦

By April 30, the defense sector had given more than $1.6 million to the broad field of presidential candidates. Among all the 2016 hopefuls, Ted Cruz was the recipient of the most defense-industry dollars, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Cruz received a total of $343,000, followed—perhaps surprisingly—by Bernie Sanders with $323,000, and then Hillary Clinton with more than $273,000.

Sanders’s place at the top of the Democratic heap in terms of defense-sector support may seem odd for a man who attacked Clinton’s support for overseas military interventions. But it’s not so strange at all when one considers that the controversial F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—the most expensive aircraft in U.S. history, and more than a decade overdue—underwent development in Sanders’s home state of Vermont.

Lockheed, the maker of the F-35 and the biggest recipient of Pentagon contracts in 2015, gave Sanders $36,600 through March. He also got more money from Boeing than Clinton—nearly $46,000 in that period, according to Alexander Cohen of the Center for Public Integrity.

Meanwhile, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Donald Trump, by then already the presumptive Republican nominee, had received only $17,818 as of May. Republican dropouts Jeb Bush ($212,108) and Lindsey Graham ($135,925) filled out the top five this spring, under Cruz, Sanders, and Clinton.

While the total figure for defense corporations’ giving directly to presidential candidates was just $1.65 million as of the end of April, that number does not count the companies’ political action committees, which pour cash into presidential coffers and, even more so, those of congressional candidates and party committees. Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman have PACs that rank among the wealthiest in the industry. Lockheed’s PAC, which spread around over $1.6 million for federal candidates this spring, had given $10,000 to Cruz by the end of March. Northrop Grumman’s PAC, on the other hand, gave all of its $1.5 million as of March to House and Senate candidates—mostly Republicans.

Over and above ordinary PAC spending, the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision allows for unlimited contributions to super PACs from corporations. “Now [that special interests] can spend as much money as they want, I think you will find more lopsided contributions,” notes Pierre Sprey, a defense analyst and critic who spoke with TAC. “This is a huge sword hanging over the heads of the candidates.” And although Super PACs must ultimately disclose their donors to the FEC, issue-oriented nonprofits need not do so, and they too can be tools of defense-industry influence on public opinion. The overall picture of how defense dollars shape politics is shadowy—but what we can see is telling.

read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/military-industrial-election/

Conservative England — God's play ground

See also: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/andrea-leadsom-and-theresa-may-are-two-of-britains-most-prominent-homophobes-and-ones-about-to-a7125131.html

We have used the word "trumpery" for a while now... Read from top. It appears that the Gadfly has just discovered its meaning... (I think the Gadfly knew it but is playing the ingenue game for effect):

Where do we start with the Orange Bampot, who had such a terrific week of threats, lies and braggadocios?

One of Gadfly’s research assistants has been working his way through the Oxford English Dictionary and struck upon the entry for “trumpery”.

The meaning of the word has evolved, much like the Bampot himself, but even so it has stayed close to giving us a proper definition of the fleshy, orange-coloured leader of the “free” world. As early as circa 1485 it meant “deceit, fraud, imposture, trickery”. There was an early Scottish reference: “They concordat alltogither in trumpery and fallsit.”

By 1531 it also applied to objects and things: “A heap of trumpery fit to furnish out the shop of a Westminster pawnbroker.”

It extended to abstractions, beliefs and religious ceremonies. For example, “I’d put an end to free-masonry and all such trumpery.”

In the 17th century it was being used in relation to worthless finery, even to weeds and refuse and earlier to things of “little or no value, trifling, paltry, insignificant, rubbishy, trashy”.

Shakespeare in The Tempest (1616) had: “The trumpery in my house, goe bring it hither For stale to catch these theeues.”

Of course, it came from the French, but it is the Brits who are nothing if not thorough in exploring their words. Here we find all the ancient meanings and uses hurtling into the present day with great precision and clarity.

Tips and tattle: justinian@lawpress.com.au

Read more:

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2018/08/04/gadfly-homilies-scale/

• By William Booth

by KENNETH SURIN

Many Brits, wallowing in their post-imperial hangover, sometimes make fun of countries, typically in southern Europe and Latin America, which from time to time are afflicted with a political paralysis— “Look at country X, still can’t put together a government after 3 elections”, etc.

Ukania has however exceeded countries such as X when it comes to governmental paralysis.

It only took a single election, in 2017, to allow the Tories to form a minority government with the support of the northern Irish DUP (founded by the rabble-rousing hate-preacher Ian Paisley), that has been paralyzed ever since by its utter inability to negotiate any kind of Brexit deal with the EU.

The coming to power of the Tories in that single election has ensued in just as much governmental paralysis as country X with its inability to acquire a functioning government after 2-3 elections.

Ukania as Ruritania as Kakania (the latter being Robert Musil’s term in his great novel The Man Without Qualities (1930), describing the Habsburg monarchy as mired in a self-stultifying political morass overlaid by mindless flummery that has no limits; and Ukania being Tom Nairn’s term to designate the UK’s own embodiment of Kakania).

Ukania/Ruritania/Kakania—Brits currently have little choice but to go for all three when it comes to describing their laughing-stock of country.

Groups within Ukania treat Brexit as a battle that must be fought to the death, but really the issues that appear to cause divisions in this dog-fight are moot in a wider scheme of things.

Remain in the EU? Accept the rule of Eurocrats who will do the bidding of the multinational corporations.

Leave the EU? Accept the implacable will of the multinational corporations through bilateral trade deals conducted under the auspices of the window-dressing WTO.

Either way, Ukania’s Joe and Jill Normal will be stiffed.

However, presumed nuance in such matters can’t be overlooked—is there any likelihood that one of these two options (Leave vs Remain) will stiff our Joe and Jill just a little bit less than the other?

It is hard to decide if this choice has to be made solely on the basis of workable policy and compelling political principle.

Here, a more plausible decision-making approach may reside in assessing, as clear-sightedly as possible, the political actors upholding this or that position vis-à-vis Brexit.

The Brexiters, in the main, are either retro-imperialists or upholders of an even less-regulated capitalism (or both). The retro-imperialism is a fantasy, but the less-regulated capitalism is not, though the former is used as a cloak to con misty-eyed imperial Brit nostalgics into acquiescing in the latter.

The Remainers are by and large believers in a more cosmopolitan order (hence scorned by Steve Bannon and his ilk as “globalists”), and a somewhat more regulated capitalism, albeit one still superintended by billionaire hedge fund managers and property tycoons.

Another grouping that has to be considered in any kind of Brexit typology are those who for decades have been proponents of a so-called Lexit.

I have been a Lexiteer since I was a teenager in the 1960s (when the UK entered the then European Community), on the grounds that no country in that entity could achieve an adequate socialism because the EC/EU was always going to work for the capitalist corporations whilst giving bromides to plebs like me.

The determination I made at that time, though largely correct, needs now to be reassessed in the current context of a neoliberal globalization.

It is a no-brainer that a no-deal Brexit will be an unqualified capitulation to the imperatives of this neoliberal globalization.

All that Brexit supporters (such as Bannon and company) want is a globalized capitalism, albeit one accommodating xenophobic “nationalist” characteristics, and UK Brexiters such as BoJo Johnson and Nigel Farage, are in the same boat as Bannon.

Remain, on adequate terms will, hopefully, be a half, or maybe a less than half, capitulation to the imperatives of this neoliberal globalization. However, we should not forget that the big UK corporations are fervent Remainers, and this for damn good (capitalist) reasons.

So: as a Lexiteer what does one choose?

Jeremy Corbyn has always been a Lexiteer, and now has to steer Labour into making a choice.

Actually, it is not Corbyn’s or Labour’s choice to make.

Brexit has been such an indecisive shambles for the UK that only a second referendum, fraught thought it will be, can approximate to a choice made by “the people” with regard to a future Brexit outcome.

A second Brexit referendum will be an imperfect but marginally better option than the dead-end Brexit alternatives available to Brits thus far.

Read more:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/30/the-maybot-is-gone/

Read from top.

The UK should never have been allowed in the EU...

The Protestation of 1621 was a declaration by the House of Commons of England reaffirming their right to freedom of speech in the face of King James' belief that they had no right to debate foreign policy. 

Many Members of Parliament were unhappy with James' foreign policy. They opposed the Spanish Match (the plan to marry Charles, Prince of Wales to the Spanish Infanta) and wished for a war against Spain.[1] The MPs believed that if they conceded that they had no right to debate matters which displeased the King, Parliament would be obsolete. As William Hakewill MP and historian stated: "The privileges of this House are the flowers of the Crown, and we shall never sit here again if they are not maintained".[2] The Commons declared on 18 December 1621:

The commons now assembled in parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto, concerning sundry liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament, amongst others not herein mentioned, do make this protestation following:—That the liberties, franchises, privileges, and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the king, state, and the defence of the realm, and of the church of England, and the making and maintenance of laws, and redress of mischiefs, and grievances which daily happen within this realm, are proper subjects and matter of counsel and debate in parliament; and that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses, every member of the house hath, and of right ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same: that the commons in parliament have like liberty and freedom to treat of those matters, in such order as in their judgments shall seem fittest: and that every such member of the said house hath like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation (other than, by the censure of the house itself), for or concerning any bill, speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter or matters, touching the parliament or parliament business; and that, if any of the said members be complained of, and questioned for any thing said or done in parliament, the same is to be showed to the king, by the advice and assent of all the commons assembled in parliament, before the king give credence to any private information.[3]

James formally deleted the Protestation from the Journals of Parliament and dissolved Parliament.[4]

Read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestation_of_1621

Read from top.

World-renowned Shakespeare scholar Stephen Greenblatt explores the playwright’s insight into bad (and often mad) rulers.

As an aging, tenacious Elizabeth I clung to power, a talented playwright probed the social causes, the psychological roots, and the twisted consequences of tyranny. In exploring the psyche (and psychoses) of the likes of Richard III, Macbeth, Lear, Coriolanus, and the societies they rule over, Stephen Greenblatt illuminates the ways in which William Shakespeare delved into the lust for absolute power and the catastrophic consequences of its execution.

Cherished institutions seem fragile, political classes are in disarray, economic misery fuels populist anger, people knowingly accept being lied to, partisan rancor dominates, spectacular indecency rules―these aspects of a society in crisis fascinated Shakespeare and shaped some of his most memorable plays. With uncanny insight, he shone a spotlight on the infantile psychology and unquenchable narcissistic appetites of demagogues―and the cynicism and opportunism of the various enablers and hangers-on who surround them―and imagined how they might be stopped. As Greenblatt shows, Shakespeare’s work, in this as in so many other ways, remains vitally relevant today.

https://www.amazon.com/Tyrant-Shakespeare-Politics-Stephen-Greenblatt/dp/0393635759

Meanwhile:

DER SPIEGEL: Recently, a photo was published showing German Chancellor Angela Merkel reading your book "Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics" on the balcony of the vacation resort where she was staying. Do you have any idea how she became familiar with your work?

Greenblatt: I don't know exactly, but I do know that she already knew about the book in May when she received an honorary degree from Harvard, where I teach. We met briefly and she said: "I heard you wrote a book about Shakespeare that describes our time today." And I said: "Yes."

DER SPIEGEL: The tyrants you describe are sociopaths, liars, cheats and populists, and they tear everyone and everything to pieces. There is now a discussion in Germany about whether the chancellor is pleased by the comparisons made between Shakespearean tyrants and Trump.

Greenblatt: That's what books are supposed to do: open up a space for us to reflect.

DER SPIEGEL: If the chancellor wanted to make a statement with her reading choice, then it was an indirect one. Your book also makes indirect statements considering that it doesn't contain a single reference to Trump. Why?

Greenblatt: Look, we all talk about Trump all the time. The fact that we're so fixated on him is part of the problem. In Shakespeare's Globe Theatre, which opened in London in 1599, spectators stood so close to the stage that they became part of the action. Shakespeare wanted to suggest that we all have a part in creating power, even if we are only the audience. We are fascinated by the tyrant. He amuses us, he disgusts us, his rise can sometimes seem like a comedy, sometimes like a tragedy, both have appeal. At some point, it turns out that everything consists of lies, but lies only work when people want to be lied to. We want to keep watching the tyrant, even though we know he's acting destructively. That's how we stabilize his power, and that's why I'm not fond of talking about Trump himself. To me, this is about Shakespeare, whose dramas explore the psychic mechanisms that move an entire nation to abandon its ideals, even its interests.

DER SPIEGEL: What are these mechanisms?

Greenblatt: For example: The tyrant can act as a populist, as one who represents the interests of his counterpart, the people. But he is deceiving people, because all he cares about is himself.

DER SPIEGEL: As an author, you distance yourself from the concrete person. Does this allow you to better identify the structures?

Greenblatt: Shakespeare showed the way, though his circumstances were profoundly different from my own. Unlike me, he really did have to watch his back. He lived in the early modern age, where critical words against rulers were considered treason and punished with torture and death, dismemberment and evisceration. The country was stirred up during Elizabeth I's reign by fears of foreign invasion and fanatical religious terrorists, and there were spies everywhere. Shakespeare chose the form of coded speech, shifting place and time: "King Lear" is set in ancient Britain, "Coriolanus" in Rome in 5th century B.C. and "Richard III" in 15th-century England. Shakespeare used their portrayals to show the typical moments in the rise of catastrophic leaders: the exploitation of internal disputes, deceptive populism, the interplay of various enablers who believe that they themselves can benefit from the rise of the tyrant.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/angela-merkel-s-summer-reading-we-re-fascinated-by-the-tyrant-a-1283007.html

Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament is an unlawful abuse of power, a Scottish court has heard in the first of three legal challenges.

Aidan O’Neill QC, acting for a cross-party group of 75 MPs and peers, told a court in Edinburgh that the prime minister had trampled on more than 400 years of constitutional law by asking the Queen to prorogue parliament solely for political gain.

“We have a constitution ruled by law,” O’Neill told Lord Doherty in the court of session, urging him to issue an interdict – a Scottish court order equivalent to an injunction – forcing the UK government to quash the prorogation order signed by the Queen on Wednesday.

“That is what a constitutional monarchy means,” he said. “It is not some form of autocracy or divine right or that ‘the king can do no wrong’.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/29/proroguing-parliament-is-unlawful-abuse-of-power-court-told

See also:

Read from top.