Queen Elizabeth I (of the Americas?)
Well, that was inconvenient. But after a day of acute discomfort and another spent lying around like a beached whale, life is looking up.
The inevitable Mitt Romney took the New Hampshire primary overnight by roughly 40 percent, followed by the whacky Ron Paul, with 23. Even Jon Huntsman, whom no one had noticed before (with 17 percent), outdistanced the darlings of Iowa’s (and Lucas County’s) GOP lunatic fringe --- Rick Santorum, with 9 percent, and the cosmically underqualified Rick Perry, less than 1 percent.
I missed Gov. Terry Branstad’s state of the state address yesterday. Some catching up to do there.
Also Tuesday but down there in Oklahoma, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district court ruling that a state law attempting to ban shari’ah (or Islamic) law --- apparently perceived by Southern Baptists to be a considerable threat in the Sooner State --- was an unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem.
Newt Gingrich and Santorum are among the GOP candidates who feel threatened by shari’ah law, so it’ll be interesting to see if that issue comes up in South Carolina, where the Republican roadshow now is located in anticipation of that states’s Jan. 21 primary.
On the other side of the Atlantic, just to prove discontent knows no national boundaries, Scotland’s devolved government is pushing for a 2014 referendum on independence (well, sort of --- the queen would stay). London wants an earlier vote, lessening time for the Scottish National Party to build its case.
Scotland and England united formally in 1707 nearly a century after James (VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland) inherited the English crown from Elizabeth I in 1603.
I’m a little more in tune with this situation than our own right now, I figure, after lying on my sickbed for two days watching multiple episodes of an old BBC series, “What the Romans (Tudors, Stuarts, Victorians, etc.) Did for Us.”
So I’m wondering, if Scotland goes, would the United Kingdom, minus a fourth of its unitedness, consider taking us back? On the one hand, we'd get Elizabeth II, and Elizabeths always have worked well for both the British and Americans. On the other hand, a Charles would follow. And Charleses have never worked out quite so well.
The inevitable Mitt Romney took the New Hampshire primary overnight by roughly 40 percent, followed by the whacky Ron Paul, with 23. Even Jon Huntsman, whom no one had noticed before (with 17 percent), outdistanced the darlings of Iowa’s (and Lucas County’s) GOP lunatic fringe --- Rick Santorum, with 9 percent, and the cosmically underqualified Rick Perry, less than 1 percent.
I missed Gov. Terry Branstad’s state of the state address yesterday. Some catching up to do there.
Also Tuesday but down there in Oklahoma, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district court ruling that a state law attempting to ban shari’ah (or Islamic) law --- apparently perceived by Southern Baptists to be a considerable threat in the Sooner State --- was an unconstitutional solution to a non-existent problem.
Newt Gingrich and Santorum are among the GOP candidates who feel threatened by shari’ah law, so it’ll be interesting to see if that issue comes up in South Carolina, where the Republican roadshow now is located in anticipation of that states’s Jan. 21 primary.
On the other side of the Atlantic, just to prove discontent knows no national boundaries, Scotland’s devolved government is pushing for a 2014 referendum on independence (well, sort of --- the queen would stay). London wants an earlier vote, lessening time for the Scottish National Party to build its case.
Scotland and England united formally in 1707 nearly a century after James (VI of Scotland and I of England and Ireland) inherited the English crown from Elizabeth I in 1603.
I’m a little more in tune with this situation than our own right now, I figure, after lying on my sickbed for two days watching multiple episodes of an old BBC series, “What the Romans (Tudors, Stuarts, Victorians, etc.) Did for Us.”
So I’m wondering, if Scotland goes, would the United Kingdom, minus a fourth of its unitedness, consider taking us back? On the one hand, we'd get Elizabeth II, and Elizabeths always have worked well for both the British and Americans. On the other hand, a Charles would follow. And Charleses have never worked out quite so well.
No comments:
Post a Comment