FRIDAY MUSIC: Philip Glass, by JD

Philip Glass was born in 1937 and grew up in Baltimore. He studied at the University of Chicago, the Juilliard School and in Aspen with Darius Milhaud. Finding himself dissatisfied with much of what then passed for modern music, he moved to Europe, where he studied with Nadia Boulanger (who also taught Aaron Copland , Virgil Thomson and Quincy Jones) and worked closely with the sitar virtuoso and composer Ravi Shankar. He returned to New York in 1967 and formed the Philip Glass Ensemble – seven musicians playing keyboards and a variety of woodwinds, amplified and fed through a mixer.

The new musical style that Glass was evolving was eventually dubbed “minimalism.” Glass himself never liked the term and preferred to speak of himself as a composer of “music with repetitive structures.” Much of his early work was based on the extended reiteration of brief, elegant melodic fragments that wove in and out of an aural tapestry. Or, to put it another way, it immersed a listener in a sort of sonic weather that twists, turns, surrounds, develops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Glass
https://philipglass.com/

Philip Glass joue Mad Rush

NTR Podium: Lavinia Meijer speelt Philip Glass

Symphony for eight - Philip Glass - Cello Octet Amsterdam

Philip Glass "Closing" PCF 2017

The Hours - Philip Glass

Warning bells – PMQs 16th October 2024

The Starmernaut continues to roll over the Opposition. Sir Keir is hardly trying: he repeated his “14 years” reference to the Tories’ failures at least three times in this session, though when he wheeled out the old ‘22 billion black hole’ shtick, there was a general groan from the benches opposite.

Parliament may soon tire of his arrogance and habit of resorting to counter-attack, instead of reasoning. When Rishi Sunak spoke of China’s influence at British universities and deplored the Education Secretary’s block on last year’s Freedom of Speech Act, Starmer simply swatted it away as “political point-scoring”; even the BBC roused itself to highlight that one on X.

This came after Sunak’s remarks on China’s “intimidatory” military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, which Starmer agreed were “not conducive to peace and stability”. Neither speaker mentioned Britain’s surrender of the strategically-positioned Chagos Islands to China-matey Mauritius, a decision reportedly taken in response to pressure (why?) from the Biden administration. The United Nations maritime court in Hamburg had ruled in favour of Mauritius’ claim in 2021, but as we know, a sovereign British Parliament, unlike most governments around the world, has the power to override international law. The PM seems to think this a good moment to cede such a significant asset, just when China is flexing its muscles.

Sunak turned to another area of conflict, asking the PM to sanction Chinese businesses and individuals supplying Russia with resources in the latter’s battle with Ukraine. Readers will recall that, last month, Starmer consulted Washington (again) for permission to help Ukraine fire rockets into the Russian motherland. The answer was no; at least, not until after the Presidential election. What might Kamala say?

In this context, it is interesting to note how Russia has also become a serviceable bogeyman for the Director-General of MI5, according to whom the Russians have been planning mayhem on Britain’s streets, though he then admitted that most of the agency’s work is still occupied with “Islamist extremism, followed by extreme right-wing terrorism”. Coincidentally or not, the ‘Novichok poisoning’ enquiry into the death of Salisbury resident Dawn Sturgess has just opened; former diplomat Craig Murray has scornfully reviewed the official claims made around that affair. Perhaps all this connects with the impending governmental Spending Review.

Lancastrian MP Cat Smith (Labour) opened her question with a reference to the new Bill to abolish hereditary members of the House of Lords. Sir Keir seized upon this triumphantly (perhaps when Giggle is Prez, one may have to say ‘joyously’), but of all the calamities he seems intent on provoking, the destruction of our tripartite self-government may be the worst.

Law is downstream from power, and at the moment the British people – as a whole – have the power, however imperfectly the commoners are represented. Some have suggested that the republican noises made in Australia are merely an overture to the planned abolition of our monarchy. There will still be a national leader, and ACL Blair wanted to be it; the Royal Yacht was scrapped, but at least Gordon Brown was able to cancel the plans for ‘Blair Force One’.

In 1980, the otherwise great parliamentarian Tony Benn proposed the outright abolition of the House of Lords, which would tear away the second leg of the three-legged stool; is this not where Starmer’s 400-strong MP contingent are heading, cutting away at the Upper House like Lear’s elder daughters stripping his entourage?

Then we shall be left with a single-party machine, its whims unrestrained; a tyranny of the majority, with a great Chairman directing the nation.

Hear those warning bells.

Reposted from Wolves of Westminster

Assisted Dying: Kill Bill

Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill was submitted for its first reading within a few days (26 July) of the General Election. The Bill says it is to

‘Allow adults who are terminally ill, subject to safeguards, to be assisted to end their own life; and for connected purposes.’

If passed it will for the first time here legalise the deliberate killing of innocent adults. The ‘safeguards’ are vital.

Yet as a Private Member’s Bill this complex issue would conventionally receive only five hours’ debate on its second reading. Asking for more time Sir David Davis said at PMQs on 9 October:

‘If we get this wrong first time, the consequences are too terrible to contemplate. In 1967, the Government of the day gave time to allow David Steel’s Abortion Bill to go through.

But did the Abortion Bill ‘get it right’? At the time it was anticipated that the number of permitted abortions would be in the region of 10,000 - 12,000 per year. Yet in 2022 the actual figure for England and Wales was 20 times the upper prediction, even though the population had increased by less than one-third over that time. Over 10 million unborn children have been killed in Great Britain since 1967. In effect, and with few exceptions, we have abortion on demand, so easy is it to satisfy the vaguely-worded legal stipulations.

Let’s see the safeguards built into Lord Falconer’s Bill (linked above, first line):

• The patient must be over 18, sane, expected to die within six months from a terminal and irreversible illness. Mental illness and disability are excluded as reasons to terminate.
• 
  
• They must clearly understand what they are doing and their decision must be ‘settled’ and have been reached ‘without undue influence, coercion or duress.’
• 
  
• They must sign a declaration to that effect, witnessed by someone who is not a relation, has not been involved in their care, and has nothing to gain from the subject’s death; and countersigned by two doctors, the medical attendant plus another, who not connected to each other and neither of whom stands to gain from the procedure. The doctors must be able to communicate with the patient, if necessary via an interpreter.
• 
  
• The patient’s Declaration must affirm that ‘the Attending Doctor and Independent Doctor… have each fully informed [them] about [the patient’s] diagnosis and prognosis and the treatments available to [them], including pain control and palliative care.’ The countersigners must also affirm that they have discussed hospice care with the patient.
• 
  
• The patient must have the right to change their mind at any stage up to the last moment, not necessarily in writing.

Put like that, who could possibly object?

And surely that is the point. If you wish to break a taboo, bore a very small and well-defined hole in it. The bigger augers and crowbars can come later. Then, as with abortion, the trickle of assisted-suicide cases may become a flood, as has been happening in other countries.

Look again at the stipulations and see how one or more might be modified or abandoned in time and in practice, perhaps in the light of legal precedent. For example, the High Court recently allowed a husband to inherit his late wife’s estate after he had helped his wife to die.

As to method, the Bill assumes that the patient will end their life using one or more drugs but past experience shows that a medicated death is not always swift and painless.

We can easily sympathise with the desire of some people to shorten their suffering. As we have seen, precautions are included in the Bill that protect the patient from pressure by people with ulterior motives, so it would seem that it is solely a matter of individual free choice.

But society in general may also have an interest. Caring for a terminally ill person may cost the NHS tens of thousands of pounds one way and another. Also, many pensioners are living, often alone, in dwellings that are bigger than they need, objectively speaking. So it must be tempting to suggest that not only the sick but the old and poor are simply a burden to the rest of us. As Ebenezer Scrooge says, ‘If they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.’

But it is not only the miserly rich that adopt that attitude. Here is George Bernard Shaw, famous writer and socialist, speaking in 1931:

‘I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioners and say every 5 years or every 7 years, just put them there, and say, sir or madam, now will you be kind enough to justify your existence? If you can’t justify your existence; if you’re not pulling your weight in the social boat; if you are not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive, because your life does not benefit us, and it can’t be of very much use to yourself.’

How rational; as was the Eugenics Society’s plan to sterilise those unfit for parenthood. That would quickly rebalance the national finances, would it not?

Once you believe that life is not sacred, we are off down that path. It is only a matter of time.

Reposted from the Bruges Group Blog

Labour's private schooling tax holds back the working class

The Labour Party has its Oxbridge officer class but the other ranks have to be kept in check or they - its power base - may wander off.

As with the cynical saying about drug companies (‘a patient cured is a customer lost’), a voter who aspires to the middle class is a mutineer to socialism. The ladder is, or was, education.

So in 1965 grammar schools were in Tony Crosland’s sights: ‘If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every fucking Grammar School in England. And Wales. And Northern Ireland.’

His government Circular 10/65 succeeded in kicking away 1,200 ladders; there are now only some 230 left in England and Northern Ireland.

Does it matter, given the switch to comprehensive schools?

Yes, it does. My late friend was at a grammar school in Cardiff when the changeover occurred. Some of the merging secondary modern crowd attempted to bully the swot; unfortunately for them he was physically strong and merciless, so they learned to leave him alone.

Unless a comprehensive headteacher is ruthless, this instinct of the herd to pick on outliers and achievers will prevail. Thank goodness for Katharine Birbalsingh’s Michaela School, which gets outstanding results by dominating and stretching its non-selective intake - and has received much bitter criticism on Twitter for her pains. She had previously been ousted from the academy at which she taught for daring to tell the Conservative Party Conference and the world about the uselessness of much of our education system. How dare she succeed!

Now, unless your child is in the Michaela’s Wimbledon catchment area, or that of a wealthy suburb where riff-raff are excluded by house prices, what do you do, if you can just about manage it?

You go private.

The coming VAT tax slap on private schools will not deter the richest. They can afford it, and if riled too much may send their sprogs to some finishing school on the Continent.

No, the people this will hit will be the aspirant working class.

I taught - tried to teach - for half a term at an out of control comprehensive. One of my colleagues was a black woman whose salary was spent on private education for her three young children; she was not having them held down by indisciplined schooling. The cook, as it were, knew better than to eat at the restaurant where she worked. But would she be able to afford another 20% in fees?

As so often, Labour’s jealousy and malevolence, disguised as seeming to want the best for all, will have its worst effect on the people for whom the Party was formed.

And with any (bad) luck, it will help to keep its voting base corralled.

Reposted from the Bruges Group Blog

FRIDAY MUSIC: The Corries, by JD

The Corries were the godfathers of the modern folk music scene in Scotland, introducing huge audiences to traditional songs, composing songs in a traditional style, using innovative instrumental arrangements and pioneering practices which later became commonplace throughout the music industry.

https://projects.handsupfortrad.scot/hall-of-fame/the-corries/
https://corries.com/about-us/

The Corries-The Bricklayer's Song-live-Lyrics

The Corries-A Scottish Holiday-Live-Lyrics

The Corries --- Wild Rover

The Corries~ the Bonny Lass Of Fyvie-o

The Corries-MacPherson's Rant, live recording!

"The song, however, that defines the Corries is Flower of Scotland. Written by Roy Williamson in the mid 1960s and originally featuring Roy on the then still rarely sighted bouzouki and Ronnie on the still lesser spotted bodhran, it was adopted first by Scottish rugby fans in 1974 and then football’s Tartan Army as the unofficial Scottish national anthem.

When the song was officially adopted by the Scottish Rugby Union in 1990 and sung before Five Nations matches at Murrayfield by Ronnie, it could be said to have inspired the Scottish team to its first Grand Slam in years."

The Corries, Flower of Scotland (original version)

Why hasn't the UK Parliament used its limitless power to halt immigration?

Parliament can do ANYTHING.

Since 1688 the monarchy has been brought into Parliament; and since the nineteenth and twentieth century Reform Acts all the common people have gained admittance through their representatives, so that the two Houses of Westminster now embody the British nation as a whole.

This is ‘power to the people’, absolute and unhindered.

As a layman I did not understand the full extent of Parliament’s might until I heard Sir Bill Cash on Monday. He explained that unlike Germany and the Netherlands, our Constitution does not acknowledge the supremacy of international law. If we wish to override it all we have to do is pass an Act that says so in terms; a key phrase is ‘notwithstanding [name of law, convention, treaty].’

Sir Bill said that the Supreme Court has already upheld this approach in case law. If the wording is sufficiently clear and explicit then no judge can oppose it.

So for example to stop the ‘boat people’ completely we could make a law permanently barring anyone from claiming asylum if they have arrived without prior agreement. It is not necessary for us to withdraw from the ECHR as a whole; we could just expressly override it in this instance. That would stop the faux-refugee-smuggling in its tracks (even though that is a mere flea-bite compared to the general, permitted inrush.)

So why didn’t the last Government do it? Did they fear the mass media’s slurs; or were they simply incompetent and ill-advised?

Did their civil servants not know of this legal power? Or did they know, but kept the knowledge to themselves? Sir Bill says that they are often not civil and not servants, and moots a Civil Service Reform Act to bring them back into line.

Or does the sabotage come from courts and the Government’s legal advisers? In the 2011 debate on the European Union Bill, Cash remarked:


The courts, on a range of matters, have accumulated greater and greater influence, and, indeed, action, in relation to their judgments on Acts of Parliament. I refer not merely to interpretation or construction of the words but the underlying judicial activism, sometimes of a quasi-political nature.

‘Freedom is frightening’ was the title of an LP by Stomu Yamash'ta in 1973, the year in which we began to drift into the nets of the European project. Freedom needs watchdogs to prevent such gradual encroachments on our scary, amazing liberty; in the 2011 debate Sir Bill was proposing the insertion of these words:

‘The sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to EU law is hereby reaffirmed.’

We need markers like that to stop Lilliputian entanglement by conceited and subversive lawyers who think they know what is good for us, or at least for themselves. Law is downstream of power, and that power should flow not from barristers’ chambers but the debating chambers of Westminster.

According to Wikipedia Sir Bill ‘has been described by Kenneth Clarke as the most "Eurosceptic" Member of Parliament.’ That was a nice bit of spinning from the corporatist Right; a better term would be ‘democratic.’

But the corporatist Left hates Parliamentary sovereignty, too. The Brown/Starmer scheme aims to devolve power away from Westminster to cities and regions, and we know from Scotland, London and other places where that leads.

Parliament’s defenders are neither Right nor Left. See the community on this subject between someone like Sir Bill and Left orators such as Dennis Skinner, George Galloway and the late Tony Benn. Opposition to Brexit is opposition to the people, from those who would like to say, as the egregiously arrogant German Annalena Baerbock did, ‘no matter what my voters think.’

The full sovereignty we have is a two-edged sword. For good or ill, we have to endure what the current administration plans for us, legitimised by a freakish electoral result. What is done can be undone later, though the interim cost and damage may be enormous.

Meantime we need to reform the seat of our commonly held power. The weak element in our national trinity is the representation of the common people. How do we discipline or even dismiss early those MPs who feel free to ignore the wishes and best interests of their constituents? What system of voting would better reflect the electoral support in a constituency, and how could that proposed system be defended from powerful, self-interested joint PR attacks on it by both major parties as we saw in the 2011 referendum on the Alternative Vote?

After the Labour interregnum we look forward to the restoration and refurbishment of ‘1688 and all that’ so that ‘democracy does not come to a .’

Reposted from Bruges Group Blog

Is Starmer Nuts?

In a word and my opinion, no.

Undoubtedly he is ‘different.’ Many people including myself have commented on his atypical gaze, one of the features on a checklist for autism (see #14 here); the tunelessness in his voice; the apparent lack of empathy; the rigidity of thinking and so on.

But if the PM was crazy he wouldn’t be the first.

Take his PR adviser Tony Blair, for instance. Look at this photo from 1972 and spot the warnings signs 25 years before Hurricane New Labour struck. It didn’t stop him winning three General Elections and inspiring a zoo of subsequent Conservative leaders. He and his chums spotted the vulnerabilities in our Constitution and the mass media and hacked them ruthlessly, externalising the chaos in their own minds. Nothing has felt quite real since 1997; we tried to wake up in 2016 but the Matrix resedated us.

And now we are inside Starmer’s dream; or the one he subcontracted to ‘Golden’ Brown, the great micromanager.

Sir Keir’s dad was an engineer, one of the trades that attract ‘autism spectrum’ neurotypes who are more task-oriented than people-focused; and it’s a heritable trait. Could it be something like that? And if the task is a political ideal…

Do not get in the way of a man with a vision; if he has enough power he will roll right over you, and with 400+ MPs Starmer is a juggernaut; he does not need social skills. Rosie Duffield? A crunching of bones.

Sir Keir is a lawyer, but one who works with the letter of the law rather than serves its spirit. So when the SNP’s Brendan O’Hara claimed Israel’s bombing of civilian areas was against international law, Starmer said it wasn’t; there we are, technically correct. Did only 20.2% of the electorate vote Labour in July? So what, we won by the rules of the game; suck it up.

Is he too Alli-pally, taking the loan of the millionaire’s penthouse? Why, that was to let Starmer Junior revise for GCSEs in quiet. But they only went into the flat ten days after the examinations had started! So what, you should have made that point earlier, the case is over now. Remember, lawyers’ moots are about winning judgments; leave Truth to the philosophers.

Is he greedy and corrupt? Probably he doesn’t think about it - he told a Guardian journalist that he isn’t self-reflective. That’s why he needs the chronically image-conscious Blair (‘eyecatching initiatives… I should be personally associated with as much of this as possible.’) Besides, Starmer doesn’t come across as someone who is in it for the money; we’ll find out after he leaves office.

Perhaps the mindset is akin to that of the ‘good Communist’: the holiday dacha by the Black Sea was a perk but it still belonged to The People. Moral inconsistencies are inevitable in a paradoxical world, but we are working towards the Millenium when all shall be equal. Until then, stop whingeing about irrelevancies.

In any case, it is a mistake to personalise these issues. Modern politics, like commerce, has become corporate. Since 2020 the US has been ostensibly led by Biden-Harris - what I call Sh*ts and Giggles - but it hardly matters what they are like as long as they say the lines. If Starmer resigned tomorrow the show would go on.

We are in the time Peter Hitchens longed to see, the end of the two rotten parties that leaned on each other. The treacherous globalist Tories have died, though they are still twitching; now, unpatriotic and compassionless Labour are fast wearing out their grudging welcome.

We must endure, watch and wait.

Reposted from Bruges Group Blog