Isn't laying stones what masons are supposed to do?
<fetches coat>
Actually, the double meaning there was probably intentional from the start: the symbolism of Freemasonry is based on the trappings of the old-style building trades, in homage to the construction of Solomon's Temple.
For some reason, I also have the idea that Freemasons went in for neo-classical architecture specifically, which would fit with the Capitol. Though the Temple in my hometown is Gothic Revival.
Silly Shipmate, it wasn't the Hudson, it was the Delaware. That's how George Washington got across, don't you know? He was booked in first class on that flight, and when the plane landed on the water he simply had his troops row a life raft to shore with him in it on horseback, of course, as the famous painting shows.
Well, now I've seen the painting on which Lydia's famous tattoo must have been based:
She can give you a view of the world in tattoo
If you step up and tell her where
For a dime you can see Kankakee or Paree
Or Washington crossing The Delaware
We have a masonic lodge in Romsey too. It's an ordinary brick building with white columns plastered on the front and something weird on the door. I haven't been invited even though I attended the Anglican church for a couple of years, probably because I'm a Catholic and the church was full of old blokes. The rules of Victorian Sectarianism dictate that I must join the Knights of the Southern Cross. I think Apex and Rotary are available to everyone, but that might have been different in the past. I hate sectarianism but cling to my victimhood. Odd, really.
You could join the Odd Fellows then, although Wiki talks about 'Catholic opposition'.
Keeping with the theme of this thread, we can certainly state that the person talked about is a rather odd fellow, with whom many will not want to have fellowship.
And speaking of 'oops', here is an article from The Guardian (other newspapers are available) about a newly-unveiled, rather unwieldy statue of FLOTUS which received, shall we say, somewhat mixed reviews.
We have a masonic lodge in Romsey too. It's an ordinary brick building with white columns plastered on the front and something weird on the door.
Is it this one? That's the style I'd consider to be traditionally masonic, ie. triangular with neo=classical columns.
The checkerboard floor on the door represents the typical interior of a lodge. I'm not sure about the two blue doors, maybe the left hand and the right hand of God(which are a big deal in masonic ritual).
You could join the Odd Fellows then, although Wiki talks about 'Catholic opposition'.
Keeping with the theme of this thread, we can certainly state that the person talked about is a rather odd fellow, with whom many will not want to have fellowship.
But we are well within our rites to lodge complaints against him.
And now the British Ambassador has the gall to call our President inept and clumsy--radiating insecurity! With friends like this, who needs enemies? The Gull! It took this long for the ambassador to admit it!
Ambassadors are supposed to give their opinions, which may be critical, in total confidence back to the Foreign Office.
If those opinions are to be hacked and made public, then we may as well give up.
I would also suppose that the American ambassador to the UK, would also send back some frank responses about the UK government - with a better chance of confidentiality being maintained - but who knows?
Since the leak of 44 years' worth of US diplomatic cables, we don't really need to speculate. The Guardian posted an article on the cables that were critical of Gordon Brown.
Jeffrey Epstein, one of Trumps billionaire friends has just been arrested for sex with, and selling of, underage girls. The last time he bought himself out of it but this time it looks like it might stick. [Sentence redacted for legal reasons. BroJames Purgatory Host] In an interview, referring to Epstein, Trump told New York Magazine, "“It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Host hat on@Twilight, I have redacted your post because it seemed to me that it could be read as stating as fact something not substantiated in the linked news story. Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
The big story with Epstein isn't Trump (well, not per se); it's Alexander Acosta, the current Secretary of Labor. Back when Acosta was U.S. Attorney (USA) for the Southern District of Florida—the supervising federal prosecutor for that district, and, importantly for this story, a prime posting for folks looking to become federal judges—he cut the [redacted] deal in favor of Epstein.
It's no secret that Acosta has been gunning for an appointment to the federal judiciary for years. The thought has been that he's been moderating his position as Secretary of Labor, compared to other Trump cabinet members, because he's trying to keep his nose clean and look Judicial and Moderate for his Senate confirmation hearings.
This kind of sweetheart deal in favor of a sex offender doesn't play well for the cameras when you're in front of the Judiciary Committee. Even as corrupt and spineless as the modern Senate leadership is, this may be a step too far—especially those who enjoy a reputation as "tough on crime."
Goodbye, Judge Acosta, and your lifetime posting to the DC Circuit...
Host hat on@Ariston, I’m sorry to redact your post also, but in the sources I could find, the adjective used was ‘unconstitutional’ - I couldn’t see that your choice of word had been established.
Everyone please be aware that the Ship can’t afford to risk a defamation claim. Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
That is true. There is a difference between British liability laws and American laws in this regard. However, it is my hypothesis that Jefferies may (or may not) be an Achilles heel for our leader. Purely on the watch list, Simon Toad, is it your turn or my turn to bring the popcorn?
I like a certain Pennsylvania brand of "Black and Tan" with my popcorn.
Is there really a Black and Tan brand of popcorn? I immediately think of the awful Black and Tans dispatched to Ireland to suppress the Catholic majority.
I just wanted to get into the story of UK's ambassador to the US. Good summary from the BBC here.
In case you haven't been following, here's a quick summary:
Sir Kim Darroch in the UK ambassador who wrote official emails to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in which he described Trump and his administration in unflattering terms. For example:
[He] Describes bitter conflicts within Trump's White House – verified by his own sources – as 'knife fights';
[He] Warns that Trump could have been indebted to 'dodgy Russians';
[He] Claims the President's economic policies could wreck the world trade system;
[and he said the following:]
"[The administartion]...could crash and burn... and we could be at the beginning of a downward spiral... that leads to disgrace and downfall"
"We don't really believe this Administration is going to become substantially more normal; less dysfunctional; less unpredictable; less faction riven; less diplomatically clumsy and inept."
These emails were leaked to the Mail on Sunday and published over the weekend.
As everyone here, no doubt knows, the one thing that Mr Trump really can't stand is accurate criticism and thus has taken to Twitter in his usual style with articulate quips that I will paraphrase as follows:
I know you are but what am I?
You smell
No one cares what you think, I certainly don't
No, I'm not crying, you are!
But here's the odd thing, I think Sir Kim has acted professionally throughout, has done his job well but will still have to resign.
If he had made his (accurate) comments publically, that would be a problem - that would be him failing in his duty as a professional diplomat. He didn't do that. If he had not sent an honest and insightful assessment of the Trump administration to the FCO that would also be a professional failing. He has done his job well and professionally and gave the Foreign Office* the information they needed. He has acted appropriately throughout and has been undermined by someone who has illegally leaked confidential information. But I still think he'll have to go because, if it is genuinely true that the Trump administration will not deal with the Ambassador then he can no longer do his job.
If it was up to me, I would try to find some way to promote him.
AFZ
*Just to be clear the UK equivalent of the State Department is formally known as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office it is often referred to by this shorter name of the initials 'FCO' - as you see, I have lazily used all three...
Well, Darroch's position in Washington untenable for the foreseeable future. Perhaps a move to Moscow, though potential sources in the Kremlin would probably be less forthcoming than their opposites in the White House.
Well, Darroch's position in Washington untenable for the foreseeable future. Perhaps a move to Moscow, though potential sources in the Kremlin would probably be less forthcoming than their opposites in the White House.
Um... no, they wouldn't. That's the point. He accurately described Trump's Whitehouse.
If [ British ambassador Kim Darroch ] had made his (accurate) comments publically, that would be a problem - that would be him failing in his duty as a professional diplomat. He didn't do that. If he had not sent an honest and insightful assessment of the Trump administration to the FCO that would also be a professional failing. He has done his job well and professionally and gave the Foreign Office the information they needed. He has acted appropriately throughout and has been undermined by someone who has illegally leaked confidential information. But I still think he'll have to go because, if it is genuinely true that the Trump administration will not deal with the Ambassador then he can no longer do his job.
The other option is to dismiss the leaked cables as "fake news", praise Darroch for being "politically incorrect", and say the leaks came from the "deep state" in an effort to subvert the legitimate government. That's how these things are handled now, right?
Yes if the White House won't talk to him and he feels he cannot go to diplomatic events then his position is untenable. Trumps bullying, childish behaviour has meant that Darroch will be changed out. This is annoying as it panders to Orange baby. Rewarding him for his strop. If Darroch is to be replaced the new person needs to be as strong. Trump should stay out of British politics
Regardless of the cast of characters involved, I think any ambassador who had these sorts of comments publicized would be out of his position.
And yes, I know, he was only giving his honest opinion as per his assigned duties, and the comments were made public against his wishes. But when you're occupying a high-profile position in the world of international diplomay, dems da breaks.
He's already been "disinvited" from a dinner being hosted by Steve Mnuchin, the US Secretary of the Treasury, as part of a visit by officials from Qatar.
As for replacing him, the orange baby has apparently suggested* Farage.
The world really has run mad.
* as if it was in his gift to suggest, which it isn't.
Well, Darroch's position in Washington untenable for the foreseeable future. Perhaps a move to Moscow, though potential sources in the Kremlin would probably be less forthcoming than their opposites in the White House.
Just FYI, Politico has an opinion piece by Ivor Roberts, British ambassador in Rome in 2004, who says:
Britain should stand by its man in DC.
I’ve been in Kim Darroch’s shoes — it’s not fun but it’s not fatal.
Attorney General William Barr on Monday announced his recusal from the high-profile Jeffrey Epstein case because his former law firm once represented the convicted sex offender.
"I am recused from that matter because one of the law firms that represented Epstein long ago was a firm I subsequently joined for a period of time," Barr told reporters in South Carolina. Earlier today, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York indicted Epstein on felony charges related to sex trafficking minors, including one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors.
I'm not a legal ethicist, but the fact that a law firm he joined did some work for Epstein prior to his joining the firm doesn't seem like recusal is an absolute necessity. Still, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety can be a good thing. From my perspective the bigger grounds would be the fact that Barr's now-deceased father, Donald, hired Epstein (who never graduated college) to teach math and physics at the Dalton School (a mixed gender private school). I believe Epstein's students were either Middle School or High School aged. (That's mid- to late-teens for those unfamiliar with the American education system.)
But Barr will recuse himself from an internal Justice Department probe of current Labor Secretary’s Alex Acosta involvement in approving a controversial no-prosecution deal with the wealthy financier a decade ago, an official said.
So at last we have an example of an Attorney General "unrecusing" himself, to borrow a Trumpian term. I wonder what caused such a quick turn around?
I like a certain Pennsylvania brand of "Black and Tan" with my popcorn.
Is there really a Black and Tan brand of popcorn? I immediately think of the awful Black and Tans dispatched to Ireland to suppress the Catholic majority.
No, no, Mister Toad. You missed the meaning of my comment. WITH my popcorn. WITH. The Black & Tan is a brewery product from Southern PA, along with other things like lager, etc. I do like the nutty flavoUr of the small ears of multi-coloUr popcorn, which is raised on family farms. OK now? Good.
@Pearl B4 Swine lol NO! The drink was clearly brewed by filthy Irish Unionists! What's wrong with a lovely Murphy's brewed in Rebel Cork?
Back to the UK's problems the British are fortunate that there is a new PM around the corner. It gives them an opportunity for a reset. I would let Trump's rage subside, mollify him by giving Boris the gig and wait maybe a year before recalling the ambassador and giving him a seat in the Lords. He has done a great job and he has to be seen to be protected for the sake of the British diplomatic corps.
I did laugh though. Shit at men's cricket, worse at Women's cricket (Elise Perry's a champion) shit at diplomacy. àaaaaaaahhh.
Miss Amanda -- given the way Trump has now repeatedly trashed Mrs. May, your suggestion -- even in jest -- adds insult to injury, IMO.
Simon -- note that the ambassador's stint is up in not very many months anyway. And I really don't think "mollifying" Trump is a reasonable reason for people to support Boris for PM...the suggestion reeks to me of the idea that the UK should recognize that TRump is the King of the WOrld he thinks he is, and let him trample over the UK and every other country at will. Actually not "at will": at whim.
Boris is acting like he's a shoe-in - small target and all that fafafa waaah! Boris wins again!
Nevertheless I'm pleased the English are over the Special Relationship. That will make Australia's task of beating you in the America's Best Ally reality competition that much easier. Already Trump has patted our PM on the head and called him a great guy and a winner. He's forgotten that it was our former Foreign Minister who ratted on George Panadopolous.
I love it when the Barmy Army goes quiet at the cricket. You're not singing. You're not singing. You're not singing anymore!
Well, Darroch's position in Washington untenable for the foreseeable future. Perhaps a move to Moscow, though potential sources in the Kremlin would probably be less forthcoming than their opposites in the White House.
Just FYI, Politico has an opinion piece by Ivor Roberts, British ambassador in Rome in 2004, who says:
Britain should stand by its man in DC.
I’ve been in Kim Darroch’s shoes — it’s not fun but it’s not fatal.
Miss Amanda -- given the way Trump has now repeatedly trashed Mrs. May, your suggestion -- even in jest -- adds insult to injury, IMO.
Simon -- note that the ambassador's stint is up in not very many months anyway. And I really don't think "mollifying" Trump is a reasonable reason for people to support Boris for PM...the suggestion reeks to me of the idea that the UK should recognize that TRump is the King of the WOrld he thinks he is, and let him trample over the UK and every other country at will. Actually not "at will": at whim.
Well, the inference, which is astonishing, is that the UK should have its representative abroad chosen by another power. It's particularly ironic in the light of the Brexiter claim that we will never let this happen again. Boris isn't in the job yet, and he is the little doggy that wagged its tail and wanted its tummy tickled.
I'm having a vague memory (maybe someone here remembers better than I do), that once before Trump tried to suggest to another country his choice of Ambassador to the U.S. I believe he was ignored -- and probably caused much laughter in whatever country it was.
I'm having a vague memory (maybe someone here remembers better than I do), that once before Trump tried to suggest to another country his choice of Ambassador to the U.S. I believe he was ignored -- and probably caused much laughter in whatever country it was.
Wikileaks tried to suggest that Julian Assange be appointed Australia's ambassador to the United States. I don't think anyone took it seriously.
Attorney General William Barr on Monday announced his recusal from the high-profile Jeffrey Epstein case because his former law firm once represented the convicted sex offender.
"I am recused from that matter because one of the law firms that represented Epstein long ago was a firm I subsequently joined for a period of time," Barr told reporters in South Carolina. Earlier today, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York indicted Epstein on felony charges related to sex trafficking minors, including one count of conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of minors.
I'm not a legal ethicist, but the fact that a law firm he joined did some work for Epstein prior to his joining the firm doesn't seem like recusal is an absolute necessity. Still, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety can be a good thing.
So, this one's important. And, while IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and if you're the kind of person lawyer disciplinary rules apply to, you know better than to think it is, conflicts are a big honkin' deal for lahyas, especially guvment lahyas.
There's more about this on Above the Law, home of all things scandalous in American law. They get into the heart of this, which is: nobody these days actually expects that Administration officials who were in private practice are going to follow the rules.
Most jurisdictions have adopted some version of ABA Rules 1.11 for government lawyers, which incorporates Rule 1.9, on duties to former clients,, which are the baseline standard for when a lawyer is conflicted after someone in their firm represented a client. These imputed conflicts are quite the thorny problem in the larger (read: lucrative and prestigious) American law firms, since a conflict due to one lawyer at one office representing one client can be imputed to every other lawyer at every office of the entire firm.
But government agencies often have their own conflicts guidelines—which can cause bigger headaches when someone's Big Firm is a repeat player in all the biggest issues before the agency. Attorneys General having to recuse themselves is only the most visible issue here. The 5-seat (now 4-member) National Labor Relations Board ran into issues when a 3-2 decision in one of its biggest cases became a de facto 2-1 decision because two of the Republican (management-side) appointees had worked for the two largest management-side law firms...who of course were working on the most prominent labor law case at that time. It's proven a constant headache for advancing their agenda at the Board, leading to all kinds of interesting administrative maneuvering.
So, TL;DR: it's absolutely a huge deal. It just hasn't usually been that visible, because people are aboveboard about these kinds of things, and just follow their agency's regs and the disciplinary rules. Like, when you're applying for the job, they ask you who you worked for, they have people whose whole job it is to check your conflicts and make sure you can work on things, you're expected to keep records of every single thing you've ever worked on and every person you ever worked with since your first law school pro bono project, and follow The Rules without question...because you and your clients can face pretty nasty consequences if you don't. In more normal times, folks not doing that is Scandalous. Nowadays? It's a shock that anyone bothers doing the bare minimum of what the law and their own rules tell them to do.
I'm having a vague memory (maybe someone here remembers better than I do), that once before Trump tried to suggest to another country his choice of Ambassador to the U.S. I believe he was ignored -- and probably caused much laughter in whatever country it was.
Wikileaks tried to suggest that Julian Assange be appointed Australia's ambassador to the United States. I don't think anyone took it seriously.
As for Assange, I believe his idea was that Trump propose the nomination, which would give him some sort of diplomatic immunity. The odd thing was that Assange seemed to admit that he wouldn't actually become ambassador, but that he'd still have enough prestige to become untouchable, just by Trump making the suggestion. Thia sort of confirms my view that Assange is a political naif, who was out of his depths in trying to influence international politics.
He'll probably be replaced by someone worse. And Trump may well appoint an Acting Secretary of Labor, so he wouldn't need Senate confirmation (I think).
trump is going to bomb Iran, or otherwise do a 1939 "Poland attacked us" first. Because he, for no reason at all except political gain, withdrew USA from the Iran nuclear deal, and is threatening every other country with sanctions of they don't do what this bully wants. Which has no basis in anything. America's foreign policy, does it have one? Didn't think so with this gang.
NP, I hope against hope you're wrong about Iran; the US House has passed some sort of resolution to restrain him from this, but there may be zero chance of this passing the US Senate. I think what restrains him at the mo is that he wants to hang onto this possibility as a way to boost re-electability chances if he thinks he might lose come election time (the US, according to Conventional Wisdom (tm), typically hangs onto Commanders-in-Chief in wartime).
That said, even the most casual observer can see that this administration HAS NO foreign policy, aside from trying to keep Putin happy. If there's some organizing principle behind what T and/or his diplomats* (that's the Croesus asterisk there), it's beyond the reach of ordinary human reason.
Based on what I'm reading from the analyst Elijah Magnier and others, I'm beginning to think Trump doesn't want war with Iran. He was hoping to force some concession, any concession from Iran with his brinksmanship, so he could tell everyone how he renegotiated the deal. But any concession by Iran would be even more disastrous for them domestically than any concession by Trump would be for him. So Trump has both cornered Iran and painted himself into that same corner. Barring some diplomatic miracle, even without US provocation, Iran may feel no choice but to lash out to escape the economic strangulation. It would be a horrific war for Iran but there will be plenty of hurt for everyone else and when the dust settles they might come out ahead.
Now the US is threatening Turkey with sanctions for buying Russian missiles. Among the threats is cutting Turkey out of the F-35 program. Which may be just as well for Turkey since the F-35 is apparently a waste of money.
Comments
<fetches coat>
Actually, the double meaning there was probably intentional from the start: the symbolism of Freemasonry is based on the trappings of the old-style building trades, in homage to the construction of Solomon's Temple.
For some reason, I also have the idea that Freemasons went in for neo-classical architecture specifically, which would fit with the Capitol. Though the Temple in my hometown is Gothic Revival.
Well, now I've seen the painting on which Lydia's famous tattoo must have been based:
Keeping with the theme of this thread, we can certainly state that the person talked about is a rather odd fellow, with whom many will not want to have fellowship.
Is it this one? That's the style I'd consider to be traditionally masonic, ie. triangular with neo=classical columns.
The checkerboard floor on the door represents the typical interior of a lodge. I'm not sure about the two blue doors, maybe the left hand and the right hand of God(which are a big deal in masonic ritual).
But we are well within our rites to lodge complaints against him.
If those opinions are to be hacked and made public, then we may as well give up.
I would also suppose that the American ambassador to the UK, would also send back some frank responses about the UK government - with a better chance of confidentiality being maintained - but who knows?
Here.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
It's no secret that Acosta has been gunning for an appointment to the federal judiciary for years. The thought has been that he's been moderating his position as Secretary of Labor, compared to other Trump cabinet members, because he's trying to keep his nose clean and look Judicial and Moderate for his Senate confirmation hearings.
This kind of sweetheart deal in favor of a sex offender doesn't play well for the cameras when you're in front of the Judiciary Committee. Even as corrupt and spineless as the modern Senate leadership is, this may be a step too far—especially those who enjoy a reputation as "tough on crime."
Goodbye, Judge Acosta, and your lifetime posting to the DC Circuit...
Everyone please be aware that the Ship can’t afford to risk a defamation claim.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
Is there really a Black and Tan brand of popcorn? I immediately think of the awful Black and Tans dispatched to Ireland to suppress the Catholic majority.
In case you haven't been following, here's a quick summary:
Sir Kim Darroch in the UK ambassador who wrote official emails to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in which he described Trump and his administration in unflattering terms. For example:
These emails were leaked to the Mail on Sunday and published over the weekend.
As everyone here, no doubt knows, the one thing that Mr Trump really can't stand is accurate criticism and thus has taken to Twitter in his usual style with articulate quips that I will paraphrase as follows:
I know you are but what am I?
You smell
No one cares what you think, I certainly don't
No, I'm not crying, you are!
But here's the odd thing, I think Sir Kim has acted professionally throughout, has done his job well but will still have to resign.
If he had made his (accurate) comments publically, that would be a problem - that would be him failing in his duty as a professional diplomat. He didn't do that. If he had not sent an honest and insightful assessment of the Trump administration to the FCO that would also be a professional failing. He has done his job well and professionally and gave the Foreign Office* the information they needed. He has acted appropriately throughout and has been undermined by someone who has illegally leaked confidential information. But I still think he'll have to go because, if it is genuinely true that the Trump administration will not deal with the Ambassador then he can no longer do his job.
If it was up to me, I would try to find some way to promote him.
AFZ
*Just to be clear the UK equivalent of the State Department is formally known as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office it is often referred to by this shorter name of the initials 'FCO' - as you see, I have lazily used all three...
Um... no, they wouldn't. That's the point. He accurately described Trump's Whitehouse.
AFZ
The other option is to dismiss the leaked cables as "fake news", praise Darroch for being "politically incorrect", and say the leaks came from the "deep state" in an effort to subvert the legitimate government. That's how these things are handled now, right?
And yes, I know, he was only giving his honest opinion as per his assigned duties, and the comments were made public against his wishes. But when you're occupying a high-profile position in the world of international diplomay, dems da breaks.
As for replacing him, the orange baby has apparently suggested* Farage.
The world really has run mad.
* as if it was in his gift to suggest, which it isn't.
Just FYI, Politico has an opinion piece by Ivor Roberts, British ambassador in Rome in 2004, who says:
I'm not a legal ethicist, but the fact that a law firm he joined did some work for Epstein prior to his joining the firm doesn't seem like recusal is an absolute necessity. Still, avoiding even the appearance of impropriety can be a good thing. From my perspective the bigger grounds would be the fact that Barr's now-deceased father, Donald, hired Epstein (who never graduated college) to teach math and physics at the Dalton School (a mixed gender private school). I believe Epstein's students were either Middle School or High School aged. (That's mid- to late-teens for those unfamiliar with the American education system.)
Anyway, that was yesterday. This is today:
So at last we have an example of an Attorney General "unrecusing" himself, to borrow a Trumpian term. I wonder what caused such a quick turn around?
No, no, Mister Toad. You missed the meaning of my comment. WITH my popcorn. WITH. The Black & Tan is a brewery product from Southern PA, along with other things like lager, etc. I do like the nutty flavoUr of the small ears of multi-coloUr popcorn, which is raised on family farms. OK now? Good.
Back to the UK's problems the British are fortunate that there is a new PM around the corner. It gives them an opportunity for a reset. I would let Trump's rage subside, mollify him by giving Boris the gig and wait maybe a year before recalling the ambassador and giving him a seat in the Lords. He has done a great job and he has to be seen to be protected for the sake of the British diplomatic corps.
I did laugh though. Shit at men's cricket, worse at Women's cricket (Elise Perry's a champion) shit at diplomacy. àaaaaaaahhh.
Simon -- note that the ambassador's stint is up in not very many months anyway. And I really don't think "mollifying" Trump is a reasonable reason for people to support Boris for PM...the suggestion reeks to me of the idea that the UK should recognize that TRump is the King of the WOrld he thinks he is, and let him trample over the UK and every other country at will. Actually not "at will": at whim.
Nevertheless I'm pleased the English are over the Special Relationship. That will make Australia's task of beating you in the America's Best Ally reality competition that much easier. Already Trump has patted our PM on the head and called him a great guy and a winner. He's forgotten that it was our former Foreign Minister who ratted on George Panadopolous.
I love it when the Barmy Army goes quiet at the cricket. You're not singing. You're not singing. You're not singing anymore!
Well, the inference, which is astonishing, is that the UK should have its representative abroad chosen by another power. It's particularly ironic in the light of the Brexiter claim that we will never let this happen again. Boris isn't in the job yet, and he is the little doggy that wagged its tail and wanted its tummy tickled.
Wikileaks tried to suggest that Julian Assange be appointed Australia's ambassador to the United States. I don't think anyone took it seriously.
So, this one's important. And, while IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and if you're the kind of person lawyer disciplinary rules apply to, you know better than to think it is, conflicts are a big honkin' deal for lahyas, especially guvment lahyas.
There's more about this on Above the Law, home of all things scandalous in American law. They get into the heart of this, which is: nobody these days actually expects that Administration officials who were in private practice are going to follow the rules.
Most jurisdictions have adopted some version of ABA Rules 1.11 for government lawyers, which incorporates Rule 1.9, on duties to former clients,, which are the baseline standard for when a lawyer is conflicted after someone in their firm represented a client. These imputed conflicts are quite the thorny problem in the larger (read: lucrative and prestigious) American law firms, since a conflict due to one lawyer at one office representing one client can be imputed to every other lawyer at every office of the entire firm.
But government agencies often have their own conflicts guidelines—which can cause bigger headaches when someone's Big Firm is a repeat player in all the biggest issues before the agency. Attorneys General having to recuse themselves is only the most visible issue here. The 5-seat (now 4-member) National Labor Relations Board ran into issues when a 3-2 decision in one of its biggest cases became a de facto 2-1 decision because two of the Republican (management-side) appointees had worked for the two largest management-side law firms...who of course were working on the most prominent labor law case at that time. It's proven a constant headache for advancing their agenda at the Board, leading to all kinds of interesting administrative maneuvering.
So, TL;DR: it's absolutely a huge deal. It just hasn't usually been that visible, because people are aboveboard about these kinds of things, and just follow their agency's regs and the disciplinary rules. Like, when you're applying for the job, they ask you who you worked for, they have people whose whole job it is to check your conflicts and make sure you can work on things, you're expected to keep records of every single thing you've ever worked on and every person you ever worked with since your first law school pro bono project, and follow The Rules without question...because you and your clients can face pretty nasty consequences if you don't. In more normal times, folks not doing that is Scandalous. Nowadays? It's a shock that anyone bothers doing the bare minimum of what the law and their own rules tell them to do.
I think Pigwidgeon might have been remembering Trump's suggestion of Farage as UK ambassador to the USA.
As for Assange, I believe his idea was that Trump propose the nomination, which would give him some sort of diplomatic immunity. The odd thing was that Assange seemed to admit that he wouldn't actually become ambassador, but that he'd still have enough prestige to become untouchable, just by Trump making the suggestion. Thia sort of confirms my view that Assange is a political naif, who was out of his depths in trying to influence international politics.
Acosta has resigned. See story here.
He'll probably be replaced by someone worse. And Trump may well appoint an Acting Secretary of Labor, so he wouldn't need Senate confirmation (I think).
That said, even the most casual observer can see that this administration HAS NO foreign policy, aside from trying to keep Putin happy. If there's some organizing principle behind what T and/or his diplomats* (that's the Croesus asterisk there), it's beyond the reach of ordinary human reason.