Mediaboss Marketing

LONDON (AP) On his way to be crowned this week,King Charles IIIwill travel by gilded coach through streets swathed in red, white and blue Union flags and past a warning from history.

At Trafalgar Square stands a large bronze statue of King Charles I, the 17th-century monarch deposed by Parliament and executed in 1649. On Saturday, more than 1,500 protesters, dressed in yellow for maximum visibility, plan to gather beside it to chant "Not my king" as the royal procession goes by.

"We'll try and keep the atmosphere light, but our aim is to make it impossible to ignore," said Graham Smith, chief executive of the anti-monarchist group Republic.

The coronation, he said, is "a celebration of a corrupt institution. And it is a celebration of one man taking a job that he has not earned."

Republican activists have long struggled to build momentum to dislodge Britain's 1,000-year-old monarchy. But they see the coronation as a moment of opportunity.

READ MORE: What to know about calls for reparations for Britain's legacy of slavery in the Caribbean

Queen Elizabeth II, who died in September after 70 years on the throne, was widely respected because of her longevity and sense of duty. Charles is another matter, a 74-year-old whose family feuds and firm opinions on everything from architecture to the environment have been headline fodder for decades.

Opinion polls suggest opposition and apathy to the monarchy are both growing. In a recent study by the National Center for Social Research, just 29 percent of respondents thought the monarchy was "very important" the lowest level in the center's 40 years of research on the subject. Opposition was highest among the young.

"I think it's definitely shifting," said Smith, whose group wants to replace the monarch with an elected head of state. "People are quite happy to criticize Charles in a way they weren't willing to necessarily in public about the queen."

Millions in Britain will watch broadcasts whenCharles is crowned in Westminster Abbey. Tens of thousands will line the streets, and neighborhoods across the country will hold parties.

But millions more will ignore the ceremonies. Some will attend alternative events, including a gig in Glasgow by tribute band the Scottish Sex Pistols, recapturing the spirit of punks who sang "God save the queen, the fascist regime" during the late queen's 1977 silver jubilee.

London's Newington Green Meeting House, a gathering place for religious dissenters and radicals for 300 years, is holding an "alternative community party," complete with food, drink and "radical and republican" music.

General manager Nick Toner said that the event is for people who "don't want to sit through hours of footage of ceremonies, carriages and endless Union Jacks, perhaps because they think it's a waste of taxpayers' money or even just plain old boring."

WATCH: Death of Queen Elizabeth draws mixed reactions from former British colonies in Africa

While the BBC, Britain's publicly owned national broadcaster, will offer wall-to-wall coronation coverage on Saturday, rival Channel 4 offers an alternative schedule including a musical about disgraced royal Prince Andrew, irreverent sitcom "The Windsors" and documentary "Farewell to the Monarchy."

Some argue that it's grotesque to spend millions on pomp and pageantry amid a cost-of-living crisis that has brought 10 percent inflation, driven thousands to food banks and triggered months of strikes by nurses, teachers and other workers seeking higher pay.

Even Charles' slimmed-down ceremony with about 2,000 guests instead of the 8,000 who attended the queen's coronation in 1953 carries a big price tag for British taxpayers. The full cost won't be known until afterward, butElizabeth's 1953 coronationcost 912,000 pounds, the equivalent of 20.5 million pounds ($26 million) today.

Deputy Prime Minister Oliver Dowden, who helps oversee coronation arrangements, has argued that "people would not want a dour scrimping and scraping" at such a "marvelous moment in our history." Coronation supporters argue that the celebrations will be a boost for brand Britain, attracting tourists and stimulating sales.

Not everyone is convinced.

"I disagree with it," said Philippa Higgins, a 24-year-old receptionist in London. "I just think it seems a bit silly when we've got so many people struggling, to have something so extravagant right now. But some people argue tradition, I suppose."

Opposition to the lavish coronation is especially strong in Scotland and Wales, where some pro-independence nationalists see the monarchy as part of the U.K. state they want to leave.

Some Scottish nationalists object to the Stone of Destiny a 275-pound (125-kilogram) chunk of sandstone linked to both Scottish and English monarchs being sent from Edinburgh to London to take its traditional place under the coronation chair. The iconic rock, a symbol of Scottish nationhood seized by an English king in the 13th century and not returned until 1996, had to be moved to Westminster Abbey in secrecy and amid tight security.

Charles is keen to be seen as a modern monarch, and Buckingham Palace has adapted some of the coronation's ancient traditions for the 21st century. His coronation will be the first to feature contributions fromBuddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh leaders, and the first to include female bishops.

Still, a suggestion from the Church of England that people watching the coronation on TV might want to swear allegiance to the king from their sofas has struck a sour note with some.

Charles is monarch of 14 former British colonies as well as the U.K., and the king has tentatively addressed thelegacy of empire. He supports research into the monarchy's links to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, and last year expressed "personal sorrow" at the suffering caused by slavery though he stopped short of saying sorry.

The number of Charles' realms is likely to dwindle during his reign. Barbados became a republic in 2021 and Jamaica plans to do the same.New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkinssaid this week he wants his country to jettison the crown, though he added that it's not an "urgent priority."

Craig Prescott, a constitutional law expert at Bangor University in Wales, says that in the U.K., the monarchy is probably safe for now because of Britain's tendency to "muddle through" and gradually adapt its politics and constitution to changing times.

"Clearly, if you were going to start from scratch, you would probably never choose one family and say, 'They're going to provide a head of state forever,'" he said. But the arrangement mostly works, and abolishing the crown "isn't on the horizon of any political party."

Still, he sees danger ahead if a young generation that has endured years of austerity, pandemic and economic pinch continues to struggle.

"If the monarchy stands for the status quo, the status quo isn't necessarily great, in generational terms, for a certain section," Prescott said. "If that continues, then that may be a problem for a lot of national institutions in 20 or 30 years' time."

Associated Press videojournalist Kwiyeon Ha contributed to this story.

See the original post here:
UK Republicans call for Saturdays coronation to be the last - PBS NewsHour

WASHINGTON, April 13 (Reuters) - Half of U.S. Republicans think a federal court was motivated by politics when it ordered the suspension of government approval for a widely used abortion pill, a Reuters/Ipsos poll completed on Wednesday found.

Fifty-one percent of self-identified Republicans in the poll said they agreed that the ruling last week - which would essentially make sales of the abortion pill mifepristone illegal - was politically motivated. Only 28% of Republicans disagreed, and the rest said they weren't sure.

A federal appeals court late on Wednesday put the ruling partly on hold, allowing mifepristone to remain available for now but with significant restrictions, while the case proceeds.

Fifty-six percent of overall respondents, including 67% of Democrats, said the decision was politically motivated.

The poll's results point to deepening doubts about the impartiality of the U.S. justice system, and to potential trouble for Republicans in coming elections, including next year's presidential contest.

Many Republicans have campaigned on promises to ban abortion or severely restrict access to it, but a substantial slice of Republican voters support some form of abortion rights.

During his four years in office, Republican former President Donald Trump nominated many federal judges associated with anti-abortion views, including three Supreme Court justices and U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, the judge who suspended approval of mifepristone.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which now leans conservative 6-3, last year struck down women's constitutional right to abortion in a landmark case that is widely seen as a key factor in Republicans' underperforming expectations in last year's congressional elections.

Fifty-one percent of Republicans in the poll, and 73% of Democrats, opposed state-level restrictions on access to abortion pills. Forty-three percent of Republicans said they were less likely to vote for a politician who supports limiting access to abortion.

Doubts in the impartiality of the U.S. legal system have simmered in recent years. A Reuters/Ipsos poll last month found about half of Americans, including one-third of Democrats, believe a New York investigation into whether Trump paid hush money to a porn star is politically motivated.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll gathered responses from 995 adults nationwide, including 433 self-described Democrats and 379 Republicans. The poll had a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 4-6 percentage points in either direction.

Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Leslie Adler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Go here to see the original:
Half of Republicans say politics drove US abortion-pill court ruling, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows - Reuters

Mother Pence, an AI-generated portrait of Mike Pence in drag (all images courtesy RuPublicans)

As Republicans in Florida, Tennessee, and beyond continue to push harmful rhetoric and legislation that oppresses and targets drag queens and performances, one Instagram account is striking back in true queen fashion: with high style and satire. Launched one week ago, @RuPublicans uses the AI image generation tool Midjourney to generate imaginary portraits of GOP higher-ups in high drag. Leave it to drag to make Republicans less of a drag!

Were huge fans of drag, RuPublicans co-creators Craig and Stephen (who preferred to use their first names only) told Hyperallergic. It has brought so much joy to our lives. Bearing witness to the GOPs anti-drag rhetoric and actions made us want to do something. So for the last 2 weeks, weve been creating AI-generated images just as over the top and ridiculous as the false narratives around drag.

The results are fabulous. Who needs Ted Cruz when we can have Cruzella Deville, a fur-draped queen whose fashion sense is as murderous as her politics? Steve Bannon is famously disheveled, but Bombshell Bannon serves a double helping of lewk along with a steady stream of misinformation. And we can all agree pink is Mike Pences color. The portraits are accompanied by delightful descriptions. Say hello to the GOPs downfall darling, Rudy Garland, serving cuckoo couture, reads the caption for an image of Rudy Giuliani in a cheetah-print coat. She used to run the Big Apple, but now shes the juiciest peach on the streets, wandering the Upper East Side looking for her next gig (NOT the Four Seasons, honey). You thought the only thing she could leak was hair dye? Girl, watch her spill the tea!

The comments on the posts are equally hilarious. One AI portrait of Ron DeSantis Rhonda Shanty sitting in a bookstore wearing a puffy-sleeved gown brought hundreds of comments. Pictured with the only books left in Florida, said one user, referencing the Republican governors crackdown on critical race theory and learning in general.

Though the accounts co-creators are not themselves drag performers, they describe themselves as two queens (husbands) who appreciate the art and what it has done for so many.

They also highlight the ways in which the speculative power of artificial intelligence whose potential for harm has been the subject of headlines lately can be harnessed for activism, and humor.

The world doesnt need more hate these days, the pair said. It needs more beauty and laughter. If it takes AI generated wigs and glitter to elevate awareness of this important issue, were here to do it.

See the original post here:
AI Portraits of Republicans in Drag to Get You Through the Week - Hyperallergic

Despite Gov. Bill Lee calling for the state legislature to take action on guns, Republican lawmakers seem hesitant to make any moves.

State Republican leaders stood with Lee as he announced his plan to increase school security following the Covenant School shooting. At his press conference on Tuesday, he stood alone as he called for action on gun reform, and statements from Republican legislators following the announcement indicate hesitancy.

I am committed to protecting Tennesseans constitutional rights, including the right to due process, said Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) in a statement Tuesday. I have always been and continue to be opposed to so-called red-flag laws because they deprive citizens of their rights without due process.

Despite Johnsons opposition to anything called a red-flag law, his statement does not completely shut off the possibility of any gun legislation. He goes on to say he is in favor of making sure criminals and thoseexperiencing a severe mental health crisis do not have access to guns, saying, I am not willing to express support for or opposition to a bill that I have not seen.

His sentiment was mirrored by Rep. Jason Zachary (R-Knoxville) in the House, who took to Twitter with a video statement Wednesday in which he said the Republicans in the House are not going to support a red-flag law, period. Zachary did acknowledge that conversations are underway to figure out what can be done to make sure someone who poses a direct, credible, imminent threat does not have access to a gun effectively the goal of red-flag laws.

Despite resistance from some Republicans, others seem to be more on board with getting gun legislation through this session. Rep. Sam Whitson (R-Franklin) tells the Scene that on Monday he plans to sign onto a late-filed bill by Rep. Bob Freeman (D-Nashville) that would implement extreme risk protection orders, which would authorize law enforcement or relatives to petition for someone deemed a threat to themselves or others to have their guns taken away.

Ive heard from so many Williamson County traditional Republicans who said overwhelmingly, we really need to do something about this gun violence, says Whitson. The Williamson County representative has traditionally been more open to gun regulation than some of his Republican colleagues, saying he does not support constitutional carry and co-sponsoring another bill this session that would have required people to have guns secured in their cars. That bill was taken off notice by its sponsor, Rep. Caleb Hemmer (D-Nashville).

A red-flag law typically allows a court to order that someone's guns be taken away from them based on the testimony from family or law enforcement saying they may be a danger to themselves or others. These laws take slightly different forms in terms of enforcement across the country, but essentially accomplish the same thing: keeping guns out of the hands of people who may be a threat. Critics of red-flag laws argue that they infringe on Second Amendment rights, with House SpeakerCameron Sexton (R-Crossville) telling reporters earlier this month that he had yet to see a red-flag law around the country that he would support.

Students, parents and allies rally for gun reform at the state Capitol

Lt. Gov. Randy McNally (R-Oak Ridge) came out in support of some form of red-flag legislation after the Covenant shooting, but he made it clear that other members of the Senate Republican Caucus might not feel the same way.

The Tennessee Firearms Association, a gun lobbying group, was quick to speak out against Lees proposal. On Tuesday, the groups executive director John Harris released a statement calling the governors calls for red-flag type laws unconstitutional, although Lee did not expressly say red-flag during his presser, instead calling for order-of-protection laws.

Do not let it go unnoticed that while Governor Lee takes the opportunity of the Covenant school murders to make calls for gun control, he has not once called for immediately arming teachers (as he promised in 2018), for immediately enacting REAL constitutional carry, or for immediately repealing numerous gun free zones, reads the statement.

Despite the Republican supermajoritys resistance to any gun restrictions, Democrats have continued to make attempts at some common-sense gun laws. A bill from Sen. Jeff Yarbro (D-Nashville) would have introduced red-flag laws following an amendment, but it has not moved yet. Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Sen. Todd Gardenhire (R-Chattanooga) said after the shooting that his committee would not take up any gun laws for the rest of the session. A late-filed bill from Sen. Heidi Campbell (D-Nashville) would ban assault weapons but would need to be unanimously approved by a panel made up of the speaker of the Senate, the Senate majority leader and the Senate minority leader.

Senate Minority Leader Raumesh Akbari (D-Memphis) came out in support of the governor, saying he is right to make this a priority before session ends. We are ready to work with the governor and the supermajority to get something done.

The clock is ticking for any action on guns, as some reports suggest the legislature could seek to end its business for the year as soon as next week.

Update, 1:35 p.m.: Shortly after this story was published, Freeman's extreme risk protection bill failed in the House Delayed Bills Committee.

See the rest here:
State Republicans Resist Lee's Call for Action on Guns - Nashville Scene

The reality, Norris wrote, is:

Since the early 1980s, on issue after issue from abortion; secular values; civil rights; racial, homosexual and gender equality; gun control; cosmopolitanism; and environmentalism the pool of social conservatives adopting traditional views on these moral and social identity issues has been shrinking in size within the U.S. national electorate, from majority to minority status. They are running down an up escalator.

With their backs to the wall, Norris argued, conservatives have capitalized on

institutional features of U.S. elections that allow Republicans to seek to dismantle checks on executive power including the extreme decentralization of electoral administration to partisan officials with minimal federal regulation, partisan gerrymandering of districts, overrepresentation of rural states in the U.S. Senate and Electoral College, partisan appointments in the judiciary, primary elections rallying the faithful in the base but excluding the less mobilized moderate independents, the role of money from rich donors in elections and campaigns and so on and so forth. The Trump presidency exacerbated these developments, but their roots are far deeper and more enduring.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a law professor at Harvard, noted in an email that state policy outcomes are becoming more bimodal liberal or conservative, rather than centrist than in previous eras and that the misalignment between public policy and public opinion is pervasive in modern American politics, particularly in red states where public policy is far more extreme and conservative than the public wants.

In theory, the hostility of average voters to extreme issue stances can pressure politicians to move toward the center, Stephanopoulos contended, but this aligning impact of general elections can be reduced through tactics like gerrymandering, which make it unlikely that even large swings in public opinion will much alter the composition of the legislature.

In addition, in Stephanopouloss view, in a highly polarized era, the pressure to moderate in order to win general elections faces growing counterpressure to take immoderate positions in order to win primaries:

Theres little that could persuade many voters to ever support the other side. And while general elections might be aligning, theyre pitted against many misaligning forces: the views of activists and donors, the need to win the primary election to be re-elected, pressure from legislative leadership, politicians own often extreme ideologies and so on. Its no surprise that the misaligning forces are often stronger.

Bruce Cain, a political scientist at Stanford, made the argument by email that given the clustering of communities along political, cultural and social lines in the United States presently and the dispersion of powers in American federalism, we should expect our state and local laboratories to yield a wide dispersion of products, especially when they are given more freedom to experiment.

So why dont all states converge on the national median, as revealed by the polls? Cain asked and answered that there are real public opinion differences across states and local communities, especially on hot-button social issues.

Ultimately, Cain continued, if elected officials and judges get too far out of alignment with voters, they will get the message in the form of surprising electoral outcomes, as recently occurred in Wisconsin. Democrats in the 70s and 80s experienced the same on busing, crime and welfare.

See the article here:
Opinion | The Republican Strategists Who Have Carefully Planned All of This - The New York Times