received pronunciation

I wonder when and why 'tis, archaic but a formal elision in the English language—for it is and possibly with a grammatical mandate that one finds in other languages, like French and German, was transformed into the more familiar, yet considered acceptable only in speech and not committed to paper (though those standards are generally relaxed), contraction it's.
Attested use of 'tis extends back to the year 1450, but I suspect it was spoken for generations before being committed to paper, and it's appeared from the late 1600s on, around the same time as English writing started using an apostrophe (adopted from the French style) to stand in for the lost letters and sounds. Both flow when spoken, as do dozens of others, but given the legacy of certain well-defined instances of stock-phrases where 'tis does not ring as antique, I wonder what caused this shift from fore to aft. With the exception of won't, most English contractions are not really economising agents, usually just exchanging in print one character for another—whereas with Norse languages, at least in regional parlance, whole hackneyed phrases could be expressed with brevity, though not necessarily intelligibility outside of ones region. 'Twas is also a good question over it's—it is, it was or carelessly possessive. Like with the case of 'tis and it's, I wonder if there are any other historical examples, not frozen by song or tale, where there was a similar sort of reshuffling and an abbreviation that was rearranged. Once upon a time cannot was rendered ca'n't.

comptoir national d'escompte

Already facing bullying by US authorities for violating (US) economic sanctions imposed against certain unfriendly nations during the past decade, France's diplomatic judgment and will is being freshly questioned by America.  It’s a tragic irony that a nation’s banks and military-industrial complex, instead of the crown and sceptre, have become the synecdoche for a government, people and posture.  Told it would be unwise to allow the sale of a new warship to Russia, the French government appears to be the victim of blackmail—by some estimations.  Given that the fines for sanctions, in the billions and far exceeding the bank’s annual profits, were already reduced in exchange for pleading guilty to charges of falsifying records and conspiracy (bad behavior certainly, but unrelated to the indictment of doing business with Iran, Cuba et. al) and the punitive scolding of denying the bank the ability to conduct dollar transactions was dropped, it seems like it can’t be anything else than extortion and backing out of a deal with Russia might bring the judgment down further.

The dollar embargo seems like a secondary punishment but the potential effects are much greater, as the French bank manages a huge basket of American pension funds, which could go into receivership if the bank is suspended, and stopping dollar transactions for any significant period of time could further destablise the Euro-Zone economy, especially in the current environment, when there is pressure on all banks to lend and encourage growth (coerced not just by the rhetoric of politicians but also with negative interest rates) and at the same time to strengthen their assets and reserves in preparation for an upcoming audit of the system’s ability to weather a crisis (stress-test).  There is also the matter of the Trans-Atlantic Trade Agreement between the EU and the States that is entering its final phase of negotiation just now.  What do you think—is it blackmail or enforcement?  Swiss banks were served also a couple months ago, admitting to allegations it tutored US citizens on tax-avoidance and obfuscation.  There seems to be a double-standard (or a higher-standard) to which some are held, in any case, as there have been no judgments for US banking institutions despite their admission of complicity and profit in connection to the price-fixing and manipulation scheme of borrowing and lending among banks—the so-called LIBOR scandal where the interest-rates on those generally short-term loans were falsified. 

ajapa japa or I’m chanting as we speak, sweetie

I have managed to keep up quite a lot of routines that are giving myself a good turn, and hopefully those small virtues outweigh the vices—if I take time to count.  The yoga and taking time to meditate and relax, however, have become shadows of their former regiments.  It’s never comfortable (nor necessary, fortunately) trying to account for why one stopped cultivating a good habit, but introspection is something that I hope to rediscover.  Looking for a mantra to repeat in my head, I came across this website (one carefully and genuinely tended, which sadly seems kind of rare nowadays)that presents the fundamental mechanics of yogic meditation and rewarding practises that one ought to develop in a clear and accessible way.
I decided that I would stick with the classic mantra that I picked up—the Soham, understood to be a vocalization (though mantras are only to be repeated mentally) of one’s natural circulatory rhythm.  As a boustrophedon (from backwards to forwards), the words pose the question “Who am I?” and the answer “I am that I am,” but the sound and the its resonance through one’s mind and body is the important manner. Reaching the point when the silent chanting becomes sychronous with one's breath and pulse and one know longer thinks about the words and act, having become automatic and second-nature, is called by ajapa japa. I have some ways to go yet.  I also learned that there is a long established Christian tradition of meditation akin to Eastern practises (and not some latter day appropriation or concession). The choice sacred word, what a mantra means, has a distinctive Eastern ring and is often left untranslated in the Bible, as they original translators could not determine the stress and tone of the Arimaic on paper. The intentionally ambiguous Maranatha could be pronounced (in one's head, while meditating) as either maranâ thâ' or maran 'athâ' and so either as the prayer Come Lord or as the declaration The Lord has Come.

terms-of-trade

America’s chief export, with the hearty support of an endless string of industrialists and fund managers (whose livelihoods are fully vested in keeping up appearances and maintaining the status quo) and legal and political framework of intimidation and opportunism that is in every way constituted to ensure the enduring favourable market conditions, has been war and strife for quite some time.  The trade has not been limited, of course, to proxy fighting but such business is easily over-shadowed by more direct lines of engagement in recent years.

With the situation in Ukraine once again pitching towards chaos after the lifting of a cease-fire, brokered by Russia but terminated by the sovereign government’s frustrations for not being able to defend itself from separatist—reportedly pro-Russian fighters, who were not abiding by the conditions of the stand-down.  This conflict is very opaque and tossing up more filters and lenses is not the most helpful activity, but one wonders if from the vantage point of the future, finding oneself in a bleaker dystopia than the one we are living in already, the context and understanding of American meddling might seem clearer.   Just as Eastern Europe had no voice for foreign policy nor internal affairs contrary to that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the bloc of the European Union and much of the rest of the world is held ransom by American dictates—with banking regulations, the media, asymmetrical trade treaties and political sympathies kept in check.

Ukraine’s request to lift the cease-fire, with the professed backing of America, was apparently promulgated by a resolution announced by the EU condemning Russian suppression of Ukrainian pro-Western factions.   Explicitly or implicitly, all of this looks to be orchestrated by America—including the sovereign government of Ukraine, whose opposition has just-cause to fear, considering who might have installed it and decrees its loyalties.  America’s vying for compassion is not to promote Democracy (not even, I think, in the face of Communism) but only hegemony, ensuring its interests and markets are protected and that competition is eliminated.  If Russia’s pulled asunder—over this tug-of-war pitch called Old and New Europe, then the US faces one less rival and dissenting voice.  What do you think?  Both sides have convincing spokespeople, I think.