It's important to me that I don't have to crawl to some fucking aristocrat.
And here I thought this would be about the pre-election Twitter ban. Nice.
In Canada's defense, these particular celebrities are technically Canadian heads-of-state-in-waiting. (And there are a lot of monarchists still kicking around, a fact that never ceases to amaze me.)
On the other hand, I have been completely blown away by the amont of coverage and interest the royal wedding seems to be generating south of the border in the good ol' US of A. Didn't you have a whole revolution premised on not wanting to have anything to do with these people? And assuming the interest is simply that it's an exciting event, why SO much interest in this wedding, rather than any of the other royal weddings that have occured in Europe in the last decade or so? Our excuse is that the Queen is our head of state - what's yours?
Unfortunately, the Charles/Diana wedding hysteria was even stronger. This one seems to be mostly ignorable, or at least has so been in my life.
The Canadian postal service is acting in its own interest, though. What you want in a stamp is for people to pony up the cash and then not use the service that the stamp represents. If there's a demand for this collectable crap, the post office would be crazy not to meet it.
3: That we're a nation full of celebrity-fuckers, and have been told by the television that these two are celebrities.
the Charles/Diana wedding hysteria was even stronger
And don't get me started on the bizarrely maudlin outpouring following Diana's car crash.
pre-election Twitter ban
What happened now? I suppose I could google it.
Oh. Given that I think Twitter's stupid while elections are slightly less stupid, I can't quibble. But it does seem totally unenforceable.
...blown away by the amont of coverage and interest the royal wedding seems to be generating south of the border in the good ol' US of A.
Vox populi, the people must be heard.
And there are a lot of monarchists still kicking around
Only if it is an absolute monarchy, with a head-of-state-church and the divine right and hereditary succession; a constitutional monarchy gives too much to wastrel nobles.
It's important to me that I don't have to crawl to some fucking aristocrat.
Which country do you live in again? Shall we meet for a foursome at Pebble Beach or watch a basketball game from courtside seats?
I, for one, find it unseemly to have people slobbering on Kate Middleton's backside.
At least they'll stick together.
Indeed, Canada is under the sovereignity of the British monarch, so it's really not a big deal.
I don't get the hostility to the long defanged royal family. Seems like a fairly harmless institution to me.
A Brit I work with was complaining about the Middleton's "cashing in" on the wedding. Just like when Rocky Balboa cheapened the purity of heavyweight boxing by advertising a meat locker on his robe.
15: Does having a royal family provide any benefit whatsoever? Seems any functional usefulness could be easily delegated to the sitting PM, and then you could invest the savings in, oh, I don't know, actual public services.
17: People seem to like having a hereditary monarch. Having the head of state formally separated from the head of government might reduce executive-worship. E.g. in time of war, rally around the king, but the prime minister is just another public servant who can do their job well or poorly.
Not sure if this actually works in practice, or if Britain is just a special case, though. But having no king is no guarantee of having no dynasty, as the American example proves so very well.
17: Actually I think it is probably good to separate that BS from the actual political leadership. The American presidency suffers from the lack of a titular monarch. But to keep it all revolutionary and equal-ish like we Yanks like to imagine ourselves do it with a yearly lottery or just appoint x.trapnel.
Or maybe it's just an accident of history, happens to have accidentally acquired some salutary functions, and getting rid of it would be more trouble than it's worth. Like our Senate and Electoral College.
Perhaps not, though the argument's often been made that having a monarchy shifts the formal burden of head of state off of elected officials, and allows the electorate to elect boffin types, rather than people who embody the heart and soul of the country, or to use the American parlance, "look presidential."
I'm not a monarchist myself. It may be nice to get rid of them altogether, but in terms of malign powers that be, I worry way, way, way more about the Pentagon, high finance and industry, etc than any country's royal family.
I think 19 is right -- the US Presidency gets a kind of ceremonial deference that the UK Prime Minister doesn't, because the royal family soaks it all up. And I'd like the president not to have that either.
Didn't you have a whole revolution premised on not wanting to have anything to do with these people?
Then as now, the place is crawling with loyalists. Send them back, I say.
And don't get me started on the bizarrely maudlin outpouring following Diana's car crash.
This book was the best thing to come from that sorry episode. Hitchens' essay memorably refers to Diana and Mother Teresa as "a simpering Bambi narcissist and a thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf."
As a matter of principle, I'm definitely with Natilo at 1. As a matter of practical sociology, however, I've at least come around to taking the argument in 21 seriously. The Swedes seem to be doing alright with their constitutional monarchy, and increasingly the British royal house seems to be more of a sacrificial goat herd rather than any sort of hereditary privilege.
Hitchens may have gone 'round the bend regarding the Middle East, but his savage skewering of the thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf? Thank heavens somebody was willing to say it and it really ought to be required reading.
19 -- America's Next Top Monarch.
I don't see anything wrong at all I'm Americans enjoying the royal wedding, especially since we don't pay for it. Why not?
I'm actually affirmatively pro-constitutional monarchy. I think having one would be of great utility in the current US, partly for separating out the head of state/head of government roles, partly for having a kind of personification of state continuity in a person rather than in abstract bullshit like "the idea of America" (although I think it was probably not a good idea to have any kind of monarch in 1787).
I'm actually affirmatively pro-constitutional monarchy. I think having one would be of great utility in the current US, partly for separating out the head of state/head of government roles, partly for having a kind of personification of state continuity in a person rather than in abstract bullshit like "the idea of America" (although I think it was probably not a good idea to have any kind of monarch in 1787).
Maybe we could have a national pet. Like Knut, but less dead.
Plus the idea of a figure that stands above politics and is supposed to embody grace and deportment is valuable. We outsource that to Hollywood and Sports right now.
I'd vote for Oprah for queen ,but Where's the Birth Certificate?
Isabella Rossellini. She's glamorous, lovely, dresses up as bugs having sex, and trains adorable puppies to be seeing eye dogs. That's a monarch I can believe in.
10:Stalinism/monarchism whatever, as long as the state/crown owns everything, and the oligarchs/businesspersons/representatives aren't allowed to sell the seven fat years to the Hittites the peasants won't starve.
Constitutional monarchy my ass, you elitists just insist on another layer of rentiers between the people and power.
There are so many things wonderfully wrong with 33 that I hardly know where to begin.
You know who could be the designated Queenly Hat-Wearer? Aretha Franklin.
(I'm being funny to myself. Up to you how serious I am, and where the humor lies.)
I'm torn between 17 and 21. In principle I'm strongly anti-monarchist, but on the other hand, powers preserve us from an executive presidency. The office of Prime Minister in Britain is too powerful as it stands; give Cameron/Blair the notional dignity of being head of state as well and heaven help us all. I'm sorry but the elective semi-dictators of France, the US and Russia don't impress me at all.
My preferred capitalist compromise would be a republic with a virtually powerless president like Ireland or Germany, if any - the legislation abolishing the monarchy in 1649 originally vested the dignity of the republic in parliament and all ministers were to be servants thereof - I have no quarrel with that. But failing that, and much against all my instincts, the residual monarchy does at least stand between us and the Executive as king.
As to the wedding, nobody I know gives a shit. My sister and brother in law are going to visit to escape it, and we'll probably take a picnic into the Peak District and admire some wild flowers while it's on.
This thread is making me want to reread that Royal Houses: Where Are They Now? series at LGM.
41: Very nice, but it's not durable enough. Unlike your refrigerator.
That refrigerator is pretty awesome, but it's no KISS Koffin. Now that's durable.
I walked past Buckingham Palace today, and they already have what looks like a media grandstand setup, with little glassed off booths, and there are crush barriers up all round the Mall.
39 probably captures my view, too. I have no axe to grind for the monarchy but I don't want a US or French style president.
and there are crush barriers up all round the Mall
I love the idea that the royal wedding will have some of the ambience of a soccer football match.
I love the idea that the royal wedding will have some of the ambience of a soccer football match any planned public event with a lot of people expected to be present.
Fixed?
My preferred capitalist compromise would be a
republic with a virtually powerless president like
Ireland or Germany
Yes, exactly. Just one of many German constitutional features I would gladly adopt (e.g. proportional representation with a 5% hurdle; state revenues collected from uniform national taxation and distributed per capita; ban on naming public amenities after living politicians; and others too numerous to mention).
The German republic with a powerless president/head of state distinct from the head of government is better than our current system, but I think you get a particular "symbol of the nation" oomph with a crown and long robes or whatever that's valuable in a monarch, along with the notion of continuity that I think is somewhat valuable. I realize that this view has not exactly been fashionable in recent times and that states are not falling over themselevs to acquire new monarchs.
It's actually not surprising that the (West) German constitution looks pretty good among its peers. Among republican constitutions it had over 150 years' experience of successive failures in France and near-failure salvaged by significant amendments in the US to learn from, plus it was one of the first constitutions to be drawn up in the context of a more or less modern understanding of democracy.
50 is a good point. Actually, that raises a question to which I don't know the answer -- was the German Basic Law the model for the constitutions in Eastern Europe post-1989? Or (God help them) the US Constitution? Or something else?
ban on naming public amenities after living politicians
Definitely.
Among republican constitutions it had over 150
years' experience of successive failures in France and
near-failure salvaged by significant amendments in
the US to learn from, plus it was one of the first
constitutions to be drawn up in the context of a more
or less modern understanding of democracy.
Probably too obvious to need mentioning, but the failure of the Weimar constitution loomed large over the drafting of the Grundgesetz. Even though the U.S. Military oversaw the whole enterprise, there is comparatively little American influence to be detected in the result, apart from a much attenuated version of federalism and bicameralism. Certainly neither the Americans nor the German democrats much favored a strong President. And of course the absolute commitment to free speech and free association that allows Nazis march in Skokie is explicitly ruled out in the postwar Basic Law.
ban on naming public amenities after living politicians
Come to think of it, I believe this is a statutory rather than a constitutional prohibition. Still, good idea!
||
Grrrr. A friend of mine, who is a custodian at a public university, just reported that, due to faculty complaints about custodians eating in the faculty lounge, all custodians are now banned from eating anywhere but the cafeteria or their janitor's closets. What the hell is wrong with people? I bet it was an economist, but still.
||>
55: That's obnoxious. I bet it has to do with odor. I've seen people be much more complain-y about fast, fried, "ethnic," or other foods with actual scent to them than they are about "eating" in general.
Of course, that's implicitly a class thing, as the above foods also tend to be cheap and easily available to a shift worker who may not have regularly access to a kitchen or a large grocery budget.
was the German Basic Law the model for the constitutions in Eastern Europe post-1989? Or (God help them) the US Constitution? Or something else?
I remember hearing in college about American political scientists being flown in and recommending American-style systems. Or was that Latin America? I'll check.
Poor x. trapnel. Right place, wrong time.
there is comparatively little American influence to be detected in the result, apart from a much attenuated version of federalism and bicameralism.
Is that really American influence? Germany had a long tradition of federalism before the Nazis came along and centralized things. The main problem with it was the overwhelming position of Prussia which included not just what we traditionally think of (former German lands, northern DDR) but also North Rhine-Westphalia, i.e. the Ruhr. Nor is the federalism all that attenuated compared with the US. The Laender have considerable autonomous powers. But yeah, the main object seems to have been 'lets not repeat the mistakes of Weimar', so, e.g. a ban on anti-democratic parties and the need for a constructive no-confidence vote to get rid of a government (you can only vote a government out if you are simultaneously voting a new government in).
On Eastern Europe, it was a mix of fixes to the preexisting constitutions with mainly Euro parliamentary democracies and the French presidency. In Poland both Jaruzelski (prospective president in the Round Table accords) and Walesa (prospective president once it became clear full democracy was in the cards) wanted a strong Fifth Republic style presidency. So did the twins with their Pilsudskiist longings. But it never quite worked out that way with Jaruzelski a lame duck, Walesa immediately falling out with his own key supporters, Kwasniewski needing to deal with alternatively opposition majorities that hated him and his own faction ridden party, then Kaczynski with a more powerful brother PM followed by the opposition, and now Komorowski, clearly secondary to Tusk. It will be interesting to see what would happen if Tusk were to choose to replace Komorowski with himself in 2015 and the PO, which Tusk thoroughly dominates, were to win the Sejm elections that year.
That was a fun diversion. It looks like at this point, the German Basic Law model is indeed the predominant influence in Eastern Europe: parliamentary republic with a ceremonial (or mostly ceremonial) president, legislature based on PR with a threshold - though there's a lot of variation in how the upper houses are elected, and whether there's an upper house at all. Sometimes it's a half-PR unicameral legislature. More variation in the Balkans.
Also it seems like the model for Bosnia & Herzegovina was Belgium.
Walesa immediately falling out with his own key supporters
So you're saying they were down on their Lech?
Germany had a long tradition of federalism before the Nazis came along and centralized things.
It did, but I suspect a fair amount of its early-modern implementation also looked to the US as a model - I know this was the case with the 1848 Swiss Constitution.
It was more about reconciling the various states to the primacy of Prussia by guaranteeing them considerable internal autonomy within the Kaiserreich, and on the other hand keeping Prussia as powerful and anti-democratic as possible (very powerful monarch, bi-cameral legislature with an appointed upper house of lords and a Republican wed dream franchise for the lower house - universal suffrage but in three classes based on total taxes paid with the top third of tax payers getting a third of the vote, the next third, and all the rest just one third. In Esssen Herr Krupp had one third of the votes in his constituency. Add in open voting which meant going against the local noble landowner could be bad for your future prospects in rural areas and as you might expect it led to rather reactionary majorities.) The imperial parliament was elected by universal male suffrage but was rather weak, what with the unelected and unaccountable strong executive branch.
I should jump in here with discussions of Meiji constitutions and the Occupation-written post-WWII Constitution but I haven't read those books yet.
there are a lot of monarchists still kicking around
I think this is kind of the same thing as wearing a bracelet identifying you as someone who is to be cryogenically frozen.
Isabella Rossellini. She's glamorous, lovely, dresses up as bugs having sex, and trains adorable puppies to be seeing eye dogs.
I know!
Also, what chris y said way upthread, or a version thereof.
Also: Stanley, I don't think you need to apologize for mocking your northern neighbours, but do these postage stamps bother you more than, say, Canada's currency (where Queen Elizabeth II is found on both coins and paper bills, after all)?
On the other hand, I've heard tell of plans to try to put Reagan on the US dime. That would piss me off something fierce.
Oh sure, you say that you're just kidding. But you secretly covet the commemorative fridge and freezer, don't you?
62: so, so, so bad. Reagan belongs on an instrument of 0 nominal value or less. So basically commemorative coins only... Which would be no different from today.
So basically commemorative coins only
For Reagan, I would approve of the US mint branching out into the urinal puck business.
||
Oh, hey, it's not even that off-topic!
So I got arrested? Or maybe just "taken down to the station"?--there weren't any handcuffs, though they were brandished--for the crime of cycling in a manner that suggested inebriation.
I think they were frustrated by my refusal to sign the form for an immediate bloodtest.
I *know* they were frustrated by my general refusal to take the whole process seriously.
The cops also seemed to inhibit a certain impatience, upon entering my apartment, when I failed to uncover my passport quickly enough--they were not very sympathetic to the urgency of loading up the Boston/Oakland game on Firefox.
All in all, it was a fascinating experience. I'm glad to be somebody who, in the end, really doesn't give a fuck about being deported; but goodness--if I weren't, this would have been a deeply frightening experience, especially since it was entirely a result of biking to meet a friend who seemed drunk to a worrisome degree.
Seriously, polizei? Seriously? Anyway. Carry on, Mineschaft.
|>
I know! They didn't even react to my "Fröhliches Fest!" from my balcony as they walked back to their cop-car.
First-world problem #139: MacBook trackpad suddenly stopped clicking. Disastrous! Removed the battery, wiped away some dust, put the battery back, and it works again. But now I live in terror that at any time, my trackpad could fail, and then I will be utterly helpless to survive in the wilderness of the internet. Oh god, it's already getting sluggish again. Whatever will I do?
I wish I knew how to inhibit impatience.
77: Is your battery itself expanding? One of my friends had to buy a new battery because of a faulty battery expanding and making the trackpad stop functioning. See http://www.macbookbatteryproblem.com/
I've never quite understood the need for a head of state in the modern world. In general, that is. I can see it being necessary in some types of democracy, eg Italy, not that it's done them much good. But in a country like the UK where the head of state's power is so constrained by law and tradition, is there any real reason its functions couldn't be performed by a computer? Or Punxsutawney Phil?
82. I'm all in favour of that (possibly modified by a lottery to select people to represent the country on ritual occasions like opening the Olympic Games). As I said in 38, the republic of 1649 originally had no head of state, but that really didn't work too well. It certainly wasn't able to survive the military coup four years later.
OTOH, communications are better and faster these days and there are more checks and balances in place, so I'd go for it.
I really like the idea of abolishing the head of state role and replacing it with an Administrator of the Government -- an ex-judge who handles all the fiddly constitutional details -- and then using various (non-political) notables to do the openings, diplomatic receptions, etc.
(My slogan for this is: put the Sovereign into commission.)
The East Germans had a council as head of state.
That would work. We're getting back to incorporating elements of the Politeia Athenaion here, which has been discussed approvingly before.
Is that really American influence? Germany had a long tradition of federalism before the Nazis came along and centralized things.
It's not an either/or proposition. The American occupation forces insisted on resurrecting the tradition of German federalism, partly as a means to reconcile the French to the idea of allowing a new German state to be founded at all. The question of federalism versus centralization was intensely debated at the time.
using various (non-political) notables to do the openings, diplomatic receptions, etc.
Ooh, the US could appoint its weekly person by Facebook mentions. Or monthly maybe. Regardless, I'm fairly certain Charlie Sheen would have reigned for about a month there.
I'm reminded of the Thursday Next series, wherein George Formby was the ceremonial indefinite-term President of Great Britain, because (I don't remember if this was stated or heavily implied) the entire Royal Family had been shot during the Nazi occupation.
Interesting that no federalism was foisted on the Japanese. Or rather, there was a tiny bit - police and school control was shifted to local government, but this was undone in 1952 or something - but nothing constitutional. Possibly because MacArthur's wonks at that time were a bunch of leftists who preferred parliamentary supremacy.
The local BBC-carrying station is currently airing a program featuring a dude from the International Monarchist League. It's as if there's a Rule 34 for political organizations.
Only if it is an absolute monarchy, with a head-of-state-church and the divine right and hereditary succession; a constitutional monarchy gives too much to wastrel nobles
We're a constitutional monarchy with a head of state church and hereditary succession, but no divine right. Nobles have fuckall to do with it. The monarchy rests on the Act of Settlement, and since the Parliament Acts the elected power can amend that as desired.
Oddly enough, the end of Prussia was a demand of the British Labour Party. The SPD still thought they'd get their pre1932 bastion back from the Red Army. Ernie B not so much.
The local BBC-carrying station is currently airing a program featuring a dude from the International Monarchist League. It's as if there's a Rule 34 for political organizations.
Baader-Meinhof Syndrome is probably a more apt term, unless the show was presenting a different sort of member.
I'm all in favour of that (possibly modified by a lottery to select people to represent the country on ritual occasions like opening the Olympic Games)
But why do we need even that? What's wrong just having with the head of the Olympic committee? Likewise diplomatic receptions - fuck 'em. If someone wants to come here to chat with our government they can do that.
But why do we need even that?
We don't. But it might be a fun day out for a family from Wolverhampton, so where's the harm?
I'm pretty sure they'd still come for the opening ceremony regardless.
As to the wedding, nobody I know gives a shit. My sister and brother in law are going to visit to escape it
A friend of mine, though no monarchist, is going to be watching it avidly, and reasons thus: if you happened to be in Thailand on holiday, and the heir to the throne was getting married that week with immense pomp and circumstance, you'd watch it, wouldn't you? Of course you would; interesting ceremony, lots of paraphernalia, doesn't happen too often. Well, why not act the same way in Britain?