__________ is/are overrated.

[abefroman329]

It's been called Juneteenth since way before white people even knew what it was.

[JayhawkCO]

It's been called Juneteenth since way before white people even knew what it was.

This I know (and I'll fall on the sword and say I'd never heard of it before 20202), but it doesn't make the name less awkward.

[kphoger]

I like Juneteenth since I get the day off for good reason.

Didn't say the holiday was overrated.
Said the name was overrated.

[webny99]

I've noted that caffeine has absolutely no effect on me. My drink of choice is Diet Coke. I don't drink coffee, at all. And I certainly don't miss the social aspects of "going out for a cup of coffee" that so many seem to indulge in. But it makes no difference to me if I drink gray-label Diet Coke with caffeine, or gold-label Caffeine-Free Diet Coke. You could pour one of them out in a glass and serve to me and I wouldn't know the difference. I wouldn't be any more sleepy if I drank CF Diet Coke vs. regular.

Have you ever tried an energy drink like red bull?

No, because I haven't really felt the need for one. Plus, I don't know what they taste like, and I'm one of those who's set in his ways and doesn't really like to taste something new.

Yes, but Diet Coke only has a small fraction of the caffeine of a cup of coffee or an energy drink. Coke/Diet Coke don't have a significant effect on me either, but coffee definitely does - it makes me a jittery and goes right through my system, resulting in sudden trip(s) to the bathroom. With that said, it's not necessarily accurate to say caffeine has no effect on you unless that's also the case for coffee and energy drinks - and I'd be pretty surprised if that was the case.

[kkt]

"Juneteenth" is overrated.  Not the holiday, but the name.  It manages to come off as cute rather than serious, and it somehow manages to obscure both the holiday's meaning and its date.

The name is supposed to be a portmanteau of June and nineteenth, except June 13th through 18th could just as easily be the date referred to–such that I can never remember the holiday's exact date, even though it's supposedly right there in its name.

Literally all of its other, secondary names are better:  Emancipation Day, Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Black Independence Day.  None of them specifies the date, but at least they indicate what the holiday is commemorating.

And yet so many people seem to love it.

Agreed.

[Ted$8roadFan]

"˜Working members of the Royal Family"

[Scott5114]

The royal family is overrated. So far as I can tell, they're just government-subsidized celebrities.

[Rothman]

Not liking the name "Juneteenth" is overrated.

[kphoger]

The royal family is overrated. So far as I can tell, they're just government-subsidized celebrities.

My wife and I recently finished watching all the seasons of The Crown.  The most recent season has been delayed by a lot of flak from the royal family.  Anyway, that series has simultaneously made me appreciate both the anachronism of the royal family and also its value.

It's difficult for me to put into words, but perhaps its primary function is to provide a head of state that isn't embroiled in the actual politics of government.  It's difficult for me, as an American, to imagine someone like a President who isn't handcuffed to his own political party–who has influence over the President, no matter who is in office or what party he's affiliated with, and who can address the nation with a nationalism that transcends the political wrestling matches of the government.  Perhaps its disconnection from the government is actually part and parcel of its value.

[Scott5114]

That doesn't really feel very sensible to me, though.

I mean, I get the importance of having A Leader™. Volodymyr Zelensky's refusal to leave Kyiv when it was under attack a few months ago, and his famous quote of "I don't need a ride, I need ammunition", is widely cited as having been a turning point in establishing how Ukraine and its government were going to respond to the war. But Zelensky's title is President. Before the war he was subject to politics like anyone else with that title, and was seen as being a kind of mediocre president. But he rose to the occasion of being a wartime leader, over and above politics. He's now highly respected, and even kind of serves as an avatar of the Ukrainian people (I've seen a lot of street art of his face being painted on the side of buildings in European cities outside of Ukraine, for instance). I would expect that now, if he were to tell the Verkhovna Rada to jump, they would unanimously vote to ask him how high.

So I guess the question is if it makes sense to have a split system where you have someone serving that symbolic leadership role but don't actually give them the power to do anything. I personally don't think that makes a whole lot of sense, because I feel like respect is earned by deeds, and not by someone saying "This Is The Guy You Respect". And monarchs are basically the epitome of "Respect Me Cause I Said So". Even if you wanted to have an emotional leader that didn't actually have any real power to do anything, I feel like there would be far better ways of going about it than having it be a hereditary system with all of the expense of maintaining palaces and what not. Maybe you could desig

Ultimately, if the British people are cool with that, you know, more power to them, I guess. I don't have to understand or agree with it because it's not my country. But I am a little weirded out by Americans obsessing over it too. I've seen cars driving around Norman with stickers of the Queen on them. That's sort of odd to me. And I realize that this post contains an entire paragraph that basically amounts to "the president of Ukraine is a pretty cool guy", but, like, I'm also not following every detail about what his wife and children are doing because I don't care that much, and they're really not all that important as to what's going on in Ukraine anyway.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

A number of Commonwealth countries still have the British Royal Family as ceremonial heads of state, but there has been an increasing interest in removing that ceremonial presence in some former British colonies, such as Barbados completing the process at the beginning of this year.

[kurumi]

The royal family is overrated. So far as I can tell, they're just government-subsidized celebrities.

Here are the Queen Haters, from an old SCTV episode:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJU5x67Sz1o

[abefroman329]

Before the war he was subject to politics like anyone else with that title, and was seen as being a kind of mediocre president. But he rose to the occasion of being a wartime leader, over and above politics. He's now highly respected

Like W.  Or Trump, if he'd bothered to take COVID seriously.

[vdeane]

That doesn't really feel very sensible to me, though.

I mean, I get the importance of having A Leader™. Volodymyr Zelensky's refusal to leave Kyiv when it was under attack a few months ago, and his famous quote of "I don't need a ride, I need ammunition", is widely cited as having been a turning point in establishing how Ukraine and its government were going to respond to the war. But Zelensky's title is President. Before the war he was subject to politics like anyone else with that title, and was seen as being a kind of mediocre president. But he rose to the occasion of being a wartime leader, over and above politics. He's now highly respected, and even kind of serves as an avatar of the Ukrainian people (I've seen a lot of street art of his face being painted on the side of buildings in European cities outside of Ukraine, for instance). I would expect that now, if he were to tell the Verkhovna Rada to jump, they would unanimously vote to ask him how high.

So I guess the question is if it makes sense to have a split system where you have someone serving that symbolic leadership role but don't actually give them the power to do anything. I personally don't think that makes a whole lot of sense, because I feel like respect is earned by deeds, and not by someone saying "This Is The Guy You Respect". And monarchs are basically the epitome of "Respect Me Cause I Said So". Even if you wanted to have an emotional leader that didn't actually have any real power to do anything, I feel like there would be far better ways of going about it than having it be a hereditary system with all of the expense of maintaining palaces and what not. Maybe you could desig

Ultimately, if the British people are cool with that, you know, more power to them, I guess. I don't have to understand or agree with it because it's not my country. But I am a little weirded out by Americans obsessing over it too. I've seen cars driving around Norman with stickers of the Queen on them. That's sort of odd to me. And I realize that this post contains an entire paragraph that basically amounts to "the president of Ukraine is a pretty cool guy", but, like, I'm also not following every detail about what his wife and children are doing because I don't care that much, and they're really not all that important as to what's going on in Ukraine anyway.

The way it was described in my AP Government and Politics textbook is that it enables people to vehemently disagree with the government while still being patriotic, because they can then follow whatever they said with "and God save the Queen".  Meanwhile in the US, people who criticize the country are often called "un-American" (often by people who themselves criticize some other part of the country).

[Scott5114]

Thanks to the First Amendment, I think complaining about the government is possibly the most American thing someone could possibly do.

[kphoger]

So I guess the question is if it makes sense to have a split system where you have someone serving that symbolic leadership role but don't actually give them the power to do anything.

Actually, the British monarch has the legal authority to remove the Prime Minister from office.  That, you must admit, is quite a bit of power.  However, as I mentioned, this is held in balance by fact that the monarchy's importance lies at least partly in not becoming 'involved'.

Every Prime Minister who takes office knows that his or her position remains at the whim of the monarch–no matter what party he or she is a member of.  And every Prime Minister who takes office also knows that the monarch will treat him or her in a fair and politically uncharged way.

[J N Winkler]

Actually, the British monarch has the legal authority to remove the Prime Minister from office.  That, you must admit, is quite a bit of power.

This is something Gough Whitlam came to understand only too well.  (As the Australian PM, he was removed by the Governor-General rather than the Queen directly, but it was still exercise of the monarch's reserve powers.)

However, as I mentioned, this is held in balance by fact that the monarchy's importance lies at least partly in not becoming 'involved'.

Yes.  The present Queen has been successful in large part because of her carefully circumspect approach to party politics.  I have long speculated that she has continued to work well into her nineties, rather than abdicating outright or moving into some form of phased retirement, because her son and heir is not as cautious and has a long history of making stinks about urban development issues, which is all the more fraught in a country like Britain where much of the value of developed land effectively results from planning gain.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Raising Cane's.

[Scott5114]

So I guess the question is if it makes sense to have a split system where you have someone serving that symbolic leadership role but don't actually give them the power to do anything.

Actually, the British monarch has the legal authority to remove the Prime Minister from office.  That, you must admit, is quite a bit of power.  However, as I mentioned, this is held in balance by fact that the monarchy's importance lies at least partly in not becoming 'involved'.

I have the power to delete Alex's account. I can go to the admin panel, select his account, and click the delete button, and it's gone. But of course if I did that, I would expect that one of the other admins would desysop me as soon as it was discovered I did that, and I may not be welcome on this forum at all afterward.

So do I really have the power to delete Alex's account?

[Rothman]

Wait, who can "desysop" the Queen?

I also saw a decent portion of The Crown.  Just solidified my perception that the Royal Family is a waste of money, whether or not their wealth is publicly subsidized.

[hbelkins]

I like Juneteenth since I get the day off for good reason.

Didn't say the holiday was overrated.
Said the name was overrated.

Well, I guess they had to come up with something shorter than "Word finally reached Texas about something that happened weeks ago elsewhere."

We wouldn't be celebrating "Juneteenth" on June 19 if today's communications technology had existed back then.

[abefroman329]

So I guess the question is if it makes sense to have a split system where you have someone serving that symbolic leadership role but don't actually give them the power to do anything.

Actually, the British monarch has the legal authority to remove the Prime Minister from office.  That, you must admit, is quite a bit of power.  However, as I mentioned, this is held in balance by fact that the monarchy's importance lies at least partly in not becoming 'involved'.

I have the power to delete Alex's account. I can go to the admin panel, select his account, and click the delete button, and it's gone. But of course if I did that, I would expect that one of the other admins would desysop me as soon as it was discovered I did that, and I may not be welcome on this forum at all afterward.

So do I really have the power to delete Alex's account?

I mean, yes, you do really have the power to delete Alex's account.  You just don't have the ability to delete Alex's account without consequences.

[1995hoo]

.... The present Queen has been successful in large part because of her carefully circumspect approach to party politics.  I have long speculated that she has continued to work well into her nineties, rather than abdicating outright or moving into some form of phased retirement, because her son and heir is not as cautious and has a long history of making stinks about urban development issues, which is all the more fraught in a country like Britain where much of the value of developed land effectively results from planning gain.

All indications are that the Queen would never abdicate for various reasons, including her memory of her uncle's abdication and the problems that caused at the time, her sense of duty, and the potential ramifications for succession. Succession in the UK is governed by statute. Parliament had to pass a bill, and King Edward VIII had to give it Royal Assent, in order to effectuate his abdication. One condition in his case was that he had to renounce any claim to the Crown for both himself and any of his offspring (a point that became moot when he never had any children). My gut tells me the latter condition would not be required if the Queen were to abdicate because her children are all legitimate offspring of a marriage recognized by the Church of England, whereas the issue in Edward VIII's case was that at the time the Church of England regarded a divorced person's remarriage as adulterous such that any offspring would have been illegitimate (the former Edward VIII was Wallis Simpson's third husband; both prior marriages ended in divorce). Even setting that issue aside, abdication in the United Kingdom is a much more difficult process than it is in some other countries where older monarchs have abdicated in favor of the heir apparent.

It's interesting, though. Apparently there either is, or used to be, a custom that a soothsayer was present at or shortly after a royal birth. The soothsayer present when Prince Charles was born said he would never become king. That's obviously still possible. Not just because of his age and his mother's longevity, either; by many accounts, he has expressed interest in becoming Greek Orthodox (his father's original faith) and believes the monarch should be "Defender of the Faiths," as in the right to practice any religion one wishes, rather than "Defender of the Faith" as in the Church of England. But under current British law, because the monarch is the head of the Church of England, he would apparently disqualify himself if he converted.

With all that said, I am certain you're correct that some of Charles's more indelicate comments (the one about the National Gallery expansion being a "monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved and elegant friend" comes to mind) are a significant factor in the Queen's thought process.

[thspfc]

It's been called Juneteenth since way before white people even knew what it was.

Doesn't mean it's a good name.

[abefroman329]

It's been called Juneteenth since way before white people even knew what it was.

Doesn't mean it's a good name.

Yeah, but it's not like it was concocted by a Hallmark algorithm last week or something.