SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Japan has passed legislation paving the way for 83-year-old Emperor Akihito to abdicate. The law sets the stage for the first abdication of a reigning monarch in two centuries, in a royal family which has a history stretching back 2,600 years.
[...] According to the 1947 Imperial House Law that regulates the line of imperial succession, the emperor cannot step down. The last Japanese monarch to abdicate was Emperor Kokaku, who left in favor of his son back in 1817.
Another issue the Japanese government will discuss is the continuity of the heirs, as women are not allowed to inherit the throne. Additionally, a woman from the imperial family who marries outside the family is then excluded. Akihito has another son, Prince Akishino, and a grandson, Hisahito, aged just 10. All the other members of the royal family are female.
Source: RT
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @04:26AM (35 children)
What's the point of this emperor person? Emperor of what, anyway? Japan is a tiny island! What is wrong with all of you people who hold on so dearly to your dear beloved Dear Leader? He's an old far. WHO CARES?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @04:29AM
HE'S AN OLD FART.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @06:49AM (33 children)
This is where the Allies screwed the pooch. The concept of Empire should have been abolished at the end of WWII. It would have cost the Allies more casualties, but it should have been done. No royalty, no succession, no Empire, all of it rooted out, and abolished by law.
The seeds for a new Empire are nourished by today's Japan.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @07:06AM
Didn't stop Emperor Hitler though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @07:26AM (31 children)
The sticking point in the surrender in 1945 was that the Japs wanted to keep their royalty.
Had USA.gov simply said "OK, but it's just ceremonial", the war would have been over a month earlier and there would have been no excuse to use a nuclear weapon on tens of thousands of civilians.
USA.gov, however, REALLY wanted to demo its weapon on humans in order to show off to the Soviets (who had their own A-bomb by 1949, at which point, use of nukes meant the end of humanity).
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @08:49AM (30 children)
Well, that's one theory. Your theory might be a bit more convincing if you could avoid that "USA.gov". That bit of silliness makes me wonder if you even have a grasp on history - there was no .gov or .com or anything like it back then. You are obviously viewing history from your own place in time, with your own perspectives.
And, again, I say the world would have been a better and safer place had we forced Japan to abolish it's royalty. Japanese children are still brought up with the basic understanding that one family is superior to all other families. From there, it isn't even a real step to believing that some other families might be more superior, and other families might be less superior. From that understanding, it's only one more step to believing that Japanese are superior to all the other lesser peoples of the world - such as the Koreans, or the Chinese.
The concept of royalty immediately leads to an understanding that not all people are equal. And, of course, those lesser people must be subjugated, for their own good.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday June 12 2017, @09:45AM (3 children)
So does the Admin/User concept. It, however, is entirely justified.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @11:51AM (2 children)
Does one become an "administrator" by birth, or does one first have to learn to administer a user's system? Did you gain your administrative privileges by virtue of your family name, or by virtue of study and hard work? Are members of my family, clan, nation, religion barred from becoming administrators?
While I was discussing apples and oranges, you rolled a tangerine into the mix. And, how the hell did a prune get in there?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:37PM
You must become One with the Source. On the other hand BOFH are born that way.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 12 2017, @06:51PM
Considering on older versions of Windows, the administrator was whoever first made an account on the machine, it's not a bad analogy.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 12 2017, @11:55AM (25 children)
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_W._Clarke [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @02:32PM (24 children)
And, for the reasons posted above, I disagree with the Brigadier. I believe that it is a danger to the world to have legitimized the royal family. How great a danger, I can't possibly say. Unless you are omniscient, you can't deny the potential of that royal family assuming the god-like role they had prior to WWII. We should have accepted only an unconditional surrender, and we should have abolished royalty.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 12 2017, @04:05PM (23 children)
So next we're going to drop a nuke on Britain then? Or is their monarchy somehow exempt from this rule?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @04:48PM (22 children)
As an American, we should all strive to eliminate monarchies. Some are better than others, but the very concept of a royal class is anathema to democracy. Nuke the UK? Ehhh, I don't mind. But, first, you've gotta have some kind of cassus belli. Since we haven't been at war with the UK for a couple hundred years, I'm not about to make up some reason to bomb them.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 12 2017, @05:11PM (21 children)
So your principles are firm and inviolate, except when you don't feel like upholding them. Gotcha. Jesus, you're a piece of work ain't'cha...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @05:26PM (20 children)
Alright, the ball is in your court. Just what the FUCK makes a monarchy and a royal class so damned attractive? That is, anywhere from one to a dozen families have all the rights to a nation's wealth, while all the commoners are merely "subjects", or chattel, to be done with as those royal families decree. Bring it on, Zumi, I'm waiting breathlessly to learn why royalty is a "good thing".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 12 2017, @05:38PM (18 children)
What the fuck makes you think I like the idea? I'm something of a left-libertarian, though I can't help but notice that several constitutional monarchies are doing better than us. Britain and Canada for example.
Also, please explain how "anywhere from one to a dozen families have all the rights to a nation's wealth, while all the commoners are merely "subjects", or chattel, to be done with as those royal families decree" substantially differs from the present situation in the US. Royalty doesn't always wear a crown.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @05:47PM (17 children)
Perhaps you should re-read some history. Where did royalty come from? Royalty has always had rights. Commoners, not so much. Try this idea on for size - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_the_first_night [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 12 2017, @06:46PM (16 children)
Umm...did you even read the lede of that article?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday June 12 2017, @07:07PM
Of course he didn't. He's gone completely off the rails, like he always does.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:21AM (14 children)
Of course I read it. And, the usual disclaimer that the wiki isn't authoritative. The fact that the article exists, the fact that discussions have taken place regarding those "rights", support the idea that the "rights" were exercised at various times in history. All of which supports my position that all royalty should have had their heads chopped off while the French were having their mass hysteria moments.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:23AM (9 children)
Ol' Blighty's just one plane ride away, m'boy. What's stopping you? Go on, try and chop the head off Queen Elizabeth.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:33AM (8 children)
As a good American serviceman, I properly conveyed the US Armed Forces contempt for royalty to the Queen, years ago, at the Silver Jubilee. I did NOT bend my knee for the Queen when she passed in the street.
Wonder if you were aware that US Servicement are forbidden from bowing to foreign royalty? Did you have any idea how much Obama broke with protocol when he groveled for King Abdullah?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WlqW6UCeaY [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 13 2017, @03:38AM (6 children)
Indeed I did, and that raised an eyebrow. It didn't, however, trigger me...as it seems to have done to you.
Runaway, you have some serious unresolved fucking daddy issues, you know that? This weird, slavish authoritarianism coupled with an almost unconscious reactive insistence that you're not actually an authoritarian looks baffling from the outside.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 13 2017, @01:51PM (4 children)
Obama didn't trigger you, but Runaway does? ROFLMAO Daddy issues? Huh? I thought that was a girl thing. I don't even know what a daddy issue is. You could explain, but I'll probably not listen.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:01PM (3 children)
Remember that series of posts a few months ago where you bawwwww'd all over us about how your father used to give you the belt? That's what I mean.
And your ridiculous blustering and misdirection here is not only not fooling anyone, it's making everyone reading this exchange painfully aware of how on the nose that was. Do you think we're all stupid? You must. Somehow people with your mindset always think they're the smartest folks in the room...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 13 2017, @04:16PM (2 children)
Guys don't do "daddy issues" like girls do. I left, and left it behind. I never felt the need to kiss and make up, thank you very much. Again, that's a girl thing.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 13 2017, @06:50PM (1 child)
The hell it is. You've been so scarred by this it affects everything you do, and the more you insist otherwise, the more you show it. Your responses are equal parts bizarre and deliberately deflecting, and you *keep replying* with a lot of force. Who do you think you're fooling?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:31AM
*sigh*
I'm so glad that Soylent has a psychoanalyst available to help the permanently scarred people who visit. Your work must be really rewarding. I might even consider donating something to keep your work going. Would you like me to email you a bottle of wine, or some donuts? Or, bagels might be more to your liking, donuts are fattening.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 13 2017, @01:54PM
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=WTF+are+daddy+issues%3F&atb=v63-6__&ia=web [duckduckgo.com]
I see three hits that might be legitimate, then porn, more porn, more porn, something about tinder which may or may not be pornographic. Please, don't explain this shit to me. It's probably something that I'll never un-see or un-imagine again.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:10AM
> groveled
He also bent for the Emperor of Japan. He understands that good relations start with respect.
Neither the Saudi King nor the Japanese Emperor thought for one second that Obama wasn't the most powerful guy in the room, just because he offered a traditional greeting.
Speak softly, carry a big stick.
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Tuesday June 13 2017, @12:24PM (3 children)
A bit like guys inheriting the right (via money) to rape and pay off the victim instead of being prosecuted. Or the power of rich-born kids to go to some poor country and sexually exploit the women there in exchange for the money the inherited and didn't need to work for. When did the last really rich guy go to the chair for murder, or to prison for rape?
Royalty is inherited, unjust power. Money often is basically the same shit under a different brand. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 13 2017, @01:43PM (2 children)
Exactly right! Maybe we should pass laws preventing people from inheriting money. Rich daddy dies, government takes all his assets, and distributes them among the poor. No more little rich bastards running around, exploiting all the rest of us!
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Tuesday June 13 2017, @02:23PM (1 child)
Not sure if you are sarcastic or not. Explicitly not being sarcastic and trying to be a little between pitch-black and blazing-white, I'd like to see the inheritance beyond a certain threshold being strongly taxed, exact taxation also taking into account the age of the offspring; for minors, there should be some extra budget allowed to make sure they don't grow up in poverty. I think it is a strong driving factor for people to make sure their offspring is financially safe, and a home does have some sentimental value as well. If it is an ordinary house ("ordinary" still open for specification and to fight over), I think it should be OK to leave it to the kids. Or if the offspring wants to pursue a higher education, either the state should invest the newly collected tax to provide for a *decent* basic education for everyone plus free scholarship for capable students.
Not sure if this makes me a communist. I think, chances in live should be earned, and everyone should get the opportunity to earn them. I don't mind competition for adults.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 13 2017, @02:27PM
Above a certain point split it 50-50 between the kids and the taxman. We'd sure as hell pay off some government debts fast that way.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @06:57PM
I think VLM still owes us a good answer to this one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @04:31AM (3 children)
Um... What's the point of this emperor person? Emperor of what, anyway? Japan is a tiny island! What is wrong with all of you people who hold on so dearly to your dear beloved Dear Leader? He's an old fart. WHO CARES?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday June 12 2017, @07:23AM
(1) He's the symbolic head of state;
(2) Japan;
(3) Japan is an archipeligo [wikipedia.org] of over 6800 islands, not just one island;
(4) he's the symbolic head of state and so respected for that reason;
(5) as are a great many other symbolic heads of state;
(6) the Japanese people.
HTH.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday June 12 2017, @06:41PM
Japan may be small geographically, but they're the tenth-largest country by population in the world.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Monday June 12 2017, @06:59PM
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 12 2017, @04:58AM (9 children)
So that law was passes while WE still occupied Japan. WTF?
I know that they asked to be able to keep the emperor, and the US wisely accepted that wish. But That guy (Hirohito) is gone. Why are we punishing this guy (Akihito) by making him sit on that wooden thrown all these years with not a single thing to do except count the flowers that bloom in the spring (Tra Laa).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:38AM (1 child)
Because of the looming threats next door, commies.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday June 12 2017, @07:27AM
Also the reason Doug arranged for quite a few war criminals to not just go free but be set up in positions of economic power.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @05:47AM
It was just one of many changes made as a result of the post-war Constitution. But the U.S. did not directly make it so:
(Score: 3, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday June 12 2017, @06:17AM
The flowers that bloom in the spring (Tra La) have nothing to do with the case.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @06:56AM (4 children)
"the US wisely accepted that wish"
I disagree with that. The US unwisely bestowed legitimacy on the next Emperor who dreams of world domination.
(Score: 2) by KiloByte on Monday June 12 2017, @08:00AM (3 children)
Do you mean this [pinimg.com] longing [tomsk.ru] look [intmassmedia.com]?
Ceterum censeo systemd esse delendam.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 12 2017, @08:42AM (2 children)
So, you've got a hardon for Putin? Not really relevant to this discussion. More relevant, is the fact that the US is pushing all of it's allies to take more responsibility for their own defense. Also relevant, is the Japanese controversy over altering their constitution to allow the Japanese forces to take that more active role in their own defense.
Who knows what the geopolitical field might look like in 50 years, or 100, or 250 years?
The fact is, the US legitimized the position of the Emperor, and the royal status of the Emperor's lineage. The concept of royalty is anathema to the US, it's constitution, democracy, and our way of life. Royalty is less incompatible with democracy than Islam is, but it is still incompatible. The UK and a few other countries manage to pull it off, reasonably well, but the concepts aren't really compatible.
The US has never legitimized the royalty of Russia, of which Putin is not a member.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 12 2017, @01:37PM (1 child)
> The fact is, the US legitimized the position of the Emperor [...]
Perhaps the U.S. legitimised the (monarchic) British Empire by allying with it in that same war?
> The concept of royalty is anathema to the US [...] The UK and a few other countries manage to pull it off, reasonably well [...]
I'm not aware that the U.S., aside from its own revolution. ever embarked upon an anti-monarchic programme. In the last century it seemed content to countenance monarchies in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Monaco, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nepal, Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, Iran and perhaps a few other countries. Apart from Iran and Nepal, all those countries are still monarchies.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday June 12 2017, @06:05PM
Agreed. The US anathema for monarchies is strictly a Domestic one, and the US has never shown any animosity to figurehead monarchs in otherwise elected governments.
Which is exactly what the Emperor was, and Is. The white gloves and top hat guy you trot out for ceremony.
Why keep him around? It had nothing to do with a communist horde, or bestowing blessing on a monarchy. (And no, the emperor was not a war criminal. Even at that time, he was a pawn of the military).
It had everything to do with gaining the acquiescence of the Japanese people so that instead of street by street fighting and snipers, there would be quiet acceptance because the Emperor said so.
It was something of a masterstroke, if you ask me.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Monday June 12 2017, @05:46AM (11 children)
If only Queen Elizabeth would accept that it is time for her to abdicate ...
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 12 2017, @06:03AM (8 children)
That would make Charles King. I'm not all that sure the British population would react all that well from what I've heard over the years.
Now if Charles abdicated his claim to make William next in line to the throne she might decide to step down.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday June 12 2017, @07:30AM (2 children)
and hopefully speed up the process of Australia getting an Australian (non executive) head of state.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 12 2017, @10:57AM (1 child)
No thank you. I don't see how creating yet another pole of power can help Australia - the prime minister is quite enough thank you.
Besides, the governors of each state and the governor-general of Australia are Australians and do not govern based on the orders/indications/wishes of UK monarchy - the appointment is made by the queen/king solely by the proposal of the Australian prime-minister [wikipedia.org].
Why would we need a president? To have a bigger political circus? Isn't what's happening in US enough for "entertainment"?
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Monday June 12 2017, @11:36AM
The president without executive powers simply replaces the Queen as head of state - ie they have tea and biscuits with visiting heads of state (or their delegates) - no new pole of power.
And they can continue running the swearing at ceremonies for members of Parliament - no change there (apart from standing in for the president instead).
To be head of state. It's only a circus if the president has any executive powers - no reason they can't be appointed in the same way as the GG.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday June 12 2017, @05:44PM (1 child)
The Queen can specify an Heir. I believe she made it clear a few years back that Charles was not it. IIRC she said William would be the one.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:24AM
No, the succession is controlled by the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, they all have to agree to a change in succession such as the recent changes that allowed the oldest child to succeed whether male or female.
Charles can quit as soon as he is declared King but as long as he is alive, he is next in line.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 13 2017, @05:42AM (2 children)
Charles can't abdicate his claim, the best he can do is abdicate after being declared King. Might only be a King for an instant, but he still has to be King to abdicate. Of course the Parliaments of the Commonwealth could change the succession law again but it doesn't seem likely.
The Statute of Westminster, over the objections of the King, makes all the members of the Commonwealth equal, including in deciding changes to the succession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_1931 [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:44AM (1 child)
And he's got precedent, having married a divorcee.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday June 14 2017, @04:54AM
It's a good excuse if Parliament decided to push him out like they did with Edward. Parliament is Supreme, something Americans forget with all their talk about George the Third being a Tyrant, whereas the Supremacy of Parliament was settled back in 1688 or so when they fired James the Second along with his son.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday June 12 2017, @07:09AM
In April, she wore a hat instead of a crown when she opened Parliament:
-- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/queen-perform-dressed-state-opening-parliament-wearing-hat-instead/ [telegraph.co.uk]
Is that what you're thinking of?
(Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Monday June 12 2017, @01:35PM
Scrap the whole monarchy while they're at it. A useless expensive figurehead.