ballpoint

It was actually more sinister than that though. The full quote is "People who convinced President Putin that the operation will be fast and effective … these people really set up all of us," Boris Nadezhdin, a former parliament member, said on a talk show on NTV television. "We're now at the point where we have to understand that it's absolutely impossible to defeat Ukraine using these resources and colonial war methods." To me, the implication is that they will move on to using other "methods". Ukraine reclaims more territory, reports capturing many Russian soldiers | CBC News

Were they gathering moss?

I am very much in favour of complete separation between the head of state and politics. The head of state should be like the best china, handed down from generation to generation and brought out to impress visitors, or a family heirloom, something dignified, respected and cherished by anyone of any persuasion. The political leader should be more like the family car, and regularly traded in for a newer model - or, if you like, changed frequently for the same reason a baby is. The political leader should reflect the will of the people - however misguided I made that out to be, because it is they who must live with his / her decisions. The head of state must represent the nation as a figurehead - in effect, be the living embodiment of the nation. In my opinion, they should not be regularly replaced, but rather left to gain experience, ideally becoming a steadying influence - but without having any real power to make policy. The advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that there is that chance to gain that experience, from a very young age, as well as a seamless transition between the old and the new. There is no way to achieve the former with an elected head of state, and the only way you could achieve the latter would be overlapping, extended terms. Another reason I don't mind a voted for political leader, and continuing with the car analogy, is that, just as you don't want a car that always goes to the left, or always to the right, you need variation in the policies of the political leader. Voting for the leader has proven to do this, as it is very rare for a party on either side to hang on to power for any length of time, and alternate lurches to the left and right tend to cancel each other out in the end. However, the cynic in me says it's all meaningless anyway. The idea of democracy is really a myth. We vote for someone that a few people in the upper echelons of each party have decided that we are allowed to vote for. Going with the last two US presidential elections, out of well over 100 million possibilities in the population, the choices have been between Trump or Clinton and Trump or Biden. The fact that they are vying to be the head of state as well as the political leader only makes it worse. Rather than the highly prized fine set of china, and the latest model high performance car that true separation of state and democratic (in its true meaning, not its Democrat Party one) politics would bring, you get to choose between two jalopies loaded with disposable paper plates. (Edit: For some reason the forum software has chosen to format my second paragraph, and this edit note, in bold characters. Perhaps it likes what I am saying? ???? This is not my doing. Given I'm going off topic, this is also all I'm going to say in this thread).

If you'd read my post I said "for the position of a purely ceremonial head of state", not political leader, and reinforced that with the Stephen Fry quote - how it benefits a country to have the political leader discuss how things are going with an experienced figurehead. If you interpret that to mean I'm in favour of an absolute monarchy, then that's your problem, not mine. In fact, I'd go as far to say that putting all the power in the hands of an absolute monarch is as unsavoury a proposition as putting all the power in a combined political leader and head of state - make of that what you will Americans, French and other relevant nations. I have seen no behaviour from the general public that causes me to change my mind regarding how they would vote if it came to a choice between culture and populism, or even the good of the country vs the good of themselves. After all, half of them are below average IQ, and the other half have few redeeming qualities. Finally, Pascal's wager is not one I'd even consider taking. Betting on the existence of a god by tenuously believing in him/it in the hope that he/it is fooled after you die speaks volumes about how one regards the intelligence of that god. Frankly, any vain, vengeful god fooled into rewarding you for belief in him/it based on an internal bet isn't worth worshipping in the first place, and the controlling, domineering personality of such a being would make life in heaven akin to living in North Korea. Besides which, god doesn't exist.

Rape, murder and torture are still crimes. War or no war.

This is a real scientific name for a blind amphibian that burrows its head in the sand: