ballpoint

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:

I'd suggest they give him a gofundyou. Only with the last two letters of "fund" replaced.

On a lighter note, the female residents in the former Russian occupied towns have been dancing in the streets upon seeing their liberators, singing "Ukrainian men, hallelujah!"

While thoroughly applauding the push back from the Ukrainians, and rushing back to Russia of the Russians, the pessimist in me keeps replaying a line from "Black Adder" in my head: "Not even our generals are mad enough to shell their own men". Replace "shell" with "nuke" and you get the gist of what I'm thinking about. Not even Putin may be mad enough to nuke his own men, but he may be mad enough to nuke Ukraine once his men are out of the way. Lets hope not.

That little fellow in the bottom left corner of the photo below has been educated in diplomacy and protocol his entire life. In our current world, full of self serving, mediocre (or worse) politicians, he has been meeting, and learning from, giants (his mother included) since the day he was born. For the position of a purely ceremonial head of state, I would argue that trumps some jaded movie or sports star being voted to represent the essence of his country by the clueless, self interested, population. Imagine if the towering achievements of a country's culture and architecture were voted on by the general populace? I'd wager there would be no great museums, cathedrals, opera houses, universities, or other major stand-outs from dreary every day life, dotted with football stadiums, Wetherspoon branches and greyhound tracks. The position of king or queen is far greater than the person who is currently performing that role - just as the position of President should, but often sadly isn't. Stephen Fry once said that the fact that a political leader must meet with the figurehead of their country once a week to discuss how things are going is of great benefit to that country, and in his opinion, the USA would be a better place if the president had to meet with a real Uncle Sam once a week to tell him what he was up to, and ask his advice and opinion. I happen to agree with him. I suspect most people's hatred of the monarchy rises from envy. They see a life of wealth and privilege, without considering that someone would be living that life whether elected to it or born to it - indeed, the cost of maintaining former presidents, let alone the current one, far outweighs the costs of maintaining a royal family. While I wouldn't argue with a system where those who fail to meet the standards of their country are stripped of their title and role (yes, Mr Andrew Windsor, the brick layer formerly known as Prince, I'm looking at you and your ilk), I would not change that system as a whole - though I certainly wouldn't want to be the one born into that role, as I don't envy them at all. To end my little Sunday morning rant, a quote from Richard Dawkins, on the reality of a republic with an elected head of state. Spoken as a political commentator should that eventuate: "And we watch as President Becks, and First Lady Posh, board the presidential yacht, Boaty McBoatface on their trip to meet President Kanye West of the US" (Ok, I added the US bit).