woodenitbe so totally like, cool if our first Prezident was a WOMEN? imeen, our GG is a women and so is ourPM and ALL of our Premiers (its TRU they crossdress my boyfrends mate is gay hehas sex with the StateTresurers and they tell him its so gross wot they do to him but he nose all this STUFF andits so cool). and all our top CEO are women the others are men and dont count becoz men are so gross and smelly and there all pedopies they cant help it poor things bcoz its in there jeans. my techer told me not the class techer hes gay but the socal sudez techer shes so hot and shes been toAmerica and talks just like Sex and theCity so shes obveusly inteligent. imeen its not like im gay or anything like that. but thePope will fix it youl see.

and she must be a Women ofColor becoz the aboriginees need it and have a samesex partner likeEllen on TV. and of corse she must be an imigrant from India orAfrica or one of thozother states out neer Alice Springs becoz then she can represent other imigrants to. and wen shesPrezident she can be head of the UN becozAstralia is the best country everybody says so and all the other banks steel money and get rich butAustralan banks dont so we must help them be like Australa.

and she can marry PrinceCharles so we can be a reel republic like inEngland, but after Camilla dies PrincePhillip is going to kill her not him but the Jews andArabs who work together and are his friends its so awful. but once he marrys ourPresident sheel b safe becoz the Jewsand Arabs cant come here its too far and our army is killing them in Africa and thoz other places and there afraid of us.

Next year I can vote and im going to vote for the President and if we all do it sheel be in charge and then everything will be grate and mum wont hav to work at the club any more.

Classic, Beelzebub.

>>Next year I can vote and im going to vote for the President and if we all do it sheel be in charge and then everything will be grate and mum wont hav to work at the club any more<<

In a single sentence, you have managed to encapsulate the entire present condition of the republican argument.

What we actually need is some stable, intelligent, credible and non-partisan folk to work on the issues, in order to determine an appropriate way forward.

What we actually have is some volatile, thoughtless, ditzy political activists, who merely talk about the issues, in order to big-note themselves on the cheap.

I also appreciated this snippet of yours from a previous post.

>>So Presidential candidates are to arouse and avow a burning ambition to achieve what no sane person would believe possible?<<

As Douglas Adams pointed out in "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy":

"...one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.

To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem."

In the face of all this, it needs to be said that "waiting for the Queen to die" is the very least of our problems.

When despair turns to desperation, humour is the only sane recourse.

Well, Pericles, you've not only nailed the nub of the matter, but quite possibly put an end to the conversation. imeen - sorry - I mean, what could be more insoluble than people, especially when you can't even say what the problem is. Right now there are folks sitting down to their third ale of the morning, bonking the second broad of the evening, selling a passel of shares at the top of the market, or just slugging it out at the daily grind; all of which are far more normal, natural, rational things to do than squinting at a little screen, tapping frenetically at a keyboard, and beavering away in your mind at things that may never happen, and that most people regard as nerdish nonsense. As one Irishman said to another, "They all here be crazy, sure, 'ceptin' thee and me; and I've got me doubts about thee!"

Perhaps the most interesting thing happening at the moment is the protests in France. If I'd said to you a few years back, "You can't raise the French pension age; they'd all go on strike" you'd have laughed me to scorn; and rightly. So what they're REALLY protesting at is not the new law, but the sense of moral outrage at the banking criminals not only getting off scot-free, but demanding that the public pay the cost. And it's certain that this couldn't have happened without the Internet. That may sound like a non sequitur until you think back to how hard is was, not only to get information back pre-Internet, but to organize coordinated public action. We're seeing a new phase, not of CONSCIOUS Internet use, but of the automatic, instinctive use of it. Those of us seeking ways and means should note this carefully, IMO, as an important development.

The next question is "where to from here?" The French have motivation; we in Australia don't. Life's too comfortable - no public energy or outrage to work with.

But don't worry. The Pope will fix it ;-)

Don't forget, Beelzebub, that the French are already into their fifth attempt at a Republic.

http://flagspot.net/flags/fr-fiftr.html

And already talking about a sixth. No wonder we are having so much difficulty sorting out our first.

>>I mean, what could be more insoluble than people, especially when you can't even say what the problem is.<<

Yup, that's it.

The problem is real, though, in that people think there is a problem. People thinking there is a problem is a problem in itself, except that it is extremely difficult to articulate. And by definition, impossible to solve.

My own view, such as it is, is that monarchies are an anachronism. It has however gone almost unnoticed that they (mostly; ours, certainly) have over the years been stripped of all real power. They remain, but as symbols only.

But symbolism is of course very important. Just ask any bogan in the stands at a Twenty20 BigBash why he's waving a flag. It's a symbol. Perhaps with a different meaning for you and me, but a symbol nevertheless.

However, I think you are misreading the French.

>>So what they're REALLY protesting at is not the new law, but the sense of moral outrage at the banking criminals not only getting off scot-free, but demanding that the public pay the cost.<<

I think that they are, most definitely and specifically, protesting at the lifting of the retirement age. They are a heavily socialized country, always the first to the barricades when their right-to-laze-about-and-drink-wine comes under threat.

And they've always known that their Banks are thoroughly inept.

http://in.reuters.com/article/idINLDE6950VM20101006

"SocGen's head of communications said the value of the fine was mostly symbolic"

There it is. That word again.

> they are .. protesting .. the retirement age .. comes under threat.
Yes, I'd have to concede this - my own enthusiasm to prove a point got the better.

> And they've always known that their Banks are thoroughly inept.
But I'd still maintain that there's an element of moral outrage, even if as a cloak to protect inebriated leisure time.

> the French are already into their fifth attempt at a Republic.
Didn't know, but not surprized. Knew a wealthy, influential Chinese years ago who fled for his life after Tiananmen, and related his amazed delight at finding that the French were only moderately interested to discuss his immigration credentials as a businessman, but delighted to welcome him as a major political player.

> No wonder we are having so much difficulty sorting out our first.
It'll be far from easy, and I think the most difficult thing will be finding the motivation for it - short of a disaster of some sort, and that's what I think might be inevitable if we don't find a more intelligent reason.

> My own view, such as it is, is that monarchies are an anachronism.
I'd like to dispute this, given my (too short) time living as a guest of the Balinese royal family. But there are monarchies and monarchies, and the modern (especially European) (mis-)understanding of them is quite justified given the historical experience. But it's too complex a topic, especially since I believe that the days of single-leader social systems are past.

> But symbolism is of course very important.
Undoubtedly more so than we realize. In fact, I'd say that if we understood how to apply the psychology of symbolism more effectively we'd be half-way to solving the problem of how to motivate a republic or other independent political structure.