h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I find it justifies my Yankophobia - people get the leaders that they deserve... :-p

*looks at Tony Blair*

Actually... can I take that back?

I quite like the competitive examination idea. Then, maybe, when they fail, we can do the renewel of the fields fertility sacrifice thing like we used to (for the traditionalists among us). That should bring in the tourists.

The upper classes are statistically less likely to become drug addicts? Might this possibly be to do with sociocultural factors rather than hereditory pure blood, hmmm? Is this actually true?

Who said all that about pure blood?
Not with sincerity, surely?

Oh yeah. And if we are stuck with them, and if they are protecting our system from tyrinical pms ready to step in at a moments notice to defend our system from abuses, don't you all think it would be better to have the next but one heir to the throne trained in something a bit more topical than Art History?

...well... how about their military service? Very character building.

In the army, one assumes they are trained to mindlessly follow orders.

"Disolve the parliment now, you 'orrible little second leiutenant!"

"Sir, yes, sir!"

I don't think, by the way that the monarchy is a particularly better protection than a presidency in stopping a dictator. In fact, if the wanted to, the royals are in a better position to do set up a dictator themselves, as they actually have the power to do it already. Don't tell me the people wouldn't stand for it. The people let Hitler do it. All the stops, checks, and balances in the world only matter if they are adhered to, and when they aren't, the people usually just roll over and say 'kick me'.

In the army, one assumes they are trained to mindlessly follow orders.

"Disolve the parliment now, you 'orrible little second leiutenant!"

"Sir, yes, sir!"

I don't think, by the way that the monarchy is a particularly better protection than a presidency in stopping a dictator. In fact, if the wanted to, the royals are in a better position to do set up a dictator themselves, as they actually have the power to do it already. Don't tell me the people wouldn't stand for it. The people let Hitler do it. All the stops, checks, and balances in the world only matter if they are adhered to, and when they aren't, the people usually just roll over and say 'kick me'.

Is that what he i studying; Art History, call me a synic, but, its one of those subjects I regard as something someone with no particular ability goes to University to study, cause, well, really, it means bugger all.
(having immages of students spending thre years at University arranging various paintings in order of date, hummmmm).

Then again, as he's going to end up owning 80% of what he's studying it's probabbly a good idea....

*Ring-Ring-click
"One speaking"
"Grandma, it's Wills. I'm stuck with this essay, and I'm hoping you can help... When did we get the Constable in the drawing room?"*

If nothing else he'd be one of the better tour guides around Buck House

Personally, I quite like the idea of the monarchy. My view is that it's better having a relatively independent, impartial ruler to control the potential excesses of government than to be brought to a standstill as party politics expand to include the leader of the country as well. I distrust people who actively seek power and politicians are currently top of that list.

Being awarded a powerful position on the mere basis of birth is not much better, but at least they are trained for the responsibility and know exactly what is expected of them which is mostly to not get involved in the day to day running of the country.

BTW interesting point: The Prince of Wales gets no income from the civil list, his entire income is profit generated by his farms and from rents on property attached to the Duchy of Cornwall.

Another point: Members of the current cabinet have spent more in the last four years on travel using the Royal Flight and other traditional methods of transporting the Royal Family than the Royal Family themselves. It is not necessarily cheaper for the politicians to be in charge.

Oi! Art History's a brilliant subject, and more interesting (and relevant) than you might think (I have to defend it - I might be teaching it next year as a general studies block ). I've got to agree though that it's a comparative doss subject at university...

Well, as you are teaching it next year, I pressume that is "A" level general studies?, Could enlighten all us "real Degree" students (BSc Cell and molecular biology and biomedical science (1:1 (Hons))), and tell us what "history of art" is?
(honest, I really need to know)

I haven´t read the backlog. But if anyone wants to make me a monarch, I wouldn´t say no...

History of Art...

1) History history, eg. identifying the various schools of art from their hallmark styles, eg. Dutch School c.17th century - chiarroscuro and the like
2) Very important in terms of practical art; ie. as a practising arstist, it is extremely useful to be aware of the work of other artists, their ideas, etc., eg. David Hockney's work c. 1975-85 is influenced by early 20th C. modernist, particularly Picasso
3)As a scientist, you will be aware that much of Rennaissance scientific investigation was in fact carried out by artists; certainly all anatomical work. Look at Da Vinci...
4)Politics of Art - all political leaders use propaganda, and historically this has involved the arts - Soviet art is a body of interest in itself, and then all those Napoleon paintings... and Charles I's constant depiction on horseback by Van Eyck...

I could go on and on...

Okay, so the above isn't atually enlightening, but the history of art is just as valid as the history of other arts - surely English Literature, by your standards, is not a "real degree". I wouldn't do history of art as a degree, but surely it can be as relevant as the understanding the significance of naive virgin T-cells in cell apoptosis...

Suggested reading:

Peter Medawar - "Advice to a Young Scientist"
Oscar Wilde - "The Picture of Dorian Gray"

Yeah! Dorian Gray. I only just finished reading that. Brilliant!

Politicians and the monarchy work in much the same way. If a problem comes up they ask a public/private servant to set up a committee to hopefully come up with a solution. Once the solution is to hand it is given to a PR trout to put a good spin on it.

Not dissimilar to how the armed forces and universities work when they have their hands out for funding.

I was always under the impression that public/private servants and their committees, were never set up or intended to help solve problems, only to draw attention away from teh problem, and give impression that something is being done. Same idea goes for Enquirees into, E.G., rail crashes, merges of large company's, problems in social services and all the other problems that bother the population (I.E., in terms of government the voters), drawing public attention away from the real problem, appearin to solve problem whilst doing nothing, as recently case with certain UK ministers taking payment for giving out passports, notice how quietly that story eventually died, there will be no mention of it in the election, not cause its sorted out, rather than the public, as useual are duped into pressuming its sorted out.

It's the PR clowns and press secretaries (often the same deadbeats, especially the ones with degrees) job to put the positive spin on the stuff the committees come up with.

Well, actually it's arguable as to whether the dismissal of the Whitlam government was so terribly "undemocratic". Certainly the dismissal event itself was but that only happened after months of deadlock between the government and the major opposition parties. The opposition had a majority in the Senate, the government a majority in the House of Representatives (the definition of government being the party/parties that have a majority in the lower house, the Reps) and neither could agree on passage of the budget bills. All attempts at negotiation had failed up to this point, the government had refused to call an early election (they knew they were on the nose and would almost certainly lose) and so the GG did what the constitution allowed him to do in such dire circumstances - he dismissed the government, appointed the leader of the opposition parties as the interim PM - until an election could be held, which had to be within six weeks of the dismissal as I recall.

So in the end the people got to decide who should be running the country, not the politicians. What could be more democratic than that?

Certainly there are many other issues and problems raised by this event in Australian history, and it certainly did accelerate the push for a republic (unsuccessul so far unfortunately), but it really was a very democratic way of resolving a political crisis. Compare this with the Watergate scandal in the US where the deputy of the disgraced president automatically became the new leader and finished his term. And pardon the crimes of his predecessor of course. The citizenery had no voice or ability to decide who should be running the county, this in the fiercely democratic, endlessly preaching the superiority of their system USA... I won't even comment on the rather "unusual" way the current US president got his job!

As I understand it, the balance of power in the Senate was held by a few independents who lost their seats in the resulting election.

Human lemmings in other words.

This story broke in New Zealand over night.

MZ Govt Unlikely To Follow Republican Ideas

The Government has no immediate plans to pick up National's idea of ditching the monarchy and becoming a republic.

A National Party task force says it is time New Zealand thought seriously about becoming a republic.

It recommends holding a referendum on the issue when the Queen dies.

Prime Minister Helen Clark believes New Zealand will one day become a republic but says her Government has other priorities at the moment.

She says New Zealand will wait until Australia abolishes the monarchy before debating the issue.

Australia narrowly voted against becoming a republic two years ago.