The Big Decisions

Everybody in Year 10 at the moment is stressed. Friday - that is to say, yesterday - was the day on which we submitted our final subject choices for senior school. People are falling into a number of different categories:

1. The Coolly Collected Over-Achievers

The people who have already decided what they want to do; have all their forms filled out; and spend their time strolling around nonchalantly, watching everyone else scurry about in a terror of indecision. Say things like 'You mean, you haven't decided yet?' and 'Yes, I'm doing six T subjects. It's the only way to go.' People who fit into this category are Giuseppe, and, to a lesser degree, Gwen.

NB: If you're not part of our ACT/NSW school system, you may not know what T or A subjects are. A T is something that contributes to your final grade - an A is one you do for fun. Everyone picks six subjects, and most people do five Ts and an A. That's what I'm doing, certainly.

2. The Quietly Uncertain

The people who come into school with their forms filled out, but who still aren't certain about a couple of the things on there. 'Well,' they think 'I want to be a doctor, so it's good I've written down three sciences - Physics, Biology, and Chemistry, but not Geology, because nobody does Geology except Marie-Clare - but what happens if I decide to do a law degree? What happens if I don't get a high enough ATAR at the end of Year 12 and have to fall back on being a computer technician? Should I have some IT subjects on there? What if . . .'

There aren't any specific examples of this person, as I'm not a mind reader and I can't tell who's thinking this. As a rule, it's anyone who isn't rushing around like the people in the third category, but aren't commenting on the behaviour of these people like the Over-Achievers™. I would have thought that this would be the largest category. I was wrong. See below.

3. The Specific Procrastinators

Generally speaking, these people don't have that much trouble filling out most of the form. Generally they're taking five Ts and one A. The T subjects are fine: as a rule, these people are fairly confident in what they want to do in university or in later life. But the moment the merest mention of an A subject comes up - it's too late. They're like enraged bears. The only thing you can do is stand your ground and hope you come away mostly unharmed at the end of the conversation (enraged grizzly bears, that should have been. They're nothing like enraged polar bears. If you're ever attacked by an enraged polar bear, you should slowly remove pieces of your clothing and drop them on the ground in front of you, in order to distract it. Surprisingly, this approach doesn't work at all with Procrastinators™).

It's surprising how even the meekest soul can be transformed with the prospect of the perfect A subject held just in front of them, much like the sword of Damocles. Except less lethal than the sword of Damocles was. The problem is - the main problem, that is, I'm not going to get involved in the 'My-parents-want-me-to-do-that-but-I-want-to-do-this' debate - that nobody knows exactly what the perfect A subject is.

Marie-Clare wanted to do Hospitality, but then decided Photography was the way to go. She wrote down Photography on the sheet, handed it in, and made her escape, literally running so she wouldn't be tempted to go back and change it to some other subject. This was the sensible approach, and the only thing you can really do once identified as a Procrastinator™. Others were less sensible. Lala spent lunchtime in a frenzy of indecision between Woodwork and Drama. I was less than helpful at this point, I think I changed my mind about what she should choose more often than she did. She confronted Ariane, Ames, Midgie, Lox, and her English teacher, who happened to be passing. The final score was Woodwork: 2, Drama: 2, Photography: 1 (Midgie is very keen that everyone should do Photography. Almost aggressively so. It's scary. She deserves another category to herself). In the words of Lox, who was currently made up with large quantities of stage make-up, in preparation for his drama performance 'Lala, you should do Drama. I say so. And you should always do what the glittery clown tells you to do.' Even now, I can't remember what she decided. A decision was reached, though, which is what's important. Ness was another one who couldn't make up her mind: she decided to do Hospitality, in the end.

The reason I haven't mentioned myself yet is because, in my opinion, I was one of the worst. Gwen received the brunt of my indecision. I couldn't decide whether to do Hospitality, Photography, or Media (I decided on Hospitality in the end - just to spoil the surprise for you).

As you can tell, this category is almost certainly the largest. It is not, however, the worst.

4. The Complete No-Hopers

I can't give any examples of these, as most of the people I talk about in here read the blog. Even people I don't talk about read the blog. Here's looking at you, Eggleston. Also Diego. Don't blame me for the name. Giuseppe chose it.

Anyway, luckily, I don't know anyone who's a complete no-hoper. Some people are quite no-hopery, but haven't quite reached that high level.

A Complete No-Hoper™ is someone who, despite having been given two weeks to decide subjects, still has no idea on the day, and comes to school with incomplete forms.

5. The Pushers

I've been considering it, and I think Midgie deserves her own category after all. It's for people who are so certain of what they've chosen they're trying to encourage other people into taking their subjects. It works a lot of the time, most notably on Specific Procrastinators™. No-Hopers™ seem to be relatively immune: the high panic levels seem to block encouragement.

There are my categories for you. They aren't only applicable to subject choices: they work for virtually any decision you have to make. And so, here is a scale for you. If you ever need to work out the exact indecisiveness level of yourself or others, feel free to use it.

It is currently the night of the Australian federal election. At this very moment, votes are being counted. Only too soon we will know whether we have a female, red-haired, Welsh Labour PM or a deeply Catholic, Speedo-wearing, doesn't-believe-in-climate-change-despite-insurmountable-evidence,-the-fool, Liberal. The only thing I can recommend for Tony Abbott is that his first name is Tony. On the other hand, Julia is the title of a Beatles' song. And so, name-wise, I think they're about even. Policy-wise, I'm not sure.

I am, currently unable to vote. If only the election had been deferred by a month and two years, I'd be fine. To think, I came so close! As is, my only contribution to the election has been to hang around the outside of the voting hall, giving meaningful glances to people who looked like they were intending to vote Liberal (basically anyone over the age of 50, or anyone wearing a suit. This doesn't mean they actually voted Liberal. I'd hate to place a stain like that on someone's character with no evidence. It only means I thought they might). I'd like to imagine that I made a couple of people think twice about going for Tony. In hindsight, though, that's probably quite unlikely. They may have thought I was mentally encouraging them to vote Liberal. Or possibly they just thought I had a bad squint (meaningful looks are incredibly hard to do consistently). At any rate, whether I deterred them or confused them, that was all the difference I was capable of making.

Sometime in early 2009, I and several others founded a party called the 'Fruitcake Party'. We only lasted a day, and the only reason I remember it now is because I wrote some of the information down about it at the time. I was the Head of Party. Vyvyan was Treasurer. Peanut was vice-Treasurer, deputy Head, and Chairman. I'm not totally sure as to why we needed a Chairman, as I'm fairly sure we weren't Communist, but even I can't explain the workings of my fourteen-year-old mind. Gwen was Press Secretary, as she was the only one who knew how a political party worked. Chinny was the reluctant Policy Advisor. We wanted the death penalty to be re-introduced for several specific people, and all Mexicans to be painted green before entering the country. I have no idea, not even the faintest clue, as to why we'd want this. Clearly we were very sick people. Probably still are: it's unlikely to have got any better without treatment. I put it down to schoolitis.

Anyway, this got me thinking: what would the ideal prime minister be? Here are my criteria. I'm not saying this is all we need. I'm perfectly happy with the government we have now - or, at any rate, had last week - save for a few issues. Some of them they may already have, some they may be working on, but at any rate, here it is. Just give me a second to ready myself mentally for the criticism Giuseppe and, possibly, Gwen are going to rain on me on Monday for my limited understanding of politics. Marie-Clare, and anybody else, you don't have to read this. I just need a way to vent about our political system. Writing it down and posting it on the internet seemed a better idea than going on a Charles Mansen-type killing spree, humming election jingles. Which, by the way, do not work. They just succeed in annoying potential voters.

1. Strong climate change policies

I'm not even going to emphasise the 'strong'. Just 'climate change policies' would do. If we get Mr 'Don't-worry-the-Earth-is-actually-cooling-down' Abbott I'm going to commit hari-kiri. Or move to Mexico.

2. Legalisation of gay marriage

I don't understand Gillard's reasoning on this one. She's an atheist, isn't she? What can she have against gay marriage? And yet, she doesn't support it.

If she was a deep, deep, committed Catholic, I suppose I could partly understand. Some passages in the Bible are pretty condemning of homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." It should be noted that Leviticus also tells us that hunchbacks, dwarfs, and people with poor eyesight are unholy in the eye of God. I'm not sure a book written thousands of years ago by who-knows-who is the best way to deal with this subject. How can you claim to be non-discriminatory, to not see any difference between gay and straight couples, if you're then going to give one the right to marry and go 'Too bad,' to the other?

There were a great many rhetorical questions in there. I feel they're all justified, though.

3. Helping NOT banning the boat people

I couldn't research this topic fully. Every time I try, articles pop up about the awfulness of the boat people, the way they're taking our jobs, our land, our water. Believing several pages like these, the best you'd be able to say of the boat people would would be that they'd never actually burnt down an orphanage for blind, crippled children, and that's only because there is no solid evidence. So, I'm going to have to look at it logically. I know, logic and politics don't mix well, but I intend to try nevertheless.

So. Boat people. Refugees flee to our country to find sanctuary. We lock them in prison camps and forget about them, except to occasionally drag the term up to persuade soft-minded, xenophobic members of the middle classes to vote for [insert name of political party here]. Somebody said recently that at the rate they're coming in, they'd take twenty years to fill the MCG. So why are we worried? Because political parties need a target, and starving, homeless people can't fight back.

The problem - or solution - is not up to us, at any rate. It stems from the countries they're fleeing from, and I know that's not up to us. But you're the PM! You can't pretend you have no influence.

No, I can't think of a logical solution to this 'problem'. Some of our best minds have tried and failed. Some of our worst minds have tried, and come up with election policies. But I can't even vote. I'm allowed to be idealistic, and irrational.

4. A secular system of government

Yes, I know our government isn't religious, but we could at least have a go at making policies without having to worry about offending religious groups. I mean, we all know God doesn't exist. It's only a matter of time until they find out.

5. A PM who can actually say what he/she means. Yes, they're politicians, the truth-telling instinct was drummed out of them on their first day in parliament, but it would be nice to have a prime minister who can make strong policies and stick to them. The fact is, people don't like to be scared. They're like kindergarteners - 'No, I don't like the story about climate change! Tell me something else! No, not about the horrible boat people either. Can't you tell me something happy, like how young people are fulfilling our worst expectations of them and no matter how often I want to drive my Porsche around, it won't contribute to global warming? What do you mean, it doesn't work like that? I don't like you any more.' And we have a new PM.

Unless it's Abbott, of course, in which case he will go 'Don't worry. Global warming is all made up.' He will then probably proceed to kiss the child in question, thus infecting it with Liberal germs, in his cunning plan to get at the younger generations. As opposed to just being a paedophile. I personally can't see the difference, but I'm sure there is one.

NB: I am not suggesting that kindergarteners drive Porsches, or, indeed, that we should allow them to drive Porsches. I think that would be a very bad idea indeed.

Anyway, because of this, politicians have learnt to pander to the punters' needs. If it was not for this narcissistic desire to see the world through rose-coloured half-full glasses no matter what ridiculous half-truth or 'a-bit-like-the-truth' or even 'who-are-we-kidding?-this-is-a-lie' we are forced to swallow, we could get so much more done. And so, what I'm really saying here is that we don't need to change politicians. There is certainly room for improvement, yes. But what we really need to do is to change is the mindset of the complete human race.

Let's face it. We're doomed.

α. This isn't a proper reason, so I haven't given it a proper number. My final criteria for what would make a good prime minister is this. There should be enough of information about them, and they should posses enough unique characteristics, so as to allow The Chaser to satirise them on TV with ease or even - who knows? - start the newspaper up again. The website is fine - http://www.chaser.com.au/ - but it would be nice to have some new articles.