Horse 2911 - Does Mr Porter Really Have No Idea Where The Money Came From?

There is an adage in news rooms that if you want a story to die, then all you have to do is wait ten days. Ten days is the distance between a Friday, the next Friday and the Monday beyond that. In that time, two weekends may have passed or else a weekend and the next Monday will have been and gone; so the general public almost no longer cares about whatever it was.

This rule of thumb is useful for colourful identities and questionable elements to bear in mind as they can begin to get away with anything. It is also useful for politicians and business people who want to bury a scandal because unless there is a election or court case imminent, the malaise will pass.

The following event happened more than ten days ago. I have set up this post in advance and it will get whatever the next number assigned is.

<><><><><><>

On the 12th of September, the now former Attorney General Christian Porter announced that a blind trust which he had set up in order to fund his personal legal bills, accepted a very large donation of between $600,000 and $1,000,000. Of course, he can make the statement that as it is a blind trust that he has no idea where the money came from but if that was genuinely true, then I wonder why he set up the blind trust in the first place.

Let me be absolutely clear about this, there isn't any suggestion let alone any evidence that Christian Porter has actually granted any favours or even changed policies in return for patronage, or his as yet unnamed financial windfall.

Having said that because of the nature of the blind trust, it might be actually impossible to audit or properly scrutinise the case for any conflict of interest, for the simple reason that officially the former Attorney General has no idea who threw a giant wad of cash his way. 

As far as I can tell, Porter's own admission was that is personal legal fees in trying to prosecute his his defamation case against the ABC, was a "massive personal financial drain on me and my resources".

He also bragged on Sky News Australia that he had collected many folders of emails where  "People emailed in spontaneously with offers of all different types, but I haven't taken people up on those emails." and that "if at any point in time anything arises that requires me to make disclosures… of course I'll do that."

That cast the net of the number of possible people who could have sent him the money far and wide.

The problem is that according to the Parliament's register of interest rules, MPs are legally bound to declare literally anything, which includes any financial arrangement which "may conflict or may be seen to conflict with their public duty." 

Now obviously Porter felt the need to update the register or else he wouldn't have done it. The statement that he made was that his legal fees were being paid by the "Legal Services Trust" but there's precisely diddly squat details about who controls or who finds said trust.

There's a problem here.

A trust is formed when the Trustor enters into an agreement which transfers control of assets to the Trustee, which are then managed per the terms of the Deed of the Trust.

A Blind Trust is when the Beneficiary as nominated by the Trustor has no knowledge of the assets, or how they are managed. In fact, the only person who actually does know how the assets are being managed is the Trustee.

I do not think that this qualifies as a Blind Trust. I think that that needs Porter to have contributed the funds himself and also not know how the fund is being managed. If Porter knows that his legal bills are being paid, them he positively does know where the money is going. What Porter is telling us is that he doesn't know who his very generous patrons are. 

I find the idea that Porter genuinely doesn't know how big his legal bills are, to be utterly ludicrous.

The obvious question that demands answering, is who paid it? 

Political parties need to know where their money came from and are not allowed to accept anonymous donations. Unions need to know where their money came from and are not allowed to accept anonymous donations. Banks and other deposit taking institutions need to know where their money came from and are not allowed to accept anonymous donations.

I find the idea that a Cabinet Minister, an Officer of the Crown, and the Attorney General no less, genuinely has no idea where a six figure sum of money came from, both ludicrous and dare I say it, outrageous.

I think that the possible and most likely candidates for who donated the money are very small. My suspicion which is ungrounded is that the Liberal Party, the IPA, News Corp, or perhaps some wealthy businessperson paid the giant wad of cash into the Legal Services Trust. The problem is that they would have had to have known about the existence and that means that Porter would have had to have told them. 

<><><><><>

As more than ten days have passed, do we have an answer yet? If the answer is "yes", then the judicial process has worked. If the answer is "no" then the political shell game has worked and Mr Porter has successfully completed a cover-up.

If so, then the scandal has been successfully buried.

Horse 2910 - The 'Batsman' Has Been Dismissed. The Next 'Batter' Shall Be.

https://www.lords.org/lords/news-stories/mcc-to-use-the-term-batters-throughout-the-laws-of

MCC HAS TODAY ANNOUNCED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAWS OF CRICKET TO USE THE GENDER-NEUTRAL TERMS “BATTER” AND “BATTERS”, RATHER THAN “BATSMAN” OR “BATSMEN”.

These changes have been approved by the MCC Committee, following initial discussion by the Club’s specialist Laws sub-committee.

MCC believes that the use of gender-neutral terminology helps reinforce cricket’s status as an inclusive game for all. The amendments are a natural evolution from work already undertaken in this area as well as an essential part of MCC’s global responsibility to the sport.

The changes are effective immediately and updates have been made to the Laws of Cricket published at lords.org/laws, with the Laws of Cricket App and printed editions to be amended accordingly at their next updates.  

- Marylebone Cricket Club, 22nd Sep 2021.

Good.

Speaking as a 40-something year old man, I see absolutely no problem with this whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, calling the one out in the middle with a bat in their hand the 'batter', as opposed to the one with the ball the 'bowler', or the one with the gloves on the 'wicket keeper', or the 'fielders', or 'umpires', sounds as obvious as naming the 'scorekeepers', or the 'crowd'. Look, I completely understand that cricket which is an ancient game which is as much defined by tradition, arcaneness, silliness, and jocularity as it is law, should want to maintain its character but this is so much of a pointlessly small case as to be trivial. That it should draw even so much as a zephyr in a teacup, let alone Cyclone Lipton, is mystifying to me.

Granted that the use of the word 'Chinaman' to describe a left-arm unorthodox spinner's equivalent of a googly or wrong-un is obviously racist and should immediately stop if not already done so, and the position named 'third man' which is not in any way descriptive at all should also immediately be stopped, but the cries in the media that changing the name of the person with a bat to the 'batter' is both childish and laughable.

What's wrong with these people? Are they somehow confused? Words can have different meanings in different contexts. Do these people hear the word 'batter' and immediately think of a piece of cod which transcends all understanding, accompanied with chips, and wrapped up in last Thursday's copy of The Grauniad? I imagine that they must go all the way round the twist from deep extra cover to silly mid-on when they hear the word 'run' which has 154 definitions in my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary as opposed to 'batter' which has just 10. What do they do when they get to the word 'wicket' which in cricket is itself a term which is variable in meaning and as unfathomable as nuclear physics unless taught from birth.

These people must think that baseball and rounders are alien games where the 'batter' is some kind of weird alien thing. Imagine the look of horror on their faces when someone asks if they'd like to eat a hot dog. I'll have a Dalmatian, thanks. They're kind of spotty and look fun to eat.

The reason why the MCC decided to change the name of the person with a bat in their hand is painfully obvious as well. What happens if you are a girl?

Wait. What?! They exist?!

Does the MCC honestly mean to say that there are girls, women, and ladies out there who actually might like to play this game?

That's an absurdity to begin with. The very thought of standing out in a field for hours at a time, watching people far away hit a ball away while your team does their level best to get rid of them, is inherently foolish. 

Why would we want to pile on absurdity with absurdity by describing girls as batsmen. I don't know how that's either sensible or truthful.

The world is stacked against women to begin with. Lots of the systems which exist were designed for men. I suspect that the wickets themselves which are 28 inches tall, were designed with a 19th century gentleman in mind. Probably people are generally taller now and so women might be as tall as men were a century ago but it still begs the question. How do you promote inclusiveness and state that the game is for everyone, when the names of the players very obviously deny that statement?

Football never had this problem. Australian Rules Football never had this problem. Tennis, Basketball, Lawn Bowls, Motor Racing, Horse Racing, and Fencing never had this problem. They had players, drivers, jockeys and fencers. Baseball which also has pugilists dispatching balls to the big wide yonder also never had this problem and called the person with the bat a 'batter'. Cricket has finally joined the twentieth century as far as I'm concerned.

Aside:

The position called 'Third Man' is strange and defies sensible description. 'Point' is supposed to stem from the idea that that's where the point of the bat points. If the Slips are the first position and Point is the second, then that position is the 'Third Man' up. This is dumb. I do not think that girls and women would much like being called Third Man either. 

It is in fact more of a Fly Slip or a Deep Fly Slip or perhaps Fine Fly Slip in the same way that you have Backward Square Leg on the On-Side.

I have heard the position referred to as the 'Fox Fielder' because they patrol the fence looking for strays that have flown. That puts the Fox Fielder almost directly opposite Cow Corner; which is where the most agricultural shots are sent. 

Horse 2909 - How To Unbake A Cake

Some time over the next few months when we will all be allowed out of our houses, there will again come a time for conviviality, joviality, and frivolity. Also presumably, there might come office Christmas parties or perhaps family Christmas get togethers, where there will be lots of cake and pie.

This invariably means that people will once attempt to try their hand at baking and if we learned anything in 2020 when the world went crazy-go-nuts for baking sourdough bread, most people are generally awful at baking.

You will more than likely be given a cake to take home but do not be fooled. It will be awful and should by rights end up in the bin if it wasn't for the fact that it's very wrong to throw food away.

Your best solution then, is to try and recover the ingredients so that you can use them for other things like making pizza or other some such. This then is a simple step by step guide on how to unbake a simple lemon poppy seed cake.

In principle, the way to unbake a cake is identical to baking a cake except that everything must be done in exactly the reverse order and in exactly the reverse method or else it could threaten the very fabric of the space time continuum. If you want the space time continuum to continue continuuming then please follow these steps.

HOW TO UNBAKE A LEMON POPPY SEED CAKE.

STEP 1.

Using a set of tweezers, carefully pick off any candied zest of lemon which is on the cake.

You will then need to carefully peel back any of the icing, to then set aside (see Step 7).

STEP 2.

Place cake onto a wire rack and then reheat in a regular oven to 180°C. It is important that the cake is prewarmed before it is unbaked.

Take cake out of oven and place into baking pan. 

You will then need to put it into your anti-oven for 40 minutes at -180°C.

STEP 3.

Once cake has been unbaked, it is now time to uncombine and disassemble the ingredients back into their constituent parts.

Pour the now liquid cake back into a mixing bowl and unbeat. If this liquid proves to be unbeatable, then you may be forced to use a wooden spoon.

Keep on unbeating the mixture until it is dry. 

STEP 4.

Carefully drain off the now uncombined milk, poppy seeds, lemon rind, butter, and separate the eggs and now dry caster sugar and flour.

Uncombine the poppy seeds and milk in a bowl and set aside for 15 minutes.

STEP 5.

Lightly degrease a 20 x 10cm (base measurement) loaf pan.

Reheat the oven from -180°C to room temperature.

What you should be left with are the following items:

50g poppy seeds

185ml cold milk

220g (1 cup) caster sugar

3 eggs

300g (2 cups) self-raising flour

200g unsalted butter, softened

1 lemon, rind grated, juiced

STEP 6.

Carefully collect the innards from the eggs and unbreak them back into intact eggshells. This step takes some practice.

STEP 7.

Unbeat the icing sugar, lemon juice and butter back into their constituent parts.

Unmelt the butter and place the pat back into the fridge.

You may need to unbeat this mixture with an electric mixer.

Note: 

Failure to complete any of these tasks in exactly the equal and opposite manner that they were originally done in, will result in failure to unbake the cake and possibly warrant prosecution under Section 106 of the Pure Foods Act 1920 (Crimes Against Humanity Schedule 2). 

Horse 2908 - The Winner Is Football... No Really, It's Football

The Festival of The Boot for 2021 has been and gone (well the bit that I care about anyway) and that now leaves football fans across this wide brown land searching for the next pig skin clad glory. 

My hope is that 2021/22 brings the A-League and W-League to new heights and as always, my hope is that Rugby league especially, dies (for it is a silly game that does not need to exist).

In this post I annoy practically everyone in Australia with this absolutely unscientific and obviously biased ranking of the various football codes:

1 - Football

Football with its limited number of rules and very small requirement for equipment, can be played in warehouses, alley ways, car parks, on the street, and obviously on proper pitches.

It deserves its place as 'The World Game' because it is really one of only a few games where the size of the player is irrelevant and where even gender is actually a secondary constraint.

Because football needs only rudimentary equipment, the pool of players is massive and it is little wonder that the football World Cup is bigger than the Olympics and that national sides and club sides can play each other in international club tournaments. Super Rugby sort of attempts this and the Rugby League World Club Challenge Cup also very weakly attempts this but they're just dog and pony shows in comparison with any major football tournament.

You're also not that likely to play any of the other codes of football indoor or on rocky surfaces but you will find kids in the middle of nowhere kicking a football around.

2 - Australian Rules Football

The only real thing against Australian Rules Football is that it can not be played in the inner city and in alley ways. The game which is designed to be played on a cricket field (and was invented to keep cricket players fit over the winter (though given that I've seen eskys of beer out in the middle of local cricket matches, this is debatable)) and needs that big field.

There's been loads of tactical variations over the years and coaches and playing staff are constants trying to out think the opposition.

Because the field is so big and wide and long, Australian Rules Football more than any other is less dependent on individual superstars (even though they certainly exist) as it is on very big team efforts. A 50m run in any other code will have been massive and gotten you more than half way but in Australian Rules Football, it might only get you out of your own circle.

3 - Gaelic Football

Gaelic Football is a fast and free flowing game which lends itself well to being played on a vast ground but is cramped into a rugby/football pitch.

The passing and long kicking aspects of this game are superior to the carrying style games of football but it is still in second place to Australian Rules Football which simply does every single aspect better.

I will say that the accuracy needed to score a goal in Gaelic Football is Higher than in Australian Rules but the roundness of the ball makes control and bounce more predictable.

4 - Rugby

Rugby is the carrying game which is the domain of rich private schools. It also caught on in New Zealand as the dominant form of the carrying game.

It rewards possession by allowing a side to maintain and keep the ball through the process of rolling mauls and rucks and also allows for a kicking style game.

Really, this is the only form of Rugby which should exist because the rules are relatively sensible. 

5 - American Football

American Football is an insanely complex and tactical game. Unfortunately, the stop-start nature of the game means that it takes several hours to complete 60 minutes of game time.

Admittedly just like cricket, this means that the story takes a long time to develop and this lends itself well to having barbeques and treating the whole thing as though it were a day out. It's just that this is less about it being football and more about it being everything else.

American Football relies on people with computers analysing thousands of plays and coming up with new plays which should hopefully create yardage and lead to touchdowns. Unlike Rugby, the game is paused once the ball is grounded; so there is literally zero skills that that the two codes of Rugby have, any kind of passing game. The two codes of Rugby have all kinds of hand off and wrap around plays whereas these are rare in American Football.

6 - Rugby League

Rugby League is the worst code of football because it took the game of Rugby and then added the compromises of American Football to it.

The Rugby League split from the Rugby Football Union over the issue of payments to the players in 1895. A similar schism happened in Sydney in 1907, for precisely the same reason. The Rugby Union preferred to keep the game amateur; mostly because it was the game played by private school kids.

In theory, I should be against the upper class version of the game but the game itself is mechanically stupid. The introduction of the tackle count, the removal of the line out, and the clearance of scrums, means that Rugby League is a faster game but far more predictable in terms of tactics and really it is not a whole lot removed from the game of force-em-back. 

Rugby League used to be a better game before 1967 but the introduction of television and the tackle count had rendered it last on the list. The game doesn't reward possession either because if you do manage to hold the ball for six tackles, you're forced to hand it over. American Football rewards possession after a side has made 10 yards, by resetting the down count.

What doesn’t help is the constant tweaks to the rules, that make it virtually impossible for the casual fan to keep up with. I estimate that since the Super League war there has been about 100 rule changes; including rules that have been added and subsequently scrapped.

It adds even further pressure to match officials too, as interpretation of the rules by both them and fans causes confusion.

Conclusion:

If I was Grand Poohbah and Lord High Everything Else then I would decree that all of the Rugby League clubs either reconcile with Rugby, or disband and join either the AFL or the A-League. I'm sure most Rugby League fans won't know the difference. Apart from Souths, Penrith, Canberra, and St George fans, everyone else can sort themselves out. Those clubs are the only four with any value that I can see.

Horse 2907 - Three-Person 'Friend Bubble' - Danielle Is Friend No.4

https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/friends-bubble-created-for-children-to-allow-visits-time-for-school-holidays

"Children and teenagers aged 18 years and under will be able to create a ‘friends bubble’ to allow home visits provided the adults in their homes are fully vaccinated, under an easing of restrictions for school holidays.

From 12 noon today, 21 September, people aged 18 years and under who live in stay-at-home areas and areas of concern across NSW will be able to create a bubble of three friends and visit each other’s homes for play and activity, subject to the following conditions: 

Each child is allowed to have two designated friends come to their house. These two friends must always be the same, creating a three-person “friends bubble”"

- NSW Health, 21st Sep 2021.

One of the often cited aphorisms but rarely ever defined, is the so called "Law Of Unintended Consequences". This Law with its many exceptions, exemptions, and exasperations, goes on to broadly state that the actions of people, which includes people who are corporate and corporate sole (such as companies or governments) have actions and consequences which are either unintended or perhaps unanticipated; either through the perverse motives of people, or simply because the action itself was obnoxious or daft.

Perhaps the most famous example of this, is the almost certainly fictional story of the British Raj, which was concerned about the number of venomous cobras in Delhi, offering a bounty for every dead cobra which was caught. The story supposedly goes that the program was initially successful but that particularly savvy entrepreneurial types, started breeding cobras in order to collect the bounty money. 

I can not find evidence of this actually being real in British India but as you might expect, it is currently a hobby of everyone's favourite low level superhero, Florida Man:

https://www.sfwmd.gov/our-work/python-program

Python removal agents will be paid:

An hourly rate ($8.65 per hour or $15.00 per hour depending on the area) for up to ten (10) hours each day while actively searching for pythons on designated lands. 

An additional incentive payment of $50.00 for each python measuring up to four (4) feet plus an extra $25.00 for each foot measured above four (4) feet. 

- South Florida Water Management District , as at 24th Sep 2021.

As if that's not going to result in python breeders. 

The Law Of Unintended Consequences is one of those things which economists have known about for a very long time but which seemingly gets ignored by politicians and social scientists who perhaps mean well but want to achieve things in a hurry (Pink Batts, Building the Education Revolution (school halls), JobKeeper, Robodebt etc.) It is the Law Of Unintended Consequences which is the reason why if social engineers were to build bridges (as opposed to structural engineers) then you would be well advised not to cross them.

What if anything does this have to do with the NSW Government's new "friends bubble" policy for children? As with any law or regulation, there will be consequences as the result of its enactment. Also, as someone who lives in the land of pulling apart law and regulations, I like to see what those consequences are and game them out.

Let's look at the crux of the regulation:

"Each child is allowed to have two designated friends come to their house. These two friends must always be the same, creating a three-person “friends bubble”;"

This sounds all good in theory, however people are complex social beings who occupy places inside complex social networks. 

I was very much introduced to this in Year 6 when my teacher was quite concerned that our class had become quite cliquey. Her solution was to draw up a sociogram and map the friendship web of the class. The plan after drawing up this sociogram was to then assign seating positions in the class, based upon whom people had the fewest connections. She did this by asking one simple question:

"Who do you most want to sit next to in class?"

A connection is drawn between two people if they both name each other. Since this is a self reporting system, then it is quite accurate. By getting the class to write down three names, she was able to determine pretty quickly that there were in fact three distinct groups of about 8 people each, in a class of 31.

3 x 8 = 24

See the problem? In our Year 6 class, with a self reporting system, you got three distinct groups and 7 people who left over. 

For the purposes of splitting people up, then that isn't a problem but if you are talking about government sanctioned friendship groups for the purposes of social interaction, then the Law Of Unintended Consequences has very much made itself known.

If each child is allowed two friends, then that creates little triplets... like so:

Alice chooses Belinda and Chloe.

Belinda chooses Alice and Chloe.

Chloe chooses Alice and Belinda.

Nobody chooses Danielle.

Danielle might be everyone's third choice in which case she missed out, or perhaps nobody's choice at all.

The big problem here is that I can game this out because I have gone beyond the point in life where my internal biological processes have deemed me necessary. I am perfectly happy to play mind games like this, because as someone whose head has been spray painted in grey experience, this kind of problem doesn't immediately concern me.

However, if you are a kid, or worse a teenager who is living through this, you are probably feeling things with the feelings volume turned up to 11; with bursting as the feelings constantly ram up against the top of the VU monitors.

I can imagine that for a kid trying to understand and manage this current time of mass social isolation, it's probably already terrible. There must be some kind of perverse comfort in knowing that everyone else is isolated as well. I also imagine that it would be quite another thing to know that your friends are out there in their three-person “friends bubble” and having a nice time socialising while you have been left alone. What's even worse, is that they chose not to have you there; either because you're only friend No.4 or because you're even further down the social order.

I can imagine that there are kids who won't be named in these three person friend bubbles and will be fine with it. Someone like Nigel No-Friends and Scott Nobody have probably already started their own personal journey of developing resilience as a character trait. If you already aren't very many people's friend, then you've probably already either developed coping mechanisms or genuinely don't mind being on your own. Then again, some people just have a natural disposition to enjoying solitude and this whole time of social distancing is in fact quite lovely for them.

There's definitely a sense of irony in this brave new world where Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, Tiktok, Parler, Zoom, Skype, and a multitude of other social networking media platforms have made everyone more connected but at the same time leave us poking at the world through a telephone touch.

If anything, this three person friend bubble policy might actually exacerbate some kid's fears of missing out; especially when they can see and know that others are having more fun, living better lives, or experiencing better things than they are; through choice not to have you there. 

Alice, Belinda and Chloe will be fine. Danielle might be devastated. Nigel and Scott are probably okay.

Horse 2906 - Going Metric Every Inch Of The Way

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-58597693

"The government says its review of EU rules on imperial measures for traders is only a "small part" of plans to reshape laws after Brexit.

The overhaul could permit retailers to once again sell goods only using Britain's traditional weighing system.

...

Boris Johnson pledged to change the rules ahead of the 2019 election, telling the Daily Mail: "We will bring back that ancient liberty. I see no reason why people should be prosecuted."

"There will be an era of generosity and tolerance towards traditional measurements," the prime minister pledged."

- BBC News, 17th Sep 2021

I think that something went hideously awry with reality when Boris Johnson decided to step back into the House of Commons and mount a leadership challenge for Number 10. In the proper non-silly version of reality, Boris Johnson after being the wacky Mayor of London, in the same way that other pantomime Mayors such as Dick Whittington or Red Ken Livingstone were, should have gone on to be a perennial panelist on BBC Radio 4 Panel Shows. In this way, he would have and should have followed Clement Freud and Gyles Brandreth.

Instead, Boris Johnson's Conservative Government, which only happened after David Cameron's idiotic cave in to the racists at UKIP and Teresa May's bound to fail premiership, has taken governance by BBC Radio 4 Panel Shows to the very heart of government itself.

I like Boris Johnson. It's just that he should have remained as comedy relief and the fact that he took himself way too seriously, has short changed us of what could have and should have been many years of quality comedy on the Beeb.

This policy of allowing retailers to trade in imperial units is nothing more than the enactment of law in Johnson's gelotopocracy¹; in lieu of actual sensible policy.

Horse has previously stated that:

http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2019/07/horse-2575-doonside-station-needs-lift.html

"The Metric system is not in use in Hell. They still use the Imperial system, for the sole purpose of making the underworld as difficult as possible."

- Footnote 1, Horse 2575, 23rd Jul 2019

Admittedly this publication makes such remarks and asides for comic effect but bringing this into public policy is crazy making...

...but not as bad as you might think.

The understated truth which is relevant here is that people only tend to care about what immediately impacts them. This is the reason why in high school, loads of students suffer through maths classes and then almost never have to deal with serious maths again for rest of their lives. Even personally as someone who works in an accounting office, the most difficult pieces of maths that I need are not much more than arithmetic.

Given that, allowing traders to start trading with imperial units again, isn't suddenly going to cause a mass breakout of confusion everywhere for the simple reason that most people don't find maths useful in the first place and traders aren't likely to be engaging in anything more complex than basic arithmetic either.

If goods are already sold in kilograms, then traders aren't likely to change over. Maybe there will be artisan bread and cheese makers who sell things by the pound but that's it. The weight of a size 5 football is a pound as well. Of course people will still refer to their weight in pounds or perhaps stone, but that's mostly an edge case and not useful for anything else.

The only occasion that you're going to care about ounces, is in reference to the weight of a cricket ball; which weighs 5½ Oz.

The only place that you're likely to find a pint after the law change, is in the pub or perhaps in a local dairy.

Inches, feet, yards and miles kind of held on a bit. Tyre rim sizes are still defined by inches but have millimetre width sizes. Feet and inches are only useful in determining how tall people sized objects are.

A football pitch has a 6 yard box, an 18 yard box, and other measurements in yards. A cricket pitch is 22 yards long and that was never metricized because that's hallowed turf. 

Miles still exist on British Motorways because it was deemed too hard to change over all of the signs in the country. 

The only place that anyone cares about furlongs is when that pony that you've just dropped a score on, is slow.

Britain is absolutely not going back to Pounds, Shillings and Pence², because although people and computers can perform numismatic gymnastics, they're not going to.

Cars are still likely to have their power stated in brake horsepower and mileage in miles per gallon but in reality, already nobody understands ft/lbs or Nm except for boffins and nerds (who are likely to bore or entertain you).

The actual real world effects of this legislation is likely to be three-quarters of an imperial diddly squat, as opposed to the metric equivalent of a kilobupkis. This is legislation in lieu of actual governance. This is smoke and mirrors amidst the gutting of the NHS in the middle of a pandemic. 

Around and around and around the windd blows, blowing this way, then that, but never finding any stable direction. All the rivers flow into the sea, but the sea never fills up. When the seagulls follow the trawler it is because they think that sardines will be thrown into the sea.

¹rule by a clown

²for a short time only, the guv'ner is offering light ale from the pump at only 1/2 per pint.

Horse 2905 - Since When Did "Freedom" Become A Cape For Captain Stupidity?

Forgive me for thinking that Liberty and Freedom as is currently being pursued in Melbourne specifically and Australia generally, looks very much like the kind of Liberty and Freedom which resulted in the January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol Building earlier this year. Liberty and Freedom as they are currently being bandied about, looks less and less like genuine claims upon government and society and more and more like a cultish push for nothing more than absolute selfish knavery at the expense of society.

What we're witnessing isn't some grand project to increase the scope of human happiness, such as expanding the franchise, or pushing for equality, or equity as the result of past injury, but rather people demanding licence for abject knavery. 

In the wake of the destruction of a hundred million people through the scourge of war, which brought untold sorrow to mankind, the United Nations was set up and the European Coal and Steel Community was founded, to pour treacle into that same machinery of war. The grand story of history should tell us that people didn't die for Liberty and Freedom, as much as they did to stop knavery. As ineffectual and bureaucratic as the UN is, it still managed to contain some pretty lofty ideals in the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights:

https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

- Preamble, Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (1948)

I think that the stated starting point and goal of human rights, as mentioned in the UDHR, is a noble one; namely "dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women".

To that end, what we saw in Melbourne, does not even remotely look that is a thought in the minds of the people who were there. This was purely about manbabies having a cry because they were restrained from doing exactly what they want whenever they want.

Not even John Stuart Mill, who wrote the book On Liberty, would come to the conclusion that someone should be free to do whatever they want whenever they like.

"The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct.

Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection."

- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

A madman standing in the town square who is swinging his fists around (because he is a madman) is probably reasonably allowed to do that but the instant that his fists come in contact with anyone else, this ceases to be a matter of individual liberty and becomes a matter upon which society at large has a very reasonable claim upon him. The right to individual liberty only extends as far as someone's fists, it does not extend to the right to cause injury to someone else.

It may have escaped these people but we are living in the middle of the 7th worst pandemic in human history. It is reasonable, although somewhat unpleasant, that governments who have the responsibility of the protection of the citizenry, should place reasonable limits upon the populace. Likewise it is reasonable that employers and people who operate premises who have a duty of care to the public, also place limits upon individual liberty.

Let's assume for a second that there exists some kind of unwritten declaration, or perhaps social contract as theorised by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, to establish some kind of political community in the face of the problems that we face. Presumably we would want to mutually pledge to each other our lives and fortunes, and this would be bound by nothing more than a code of honour. (As if it could be any other way). 

Since we'd move out of what Thomas Hobbes called a "state of nature" in which people's lives were "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short", then does that mean we can live any old way we want? If individual liberty and freedom are going to be absolute, then should we be rightly free to do anything that comes to mind? Hardly.

It should stand to reason that there are some acts of so-called freedom which actually destroy freedom itself. Since we're living in a pandemic, where a virus might actually kill you, then it's possible that some acts could very well be your last free act. 

Suppose that you do keep on doing just what you feel like doing; not giving a peppercorn of thought for the welfare of others, then if they or you get injured or sick, or worse die, then what?

Presumably if everyone does exactly what they feel like like doing, then they don't have to bother about any kind of sensible or rational thought, or any kind of sensible or rational action for that matter. Do you call that a free life? What do you get out of it? What is the point of Liberty and Freedom if you are dead?

I would suggest that people would likely come to agreement that they should live free lives. I don't think that freedom should be used as an excuse to do whatever you want to do and in the process destroy freedom. Rather, freedom is best expressed through civic philos. If everyone is out biting and ravaging each other, then watch out. History proves again and again that it takes almost no time at all before everyone is annihilating each other, and where will your precious freedom be then?

This might sound counter intuitive but as someone who thinks that people are endowed with inherent dignity (irrespective of whether or not you think that's the result of divine providence or consciousness and self awareness or some other rational construction), I hate the idea of absolute private selfish liberty and freedom. 

I live in a society which depends upon a network of interactions, and whether that has to do with justice, or education, health care, and the provision of services which it is reasonable that people should have access to in order to achieve a higher degree of dignity, I think that absolute private selfish liberty and freedom actively harms society and with it, harms people's welfare, liberty and freedom in the process.

Horse 2904 - The False Red Flag

Supposedly there was an attack on Monday on the offices of the CFMEU in Melbourne by union members. Various news outlets like The Daily Telegraph, Herald-Sun, Courier-Mail, The Australian, various radio stations like 4BC, 2GB, 3AW, 5AA and the ever anti left Sky News Australia, were crowing about it as though this was proof that union members were turning in on each other. Sky News Australia was almost proud of the fact that union offices were being attacked; which is just gauche. 

However, if you do any kind of actual journalism and bother to investigate the facts which are readily ascertainable, then the narrative that this was union members attacking union offices, starts to fall apart like a house of cards where the cards are made from ash. 

Firstly there's the problem that this comes in the wake of anti-vaccination riots in Melbourne. On the face of it this might look like people are genuinely fearful and anxious about being in lockdown. This starts to look nonsensical when you consider that there were also orchestrated protests in the non-lockdown states of Western Australia and Queensland but not really in New South Wales or South Australia. Why protest against lockdowns in states where there aren't actually any lockdowns going on and why are these protests only happening in states where there are Labor state governments? 

Secondly there's the problem that people like the far-right media personality and gym owner Avi Yemeni and Lizzy 'Bunnings Karen'  Rose, were in attendance. There's was also the same lady with the megaphone from Saturday's protest in attendance. While I wouldn't say that it is impossible that they are members of the CFMEU or construction workers for that matter, it is highly unlikely.

I have other questions considering that in one of the videos, there is one speaker proclaiming to the expectant crowd "we are staring down the barrel of socialism". This is strange in the light of the fact that unionism is a socialist notion. Given that organisations like the CFMEU advocate for workplace health and safety, and in this case agree with vaccinations to protect workers from covid, then while union members have the right to protest this does appear to be counterproductive. Also, I would like a proper explanation of how vaccines lead to socialism.

Then there's the problem that most of the construction industry was working on Monday in Victoria. The protest against a lockdown and a shutout, doesn't make any sense in the light that the construction industry was only put back into temporary shutdown after these protests happened.

If there were in fact any genuine union members were there then I should expect to see the usual paraphernalia like Eureka flags, dirty hard hats with stickers on them, and in some cases other red flags and union patches. These are simply not in any of the photos and videos which exist.

Also, it seems ludicrous to me that you need to tell union members to “wear work gear” or to “blend in” to a protest. Most of the high-vis jackets and vests look way too clean to be sported by actual construction workers. If anything these anti-vax protesters look like they are cosplaying at being construction workers. It would be like me claiming to be a construction worker despite me having never been on a working construction site in my life.

Therein lies the biggest issue with this. This is different to union breaking by the use of scabs and blacklegs but rather the passing off of union members by people who have a very different agenda. If this was the sale of a product then this would be the tort of 'passing off' but when applied to the passing off of a grassroots movement, the term 'astroturfing' is appropriate. 

Astroturfing, like other deceptive practices, is a concerted campaign which is designed to look like something else, order to convince people of something. In this case, this is an attempt to steal or perhaps undermine the unions' legitimacy in order to push an extreme agenda.

This isn't new at all. One of the favourite strategies employed by the Italian Facsist Party and Germany's NSDAP was the use of physical force and violence, precisely because unions which are highly organised aren't really susceptible to political attacks. 

I don't like to use word fascist in the pejorative sense because it is mostly meaningless and is usually understood as 'something not desirable' rather than a useful technical political term for a set of positions and policies. However, political opponents on the economic right and authoritarian north tend to target strong left-wing unions because if the strong are neutralised, then who’s left to stop them?

As Monday rolled onto Tuesday, protests at the lockdowns moved from the offices of the CFMEU to shutting down expressways and movements in the street. Again, I haven't seen anything explicitly from any union in these protests. 

This looks very much like the false flag operation that the NSDAP pulled over the burning of the Reichstag, in February 1933. NSDAP leadership claimed that the Communists were planning a violent uprising and that emergency legislation was needed to prevent this. That won't happen in Victoria as the authoritarian right isn't in control of the parliament but this has all the hallmarks of that kind of plan.

A lie can run half way around the world before the truth has had a chance to get its boots on. In this case, an orchestrated attack on union offices will be reported as unions turning on themselves; with no regard for truth at all. I do wonder who organised this but I fear that they have already sped away upon a bicycle made of smoke.

History has a way of repeating its same stupidities upon people because human nature is both selfish and self-interested. Yet again the far-right act as predators feeding on fear and distress because they flourish in times of economic insecurity, and seed hatred among those who feel left behind or left out.

"Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

- George Orwell, Politics And The English Language (1946)

Horse 2903 - Awkward AUKUS Orcas

 I have had some time to pause and think more carefully about the AUKUS Treaty and the longer I think about it, the more that I am convinced that it changes literally nothing.

In terms of the parties who have signed up to it, the United States and Australia have already been bound by the remnants of the ANZUS Treaty which dates back to 1951, the UK and the US have been boasting about the "special relationship" since the beginning of Tony Blair's premiership, and Australia has been sent on military errands by Mother Britain since before there was the Commonwealth of Australia. Binding the three merely restates what already existed.

This doesn't really change the military arrangements between them either. Australia has always been seen as an airstrip and resupply station by the United States, and Britain and the United States have shared various bits of military hardware since the Second World War. 

Presumably the treaty was signed with the intention to be a signal to China that its meddling in the South China Sea wasn't going to be tolerated. There's quite a lot of conflicting weirdness going on here because part of the AUKUS deal involves Australia buying $90bn worth of nuclear submarines which don't yet exist, to defend against an enemy which also doesn't officially exist but is absolutely China except we're not naming it. At the same time, China is Australia's biggest trading partner and the Chinese Government leases Port Darwin to ship goods and resources through. 

China has had a policy for a very long time of the 'minimum credible defence'. This is similar to India's Credible Minimum Deterrence strategy upon which India's nuclear capabilities are arranged. It assumes no first use and states in principle that there will be a second strike.

China is more likely to just buy what it wants and build the necessary infrastructure to get it, than to run down the road of stupid aggression which the United States has engaged in since WW2.

The actual opinion of China about AUKUS is different depending on where you are getting your news from. If you have been watching Sky News Australia then you will assume that President Xi Jingping is utterly livid. If you have been watching the BBC or the ABC then you will assume that they are cautious. If you read the Chinese state media outlet Xinhua, then AUKUS appears to be of practically zero importance. Xinhua has report that AUKUS exists but that's really as far as they go. America is still America; Australia is still the flea on the big dog's back; and Britain is far away.

As for the French response which seems very typically French. On the 17th of September, France recalled its ambassadors from Australia and the United States (but not the UK) and the French foreign minister Jean-Yves Le Drian calling the deal a "stab in the back".

He appeared to be more concerned with the cancellation by Australia of a French–Australian submarine deal; which happened almost unilaterally by Australia. Australia for its part has replaced submarines which do not yet exist with other submarines which do not yet exist.

To be perfectly honest France's reaction can be fairly easily explained in terms of its own security issues, as France is actually the fourth closest country to Australia; as weird as that sounds. New Caledonia is legally a sui generis collectivity of overseas France in the southwest Pacific Ocean; which means that New Caledonia is part of France in the same way that Tasmania is part of Australia. It's just that the distance between it and the mainland is a lot bigger.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/17/us/politics/us-france-australia-betrayal.html

"American officials insist it was not their place to talk to the French about their business deal with Australia. But now, in light of the blowup, some officials say they regret they did not insist that the Australians level with the French about their intentions earlier."

- New York Times, 17th Aug 2021

From this standpoint, both the Australian and United States Governments look like untrustworthy actors; facing off against an equally untrustworthy actor in the French Government. 

If the French Government caught wind of the fact that Australia was going to scupper one of the biggest military contracts in their history, then they almost certainly would have tried to sabotage the plan. By operating downwind, Australia and America didn't even let a sniff of what was going on float in on the breeze; so France had no opportunity to take the wind out of the sails of either Australia or America. This is ironic given that submarines operate below the water line.

France would have probably been liked to be included in this pact as it is worried about its own citizens in this region.

The only other player which might have been interested is New Zealand and they weren't even consulted about the pact; due to their existing suspension from ANZUS and their existing continued stance on not wanting nuclear warships in its waters. New Zealand's defence policy mainly involves being a decent global citizen and not stirring up trouble with anyone. It also doesn't really have lots of unused resources like Australia.

The most comical take on AUKUS came from Russia's Pravda which decried the security pact as:

"AUKUS: Australia decides to die for USA's war with China"

It also talks about 'floating Chernobyls' which is ironic given that Russia already has nuclear submarines, and the nuclear powered submarine Kursk exploded in August 2000, in the Barents Sea; killing all 118 souls on board.

I do not think that AUKUS actually materially changes anything in any practical terms. Why do it then?

President Joe Biden faces criticism at home over the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has had a cabinet reshuffle. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has a government which has just lost its Attorney General. All three face criticism over their nations' handing of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

This is an announceable; which cheap and easy PR. I don't know what else it does, of any discernable difference to the arrangements which were already in place.

Horse 2902 - Actually, There's Plenty Of Room

As an Australian motorsport fan, I am annoyed that the Bathurst 1000 which used to have as many as 56 starters when I was a kid, decided to close the shop and run a system of Racing Entitlement Contracts; which limits the standing field to just 24 plus the odd wildcard entries. In the name of "professionalism", one of the things that made this particular race so fun was that it was an open event and a bunch of teams that really had no chance at all of winning, still got to complete on the same stage as the best in the country. 

The first reason usually given is the complaint that slower cars are dangerous, however if you actually interrogate that for the truth, then the actual number of instances where a leading car struck a slower car is few and far between. Since 1960, there can't have been more than half a dozen such instances. Conversely, the number of times that the leaders of the race have taken each other out, is many. This says to me that a smaller team is more acutely aware of the incurred costs of damaging their own car, than a professional team is; which might have the luxury of backups.

The other excuse given is that there isn't sufficient space. I think that this is demonstrably nonsense and with a small change in regulation can be proven more completely. In other words, it is a complete nonsense.

There are 36 double garages at Bathurst; which already accommodate 72 cars. Support categories which can operate from the paddock behind and don't even need to use the pits, would continue to operate from that whole complex behind the pits; which makes the whole thing a giant carnival.

Besides which, if the contingency plan for 2021 looks like it will be a massive six day festival, comprising all manner of support categories and several major series, then that proves that the assertion was always nonsense.

However there is one thing if implemented would really blow the notion that there isn't room on pit lane for a field of 56 cars out of the water; that is to look at what exists in other series.

Formula One is the definitive pinnacle of motorsport. Red Bull have gotten so good at changing all four tyres in a hurry that they've managed to get the process down to 1.2 seconds. I remember as a kid watching Formula One in the 1980s that a sub-10 second stop was pretty neat.

That comes with a massive proviso. To have all four tyres changed in under two seconds, requires a coordinated and practiced dance where every little sub job has been specialised. If takes more than 20 people to be able to pull it off. That's ridiculous.

Supercars on the other hand, have about 8 people out in pit lane when a tyre and fuel stop happens. That's still a coordinated dance and yet, it still manages to look like amateur hour in comparison with NASCAR.

NASCAR only allows six people over the wall at once. Teams are so good at chasing little efficiencies that they will hire college football players to act as pit crew. NASCAR also has fuelling by gravity fed fuel churns, manual jacking of cars by a chap who runs around with the jack, they will continue to have 5 stud lugnuts for this season but move to a single centre nut in 2022, and penalties for having uncontrolled equipment.

A good pitstop in NASCAR takes about 15 seconds and with only a limited amount of space in which to do the work, it means that 36 cars fit into an even smaller pit lane than Supercars does with 24 or Formula One's 20.

This is why I think that the excuse given that you can't fit 56 cars into a space designed for 72 is ridiculous. In theory, 56 cars should be able to fit into 29 double garages or using the ratio of space that NASCAR allows, as little as 18 double garages.

I miss having the wee little teams in the big race. They're the ones who aren't sanitised with corporate blandness. The little teams are where you'll find volunteers, people cooking sausages out the back, crew who will actually talk to you, and where they will leave all the doors open so that you can see what's going on because they don't care about the need for secrecy.

Back at at Hidden Valley this year, a commotion broke out in pit lane when Erebus Motorsport moved their equipment into the lane; in front of where BJR Racing would have had Macaulay Jones drive through, had the stuff not been there. This didn't result in any kind of fine or punishment and because an incident on track them triggered a safety car, the kerfuffle was pointless.

Had the incident happened in NASCAR, as there was no car coming down pit lane for service, then this would have resulted in an equipment violation.

A car doing 80km/h which strikes equipment or people, tends to transfer kinetic energy into that equipment or people and does work to them. Uncontrolled work, especially done to people, has the ability to damage them. Leaving stuff out in the pitlane vastly increases the chances of serious injury.

Second to that, clearing the pitlane when there are no cars immediately to be serviced, actually opens up the available space which can fit on pit lane. As a packaging question, it should be obvious that having fewer people and fewer equipment out, is more efficient.

This brings me back to the question of why Supercars doesn't want more entries at the big events like the Bathurst 1000 or Sandown 500. It doesn't have anything to do with the number of cars that fit on pit lane; nor the quality of the quality of the entries. Rather, by closing the shop, it means that the teams themselves don't have to share prize money, advertising revenue, or payments from television, radio and internet broadcasting rights. The really big prize was always the advertising dollar and by limiting who is allowed to play, the teams get to exclude any new comers. I think that that's been bad for the sport, bad for the fans, and bad for the ongoing legend because there are no more true privateers and that spirit that they could have a go, has been destroyed. We are all worse for it.

Horse 2901 - The California Gubernatorial Recall Election

 On Tuesday, California went to the polls in a Gubernatorial Recall Election, to recall Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom and if successful, put him out of office. I always think that the word 'installing' a new Governor sounds quaint; as if you've just bought a new hot water heater and the plumber is coming around on Thursday to hook it up for you.

Given that no Republican candidate have won any statewide elections in California since 2006, the likelihood of Mr Newsom being ejected from the office of Governor was always slim. Polling before the election showed that Newsom was likely to keep his office but that doesn't stop people like former President Donald Trump from claiming that the election was rigged, nor does it stop Republican candidate Larry Elder from claiming likewise. 

Even if you set aside the fact that American politics (as indeed the Anglosphere where there is a Murdoch media presence) is a toxic malaise of untruth, I think that the base model of American legislatures is constituted badly.

This particular mechanism dates from 1911 when progressive Californian Republicans introduced greater direct democracy reforms; in conjunction with women's suffrage, some nine years before the 19th Amendment was passed federally. To trigger the recall of literally any elected state official (including the Governor), there needs to be a petition with the signatures of at least 12% of all the number of registered voters at the previous election. I think that this in principle is an excellent idea. However, I think that the office of Governor itself, is a bad thing.

In the course of normal government business, the Governor/President sits outside of the legislature. Ostensibly this has to do with the separation of powers but in reality it results in the separation of responsibility. In the normal course of government business, neither the Governor of a state nor the President of the United States nor their executive cabinets are remotely answerable to the legislature. That's terrible.

In a parliamentary system such as Westminster Parliaments, the Prime Minister/Premier/First Minister is not only directly answerable to the legislature but because both they and their entire cabinet sit inside it, they are grilled on a fairly regular basis.

Had California had a Westminster Parliament, then Governor Gavin Newsom would have had direct questioning over his response to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as his administration's slow rollout of vaccines, and the imposition of restrictions. This would have taken place inside the legislature, instead of trial by media and trial by political shenanigans. Instead, rather than a vote of no confidence or some other removal mechanism, there is no real check or balance on executive power in either the Federal Government or any of the States apart from the power of the purse strings and the power of impeachment which very rarely happens.

Admittedly in California that also wouldn't happen because except for a very brief period from 1995 to 1996, the Assembly has been in Democratic hands since 1970 and the Senate has been under continuous Democratic control since 1970. At the moment, Democrats hold a veto-proof supermajority in both houses of the California State Legislature.

Again this highlights the terribleness of the instrument of this form of separation of powers. From a purely mechanical standpoint, there is no other method of holding the Governor or his administration to account. Even in the current Western Australian Legislative Assembly where the two parliamentary groups are split 53:6, the Premier of Western Australia can still have his feet held to the fire and on record, by an opposition which can fit into a single taxicab. That's impossible in California.

Even though Gaven Newsom survived the recall election and remains as Governor of California, the amount of angst in the electorate which forced this election remains. The underlying grudges in American politics in general remain. Californians will go back to the polls next November yet again due to the election cycle calendar and although Mr Newsom could very well be removed from office then, or not, the problem at the heart of every single legislature in the United States remains; there simply is no direct answering for policy on a daily basis. That is a bad thing.

Aside:

What I find particularly infuriating about American democracy of late, is a repeated idiocy that wants to throw the trust of elections in doubt.

In the closing weeks and days of this recall election, Republican candidate Larry Elder's campaign looked suspiciously like Donald Trump's hectoring before both the 2016 and 2020 Presidential Elections. Mr Elder said that he expected "shenanigans" and repeatedly insinuated that Mr Newsom had already won the election due to fraud.

Let's assume that that is in fact true a second (even though it's probably nonsense). If there is the ability for "millions and millions of fake ballots" in widescale voter fraud, then why isn't there any proper independent electoral commissions in America?

The Federal Electoral Commission has 339 employees and the California State Electoral Commission has just 15. How come nobody wants to actually reform the voting system rather than blaming the voters? 

Horse 2900 - Christian Porter And The Amazing Technicolor Brown Paper Bag Of Cash That Just Magically Appeared One Day

https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/the-mystery-trust-contributing-to-christian-porters-legal-fees/news-story/4fdc2987d8439121c5ba6112cc071a2b

"With a typical blind trust you know where the money came from. It is contributed by the beneficiary on the basis that the trustee then invests it in assets without reference to the beneficiary who is “blind” as to how their money is invested.

“I don’t think that is acceptable in public life. But Porter’s case is much worse than a conventional blind trust because we don’t even know where the money came from. It is so wrong.”

- Former PM Malcolm Turnbull, as quoted Daily Telegraph, 15th Sep 2021.

As the ongoing saga with Attorney General Christian Porter is a movable feast of nonsense, it is hard enough to pin down the facts, much less assign any kind of meaningful analysis to them.

As I understand it, the timeline of events is this:

- The ABC was taken to court to answer a defamation case by the Attorney General Christian Porter; with regards to an historical rape case which they'd hinted at but hadn't explicitly named.

- The identity of the subject of the ABC's reportage was only made public after the Attorney General Christian Porter outed himself in a press conference.

- The ABC were forced to discover their sources in court, in direct violation of existing laws relating to journalism and the right to qualified privilege.

- The Attorney General Christian Porter then had most of the details the defamation case redacted, thus reducing the court to what effectively amounts to a star chamber; which is almost entirely off the public record.

- The ABC which was found to have zero fault in the case, was not awarded its costs to be recovered despite this looking like a frivolous case. The ABC still had to pay for its own legal advice and representation.

- Since it is literally impossible to prove the details of the historical rape case on account of the alleged victim having committed suicide, the Attorney General Christian Porter will never have to answer for the case.

- Since the Attorney General Christian Porter had engaged a legal team, they have issued an invoice for services rendered.

- As Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia Act (1900) provides the disqualification that someone who "iii) is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent... shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives" then to avoid becoming a bankrupted person, the Attorney General Christian Porter set up a Blind Trust where he has no controlling interest.

- The Attorney General Christian Porter also apparently has no idea where more than a million dollars which was deposited into his Blind Trust came from.

- Not only does the Attorney General Christian Porter have no idea where the money came from, he also refuses to ask the trustees to disclose where the money came from.

I should disclose that I am not a lawyer and therefore have no professional qualifications to inform my opinion but speaking as someone who has been in a forensic accounting firm for the not quite two decades, this looks sketchy. From the outside this isn't Dodgy the Clown but the whole entirety of Dodgy Brothers Three-Ring Circus.

There are already regulations in place which require former Prime Ministers and other Cabinet Ministers to prove that they aren’t agents of a foreign government. 

There are already regulations which prevent sitting Members of Parliament from receiving donations linked to foreign governments.

Former Senator Sam Dastyari fell foul of these regulations when he had a bill totalling $1,670 paid by a company with links to the Chinese Government.

There are four key differences between Dastyari's case and Porter's case, five which really make this donations scandal obnoxious:

a) We know the amount paid.

b) We know who paid it.

c) That payment effectively ended Mr Dastyari's parliamentary career under Section 44.

d) Mr Dastyari's payment is estimated to be around 500 times smaller.

e) The Attorney General who was responsible for prosecuting the case against Sam Dastyari was Christian Porter.

What I find outrageous about this is that when Sam Dastyari was found to have breached the regulations, it was just and proper that he should resign. Yet Cabinet Minister Christian Porter could be receiving donations from agents of foreign governments, it’s apparently okay for that to be kept secret?

Therein lies a massive problem. While there mightn't be any evidence that the Attorney General has changed policies, tweaked legislation, or perhaps granted favours in a quid pro quo for his unknown financial windfall, it's practically impossible to determine or scrutinise if a conflict of interest exists when the Attorney General doesn't know who has thrown cash at him.

We the general public have no idea, will not be told, and have no idea whether or not the cash deposited in Attorney General Christian Porter's Blind Trust came from legitimate means, colourful identities, crime lords, time lords, international terrorist organisations, domestic think tanks, septic tanks, really generous people, media companies, mining companies, theatre companies; and we won't be told.

All I'm left with is a bunch of questions:

- How did Mr Porter intend to pay his legal bills in the first instance? 

- Why would he declare that he received a "blind" payment if he doesn't know about the source?

- Is that an adequate defence?

- Did the money come from nefarious actors?

- Has the Attorney General Christian Porter been offered a golden parachute in the same way that former Premier of NSW Mike Baird was?

- How come as Attorney General, Mr Porter's judgement is so off?

- When exactly did the Prime Minister (Scott Morrison) become aware of this political scandal?

- Does this political scandal even matter?

The answers to these questions and many more will not be revealed in the next thrilling installment of... The End Of Transparency.

Addenda:

30 years ago:

https://www.afr.com/politics/sng-recalls-giving-bags-of-money-19910927-k4jj0

"The next day, with equally vivid recollection, Mr Sng said he made a similar visit with Mrs Garms to Sir Robert Sparkes and handed over another brown envelope containing $100,000, also for the Joh for PM campaign."

- Australian Financial Review, 27th Sep 1991

This is one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?

I get a bribe, you get a brown paper bag, he sets up a Blind Trust and pretends not to know where the money came from.

Horse 2899 - Election '22

 "How come the Prime Minister (Scott Morrison) just doesn't call an election?"

Ah yes. The use of a negative construction of a sentence to denote displeasure about a thing not occuring. When people ask about a thing not happening, they are expressing an impatient desire for the thing to happen very quickly.

The reason dear reader, why the Prime Minister (Scott Morrison) doesn't call the election is so obvious that even Blind Freddy can see it - he'd lose.

If I plug the August Newspoll data into my swing calculator spreadsheet, which runs six separate swings for the six states (the ACT and NT are included in SA), then the Morrison Government would be facing electoral wipeout. Based on the current polling data, I would estimate that the election if it was held this Saturday would fall thus:

Lab - 90

L/NP - 55

Oth - 6

Calling an election right now, would be like staring intently at a hand grenade, then pulling the pin out, then hoping for the best.

The departments of political parties whose job it is to analyse data (which I am sure is far more advanced than my simple single spreadsheet) and then design strategy to win elections, would be looking at that and holding off. I wouldn't blame the Prime Minister for not wanting to call an election because he wants to remain being the Prime Minister.

A constant whinge of those whose party happens to be in opposition at the time is that the Prime Minister should call an election sooner rather than later. This particular power remains with the government of the day for entirely sensible reasons. Rather than having two-year fixed terms like the US House of Representatives, or four year fixed terms, the compromise from the Constitutional Conventions was for three years, except with the government retaining the power to call normal course elections as much as six months earlier, in keeping with the existing prerogatives of Westminster Parliaments. The mere fact that the Government can call an election earlier, is actually a bonus. If we had fixed term four year parliaments, then we'd be having the discussion about an election as much as eighteen months later than what's possible under the current system.

I think that that's sensible. A two year term puts politicians into almost constant election campaign cycle; which means that governance tends to be far more short sighted. A four year cycle is too long and bad government can not be removed quickly enough. NSW has seen this recently with the  Iemma/Rees/Kenneally Labor Government and the Berejiklian Liberal Government. 

I think that the current Morrison Government is objectively bad and has proven that it is going to take repeated decisions which the economic and authoritarian right of the Liberal Party likes but which has demonstrably bad consequences for the people at large. When those consequences have come home to visit because the government has already uncoupled the machinery, there aren't very many levers left to pull which do anything meaningful. When good people are in charge, the people rejoice but when bad people rule, the people groan. 

However, governments in Australia are not necessarily rewarded or punished for doing a bad job. Incumbency is a massive advantage and in general, Australians like to put political parties on longer streaks than just one term. Mr Morrison became Prime Minister in 2018; so from a purely statistical point of view, he'd be better off holding the election in 2022. 

I think that the forseeable timeline of events are that as vaccination rates climb, at some point the country will open up again. People's memory as far as politics is concerned lasts not much more than about 10 days; which means that from about late October onwards, the polls will naturally tighten as Christmas approaches. I do not think that an election would be called before Christmas but in the wake of Christmas when good feelings are on the rise, we might start to get an inkling of when the election will be called.

The complication which arises is that whoever wins the election, also wins the duty of passing the budget. Up to and including if the election is held on 21st May 2021, the newly minted government will hold the purse strings. 

The exception is if the Mr Morrison decides to not hold a House election at the same time; in which case we will have a Senate only election in May and the House election can ride to as late as November. I do not think that the government would want to send people to the polling stations twice in a year, as that might also result in political suicide.

Largely because people won't have been on holiday in 2021, the usual faffing about in January simply won't happen. This gives the Morrison Government a wider window in which to call the election and I think that it is likely to be called in January for a 'snap' February Election.

The current fall of how seats are distributed is such that the Morrison Government only needs a nationwide vote of 48% on a 2PP basis and that would return the government to power with 76 seats and with Bob Katter as perennial bench warmer, that leaves everyone else in the chamber with 74.

I'm picking 19th Feb 2022 - the best part about making predictions like this is that I am consistently wrong.

Horse 2898 - Fragments XV: Of Fabrication, Flying, First Aid, Faffing About, and Folding

D16 - Own Research

"Do your own research" is in fact a terrible idea most of the time.

The idea that you should weigh up both sides of an argument sounds like a common sense thing to suggest but if you have different things that deserve different weights and the person who is being asked to weigh up both sides of an argument is either not aware or not trained in the art of the field in question, then that's potentially dangerous.

If you have a headache and someone asks you to take "some" aspirin, then would you be wise to take two tablets and 250mL of water? No! You would be utterly stupid and very possibly dead if you were to take 250g of aspirin to go with your 250mL of water. Munching your way through a cup full of aspirin tablets is obviously not sensible but that sensibility is already informed by not weighing up both sides of an argument. Some things which are beneficial in small doses are objectively dangerous in large quantities. This is the problem with truth and lies. Lies, simply do not deserve any weight, let alone to be given equal value with truths. 

If you ask someone to prove an assertion and their reply is to "do your own research" them not only are they refusing to supply you with what they based their opinions on but they are in effect inviting you to tumble down the rabbit hole into Wonderland with them. 

<><><><><>

F35 - Skywards

I live in one of the "LGAs of concern" in Western Sydney; which means that the NSW State Government's response to us has been to set up mass vaccination hubs outside the area, put extra Police on the streets, and enforce a curfew. The Federal Health Minister's response to NSW with regards to the "LGAs of concern" has been to deny NSW's requests for assistance and to liaise with the Defence Minister, to put Army helicopters into the skies, and other Air Force planes.

So far during the 38 days of lockdowns, I have seen the Eurocopter Écureuil, Eurocopter Tiger, Lockheed C-130 Hercules, Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, and I can now add a new aircraft to the list of things that I've seen... The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.

<><><><><>

G20 - First Aid

I am woefully unqualified to render any kind of medical assistance to anyone other than basic First Aid. You would think that having worked in an abatoir that I would have developed a tolerance to the sight of blood and while that might be true for animals, the sight of human fluids is still incredibly icky to me.

If you are in trouble and I happen to be on the scene, you are probably better off writing your last will and testament, and praying for your eternal salvation because for the most part, I will be utterly useless at ensuring your temporal salvation.

These  are the kinds of aids that I can offer:

Lemonade

Mislaid

Milkmaid

Unpaid

Mermaid

Prepaid

Bridesmaid

Chambermaid

Afraid

Plaid

Police raid

Hair braid

Aforesaid

Soothsaid

Underpaid

<><><><><>

I22 - Irregular verbs:

I'm a whistleblower, she's a dobber, he's a Chinese Spy.

I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist.

I give confidential briefings, you leak, he has been charged under section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.

I'm a Pepper, she's a Pepper, wouldn't you like to be a Pepper too?

I live in a purple aeroplane, you live in a lemon flavoured tram, we all live in a yellow submarine.

<><><><><>

AZ21 - Letter Of Complaint

Dear Vauxhall Astra Zeneca,

Some of my friends who are absolute dinguses and wingnuts, believe that the vaccine is part of some global conspiracy to get us connected to 5G with quantum fresh dots or other such.

Since I have been jabbed with your vaccination I have not yet been able to:

- play the piano

- drive a Unimog

- use mental telepathy to go on the internet

- scan my head at the grocery store for discounts

Please advise what I am doing wrong. Or, are these conspiracy theories really a load of twaddle and it's the wolfmans, vampires and skeleton dudes that I should be worried about.

Love, Rollo.

PS: No, that's an unholy army of bin chickens, it's just that the Superb Irises are scavengers.

<><><><><>

T22 - Topology Is The Talk On An Infinitely Malleable Cereal Box

What is a Topologist? Someone who can't tell the difference between their coffee mug and their doughnut.

Topology is that branch of mathematics which looks at the geometrical properties of things and the various spatial relations of things, and it doesn't care about the shape or size of the things.

Topology talks about it being unaffected by the continuous change of shape or size of things; which means that what it's really concerned about is things being infinitely stretchy for the purposes of doing maths to things. That's really really useful. It means that topologists can build maps and models of the world and define things in the language of mathematics.

Out here in the real world where we don't need to care that much about maths, it is still really useful to think about the way in which constituent parts are interrelated or arranged. If I want to go from Marayong to literally any other station on the Sydney Trains network, then if I ignore distance and time, then the number of times that I actually need to change trains by switching at a node is either 1 or 0. The train map itself is also a topological marvel as it also mushes together and stretches out the distance between railway stations to provide information about how to use the network. Electric circuit diagrams do exactly the same thing.

What is the topological genus of a human? It's either 5 or 7, depending on whether the fact that I can blow air through my tear ducts indicates that my eyes are orifices.

That is to say, connected to the main (digestive) tube, there are two nostrils, two ears (joined via Eustachian tubes), and two eyes (which may or may not be connected).

Horse 2897 - O Four Tuna

O Four tuna.

Velvet lunar.

State you vary billys.

Semper creases.

Aught decreases.

Vita detest a Billy.

Lunch obdurate.

Eh, tuna cure at,

Ludo men, 'tis ace yum!,

Eggs state 'em;

Pots state 'em,

Dissolve it ute glacier.

Sores Umamis.

Eighty Nannys,

Rotate the vole Billys.

State a malice,

Van a sales.

Simmer in these old Billys.

O bum, brother!

Old tomato.

Michigan queues near Terry's.

Lunch per litre.

Doors are not dumb.

Ferro tui sclerosis.

Sores sale, ute is.

Eat virtue is.

Munchy lunch contrary, ah!

Yes, affect us.

Yes, defect us.

Simmer in angry... Ah!

Hack in hour.

Say no more.

Cord Pulsar tang eat, eh?

Quad per sorting.

Stern it, for them.

Me come on new Plan G, YEAH!

Horse 2896 - What I Think Atlantis Is

No serious historian that I know of has ever thought that the city/island/kingdom of Atlantis in Plato's "Timaeus" and then in "Critias" is actually real; for good reason. Timaeus is a philosophical dialogue about the nature of the physical world and about the nature of humanity. Critias is a second dialogue about the nature of hubris and how that relates to the city state. From the beginning, we've already left the shores of reality and have drifted off into the ocean of ideas.

νῆσος - (nesos, "island of Atlas") is almost certainly a fictional naval power which besieges an even more ancient Athens than the Athens that Plato is living in, which itself is probably the embodiment of Plato's imagined perfect state in "The Republic". This more than likely extends from the idea of the forms, which suggests that somewhere in the heavens there is a perfect example of a thing: such as the perfect table, the perfect chair, the perfect man, the perfect tile. Ancient Athens which looks very much like the perfect form of a city state, is attacked by the antagonistic naval power of Atlantis; it for this reason, it simply isn't sensible to look for a real island that existed when the rest of the philosophical dialogue is clearly Plato playing imaginary war games.

In that spirit, since playing games with ideas is both cheap and easy (because you don't even have to put your toys back into the box when you're done), I'm going to move around some of Plato's imaginary toy soldiers and try to guess where they could have come from.

"Now in this island of Atlantis there existed a confederation of kings, of great and marvelous power, which held sway over all the island, and over many other islands also and parts of the continent."

- Plato, Critias 

I have no idea how far Plato went in his life or what an Athenian knew about how much of the world existed. I do know that the Greeks generally and the Athenians specifically had a very dim view of everyone who weren't either civilised or didn't speak Greek.

The Greeks knew about Egypt and likely considered Egypt to be an empire of note but in 400BCE, even the Romans and Etruscans and Volsci are likely considered to be an uncultured rabble and therefore not worthy of thought.

If you are not Greek and also not civilised, then the Greeks considered you to be little more than children; who spoke in idiotic phrases like "Bar-bar-bar-bar", hence why practically everyone else is called Barbarians. 

If we assume that Plato knows about the various Greek islands, then we can take it that the invading barbarians don't come from the eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus, Cos, Patmos, Lesbos, Crete - none of these places. It's also internally evident that Plato knows about places like Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, Malta, but it can not be any of these places since they are monolithic. Mallorca and the Balearic Islands might be a sensible candidate but since we're talking about control over the continent (which is almost certainly Europe) then it's possible but unlikely.

"Starting from a distant point in the Atlantic ocean, was insolently advancing to attack the whole of Europe, and Asia to boot. For the ocean there was at that time navigable; for in front of the mouth which you Greeks call, as you say, 'the pillars of Heracles,' there lay an island which was larger than Libya and Asia together; and it was possible for the travelers of that time to cross from it to the other islands, and from the islands to the whole of the continent over against them which encompasses that veritable ocean."

- Plato, Critias

This is where my personal guess as to what Atlantis was based upon, gets its footing. The Pillars of Hercules (which also don't exist) are the place where Atlas is said to hold up the globe. Atlantis is apparently some place beyond them, which is already outside of the Mediterranean; which doesn't leave very many candidates at all.

Either you have sea faring barbarians who live on the west coast of Europe who find it easier to go around the Iberian Peninsula, or you have Britons and Celts, or at a very long thread being pulled, Vikings, Germanic peoples, and other Scandinavian peoples sailing around the entire continent of Europe to get to Athens.

Let me narrow the field to three:

Britons - This is the most likely candidate who fits the description of what the Greeks thought of barbarians, both geographically and let's be honest, culturally. The Romans would eventually give up on their project of trying to conquer the British Isles; they kind of didn't bother about Hibernia and built some walls in the north to mark where the literal end of civilisation was.

Spartans - Remember, although Plato is playing imaginary war games, Athens was actually engaged in the Peloponnesian War with Sparta at the time. That war concluded in 404BCE and if Critias is concluded in 400BCE at the latest, then inventing a back story for your imagined protagonist, which is a thinly veiled stand-in for your actual enemy, is a good guess.

Piraeus - Wait, what? This came out of nowhere. Piraeus is kind of a rocky outcrop on the Greek coast, which when Plato was writing was only connected to the mainland via a tidal land bridge. It is close enough to be the port for Athens but not actually within Athens.

I wouldn't put it past Plato, to be really petty about having to pay customs duties on something he bought and then going on a philosophical tirade against them. He could have made up all kinds of nonsense and because he changed the names, nobody would be any the wiser.

Based upon what I know of Plato from The Republic, I think that he's more likely to write about a personal petty vendetta than against some grand imagining of history; so my absolutely unqualified opinion is that Atlantis is a stand in for Piraeus and its imagined rulers are some traders that he didn't like.

Philosophy is the talk on a cereal box. It certainly is for me. My favourite cereal is Plat-O's.

Horse 2895 - The Funnest September 11th Of All

Probably every other story that you will read today on September 11 will be about the terrorist attacks in the United States but not here. I can not write anything sensible that would do that event justice.

However, on this blog, today on September 11, I will tell the story of the greatest motor race in the history of Grand Prix racing.

The 1987 Formula One season was supposed to be the last run to the old turbocharged regulations. Race teams like Benetton were chucking out 1750 horsepower in qualifying sessions, out of engines designed to last 3 laps. This was clearly unsustainable. For 1987, the engines were pared back to 4 bar boost and engines still ran in the mid 700 horsepower range and when 1988 came around the engine manufacturers still weren't ready and so as a concession they were still allowed to run turbocharged engines but they were pulled even further back to 2.5 bar boost.

In 1988, Lotus, McLaren, Ferrari, Zakspeed, Arrows, and Osella all continued to run turbocharged engines until they were finally outlawed for 1989. As an aside, the chassis code for the Osella was FA1L... which bade well for them.

The 1988 season was almost a complete walkover for the McLaren team. Their Honda engines were simply miles better than anyone else's and their two drivers Alain Prost and Ayrton Senna were at the top of their powers and made use of the equipment.

Between them, Senna and Prost would win 15 of 16 races in the 1988 season; which is almost total dominance. Almost...

The 1988 Italian Grand Prix started as most others would; with a McLaren lockout of the front row. The two McLarens shot off into the distance; with daylight third.

The Autodromo di Monza is different to most other circuts in that for most of the time, cars are driven at full throttle. That tends to have the side effect of occasionally breaking engines as they find their failure points.

Alex Caffi's Zakspeed would decide to become a teapot and expire in a cloud of steam. Reigning World Champion Nelson Piquet would park his Camel Lotus backwards in the gravel trap at Rettifilo. Derek Warwick in the turbocharged Arrows squared against Thierry Boutsen's Williams and Ivan Capello's March, for 6th place and 1 lonely world championship point as though they were playing for all of the marbles.

Meanwhile, Prost and Senna were out front trading fastest lap after fastest as the fuel loads came down. This could not last forever while they were running at top speeds of 331km/h. Something was bound to give. Alain Prost found the failure point of his Honda engine on lap 35.

Senna didn't find the absolute limit of the engine but he did find the limits of the race track.

On lap 49 of 51, Senna attempted to put a lap on Jean-Louis Schlesser who was driving a Williams and not only spun his McLaren trying to avoid the obviously shower Williams but beached the McLaren coming out of the Rettifilo.

Schlesser would have slid into the gravel but given his excellent car control, and bumped his Williams into the rear of the McLaren; thus breaking the McLaren's rear suspension and putting Senna out of the race.

With Senna out of the race, the two Ferraris of Gerhard Berger and Michele Alboreto who had been driving a quiet race and who'd expected to finish 3rd and 4th, suddenly found themselves in 1st and 2nd and that's where they'd stay.

While the McLaren team might have won 11 races in a row and won the next 4, Ferrari won the Italian Grand Prix and did it with a form 1-2 finish.

After the race, the Tifosi went nuts. The front straight became a sea of scarletti. Prime Minister Ciriaco De Mita would declare the Monday to be a public holiday.

For Ferrari, this was a doubly emotional victory as only four weeks earlier, founder Enzo Ferrari had died.

As far as national sporting teams go, Italy basically only has two that anyone cares about - di Azzurri and Scuderia Ferrari. Ferrari winning the Italian Grand Prix 1-2 may as well have been like winning the football World Cup. For Ferrari to win that race in particular and break McLaren's perfect streak was something else. I still think to this day that there hasn't been a single greater outpouring of joy by a nation, over a motor race.