Horse 2937 - We Are Going To The Polls In May, Maybe, Or Maybe Not, Who Knows?

Hello ladies and germs,

Roll up, roll up one and all, to the festival of democracy 2022 - The Bout To Knock The Other Out. 

In the Red Corner is the Australian Labor Party led by Anthony Albanese. In the Blue Corner is the Liberal Party and their hangers on the National Party; led by Scotty Morrison from Marketing.

...and thus the gamification of the election process has begun.

This afternoon as I write this (29th Nov 2021), the announcement was made by the Prime Minster (Scott Morrison) that the Federal Budget would be handed down on March 29th, 2022. Immediately this sets into motion, the nerds and the geeks and the boffins, with their calculators and their calendars, to determine when the next Federal Election will take place.

If the Budget is handed down on March 29...

Then plus 33 days (per the Electoral Act 1918 and the Constitution) is May 1.

The first available Saturday is May 7. 

That means to say that May 7 is likely to be the date of the next Federal Election because when you also factor in that there must be at least 31 days before the election and the appointment of the next Senate term which must take place on Jul 1, then that leave precious few dates when the election can be called.

The most likely date for the Federal Election is May 7; which means that the Budget and any potential promises that will be made in it, will still be fresh in the minds of Joe Violent, Karen Konspiracy, Brandon Racist, and Jill D'Yownreserch; who have been plucked from the centre of politics and redeposited way way to the right, and who now pull the rest of politics toward them.

Contained within the ticking time-bomb of when the next election will happen, is the publication of the proposed set of sitting dates for parliament in 2022. There are just 10 days scheduled from 1st Jan until Sep 30.

Why would I care about September 30? Quite apart from the election, the handing down of the Budget sets in motion another ticking time-bomb; namely the budget itself. Section 57 of the Constitution states that if the Senate will not agree to any act which the House of Representatives has, passed then the Governor-General has the power to dissolve parliament. Section 57 has only been invoked on one occasion during the past 121 years and that was during the 1975 Constitutional Crisis. Nevertheless, that one event gave us the hint that contained within the Constitution itself, are the means to cause mayhem and malevolency.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_V_-_Powers_of_the_Parliament#chapter-01_part-05_57

If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives, in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor-General may dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by effluxion of time.

- Section 57, Disagreement between the Houses, Australian Constitution Act 1900

The Morrison Government if it wanted to, could pass the budget in the House because it has the numbers and then never progress the bill to the Senate. The words of the Constitution don't actually specify whether or not the Senate needs to be presented with a bill, in order for them to fail to pass one. Since the only bill which the Government of the day absolutely must pass at all costs is Appropriation Bill No.1, then by holding this in their back pocket as a potential election trigger from opposition, may yet prove tempting. The chances of this happening are astronomically small but they are non-zero.

I think that we are hurtling towards a May election, which will give ample time for the imagineers and electioneers to repaint Mr Morrison into a government of sweetness and light and/or just enough sweetness and light to swing 0.9% of voters and maybe less, in a few key seats to retain government. The Budget in March, also gives Josh Frydenberg a stage to play the role of Treasurer and win his own seat again.

I would expect that the 2022 Budget will be like Mr Bayer handing out heroin lollies in the run up to the elections of oh so long ago. Expect a feel-good budget but where the expenses may themselves, come with ticking time bombs of their own.

Horse 2936 - AUSTRALIA v OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE [2021] - Judgement and Directions

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

AUSTRALIA v OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE [2021] - Judgement and Directions

H2936/1

A matter which has been brought to the attention of this fake internet court, is that of the question of how Australian the Outback Steakhouse chain of restaurants is and/or whether or not it is Australian at all. From a purely corporate perspective, the answer is definitively 'no'. This is an American chain of restaurants which is headquartered out of Florida and while it operates a franchise model and the individual businesses might be Australian, the ultimate parent company that owns the name over the door is American. This is not even a matter for judgement, this is a simple statement of fact.

The question is then not whether or not the chain is in fact Australian but exactly how much Australian the level of cultural appropriation is. This seems to be in the opinion of this court, a similar question to how Texan is the chain of Lone Star Restaurants (which we can only conclude is okay enough, to be a somewhat useful analogue).

In answering this question, this court has a quandary in that pinning down anything that is meaningful which could be taken to be Australian in a culinary sense, is itself hard to do. What are the most Australian things that I can think of? Immediately (and thanks to many years of successful marketing), I can think of football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars. Only two of those things are edible. It seems sensible to me to add Vegemite, Chiko Rolls, Democracy Sausages, Chicken Parmi, and Fairy Bread to this list and already we run into the problem that because Australia is a relatively young country which has had people arrive from everywhere, it's really hard to determine anything that's uniquely Australian when it comes to cuisine. 

Australia is a nation which is made up of people from everywhere. It is odd that when you think about going to a restaurant in Australia, invariably that means that you are considering the cuisine of somewhere else. I suppose that there is an argument to be made that some kind of meat and three veg might be seen as Australian however, that really doesn't help you in defining what that quintessential quality of Australian cuisine is. In that respect, steak and either mash or chips, and either vegetables or salad is probably the most Australian thing that there is; or perhaps Kangaroo and Emu Pie with a glass of house red at the Australian Hotel in the rocks ($10).

If this court can not even define what is Australia, then what hope can we have of making any kind of meaningful judgement. There is some element of truth in the joke that the difference between a pot of yoghurt and Australia is that after 200 years yoghurt develops a culture.

The really weird thing is that outback.com has a specific 403 Forbidden block to Australian IP addresses.  One can only assume that this is because Outback Steakhouse does not want Australians from fact checking them. With a VPN host and a thing that let them think that I came from Lincoln, Nebraska (68501), I was able to look at the menu and while we do have steak in Australia, none of the staples of pub cuisine are here at all. About the only concession to anything actually Australian is that there is a 'beet' slice on a Bondi Burger. Even then we'd call that a 'beetroot' but to add further insult, you can not get an egg on a burger from this place.

I had to go to an external website for a listing and already the word 'Appetizers' looks as silly as a two bob watch.

Bloomin’ Onion $9.99

Aussie Cheese Fries $10.99

Kookaburra Wings $12.99

Grilled Shrimp on The Barbie $13.99

Sydney ‘shrooms $8.99

Gold Coast Coconut Shrimp $13.99

What is my opinion on their signature item, the Bloomin' Onion? That item which is held up to be the representative of all of Australia? All I can say is, say "what now?" I do not think that I have ever seen this thing anywhere outside of the menu of an Outback Steakhouse. The Bloomin' Onion is about as Australian as watching NASCAR on 4th of July at Indianapolis. It is as Australian as ordering a hot dog in Times Square. This fake internet court needs to tell Outback Steakhouse that they're dreaming.

Aussie Cheese Fries? Do they have roos loose in the top paddock? Apart from the fact that we'd never ever call them fries because they're either chips or wedges, putting cheese on them sounds really odd. Tomato sauce, chili sauce, or if you are posh then maybe mayonnaise but cheese? Really? Also, Kookaburra Wings? I imagine that Kookaburras are edible but good luck in actually trying to catch one. Kookaburras are more likely to swoop down and steal sausages from your barbecue than ever end up on it. As there is neither a place called Kookaburra nor are they actually the meat of a Kookaburra, then we have a rather old-fashioned and unpopular word for this kind of thing: a "lie".

There also is a strange obsession with adding town names, as though they lend an air of authenticity. America should be aware that Buffalo Wings come from Buffalo, NY, or that Chicago Deep-dish pizza comes from Chicago. The Gold Coast isn't specifically known for shrimp and at any rate, they would be called prawns. Also, you'd have to be some kind of mad person to put them on the barbecue. Barbecue space should be reserved for burgers, bacon, onion, eggs and sausages. 

As for for they don't have on the menu, I imagine that as a customer who would be presumably going there because someone in America wanted my opinion or because they felt homesick for me, that going there would feel alien. There is no lamb on the menu at all. There are is no Australian beer on the menu at all. There are no Australian wines on the menu at all. In fact, the only thing on the entire menu which would make me think that this was an Australian themed restaurant, would be that it had pavlova and even that's the subject of a cross Tasman dispute.

One of the more damning sentences about this place is found on the website where I pulled those prices and menu items from:

https://thefoodxp.com/outback-steakhouse-menu-prices/

Their stores had a lot of Australian influence because of the boomerangs, kangaroo posters, shark jaws, stuffed koalas, and surfboards used to decorate the stores. But their menu was pure American specializing in steak.

- The Food XP, at 23rd Nov 2021

I fear that we have a major problem in the basic understanding of words. The "Outback" is that vast untold emptiness which is beyond the coasts, beyond the Great Dividing Range and beyond the Riverina. This is the place where the rivers run dry, where red dust gets into everything and where unless you really know what you are doing, it's best not to leave the black top. You will not find sharks and surfboards in a place like The Great Sandy Desert. 

Final Judgement:

Outback Steakhouse, you have bought hateration and holleration into this court room. It is clear that you have no idea about what Australian cuisine, which is perhaps forgivable as neither do we. However, while being ignorant of a thing is not a crime of itself, the overwhelming evidence is that you have perpetrated the more egregious and heinous crime of not bothering to get any idea of what Australian cuisine either.

It is therefore with a degree of pointed lividness that this fake internet court attempts to dispense justice which the the people are crying out for; nay, begging for. This court finds you, Outback Steakhouse, of negligence as the more horrid crime or moral turpitude, that being culpability, is set aside for the moment.

Directions:

As such, the directions that this fake internet imposes upon you, is for one of your responsible officers to find video of the 2004 Australian Rules Football Grand Final, to watch that footy final and to stand out in the rain while doing so. We order you to do likewise with the 1986 NSW Rugby League Grand Final. We further order that you invite your friends around for a barbecue while watching the 2016 Bathurst 1000, followed by an episode of Bluey (both the 1970s cop drama and the 2020s animated series), A Country Practice, and In Melbourne Tonight.

We further order that you get either Victoria Bitter or XXXX Bitter on tap, that you find a selection of South Australian and Hunter Valley wines, and that you put meat pie, lamb shanks, and democracy sausage on the menu. We also order that you put seasonally appropriate sport on the television screens, and that if you are going to name things that they at very least make some semblance of cultural sense. 

This is the ruling; that is all.

As this case is closed and there being no further business for today, this court intends to adjourn to a proper proprietor of pie and find one with kangaroo, burgundy and carrot; and listen to the 1977 VFL Final while sitting in a Holden ute.

- ROLLO J

This case may be cited as H2936/1.

Horse 2935 - An Open Letter To The Melbourne Protesters

Dear Melbourne protesters,

Your cries for attention have been heard by us in the rest of Australia. The problem is, that all you have done is squeal and cry like a bunch of toddlers having a temper tantrum and for not exactly sensible causes.

This is not some great existential crisis like the American or French Revolutions, this is not a breakdown in the nature of civil and civic law which kicked off the revolutions of 1848, this is not some grand push for expansion of the franchise, working conditions, or other civil rights; rather, this is a borderline violent rabble having a squeal because you are complaining about the possibility of considering other people in the Commonwealth as worthy of your civic duty.

We had our eyes on you this weekend and I was prepared to listen to any cohesive and sensible line of argument that may have been generated but all we saw was QAnon signs, unhinged anti-vaxxers, actual neo-nazis with megaphones and the swastika flag of the Third Reich, incredibly incoherent messaging about what you want except for the issue of who you'd like to kill (which includes the Premier of Victoria, refugees, Islamic people, Jewish people, and Asian and African migrants); all topped and tailed with increasingly insane lies about inflated crowd sizes. With no actual grievances other than wanting to see the Premier of Victoria dead, you've given the government a licence to ignore you as Victorians unite against you.

Normally I would heartily reciprocate and acquiesce with people's demands for freedom. As a concept, freedom is best expressed when people are treated as our best selves; and this is when civic philos is embiggened. However, you aren't calling for an expansion of civic philos but rather an exemption from it. What you are calling for is an ability to ignore the health and wellbeing of your fellow citizens of the Commonwealth, and in actual fact the ability to endanger it through your deliberate indifference and negligence.

Granted, there are some people who have genuine medical reasons for not being vaccinated. Those reasons have to do with empirical medical conditions; which can lead to death. What someone who wants an exemption from the vaccine and/or the relevant health regulations which surround the protection of public health, is that their own personal selfishness is worth more to them than even the lives of others.

The whole notion that someone's right to freedom and the ability to swing your fists, ends where my nose begins is quite frankly, rubbish. I very much argue that as a member of a Commonwealth, your rights, whatever they happen to be, co-exist and are expanded in commonwealth together. Whatever notions of freedom that you might have, they are immediately bankrupted when they cease to acknowledge the lives of others. Furthermore when it comes to the transmission of an airborne aerosol disease, you're not just swinging your fists in front of people's noses, those fists are nanoscopic and are being sent as a legion into people's lungs and bodies.

The state of Victoria is open. The restrictions of movement, meeting and assembly are gone. More than 9 in 10 people have now been vaccinated. Those people have demonstrated their concern for your health in commonwealth but you do not acknowledge or respect their act of service to you. Your cause was lost long before today, and what you are doing now amounts to nothing more than people throwing tantrums. The people of Victorian clearly back the Premier Dan Andrews and the government they elected and they want absolutely nothing to do with your lawlessness. 

Is it vaccine mandates we've known about for months being protested? Because if it is that, then are you really in favour of endangering the lives of others? Is this anger at a bill before the parliament that you haven't read and do not understand? There are no restrictions now; so it can not possibly be that. Or is it just angry, anti government, mostly white wingnuts with an audience and appetite for violence?

Actually if it is true that you hate it here so much and you love Mr. Trump as much as the flags at your rallies appear to indicate, then perhaps you should rightfully exercise your freedom of movement and leave for the United States. 

If we are to live together in community and commonwealth then the greatest freedoms are actually achieved when we set aside personal pride and freedom. To be perfectly honest, I am less impressed with acts of demands for freedom and rights, than I am with acts where the needs of others are preferred. This is what I really don't understand about protests like this. Surely that’s an act of true freedom. If people bite and ravage each other, then in no time at all you will be annihilating each other, and where will your precious freedom be then?

Go home. Stop it. You're not sensible.

Aside:

The use of the Australian Red Ensign flag is deeply silly. As this is the flag of Australian merchant ships, are we to assume that the people who fly this flag are declaring they are not people, but instead are registered Australian merchant ships?

It is worth remembering that before 1953 there was no official Australian flag and that the red ensign and the blue ensign were used interchangeably. It is also worth remembering that the red ensign was used by the New Guard, which was the Australian chapter of the Fascist party in the 1930s, which had supporters throughout the army and the judiciary. Are these people declaring that they'd like to be fascists?

Aside 2:

When the Australian flag is flown upside-down it means that the ship which was previously in distress, has been abandoned. This means that the crew has officially given up any right on the vessel or its cargo and anybody who manages to get to the ship has the right to both the ship and/or its cargo.

I can only assume that this person who is flying the Australian flag upside-down, has officially declared that he has abandoned any claims of his person and his stuff and so one can only assume that if you were to take his wallet, he'd be fine with that?

Aside 3:

Use of the Eureka Flag doesn't really make that much sense outside of the context of a union. Use of the Polish flag and the Serbian flags make even less sense. 

Horse 2934 - Millennials Killed Cheap Motoring Too, Apparently

I found in Friday's newspaper, a think piece by yet another straight white grey haired man about his experience of going into a motor dealership and finding that the car which he wanted to buy was discontinued and how the nearest equivalent that they had on the showroom floor had a sticker price of more than $80,000. The cut and thrust of the rest of the column was about how millennials have killed the car market and how its their fault for there not being any cheap and fun cars which are available to buy. This was put down to a lack of interest and hard work on the part of millennials and concluded with the flourish that the modern generation was too engrossed in their mobile phones to want to go out and experience going outside and the thrill of driving.

Had this been in the motoring section, then maybe it could have been passed off as a work of satire but as it appeared in the opinion section and devoid of context, then I can only assume that this was not a work of comedy but was in fact, rigidly serious. Of course I immediately have to reflect on the bizarre notion that as someone under the age of 50, I was reading a newspaper because millennials are supposed to have killed journalism as well. 

I do not have a running list of what millennials are supposed to have killed but I bet that it includes home ownership, renting, gardening, live music, restaurants, hard work, the office, cooking, community, comedy, patriotism, history, roasters, coasters, electric toasters, and now the auto industry.

Let me clear something up. Millennials haven't killed everything. Real wages peaked in Q3 1978; which means that Generation X and Y entered the workforce after wages were already on the slide. Generation Z are so far down the economic wages slide that even the idea of full-time employment might seem like a pipe dream. Generation Alpha are still in school and Generation Beta have had the sheer audacity of not even bothering to be born yet. 

If you don't pay people wages, then in general, they don't buy stuff. It is really really hard to buy things with money that you don't have, unless you can wrangle to buy the government into buying things for you; which explains why for fiscal year 2020/21, Australia spent more money on subsidy payments to mining and energy companies than we did to unemployed people and people on disability benefits. The fact that we do not pay young people decent wages any more, expresses itself in home ownership statistics, where we now have entire generations of people being locked out of home ownership for life. 

One of the convenient benefits of the Coronaplague is that the illusion that wage payers pretended to care about their employees was broken open wide enough so that we could see that underneath the silvery foil, what lay inside was as hollow as a chocolate Christmas bunny. 

This is why I find this whole discussion about supply chain issues causing inflation so baffling. Supply chain problems mean that there are fewer goods for sale and that should lead to an increase in prices but at the same time, there hasn't really been a corresponding increase in wages. Some employers are crying crocodile tears that they can find people to work for them but if they took a good hard look at themselves, they would realise that people simply can't even pay the rent on the starvation wages that they so 'generously' hold out. Prospective employees have quite rightly rejected working as little more than modern day indentured slaves. Why bother going back to work for someone if your wages are a pittance? I got my first lesson about this on my first day of proper work, when I was 16. If I was being paid $2.98/hr at the time and it cost $3.20 just to get the bus there (immediately you can tell that I am not a millennial but old), then I'd have to be working for two and a bit hours just for the privilege of going to work. Now as then, you can take your job and restaff it (but only if you're prepared to pay more).

The automakers sell a really expensive product which relies on the fact that people have to have a decent enough wage to be able to afford it. It used to be the case that a motor car was the second most expensive purchase that normal people made in their lifetime. Since we've locked entire generations out of home ownership, it is by default the most expensive purchase, now. The thing to remember though, is that the automakers are a business and as such, run the numbers of what they have sold, what they expect to sell, and how much their input costs will be, to maximise their profits. Businesses go into business to do business. 

Let's strip this down to as simple terms as possible. Let's assume that we are playing basketball. There is a ring around the basket which inside you get 2 points and outside, you get 3. In order to score 6 points, inside the ring you need to hit 3 shots but outside the ring you only need to hit 2. It should therefore follow that if you want to be a champion basketball team, that you should concentrate on improving 3 point shots because you only need to be 67% as good at hitting them for the return on investment. I have no idea who the best basketball teams are but if I was a coach, it makes sense to me that unless you have an all-time great like Michael Jordan who you can get to do 150% of the work of a normal person, then you should just shoot 3s all the time. 

So it is with automakers. The difference between a $20,000 motor car and a $30,000 motor car, only has to be a difference in perception and trim. Provided you can convince the general public that the quality of your goods are worth the extra $10,000 then you've got it made. Rather, you don't actually need to convince that many people; you will only need to convince 67% of the market and you can completely abandon selling $20,000 motor cars.

This is precisely what has happened.

Back in 1997 there were 51,898 cars sold for the month of September. 13,104 of them were under $10,000. That's a full 25% of the market which was being sold to the cheaper end of the market. If we now assume that the imaginary 2022 VJ Holden Commodore would have retailed for $39,990, then the equivalent which would have existed is $20,000. However, of the 31,596 cars sold in September 2021, just 1151 were under $20,000 in on road costs. 

In fact, what used to be the big three automakers in Australia, don't even bother to sell an under $20,000 motor car any more. Ford almost doesn't sell cars any more, with only the Focus and Fiesta left and they only sell the Fiesta ST which chimes in at $32K. Toyota have abandoned the bottom end of the market and a Yaris will now set you back $27K. Holden doesn't exist anymore because General Motors can't even be bothered to sell any right-hand-drive cars in the world. 

There are a handful of automakers who will sell you a car for under $20,000, like the VW Polo, MG 3, Nissan Micra, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Picanto, Kia Cerato, Hyundai i20, Skoda Fabia etc. but even they have to realise that there is more money to be made by being lazier and simply raising the prices.

With people generally not being paid anything near like the amount in disposable wages like they used to, the automakers have had to convince people that their jacked up station wagons are cool. The SUVification of everything isn't the result of innovation but of laziness, as the automakers realise that the average age of people buying new motor cars has skyrocketed and that young people who would have bought all of the wee fun cars, no longer exist as a potential sales market. There basically is no real market for a hot hatch except as a legacy piece. There are no warm coupes which were made on the same lines as the hatchbacks any more.

The absolute peak of disposability of young people buying frivolous motor cars happened in 1964. The destruction of 200 million people in two world wars and the power of unions demanding that people weren't being treated so very very badly, suddenly meant that young people had loads of money and the stupidity to burn it. The 1964 Ford Mustang is the only model year to have sold more than a million units worldwide in a calendar year. At a base model price of $1,599 that equates to $14,953. Now admittedly the specification of a motor car has improved vastly in 57 years but the fact remains that Ford knew exactly what they were doing by shifting volume in 1964 and they really don't have to in 2021. The average age of the buyer of the 1964 Mustang was just 23; which says to me that there were hundreds of thousands of 18 and 19 year olds buying new cars. That's simply impossible now.

It didn't help that in 2020 and 2021 there was a global chip shortage which meant that the production of new cars was slowed and halted in some case. That meant that the automakers could afford to be even lazier because as the supply of new cars slowed there was a mismatch in demand, which then sent people into the used car market and because the demand curve for used cars shifted to the right, the equilibrium price generally went upwards. That also had the effect of crowding out younger people who have less money anyway; which will in time have secondary effect of further transforming the market and convincing the automakers to put even less effort into selling cheaper cars to young people.

Millennials haven't killed the car market. In fact, Millennials have never really been allowed to enter it to anywhere near the same degree as generations past. There aren't as many cheap cars any more because the auto makers know that they can afford to do less work for the same result. There really isn't that much difference between a $20,000 Yaris and a $30,000 Yaris except that they only need to sell 67% of them to achieve the same ends and if the young people don't have the money to buy them, then that's okay.

Horse 2933 - Better Iviation; Reducing Dangerous Substances (BIRDS) Bill 2021

House Business.

Prime Minister Micah, MP for Much Grumbling (No Labour Party)

Presentation of "Better Iviation; Reducing Dangerous Substances (BIRDS) Bill 2021".

<first reading>

<murmuring noises>

PRIME MINISTER MICAH:

Hewaw,

It is with a heart full of anger and disappointmint dat my gubbermint is forced to bring dis bill before da house. My gubbermint is constantly harrassed and harried by dese heinous and howible harpees of da sky and somefink must be done.

My gubbermint in response and in consultation wit da interested parties, of Princess Nana, and da Forin Minister Milo of da Kingdom of Next Door, has thought long and hard (then had a nap), spent many hours talking to da enemy (then had a nap), then thought some more thinks (then had a nap), has written dis bill for consideration.

My gubbermint which has already sorted out da budget crisis, da energy crisis, and da climate change crisis, and solved many of da werld's problems, now submits da "Better Iviation; Reducing Dangerous Substances (BIRDS) Bill 2021".

We have spent many hours outside, either lying on da pathway and thinking amazing thinks (then having a nap) or practicing being the army (before having a nap) and minding our own business, when out of day skies and totally uncalled for, we have been attacked by da birds.

We have spent many hours at da back door, looking at the aerial and thinking more amazing thinks, when da birds will stand up there at look at us. We have even been outside when da birds have flown over and dropped stinky bombs. 

It is always da birds. It is not da monsters who walk down da street with da peoples. It is not other cats. It is not our peoples. It is not other peoples. It is always da birds. Da birds are da enemy and dey must be stopped. Dey are da ones who attack us. Dey are the once who drop dangerous substances.

We know about many dangerous substances. We know about fruit which da peoples eat but when we do investigations, is very obviously not food. We know about our poos and wees, which we have contracted da peoples to remove for us. We know about poos and wees from other cats, which we have also contracted da peoples to removes for us. We know about hairballs, voms, and smelly smells, all of which we have plans for. We do not understand the dangerous substances that da birds drop from da sky. Da substances smell awful and dey can hit windows. Da birds obviously hate us and think that we are da enemy but we have not gone in their kingdom. We do not even know where their kingdom is. We have tried telling dem but it is no use. Da birds do not listen to reason. 

We all know lots of fings about out enemy. Some of dem are equipped with slicey weapons that can do you damage. Some of dem attack in large numbers. Some of dem attack each other; which means dat there id more dan one enemy. Dey must have lots of kingdoms and countries, which are all fighting for control of da skies. What we also know is dat they have da ability to drop bombs dat stink.

Da birds are highly organised and have different squadrons of bad, which do different bad things. Da big pointy birds who silently fly overhead, leave big bombs. Da black birds which are big, do not leave big bombs but many bombs. Da pink birds and da white birds are noisy and yell not nice yells. We do not understand da yells but we think that all of their yells are giant swears. Da little birds are always doing yells and attack us in groups. Da black and white birds have lovely songs but dey are evil evil liars who attack us and try to use their slicey weapons on us.

Princess Nana is old and is tired of dis nonsense. Akshually, Princess Nana is old and is tired of all fings dat are not even nonsense. She does not want to play the fighting game ever. She has annoyed growls for me. She has worse annoyed growls for da birds. Her growls are unprintable.

Forin Minister Milo of da Kingdom of Next Door has been out in da middle of da road and has been attacked by da birds. Da birds do not care about where you are, whether you are inside or outside your land, but at least dey do not come inside da house.

I have spent many hours in da cabinet thinking thinks about this (and having a nap). I have also spent many hours in da wardrobe, on top of Grumpy Towers, and watching Sky, thinking thinks about this. My gubbermint does not ask for the complete removal of birds. We have spent many hours trying to talk to da birds but do dey listen? No, dey do not. All we ask id dat they stop dropping bombs and stop attacking us. 

Dis is why I commend dis bill, da "Better Iviation; Reducing Dangerous Substances (BIRDS) Act 2021" to da house and we hope that da peoples vote for it.

<murmuring noises>

We also have other gubbermint business which needs attending to. My gubbermint is disappointed dat da Pantry Door Always Open Bill was rejected by da peoples. My gubbermint is disappointed dat da Moar Nums Bill was rejected by da peoples. We wish for a continuance on Standing Order No.4 which allows us to yell random things for no apparent reason. We will keep on yelling when we want things and we will keep on yelling random things, especially if we do not know what we want.

<murmuring noises>

Parliamentary Notes:

The "Better Iviation; Reducing Dangerous Substances (BIRDS) Bill 2021" was sumbitted at 06:03am, after Prime Minister Micah demanded a morning sleep at 04:12am and before Prime Minster Micah demanded a morning sit at 06:09am.

Gubbermint business appears to be being conducted as normal; including thinking thinks and having a nap.

Horse 2932 - The Slippery Slope Fallacy Fallacy

Especially over the past ten years in the Anglosphere and possibly as a result of the weaponisation of idiocy as a political device, people appear to be less satisfied with facts and logic and instead turn to more emotive and harder positions. Appeals to emotion from a political perspective are far more desirable because they don't actually need what you intend to assert to be true. As long as you yell something loud enough and often enough, then the madness of crowds can be used as a cheap fuel to drive your political rhetoric forward.

Unfortunately, that means that facts and logic have been thrown through the mincer. It also means that the language of logic has also been thrown through the same mincer and what has come out of the other end, is a state of affairs where words don't mean anything at all.

This is what has happened to the term of the "slippery slope argument". No longer does someone actually have to prove that an argument is a slippery slope argument, they merely have to say that something is a slippery slope argument; which immediately means that any constructive facts, logic and string of argument need not be entered into. In short, if you use a cricket bat and slam down upon the chessboard, then you win.

The slippery slope argument in rhetoric and logic, is an argument in which someone asserts that the initial action P, leads to Q, then R, then a series of events which eventually end up with X, Y, and Z. That first step P, which is minor, leads to a series of events which progressively get larger and larger; which eventually culminates in some significant and usually negative outcome or effect. In general, you never hear the the suggestion that something is a slippery slope if the expected outcome is something positive because people generally do not want to stop a positive thing from happening.

The suggestion that something is a slippery slope, is generally trotted out where the people who really want the thing to happen, accuse the person of suggesting that P leads to Q of fearmongering. Of course, you do have genuine slippery slope arguments where P leads to Q, then R, then eventually X, Y and Z, and the effects will be exaggerated in an attempt to scare the audience. However, what I am increasingly finding is that as people move away from a respect of the truth and facts, then literally anything will be labelled as a slippery slope argument, even if someone is asserting that P directly leads to Q and not some chain of events in between.

I am very much informed by the legal character of the Man On The Clapham Omnibus and the Lady On The Strathfield Train. If we take a theoretical reasonable person who is of reasonably good character and of reasonably sound mind, could they reasonably foresee a thing happening as the result of a thing in action? 

The problem with writing something off as a slippery slope argument is that it might be demonstrable that the first action will likely lead to an effect. It takes a deliberate fool to assert that actions have no consequences whatsoever and that P can not lead to any possibility Q. Of course, then this becomes a matter of reasonably evaluating Q and the relative strength of the argument of whether or not P leads to Q (perhaps through the exploration of motive, or perhaps the demonstration of process) but people accusing someone else of making a slippery slope argument, don't have time to look through the nuance window and instead prefer to close the curtains to all logic (including if there's a hurricane outside).

Invariably when you deal with people who have some agenda, an issue, or an opinion to push, that they are really really passionate about, then if you attempt to point out some possible consequence of Q, then because they have backed P to the hilt, they can not entertain any thought that there are any negative Q at all. 

The problem with the slippery slope fallacy, is that it ain't necessarily so. If something is reasonably foreseeable as the result of something else, then that isn't some slippery slope fallacy but other things operating such as the law of unintended consequences or even perhaps just the usual laws of action and consequence.

The statement "If P then Q" doesn't immediately mean that Q is a stupid concept or that it is unreasonable to suspect that Q might happen. Q, Q' or Q" could all be possible outcomes of P. Some of those possible outcomes should act as a warning that maybe P isn't a good idea and just because you want to deny that P can have consequences or that you don't cars about the consequences of P, just as long as you get P to happen, is no reason to rule out Q, Q' or Q" from happening. 

Elsewhere you see the accusation of the slippery slope fallacy being trotted out, it used in conjunction with the continuum fallacy. There might be all kinds of middle-ground possibilities but here the person making the accusation of the slippery slope has assumed from the outset that there is a discrete hard change from P to Z. P could very well have the effect of changing things subtly and Q, R, S etc. might all be logical and reasonably predictable outcomes of P. As a legal principle, middle-ground possibilities are acknowledged in all kinds of arguments and due to the formal nature and exhaustive demands that the legal environment makes, there is often very long-winded reasoning is provided for the likelihoods of various predicted outcomes.

If you dare ask the person if they actually know what a slippery slope is, then you will be likely met with a wall of abuse. Remember, their objective in invoking that a thing is a slippery slope argument is not to engage with any reasonable objections but rather to smash all opposition to their position. Invoking that something is a slippery slope argument is often just an attempt to cause all reasonable objections to stop.

It is not if P then Q, then R, then eventually X, Y, and Z.

It is not if P then Q.

It is just P!

Horse 2931 - Sitting At Restaurant Blue

I am sitting here as a customer of the Restaurant Blue and let me just say that for all of the yelling going on, very little is being done. The first course which was supposed to be a salad, was just a raw onion. Some people liked raw onion and so wanted to have that again but after about 30 minutes, the yelling from the patrons that we didn't want raw onion anymore was too much for the kitchen to bear and after much complaint, they brought out a steak.

It was just steak. We couldn't have any side dishes, we couldn't even have A1 steak sauce brought to the plate, but having said that it was still a pretty nice steak.

The problem with having steak is that the best steak is lightly seasoned and seared on both sides, so that it has some evidence of the process that brought it into the kitchen; and is only lightly cooked by process. The best steaks are rare and it is rare to find such steaks that have been cooked with such poise and respect for the kitchen.

When the kitchen at the Restaurant Blue ran out of steak, there was a commotion and the repeated yelling of "spill" from behind closed doors; and in their panic to try and serve us something, they brought us out a sausage.

Nobody really knows what is inside a sausage until you open it up and even then it still might not be obvious. Even if you take a bite and discover that it is as bland as all get out, you still might not actually know what's inside. We do know that this sausage looks incredibly white inside.

You could look at the list of ingredients but that's not going to tell you very much other than the usual statements that it will contain some amount of pork, some kind of filler and maybe the odd amount of spice. One thing that we do know about what's inside the sausage is that they have never ever lied to us about what's inside. Admittedly, they've never told us either but one does not ask how the sausage is made.

When you cook a sausage in the frying pan, it has a tendency to squeal and pop and perhaps splatter fat all over the cooktop. If that lands in another pan in which Coq au Vin, or Szechuan style beef is being cooked, then you might get the occasional firey incident and maybe some yelling about unsafe kitchen practices but you really needn't bother. Truth be told, sausages are best cooked next to hamburders which although are equally as suspicious when it comes to what kind of meat is inside, because hamburders are cooked on a contact grill, they can take up far more space than is sensible. If your hamburders start to burn and spit flames because you have been spraying the flames with spray cook, then you are allowed to get a new hamburder patty and wait a bit before you flip it.

You will probably find that your sausage after it has been sitting next to a hamburder for a long time, will start to pick up some really nasty flavours and depending on the opinions of your diners, those flavours although pleasant to some, will be utterly abhorrent and unpalatable to others. If this is the case, you may have to reconsider serving sausages and start to consider something else.

Given the fact that you do not have that much time to cook anything else before it is time to plate up, you only have a few limited options. You could continue to serve sausages but risk your customers getting up and leaving. 

It might be advisable to mix up a batch of pancakes in your frying pan. You do not have time to properly clean the frying pan and so there will continue to be the residual taste of sausages. Admittedly if you drown your pancakes in sweetener then people might not mind the taste as much but it won't fundamentally be a particularly good meal. People might think that you are joshing if you try serve pancakes from your frying pan and there is a great fear that they might throw the pancakes out of the window.

Soaking meals in sweet syrup is a tactic used in days' past. Once a upon a time in Café Red on the other side of the street, after everyone had had their fill of beer batter hawk, they switched to serving lamb in syrup. It didn't work and everyone went to Restaurant Blue for a while and got nothing but boiled chicken in salty broth for a long time.

Still there is another option.

In theory people like potatoes. Potatoes can be quite yummy if they are fried and people actually enjoy them as a crunchy and sometimes salty treat. Be careful though. Potatoes that have been left in the bag for too long, start to develop eyes which do not see, and they get soft and begin to leak and stink.

Potatoes, like other nightshades, contain a toxin called solanine. Solanine is safe in small amounts, but the fumes created from high levels of this substance can be poisonous if they are inhaled. Rotten potato smells really awful and leaves you with that unpleasant, lingering odour.

I suspect that if the kitchen really manages to muck up everyone's dinner, they will try serving potatoes in hot sauce and or with these new gravy boats that they've just bought; which would be filled with seawater for that authentic spud and sea taste. They don't have long though. At some point, everyone will decide where they want to go for the next bit and they'd better make up their mind before then.

Of course as a restauranteur, it is your job to ensure that your customers do not go to the restaurant on the other side of the street. That restaurant has all kinds of flavours but if you are able to convince your patrons that they are too spicy, too ethnic, too weird etc. then as long as your patrons never question you, you're fine. Maybe convince them that that other restaurant is too expensive. Your patrons will conveniently ignore the fact that you already have their credit card and are robbing them blind.

Up the road there is a food caravan but who knows what kind of green goop is being sold from it. That food caravan sells who knows what manner of leaves, pureed fruit and vegetables. They might very well be selling something which is good for your patrons but they can't be allowed to know that.

There's also a guy trying to sell crocodile meat from out the front of his house. He's got something like "20 or 30 crocodiles up there on the roof" and a few people want to buy that. They're weird.

Horse 2930 - The Problem With Making Political Jokes... Is That They Get Elected

 At the railway station this week, there was a chap from the Liberal Party talking to people before they got on the train. He was putting his face before the public, in a run for a position as Ward 2 Councillor of Blacktown City Council, in the 2021 Council Elections. I live in quite a populous council for Sydney and you'd think that the media would care about who was running for Mayor in one of the biggest councils in the broader city but they seem uninterested. Given that there are 42 local councils in Sydney alone and loads more across the state, that is perhaps understandable however, you'd at least suspect that the media in Sydney might care about who was running for the Mayor of Sydney.

I know that this is an aside but since News Corp and what was Fairfax and now Nine Ent.Co. through their powers combined, acquired and then shut down all of the local newspapers (Go Captain Blackout!), we are completely surrounded by no local news reporting. In the olden days when local newspapers existed, mastheads like the Blacktown Sun, the Blacktown Advocate and maybe the Parramatta Advertiser would have reported on this but the Sun stopped shining, nobody Advocates for anything and if there is Advertising is it stuck behind a paywall.

Having said all of that, general apathy and uninterest might very well be a good thing. Apart from the very petty issues of where roundabouts and No Right Turn signs go, council politics is small and mundane. Councillors are the people who get stuff done on the ground and the whole entire swirling malaise of national politics is all the way up there somewhere. Down here in council land, there just isn't the visceral hatred that comes from the great political football teams yelling at each other from across the State and Federal Chambers.

Conflict and novelty is the bread and butter of journalism. Unfortunately, without that source of bile and venom being spat across a room, there isn't really that much cause to send reporters into council chambers; when the majority of their work happens to be deciding where parking signs and kerb cuts go.

Newspapers don't care about very petty politics. They currently demonstrate that they don't care about very petty elections. Before I move on though, let me tell you about an even pettier election; which i am still amused by some 26 years later. That is the election back in 1995, when I was in high school for the Student Representative Council election.

One of the tropes of media is that the Student Council is an absurdly powerful body which makes all kinds of executive decisions, when in reality, they have practically zero power at all. The School Captain might have ceremonial functions of making occasional speeches on behalf of the students to someone on an assembly but that's really about it. SRC Meetings from what I saw from the outside, were nothing more than a small number of students carrying on like pork chops in a blender. There is a lot of noise for ultimately what amounts to very little indeed.

In the 1995 SRC Elections, someone ran on the set of promises that he would do nothing if elected except drink tea and eat biscuits in the SRC room. I think that that has to be about the most truthful campaign in the history of ever. Of course the Student Representative Council is a body with no power and of course it is going to be populated by nobody other than the kids who want to be popular, the kids who are overachievers and want this on their resume, and by kids who have someone been hoodwinked by their friends. Going in with a set of promises to be useless in a useless body, is a practical response.

That same year, I ran a guerilla political campaign encouraging people both not to vote at all and/or vote multiple times. Somewhere down the line I had acquired a photocopy card with $11 on it and at 9c a copy that meant 122 copies; which for a 17 year old is an insane amount of power which would (and arguably should) absolutely be used irresponsibly. I found a book about the fall of communism in Poland, which had loads of lovely pictures of people being very angry; including some where people were carrying banners with the slogan "elections are rigged". Suddently along with various kids' posters saying "Vote For Me" because of X, Y, and Z, there were my posters saying "Don't Vote", or "Vote Ten Times". 

The truth was that elections in a high school are a popularity contest where existing cliques are transformed into ballots and there's always an undercurrent of suspicion that because counting is done behind closed doors that it's all a sham anyway. If democracy's a joke then you might as well start writing punchlines, right?

I do not remember who was elected as School Captain but I do remember that our friend made good on the promise to do nothing other than drink tea and eat biscuits in the SRC room. I also remember that my campaign had been successful and that only 29 genuine votes had been made in that election; which means that practically anybody who voted for themself got onto that council. I assume that given that there were 12 members, that whoever the School Captain was, probably only polled about 8 or 9 votes at most.

Now I mention all of this by way of reference to the council elections in December. When the consequences are nil, it doesn't take that much effort to completely ruin what would have been a sensible result. When the consequences of the local council elections are perceived as nil by the general public, then the opportunity for absurdity is magnified. No doubt there will be people who see local council elections as a chance to get their foot onto the ladder of politics. The truth is that we already have a family in Blacktown City Council who have managed to get multiple members of their dynasty into council positions and when one of them tried running for Federal politics, he had no idea what the policies of his party were.

There will be those people who see the almost impotence of council politics and use it as an opportunity to see if they can get government sponsored biscuits. They might not actually run on a platform of doing nothing other than drinking tea and eating biscuits but they will see the local council as a chance to get on the gravy train and/or attempt to do some minor pork barrelling.

The complete absence of local newspapers and local media has meant that what should have been front and centre, isn't being reported at all. That is, that my opening paragraph was functionally a lie because while I said that "there was a chap from the Liberal Party" running for the local council elections, the truth is that formally there are no Liberal Party candidates in 2021 elections in Blacktown. Factionalism is so rife within the local branch of the Liberal Party because of that one family dynasty, that the party has elected to not formally run. Instead we get what's being called a "Blacktown Coalition"; in which the members are running as independents and who are more than likely being funded by the Liberal Party anyway. 

The situation is as absurd as the 1995 SRC Elections except that it is less honest. There aren't people running on a platform of doing nothing and there isn't a campaign making fun of the election, even though this is beyond a joke.

I do not want to cast members of the various political football teams as villains because the political theatre that goes on belies the fact that even under the colours of the political football teams, there are people who genuinely want to act in the public's service. Then there will be those people who actually genuinely want to do things for their community. I would really like to know how we find these people because with the absence of local newspapers, there's practically no public scrutiny of local politics any more. Certainly the days when the local media would send someone to council meetings has passed and by default, council meetings are akin to star chambers where no-one else is in the room where it happens and nobody really knows how the parties get to 'yes', or how any of the political sausages are made. 

Worse, without scrutiny from the outside; caused by an absence of inquisitive media, then who knows what goes into the blender, or what happens when people carry on like a bunch of pork chops, or even if there are any barrels filled with pork.

Horse 2929 - No, Critical Race Theory Is Not Being Taught In Schools

A column in The Australian on Friday 5th of November by Dr Bella d'Abrera, who is the Director of the Foundations of the Western Civilisation Program at the Institute of Public Affairs and regular spokesborg on Sky News Australia, yet again made the assertion that Critical Race Theory was being taught in schools in Australia. There was actually no checkable suggestion as to what aspect of Critical Race Theory was being taught in schools in the article and so it just appears that this is being used as a corporate line, for a designated enemy which the audience can direct their hate at. It simply isn't worth the effort to link to the article, partly because I would prefer that no advertising revenue goes to News Corp and partly because if there is no actual checkable concept, then it's really hard to examine the content. If you refuse to explain what you base an opinion on, then I can hardly make any sensible critique on the truthfulness of that opinion.

The concept of Critical Race Theory is the latest in a long line of vague enemies which News Corp and conservative media has decided upon. The older enemies of communism, drugs, the unions, terrorism, have all been more or less neutralised in the long cultural war that the economic right likes to wage in its tower defence game. It shows that in principle, News Corp believes that the Australian public is either too lazy or too stupid not to swallow its undigestible right wing formula and so it recycles arguments and culture war ideas from the United States and Britain; all while the public unquestioningly regurgitates what it has just swallowed, before taking its unthought opinions to the ballot box and returning politicians who actively make policies with harm them in the long run.

So why now? What is it about this moment in time that makes the Australian media want to attack Critical Race Theory. Clearly News Corp either sees it as a threat which must be dealt or as a sockpuppet issue which can be brought out and manipulated, like the other puppets that they have to distract the kiddies when their players and actors act in beastly ways. There could be some element of poisoning the ground in case some elements of the Uluru Statement From The Heart are taken up if a Labor Government happens to win office in 2022, or perhaps yet again the prime audience of Sky News Australia actually isn't Australia but the United States; where the right wing commentariat can point to Australia as supporting their views because of the allure of exoticism, when in actual fact it is the same set of opinions coming out of the same newsdesks.

If it is the latter, then Critical Race theory came under conservative media's watchful eye almost immediately after Barack Obama was elected to the office of the Presidency in 2008. Within a fortnight there was a pivot by the media in the United States to revert to playing almost explicitly racial politics except by name. It wasn't immediately obvious with the rise and fall of the Tea Party faction from 2010-12 but it certainly found a new voice in 2015 and 2016 when immediately after America had it's first black President, it elected the first explicitly white President since Andrew Johnson.

I mention all of this by way of background because comments from people like Dr Bella d'Abrera in the Australian and on Sky News Australia, are trying to push the idea the somehow Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools in Australia. It is not only a straight up lie but to spruik this lie repeatedly, preys upon the lack of curiosity and knowledge of the audience. Readers of The Australian are primarily the commentariat and bureaucratic class of Canberra and the audience of Sky News Australia is mostly the already convinced people who would have voted for either the Liberal Party or the National Party anyway. The pumping of Sky News Australia into regional Australia is essentially a loss making venture but is designed to swing regional voters into voting for the National Party and the LNP, upon the basis of similar kinds of a prejudices as has worked in the United States and that includes racial prejudice.

The bottom line is that Critical Race Theory isn't being taught in schools. It isn't being taught in schools in the United States either, which is where this idiotic line of argument was imported from. However, to properly address why I can make such an assessment, it is necessary to explain briefly what it is.  

Critical Race Theory is the application of critical theory to the specific issue of racial justice and inequality; as it relates to various subjects such a cultural, social and especially legal issues. Critical Race Theory looks at how race and racism which stems from the operation of law, actually affects people. Granted, there are civil-rights scholars and activists who work in this field but that is to be expected when you have inequality. It stands to reason that the people who already possess advantage aren't very likely to challenge and or remove the structures and mechanisms which that advantage in the first place.

As with a lot of humanities research and publication, Critical Race theory is concerned with outcomes; and this means looking at classes of people in the aggregate, institutions and how policy is enacted, rather than the simple raw abuse that individuals may have exacted. One person's experience while interesting, of itself is actually just a data point. This isn't about one person's complaint but rather, looking at how entire institutions operate.

One concept that keeps on popping up is that horribly unwieldy term "intersectionality"; which if you imagine a Venn diagram various social identities (race, class, gender, nationality etc.), looks at how these various concepts affect each other. The idea of intersectionality is borrowed from mathematics and logic, where you have various kinds of unions and intersections within fields; all of which might interact through various gates such as AND, NOT, XOR, XNOR etc. 

When vied in these terms, Critical Race Theory looks at these fields and then tries to work through the logic; examining these things critically (hence the name) and then tries to work out if outcomes such as economic advantage, political power, and other social outcomes such as racism are the result of these things. Particularly in the United States which has a history of slavery and white supremacy, Critical Race Theory examines how these things actually shape politics and policy. Only an unthinking person would come to the conclusion that supposedly colorblind laws do not racially discriminatory outcomes. Practically all of human history has groups of people arranged in factions and all fighting for some kind of control or at very least for that control not to be wielded with explicit cruelty.

It should be pretty obvious by now that what we're looking at is rooted in political philosophy and sociology, and given that we are this late in time, it should be pretty obvious to see where it fits. Philosophers have long kicked against the ruling classes. As long ago as 399BCE the people of Athens didn't like Socrates because they also thought that he was corrupting the minds of the youth and convincing them not to believe in the gods of the city-state (sounds familiar, Doctor?) and they made him drink hemlock until he died. I would have thought that a  Doctor and Director of a "Foundations of Western Civilisation Program" should be well versed in political and philosophical history; especially the traditions of dissent. 

Critical Race Theory is purely an academic pursuit, looking at social and political philosophy, and stands in a very long tradition of arguing that knavish ideology is the principal obstacle to human happiness and liberation from want. The assertion that it is being taught in schools is stupid and anyone who pushes this line of knavery deserves to be held up to the light. Sunlight is a brilliant disinfectant of manure.

Of course it isn't being taught in schools. Primary school children might have some inkling of what the parliament is and how laws are made but Geography classes will be more concerned with pointing out where the rivers and cities are. The idea that there are different states and countries might very well be new to primary school children. In high school classes, possibly there will be themes of racism in English literature classes and perhaps there might a look at racial injustice in a History class but subjects like Philosophy and especially Political Philosophy are never going to be taught in schools. If anything, Critical Race Theory is a second or third year politics/law subject and the suggesting that it is taught in schools is a lie.

The suggesting that Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools is mostly made by people who don't actually know what Critical Race Theory is. When politicians who want to stay in office, or media groups like News Corp who have a very long history of race baiting say that Critical Race Theory is being taught in schools, they do so because they are going into bat for the people who have advantage and power and want to keep it. These are the same kinds of people who perhaps within living memory actually beat people with clubs to make them do things. It is one thing to blame immigrants, asylum seekers, black people, first peoples, poor people, for all the woes of society but to turn around and then accuse them of conducting a complex academic campaign, is like the school bully punching you in the face and then telling you not to hit yourself.

Also, I have reached the point where I am also not prepared to accept apologists on this subject. There are those who will say "that's not what they mean" (being the people who are pushing this line of argument). No, it's exactly what they mean. Interested parties will tell straight up lies if it means that there are votes in it. That shouldn't be apologised for.

Horse 2928 - Clauses 7-9 Of The Constitution

The last three clauses of the Covering Clauses are mainly the cleaning up of technical matters and make for rather dry dreading without context. The closest that we get to understanding why they are even in here at all, are the bunfights that happen in a CoAG meeting, or perhaps when the Federal Government has a spat with one of the States. It took more than a decade for the bunfight between the colonies to finally be resolved and the only reason that I think that it happened was because they ran out of buns.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble

7. Repeal of Federal Council Act

The Federal Council of Australasia Act, 1885, is hereby repealed, but so as not to affect any laws passed by the Federal Council of Australasia and in force at the establishment of the Commonwealth.

Any such law may be repealed as to any State by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, or as to any colony not being a State by the Parliament thereof.

The Constitution of Australia had a different problem to that of either the United States or Canada in that as the Commonwealth would be formed out of a collection of entities which already had responsible government, it needed to save those laws as well as any laws that that collection of entities may have made in congress before the act of federation.

As best as I can tell, the Federal Council of Australasia was an executive body which was formed on an ad hoc basis, from delegates from the several colonies, to decide matters which were of concurrent importance to them. Before federation, this included Fiji and New Zealand which is why there was an expectation that they would sign up for the Commonwealth of Australia.

The problem with the Federal Council of Australasia was that it was hideously impotent. It couldn't actually make rulings which would bind the colonies, as the Council was itself still subordinate to the Crown at Westminster. Really, all it could do was make some decisions with regards disputes between the colonies, and make the executive decisions with regards the defence and or military posturing of the colonies. Hence the reason why an Australasian military corps was sent to South Africa to fight in the Boer War before there was actually an Australia or a dominion of New Zealand. It was also the instrument which would eventually decide to commit suicide through the act of federation and recommend the Constitution for a referendum.

In addition to its impotence was the problem that it wasn't really taken seriously by the several colonies on occasion. There were frequent meetings of the council between 1885 and 1900 when New South Wales simply never bother to send any delegates as they saw it of no import. When the richest and in theory most powerful colony can't even be bothered to show up, you know you've got problems. 

8. Application of Colonial Boundaries Act

After the passing of this Act the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895, shall not apply to any colony which becomes a State of the Commonwealth; but the Commonwealth shall be taken to be a self-governing colony for the purposes of that Act.

121 years after the act of federation, the inclusion of Clause 8 looks rather a bit strange. However, roll the clock back to 1899 and suddenly, if there was ever a thing that the six colonies of Australia were going to have a right proper barney over (technical term), then it would be about borders. New South Wales started out by default as owning practically everything but starting with the proclamation of the Swan River Colony, the amount of land under the control of the New South Welsh Government in Sydney, steadily decreased.

There were arguments about the gauges of railways and when the Colonial Victorian Government ran it's broad gauge railway north of the Murray River, New South Wales built Albury railway station as a very very large marker as if to say "you shall not pass any further". 

The Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895 is incredibly short and at just three sections, it can be summarized quite quickly. Firstly, the boundaries of a colony were determined by the Queen by Order in Council or letters patent. They then required the consent of the colony in question in order to change the borders. Thirdly, Section 3 was a list of who the Self-Governing Colonies were. For the purposes of the Act, Canada and Newfoundland, the Six Colonies separately, and New Zealand and two Colonies in South Africa were declared to be Self-Governing. 

My suspicion is that Clause 8 is the parliament at Westminster, trying to wash its hands of any and all responsibility that it might have had, if the project of Federation had gone wrong. Apart from Western Australia yelling "shut the borders" at the slightest provocation, and the very slow lurch towards statehood of the Northern Territory, I don't think that we appreciate just how much New South Wales and Victoria hated each other. 

9. Constitution

The Constitution of the Commonwealth shall be as follows:

The Constitution

This Constitution is divided as follows:

Chapter I—The Parliament

Part I—General

Part II—The Senate

Part III—The House of Representatives

Part IV—Both Houses of the Parliament

Part V—Powers of the Parliament

Chapter II—The Executive Government

Chapter III—The Judicature

Chapter IV—Finance and Trade

Chapter V—The States

Chapter VI—New States

Chapter VII—Miscellaneous

Chapter VIII—Alteration of the Constitution

The Schedule

Clause 9 is a table of contents for the next 128 Sections which follow. Clause 9 is almost of zero consequence and I would suggest is actually impossible for a judge to make a ruling on. 

Clause 9 kind of acts as a template for other acts to copy and you can sort of see the influence of both the Swiss Constitution in defining explicitly where Finance and Trade are to be put, and the separation of powers which is kind of modelled on the United States Constitution. There are some specific provisions such as Ministers of the Crown being required to gain a seat in Parliament within three months of becoming a Minister and the idea that any Bill including the Budget being held as a trigger for a double dissolution election; which are inventions of the Australian Constitutional Conventions and of nowhere else from what I can determine.

The first 9 clauses of the Constitution and indeed none of the Constitution contain any mention of a bill or claim or rights and it also doesn't address the Commonwealth's relationship to First Peoples. I would prefer to see some kind of recognition of First Peoples and the initial injury which the imposition of an Empire by force perpetrated but sadly, I think that there are too many racist knaves in too many positions of power for that to happen without a fight.

Perhaps surprisingly, I rather like the fact that we have no explicit Bill Of Rights contained within the Constitution but rather, rights legislation and the schedules which go on to enumerate what those rights are, are outside of the Constitution and contained in other instruments such as the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Racial Discrimination Act 1984. Why? Because the Constitution in principle is the set of rules that defines how you make rules; and human rights which are already deemed to exist at law, unless hedged in by it, might be discoverable. If they were crystallised in the Constitution, then new human rights which are found (such as the right to health care, education, and various forms of human dignity) are less likely to be admitted. That was a lesson that we learnt from the United States before the Constitution was written.

Horse 2927 - Clauses 4-6 Of The Constitution

As with previous posts with regards the Constitution, I shall be referring to the text as currently published by Parliament House. If this thing ever becomes a massive behemoth of a series, I of course realise that Section 127 will have to be dealt with. My intent with this pass through the first 9 clauses is to show in passing that they are implicitly racially discriminatory, as opposed to the deliberately explicit racially discriminatory nature of Section 127 and Section 25 which kind of indicates that something akin to what was Section 127 could be returned through regular non-constitutional legisation.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble

4. Commencement of Act

The Commonwealth shall be established, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth shall take effect, on and after the day so appointed. But the Parliaments of the several colonies may at any time after the passing of this Act make any such laws, to come into operation on the day so appointed, as they might have made if the Constitution had taken effect at the passing of this Act.

Later sections of the Constitution deal with the saving of state laws and what happens in the event that Federal and State laws overlap. Clause 4 of the Constitution is kind of a continuance clause; which states that everything as far as the colonies were concerned, would continue along their merry way even after they had become states. 

Of itself that doesn't seem all that interesting but in inventing the corporate person which was to be the Commonwealth of Australia, the framers looked at the republican system in the United States which was and is a rolling mud slinging match, and places like the Union of Canada and the Confederation of Switzerland. What Australia is, is more like the latter than the former; though it must be said that the states kind of were distrustful of each other before Federation and remain so to this day.

5. Operation of the Constitution and laws

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen's ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

I know that this is going to sound trite but there is no right not to follow the law. The Constitution having created the sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia, neither leaves room for the sovereignty of the states; nor the sovereignty of First People (which it never acknowledged), nor the sovereignty of individuals. On that last point, the sovereign citizen argument which seems to have cropped up recently as a defence by people to get out of following the law, simply has zero weight at law. How can it? Clause 5 states simply that the "all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth". 

The states which pretty much have plenary jurisdiction within their borders and the power to make laws about literally anything in the case of New South Wales where I live, are still bound by "the laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution". There are no get out clauses. There is only one exception but that has to do with naval ships and generally never applies. 

6. Definitions

"The Commonwealth" shall mean the Commonwealth of Australia as established under this Act.

"The States" shall mean such of the colonies of New South Wales, New Zealand, Queensland, Tasmania, Victoria, Western Australia, and South Australia, including the northern territory of South Australia, as for the time being are parts of the Commonwealth, and such colonies or territories as may be admitted into or established by the Commonwealth as States; and each of such parts of the Commonwealth shall be called "a State."

"Original States" shall mean such States as are parts of the Commonwealth at its establishment.

With regards the application of Mabo v Queensland (1992) and the list of requests in the Uluru Statement From The Heart, Clause 6 is like putting an axe through the head of whatever constitutional claims that First People might have made. In 1900 they were basically deemed not to have existed and so, they aren't mentioned and because they aren't explicitly mentioned, they can not be included in the category of "the States" for the purposes of the allotment of future Senators as "Original States". 

I suspect that the reason why Clause 6 was argued for, had nothing to do with any future claims that First People might have had. In 1900 the immediate concern was to do with Fiji and New Zealand who had rejected the process of Federation but might have wanted to join the Commonwealth of Australia at a later date.

I also suspect that looking at the American experience which had added states like crazy, that the framers of the Australian Constitution didn't want to dilute the representation of the Original States; which is what happened in the United States. An Original State in the US Senate at the time of inception had 1/13th of the seats in the upper house (7.6%9) but that was already well into the 40s by the time of the Federation of Australia in 1900. 1/45 (2.2%)

What's perhaps curious is that I think that the framers of the Australian Constitution fully expected that there would be extra states; perhaps being formed out of parts of other states; but apart from the Northern Territory which looks all the world like a state but isn't one, the Australian Capital Territory which is similar, Jervis Bay Territory which looks like a glorified local council, and the short lived Central Australian Territory, which potentially might become states, the mechanism for statehood has never been triggered.

Clause 6 also lays down a form which a lot of other pieces of legislation have, in that it defines words and how they are to be used within the confines of that particular piece of legislation. In general, words in pieces of legislation have the usual definitions that they do within a normal dictionary (such as the OED or the Macquarie).

Horse 2926 - Clauses 1-3 Of The Constitution

I suspect that the Australian Constitution of 1900 was very much modelled on the Canadian Constitution of 1867, the United States Constitution of 1789 and the Swiss Constitution of 1848. The Australian Constitution mostly wanted to retain the ideas of the British Parliament because the system at Westminster had already spawned six sprogs in Australia. 

This commentary on the Australian Constitution continues and as with a previous post, I refer to the act as published here:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/preamble

1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

Of itself, this clause looks to be unimportant; it probably is. However, it should be noted that the Constitution wasn't handed down from on high by an almighty being and nor does anyone particularly care about who the writers of the document were. The founding fathers of the Australian Constitution were all white men (mostly with beards) who over a series of constitutional conventions, argued bitterly about what should go in the final document. Trying to mythologise the arguments of a bunch of men, either in freezing conditions in Melbourne or in the sweaty underchambers of the Sydney Town Hall in a cicada filled hundred degree summer, is quite frankly a bit silly. 

Clause 1 of the Constitution lays out by demonstration, the form by which every other piece of legislation handed down by the parliament. There will be the long name, the short name, a preamble about what the document intends to do, a list of definitions as they are used inside the document, and then the body of the document and how it operates. 

2. Act to extend to the Queen's successors

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

In 1900 when this Act was passed by the British Parliament in Westminster, the idea that a Dominion would even have a Constitution was a novel idea. The several states in Australia did not really have them and while Canada did, New Zealand, India, South Africa and Her Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not. New Zealand and Britain still do not.

The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen are in fact materially different to those referring to the corporation sole which is the Crown. The Crown as a corporate person doesn't die; whereas the monarch is replaceable. Also, the Crown of the several states are different corporate persons to the Crown of the Commonwealth. 

On that point, I actually quite like the idea that the Queen/King is ten thousand miles away. If we were to have a President (as opposed to the President of the Senate which we already have), then the people of Australia have emphatically stated that they want to elect such a person and unfortunately with the process of election comes the moral mandate that they should actually do something. I do not want the monarch to do anything. I like that the Governor-General (who as we will see in later posts in this series) although they are insanely powerful, is so loathe to use that power that there are only two times that anyone can even recall that Governor-General using said power.

There is also the idea that the Queen (the monarch) has sovereignty over Australia. This is a complex concept. As it stands the Queen can not enter the House of Representatives without express permission, the Queen can not bring legislation to the parliament except through a Member of Parliament, and while the Governor-General has the power to set aside legislation to be signed by the Queen for ceremonial purposes it is unclear whether the Queen can unilaterally withhold Royal Assent for legislation to be passed.

Second to this (and this is a problem with the first 9 clauses), the sovereignty over the Commonwealth of Australia extends to the Queen (which was then Victoria) and to to Her Majesty's heirs and successors. Not only does this presuppose that the Crown is the supreme sovereign it also presupposes that there aren't any other forms of sovereignty. This proves to be quite the problem in conjunction with Mabo v Queensland No.2 (1992) where the High Court found that the doctrine of terra nullius was invalid and which hinted at the idea that of sovereignties existed. We have never reconciled that and documents like the Uluru Statement From The Heart have been roundly ignored by the Parliament.

3. Proclamation of Commonwealth

It shall be lawful for the Queen, with the advice of the Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being later than one year after the passing of this Act, the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania, and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia, shall be united in a Federal Commonwealth under the name of the Commonwealth of Australia. But the Queen may, at any time after the proclamation, appoint a Governor-General for the Commonwealth.

Clause 3 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is the clause where the formal proclamation of the corporation sole of the Commonwealth of Australia, which is separate and distinct from the several states, is made. This is the moment of birth of the person of the Commonwealth of Australia. What a strange person it is.

Take note of the description of who actually agreed to this: "the people of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, and Tasmania" "and also" "of Western Australia". The instrumentality of Federation is such that the person of the Commonwealth of Australia is formed and all of the gaps are filled in by pushing all the spaces together. Australia is possibly unique in that I suspect that it is the only country which was formed out of nothing by the people voting at the ballot box. There were a series of referenda in 1899 and 1900 which brought the motley crew of disparate people together into the Federation. In all of the colonies, the people who didn't agree to any of this were First Peoples; who were never asked. In some cases First People didn't even get the opportunity to vote (in Australia the Electoral Act 1918 frames voting as a duty not as a right) until after 1965.

I personally think that that leaves us with a dilemma. The Uluru Statement From The Heart demands some kind of voice to parliament. That in principle means that First People would have to agree to the lawful sovereignty of the Commonwealth of Australia (which they have never formally been asked to do). It might also mean that the sovereignty of First People might become subordinate to the Commonwealth of Australia; which is the current case with the colonies who became states. Of course, if they actually do, then I also think that for justice to be properly served that First People's sovereignty would have to be formally recognised and that would not only include an alteration of the Preamble but also of this clause (because this is the clause which creates the Commonwealth and states who formally agreed to the process of Federation) and perhaps most shockingly of all to conservative people who want to retain the right to be racist knaves, First People would be rightly afforded at least Six Senators per the other provisions of the Constitution as First People would have already been an original state. That Original State would have to be defined by some virtual term not bounded by land area as it would have encompassed the entire Australian continent and all islands but since legal gymnastics are about making words and definitions jump through hoops to achieve legislative outcomes, then that shouldn't be a problem.

This are also several historical quirks; including that the idea of a Commonwealth of Australia had to pass through the hard legal stares of the Privy Council, that this was to happen within the year, that the Queen would have to appoint a Governor-General (as there was no Commonwealth of Australia in existence to advise the Queen as to whom the Commonwealth of Australia wanted to fill the post) but the most hilarious is this:

"and also, if Her Majesty is satisfied that the people of Western Australia have agreed thereto, of Western Australia"

The people of Western Australia actually did agree to joining the Commonwealth on 30th of July 1900 and it would have been well within their rights not to, just as Fiji and New Zealand had already backed out of the process. However our friends in the west are kind of a country unto themselves; being so far removed from the eastern states. You very much notice this state of apartness when it comes to time zones. In summer when it is 7pm in Sydney, it is 6pm in Brisbane because Queenslanders are worried about their cows fading and curtains not knowing when they are supposed to be milked and they refuse to adopt daylight savings time; it is 6:30pm in Adelaide because South Australians like to dawdle; and when it is 7pm in Sydney it is the 1970s in Perth. 

Western Australia has tried to back out of the Commonwealth and even had a referendum on the subject in 1933 before that was struck off as unconstitutional and invalid by a parliamentary joint select committee in the he British Parliament. I think that Western Australia quite likes the current pandemic as they get to shut the borders and feign their own sovereignty.

Horse 2925 - Keep In Your Lane, People. Is That Too Much To Ask For?

Over the past month or so I have not been taking public transport to work. In the middle of a pandemic and the non zero chance that there is a deadly virus in the world, I have been driving to and from work, in order that I don't become an unwitting carrier of the Covid-19 virus and accidentally pass it on to my wife who is immunocompromised. Driving a car to work across Sydney, some 30 miles, has given me one insight that I wouldn't have otherwise guessed.

You're all worse at driving than you used to be.

I might be tempted to say that this is because of people being in lockdown for several months but in general that should have returned to previous levels pretty quickly. Instead I am convinced that the reason why the average driving standards have fallen is because people are driving bigger cars than they used to and haven't adjusted their habits.

When you are driving a car on the road, you aren't occupying the space that your body does but the space that a thousand plus kilogram box does. This instantly tells you that spatial awareness isn't an innate ability but something that has to be learnt. Spatial awareness tells you how you relate to other objects in the world; which on the roads includes other cars and even where you are inside a lane.

It follows that if you are in a car, that your left leg which is right of centre, should also be positioned to the right of the centre of the lane. It should also follow that your sense of self preservation will keep you from crashing into a thing coming in the other direction when the closing speeds of you and oncoming traffic can on occasion exceed more than 100 miles an hour.

I think that most people, if they were ever taught this rather basic fact when they were learning to drive, have either forgotten this or worse, don't care. The amount of times that I have seen cars drift over the left hand side of their lane is shocking. I don't mean that in the metaphorical sense either. As someone who drives a relatively small car, watching a big SUV or ute, where the metal bullbars at the front are lined up with my head, is genuinely scary.

I never used to experience this at all. Back in the days when people still drove sedans and wagons, lane wandering was still a problem. Today though, traffic is somewhere between 6 and 8 inches taller than it used to be. Also, the number of small hatchbacks on the road has massively changed as well. The SUVification of everything on the road has all but eliminated sedans and wagons, and has transformed small cars into small SUVs and CUVs.

In the process of transforming every car on the road into an SUV, the automotive industry in its wisdom has also decided that along with various styling cues which reduce wind resistance, they has also mostly arrived at the idea of putting increasingly smaller windows on cars. If you are a small child in the Toyota CH-R, Mitsubishi ASX, Mazda CX-5 as well as utes such as the Hilux, Ranger and Triton, then unlike when I was a small child and staring out the back windows of a VC Commodore, then all you are going to be able to see is the sky. Not being able to see the world outside for reference, is a leading cause of motion sickness and horking your guts up all over the inside of a motor car.

Children not being able to see out of a car is only of secondary importance at best. It is drivers who now have to look out of postal pillbox windows that is worrying. Inside their insulated and cocooned box, the amount of awareness that there actually is anything outside of the windows, has fallen off the edge of a cliff. That's also magically combined with styling out the front of the car which ensures that drivers have no idea where there front of their car is either and so they have to imagine where it is. It is my experience that most people have very poor imaginations; much less their ability to imagine the world outside of their windscreen. 

When I see learner drivers on the roads, they tend to be using hatchbacks that the driving schools still have, or if they are using the family's SUV, are being taught by parents and friends who never learned to drive on SUVs and have never learned proper spatial awareness or car control to go along with their new choice of automotive behemoth.

As spatial awareness isn't innate, then the amount of imagination and work demanded of drivers in newer cars is more than it used to be. Yet at the same time, we are giving drivers less of a chance to see out of their cars. What this results is in, is loads more cars on the road drifting out of their lanes, more moving from lane to lane without a clue that there's other traffic in the way and because drivers can't be bothered to indicate that they are moving, they just move without a thought that doing so has the potential to damage a lot of valuable stuff.

Horse 2924 - 0 Out Of *****

In several Bahn Mi shops, Thai food shops, and even the odd Kebab shop, there are signs that jokingly have the following rating of heat:

*** - Very Hot

** - Hot

* - Medium

0 - White People

Now while that might be true for some white people, whose idea of cuisine is to boil a carrot for three and a half months until all the colour has escaped and then still complain about it being too spicy, I am a heat seeker. I am not truly happy unless the level of heat is apoplectic, and until the level of heat drives me into a state of anaphylactic shock where I am keeled over on the floor and I'm simultaneously bleeding out of my eyeballs, nose and ears at the same time.

To that end: Sriracha is okay; Kebab sauce is okay; Tabasco sauce is good; Frank's Red Hot sauce is quite lovely; but the undisputed queen of all of the hot sauces is Samyang Hot Chicken Flavor Ramen Sauce. It has an SHU rating of 8706. The 2X Haek Spicy Buldak Hot Chicken Flavor sauce has an SHU rating of 10,001 and the 3X Haek Spicy Buldak Hot Chicken Flavor sauce has an SHU rating of 13,013. All hail the Empress Hochi.

I found Samyang Hot Chicken Flavor instant ramen in the shops one day and then have been wondering what that combination of flavours, spice, and heat is ever since. The list of ingredients of the packet may as well have been written in an ancient and long forgotten script because it's a list of E numbers and things which otherwise look incredibly normal but remain unfathomable. The Samyang company is obviously performing a wild act of transformation because they take ingredients which I understand (so they say) and turn them into the taste of thousands of angels dancing on the head of a pin, except with knives.

Samyang Hot Chicken Flavor instant ramen would have been enough except someone mentioned that you could buy the sauce at Woolworths and that completely changed my expectations. It was as if someone had invented a way to hack the system because no longer could I get a small rationed packet of sauce and only with a bowl of instant ramen but I could get more than was rationally sensible. Those people who tell you that you can have too much of a good thing are lying to you. If you have too much of a good thing, you can save the rest for later. Ha!

Having learned that I could get Samyang Hot Chicken Flavor instant ramen at Woolworths, I found it at my local supermarket in Blacktown and thus, I was a happy shopper indeed. What the kosmos failed to inform me of though, was that having obtained Samyang Hot Chicken Flavor instant ramen, it turns out you only get to do it once. Oh no. I have gone from the Crown Prince Jocularity, to being just some joker who has had a cruel trick played on me. The joke's on me and I am a fool.

My local Woolworths in Blacktown is the only place that I have found Samyang Hot Chicken Flavor Sauce in the little black bottle and I suspect that that is because we do live in a very multicultural area. Even then, I have only ever found it once and there is now a sticker on the shelf where it was where this Woolworths says that it is temporarily out of stock. As that sticker has been there longer than it was actually in stock and on the shelf, I am suspicious of the truthiness of this sticker. Telling me that something is out of stock, is like placing a false hope into the world and if they don't bother to put it back in stock, then my hope will have been misplaced.

Elsewhere in my corner of the world, Tong Li Supermarket in Blacktown doesn't carry it; Asian Food Market Blacktown doesn't have it; G&L Supermarket in Blacktown doesn't have it either. I have been to multiple Indian supermarkets across Blacktown, Quakers Hill, Schofields, Kings Langley and Seven Hills, hoping that they might cater for Korean customers on the off chance but no. I appear to be living in a semi arid wasteland of spicy food. 

I am not helped in my quest to find Samyang Hot Chicken Flavor Sauce either at the Asian supermarket at the south end of the Town Hall Station pedestrian concourse, or at the city branch of Woolworths and the entire of the lower North Shore from Mosman to North Sydney; which includes Cremorne, Neutral Bay, and Kirribilli and Milson's Point is a complete write-off.

It looks like I may have to accept the gentle ribbing of Bahn Mi shops, Thai food shops, and even the odd Kebab shop when they have their hotness rating of 0 for White People. But nay nay nay, I doth protest. I am a genetic anomaly, who somehow remembers my unknown ancestors attempts to sail around the world for spices. That is, unless I am able to use the tools of sleuthery and hunt down this as yet unattainable source of flavour, spice, and heat. I don't want to live in a world of 0 but of *****.