Horse 3077 - Big Angry Cats vs Danger Noodles

I have been asked by someone to give my prediction of who is going to win the 2022 Rugby League Grand Final. Even when I pointed out that I do not watch Rugby League, I was assured that my opinion would still be useful as I could probably work it out using data. In this respect I am probably the truest neutral that ever existed because not only am I not tainted by personal preference or prejudice on the subject, if the only thing I have available to me is the data with no context, then I'm not going to be tainted by those things. I have no iron in the fire. 

So then, what kind of data am I going use for this endeavour? Wins, draws, losses? No. Points for and against? No. Form over the last five matches? No. Average winning and average losing margin? No. All of these are fine metrics which might be useful for someone who actually cares about the game but I don't. There's one piece of data which is really strange and surprisingly reliable.

You will note that in 20 years of Australian Rules Grand Finals, in a roughly 2:1 ratio you can work out who is going to win, just by looking at the relative angriness of the mascots. It is made a little bit more difficult by trying to decide who would win in a fight between birds/animals/people and the weather but in general whoever you think would win in a fight, will win in the Grand Final.

2002 Lions 75 - 66 Magpies - Cats can rip birds to shreds (1-0)

2003 Lions 134 - 84 Magpies - Cats can rip birds to shreds (2-0)

2004 Power 113 - 73 Lions - Cats should not be playing with electricity (3-0)

2005 Swans 58 - 54 Eagles - I have no idea how to rate bird on bird violence (4-1)

2006 Eagles 85- 84 Swans - I have no idea how to rate bird on bird violence (5-2)

2007 Cats 163 - 44 Power - Cats should not be playing with electricity yet somehow they won? (5-3)

2008 Hawks 115 - 89 Cats - Cats can rip birds to shreds but birds still won? (5-4)

2009 Cats 80 - 68 Saints - Cats have staff (6-4)

2010 Magpies 68 - 68 Saints (no net result)

2010 Magpies 102 - 52 Saints - Birds are a nuisance in nesting season (7-4)

2011 Cats 119 - 81 Magpies - Cats can rip birds to shreds (8-4)

2012 Swans 91 - 81 Hawks - I have no idea how to rate bird on bird violence (9-5)

2013 Hawks 77 - 62 Dockers - Birds are a nuisance in nesting season (10-5)

2014 Hawks 137 - 74 Swans - I have no idea how to rate bird on bird violence (11-6)

2015 Hawks 107 - 61 Eagles - I have no idea how to rate bird on bird violence (12-7)

2016 Bulldogs 89 - 67 Swans - Dogs can rip birds to shreds (13-7)

2017 Tigers 108 - 60 Crows - Cats can rip birds to shreds (14-7)

2018 Eagles 79 - 74 Magpies - I have no idea how to rate bird on bird violence (15-8)

2019 Tigers 114 - 25 Giants - Cats have staff (16-8)

2020 Tigers 81 - 50 Cats - If I had no idea how to rate bird on bird violence, then I have even less of an idea how to rate cat on cat violence (17-9)

2021 Demons 140 - 66 Dogs - Dogs have masters (even if those masters are demons) (18-9)

2022 Cats 133 - 52 Swans - Cats can rip birds to shreds (19-9)

Of itself that seems like a trivial result because anyone can look at a series and draw conclusions from things that aren't there. Humans are pattern seeking machines who  find patterns in information they are presented; including when no such pattern exists.

However, when you then apply this same bizarre reasoning to a similar 20 year period of Rugby League Grand Finals, in a roughly 2:1 ratio you can also work out who is going to win, just by looking at the relative angriness of the mascots. Again, it is made a little bit more difficult by trying to decide who would win in a fight between birds/animals/people and the weather but in general whoever you think would win in a fight, will win in the Grand Final.

2002 Roosters 30 – 8 Warriors - I have no idea how a flock of chickens beat a band of Warriors (0-1)

2003 Panthers 18 – 6 Roosters - Cats can rip chickens to shreds (1-1)

2004 Bulldogs 16 – 13 Roosters - Dogs can rip chickens to shreds (2-1)

2005 Tigers 30 – 16 Cowboys - Big Angry Cats can rip people to shreds (3-1)

2006 Broncos 15 – 8 Storm - Does a horse just stand out in the weather? (3-2)

2007 Storm 34 – 8 Sea Eagles - Bad weather stops birds from flying (4-2)

2008 Sea Eagles 40 – 0 Storm - Except if they just stay in the nest (4-3)

2009 Storm 23 – 16 Eels - Bad weather stops danger noodles from wiggling (5-3)

2010 Dragons 32 – 8 Roosters - Big Angry Mythical Beast can rip chickens to shreds (6-3)

2011 Sea Eagles 24 – 10 Warriors - Birds are a nuisance in nesting season (7-3)

2012 Storm 14 – 4 Bulldogs - Bad weather stops dogs from running (8-3)

2013 Roosters 26 – 18 Sea Eagles - I have no idea how to rate bird on bird violence (9-4)

2014 Rabbitohs 30 – 6 Bulldogs - Rabbits can outrun a dog (9-5)

2015 Cowboys 17 – 16 Broncos - Cowboys can wrangle and break-in horses (10-5)

2016 Sharks 14 – 12 Storm - A shark is unaffected by weather on the surface (11-5)

2017 Storm 34 – 6 Cowboys - Bad weather keeps people inside (12-5)

2018 Roosters 21 – 6 Storm - Except if they just stay in the nest (12-6)

2019 Roosters 14 – 8 Raiders - And if they remain inside a chicken coop (12-7)

2020 Storm 26 – 20 Panthers - Bad weather stops cats from running (13-7)

2021 Panthers 14 – 12 Rabbitohs - Big Angry Cats can rip bunnies to shreds (14-7)

2022 Panthers v Eels

I know nothing about the form of the two sides going into this year's Rugby League Grand Final. I do not really care about Rugby League at all and to be honest, I think that the last truly great Rugby League season was 1966 when St George had won their 11th successive Grand Final. A four-tackle rule was introduced to replace unlimited tackles, which in my opinion was done purely to stop St George from winning more; which says that nobody else could honestly work out how to beat them within the rules that existed.

Having said all of that, as someone who not only knows nothing and actively dislikes the game of Rugby League, my pick for the 2022 champion is the Panthers for no other reason than Big Angry Cats can stop Danger Noodles from wiggling.

Aside:

If I was Grand Poohbah and Lord High Everything Else and in charge of the AFL fixtures list then there'd be a round of:

Lions v Tigers

Cats v Dogs

Demons v Saints

Crows v Magpies

Hawks v Eagles

Bombers v Dockers

And the rest I'm not really bothered with because it should be:

Blues v Reds

Kangaroos v Koalas

Giants v Titans

Swans v Ibises

Suns v Moons

Power v Electricity Blackout

but half of those do not exist.

Horse 3076 - Prime Minister Trump Wouldn't Have Sat Back There

“If I were president, they wouldn’t have sat me back there—and our Country would be much different than it is right now,” Trump said. “In Real Estate, like in Politics and in Life, LOCATION IS EVERYTHING!!!”

- Donald Trump via Truth Social, 20th Sep 2022¹.

Possible criminal, likely approver of insurrection, and innocent until proven President of the United States, Donald Trump, said last week of the state funeral of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the several nations of the Commonwealth, that had he been invited, that he wouldn't have sat so far back down the nave of Westminster Abbey.

Now I do not know if this is because he thinks that his own preeminence is such that it wafts through the world (in which case I would suspect that he may need to consider Axe, Rexona, or Brut 33²), or because he thinks that as President of the United States that he personally projected power because nobody knows as much about power as him³.

As I understand the seating plan of the state funeral, in the front pews were the immediate family and friends, who let's not forget are the relatives and friends of Elizabeth the person; followed by the heads of her immediate government and societies which she was either the patron of or the direct legal owner of (these institutions are generally mace bearing); then followed by the representatives of governments for which the monarch is represented by Governors and Governors-General and the associated Premiers and Prime Ministers; then followed by the representatives of governments for which the monarch is not represented but whom still have a connection through the Commonwealth of Nations; then followed by other representatives of governments, of which President Joe Biden was one of many.

I note that Mr Biden was in the general sort of area within Westminster Abbey, where people like Emmanuel Macron of France, Olaf Scholz of Germany, and Fumio Kishida of Japan sat. This is still a better seating position than the vast majority of the 60 million citizens and taxpayers of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who actually own and paid for this shindig.

Not to put too fine a point on it, the fact that Justin Trudeau of Canada was seated closer to the front of Westminster Abbey than Mr Biden was, was probably seen my Mr Trump as some kind of affront to a weird nationalistic jingoism; not withstanding the fact that the United States of America literally fought a war to be rid itself of the monarchy. The reason why Mr Biden sat so far back down the nave of Westminster Abbey, that Mr Trump was complaining about, has its root cause in the very reason why Mr Trump actually got to be the President of the United States in the first place.

Now I could have this completely wrong but I take Mr Trump at his literal word and assume that he would take action to move the President of the United States further forwards in the seating plan of a state funeral for a newly departed monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of the several nations of the Commonwealth, the we have to assume that Mr Trump would likely apply for readmission into the Commonwealth.

What a top idea!

Admittedly there are other nations such as India and South Africa who have left the Commonwealth of Nations and reapplied as republics but I think that we have to assume that Mr Trump is deathly serious and that he would not apply to join the Commonwealth as a republic but as a reconstituted monarchy.

America has a really weird political system which has been copied by exactly zero countries in the world. The reason for this is that it is completely bonkers hatstand mental. Nobody in their right mind would actually conceive of inventing a series of constitutions with that kind of presidential/gubernatorial/dictatorial lack of oversight. Not even Japan which twice suffered having nuclear fire inflicted upon it actually opted to go for the American system of government; what they ended up with is something that looks surprisingly similar to Westminster style government. 

In principle, most democratic countries in the world place executive government into the hands of a cabinet formed on the floors of the chambers of their parliaments. Not so the United States. America invented its completely bonkers hatstand mental form of government with reference to nobody at the time because in 1789, there was no sensible alternative form of government other than the parliament at Westminster and America was having none of that. Consequently, America invented a system of government which places more power into the hands of the President than even the King of England had at the time; but without the usual protocols of having the cabinet come from parliament.

If we are to take it at face value that Mr Trump wants to apply for readmission into the Commonwealth; with significant constitutional reform that would place him as Prime Minister of the United States, then his request to be seated further up in the seating plan of a state funeral, might be accepted.

If we assume all of that, then the actual distance achieved would be likely no more than about 4 rows forward because I think that the total governmental delegate from the entirety of the Commonwealth of Nations amounted to 85 people. 85 people divided by 24 per row, is 3.51 rows. 3.51 rows would mean that the Prime Minister of the United States would be as far forward as the Prime Minister of Canada, Prime Minister of Australia, and Prime Minister of New Zealand; who all share dominion status. The Commonwealth of the United States would likely be another constitutional monarchy with a Govenor-General and the Prime Minister in cabinet drawn from the House of Representatives; like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

If though what I suspect is true, Mr Trump was trying to make even the state funeral of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second about himself; which is simply not cricket.

¹https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/109027351625916609

²Where would you be without Brut 33?

³https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA631bMT9g8

Horse 3075 - I Can Solve The Teacher Shortage In 7 Easy Steps

In what seems like an eternity ago, once upon a time in the deep, dark, dank days of yore, I worked for a season as a curriculum writer at the NSW Department of Education. This wasn't because I have any desire to be a teacher or educator but because they needed someone to fill a post in an office. 

In our wee little office in One Oxford Street, there were 12 desks, and for the 14 months that I was there, no more than 6 people occupying any of those desks. Staff turnover was so frequent that I saw 52 people cycle through those desks, and I was the 53rd person to leave. 

Admittedly this is because the manager whom we reported to, was alternatively cruel, permissive, would want to micro manage every part of a task, or give you no direction whatsoever. As far as random reinforcement goes, I have a very high tolerance for people being knaves but eventually I too found my upper limit and had to quit the job.

If this was an indication the culture which permeated the most internal workings of the NSW Department of Education, then I have no idea how that projects outward to the actual people who do the real work of educating. I do not know if it is still relevant or accurate but from my time looking outwards from the centre of the D of E, I've at least had some idea of the continuing debates around education for about two decades. If I apply my skills which I might have absorbed as a forensic accountant, then allow me to pontificate on a subject on which I only have a passing glance. For it seems to me that the discussions which rage today are identical to those deep. dark, dank days of yore.

The really scary fact facing the Department of Education is that there is a teacher shortage. This is compounded by the second really scary fact that only 50% of teaching students finish their degree. This is further compounded by the third really scary fact that on the teacher training has always been inadequate and that teaching might very well be one of those professions that can not even be taught through training.

I think that it was Jean-Paul Sartre who said that "Hell is other people." When you have 28 such other people, most of whom don't have fully formed mental capacities, characters, or impulse controls, then how do you better prepare teachers for the classroom? It seems from the outside like an impossible task.

1. Respect Teachers' Skills & Autonomy.

Surely this is the most obvious point of action in any workplace. If you are employing someone to do a job, an a professional job at that, and a job which has meant that someone has had to go to university, and a job which means standing in front of a horde of semi-controlled monsters all day long, then the very least that you can do is respect that this person is doing a difficult job, that they are trained to do that job, and that they should be given the necessary time and space to do that job. 

2. Pay Teachers Appropriately.

I know that this might sound like an anathema to right-wing trash-governments who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, and who want to use education as nothing more than an economic signalling process to ensure that their own horrid little sprogs get employed but as teachers are professionals who have gone to university and who stand in front of monsters all day long, then they should be given a respectable remuneration which shows the value that the rest of us think education is worth.

This might sound trite but workers who work, deserve their wages. Workers who do work that people who sit far away in offices, do not want to do,  deserve their wages more.

3.Resource The Schools Dealing With The Most Expensive To Teach Children, The Most.

It should stand to reason that the schools who actually have to educate those children with learning and behavioural challenges, should be given extra resources to do so. I do not believe in equality. People are not the same. What is more important is equity. Equity shouts from the rooftops that every single person is valuable and should be given the best opportunity to learn; which itself poses a whole host of challenges.

4. Abandon The Notion That The Only Thing Which Is Important Is That Which Can Be Measured.

Of course I know that education means that there are going to be standards which need to be met, measured and quantified. Of course I know that testing and evaluating skills according to the attainment and applied demonstration of key learning areas within subjects and disciplines is important. However, standardised test scores are not the only thing which is important.

We send children through an education system for more than a decade; the reason why we do this is that things like literacy, numeracy, and having a decent set of knowledge and skills before one enters the workforce is not only valuable to the individual but to society generally. 

The problem is that those people who think that education is purely about STEM subjects and about producing servile little computers, only believe in what can be plotted on a graph. It used to be that the only degree which existed were Bachelors and Doctorates in Philosophy. Why? Because philosophy encompasses a general theory about knowledge which includes the abstract and useful arts, and the theoretical and applied sciences.

Education should also be about fun, joy, building the person into a more complete version of themselves and a more complete member of society. The people who only see education as useful for producing technical specialists, are idiots.

5. Recognise That Joy Is Necessary For Teachers To Teach & Children To Learn. 

From a policy standpoint, there needs to be at least some kind of tacit admission that in a workplace which might have as many as 30 people in a confined space, that those intangible things like creativity and flexibility, collaboration, co-operation, the relationships which exist between teachers and students, between students and students, and yes between teachers and teachers are all essential to helping teachers teach & children learn. 

I mention the word 'joy' not because of some unattainable notion of glibness but because if you're going to be at a workplace for 40 hours a week, it had better be a semi-pleasant experience. Merely presuming and trying to extract happiness because teachers love to teach, is a sure-fire path to ensuring burn-out; thus leading to teacher shortages in the first place.

6. Do Mot Make Policy Decisions About Education And Schools Without Including Teachers.

Bureaucrats in offices who are two, twenty, two-hundred kilometres away, have no idea what happens in schools. Politicians who work in offices also have no idea what happens in schools.

Teachers and Principals are the people who work at the workplaces. As it is, all teachers have a supervisor and many of them have a collaborative plan with other teachers in their year group or stage. Teachers work collaboratively with other teachers in their staff room. They are the ones who witness first hand what is needed to do the job and what is needed to improve it. Teachers need to be consulted about what happens to them. Teachers need to be consulted about what happens to their workplaces. Teachers need to be able to give feedback to the people who work in offices about what their workplaces are like, what problems and challenges exist, 

7. Remove Unnecessary Admin Tasks.

Administration is necessary in a bunch of fields and is best done by administrators. That might mean giving schools big enough budgets to employ administrators and enough clerical staff to do those jobs properly. I know that this is a wacky idea but Teachers should teach. Giving Teachers administration tasks which in some cases are designed to save the bacon of bureaucrats and politicians, is an explicit waste of their time. 

It seems to me that the current song sheets which the NSW State Government are currently handing out, to be sung by an increasingly vapid media, are demonstrably untrue and highly disrespectful. I have no idea how the current stance by the right wing trashmedia is supposed to help with the teacher shortage and as far as I am concerned it amounts to little more than teacher bashing for nothing more than selling advert space.

Horse 3074 - Rooms Appearing From Nowhere

On the surface the ABC Kids television program "Bluey" is an animated cartoon for children. One level deeper and it is an animated cartoon which is for parents; and includes teachable concepts. One level deeper and it becomes the subject of literary analysis and has spawned multiple podcasts including "Gotta Be Done" and "The Hammerbarn Project". One level sideways and we find that this program is watched by an entire class of people who do not have children, and just like watching simple stories which are not the usual run of homicides, armed robberies, violent crimes, and endless politics which the news wants to serve up. Bluey is an anti-news program, if you will.

The show Bluey also has a very strong sense of place; being obviously set in Brisbane without directly mentioning it. Various attempts have been made in forums to determine where the Heeler family lives and the general concensus is that they either live in Red Hill or Hawthorne. 

However, the one thing within the Blueyverse that is impossible to nail down is the architecture of their house. Several rooms simply do not make any sense at all and whatever is upstairs can not possibly fit inside the building if you look at it from the outside. 

I have found three possibly plausible theories as to the internal workings of the Heeler House at No.2 Whatever-It-Is Street (which by the way also doesn't make any sense as the long shots of the house show it at the very top of a hill; yet very clearly within the show, the surrounding houses are all on the level).

Theory 1 - The Rule Of Funny:

If we apply Occam's Razor with surgical precision, then this is the theory which hacks away everything but the most rational explanation. If the Heeler house follows The Rule Of Funny, then the only reason that anything needs to exist within the Blueyverse is it does so to be funny at the time. The Rule Of Funny requires the least amount of rational thought because if we accept that this is a work of fiction and that everything only exists within this world because it is a work of fiction, then all continuity is irrelevant and things only need to exist in the moment for dramatic or comedic effect.

If your prime audience for a thing is children who do not care about the internal logic or continuity of the thing, then why should you care? In this respect, the internal architecture of the Heeler House is a bit like Chekov's gun. Anton Chekov once made the remark that "one does not place a gun on stage unless one intends to fire it"; which is a statement about the economy of elements on stage. Chekov obviously wasn't a fan of decoration and so, the various elements on stage in his eyes, should only serve to further the plot. If the Blueyverse is following the Rule of Funny, then the only logic which needs to be applied is if a thing needs to exist in order  to move the plot forward and/or to get a laugh.

Theory 2 - Bluey's Perspective:

One of the meta-theories that I have heard about the Blueyverse is that the show which is designed to be seen through the eyes of children, only includes elements which are rational to children. This theory is similar to The Rule of Funny but differs in that things do not exist in order to move the plot forward or to get a laugh but because these are the things that Bluey notices.

I can speak from personal experience here. My grandparents' house had two levels. Not quite at the top of the stairs, there was a laundry chute. It never occurred to me as a small boy that the laundry chute was in fact a laundry chute because I assumed that it was some kind of hall chest, or another piece of solid furniture. When I opened the laundry chute on one occasion, it was like i had opened the door to another realm. A hole with a shaft of light coming upwards was (and very well might still be) amazing.

As a big person, I was on one occasion staying in London for a couple of weeks. I would leave my semi-squalid backpackers' hostel and walk to the nearest tube station. I remember thinking after a few days that I would like to cross over the river some time and have a look on the other side. It was only after I bothered to look at a tube map that I realised that for the whole time I'd been there, I actually already been crossing under the Thames and had already been on the other side. 

If things in the Blueyverse only exist because they are relevant to Bluey, then this would explain why the architecture of the house makes no sense. Things do not exist in Bluey's house unless they are relevant to her. This is a common experience among small children, I think. They can not possibly imagine that their parents, or their teachers, have lives outside of the immediate context of their own existence. When a child sees a teacher out in the wild, it is as though worlds have collided.

Theory 3 - The House Is A TARDIS:

I can see no evidence of time travel within the Blueyverse. However, I think that we can take it as internal fact that the Blueyverse operates on different laws to our own. As evidenced in "The Decider", they do in fact live in Queensland; albeit some different Queensland to our own. We know that there is industry and commerce; we know that there is air travel (as Chili works in Airport Security), we know that there is a past (because Bandit is an archaeologist), and we know that the default personoid in the Blueyverse is a dog (and that birds, cats, chimps etc exist). 

The conclusion that we have to draw, after trying to work out how the kitchen, front living room, their bedrooms, the hallways, and at least one patio, is that the long shot of the house from the outside is genuine, that all of the inside shots of the house are genuine, and that the house is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside.

The most egregious abuse of the internal architecture of the Heelers' house is at the end of a hallway where the girls' bedroom is. In Season 2, one shot shows that it is by itself at the end of the hallway and that there is a wall which faces their bedroom door. In Season 3, a show from a similar perspective, now shows that there is another door and another room opposite their bedroom door.

If the house follows similar rules to what we knw about TARDIS technology from elsewhere in media, then in a house/building which is bigger on the inside, rooms can appear and be deleted. I have seen examples in this kind of house, where someone has had to run around for ages looking for their room because it has been moved. I have also seen examples where the outside of the thing, merely appears as a single door on a hallway; with the entire room disappearing and reappearing. Other examples in various media franchises exist, such as The Room of Requirement, which only appears when a person is in need of it. This would imply that TARDIS rules for buildings also follow Chekovity.

Conclusion:

For any given piece of media, which exists in multiple episodes, discontinuity errors are always going to creep in. Sometimes they are deliberate and sometimes they are accidental but irrespective of either, there will always be some section of the audience who wants to pull it apart, have a look at all of the pieces, and see why they work or do not work.

This then begs the question: "Why?" Why is there a section of the audience who compulsively wants to pull apart the internal workings of the media that they enjoy?

Theory 1 - The Rule Of Funny:

Oh no. Have we stepped into some kind of meta-narrative here? Have we turned the spectators into the spectacle? Indeed we have!

I suspect that at the heart of everyone who has ever lived, is some component which finds it both fun and funny to open apart everything in the world. The entire realms of enquiry of science, philosophy, religion, art, drama, are all ultimately about opening stuff and have a play with them. 

Theory 2 - Our Perspective:

We can only see the universe through our own eyes and thus, our interpretation of media will only include elements which are rational to us. Remember, books belong to their readers; which means that the reader has some sort of ownership over the books they read and the experiences they have while reading. After something has been published and it has been received by the audience, it belongs to the audience and the interpretation of the audience is the final. Authorial intent is to some degree pointless because whatever interpretation you have of a thing, matters.

Theory 3 - Every Person Is A TARDIS:

Are all people like this? So much bigger on the inside. Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.

Horse 3073 - Constitutional Survey - VI(ii)

<><><><><>

66. Salaries of Ministers

There shall be payable to the Queen, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Commonwealth, for the salaries of the Ministers of State, an annual sum which, until the Parliament otherwise provides, shall not exceed twelve thousand pounds a year.

<>

Parliament provided almost immediately for the salaries of the Ministers of State. The current Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 (s.14(2)) provides that a base salary been drawn upon the Consolidated Revenues of the Commonwealth per Section 48 and that there be various allowances are to be paid per Section 59.

Assuming an historical rate of inflation of 4% since 1AUC (Ab Urbe Condita, which began on 21st Apr 753BCE, the traditional date for the founding of Rome), then:

1.04^121 = 115.089

At he time of change over $1 = 10/-

115.089 x £12,000 x 2 = $2,762,136

That £12,000 was meant to cover the entire Federal Executive Council. Prime Minister Barton likely took a salary of £1200. As it stands, most cabinet ministers earn about $370,000 a year; with the Prime Minister currently on $549,250. Prime Minister Barton was on the equivalent of $276,214 but arguably, the role of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is more complex in 2022 than it was in 1901.

<><><><><>

67. Appointment of civil servants

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the appointment and removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth shall be vested in the Governor-General in Council, unless the appointment is delegated by the Governor-General in Council or by a law of the Commonwealth to some other authority.

<>

Given that it would be exceptionally easy for a cabinet minister to appoint one of their backers into positions of considerable power, like making them a Permanent Secretary, the Comptroller of Taxation, and Commissioners over quangos, then the ability to enact nepotism would have been seen as dangerous.

Queensland brought to the table a political system which was already beginning to show signs of fracture. The Labor Party by the time that the Commonwealth was invented, had already been in existence for a decade and they were full of reformists, socialists, and radicalists. In 1901, there was no organised rightist political party at a national level. New South Wales brought the Free Soil Party who was full of mercantilists. Clearly, both sides of the political aisle saw the other as ruinous.

I suspect that in the beginning of the nation, that the Governor-General would be seen as a non-partisan actor, who would rise above all of it. Placing the appointment and removal of all other officers of the Executive Government of the Commonwealth in the Governor-General in Council, at least stipulates that the various cabinet ministers have to table their suggestions for appointments before they hand over the keys to the kingdom. 

<><><><><>

68. Command of naval and military forces

The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor-General as the Queen's representative.

<>

Once upon a time long long ago, kings and queens became kings and queens through the process of biggest stick diplomacy. It you wanted the biggest hat in the land (that is, the Crown), then you had to raise the biggest army. One of the vestiges of biggest stick diplomacy is that the person is who is actually in control of the biggest stick, is the one who represents the Crown.

Also once upon a time long long ago, Parliament and the Prime Minister founded a new model army who meant to have an independent bent and so, civil war broke out. Parliament then appointed a High Court at Westminster Hall to indict the king for tyranny and the king was sentenced to death even though he refused to accept that the court had jurisdiction.

Now quite obviously placing the control of the military in the hands of the king, is a mere reversion to the law of biggest stick diplomacy. On the other hand, placing the control of the military in the hands of the Parliament and the Prime Minister, is also a mere reversion to the law of biggest stick diplomacy. Placing the control of the military in the hands of the king, and the control of the purse strings of the budget necessary to run said military  in the hands of the Parliament and the Prime Minister, is an uneasy alliance based on mistrust. This is not a check or balance on power (because that in reality is never real) but mutual zugzwang.

<><><><><>

69. Transfer of certain departments

On a date or dates to be proclaimed by the Governor-General after the establishment of the Commonwealth the following departments of the public service in each State shall become transferred to the Commonwealth:

- posts, telegraphs, and telephones;

- naval and military defence;

- lighthouses, lightships, beacons, and buoys;

- quarantine.

But the departments of customs and of excise in each State shall become transferred to the Commonwealth on its establishment.

<>

The invention of the Commonwealth of Australia out of the six colonies which very much acted like frenemies towards each other (and still do) was motivated by the central powers of Europe establishing greater control and influence in the Pacific. The French had moved into places like New Caledonia and Papua was under the control of a newly organised and highly motivated Germany. No doubt the events of 1870 and the fears that France and Germany would eventually hurtle towards each other in another great game, was all too real (and was in the end, correct).

Pooling the resources of the six states, into a single cohesive defensive unit, seemed highly sensible given that if Australia did come under fire, then Britain would likely be weeks' away before any help arrived.

The things immediately being transferred to the Commonwealth are active and civil defence projects. That is, in addition to a common military (see above) the objects of information and of civil defence against infirmity were desirable for the Commonwealth to be in control of. Given the events of 1914 and then 1919 with the great war and then the great flu, then wisdom was proven to be right by her children.

<><><><><>

70. Certain powers of Governors to vest in Governor-General

In respect of matters which, under this Constitution, pass to the Executive Government of the Commonwealth, all powers and functions which at the establishment of the Commonwealth are vested in the Governor of a Colony, or in the Governor of a Colony with the advice of his Executive Council, or in any authority of a Colony, shall vest in the Governor-General, or in the Governor-General in Council, or in the authority exercising similar powers under the Commonwealth, as the case requires.

<>

Say what now?

If there's something which a Governor did at Colony level and that's passed to the Commonwealth, then the  Governor-General now does it.

Have we got it? Good.

<><><><><>

Horse 3072 - Eudaimonia - Element IV - Sacred

I find it really interesting that the vast bulk of cuneiform tablets that have survived from ancient Sumer, are mostly records of transactions of goods and services and people's complaints about those same goods and services. They survive because the physical media survives and not because of the way they were treated. The commonplace and banal is often discarded and thrown away; literally like yesterday's newspaper. Had they been on something as flimsy as paper, they likely would have been burned.

It is the papyri of philosophy, of religion, of scripture, of the things held to be sacred, holy, and precious, that were committed to memory, that were transferred into books, that were squirrelled away in caves and libraries, and which have on occasion been subject to deliberate desecration, burning, and defacement. In an age of limited literacy, scribes were revered and or alternatively hated, depending of whether or not they worked for the institutions held to be sacred or secular.

It used to be that media was demarcated and sectioned. Granted that there are other issues with having what kind of information and opinion is doled out by only a few gatekeepers but the point stands that separate things in print media used to be kept separate. However on an infinite canvass with an infinite scrolling service like Twitter or Facebook, the serious and the silly, the stupid and the sacred, the sexual and the scandalous, the salacious and the serious, can all scroll on by as the platforms clamber for your attention, without context, without reflection, and without value. When everything is reduced to something to be liked, laughed at, and/or fed into the outrage machine, any judgements which the reader used to make about suitability, are all levelled into a grey goo.

I think that one of the things that societies realised in the past and that we have chosen to thrown away and burn upon the pyre of consumerism, is that ideas of what is pure, sacred and maybe even holy, just might give us a better appreciation of the world that we live in, the limitedness of life, and the vast stretches of nothingness that exist in space and time in all directions.

The Greeks had the word Hagnos (ἁγνός) which kind of hinted at the pure, holy and sacred. I do not think that philosophy was seen as purely an intellectual exercise but rather, that the contemplation of art, of physical space, the unknown, of beauty, of ideas and texts, is more of an appreciation of the sacred and an agreement that there are things which are in fact precious.

Holiness as a concept implies that special things, objects, people, spaces and places, have been set aside or been marked as being different, for either the specific use of the deity or in contemplation of some higher power. In that respect, Hagnos has been reserved for chambers, buildings, mountains, scriptures, and priesthoods. The Hagia Sophia in Istanbul retains its Greek name despite being used as a mosque and the words 'Hagia Sophia' are usually taken to mean in English 'Holy Wisdom'. The really weird thing about the Hagia Sophia is that even after is has been described as the most beautiful building in all of Christendom, it still managed to capture less of a sense of Hagnos than the view from the front door which overlooks the glassy Mediterranean Sea.

High places invariably require an effort to get to; then provides the traveller a view which overlooks the vastness of the world. People will also say that they have had a 'mountain top experience' after going through something important and this might have something to do with the shared cultural heritage that religions have collectively provided us with but I do not think that it is by accident that high mountains are often described as holy places, with the sense of hagnos that tumbles out of them.

The problem is that we've come so far down the road of discrete compartmenalism, that even thinking about what is scared is almost by default associated with religion. Religion or rather, organised religion, has on many occasions been weaponised and what might have been sacred scripture and ritual, have been poisoned by very very powerful institutions, and where ritual and dogma have been weaponised as instruments of control. People quite rightly have objections to this and instead of what should be something to think about freely, is either diminished or rejected outright.

It is exceptionally unpopular to talk about a concept like purity in a society which is unbound, unchained, and permissive at every opportunity. It is even more unpopular to suggest that using sexuality to sell every product imaginable, might not be a good idea for the moral formation of society because when relativism and individualism rule the roost, then any kind of push back is seen as a personal affront. The very thought that those things might be scared has ironically been rejected by a modern society which wants to reject the idea that can anything be sacred at all.

Just as religious people do not have a monopoly over morality, I do not think that religion has a monopoly over sacredness. I do not think that what the Greeks saw as Hagnos necessarily had a connection with thoughts about the afterlife, with prayer and ritual, with scripture and doctrine, or with priests and the clergy. Whether or not you believe in God, is an entirely different question and may or may not have consequences, but Hagnos exists outside of religion.

I have stood at a lookout overlooking a great valley in the mountains and the entire of nature seems to be shouting at you. I was once standing in a valley looking up at the night sky and with no sense of any man-made street light, it was like I could scrape eternity with my fingers. I think that it is possible to find Hagnos in the screaming silence, or maybe in the middle of a profound piece of music, or in moments where the kosmos ceases to exist and a fleeting sense of exhilaration rushes in to fill the space.

Religion might be able to describe things that are true, albeit different things to what Science can describe as true but even then, religion can not describe those things such as beauty, love, inspiration, a sense of awe, except by point you towards those things. Religions themselves are not the objects of worship and they are not actually the thing that is sacred.

Hagnos like art, is one of those things that when experience, the person living through it knows exactly what it is. I have no doubt that a scientist can tell me why various stars shine with different wavelengths of light, or perhaps even describe the motions of the objects in the heavens ever more precisely, like Kelper, Newton, and Einstein might, but none those people can adequate explain why if people stare up at the night sky, we feel small and unimportant against a backdrop of a hundred billion suns. Hagnos has a better handle on wonder and awe, than all of the scientists and religious practitioners put together do.

Any attempt to characterize a sense of Hagnos is going to be limited because the observer of Hagnos is also limited. In that sense, Hagnos is not pro or even anti religion because at some point, everyone has to realise that the universe is bigger than ourselves.

The question then is what you do with that Hagnos. If I am standing on the shoulders of giants and able to see further than anyone who has come before me, does that perspective change me? Does it change my view of other people? If I can see beyond the limited realm of my own blinkered perspective, am I then changed to view others as valuable? And if so, should that perspective change people's views towards the embiggenment of the other eudaimonic elements such as truth, justice, freedom and what not?

In many respects the metaphor of the mountain is the best tool to grasp an idea of Hagnos. I think that Hagnos is akin to climbing the mountain philosophical contemplation because in doing so, one rises above the ordinary and is able to see the depths and broadness of the human experience and even the kosmos. In standing on the summit, we see boundaries far beyond our usual selves, beyond the smallness of a self-centered perspective, and allows our understanding to expand towards others, towards life, towards reality as a whole; towards wisdom, love, truth and freedom.

Horse 3071 - Whose Line Is It Anyway? - The Show Where Everything's Made Up And The Points Don't Matter.

 "Never believe everything that you read on the internet."

- Abraham Lincoln, Baltimore Herald-Sun, 35th Feb 1931

It used to be that people had the ability to see obvious lies like the quote above and realise that they are outrageous lies. Abraham Lincoln never said that, never would have known what the internet is, not published that quote in a non-existent newspaper, and certainly on a date that never could have existed. At any rate, publishing anything 66 years after you have died, is extremely difficult.

The internet generally and especially websites like Facebook, is replete with quotes like this; shared by people who have given exactly zero thought to them, and made up by people with either devious, diabolical, or nefarious designs. 

This image has been doing the rounds, circulating in what I assume are 'conservative' political circles in the United States. America seems to have this strange love affair with its so-called Founding Fathers and so I guess that co-opting them in an appeal to authority in an attempt to criticise democracy, is useful in the purpose of undermining their political opponents.

However, if one bothers to check the validity and veracity of these quotes, we verify that they are vile and vexatious.

Jefferson:

I did a comprehensive search through Monticello.org which is a useful and reasonably reliably repository for all things Jeffersonian. The problem is, that this returns nothing. I have to conclude that this Thomas Jefferson quote is purely and simply a fabrication; a lie; it has been made up.

Adams:

This is a thing which actually exists. This particular quote from John Adams, comes from a letter that he wrote in 1814; to do with the failure of the French Revolution and in the context of Napoleon hacking his way across Europe. 

Adams is a particularly interesting character, from what I have read of his letters and papers, it seems that at one point he supported the idea of some kind of mixed government; which would consist of a republic or commonwealth, with or without some kind of monarchy.

The letter is found in full, here:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-6371

Franklin:

Not only can I find no solid evidence about this Franklin quote about democracy being two wolves, I don't think that this sounds anything remotely like him. It is one thing to make up a quote but quite another to make up a quote which isn't even in the same style as the person who supposedly wrote or said it. The first citation that I could find for this, was in 1987.

Hamilton:

Hamilton was invited to the Constitutional Conventions as a New York Junior Delegate. Thanks to the Lin-Manuel Miranda musical of his same name, Hamilton one one occasion spoke at the Constitutional Convention for a reported six hours. 

This quote by Hamilton at the Constitutional Convention exists, sort of. Rather, this citation of this quote cuts off the end of Hamilton's sentence; which actually reads:

"Real liberty is never found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments."

Portions of this speech are found, here:

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0108

What are we to make of all of this? If we take stock, we have an invented quote, a quote from a private letters, an invented quote which doesn't even remotely sound plausible, and a quote which in cutting off the last clause deletes the point that he was trying to make. 

It probably should be troubling to most people in a marketplace of ideas that there are not only lies being passed off as fact and they get shared and re-shared and remain unchecked, but it isn't. People are mostly happy with sharing utter garbage if it happens to agree with what they already think.

Granted, that in the light of the forging of a new country which was started on the back of a war and predicated on its own contemporary lies, this is not a new phenomenon. It has to be said that to some degree, that these four people were critical and perhaps even fearful of unregulated government.

However, even we we exchange these lies as the truth, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to quote them anyway, with reference to a modern context. Unless there is some absolute immutable truth here, it doesn't do justice to them or us to use quotes which are rooted and reliant upon 18th century European ideas that we no longer use as frameworks for modern discourse.

I don't know if it helps making an appeal to authority in misquoting and misrepresenting 18th century political leaders, if you want to 'prove' a point. It's even more absurd that these people are claimed to be revered, when you attribute lies to them. I simply do not know how you can take it as as gospel truth, when the quotes themselves aren't even real. It's even more more absurd that I as an Australian, having no actual material interest in the political football match which happens in the United States, should be so able see quotes like these and know that they are rubbish. 

Even if these quotes were absolutely reliable (which I am not saying for a second that they are), they why are they being taken as absolute truth in the first place? Does it even make any sense to apply what a bunch of racist and slave owning white men said 250 years ago, in a modern democracy?

At any rate, the people who live in a modern democracy, in the space and time of here and now, are the people who live in a modern democracy, in the space and time of here and now. Four dead guys aren't here, they don't have to think about the problems which exist now, and the apparatus of modern political states which was built after wars that were far more hideous than they could have dreamed of, also exists in the space and time of here and now. Surely democracy belongs to the people who are currently alive, rather than the ghosts of long dead white guys, whom you don't even care enough about to bother to fact check to see if what you claim they said, is real or not?

Horse 3070 - Who Goes On The Front Of The Coins?

King Charles III hasn't even appeared on a single Australian coin in that capacity and already the republicans are plotting how to get rid of him. As Australia sleepwalks towards becoming a republic without nary a thought of what that republic should look like, we have already decided to hold a million different conversations in all directions with changing the look of different things including the flags and the coins.

Coins are an interesting piece of historical artefact because not only are they a useful token system to enable the exchange of goods and services, they also hold snapshots in time about what a nation broadly thinks about itself. The reverse on the 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins have been around for 56 years; which is an extraordinary amount of time. The obverse since Queen Elizabeth ascended the throne in 1953 has have five different iterations. 

Upon becoming a republic though, we shall  have to decide what we intend to replace the King's head with on the coins. Republics as opposed to monarchies and empires where power is vested in a single person, tend to arrive at three broad answers of what appears on the reverse. Those three answers are either the personification of the nation, or people of historical import, or heraldry.

1 - Personification:

Britain has Britannia who rules the waves; she sits on top of either a lion or a rock and has a shield and a trident. Britain also has John Bull who is the embodiment of stout working folk. He is sometimes accompanied by his bulldog.

Across the Channel, France has Marianne who represents liberté, égalité, fraternité. She has at various time led the poor across the Bastille, or through the streets of Paris; clutching le Tricolore or the Red Flag.

The United States has Columbia who while flying and naked, manifest destinied her way from sea to shining sea and to the west. For a while she wore a Phrygian Cap that made her look like a smurf or a diadem of guns. She was eventually forgotten and supplanted by Lady Liberty who thanks to a present from the French, got given a torch and a tablet. More recently she has been accompanied with Uncle Sam who needs 'You' to join him in fighting whatever wars he wants to pick a fight with this week.

Even New Zealand has Zealandia who as far as I can tell, has no obvious backstory at all.

Australia has no obvious personification who is the embodiment of the nation. The only example that I can find for anyone who resembles the personification of Australia is "the Little Manly Boy" who is supposed to represent meekness and submissiveness to a world of bigger powers. He does what he is told. He does not complain. He is relatively spineless. In some respects he was the perfect personification of Australia at the time, for from 1914, Australia sent some of her brightest sons to become worm food and pieces of splattered meat across the fields of Europe. The Little Manly Boy did what he was told and just like so many young men who did not come home, he did not survive the First World War.

Upon failing to find anyone suitable to fill the job vacancy of Personification of the nation, we might look to people of Historical Import.

2 - Historical Import:

The United States when it wasn't putting eagles, Columbia or Lady Liberty all over its currency, decided to put its dead presidents on the currency. Every single President including the then recently deceased Kennedy who appeared on Half Dollar coins from 1964, was dead. In the just completed Presidential Dollars series of $1 coins, the exceptions to who can appear on them is Clinton, W Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden.

I do not think that Australia can go down this route without immediately running into serious issue. We can not very well put any of the pre-Federation Governors on our coins because I suspect that there isn't a one who wasn't engaged in dispossession and/or extermination of first peoples. Likewise, apart from Henry Parkes who was a serial bankrupt and had so many kids he didn't know what to do, our 'Founding Fathers' are equally problematic. From Barton to Deakin, from Reid to Watson, there aren't also serious objections. Politics is such that even the great Prime Ministers like Curtin, Menzies, or Whitlam, would be invariably objected to by the right-wing proto-fascist media, or the left-wing pseudo-communist intelligentsia.

Probably the only people of historical import that Australia could put on the obverse of coins without serious and major objection are Donald Bradman, Fanny Durack, Peter Brock, and Phar Lap.

I say this with a sense of complete hypocrisy considering that with the exception of the Five Dollar note and the older One Dollar note, we have done exceptionally well at placing people on our notes. We have been almost entirely apolitical with the representation of people on the banknotes and while that works well, having a common obverse across all of the coins is a different matter

3 - Heraldry:

Germany has for a very long time been putting variations of its eagle on the back of coins. The eagle even gets stylised to match the design on the front. Switzerland is able to put its shield with the square cross on it, flanked by the letters CF for Confédération Helvétique. Italy despite the connotations of times past, has also put the fasces on its obverse of coins. 

All of these are fine except that Australia already has been putting its coat of arms on the standard reverse of some coins since 1910. The definitive 50 cent coin still has Stuart Devlin's excellent depiction of the Australian Coat of Arms. Asking this to go from the reverse to the obverse is not impossible but it might cause us to start having a paradigm shift in thinking without using the clutch. 

So now what?

This wouldn't be a blog post on the internet without the author pontificating wildly with half-baked ideas and ill-conceived concepts. Fortunately in a pique of superbia and hubris, I can already fulfil this quota of fipwittery.

My solution is this:

The 1909 Florin was a pattern piece and was never put into circulation. It is a pity. For a while the 3d. 6d. 1/- and 2/- coins all featured the same coat of arms on them and the 1/2d. and 1d. were among the most boring coin designs in the history of the world. 

As an island nation, the coastline lends itself exceptionally well to being instantly identified. We have used stylised versions of this for "Made In Australia" marks, for the logos of various government agencies at times, and for the logo of years of import and celebrations. On top of this, the outline of Australia is sufficiently round enough that it already fits nicely on a coin. Possibly only France with l'hexagone is as fortunate as well are.

Admittedly we could just invent some national personification but who would it be? We could place our former Prime Ministers and Governors-General on the coins but why risk the permanent outrage? We could take a heraldic turn but the fact is that the One Dollar coin with its kangaroos, the Twenty Cent coin that manages to depict a platypus underwater, or the Ten Cent coin with its mysterious lyrebird, are already pretty close to some of the best coin designs ever. 

The coastline of Australia is apolitical which means that it isn't going to annoy anyone, it is ahistorical which means that how we feel about it in future isn't likely to change, and best of all it is instantly identifiable which means that everyone can look at it and know what it is for.

Horse 3069 - Eudaimonia - Element III - Justice

One of the things that Aristotle returns to again and again is the idea that the best sense of human flourishing happens when people live well. "Happiness" is not necessarily a virtue but a virtuous activity which one achieves by doing. Living well consists in doing things and not just being in a certain state or condition. Virtue is not a thing to be gained but a thing to be lived. I think it interesting that when he talks about Dikaios (δικαιος) we get less of a sense of the upright, righteous, and virtuous and more of those long and quiet activities that actually make reality of the virtues of the rational part of the soul. Dikaios sort of hints at the concept of truth but it is more complex than that.

I think that especially over the last 20 years and as embodied by Donald Trump, the idea of what is true has been deliberately degraded. In some respect this is because of the embracing of relativism where the rights of the individual are seen as the highest possible ideal and the consequence of that is that objective truth no longer counts for anything. What might be true for one person is now taken to be not true for someone else and the realms for which relativism is taking hold, are becoming every wider still and wider. To this end, we have turned away from the previous people and institutions which purported to hold out truth and science, the law, religion, and other institutions have all been degraded and ridiculed in public life.

I do not believe that relativism makes any sense if taken to its logical conclusions. Somewhere out there lies the end of absolute solipsism and unless the whole of reality is just a really convincing simulation, then I think that relativism which says that what's true for someone might not be true for someone else, can not possibly be rational or logical. Surely at some point there are some objective truths about the world which everyone has to agree upon. A quick survey of the great religions and the teachers who are credited with founding them, be they Moses or Mohammed, Jesus or Confucius, Buddha or Bahai, will very quickly show that they all arrive at the so-called "Golden Rule" at some point; which is 'do to others what you would have them do to you' or 'don't be a knave'. On that note, justice is seemingly universal in principle but still problematic.

Justice is one of those things that as individuals who are at the centre of our observable universe, know quite acutely if it has been violated. People will often be crying out for justice if they have suffered injury or loss. However, also due to that same fact that as individuals who are at the centre of our observable universe, we are less likely to want to extend justice when we are the party who has been guilty of violating it. 

On that latter point, apart from laws dealing with physical standardisation (such as voltage through a power plug, materials to be used in load bearing floors, how wide road lanes are) most of civil law and all of criminal law deals with either the equitable distribution of justice or what should happen if someone has violated the law.

Most people have a sense of when their person or property has been violated. The entire criminal justice system is about answering the question of what happens when someone's person or property has been violated. Likewise the civil and civic justice system, is about answering the question of what happens in situations where there are competing claims on property and/or the consequences of the making and breaking of contracts and covenants. The problem here should be almost self-evident. The courts as arbiters, can only act after the event when it comes to a violation of person and/or property and can only act while there are things under dispute that can not be arrived at through a process of independent conciliation. The idea of Dikaios (δικαιος) is more about asking the question of how do you live well, before you ever get to any point where a sense of justice is violated.

Dikaios would say that people need to be guided by a sense truth, reason, justice, and fairness, well before the point of failure. Dikaios would say that people should be just and fair when contending with difficult situations and that they would be guided by a sense of understanding of equitable and proper principles before any kind of decision is made or action is taken. This very much requires that any just replies to a situation, in keeping with truth or fact and any just claims, before any thing can go awry. Rather, that justice is practiced not as a method of keeping order but because it is the right thing to do.

Dikaios is not about merely acquiescing to fact. The problem with fact is that it is impersonal and makes exactly zero difference to whether a course of action is equitable. You can make logically correct and factually correct statements of absolute and undisputed fact but that doesn't mean that those statements are just. This is similar to the idea that just because something is legal to do, also does not make it just.

Consider the concept of slavery. Slavery is a thing. Slavery used to be legal. Some jurisdictions have even made directions at law to explain what is to be done about it and how it is to be legally treated. Those three statements are factually correct. Those three statements do nothing to address the underlying injustice of slavery and that people can be owned as chattel goods by someone else. Justice would demand and has demanded that slavery be ended in many jurisdictions. Dikaios would have demanded that the inequity of slavery never be started in the first place. 

More broadly, Dikaios is less concerned about justice and more concerned with the means of how things like fairness, objectivity, equality of opportunity, removal of poverty, and how freedom and liberty is embiggened. Again, as justice is more concerned with what happens when someone's person or property has been violated and is mostly only concerned after the fact, then even ideas concerning a perfectly just world do exactly diddly-squat in redressing actual existing inequality, unfairness, and inequity.

I suppose that at this juncture I should speak about the virtue of charity. Charity as it turns out is a rather poor method of actually providing for people's needs, much less paying for someone's dignity to be enlarged. If we take the entirety of the charitable sector of the economy as the measure, rather than just what people declare on their tax returns then the total amount of charitable giving equates to about 1.7% of GDP. If we then expand this to church donations then this expands all the way to about 2.1% of GDP. Just the Old Age Pension (which by the way we're trying to kick people off of) works out to be about 7% of GDP. If we were to remove that obligation from taxpayers then if all of the total charitable giving was directed to just looking after old people, then we'd very quickly realise that it is not even enough to maintain old people at their current mean status of lifestyle. That isn't to say that charity of itself is a bad thing. It's just that expecting charity is like ordering a few pizzas and trying to feed a football stadium full of people. Of itself it is a good thing, its just inadequate given the collective selfishness of human nature.

Dikaios is concerned with making sure that employers pay their workers a fair wage for doing work, instead of merely exploiting them for their labour. Dikaios would suggest that fair arrangements be made without the need for arbitration, not because of fear of reprisal and being taken to court but rather that it is the right thing to do.

Dikaios wants to know about equality of opportunity for not only things like health care, education, housing, but also ensuring that there isn't favouritism which goes into the provision of those things and the selection of who should be the beneficiaries of those things. 

Dikaios goes beyond social contract theory and that every single person has an equal right to basic liberties, and equal right to opportunities and an equal chance as other individuals of similar ability. Those things are taken as given. Dikaios is less concerned with the freedom and liberty of the individual it it comes as the expense of the freedom and liberty of others. This isn't just some Benthamian theory of maximum utility but something deeper that actually looks beyond the usefulness of a thing and looks at what is good and proper and what leads to people flourishing.

Horse 3068 - Fun > Power

Note:

I will be using the name 'Miata' for this car as the names Miata and MX-5 are used in various markets, even though in Australia it has never been called as such.

A common trope/meme/snowclone on the automotive parts of the interwebs is the acrostic poem:

Miata

Is

Always

The

Answer

This is because that invariably when any question is asked about what kind of car that people should get, Miata Is Always The Answer. I personally think that 2 people have a better answer.

While I will admit that Miata is a pretty good automotive answer to a lot of things, it isn't quite the answer to rain, cold, carrying big things like washing machines or roadside shopping, carting your lawnmower around, or taking a nap in. Nevertheless, it is a good answer to the question of fun.

A second trope/meme/snowclone on the interwebs is the suggestion that every car in the world, no matter how impractical the operation turns out to be, should have its engine swapped with a General Motors LS3 V8. Granted that the LS3 V8 is arguably one of the twelve apostles of engines (DFV, Kent, Jaguar V12, Ford Flathead V8, Hemi V8, K20A, RB26DET, M54, Cleveland 351, EJ257, LS3), it is still impractical to put into a Miata.

Sure, I like absurd amounts of power as much as the next revhead who has spend more time inhaling toxic solvents but still have enough sense to know that several hundreds of horsepowers in a car that small is a recipe for Instant Puree Miata d'Arbre. I am just sane enough to realise that wrapping a Miata around a tree because you have installed too much power, is not sensible.

So then, what if you could wrap just enough nonsense into the same package to still frighten you but not enough for God to put the Destroying Angel of Death on speed dial? The answer is not "LS3 all the things" but "LFX this thing".

I had the opportunity to drive this strange beast last week and I have to say, having driven the original which was already pretty nice, this one felt like it was the sort of this which the factory should have sold.

Firstly the what. The LFX is the 3.6L variant of the General Motors High Feature V6 engine. It was supposed to replace the previous applications that the 3800 Buick V6 was good for and it does a pretty good job at this by being more than 10kg lighter. 

LFX found its way into the VE and VF Commodore, Chevrolet Camaro and Cadillacs and turned sideways it also was put into the Chevrolet Impala and other east-west applications including the ZB Commodore where it then acquired the moniker of LGX. LFX V6 is a worthy successor to the venerable Buick 3800 V6 and I've seen enough of this engine to understand why. Most of the components like the cylinder heads, exhaust manifold, intake manifold, fuel injection system, intake valves, and fuel pump etc. are also improvements over the Buick 3800. LFX is a slightly smaller 60° V6, with 24-valves, at 3564cc and can run up to E85 fuel.

Thanks to the combined efforts of Joe Hockey, the IPA and the Liberal Party, General Motors (and Ford and Toyota) all left Australia; so this means that the price of a landed LFX crate motor has shot up inordinately. The entire dealer network which would have sold you an LFX crate motor, basically no longer exists.

If you are going to go that way and buy a virgin crate motor still in crate, then it's going to set you back at least $8500. However, if you go to a wrecker's yard and find a particularly beaten up Commodore, then a use LFX might cost you as little as $500.

From here the usual mate to the back of the engine is the Tremec-TR6060 gearbox and the Ford diff but having said that, the existing Miata gearbox and diff with happily work with LFX.

Weirdly, the engine mounts for the LFX and the Mazda L engine which were already here, are not vastly different from each other. Fortunately, this problem has already been solved that this ended up being a series of bolt-in parts for the owner. There are companies which will sell you the necessary parts for the replacement of one engine for the other. Again, mating the engine to the Tremec TR6060 box wasn't really that difficult and the issue with the diff was also pretty close to being all the shelf parts.

The biggest challenge was a packaging decision, where once installed the plastic engine cover nonsense which usually appears in the VF Commodore, doesn't fit under the bonnet in a Miata. That apparently meant taking to the cover with a saw and some sort of hot iron to smooth over the rough edges. It also meant that the lion badges disappeared.

What we have is a 3.6L V6 Miata which was already a nice handling car, paired with an engine which is vastly underrated. In this setup, it is good for 210 KillerWasps or 275 buff ponies. That's quite enough in a big car like a VE/VF Commodore but for a wee little car like a Miata that's more than enough for a particularly insane driver to run themselves through the Armco Mandolin and turn themselves into human chuck steak. 

I was only able to drive this car through Northern Beaches traffic, which also included a fun little section of expressway and I have to say that this really makes me question the kinds of people who pay tens of thousands of dollars for SUVs with Mercedes, Audi and BMW badges on them. It just seems silly to me to pay for AMG, SQ and M badges on glorified sprog buses when you could have just bought a cheaper wagon and one of these as a second car.

My friend who let me drive this (who is a client of ours) didn't want a Eurobus like everyone else in chambers; because he thought that it was a bit sad that the legal profession who has bucket loads of cash, only seems to want to buy boring things.

Miata Isn't Always The Answer but it is a pretty neat answer for the question that it's answering. My ears were telling me that this was the song of a Commodore but as we were scooting through traffic like a glowing uranium knife through margarine, this Miata with a dash of LFX insane hot sauce answers questions that you didn't even know you were asking. I would say that this was like having as much fun as a kid in a candy store except that this was instant diabetes. Driving an LFX Miata was like being Edmund in a land of Turkish Delight. While I was this, sat sitting in the passenger's seat was the owner (last week QC; this week KC), who seemed proud that someone else understood the crazy joy making abilities of his wee little baby. Money can not buy happiness but it certainly appears as though it can rent it.

There are two ways to do something. The right way and the dumb way. The existence of this car tells me that on occasion the dumb way can be the fun way.

Horse 3067 - Constitutional Survey - VI(i)

Chapter II. The Executive Government.

<><><><><>

61. Executive power

The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.

<>

This section is both terrifying in its scope and horrifying in its lack of definition.

The unspoken terror in the Constitution is that the executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the King and is exercisable by the Governor-General. It is not parliament who actually holds the power of the executive; it is not the cabinet which actually holds the power of the executive; it is the King, being represented by the Governor-General.

This terror and horror is what lies at the heart of the whole argument of republicans. Their argument is not that Australia should "grow up" (which is a stupid turn of phrase in the light that the Commonwealth has existed for 121 years) but rather that the executive power of the Commonwealth ultimately lies with someone 10,000 miles away.

I would argue that it is precisely this terror and horror which is why Australia has the six oldest continuously operating parliaments in the world. Even the mother of all parliaments at Westminster when faced with the Blitz, closed parliament and appointed a War Cabinet which meant shutting the doors. Australia which is on the other side of the world and far away from everything, by historical accident, kept its parliaments operating right through the war.

Under most circumstances, the Governor-General is basically an office with a rubber stamp. Contained within that rubber stamp is vested the executive power of the Commonwealth. I would rather that the person in the office is terrified and horrified of the power they hold, to the point where they won't use it, as opposed to not being terrified and horrified of the power they hold which emboldens them to want to use it. I would rather be ruled by incompetence that will not act, than competence that does.

<><><><><>

62. Federal Executive Council

There shall be a Federal Executive Council to advise the Governor-General in the government of the Commonwealth, and the members of the Council shall be chosen and summoned by the Governor-General and sworn as Executive Councillors, and shall hold office during his pleasure.

<>

Section 62 basically says that there will be a cabinet. My guess as to the reason of why this is in here at all is that this is to remind the parliament that the power to select the Cabinet ultimately rests with the Governor-General and not the Prime Minister of the day. 

<><><><><>

63. Provisions referring to Governor-General

The provisions of this Constitution referring to the Governor-General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor-General acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council.

<>

I am yet to determine what exactly Section 63 is supposed to mean. My guess that is that in theory it supposed to mean that the Governor-General isn't supposed to act without the express advice of the Federal Executive Council but given that the several powers of the ministries are usually given to the relevant cabinet minister, there is not much which the Governor-General could in fact do unilaterally. 

<><><><><>

64. Ministers of State

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Ministers to sit in Parliament

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

<>

Section 64 of the Constitution was brought into sharp focus this year after it came to light that the former Prime Minister Scott Morrison convinced the Governor-General David Hurley to appoint him to five extra cabinet positions. It should be pointed out that under Section 64, the Governor-General had complete power to do this; so the idea that there was a Constitutional Crisis is bunk. The Constitution is not in crisis. It was working perfectly. Politics on the other, was doing what politics likes to do and was organising a scandal.

The first clause says that the Governor-General can establish any number of departments of State that they wish; without any kind of reference to rhyme, reason, logic, or reality. The Governor-General could appoint a Minister for Bananas and Bacon, a Minister for Truth, a Minister for Women, a Minister for Sound, and a a Minister for the 1920s if they wanted to. The Federal Executive Council has literally no limits or directions on its makeup or oversight whatsoever.

The Governor-General was perfectly within his power to appoint Mr Morrison to five cabinet posts, or even all of them. It is actually possible under Section 64 for one person to hold every single cabinet post. The closest that we ever got to such a situation was in 1972 when for a period of two weeks, Gough Whitlam held 13 cabinet posts and Lance Barnard held the remaining 15.

The first two clauses make absolutely no mention of who can be a Minister of State whatsoever. Not only is there zero mention of whether or not they can or need to be in either the House of Representatives or Senate but there is also zero mention of whether if they need to be in either the House of Representatives.

When Harold Holt disappeared in 1966, presumably drowned and presumably dead, the Governor-General Paul Hasluck appointed John Gorton as the next Prime Minister. At the time, Gorton was a Senator for Victoria; there was nothing wrong with this. Gorton could have continued the premiership from the Senate and this would have been fine. There have been plenty and still are Ministers in the Senate and nobody even so much as bats an eyelid at this fact. Gorton resigned his Senate seat and for 21 days wasn't even a Member of Parliament. The reason that he resigned his Senate seat was to contest the House of Representatives seat of Kooyong but even that has less to do with convention and more to do with him wanting to be in the House of Representatives because that is where Appropriation Bills (ie the Budget) originates. Convention lasts exactly as long as convention lasts and is only as relevant as it is relevant.

If the Governor-General wanted to appoint a temporary Minister of State during a time of war, who was say a foreign military General, then that would be fine. If the Governor-General wanted to appoint a Minister of State which related to some kind of crisis, then that would be fine. Even if we assume that the Governor-General was a madman and a knave and wanted to appoint a hostile eejit to the position of Minister of State, then that would be fine. 

Section 64 is so open that the Governor-General could appoint Vladimir Putin, Jacinda Ardern, Justin Bieber, Fat Cat, the planet Mars, Rupert Murdoch, Rupert Grinch, Johnathon Thurston, a block of cheese, quite literally anyone and anything to any Minister of State, including the Prime Ministership,  during the pleasure of the Governor-General.

The only stipulation with regards who can be a Minister of State is that they can not hold office for a longer period than three months unless they become a Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives. Other provisions to do with citizenship such as Section 44 with come into play under such circumstances. Taken to the absolute extreme of insanity, the Governor-General could appoint an open enemy of the Commonwealth for 89 days (because this is less than three months), then withdraw their pleasure; then reappoint that open enemy of the Commonwealth for another 89 days, ad nausuem. The actual chance of this is ridiculously close to but not zero.

This is why the appointment of Scott Morrison to five cabinet posts is so scandalous. It isn't that the Governor-General couldn't appoint him to multiple cabinet posts. It isn't that the Governor-General didn't have the power appoint him to cabinet posts. Section 64 gives the Governor-General the power to make Ministers and unmake Minister pretty much on a whim and without reference to reality. The scandal is that unlike Gough Whitham being Minister for Everything and Lance Barnard being Minister for Everything Else, or John Gorton being Prime Minister from the Senate and then Prime Minister with no seat in parliament at all, this was done in secret. Australians are pretty accepting of corruption, racism, knavery, pork-barrelling, crudeness, rudeness, drunkenness, adultery and seemingly sexual harassment and rape within the walls of parliament but when it comes to not telling us, we chuck a nana (especially the Senators from Queensland).

<><><><><>

65. Number of Ministers

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Ministers of State shall not exceed seven in number, and shall hold such offices as the Parliament prescribes, or, in the absence of provision, as the Governor-General directs.

<>

Even before the first Parliament sat, the Barton Ministry had 11 Minister. This then makes me wonder what the point of Section 65 was. I have read through the debates in the Constitutional Conventions and apart from George Reid mentioning the number in passing, I do not know why this ever existed. 

Perhaps this was for ceremonial purposes, where the initial photographs would be used in the official propaganda. Australia is a relatively new country and was created after the invention of photography. Perhaps the intent was to show that from the outset, Australia was a real country. Perhaps this was to prove to ourselves that Australia was a real country and not just a confederation of six unfriendly powers. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

<><><><><>

Horse 3066 - The Impatient Republic of Australia

After Horse went to press yesterday, the news shot around the world that Queen Elizabeth II died peacefully at the age of 96. The nonagenarian monarch was one the throne for 69 years; having seen 16 Prime Ministers as Queen, and having lived through two world wars, one hot and one cold. Her son Charles III will ascend the throne and oversee a Britain which has decided to play the Australian game of the Thirsty Knife with its Prime Ministers, as a result of brexitatiously brexiting from the European Union and is now left shivering on its own brexitatious bed of nails.

The vast majority of Australians have only ever seen one monarch, some two, some four, though there are a very few number of people who have seen as many as six. Even before the Queen has been laid in state, there have already been discussions about Australia becoming a republic. It is almost as if the republicans have been waiting for this day just to unleash all kinds of agitation. I think that Australia becoming republic is inevitable but mostly because we have a lot of people who after looking at all the other nations around, have decided that we want that. Australia will sleepwalk towards becoming a republic because we simply do not have the imagination to consider what would happen if this came to be.

Advocates for a republic want to wrap the argument in optimism by saying that it is time that we "grew up" and left the monarchy as though it was the same as moving out of home and despite the fact that Australia hasn't really been interferred with by Britain since about 1941. The argument is wrapped around not much more than a change of symbols; seemingly without much consideration of what mechanically happens afterwards.

For my part, I am not really a monarchist. Granted that I do see the story of monarchy as a line of succession which goes well beyond Alfred the Great but that story also happens to include wars, genocides, slavery, exploitation of people and resources; which would have happened with a monarchy or not. The outrages of history when the abuse of greatness disjoins remorse from power, happens if the person at the top is a King, Emperor, Kaiser, Fuhrer, Lord Protector, Captain, General, Pope, Chairman, or President. I don't think that it really makes that much of a difference whether the King is on the back of the coins or not, or if it is Marianne, or Lady Liberty, or a shield thing, or a fasces, or anything else. 

The suggestion for the mechanics of becoming a republic is usually that we'd replace the Governor-General with a President and that nothing will change and that it will all be lovely. Change the name of the Office; change the coins, change the flag; job done. Nope. Politics is never ever that simple and the danger lurking behind the curtain is that where the is an office of power, there is always someone who wants that office. The people who want the offices of power, are almost always the people who are the most ill-advised to have them.

The biggest argument against becoming a republic is in fact the Appointments Scandal with Governor-General Peter Hurley and Prime Minister Scott Morrison. If we run the clock back to 1999, and the Republic of Australia became a thing, then the whole matrix of circumstances changes.

The Australian people rejected the 1999 Republic model, not because they were particularly loyal to the Crown but because polling at the time suggested that the model was wrong. The Referendum Convention although well meaning, was always looking inwards and never really saw the obvious fact that the Australian people have a very strong will and want to elect the head-of-state. The 1999 Republic model failed because the people of Australia want to choose their Grand Poohbah.

As we learned repeatedly throughout the premiership of John Howard and the initial periods of premiership of Julia Gillard, Malcolm Turnbull, and Scott Morrison, the word that gets thrown about is 'mandate'. John Howard frequently claimed a mandate to do horrible things, immediately after an election; based upon the political philosophical standpoint that an election enables the person who has just been handed the keys of office, the power to act. Conversely, incoming Prime Minister are always berated and held to ridicule with the statement that they have no mandate to act because they weren't elected.

If the Republic of Australia was a thing, then the appointments of Scott Morrison to the Ministries of Everything, would have perhaps still been scandalous but immediately justified by the fact that the Grand Poobah was elected to the position which gave him the commissions. As it stands, and as it should have stood, not many people really know what the powers of the Governor-General are and that's a brilliant thing because they are usually loathe to use them. If the Republic of Australia was a thing, then the appointments of Scott Morrison to the Ministries of Everything, was not only just but mandated.

Can you imagine what might have be wrought if Peter Dutton or Pauline Hanson, had been President? If the office of the President is an elected role, we have to absolutely assume that not only will knaves want the role but that knaves will get the role. Australia, which has been crabwalking away from Britain for 122 years, has spent the last 77 years crabwalking towards the United States culturally. We have sent John Howard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Scott Morrison, to the tob job recently; we must assume that electing the President immediately opens the job to mandated collusion.

As for the Queen herself, she was someone's mum, grandma, great-grandma, and she got given the job because of circumstances set into motion while she was still a teenager. To be in a job for 69 years is hard. To have been living in a fishbowl for 69 years is even harder. Probably her only night of freedom ever, was on one strange night in 1945 when for a while, unbridled joy broke out. If nothing else, 96 was a decent innings and even your opponents will clap you as you make the long walk back to the pavilion.

As for Australia, the world has changed and already we have people who want change the system further; without regard for the consequences which will unfold. 

The Queen is dead. Long live the King. Long may we say 'God Save the King" because nothing will save us from the knaves who we absolutely will install.

Horse 3065 - No, There Doesn't Need To Be A General Election

Note: This post is by means of clarification for a forum.

With the resignation of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury of the United Kingdom, members of the Conservative and Unionist Party have elected Liz Truss as leader of the party and then by default as the person suggested to the monarch, to be selected as the next Prime Minister. 

As Liz Truss has not been the leader of the party during a general election, there are sections of both the Twitterati and the Commentariat who have vociferously made their opinions know that she should not have a mandate to govern and that a general election should be held as quickly as possible. When I said "no" I was immediately accused of either being a tory apologist or not understanding how the system works; when that answer doesn't even remotely resemble truth.

Yes, I am Australian. Yes, I do not live in the United Kingdom. Be that as it may, I live in New South Wales which has a Westminster style parliament and in the Commonwealth of Australia which also has a Westminster style parliament. The difference between our Westminster style parliaments and the Westminster style parliament as Westminster is that the Upper Houses (the Legislative Council and the Senate) actually do have the power to block supply; where as the House of Lords does not because of the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911. Very clearly if I live in two jurisdictions with Westminster style parliaments, then I have at least some inkling of their mechanics; so let's set those objections to rest.

In general (and I use even that term advisedly), government is formed from the majority of members on the floor of the lower house because that is usually where Appropriation Bills upon the treasury, Money Bills which have to do with both spending and taxation, and legislation generally originates. The very short punchline is that whoever controls the purse of the nation, controls government.

Notice how I haven't said the word "party" in that explanation. The whole idea that there might be formal parties as opposed to mere factions of MPs who might come together and fly apart all the time, is a relatively recent invention. We can generally credit the invention of formal political parties with the great winds of reform in the early 19th century. Political parties start to become useful only after the franchise was expanded to include people who were not male landowners.

The Prime Minister/Premier in all Westminster style parliaments is selected by the Monarch/Governor-General/Governor because they are either the formal leader of the majority of members or the leader of a useful and likely to be stable majority of members who can control the public purse. In a party system, that almost is always the leader of the largest political party; which itself could very well be in coalition with other parties and members. 

Even then, the leader of that party might not actually be in the lower house but in the upper house. There have been Premiers and Prime Ministers in the past who have come from upper houses, including the House of Lords. 

The situation as it stands is that the Conservative and Unionist Party have a majority of members on the floor of the House of Commons. As the House of Lords has no power to knock back Appropriation Bills, then then Conservatives are the party who is invited to form government. As Liz Truss has now been elected as the leader of the Conservatives, it is her name which has been put forward as the suggestion to the Queen as to whom should be the Prime Minister. As the Queen has now accepted that suggestion and formally invited Liz Truss to be the Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury of the United Kingdom, she has taken up the offer.

I absolutely and always reject the notion that any kind of mandate to do anything either does or does not exist. I also reject the notion that there should be a general election just because the leadership of a political party changes. 

At precisely no point at all, did the Conservative majority ever look like it was going to fall apart. Even during the darkest days of the Johnsonian shenaninganry, when motions of no confidence were levelled, was it ever the case that the Conservatives would concede or relinquish the power of the public purse. Liz Truss was always a Member of Parliament and a sitting member of the stable majority of members who can control the public purse she has just as much right to be the Prime Minister as any of them. 

What does change is the hotness of the tempers of the public, who quite rightly are fed up to the back teeth with being fed indigestible right-wing formula and want to spit it out. That is the overlay of politics at work; which the impartial Westminster style parliament doesn't even need to care about. The Parliament at Westminster has been in its current state since 1660. It cares not for the hotness of the tempers of the public or for the nobility or knavery of the members who walk within its walls. To be perfectly honest, it doesn't care who the Prime Minister is or even if there needs to be one. The only thing that matters is who controls the public purse and that person is Liz Truss at the moment; and for that reason, she has the job of trying to lead the business of the parliament.

I hope she does well as indeed I hope that all who lead governments do well. The public needs them to.