Horse 3136 - Boris Johnson Proves Jeremy Corbyn Right

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64397745

Boris Johnson has said Vladimir Putin threatened him with a missile strike in an "extraordinary" phone call in the run-up to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The then-prime minister said Mr Putin told him it "would only take a minute".

Mr Johnson said the comment was made after he warned the war would be an "utter catastrophe".

...

No reference to the exchange appeared in accounts released to the media of the call by Downing Street. But with all officially arranged phone calls, there are always detailed minutes taken by a Number 10 official and retained for the archive.

- BBC News, 30th Jan 2023

I do not expect the leaders of governments to openly tell the truth about every little detail that they might have. This is not because I think that there is some kind of deep level conspiracy (the world is far too complicated and the leaders are far too dog ignorant and incompetent for that to happen) but rather that actually telling the general public the truth, might actually have consequences which involve the deaths of many millions of people.

The war in Ukraine is such an example. Quite simply, Vladimir Putin in an unchecked steroid fueled career, has been allowed to do whatever the heck he likes and because as an ex-KGB operative he still likely has the support of people to cause covert violence to his direct enemies, doing  whatever the heck he likes has involved exacting power for power's sake. The war in Ukraine is nothing more than a projection of power for power's sake; to retain power for power's sake. One of the particularly useful sources of information as to how Putin and by extension Russia sees Ukraine is the ex-Soviet Union newspaper Pravda. They have painted the past as an aberration and that Ukraine in their eyes was always part of Russia. Russia is merely trying to retake what was always theirs to begin with. In fact even the name Ukraine steams from the word for "borderlands".

Number Ten Downing Street, the offices therein, the Office of Cabinet, and the then installed First Lord Of The Treasury and Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, spoke with Vladimir Putin on the telephone last February and it is only now that Boris Johnson has said that Vladimir Putin threatened to kill him in a missile strike, on that telephone call.

This is the official minute put out by Number Ten at that time:

Of course we have no way of knowing what was actually said, although it is highly likely that at the Russian end, the phone call was being monitored. It is the height of naievity to think that any telephone call to any Russian agency, and probbably any Russian business, is not s being monitored. In that respect, the same rules should have applied to that telephone call as would apply to any standing microphone in any room in the world: that is that every microphone is a live microphone and that someone somewhere is listening. 

Dear Russia,

If you are listening or reading this blog post, how's it gaan bro'?

Love, Rollo.

PS: Please don't annihalate me in a nuclear war. kthxbye

This blog post is not going to say anything about the actions of Boris Johnson in regards to this. Westminster Politics has an interesting method of dealing with its own. Rather, this blog post about the actions of the "British" press and I use scare quotation marks here because they may as well not be.

The tory press, like the rest of tory politics around the world, is a wen on society that needs to be lanced. The tory press in my country is just as bad and the only real difference is the accent (which they will then use as something exotic overseas) but the messaging is often identical. The tory press has no conscience and will try to destroy anyone who is their enemy; including in the face of very real and dangerous threats.

It should be noted that the tory press (and I use the word 'tory' as the ablative invective pejorative) was busy painting the former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite, despite not actually having any evidence of that. As long as the press repeats something often enough, the people will make it their truth. 

At the time, Jeremy Corbyn frequently made statements from the lawns outside the halls at Westminster, calling for peace and diplomacy; which the press then twisted into shivs to try and paint him as a Putin sympathiser. One the surface Johnson was calling for peace but apparently secretly worried and Putin was always calling for peace, while at the same time arranging his toy soldiers. Somehow, Corbyn became the acceptable target from the tory press as well as so-called centrists, who all decided to hold his feet to the fire.

Jeremy Corbyn was a Member of Parliament when Able Archer 83 was going on; when the world got perilously close to accidental nuclear war. Corbyn was a member of the Stop The War Coalition which condemned the actions of his own Prime Minister Tony Blair in going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, on the basis that that war was unjust and as we subsequently found out (almost immediately) was built on lies. Watching this play out yet again; where Vladimir Putin is in charge, who in this case actually does have weapons of mass destruction, is all scarily familiar. We do not know where Putin's limits lie but there is a non-zero chance that he would use nuclear weapons because he is allowed to do whatever the heck he likes.

Corbyn was one of 11 MPs who signed a statement last February which condemned the actions of Putin and while the Labour Party basically tries to hack off its own head with a breadknife and condemn itself to Opposition for another 20 years, Mr Johnson's comments this week have more or less confirmed that Corbyn in calling for diplomacy was right. Not poking the bear was probably the best option; especially in the current light that what we now know is that he was actually wanting not to inadvertently cause nuclear Armageddon.

Remember the inscriptions on Vespasian's public toilets in Ancient Rome "Pecunia Non Olet", which means "Money Does Not Stink". Yet again we are reminded who the tory press work for. They work for whomever has money; which includes Russian oligarchs. They have no problem in dumping sewage on British politics, just as Putin would have no problem in dropping nuclear weapons on Boris Johnson. Corbyn was asking for calm and asking that the Russian bear not be poked and yet he was the enemy.

Horse 3135 - Are You Really 'Cancelled' If You Have An Audience Of Millions?

As I make my way forth and back across Sydney ten times a week, in addition to taking the train I make the last part of my journey by bus. I like everyone else who rides the bus, am subject to whatever whims that the bus driver has for our collective listening pleasure. Sometimes this is various kinds of music and sometimes this is various kinds of talk radio. 

This week on the radio, I was on the bus and the political pronouncements of Professor Peter Potatopuncher¹ powerfully pierced the airwaves. He'd mentioned that he had been 'cancelled' by St.Hubris University². He attributed being cancelled to wokeness gone mad and claimed some radical leftist Marxists had infiltrated the university. Now when I think of radical leftist Marxists, I think of skateboarding dudes wearing Vans shoes and yelling "Cowabunga, seize the means of production, dudes.³" I was then assured by the parade of people who called that Professor Peter Potatopuncher was right and that people should have the right to free speech.

The punchline to this whole affair happened just before 08:30am when a spokesperson for St.Hubris University² came on the radio and said that Professor Peter Potatopuncher's lecture series had been moved to a smaller venue after the event had been vastly undersubscribed and they wanted to bring everyone closer together. This was then met with more ranting from Professor Peter Potatopuncher before the radio station went to the news.

I suspect that the so-called culture wars which apparently are going on, are nothing more than what has been happening since the beginning of time. At this particular moment the loudest yelling coming from those people who are demanding free speech, appear to those people who have discovered that one of the things that the internet did was actually democratise public discourse and I suspect that they do not like it. How dare the marginalised, the poor, the plebs, and any of the great unwashed masses who as little as 200 years ago didn't any rights at all, dare to use their voices. The counter to those people who are speaking up and who would have previously had no voice at all, is to yell loudly and longly (and quite frankly some of the most stupid rubbish I have heard). 

One of the paradoxes of people crying out for freedom, is that the people who genuinely need it and are crying out for it are often denied it; while those people who want to use the concept of freedom as some kind of banner to wave are often the very people who would deny both freedom and dignity to others. The unwritten truth is that 'freedom' as a central rallying cry, is also intertwined with that other cloaked concept of power and who wields it. I am suspicious of anyone who wants to speak of freedom without responsibility and who is already in a position of relative power.

I do not believe in the absolute right to free speech. This is because I do not believe in any absolute right to anything. A right to do something, with no reference to law whatsoever and with no consequences at law, means that harm is done to other people, who then have no remedy. An absolute right to free speech with no limits for things like defamation, racism, sexism, harassment, consistently leads to injury of other people. If those things are allowed to be repeated often enough, they become people's internal truths and it should also be self-evident that such a situation leads to injury and death of other people. The pen, the tongue, the radio, the television, the internet, can all be weaponised to cause harm to people and to pretend otherwise is deliberate ignorance.

The obvious question which stems from this is who gets to decide where those limits lie. Law springs forth from two main sources. Firstly legislatures, to whom which we as citizens should rightly have franchise in. Secondly judges, of whom the best examples are those who apply and interpret the law justly, fairly, and without fear or favour. Thirdly some kind of morality, although it should be said that morality is often set aside if it is inconvenient to personal advantage. In fact, if I were to design the perfect law system, then there wouldn't be open plan courts but rather, courts where the appellants and respondents would be in separate rooms and unable to see either each other or the judge and where all names would be anonymised. While that sounds horrific, it does mean that judges who are just as prone to perpetrating defamation, racism, sexism, and harassment as the rest of us, wouldn't be able to weaponise them as much if they also had no idea who was before them. Justice should be blind; it frequently is not.

With regards to deciding the outcome of the application of law, the perfect ideal is The Man On The Lilyfield Tram or The Lady On The Burwood Bus. These people are the theoretical embodiment of some standard reasonable person. In determining what is just and proper, the guidelines for those in charge must be consistent with both the Case Law and Common Law which has gone before and the principles of justice and equity which are set before them. Failure to do this does happen (so let's not pretend that it does not) and because it happens, faith in the system is undermined. Even so, this does not mean that the system should be ignored because by virtue of being empaneled by the Crown to administer justice, law courts carry the weight and force of the monopoly on violence which only the state possesses.

However, this is not to do with the issue of the law and legislation imposing limits. The issue of censorship at law is a public question, since those limits are discussed and argued over in parliaments. I think that the issue of censorship at law is best summed up by opinion as published in James v Commonwealth (1936).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/UKPCHCA/1936/4.html

"'Free' in itself is vague and indeterminate. It must take its colour from the context. Compare, for instance, its use in free speech, free love, free dinner and free trade. Free speech does not mean free speech; it means speech hedged in by all the laws against defamation, blasphemy, sedition and so forth; it means freedom governed by law."

- James vs Commonwealth of Australia 1936

This confirmed that free speech as a concept exists. It also confirmed that there should be just and reasonable limits imposed upon said free speech and given that unfettered free speech with no limits consistently leads to injury of other people, it also follows that it is reasonable that parliaments should discuss and argue the case for where those limits lie.

I have no doubt that if I were to come to your house and teach your children what all the swear words are and how to use them, or instruct them in how to bash holes in your walls with a sledgehammer, or tell them fun ways to poison other people, then you would be quite rightly horrified. Very obviously, you have the right to impose your own limits to free speech within the confines of your house; especially if the intended speech is designed to pose a contingent risk of harm to dignity, decorum, property and person. St.Hubris University as a private institution not only has that same right but a legal duty of care towards its students and staff.

Of course St.Hubris University must comply with the law but the question of Professor Peter Potatopuncher and St.Hubris University has to do with the university's own rules about what is and what is not acceptable on the grounds of its premises. They have not actually told him what is and isn't acceptable and certainly haven't prevented him from speaking. They have moved him to a smaller venue and he has kicked up a stink.

When it comes to the issue of "cancel culture", I actually have my doubts as to whether or not cancel culture actually exists. Everyone who I can think of that has claimed to be 'cancelled' usually does so in the employ of a very big media firm and has a very big bully pulpit from which they can yell to millions that they are 'cancelled'. Demonstrably you are not cancelled if you are standing on a platform and broadcasting your thoughts and opinions to the world; especially via print, radio and television. When John Coffeestain¹ (MP for West Banana²) of the Impressive Party² goes on 2XX, 3YY, 4WW, 5GG, and other assorted stations in the SuperBig Radio Network², goes on Big News on cable TV, and has an opinion piece published in BigMedia² newspapers up and down the country, then he is hardly 'cancelled'.

What might be happening is if someone has said something ghastly and awful and repeatedly done so, and found that the institutions and firms which have imposed some kind of cooling effect, have themselves come under some kind of consequence. You can hardly be said to be cancelled if there is a campaign by people to boycott the advertisers of the companies who want to put their names and advertising BigMedia vehicles. This is merely the economic consequence of John Coffeestain saying something ghastly and awful. You can hardly be said to be cancelled if a university does not want you to speak there because you have offended half of the student body and half of the staff by saying something ghastly and awful. I note that the same people who vote for John Coffeestain are just as likely to fire someone who works in a badly paid job, for daring to take a toilet break.

Granted, there is something to be said about the circumstances by which something said has caused offence to someone else but for someone to face the consequences, usually means that they have said something ghastly and awful on a repeated basis. After following the links from BigMedia's website to the things that Professor Peter Potatopuncher, I would have come to the same conclusion as St.Hubris University. In the marketplace of ideas, there is no obligation to buy something ghastly.

In this particular case though, St.Hubris University couldn't find enough takers who were willing to buy the ideas that Professor Peter Potatopuncher peddled and moved his small group to a smaller venue. I do not think that someone has been 'cancelled' if they've been moved to a smaller place. That's not cancel culture, that's a market solution.

¹not his real name.

²also not its real name.

³from what I have learned of the beardy one himself, he might have said something similar to this effect before starting a bar fight in London.

Horse 3134 - POTATO CAKES v POTATO SCALLOPS [2023] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

POTATO CAKES v POTATO SCALLOPS [2023] - Judgement

H3134/1

It has come to the attention of this court that the Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered lest something terrible and horrible happen (which parents of sprogs will attest to, for after the name of the Scottish Restaurant is uttered, they then wan to go there), has decided in addition to selling French Fries and Hash Browns, has also decided to sell Potato Cakes/Scallops. This court has been asked to make a ruling on which name is correct and/or best.

Firstly it has to be said that the English language, that bastard tongue of no father, who grew up on a small cold and wet island, is a vulture of a language which shamelessly steals from everywhere. It steals nouns and makes them its own. It steals verbs and makes them its own. It then mashes words together of different origins and fashions them into new words. The word 'television' has both Greek and Roman word parts; which merely serves to prove what a savage the English language is.

The Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered, has decided to lay its cards on the table and call these things Potato Scallops. The two questions posed before this court are:

1 - is this correct?

2 - should they have done this?

These are the facts as this court understands them.

The name 'Potato Scallops' appears to exist in New South Wales and Queensland but has been seen in isolated pockets in Perth. The name 'Potato Cakes' appears to exist in Victoria, Tasmania, and the south eastern corner of South Australia. The name 'Potato Fritters' appears to exist in South Australia and the Northern Territory. There is insufficient data to determine what is standard in Western Australia. 

It makes sense that a nation as vast and unwieldy as Australia, where distances are measured in hours and sometimes days, is going to have regionalisms across the country. Admittedly this is not quite as stark as the lexicographic problem that happens for the Morning Star and Evening Star, where a language has different words for the same thing, as this is a case where different words for the same thing exist in different places.

This kind of thing exists in Australia all over the place. Australia has different words for the same thing because the six states which grew up in semi isolation, invented their own terms for things and didn't need to care that they might be different elsewhere in the country. When you show up and order 285mL of beer, in Queensland you generally order a 'pot', in most places in the southern states you'd be ordering a 'middy', in Tasmania it is a 'ten' and in the Northern Territory it might be a 'handle.

In answer to Question 1, the fact that Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered, has decided to name this flat potato object a 'Potato Scallop' is perfectly reasonable and correct in New South Wales and Queensland but madder than a cut snake in the rest of the country. 

This court is of the opinion that regionalisms are perfectly fine; so the question of if this flat potato object should be called a 'Potato Scallop' or a 'Potato Cake', or even a 'Potato Fritter', is "Yes". This court can not make any judgement other than to say that the description of a thing, is subject to the area where description of a thing is being made. However, this does not mean for a second that there is no judgement in this case.

Final Judgement:

Oh dear, Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered. You have decided to lay your cards on the table and call these things 'Potato Scallops' and this court simply can not allow this to stand. While we recognise your right to free speech and your right to call a thing what you will, we find that you are guilty of both ignorance and willful intolerance. 

We cite the 'The Fresh Food People' who call themselves either Woolworths, Safeway, Purity, Roelf Vos or even Countdown depending on where they are in the world. The Woolworths Group has decided to call its suspicious meat chub loaf either 'polony', 'fritz', or 'devon', depending on where they are in the country (see Horse 2858)  If a company like Woolworths is capable of doing this, then surely a company like the Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered can make different paper bags depending on where these flat potato things are sold.

But oh ho ho, Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered, you have compounded ignorance and willful intolerance with manufactured outrage in a publicity drive. Primarily Seven West Media and News Corp outlets have run stories about this, claiming that there was outrage; when in actual fact the only outrage that I was able to find was from media pundits claiming that there was outrage. I suspect that this manufactured outrage may have been paid for as part of advertising budgets but nobody will admit to this. In answering Question 2, we can only assume that Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered, has acted in bad faith for the sole purpose of generating revenues. For Shame.

Oh dear, Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered, you have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court. This court hereby decides that you either make different paper bags for these flat potato things depending on the market, or that you give them some proprietary name such as "McFritter" or other some such.

To the people of Australia, this court hereby orders you to call these flat potato thingys by any name that you were previously calling them. We also advise weakly, that you buy them from an independent fish and chip shop which is run by someone called Jang, Johnson, Jagamurra, Jahiem, Jahir or Jude. Australia is a vast and unwieldy place which is big enough to accommodate people from the four winds. 

As for you Scottish Restaurant whose name dare not be uttered, you're still in trouble. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3134/1 - Ed)

Horse 3133 - Blow Up The Pokies

One of the wedge issues which the rightist trashmedia is going to push in the upcoming NSW General Election this year, will be The Greens' policy of wanting to get rid of poker machines in New South Wales. This will be painted as bad under the guise of 'choice'. Second to this, they will paint the Labor Party as either being spineless or giving in to The Greens when they want to introduce measures to do with cashless gaming machines and the like. All the while they will play the larrikin card for the Liberal Party and say that they are protecting the right of the people to have a flutter.

This has already begun on 2GB where prize knave Ben Fordham, who has never even seen an original thought since he joined the radio station, has already solicited callers to drive home the point like nails in the wrists of the public. I have no doubt that the Murdochracy with the likes of Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny, will over the next few months, transform into evangelists for the gaming industry.

Let me make a diversion here and say that I take issue with the words 'gaming industry'. Games at table such as poker, vingt-et-un, pinochle, pai-gow et cetera are all games that involve some degree of skill. Watching the World Poker Tour on telly is the same in principle as watching other parlour games like Chess, Crokinhole, Bridge, 500 and what now. Poker machines are not games of skill at all but deliberately mindless diversions which have hidden processes behind the not very good video game, which are purely designed to extract monies from the marks who play them. Poker machines, much like the racing industry, exist for no other purpose to extract money from the marks, with their agreement. They are a step away from theft.

I remember the brief hoo-haa when for a very short period of time Aristorat Game Machines were the most valuable company in Australia. This was because of trading after their Initial Public Offer and the markets went mad for a period of about 36 hours. That madness was predicated on the knowledge that their sole product was making machines which are purely designed to extract monies from the marks who play them and the knowledge that the then Labor Government was about to release more gaming licences for the machines.

Now of course people with a more libertarian bent will put forward the knavish excuse that people are individuals with agency and should have the right to make decisions for themselves. This excuse is often put forward by abject knaves who stand to profit from the misery of other people. The hidden lie is that the actual costs of problem gambling are not borne by either those knaves or the companies which supply or own the machines but the families of problem gamblers and the community as a whole.

Problem gambling as causation does lead to increased domestic violence, homelessness, as well as co-adjacent issues like drug abuse. We know this. The purpose of law is the regulation, standardisation, and protection of society; the reduction of problem gambling has to do with the latter of those three and the Crown has an interest in the protection of society from itself because the Crown invariably ends up carrying the monetary cost. 

I am simply not impressed by arguments to do with liberty, where rights being invoked are unlimited and unfettered and where the results of the exercise of that liberty are the misery and injury of others. It is reasonable that liberty has limits. If my right to swing my arm ends immediately before it comes in contact with your face, then why is it perfectly acceptable in these people's minds that the children of problem gamblers should become actual punching bags and end up in A&E? Why? Because these people have no conscience and if they do, they've already beaten it to death.

My suspicion is that the Labor Party won't adopt The Greens' proposal of banning poker machines because they have some kind of relationship with the knaves who own them. In other words, the Labor Party is too gutless to act decently. Of course the Liberal Party wouldn't care about decency; including if a child who had been kicked was left at their doorstep. Do I think I think the The Greens' policy is reasonable? Demonstrably, yes.

The decent and fair people of New South Wales are probably ignorant of the fact that 33% of all poker machines in the world, are in Australia. 50% of all poker machines in Australia are in New South Wales. Not only does the state of New South Wales have more poker machines than Nevada but we have more poker machines per capita than any other jurisdiction in the world.

I suppose that if we were to ban poker machines in New South Wales, then immediately both the pubs and clubs, the casinos, and the companies that supply them, would all cry 'blue murder' and demand compensation. My response to that would be to tell them to "Get Stuffed!". They've already been compensated many many many times over. That's why they had the machines in the first place. They've already stolen the food from peoples' tables, in some cases already stolen peoples' houses, and been the root cause of physical injury.

If your pub or club is so bereft of talent that you can not spin a profit from alcohol and food sales, then maybe you aught to think about what the purpose of your club is. Maybe there is a place for casinos but the actual prestige and glamour of those places, isn't from the rooms of sad people being microdosed on occasional adrenaline and endorphins as they win back pennycents from the dollarpounds they've already burned. Even Bond, James Bond, when he wasn't mysogenising his way across the world wasn't sitting in front of a poker machine.

I know that anecdote is not evidence but the nicest pubs and clubs that I've been in are those with no poker machines at all. This is probably due to the fact that the establishment in an effort to make you want to come back, has put effort into ambience. Then again, the nicest pub that I was ever in had a fireplace, leather couches, and a pub cat; so the idea of installing electronic jingle-jangle would have been an insult. 

That's basically what poker machines are. They are an insult to the intelligence of the patrons, which are actively designed to be addictive, to extract monies from the marks who play them; with absolutely zero concern for the well-being of either the patron or their families or society. New South Wales should be embarrassed. The Greens' policy of banning poker machines is actually the decent and proper thing to do. 

Aside:

The statement from the banking association that they were behind putting in measures to have cashless gaming machines, should not been seen as generous. What this means for them is that they are just as happy to withdraw their Automatic Teller Machines from venues because it means that they no longer have to pay the running costs of those Automatic Teller Machines.

Horse 3132 - Could You Eat A Cardassian?

There are two cats in my household. The correct number of cats to have is two because one cat will get lonely by themselves and three cats is the beginning of "crazy cat lady" territory. The number of the counting of the correct number of cats is two and two is the counting of the correct number of cats. Four is right out.

A thing to remember about cats though is that when they aren't expanding to fill all available space on the couch or on your bed, demanding to be fed in the morning, or running around at stupid o'clock in the morning like a mad thing, despite their fluffy exterior (you must put your face in a kitty) they are still highly efficient killing machines. The problem with this though is that my cats while being highly efficient killing machines are still confused eejits when it comes to know what to do with the thing that they have just caught.

I am sure that Micah has no intention whatsoever of eating any of the lizards that he has managed to catch; likewise I am sure that Purranna upon actually pinning down a noisy mynah, had no idea of what was supposed to happen next. I have no idea if upon finding a nest, that they would even know that the eggs inside are edible.

By the same token these highly efficient and yet eejitacious killing machines, can be asleep on the couch and miraculously be brought out of a fugue state upon the knowledge that there might be bacon and eggs cooking. At the weekend, Purranna was asleep when we were eating salad (which I imagine she thinks is utter garbage) but snapped to hyper-attention the second that there might be bacon on the offering. 

I wonder what would happen if we apply this same principle upwards to people. Quite obviously we know how to raise beefs and bacons for dinner but what would happen if in some future we invent space travel and come across other beings. At what point do we consider them either edible or not?

One of the neat things about fiction and about science fiction in particular is that we can game out questions like this in theory. The curious thing about the great stock of science fiction thus far (at least in my nerdular nerdulence reading) is that there is very little in the way of meeting beings from other worlds and deciding that they might be delicious.

HG Well's 'War Of The Worlds' famously has the invaders from Mars arrive on Earth and our weapons are largely useless against them. The thing which does eventually kill them is a plethora of earthly pathogens; to which they have no defence. This became strangely prescient with the onslaught of the 1918-20 Flu Pandemic. This is a demonstration one of the other functions of science fiction in playing with our deepest fears (also see Frankenstein, Dracula, 1984, Brave New World et cetera for this kind of them). However, even in 'War Of The Worlds' there is never any indication that the Martian invaders might be delicious. This theory is never tested.

Speaking of Dracula though, although he has no intention of actually eating people (or eating anything for that matter) he has no problem with biting people and drinking their blood. It is also stated that he actively keeps people alive for the sole purpose of drinking people's blood.

There aren't even many examples of this kind of thing in films and television either. In 'Star Wars: Return Of The Jedi' there are little cannibalistic murder bears called the Ewoks, who actually do mean to eat the protagonists of the film upon their meeting. We also learn in that film they they do not mind eating one of their own. This also makes me wonder about Chewbacca who is a seven foot tall bear-man thing. I am sure that given the opportunity that he would have had no problem eating the protagonists.

Perhaps the only example that I can think of where we even come close to this is in Douglas Adams' 'The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe'; which features a creature which has been engineered and bred to actively want to be eaten. When given the chance to actually do so, the protagonists of that story decline the offer. 

Peyo's Gargamel in 'The Smurfs', actively intends to eat the Smurfs. One of his frequent songs in both the books and the animated series spells out his intention to "Roast a few and pickle a few and serve a few real cold." I note that the Warner Bros. Coyote has very strong intentions of eating the Road Runner but is never able to.

I have eaten both crocodile and snake on occasion; which says that I am perfectly capable of eating reptile. What I have no idea about is if anyone in the Star Trek universe has ever considered eating the Cardassians, who are a race of reptile people. I am reasonably sure that if given the chance that the Cardassians (and for that matter the Romulans) would eat humans.

I am pretty sure that it is established canon in the Doctor Who universe, that the Sontarans are a race of warriors who have all been genetically engineered from potatoes. I have no idea about the physiology of the Sontarans; so I do not know if you could boil them, mash them, or stick them in a stew. I also do not know if Space McDonald's would look at the Sontarans and see them as a potential source of French Fries.

Does this suggest that there is some sliding scale of sentience and a point after which we would not be inclined to eat other things? At least on Earth, people seem to have no problem eating everything that doesn't talk back. People are less inclined to eat their pets; which implies some kind of upper bound somewhere. Perhaps there would be no problem if we had perfectly efficient recycling such as the Replicator on the USS Enterprise or whatever goes on in the recycling centre on Coruscant in Star Wars. Already in a roundabout way, the Earth is a very efficient recycling centre which makes all kinds of lovely chemicals which are then turned into plants and animals and people, before other chemistry happens which turns those chemicals back into refuse.

This last point makes me wonder what exactly is going on on the Axiom in 'Wall-E'. This movie is set 500+ years in the future; which makes me wonder if they have finally nailed the art of recycling people into milkshakes or whatever it is in those cups. Or is it that everyone is just blissfully unaware of what's going on and honestly do not care?

Of course the question hiding in plain sight here is "Could I eat a Cardassian?" I don't know. Maybe? Could I eat a Sontaran? I don't know. Maybe? Could I eat a Sontaran if it was turned into French Fries at Space McDonald's? Probably? Could I eat a Bantha? Almost certainly. Could I eat a human? No. Could my cats eat me? If they have no idea about what to do with a lizard or a bird, then I am sure that they have no idea what to do if they found a dead person... except demand to be fed.

Horse 3131 - Can I Have A Bonkers-Deathtrap Machine?

Not too long ago, I was at a junkyard in Sydney's western suburbs and came across some old equipment from a the defunct theme park Wonderland. There were a number of these cars on the Antique Autos ride, which like so much of the park's former assets were just left derelict at this junkyard.

Originally these cars drew their power from a ground track which was likely DC powered; which then fed into an electric motor underneath the rear passengers. I can only assume that these cars were built to some kind of theme park general spec, with probable options for different kinds of passenger cells on top. Anyone who ever played with slot cars would have found this to be a broadly similar experience except scaled up to the point of actual driveability. Actually, if cars like these can all be controlled from a central position, it seems to me that some kind of electric slotway or overhead pantograph might be useful if we are to switch to electric cars. If power can be cut centrally, then this could be really useful in the event of an accident.

These particular bodies, built out of fibreglass and metal and fitted with hard wearing polyvinyl seating, are meant to look like the Ford Model T. They do a pretty good job at aping what people think that a Model T looks like; especially considering that the only place that people are ever likely to see one is either in a museum or at an antiques car show. As the last Model T rolled off the production line some 95 years ago, the chances of people actually seeing a Model T on the road, are non-zero but getting ever asymptotically close to zero as time goes on.

At best guess these particular examples sit on something like 120/140 R24 tyres, where the tyres themselves are likely to be steel belted but solid. These look like hard tyres which were meant to be installed once and then survive until the end of life of the ride (which happened). Even sitting in the junkyard like this, they still seem reasonably good. 

Perhaps one might feel nostalgia for a dead theme park ride which one may have ridden on as a child. However, as I looked under the hood of these, all I felt was a sense of purpose and opportunity. If I had many many thousands of dollars that I could blow on a vanity project, then I'd buy one of these from the junkyard.

As far as I can make out, the chassis for these cars are still all pretty good. Granted that they are getting on for 37 years old now but they would have led a reasonably unstressed line as they paraded around their little enclosure at no more than about 20km/h. My suspicion is that an angry nine year old child with a grump on, could have likely outran one of them in situ. Having said that, the chassis looked hideously overengineered to the point that I think that serious modifications could be done to them.

As they are pretty close to the size of a regular vehicle, I suspect that they would take up a donation of a small four cylinder engine and/or a set of electric motors without any problem at all. Of course there would need to be proper engineering of brakes, lights, installation of proper seating and seatbelts but because this would be a single build engineering project, as the law stands they would not need to be crash tested.

There is probably no shortage of crate motors that one could buy which would fit in there. If I was going to turn this into a full-on hot rod, then I would consider a GM LFX 3.6L V6 as used in the Holden Commodore, or maybe the 1.4L Turbo four cylinder from the Cruze but equally a crate motor from Toyota or Ford would do as nicely. We already know that a car engine is capable of driving a car and from what I've seen of the chassis of these cars, they look up to the task of having a fair amount of power and torque being sent through them. Of course whatever engine would be installed, would dictate the rest of the drivetrain including the gearbox, differential et cetera and all of the mounting points therein. I can say without qualification that there would also need to be significant cuts and holes made in the floor because as a fairground ride, these cars had no feet controls at all.

The weird thing about the various motor traffic acts in Australia is that they still allow room for crazy backyard engineers who barely know what they are doing, to invent crazy-go-nuts motor cars and get them registered. Provided those crazy backyard engineers who barely know what they are doing don't sell any of their insane semi-deathtraps to the general public, the law is actually pretty generous when it comes to what they can get away with. For new bonkers-deathtrap machine bonkers-deathtrap machines, one only needs to show that they can stop and start within reasonable distances and have a set of lights (brake, blinkers, headlamps) that indicate to other road users that they can be seen.

Actually building a crazy-go-nuts bonkers-deathtrap machine would imply that anyone foolhardy enough to attempt such a thing, would have to be confident in their own engineering skills to make this work. The really neat thing is though, that a lot of engineering work, such as braking systems, engines, gearboxes et cetera are already made by proper auto manufacturers; so really this job would be similar to building a partscaster guitar or other kludgematic device.

Surely if I've walked into a junkyard and thought about this, then as I am a certifiable doofus, then some other person in the world must have also already thought about this. If they have not, then I hope that this post is the first domino in a chain-reaction of crazy-go-nuts insanity to build a bonkers-deathtrap machine.

Horse 3130 - A Legacy Of Nothing

 In the world of motorsport, fans were mostly confused this week when the unveiling of the new name for what was Petty GMS motorsport changed after buy in from seven time champion Jimmie Johnson. Richard Petty who was a seven time champion, took over the team decades ago from his father Lee and for a very long time it was called "Petty Enterprises". The team has lurched from mediocrity to mediocrity and has undergone a number of name changes; all of which have contained the name "Petty".

The most obvious name for the firm as it goes forward would have been to use the surnames of seven time champion Richard Petty and seven time champion Jimmie Johnson, and called it "Petty Johnson Enterprises". Job done. I would have thought that was a fait accompli but no. The group has decided to call itself "Legacy Motor Club".

"Legacy Motor Club" is in my not very well paid opinion, a name that sounds like a motor club for old people. It sounds like the kind of name that someone like the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) would give to their motor club, for their members to go on lovely jaunts in the country to have tea and scones. If not that then "Legacy Motor Club" is the name that you should give to another motor club for old war veterans. "Legacy Motor Club" is not the name that one should give to a front line motor racing team.

Here's the thing about naming things. The name for a thing will eventually become normalised, even if it means absolutely nothing. Eventually the name for a thing will be nothing more than that - the name. To that end, the names "Omo", "Mars", "Chep", "McDonald's", and "Monster", all sound perfectly normal even though intrinsically the names do not tell you that they are for a washing powder, chocolate bar, storage pallets, burger restaurant, and caffeinated energy drink. Of themselves they don't tell you very much, if anything, about the product that they are attached to.

"Mars" has absolutely nothing to do with the Roman god of war, or the dusty red plains of the fourth planet. The name "Mars" comes from the surname of the brothers who founded the company and while there have been advertising campaigns which have made use of the inversion of the name to mean war and the red planet, a Mars Bar is a ubiquitous name all by itself.

So it is with naming children. You might feel that as a result of joining an amazing and unique individual with another amazing and unique individual in an act of rudey-doo, that the child produced needs an amazing and unique name to reflect the creation of an entirely new person. No! As they will outlive you when you are gone, and will have to spend an entire lifetime explaining their name to people they have only just met, then giving them an amazing and unique name is just a punishment for a crime that they didn't even commit.

A client of ours, named their child "Mychal". That sounds how you think it sounds but for Mike, it was a nightmare. When he turned 18 years old, on of the first things that he did was to change his name to "Michael". Job done. Changing his name to the name which everyone called him and which he should have been called in the first place, hardly seems like an an act of teenage rebellion does it? I note that when Michael and his wife had their first child, they named him "John". That's a nice sensible name which can become "Johnny" or "J" but those names will come as the result of life experience and the name" John will still sound perfectly sensible when the he is an old man and sees the rolling in of the 22nd century and the year 2100.

Naming a company or firm can be as simple as naming it after what it is, such as Khoder's Pizza Shop, Tasman Tank Co., or even giving it a punny name such as Bingo which is a firm that delivers skip-"bins" and makes them "go" away after you have finished with them. Even naming a firm an acronym which means nothing will eventually take on a meaning of its own. BHP stands for "Broken Hill Proprietary" and NAB stands for "National Australia Bank" and while there was initial outcry over the change of name of the bank, nobody blinks an eyelid at it any more.

If any name, even as one as confronting as the name "Sex Pistols", will eventually become so old hat that it just fades into the background, then is there anything actually wrong with "Legacy Motor Club"? Implicitly, no. The problem is that this name is so bland and so boring that it has already faded into the background. This name is already as dull as dishwater and the real irony of the name is that "Legacy Motor Club" already sounds like it has a legacy that nobody cares about.

This is the other side of naming a thing. The name "Monster Energy" sounds pretty normal now but it still sounds like it might be a little bit dangerous; which is what you want from a product that has to be placed in competition in a marketplace. The name "Mercedes-Benz" sounds perfectly normal now but even so, it is dripping with a history of aero engines, going to war, the worst motor racing disaster in history, stodgy luxury, and winning Formula One World Championships. "Mercedes-Benz" might kind of recall Karl Benz who invented the first proper petrol motor car but practically nobody thinks of Mercedes Jellinek for whom the first half of the name comes from. Likewise the name "Wood Brothers" sounds like it could be the name of a lumber yard but put that in context and it too carries its own history.

The name "Petty-Johnson" would mean absolutely nothing to the vast bulk of people who care nothing about motorsport. It would even mean mostly nothing to the people who like motorsport but do not follow this particular kind of motorsport. In context, Petty-Johnson" would drip with 17 championships and already has a history built into it. The name "Legacy Motor Club" already sounds like absolutely nothing of import. It is so boring that I doubt that it is even going to survive until the end of February. "Legacy Motor Club" is a name with no legacy.

Horse 3129 - Taxation Is Not Theft Because The State Said So And Has The Swords And Guns To Back That Up

Theft is an involuntary payment.

Taxation is an involuntary payment.

Taxation is theft - regardless of your motives or distribution ideas.

- Twitter User Name Withheld, 8th Jan 2023

It is amazing that I am still amazed when I read claims like this on the internet. A statement like this can only derive from someone's selfishness and by extension, their unwillingness to pay tax. 

First, it is time for a definition.

"Theft" is the unlawful taking of property, rights, or claims, from someone else. Note the use of the word 'unlawful'. The concept of theft, relies on the fact that in the first instance a person has a legal right or claim to property, rights, or claims, at all. 

The problem at the heart of this whether of not the claim that "taxation is theft" is true or not. The fundamental question here is whether or not the state has a legal claim to take property (in this case monies), lawfully or not. At least where I live in Australia, this legal claim is explicit in the Constitution which created the new legal person of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Crown therein.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/Constitution/chapter1/Part_V_-_Powers_of_the_Parliament#chapter-01_part-05_51

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

(ii) taxation; but so as not to discriminate between States or parts of States;

- Section 51 (ii), Australia Constitution Act (1900) 

The Commonwealth of Australia claimed the power to lay and collect taxation, which means that it has the legal power to do so; therefore taxation is not theft.

QED.

If this seems very bootstrappy, it is because it is. The state's power to state what the law is, is because the state has the power to state what the law is. I will readily admit that this 'because I said so' is a circular argument which relies on 'because I said so'; and yet that circular argument lies at the heart of every state, every nation, and even the replaceable rules and constitutions of companies. How is that?

The power to lay claim to and collect taxation and enforce law generally, is ultimately derived from the state's monopoly on force. This sounds like a scary concept until you realise that the state's monopoly of force is a more sensible idea than the alternative.

The monopoly of force, or the monopoly of violence, is the state's monopoly to exact punishment for transgression of the law. By placing the sole power of punishment for transgression into the hands of one legal person, then this is far more sensible than the democratisation of force and violence; which is nothing more than a war of all versus all. If there is no central authority, then everyone being free to do as they wish and given the fundamental selfishness of people, would result in force and violence being mustered by whomever could collect and control the most swords and guns. 

This kind of fractured rule of law by whomever could collect and control the most swords and guns, has been repeated again and again throughout history and is only ever resolved when some kind of collective arrangement which creates a central authority is reached, or when someone is able to collect sufficiently enough swords and guns that they eventually subdue everyone else.

English Law is perhaps the most useful example of this in relation to Australia. England which was a series of tribes, was overrun by the Roman Empire starting in 63BCE, remained under the control of a central authority in Rome, before the Romans left and it again devolved into a tribal rabble, where whomever could control the most swords controlled the various regions. 

Over the next 600 years or so, there was a coagulation of power, and various waves of other claimants of power, which eventually resulted an a unified England under Alfred, the whole thing being conquered by William, and the rule of law being consolidated into the Common Law under Henry II in 1154. English Common Law and then Statute Law is nothing more than a formal series of arrangements under which the monopoly of force is held by first the King and then the person of the Crown in trust.

In Australia, which where I live, the monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence, was first exacted by the Crown who encountered minimal resistance, and the six Crowns which made up the Six States, eventually decided to federate into a single formal arrangement called the Commonwealth, in which a new Crown was invented by legislation. The Commonwealth as agent for the Crown, still has that same monopoly of force and that same monopoly of violence; in addition to the Six Crowns of the states which ceded some of their responsibility but maintained their own  monopoly of force and monopoly of violence, in as far as much as their own 'domestic' matters were concerned.

What does any of this have to do with taxation? Everything.

Ever since the invention of money, the authority of the state to issue little blobs of metal that they imposed was acceptable of payment for goods and services, was always backed by monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence. In the first instance, money was issued to soldiers in lieu of grain, meat, clothing et cetera, and it is because of the apparent usefulness and fidus which goes along with it, that anyone found those little blobs of metal worth anything at all. Intrinsically, even a gold coin is still only a little blob of a somewhat useless metal, stamped with the designs of an authority backed by monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence.

The authority to issue money, to lay claim and to collect taxation, ever since the invention of money, was always backed by the authority of the state and its monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence.

More generally, all law is ultimately derived from that same source. Civil and Legal law is ultimately derived from the state's monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence.

Moral Law is ultimately derived from god(s)' monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence. This is true for all religions. Monotheistic religions assume that that monopoly is held by God. Polytheistic religions assume that that monopoly is held by multiple gods. Nontheistic religions assume that that monopoly is not held by the person of some god but by the person who is the system; this person the same kind of person as the Crown. Atheists who claim that God does not exist, will also reject the idea that there is a Moral Law and that the general set of principles which exists is either because of their own moral code, or because of some collective system of mutual altruism.

Even the Laws of Nature, such as Gravity, Magnetism, Electricity, Physics, et cetera, are still ultimately derived from that same source, wherein nature itself holds a monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence. You have no ability to repeal the law of gravity; you can not change arithmetic; electricity, magnetism and physics, do not care if you believe in them or not. Mess with anyof these things and you will find out very quickly that nature's monopoly of force and monopoly of violence will always be exacted.

Taxation isn't theft because the state claimed the right to lay and collect taxation. That legal right is ultimately back by the state's monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence. It doesn't matter whether or not you consent to this at all. Unless you have the ability to collect and control the most swords and guns than the state, then there is no right not to follow the law.

Aside:

Perhaps the most famous piece of rhetoric and historical nonsense on this subject is from the United States' Declaration of Independence.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,".

- United States Declaration of Independence, 4th Jul 1776

It is demonstrably nonsense. This document was written in 1776; after which, the United States as a collective spent seven years collect and control the most swords and guns than the previous state which ruled them. Again, this is not actually the "consent of the governed" in action but the use of swords and guns to establish a new monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence.

The only merit in any sovereign citizen argument is if that person and collects and controls more swords and guns than the state, establishes a new monopoly of force and the monopoly of violence, and thus by action, becomes the new Crown.

Horse 3128 - Why Are We Subsidising Private Schools?

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/sydney-private-school-fees-eclipse-45-000-after-parents-hit-by-hikes-20221222-p5c8bc.html

Fees for some of Sydney’s top private schools have broken through the $45,000 mark, with all-girls institutions Kambala and SCEGGS Darlinghurst among the most expensive after lifting prices by at least five per cent.

Independent schools across the city are hiking fees for 2023, with seven set to charge parents more than $40,000 for year 12, when including tuition costs plus extra technology levies.

Kambala will charge $43,650 for year 12 tuition, but a consolidated fixed levy charge – for items such as laptops and IT infrastructure – will tip the total final-year fees at the Rose Bay school to $46,300. It is a seven per cent increase on last year’s charges.

SCEGGS Darlinghurst will charge $45,044 for year 12, including tuition and an additional technology levy. All-boys school The Scots College in Bellevue Hill will lift fees by 4.7 per cent to a total of $44,600 for final year students.

The King’s School in North Parramatta has hiked fees by 3.6 per cent to $42,936 for year 12, which includes a daily lunch levy, and Moriah College in the eastern suburbs increased fees by 3.25 per cent to $39,700. Stanmore’s Newington College raised fees by 5.7 per cent for senior school students to $38,884 for year 12 boys.

- Sydney Morning Herald, 8th Jan 2023.

The Sydney Morning Herald in its almost annual outrage/jealousy/gossip cycle, ran this story while most people were on holidays and didn't care. I do not know what the actual point of running this story every year is, because the readership of the Sydney Morning Herald now mostly falls into three parts: firstly, the people who want it for the economic and business news as a newspaper of record; secondly, the people who want to read long form journalism; thirdly, the upper echelon of society who like the newspaper but who hate the murdochracy. Practically all of these people are in the upper 20% of incomes of society; hence the likely outcomes of outrage, jealousy, or schadenfreude due to gossip. 

25 years ago I would have read the Sydney Morning Herald as part of the second group but as it pivots more to the stance of becoming a clone of the Australian in both tone and subject, I find myself reading The Saturday Paper more and the only reason that I would read the Sydney Morning Herald now is because I work in an accountancy firm and we fall into the first group.

Presumably the parents who send their sprogs to private schools which cost tens of thousands of dollars every year, like the school and think that they get value for money. If you have two sprogs and it costs you more in school fees than it costs an average wage on AWOTE, then there is no either in a month of Sundays or in Hades, that you are not very well off.

Presumably the parents who send their sprogs to private schools which cost merely single digit thousands of dollars every year, are either inclined to feel a sense of smugness that they are not spending that much money, or perhaps a sense of disappointment upon seeing empirically, the aspirational level of money that they need to achieve.

For the third group of people who read a story like this as though it was a gossip column (which it partly is), then there's a host of mixed emotions surrounding the sometimes knavery, sexual misconduct, violence, and general hubris which only the very rich can afford to get away with. Very bad behaviour is the domain of the very poor and the very rich; with the very poor having their problems compounded by a host of societal problems, and the very rich for whom fines are mere taxes to be paid so that they can continue to do whatever the heck they feel like. It is only the trudging lower and middle classes who need to do real work to either chase the mortgage ball or not get run down by the rent ball, that have to worry about behaving properly and treating people with manners.

What does any of this have to do with the article in question here? Quite apart from the many tens of thousands of dollars which those parents pay to send their children to school, there is a glorious absence of context with the rest of society. This is reinforced and reflected by the following:

In a letter to parents, Kambala school council president Ainslie van Onselen said inflationary pressure had affected the school’s running costs, and it remained conscious of the impact the fee increases may have on families.

“Fees are set to a level to meet operating expenses and contribute towards enhancing the experiences and facilities for students and staff. We will continue to make a priority the attraction, retention and development of the best staff possible,” van Onselen wrote.

- Sydney Morning Herald,  8th Jan 2023.

Take note of what is missing throughout this whole piece. Not once does either the Sydney Morning Herald or a private school acknowledge the fact that we out here in the Commonwealth of Australia, subsidise all of this. The unwritten story which neither the Sydney Morning Herald nor any private school dare to admit, is that the public subsidy of private supply of goods and services, is always going to be in some way inflationary. 

Furthermore, the public subsidy of private supply of goods and services, distorts the market for those goods and services. We have an equivalent with the First Home Buyers Grant which sounds like a good idea until you realise that the only net effect that these systems and schemes had in the real world was to increase the market price of housing, until the First Home Buyers Grant was exactly absorbed in the price. 

The only way that the public subsidy of private supply of goods and services is not going to be inflationary and not distort the market price, is if the government imposes some kind of cap on the fees that private schools can charge. Of course the private schools would jump up and down and accuse the government of blue murder, despite and in spite of the fact that they are receiving public monies but never let that fact disturb you. 

The very obvious solution to reducing the inflationary pressure on school fees (and house prices), is the removal of government subsidies and/or the direct provision of public schools (and housing). Removing any and all government subsidies would mean that if private schools wanted to attract more students, then they had better lower their prices. Then again the fact that private school fees are so high in the first place, is less about wanting to charge a fee for service but about deliberately keeping out the riff-raff. Fees for service are by definition a barrier to entry, however small, and are exclusionary by nature. 

I very much question how just the system is. As someone who does real work for a living and who pays tax, I expect the government to provide public education. What I find to be intolerable and downright insulting, is that the parents who send their children to private schools, who voluntarily reject public education, then turn around and demand that we in Commonwealth subsidise their private exclusionary choices.

I do not think it is fair to apportion public monies in Commonwealth according to the Matthew Principle - to those whom have, even more will be given; but to those who have not, even what little they have will be taken away.

Of course the parents who send their children to private schools, who voluntarily reject public education, will argue that as taxpayers that they have some kind of claimed right to be able to say what happens to their taxation. The problem with this line of argument is that it simply isn't true when applied to taxation law. Nowhere in the Income Tax Assessment Acts 1936 or 1997, does any taxpayer have any claim at all to direct the Crown to apply their taxation to anything. 

To be fair, as someone who likes the idea of public education, I would rather that education budgets are spent according to need and to expand the opportunities for people to go to further education, such as university and trade schools. I find it abhorrent that we have any skills shortage, when dollars which could have been applied at technical and training colleges, are instead sent to subsidise private school children at private schools.

Education is one of the few places where we fund the building of the kind of nation that we have tomorrow. If we are funding people who spend 12 years in an environment which is funded by private exclusionary choices and subsidised by public monies which perpetuate those private exclusionary choices then what kind of people who we build that creates the kind of nation that we have tomorrow? We've been running that experiment for at least 50 years now. 

As someone who has been in and around the world of finance and law for more than 20 years, I have seen the kinds of people produced by private schools. These are the people whose parents bought economic signals for them and who on many many occasions, look down on everyone else with an active sense of contempt. If this is what we chose to spend public monies on, then as far as I am concerned, it very much looks like a hideous waste of public monies.

Aside:

Psst. Here's a little reminder to parents. You can send your kids to public schools for free. As they are bound by the curriculae and the same qualification requirements for teachers, then the end result is pretty good. It will also be good for your children to spend time with other children who look different to them, who come from different faith backgrounds, who come from vastly different historical circumstances because those practical lessons of compassion, tolerance, maybe even accepting difference, only come by meeting and speaking to different people. 

Horse 3127 - Twelfth Time The Charm?

If at first you don't succeed, try try again.

If at eleventh you don't succeed, give up.

As I type this,  Kevin McCarthy (R) has lost the ELEVENTH round of voting for Speaker of the House of Representatives in the United States. It takes a special kind of stubbornness, stupidity, and madness to keep on trying the same thing 11 times in a row. I would have though that after someone had gone 0-11 that they'd get the hint but apparently not. I would have also thought that the RNC after going 0-11 that they'd get the hint that the House wants someone more moderate and more centrist but apparently not. 

It has to be said that the Republicans’ failure to elect a Speaker of the House, purely down to a small yet vociferous group of hardened nutcase MAGA Republicans. 

Just for context, the last time that an incoming House failed to elect a speaker on its first roll call was the 68th Congress; which started its term on December 3-5, 1923, in the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal. That was in the wake of corruption which saw  Secretary of the Interior Albert Bacon Fall accepting bribes from oil companies and going to prison, following the investigation led by Senator Thomas J. Walsh. It is fitting that 100 years later, following a similar era of corruption, extremism and chaos, that this should be the current turn of events. 

For my Australian readers and readers who are familiar with a Westminster Style parliament, the Speaker of the United States' House of Representatives, is completely different. Not only are they the de facto leader of the House and thus have the same kind of party role as the Prime Minister, but they are also the leader of House business. This means that they have the power of the calendar to decide which reach the floor and when. They also chair the majority party's steering committee in the House. This role as head of what is effectively the head of Congress' business, very obviously means that they are absurdly powerful. The best way to describe this is that they are the combined roles of Tony Burke, Anthony Albanese and Milton Dick all at once.

On the other side of the chamber, Democratic Congressman Hakeem Jeffries received unanimous support from the Democratic caucus and almost as an aside, became the first Black lawmaker nominated for Speaker of the House. Of course he doesn't have the numbers to overcome the Republicans in the chamber but the Democrats showing a united front is more that can be said for the rabble opposite.

Also what is really curious is that The House of Representatives can literally choose anyone in the world to hold any of their offices:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

- Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5, US Constitution (1789)

This has meant throughout this process, there have been vexatious nominations such as Donald Trump, who don't even sit in the House, as Speaker. This kind of thing is not exactly new either. The most common vexatious nomination for Speaker of the House is Mickey Mouse; which itself is a pretty good metaphor for American politics generally.

Yet again, the whole system proves itself by demonstration to be utterly terrible at every single turn. What's even worse about this is that if someone can't even establish control over ungrouped House members, then when the House is eventually brought under the Speakership of someone, the necessary discipline to be able to get simple things done just won't be there. The simple and necessary things like passing a budget, increasing the debt ceiling (since America was started on the basis of a tax dodge by business and has never really understood why taxation is important in civil society), getting the passage of law through - all of these things require discipline on the floor, at least symbolically, and if that never exists, then the whole process is bunk.

The basic problem is that over the last five years, enabled by right-wing trash media who are worse than terrorists, we've seen the rise of whole factions of eejits who don't even believe in government. Government is necessary for the functioning of society, and as all of the institutions are steadily being degraded and dismantled, the goblins which have emerged from the shadows, are all representative of a kind of anti-civil society. The really stupid thing is that these people have been elected by an equally eejitacious general public who, given inputs from right-wing trash media have decided to become right-wing trash people. In that respect, an 0-11 set of results in failing to elect a speaker, is absolutely representative of the society which created it. 

Democracy works?

Horse 3126 - The Rise Of The Black ATM Machine Machines

It used to be that once upon a time, in return for us depositing our money with a bank that they would let us get it back when we wanted to but that when we didn't want it back, they would keep a record of it and lend it out to other people. The cost of someone else borrowing the money would be paid back to the bank as interest and maybe they might give us a little bit to entice us to keep it there.

In pocketing the difference between the money that they collected in interest and they amount that they paid back to us as interest, banks became ridiculously profitable; to the point where of the ASX 200, the ten biggest companies were four banks, three mining companies, two supermarkets, and a telco - Dirt farming, Data farming, Actual farming, and most profitable of all Money farming.

The banks used to have great stone faced premises which faced the communities in which they stood. I think that these buildings were supposed to project a message of permanence, of solidity, of remaining firm against the storms of life. We should of course now realised that these facades were nothing more than that. They were messages of permanence, backed up with nothing more than the wind which sailed through behind them.

But sometime over the past three years, when the banks only started to suffer as result of everyone else in the world suffering, they all collectively decided to go full on knavish and start taking away the premises and machinery that allowed us to get some of out money back. In addition to closing the physical premises left right and centre, because apparently out money is good enough but all of out faces are scum, banks have decided to start closing all of the automatic teller machines as well, because out money is good enough but paying the electricity costs and the relatively small insurance costs in letting us get back some of our own money, isn't good enough.

At my local shopping centre in the wilds of suburbia, in the scum scum scum western suburbs, the banks have not only collectively closed branches, but the automatic teller machines have now been replaced by one operated by independent private firms. Where once there were seperate machines which were operated by the big four banks all independent of each other, they are all gone. The one black machine which simultaneously stands for none of them and yet simultaneously stands for all of the banks' collective disdain for us, stands lonely. The free marketeers who trumpeted the benefits of competition must surely realise that they choice that they kept on blasting away at, is no more. There is no choice. Or rather, there's Hobbes' choice, Buckley's or none.

Of course I realise that there will always be a class of companies which exist in the spaces left behind, who do nothing more than charge usury but this is a space which should actually exist. The banks already make money hand over fist without having to do very much, and there is a good argument to be made that the entire financial system is purely made up of knaves who just make their money taking the cream of the top, as they moves piles of money from one place to another. 

Practically all of these third party automatic teller machines are trimmed in black and have generic names like ATMX, ATM+, Premier Cash, and other assorted scumbucketry names. They know that they don't have to try and put any effort into branding themselves because they aren't really selling a product for which brand differentiation makes any sense. The banks themselves already went to the effort of establishing brands and in some cases for more than a century, but the third party automatic teller machine people are dispensing a service which most of us would rather they didn't.

It's not like the product that these third party automatic teller machines is selling is particularly revolutionary. The money changers in the temple in Jerusalem in the first century were examples of this 'service'; which for the same reason that these exist, is because the people who should have been providing the service, through inactivity and laziness, either gave up or sold the space to them. 

As a consumer the worst thing about this is that there's not exactly anyone you can complain to about it. There's no point blowing your lid at your local bank branch because that likely doesn't exist any more; if you phone the bank you're just as likely to get some call centre in Greater Ethnia and Foreign Overseasus where the staff are completely powerless to help; the banks themselves are run by people who are increasingly unanswerable to even their own shareholders; and the amount of responsibility which exists is spread so far and thin that to pierce it is like popping a soap bubble.

As I hammer away on my laptop, the place where I am currently sat sitting stands as a mausoleum to what was once Australia's central bank. I am currently in a very trendy coffee shop in Wollongong, which was once a branch of the Commonwealth Bank. This bank was the central bank for the nation, before it became just a government owned banking corporation, before it became a privately owned banking corporation, before this branch was sold off and is now just a coffee shop (I did not want to go to a chain place).

Across the street there is an electronic billboard with adverts for fashion companies, fizzy drinks, petrol stations and most ironic of all, the very bank which used to occupy the premises which I am currently sitting in. Their slogan is one word "Can"; which I also take to be in irony because I can not. I also realise that this is very much like being an old man yelling at a cloud for all the good that it will do. The people who have done this to us, are taking fees and profits away; so they are unlikely to stop. 

Horse 3125 - We Should Build Aerotropolis Speedway

If I may be so bold that I should say something, I think that in the planning of Aerotropolis (Sydney's second international airport) at Badgery's Creek, that we should also build a 1⅓ mile speedway.

Wait, what?

In my lifetime, the number of motor racing venues has been ravaged. Amaroo Park, Oran Park, Liverpool Raceway, Castlereagh Speedway, Sydney Showgrounds, and Granville Showgrounds have all been closed. Sydney Motorsport Park at Eastern Creek now includes a racetrack, drag strip and short track dirt speedway, but when you also consider that we've also lost Catalina Park and Warwick Farm raceway, that's 8 down and only really 1 or 2 up. When you also consider that Wakefield Park near Goulburn has also been permanently closed, the state of motor racing looks pretty dire.

The reason why all of these motor racing venues has been close is the same reason why Luna Park at Milson's Point has no proper roller coaster. What consistently happens is that a place which has been operating for years, and is in the middle of nowhere, gets encroached by housing abd big-box stores and then the whinging begins. Okay, so it isn't nice that motor racing is noisy but then the obvious question is "why did these people move next to a motor racing venue?" My mind boggles.

I like the idea of a big speedway. Australia has a long history of running Sprint Cars and Midgets on dirt tracks, along with Modifieds, Late Models and assorted other things but speedway in Australia has always been run on very dinky little dirt tracks. Quarter-Mile and Third-Mile tracks are compact but they're not brilliant to watch. A Half-Mile venue can be built like its own stadium and that's nice but we still don't get the kind of open throttle racing where tactics and strategy is played out. America with various classes of 'stock car' racing and formula racing, repeatedly demonstrates that high-speed oval racing is brilliant. The Indianapolis 500 is the single biggest day of spectator sport in the world and has been for a very long time. Cars moving around at 200mph is a thing of genuine awe.

However, I think that the undisputed queen of speedway racing in the world, is not Indianapolis or the high banks of Daytona, but rather the track that gained the nicknames of "The Lady In Black" and the track that is "Too Tough To Tame". Darlington Speedway is a Mile And A Third track; which I think is the perfect size for this kind of venue.

Darlington was built in 1950; which means that as the first of the "superspeedways" it was also built before they properly knew how to build them. Sure, Indianapolis Motor Speedway had been around since 1911 but it had never been used for stock cars. Darlington was built in an era when stock car racing was still being run on dirt ovals like other speedway racing was, and across the sands of Daytona Beach. 

Legend has it that this mile and a bit egg-shaped oval, was shaped that way because the owner wanted to keep his duck pond at one end of the track. Because the track was already built with a compromise, what resulted was something that wouldn't be copied. The two ends of the race track are different radius corners. Not only are they different radius corners but the banking at the two ends of the track is different. This means that a car which is set up for one end of the track will not do as well at the other and vice versa. 

Using Google Maps, I can cut out Darlington and plonk it the proposed area for Aerotropolis. It fits excellently up in the north-western corner, near The Northern Road and Elizabeth Drive.

Building a motor racing venue next to a 24-hour international airport also solves the problem of bringing people to the venue because in building the necessary infrastructure for an airport to exist, that menas that the transport links are already there. Calder Park's problem was that it was out in the middle of nowhere. The truly great motor racing venue of Mount Panorama 'Tourist Drive' was kind of built in the middle of nowhere but due to the legendary status it has built up for itself over the years, people are prepared to make the trip.

If we're going to build an airport with 24 hour flights, then the noise produced by this thing will be immense. One of the perennial problems that motor racing venues have is that people will complain about the noise but if we were to build a venue right next to an international airport, people can hardly complain, can they?