Horse 3297 - Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team - LEONARD BERNSTEIN

https://www.visacashapprb.com/team-launch/

https://www.visacashapprb.com/team-launch/pdf/Visa%20and%20Red%20Bull%20Formula%20One%20Teams%20Announce%20Global%20Partnership.pdf

San Francisco, Faenza and Milton Keynes, UK· The Formula One grid is charging into the 2024 season with a new look and new support. Today, Red Bull Fl Teams and Visa (NYSE: V) announced an unprecedented multi-year agreement where Visa will become the first global partner of both Red Bull Fl teams, bringing a new look team to the Fl grid in the form of Visa Cash App RB, formerly Scuderia AlphaTauri.

- Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team, 24th Jan 2024.

What?

What?!

WHAT?!

WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN.

It is not impossible for sporting clubs and teams to be named after the companies with own them. Bayer 04 Leverkusen Fußball GmbH or Bayer Leverkusen,  was founded in 1904 by employees of the German pharmaceutical company Bayer AG. Likewise, a headline sponsor claiming the naming rights of a Formula One team goes back to at least 1968 when John Player & Sons Ltd. bought the naming rights and the livery rights for Team Lotus; thus from 1968 onwards Team Lotus was officially named Gold Leaf Team Lotus or JPS Lotus. In 1986, Toleman Motorsport was bought by Luciano, Giuliana, Gilberto and Carlo Benetton, who owned the fashion company Benetton Group SpA. They formally changed the name from Toleman Motorsport to Benetton Formula Lt, or simply Benetton, and the team has been passed from hand to hand many times since. The idea that a team can change its name is not new at all.

For the 2024 season, the team name iterations are for all current teams are broadly...

Ferrari

McLaren

Williams

Haas

(these four have changed sponsor alignment names but never actually the name of the team)

Stewart -> Jaguar -> Red Bull (3)

BAR -> Honda -> Brawn -> Mercedes-Benz (4)

Sauber -> BMW -> Sauber -> Alfa Romeo -> Sauber (5)

Toleman -> Benetton ->  Renault -> Lotus -> Renault -> Alpine (5)

Jordan -> Midland -> Spyker -> Force India -> Racing Point -> Aston Martin (3)

This team has been rebranded surprisingly few times...

Minardi -> Toro Rosso -> Alpha Tauri -> Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team (4)

What?

What?!

WHAT?!

WHAT IS THIS I DON'T EVEN.

Somehow I feel that Red Bull GMBH of Austria has decided that by making their second team as hard as possible to pronounce, that they will put it into the mouths of the broadcasters for longer. That sounds like a good idea in principle but in practice, that's never going to happen. Broadcasters will shorten this in some way; even if the car is simply called a Visa. 

At least when Gold Leaf Lotus bought the naming rights to Colin Chapman's team in 1968, they arrived at a name which was relatively easy to work with. Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team is not. VCARFOT is not any better. What's worse is that a single letter "V" also would have been a better choice than this. You know what would have been better than Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team? Anything!

Lance Stroll saw nothing wrong with renaming "Racing Point", "Aston Martin". Sauber rented out their name to "Alfa Romeo" for a while and this year they have reverted to Sauber; even if the official team team is something silly like Kick Sauber or whatever it is. Renaming Jaguar "Red Bull" or renaming Toleman "Benetton" were both pretty blunt but the truth is, that we eventually got used to them. Sauber have shown that they can rename themselves BMW or Alfa Romeo and then revert back to Sauber and it is fine. On that note, what would have been wrong with just Minardi? Formula One is just as much about the traditions and deep lore of the sport as any other sport. Twenty years later, the team from Faenza is still working out of that same place. 

Eventually whatever you name a thing becomes normal, however weird. When I was in high school one of the running gags was that if a teacher ever asked for a team name in some instant jokey class competition for something, or maybe even in a sports competition, one of about a dozen of us across several classes would invariably call the team the "Alexander Graham Bell Memorial Team". This was not because we happened to like the inventor or the telephone,  Alexander Graham Bell, but because as 12 and 13 year old kids in Year 7, making a teacher say something stupid was hilarious. If you repeat a joke later, then it becomes a call-back. If you repeat a joke often enough, it becomes a running gag. If you repeat a joke for five or six years, then it becomes part of the fabric and furniture.

That is what the Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team sounds like to me. It sounds like the idea of a bunch of 12 and 13 year old kids in Year 7, who have been let loose to name a thing and they have done so badly. I have no doubt that Gold Leaf Team Lotus sounded weird when it was fist said but it eventually became part of the furniture. People still called the team "Lotus" though. In Australia the Marlboro Holden Dealer Team was usually shortened to the MHDT or even just HDT if that was necessary. When it came to putting the Alexander Graham Bell Memorial Team onto an electronic scoreboard in an indoor cricket centre, it was shortened to AGBMT. Probably VCARFOT might appear in the top left hand graphic during a Formula One broadcast but to impose that boat anchor around the neck of the poor commentator is simply daft.

A sport like NASCAR which has liveries changing from week to week in a kaleidoscope of colour, thinks nothing of weird team names for a week. Even then though, the commentary team will still refer to their cars as just the number such as "the 3" or "the 22". It doesn't matter how much "Go Bowling", or "Fed Ex Ground", or "Corvette Parts" have paid either. The ultimate statement that you can name a team anything and paint the car in any colour, is still brought back to a sensible centre with a pragmatic naming scheme. Unless the Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team changes their name to something at least sayable by normal people, then they too are in danger of being called "the 3" or "the 22".

Weird team names such as Life, Eurobrun, or Fondmetal, as well as three-letter-acronym abominations like AGS, ATS, and BAR, have all existed in the past. They were all reasonably acceptable because people could at least say them. The Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team is not really a Formula One Team name as it is a line from Bob Dylan's "Subterranean Homesick Blues" and even that would make for a better team name. 

I think that if anyone does manage to say Visa Cash App RB Formula One Team in a broadcast then it should be immediately followed by "LEONARD BERNSTEIN" because it's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

Aside:

Is it any weirder than Lizardy Motorcycle Club? I don't think so.

Horse 3296 - I Rank Mustards

On the first proper day back in the office for 2024, a client of ours who arrived bright and early in the morning, said that he had been shopping at the Aldi on the other side of Military Road and was excited that he had made a purchase of something that he had never had before - Hot English Mustard.

You can generally guarantee, since I am a connoisseur of the mundane and boring, that if a discussion happens about something dull, I want in. Yes, history might have a few great heroes but it is the great middling millions who actually make history happen. Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Hatshepsut, and Churchill, all would have never done anything great without the ordinary people of the nation working behind them. Likewise, I think that if you really want to know what a place is like when you go travelling, then you need to visit the supermarket, go for a bus or train ride, and make an extra effort to listen to local radio and TV. 

Mustard is a thing which is glorious in mundanity. This is why, having a serious and dull discussion about mustard is so wonderful. Who cares about mustard? Well, it turns out that everyone does.

Since everyone does care about mustard (and don't pretend that you do not), then I have compiled the objective list of mustards from the bottom to the top. If you don't like then list, then complain about it. Prove my premise that everyone cares about mustard. This is exactly why it is the things which don't matter at all actually matter the most. 

12 - Honey Mustard

This makes the list at number 12 because although it is tasty, it really serves no purpose. Honey Mustard exists to be different because it can be. Other better combinations exist such as Dijonnaise. Honey Mustard is the thing that fancy cafes have when they want to charge double digit dollars for a sandwich. Everything that Honey Mustard does can either be done by regular Mustard and Honey (for less money) or other condiments.

11 - Heinz Mild Mustard

Heinz Corporation is wildly successful because it tries to be all things to all people. Heinz Mild Mustard also tries to be all things to all people but it ends up being nothing to everyone. This is at 11 because I think that it is literally impossible to form any kind of opinion about it. Heinz Mild Mustard exists. It is definitely a thing in the world. 

10 - Colonel Mustard

Every list which ranks different kinds of Mustard is incomplete without the army officer in the the board game Cluedo. As Cluedo was invented in 1943, then Colonel Mustard was likely an officer from the First World War.  As Cluedo is a timeless board game, Colonel Mustard is periodically updated. In the 2016 edition of the game, it is suggested that Mr Boddy is blackmailing him over alleged treason and war profiteering.

In all iterations, he has a moustache and a "here, here, and here" stick (okay, I have no idea what that stick is for other than pointing here, here, and here). He is always a shady character, usually a misogynist and/or womaniser, and occasionally a lovable rogue who happened to be caught with the battalion's petty cash. He did it, one sixth of the time, and with one sixth of the weapons.

9 - Yellow Mustard

This is you all purpose generic mustard. It might be texturally interesting. It might have vinegary hints. It might have hints of horseradish. It is often coloured with Yellow Tartrazine (E102), which has been banned in several countries even though no data exists to suggest that it causes cancer.

8 - American Mustard 

American Mustard is different to Yellow Mustard in that it actually has a taste and that taste is American. Both Heinz and French's make classic American Mustards, which pair perfectly with hot dogs. Hot dogs may be eaten with both tomato ketchup and American Mustard. American Mustard is the only mustard that comes with the sound track of fighter jets, gunfire, various people yelling -isms, and waving Betsy Ross' banner in all directions.

Heinz American Mustard has no colours and no artificial flavours and is better than French's Mustard in all cases.

7 - Grey Mustard

Now I know that technically Yellow Mustard and Grey Mustard are likely to be the same thing but Grey Mustard is the one with less colour and more grit. Grey Mustard is the one most likely to settle out in the jar and needs to be remixed. Grey Mustard also comes with an air of exotica for free; including in those places where it is made. There is no inherent reason why Grey Poupon should be objectively better than any other mustard, other than saying the words "Grey Poupon" is fun. 

6 - Dijon Mustard 

As we shall see later, French Mustard is generally pretty good. Dijon Mustard somehow takes French Mustard and dials it back. Dijon Mustard is better than normal common mustards but only by a small margin. The interesting thing about Dijon Mustard is that it replaces the vinegar usually used in prepared mustards with verjuice, which is the acidic juice of unripe grapes.

5 - Pat Mustard

In the episode "Speed 3" of Father Ted (S3 E3), Mrs. Doyle repeatedly alleged that was low on milk and kept on using lots in Ted's tea so Pat Mustard who was the Milkman would come more often.

Later in the episode, Father Ted and Father Dougal are judging a cute baby competition by looking at photographs when they notice that many of them look suspiciously similar to Pat Mustard. Ted suspects that Pat had fathered several children across Craggy Island and when he eventually shows the photographs to Mr. Fox who is Pat Mustard's employer, Mr. Fox fires Pat and Dougal takes his place.

To exact revenge, Pat places a bomb on the milk float and telephones Ted telling him that if Dougal were to drive over 4 miles an hour, then the bomb will be armed, and if he goes under 4 miles an hour, it will explode and kill him.

Pat Mustard is one of the few actual genuine villains of the series who by the end of the episode has racked up attempted murder, terrorism, illegal use of explosives as crimes and mass adultery as sins.

4 - Wholegrain Mustard 

Wholegrain Mustard is basically Yellow or Grey Mustard but with grainy bits in. What's not to love here? This is similar in spirit to Crunchy Peanut Butter; which is Peanut Butter but with bits in. Wholegrain Mustard is more mustard per mustard than other mustard. In the world of mustard where more is more, then more mustard per mustard is objectively better. 

3 - French Mustard

All mustards are good but this is the first on the list which aspired to greatness and actually achieved it. French Mustard is not actually French in origin but was invented by Colman's in 1936.

2 - English Mustard

Whatever was great about French Mustard, is amplified with English Mustard. English Mustard provides that heat and bite which is excellent when paired with roast beef, silverside, or spiced pork. English Mustard uses both yellow and brown seeds and is stronger because it has a relatively low acidic content.

1 - Hot English Mustard

Whatever was great about French Mustard, is amplified with English Mustard, and then amplified again with Hot English Mustard. I am truly happy when I have fire snorting out of my nose, when my eyes are crying, and when I have keeled over on the floor because of the heat. Hot English Mustard, Gojujang, Wasabi, and Chili Kebab Sauce are the four superheroes of the condiment world. 

Horse 3295 - The Iowa Caucuses By The Numbers

The 2024 Election season has begun in the United States in earnest, with the carrying on of the Iowa Caucuses. Now the fact that this happened on Monday 15th, is an indication that although Horse is not the fastest breaking news service, it is one of the more careful. This then is not exactly new news but old news or perhaps to be more precise olds.

For reference, since the "Do Your Own Research" brigade don't actually believe when you do provide any kind of facts which run counter to their weird kind of insane narrative, I have taken all statistics from the Iowa State Government's own website.

https://sos.iowa.gov/elections/voterreg/regstat.html

2,083,979 - This is the number of registered voters in Iowa.

I found this to be interesting. In the 2020 Census, there were 3,190,369 people in Iowa and of those 2,192,686 were over the age of 18. This means that there are at least 108,707 people missing from the electoral rolls and if we use the 2020 figures as static, then 4.9% of people who were over the age of 18 were not on the electoral roll. Usually when you talk about statistical deviance which would be then deem the survey as unreliable, the margin of error is about 2%. This is already more than double that.

It is safe to say that in Iowa, a full 1 in 20 people are disenfranchised, either because they do not know how to engage with the political system or refuse to out of hand. If 1 in 20 people died because of a pandemic, then that would be usually deemed to be unacceptable and measures would be taken to prevent this but given that the United States from 5th July 1776 has repeatedly confirmed that it abjectly does not hold the truths to be self evident, has repeatedly proven that all men are not created equal, that unalienable Rights are indeed alienable, and that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are really only available for the few, then disenfranchising people before you even begin seems to be completely expected.

718,901 - This is the number of registered Republican voters in Iowa.

One of the consequences of having two very very big political machines in the United States, is that they are so very very big that they very very much are able to control public policy by diktat. In 1968, The Democratic Party which had been the party of Kennedy and Johnson, now found that the ongoing war in Vietnam was so abhorrent to the electorate at large, that the Democratic Party's National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, became the site of antiwar protesters. These protesters were then brutally attacked by the Police and the whole thing descended into riots. After the smoke cleared and the DNC got on conventioning, the then Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Senator Edmund Muskie of Maine were nominated for President and Vice President, respectively.

This left such a scar on the machinery of politics in the United States that both machines decided to hold more open primaries; so what we have now is a bad fix to a problem. The whole voting machinery now requires voters to register for one side or the other, or some hitherto unelectable party. 

109,214 - This is the number of registered Republican voters who bothered to show up at the caucuses in Iowa.

In Iowa, in January, it is cold. As I write this, it is 5:40PM Sydney time and 12:40AM in Iowa. It is also -19°C in Des Moines.

It is little wonder that if you have to go out in temperatures which do not even exist in my country, that only 15% of people can actually be bothered. Quite frankly with such an environmental barrier to voting, I am amazed that a hundred thousand people actually left their homes for this. The caucuses are not a simple matter of putting a chit in a ballot box but involve going to a big hall and running around the room and forming clumps by way of support for a candidate. 

56,260 - This is the number of registered Republican voters who caucused for Donald Trump in Iowa.

These are the people who braved actual freezing conditions, to go and stand in a room, to show support for Donald Trump in Iowa. Maybe these Iowans are particularly enthused at the idea of a second Trump Presidency, or maybe they like the idea of  going to a big hall and running around the room and forming clumps as a means of free exercise instead of a gym membership to stop from freezing to death.

So then, what do we get after all of this?

51.51% - This is the percentage of actual caucused votes for Donald Trump in Iowa.

This is the headline number which the various media companies with trumpet from the rooftops as if Donald Trump was having a Roman Triumph. However the really scary and sad truth is the following number.

2.6% - This is the percentage of registered voters who caucused for Donald Trump in Iowa.

This is insanity. 

In terms of actual popularity, then Donald Trump is statistically less popular than either missing from the electoral rolls, or refusing to register. 

I live in a country where it is the duty of every elector to vote at each election; which means that voting is compulsory. Also, as we have preferential voting, then every single one of the candidates who could have appeared in these caucuses, for not just both sides but all sides, could actually appear on the same ballot paper. This would mechanically negate the need for the existence of the primaries entirely. 

Having someone endorsed as the prime nominee for anything with only 2.6% of the electorate is hardly democracy. If there was any proof that the United States' voting system was utterly stupid at every step of the process then this is it.

Horse 3294 - Hey Hey, Ho Ho. Ita Buttrose Has Got To Go!

I have heard rumours coming from inside the corporation that Ita Buttrose will at some point in 2024, resign as head of the ABC. What I suspect has happened under her quite tory tenure is that the ABC has been pruned of many things which are vital to it, and then has let other things deliberately wither. Furthermore given that she was picked by a Prime Minister who although probably didn't break the law, was certainly corrupt enough to break its conventions, her unsaid remit (as far as we know) has been one of deliberate degradation of the ABC.

The thing is that we should have expected this. Ms Buttrose came from a wildly successful career in magazines, including being captain of the ship at the Australian Women's Weekly, before retiring to become a mildly lovable elder stateswoman. This would have been fine except that running the ABC is absolutely not like running a business and putting a demonstratively tory leader in charge, has proven that Ms Buttrose knows keenly the price of everything but the value of nothing and certainly not the value of the ABC.

I will suggest that the ABC as an independent broadcaster, which is owned in commonwealth by us the people of the Commonwealth of Australia, can and does have a responsibility to hold the Government of the day to account. For this reason the ABC has been consistently attacked during its 90 years by both Labor, and UAP and Liberal Governments (functionally there has never really been a Federal Country/National Government). However, taking a stance of being merely anti-government and in the current case, clearly partisan, is bad for the corporation (which is the reason why Ms Buttrose was picked by PM Morrison to run it). 

The ABC is an important thing for the Commonwealth of Australia to have, as the commercial media in this country, have backed away from doing actual journalism. Reporting the news with a half-hour bulletin is one thing but the commercial media in this country really does shy away from doing any kind of objective long form journalism. I note that tonight, which is an ordinary night of the week, there is no long form journalism on any of the channels from 7West, Nine Ent Co, Network Ten, or even SBS. Sky News Australia and ABC News 24 are dedicated news channels but even then, Sky News is a passing parade of sycophantic right-wing apparatchiks whose job it is to repeat the current company message of the day until the people who are watching believe it.

I think that the head of the ABC needs to be someone not necessarily with perception and insight but who believes that the corporation should still be there for its bicentennial in 2132. 

The last four years have been particularly bad for journalism in Australia. The number of actual journalists on the ground who go out and collect the news has been decimated. Journalists do not for the most part attend council meetings, or even sit in parliament buildings as much; which means that they do not report on the goings on of government because they physically can not (because they do not exist to do so). The height of the pandemic proved this keenly, where we had a special kind of rollingly boring and yet critical pandemonium, where nobody really knew what was going on but and the press packs were tiny. You can now see the end effect of this in print media, where the number of pages produced by News Corp and Nine Ent Co is padded out by sporked press releases from various business and government departments, and where the columnists who actually do write longer pieces are almost always legacy employees.

Radio fares not much better. Long gone are the days when trains were full of people reading newspapers but even when people are in their cars, at least where I live in Sydney, there really only are three radio stations which have any real news content at all. These are ABC Radio National, ABC News Radio, and 2GB which is a Nine Ent Co station. 2GB is a kind of Sky News Lite, where hosts could very well easily rotate between Sky News and 2GB and nobody would be any the wiser.

To someone in want of sinking a nail, every tool is a hammer. Likewise when it comes to journalism, everything is that wee ickle section. News is News. Politics is politics. Finance is finance. Sport is sport. However, to deny that news or sport or finance is not political, is to deny reality. Finance is a competitive sport where there are losers and mostly those losers are the great general public. 

I do not like the immediacy of reportage inside the Canberra Bubbles as though it was sport but the people who don't like democracy do. If you can reduce the news to just what is going on here and now with no context, then this is excellent at giving people the illusion that they are informed when in reality they are not. Yes it is important but there are many other areas outside the Bubble.

The real irony in the twenty-first century is that although the news cycle has sped up, media space has expanded to infinity because of both the internet and multi-channel services on digital media, that actual journalistic ability has shrunk. There is a flurry of activity when someone in power resigns and then the resulting speculation of who is going to replace them, but when it comes to the actual decisions being made and why they are happening, we get almost nothing. 

The inherent problem with news is that both the news itself and the messages coming from government and business are often completely incoherent. With skeleton staffs to try and makes sense of the floating detritus of events that have happened but aren't quite of themselves actual news, we the general public are very much let down. This is excellent for the people in power, not just in government but also in business because they can act with impunity, safe in the knowledge that nobody can hold them to account because nobody knows what's going on. There is more to the news than simply running around and saying what is happening at this exact minute in time. In fact, in many ways that isn't that vital because the next minute something else is happening, and what we should have all learned from the pandemic and even tracking back well into last decade, is that a slightly longer view on the problems facing the nation is actually what is important. How soon is now? I might be the son and the heir of nothing in particular but even I need a slightly wider brief as an informed responsible citizen to know what's going on.

This last point is why I hope Ita Buttrose either resigns or is fired. It is increasingly obvious that she works not for the betterment of the ABC as a vital public asset, nor the pursuit of journalism as a vital public need. The axing of a central political journalism department and the personal removal o journalists on the say so of outside interested parties who do not like to hear the truth, is bad for both the ABC and democracy in general. I have tiptoed around three serious issues here but it seems that breaking events may force me to tip my hand.

On Monday, the union members who are staff at the ABC, passed a 125-3 no confidence motion in David Anderson as their Managing Director. The ABC Board meets today, and I think that given that various WhatsApp messages and emails, that the wider board has no other ethical choice sack this knave and then formally apologise to every single Australian for their editorial decisions and business actions which have followed (including the sacking of some journalists) in recent weeks in relation to Palestine and genocide.

Now that I think about it, the fact that the staff at the ABC, have sent strong and unequivocal message to their management, is necessary. As the ABC is a valuable public asset, then having it run by incompetent, racist and fully-captured leaders, is unacceptable if not unconscionable. Having the staff say to p David Anderson they have no confidence in him, is not a far step away from the staff themselves saying that they they have no confidence in the ABC. It is absolutely essential that the people who live in a democracy have an actually fair and balanced media.

Horse 3293 - Alarmed But Not Surprised. Wide Cars Are Not Wide?!

While looking through the VFACTS data for the calendar year of 2023 from the Federal Chamber of Automotive Industries, I was both alarmed but not suprised that no traditional passenger car was in the Top 10 of sales in Australia. This means that no hatchback, no sedan, no wagon, no coupe, and no convertible features in the top ten at all. This is a far cry from even 20 years ago when all of the top 10 was sedans, wagon and hatches.

This means that the SUVification of the motor industry is practically complete; aided and abetted by taxation policy as of those sales, a full 93% of them were with ABNs; which means that most new cars in Australia are written off for taxation purposes. This in my opinion is a massive massive rort; especially when you consider that we don't even have a car industry in Australia to speak of. The car industry in Australia is functionally a labour aid program; for South-East Asia.

As data is beautiful and with my hackles, heckles, feckles, and schmeckles well and truly up, I got curious and drilled down into the data set. What I found is surprising and perhaps shows my patriotic prejudice and nostalgia for a world that has been and gone; where we actually used to make stuff in this country. I think that the darkest day in Australia's automotive history was 10th December 2013, which was the day that Treasurer Joe Hockey yelled at the motor industry to go away forever and threatened to remove the subsidy, and by the end of the week Ford, Holden and Toyota all promised to do exactly that.

Now that we live in 2023, in this Brave New World where we don't pay Australians to make stuff but do give tax breaks so that people can buy foreign made things, I am sad that what made this country a little bit special is never ever coming back. Be that as it may, one of the points of data that I was particularly interested in interrogating, was the width of new vehicles being sold. I suspected that the SUVification of everything meant that we were getting wider and fatter "cars" but the data actually tells a different story.

I shan't bore you with details of sales figures but please note that they were essential in nailing down answers here. I will point out that I only looked at the Top 10 of sales; so there is very much room for error in my answers. 

2023:

For the year 2023, the Top 4 vehicles sold in Australia were as follows; included is their width for the most common variant sold. 

Ford Ranger T6 - 1850mm

Toyota HiLux AN130 - 1750mm

Isuzu D-Max RG - 1870mm

Toyota Rav4 XA70 - 1855mm

The average width of the Top 10 vehicles sold in Australia in 2023 was 1831mm, and the average weight of the Top 10 vehicles sold in Australia was 1834kg.

The fact that the Top 3 vehicles in Australia that were sold are all "utes" but with almost pretend tray beds, is testament to the fact that after Joe Hockey yelled at the motor industry to go away and the motor industry actually did go away, that the bogans who were cashed up, basically bought Grosspanzer Brodozers because they couldn't buy pretend Hoonmobiles any more. Also of note is that the average of a new car buyer, increased by about 16 years; which means to say that new cars are still being bought mostly by Baby Boomers and the older part of Gen-Z because literally everyone else have never been paid enough in wages and therefore can not and do not buy new cars to anywhere the same degree.

2003:

For the year 2023, the Top 4 vehicles sold in Australia were as follows; included is their width for the most common variant sold. 

Ford Falcon BA - 1863mm

Holden Commodore VX - 1842mm

Toyota Camry XV30 - 1816mm

Holden Astra G - 1425mm

The average width of the Top 10 vehicles sold in Australia 2003 was 1789mm, and the average weight of the Top 10 vehicles sold in Australia was 1772kg.

In 2003 the average new car buyer was either a Baby Boomer or someone from Gen-X who wanted a family car. They both had been priced out of the market for a V8 for the most part but could still pretend and show their allegiance to their red and blue corners by buying a family six. Toyota came third as it worked out that there was an entire market for people who wanted an appliance and didn't particularly care about performance. Camrys have almost always been soulless vehicles which are traded out by people at the first major sign of trouble or even before then; which creates a sense of false reliability from people who then do minimal or no maintenance on them.

1983:

For the year 1983 the Top 4 vehicles sold in Australia were as follows; included is their width for the most common variant sold. 

Ford Falcon XE - 1861mm

Holden Commodore VH - 1722mm

Holden Camira JB - 1668mm

Nissan Bluebird U11 - 1690mm

The average width of the Top 10 vehicles sold in Australia 1983 was 1769mm, and the average weight of the Top 10 vehicles sold in Australia was 1452kg.

What is perhaps the most stark change in data here is not that cars became wider, because in 40 years the average width of a vehicle only increased in width by 62mm (two and a half inches in the old money), but that they increased in weight by 382kg.

That increase in weight from 1983 to 2003 is almost entirely explained by the Commodore increasing in size because it was getting pasted by the Falcon in sales figures, and then from 2003 to 2023 because 'cars' devolved from unibody construction to truck on frame as the combination of falling wages and taxation benefits shifted the demographics of the market. The Camry which is really the only direct analogue here after the SUVification of everything was practically the same weight as the current Rav4. The Ford Falcon which only increased in width from 1983 to 2003 actually hides in plain sight a really strange truth that the 2016 Falcon sat atop a platform which underwent evolution of 56 years and didn't really change markedly at all.

 Now all of this is good and proper but the reason for my curiousness is quite quite selfish. I live in a relatively quiet set of streets, which were laid put in the 1960s. Traffic has to dodge its way down relatively narrow streets which were built for 1960s cars and not the Brodozers of 2023. What I am suprised about is that when you are facing down one of these things in a wee little car, you are expected to move over because the big cosplay cowboy in the two-tonne thing coming the other way sure isn't going to.

A width of only 62mm in 40 years is less than the width of my palm. I genuinely did not expect this. What did change is that that thing coming down the street is on average a whole 382kg heavier and this has nothing to do with increases in safety requirements as passenger cars were already pretty good in 2003. What is different is that these Pretend Cowboy Trucks are 463mm taller; which is a whole foot and a half in imperial. 

Things on the road today are not really wider and fatter but taller and denser. That might in fact be an object lesson and parable to explain the general public, who do not buy hatchbacks, sedans, wagons, coupes, and convertibles any more. I am alarmed but not surprised.

Horse 3292 - Ticket. Say it. Show it. Thank you. NO! TOO HARD?!

Speaking as someone who has worked as both a court recorder and then in a forensic accounting firm for more than two decades, I may have picked up a few things by sheer osmosis. Even I as not even a simple country lawyer, have to ask the question if Alina Habba paid any attention at all in Law School? Judge Lewis Kaplan in the trial of E. Jean Carroll v. Donald Trump (aka Carroll II) has had to keep on reminding Ms. Habba about such procedures as "Evidence 101".

By way of background, author E. Jean Carroll has filed to cases against Donald Trump, relating to Ms Carroll's accusation from mid-2019 that that he sexually assaulted her in early 1996. Of course Mr. Trump denied any and all accusations and in his usual pattern of behaviour, accused her of lying. This then prompting Ms. Carroll to pursue legal action; resulting in her bringing a defamation case against Donald Trump, and to try to sue him for damages.

She won that case and in November 2022, Ms. Carroll filed a second claim, which renewed her claim of defamation and added a claim of battery per the Adult Survivors Act, which allows sexual-assault victims to file civil law claims after the statutes of limitations have expired in the State of New York. That case  filed in 2023, further found Trump liable for defamation because of his 2019 statements and returned on Tuesday this week to determine on how much Trump further owes Ms. Carroll in additional damages.

At work, we have watched this case play out as though we were watching an ongoing soap opera. Somehow I think that Mr. Trump cares not an iota about what the outcome is because any publicity is good publicity; this case was absolutely perfectly timed with the Iowa Caucuses for the Republican Party nomination; where Trump won 20 of the 40 delegates. It doesn't matter if some people hate you as long as they keep on saying your name; because that can and does equate to votes.

Over the course of this case though and with many of Mr. Trump's former legal team either ending up in prison, or refusing to touch further cases, he has had to find new legal counsel and his defense lawyer Alina Habba, appears to be working for gratis; perhaps hoping that the notoriety will gain her further business. However, the truth on show for all the world to see is that she doesn't appear to be very good and Judge Lewis Kaplan is less than impressed. In this circus, Judge Kaplan is quite fed-up with the carry-on of Mr. Trump's legal team, and has repeatedly complained and made statements about their conduct.

If this wasn't already a defamation case, then maybe Ms. Habba might very well be liable for libel herself, when she asked Ms. Carroll if she "makes a good amount of money from her Substack"; and Judge Kaplan wasn't have that either. Those famous words of "immaterial, irrelevant, and incompetent" came out and Judge Kaplan made the almost unbelievable outburst that Ms. Habba has no idea how to introduce evidence in court. Perhaps to add another layer of silliness in this clown show, Judge Kaplan has had to resort to spoon feeding Ms. Habba procedural information in the same way you that I imagine that you would help a law school student in a mock trial. Again, I do not know what actually happens in law school and for me this is a bit like looking at a black box to guess what the inputs were by looking at the output.

Again, I am not a lawyer and so I am very much talking out of turn but it seems to me as an observer that the procedure for submitting evidence in court is as simple as:

- Ticket.

- Say it.

- Show it.

- Thank you.

Submitting things into evidence aught to be at bare minimum, the stock and trade of a solicitor or barrister at court. I should think that a basic competency of a lawyer, is knowing the rules of how that particular court operates. Ms. Habba seems to be woefully inadequate. I suppose that if your only solace is to find a lawyer who is working for gratis, then you get what you pay for.

For argument's sake, suppose that my client has been charged with the murders of two men, Buquet and Piangi, and has been made to appear before the court by Public Prosecutor's Office. In the Case of The People v. P.Hantom then my regime for submitting evidence would be as follows:

1 - Get the Evidence Ticketed.

If it pleases the court, I would like to submit No.665 into evidence.

2- Offer a brief description of the item in question.

No.665, Ladies and Gentlemen, is a papier-mâché musical box in the shape of a barrel-organ. Attached, the figure of a monkey in persian robes, playing the cymbals. This item, discovered in the vaults of the theatre, still in working order.

3 - Offer the item in question for examination.

I would like to ask my learned colleagues (as well as the witness/expert) to look at this papier-mâché musical box in the shape of a barrel-organ, to familiarise themselves with it, for future reference.

4 - Thank the court.

If it pleases the court, I would like to offer No.665 into evidence. Its relevance and importance shall be explained later. At this point court is free to ask questions about the item but not necessarily about its relevance and importance as that will be explained during some logical point in the procedings. 

I have been witness in court to many rather dull procedural hearings in which evidence is submitted for ticketing and nothing else. Usually this procedure happens in call over hearings, and/or in specific discovery hearings so that the other side can either get copies of the relevant documents or if the pieces of evidence are physical, that they then get a decent chance to look and make notes.  Ms. Habba seems blissfully unaware of how courts work; this is not helped by her client who is intent on using the courtroom as a stage from which to prove how much the system is against him. I will admit that it is a new strategy to prove how much the system is against him through blithering incompetence. 

Horse 3291 - No, The Former President Does Not Need To Be Found Guilty To Be Disqualified From The Ballot

In the continuing malarkey surrounding the former President Donald Trump, yet again we find that every limit of the US Constitution is being tested every which way. In the continuing testing of provisions and clauses left right and centre, once again we find ourselves looking under the hood of the 14th Amendment to the United States. 

After having argued that the The President Of The United States despite taking an oath of office and despite the US Constitution naming the office as an office, and a dearth of case law which has agreed that the The President Of The United States is in fact the chief executive officer (See Horse 3281 - Yes, The President Is An Officer) the cult of personality which defends Trump as though he were a hemi-semi-demi-god has now moved on to asserting things that aren't even in the constitution.

The most commonly repeated argument which has been thrown up of late, is that as Donald Trump has not yet been convicted of insurrection, that the provisions of the 14th Amendment do not apply to him. (Or even deny that they was an insurrection, despite and in spite of the 814 page House Committee Report into the January 6th Insurrection.)

Since we're asking why the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution should or should not apply to Trump, then it is handy to be reminded of what it says. The text of the relevant section of the 14th Amendment (14A S3) is as follows:

https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-14/

Section 3

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

- 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, 28th July 1868

There are two points of order that the fanatics of Donald Trump want to impose into this text which are simply not there; which I shall deal with in turn.

Firstly, that he needs to have been found guilty of insurrection. On the face of it, it would seem as though this is a reasonable assertion, until you actually read the words of the text. There are no such provisions in the words of 14A S3 which say that anyone needs to be found guilty of anything. Once again we find a difference between what people want the text to say when it suits them, and what it actually says if they do not like it.

This begs the question of why would there be no such provision, detailing someone to have been found guilty of insurrection in 14A S3? Surely it stands to reason that the operation of law in order to be just, would need to explicitly spell this out but it does not. The reason is actually lurking within that very last piece of citation here - namely, the date.

The date of  28th July 1868 is highly important here. Earlier in the decade, the United States suffered a bout of unpleasantness resulting from 13 states that had signed on to form their own nation based upon the premise of keeping and retaining slavery. The truth in point was that the United States had started as a result of people wanting to keep and retain slavery following the British High Court ruling in Somerset v Stewart (1772), which ruled that slavery was an abomination in Britain and the 13 colonies were very unhappy about this. The British Government them imposed a series of punitive taxation measures when it became increasingly obvious that the 13 colonies would not give up keeping slaves. The Revolutionary War solved the first problem of throwing off British Rule; which meant that Knight v Wedderburn (1777) would never fall into the corpus of American common law, and the subsequent acts of Parliament such as the Slave Trade Act (1803) and the Abolition Of Slavery Act (1833) would never ever apply. This meant that the second problem of people wanting to keep and retain slavery was never resolved, and even the Civil War didn't solve the issue. It was in fact the 14th Amendment which includes other sections to do with slavery, servitude which put an end to this issue.

However, reconstructing the United States meant that suddenly there were all these people who had waged in insurrection and rebellion against the United States, who were now once again  United States' citizens who would have been eligible for all kinds of government offices. This would be both ironic and extremely dangerous when you consider that they had literally fought a war against the country which they were now a part of.

14A S3 openly and blankly, disqualifies anyone from holding any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, if they had previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States. There are a lot of hinge clauses here but 14A S3 appears to not disqualify people who had fought in the Civil War against the United States, if they were just rank and file soldiers. 14A S3 acutely targets people who had been in government positions previously who had engaged in insurrection or rebellion, from holding office again. The unsaid question here is why would you want to run as a Senator or Representative in Congress, or be an or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, if you had fought against the United States? If you hate it that much what possible cause would you have to run again? The only reasonable assumption is that you want to get back inside to break the United States again.

From a purely administrative logistical point of view, trying what could be potentially thousands upon thousands of people for insurrection or rebellion, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof, in the wake of the Civil War, is a hideously expensive nightmare. Actually, if you wanted to hurt the United States from an economic perspective and 14A S3 contained the express provision that someone needed to be found guilty, then all you would need to do is mount case after case, applying for those positions in government. They would very much be frivolous cases but the law would be obliged to try them. 

This is almost an aside here but I think that Donald Trump with 91 charges against him, actually does like running frivolous cases in court because they are in effect cheaper than paying for advertising. In his eyes, controversy is the game and it doesn't matter if the people think that you are a liar, a cheat, a devil, or a knave, or even if they hate you, if they say your name then you already have publicity. Just as in 2015, there didn't need to be any public education advertising program because everyone already knew who he was.

The 14th Amendment makes no express provision that someone needed to be found guilty of insurrection or rebellion to be disqualified, largely because it does not need to; as such, the actual words of the text make no such demand or provision at all. Since the United States and the various states make the rules, regulations, and laws, about who can be employed and the terms and conditions by which they are employed, then there doesn't need to be any express demand or provision at all. Has a person engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or the States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof? This is a simple question which the courts themselves can answer whether or not a given person is present or not. 14A S3 allows a court to issue writ on this subject; which is precisely what has happened in the various States who have made rulings which remove Donald Trump from the ballot. 

This brings me to the Second point of order; which is that the fanatics of Donald Trump want to impose some kind of vague reading of Due Process despite those words also being absent in 14A S3. Again this would seem as though this is a reasonable assertion, until you actually read the words of the text. There are no such provisions in the words of 14A S3 which say that anyone needs to be found guilty of anything. Once again we find a difference between what people want the text to say when it suits them, and what it actually says if they do not like it.

It should be self-evident that if a State Supreme Court, which is charged with the administration of th law within that state, and the states themselves are charged with the terms and conditions for running their own elections for Senators or Representatives in Congress, or elector of Presidents and Vice-Presidents et cetera, that if a State Supreme Court has made a ruling then that State Supreme Court has in fact followed Due Process. How can it not? A court of law, ruling on a point of law, makes a direction based upon the rule of law. What's not to understand here? You can not simply demand some process of "Due Process" on your terms, just because you do not like the existing process and rule of law.

Aside:

I have a beef with the entire discussion about the intent of the law, or what the founding fathers wanted, or what the spirit of the law is. The law at it core only exists in two places: namely the text of the words currently in force, and the opinions of the people who are ultimately charged with deciding what is equitable, what the words of the law mean, and how they apply to the case immediately before them. This is a thing which comes up time and time again and always you have to ask what does the text of the law say? If there is a difference between what people want the text to say when it suits them, and what it actually says if they do not like it, then the way to change that is through legislation.

In fact the law itself never belongs to the either the legislatures, or the courts, but that non-corporeal person called The Crown, The People, The State, or other some such. I couldn't give a peppercorn of care what the founding fathers wanted. They're dead. If the text of the words of the law remain, then that is what remains as far as the law is concerned.

Horse 3290 - Peter Dutton Calls On Australians To Boycott Woolworths Over Australia Day. Yeah, Nah, Bro' (Pt 2)

 https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/peter-dutton-calls-for-australians-to-boycott-woolworths/video/89d0daa12506aef7fdbb6650ccbf3ab5

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has called on Australians to boycott Woolworths.

This comes after the retailer announced it won’t be selling Australia Day merchandise this year.

Peter Dutton says Australians should be free to decide whether they want to celebrate Australia Day or not.

- Sky News Australia, 11th Jan 2024.

There is no story told in a vacuum. The problem with a story like this is that although it exists today, and although it does not exist in isolation, we never remember the farmer, we only remember the fruit, and we don't remember the inventor, we only remember the boom and the impact going forward.

What else is going on here? Is this merely about Peter Dutton dancing around his annually erected green and gold maypole for pantomime culture warriors to dance around in confected outrage for the benefit of the Angertainment Complex? 

Whipping up anger full of air, is the business model of News Corp and their political wing, the Liberal Party. I suspect that News Corp and the Liberal Party don't actually care about the issue, but are happy whip this up for those sweet sweet advert dollars, or in the case of the Liberal Party, votes.

Why does Peter Dutton want Australians to boycott Woolworths? Why should he care about a supermarket? Well, the answer is in fact quite quite old.

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/peter-dutton-moves-to-lock-in-replacement-for-outgoing-liberal-karen-andrew/news-story/8ff3909455fae484f1f999a0eaa3d53c

Peter Dutton is moving to lock in a replacement for outgoing Liberal Karen Andrews within weeks to stave off a likely threat from a teal candidate at the next election.

- The Australian, 31st Dec 2023

From what I understand, Liberal Party strategists are reported as being “increasingly concerned” about the possible startup of a teal threat named “McPherson Matters”.

In a classic move which the Liberal Party pulled off before, by hiring a Public Relations Officer (Scott Morrison), the front runner for preselection from the Liberal Party for the seat of McPherson is a chap called Adam Fitzgibbons.

Who is Adam Fitzgibbons?

https://au.linkedin.com/in/adam-fitzgibbons-40728622

Adam Fitzgibbons is the Head of Public Affairs for Coles Group, Australia's leading supermarket retailer.

- Linked In, 12th Jan 2024.

The idea that Peter Dutton acting as spokes-potato for the Liberal Party on behalf of Coles, is completely expected given that Coles and the Liberal Party go back a very very very long time.

The most recent direct involvement of crossover from Coles to the Liberal Party was in 1992 when, the former chairman of Coles Myer, Bevan Bradbury OA, retired from the chair of Coles Myer Ltd. to take up the post of the NSW Liberal Party President. However, go right back to the beginning of the formation of the Liberal Party and we find that Coles and the Liberal Party are even closer.

Sir Arthur William Coles (1892–1982) "AW", founded Coles Variety Stores along with his brother George James Coles (1885-1977) "GJ" in 1919. Coles Variety Stores would later become the Coles Group, after passing through various iterations, and alongside Woolworths is one of the two largest supermarket chains in Australia.

AW in what I can only gather looks like an act of revenge against Melbourne City Council, ran for the position of Lord Mayor of Melbourne and won it, in 1938. He held that position for two years, and then after his term had ended, used that popularity to run for the House of Representatives seat of Henty in the Sep 1940 election, which he also won as an Independent.

However, sometime during the 1940-1943 term, although AW caucused with the United Australia Party under Sir Robert Menzies, Menzies' increasing vassalage to London, practically exploded the UAP. AW as one of the two independent MPs propping up the UAP/Country Coalition in government since 1940, crossed the floor in parliament. Curtin's Labor Party with the help of the two independent MPs passed a £1 variation budget, thus ensuring supply and handing government to Curtin.

After the war, AW Coles was handed a cushy job as Chairman of the National Airlines Commission in 1946 and returned the favour to the then Chifley Government by practically handing his old seat back to the Opposition. It seems somewhat strange that AW should give his ex-seat in the House of Representatives to a Member of the Opposition until you realise what had happened on that side of the political floor.

Menzies after exploding the old United Australia Party, spent roughly three years in the wilderness. In the meantime, Menzies courted his friend Sir Keith Murdoch at the Melbourne Herald who had given him practically free political propaganda, , and his friend Sir George James "G.J" Coles (AW's brother and Chairman of what was now GJ Coles Ltd.) and helped set up the Institute of Public Affairs in 1943.

Not only did the Institute of Public Affairs send delegates to that opening meeting at the Formation of the Liberal Party on 13th October 1944, but also to the Conference of Representatives of Non Labour Organisations on 16th October 1944, but they parachuted members for preselection upon the formal announcement of the formation of the party held at the Sydney Town Hall on 31 August 1945.

I have only really found vague inklings of a meeting held at the Kurrajong Hotel in Canberra in September of 1944; so I do not know if it was just Menzies and Murdoch or Menzies, Murdoch and Coles who were the three seed members of what would become the party. What we do know is that the Institute of Public Affairs  and the Liberal Party of Australia have been so intertwined that at times you can look from one to the other, and back from the other to the first one; and it is impossible to say which was which. Not only was GJ Coles present right at the beginning of the IPA and the Liberal Party but he became the IPA's president in 1965.

So then, for Peter Dutton, to act as spokes-potato for the Liberal Party on behalf of Coles, and demand that the general public boycott Woolworths, who is Coles' retail enemy, looks completely in line with a poltical party which frequently acts belligerently against its enemies. GJ Coles as one of the original founders of the IPA before there even was a Liberal Party, would have wanted it this way. 

Horse 3289 - Peter Dutton Calls On Australians To Boycott Woolworths Over Australia Day. Yeah, Nah, Bro'

https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/peter-dutton-calls-for-australians-to-boycott-woolworths/video/89d0daa12506aef7fdbb6650ccbf3ab5

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has called on Australians to boycott Woolworths.

This comes after the retailer announced it won’t be selling Australia Day merchandise this year.

Peter Dutton says Australians should be free to decide whether they want to celebrate Australia Day or not.

- Sky News Australia, 11th Jan 2024.

Although Woolworths has made a purely commercial decision to stop stocking Australia Day tat due to a lack of demand from customers, the Opposition Leader, Peter Dutton, has done his done his banana and looks like a right berk, in demanding that Australians boycott Woolworths. In the editorial opinion of Horse, we think that is it now the duty of every Australian to not only laugh at Peter Dutton but to point and laugh at Peter Dutton for looking like a eight berk.

Yeah, nah, bro'. We're not gunna boycott Woolies because you told us to. Mate, you've got a few roos loose in the top paddock if you think we're gunna to that, Spud. 

Surely one of the great things about Australia is the way that Australians constantly poke fun at anyone in authority. Australia is not like the United States in that we are not stallions led by wolves. Nor is Australia like the United Kingdom in that we are not lions led by donkeys. No, Australia is actually a nation of goats led by dogs. Australians are on the whole industrious and diligent but only up to a point. Australians will pull behind a leader if the circumstances warrant it but they will also equally run everywhere in an uncontrollable rabble. Like a bunch of nanny goats and billy goats, we will bleat at everything, run around aimlessly, and generally make a right royal republican hash of the whole thing.

The problem with the push to make Australians patriotic is that it completely ignores the fact that Australians by nature just simply aren't patriotic. The Australian flag might very well be the national flag but who honestly cares? The actual colours of Australia are green and gold and it must be said that the Cricket Team, the Socceroos and Matildas, the Wallabies, the Kangaroos, and the various Olympic teams, bring Australians together more than any poxy waving of a blue bedsheet with stars on. 

January 26th is not even 'Australia' Day. Australia as a nation was constituted on January 1st 1901; after the people of the six colonies all agreed to the project of Federation. However, the idea that Australia should be patriotic on January 1st is patently absurd. January 1st is already New Years' Day; which means that nobody and I mean nobody even cares a jot about the celebration of the actual founding of the nation. January 26th basically has to stand in for this because as Australia is really a actually of goats led by dogs and as we are only industrious and diligent to a point, then what we actually want is a public holiday.

So in this spirit of being Australian, let me poke fun at Peter Dutton, at Michaelia Cash, at Vikki Campion, at Caleb Bond, at Sharri Markson, at Andrew Bolt, at Rita Panahi, at Rowan Dean, et cetera. What the jinkies are you jackdaws going on about? Do you even live in Australia? I note that the only chorus of accusing people of not being Australian and not submitting to enforced patriotism comes from 'the firm' and the far-right. Regular Australians simply fail to register that patriotism should have any merit at all and in fact, are semi-suspicious of anyone who does think that patriotism should be a thing. Patriotism is a thing which is the clarion of tyrants, of buffoons, of dandies, of knaves, of tories, of killers, thieves and lawyers. Which one are you, Spud?

Particularly for Michaelia Cash who is the Senator for Western Australia and Peter Dutton who is the Member for Dickson in Queensland, I remind everyone that January 26th is actually 'NSW Proclamation' Day. That is the day, in what surely has to be the most boring anime transformation sequence ever, when Arthur Phillip magically transformed from Admiral of the Royal Navy to Governor of a Colony, by reading of Proclamation.

Speaking as a patriotic citizen, because the howling cries of jackdaws, whinnies of jackasses, and the prognostication of jackaninnies told me to, I find any celebration of NSW Proclamation Day to be hollow and vapid. We the good and fair people od New South Wales already know that we are the best; because we write it on our number plates. We are "The First State" and "The Premier State".

Maybe the Senator for Western Australia, Michaelia Cash, wants to admit that Western Australia is a sad sad joke. There is a time difference between Sydney and Perth. If it is 08:30pm in Sydney, then it is 1977 in Perth. Likewise, does Member for Dickson in Queensland, Peter Dutton, want to admit that Queensland is the Florida of Australia, and is propped up by Commonwealth revenues; mostly supplied by New South Wales and Victoria? 

If prayer is the last refuge of a scoundrel, then surely patriotism is the second last? There is something to be said for patriotism but wrapping one's self in the flag is one of those things when if it is voluntary it is acceptable but if it is involuntary it rings hollow. Is it really possble to have compulsory fun? Compulsory patriotism and compulsory fun seems to the sort of thing that East Germany might have done. You will go on the holiday; you will travel Interflug; you will enjoy it; failure to do so has consequences. It is this fun or fist-of-fives approach which seeems common to the whole broadly authoritarian north of the political compass; with Stalin and Hitler seeing eye to eye about. 

Here's the whole problem with enforced patriotism in Australia. We are goats. We think that you being serious is funny. We like making fun of seriousness. Wrapping yourself in the flag and demanding that the rest of do likewise is an instant request to be ridiculed. Patriotism is a thing of tyrants, of buffoons, of dandies, and we will absolutely make fun of you for being tyrants, buffoons, and dandies. We do not run from side to side like brainless sheep but we do run in all directions and laugh at your seriousness like a bunch of uncontrollable goats. 

Horse 3288 - Trump Tries To Argue For Criminal Immunity

In the ongoing legal battle by former President Donald Trump to have decisions made by courts in various states to have him removed from the ballot for the 2024 Presidential Election (usually on the grounds of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution), Mr Trump's legal team appear to be running a scatter gun approach by firing whatever they can in all directions and hoping something sticks. 

One of those legal arguments is the idea that the Office of the Presidency, by virtue the decision in the Supreme Court case Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), enjoys absolute immunity from civil damage lawsuits while in office. The idea that the Office of the Presidency is also immune from criminal lawsuits is an open and untested question and although it is noteworthy that Harding, Nixon, Clinton and even Trump himself were all criminally investigated while in office, none of them were formally charged let alone prosecuted. 

I think that Mr Trump's arguments look suspiciously like Parliament v Charles (1649) in which Charles tried to argue that King of England was not a person, but an office and therefore enjoyed sovereign immunity. 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/donald-trump-appears-in-court-as-judges-hear-arguments-on-whether-hes-immune-from-prosecution

During lengthy arguments, the judges repeatedly pressed Trump’s lawyer to defend claims that Trump was shielded from criminal charges for acts that he says fell within his official duties as president. That argument was rejected last month by the lower-court judge overseeing the case against Trump, and the appeals judges suggested through their questions that they, too, were dubious that the Founding Fathers envisioned absolute immunity for presidents after they leave office.

- PBS News Hour, 9th Jan 2024.

Perhaps you might not be paying as much attention to this case but there have been some really bizarre twists in this case; including hearkening back to Mr Trump's quip that "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?", in 2016. While history has proven that to be more or less true, the legal question of whether or not he could do it as President is unknown as no court has ever ruled on the matter of criminal immunity because no court has ever needed to. 

- CNN, 9th Jan 2024.

For everyone who has missed this, Mr Trump's lawyer John Sauer, has literally argued that a President who orders Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate theory political rival could only be subject to criminal prosecution if they were firstly impeached and then and only then, could a criminal prosecution proceed. Personally I think that this argument is so asinine and so dangerous, that no court would ever allow this to stand. Furthermore, having tested the absurd limits of the law, I think that Mr Trump will lose this case; which means that the Supreme Court will not even hear it; so by default the previous decisions will stand.

Can you imagine what would happen if such an argument? This would mean that the President of the United States would legally be handed brand new powers which would be even greater than that of a King. 

Suppose that the President was given what amounts to sovereign immunity. If the President was handed that, then I would argue that President Biden would have the immediate ability (nay duty) to remove Trump from the ballots in all 50 states, and do so completely legally with his new superpowers. The really absurd result of this is that President Biden could legally order the killing of all GOP members of Congress thereby eliminating any impeachment inquiry and trial and get away completely scot-free with immunity and impunity.

No former president in American history until now has claimed immunity from prosecution that extends after they have left office, and in my not very well paid opinion the court should absolutely not recognize what amounts to novel immunity in a case of a president accused of committing crimes to try to stay in office after losing an election. Such a decision would be dangerously stupid with consequences immediately and forever.

Horse 3287 - We Love Geelong, The Greatest Station Of All.

"I will be doing a video about people's favorite train stations in Australia. You're a gunzel. So I guess that you must have a favorite train station. Right? If yes then what? Please write a paragraph explaining why."

- YouTube Content Creator (name withheld), via email, 5th Jan 2024.

Apparently I have enough of a reputation within the kosmos of train content creators in Australia that it warranted writing an email to me. Yes, this person is doing a fourth wall mail slot video, which is one of those classic tropes, but asking the general public for this kind of thing deserves to be a classic. Quite frankly I am both perplexed and happy that someone asked me a question.

Am I a gunzel? Possibly. The truth is that I like trains, railway stations, and all of the paraphernalia therein. As part of the built environment, buildings are erected and demolished, houses go up and then come down, all of the cars and buses on the road are this collective thing which takes about 8 years to completely change face, but trains and railway stations are this semi-permanent fixture which outlives generations of people. I for instance pass through Wynyard Station on a regular basis which was opened in 1932; so that's 6 generations of people who have passed through it. Central Electric was opened in 1926 but Sydney Terminal was opened in 1916; so that's 7 generations of people who have passed through it. Parramatta Station was opened in 1855; which means that although none of the facility dates from that far long ago, 11 generations of people have passed through it and seen it change.

The broad principle that I am trying to state here is that railway stations are these silent witnesses to the regular boring parts of history. Sure, history books revel in retelling the stories of great men and women but for every Churchill, Raleigh, Boudicca, Hatshepsut, et cetera, there will be thousands, if not millions of people who made those stories happen. Railway stations as the liminal spaces where nobody lives, are still the venue of people crying, people laughing, and where the great masses quietly waited before returning to the places they called home.

Do I have a favourite railway station in all of Australia? Absolutely. However, the reason why will surprise you.

It is Geelong.

I do not live in Geelong. I have never lived in Geelong. I do not really have fond memories of Geelong other than occasional visits to Kardinia Park as an away fan to see Hawthorn play Geelong in the AFL. Given all of this, my choice looks almost absurd. Why choose Geelong station; which is just a smallish railway station in Victoria?

Well... just look at it.

Geelong is nominally an east-west station with three platforms. As the photograph almost gives away, on opening day it only had one platform and the other two platforms were later additions. Also as the photograph shows, the additions look like they have been dressed to look like a building of purpose but the really massive awning shows that this may have been done on the cheap.

The various columns are typical of what you will find in early 20th Century railway stations in Australia. I think of places like Strathfield and Homebush in Sydney, Hawthorn in Melbourne, and even parts of Roma St in Brisbane; which all have decorated columns holding up latticework girders, with pitched awnings which then sit atop those. All of those places are island platforms, where the awnings only sit atop the islands. Geelong station has an even more massive awning; which overarches all three platforms and this is quite quite different.

Three platforms is an adequate number if you want one platform for through running in either direction and an extra platform for trains to terminate at. Geelong as a city is big enough to be a final destination and important enough that there would have been dedicated trains running a shuttle service to Spencer St in Melbourne. What makes Geelong strange though is that there is actually space for five lines through the station or perhaps four lines, with tracks 1 and 2 having loading and unloading on both sides. Geelong appears to have been built in preparation of extra capacity which was never needed and never built. 

That giant oversized awning also has one feature that you just don't see anywhere else. It is made of corrugated iron. You don't tend to see as much corrugated iron these days but once upon a time, it was the de rigeur material for building sheds out of. This is the stuff that sheds on farms and sitting out in fields was made of. This is the stuff that sheds in people's backyards, where they kept the lawnmower, paint, tools, and chemicals, was made of. This is the stuff that used to sit atop buildings that were built on the cheap, that used to sit on top of people's houses. It is not usually the stuff that you would build an awning this massive out of. Standing anywhere in Geelong Station feels like you are standing in a giant shed; mostly because you are standing in a giant shed.

I mentioned previously that Geelong Station is nominally an east-west station. I have never been to Geelong really early in the morning but I have been there late in the day, after a football match has ended or after doing a day-trip in Geelong. I can not speak on what a sunrise is like at Geelong but a sunset is glorious. Golden-orange-red light fills the place as though there is a fire just out of sight. When nature spills a bucket of light into a giant shed, it is very very pretty indeed. Some people like watching the sunset sink into the sea, which can only happen on the west coast of some land; however, watching the sunset gently bathe the inside of a shed in the warm glow of 8 minute old nuclear fire, is I think just as nice. Maybe there is a reminder at the end of the day that not only the light but this mortal coil itself, is only temporary. 

Geelong railway station is both over-designed and under-capitalised. It was both built on the cheap and yet remains permanent. Grand railways stations are cathedrals for the railway and yet Geelong manages to be both high church and low church at the same time. Nobody would dare suggest this kind of thing if you were trying to get planning permission for some great future project and yet Geelong has a cathedral for the railway which is grander than anything which they would have got planning permission for.

I do not know how gunzelly this makes me. I have likely selected a train station which is not going to be licked by anyone else because who would pick a giant shed? This isn't as classy as Museum, or as modern as Southern Cross, or as ornate as Adelaide, but it is charming and pretty. This is a station not of grandeur but of the ordinary people.

Horse 3286 - The Northern Beaches Needs An "L"

Anyone looking at a rail network map for Sydney will realise some very obvious and appreciable gaps. These gaps include are the Inner West gap through Balmain, Five Dock and Drummoyne and Gladesville etc, the Eastern Suburbs gap from Bondi Junction southwards and weirdly, the Northern Beaches void.

In this current wave of 'Metro' building, which is finally an attempt to fill in the gaps, we have had the North West Metro almost but not quite connects Chatswood to Schofields and partly running over existing lines, the continuation of the Metro under the harbour and which will run over the existing Bankstown Line, and the Sydney West Metro which is an entirely new bore to the west ending at Westmead.

Due to the geography of Sydney, the whole entire of the Northen Beaches is really only served through two pinch points; being Spit Bridge and Roseville Bridge. In fact those two roads are really only served by a few arterial roads which converge at those point. To anyone with even a shred of common sense, this is a stupid system; so much so, that it was foreseen by John Bradfield more than 100 years ago but which only the barest of plans was ever made to correct this. Those plans included capacity at Wynyard Station for 8 platforms serving four lines; of which only 6 platforms were built and only two lines completed.

In place of a railway line which never was, there used to be an extensive tram network; which was ripped out by exceptionally myopic governments, and which  is the reason why the Sydney Harbour Bridge since 1959 has has lanes 7 and 8 of road traffic occupy what should the space for two railway tracks. In its place, a bus network was installed. Very recently in the last days of the Berejiklian Government, the operation of these buses was privatised and now Keolis Downer operates what can be best described as a fourth rate service, which was worse than the government-run buses, which was worse than the trams, which was worse then the full scale railway line which was proposed but never was.

In conjunction with massive amounts of opposition to the building of apartments on top of the Woolworths at Cremorne, there have been half-hearted suggestions that the Northern Beaches should also have a Metro. The best proposal that I have seen for this would be to bore directly under Military Rd, then pop out at Parrawi Reserve and continue via viaduct/bridge over the Spit, and then back underground roughly following the route of the B1 bus. As with any of these proposals it sounds bonkers for about ten seconds and then immediately almost criminal that it hasn't already been done.

However, I have recently heard of a proposal which sounds like someone's fantasy got out of hand but which upon a second look, might actually be that mad kind of genius which Sydney needs. That proposal is...

The Northern Beaches L.

What is an L?

This is an L.

An L is short for "Elevated", and by "Elevated" we actually mean "Elevated Railway". In the date 19th century, they were all the rage in the United States, with many Ls being converted from steam to electric in the 1910s. The idea is genius because it's so simple. By putting the trains on an elevated set of tracks high above everyone else, regular road traffic runs underneath and this alleviates the pressure on both.

Of course the obvious downside is that everyone on board an L can see into the windows of people up on the first or second floor of the buildings which line the street and the people who live first or second floor of the buildings which line the street have L trains whizz by them every six minutes. Then again, a road like Military Road is already so unpleasant that people already do not live in those first or second floors of the buildings which line the street. Then again, the unsaid truth is that this already is the case for practically everyone already living next to a train line as it is. The other unsaid truth is that the B1 bus already uses double decker buses; so you can already peer into the first or second floors of the buildings which line the street and nobody complains about that.

The other downside of an L is that as the L creates a quasi-tunnel underneath itself, it will become darker down underneath the L. I note that in places like Chicago and New York which have retained an L, they are built on lattice type sleeper structures; which means that dappled sunlight does come through. It also naturally means that the height of traffic passing underneath the L is limited in height, which affects the accessibility of big trucks. Now this could be solved in the planning stages by making the L already sufficiently high enough so that all trucks of decent height can pass under, or by rerouting those trucks to alternative routes.

Here's the genius though. Double decker buses would not need to exist. About 2000 cars per hour would not need to exist. All of the passengers who currently clog the roads on the many buses that act like a line of millipedes and great hordes of cars, would all disappear upon opening of the L. People individually and traffic in the collective follow similar rules to water and electricity in that they follow the paths of least resistance. If the L provides a less stressful experience than sitting in traffic for 68 minutes (which is the current time from Mona Vale to Wynyard), then people will use the L.

The thing about Sydney's very tory motorways, is that almost to a note, they simply do not make traffic better anywhere in Sydney. Motorways in Sydney are purely toll extraction devices. Railways on the other hand, by virtue of being vehicles limited by tracks, are perfect for cutting underneath the mass hub-bub and chaos of what's happening above; which is why going underground is an excellent option or if you can not go underground then going above is the next best thing.

One of the really really fun things with the idea of an L is that the Northern Beaches void is purely that, a void. It is currently an abyss filled with nothing. This is not even half a hole but a whole hole. We could either fill the hole with 9-car Metro Trains like the North West Metro, or fill it with 5-car trams like the L2 and L3 in the Eastern Suburbs and presumably what will be the L4 from Westmead and what used to be the T7 Carlingford Line. With a void, you can run as many imaginary trains and trams through it as you like.

Admittedly I say this as a deeply frustrated commuter who has worked in Mosman for 20 years. I repeatedly find it idiotic that we can not get from Spit Junction to the City in less than 50 minutes, on an alarmingly regular basis. I could very easily be part of the car traffic but instead I take one of many many buses; from multiple starting points. However in the evening, if I leave the office at 05:00pm, it will often be after 05:30pm before I can even board a a bus. The B1 bus is frequently packed to the eyeballs and displays the message "Sorry Bus Full"; which is partly the result of a wholly inadequate public transport service and partly the result of Keolis Downer wanting to spin a profit and recducing the number of services by 60% in many cases. What used to be a 6 minute service is now a 15 or 20 minute service if you are lucky, and it is still being asked to carry the same number of people.

This is where the genius of an L truly shines. L services would be the only thing up there. They don't have to contend with the rabble below and instead of being 1-car or virtual 2-car for a double decker bus, a single 9-car L service could replace many buses by itself. If they were driverless robots they could run practically at saturation as well. I think that it would be cheaper than trying to bore a tunnel and I think that the required engineering might be easier as well. All of the electricity carriage could be done in the cavity immediately under the structure; which could also double as carriage for everyone else's electricity and street lighting. Plus it seems like a nice way of ushering a new steam-electro-punk-retro-future. 

If only we could dare to dream. I love the idea of an L. 

Horse 3285 - The Power Of Presidential Pardon Is Bad Law

In the realm of law relating to the sale of goods and services and the rights of the customer, there is a concept of those goods and services being "fit for purpose". That is that a good or service should be considered fit for purpose if it fulfills the specific purpose for which it was intended, or else be reasonably fit for any purpose specified by a reasonable customer. If you buy a good or service with some particular function in mind, then it should be capable of performing that function adequately.

A wise man once said that "Laws exist for the regulation, standardisation and protection of society"¹ and I think that that maxim is a good principle. I also think that in this web of legal kerplunk that another of the many planks that can be precariously wedged into this shoddily built house of maxims, is that the law itself should also be fit for purpose. Does the law do what we expect it to do? If not, could the law be made better? Is the law itself bad law?

As someone who rejects any and all notion of originalism or intent, because the people who live today are the ones who live with the laws that they must submit to, then I think that laws can and do outlive their fitness for purpose and should be repealed, be allowed to expire, or at very least questioned for their fitness of purpose. I find it utterly insane for instance, that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is allowed to continue and I will go on record as saying that everyone who supports it is either mad, bad, delusional or ignorant. 

Likewise, in the discussion relating to Former President Donald Trump and his involvement in the January 6th insurrection and riot at the Capitol Building in 2021, candidate Nikki Haley, Former Governor of South Carolina, has stated that she would only pardon Trump if he was convicted of a crime.

The nearest that we have gotten to anything like this in the past, was when President Gerald Ford preemptively pardoned Richard Nixon, even though Nixon hadn't actually been charged with anything following the Watergate scandal. Nixon wasn't even impeached because he resigned before that political process could be brought to completion. As it currently stands, we have no idea if Trump is going to be convicted of anything, or even if it will go to court. 

The big difference between Nixon and Trump is a moral one. It has to be said that Nixon absolutely accepted responsibility for what he and his administration had done; and a Presidential pardon in that case was more about trying to make the United States move on and ignore what had just happened in the two years previous. Trump on the other hand, really does not accept any responsibility for what he has done and would likely never acknowledge his wrong doing even if convicted.

More generally though, I wonder if the power to grant reprieves and pardons, should even be held in the hands of a President. Remember, the Presidency is a political position as opposed to a judicial position; the power to grant reprieves and pardons is in my not very well paid opinion, ostensibly a judicial power.

The relevant text of the US Constitution is thus:

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

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

- Article II, Section 2, US Constitution (1789)

The US Constitution does give the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses to the President. The question here is should it? Should the President, which is a political position be given what is ostensibly a judicial power?

The defence of this power was given by Hamilton in Federalist No.74; which is one of 85 essays by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, defending the new United States Constitution; with the hope that The People would read them and urge their representatives at the Constitution Conventions to ratify the new Constitution of the United States. 

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed74.asp

He is also to be authorized to grant "reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT.'' Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel. As the sense of responsibility is always strongest, in proportion as it is undivided, it may be inferred that a single man would be most ready to attend to the force of those motives which might plead for a mitigation of the rigor of the law, and least apt to yield to considerations which were calculated to shelter a fit object of its vengeance. The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind. On the other hand, as men generally derive confidence from their numbers, they might often encourage each other in an act of obduracy, and might be less sensible to the apprehension of suspicion or censure for an injudicious or affected clemency. On these accounts, one man appears to be a more eligible dispenser of the mercy of government, than a body of men.

- Federalist Papers No. 74, Alexander Hamilton, 25th Mar 1788.

Hamilton's defence of why the power to grant reprieves and pardons rests in his unsaid belief that the Office of The President, should be above the rough and tumble of mere politics. The Office of The President in Hamilton's eyes should be a noble position; which if not actually being the King, should be king-like in its demure and scope.

This idea that someone should be above mere politics, is of itself a noble ideal. In fact where I live, the Royal Prerogative of Mercy² is a concept which continues in State law, and Federal law. It also exists in the United Kingdom; which is the place from which these notions of a prerogative of mercy and clemency arise. Remember, Hamilton is writing at a time when the several United States while not yet having invented their own form of government, have inherited that great body of common law which I find myself also inheriting.

In New South Wales:

The Royal prerogative of mercy is a broad discretionary power exercisable by the Governor acting on the advice of the Executive Council and the Attorney General. The purpose of the power is to temper the rigidity of the law by dispensing clemency in appropriate circumstances.

Strictly speaking there are no legal restrictions on the exercise of the power. The power is only exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances, where it is necessary in the public interest. The exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy is not a general avenue of appeal. Nor is it equivalent to an acquittal. Rather, the exercise of the power merely has the effect of relieving the effects of a conviction without displacing the conviction itself.

- Royal Prerogative of Mercy: fact sheet, NSW Dept of Communities and Justice, as at 6th Jan 2024.

There should be something of note here which Hamilton very obviously didn't foresee, nor care to bother to foresee. That is that the various Governors and President of the several and Federal United States, are not congruous to the various Governors, Governor-General, or even the King. Unlike those positions which exist in the Westminster system of government, the various Governors and President of the several and Federal United States, are elected by the people; whereas in a Westminster system of government, those positions are not. They might hold similar functions but the nature of their offices are both mechanically different and different in spirit.

In a Westminster system of government, the King, the  Governor-General, and the various Governors, are apolitical positions. They not only are not elected but they also do not run or administer the executive. On top of this, since 1642 when King Charles I, accompanied by armed guards, entered the House of Commons and attempted to arrest some of its members (and was unsuccessful in making any arrests at all), no king or queen has entered the House of Commons. This same convention exists throughout Westminster parliaments, where Governors and Governors-General, are still barred from entering the lower house chambers.

Hamilton would have been aware of this tradition; so he should have also been aware that the King who was not only barred from entering the lower house chambers, was also physically removed from the clatter and noise of politics. However, Hamilton who in my opinion invented this new form of government while still barely 30 years old (and as the New York Junior Delegate), was either blinkered, or myopic, or naive, or just plain dog ignorant, that the Office of The President would be occupied by anyone else other than Washington.

Indeed the idea that George Washington should become the King of the United States was not a new idea; and a letter by Colonel Lewis Nicola to Washington while he was still a General in the American Revolutionary War, proposed that the United States be a constitutional monarchy, in May of 1782. The fact that Hamilton wanted to assign king-like powers to the Office of The President seems to indicate to me that Washington occupying the position was almost a fait accompli and it is telling that in both the 1788–89 and 1792 United States presidential elections, Washington ran unopposed for the position and won with 100% of the vote on both occasions. It probably made sense for Washington who actually did float above the clatter and noise of politics to be given king-like powers but basically as soon as we get to 1796, where Adams and Jefferson ran against each other, all pretense of nobility and impartiality was burnt to the ground. 

That isn't to say that the idea of a prerogative of Mercy can not exist in a republic, or even in a republic where the President is elected. The President of Ireland also does exercise certain limited powers with absolute plenary discretion, though having said that, the presidency of Ireland is mostly a ceremonial office. The presidency of the United States is absolutely not.

If we go back to asking that initial question of whether or not the power to grant reprieves and pardons, should even be held in the hands of a President, and whether or not such a power is fit for purpose in those hands, then I think that the answer is 'no'. Presidents have frequently proven to be vindictive, irrational, and on at least three occasions have been involved in criminal activity. I think that the idea that a politically appointed person has the power to grant reprieves and pardons, makes a mockery of the justice system, which they shouldn't even be a part of. 

As that Fact Sheer from the NSW Dept of Communities and Justice states²:

A petitioner must demonstrate rare and exceptional circumstances in order to justify interference with the decisions of independent judicial officers who have heard and considered matters in accordance with the law. 

- Royal Prerogative of Mercy: fact sheet, NSW Dept of Communities and Justice, as at 6th Jan 2024.

Even when it came to the indictment of Charles I in 1649, the Parliament knew that it didn't have the power to try and convict the King. The bill which set up the High Court of Justice, initially named judges and members of the Lords as part of the setup but following opposition in the House of Lords, the judges and members of the Lords were removed from the High Court of Justice's structure.

The point here is that if the Parliament is subject to an independent judiciary, and the King is subject to an independent judiciary, then I think that it follows that an elected president should also be subject to an independent judiciary and the power to grant reprieves and pardons in the hands of the Office of the President, violates that independence. For this reason, I think that Article II, Section 2, is unfit for purpose because although perhaps for a rare period of eight years it may have been capable of performing that function adequately, as soon as party politics flooded the office, it was also permanently incapable. It is bad law.

¹http://rollo75.blogspot.com/2015/11/horse-2024-is-government-regulation.html

²https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/documents/legal-and-justice/royal-prerogative-of-mercy/royal-prerogative-mercy-fact-sheet.pdf