Horse 3442 - On The US Government's Lack Of Controls And Poor Financial Processes

"Out of control! This most enlightening press conference showed the US government's lack of controls and poor financial processes. President Trump and Elon are on it."

- Name Withheld, via Facebook, 14th Feb 2025

I would like to add just one word to this; namely "President Trump and Elon are in on it." For as far administrations go, this doesn't look broadly different to most others. What we have is an administration, that thinks that it is going to change everything and amidst the hype thinks that they're going to sweep away everything with a new broom, but when they actually get into the weedy weedy wonko weeds, they're going to very quickly find that the Doorman Paradox exists, and that the very mechanics of government itself going right back to the constitution, means that the whole dang-nabbity thing is awash with lack of controls and poor financial processes. Those two, are in fact functionally part of the problem.

In principle when it comes to organisational behaviour, the amount of control that anyone can actually exact, extends as far as either orders from a manager to their direct staff exist, or as far as orders from one staff member to another within the same level of hierarchy exist. As soon as you introduce any intermediate level of management within in an organisation, the amount of control that anyone can actually exact becomes more diffuse and beyond two levels where you then likely have area managers, the amount of exact control is nil and is immediately replaced by virtual control.

The most obvious example of this which is visible to people on a daily basis is that of the supermarket. Cashiers, Butchers, Nightfillers, Bakers, report either directly to the Store Manager or to their Department Head. The Store Manager then reports to an Area Manager or if the supermarket chain is small enough, directly to the Chief Executive Officer. Likely the floor staff have never met the Area Manager, let alone a State Manager, and they are probably unaware of who the CEO even is. How is it actually possible to exact control, over someone whom you have never met, and/or do not even know exists?

Suffice to say, the United States Government, is massive. It has many Departments, who have State Managers, who have Area Managers, who have ground staff. If we imagine the United States Government as a simple 1:10 hierarchy, then the theoretical minimum looks like this:

CEO - 1

Departments - 10

State Managers - 100

Area Managers - 1,000

Ground Staff - 10,000

TOTAL: 11,111

The truth is that there are 15 Departments, at least 13 states, and probably more than 11,111 staff. This means that the actual level of exact control in this hierarchy is going to be quite diffuse and often virtual. Therefore, when it comes to purported lack of control, the people who are removed from the actual business of executing policy, and will merely be looking at compiled data. 

There is also a massive difference between the kinds of organisations which Mr Trump and Mr Musk have run in the past. The Trump Organisation employs about 25,000 people but only has a very limited product line (mostly real estate); likewise Tesla Motors employs 120,000 people and also only has a very limited product line (selling motor cars). The core business of the United States, which involves the management of public goods and services, which are themselves massive, has to live within the confines of far more frameworks of legislation than companies which only produce limited products. We should therefore expect, that if the United States Government Administration is bigger than 11,111 people, then managing such a thing is going to require more imagination than merely looking at a set of numbers and reacting with: number go up = good; number go down = bad. I do not think that either Mr Trump or Mr Musk exhibit such imagination.

As for the question about the poor financial processes, again this is related to the diffuse processes by which:

a) various government departments are managed in the first place

b) the fact that the whole budgetary process itself is fundamentally flawed and has been since inception

Part a)

Government Departments generally have management which is incapable of actually deciding policy. Government Departments generally have their policy given to them by diktat as far as they are concerned. It is then their job to carry out the functions assigned to them, within the legislation provided; which they also do not decide. 

When it comes to the provision of public goods and services such as education, welfare, security and defence, the judiciary, roads, national parks, agriculture standards, et cetera, then quite literally all of these things are either provided because in the long run the people at large have decided that these are things that they aught to have, and/or are bound by legislation which is almost always reactive because somebody has died. On that latter point if that sounds extreme, then it is worth remembering that Labour Laws, Motor Standards, Agriculture Standards, Building and Water and Electrical Standards, Food and Additive Standards, and of course most situations involving equity against the person, are all littered with histories of dead bodies. This is because human nature at its core is selfish and/or lazy and will refuse to do anything unless there is personal benefit in doing so.

As Government Policy and Law is for the most part reactive, then Government Departments then have to work out how to carry out what has been given to them and as far as a Government Department relates to the Executive of the United States itself, then this mostly involves trying to procure budgets and staff to be able to do what they have been told to do. Of course someone like Mr Trump and Mr Musk, who only really get to see Secretaries of Government Departments cower and beg for money and staff, are going to be resentful of those Secretaries' and by inference those Government Departments' existence. It should be surprising to nobody that Mr Musk, as head of the Department Of Government Efficiency and who has apparently been given untold access to budgets and staff numbers, is going to have utter disdain for literally everyone whom he can not immediately control. Mr Trump who demands personal loyalty and fealty, is not a lot different. 

Part b)

This is related to but not quite informed by Part a). The United States Government is a monumentally idiotically constituted pile of rubbish. Bad Constitutions result in bad processes; and the United States Constitution is so bad that it has been copied by exactly zero other nations.

With regards how idiotic the United States Constitution is with respect to finance, it is best to look at how our own government deals with this same issue. Section 54 of the Australian Constitution states that:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter1/Part_V_-_Powers_of_the_Parliament#chapter-01_part-05_54

The proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation.

- Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

The phrase "shall deal only with such appropriation" has been very tightly interpreted to the point where ONLY Appropriation Bills can appropriate monies from the Australian Treasury. That's it. I can not stress how vital this is.

Appropriation Bill No.1 which is the government's first duty and really only piece of legislation that a government is actually compelled to pass, deals with the appropriation of monies from Treasury from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, for the ordinary annual services of the government. That's it. If the government of the day wants to enact new policy or start some new program, then they need to raise another Appropriation Bill (usually No.2 or No.3 et cetera), and there is an whole other bunfight about that particular bill.

The United States Constitution has NO such measure.

Firstly, there are 12 sub-committees which compromise the United States Committees on Appropriations, which all submit separate bills. Already we run into the diffusion of control problem.

Secondly, as the entire executive of the United States Government lives outside of Congress, then there is a second layer of diffusion of control. They are not directly part of any of the 12 sub-committees on Appropriations.

Thirdly, except for the President as the entire executive of the United States Government lives outside of Congress and is unelected, then there is literally zero control about how the executive actually carries out the policy directions of the Congress.

Fourthly, and most importantly, as United States Constitution has NO measure similar to Section 54 of the Australian Constitution, then literally ANY and EVERY bill presented to the House and/or Senate becomes subject to having Appropriations tacked onto it as a result of the bargaining which is done to get the bill passed. A Bill which deals with the standardisation of Voltages as presented by a committee which has reported from the National Bureau of Standards, might have monies appropriated for the building of a dual-carriageway in Montana. Even Blind Freddy can see that these things are not even remotely related.

The United States Constitution is so vaguely worded that it only states:

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

- Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, United States Constitution (1789)

That's it?

No limits? No checks or balances? No restraint? And yet this is supposed to be the shining beacon of laws? 

It is this quadripartite idiocy which means that not only are diffuse controls and poor financial processes baked into the process, but they must exist by design. I already think that Hamilton had zero imagination to think of anyone outside of George Washington as President and so never considered any consequences at all; but the fact that there is literally ZERO restraint on Congress from appropriating monies whenever and wherever they feel like, in any bill whatsoever, must be the result of lead poisoning or something (Hamilton would eventually die of fast moving lead poisoning. 

"President Trump and Elon are on it."

Considering that it takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and then three-fourths of the states, to pass and ratify an amendment to the United States Constitution; and Congress already has trouble passing bills require anything more than a simple majority, then no. 

They are not.

They will never be.

The US government's lack of controls and poor financial processes remain; seemingly by design, and forever.

Horse 3441 - Trump's "Peace" Plan

Some time this week, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are expected to hold talks concerning the future of Ukraine. Conspicuous by his absence is President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine; which seems to be at the behest of Putin, who I am sure only has designs to eliminate the country. Putin has for a long time, hinted that he wants to restore Russia to something akin to its former glory in both the Empire and the Soviet Union which was kind of a de facto Russian Empire anyway.

Although United States' Secretary of State Pete Hegseth has explicitly confirmed at NATO in the last few days that he believes that the United States under Donald Trump is committed to a sovereign Ukraine, given that Donald Trump very much appears to be persuaded by whomever was last in the room with him, and given his own rhetoric on Panama, and Canada, and Greenland, I think that we must assume that Pete Hegseth believes a fantasy. What is happening in Saudi Arabia between Putin and Trump, is likely to be horse trading over the future of hegemonies which are backed by nuclear weapons. 

Ukraine is a sovereign nation. It has been a sovereign nation since the collapse of the Soviet Union. When it comes to international policy, a sovereign country cannot be constrained in choosing which organisations it wishes to join. As a sovereign nation, Ukraine has a very real and present threat in Russia, which is demonstrating that it is a very real and present threat by dropping rocket bombs on Ukraine. Let's be absolutely certain about this, this is a Russian war of aggression because Putin is a bastard. Any other interpretation of this, indicates that the person suggesting it, is also a bastard.

In that light, as a security issue, Ukraine is entirely sensible in wanting to join NATO. As the set of military treaties, which were explicitly designed to counter the threat of Soviet aggression should it eventuate, NATO was created in an era when war with the Soviet Union (perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons) was a very real and present threat. As the inheritor of Soviet power, Russia actively chooses to continue making that very real and present threat and its war of aggression against Ukraine is the outworking of that threat made good. If Ukraine wants to join NATO, then that process of how it should enter and the obligations that NATO and Ukraine have for each other, is a process Ukraine and NATO. It is unequivocally nothing to do with Putin or Russia.

This is where Donald Trump is making a stupid mistake. Any and all attempts to negotiate on this point with Vladimir Putin are completely wrong in principle. Ukraine is a sovereign nation. Furthermore, most of the rest of the world recognises Ukraine as a sovereign nation. At this point, I have no idea whether or not Donald Trump recognises if reality exists. If Ukraine has chosen to be a free country independent of Moscow, and the world recognises that fact, then by all accounts that should stand.

Trying negotiate with Vladimir Putin on this central fact, is pointless. It is also doomed to fail. If the United States thinks that Ukraine is a sovereign nation but Putin wants a vassal state, then what we have is an irreconcilable binary set of opinions which are impossible to satisfy. A sovereign Ukraine can not exist if it is a vassal state.

If we then take into account that Donald Trump who only sees the world as a series of transactions, and has repeatedly called for either the United States to leave NATO or force the member nations of NATO to pay for their own defence (which we must assume by inference means that they should buy US made hardware), then we have to come to the conclusion that unless NATO actually goes to the defence of NATO and believe Donald Trump that under his management the United States is an untrustworthy ally (to the point of non existence), unless NATO actually gets serious and backs its sentiments with corporeal military support for Ukraine which may include actual boots on the ground, then come the next Presidential Election in 2028 the question will be academic as there will be no Ukraine.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already indicated that British forces could be sent to Ukraine as part of a peace-keeping/self-defence force and while President Emmanuel Macron has given no such sentiment, the fact that NATO itself has been shut out of the negotiations might very well be enough of an indication that NATO needs to act quickly. As it currently stands, NATO actually has no obligation to offer support to Ukraine and given that the United States as a member nation loves to bang its fists on the table, then this might force NATO's hand.

Of course as an outsider I have very little idea of what actually happens behind closed doors and all I can do is watch on in horror, but it is worth remembering that history never automatically tends towards justice. History is written by the winner because they're the one who are left. What I fear is that Trump will demand a lot of concessions from Ukraine; yet at the same time cave in to Putin. There will literally be zero security guarantees to stop Putin from simply re-grouping and invading again. If Trump thinks he has invented terms for peace, then he is delusional. What he is gifting to Putin, will be nothing less than surrender.

Horse 3440 - Happy Valentines Day: Here's A Clock.

Once upon a time in the long ago, I used to work in both the Commonwealth Bank Trading Bank building and the Commonwealth Bank Savings Bank building; both of which faced Martin Place. One of those is perhaps most famous as the "money box bank", and 48 Martin Place lingers on as a corporate whisper as the ABN of the Commonwealth Bank in general is 48 123 123 124 and not by coincidence.

The Trading Bank building now houses a stupid dress shop on the ground floor, but one of the things that will forever remain with me because I spent so many hours starting off into the distance at it, was the memento mori reminder of the inevitability of death and our mortality.

Everyone who was working at the bank when it opened in August 1916, is dead. Every Australian who was alive when the bank when opened in August 1916 except for 11 people, is dead. Even the Commonwealth Bank Trading Bank branch, by virtue of having closed, is dead. The old function of this particular bank as the central reserve bank, having been transferred to the Reserve Bank of Australia up the street, is dead. The building remains. The business is dead. The noiseless foot of time steals swiftly by.

The noiseless foot of Tune steals swiftly by

And ere we dream of manhood, age is nigh.

- Juvenal, Satires c.127

In case I haven't laboured the point, in comparison to the march of time, a person's existence is a mere blink. Generations come and generations go but but the earth has been here long before us and will remain after we have gone. It will remain after everyone who remembers us has also gone.

Not only does nobody actually remember people from long ago but because humans literally can not remember anything at all if they were not here, then it is physically impossible to remember people from long ago. This also goes for all of the all the people yet to come, for they too will also soon be forgotten by those who come after them.

On a large cosmic scale, you and I, and here and now, and everyone you have ever known, are just mere blinks. Stars are born and then they die and form planets with orbit new stars, and then and those planets will change over time and be eventually burnt up as the elements themselves melt in the heat. Be warned. Every human is going to die; including you. And that's deeply disturbing.

What's also deeply disturbing is that not only are we all going to die but we all face the same fate as animals. Grimaldi Mietitore moves at about one mile an hour and will inevitably always collect. He honestly doesn't give a rip about what he's collecting either.

The good, the bad, the saints, the sinners, the pius, the wicked, charity workers, genocidal maniacs: they all share the same destiny. Grimaldi Mietitore, or to give him his unkinder name "The Grim Reaper", is a disinterested ghoul with a work list and a clipboard, who does not care for all of our activity and madness, as he gets paid either way. When he arrives to collect, then we all join the dead.

Not only that but there's a third deeply disturbing about this thing we call 'life'. It's random. Muah, Ha ha ha ha! Although we like to assume that there there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship between doing the right thing and being rewarded, that simply isn't true. Utter bastard knaves frequently win, while people who are excellent and lovely and good, very often lose.

Grimaldi Mietitore doesn't plays dice because dice are reasonably predicatable. Nope. He plays cards: Whist, Rook, Uno, Skip-Bo, Tarot, Pokemon, Magic - he's got loads. They're all in the same deck. Draw Four. The Fool. Blue Eyes White Dragon. 5 of Diamonds. He makes up all the rules too. 

Races aren't always won by the quick. Battles are lost by the strong. Food doesn't necessarily come to the hungry. The wise are idiots. Wealth doesn't necessarily go to people who actually do the work. Favour and patronage don't go to the brilliant. Meritocracy is a lie. Time and Chance happens to them all. Grimaldi Mietitore chucks cards around like a mad thing. You might as well try to give up trying to control very much in life. Life is just way too unpredictable. If you think that you have somehow got it figured out, then you are a fool. You are setting yourself up for a fall. Life is smoke.

The funny thing about smoke is that although you can capture it in a jar you can not hold it in your hands. Life is smoke. It is weird, it is mysterious, it is sometimes awful and it is sometimes beautiful. But try and grab it, and it will slip right through your fingers. Sometimes it is like a fog, and if you have ever been in a properly thick fog you will know that it is impossible to see clearly sometimes. It is confusing. It is disorienting. It can not be controlled.

Now what?

Give up.

No, really.

Give up.

Hold things with an open hand because you really only have control over one thing and that's your attitude towards the present moment, and what you have might blow away in a moment.

Stop worrying.

Go and have a good conversation with a friend.

Stand in the morning with your arms outstretched and feel the Sun on your face.

Go and have good meal with people that you care about.

Life is smoke. It is sometimes dark. It sometimes has horrid gas in it and will sting and hurt. It will occasionally lead you into very very dark places.

Give up.

BUT.

Do not lose hope.

The last and final word is this: either this actually all is pointless and once the light turns out, that's it. Or, eventually everything that we do will be brought out into the open and judged according to its hidden intent, whether it’s good or evil. And that's deeply disturbing.

Horse 3439 - Magna Carta Is Not A Magic Spell

While sitting in court recently and waiting for things like directions hearings and instructions, in listening to cases that appear before the matters that I happen to be involved in, I have heard all kinds of tortured claims and conspiracies from utter wingnuts, loons, crazy bananas, and right steaming pillocks of people, try to invoke everything from being a 'Sovereign Citizen' or a 'Living Person', to claiming that Australia is a Corporation which is registered in the United States, to trying to invoke everyone's favourite magic piece of legislation - Magna Carta.

Granted that owing to various doctrines of reception, and pieces of acceptance legislation, the corpus of English and then British Law was adopted in Australia until about 1933 if we are pushing the absolute absurd limits of edge cases. However, people who think and from what I can tell who genuinely believe that by invoking Magna Carta, they are calling down the powers of Castle Greyskull or similar, are a whole new kind of deluded. I have no idea under what circumstances that these people think that a court of law, populated by judges and lawyers whose profession it is to have read law, are somehow going to bend like a twig in the wind to something that some other wingnut, loons, or crazy banana, who went to Magical Unicorn University has invented. As someone who works in an industry where being correct is important, and being correct at law is more important, then while I have not read law professionally, I still know that the first place to make a legal case is to  read what the relevant law says. Magna Carta is rarely (actually never in Australia) the relevant law.

Manga Carta (the Big Charter) was not and is not some magical document upon which all of law hangs; and to assert such is ridiculous. What it was, was a list of demands made by about 25 Barons, to the King, made in a field in Runnymede; probably under the threat of death. Granted that these demands were eventually kind of sort accepted into law, but as far as any bearing on how legislation is passed today, or even what law is based upon, that is seven kinds of nonsense. In fact, only 4 clauses of Magna Carta remain in operation in the UK and the fact that any of them do, is remarkable but not relevant. The number of relevant operative clauses as far as it applies to Australia is nil.

Law in Westminster Parliaments is made either according to a rule set which tells parliaments how to make laws which is called a Constitution, or an unwritten rule set which tells parliaments how to make laws which is also called a Constitution. Where I live in New South Wales, the two relevant Constitutions which tells the State and Federal parliaments how to make laws, are the Constitution Act (1902) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1901) [UK]. Regular readers of Horse will be reasonably familiar with me referring to various pieces of law including the Constitutions, a surprisingly large amount of the time for a blog.

Magna Carta is not even relevant when it comes to the British Constitution either. Although His Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not have a single written constitution, the rule set which determines how the House of Commons and House of Lords make laws, how the various Courts assay and judge the facts according to those laws, and the positions of the King and the Army and the Cabinet relate to all of it, is still subject to various pieces of legislation which together form a series of planks which kind of act as the floorboards upon which the furniture of government stands. 

Magna Carta is not useful for trying to make any kind of argument as to why you are driving in a car without paying motor registration fees or why you are driving in a car without being in possession of a valid driver's licence. Magna Carta is not useful for trying to make any kind of argument as to why after having being arrested while in the act of committing petty larceny, or fraud, or some kind of domestic violence against a person, you think that you are exempt from the law. Magna Carta is not useful for trying to make any kind of argument as to why you think that you have some right to possess illegal drugs, or firearms, or detain people illegally and against their will, or hold people in servitude or modern slavery. Magna Carta is not useful for trying to make any kind of argument as to why you think that you are exempt from paying workers properly. Magna Carta is not your magic 'get out of everything free' card. No case in Australia has ever been won on Sovereign Citizen grounds. 

One of the common refrains that I have heard this year has been "I do not consent"; as if when being confronted with any kind of authority and/or enforcement of the law, these individuals have radicalised themselves into genuinely believing that they are somehow exempt from the law. What I find logically insane is that one on hand they claim to be exempt from the law, while at the same time relying upon the law (despite how irrelevant it is). This is as paradoxically idiotic as having a square circle or the very notion of a Sovereign Citizen itself. 

I do not think that these people understand either what 'consent' is, or how this applies to the law. There is no right not to follow the law. There is no right not to be subject to the law. Having said that, while the idea that law is opt-out is nonsense, the idea that law is opt-in is also equally nonsense. I live in the State of New South Wales. I own a motor car. While there might be a notion of an implied right to freedom of movement, for me to drive a motor car still means that I am subject to the laws. I must purchase Compulsory Third Party injury insurance. Equally, if someone does not have a motor car, they do not need to purchase Compulsory Third Party injury insurance. Whether or not someone consents to the law is irrelevant. Simply the act of being in Australia and/or New South Wales, means that someone is subject to the law. That's it.

This is why I am consistently stunned that people actually think that they can make claims in court that they are not subject to the law. Do they honestly think that a judge, whose job it is to administer the law and make judgement, is going to be persuaded? Exactly how far outside of the realms of reality are these people playing at? 

Specifically, the case on Tuesday this week, revolved around a chap who while driving disqualified, crashed into a parked car and the owner of the parked car quite rightly was suing him for damages. Even if you throw all legislation aside, common law would suggest that if you damage someone else's stuff, you should either repair, replace, or make good and get them new stuff. Our crazy banana tried to argue that he had a right to travel because Magna Carta gave him the right to travel 'freely' (which he defined as without payment) and that he did not consent to the laws which require him to have a valid driver's licence, and that as a 'living man' he did not consent to the court which he was now standing inside. He also refuse to pay for the damage he caused and didn't really offer any sensible reason why even at common law, he shouldn't be personally liable for his own actions. 

Oh yeah. He lost.

Drongo.

Horse 3438 - KILL THE PENNY!

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/113977224933701762

For far too long the United States has minted pennies which literally cost us more than 2 cents. This is so wasteful! I have instructed my Secretary of the US Treasury to stop producing new pennies. Let's rip the waste out of our great nations budget, even if it's a penny at a time.

- Donald Trump, via Truth Social, 10th Feb 2025

Good!

About a month ago I wrote a piece about the Australian quarter and how I think that it should replace all of the silver coloured coinage in Australia. I would replace the 5c, 10, 20c, and 50c, with just one 25c coin and be done with it. The reason why I want this to happen, is identical in principle to getting rid of the United States One Cent coin. Getting rid of it is sensible.

The last time that I wrote about the United States One Cent coin was more than ten years ago and even back then, it still should have killed off. The reasons back then have only accelerated with the passage of time and as inflation has rendered the penny an even more of an economic dead weight on the economy. 

The only purpose of a coin, is to allow the exchange of goods and services, via a universal token system. This universal token system, which is denoted in Dollars and Cents (and Mils) in the United States, is represented with banknotes and coins. If it costs more than the value of the token to make the token, and it costs more to process the transaction than the value of the transaction, then the token has failed in its only purpose for existence. Keeping it around is stupid. 

The actual break even point, when the United States One Cent coin passed into negative seigniorage was circa 2002; which means that this discussion is now about twenty years too late. It's not like this is a new problem either because the United States has already been here before, when it killed off the Half Cent in 1857. Back then, the Half Cent had about the same amount of buying power as 18 cents does now; so actually there is a good enough argument for the United States to also kill off the nickel and the dime as well as the penny.

Killing of the penny is so unbelievably obvious, that you would either have to be criminally stupid or hideously self-interested, or both, such as the company which makes the blanks for the penny, as to want to keep this wee little brown piece of annoyance in existence.

Oh, wait...

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/10/business/costs-of-pennies-and-nickels/index.html

President Donald Trump says he has ordered the US Mint to stop making pennies, which he correctly says cost more than one cent to produce.

- CNN, 10th Feb 2015

This continues...

But there’s a problem with his plan: Phasing out the penny could result in needing to make more nickels, and the US Treasury Department loses far more money on every nickel than it does on every penny.

- CNN, 10th Feb 2015

NO IT DOES NOT.

WHO SAID THIS?

Demonstrably, in every case where previous coins have been demonetised, it does not result in needing more of the next denomination upwards to cover the spread. The reason for this is that the number of transactions does not go up. If I go to the shop and I buy a can of Pepsi, a Snickers bar, a pencil, a banana, a slice of ham, and a hammer, then unless I am feeling particularly nasty and want to annoy the jinkies out of the shopkeeper, as I am not going to rejoin the queue five times and go around and around and around, then there is only ONE transaction. The coins used in that transaction are the residual end part of the maths going on. If the amount at the end is $8.94, then I do not magically need more nickels to make the transaction work. To say so, is the result of a self-interested lie.

“Without the penny, the volume of nickels in circulation would have to rise to fill the gap in small-value transactions. Far from saving money, eliminating the penny shifts and amplifies the financial burden,” said American for Common Cents, a pro-penny group funded primarily by Artazn, the company that has the contract to provide the blanks used to make pennies.

- CNN, 10th Feb 2015

Oh great. A pro-penny group which is back by company that has the contract to provide the blanks used to make pennies? Yeah, nah. Tell me that they aren't self-interested with straight face.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2025/02/10/trump-pinches-pennies-00203439

“It’s a horrible idea. Eliminating the penny wouldn’t save money. It would actually increase government losses and cost more,” MARK WELLER, executive director of Americans for Common Cents, said in an interview. Americans for Common Cents is a pro-penny advocacy group primarily backed by Artazn, the company supplying the Mint with zinc penny blanks.

Weller argues that the nickel costs even more to make than the penny — nearly 14 cents per coin. Without pennies in circulation, the demand for nickels would increase, he said, potentially doubling the Mint’s financial losses.

- Politico, 10th Feb 2015

Oh great. A pro-penny group which is back by company that has the contract to provide the blanks used to make pennies? Yeah, nah. Tell me that they aren't self-interested with straight face.

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/10/nx-s1-5292082/trump-penny-mint-treasury

Mark Weller, the executive director of Americans for Common Cents, told NPR in 2009 that the alternative to the penny is "is rounding to the nickel, and that's something that will negatively impact working families every time they buy a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk."

- All Things Considered, NPR, 10th Feb 2025

Oh great. A pro-penny group which is back by company that has the contract to provide the blanks used to make pennies? Yeah, nah. Tell me that they aren't self-interested with straight face... HANG ON, IT'S THE SAME DANG NABBITY GUY!

What sort of eejitacious journalism is going on here? I absolutely reject the concept in journalism that you need two sides to tell a balanced story because if one side is deliberately stupid because of self-interest, then they should be ridiculed. In this case, when the only objection that anyone has found, has been made by the same exact guy whose job it is to shill for the company that makes the blanks, you do not need to see the other side of the coin. 

In Australia where we have not used either the 1c or 2c since 1992, or in New Zealand where they don't even have 5c anymore, literally nobody bemoans the loss of 1 or 2 cents in transactions. And if you are using EFTPOS, then because you have tapped or swiped your card to effect the transaction, there are no coins at all used. I wonder how Mark Weller, the executive director of Americans for Common Cents feels about the runaway fact that the alternative to the penny is to eliminate all coins altogether. 

Quite frankly about the only practical use of the penny at this point, is to collect a bunch of them and either use them for fun gambling games such as poker, or to fill a football sock with a bunch of them and then use that as a cosh to bludgeon someone for deliberately being so stupid in saying that anyone needs pennies.

And while we're at it America, get rid of the Dollar note and replace that with the coin. It's cheaper in the long run.

Horse 3437 - What Happened To The Tundra Takeover? It Happened Exactly As Expected

http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/what-happened-to-the-tundra-takeover-toyotas-most-expensive-ute-looking-like-a-rare-failure

What happened to the Tundra takeover? Toyota's most expensive ute looking like a rare failure for Japanese giant in Australia as it is outsold by RAM 1500, Chevrolet Silverado and Ford F-150

Toyota's most expensive ute – and vehicle – has failed to take flight so far in Australia, with the HiLux-dwarfing Tundra shifting just 60 units in January.

That positions it in last place in its segment, behind the Ford F-150 (230 units), the Ram 1500 (212 units) and the Chevrolet Silverado (171 units). Only the even larger version of Ram's American pickup truck sold less units, with the 2500 moving 34 units.

It's a far cry from the strong start Toyota expected, with the brand in celebrating the model's start-of-sale in November by declaring the Tundra would "hold its own".

- Cars Guide, 9th Feb 2025

I totally get that the various motor publications need to run puff pieces and shill for the various automakers but when I see an article like this, which not only was someone paid to write, but they then had the thought to publish, I really wonder if journalism generally and motor journalism in particular is now so devoid of any and all thought, that the only thing left is utter vapidity. What kind of moron would write a piece like this? Someone writing for Cars Guide, that is who.

Quite frankly, even five minutes of perfunctory research would have given you most of the answer. This article is by means of demonstration proof of the fact that the only stupid question is a question never asked and this spanner never even bothered to ask the single most basic question: Why?

Why did the Toyota Tundra fail in Australia? Again, five minutes of perfunctory research would have given you most of the answer.

I can tell you why the Toyota Tundra failed in Australia. In fact, I can give you 164,733 reasons why it failed. 

The machine is probably reasonable of itself. The truth of the matter is that I can't be bothered to look up a spec sheet for the Toyota Tundra; mostly because that is an entirely irrelevant thing at this point. This is a case where function dictates form and form should dictate result. This is a product which Toyota are looking to sell. Okay. If so, then who is this product for? If this product is looking to be sold to tradespeople, then why is it $164,733? No tradesperson has that kind of money to be throwing around on a semi-disposable product. The price would indicate that this product is going to be sold to posh people. If so, then what kind of posh person is going to buy this thing, when they could have TWO Mercedes-Benz Vito vans.

Here's the problem. The kinds of people who buy this thing in the United States, are tradespeople. The price for this product, if I plug it into the price configurator for Lincoln, Nebraska, is $40,090. That means that even if you allow for currency differences, people in America can but THREE of these things.

Tradespeople do no want a luxury product. If you are a builder, or a sparky, or a chippy, or a turd strangler, then a truck like this is a tool. It does a job. It is very likely not only to be scratched, but to wear scratches and dents as badges for a job well done. At $164,733, Toyota are selling a thing which is priced relative to fancy garage queens but hoping to sell them to tradies. It's dumber than a sack full of hammers.

The ideal truck for a Tradesperson, would be one pitched at about $30,000, which has the barest of trim, hard wearing plastics and seats, and maybe useful stuff like Bluetooth connection so that they can pair their phones to be able to do work. That's it. When you buy a hammer, you expect that it can hammer stuff. You expect that it will get scratched. You expect that it will be not just as tough as nails but tougher than the nails that you are hammering. Probably the Tundra is that tough but at $164,733, Toyota are selling a thing which needs to be made fancier to justify paying the more than 1300 budgies extra, that they are asking for it.

This is basic economics 1A stuff. If I go to the supermarket and I see a Whizzo chocolate bar, then the number of Whizzo chocolate bars that I want to buy will go down as the price goes up. It they are 50 cents, then I will buy 6. If they are $1, then I want 3. If they are $2.50, then I want none at all. If you take me as a customer, and multiply me by a million, then map all of our price desires in the aggregate, then you get a curve. Likewise, the Whizzo chocolate would like to sell no Whizzos for 10 cents but if they can get away with selling them for $3, then they want to sell loads. Map all of those price desires in the aggregate, then you get a curve. Those two curves not only slope in different direction but they cross like a pair of scissors; when two curves cross, X marks the spot and we cut through for a sale.

Toyota apparently abandoned looking at the demand curve for trucks. They might very well have the best truck in the world with this but at $164,733, then the potential customers will look at the price and walk away. At that price, what they see is a big, fat, pointless thing, which they can just walk on by. The easiest way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back in your pocket because not only have you saved money but you also have money in your pocket. Who actually cares about this big, fat, pointless thing? Sales figures empirically tell you who cares - Nobody.

What happened to the Tundra takeover? It quite rightly never happened. This thing has sold exactly as it should have done. Selling only 60 units in January is exactly what you should expect for a thing which costs $164,733. In fact as compared with the Ford F-150, the Ram 1500, and the Chevrolet Silverado, even the data as provided by how uncurious motor journalist, suggests that selling a thing with zero marketing at that price, is doing exactly what should have been expected. Even Blind Freddy who should never be allowed to drive a motor vehicle could see that this was a bad idea, before he started doing screechies and doughies in the carpark before crashing into a bin.

Horse 3436 - Five Modern Legendary Jokers

I have finally finished and beaten a run of the 2024 roguelike deck-building poker game, Balatro. At its heart, the game is about trying to make various poker hands, paying attention to various kinds of Jokers and other cards, which improve the scoring ability of the hands played. 

In fact the name "Balatro" itself, is the Latin words for a clown/jester/buffoon; which is a perfect name which describes the 202 Jokers/Tarot/Planet/Spectral Cards which change how the game is played and all have various effects that interact with each other.

Along the way there are many different things which are various jokers, including a credit card, a business card, a ballot with a hanging chad, a bus ticket, a joker which has been ripped in half, but apart from the many many normal Jokers, there are five which are named after "Legendary Jokers". As is my wont to take an idea way too far, I began to ponder what a Joker actually is and if in fact there are any modern Legendary Jokers.

A Joker as suggested is a Clown or Jester or Buffoon. These things are broadly similar and sometimes convergent; so it is perhaps easier to define what a Joker is by what they are not. A person who makes announcements to the world, sometimes by standing in the town square and ringing a bell, is a Herald. A person who plays an instrument and sings songs, which may or may not be funny, is a Minstrel. A person who plays a part in a play, is a Thespian or an Actor. These roles might also converge with the Joker, but those roles are not at the core.

The problem also lies in the fact that Clowns, Jesters, and Buffoons, are slightly different. A Clown is someone who is explicitly meant to play at being funny. A Jester is an entertainer, who has explicit privilege to say whatever they like (usually in the name of satire or ridicule) without fear of retribution. A Buffoon is someone who deliberately acts foolish or incompetent, to make people laugh. The five Legendary Jokers, are either one or multiple of those roles; and who have sufficient fame that the game designer thought that they were important. The five in order are:

Yorick

Yorick is an unseen character in William Shakespeare's 1599 play "Hamlet", and in fact has already died before the beginning of the play. Yorick in the play, was the court jester whose skull is exhumed by the First Gravedigger in Act 5, Scene 1. Prince Hamlet apparently knew Yorick, as this Jester had some kind of hand in his upbringing. We have no idea what Yorick said or did, even in context. 

Canio

Canio is the protagonist from Rugfero Leoncallo's 1892 opera "agliacci". Pagliacci tells the story of Canio, who was the lead actor of a commedia dell'arte troups, and who murdered his wife Nedda and her lover Silvio on stage during a performance. Canio then adopts the persona of a Sad Clown, which is the framing for how the rest of the opera plays out. Canio as the Sad Clown, is the uber-example of the Sad Clown which adorned people's houses in the form of statues and posters during the 1980s for a time. I wonder how many people actually knew that they had pictues of a murderer in their house.

Perkeo

Perkeo was the official court Jester and Count Dwarf for the Holy Rome Empire's Elector Palatine Charles III Philip in Heidelberg Tun. As the legendary historical guardian of the city, he serves as a kind of unofficial mascot.

Chicot

Chicot was the court Jester of King Henry III and Henry IV, of France. Chicot is probably the ur-example of the idea that the court Jester had unlimited privilege and could speak to the king without filter or formality. The court Jester, who had unlimited privilege was a useful person to have as they were also the one expected to speak truth without fear or favour and could be weaponised to insult other dignitaries. 

Triboulet

Triboulet is legendary to the point of almost myth. There were at least three Jesters who carried the name "Triboulet", with the first being documented in the court of René of Anjou, in 1430.

.......

We come back to that note about the concept of Italian commedia dell'arte. In broad principle, a commedia dell'arte troupe, travelled from town to town, maybe putting on morality plays or other historical pieces, with a range of various stock characters. The Hero, the Wizard, the Hermit, the King, the Lovers, the Masked Man, the Evil Lord, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The idea with commedia dell'arte is that the troupe could take their stock characters off the shelf, and produce a play in the town which would be very highly tailored for that particular town. Current events could be made the subject of satire, local celebrities (famous or infamous) could be hidden behind the characters, and even the stock characters themselves could be the subjects of whatever the troupe wanted because being standard stock characters, they were already familiar to audiences.

In Agatha Christie's first published short story "Affair At The Victory Ball" (1923), we basically have a locked box/oom story with the six suspects attending a fancy dress ball (The Victory Ball), dressed as the six stock Jesters/Clowns of Harlequin and Columbine, Punchinella and Punchinello, and Pierrot and Pierette. Clearly by 1923, the standard characters of Italian commedia dell'arte had jumped from Italy, probably through English Theatre and Music Hall, and were well known enough that Agatha Christie never ever feels the need to explain who they are.

And this is what prompted by question. If Canio in 1892 was the last "Legendary Joker", then have we had any new ones since. I think that we have; but they need to have has such an impact on the world of comedy, that they are known either around the world, or their effects have been felt around the world. I would like to submit five new "Legendary Jokers".

Jerry Seinfeld

No. I am not submitting the comedian Jerry Seinfeld but rather, the character 'Jerry Seinfeld' as played by Jerry Seinfeld in 'Seinfeld'. Probably with the logical end of limited broadcast television, Seinfeld is perhaps the last massively massive sitcom. Sure, others have followed but apart from 'The Simpsons', nothing since has found its was that deep into general culture. He wasn't the first. He wasn't the best. He isn't even particularly funny, either as a comedian in the show or outside of it; but Jerry Seinfeld is the character type, of who people think about when they think of stand-up comedy. 

The Tramp

Perhaps Charlie Chaplain's star has faded but his Tramp character with broken bowler hat and cane, is also the type that people think of, when they think of a comedian. The Tramp is a case of character passing into icon; well after the character themself has fallen out of view. The Tramp, who appears in several films, is also a kind of commedia dell'arte character because there is no continuity whatsoever between one film and the next.

Bugs Bunny

Disney Corporation might be the more successful animation house but the Warner Bros. built the world of animated comedy. Mickey Mouse is paradoxically both the everyman and nobody. Comedy in Disney cartoons is mainly driven by Donald Duck and Goofy, who are the anti-hero and the fool. Bugs Bunny by himself, is the trickster. He is the jester with explicit privilege, to think the thoughts and do the things which the public can not.

Neddie Seagoon

Neddie Seagoon as the protagonist of The Goon Show on BBC Radio, is the idiot and hero. He is the one who will be exploited, or become the fall guy for whatever idiotic scheme has been concocted in any given episode. The Goon Show on the BBC Home Service/World Service, was made at a time when the British Empire was in its twilight; which meant that the BBC had a reach which was unbelievably massive. Also, as a commedia dell'arte series, The Goon Show perfectly fits the ouvré of what Jesters were likely to do.

Mr Beast

Mr. Beast (Jimmy Donaldson) is the most subcribed YouTuber, in the world. His YouTube channel while not explcitly known for comedy, does pull lots of stunts and challenges; so this kind of makes him a modern Buffoon. In videos such as when he microwaved a microwave, or counting to 100,000 (which took more than 23 hours), he proved that in pushing the absurd, there is comedy to be found.

And the reason for these five in particular, is that here we have five different media (television, film, animation, radio, online). I have no idea what kind of effects that these five as Joker cards would have, but given that the game can do whatever it likes, then that's moot. 

'Who' is but the form following the function of 'what' and what we have here is the concept which underpinned the Balatro/Joker in the first place. The Clowns/Jester/Buffoon/Balatro could be anything as the role demanded and The Joker in most card games, either acts as a wild card that can be anything as the role demands or as the highest trump, or as the card to be avoided.

Horse 3435 - This Is How The Union Crumbles?

If you ever wanted to see an empire fall apart in real time, then the arrival of Donald J Trump as the 47th President of the United States, might very well have been the trigger which allows you to see precisely that. His general level of disdain for people who do not show loyalty and fealty to him is more or less normal at this point but the sheer level of disdain that the President has shown to the State of California in these past few days and weeks is horrible. California has had to deal with very very big bushfires and the loss of billions of dollars worth of home and infrastructure, and Mr Trump's behaviour in relation to this is simply not befitting of a president. Then again we already knew that in times of crisis, the commander-in-chief has been gloriously uninterested in actually doing the job of governing. 

Mr Trump's disdain for people who are crying out for help has actively demonstrated that he can not and should not be relied upon. Moreover the sparks of his invective, have ignited another series of debates, which threaten the very fabric of the union itself.

Probably in response, the California Secretary of State Shirley Weber indicated this week that what was floated as an idea, is now officially on the table:

https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2025-news-releases-and-advisories/Proposed-Initiative-Enters-Circulation-Requires-Future-Vote-on-Whether-California-Should-Become-Independent-Country

Proposed Initiative Enters Circulation:

Requires Future Vote on Whether California Should Become Independent Country.

Initiative Statute.

REQUIRES FUTURE VOTE ON WHETHER CALIFORNIA SHOULD BECOME INDEPENDENT COUNTRY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

If enacted, this measure places the following question on November 2028 ballot: “Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?” If at least 50% of registered voters participate in that election, and at least 55% vote “yes”, it would constitute “a vote of no confidence in the United States of America” and “expression of the will of the people of California” to become an independent country, but would not change California’s current government or relationship with the United States. Creates commission to report on California’s viability as independent country.

- Shirley Weber, California State Department, 25th Jan 2025

Yes, you did in fact read that correctly. The California Secretary of State, has officially started the process to gather signatures for a vote on California leaving the United States, and for California to become an independent country. Secession is now up for discussion.

Now exactly how far this thing gets, whether it burns hot or fizzles out to a dead ember, remains to be seen; but before we pour petrol on the fire and burn this metaphor to the ground, there is just one slight problem with any attempt by California trying to secede from the Union.

It's illegal.

Rather, it is invalid.

The reason we know this is that the United States has been here before. The United States which was started as a tax dodge, in order to avoid punitive taxation which was designed to coerce the thirteen colonies to abolishing slavery, never actually resolved that central question of the nation's creation and embedded the notion of slavery in the Constitution. Slaves in these new United States, although they did not have the franchise, counted as three-fifths of a person in the reckoning of how many Representatives a state sent to the nation's Congress.

Rather than dealing with the issue, it racistly bubbled along quite toxically for the next 70-odd years, and as states were added to the Union they were either declared as Slave States or Non-Slave States, as various compromises and concessions were made at law. Finally when Abraham Lincoln was elected to be the next President in 1860, seven states decided to leave the confederacy and would form the Confederate States of America; which apart from being explicitly racist, were also increasingly belligerent and tensions boiled over into war in April of 1861.

On 1st February, 1861, a specially convened Texas Secession Convention drafted and approved an Ordinance of Secession. The Ordinance of Secession was sent to the Texas State Congress, wherein it was passed by both houses and the Governor put the same question to the people of Texas by means of Referendum. The Referendum was approved overwhelmingly in the majority, by the people of Texas. 

So when the war failed and when the Confederate States of America lost and the United States scrobbled around trying to reconstruct the Union out of the previously warring parts, the United States Department of Treasury inevitably wanted to reclaim its monies. 

However the specific point of order which is relevant for this discussion, is the ruling made by the United States Supreme Court in the wake of the Civil War in relation to a case in which State of Texas tried to sue various governors of banks (of which White was one of many), reclaim the monies that had been gained as a result of illegally selling US Treasury Bonds. Mostly that case relates to the actual obligation and order to pay, but almost as a side-ruling, SCOTUS was quite clear about its opinion on whether or not a State has the right to secede.

In Texas v. White, SCOTUS held at point of order No.7 that:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/74/700/

7. Considered as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention, and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union.

- Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868)

In essence, SCOTUS held that Texas (and by inference the rest of the Confederacy) never actually left the Union during the Civil War, because a state cannot unilaterally secede. The Ordinance of Secession, was "absolutely null" and "utterly without operation in law". 

You will not find anything about what happens if a state wants to leave the Union because the framers of the United States Constitution in yet another demonstration of practical legal blindness, never foresaw nor imagined that as a possibility. As they never foresaw nor imagined that secession could be an option, there are no clauses or rules to say what happens if a State wants out. The 1868 decision by SCOTUS, stems from the original jurisdiction that is conferred to it by Article III, Section 2, and which SCOTUS took for itself in Marbury v. Madison (1803) at 177. "to say what the law is."

Logically if Texas never actually left the Union during the Civil War and the rest of the Confederacy never actually left the Union during the Civil War because a state cannot unilaterally secede, then it follows that California which hoping to put to referendum a motion of secession and to become an "independent country", is also invalid.

It really makes you wonder what the actual point of Shirley Weber's motion to attempt a referendum is. Surely you would assume that the Secretary of State for California would have read law at some point; especially when it comes to a matter as crucial as this. I mean, if I am not even a poor ol' country lawyer, and I am literally on the other side of an ocean, and I know of cases which directly relate to this question, and even I can see that this is like a broken pencil in that it is pointless, then why do it? 

What the jinkies is this trying to achieve? The only thing that seems sensible to me here is that when even the California Secretary of State knows that all legal avenues are utterly useless, and when the President himself is a horrible horrible knave who has no regard for his own citizens, then running this up the flagpole may very well be the only flag which can be legally raised. Perhaps Ms Weber knows that this is legally a waste of time but given that there are no legal avenues to take, rather than raise the white flag of surrender she has decided to raise the red flag. Though traitors flinch and tyrants sneer, she'll keep the red flag flying here?

Horse 3434 - The Thousand Year Descendent Of Vikings

I really like the literary device that all stories exist in the same universe, no matter how insane or ridiculous, or how many elements of plot, narrative, decoration, or even how untenable the continuity needs to be. If every story, regardless of narrative, genre, author, style, time period, or place, are all interconnected, then in theory characters can appear in any other story, encounter objects, fragments, plots devices, et cetera, from other stories, and cross over everywhere.

This is why I think that Star Wars with Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin is a First Doctor story, because Peter Cushing played Doctor Who in the movies; why Red Dwarf is also in that universe as the Tardis is parked on the outside of Red Dwarf in the opening titles; and why Star Trek is also is also in that universe as various iterations of Captains of the Enterprise have met the Doctor in comics. The Thick of It is a Twelfth Doctor story. Broadchurch is a Thirteenth Doctor story. Withnail and I is an Eighth Doctor story. On that note, Red Dwarf is doubly in that universe as Brian Williams and Father Brown are actually just what happened to Petersen.

The Pixar theory also makes use of this same concept; which is why Dinoco frequently appears across various films, and is the explanation of how we get from sentient toys in Toy Story, to the world being trashed by the time that Wall-E happens; to the homunculus explanation of what is actually going on inside the cars of Cars. 

Most recently I was alerted to the fact that Eiichiro Oda was inspired by the 1974 series Vicki The Viking, to write One Piece. There are even hints to this in One Piece on several occasions where Vicki, Halvar, Faxe, Gorm, Ylvie, and Tjure, have all appeared. That sent me down yet another trail of investigation and I ended up here:

On the left is Vicki The Viking. Vicki The Viking is the titular protagonist of the 1974 German/Japanese anime series which bears his name. On the right is Mr Benn. Mr Benn the titular protagonist of the 1972 British series. Side by side, these two shows look like they could be connected because of the same kind of claire ligne art style but that doesn't do very much by way of explanation. If we are going to get the grand theory of literature that all stories exist in the same universe, no matter how insane or ridiculous, then we're going to have to work harder to find the connection.

As if by magic... the shopkeeper appeared. I've got it! I've found the solution!

We are perpetually unsure of how old Vicki The Viking is. We know that he is at least ten because that is his stated age in the very first episode but beyond that, weeks, months, and maybe years pass in the show. In that time frame, the crew of seemingly the village of Flak's only ship, sails to: Denmark, Greece, Bulgaria, France, Italy, Sweden, Finland, England, Greenland, Iceland, America, and Alaska. At least canonically, this one ship has travelled far and wide across the Baltic, North, and Mediterranean Seas, and across the Atlantic Ocean. Even now, that's a very long distance to travel and is worthy of its own saga. Take careful note of the fact that they have been to England.

I would like to posit that at some point, Vicki marries Ylvie. It is straight up stated by Ylvie that she wants to grow up and marry Vicki at least three times in the series. That's fine. By the end of the 78th episode, there is still plenty of time for that to happen in their future. 

We also know that the Viking invasions of Britain, happened in several waves from about 850 up until just before the Norman invasion and conquest in 1066 (which is the only date in English history that anyone can remember). And since it is never stated exactly when Vicki The Viking is set, then this gives us a two hundred year window. I would like to suggest that Vicki The Viking is set in 972 because that means that the 1974 German/Japanese anime series is set a thousand years ago.

Since Mr Benn is set in 1972 because we have to assume that it is contemporary of the day, then we have just found out connection. At fifteen years per generation, then this means that Mr Benn is the Great 62x Grandson of Vicki and Ylvie.

In the very first episode of Mr Benn, we learn that he has been invited to a fancy-dress party but does not like parties. Having exhausted the normal shops, he stumbles into the costume shop, puts on the costume of the Red Knight, is whisked away to have an adventure which involves defeating a dragon; and then decides that he does not want to go to the fancy-dress party after all. He does promise to return to the costume shop to try on other costumes and have other adventures.

The fact that Mr Benn does not like parties but still wants to go on adventures, parallels nicely with Vicki who is a very strict pacifist and does not like fighting but still wants to go on adventures. If Mr Benn is the Great 62x Grandson of Vicki and Ylvie, then we have a very nice explanation for Mr Benn's latent adventure seeking desire.

Mr Benn as the thousand year descendent of Vikings, which even though he likely works in The City at a bank (he does wear a bowler hat), still retains a very small spark of that adventuring spirit that wants to come out. 

Horse 3433 - Not Because Of Obligation But Because We Love Big Brother.

One week after the inauguration of Donald Trump as President of the United States as only the second President to serve non-consecutive terms, apart from pardoning everyone involved in the January 6th riots at the Capitol which included the murder of some and the permanent brain damage of other police officers (which kind of negates any and all rhetoric that he will ever say about supporting the police), and starting a series of trade wars, the one promise that Trump made which absolutely has not been kept was to end the war in Ukraine on Day One. 

That is probably a good thing.

Because given Trump's own hints to buy/invade Greenland, to vow to take back the Panama Canal, his statement that "anything could happen" in relation to starting a war with Iran, I can only assume that the statement that he wants to to end the war in Ukraine is to surrender it to Russia. Trump has for several years made statements that the United States should pull out of NATO because NATO nations don't pay their won way apparently, and his actual executive order which has pulled the United States out of the World Health Organisation, means that we should assume that as Commander-In-Chief that he personally sees the US Military as his possession and that he will use it if he feels that other nations do not show him personal fealty. This was last demonstrated in 2017 when he ordered cruise missiles to be sent into Syria; without really having a military objective for doing so.

So given all of this, a conversation which was held in a press gaggle on board Air Force One aught to leave the world at large slightly worried and Australia in particular very worried indeed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8CfuMh87gA

Reporter: Can you tell us about your call with the King of Jordan today?

President Trump: It is a very good call; he's a friend of mine; I know him very well; I've gotten along for the over the years very well and he's done a wonderful job. He really houses, you know, millions of Palestinians and he does it in a very humane way, and uh, I compliment him on that but he really... Jordan's done an amazing job of housing largely pal-Palestinians and he's done it in a very successful...

Reporter: What was the subject of discussion was it (interrupted)

President Trump: Pretty much that. I said to him "I'd love you to take on more." 'Cause I'm looking at the whole Gaza Strip right now and it's a mess. it's a real mess. see You'd like Jordan

Reporter: See? You'd like Jordan to House people from (interrupted)

President Trump: I'd like him to take people. Uh.. I'd like Egypt to take people and meeting with talking to, uh, General el-Sisi tomorrow. Sometime I'm L(?) and uh I'd like Egypt to take people and I'd like Jordan to take people.

I could I mean  you're talking about probably a million and a half people and we just clean out that whole thing. It's you know, it's over the centuries that's had many many conflicts that site, and I don't know it's something has to happen but uh it's it's literally a demolition site right now. Almost everything's demolished and people are dying there so I'd rather get involved with some of the Arab Nations and build housing at a different location where they can maybe live in peace. 

Reporter: for change temporar or... (garbled - interrupted)

President Trump: Could be either it could be temporarily, could be long term.

- via Forbes, 25th Jan 2025

Under the previous Trump Administration, Donald Trump personally via executive order, changed the official stance of the United States and officially recognised Jerusalem as Israel's capital. In no way did that ease tensions in the region and if anything emboldened Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to look for any excuse for Israel to 'defend itself' against Palestine. Netanyahu found that excuse on October 7th 2023, when Hamas led an attack on Israel by firing more that 4300 rocket; which killed 1139 people. Israel responded by repaying evil for evil and instead of an eye for an eye, has killed at least 53000 civilians and so that works out to be an an eye for two whole classrooms of now blinded children.

Now it should be pointed out that Hamas and Hezbollah are evil. This doesn't change the fact that Likud and the IDF as directed by Benjamin Netanyahu are also evil. I can not say how much I wish that Hamas, Hezbollah, Likud, and the IDF should all be exiled to a place in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Backing one evil side in a conflict against another evil side does not make either side less evil. The only thing that makes sense here is that the various parties find some sort of weird gratification in seeing innocent people pulped into chunky marinara. 

Mr Trump who is a deeply narcissistic fool, in saying that "we just clean out that whole thing" should be taken to mean that if "anything could happen" in relation to starting a war with Iran, then committing American troops to fight a war in Israel to clear Gaza is not off the table either. As Mr Trump's moral compass is such that the ends are bent in such a way that no matter which way it points, the points always point back to him, would have no moral qualms in turning ever more people into chunky marinara.

What does this mean for Australia though? We can rest assured and know that if the United States does decide to fight a war in Israel to clear Gaza, that not only will Australia be complicit in evil but active in sending troops to commit evil.

The United States Department of State, has this to say about Australia's role in being an obedient little lap dog with no back bone:

https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-australia/

Bilateral defense ties and cooperation are exceptionally close.  U.S. and Australian forces have fought side-by-side for more than one hundred years, in every major conflict since World War I, beginning with the Battle of Hamel in 1918.  In 2022, the United States and Australia marked the 80th anniversary of several key World War II battles, including the Battles of the Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal.  Moreover, 2021 marked the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Australia, New Zealand, and United States (ANZUS) treaty, Australia’s pre-eminent alliance, which enjoys broad bipartisan support.  Australia invoked ANZUS for the first time in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 

- Bilateral Relations Fact Sheet, US Department of State, 23rd Jul 2024

Ever since January 26th 1788, Australia has basically never had any kind of foreign policy, with regards anything. Australians fought in the Crimean War, and the Boer War, and both the First and Second World War; because the various State Governments and then the Commonwealth Government rolled over and immediately became an obedient little lap dog with no back bone for big brother John Bull. The Pacific Conflict from 7th December 1941 changed our perspective a bit and after World War Two, Australians have fought in Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again, because the Commonwealth Government rolled over and immediately became an obedient little lap dog with no back bone for big brother Uncle Sam.

The signing of the AUKUS Treaty as far as I can tell, provides less than zero benefit to Australia; with the 'purchase' of imaginary submarines to the value of $368bn. That is a call on the Federal Budget of $350m per week, every week, for 20 years. If the rightist side of politics wants to complain about the cost of the ABC, then they need to repeatedly punch themselves in the head until they bleed because the yearly budget of the ABC is less than three weeks of the loyalty and fealty payments that we have committed to in tribute, for literally nothing at all. Australia is never ever ever going to see even a single submarine; and if you think that we are then not only do I have a bridge to sell you but you might also like to repeatedly punch yourself in the head until you bleed because that's the only way that any kind of sense will be beaten into you.

The question therefore is not whether or not Australia would send troops to fight a war to clear out Gaza until every last building has been levelled and to turn whomever is left into chunky marinara (because we absolutely would without question), but the consolation question of whether or not Australia is obligated to send troops.

The AUKUS Treaty between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, mentions literally nothing about either what happens in the even that any of them are attacked or if they choose to be the belligerent. The ANZUS Treaty of 1952, despite the fact that New Zealand unilaterally pulled out, is still in operation in perpetuity until the point that either Australia or the United States pulls out. Now I would assume that in the event that Australia was attacked by China or some other future great power, that the United States would drop us like a plate of cold vomit and pull out immediately. However, Australia as the obedient little lap dog with no back bone, would rush to the aid of the United States.

Article II of the ANZUS Treaty states that:

https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/house/committee/jfadt/usrelations/report/appendixb_pdf.ashx

Article II

In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty the Parties separately and jointly by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. 

- Article II, ANZUS Treaty, 29 Apr 1952

Now as previously mentioned, Australia invoked ANZUS for the first time in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks; which was seen as a direct attack on United States' soil. So good, so far. However, the United States sending in troops to fight a war to clear out Gaza, is not of itself an "armed attack" which needs resistance. I can absolutely see Australians being sent in to murder unarmed Palestinians, on the basis that everything that moves will be assumed to be the enemy (this is the current stance of the IDF in practice), but the one consolation that we have before we do decide to get blood on our hands and lick it up and politely ask for more, is that it will not be because of legal obligation, but it is all right, everything is all right, the struggle is finished. We love Big Brother.

Horse 3432 - NSW Proclamation Day

Happy Not Australia Day.

If you think that this is Australia Day, you are a sad strange little person.

26th January is not the date that Australia became a nation. Nope. That date was 1st January 1901; when after a series of Constitutional Conventions, a series of Referenda, the colonies of Fiji and New Zealand both choosing to withdraw from the process of Federation, the legislation that created the new Crown as a separate legal person called the Commonwealth Of Australia cam into effect after being passed by the British Parliament in 1900.

26th January is not the date that Australia was first settled by the British. Nope. That date was 7th February 1788; when after leaving merry old England in May 1787, the eleven ships which comprised the First Fleet, vomited out their cargo of convicts, criminals, ne'er-do-wells, and chancer sailors who wanted titles, upon the lands at Gadigal and the Eora people. The 11 Ships had originally planned to dump their prisoners at Botany Bay on 20th January 1788 but in a remarkable act of British optimism, Captain Arthur Phillip saw that the bay was far to shallow to be sensible and sent scouts up the cost wherein they found the very deep river/port of Port Jackson.

26th January is actually the day that Captain Arthur Phillip decided to stick his flag in the dirt and claim it in the name of King George! Hurrah! On 7th February 1788, Captain Arthur Phillip decided to make his claim permanent, retroactively from the date that he stuck a flag in the dirt; so 26th of January is actually New South Wales Proclamation Day.

And in fact, Proclamation Day is the name of the day that is used right through official documents in the early days of the colony; including when Governor Bligh in an heroic act of hiding under the bed when the New South Wales Corps decided to arrest him and then throw the colony under direct military rule in 1808. Proclamation Day is the name of the day that was used during the half-hearted Golden Jubilee of the colony and in the celebration of the Centenary in 1888.

The name 'Australia Day' doesn't really appear until during the First World War, when various charitable appeals were made to fund things like medical supplies and other comfort goods, to make the lives of volunteers who had left to go and fight in a mess in which they found the horrors of mechanised and chemical conflict first hand. Australia Day was on different dates and was on 30th July 1915, 28th July 1916, 27th July 1917, and 26th July 1918. 

The 26th of January sort of fell into relative obscurity until 1938 when suddenly a wave of patriotism fell over the nation as the gathering storm clouds of war loomed over Europe for a second time. The 150th Anniversary of British Settlement was flogged for all it was worth, likely to garner support for PM Lyons' expected eventual unconditional decree to send more Australian bodies into the meat grinder of a European conflict. Lyons helpfully died in office, which meant that the UAP was thrown into confusion and Earle Page became PM for a bit; then Menzies took exactly the same actions that Lyons would have done.

The 26th of January 1938 was also declared as an unofficial Aboriginal Day Of Mourning, because the injustices of having land taken without consent, being killed for a bounty of ninepence per head, having no legal rights at all in some states until Federation, and then having even basic rights surrounding citizenship denied, had never been addressed. To this day, we still have no treaty, and no formal process for trying to reconcile the tensions and the knavery of refusing to deal with unceded sovereignty. The next presumed Prime Minister is openly unrepentant and unapologetic for these injustices.

It wasn't until 1988 that full-on flag-waving patriotism was foisted upon Australia for the Bicentenary and it wasn't until 1994 that the date actually became a national holiday. It had been a holiday previously in different states.

The thing that the flag-waving hooray henrys haven't been able to tell us ever, is why anyone outside of New South Wales has an interest in Proclamation Day; especially New South Wales Proclamation Day. What makes these people think that anyone living in Queensland, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, or Western Australia, would want to celebrate the official founding of New South Wales? 

The number plates in the different states used to have slogans like "South Australia - The Festival State", "Queensland - The Sunshine State", "Victoria - The Garden State", but in here we had "New South Wales - The Premier State". It used to be that every time our yellow and black number plates travelled to these often hostile and unfriendly backwaters, they'd proclaim the New South Wales is The Premier State, the Best State; and they knew it. It is no coincidence that it was only after state slogans appeared on number plates that the other states decided that they had to cower in the glory of New South Wales and try to claim our Proclamation Day as Australia Day.

Moreover, why should the decent and good and fair people of New South Wales want to share this holiday with them? They're all a bunch of splitters. As far as the fair people of New South Wales are concerned, we are the best. The rottenest bit of this island of ours, is held in the hands of five unfriendly powers.

"It would therefore seem obvious that patriotism as a feeling, is a bad and harmful feeling, and as a doctrine is a stupid doctrine. For it is clear that if each people and each State considers itself the best of peoples and States, they all dwell in a gross and harmful delusion."

- Patriotism And Government, Leo Tolstoy (1900)

It used to be that the only time that anyone in this country cared about patriotism, it was to wrap ourselves in green and gold because of sport. We should rightly view any overt display of patriotism as unAustralian because it is deeply suspicious and suspect. Just who do those people think they are anyway? Do they want to be Seppos? Imported patriotism from Seppoland is also deeply suspicious and suspect.

Yeah, nah bro. Australia Day is unAustralian. Especially because it is actually NSW Proclamation Day.

Horse 3431 - Trump Tries To Extinguish 14A, Section 1

On President Trump's first day back in office, once again as predicted, he signed a heap of executive orders which have immediately culturally jolted the United States further to the right. If Elon Musk's Nazi Salute at the inauguration (which he did twice in case you didn't get the message the first time) wasn't enough, then executive orders which are policy in action, should have made the point loud and clear.

The President on Day One, withdrew the United States from the World Health Organisation, pardoned more than 1500 people for their part in the January 6th Insurrection (which kind of proves that it was absolutely an insurrection), and signed an executive order which at more than 700 words long, removes the birthright of children who have been born in the United States, to citizenship.

Now obviously this was always going to be controversial because citizenship has been part of the increasingly white nativist agenda now for more than 10 years. Trump came to power in the first place, because he questioned Barack Obama's citizenship despite the fact that Obama was born in Hawaii. That sparked off a bunch of dog-whistling and now the whistling has become so much of din, that any opposing voices are legally drowned out. Let's not pretend that this is about anything other than fragile white people who have been emboldened to become explicitly racist. 

The mechanics of birthright citizenship are such that a child born in the United States, is automatically a US Citizen; regardless of the status of their parents. The other weird mechanics of this are that if a child is born anywhere in the incorporated territory of the United States then the child is automatically a US Citizen, but if a if a child is born in an unincorporated territory of the United States then the child is automatically a US Citizen; thanks to the insular cases from SCOTUS which were passed before 1930. To take this to its extreme, a child born in Puerto Rico might not be a US Citizen even though Puerto Rico even has an Observer Member in the House of Representatives, but a child born on Palmyra Atoll which currently has a population of nil but is administered by the Department of the Interior, would be.

- Sad Coconut is a US Citizen by birthright

Naturally, this set of mechanics is known and openly abused. People wishing to gain entry to the United States know that if they do what comes naturally and have a baby, and then have that baby on United States' incorporated territory, that that baby is automatically a US Citizen; regardless of the status of their parents. Then is US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers arrive and try to deport someone who might have arrived illegally or overstayed their visa, they are in a pickle because that means having to deport a US Citizen by virtue of them having gained that citizenship through no other process than simply having been born.

Yes, the law is stupid; but has Horse has been at pains to point out in many posts about the US Constitution, the US Constitution is frequently stupid. So how did we get here? Yet again the apple of racism hasn't fallen very far from the tree at all; and in this case the nation conceived 'in liberty' as a tax dodge which was trying to keep and retain slavery, is the ultimate reason why US birthright citizenship exists.

The words to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution read:

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

SECTION 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

- Section 1, 14th Amendment to the US Constitution

All of this sounds good and reasonable and proper, except looking through the lens of 156 years of hindsight. If "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" and the first clause has already stated that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" then it US birthright citizenship looks pretty watertight. So why is it here?

The two important dates which accompany 14A tell the story excellently. 14A was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, and then ratified on July 9, 1868. This means that we are squarely in the era of reconstruction which followed the Southern War Of Aggression To Further Keep And Retain Slavery, after seven southern states seized Federal assets and Forts, following the election of Abraham Lincoln as President, who did not want any more slave states as the United States expanded to the west. Four years of unpleasantness followed and the United States between the two warring factions of "Yay Slavery!" and "Boo Slavery!" decided to turn hundreds of thousands of its own citizens into chunky marinara to prove the point. After the disagreement, there was the problem of what to do with all the people left over.

Before 1868, there was no directive whatsoever about who was a United States' Citizen and as the States themselves kind of had plenary and very punitive powers within their own borders, by the time of the Southern War To Keep People As Chattel Goods, no fewer than thirteen states had already decided that not only were slaves not citizens and not entitled to due process of law, but in some cases they were also not people at law. This caused something of a problem when trying to refashion two parts of a broken nation back into one.

So for a short period of time, an amazing amount of reconciliation work at law was done; part of that work included 14A; which was intended to give former slaves and people who were considered to be chattel, citizenship and some kind of recognition and protection at law. 

So here's the central quandary. Legal problems often have long tails. In this case, that long tail and expansive wording has created a set of conditions 150 years' later; which the framers of this piece of legislation neither thought of, nor bothered to care about. 

President Trump's executive order is blatantly unconstitutional. There is no other way to say this. The other side of the coin is that he simply does not care. In just one day he proved that his oath to "faithfully uphold and execute the constitution", was a lie and is worthless. With a toady sycophantic Congress and an equally permanent toady sycophantic 6-3 SCOTUS, this is likely to remain unchallenged.

However none of this, questions the fitness of law for purpose. S1.14A is clearly bad law. If that is true, could there be better law? Yes; very yes.

The mechanics of the Citizenship Act 1949 in Australia are such that children who are born here do not automatically have birthright citizenship. For the vast majority of children born here, where one or both of their parents are citizens, they too are citizens. The big material question is whether or not their parents have been citizens for ten years or more. Even a child born in Australia to migrant parents, where neither of their parents are citizens, is entitled to citizenship upon their tenth birthday. The United States, in attaching citizenship to the Constitution and with a set of hard blanket clauses, is stuck with this.

The other weird thing about this is that the nexus of bastardry is such that the same people who howl that S1.14A is out of date, will then turn around and defend 2A despite the fact that it is 76 years older and by action gives rise to nearly 40,000 deaths per year.

Horse 3430 - The Inauguration... Of The King.

"Did you watch the inauguration?"

Me:

"No. I watched the arrival of the king."

When it comes to championships in motorsport, seven seems to be an almost impenetrable ceiling. In NASCAR there have been three 7x Champions: Richard Petty, Dale Earnhardt, and Jimmie Johnson. In Supercars, only Jamie Whincup stands alone with 7x. In Formula One, there are but two; being Michael Schumacher and Lewis Hamilton. In fact, the only person who seems to have broken through is Giacomo Agostini; who won eight 500cc Motorbike World Championships.

Probably the reason why seven is the normal upper limit, is that not only is everyone always trying to win the championship and so it is already a very hard thing to do but to consistently stand at the very zenith requires someone to not only be in the right place at the right time but for them to be so dominant for so long, that all others appear to fade at the same time. Even if you have a championship with rate of one every two years, that's a thirteen year minimum timeframe. Of course a 7x Champion is only ever going to be a once in a generation thing because they themselves, singularly define that generation.

Okay, the rest of the world might have been looking at Washington and the passing parade of the President of the United States, I and many people like me were watching the formal arrival and announcement of Lewis Hamilton at Ferrari. 

However much the people the SpA want to imagine themselves as a business that sells cars, Ferrari is not a car company. Ferrari does not exist to sell motor cars. Scuderia Ferrari exists for the same reason that Manchester United, the New York Yacht Club, or any Tuesday Night Indoor Cricket Team exists - to win trophies. Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Red Bull, Alfa Romeo et. others, exist to sell cars or sugary drinks. They are businesses whose aim is to spin a profit. Scuderia Ferrari in principle, doesn't care about profit. It only exists to make and be champions.

And to that end, the Scuderia is in a bad way. Not since 2007 when Kimi Raikkonen won the championship have Ferrari been on that very top step. In that time they have had Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso, and Kimi Raikkonen all try and fail for them. For 18 years, no new champion has been crowned in a scarlet machine.

We have been here before. From 1979 until 2000, Ferrari went through another period of sadness. Jody Scheckter won the title in 1979 and then for 21 years, in which time they hired Alain Prost and Nigel Mansell, the cabinet remained empty. When Michael Schumacher arrived in 1996, who was at that time a 2x World Champion, the immediate period looked like it was going to be even more false dawns until 2000 when he went on a five year tear.

In 1996, Ferrari knew that Schumacher was good but not even they could have know how good the combination of Schumacher and Ferrari would be. For four seasons Schumacher came close but not close enough. Only one can stand at the very top of the mountain.

This is why the signing of Lewis Hamilton for Ferrari is so massive. Since I was born, five former World Champions have arrived in Modena to drive the scarlet machines with Enzo's prancing horse on them, and not even they could turn around the fortunes of the team which not only knows its reason for existence and its purpose but feels it. Ferrari has been around for so long and sings so sweetly in the symphony of motorsport that many are drawn to it; and like the song of the sirens of Greek mythology, Ferrari has drawn in many and caused the deaths of people's careers. Lewis Hamilton though, might be different.

It could very easily be that Lewis is merely filling out his coffee club card and collecting stamps; however, it could be that the period of Red Bull dominance with Max Verstappen has been enough for Lewis and Ferrari to snap out of the malaise and propel the Scuderia to the top. I do not know if Lewis Hamilton is as good or better than Michael Schumacher, for when they competed head to head Schumacher was well into the twilight of his career and ironically helping to build the organisation which would give Hamilton the Silver Arrows that he needed to claim six championships. If Hamilton is better than Schumacher then at least in 2025, he will prove it by knocking Verstappen off the top.

On that note, Hamilton would prove that he is better than Schumacher by virtue of finally breaking through that imaginary ceiling of seven championships. I hope so. I would not normally be a Hamilton fan and I would not normally be a Ferrari fan, and while from the outside this might look like I am jumping on a bandwagon, this is different. Hamilton's arrival at Ferrari holds the potential to finally correct the mistake that the FIA made in 2021 and if that happens at Ferrari, then not only will the loyal tifosi be singing all of Italy will be dancing.