Horse 3517 - CRUNCHIE v VIOLET CRUMBLE [2026] - Judgement

 The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3517/1

"Two households, both alike in dignity,

In  Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."

- Prologue, Romeo And Juliet (1597)

When The Bard laid out his tragic type thesp at the end of the sixteenth century, he was mining hundreds of years of narrative and counter narrative about so-called "star crossed lovers", to create what is essentially a fairly average love story. Punters who paid their tuppence knew from the outset that the lead characters would die, and thus everyone was happy with the result because sometimes the best way to feel good about yourself is to smirk at the misfortune of others.

What the paying public were never asked to judge, was the standing and the underlying case of the narrative. Shakespeare doesn't provide any and the story never asks you to evaluate the moral fitness of the parties. For the record, as presented, the Montagues are at fault for deliberately committing acts of wilful violence and the Capulets are in fact innocent sufferers of the effects of that violence. This Fake Internet Court would have awarded damages to the Capulets.

This case of Crunchie vs Violet Crumble, stems from the assertion from someone at work that these two things are the same and that it doesn't matter.

There are in fact two things wrong with this assertion:

1 - they are qualitatively different 

2 - it absolutely does matter; even if only by the tiniest of quanta

These are the facts as this court sees them:

Firstly, the base problem with this whole case is that people will like what they like and in fact have the right to like what they like. The great Harry Selfridge once said that: "The customer is always right in matters of taste". While this might be correct in matters of personal preference (including if a customer really likes a ridiculous looking coat and hat), this does not imply that the customer is in possession of the facts. Since this Fake Internet Court has been charged with the task of deciding which of these two items is objectively better, then ironically taste which is a key component of food products, has to be excluded from the evaluation process.

The task therefore becomes one of not of telos which is the underlying purpose, but of eidos; that is which of the two best articulates the defining principles of what makes these things what they are. In this respect, this is an Aristotelian judgment and not a Platonic one. 

So then, the two protagonists are represented thusly.

Crunchie - this is from the house of Cadbury, which means that the outside is made of an already known component of milk chocolate. The interior is a honeycomb structure which is made from a caramel which is just on the verge of being burnt but never quite achieving it.

Cadbury though, is not the original manufacturer of this sweet product; with this being an inherited asset from the takeover of JS Fry and Sons. Crunchie's most famous stablemate is Fry's Turkish Delight. 

JS Fry and Sons' confection dates from 1929; which is possibly the worst time for something to hit the market, given the economic clouds which nobody saw coming and the storm which followed.

Violet Crumble - the interior honeycomb actually contains gelatin which means that a Violet Crumble can never achieve either Kosher or Halal status. As the honeycomb contains gelatin, it makes it denser and structurally better. A Violet Crumble is less likely to break during the shipping process. It also means that rather than the internal structure breaking along predictable lines, it shatters.

What I find particularly interesting is that although the ownership of this asset was passed from Hoadley's to Rowntree's, then Nestlé, and finally Robert Menz, the recipe of all of the components never changed. The chocolate on the outside is in fact unique to this particular confectionery.

Violet Crumble which debuted in 1913, actually found its way to the western front during the First World War; which meant that Flanders' fields actually saw flecks of violet amongst the mud.

Final Judgement:

The subjective test comes down to whether you prefer the less caramelised but more intense sugar-hit, or the lighter but slightly chewier honeycomb. 

However, this Fake Internet Court is not charged with that decision.

The question of which is objectively better when the things are qualitatively different, is an impossible question to answer. However, when given the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Horse 2878 has already established that both Crunchie and Violet Crumble are C3 Adequate rated. Adequate is not horrible. Adequate is adequate.

https://rollo75.blogspot.com/2021/08/horse-2878-rollo-chocolate-bar-ratings.html

We have already done the impossible. The improbable truth in this case is that it will not be decided on the basis of what Crunchie or Violet Crumble taste like, but on the basis of nothing more than patriotic prejudice.

To that end, this Fake Internet Court rules that Violet Crumble is better than Crunchie because it is Australia's own. It has survived two world wars, it is the original; therefore it is the better of the two.

This ruling is binding on all people at all times and in all points in history. The fact that this is such a trivial matter means that it is of national importance but this Fake Internet Court is prepared to deal with the fallout.

That is all.

Horse 3516 - The Beatles By The Numbers

 “Data is like garbage. You'd better know what you are going to do with it before you collect it.”

- Mark Twain

 “In God we trust, all others bring data.” 

- W. Edwards Deming

The perpetual maelstrom of chaos that is YouTube, seemingly has no idea what I want to watch next. It has a broad idea that I like motor racing, so it wants to provide with AI generated Motorsport rumour slop; it knows that I like music theory, so it tries to give me saccharine pop garbage; occasionally though it brings me an absolute gem, such as it did here:

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzR68Zq4-Rs

The description of this video is that ii is "the entire Beatles album discography but it's just numbers".

The thing is that if you're going to give me a giant string of numbers, then as I work in an accountancy office, then my first inclination is to look at that string of numbers and realise exactly what else you have inadvertently given me. A string of numbers is in fact a data set.

In this case we have a data set which is not random but which is generated from the lyrics of Beatles songs. This means that before we've even begun, we know that the string of numbers is going to exist because it results from a series of contexts. People who are familiar with The Beatles' discography are going to know instantly that "she was just 17", that there are "4000 holes in Blackburn, Lancashire", and that "31" is going to be the collar number of a Policeman is the arresting officer of Maxwell, who is a serial killer.

Since I was given this lovely set of data, what else was I going to do but analyse it?

If we take a list of the frequencies of the various numbers, we find that the following results.

1 - 107

2 - 33

3 - 15

4 - 12

5 - 8

6 - 6

7 - 6

8 - 13

9 - 39

10 - 4

12 - 2

17 - 1

20 - 2

31 - 1

50 - 2

64 - 3

90 - 1

909 - 10

1000 - 1

4000 - 1

1000000 - 2

2000000 - 1

The first thing to notice about this is that apart from the strange spike of 9 at the end, that these numbers follow Benford's Law. That is that the first-digit in this set of numerical data, the leading digit is most likely to be small. In this case, it is 1.

In fact as far as the measures of central tendency go, the Mode of this set is 1, and the Median of this set is 2.

Things get weird when you look at the other measure of central tendency - the Mean.

If you take the mean of the whole data set, then you get: 14762.871

This is purely because of just three outliers in the data which are five orders of magnitude larger than the majority of the data set.

If you take out just those three pieces of data and also take out three 1s then the mean drops to just 58.

If you then remove the three and four digits from the data set an then the mean drops to just 5.8.

The two anomalies which change this data set from being a normal data set into whatever this is, are "8 Days a Week" and "Revolution 9"; where one of the songs is making use of hyperbole and the other... is bonkers to the point where I do not know if it even fits the definition of "music".

That is to be expected when most songs written by humans, for humans, talking about their relationship with other humans, is going to classify those humans as special. The "one" in relation to someone, is very obviously going to be talking about a relationship which is intimate and/or romantically entwined. The corollary that if there is the "one" then in a couple a song is going to be talking about us "two".

In fact, so incredibly obvious is it that that songs for humans that describe relationships with other humans, that we should naturally expect that more than half of the data set results from those terms. The numbers 1 and 2 account for 140 of 270 numbers, or 51% of the data.

Also embedded in this data set are the unavoidable certain things in life of Death and Taxes. "1 for you and 19 for me" refers to the marginal rate of taxation of 95% which George Harrison found as a result of being part of the biggest band in the world, and Paul's question of "Will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm 64?" stares at mortality and the ceaseless foot of time silently stealing swiftly by.

Given that this is The Beatles, I can not help but look at the comment to see one of the commenters, who I believe is a spokesperson for all of us when they said:

"We’re all here for that epic 9 solo"

- Mapoleo (user)

Indeed.

Horse 3516a - The Beatles (numbers set)

1

2

3

4

17

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1000000

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

1

2

4

19

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

3

4

1

2

3

4

1

19

5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

1

20

5

9

10

6

1

1

1

1

3

64

64

64

2

5

1

2

3

4

4000

1000

4

4

1

1

20

3

3

1

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

12

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

10

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

50

31

1

1

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

1

2

3

10

50

1

2

2

2

2

2000000

1000000

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

909

1

90

1

909

12

Horse 3515 - Full Of SA Fury, Signifying Nothing

There is a really curious thing which might happen as a result of the South Australia State Election on March 21st next month:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-20/sa-state-election-polls-put-one-nation-ahead-of-liberals/106370280

The Liberal Party will begin South Australia's election campaign with record low support, according to two opinion polls released today.

A Newspoll published in The Australian found just 14 per cent of voters surveyed intended to vote Liberal at next month's state election.

That puts the Liberals well behind One Nation on 24 per cent and Labor on 44 per cent.

Political analyst Kevin Bonham said if the result played out on election day, the Liberal Party would struggle to win a single seat.

"If the Newspoll were to be correct, they could conceivably win no seats at all, or they'd probably win about one seat,"  Dr Bonham said.

"Fourteen per cent of the vote does not get you many seats in a single-seat system."

- via ABC News, 20th Feb 2026

The Newspoll graphic looks like this: 

The South Australian House of Assembly which is the lower house, has a Preferential Voting System just like the one used at Federal Level. The South Australian House of Assembly uses Instant Runoff Voting to determine who wins the seat, and distributes preferences until a candidate has achieved at least 50% + 1 of the votes.

14% of first preferences of itself isn't disqualifying but it does generally mean that to achieve that 50% + 1 of the votes in practically every seat, that the Liberal Party will have to rely on 2nd and 3rd preferences; and with the way that votes generally fall, it is unlikely. What generally tends to happen is that voters will put who they absolutely hate, last. Thus, 2s and 3s end up coming a war for the centre position of whatever the electorate happens to think, and if you're only polling 14% on first preferences, this indicates that you are probably further away from the centre than you think that you are.

This means that with One Nation polling ahead of the Liberal Party, and they themselves being unlikely to win a seat, that the Liberal Party actually face exact electoral wipeout in winning none of the seats at all.

I would suspect that Peter Malinauskas is returned as Premier; with his Labor Government holding a super-majority in the House of Assembly, and possibly also holding a similar position in the upper house.

So dire is the Liberal Party's first preference poll, that Newspoll hasn't even bothered to do a Two=Party Preferred analysis; because a 2PP basis can't meaningfully be achieved if there isn't actually a logical second party. At 24% One Nation might pick up votes from people who hate the Labor Party but they've chosen One Nation as a protest against all majors, then the Liberal Party is likely to be sharing 6s and 7s with Labor - don't cry for me Argentina, the truth is we never liked you? 

Organisations like News 24 (formerly Sky News Australia) have decided to go full-on dropkick mode; by suggesting that the electorate is brainwashed and is being influenced by the "woke media" despite the fact that they are in fact a media organisation whose former proprietor helped found the Liberal Party in the first place. 5AA is already flying the racist banner and has accused Labor of importing voters; which is as idiotic as it sounds because the kinds of voters who they accuse Labor of "importing" are Indian and Chinese migrants who are more likely to vote for a pro-business party. The rhetoric doesn't even have to make sense, so why bother?

I don't know how you can accuse the electorate of being influenced by the "woke media" when you actually own the only newspaper, are politically amenable with the biggest radio group, as well as the commercial television networks. Unless this is yet another bash at the ABC, who to be honest haven't really said very much at all, then this makes no sense at all other than being a piece of rhetoric against an imagined enemy.

With the Liberal Party at Federal Level being in utter disarray and State Parliaments increasingly looking like bloodbaths with vultures picking off the remnants, I think that we are in one of those strange periods of history where conservatism as led by media telling the people what to think, is over as a model.

The reason for this is that the electorate tends to have very long memories and Generations X, Y and now Z, have never ever seen conservative politics work for them. In fact, they've seen conservative politics actively and repeatedly work against them.

It is worth remembering that the Liberal Party peaked in popularity when newspapers more or less dictated what the prevailing view of the day was. The Liberal Party's peak 1st Preference vote, more or less coincides with the peak of newspaper sales of the Herald-Sun, Courier Mail and Daily Telegraph in 1951. News 24 which is part of News Ltd's suite of media assets, plays to ever decreasing numbers; including in places where it is free-to-air.

Now that newspaper sales, Pay-TV subscriptions, and indeed the reach of traditional media has lost its ability to dictate what the electorate thinks, it follows that the electorate no longer thinks what conservative media wants them to. 

If we assume that the Liberal Party suffers absolute electoral wipe-out in the election and then a subsequent existence failure in the new parliaments, the question then arises as to what happens if there is no formal opposition. As Western Australia proves, absolutely nothing out of the ordinary. Questions are still put to Cabinet Ministers. People still voice complaints. The actual machinery of parliaments, which existed before the existence and invention of political parties, not only copes, it copes well. 

As for the action of the colour of the political football teams that will inhabit the next parliament, that's also pretty well completely known in South Australia. South Australia which is more than 90% urban by population, tends to have a stronger affinity for local community candidates. In that respect, South Australia acts more like Blacktown City Council which also has no formal Liberal Party representation. Instead, people are appointed because they are able to garner local support. South Australia actually has a long history of local independent candidates; who sometimes break through to Federal politics, as in the case of Nick Xenophon.

With only 14% of the vote, the Liberal Party preferences are likely to flow to Labor because rusted on voters tend to hate One Nation. With less than 30% of the vote, preferences are likely to flow to Labor because rusted on voters tend to hate the Liberal Party. Together, these two trends tend to break open the path for local independent candidates; these people are likely to populate the remaining seats.

With only 47 seats in the South Australian House of Assembly and what appears to be a 16% swing away from the Liberal Party, my Swing Calculator predicts:

Lab 43

IND 4

Lib 0

ONE 0

The Legislative Council reads:

Lab 12

Lib 5

Gre 1

SA-BEST 1

IND 3

That means that Labor would gain a majority in both houses with the asterisk of having to install a President in the Legislative Council but even then, it would require every single non-Labor Councillor to oppose legislation. I honestly have no idea what happens in the above scenario when you have 4 independent members - do you actually even need to choose a formal Opposition Leader? How does that work when there is no formal Opposition?

I just don't know.

Horse 3514 - James Bisonette, James Bisonette, James Bisonette, and James Bisonette.

One of the channels that I like on YouTube is the channel History Matters, which has one of those delightful titles with a double meaning; which could either mean that History does in fact matter, or that these are various matters to do with history.

Here is an example of one such video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjA1MzUuHk8

One thing that regular viewers will notice though, is that at the top of the funding credits is the name James Bissonette. James Bissonette is so frequently mentioned as a special patron at the end of videos for History Matters, that his name itself has become a recognizable meme among the channel's fanbase.

In fact one of the meta running gags in the comments section, is that various events in history were either caused directly by, or were influenced by, or the various actors in the event in history were agents for, none other than James Bisonette.

The assassination of Franz Ferdinand at the start of World War 1, the bombing of Pearl Harbour, the Anchluss, the breakup of the Soviet Union, Hannibal's attack over the Alps into Italy with elephants, the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis, the Election of 1800, the creation of the NHS, the invention of the modern sewerage system... all were caused by the hand and/or say so if James Bissonette if you believe the comments section of the various videos.

From what I can gather, the first appearance of James Bissonette was back in 2018, and his influence on world history seems to have only grown from there. 

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

Imagine my shock therefore, when out of nowhere, James Bissonette appears in the funding credits for an Objectivity video.

While this would normally come as no shock to anyone, I and indeed many people in the comments section of History Matters videos, thought that we had come to the correct conclusion that James Bissonette was not a real person. He appears to have no other presence on the web whatsoever: no TwitBook, no FaceSky, no Blue Tok, nothing. For someone who consistently appears in the funding credits for educational videos, then you would expect such a person to be a Professor. or a Lecturer, or something, but James Bissonette is conspicuous by his absence. 

In fact, the only other place that you will find James Bissonette is at some kind of AI generated website called Shapes.Inc. which doesn't appear to have any links outwards either.

https://shapes.inc/jamesbisonette

With a warm smile, James Bisonette invites you to explore the realms of history and politics, his passionate tone filling the air as he discusses the intricacies of the world...

- Shapes Inc.

After all of this I am still no closer to finding out who James Bisonette is, or even if they exist. The problem in asking the question of "Who?" is that "who?" is but the form following the function of "what" and 'what' James James Bisonette is might very well the be the same paradox of asking a masked man who he is. Nevertheless, in lieu of the absence of any answers to unmasking who this dramatis persona is, it remains for me to thank the various supporters on Patreon whom I don't have:

James Bisonette, Kelly Moneymaker, Skye Schapelle, Lord Beek, Calling Dr. Fine Dr. Howard. Dr. Fine, Respectable Level of Chaos, Boogily-Woogily, The Pastry Section, and Charles the First.

Horse 3513 - THE PEOPLE v DRACULAS (EMPLOYMENT DIRECTIONS) [2026] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

THE PEOPLE v DRACULAS (EMPLOYMENT DIRECTIONS) [2026] - Judgement

H3513/1

The phrase "Draculas can have any job" is a recurring statement from the Maximum Fun podcast network, specifically popularized by Jesse Thorn on podcasts like Judge John Hodgman and Jordan, Jesse, Go!. 

It stems from Jesse Thorn’s insistent claim that a person's profession does not disqualify them from secretly being a "Dracula." For example, if someone is a mayor or a regular human bartender, Jesse might argue that "Draculas can have any job"; as citation that that person might in fact be a "Dracula". 

However, the statement "Draculas can have any job" contains a verb which has two very different meanings. In Jesse Thorn’s statement, "can" appears to be used in the sense of "being able to" do something. This is a very different sense than the other definition of "be permitted to" do something.

"I can run fast" in the sense that someone has the ability to run quickly, is very different to the sense that "I can run fast" might not be allowed or permitted to run quickly in a crowded or busy place such as a hospital sharps room, or a building site, where doing so might result in considerable injury.

It is therefore incumbent upon this Fake Internet Court to draw up a set of Employment Directions which clarify the actual meaning of the statement that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of permission rather than ability; because whilst it is possible that Draculas might very well be hiding in plain sight and quite competent in their jobs, it might not be appropriate for them to do so.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

According to Bram Stoker's original lore and various adaptations, the character of Dracula himself has held several "professions".

These from the text have included both being a Statesman who conducted many trade missions; as well as being a high ranking Soldier who appears to have led armies and specifically mounted battalions of light horse. This would indicate that the ur-Dracula was a skilled swordsman.

Second to this, Dracula also appears to have been a Scholar of some kind and an Alchemist; though given that Bram Stoker's account dates from 1897 which is well after the realms of Alchemy and formal Chemistry have long since departed and  diverged, it is probably more logical to assume that Dracula was actually a Chemist.

Lastly, within Bram Stoker's 1897 novel, Dracula acts as a wealthy nobleman purchasing multiple estates in London. Dracula's property purchases include Carfax Abbey in Purfleet, 347 Piccadilly, 167 Chicksand Street in Mile End, and a house in Jamaica Lane, Bermondsey.

We estimate Dracula's property portfolio as being worth:

£29,000,000 - 347 Piccadilly

£4,600,000 - Carfax Abbey, Purfleet

£710,000 - 167 Chicksand Street, Mile End

£525,000 - Jamaica Lane, Bermondsey

£34,835,000 - TOTAL

However, these various professions that Dracula appears to have had, does not address the core question. The fact that Dracula has had these various professions proves that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of ability; and not in the sense of permission. Having a job in the in the sense of permission, seems to imply either a level of skill, training, and or appropriateness which isn't immediately evident within the proof texts. 

Where I live in the state of New South Wales, the Anti-Discrimination Act (1977) makes it it illegal to treat job applicants or employees unfairly based on "protected attributes" like age, race, sex, disability, religion, or family responsibilities. Specifically whether or not "Draculas can have any job" as a blanket statement as it relates to employment, likely relates to the Key Protected Attributes of Race, Colour, National Extraction, or Social Origin. 

Final Judgement:

This court finds that the general statement that "Draculas can have any job" in the sense of permission rather than the sense of ability, should come with some key caveats.

Ironically, this court has found useful to look back at the words of Liberal Party Senator for Victoria, Sarah Henderson, from Sky News Australia's "Outsiders" program on October 5th last year:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kksc8LICTxw

"It’s all very well to have an independent inquiry, but that’s not good enough, and also the government’s decision just to get the regulator to do the job is like putting Dracula in control of the blood bank... We cannot forget this is an absolute scandal. A number of people have died as a result of the triple zero failures."

- Senator Sarah Henderson, via Sky News Australia, 5th Oct 2025

Admittedly Ms Henderson was trying to make a point about the difficulties in assigning a guardian with a vested interest in consuming or destroying something to oversee it, as in the case in the video. Ms Henderson's point was purely about political point scoring but in the actual specific case of putting "Dracula in control of the blood bank”, it does suggest that there needs to be ethical considerations which need to be thought about.

It is the opinion of this fake internet court that it is inappropriate that Draculas should be allowed to be employed in any front line medical services, or indeed in any occupation where they might be handling human blood or blood products. Other ethical considerations might include an legal and ethical obligation to ensure the safety and well-being of both blood donors and transfusion recipients. 

Then there are various Occupational Health and Safety concerns which specifically relate to the employment of Draculas.

As it is established that Draculas are physically repelled and burned by holy symbols, such as crucifixes and sacred wafers, then we suggest that Draculas should not be employed by Churches. Mosques, Holy Sites, or Religious Organisations generally.

For this same reason, as Garlic is a potent repellent that strips Draculas of their powers and physically repulses and repelles them, Draculas should not be employed by Garlic Farms or Italian Restaurants.

We also note that Draculas cannot cross running water such as rivers or oceans except at the precise moments of high or low tide. This would make make most Maritime or Water-Based Careers, which includes sailors, and lifeguards extremely difficult without constant assistance.

Apprently Draculas also cannot enter any private dwelling unless they are explicitly invited in by a member of the household. This would make them a very poor delivery driver or emergency responder.

By the same token, we have taken note that Draculas require a box containing soil from their homeland, to regenerate and maintain their strength. This would make modern office environments such as open plan offices with cubicles difficult, unless they are allowed to bring a large box of dirt with them. A corollary of this is that they might find that working in an office environment with indoor plants, quite conducive to acquiescent conditions. 

Conclusion: 

The phrase "Draculas can have any job" is functionally one where they might have the ability to have any job but in all likelihood should not have permission to have any job. This fake internet court feels that it has made adequate directions to this effect.

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3513/1 - Ed)

Horse 3512 - Once is an Accident. Twice is a Choice. Thrice is a pattern. What is Nonce?

 I have changed my opinion about the shooting of an unarmed lady in her car in Minnesota as futher information has come to light.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/08/nx-s1-5671187/minnesota-and-federal-officials-are-no-longer-cooperating-in-ice-shooting-investigation

In two different press conferences on Thursday, the White House and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz disagreed on the details of Wednesday's fatal shooting in Minneapolis and how to investigate it.

Walz on Thursday told the federal government to "leave Minnesota alone" and allow state officials to conduct the investigation into the shooting by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent that left one woman dead and Minneapolis residents on edge.

Walz repeatedly expressed concerns about the federal government leading the investigation without Minnesota officials.

- NPR, 8th Jan 2026

One shooting of an American citizen by ICE Agents may have been an accident but when the modus operandii happens identically somewhere else, it ceases to look like mere accident and instead looks like policy:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/2-shot-federal-agents-portland-sources/story?id=129038573

Two people were injured in a shooting involving a federal agent in Portland, Oregon, on Thursday, according to authorities, with the mayor calling for immigration enforcement operations to halt while the investigation is ongoing.

The Department of Homeland Security said the shooting occurred while Border Patrol agents were conducting a "targeted" stop on a vehicle carrying two people allegedly affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang. The passenger was the target, DHS said.

"When agents identified themselves to the vehicle occupants, the driver weaponized his vehicle and attempted to run over the law enforcement agents," DHS said in a statement.

- ABC News, 9th Jan 2026

This is no longer a moral failure of the United States as a nation. Instead of assuming that this was an ICE agent who should have been trained not to be in front of a vehicle and never to shoot into a moving vehicle, we must now assume that shooting civilians for literally any reason at all, is now policy. We have known for months that ICE, as instructed by Trump, try to intimidate anyone filming them; even though filming people in a public place is perfectly legal. We have now seen that ICE are prepared to cross the line and shoot American civilians. 

Not just once, not just twice but now becoming a systemic process:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/us/ice-shootings-minneapolis-other-cities.html

This deadly Minneapolis encounter is the 9th ICE shooting since September. All those targeted in the shootings were fired on while in their vehicles.

- New York Times, 9th Jan 2026

Once is an accident.

Twice is a choice.

Three times is a pattern.

NINE times is a policy.

We must assume that what used to be the point of the Department of Homeland Security which used to be to make the United States more stable and safe, is no longer its point. The actions in Minnesota, and Portland, in conjunction with the proposed invasion of Venezuela and Greenland, demonstrates that what he have is a slow rolling conversion from sham-democracy into open junta.

We should bot confuse the United States with a failed state. Remember, a failed state is a state that has lost its ability to fulfill fundamental security and development functions. The United States point blank refuses to fulfil its development functions and ironically a very strong military is often seen as a stabilizer or enforcer for a functioning state. 

Welcome to 2026. Behold your god America - Moloch loves you.

Horse 3511 - Behold Your President, He Is Above The Law

There is currently a half-hearted discussion going on in the United States about whether or not, an ongoing military operation in Venezuela, or even the authority to attack Venezuela, would require a war powers resolution.

See here... but don't bother:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-33

Now whilst it is true that the War Powers Act of 1973, is intended as a check on the power of the President of the United States, to begin and administer armed conflicts without the consent of the U.S. Congress, it is worth remembering that irrespective of what any law says, including the US Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States has functionally declared that the President is above the law in all circumstances:

See below:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

...

(1) When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 456 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action.

...

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. 

- SCOTUS: Trump v United States, 1st Jul 2024.

If there is a "presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts" and "he takes official action to perform the functions of his office" and the Supreme Court has decided that courts "courts may not inquire into the President’s motives" and "Nor may courts deem an action unofficial”, then functionally there are no avenues whatsoever to declare anything that the President does as illegal.

Even if he were to actually make good on the quip that he made at a Christian college in 2016, and actually shoot someone:

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?”

- Donald Trump,  Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa, 23rd Jan 2016.

Then the "presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts" would immediately kick in because all he would need to do is claim that as the Commander-In-Chief and as first officer of the US Military, then he would either be defending the first officer of the United States or making a preemptive strike. Although having said that, he was probably quite correct that his supporters would stay loyal even if he happened to commit a capital offense, including on live television.

What I find astonishing is that even though a President cannot enact law to regulate something as banal as carbon emissions or something as immediately pressing as forgiving student loans (because those things do not fall within the core functions of the Executive Branch, a President would not face any consequences for politically motivated killings or mass murder, provided those things are done in the name of defence. 

Functionally this means that a President is free to commit crimes to protect his craven self-interest, and it has to be said that if you are immune from the consequences, and if you can not be prosecuted, then you are above the law. 

Furthermore, if as Mr Trump suggests that he wants to acquire Greenland, which would include use of the military force and without a corresponding Authorization for Use of Military Force from the Congress, then we have actually reached the point where the leader of the United States is a broken arrow. We have already seen that SCOTUS refuses to do anything and unless Congress restrains him, with jail time, then you have someone actually in possession of nuclear weapons and unlimited and unfettered power. And that's worrying.

Horse 3510 - YOU Can Be Charged With Offences In the United States; Including If You Have Never Been There; Including If You Have Not Committed A Crime

If you woke up this morning, you will have heard the news that President Donald Trump has personally take credit for not only bombing the Venezuelan capital Caracas, but also  personally take credit for an operation which kidnapped and President Nicolás Maduro after it launched strikes on Venezuela.

The right-wing trashmedia in my country, immediately went into glorification mode, as they try and turn Mr Trump into their precious golden calf and failure to worship this man who is probably a rapist, will be met with scorn. 

Granted that Venezuela is probably corrupt to the eyeballs and probably is responsible for illegal drugs entering the United States, but the actions and comments made by Mr Trump should send very very serious and chilling signals to the world that he simply doesn't give a cuss about setting up Venezuela for a democratic or just future; but merely to plunder its oil and give the proceeds to Chevron Corporation. 

President Trump himself says the US is going to "run" Venezuela "until such time as we can do a safe, proper and judicious transition"; though given that Mr Trump generally has no idea about any time line beyond what he is going to have for dinner, there likely isn't any coherent plan here either. 

What should be immediately scary to literally anyone on the planet, is the language used in the trumped up charges which were invented in a star chamber and only released this morning:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1422326/dl

COUNT ONE - Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy

para 22

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

COUNT TWO - Cocaine Importation Conspiracy

para 26

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

COUNT THREE - Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices

para 32

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

COUNT FOUR - Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices

para 34

in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States

(Title 18, United States Code, Section 924; Title 21, United States Code, Sections 853 and 970; and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461.) 

- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v NICOLAS MADURO MOROS et alia (2026)

If the District Court Of New York upholds this and charges and sentences President Maduro to literally any of these charges, then we run into some absolutely diabolical and evil consequences.

1a - It is worth remembering that non-citizens in America do not have an equal suite of Constitutional rights or Civil rights protected by US law. It is also worth remembering that the US Constitution does not apply outside the United States; which means that any extra judicial kidnapping is in fact perfectly fine as the law stands, and it does not matter if it is done without the permission of or without using the official legal system.

1b - This includes any Due Process claims; because while SCOTUS recognises that due process considerations may constrain the Federal Government’s exercise of some of its powers, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States.

1c - This also means that Maduro, as indeed literally anyone else on the face of the planet whom the United States Government wants to extra judicially kidnap, is NOT entitled to due process, or a fair trial.

2a - That phrase which is repeated in all four charges "in an offense begun and committed out of the jurisdiction of any particular State or district of the United States" means that even though the alleged offence happened outside of the jurisdiction of any of the United States, they still assert that they have the right to charge someone.

2b - The United States not only asserts that it can and will charge people offences who aren't even in the United States, it can and has done so on the past. Perhaps famously in an Australian context, was that David Hicks, an Australian citizen, who was captured in Afghanistan, faced charges of conspiracy and aiding the enemy, even though the charges were invented while he had been taken to Guantánamo Bay and tortured.

3a - The increasing belligerence of the United States and the absolute blood thirsty bastardry of its government, has been perfectly expressed by the United States Attorney General, Pamela Bondi.

https://x.com/AGPamBondi/status/2007428087143686611

Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York.  Nicolas Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machineguns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machineguns and Destructive Devices against the United States. They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts. 

- Attorney General, Pamela Bondi, via X, 3rd Jan 2026

When she writes that "They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts." she does not need to worry about the outcome. This is means that United States v Maduro (2026), is effectively nothing more than a show trial where we all know that the guilt of the defendant has already been determined.

3b - More broadly, this is not actually about brining Maduro to justice. When Mr Trump openly states that Washington isn't afraid of putting boots on the ground and then offers literally no details at all on who exactly would be in charge, then we can take it as given that the actual purpose of holding this show trial is to present both accusation and verdict to the public; which is meant to serve as an example and a warning to other would-be dissidents or transgressors; irrespective of where they are.

3c - We should take it as given that Trump has decided to cross the line into full-on "gunboat diplomacy" and that he has has decided to take a giant dump on his promises to be a peacemaker. 

Over the past year, Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is more than willing to use military force around the globe. Even just this last week, he personally ordered air strikes on Syria and Nigeria. During his self-congratulatory speech this morning, he took credit for bombing alleged nuclear facilities in Iran, "suspected" drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean, "rebel forces in Yemen", and "armed groups in the many... Somalia and Islamic militants in Iraq"

<><><><><>

In a twist of dramatic irony, the Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley made an announcement

https://www.facebook.com/SussanLeyMP

The Coalition welcomes the announcement that Nicolás Maduro has been taken into custody to face legal proceedings in the United States of America. 

- Sussan Ley, via Facebook, 4th Jan 2026

What is curious is the last line from this post:

https://www.facebook.com/SussanLeyMP

We should live in a world where dictators and despots face justice for their crimes.

- Sussan Ley, via Facebook, 4th Jan 2026

Yes, we should. But SCOTUS has decided that Mr Trump is above the law, and even if he is a rapist, and engaged in election fraud and what used to be the unauthorised use of military force, that's fine. We are the United States' ally. We have no opinion other than praise, irrespective of how many people die in the process.

Horse 3509 - No, You Can't Come To The 2026 FIFA World Cup

As this is 2026, this means that this is the year that the 23rd FIFA World Cup will be contested. While the tournament is being shared across the three nations of Canada, Mexico and the United States, the lion's share of matches are being held in the United States with 78 of 104 matches.

This poses a problem.

The current Trump Administration in its campaign of rampant belligerency, imposed via Executive Order 14161, Proclamation 10949, an expanded travel ban which as far as I can tell now includes 39 countries:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-further-restricts-and-limits-the-entry-of-foreign-nationals-to-protect-the-security-of-the-united-states/

Under normal circumstances, travel bans to countries sounds like business as normal but with the World Cup happening, the effect of this is that several nations fans' will not be able to go to the World Cup at all.

The travel ban likely does not affect the Players who would arrive on P1 Athelete Visas, or their trainers and support staff who would arrive on AG Official Visas; which is similar to how the Olympic Games will operate in 2028 in Los Angeles. However, the normal route of fans who would arrive on B2 Tourist Visas, has now been removed entirely for the nations subject to the travel ban.

This means that for the countries of Haiti, Iran, Cote d’Ivoire, and Senegal, they will have exactly zero fans arrive from those nations. For the possible countries of The Congo, Bolivia, Iraq, and Suriname, they also will have exactly zero fans arrive from those nations.

In addition to this, as part of the ongoing Visa Waiver Program and the B1 and B2 Tourist Visa programs, that same Executive Order 14161 demands the following:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/10/2025-22461/agency-information-collection-activities-revision-arrival-and-departure-record-form-i-94-and

The Department of Homeland Security now requires ESTA applicants to provide their social media from the last 5 years, telephone numbers both personal and business, email addresses, the names of family members, and perhaps even DNA collection. 

Of course the United States as a sovereign nation has the right and the responsibility of maintaining its border entry points and the regulation of who is and isn't allowed to enter the country. However, the list of demands that it has imposed, especially in the light that the Trump administration is now engaging in social media surveillance and openly denies tourists' entry or revoking visas over making political posts, is chilling.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-2/ALDE_00001262/#:~:text=The%20Court%20reasoned%20that%20aliens,the%20Fifth%20and%20Fourteenth%20Amendments.

"Thus, while the Court has recognized that due process considerations may constrain the Federal Government’s exercise of its immigration power, there is some uncertainty regarding the extent to which these constraints apply with regard to aliens within the United States."

- Notes on Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, "Aliens in the United States", from the US Congress (at 3rd Jan 2026)

It should be noted that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), has repeatedly recognized that Congress retains very very broad powers with respect to aliens entering the United States. Furthermore, Executive Order 14161 seems to appear as though the Office of the President has taken an almost plenary position of unfettered power over immigration. Congress at the moment simply refuses to stand in the way and SCOTUS is absent.

If we want proof that the Trump Administration knows that it can literally get away with anything because the law simply does not apply to the President, then all we need to do is look to the ruling in 23-939 Trump v United States (2024) which ruled that President Trump has absolute immunity for official acts and core constitutional duties.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

As immigration is explicitly defined as a core constitutional duty per Article I, Section 8, then the President's plenary position over immigration is completely fine within the corpus of the law as it stands. I note that even the most authoritarian states in the world do not have such an official policy, with regards issues such as this.

Mind you, given that both former FIFA presidents Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini were involved in corruption cases, that the World Cup was awarded to Russia in 2018 despite its belligerence to Ukraine, and then Qatar in 2022 with an amazing amount of bribery and the country technically being unfit to host the World Cup under FIFA's own rules, the 2026 World Cup with travel bans and an actively increased surveillance and security state, might actually look tame in comparison.

As long as Trump gets the glory like the scared gold calf, it's all worth it?

Horse 3508 - 2026 Doesn't Really Exist: Business Continues As Before

2025 was a year which personally was one of considerable change, some deeply awkward circumstance, and one as demonstrated by the fewest number of posts that I have written in 15 years, demonstrates that many things demanded my time and brain power. I have found this particular period of the Christmas break, singularly helpful as not much has been demanded from me.

One thing that 2025 was particularly noteworthy was, was the rise of what used to be considered far-right; by people who found it convenient to weaponise the apparatus of Christianity. The most totemic event in this respect was the assassination of Charlie Kirk, who has now become a golden calf on the platform formerly known as Twitter and where insufficient fealty and loyalty is now met with filthy insult. 

Across the Atlantic, the carcass of Christianity was worn as a skin and paraded around like a trophy, especially in events like the organized by far-right activist Tommy Robinson. It featured Elon Musk, who hasn't fallen very far from the tree of his childhood apartheid dreams in South Africa, and issues like immigration, free speech, and national identity, have also been paraded through the public consciousness. 

So-called "Christian Nationalism" is often touted as the cover story for this, but scratch the surface even just a little bit and we find that none of these people know anything even basic about the Bible, certainly nothing about anything that it teaches, and point blank display nothing of the virtues which should follow as a result of being transformed from the inside. 

While we do get some sense of Civic Love, it is not expressed as philos but superbia and hubris. The other qualities which should be on display if "Christian Nationalism" was actually genuine should be a sense of agape, joy, a striving for peace and forbearance, demonstrations of kindness and goodness or faithfulness, maybe even gentleness and self-control. Admittedly, against such things there is no law, but in the current political atmosphere, there is also no display or practice of these things.

Believe me, when as a Christian, I say that I am just not convinced that there actually is any kind of Christian revival going on. What there appears to be are charlatans, one of whom is embodied as the President of the United States, who have found Christians and Christianity as a soft target to fleece while pulling the wool over Christians' eyes. 

If anything 2025 was one of those years where people, after having being fed a diet of indigestible right-wing formula, simply have no stomach for solid teaching any more. What we are currently seeing is lies an junk-food-opinions tickling people's fancies. Truth is simply not acceptable to people who are trying to chase mirages.

I write this first post of 2026, with more than a hint of skepticism. Fear not though because amidst this current age of mercantilism, there is always hope. There has to be. If not, then the parading and preening by those people who have no other gods other than profit and power, will have won.

Horse 3507 - Survey Says: Poorer People Don't Deserve Anything Nice Ever

 I came across this survey, which was being touted in a newspaper (I won't say which one because I'd rather that that particular whole media group goes bankrupt; they don't need the advertising revenue); trying to say how generous people are: 

https://yougov.co.uk/society/articles/45956-what-should-living-standards-look-people-benefits-

- 76% of Britons believe that everyone should be able to afford their utility bills

- 74% think everyone should have the means to eat a balanced diet

- 60% think seasonal celebrations should be attainable for everyone 

- 55% think that everyone should be able to afford a television

- 27% think that those on any income should have the chance to go out socialising

This particular media group was patting itself on the back; trying to suggest that only through voluntary means, should anything get done, and that we should look at how generous people are.

All of that sounds good and proper until you realise what the other side of those equations are.

A quarter of people think that poor people don't deserve electricity or clean water. A third of people think that people don't deserve holidays. A staggering three-quarters of people surveyed think that poor people don't deserve to see their friends, or possibly even have any friends at all.

I won't say that I am surprised at this. There has definitely been a cultural shift over about the last fifteen years, where you have a very brutal and cruel rich and powerful, dictating to people how to think. This looks very much like Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theory of the rise of The Stupid, being weaponised for fun and profit. People are easily convinced to hate people who look different from themselves because at the centre of the human heart, is the beating out of a selfish rhythm.

This current gilded age is slightly different to the previous gilded age of the 1890s to 1914 because this gilded age comes with the leftovers of the post-war welfare state. Things like mass literacy, sewerage systems, telephony, gas, and electricity, were mostly constructed around the world with monies raised by governments because the people had actually fought in two world wars and won the moral justification and ability to make a claim at law, to things that they aught to have.

Curiously, the winner of the post-war peace, which was unashamedly the United States, never actually paid the price for modern civilization in anything like the same degree as European nations did. Consequently, it has spent the past 80 years marinating its brain in the myth that it constructed for itself, that it was rampant individualism which caused its greatness, and not the destruction of 100 million souls across Europe and Asia, and untold quadrillions of PoundMarkFrankRoubleYens in the destruction of physical capital everywhere else.

If you choose to marinate an entire population in the myth that individuals built the nation, instead of the obvious and easily proven realty that this is nothing more than a cussing lie (quite literally the Eisenhower Interstate System was the biggest and most expensive piece of socialist infrastructure in the history of the world), then what you get is a very small and powerful group of evilly cruel cussjacks who benefit, and an awful lot of people who actually aren't that marginally better off than their forebears were a century before.

The United States' rampant individualism and the propaganda which radiates out like the smell from a maggot infested corpse, has poisoned the media networks of other nations; because there is good profit motivation for doing so. I live in Australia, so that means that American media groups now control one of the free-to-air television networks as 70% of all the print media, and quite a sizable pay-TV outlet.

So it really doesn't surprise me, that Britain and especially the kinds of people who are likely to take part in a survey such as this, have swung further to the crueller authoritarian right. If they were to ask people slightly more pointed questions and ask if they think that poorer people are in fact human, then history has also given us the term "unnützer Esser" or "useless eaters" to describe people with disabilities and others deemed "life unworthy of life.

By labelling some people as a burden on society, it's not a far lap to justify their persecution and euthanasia. Remember, it isn't murder if we don't consider them as worthy of life in the first place. 

Over here on the other side of the world, we like to imagine ourselves as being different than our anglophone cousins on the other side of the world but really, the same kinds of people who run media and marketing companies up there, are not only the same people but actually the same media and marketing companies.

Worse, if you actually do bother to look at an empirical measurement at how generous people are, we find that total charitable giving amounts to no more than 1.9% of GDP and if you include donations to religious organisations like churches and mosques, this is only bumped up to 2.7%.

The actual truth is that people are not generous and that the number of people who think that poor people don't deserve even the basic things in life to make it tolerable, is and was and always will be the case. What's worse is that this is only going to get worse in the future.

33% of people rent, and a full 16% of GDP is  on rent. That rent is paid out of post taxed income, to the very same scumbags who think that poorer people shouldn't have anything nice ever.

It's hardly surprising. 

Horse 3506 - JEFF VADER V COMMISIONER OF TAXATION [2025] - Judgement

 JEFF VADER V COMMISIONER OF TAXATION [2025] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3506/1

This week we received the following correspondence from a Mr Jeff Vader, who appears to be in command of some kind of galactic delivery company or some such. He has given us the following taxation question: 

Dear Fake Internet Court of Australia,

I am the Operations Manager for a very large off-world firm which is resident in Australia for taxation purposes. I wish to claim depreciation for my Defence Sphere Mk 1 (DS-1) and am wondering what the appropriate rate for a Defence Sphere is. 

The construction costs were just over One Trillion Galactic Credits and it became operational on August 1st.

Thank you, 

Lord Jeff Vader of Cheem, Supreme Commander of the Imperial Fleet and Military Executor, ATM, KFC, BBQ.

This is an interesting case as The Fake Internet Court of Australia is not often asked to make interlocutory orders or non-binding arbitration rulings, however we are still prepared to make a preliminary hearing as an  obiter dicta in lieu of further passage to a court with proper jurisdiction. 

These are the facts as this court sees them:

The "Defence Sphere 1" as described by Jeff Vader in his correspondence, appears to be some very large machine which is capable of mass destruction on a planetary scale. Colloquially within the documentation it is referred to as a "Death Star", though it is not a star, however it seems to be quite capable of doing death to people and things.

There is not explicit provision for spacecraft, though Communications Satellites and Satellite Earth Station Electronic Assets generally have an effective life of 15 or 10 years depending on the use case. 

We consider an orbital defence sphere to be a habitable spacecraft and on the face of it, it looks more like the example of Aeroplanes (general use); in which case the Defence Sphere 1 likely has an  effective life of 20 years, which is similar to fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. 

We suspect that for a highly specialised asset such as this, that the Australian Taxation Office is going to want to make a Private Ruling based on like technical data and industry experience; from an appointed expert witness.

Final Judgement:

We determine that the Defence Sphere 1 is analogous to an Aircraft (general use) and as such that it has a comparable effective life of 20 years.

As such we determine that:

A - it has a Straight Line depreciation rate of 5%

B - it has a Diminishing Value depreciation rate of 10%

Whilst we can not explicitly determine the actual conversion rate between Universal Galactic Credits (UGC) and Australian Dollars (AUD), the use case seems to be that the ratio should read something in the order of 1 UCG : 6 AUD.

If it follows that the initial capital costs were One Trillion Galactic Credits, then the take up rate should be about $6,000,000,000,000. 

The actual amount of Depreciation Expense will need to be decided upon by the client, and the method retained for the life of the asset. 

This court hereby advises that the takeup rates as stated above be used, and further advises that an amount of Depreciation being claimed in a Tax Return as a business expense of $300bn which by itself is more than 16% of the GDP of Australia, is likely to cause at least a few raised eyebrows at the Australian Taxation Office. We hope that the ATO does not bring hateration and holleration to proceedings.

We trust that our mutual friends at the Australian Taxation Office will adhere to the advice given in this judgement, because we have seen what happens in the Catering Department if you are not happy with the moisture and condensation on food trays.

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3506/1 - Ed)

Horse 3505 - THE PEOPLE V THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2025] - Judgement

THE PEOPLE V THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2025] - Judgement

The Fake Internet Court of Australia

H3505/1

We have learned of a crime against all that is decent and good; which has arisen and which rattled through the internuts until it finally made its way to this court until it found this fake internet court's attention:

https://nomoreteabags.com/

Usually this Fake Internet Court is asked to make decisions about trivial matters that do not affect all that much in society but this is a crime so heinous that it warrants immediate judgement.

These are the facts as this court sees them:

"No More Tea Bags" appears to be a highly compressed and liquidised version of tea, much in the same way that Condensed Milk is supposed to mimic milk for those occasions. Unlike Condensed Milk which has applications other than just making milk (such as in making cakes), No More Tea Bags prima facie is only for making tea.

The method for making tea with No More Tea Bags is to pour out some of the liquid tea concentrate into a cup, then add boiling water and wait five minutes for the tea to steep. This sounds like a remarkably similar process to making tea either in a pot with loose tea leaves or with tea bags; which is what No More Tea Bags is probably trying to solve.

The United States has a semi-foundational story with tea. When the British Government imposed a tax of about 3% on the value of tea imported into the United States (actually as a coercive Act to get them to abandon slavery), the 13 Colonies were not happy. When the British East India Company was given a specific exemption in 1775, things kind of kicked off and people decided to make the world's largest cup of tea in Boston Harbour by dumping all the tea into the sea in protest. The United States has had a strange relationship with tea ever since.

The United States since 1775 has famously become a nation of coffee drinkers, which curiously doesn't know how to make a cup of coffee either. American drip coffee is quite frankly an affront to Italian espresso, or French café, or Turkish coffee. This suggests in principle that the United States sees coffee as having utilitarian purposes only; this might explain why it seemingly is also so terrible at making tea, that No More Tea Bags exists at all.

No More Tea Bags is trying to solve a problem, for which there were not only adequate solutions but lovely ones. If No More Tea Bags isn't trying to solve the problem of Morning Tea, or Afternoon Tea, or the lovely cup of tea in the evening, or the position of Work Juice which is what Coffee and Strong Builder's Tea is already doing, then what the jinkies is it trying to do? I just don't know.

Final Judgement:

Whilst this Fake Internet Court is prepared to accept that the useful invention of arts and science for the purpose of business and profit, this doesn't mean that all things need to be invented in the first place. Especially not when already adequate and lovely solutions exist. Inventing something which is actively worse, hurts society at large because it pushes open the cultural Johari Window further into the unknown and into places that did not need to be known. By inventing worse things, people begin to accept worse stuff. In relation to a lovely cup of tea, this may as well be a crime against humanity and decency.

America, you are guilty of both conspiracy and deception. You have brought hateration and holleration into this fake internet court and as you have no sensible business by ruining tea like this. 

As this is not the first time that you have been brought before this Fake Internet Court, America, the penalties need to be severe. 

This court hereby orders all of you in the United States to sit down with a lovely cup of tea, made with either a tea bag or in a pot and take a good hard look at yourself. We would order you to watch a day's play of cricket with Afternoon Tea already built into it but we realise that you aren't ready to become a real nation yet.

Get out; lest you make a mockery of my courtroom. We are already perfectly capable of making a mockery of this fake internet courtroom as it is. You are malevolent and have now ensnared others in your villainy. Can you not see what trouble thou hast wrought? 

- ROLLO75 J

(this case will be reported in FILR as H3505/1 - Ed)

Horse 3504 - The Day That The ATCC Dam Wall Of Legitimacy Broke

 This is the moment that the 2025 Supercars Championship was decided. It was not a piece of brilliant racing. It was not some hideous turn of fate which came about due to mechanical failure. It was not even some display of dominance which showed all and sundry that a new champion had arrived. Nope. It was an act of barbarism, aimed from the teammate of the eventual champion; directly and squarely at their rival. This was sheer cussed bloody mindedness and nothing else.

Fair play to Chaz Mostert who after waiting so very very long, finally has the second biggest prize in Australian Motorsport: the Australian Touring Car Championship. Literally everyone in Australia who cares a jot about motor racing knows that Bathurst is the only thing that truly writes your name into immortality, and that the ATCC title merely allows you to write a number 1 on the door.

Supercars Management, in an effort to market the sport have come up against the very real problem that when you take the sport off of free-to-air television, the number of eyeballs watching, falls off of a cliff. There has simply never been the same viewership numbers since 2013; since Lachlan Murdoch vampired Channel 10 and stripped all of the assets from it. Formula One also disappeared from free-to-air television at the same time.

With viewership numbers down to roughly a third of what they once were, advertising revenues have also fallen dramatically and the whole finals series is little more than a spork and cut and paste job from NASCAR in America. The problem is that after hiding the Supercars Championship safely behind a pay wall, not even a gimmick like this is enough to draw back the fans, much less attract new ones who they deliberately choose not to court, 12 years ago. Effectively there is almost a generation of missing fans. 

For me this is a classic tale of "Hate The Game And Not The Player". I can not hate Chaz Mostert as the champion. I can not really find fault with Ryan Wood who deliberately punted Broc Feeney off the road, because while that's despicable that is the job that he was given and he did it to the best of his ability.

This is unlike Senna deliberately taking out Prost in 1989 through a moment of opportunity, or Senna deliberately taking out Prost in 1999 through an act of unabashed bastardry. This is closer in spirit to Matt Kenseth intentionally wrecking Joey Logano at Martinsville in 2015; where the sport had long since decided that pugilism was not only acceptable but actively encouraged. Nobody particularly hates Matt Kenseth for obvious and deliberate knavery, but as NASCAR has only added gimmick after gimmick, it did kind of herald the end of the NASCAR Cup Championship being worth anything. The fans hate it, the drivers only like it if they win, and the dam of legitimacy has long since given way.

It didn't help that Broc Feeney won 14 races in the year to Chaz Mostert's 4. It didn't help that Chaz Mostert famously had his car fail on Conrod Straight during the Bathurst 1000 and he went to get a beer with the fans during the race. It didn't help that parity problems meant that the Mustangs only started being semi useful after the mid-season tinkering. Had this been any other season since 1960, Broc Feeney would have been Champion with two races to spare and everyone would have been happy. Instead on the first outing, we get borky broken gamified result, and a championship which is tarnished.

Mind you, the Australian Touring Car Championship was always second fiddle to Bathurst. Even Peter Brock only won it three times; so it's not like there's a whole lot lost. For Broc Feeney to have lost the championship, not because he was beaten by a better driver but because the operation of the rules erased literally all the work that he had done previously, is purely a result of policy decisions made by Supercars' management. Play stupid games - win stupid prizes. This prize is truly stupid.

Horse 3503 - You Can (Not) Go Your Own Way

 One of the imagined appeals of owning a Brodozer MonstroCity FX4 SUV or Truck, is the idea that if you wanted you could drive off into the bush and go camping, and engage in hand to hand combat with kangaroos or something. As I am a 47 year old man who likes watching motor racing, then the algorithms assume that I would also want to fork out an entire year's salary on one of these things. 

As a result, the adverts that I get include adverts for the Isuzu D-Max, Ford Ranger, Mitsubishi Triton, Nissan Navara, et cetera et cetera et cetera. What these advertising companies fail to realise, is that I do not have 120kg children and do not need a Brodozer MonstroCity FX4 to do the school run. What I actually want would be a Gemini, Fiesta, Lancer, or Pulsar. The ironic thing is that my Mazda 2 is actually a more capable off-road vehicle than the D-Max, Ranger, Triton, Navara, et cetera et cetera et cetera, and it all comes down to the black art of tyres.

My Mazda 2 sits on 185/65 R15 tyres. Quite frankly I think that 15 inch tyres on a car this small is absurd, and that the 165/65 R13 on the Ford Ka that I used to have, were entirely adequate.

However, as I walk to the bus stop in the morning, I pass a Brodozer MonstroCity FX4 truck which sits on 255/25 R21 "all terrain" tyres, and the really really dumb thing is that I know that there is no way in Hades, Sheol, or Abaddon, that this monstrosity would ever leave the black top, let alone drive on whatever surface "all terrain" imagines. This is for the simple reason that it would be deeply unpleasant.

A motor vehicle is suspended upon tyres, springs and shock absorbers. Spring and shock absorber return and damper rates are determined by woo-woo, goblins, numbers, and imagination. However, the tyres and the wheels themselves are pretty easy to understand. 

In a tyre specification:

XXX/YY R ZZ

XXX is the width of the tyre in millimetres.

YY is the aspect ratio; that is the height of the sidewalls expressed as a percentage, relative to the width.

ZZ is the size of the wheel, expressed as a 'wheel size' which just happens to correlate 1:1 to inches (what a coincidence). 

The important number here when it comes to the ability of a tyre to drive across rough surfaces, is the aspect ratio YY. The bigger the number, the more space that there is for the tyre to flex and deform in the vertical dimension; which is what you want when the car is suspended above. If we set aside the tyre pressure for a bit (because higher tyre pressures will give you a rougher ride), then the aspect ratio actually becomes the most critical measure when it comes to the ability of a tyre to go over rough surfaces nicely. This is why buses and trucks and actual proper Four Wheel Drive vehicles have nice lovely chunky sidewalls. 

Back in the days that we call 'the past', when Auto makers weren't in a race to create the biggest and chunkiest vehicle possible, cars (do you remember those?) used to have tyres with accept ratios of 65, 70, and 75. You could and might think about driving a Falcon to Cameron Corner. A car/truck/SUV thing which sits on 25 aspect ratio tyres, would likely miss Cameron Corner by about 400km which is where the black top runs out.

The Brodozer MonstroCity FX4 truck thing that I walk past, sits on 255/25 R21 tyres; which means that instead of the tyres being asked to do the work of suspending the vehicle, the springs and shock absorbers are instead. The fun thing about tyres is that as they are filled with air, they are a lot squishier that the gas inside shock absorbers, or the compressibility rates of the metal in a spring. Whereas my Mazda 2 can, has done, and will continue to drive over rough surfaces for fun, this Brodozer MonstroCity FX4 truck thing is highly likely to give you an absolute bone shaker of a ride.

If you like turning your latte into a milkshake through the simple act of driving down Parramatta Road, then 25 aspect ratio tyres are for you. However, don't pretend that this thing or these tyres are "all terrain" because I suspect that even driving over a grassy field is likely to be an unpleasant experience.

What makes this all the more ironic is that Isuzu in selling their D-Max and MU-X uses the tag line from the Fleetwood Mac song "Go Your Own Way". Selling their D-Max and MU-X on 25 aspect ratio tyres, disqualifies their own tag line. You can not go your own way if you can not leave the pavement.

Horse 3502 - It's A Damn Cold Night, Trying To Figure Out This Ad

There is currently an advert on Australian television for the German Insurance company and DAX component, Allianz.

https://youtu.be/WRwlzHfXpcQ?si=qLKZ74-48viGke4i

Now presumably the ad agency which made this and Allianz themselves, wanted to go for some kind of Gen X/Y nostalgia thing because the song "I'm With You" by Avril Lavigne was released 23 years ago; which means that this is peak retro.

However, yet again we have both an advert which didn't think things through and a song  which doesn't mean what the advertisers think it does. 

The verse which immediately precedes the chorus and which is not contained within the advert, has the following lyrics:

"I'm standing on a bridge

I'm waitin' in the dark

I thought that you'd be here by now

There's nothing but the rain

No footsteps on the ground

I'm listening but there's no sound"

Admittedly this is pretty open to interpretation, which is what you would expect from a pop punk song. The explanation from the author herself, doesn't really add very much either.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220529151536/https://www.mtv.com/news/1458414/avril-wants-to-go-somewhere-new-with-third-single/

the song's chorus, sounding like a girl looking to escape the everyday any way she can.

"It's a song I wrote at the piano when I was kind of having a depressing day," she said. "Kind of like, where's my guy? One of those days."

- MTV, 29th Oct 2002

So what are we to make of the use of this song in this advert? Of the two characters in the advertisement, one is a small robin-type bird who is in danger of losing her egg; while the other is the white German eagle which is the embodiment of the Allianz logo in use since 1890.

If the song is being put into the mouth of the robin, then the line "I don't know who you are but I'm, I'm with you", can be interpreted that any insurance company is as good as any other when you are in trouble; thus undoing the whole point of the advertisement.

On the other hand, the song doesn't actually fit into the mouth of the eagle, since the eagle is the one doing the saving here. 

What's worse is that the White-tailed Eagle which the national bird of Germany is a highly efficient bird of prey.

Fish are the primary food source for the White-tailed Eagle but it has to be said that as opportunistic killing machines, they wiy eat whatever is available in their environment.

Remember, to the eagle, a robin is a smaller, more vulnerable prey item that can be caught by an eagle's dive and talons. Eagles can and do eat robins, other birds, small mammals, and fish.

This is a case of very unfortunate story telling going awry. If this was a real life situation, then that eagle would absolutely eat the robin's egg as a tasty snack; maybe before turning it's attention to scoffing the robin itself.

Is this an unfortunate allegory for Allianz itself? A quick look at the Allianz website reveals...

https://www.allianz.com/en/about-us/company/history.html

Oh.

Oh?

Oh no.

There's quite a bit of unpleasantness between 1933 and 1945, which a company represented by a predatory bird which eats smaller birds, is kind of obligated to admit. Admittedly that has nothing to do with a one minute TV advertisement 80 years later but I still wish that companies would think about what kind of storytelling is inadvertently told when they spork popular music for corporate propaganda purposes.

Aside:

I am again reminded of IGA Supermarkets' campaign with Anh Do:

https://youtu.be/UU8CMRdyPTg?si=t19-dw_SUoI57v9Z

My head is a box filled with nothing,

and that's the way I like it.

My garden's a secret compartment,

and that's the way I like it.

...

So please,

Baby please,

Open your heart;

Catch my disease.

You want that song if you're trying to sell fresh food? Okay...

Horse 3501 - Killing Me Softly With His Plot

 Imagine that you are reading Book With Story™, or TV Show™, or even Moving Picture Show™ at one of these new fangled moving picture theatres, and the main character who you have invested emotional energy into, either dies, or worse is killed and dies. Owing to the fact that you are a human who is a pattern seeking machine, who more than likely expects satisfying outcomes to your selected storytelling, unless the death of those characters seems like a reasonable payoff, then the piece of media which you have just been witnessing, will be rated D - for disappointment.

This is a problem for writers of storytelling media. The meatbag pattern seeking machines which read, watch, or listen, live in a kosmos where unless you get taken away on a chariot of fire coming for to carry you home, or at one instance are and then are not, then Hades, Sheol, Abaddon, and their agents Grimaldi Mietro and The Destroying Angel, will always come to collect. The old adage that those who die with the most toys win, is very much tempered with the grave corollary that even if you die with the most toys you still die.

Alexander, Catherine, Alfred, were all 'great' but now they're all dead. Likewise, histories greatest monsters of Genghis Khan, Caligula, Napoleon, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Jimmy Carter, are also all dead. The grave visits all and sundry without fear or favour.

So how this relates to Book With Story™, or TV Show™, or even Moving Picture Show™ is that unless the piece of media wants to abandon the common experience of all (which might be useful for narrative purposes), then killing off a character means that they do not come back.

There is a caveat to this in that they might have developed some kind of plot armor, or because narrative sometimes relies on flashbacks (arguably all of the discipline of History as an academic subject is nothing more than a flashback), then you might be able to tell a story in the past relative to the now in the narrative.

So how do you get around this? Either you kill off your main characters with sufficiently enough of a heroic/sacrificial/redemptive ending to make the payoff worth it, or you make their deaths so tragic that it spawns a revenge plot.

As a writer, this is a classic problem. Arthur Conan Doyle hated Sherlock Holmes so much that he tried to have him killed off and then because of the outcry, the immediate retcon to bring him back (in a classic "he wasn't really dead plot"), the subsequent story and explanation is actually kind of a bit naff.

There are many cases of deaths in TV which echoed onwards. When Lt. Colonel Henry Blake died in M*A*S*H* this was the result of a deliberate narrative decision made to create a, realistic portrayal of loss.. Likewise the final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth which has the entire lead cast die at the end, is one of the most poignant moments which nicely serves the idea of the entire futility of war. 

Of particular note was when Mr Hooper died in Sesame Street. This was a TV Show death which was necessitated by an existence failure of the actor Will Lee. The episode which explained Mr Hooper's death, eventually was put on air eleven months after Will Lee had died.

Of course all of this comes back full circle. Real life deaths are always rated D unless the person who died is so universally reviled and hated by all, that it is seen as just. A fictional character though, however loved they might be by the author or the audience, is still only a puppet or a simulacrum; which means that in theory, they should be easier to kill off. The complication comes because of the weight of narrative. A successful narrative makes the author and the audience care about puppets who aren't even real people. Of all the things that matter in the world, it is the things that don't matter at all that ironically matter the most.

That's also why nobody cares if a Red Shirt, or a Storm Trooper, or the Villain/Monster Of The Week dies, but if the protagonist dies without a satisfying outcome, then the D rating is never far away.