Horse 3527 - Eudaimonia - Element XVIII - Generosity

There is a legend which relates to the invention of the number zero, which probably isn't true but inadvertently demonstrates something interesting.

To wit:

A man was arguing with a trader in a marketplace, over the price of spices and they came to a disagreement.

"None of these numbers are amounts that I want to pay," he said to himself.

So he considered all of the numbers and drew a circle in the dust.

"Inside this circle is nothing. This is the amount that I want to pay. I shall call it jeero."

I am not ashamed of sporking this story for a different purpose than intended because although it speaks about the invention of a 0 as a mathematical concept, it also touches on that most base of human desires to want things at no cost to themselves.

Every Economics 1A class will begin with the starting premise that economics tends to describe satisfying unlimited wants with limited resources and that markets are just an allocation mechanism in achieving that. Very rarely is the notion of unlimited wants examined itself. The curious thing about those unlimited wants, is that they are unlimited in being unlimited.

The problem with unlimited unlimited wants is that they are by nature insatiable. It is literally impossible to multiply all the zeroes in the universe and even get to one. 

The Greeks called this "pleonexia". The Romans called it "avaritia". The English word "greed" is derived from the West Saxon word "grædig" which just means "hungry".

Hunger is fine. As a signal that someone hasn't eaten anything in a while, it is useful. As an insatiable desire for material gain, be it food, money, land, animate or inanimate possessions, defined by unlimited unlimited wants, it is destructive.

Unlimited unlimited wants, which almost by definition includes more than one's rightful share, can only come at the expense of others. Unlimited unlimited wants for material things, or social status, or power, at the expense of others in the community, invariably comes with the degradation of those others in the community.

Here's the rub. If you don't actually care about those others, nor care that they are paying that expense, nor care about their degradation, then that's a perfectly acceptable price. For you, it is the price of zero, which is the amount that you want to pay.

Classical Buddhism would suggest that the proper way to stop being dissatisfied with the perpetual grasping for things, is to learn to live peacefully with the skilful desires while letting go of the unproductive ones. That all sounds fine and dandy if you want to pursue a path of asceticism but how practical is it?

There is value in learning to be content with what you have but again, while this is a practice that can be cultivated, as a human where the centre of the observable universe is 19mm behind our corneas, that is easier said than done.

It should be obvious to anyone who has lived for more than 24 hours, that humans as limited animated creatures, have basic needs for things like food, clothing, shelter, and more abstract needs for things like purpose, meaning, community, and love, and that the edges between needs and wants are very blurry indeed. I would argue that it isn't any kind of moral hazard to want to have your needs met, nor necessarily to want nice things.

Everything mentioned thus far looks purely at trying to satisfy an individual's unlimited unlimited wants. However, if you open your eyes just a little bit, there just happen to be other people in the world, who also live complex lives and who by virtue of being human, are worthy of dignity and having things being given to them.

Generosity suggests that not only is the other worthy of dignity and having things being given to them, but that it should come at our expense.

If we boil everything down to pure economics, then literally everything worth anything comes down to how much people want the thing at a price and how much someone else is willing to supply that thing at a price. Irrespective of whether the underlying motivation is one of greed or generosity, someone somewhere is paying. 

You can of course see this in the current discourse surrounding Capital Gains Tax proposals, and the almost malevolent opposition to any kind of removal of advantage for people who already own capital and property. People who own these their are definitely not generous, especially when someone else is paying for their advantage by way of rent. The idea that there should be public housing to meet people's needs is anathema to these people. Society repeatedly chooses to not see others as actually worth enough to meet the expense of basic dignity.

Across the OECD, total charitable giving amounts to no more than about 2% even if you choose to allow for tax distortions by including donations to churches and religious organisations which is almost unique to the United States. By demonstration, people just aren't generous. By way of comparison, the broader U.S. food sector represents roughly 6% of GDP and snacks account for about a third of that; which means that charity and snacks are actually valued about the same in economic terms.

In economic terms, we don't really believe that our fellow humans are actually worthy of dignity and having things being given to them; as much as we believe that our immediate need for snacks is important.

Generosity it would seem is reasonably rare. It is so rare that it accounts for one fiftieth of people's actual accounting. The unbelievable truth hidden in plain sight is that if people actually were generous and demonstrated civic philos, the world would change very radically and very quickly. 

But it doesn't and it won't.

Horse 3526 - Eudaimonia - Element XVII - Humility

It seems to me that the vast majority of people when questioned if they think that they are a "good person" will answer in the affirmative. The reason for this is at least twofold as it rests on the twin pillars of the fact that humans must invariably be the centre of their own perception of the universe, coupled with the fact that good self-esteem is basis of how one determines their own overall sense of personal worth and value.

However, a thing judged against a self derived yardstick, especially when motivated to determine a favourable judgement unilaterally, doesn't seem to me to be either objective or reliable. In fact, so egocentric are humans, that if someone comes to the conclusion that they are a "bad person" then the rest of us might conclude that they are somehow faulty and have low self-esteem, even though by an external yardstick that judgement might actually be perfectly honest.

It seems therefore just and reasonable to me that if superbia and hubris are generally marked as vices, then the antivice is going to be the active cultivation of an accurate recognition of one's place in relation to others. 

This actually leads one to a strange conclusion. The logical antivice for Superbia is probably some kind of self degradation. 

The word "humility" itself is derived from the Roman word "humilitas", which relates to being close to the ground or the earth. This was not anything remotely desirable, as for classical philosophers like Aristotle or Plato, this definitely carries a sense of lowness and a lack of social standing. This is a place of failure and debasement; which the Greek at first and then the Romans, would have very much blamed the individual for bringing upon themselves.

The whole idea that humility might be an antivice or perhaps even a virtue, is absolutely not something which the Greeks or Romans would have accepted.

However, an accurate reckoning of the value of one's self, might actually bestow one with a sense of quiet confidence. I might not necessarily be the best at X but I can do M, N, P, and Q, with some degree of competence.

What I find slightly disturbing is that the people who are actually best at putting the needs of others, either singularly or in community, ahead of their own personal recognition, are often the most neglected by others and the community at large. The question of who cares for the carer, is the forgotten question when someone properly cultivates and demonstrates a sense of humility.

Superbia is big and brash and loud but its antivice which tends to be small and measured and quiet, actually has a bigger impact when it is removed. People often whoop for joy when a person who operates with superbia is gone, but they won't necessarily notice when someone who has developed a streak of humility has gone. What they will notice is when the systems being held up by those people start to strain and/or break.

Superbia also happens to come with costs. Maintaining one's fame, or reputation, is expensively draining upon the individual who has to constantly keep face. Perhaps one of the most humble aspects of humility is the fact that not actually having to care about constantly comparing one's self to others in order to establish that sense of self worth, is actually a quiet state of freedom. Someone who is able to genuinely not care about what others think, doesn't have to expend the emotional currency of caring in the first place. Admittedly that does come with the secondary expense of often being treated badly by those people for who superbia is modus operandi.

Probably one of the strangest paradoxes about this antivice is that someone who is actually able to cultivate that sense of not caring about what others think, is also able to eliminate what they think about themselves. A person walking in genuine humility will not be thinking about trying to be humble. If someone is excellent in the task of putting the needs of others, either singularly or in community, above their own, they have no need to demand glory or recognition because in not care about what others think about them or thinking about trying to display humility, they end up not thinking about themselves at all.

Horse 3525 - No Deal, No Outcome, No Power, No Projection

Not for the first time an overseas "diplomatic mission" by Donald Trump, has achieved practically nothing. On this occasion, Trump's visit to China to meet with Xi Jingping, not only didn't result in any kind of discernable outcome but also didn't really improve relations between the two nations. In fact, the one thing that it did manage to achieve, was a glib confirmation that the projection of American power underneath President Trump, is weaker than at any point in the past 100 years.

Trump who when asked about the extent that the financial situation of Americans motivated his negotiations with Iran said, "Not even a little bit. I don't think about Americans' financial situation", has now extended that stance of apathy to Taiwan. When asked if the United States would step in a defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, Trump said that he wouldn't send troops in.

Now there's two ways of looking at this. Either this is President Trump trying to appease the Chinese government and semi-normalise relations between the United States and China by adopting a less belligerent stance, or this is the United States openly admitting that it actually doesn't care. This is in stark contrast to the Biden Administration who managed to walk the line by saying that they would defend Taiwan in the even of a Chinese invasion, while at the same time being more open and friendly to the Chinese government.

All of this stands in relation to a reasonably well known statement by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), that their ten-year plan in 2017 was to have the necessary hardware and manpower to at least be able to invade and take and hold Taiwan by the end of the plan. The timeframe for that plan is such that the end of the plan is 2027; which happens to be getting closer to the end of the Trump Administration in terms of the run of events, but more importantly, is now only seven months away. One suspects that an actual Chinese invasion of Taiwan would rather be a bit like the Glorious Revolution in England in 1688, with a few token skirmishes but ultimately a walkover.

Now as the wheels of history turn and turn, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan seems not only possible but plausible. As for me, I live in Australia; which is also an ocean and a bit away so you'd think that it wouldn't affect me in the first instance but what is being expressed here is something bigger. It is not a leap to suggest that if the United States would not defend Taiwan, then it follows that it would also not defend Australia.

We already know that under the terms of the AUKUS "deal" which was perpetrated by the Morrison Government, that Australia has signed up to pay $368bn for imaginary submarines. Everyone already knows by now that the number of submarines which will be delivered will be exactly zero, and that all of this was the United States extracting extortion monies as tribute. However, Trump's statements that if the United States would not send troops in to defend Taiwan are a more general stance (which it is not unreasonable to assume), then equally sending troops and hardware to Australia which is also an ocean away, is equally not likely.

As it is, the United States already sees Australia as nothing more than a supply base for its stuff and just another big aircraft carrier. Big US companies like Exxon Mobil and Chevron, extract our gas and resources and literally don't pay us anything in taxation measures. The morons in government who cooked those deals will never have to answer for their abject stupidity. More worryingly though, is that there is in fact no obligation whatsoever under the terms of AUKUS for any military intervention at all. Trump is already actively agitating to dismantle NATO, on the basis that the other nations don't pay their way, but what this week has told us is that actually the United States just doesn't see the economic benefit in projecting its power any more.

Of course it will send in guns and ships until the balance shifts in places like the Strait of Hormuz, but that's because of the immediate and direct effect of the transit of oil tankers through the Middle East. Again, the United States literally couldn't have cared a jot and didn't care a jot about the regime in Iran until the point when its own direct interests were disturbed.

Trump was able to blast his clarion over the fact that China has agreed to buy 200 Boeing aircraft but even that was tempered by the fact that Boeing stock fell about 4% in value almost immediately. Trump who likes to think of himself as a dealmaker, walked away with the basic military and economic frictions between the United States and China moving nowhere whatsoever. Except, that we did learn that the United States has at least openly admitted now, that not only is it weaker than it used to be but that it chooses to be so.

Horse 3524 - l'Appel du Vide

I am a human in possession of a body with systems that I do not understand and with a brain that I also do not understand. I am not equipped with any kind of system manual, nor do I fully understand the signals that the various systems give me. Emotions are things that I would prefer not to have. Pain seems useful to me as a warning system but as someone who has been injured and damaged physically, certain aspects of this system aren't reliable either. 

And then there's this. 

What am I supposed to do with a sudden, intrusive, and equally fleeting desire to throw myself off of this platform and fall roughly 13 storeys below?

I have no desire to die. I have no need to commit suicide. I certainly have no wish to feel what I imagine is firstly abject terror from falling and then whatever pain would follow from going splat on the pavement floor below. There is no logical or sensible reason why I would think this. Apparently though, this kind of phenomenon is way more common than anyone dares to admit. It even has a name - "l'appel du vide", or "The Call Of The Void".

From what I can determine, the closest thing which comes to a rational explanation of why a perfectly functioning and presumably rational brain would come up with such an irrational thought, is actually paradoxically self-preservation. A brain which unconsciously produces such an insane and destructive thought, reviles itself and actually performs a metaphorical slight of hand in making itself reinforce the desire to live.

Apparently the Call Of The Void applies more generally to doing dangerous things, rather than just hurl one's self off of a high place. Other examples that I read about included wanting to touch a hot stovetop, drive the wrong way down the motorway into oncoming traffic, or running into traffic.

It also appears to be triggered more often by people who have suffered some kind of physical trauma with lasting effects (so this means that I fit the classic profile).

What this suggests is that what is going on, is kind of like a bodge job patch update, for a brain which already has suffered trauma to create and test a false alarm. Further to this, what might be going on is a sudden an immediate spike of the stress hormone cortisol; which given that I am now working in a way more stressful job, looks like a greater sensitivity to external cues in the environment and not some latent death wish.

The fun thing about being in possession of my brain is that I immediately wanted to pull this whole phenomenon apart and look at the various components because I am insanely curious. The truth is that have way too many people who rely upon me, to even allow me to entertain this as even 1% plausible.

But it's still as weird as all get out and that's kind to interesting

 to think about.

Horse 3523 - You Likely Do Not Need A Truck For Work and You Are Not Going To Use It For Work Either - 2026 edition

Almost two years ago, I conducted a highly unscientific study to work out the likelihood of someone who has a truck (I only found one actual ute this time around) and them actually using it for "work". 

Horse 3332 - You Likely Do Not Need A Truck For Work and You Are Not Going To Use It For Work Either.

Once upon a time, in the days when you could actually buy sedans, and hatchbacks, and wagons, and sports cars, the kinds of people who had trucks were the kinds of people who needed them. The absolute classic work truck is a Toyota Hilux Work Mate with pull down sides. These things were owned by tradies. In the accounting firm that I used to work for, actual genuine tradies would use actual genuine tracks and vans. 

As with this survey, in deciding what is a "Work" and a "Not Work" truck, I use a very very broad brush. If the truck has chequerplate boxes, or a ladder, or any kind of equipment at all (I would have accepted a single shifting spanner), on display at all, then it was a Work truck. If there wasn't any prima facie evidence that the truck had ever been used for work, then it went into the Not Work category. 

If a truck looked like it was for Work, in any way, shape, or form, then I classified it as a Work truck. If on the other hand, there was no obvious evidence that it looked like it was for work, then I classified it as a Not Work truck. The basic test, which I want to be as generous and as quick as possible, is to look at the obvious. If a truck looks like it is a Work truck then it is that; if a truck looks like it is a Not Work truck then it is that.

Also, since my survey has now switched from Marayong in Sydney's west to North Sydney where I now work, I will point out that this might have some bearing on the data which is collected. I imagine that as I am now working in North Sydney instead of Mosman, that the data is actually over-egged in terms of Work trucks, because of actual tradies who drive through North Sydney. They have less to be pretentious about than the people of Mosman. 

Here then, is the raw data:

Here is the organised data:

As before, the first observation is that the more expensive a truck looks and the nicer that a truck looks, the less likely that it is to be used for Work. Yet again the big offenders here are the Dodge RAM and the Chevrolet Silverado; both of which in two surveys now, have not yet fielded a Work truck. 

The fact that the Ford Ranger has remained at about 80% not work, also does not surprise me. The Ranger as it is sold in Australia, is almost never seen at all in a 2-door pulldown-side variant. The Ford Ranger has never been particularly sold in Australia as a Work truck and acts more as a replacement for the Falcon. Having said that, what used to be Falcon sales 15 years ago, are now not made up by the Ranger, Everest, Mustang and the rest of Ford's shrinking lineup added together.

The Hilux on the other hand, has actually become more of a work truck, with most of what I saw being 4-foor crewcabs with chequerplate boxes. This seems to suggest that Hilux has taken what used to be Commodore sales; with a little bit of takeover of what used to be pulldown side trucks of the Falcon and Commodore utes.

The Nissan Navara is perhaps the surprise of this data set, as it has flipped from being a Not Work to a work vehicle mostly. There was also 1 Ford Falcon ute, which was a one-tonne flatbed; with a generator strapped to the back.

The only truck that I saw towing anything, was a Toyota Hilux Work Mate; which had a cement mixer and what appeared to be both a generator and a concrete pump in a trailer.

The fact that the data sets look broadly similar should be of no surprise to anyone. The fact that there has been a general trend to Not Work as people but Emotional Support Trucks (ESTs) in lieu of actual cars, is testament to the fact that the market for motor vehicles generally is going this way. Ford will not sell you a sedan any more. Toyota do not sell a performance family car. Even the luxury car companies have all jumped on the trend of the SUVification of everything because an SUV can command a significantly higher price for only a marginally higher input cost.

However, the attitude of the consumer who claims that they "need" a truck for "work", is mostly likely lying to you. They do not. We know that they do not as evidenced by the fact that over half of all the trucks on the road (I think that my survey is probably representative) are not actually Work trucks. Yet again we have to conclude that ESTs are being bought instead of the sedans and hatchbacks. Certainly the adverts for them, like the advert for the Isuzu D-Max, or the advert for the Mitsubishi Triton, or the advert for the Ford Ranger, shows none of these things being used for Work at all.

Once again, the the consumer who claims that they "need" a truck for "work", is not likely lying to you on that count but also on the count that they claim to "need" a truck to tow a caravan. We know that this claim is also abject poppycock as evidenced by the fact that the number of caravans actually being bought are falling. ABC News: Why are so many Australian caravan companies collapsing? Again people who claim to "need" a truck to tow a caravan can be tested with the question "Do you have a caravan?" and we know that the answer is more likely to be "No" because of the sales data.

Spending more than $60,000 on truck which is used cart the family around in, and not actually a Work truck, but which is being rung through the business as a business expense, is not only a lie but a lie which the rest of the county is effectively carrying as an expense due to taxation effects.

In two years, my attitude has changed from not just questioning "what kind of truck do you have?" but now actively considering that in more than half of all cases, you not only have a Not Work truck but you are using it for Not Work. Unless proven positive, not only do you not need a truck for work, you are not going to use it for work. I now have two sets of data which points to this.

Horse 3522 - Not My Favourite Number But My Nemesis Number

 Some people have a favourite number. This is likely because as pattern seeking machines, people want to see familiarity arise again and again. Their favourite number might relate to a birthday or some other important thing or event in their life. This is all well and good but I have a nemesis number.

Just like my irrational dislike of seafood because I do not respect anything that the sea wants me to eat, or my abject hatred of SUVs because they only produce bad driving, I have also developed an intense dislike of one particular number.

19.

My late mother in her wisdom said that you shouldn't hate something unless you want it dead. This is excellent advice because it forces you to reframe your dislikes until you are absolutely sure that you really want the thing that you propose to hate to actually die. 

Now obviously my hatred of the number 19 is not to do with wishing the number out of existence; so this means that there is a very specific circumstance where the nineteeniness of something really makes me livid. That circumstance is bread.

As best as I can determine, the phrase "the best thing since sliced bread" is a slogan for the American brand Wonder Bread; following the commercialization of pre-sliced bread by Otto Frederick Rohwedder in 1928. That is dependant upon the invention of a bread slicer and herein lies the problem.

A loaf of bread which is sold in the supermarket is typically between 680g and 700g depending on how fancy the bread is. A loaf of bread should have 20 slices in it. 20 slices is perfect as if you make two sandwiches a day, then that's four slices of bread. Four slices multiplied by five days is 20 slices.

As Pippa from Robert Browning's 1841 poem, "Pippa Passes", when there are 20 slices of bread in the bag then...

"God's in his heaven.

All's right with the world."

When there are only 19 slices in the bag because the loaf has passed through the slicing machine only very slightly askew, then depending on whether you think that we are one slice short or one slice over, then this very small part of the world has gone very very wrong indeed. At least in this very small corner of the world, empires tumble into rubble and dust; the universe shrinks and the planets combust.

Oh howl, howl, howl, calamity. Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the dogs of war. 

There is no earthly way of knowing that you're going to get only 19 slices of bread in the bag. Nobody is that prescient that they can determine that a loaf of bread which is sold by weight, is one slice short, as that is an independent variable in relation to the sale of bread.

Oh go on. Laugh. Point and laugh if need be. Let me become the object of your sport and entertainment. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer but tragedy is when I cut my finger. Forget horror films on the big screen, like Saw, Mick Cronin's The Mummy, Resident Evil, or Werwulf, the tale of me standing in the kitchen having discovered that there were only 19 slices of bread in the bag is an R18+ story. No, this is one worse than an R18+ story, this is R19.

Here I am standing in the kitchen, unable to express my horror and disdain lest I wake up the house and cause a ruckus. Functionally I have no mouth and I must scream.

As I stand here in the kitchen, all my dreads and fears through all the years are met with me tonight; I am having the terrible, horrible, very bad, no good day. 

19, you are my nemesis.

Horse 3521 - Morality Down, Trump Has Risen

 "The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power."

- Brutus, Julius Caesar 

Can we all just take a look at what actually happened in the Middle East over the past few weeks, with an objective perspective and remove the rhetoric?

On 28 February 2026, Israel unprompted and then the United States as part of apparent military obligations (although officially undocumented) launched large-scale joint strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, missile sites, and leadership; using primarily missiles and rockets.

The campaign, which never received an Authorised Use of Military Force (AUMF) directive from the United States' Congress, was very quickly named "Operation Epic Fury," and then backfilled with the objective to 'destroy Iranian missile sites and disable nuclear development'; despite the claims that "Operation Midnight Hammer" in June 2025, already destroyed Iran's nuclear program in that series of missile and rocket strikes (which also did not receive an AUMF).

This was met with Iranian retaliation, when it responded by launching its own missile and rocket strikes against Israeli and United States' targets.

Israel then opened up a border of conflict in Lebanon, fighting Hezbollah troops; which mostly resulted in civilian casualties in Beirut and southern Lebanon.

Iran further decided to cause disruption by attacking shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. As global oil prices are primarily driven by changes in Middle Eastern crude oil delivery (because of the chemistry involved in producing greases and plastics), Iranian attacks on shipping through the Strait of Hormuz almost instantly caused a spike in crude oil prices, and a moral panic over the subsequent global energy shock.

Objectively speaking, the best light to paint all of this in is that at the end of the conflict, Trump 'struck a deal' to reopen a shipping lane which was already open before the conflict began.

What Iran has done through the instrument of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by demonstrating effective control over the Strait of Hormuz, is extract fees and sanctions relief. The costs to them, have been the lives of innocent people in Iran and Lebanon, whom they already considered as valueless.

Thousands of people in Iran and Lebanon, apparently count for nothing while the lives of 13 US Servicemen are the headline loss. The subsequent loss of United States' reputation, a minor depletion of US munitions, and the economic fallout of hundreds of billions of dollars spent, and the pull of general inflation due to supply chain disruption, is also seen as irrelevant.

My opinion:

If President Trump makes good on his threats to target civilian sites in Iran if the country does not re-open the Strait of Hormuz, then functionally this amounts to premeditated war crimes under international law.

Bombing "civilian power plants and bridges if Iran does not reopen the strait," is definitionally a war crime as making civilians or civilian objects the object of attack is a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf

However, even the targeted destruction of innocent people, at the order of someone held to be a rapist in a court of law, is perfectly acceptable to the people of the United States and the Congress who would not even entertain any kind of restraint:

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, okay?...It's, like, incredible."

- Donald Trump, 23 Jan 2016.

This remains true.

Behold your god,

Seated in the Oval Office.

He does what he likes. 

No one will restrain him.

- Threnody 45:47

Horse 3520 - Eagle Down, Trump Has Risen

I am not one for watching News 24 (which is what Sky News Australia became after it forced to rebrand itself after court orders) and so I am not usually aware of the kind of effluent propaganda being dragged through people's minds, but this morning I am (was) on the train while someone played it sufficiently loud enough on their phone for all the immediate world to hear. 

At the weekend, a pilot in an F-15E Strike Eagle jet that was shot down by Iran on Friday, was rescued from an Iranian mountain after spending two days in the open.

United States' President Donald Trump praised the fighter pilot and the US Air Force who successfully returned him safe and sound, to a US airbase; and then the broadcast got weird.

President Trump threatened to find and jail the journalist who first reported that the fighter pilot was awaiting rescue in Iran, unless the reporter reveals the source. I note that Fox News and Washington Post were the initial news outlets to report the story, so there might not be a lot in that threat. 

The broadcast then proceeded to show Mr Trump in the Oval Office, with various people laying hands on him, praising God for his leadership, and then thanking God that Iranian people have been killed. 

In reference to the return of the fighter pilot who was retrieved, there was no reflection upon the fact that this same military put him in harm's way in the first place; much less the actual moral fitness of the war.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/mar/05/at-least-dozen-hospital-and-health-facilities-in-iran-hit-since-us-israel-attacks-began-who-says

"At least 13 hospitals and other health facilities have been hit during the US-Israel attacks on Iran, global health chiefs have said."

- The Guardian, 6 Mar 2026

I don't know to what degree that this is being marketed as a just war in the United States but at least 13 hospitals, and over 30 schools and colleges damaged or destroyed in Iran during these military actions.

Make any claim that you like about regime change and the cruelty which the Ayatollahs and high-ranking Shia clergy have perpetrated in Iran (which was already well known), but to then turn around and claim that God is pleased, or wants to bless you when you have clearly targeted civilian populations, seems like a very strange clarion to blow. 

This war began with an opening volley of Tomahawk missiles thrown directly into Tehran; and resulted in 138 girls being killed at school. That was Day One.

This sits alongside Israel's continued efforts to turn every single last person in Gaza to bloody pulp, and and second front where innocent people in Lebanon have also been killed.

To turn around and yell at NATO for not wanting to help, after threatening to take Greenland by force, just looks churlish.

But to then dare to pray for God's blessing while you are busy tearing people to pieces and seemingly gloating at the fact, seems gauche. 

I mean I already get it that this man is a politician by office, so Christians in the United States are willing to overlook his character and the fact that he is more than likely a rapist (which apparently doesn't morally disqualify him from being elected to office a second time), but to lay hands upon him and make theatre by suggesting that he is a blessing, is madness.

It is really easy to look at the world like a chess board and watch as pieces fall. It is even easier if your King happens to be on another chess board which is on the other side of the room. So long as the things falling are only chess pieces, that's okay. However, when they are actual people, who used to have families, daughters, sons, wives, husbands, grandparents, friends... to pray a blessing upon the destruction of these people? Something doesn't work here.

https://youtu.be/6iHjbG3jtHM?si=VXo7jor1UOE2jcTS

“Mr President, no one has paid the price like you have paid the price.

...

It almost cost you your life. You were betrayed and arrested and falsely accused. It’s a familiar pattern that our Lord and Saviour showed us. But it didn’t end there for him, and it didn’t end there for you.

...

Because he rose, we all know we can rise, and, sir, because of his resurrection, you rose up.

...

Because he was victorious, you were victorious. And I believe that the Lord said to tell you this: Because of his victory, you will be victorious in all you put your hand to.”

- Paula White.

You will be victorious in all you put your hand to?

What does that look like?

https://x.com/DashaBurns/status/2041222832265343141

"I don't want to tell you that. ... We have a plan because of the power of our military, where every bridge in Iran will be decimated by 12 o'clock tomorrow night, where every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding, and never to be used again. I mean, complete demolition by 12 o'clock, and it will happen over a period of four hours if we want it to. We don't want that to happen."

- Donald Trump 

https://x.com/realstewpeters/status/2041208837357621298

"The Iranians are animals. That’s why blowing up their bridges and power stations isn’t a war crime.”

- Donald Trump 

My question is to "Christians" in the United States. So you voted for this, eh? Really? 

Horse 3519 - In Defence Of Hot Cross Buns

 Palm Sunday was yesterday, which means that this is the week before Easter and the only week of the year that Hot Cross Buns appear on the shelves. Every year I hear the same complaints about Hot Cross Buns and I think that it is because people just don't understand their place in the bun kosmos.

Sometimes you need to reiterate the obvious just to make a point.

A Hot Cross Bun is not a sweet bun. 

A Cream Bun with its very obviously not real cream is a sweet bun. Nobody in the world knows what that cream is but we don't have to care. A Cream Bun is a delicious thing which retains the memories of a thousand agricultural shows, school picnics, and local fairs.

A Finger Bun or its related cousins, the Eclair, Choux buns, pâte à choux de café, or even Sticky Buns generally, are the things of morning teas, churches, funerals, et cetera. The whole kingdom of Tea Cakes, also fits roughly into this kind of category.

A Hot Cross Bun is not a savoury bun. 

Hamburger Buns, Hot Dog Buns, Baps, and those breadsicle comestibles that veer further and further away, have functions which are mostly named. Granted that you can put a banana into a Hot Dog but merely putting food with other food is where we start violating the epistos of what we're talking about.

The point to be made here is that a Hot Cross Bun is neither an overtly sweet bun nor an overtly savoury bun, and shouldn't be denigrated for going about its own business.

Cream Buns, Choux Buns, Tea Cakes, Hamburger Buns, Hot Dog Buns, et cetera et cetera et cetera, are all doing solid work during the year, and I think that the perception of the Hot Cross Bun which really only shows up once a year and appears to look like a superstar, confuses people.

Of course a Hot Cross Bun isn't one of those other things and neither does it pretend to be. That's an end user perception problem and one which needs rehabilitation. The cross on top of a Hot Cross Bun isn't icing as some people invariably demand it to be, so the Hot Cross Bun has a doubly difficult job. 

The Hot Cross Bun should be thought of as a fancy Current Bun. 

As we live in an industrialised world where people's taste buds have been trained to only accept flavours which have been turned all the way up to 11, the whole idea that you might have a bun which is only semi-sweet at best, or perhaps subtly spiced with cinnamon or nutmeg, sounds absurd to people. In the world before massive amounts of cheap sugar, subtle spices were appreciated because they were slightly different. Current Buns ran the entire gauntlet between sweet and barely spiced, and a Hot Cross Bun is of this spirit.

In that respect, we seem to have no problem whatsoever with Muffins which can either be sweet or savoury, will accept jam or marmalade, or at the other end ham, cheese, sausage et cetera. Nobody appears to bat an eyelid at the idea that a muffin might contain raisins or currents, yet they will then look at a Hot Cross Bun and complain.

The problem therefore is not with the Hot Cross Bun but the people who complain. Now I realise that people like what they like and don't like what they don't like, but this is a perception problem which is grounded in ignorance.

To further complicate the problem, the Hot Cross Bun is a seasonal actor who arrives on the stage once a year and people have collectively forgotten that this kind of Current Bun used to be sold all the year round. 

I know that was then but it could be again.

We should be able to go into a shop and buy a current bun as you would toast. We should be able to pay not very much money for them. The song which was first published in 1798, and which states the price of ½d. should give us a price of about 88 cents when adjusted for inflation which seems about right to me.

I do not want to hear any more slander about something which is lovely but which people do not understand any more. The way back is not denigration but rehabilitation.

Hot Cross Buns are lovely. Be lovely. Eat lovely.

Horse 3518 - Jolene and Adeline

"Please don't take him just because you can. 

Your beauty is beyond compare;

With flaming locks of auburn hair;

With ivory skin and eyes of emerald green.

Your smile is like a breath of spring.

Your voice is soft like summer rain,

And I cannot compete with you,

Jolene"

- Jolene, Dolly Parton.

"She stole my man, took him from me.

She's got crimson eyes, a screamin' body.

Face is young, she must taste sweet.

She drops those panties to her knees.

Walkin' on my happy home,

She won't give up until I'm gone.

I think I'm cursed.

I had him first.

Adeline, have mercy,

You don't wanna break my heart."

- Put The Gun Down, ZZ Ward.

Speaking as an observant robot who thinks that humans are illogical beings at the best of times and downright cruel at others, it seems to me that when it comes to the songs that humans produce for other humans to listen to, they feature the stories of humans pretty often. If it wasn't for the vast amount of oxytocin and serotonin flowing through the veins and arteries of these biomechanical meatbags with ghosts inside the shell, then most of the world of music wouldn't exist at all.

As a subject, irrational biomechanical meatbags with ghosts inside the shell being swept along in a torrent of love, is the supermajority of popular music. Taking the billboard Top 100 since 1960, 68% of all entries have referenced relationships and love. Politics, place, pelf, and purpose appear to occupy only about a third of all popular music. Songwriters it would seem, like mining the same subjects for most songs.

When it comes to that subject, you know the old story. Boy meets girl. Girl meets boy. They fall in love. Weird chemical things happen. Sometimes they steal members of other people's bonded partners; so the songs that are generated shift from someone being the object of one's affection, to scolding someone else for stealing said object.

But here's the rub. Said objects of people's affection as reflected in music, almost always tends to be ladies. The ones doing the thievery as reflected in music, also almost always tends to be ladies. 

I honestly don't know how to derive the statistics from the hideous amounts of data out there but I have a feeling that probably the vast majority of songs which have ladies' names in them, will also have to do with the subject of love and/or thievery.

When it comes to songs with men's names in them, they tend to have to do with the subject of men doing stupid things.

"Ev'ry mornin' at the mine you could see him arrive.

He stood six foot six and weighed 245.

Kinda broad at the shoulder and narrow at the hip,

And everybody knew, ya didn't give no lip to Big John.

Big Bad John."

- Big Bad John, Jimmy Dean

"What's it all about,

When you sort it out, Alfie?

Are we meant to take more than we give,

Or are we meant to be kind?

And if, if only fools are kind, Alfie,

Then I guess it is wise to be cruel."

- Alfie, Dion Warwick 

"Hey Joe, I heard you shot your mama down,

You shot her down now.

Hey Joe, I heard you shot your lady down,

You shot her down in the ground."

- Hey Joe, Billy Roberts 

"He used to carry his guitar in a gunny sack

Go sit beneath the tree by the railroad track

Oh, the engineers would see him sitting in the shade

Strumming with the rhythm that the drivers made

The people passing by they would stop and say

"Oh my what that little country boy could play"

Go, go,

Go Johnny, go, go"

- Johnny B Goode, Chuck Berry.

Granted that there are songs like Blondie's "Denis" where Denis does happen to be the object of affection but these are few and far between. 

I suppose that I shouldn't really be surprised at this considering that societal norms for the last few thousand years tend to place ladies in the home and the menfolk in harm's way. It therefore makes sense that the songs that humans write reflect the idea that ladies are the objects of affection and that men are the objects of replaceable destruction. Even in most cultural instances of formal legally binding bonding ceremonies of marriage, ladies are dressed as thought they are the ones that matter while the men are essentially dressed as though this was a business transaction.

When Paul Beatle writes a song about his belle Michelle, he does so without even knowing the language that she speaks. In contrast, there is never going to be a corresponding song of that type in the other direction. 

Except...

"Hey Stephen, I've been holding back this feeling.

So I've got some things to say to you (ha).

I've seen it all, so I thought,

But I never seen nobody shine the way you do."

- Hey Stephen, Taylor Swift 

As with anything like this, convention holds for exactly as long as convention holds and no further. 

Stephen is probably a rarity. Stephen isn't being sung about as though he has done something really stupid. Having said that, I am now beginning to wonder.

The reason why I wrote any of this at all is because I happened to hear these three songs in a row while driving home one night:

Jolene, Hey Stephen, Put The Gun Down.

As my brain is both a pattern seeking machine and one for writing endless stories that go nowhere, my new personal head canon is that Jolene and Adeline are engaged in some kind of armed blood feud over Stephen. 

I hope so. I want to see this made into a movie.

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.