Categories Politics
What Murph's reporting (& opining) on is a survey that showed, in a time of international crisis where Australia has performed relatively well, politicians benefit from a "competence dividend"
\U0001f644 pic.twitter.com/odGMUKzPnT
— Richard Chirgwin (@R_Chirgwin) December 25, 2020
That's neither a surprise, nor something to be sneered at. But it's a one-paragraph story. It's what you'd expect to see.
The journalist's role, you'd think, would be to critically unpick that. Work through what premiers & the PM did to deserve it, or otherwise.
One case that could be made is that the premiers stepped up, acted visibly & decisively on behalf of their respective states, & the PM is largely riding on their coattails.
Murph, though, has been on a weird campaign to position Morrison in particular as a statesman-in-waiting.
Once the federal government authorised Job Seeker/Lover/Keeper, Murph was convinced this was (bound to be) the end of Ideological Warrior Morrison and we'd see the emergence of pragmatic Morrison who could govern reasonably, in ways atypical of the way his party had been trending
LOL
And LOL again.
The early economic interventions were made with a gun to his head. The idea he'd suddenly become a learning learner who learns was something Murph seemed desperate to hold on to, like it was important for her sense that federal politics could work properly.
"YouTube, whose corporate owner Google is arguably the most powerful company on earth, is now deleting user videos which claim the US election was
YouTube's official statement on its decision to do this is very revealing, not so much for what it says as for what it does not
2/ Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline. Now that enough states certified their Presidential election results, we\u2019ll remove any content published today (or anytime after) that alleges widespread fraud or errors changed the 2020 U.S. Presidential election outcome.
— YouTubeInsider (@YouTubeInsider) December 9, 2020
At no point does the video publishing platform attempt to argue that it is removing these videos because they jeopardize anyone's health or safety, as it did when it began deleting videos deemed to be spreading misinformation about Covid-19.
As long as that is true, it's fine.
Cuomo's standard was neither consistent nor scientific. That is a clear first amendment violation.
Conservatives are crowing over this as an own the libs moment, denying that many who support public health restrictions are people of faith. This broke long standing precedent, so don't at me with your calls for originalism etc. This is just know-nothing politics by other means. https://t.co/KLeiKlp6p7
— Gregg Gonsalves (@gregggonsalves) November 26, 2020
Gorsuch is SCIENTIFICALLY RIGHT HERE.
If people can't admit that, then they are allowing their biases to
Neil Gorsuch goes off on @NYGovCuomo in the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling blocking his Covid restrictions for religious services. https://t.co/HOKmgsUAKg pic.twitter.com/dcl7o5irDd
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 26, 2020
This on the other hand is 100% BS.
Not a single scientist I know supports this double standard. The best ones know that the type ofvenue is irrelevant... Only the size and # of people
Sonia Sotomayor dissents: \u201cJustices of this Court play a deadly game in second guessing the expert judgment of health officials about the environments in which a contagious virus, now infecting a million Americans each week, spreads most easily.\u201d https://t.co/HOKmgtcc8Q
— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 26, 2020
In short, it is the LEFT here using religious bias to promote an antiscientific standard and allowing the State to violate Rights.
The Liberals and CJJR should be ashamed.
Another good thread here.
A consistent standard would have passed constitutional muster.
Last night, SCOTUS issued injunctive relief to houses of worship challenging NYC\u2019s COVID-19 restrictions, the first time it has granted such relief during the pandemic. I have mixed views about the decision and early reactions to it.
— John Inazu (@JohnInazu) November 26, 2020
Story in the evening ...
Seizing the throne from his under age nephew, this young prince converted his kingdom into a military state with his innovations in warfare and consistent war efforts, setting its stage for global domination.
— Ranjith Kollannur (@Arby_K) November 27, 2020
Story in the evening ... https://t.co/9EfejciI8s
Tancred de Hauteville was a Norman noble who lived in Normandy in early 1000s. But this thread isn't about him, but his sons who went to Italy. Italy at the time was a divided peninsula, with Frankish, Lombard, Byzantine and Muslim rulers. 1/10
In 1017, invited by a rebellious Lombard noble in Byzantine Italy, the first set of Normans would clash with Basil Boioannes, Catepan of Byzantine Italy. Though the Byzantines woud win the Battle of Cannae, it would be the start of a period of Norman adventurism in Italy. 2/10
In 1030, as a reward for helping retake Naples, Duke Sergius would give Norman Rainulf Drengot the County of Aversa. It was for Rainulf's court that the sons of Tancred, Guillaume and Drogo, would depart in 1035. In 1038, they would join the Byzantine invasion of Sicily. 3/10
Guillaume would emerge as the leader of the Norman mercenaries during the Siege of Syracuse. In 1041, he would defeat the Byzantine contingent which included the Varangian Guards led by Harald Hardrada, future King of Norway, and become the Count of Apulia. 4/10