Categories Politics

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
So I'm not the first, & won't be the last, to be irked by this. But anyway, here goes.

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"


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.
Scientifically, there should be a single consistent standard.

As long as that is true, it's fine.

Cuomo's standard was neither consistent nor scientific. That is a clear first amendment violation.


Gorsuch is SCIENTIFICALLY RIGHT HERE.

If people can't admit that, then they are allowing their biases to


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


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.
A band of brothers who set out to conquer the countryside and ended up ruling half a country for a century.

Story in the evening ...


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