Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's not on health, but on the President's address to school students, I think we had a thread somewhere, but I found this piece very interesting. It's from a publication with "examiner" in the title, so you may wish to take it with a grain of salt =) but:
when President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush's speech -- they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.
Unlike the Obama speech, in 1991 most of the controversy came after, not before, the president's school appearance. The day after Bush spoke, the Washington Post published a front-page story suggesting the speech was carefully staged for the president's political benefit. "The White House turned a Northwest Washington junior high classroom into a television studio and its students into props," the Post reported.
...
Democrats did not stop with words. Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush's appearance. ...
-
My main point wasn't the n-1 argument. Although it probably seemed that it was.
My point was that 115,000 voters was an awfully big number (generally entitled to 6 seats in Parliament) to be telling their views shouldn't be heard in Parliament.
Why does a threshold need to be in percentage terms anyway? We could set it 60,000 votes, and let that number mean whatever it means in any election, or set it at a number of MPs. Do the divvying up of seats as though there was no threshold, and all those the parties that get enough votes for 3 MPs get to keep them.
I guess my question is not "why should be a threshold?", but "why should there be a threshold as high a 5%?"
-
I'll match Stephen's opinion that we should keep the five percent threshold, and raise him the idea that we should get rid of the exception for parties that win a seat. The threshold keeps out extremists, and fuck me I'm so completely in favour of that.
I'm considering writing on a post on this, but I'm interested in this debate. I can see the argument that a threshold is needed to keep out extremists, but why is a 5% threshold needed? If 120,000 people want a party represented in Parliament, they get it, but if 115,000 voters want a different party they're extremists?
-
Simon - you just beat me to it. I had the Daily Mail screaming "Gender-row runner Caster Semenya 'is a hermaphrodite with no womb or ovaries'"
-
get the US out of two major shitholes in the Middle East
Iraq and Iran?
-
"I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit -- either now or in the future."
Govt will be obliged to make spending cuts in other areas if anticipated savings don't materialise.
Very sneaky.
The standard US legislative procedure is:
House and Senate approve bill. Bill sent to President for signature:
The President's has three option:
sign the bill: the bill becomes law
return bill to congress: veto
do nothing.If the President does nothing then:
if Congress is not in session: "pocket" veto
if Congress is in session: the bill becomes lawThe President doesn't need to sign a bill for it to become law - so if he wants to increase the deficit to pay for his healthcare plan, well he hasn't actually promised not to =)
-
Selfishly bumping this to the top 'cos it seems relevant again =)
I'll be posting more on the issue when I've a bit of time...
-
You want freedom from being associated with the students assoc. That's just not what "freedom of association" means.
I'm pretty sure it is. If the National Government decided to administer part of the roading system by requiring every driver to become a member of the AA - even though it uses members' money to push for large public roading projects (something with which many drivers have strong disagreement) - people would be crying out.
"You want freedom from being associated with the AA" wouldn't cut it.
My view is that the students assocs are part of the universities in a real sense. So I don't see why the govt is involved at all: it seems obvious to me that the universities should be completely free in this regard.
That would, of course, require a law change.
-
Answer: Two are blogs, the other is _.
A group of on-line columnists?
=)
-
Oh for FUCK'S SAKE. Key has just appointed Nigel Latta to the group reviewing the child discipline law.
John Key wants this all to go away - and he wants a review to make it go away. Whom should he appoint to the groups for it to have any hope of achieving his goal?