8 Matching Annotations
  1. Aug 2022
  2. Jun 2022
    1. 22. We may note in passing the archaic nature of the US Supreme Court, whosejudges are named for life like the pope of the Catholic Church and the apostles of theMormon church. However, a pontifical bull of 1970 denied cardinals over eighty yearsold the right to vote in papal elections, which proves that all institutions can be re-formed, even the most venerable ones.
  3. Nov 2021
    1. “(T)he 2020 election revealed that, at least with respect to an administration’s senior most officials, the Hatch Act is only as effective as the White House decides it will be. Where, as happened here, the White House chooses to ignore the Hatch Act’s requirements, then the American public is left with no protection against senior administration officials using their official authority for partisan political gain in violation of the law,” it reads.
  4. Mar 2021
    1. Democrat Chicago to allow the economy to open up less than a week after Biden's inauguration...it's all planned to make Biden appear successful! Democrats allowed millions of people to suffer and lose businesses all for their own greed and power!
  5. Sep 2020
  6. Jun 2019
    1. The decision did not favour his financial interests and has been misreported by the journalist. In fact, Mr Petch was pressuring an inexperienced General Manager to attend to an entitlement affecting multiple councillors. The entitlement - reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in legal action initiated by council - is not discretionary, but must be extended to councillors incurring costs in carrying out their civic duties in good faith. The entitlement is explicitly coded in the NSW Local Government Act and NSW Office of Local Government expenses guidelines for serving councillors and Mayor's. No evidence was submitted that the affected councillors had acted in a manner other than "good faith". Therefore the only logical conclusion that could be drawn for delaying the reimbursement

  7. Jan 2019
    1. We must have an agency of the federal government to pMtett it.

      Is a federal government, and a federal government alone, enough to do such a thing? I mean, look at what happened to the Library of Alexandria. I still get pissed off thinking about that. And is it even a good idea in the first place to let them have that responsibility? I can't help but think of all of the instances in which governments have been directly responsible for mass destructions of literature. There's an entire Wikipedia page dedicated to historical book burning events, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents, and a large majority of these noteworthy burnings were done at the will of the government. What would happen if we were to give them too much agency in this matter? Is it a good idea for governments to have the final say in the well-being of our literature? How can we trust them to decide what is and isn't worth protecting?

  8. Oct 2015