mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,447
|
Post by mattperiolat on Apr 11, 2010 19:19:19 GMT -5
Pardon me for asking, but have you ever considered a career in journalism? Because seriously, that was an excellent concise analysis of the situation, reporting of the facts and potential consequences. Well done and very professional. I've never thought of doing that. A lot of people have told me I should be a radio DJ or a voice over guy though. People say I have the right voice for it. Not just the voice, but a good, tight analysis of the situation, without sensationalism. Seriously, look into journalism, man.
|
|
Subrick
ALF
Dennis Miller? More Like Dennis FILLER amirite?
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by Subrick on Apr 11, 2010 20:22:37 GMT -5
I've never thought of doing that. A lot of people have told me I should be a radio DJ or a voice over guy though. People say I have the right voice for it. Not just the voice, but a good, tight analysis of the situation, without sensationalism. Seriously, look into journalism, man. There's a couple of the people in the comments section being dicks saying that I'm totally wrong. To them I say that they are the ignorant ones, not me.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,447
|
Post by mattperiolat on Apr 11, 2010 21:35:26 GMT -5
Not just the voice, but a good, tight analysis of the situation, without sensationalism. Seriously, look into journalism, man. There's a couple of the people in the comments section being dicks saying that I'm totally wrong. To them I say that they are the ignorant ones, not me. With all due respect, sometimes YouTube has all the class of a public urinal. Trust your own judgment and the judgement of people you trust.
|
|
|
Post by Free Hat on Apr 11, 2010 22:47:48 GMT -5
I would agree that Subrick's analysis was pretty good overall, but I would make one small correction at end. In Canada and the UK, the Prime Minister is the appointed Head of Government, but is NOT Head of State. That role belongs to the Queen (or the Governor General in our case). Under the Westminster system, the PM is actually quite easily replaced in the event of an emergency. It would no doubt create some brief instability, but it would still be far from crippling.
|
|
Subrick
ALF
Dennis Miller? More Like Dennis FILLER amirite?
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by Subrick on Apr 11, 2010 23:24:57 GMT -5
I would agree that Subrick's analysis was pretty good overall, but I would make one small correction at end. In Canada and the UK, the Prime Minister is the appointed Head of Government, but is NOT Head of State. That role belongs to the Queen (or the Governor General in our case). Under the Westminster system, the PM is actually quite easily replaced in the event of an emergency. It would no doubt create some brief instability, but it would still be far from crippling. See now, this is the right way to criticize viewpoints. I'm not the most familiar person with the government systems in Canada and the U.K.
|
|
|
Post by Free Hat on Apr 12, 2010 0:12:04 GMT -5
I would agree that Subrick's analysis was pretty good overall, but I would make one small correction at end. In Canada and the UK, the Prime Minister is the appointed Head of Government, but is NOT Head of State. That role belongs to the Queen (or the Governor General in our case). Under the Westminster system, the PM is actually quite easily replaced in the event of an emergency. It would no doubt create some brief instability, but it would still be far from crippling. See now, this is the right way to criticize viewpoints. I'm not the most familiar person with the government systems in Canada and the U.K. Essentially it breaks down like this. Immediately following a general election, the Queen will decide who forms the government based on who commands confidence of the House of Commons. Under ordinary circumstances this would only be a formality; the party who won the most seats would form the government, and its leader would be appointed PM. In a case where the government held a majority of seats in the HoC, appointing a new Prime Minister would simply be a matter of the governing party choosing a new leader, which could be hotshotted if absolutely necessary. For example, back in the 1890s there was a situation where Canada went through five Prime Ministers in a single term. Two died in office, one got brain cancer and one was forced to resign by his own cabinet. It gets a little more complicated in minority government situations (such as the one Canada's in right now), as the opposition could essentially eject the government from power at any time, either by forming a coalition or just forcing an election. But once again, it would ultimately be the Queen's decision as to who becomes PM.
|
|
Subrick
ALF
Dennis Miller? More Like Dennis FILLER amirite?
Posts: 1,008
|
Post by Subrick on Apr 12, 2010 0:55:44 GMT -5
See now, this is the right way to criticize viewpoints. I'm not the most familiar person with the government systems in Canada and the U.K. Essentially it breaks down like this. Immediately following a general election, the Queen will decide who forms the government based on who commands confidence of the House of Commons. Under ordinary circumstances this would only be a formality; the party who won the most seats would form the government, and its leader would be appointed PM. In a case where the government held a majority of seats in the HoC, appointing a new Prime Minister would simply be a matter of the governing party choosing a new leader, which could be hotshotted if absolutely necessary. For example, back in the 1890s there was a situation where Canada went through five Prime Ministers in a single term. Two died in office, one got brain cancer and one was forced to resign by his own cabinet. It gets a little more complicated in minority government situations (such as the one Canada's in right now), as the opposition could essentially eject the government from power at any time, either by forming a coalition or just forcing an election. But once again, it would ultimately be the Queen's decision as to who becomes PM. Thank you for informing me.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,447
|
Post by mattperiolat on Apr 12, 2010 2:06:16 GMT -5
See now, this is the right way to criticize viewpoints. I'm not the most familiar person with the government systems in Canada and the U.K. Essentially it breaks down like this. Immediately following a general election, the Queen will decide who forms the government based on who commands confidence of the House of Commons. Under ordinary circumstances this would only be a formality; the party who won the most seats would form the government, and its leader would be appointed PM. In a case where the government held a majority of seats in the HoC, appointing a new Prime Minister would simply be a matter of the governing party choosing a new leader, which could be hotshotted if absolutely necessary. For example, back in the 1890s there was a situation where Canada went through five Prime Ministers in a single term. Two died in office, one got brain cancer and one was forced to resign by his own cabinet. It gets a little more complicated in minority government situations (such as the one Canada's in right now), as the opposition could essentially eject the government from power at any time, either by forming a coalition or just forcing an election. But once again, it would ultimately be the Queen's decision as to who becomes PM. And by the by, didn't just this week the House of Commons in England call for new elections? Curious to see if Gordon Brown will hang on as PM, I dunno how the polls are looking right now.
|
|
|
Post by Free Hat on Apr 12, 2010 3:25:41 GMT -5
Essentially it breaks down like this. Immediately following a general election, the Queen will decide who forms the government based on who commands confidence of the House of Commons. Under ordinary circumstances this would only be a formality; the party who won the most seats would form the government, and its leader would be appointed PM. In a case where the government held a majority of seats in the HoC, appointing a new Prime Minister would simply be a matter of the governing party choosing a new leader, which could be hotshotted if absolutely necessary. For example, back in the 1890s there was a situation where Canada went through five Prime Ministers in a single term. Two died in office, one got brain cancer and one was forced to resign by his own cabinet. It gets a little more complicated in minority government situations (such as the one Canada's in right now), as the opposition could essentially eject the government from power at any time, either by forming a coalition or just forcing an election. But once again, it would ultimately be the Queen's decision as to who becomes PM. And by the by, didn't just this week the House of Commons in England call for new elections? Curious to see if Gordon Brown will hang on as PM, I dunno how the polls are looking right now. I don't really follow British politics too closely, but the Tories are ahead last I heard. I've seen some seat projections that show a strong possibility of a minority government, which would be extremely interesting as they're quite rare in the UK. Anyway, this is probably about as far as this discussion can go without violating the no politics rule, so I'm not gonna say much more.
|
|
|
Post by Rorschach on Apr 12, 2010 4:06:58 GMT -5
You know what really yanks my crank about this whole thing, though? It's the fact that outside of a couple of blurbs on CNN.com and a quick mention on Headline News....this is really not getting anywhere NEAR the attention from the American news media that it OUGHT to be getting. We've just had a staggering tragedy occur here....and all the media seems to care about is Tiger Woods and Jesse James. Haiti's earthquake got more media coverage than this terrible tragedy has gotten...and while I'm not about to sit here and try and say one was worse than the other....I would say that this tragedy deserves just as much attention as Haiti got.
|
|
mattperiolat
King Koopa
Thank you, Brodie... for everything.
Posts: 11,447
|
Post by mattperiolat on Apr 12, 2010 12:55:22 GMT -5
You know what really yanks my crank about this whole thing, though? It's the fact that outside of a couple of blurbs on CNN.com and a quick mention on Headline News....this is really not getting anywhere NEAR the attention from the American news media that it OUGHT to be getting. We've just had a staggering tragedy occur here....and all the media seems to care about is Tiger Woods and Jesse James. Haiti's earthquake got more media coverage than this terrible tragedy has gotten...and while I'm not about to sit here and try and say one was worse than the other....I would say that this tragedy deserves just as much attention as Haiti got. Agreed, the problem is you have people who care more about Kate Gosslin than about Kim Yang-Moon deciding what goes on the air. The attitude of popular culture as news has damaged the credibility of the news. I'm one to talk, given I was hooked on the wire to wire MJ news just under a year ago, but I do appreciate when a major news story has broken and it's not getting the respect it deserves. Hopefully the funerals in Poland get the coverage due at least.
|
|
|
Post by FrankGotch on Apr 12, 2010 13:01:32 GMT -5
You know what really yanks my crank about this whole thing, though? It's the fact that outside of a couple of blurbs on CNN.com and a quick mention on Headline News....this is really not getting anywhere NEAR the attention from the American news media that it OUGHT to be getting. We've just had a staggering tragedy occur here....and all the media seems to care about is Tiger Woods and Jesse James. Haiti's earthquake got more media coverage than this terrible tragedy has gotten...and while I'm not about to sit here and try and say one was worse than the other....I would say that this tragedy deserves just as much attention as Haiti got. Not to sound like a dick man, but in the realm of international politics Poland isn't exactly a big mover, and shaker. The loss of life is very sad, but as far as the political landscape is concerned this loss will hardly make a dent. The worlds dignitaries will offer Poland their condolences Poland will appoint an interim government until the next election, and that will be that. Also this would never happen to the US. Almost all of our government officials have their own private planes, and there is strict protocol in place to make sure that things like this could never happen to high raking US officials. No way should this get the coverage Haiti got. Haiti's death toll was over 230,000, and the international effect of the earth quake is much greater.
|
|