Daily review 25/02/2025

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, February 25th, 2025 - 21 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

21 comments on “Daily review 25/02/2025 ”

  1. Phillip ure 1

    That burnt raisin of a human being ..rfk jnr ..

    ..is gonna do some good…

    .. he's gonna get ultra processed food out of school lunches in u s.

    Would that we had someone here with the nous/motivation to do the same thing here…eh ..?

    Here the food peddlers are total cowboys…who don't give a flying act of fornication that much of what they sell is poisonous/unhealthy crap . .

    ..that it is proven shortens the lives of their customers..and cause cancers etc ..

    That whole industry needs to be upended…and regulated to stop them doing this…

    As a nation…we are being poisoned by these bastards…

    Where is our burnt raisin..?…to make this stop…

  2. Ad 2

    European leadership will be shifting to Macron if he brings together a European peacekeeping force in a Ukraine peace deal.

    Was very smart to Trump and then correct him live.

    The German government will have barely formed and will barely commit to any future Ukraine assistance I think.

    Ceasefire negotiations appear unexpectedly close.

  3. SPC 3

    We have a Minister for Rural Communities.

    Evidence.

    https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/ministers-welcome-k%C4%81inga-ora%E2%80%99s-revised-approach-wool-carpets

    https://www.lgnz.co.nz/news/news-insights/lgnz-meets-with-minister-for-rural-communities/

    https://www.dpmc.govt.nz/cabinet/portfolios/rural-communities

    There is no Ministry of Rural Communities (part of MPI) and the Minister is no longer supplied with staff by Internal Affairs (Ministerial Services).

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/ministry-stops-sending-workers-to-nz-first-minister-mark-pattersons-office-amid-complaints-between-staff/52NY2CCMCRG6JHXSOZTBGUZGIE/

    So how about it rural New Zealand. Invite him around to help with the shearing or sit on the hay bales in the barn while he has no support staff in the office.

  4. SPC 4

    Increasing off peak fares.

    Use will decline.

    Revenue will go up by less than 10%. That is what big increases do.

    Hopefully people will walk further on good days and use bikes more.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360593685/wellington-peak-transport-fares-could-go-20

    • Belladonna 4.1

      I doubt that the increase in fares will make much difference to the volumes. There will, of course, be some reduction. Mostly people who will make choices not to travel, or at least not to travel as much. They're unlikely to choose to cycle (or they'd already be cycling); and walking is only really useful for very local travel (which people are unlikely to do via bus in any case)

      Car use (in Auckland, at least) is more constrained by parking, and time-taken (rush-hour bus lanes on the Shore are far quicker than 1-person-per-car trips – for people to and from the CBD). People currently making that choice, are not going to 'unmake' it, because of fare increases (it'll still be cheaper/quicker than driving)

      There was an interesting EU research summary into the effect of free PT, which showed that price-point was not the factor that switched most people's transport choices.

      https://theconversation.com/would-you-ditch-your-car-if-public-transport-was-free-heres-what-researchers-have-found-133001

      • SPC 4.1.1

        If free service attracts those who walk or bike, would not a higher off peak price encourage more walking and bike use?

        New passengers attracted by it tend to be pedestrians and cyclists rather than car drivers.

        Did the EU research cover off peak use? Or poverty as a determinant – those not owning a car?

        • Belladonna 4.1.1.1

          The total shift was very small – even with a totally free service. It doesn't seem very relevant if 0.00001% shifted from bus to bike or back the other way.

          The research isn't looking at desirability or social consequences of the programme, just at the measured change in behaviour that resulted.

          In Auckland, the observable use of the bike lanes is the highly committed cyclists, during the rush hour – and an uptick of hobby cyclists on the weekends. The usage is almost entirely independent of PT availability or cost. Cyclists are cycling because they enjoy it, and/or they want a low carbon-cost form of transport. Bus fares aren't a motivating factor for them.

          Also, most off-peak use is the elderly (you can see the mid-day buses here, and they’re populated by golden-oldies getting their free trips (thanks Winston)). They’re not going to walk (more than 200 metres or so), or cycle (not the demographic).

  5. joe90 5

    "They'll never do that."

    //

    The rumors are true: The proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, now considered a priority for Republicans in the House, will make it harder, if not practically impossible, for millions of women to vote. The SAVE Act would require documentation, such as a passport or birth certificate matching your current legal name to allow a person to register to vote. These requirements would pose a challenge to broad swaths of the country, but would fall especially hard on women.

    Eight in 10 married women in opposite-sex marriages took their spouse’s last name, and the bill could exclude over 69 million married American women whose names do not match their birth certificate. One Brennan Center for Justice study found that one third of American women do not have access to any documents with their current legal name. About half of Americans do not have a passport, a costly process that adds a financial burden for those who have had any name change throughout their lives.

    https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-22-02-2025/#comment-2025735

    https://newrepublic.com/article/191420/christian-nationalism-save-act-voter-suppression

    • tWig 5.2

      Seens like much of Project 2025's targets saw The Handmaid's Tale as aspirational.

    • Belladonna 5.3

      It seems clear that the legislation will enable States to run a supplementary process, to enable identification of people whose name on their current ID, doesn't match their birth certificate. For the vast majority of women, this will be in the form of their marriage certificate.
      Arizona already does this.

      The Republicans have zero desire to make it impossible for the vast majority of conservative married women (many of whom are staunch Republican voters) to vote for them.

      https://www.rstreet.org/commentary/no-the-save-act-is-not-designed-to-disenfranchise-women/

      Note. I'm not saying this is well-drafted legislation (it's not), or that additional hurdles for voters to jump through are a good thing, or even that it's necessary law (the numbers of non-citizen voters must be infinitesimal) – but it's not going to have the widespread effects that the doomsayers are predicting.

      • gsays 5.3.1

        " but it's not going to have the widespread effects that the doomsayers are predicting."

        That's enough forecasting clearing weather, some have parades to rain on.

      • SPC 5.3.2

        A birth certificate or marriage certificate) with the same name as photo ID (Drivers Licence, or non-driver state identity card, or passport).

        It is really about

        1.proof of citizenship ID.

        2.maintaining enrollment registration (address information)*.

        3.voting pathways.

        https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-save-act-overview-and-facts/

        Note Trump's interest in taking control of the US Postal Service*.

  6. Belladonna 6

    I think that it will be a birth certificate AND a marriage certificate if there is a difference between the birth certificate and the current photo ID. There's no requirement for a marriage certificate, if you haven't changed your name.

    I guess there is other documentation which might be required: change of name via deed poll, or multiple marriage certificates (if you've been married and changed name multiple times).

    The point I was making is that there will be pathways to legitimize the variation of name, using standard documentation.

    The Republicans have no desire to disenfranchise their voters.