Actually, @Carlos, things like America, Australia and so on are reported on as nation of origin/immigration sources, rather than ethnicity per se. At least that's my understanding.
To Graeme Edgeler, "NZer" was an ethnicity in the 2006 census. I understand there hasn't been another one since?
As for Pakeha, as far as I'm aware, it's the Maori for a white person - can't get more origins-neutral than that. It doesn't make reference to Europe, which I consider to be fairly irrelevant if you want categorise people in such a way.
And yes, I like the term for its social implications as well (that I am a European descended person from NZ), but that doesn't detract from it being perfectly suitable for use in a census.
Oh, and for the person wondering what to do if you are of mixed ethnicity, select all that apply. It's not that hard.
I'm with the group pointing out that "New Zealander" is not an ethnicity - it describes everyone who is a citizen of this country, whether that citizenship occurred at birth, or in a ceremony 5 minutes ago.
The whole point of the census question is about ethnicity, and by allowing the NZer label in that context, the question is made meaningless (we'll keep the debate on whether questions on ethnicity are appropriate these days either to a later time).
I personally am still extremely pissed off that "Pakeha" is no longer in the census, but the NZer term is. I'm not "European", although of course I'm of predominantly Irish descent - I'm a Pakeha NZer, and quite happy about that.
I can just about cope with "European" included as an ethnic description for the racist wankers who object to the term "Pakeha", but if you're going to ask the ethnicity question, at least make it have some meaning.
Bollocks, I forgot to include the money quote:
When the leaders of a major economy lapse into mysticism and come to believe they can accomplish things through their mental vibrations, without lifting a finger - then it's time to start thinking about going into subsistence farming on a remote compound in Idaho.
I love Barbara Ehrenreich's sporking of The Secret - she goes into it pretty thoroughly in her book on the cult of "positive thinking" in all its manifestations.
Anyway, "The Secret of Mass-Delusion" pretty much sums it up: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehrenreich/the-secret-of-mass-delusi_b_42212.html
Regarding trains to and from airports, and the quibbles about luggage, how much luggage are you taking? I think that people who have more than one bag large enough to check in are decidedly the minority these days.
It is slightly irksome that the Sydney train doesn't have luggage racks, but the seats near the doors are pretty convenient. Roll on, and roll off at Central.
With Brisbane, the last times I've been, the Airtrain seems to be pretty well patronised. When we couldn't fly into the Gold Coast airport, it was a breeze rolling off the plane in Brisbane and onto the train for a cruisy 90 minute ride to Surfer's (and 10 minute taxi ride). Undoubtedly faster than driving in peak times (I reckon about the same with normal traffic flows).
The Heathrow Express in London seems to have plenty of business people patronising it. It's definitely faster than the tube, including a 15 minute walk to get anywhere else at Heathrow. The Underground is fantastic, and certainly to be preferred to any of the other more common options, including driving. Although WHY do flights from NZ arrive at 7am, just in time for peak hour?
Regarding trains to Auckland airport, doing the extra 11k or so from the new Onehunga station, or even perhaps the 6-7k from Puhinui, seems like a no-brainer. Especially given the diabolical traffic on the South Western motorway.
The Soundcloud page for the Bieber song does actually have a link to speeded-up version of something - I thought it was Sigur Ros? Perhaps not (can't check from work), but still appropriate.
And count me in as another electronica lover who finds Sigur Ros boring in the extreme - I obviously don't have the right gene.
As for clothes, god, I hate them. I'm a butch woman, I work in a professional organisation, and I have, er, attributes that rival Christine Hendricks'. While I'm not as svelte as I might be, without the top ballast, I'm a size 14-16. But there is no way a shirt or a jacket less than an 18 will fit me, and unfortunately 16-18 is when the "big" sizes start to kick in, so often they are cut for shoulders and/or a belly I simply don't possess.
So I've been starting to ramp up to tailoring to solve the problem. I got measured up for some stuff by a travelling Thai tailor, and while the work was gorgeous, apparently even despite the humungous bazongas and the fact my back is so long, only men's shirts will stay tucked in, the "trendy" style for a jacket is right on the waist. I feel like Tweedledum wearing it. The trousers looked like something from MC Hammer circa 1990, despite my specifically saying the leg should be straight or slightly bootcut, and while my thighs are not the smallest, my butt is quite tidy and does not require acres of cloth flapping around. So that was about a grand of FAIL.
My favourite shirt is actually one from Strangely Normal, which is a gorgeous red and black paisley men's one in heavy cotton - if I didn't have the gaping front button problem (safety pins get me by, with a jacket), I would wear it ALL the time.
Otherwise, I find clothes shopping quite traumatic - I don't really fit men's clothes, and most women's clothes do not suit me in the slightest (assuming I can get them to fit as well). I've taken on the philosophy that if I see anything decent, I must buy it right away. With a budget or not because otherwise I buy about 3 garments a year, and that's hardly sustainable for a professional wardrobe.
Regarding the whole frigging ludicrous false dichotomy between teh "socially liberal" geyz and wimminz vs teh WORKERZZZZZ, it's amazing how few of the morons who make these comparisons fail to realise that quite a frigging few working class workers also happen to be frigging gay or women themselves. And I can tell you that the queer working class people and women I know actually DO care very much about having fair living and working conditions.
(In fact, the only queer people I know who would actually want to become married-married are working class)
God, it pisses me off, that kind of wilful obliviousness. Not that I have fond memories of the union "brothers" of Trotter's ilk I encountered in the mid-80s, who spent lengthy meetings agitating about the fact that us females (and queers, not I told them at the time) had the audacity to want to contaminate their sacred chapels and workplaces. Wankers.
Completely UNRELATED to the post at hand: when is PAS going to get to grips with the new century and have the site layout designed for screen resolutions larger than 800x600? I checked out the latest W3schools stats, and they have monitors supporting only 800x600 at 1%. 1024x768 at 20% and the vast majority, 76%, at even higher resolutions.
I just think the tiny content space looks cramped, it's tedious to scroll, and all the acres of white space seem wasted. The site would still look fine on most modern mobile devices if it were designed for higher resolutions. And if mobile reading is a consideration, then a subdomain with a different stylesheet, or the ability to read full posts from a news reader would solve it.
Not sure why I haven't mentioned it ever (and in potentially more relevant fora), but it's been narking at me particularly of late.