Fair enough re Clark. I've been trying to hunt down the figures from a quick Google, but the most recent I could find is 2006 (when it was Bolger and Shipley).
But I completely agree - they get a decent pension, and I think if they want to be globetrotters after they are out of office, they can pay their own way.
Why wouldn't she, if that fund is there for the use of former PMs? I believe Bolger is the one who's hammered it the most (can't be bothered looking it up right now)
Sure, it might be a stupid benefit, but why single out Clark particularly?
The tax base "needs" to expand in response to a growing economy?
At what point - with more sales taxes that disproptionally affect poorer households? When there is economic growth but no inflation so that goods and service prices remain relatively static? (Yes, it happens, but not most of the time) When the economy is just going to keep growing and growing and growing? (Not.)
I'm pretty far to the left on many issues, but I'm not sure why this contraceptives to solo mums thing has taken on a certain spin. Sure, National are doing it because they think they'll save money on welfare down the track - I HOPE they're not using Freakonomics to base policy on - but I knew plenty of DBP mothers when growing up who desperately wanted free accessible contraception.
And it's not like any govt is going to make it free to all, so why not target the worst-off groups? Like cheaper prescriptions for those on benefits.
There might be an element of slippery-slopism in play here- that women might be FORCED to take these things. Sure, I have bugger-all trust in National as well, but I can't see them taking the eugenics approach (or what might possibly be construed as it). ACT, on the other hand....
With you there, James. I don't seem to have the soapie gene, so I think I've seen less than an ep's-worth, all up.
But good on them for proving it can be done here, and even better in some ways (the early diversity Russell alludes to) than countries with much bigger audiences.
Regarding the question about who would pay, I certainly would for the three shows I currently watch. Since Amazon has proven that the "long tail" model works, I don't see why that doesn't apply to other media. Sure, there may not be zillions of Lost Girl fans in NZ, but if you add the global reach and consider fans in Oz, SA, the UK, etc...
I have no problem with somewhat gratuitous sex after some kiddie-friendly hour (Lost Girl), but I found the first book (at least, I couldn't stomach any more) had lots of that shitty sex (incest, rape, devious) I can't stand reading about. Or watching.
There's a kind of underlying misogyny in the first book that I disliked mightily, thus my entire avoidance of the TV show. Sounds like boobs-of-the-week is in that vein.
On a slight tangent, why is it that epic fantasy is nearly always based on quasi-Saxon or medieval societies with more-or-less retrograde sexual politics? The only exception I can think of is the Kushiel books (which won't be TVised anytime soon).
I've not had good luck with People's Coffee at the various places around town I've tried it, although not in Newtown. I luurve Coffee Supreme - got hooked while I worked at Vic - especially the Boxer Blend. Havana is always reliable.
The fresh veggie market on the corner of Vivian and Willis St is still going strong. The Asian grocery down the road in Hopper St has a pretty good range. Any reports on how good the Hill St market in Thorndon is?
Picking up on the assumptions thing, it's interesting. I'm currently officially out at this job, but I wasn't at my last. However, I was out about being poly in my last job, and not so much at this one. So yeah, go figure. Not wanting to completely put myself beyond the pale in either situation?
As for kink, that's on a need-to-know basis, which certainly doesn't include my family. I do go to public parties, though.
With each of the relevant sub-communities, I'm out about everything, although sometimes cautious about the kink aspect at lesbian-orientated gatherings.
Interesting the risk heuristics we engage in when there isn't THAT much physical risk.
@Ian - that's a classic one. :-)