Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And I think my cousin set some kind of record, being asked for ID to prove she was over 18 while standing under flourescent lights. .. when she was 45
Brings to mind the "Happy 40th" card which has a list of "May ..." happen, one of which is "May a bartender ask you for ID".
-
Am I the only one thinking that this could be the beginning of the end for NZ as a destination for stupid-budget (nine figures is stupid money in my book) movie production? Which is precisely what SAG want, and now we've got NZAE, however naively, apparently playing directly into SAG's collective hands by portraying our leading silver screen light (and, by association, the rest of the industry at that end of town) as an anti-union hard-arse who won't negotiate in good faith.
Please don't jump down my throat and say that that's not what's happening. I know it's not, but I also know that as someone who's only passingly followed the details of the story it's an interpretation which can be easily reached. Of all the industries in the world, Hollywood is by far the one to which the adage of "It's not what's really real, it's what looks like real" best applies.
-
Ian, you're assuming that Henry is actually human; I'm not entirely convinced. I certainly agree that it's charitable in the extreme to call him "grown up".
-
Sofie, it wasn't that one post it was a long history of JT digging at the police. There's more context than just questioning the CHC officers daring to march in public.
-
Just (Not?) Thinking, I'm not aware of any legal restriction on marching in any public place, provided that you're not disruptive or obstructive.
The Police are entitled to march in any public place they so choose, at any time, without getting anyone's permission, so long as they meet the conditions above. Given the shit of a year for the cops in general, and for Christchurch right now, if they want to match in memory of fallen comrades then that's their absolute bloody right and who the fuck are you to question it?
-
George, that's a very cool idea. Also good for children in the houses, to learn about gardening etc, and promote an interest in the well-being of the property. Wins all round, and it's much harder to fuck up the analysis of compliance costs, etc, with a vege garden.
-
Backing up what Ben said, regulating ingredients and nutritional content is something that's done all the time. We've got entire bureaucracies built around establishing that what the label says is accurate. Going from there to levying duties based on the concentration of ingredients being greater than x isn't a huge step. It would be a bit fiddly to establish the levels, and decide who would police them, but as has been pointed out retail systems already allow for accounting of excise so the capability doesn't have to be retro-fitted. There'd be some compliance cost issues, and probably a few prosecutions for failure to disclose accurate levels, but these issues are already handled in the ordinary course of business.
That said, I'm still concerned that none of these things address the underlying expense of eating fresh produce.
-
re: "Brad Pitt conditions", I imagine she means the stereotypical "A-list actor" stuff like an XBox360 with a 42" LCD, and champagne chilled to a precise 10.2 degrees C, in their official trailer; nubile maidens from whose bodies are snorted endless lines of cocaine; eye fillet steak and truffles for lunch and beluga caviar for dinner, etc etc. As opposed to "You get paid your ordinary rate for x hours a day, ordinary-times-y rate after x hours, you get fed and looked-after, there're health and safety rules" and the other usual, basic shit one expects to see in a contract for anyone working 16, 18, 20 hours a day, often in the middle of nowhere.
-
Additionally taxing UN-healthful food would allow for unbounded manipulation - the price difference could be as big as we wanted. However, we're back to having to decide what is and is not healthful.
And also not addressing the price of healthy food to any great extent. It's all well and good to say "We'll make food that's bad for you 10 times more expensive", but how does that help the families that struggle to eat at all even on cheap, crap food? Assuming all other things are equal, all we've done is ensure that they can afford even less food, healthier though it may be, and that's a whole different kind of not-so-good outcome.
-
What Labour is trying to do is price signal. If you can reduce the price of healthy food relative to unhealthy food, people should eat more of it.
Except that this decrease is really fiddling at the margins. It's like the whole milk vs soft drink issue. Remove GST on milk and it's still twice (or more) the price of the equivalent volume of soft drink (never mind the fucked-up situation of living in the home of the biggest dairy export company in the world!).
If they're serious about sending a price signal, it needs to be dramatic. A 3/23 reduction in the price of fresh produce ain't enough, no matter what people might say, especially for the low-income families who're most desperately in need of assistance to buy good-quality food. All the more so when that piddling drop will be consumed (Please, only rotten tomatoes) to at least some extent by increased costs associated with its implementation and administration.