Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The NYT doesn't stand on ceremony, does it: "This is William Kristol’s last column." Surely, the sweetest six words in the English language.
There was something wrong with it? It seemed a perfectly sensible opinion-piece to me.
-
The clearest explanation yet I've heard of atomic physics ...
I just got one of those on DVD. Our Friend the Atom by Walt Disney and Heinz Haber. If you haven't seen a chain reaction explained with mousetraps and ping-pong balls, you don't understand atomic physics!
-
Cartoon Modern: Style and Design in 1950 Animation by Amid Amidi.
Thoroughly awesome.
And Little Women , because I never had.
-
@ Jack Elder - aaaaah, you're THAT Jack Elder.
The former Minister of Internal Affairs, and last great user of Parliament's billiard room?
-
I notice that Hard News is the first media site that The Economist link to on their New Zealand briefing... ahead of nanny & The Listener (who does thingy write for again?)
There must be some mana associated with that, surely... :)
Maybe. But according the the Economist's New Zealand briefing, there's an election in September, and the Prime Minister is Helen Clark.
Is it blame or credit we're handing out here?
-
And you know what? When the US gets a gay president, it will be a Big Fucking Deal for me.
It's far from the only ariticle about Obama one gets when googling "first gay president".
May have to wait in line behind this guy, however.
-
Maybe they should get Bill on to Brown's Media 7 Media show for some fireworks - though I hear Ralston, a former head of TVNZ news and current affairs, is among people that TVNZ has banned from the show.
Any comment, Russell?
Say it ain't so, Joe.
-
Didn't they have a series of women getting drunk ads a few years back. One of the ads featured a women who had too much to drink calling up a former boyfriend asking why he broke up with her.
It wasn't until much later that a female explained to me that this is apparently a fear a lot of women have...
-
He messed up the oath. Cute.
It appears it was Roberts who got it wrong.
Just goes to show I shouldn't assume things. For me, it was obvious who'd stuffed up immediately. But I'm not sure why I assumed everyone else would realise it was Roberts.
But, any picks on the first weblog to assert that Obama isn't the real president because he wasn't sworn in properly, anyone?
-
I think that 16% from the Dunedin study is higher than a lot of people would expect
Not really. But then you really have to look quite hard in the stdy to get the real answer.
We might also look at the 2001 study Domestic violence as witnessed by New Zealand children, which was based on interviews with subjects from the Christchurch study's counterpart, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, on their experience of family violence as children. Only 16% reported partner violence perpetrated by mothers only, 28% by both parents and 55% by fathers only.
Took me a while to find it, but the real number (the equivalent of 16%) appears to be 3.9%. I'm surprised the article doesn't headline that a little more. When you're trying to discus the prevalence of domestic violence, it would be nice for the write-up in the medical journal to make a little more of the fact more than three-quarter of respondents reported that there was not a single act violence during their entire childhood, and over 80% that the most violent it ever got was a threat.
I read 16% (and add the 28% for 44% all up) and think yeah, Emma's right, that is kinda high. Then I look at the study, do the numbers thy don't seem to want to do themselves, and get a figure of 10.8% of women have at least at one time in their domestic life done something violent (which might e a threat) and maybe it's not as high as it first seems.