Posts by TracyMac
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Harkanwal Singh: What really…, in reply to James Ting-Edwards,
That's exactly the way a responsible journalist should have reported on the broader issue.
Also, if Labour wanted to tackle rentierism, doing so without looking at non-immigrant citizens would be a pointless waste of time.
That said, I'm all for limits on non-resident land purchases. And for not conferring citizenship on rich, far-right-wing plutocrats setting up "isolated" boltholes in our country on payment of some undisclosed sums to some undisclosed coffers. Such plutocrats who can't even be bothered receiving such citizenship in said country, and demanding that a forelock-tugging High Commissioner confer it in said technocrat's private and palatial mansion.
-
This thing was disgusting from the start, and it's even more disgusting that Twyford was responsible for SUPPLYING the "data" in the first case.
I somehow missed that fact the first time around (if it was made clear then) - I was sufficiently disgusted that he was so quick to pick up the dog-whistle on what looked like typical Herald immigrant-bashing based on sweet-FA real data.
It's awful they disregarded their own fact-checking, but meh, see above re Herald and immigrant-bashing.
This new information certainly confirms my opinion about (not) voting Labour, in large part due to their actions on this matter, and most especially Phil Twyford's personal ethics.
-
Up Front: Too Sexy for Your Site, in reply to linger,
Oh yeah, I am all good with "tolerance", and don't actually require "acceptance", except from people I actually care about, and equal representation in the law.
What I get annoyed by is the manifest hypocrisy in the "I don't care about your bedroom" line in the instance where they themselves are blatantly announcing their own bedroom habits in multiple ways. It's not like I've ever given an acquaintance a blow-by-blow (ahem) rundown on who goes down on whom either.
-
Yup, this also speaks to people who complain about pride parades or being corrected about your partner's gender, and who claim they're all cool about it, but state, "I don't know why they/you make such a fuss - I don't need to know what goes on in someone's bedroom!"
Often the same people, by the way, who wear wedding rings and constantly refer to "the hubby" and "the wife".
As for the kink-without-sex thing, as another data point, I've done kink with scores of people, the majority of whom I'm not in the slightest bit sexually attracted to. I've had sex with a fraction of that number of people - maybe a tenth. Of that fraction, I've done kink with maybe a quarter of them. So yeah.
-
Great article and photos, thanks. Ian's contribution is exactly the image that sprang up my mind as well.
I'd quibble slightly that this particular form of tourism is substantially about witnessing people suffering, though. There's the "handcrafted = better" bullshit (often patently false when it comes to primary processing), and the exoticism in peering at workers doing processing in a "primitive" way.
Why it's an acceptable form of tourism when these practices were outlawed in the tourists' country of origin on health/safety grounds decades ago is beyond me - especially since, as you observe, there are plenty of modern factories nearby. And you should be able to discern the fact these men will be paid a pittance. They sure as hell aren't owners of the means of production.
I heartily wish that people who think this kind of labour-exploitation tourism is great get horribly ill and get to experience the joys of "primitive, exotic" health care there... Which will still be way better than what those workers ever get access to.
-
Hard News: Communications breakdown, in reply to Russell Brown,
Man, I really hate it when an organisation is addressed in a public forum about a public matter, and then tries to weasel their way into a private communication (where, of course, it's easier to bullshit a single person with a whole lot of nothing statements).
Good on that person for shutting that down.
It's not a private matter like "why have you sent debt collectors around about my rates bill", FFS.
-
And regarding the point about how much racism is embedded in people's attitudes towards welfare recipients, I'd say it's a pretty damn big chunk. And another chunk is simple classism - growing up poor and Pakeha 30 odd years ago (before the worst of the welfare "reforms") certainly demonstrated that aspect to me adequately.
-
Speaker: The Government lost the election, in reply to izogi,
No need for a third vote. That's essentially STV. Since the Aussies use that for the Senate vote, and a bastardised version for the lower house vote (NOT a good option), any argument about complexity is void. I haven't heard of any Aussies complaining about not being able to understand this voting thing.
Alas, I think the mystery initials put people off - it needs a cute name like "Duckworth-Lewis".
-
Up Front: The Surprisingly Sincere Up…, in reply to linger,
Yup, I haven't lived in NZ for 5 years, nor actually stayed there more than 10 days on the trot in that time, but I'm still enrolled in Wellington Central, where I last lived, and will be voting from here in Canberra. I pop over a couple of times a year, but it doesn't need to be that frequent.
And as Emma has already mentioned, you can enroll FROM overseas.
I've only spent three of the last 19 years (holy crap) actually living in NZ, but have remained continually enrolled all that time.
-
I work in IT, and I have to say that I wonder what an "ICT policy" is, in this context. You might as well ask about someone's "filing cabinet policy". IT is a tool, for storing and presenting information. Concerns about IT are normally broader than just the tool that's being used.
Was this concerned with privacy? Putting more govt functions on line? Accessibility concerns with that? Technology enhancement/refreshment? I'd be more interested in listening, perhaps, if the terms were even slightly defined.