Posts by HORansome
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
These news stories about John Key are coming close to proving that, in contemporary journalism at least, correlation is causation.
-
But assumedly not a public library HORansome?
Definitely not. Public libraries are used only by communists; every decent person knows that knowledge costs money and nothing is free in the education economy.
Anyway, public libraries encourage literacy, and literacy is highly correlated with liberalism, which has been the downfall of civilisation.
-
Or perhaps a flamethrower.
It would be an even more indiscriminate weapon than currently available models.
-
Is this rather like when Scientologists reach OT III, and suddenly discover they've signed up for space opera insanity but are too financially and personally committed to get out?
Quite likely. Although I wouldn't want to push the analogy too far; Scientology is a big organisation and once you are meshed with it, you probably can't easily get out, even if you want to. ACT is a small organisation and members could leave if they wanted to, but given the typical "We're the only ones who understand what's really wrong with the world (here's a tip; it's taxes and government spending of those taxes)," most ACT party members probably ignore the wacky woo of Newman, et cetera, because, well, like-minded idio... people have to stick together.
-
Name dropped, eh. That requires me to say something.
Muriel Newman's wacky beliefs (and the tolerance, on her site, of other, sometimes truly disturbing conspiracy theories) are not wildly known about by a lot of ACT supporters (indeed, many of them don't know about Loudon's extremist past); I suspect that if such things became truly public, then...
Well, I was going to say 'such supporters might take a second look at the party,' but, in my admittedly limited experience, most ACT supporters, when told, are initially shocked by the revelation and then ignore it.
What's disturbing for a conspiracy theory theorist like myself is Loudon's popularity amongst a section of the right-wing conspiracy theorists in the US. He's a minor celebrity in the specialised field of Communist Obama Studies. If the Tea Party ever get swept to power I expect they'll name a library after him.
-
Yes, lots, none of them good.
I've been wondering a lot, recently, about National's inability to spend or invest their so-called 'political capital;' they don't seem to want to do anything that might risk even a bit of the goodwill they seem to have gained since coming into government. Perhaps it's because they're worried that stuff like this might be a better use of a resource that will surely be depleted faster than anyone thinks.
-
Devonport's only chance is to become the Switzerland of the RWC; a neutral area where rugby and non-rugby fans can spy on each other, trade with one another safely and even, in rare occasions, have friendly get togethers.
-
'Moral' is subjective - people's ideas of what is moral vary.
"That's two issues rolled into one," said the philosopher. "It may turn out that there is objective morality and it may also turn out that people are wrong in their beliefs as to what constitutes the moral life. Whilst we can be certain that people have been wrong about what is moral, we can't assume that morality itself is subjective."
-
We (in the tertiary sector) certainly could do a lot more to manage the transition from school to uni; I think it's got worse under NCEA because we in the Ivory Tower have been very slow to adapt to students who expect a different (and in some ways clearer and better) assessment system than the sudden onslaught of essays and exams.
-
It doesn't matter whether the school had a better intake. All that matters is the results. The prospective University isn't going to adjust your kid's marks because he went to some under-achieving hicksville school. He either makes the grade, or not.
Don't assume that about universities at all. We often recognise that students from underachieving schools do just as well at Stage I as their privileged peers. Indeed, in some cases (I'm now arguing from anecdotal evidence), the students from the 'better schools' often perform worse at Stage I than their rivals because they think that, having been to a better school, they can coast at uni.