Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Tim Hannah,
Wait, that’s the definition of Marriage? Damn there’s a lot of people who need to be reading the fine print.
Personally I’m in favour of getting back to the truly traditional “formally acknowledge people who want to profitably combine their assets and establish kinship bonds between their extended families, the results to be invested in their mutual heirs” definition.
-
Up Front: How About Now?, in reply to Tom Beard,
But I'd rather see the definition of civil unions extended (or some entirely new set of "unions" defined) to provide people with legal recognition of their relationships, and leave it up to them to choose whatever social, cultural or religious definitions of "marriage" suits them as a celebration of their bond.
I'd wager, though, that there are more people who want to be able to be married than people who want the government to stop calling their recognition of long-term partnerships "marriage" altogether. And, all things considered, I think it's more important for people who want to be able to marry to have that right, because marriage does still carry that social recognition. The rest can be sorted later.
Or, you know, maybe most gay people would rather ditch marriage altogether. I'm prepared to be persuaded otherwise by data. I guess I feel that *even if that were true*, it would still be an important thing to give the people who *did* want it the right. Because it's what it says about us as a country - about how we choose to treat all our citizens - that matters.
-
Hard News: Meanwhile in Epsom ..., in reply to Andre Alessi,
I don’t know, I’d quite like a few werecrocodiles in parliament to advocate for my opinions(and possibly eat the faces off of opposition MPs.)
The biosecurity people might be a bit unhappy about that. Best stick to were-taniwha, were-Haast's-eagles, that sort of thing.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to Kumara Republic,
What’s it called? Are these kids old money types, new money or both?
It's called "Born Rich", and was directed and filmed by Jamie Johnson, one of the heirs to the Johnson & Johnson fortune. The people interviewed were a mix of old and new money - I remember a European aristocrat, one of the Trump kids, Jamie Johnson himself is the third generation-wealthy, and there were a few in between. It's not high documentary, but if you can track it down it is an interesting watch.
To pull the middle finger at the orthodoxy is to invite ridicule or accusations of being a Red.
I've seen someone over here complain that they were embarrassed because their family only had an above-ground swimming pool and that this made them trashy - because you needed an in-ground swimming pool, of course. It's just a total disconnect from the actual reality of how much money most people subsist on.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Russell Brown,
It seems more likely to me that it’s just another excuse for them.
But it's such a terribly and patently bad excuse, I can't get my head around the level of brain-death and/or incompetency needed to come up with it. Although the old saying about malice and stupidity applies, I suppose.
-
Hard News: Angry and thrilled about Arie, in reply to Russell Brown,
Unless I’m missing something, this seems insane.
More likely just casually ableist - an assumption that Arie is incapable of making an "informed admission of guilt", that he's just saying what he's told to say. I'd prefer insanity, on the whole.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to BenWilson,
Also, inheriting money could be especially likely to cause insecurity, because you’d very likely not have any of the talents held by whichever ancestor made the money in the first place. You could end up in the strange position of being wealthy and feeling worthless.
I watched a very interesting documentary the other week about the children of the very wealthy in America, filmed and produced by someone of that class; the overriding message ended up being a) how totally, totally out of touch they all were about how overprivileged they actually were compared to the average person and b) how most of them were trying desperately to find any sort of meaning to their lives - when you don't have to work to live well, and you're not content with endless partying, what do you do with yourself? How do you know that any of your achievements are real, rather than tokens to curry influence? (A couple of the interviewees were clearly unable to tell the difference.) Several talked about how they'd actively tried to fail university and been unable to get themselves kicked out because the administration was too worried about losing their parents' donations. When you can't even fail on your own terms...
But, as Sacha says, it's a problem most people would love to have. It's not at all the same as the fear of being unable to support yourself or your family. Which doesn't make it not a problem, just...not very high up the list.
And, then, of course, there are all the people who technically make more than enough but are so busy trying to buy into a lifestyle they think they should be able to afford, but can't quite, that they're constantly treading water. I'd say that's the biggest cause of unhappiness that comes with high income - the very, very wealthy are very few in number, but 10 or 15% of the population could potentially fall under this category.
-
Cracker: Another Capital Idea..., in reply to BenWilson,
But the basic training of the class is to hold position, and to seek happiness over greatness.
The basic training of the New Zealand middle class is to be happy as long as you can pay the bills and not have to worry about getting the occasional nice thing, rather than seeking greater wealth. I don't know that it necessarily holds everywhere.
I don’t know that they find it, particularly. Anyone aware of any research? Seems to me that poor people are made unhappy by money worries, and the same goes for the rich. In sweeping generalizations.
I don't have a link, but there was some fairly well-publicised research done not so long ago which suggested that income did increase happiness, but once people hit a certain level of income - about $70,000, I think - their happiness stopped increasing, which fits your generalisation quite well. It's that worrying-about-regular-bills/not-worrying-about-regular-bills divide which makes all the difference.
-
Hard News: A nation bullied, in reply to Richard CLARK,
I for one have a choice, don't read them, anyofthem! The press in NZ is diabolical and there is not one journalist I would trust, period.
How would you suggest learning about goings on beyond one's own personal experience, then?
-
Speaker: The great New Zealand phone…, in reply to BenWilson,
Most of it is down to simple shit.
Most of it is down to people. Which is why nothing involving them will ever be 100% secure.