Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Regarding Louis Nowra's piece on Germaine Greer (summary in The Independent, original article seems to be behind a paywall), there are, unsurprisingly, several responses:
- Hoyden about Town (Australian feminist blog, probably the biggest one) - responds itself and lists some other responses.
- Loved or hated, but still Germaine in The Australian. -
A number of employers seem to be using teenage "job trials" every weekend to cut their wage bills. There are no jobs there....just a long string of teens hoping to get jobs who instead end up working a weekend day or evening for free.
SRSLY?
But surely this could only work for a short time (maybe six week, or a school term), before the word got around that no one ever got an actual job?
-
I think Palmerston North is a net tax-taker rather than a net tax-payer too (all those CRIs and the university are major employers in the city).
-
'Though I used to live in Wellington, and would gladly live there again.
I was more intrigued that RB didn't seem to see why the words he used upset people, or might have offended people, and I'm trying to explain why.
-
Titled it, "Giving money to the government", not "Transferring wealth to Wellington", given that Wellington and the residents of Wellington, of whom I am, alas, not one, won't get a penny.
-
why is saying that tax revenue goes "to Wellington" a potential slur on Wellingtonians?
Because the city, Wellington, doesn't get the money. Central government gets it. The implication is that all those Wellingtonians are sitting there with their hands out, waiting for Aucklanders to give them money that they (Wellingtonians) can spend as they wish.
People living in Wellington, and the Wellington City Council, won't get any of the money, other than through the regular distributive functions of central government, and everyone in the country, not just Wellingtonians, is eligible to receive those, provided they meet the relevant criteria (like not being a sole parent with a youngest child aged six or over).
-
"Controlled from Wellington" is not quite the same as "controlled by Wellington". The former implies some sort of organisation based in Wellington that exerts control; the latter implies that the city itself, and by extension, the people who live there, are exerting control. The latter phrase is what's upsetting the people who live in Wellington who are are neither part of, nor support, the control-exerting entity.
And (stretching some vague shards of memory here, because I've never worked on Phil of Language, and I certainly didn't do any of that post-modern dreck), surely even if you intend to say something with one meaning (controlled from Wellington) but a large part of your audience hears a different meaning (controlled by Wellington), then your communicative intention has failed, and you may need to find a different form of words in order to convey your exact meaning (which I assume is "controlled from Wellington" because you wouldn't want to be mean to all the lovely people from Wellington who participate in this community).
-
when I landed in Auckland in 1997
i knew there must have been some unrevealed explanation for why i left in 1997...now i know the truth!
my homeopathic remedies unconsciously told me to flee...tiso was on his way.SNAP! Left in 1997, came back in 2000, left again in 2008.
But I would love to be able to find a way home again.
Also, many thanks, Gio, for your kind words about my post.
-
What cricket?
-
I don't think the tax argument will fly. My understanding is that road user taxes don't cover the cost of roads in any case.
Where I do have some sympathy with Islander's point is that State Highway whatever-it-is down the West Coast is a major highway. Even though it may look like a quiet country road, it is a significant part of our national freight network, and it meets a critical economic need in our country. I do think that cyclists have a right to be there, but it's rather more like cycling along an autobahn than puddling along a lane, however much it may look like a lane.
Stephen, cars are no longer the preserve of the privileged rich. Most people own cars these days, not just the wealthy. I take your point about streets being for all citizens / residents / even tourists, but I think you need to give a bit of weight (in your monster post, and we will hold you to that promise!) to the different ways in which cars and other motor vehicles are used in the 21st century, c/f 100 years earlier.