Posts by TracyMac
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@pfj - if you are a member of that subcommunity, and you haven't had "well-meaning" types express that opinion to you in concerned tones, either directly or through various forms of media, how about canvassing experiences from a few other people in said subcommunity? You might be surprised.
@Emma - thanks for clearing up that little misconception, and (almost) everyone else for listening.
I love the Kushiel books too (ok, sometimes a bit overblown, but hey, that's fantasy - it's a lot less trite than most), but yeah, didn't really get into any of Carey's other stuff.
-
You know, leaving aside the blergh factor that farrowing crates and the like are being used in NZ, I'm amazed at the revelation that there is no inspection of these farms. As someone else said, how can you pretend to have an adequate regulatory environment?
I was horrified to learn recently that there are a few feedlots for beef in NZ as well. Seriously, what the hell? If people want to eat over-fattened tasteless "Angus" beef, let them get it from countries with no ethics.
Not to mention last month's revelation that they want to start up live sheep exports again. If we're not capable of providing halal meat to those markets, we've got bigger problems. And since we do already ship halal meat to those same markets (but at not such a "premium" price), there's no excuse.
-
@Paul - I think if you want to enact a ceremony and call it "marriage", you should go to it. However, I just wish the legalities were separate and explicitly contractual.
The reason I want "mix and match" contracts is that I might want to easily designate one person as a guardian of my children, while granting another power-of-attorney of my finances. You can do that kind of thing now, but it costs a heck of a lot.
-
Sticking my hand up here as the token queer who is totally NOT in favour of same-sex marriage... and yet I think this relationship-law apartheid is indefensible.
My solution? Abolish marriage as a legal form and make CUs only have legal status. If people want to get married in a church, fine, they should go to it and plight their troth and promise to obey. But a marriage ceremony should be symbolic only, like "handfasting" ceremonies that people did before CUs came along.
Of course, being polyamorous, I also believe that CUs should not be confined to two individuals. I also think that relationship-type contracts should be customisable - for example, you could enact standard-form contracts to agree power-of-attorney, shared guardianship of children, power-of-attorney for health matters, next of kin/default beneficiary, shared property, etc, with as many individuals as you choose, for a standard fee. Put the whole lot together, and it's a "civil union". Sure, you can draw up contracts like that now, if you pay a ton of dosh to a lawyer. I envisage standard-form contracts that are registered with someone like the Public Trustee.
But I also strongly believe that being in a CU or marriage should not confer any general legal benefits beyond those enjoyed by single people. For example, the tax regime in the US, where spouses get a fat rebate by virtue of the fact they've stood up in stupid outfits and signed a piece of paper makes no sense to me. Sure, get something knocked if you have kids, or you have someone in your care, but that shouldn't be contingent on your relationship status. The only area where it might be a bit tricky is with immigration, but surely we could have the right to "sponsor" people without the need to get married to them.
Anyway, in the interim (hah, I don't expect my wishes to ever become reality), I reluctantly support the notion of same-sex marriage in order to have proper equal rights under the law. But that's the only reason.
-
Choku Bai Jo, in North Lyneham, if you happen to be round here.
*waves at George*
I'm in the happy situation of being 10 minutes' bike ride from Choku Baijo, but I could wish that they stayed open later on Saturdays.
But really, if I'm out and about early enough on Saturdays, I go to the farmers' market at Epic Showgrounds, which is really da bomb. Sourdough bread, freshly roasted New Guinea peaberry from Wagonga coffee, the gourmet cake stall, the tofu/noodle/bean sprout lady, the organic spud man with his dozen varieties (with descriptions and recommended cooking methods), the free range or organic pork/beef/chook suppliers, the artisan cider people, the dukka/dips/olives people, the real chai stall (made with soy milk, and full of actual spices that have been boiled in the milky solution), apples from the Batlow orchards an hour away, the organic olive oil and locally pressed macadamia oil, the people selling hot sausage or bacon rolls, the old fella selling live chooks for the back yard.
All that's really missing is a good cheese vendor (there is one, but his stuff is extremely expensive, and must be consumed within a few days).
I'm glad to hear that the wheels are finally starting to turn for Auckland to get a farmers' market of its own. It's really taken long enough for a city of that size, and in a location that is surrounded by producers galore. Ok, there's always been Avondale and Otara markets, but that's often market gardeners getting rid of their odd ends. It be nice to get a good range of produce, not just of the vege kind.
-
I like JackElder's relationship (or sex) calculus at the beginning of the thread.
I think there was a point at which she spent more time thinking about my sex life than I did.
Those who can, do. Those who can't write shitty inappropriate letters to their employees.
(Yes, it's probably inappropriate for me to speculate on the state of their sex life, but hey, stories like that bring out the bitch in me.)
-
Regarding those who are stating that better schools don't offer that much better education, I disagree. I went to Tamaki College in Glen Innes, and to Auckland Girls' Grammar. There is no comparison between the level of resourcing and the teacher engagement.
Tamaki had ok teachers and some very good ones, but the struggle against a useless principal and no resources to speak of took a toll. So too did a student body where the majority of parents were varying degrees of indifferent to their education, and they certainly weren't engaged by the school itself (with a few specific exceptions, like the fantastic head of the Maori dept, who did great outreach to families.)
Auckland Girls', however, had good to excellent teachers, a ton of resources (and, yes, the Old Girls' club had a lot to do with that), and a very active and inclusive learning environment. The sporting facilities were crap, but I wasn't sporty. They had a friggin' marae in the mid-80s, when the principal of Tamaki could hardly bring himself to say "Tena koutou" a couple of times a year. In all, there was no comparison.
I would agree, however, that a decile rating does not necessarily indicate that much. Tamaki, not surprisingly, has a decile rating of 1 these days (and would have done when I attended it). AGG's is 5, interestingly, due to the mixed community (still) where it's located. Epsom Girls', whose facilities and teaching aren't that many light-years away from AGGS's, from what friends who attended have told me (although they do have better resourcing again, and a much better sports programme) is decile 9. As you can guess from what I've just said, I don't think EGGs's quality of education is twice as good as Auckland Girls', as you might think if you equated school decile to quality (or a greater proportion of pakeha students, as some idiots do - pakeha are also a minority at AGGS).
As the ERO itself says, all a decile rating is supposed to do is indicate the level of social-economic advantage in the area a school's students are drawn from. While it certainly helps explain why Tamaki was in such a parlous state - although its quality of education has massively improved in the last 20 years, from all reports - parents using it as a lazy way to decide where to send their kids for the best education (in theory, although I know that there are plenty who place just a higher priority on "networking" capability, the wankers) is just ridiculous. It might be an input for decision-making, but it's only one.
As for the jumping up and down about zoning in general, I'm confused. The current system sounds exactly like what it was over 20 years ago, with zoning and quotas, and that was under the firm aegis of Muldoon and his crew. I suppose the Nats are about the "free market", when it suits them, these days.
-
I liked the Banks book too, because it talked about the places and people and didn't wank on too much about how the whiskies tasted. He gave a vague impression, but left it for you to want to experiment. I spent $500 bucks at the whisky shop by Covent Garden when I was over last year, and I blame that book (no time to nip up to Scotland).
As for the festival, sounds like oodles of fun. It might be enough to drag me to Chch one day, but if it were in Dunedin, I'd be there in a shot.
-
Regarding the "cartoon porn" thing, I agree that the Simpsons thing was pretty extreme. However. I have also seen explicit drawings/sketches/etc of child sex which are so representational it's entirely open to question whether or not it was drawn "from life".
Where do you draw the line?
My line is that if it involves obvious pre-pubescent children, and it is showing sexual activity, it should not be permitted. Sure, things like Simpson porn will be caught up in that, but frankly I don't care. Images of nude children would not be caught up in such a restriction. And yes, any representation of a child might be in a kiddy-fiddler stash - it's about defining a line between unnecessary censorship/paranoia and depictions that may actually be harmful.
But having said all that, what might be easiest to police are explicit videos and photography, as is the case in the US and various other countries. And maybe we just have to chalk up non-photographic representations as "merely" horribly distasteful, depending on the level of realism. I suppose it fulfils the notion of "reasonable doubt", since with a photograph, there is no question of an actual child being interfered with.
-
For people who are angsting over the fact the Tivo will cost up to a grand, how much did TVs cost per percentage of average income in the 70s? Appreciably more, methinks. I still remember our family renting them for whatever-it-was a week - we couldn't afford to buy one till the mid-80s.
Although it is stupid when you consider how much the actual technology costs these days (ie. bugger all). If I felt a need to record my own rather than buy DVDs or torrent someone else's recording, I'd go the MythTV route.