Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
there has been a lot of progress in the last few decades, but it’s all been on a level of ‘benefit to the individual’
It's also things that are zero-cost to the 1%. The only downside for them is antagonising the proles.
And a lot of the "left" are happy to take the win of symbolic zero-cost victories while ignoring whole herds of elephants that seem to be in the room.
A good example is the University of California at Berkeley. It's been a hot-bed of radicalism since the 1960s. Use the wrong name for a minority group, and one would be in serious trouble. However, ever since the Manhattan Project, UCB has been involved in managing Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore laboratories whose primary focus is to develop nukes which might well be used to blow up People of Color (as well as conventional weapons which definitely are used for that).
But while there is no doubt opposition to that, it's pretty muted - the left get their zero-cost victories and the right get their depleted uranium.
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Matthew Poole,
She's obliged to act on the advice of her Ministers - meaning in the case of NZ, the NZ government.
If a monarch were to start personally refusing to accept advice then that would create an interesting situation. If they did that in the UK, they'd almost certainly come under pressure to climb down, and if they didn't, the UK parliament would depose them (after the fashion of James II).
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Matthew Poole,
and from the fact that the Queen continues to accept our Governor General as her representative
I agree with everything apart from that. The Constitution Act defines the relationship between state, government, Governor-General and Monarch.
Should Charles III decide to assume personal sovereignty, he'd have to obtain the consent of the current NZ government to appoint himself as G-G, or persuade the NZ parliament to change the Constitution Act.
(Or he could decide to abdicate in respect of NZ, whilst remaining King of England &c - in that case, the NZ parliament would need to pass legislation either nominating another monarch or instituting a republic).
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to ,
Some form of cellulose nitrate based material is optimal if you really want a flag that deflagrates well.
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Lucy Telfar Barnard,
You can certainly sing either set of lyrics to either tune.
Possibly one of those unconscious intermusicalities, like Fight Test and Father and Son or Hope and Suzanne.
-
Hard News: Not yet standing upright, in reply to Paul Paul,
I've just realized: God of Nations and For Those In Peril On The Sea have the same tune, right?
-
Or this. Notice how the QR pixels form the shape of NZ, sort of, if you squint a bit.
-
This one?
-
I just looked up the history of the South African flag, which they seem to be quite proud of over there.
Basically they:
- got rid of an oppressive, alien form of government
- had a specialist, Fred Brownell, design a flag to mark thisWe should follow this proven process.
-
the response rate (weighted to take account of the oversampling) was 31.2 per cent
There’s your problem, right there. You’re assuming that sample is representative of the total population, but the respondents are self-selecting for being interested in filling out a 24 page questionnaire. That would, I think, give you people who were more engaged and analytical about their political attitudes than the general population.
Before any analysis, I’d be interested to see some ground truthing, to start with: E1B: “Made a select committee submission" – how many answered positively, versus the number of submitters to select committees.
Unless you address that, you’re just taking numbers and drawing pretty pictures.
