A fascinating Jim Mora interview here with Amanda Jones PhD, MSc, the kiwi ex-pat entrepreneur at the leading edge of the medicinal cannabis industry in California: https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018661684
Graeme, one of the contributors to the Standard has compiled a comprehensive report on how the Bill has been processed through the select committee: https://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-22-08-2018/#comment-1516730
I hope you will examine it and comment here on any points you consider relevant. I commented onsite there from the perspective of someone surprised that MMP could deliver such an inappropriate process!
I probably ought to have explained more. It was a conversation about politics, democracy & the players in the game. Ethics & morality are often the subtext that drives behavioural responses to moves in the game & emerging societal issues that provide new moves in the game.
I suspect the life skills course you avoided was poorly designed. Any teaching ought to interest kids, not bore them. In terms of career advice, why not have a syllabus that gives students basic info on how govt & business work? The ethics that motivate participation in democracy, the left/right frame with history and exploration of morality that it invokes and applies to participants. Civil rights.
I just thought it was real dumb not to get citizenship training as a college student in the sixties & see no evidence that younger generations are being briefed adequately. Hence the shambles and distortion we're getting around something as elementary as free speech and the ethics & morality involved with that.
Well, that's reassuring. But I did ask a guy in his late twenties or early thirties recently when we got talking at a birthday party, did he get education in life skills at college? He said no, nothing at all. Maybe only some are doing it.
Not the same as collective brainstorming prompted by a suitable framing of issues, is it? Particularly when you factor in how a teacher can choose to use current controversies to demonstrate relevance (& raise the excitement level).
I mean, really, you expect students to come to that list of philosophy topic questions and get engaged with it? On what basis? The retard who designed it didn't even think of linking those questions to typical answers (as in a multi-choice format). Duh!
I appreciated the link & opportunity to read your comments to Michael, Katherine. You have a suitably nuanced view of the issues. Likewise myself, regardless of attempts by others to categorise me within a binary frame!
"I teach (the very basics!) of moral philosophy at Massey to College of Science students studying environmental science. To understand the various environmental ethics/worldviews, one needs a grounding in basic ethics/moral philosophy. This knowledge should in my opinion be the foundation of any civics education that we eventually see incorporated in to the NZ Curriculum." I bet you do it well.
I've often pondered the continual failure to include ethics & morality in our educational curricula. Incorporating them as a combined subject would require expertise across society from a variety of folks in the design - not surprising that `too hard' has always been the default. Empirical learning is the path I took in consequence but whereas some of us live & learn, most just live. Helping them with sage guidance & advice would improve our culture.
Anyway, I get that you see the MU situation from an insiders perspective, so nothing personal when I reiterate my view that your vc got it wrong. As did your chancellor when he later came out with his supportive stance. I acknowledge it is their prerogative to call it as they see it. Factoring in the feelings of those opposed to Brash is appropriate, but not enough reason for censorship, and I agree with Michael that the security threat was used as a feeble excuse to discriminate against Brash.
Yeah, good one.
I agree, and support your call for those amendments to be incorporated. Near unanimity can be specified as either one or two dissenters only.
I was disappointed that Gholris didn't advocate on behalf of electors, and instead used a pile of dubious and marginally relevant reasons for the Greens to support it. Being a GP member, I sent all our parliamentarians a paper outlining why Winston was right.
I have to therefore ask what part of the social contract do they not understand? What part of the electoral contract do they not understand?
Brash & I have nothing in common other than pale skin. He's seems an old-fashioned gentleman. I'm an extremely future-oriented radical, almost as old. Because he exemplifies the capitalist power-structure, I get why underprivileged people protest against him. I don't agree with their tactic of personalised abuse.
As a person, I see nothing wrong with the guy. Lacks empathy, yeah. Incapable of seeing how the system he exemplifies manufactures victims. You bet! But we can't blame folks for personal inadequacies. Some are just born slow learners in some respects and some never learn how to get along with others. These inadequate humans still have human rights. He's a typical produce of his cultural niche, not a racist.
Likewise, watching that 58' interview the TVNZ Sunday crew recorded (of which they showed viewers about 1%), made me aware that they aren't trolls. They are advocates of a level playing field for free speech who seek the opportunity to extol western culture & criticise multiculturalism and the effect it is having in western countries. Their diagnosis seems appropriate for Germany & France, partially for Britain & Australia, and seems mostly inappropriate here.
Yeah I got that first time. As a member of the third of the electorate that you keep leaving out, I'm just suggesting you start factoring us in.