Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: And on into a whole new year

94 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

  • Kracklite,

    SIT is not and never has been a University

    True, oversimplification on my part. I should have just said words to the effect that funding formulae in the general tertiary sector had been mistaken for entitlement and that changes had been ignored.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Oh yes, the lolcat Titus Andronicus is sheer genius.

    Has anyone else notices that locats come across like Yoda with serious dyslexia? With the pointy ears, small stature and so on, I thought that there'd be crossovers. Anyone want to try?

    (I'm busy trying to make sense of Daniel Libeskind at the moment and that's enough to do my head in)

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 982 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    Afghanistan isn't the only country which outlaws blasphemy. Take a look at s 123 of the Crimes Act...

    serious question from here.

    would s.123 be used to bring a prosecution for blaspheming a non-christian deity or religion?

    as it's written it appears not to preclude the possibility.

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2042 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    would s.123 be used to bring a prosecution for blaspheming a non-christian deity or religion?

    While the way it has been written seems to be religiously neutral, thanks to UK precedent, most legal commentators believe that it applies eclusively to Christianity (some go further and believe it applies exclusively to the Anglicanism).

    The law is unlikely to be used unless Pope Tamaki wins an election or John Banks runs for Parliament again. But its mere presence on the books is an affront to modern New Zealand's liberal and tolerant values, and undermines our ability to criticise other regimes which actively engage in religious persecution.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Now I can't shake the memory. I'm grateful for their awesomely large cup, but I don't want to drink from it any more.

    But thank you for spreading that image to the rest of us!

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    But thank you for spreading that image to the rest of us!

    I was hoping to dilute it by spreading it. It's not working, perhaps the only cure will be to drink another thousand lime milkshakes (and not before boarding a train).

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    The Performance Based Research Fund and research incentives for tertiary education are not the issue for SIT from the different perspectives of the major protagonists: SIT (and friends of SIT), the Minister, and the Tertiary Education Commission.

    The funding changes that have matched the PBRF have (not wrongly I think) had serious impacts upon polytechnics. Previously they used to get EFTS funding, which included a component to pay for research.

    Now PBRF is stripping that research component out of the EFTS funding and returning it to institutions that do OK in the research exercise - pretty much universities.

    SIT, along with all other polytechs have been quite seriously affected. SIT on top of that has their whole Chch invasion which the government is now sensibly fending off to deal with.

    It's really an overload of adverse affects from the crappy funding formula we used to have, to a slightly more sensible funding formula that we now have.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    would s.123 be used to bring a prosecution for blaspheming a non-christian deity or religion?

    From Here

    No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks fit.

    So, in reality it would take a rather demented Attorney-General to bring such a case............I hope

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • anjum rahman,

    re afgahnistan: this really pisses me off, when so much of the war against the taliban was around the guise of "freeing the women from oppression". i remember soon after the iraq war hearing statements about how iraqi women were now free to wear miniskirts, when the reality is that they are less free to do so than they were before.

    i'm so sick of feminism and equality for women being used as a partial justification for bombing the shit out of countries. well - not justification, more a way to try and make us feel good about the liberation we're supposedly bringing about.

    i think the only way to improve the lot of women is through education of women, particularly in areas like jurisprudence & theology.

    the only way to do that is to provide funding for it. but most of these countries won't take funds from western countries for that purpose, cos it's seen as an attempt to indoctrinate the local population in a way that will continue existing hegemony.

    that's the problem with trying to force societal change with international pressure (like the petition). until you stop illegal occupation & the like, no-one is going to listen. all they will think is "great, you bombed the shit out of our infrastructure, you've failed to rebuild what you've destroyed, you've occupied our country & are siphoning off our resources, and now you're going to stop trading (or whatever other sanctions) with us. with that kind of behaviour, why would we listen to anything you have to say about anything?".

    hamilton • Since Nov 2006 • 130 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Steve: You'd like to think that was some protection, but still, wouldn't it be better not to have to worry?

    This law doesn't serve any legitimate or useful purpose. It's a remnant from a past age of religious persecution. And we should do away with it entirely.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Grant McDougall,

    O'Sullivan, from behind a lipstick smeared half empty beer glass "You know what's wrong with this country George?"
    George, propping up the bar with a leather patched corduroy elbow "PFFFraaaaarp"

    I "get" your joke, but sadly George is a reformed alcoholic and now tee-total. This of course helps partially explain what a chronic, santimonious bore he is. Maybe he's just a teetotaltotalitarian? :)

    Maybe he's our age's answer to T.S Green?

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2006 • 760 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    As with many laws the intent of the legislator is toward a greater good, as we are always told "you have nothing to worry about unless you are a terrorist/criminal/whatever" but as we all know, laws based on flimsy descriptions and implications become a danger to us all once the goalposts start shifting. I think having to have the go-ahead from the Attorney-General instead of enforcement of the word of law by the police without descresion is a way of society having the best of both worlds without losing sight of the tripartite seperation of powers.
    As for the law serving any legitimate or useful purpose, it's always handy to have an ace up your sleeve when things turn to custard.
    If you catch my drift.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Steve: I'm sorry, I don't catch your drift.

    What possible legitimate purpose could be served by throwing people in jail for their views on Christian theology?

    What possible legitimate reason could the government have to care about such issues?

    It is not the role of government to promote "correct" theology or religious views, any more than it is their role to promote correct views on physics. If we had a law on the books suggesting that, e.g. climate change deniers be prosecuted and thrown in the slammer for a year, people (including me) would be screaming in outrage. So why should we be threatened with that for our opinions (or lack thereof) on someone else's god?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    It is not the role of government to promote "correct" theology or religious views, any more than it is their role to promote correct views on physics.

    Not in law, but hopefully in education we promote some correct views on physics.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    I "get" your joke, but sadly George is a reformed alcoholic and now tee-total. This of course helps partially explain what a chronic, santimonious bore he is. Maybe he's just a teetotaltotalitarian? :)

    Maybe he's our age's answer to T.S Green?

    T.S. Green? Rings no bells in my belfry. Was he also batty?

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    So, in reality it would take a rather demented Attorney-General to bring such a case............I hope

    If you'd told me ten years ago that 'sedition' was still on the books, let alone would be used as it was against Tim Selwyn, I'd suggest you take one of those giraffe cups and provide a sample for multiple drug tests.

    Got to agree with I/S, when you've got a bad law that's well past its use by date, then you're asking for trouble by leaving it on the books.

    It is not the role of government to promote "correct" theology or religious views...

    Certainly not, unless someone created a de jure state religion while I wasn't looking. And let's get practical about this for a moment: Who becomes the benchmark for 'blasphemy' -- Anglicans, Orthodox Jews and Sunni Muslins... or Catholics, Reform Jews and Shiites. Then you move on to Buddhism and Hundus and the fun really begins.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    What possible legitimate purpose could be served by throwing people in jail for their views on Christian theology?

    What possible legitimate purpose could be served by throwing people in jail under any circumstance other than to protect society from said people? The problem is that society is not homogenous so who do we protect from who? Laws like this allow us to come down like a ton of bricks on those we dissagree with. Is that a bad thing?
    ;-)

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Have I just had my piss taken?

    Steve you are an evil bastard -- keep it up. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Not in law, but hopefully in education we promote some correct views on physics.

    Hopefully. But my point is that we don't throw people in jail for being wrong about physics. Neither do we throw them in jail for their views on economics, climatology, or parental discipline. What makes theology so special?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant,

    Sorry Steve, I'm still not getting your drift. Who exactly do you think we need to throw in jail for blasphemy? Who do you think we need to "come down like a ton of bricks" on?

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1717 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Steve you are an evil bastard -- keep it up. :)

    tee hee

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Barnes,

    Who do you think we need to "come down like a ton of bricks" on?

    How about the ubiquitous THEM?
    On a serious note. Most societies have laws like these that are left to "hang about utill needed" so that those that have the power can hang onto it at all costs. In a perfect world they would not exist but then in a perfect world we would not need laws or Govt. or God for that matter but what then would we have to complain about? and that would kill teh internets.

    Peria • Since Dec 2006 • 5521 posts Report Reply

  • 81stcolumn,

    Now PBRF is stripping that research component out of the EFTS funding and returning it to institutions that do OK in the research exercise - pretty much universities

    Sorry Kyle might have to agree to disagree on that one. Yes research funding should be spent on research activity...but the devil is in the detail of defining the legitimacy and importance of that research activity. PBRF is a nasty partisan conduit through which to distribute research funds. The policy in its current form should never have been given the air to breathe.

    Nawthshaw • Since Nov 2006 • 790 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Why?

    I mean, it's by no means a perfect exercise, and the UK has recently dumped the exercise on which its based.

    But it's achieving its goal of directing funds towards institutions that are doing international quality research, and away from those that aren't.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Jason Kemp,

    Thanks Russell

    Regarding Foo camp

    Will be looking forward to the reports.

    As I recall one of the criteria for Wikipedia is that events be significant and therfore Someone has to notice the outputs.

    From Wellington I hear that one of the debates on peering

    See peering for example or the blog peering blog Perhaps someone from foobaar could this year visit those sites/ blogs and make a comment or two?

    or the lates submissions at
    separation of Telecom etc. (Submission on Amended Telecom Operational Separation Plan 25 January, 2008)

    Seems like there has been plenty of effort from the usual suspects - but not sure if any of this was progressed by Foo camp and would be good to know that....

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 368 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.