Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
By the way, what was up with the media angst yesterday (e.g. Paul Easton’s piece in the Dominion Post ) about soccer overtaking rugby in popularity among schoolkids (according to a survey from mid-2011)?
Firstly, why was this news?
As measured by NZ sports organisation membership in 2002-2003, soccer already outranked rugby in popularity in NZ 10 years ago.NZ Golf Association 132063
Netball NZ 123069
NZ Soccer Inc (mens) 105000
NZ Cricket 102759
Touch New Zealand 94291
NZ Indoor Sports Incorporated 77065
Bowls New Zealand 60404
NZ Tennis 42312
NZ Hockey Federation 39574
Womens Golf NZ 36017
Yachting New Zealand 31338
Softball New Zealand 30320
Athletics New Zealand 29050
Basketball New Zealand 28911
NZ Rugby League 28215(Source: Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC) site <http://sparc.org.nz/research/clubs3.php>, accessed October 2005. Original URL redirects to new Sport NZ site, which does not seem to have the document.)
Secondly, the media focus on rankings seems to have missed a more interesting trend in the data. The children surveyed in 2011 seem to show a higher overall level of participation in sports than in the 2001 SPARC Active New Zealand survey (though it’s hard to be sure whether both surveys are measuring sports activity in comparable terms). For example, 79% of boys and 83-84% of girls listed the most popular options of “running/crosscountry” or “swimming”. By comparison, the 2001 survey found 73% of boys and 64% of girls were “active” in the sense of “taking part in at least 2.5 hours of sport or active leisure per week”. So it’s entirely possible that what we’re seeing is not any absolute fall in popularity of rugby, but a rise in overall sports activity (and apparently more of a rise among girls), possibly as a result of more inclusive sports offerings in schools and communities.
-
Speaker: Who No : Letters From Alice May…, in reply to Jolisa,
[Lowell’s] fantasies about the Martian canals […] were perhaps more grounded in observation
though of course, unbeknownst to Lowell, his observations were, at least in part, of the blood vessels in his own eyeballs.
Fuller description here (PDF).
-
Hard News: Paying for what doesn't come…, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Give away the news and sell the analysis?
Only works if readers believe that the analysis is useful … which, sadly, runs headlong into confirmation bias (i.e., people find it easiest to believe analysis that conforms to their existing opinions). Stripping (uninformed) opinion away to leave facts presented without bias is a large part of the “value added” by reputable news sources. (Not sure how much of NZ’s MSM still counts as “reputable” by this measure.)
Also, if there's any "public good" argument to be made at all, doesn't that imply providing the widest possible access to a full understanding of an issue?
-
Presumably "removing the one electoral seat threshold" means "winning one electorate, but getting less than 4% of the total vote, gets you that electorate seat", rather than "winning one electorate, but getting less than 4% of the total vote, gets you nothing".
But it still reduces proportionality. It would have been better to have the threshold for extra seats set lower, e.g. 1.5% -- if there must be a threshold at all.
-
Legal Beagle: Johndotbanks - the law is…, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
So he'll be lying at the next election? Well, won't that be a change :-P
-
Up Front: Let's Talk About Sex, Baby, in reply to Isabel Hitchings,
Yes. I'd note that Dan Savage is usually pretty good about calling in other voices (I'm thinking here especially of his podcasts, rather than in his column) when he fears his contribution on a particular topic might not be entirely useful.
-
Up Front: Let's Talk About Sex, Baby, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Oh, you see, that there’s an endorsement of making babies. Which creates this kind of logical disconnect:
Parthenogenesis? Fully approved, hey, it’s fully What Jesus Would Do. Go for it. Oh, wait, you can’t do that? Well, fuck.
Hence: Sex for making babies? Implicitly if somewhat grudgingly approved in an “the end justifies the means” kinda way.
Any other sex? Not mentioned, therefore not endorsed. -
... which is to say, I respect that both of you have genuinely-held positions, which I strongly suspect are not as much in conflict as it would appear.
-
Dear Islander --
firstly -- I am grateful that you are sharing your experience & telling your story (however this was triggered);
but secondly -- I think you may have misinterpreted or overreacted to Ben's message, which was simply "this is not how it should be, ideally" -- which seems true enough of the situation your mum was left in, too. -
Hard News: Higgs Live!, in reply to Islander,
Brian Easton, in a Listener column from 7 Nov 2009 (vol 221 no 3626), p. 54, cites Bruce McFadgen’s book Hostile Shores in arguing that —
About 500 years ago the North Island and north of the South Island were hit by one or more great tsunami. […] Given the widespread impact and that most Maori lived on coasts, a third of the population may have perished […]. […T]he tsunami triggered a significant change in the way Maori lived. The kainga they rebuilt were set further back from the sea. Single-hulled canoes replaced double-hulled ones. The quality of stone adzes declined, and fishing gear, ornaments and other artefacts were simplified. The whakapapa of some tribes go back to the 15th century but no further, possibly because many of the knowledgeable were lost […]
Presumably this was one important factor in the isolation of Māori from other Polynesian cultures?
(Also, though not stated in the column in question, it should be made explicit that the simplification of design was temporary, and later design developed in new directions not found together in any other Polynesian culture.)