Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think I was there at the start ;-)
Yes, indeed. I think the tone was lost a little in that last post...
-
Perhaps this link to her blog will get you there?
-
There really are some gender roles that have a strong biological basis.
I think that people have got to the point that they can accept that gender roles are neither wholly biologically determined or socially constructed, but are variously influenced by either.
At least I'd hope we're at that point.
-
Ross Mason said:
I don't recall seeing overt lesbian cows huddling in the corner keeping to themselves or keeping safe from the bulls....the huddle appeared more for protection from predators rather than a rampant bull.
Wikipedia:Homosexual behaviour in animals:
"the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity — including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex — than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."
-
China/HK tech/media/freedom researcher Rebecca Mackinnon gives her opinion:
Google is betting its global business success on an open Internet. If you look at Google's latest China move through the lens of global Internet policy trends and not just through the lens of Chinese politics, or China's relationship with the West, it makes a lot more sense. It makes sense from a business standpoint for Google not only to oppose censorship but to work actively against it, and do everything in their power to influence global policies, laws, and community practices that favor openness. In the past year they've gotten increasingly vocal about censorship - and not just in authoritarian countries like China.
Useful comment, as always, and worth reading in full.
-
See what you've done? You've broken the nutshell.
That's what happens when you bring a hammer to the argument.
The Greens were proposing that their carbon tax could be used to create a tax-offset (I would prefer a simple cheque, actually, for political reasons). I don't think it would generate as much as they've proposed, but there is no reason why such a change couldn't occur. But they have a reason for this tax shifting. Absent that, it's just a complicated and rather pointless shift when you are redistributing to the great majority of low income earners on the after-tax side, as this and the last Government have done.
-
In a separate nutshell: Been costed. Too expensive. (Because you have to pay every single taxpayer $20+/week.)
Obviously you'd want to pair it with the introduction of another tax, so you'd be revenue neutral.
-
New Zealand's tax structure is really not all that far from a flat-tax, proportionately.
I tell people that, and they don't believe me, in part because the debate about this issue has been distorted by a small ideologically-blinded group.
Of course, there is redistribution on the other side of the equation, but tax take is fairly even across sectors.
-
From Ethan Zuckerman: Four possible reasons Google may have changed their China policy.
-
China's about 9000km from NZ. The US is about 10,500km, if you don't count Hawaii which is much closer. Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines are between us and China
Interesting fact: France is closer to New Zealand than all of Australia except for Norfolk Island. 890km to New Caledonia, 465km to Norfolk, and 950 to Tasmania (from Fiordland). We tend to forget about our French neighbours in New Caledonia - not implying that you have...
We live in an interesting region, and we'd do well to interact with it properly. Of course, with the benefits of interaction come possible costs, but sitting here by ourselves has disadvantages as well.