Hard News: Rationalisation is at hand!
207 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
She didn't get a chance, to McCain's credit.
So the campaign office distributes flyers containing the smears, and McCain gets to rebut them and look like a decent and honourable chap who's above all of that dirty low-blow fighting.
-
Seriously, if you think a 12 year old has the mental capacity to vote responsibly then it follows that they also have the mental capacity to drink responsibly and make a responsible choice as to whether they have sex or not.
I look forward to your campaign to have the age of consent raised to 18, John.
-
If you're going to mention "The Great Schlep" you have to include Sarah Silverman's promo.
I posted that already - page 7.
But I thought it might not have been prominent enough, so good to see it drawn attention to again. Silverman's show is back on again, too. It's pretty good.
-
I look forward to your campaign to have the age of consent raised to 18, John.
And maybe those proposing that Youth be enfranchised would have more success if they asked for the voting age to be lowered to 16, not 12.
-
A great band who were never really documented.
Bloody fantastic live performers.
-
Has no-one understood the difference between average and median in journalism-land?
I read somewhere recently that two thirds of the population earn below that "average" income, but sorry no time to find reference.
-
So the campaign office distributes flyers containing the smears, and McCain gets to rebut them and look like a decent and honourable chap who's above all of that dirty low-blow fighting.
Rich, I didn't get the impression from the clip that he was expecting it - but given how low these guys will stoop for power, you're probably right.
Obama's smart, positive response means McPalin won't find it easy to pull that stunt again without looking petty and.. unpresidential.
-
They did ask for the voting age to be lowered to 16. Some (Hilary, I think it was) suggested 16 initially, and going lower progressively. (I think the time line suggested was entirely unrealistic, but we're all allowed to hypothesize, I guess. But I do think there will be continued downward pressure on the voting age.)
It's not all or nothing. Anyway, so you agree with those of us who think the voting age should be lowered, but just no lower than 16? Cool.
-
Oops. My comment above was directed at John's last one, one page back now.
-
Rich, I didn't get the impression from the clip that he was expecting it - but given how low these guys will stoop for power, you're probably right.
I should probably make it clear that i haven't seen the clip or read the commentary - all I was doing was throwing up a hypothetical interpretation for discussion.
However, the comments in this thread seemed (in my opinion) to get a little side-tracked onto what the audience member did or didn't say. Not the point.
To my mind, the two important questions are:
1) What did it actually say in the campaign leaflet to which Russell refers?
2) If it actually uses the words 'arab terrorist', who authorised it (how far up the tree can that one be traced)?
-
2) If it actually uses the words 'arab terrorist', who authorised it (how far up the tree can that one be traced)?
"I'm John McCain and I approve this message"
-
Are we still talking about the elligible age for voting in elections?
Anyway, I'll assume we are.
As someone whose family lived, breathed and worked politics for many years, I was pretty immersed in it from a young age- even to the extent that I won a speech competition in Intermediate with one on the inagrual MMP election (which makes me 24, now, in case you're wondering).
And as a would-be history student, I am inherently fascinated in the precedent of politics- and politics always has precedent.Buit I admit I'm probably an anomally in that regard- which isn't to say I didn't have friends who were interested in politics, rather that most people aren't as a rule. They have "other interests."
And I think 18 is the right age to have the responsibility to vote. By then most people have some perspective.If I'd change anything, it'd be to somehow squeeze more NZ history into the school curriculum, which possibly could have a flow on effect
of getting more people interested in NZ politics.
But it's hard to know how to approach it.Re: the McCain "apology"- the phrase- "horse has bolted" springs to mind. It's amazing he got in bed with the same team which went some way to bringing down his own 2000 Primary run, and then plead innonence of their tactics. He knew the game they ran.
-
@Sacha
I read somewhere recently that two thirds of the population earn below that "average" income, but sorry no time to find reference.
I'm not sure if you are using this as an indictment of the maths ability of journalists, but there is nothing wrong with that statement.
Scenario:Person 1 salary = $10,000
Person 2 salary = $10,000
Person 3 salary = $100,000Average salary = $120,000 / 3 = $40,000
2 out of 3 people are below the average = two thirds of the population.
-
Person 1 salary = $10,000
Person 2 salary = $10,000
Person 3 salary = $100,000
Average salary = $120,000 / 3 = $40,000
2 out of 3 people are below the average = two thirds of the population.In that scenario the median is $45,000
Highest = 100,000
Lowest = 10,000
100,000 - 10,000 = 90,000
90,000 /2 = 45,000 -
Sorry Steve, thats not the median
the median is the value of the middle sample .... 10, 10, 100 gives a median of 10... because it's the middle sample.
IF there were an even number of samples, then you could average the middle two samples only... 10, 10, 20, 100 gives a median of 15.
-
there is nothing wrong with that statement.
Agree. Median vs average. Journos not challenging quite deliberate mis-use of it or of subsequent lying that a certain tax/Kiwisaver change package "benefits everyone".
-
New Zealand Income Survey: June 2008 quarter – Media Release
Income growth moderate
In the June 2008 quarter, the median (half receive more, and half receive less than this amount) weekly income for all people from all sources was $537, Statistics New Zealand said today. This information comes from the annual New Zealand Income Survey, which is run during the June quarter (April to June). The survey provides a snapshot of income statistics on people and households.
The median weekly income of $537 represented an increase of 3.5 percent from the June 2007 quarter median of $519, and is the lowest annual percentage increase since the June 2003 quarter. Contributors to this growth were increases in female median weekly income from all sources (up 5.3 percent) and in median weekly income from wages and salaries (up 2.7 percent).
In the June 2008 quarter, median weekly wage and salary income was $729, up 2.7 percent from the June 2007 quarter. For males, the increase was 5.1 percent (to $863) and for females the increase was 4.3 percent (to $600). For those in full-time employment, median weekly wage and salary income increased for both males (up 4.4 percent) and females (up 2.3 percent).
Median hourly earnings for people receiving income from wages and salaries rose $0.75, up 4.2 percent to $18.75 from the June 2007 quarter. For males the rise was $0.90, up 4.7 percent to $20.00 per hour. For females the rise was $0.72, up 4.3 percent to $17.50 per hour. Since the June 2007 quarter, total hours worked decreased slightly, down 1.1 percent, while total income received from wages and salaries increased 3.6 percent.
Over the year, the proportion of people receiving investment income decreased from 38.0 percent to 34.2 percent. This proportion is similar to that of the June 2006 quarter, when it was 32.4 percent. While the proportion of people receiving investment income decreased, median weekly investment income for those receiving income from investments increased $5 (37.0 percent) from the June 2007 quarter.
Geoff Bascand
Government Statistician9 October 2008
ENDThere ya go.
-
3410,
Totally O/T, but I wouldn't want this serious revelation to pass without notice.
Police have hired one of the country's top lawyers to investigate a former officer's stunning confession that he lied in court - and wrongfully sent at least 150 people to prison.
It is exactly what some of us feared might've been happening when the Police were so much in discussion around here, a year or so ago.
Note that O'Brien claims he was ordered to lie, by his superiors.
-
And I think 18 is the right age to have the responsibility to vote. By then most people have some perspective.
Some at 18, none at 17?
Also, again, I know of people who are over 18 and who take virtually no interest in the news, current affairs etc. They are of course entitled to vote. The right to vote isn’t primarily about whether one has enough “perspective”. From the no right turn article:“The moral basis of this system rests on two assumptions: firstly, that people have interests, and secondly, that no-one's interests count for more than anybody else's. The first is simply recognition of fact. The second is a statement of fundamental moral equality, and can be taken as axiomatic or justified on the basis of consistency (if I want my interests to count, then I must agree that everyone else's do as well). Note that there's nothing in here about rationality, or about age - if you have interests, you should count.”
I also noticed a point while reading the comments: Graeme points out the current age of adult criminal responsibility is 17. To borrow from another poster there: The idea that someone can have a family, a job, a house (unlikely, admittedly, but theoretically possible), be in the military and be treated as a responsible adult when it comes to criminal prosecution, and not get to vote is seems hard to justify.
-
She didn't get a chance, to McCain's credit
She, Gayle Quinnell, was interviewed afterwords and said:
I don’t trust Barack Obama because he’s an Arab,” she said. “He’s a Muslim. I’m afraid if he ever got to be president what would happen to this country
But McCain's response to her was little better...why are Arabs not 'decent family men' by implication?
-
I also noticed a point while reading the comments: Graeme points out the current age of adult criminal responsibility is 17. To borrow from another poster there: The idea that someone can have a family, a job, a house (unlikely, admittedly, but theoretically possible), be in the military and be treated as a responsible adult when it comes to criminal prosecution, and not get to vote is seems hard to justify.
A very fair point. I guess the choice for the age is always going to arbitrary to a degree.
As I said though, maybe it's a matter of education as much as it is the ability to have the choice. A case in point (and excuse this garbled analogy): I'd hazard a guess that most of the 16-year-old Germans I went out drinking with when I was spent time on a school exchange over there would be more mature with how they handle their alcohol than most NZers in their mid-20s I'd run into. It's not just the fact the age for being allowed into pubs is much lower there (16, I think), it's as much to do with the environment they're "taught" to drink, if that makes sense.
-
Sorry Steve, thats not the median
Well bugger me.
I've been doing it that way for years with massive data sets, admittedly with relatively small standard deviations. I seem to remember being taught do do it that way in physics and it had something to do with divide and conquer. I haven't been pulled up on it before now. What a bright lot yo'all are. -
But McCain's response to her was little better...why are Arabs not 'decent family men' by implication?
Well spotted.
-
I'm interested to see the voting age discussion has gone on. I'd still like to see it at 12 years by 2020. I was dead keen to vote when I was 12 so I would like to give others the chance. It would be an option - not compulsory.
I have also been a bit disturbed at some of the able-ist assumptions creeping in linking intellectual ability and voting eligibility. This is a human rights issue that is covered by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. And would you deny it to an older person just because they had dementia - I hope not.
And while we are at it I would like to see all prisoners able to vote (currently it is only those with sentences less than three years or something exclusionary).
-
I'm interested to see the voting age discussion has gone on. I'd still like to see it at 12 years by 2020.
Stop saying that, Hilary! One more utterance about allowing 12-year-olds to vote, and John Amiria will drop dead of sheer gobsmackitude
Honestly, though, there is zero chance of the voting age being dropped that far, certainly not by 2020.
Interesting point about “able-ism” and people with disabilities. Many disabled people cannot “run their own lives” (at least, any more than some 17 year olds) but are allowed to vote - and so they should be.
I don’t exactly have an objection to all prisoners voting. On the other hand, if those with longer sentences currently can’t, I could see how any attempt to extend the vote to them would be frustrating and upsetting for families of many of the victims of violent crimes. I don’t see any party taking on that platform any time soon.
(By the way, on page 7 I attributed a comment to Russell that was actually by Yamis. Apologies to both.)
Post your response…
This topic is closed.