Posts by Lynn Yum
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I wouldn't say this index is "stupid", but I always thought TI's report is pretty much a PR exercise because it is a PERCEPTION index, not a measure of actual corruption. I'm sure the lower ranked countries are really corrupted, but perception and reality can come apart.
This is from their FAQ:
Why is the CPI based on perceptions?
Corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which are deliberately hidden and only come to light through scandals, investigations or prosecutions. There is no meaningful way to assess absolute levels of corruption in countries or territories on the basis of hard empirical data. Possible attempts to do so, such as by comparing bribes reported, the number of prosecutions brought or studying court cases directly linked to corruption, cannot be taken as definitive indicators of corruption levels. Instead, they show how effective prosecutors, the courts or the media are in investigating and exposing corruption. Capturing perceptions of corruption of those in a position to offer assessments of public sector corruption is the most reliable method of comparing relative corruption levels across countries.
Which is to say they don't really want to do the hard yards and find a better metric for measuring corruption.
-
Hard News: Taking the stage in Mount Albert, in reply to Ben Austin,
I don’t recall ever being door knocked in NZ, although I do remember my father and his friends doing it as late as the early 90s down south. I guess this isn’t a thing parties really do anymore?
I once had a Greens electorate candidate in the 00s knocking on my door in Auckland. She wasn't really advocating for herself but the party. We had a nice policy discussion, and my view of the Greens infinitely improved because of that (even though I still didn't vote for them that election...) And we had a Labour "meet the candidate" meeting in a neighbour's house in the 00s as well. It definitely wasn't done in the last two elections in my electorate.
But in the last local council election the candidates did appear in the mall talking to people. (And the ONLY time I see them openly talking to the community...)
Personally I like face-to-face meeting, because it is a true test of wit and grit. When you are on the spot you usually fall back to your deeply held principles, and that is what the face-to-face meeting with the candidates will show. Much more than carefully choreographed media event or policy statements. (And that IMO is exactly why some politicians just don't want to meet-and-greet...)
-
It may probably be just me, but nowadays I don't care much about flowery speeches. Winston Peters is always a good orator, but most of the time the actual substance is crap. Seeing John Key speak is like seeing Kellyanne Conway: all smiles all the time, no matter what is being said. And then there is Obama. Great speeches, but a lot of times they are not meant with action.
So if Andrew Little is now a more compelling speaker, I don't really care.
-
As far as I can see, in my little slice of New Zealand, Trump has no tangible effect on the politeness of everyday life. I just think it is the nature of text based communication that it dehumanises all parties. A sharp glance, a frowned brow or an ever so slightly raised voice is all it takes to stop a face-to-face conversation going off the rail. But signs like these are completely in pure textual communication. No emoji can replicate the genuine human touch.
So there are things people won't say to each other face to face but they are perfectly happy to shout at each other via Twitter, or in internet forums. Trump can twit whatever crap that comes to his mind, but I remember when he actually said those crap in front of an audience, he was laughed at ("Nobody has more respect for women than I do"). Normal people in normal face-to-face conversation would have shut up right there and then.
As we move our lives further and further into the internet, having stripped away all the nuance of communication granted to us through evolution (or God, or what have you), debate is bounded to get more uncivilised I reckon.
-
Up Front: The Up Front Guide to Internet…, in reply to Emma Hart,
Hm, interesting experience from Amy Webb. She does sound quite manipulative and dishonest though, because in order to be "popular", the "real" her probably isn't featured on her profile. But to her credit at least she eventually fronted up.
-
I don't want to be cynical (and then I will go on to be extremely cynical...) but dating sites NEVER state the probability of success. They have success stories and so on, but never ALL the hard facts! Data! Data! As Sherlock Holmes would say (or Picard). These sites don't earn money based on success rate, only access to other members of their sites. Incentive-wise it is all wrong. So it is no surprise a lot of stories I heard are like yours. (I never ever seriously use any of those websites.)
I reckon good old fashion matchmakers have more incentive and success rate than dating websites. Bad matchmaker never ever goes far (think Austen's Emma...). But the good ones do. They build their reputation and personal name on matching the right people, using their sophisticated algorithm called Human Reasoning (TM). Whereas dating websites use a lot of brutal force (i.e. dubious algorithm with no verifiable proof of success) and the laws of probability to make it work.
-
Word salad
Seemingly full sets of coherent words put together, but when picked apart, revealed only few meaning bits. Like a grilled chicken salad put together as a whole, but only the grilled chicken is meant to be eaten and the greens ignore.
Wait, is that not how people generally consume grilled chicken salad???
Seriously though, I want to point out that the leading article still made references to 2015, not 2016, like “How will 2015 shape up? Well, that’s up to you.”
-
One thing I want to point out is that not only is South Sudan dangerous, UN has a chequered history in South Sudan, with allegations that UN Peacekeepers either failed to stop abuses or perpetrated abuses themselves, see e.g. this. So David Shearer as the head of UN peacekeeping mission in South Sudan will need to sort the Peacekeepers straight, in addition to keeping the peace. Therefore IMO it is a much much much tougher job than being in politics in NZ. Good luck to him, he needs it, for the sake of people in South Sudan, and the credibility of UN.
Bill English had nothing nice to say about David Shearer when he was asked about his departure, instead trotting out the usual “Labour infighting” soundbite. To me it sounded narrow-minded when put in context.