Posts by Stephen Judd
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Re Suicide Girls: the site is run by a fairly unpleasant man who exercises strict editorial control, and sells on pictures to hardcore porn sites without permission if the "girls" try to deviate from the script of happy, empowered harlotry. In other words, far from being a sex-positive affirmation of female something-or-other, it's Fanny Hill for our time.
-
-
Re the teaching of media literacy, it is an important part of the secondary English syllabus. Many people would object if there were any more of it.
-
No, waffles can only be made available with a certificate from a doctor confirming that the diner's health is at risk.
-
It's not just secular parents, Emma. Any non-Protestant -- Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu -- in a state school is potentially on-side with this one.
There is always a vocal and pushy minority who stack the school board in order to get it set up and maintained, and then residual guilt from the former Christians and inertia ensure it's hard to get rid of.
When I was at intermediate school in Hamilton (80-81) the RI guy was the local Baptist minister. My daughter's school used some local evangelical guy, not sure what denomination.
-
May I just say a big thanks to Anjum for that first-person account, and in particular a big "hear hear" to this:
this is better than the current situation where schools officially close for an hour (during the school day) and have someone come in and speak to the whole school on religious matters. if we start to investigate what sorts of people are having access to our kids during this official closure and what exactly they are teaching, we might prefer something different. kids don't have to sit through these sessions of course. they can have the privilege of feeling like social outcasts by sitting in a separate classroom and doing not much at all.
The covert wink-and-nod sanction of religious instruction in our ostensibly secular schools is a particular pet irritant for me.
-
How ironic that Marcus should complain about poor journalism here of all places.
PA - created by journalists. Producing an amazing assortment of lengthy, thoughtful, interesting pieces. For free. With comments from many thoughtful and intelligent people (and me as well).
Right under your nose, Marcus.
And specifically - the Economist has jumped off the deep end recently, as far as coverage of US politics goes at least. The UK papers are rabidly partisan, every one, to the extent that one can only infer facts by triangulation between papers. The American papers are anodyne. German ones are deadly dull. The Aussie ones are much like our own. Journalism is as subject to Sturgeon's Law as everything else, but I don't think we're any worse served here than elsewhere.
-
Che, the NZRFU is an incorporated society - a not-for-profit organisation. However, if you read the 2005 annual report you will see a line item "profit", which is a legitimate way to refer to the surplus of income over expenditure (23 mill for 2005).
However this brings up an interesting point, namely that there is a already a substantial benefit in operating tax-free. Large sums accrue to related parties (the players, management, broadcasters, ...) of the activities organised through that incorporated society.
I'm not complaining about that. It's very proper. But the point is that the NZRFU is a very successful organisation financially. It may not be a business but increasingly few people play the game, and increasingly more games are out of reach of the punter, whether by ticket price or network restriction. Much of the fervour of supporters is the result of intense marketing by corporate sponsors. How much more help does this not-for-profit need?
Consider that the NZRFU has no long term liabilities as of its last report. It could issue "rubgy bonds" to pay for a permanent home for NZ rugby. A financial organisation could underwrite and market them. They could mature over a long term and be something that supporters could really be proud of investing in. And that would be a more transparent and fair way of funding them than tax/ratepayer largesse.
-
My point, and I do have one, is that the expenditure is a one-off and the main beneficiary is a private concern. I have nothing against funding sport, or "entertainment infrastructure", but I have a big problem with letting individual organisations at the public tit for private gain.
Don: yes there is some visible construction in Auckland and Wellington, but I think there is a great deal more to be done, whether you are private car or a public transport person.
If this and other tournaments raises more for the country as a whole is that not a worthwhile investment?
Whether it will is very much an open question. And if the answer is yes, one must still consider whether those funds might not be employed in an even better investment. You're a businessman - this is a capital allocation decision.
-
Yeah, I'm really pretty angry about this.
The Rugby Union has made $20 million + surpluses the last couple of years. It is a profitable franchise. There is absolutely no reason why it could not raise the funds from issuing bonds or other borrowing techniques, and paying it off, just like the rest of us.
Why the fuck am I paying a for-profit entertainment business huge sums from my taxes when urgent, universally-needed infrastructure goes begging?