Posts by Steve Parks
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Because Statistical Rigour, in reply to Sacha,
The list of people who should be writing for Stuff Nation is increasing.
-
Dim Post also has a look at that class size point: Well below standard in analysis.
-
I think it’s pretty disingenuous to say that the data isn’t moderated so schools aren’t directly comparable, then feature a school comparison tool as the main way of navigating the data.
Also, as Giovanni Tiso pointed out on Twitter, you have John Hartevelt saying: "Anyone who read the National Standards results as a proxy for quality would be quite foolish."
Meanwhile, the Dom Post exclaims "NATIONAL STANDARDS: HOW YOUR CHILD'S SCHOOL RATES
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to Paul Williams,
They were referring to Colin Craig seeking publicity.
-
Hard News: Before Lust, in reply to Lyndon Hood,
I notice they've allowed comments after the original article by Joshua Drummond, but not after Colin Craig's response.
-
Oh, and for anyone who hasn't read this yet, read it now...
-
And for Craig's latest bit of bigotry:
-
Up Front: Choice, Bro, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I’m continually being confused by these competing ideas coming from the antis:
“Gay marriage changes everything, it will destroy our society”
“Gay people already have all the rights of marriage in civil unions, it’s a tiny change, why bother”
Yep. And another classic of the antis is to (over) emphasize just how few gay people there are, and how only a minority of that group want "gay marriage" anyway. Someone on Kiwiblog put it like this: only "a very small subset of a small subset desire marriage". That same commentator also bought into the idea you mention that same sex couples already had the same rights thanks to the Civil Union Legislation.
So as I replied to them: according to their own argument, only a very small subset of a small subset of society would want to take up the option of same sex marriage, and even then the rights and obligations they have will be mostly identical to what they have now. So where's the problem?
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I’d suggest Rep. Akin is entitled to display his dangerous belief that the wombs of virtuous women can magically repel rapist semen to the same extent as any other moronic fuckwit, but I remain unconvinced it deserves some higher degree of protection simply because he’s mouth-farting in the context of a Senate campaign.
Yep. And I also wonder exactly what is meant by 'political speech'. If it basically means something like speech criticising established politicians then I guess I could see a case for it being given some greater degree of protection. But that wouldn't cover Akin's comments.
That said, I'm happy for people like Akin to be free to demonstrate what fools they are.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Do you believe that the principles of natural justice also guarantee a right to an appeal?
No.
Not in themselves, perhaps. But the principles of natural justice include “fairness of the procedure”, which these days seems to be considered to include: "offer right of appeal or review".
Okay, those points are the State Services Commission’s guidelines, but still, I’d expect that there’s a case that fairness can’t be achieved if one party has access to an appeal option but the other party doesn’t.