tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-92134974573677901592024-03-13T20:34:34.027-07:00Not What, But Who.Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-43094107688813148112013-04-25T00:34:00.002-07:002013-04-25T00:47:20.122-07:00Hey Clint - Here's some democracy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So, there's this video doing the rounds at the moment, about an MP in a political interview refers a question to an advisor:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='480' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/AaOMGLINdpw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Now everyone seems to agree that this is a rather unusual occurrence. It appears to have taken the journalists involved by surprise, and it is very understandable how this is noteworthy enough to have been shared around the whole political news 'scene'. It's a different way of doing politics than what everyone's used to.<br />
<br />
What is also surprising, is that I seem to have found myself in disagreement with the next conclusion everyone seems to automatically jump to - that this is supposed to be an embarrassing moment, or shows something shady or bad about this MP or Party. For example:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Broadcasting-Hey-Clint-was-right-move/tabid/1382/articleID/295410/Default.aspx">3 News opinion piece</a> by Patrick Gower:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Some people - including even colleagues here in the Press Gallery - have
suggested it was wrong to run it, that it was a big call, or even that
there were journalistic ethics at stake. [...] </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">But to me it showed much more than a bit of humour. It showed what we
know - the Greens, like Labour, are trying to act like they are not
gleeful that the policy is screwing with the MRP float. [...]</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="count_el">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">It busted spin, in fact, it blew the spin apart. </span></div>
<div class="count_el">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">It showed that the Greens, like Labour, are trying to come up with 'lines' to pretend that it's not about wrecking the float.</span></div>
<div class="count_el">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">And that's fair enough; the Greens want to emphasise what they see as the good parts of the policy. </span></div>
<div class="count_el">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">But, thanks to Gareth's indiscretion, we could show what they really feel.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">
Poor MSM journalists, interviewing a young politician to try to 'catch him out', but instead of spitting out words put into his mouth, he uses available resources to give the most accurate answer about what the Party membership feels. These journalists will have to try again later.</div>
<br />
And another one from <a href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2013/04/gower_on_clint.html">kiwiblog</a>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Neither have I [seen a politician call out during an interview for a spin doctor to tell them what the answer is]. You ask them for advice before the interview, but you
can’t and don’t ask them for lines during an actual interview. At the
end of the day the MPs are the ones who stand for election, not the
advisors.</span></blockquote>
That's funny, I thought it was <i>Parties</i> who stood in elections. I mean, how many "vote Gareth Hughes for Ohariu" signs did <i>you</i> see? In my book, parties aren't made up of MPs, they're made up of members.<br />
<br />
I'll admit, in the beginning, I was carried along by the sentiments held by everyone else. I also felt that this showed a glimpse into a world of focus groups, spin doctors, and carefully crafted 'lines' misleading people into hearing what they want to hear. As if it had become so ubiquitous they had given up on keeping it an open secret. In short, I bought into the media's worldview, briefly.<br />
<br />
But then something happened. I <i>thought</i> about it. I thought about it from a different perspective - what I, as a member of the public (who follows political news), hope to get out of an interview like this. I thought about what would have happened if he didn't check with 'Clint', and just said something random solely from his own opinion. I thought about how I, as a member of a (different) political party, would like the spokespeople representing me to approach a similar situation. And I came to change my view.<br />
<br />
Now, when I watch that clip, I don't see an MP and a 'spin doctor' conspiring to mislead the journalists standing right in front of them, I see a man, who happens to be a politician, going about his job of representing the Party's membership (note how he takes the question to be "Is the Green Party pleased?" as opposed to "Is Gareth Hughes pleased?"). I see a politician concerned more with substance than with style (i.e. making sure he gives an accurate answer, rather than making it <i>look</i> like he's sure his answer is accurate). Finally, I see a small element of transparency - unlike politicians who have gone before, he doesn't feel the need to keep this little part of his methods hidden from public view, behind closed doors, in the walled garden.<br />
<br />
What I hope to be achieved by political journalism, is a public dialogue between the many large political groups. Not a discussion about particular individuals, but about the collective views of these groupings of many people (to the extent that they have a collective view, as opposed to the situation described <a href="http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2939#comic">here</a>). These groups invariably have representatives, and I would hope that these representatives make the effort to accurately represent the opinions that make up their mandate. This is how I see Gareth Hughs' question to 'Clint', double checking what the view of the Party as a whole is before he risks misrepresenting them, assisting that important dialogue.<br />
<br />
As for the journalists involved, I would hope they ask the questions and provide the context that the other political masses would find <i>relevant</i> to that discussion of ideas. Now the question about whether the Green Party is pleased with the effect on the share floats <i>is</i> part of this and is a good question, however, complaining that the answer isn't the one they were fishing for is <i>not</i> relevant. If I wanted to consume a manufactured narrative, I would go to a movie. Directors are better at it than journalists anyway.<br />
<br />
As someone who doesn't agree with the Green Party all that often, I think Gareth should be congratulated for this showing of transparency and democratic intent, and I hope it catches on and turns politics into something closer resembling what it ought to be.<br />
<br />
I, for one, welcome our new mandate-driven political overtones.Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-40518026310490357882013-03-31T17:42:00.002-07:002013-04-06T23:42:40.037-07:00Immigration, Lies and Statistics Used by NZ Herald[Update 2013-04-08: <a href="http://peoplemov.in/">peoplemov.in</a> is a good interactive site to look up stats for migrants around the world. (not to be confused with migration <i>rates</i> each year which this post is about) Their stats for migrants in NZ as of 2010:<br />
<ol>
<li> UK: 260,085</li>
<li>China: 85,447</li>
<li>Australia: 68,629</li>
<li>Samoa: 55,401</li>
<li>India: 47,411</li>
<li>South Africa: 45,587</li>
<li>Fiji: 41,288</li>
<li>South Korea: 31,509</li>
<li>Netherlands: 24,175</li>
<li>Tonga: 22,445</li>
<li>Others: 280,095 (calculated)]</li>
</ol>
<br />
<b>NZ Herald story headline</b>:"<a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874680">Asians dominate NZ immigration</a>"<br />
Let's see how their headline actually stacks up. (tl;dr: NZH is full of shit)<br />
<br />
Besides hand-waving about temporary visitors and students, their main statement about actual immigration is this:<br />
"Despite the UK still being the biggest source country for permanent residents, Professor Spoonley noted, the combined total from China, India and the Philippines more than doubled the British."<br />
<br />
The numbers I get from the source data for permanent and long term arrivals in the year to Feb 2013 vs 2012, as percentages of the total: (<a href="http://stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/Migration/IntTravelAndMigration_HOTPFeb13.aspx">all source data</a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=9213497457367790159"><span id="goog_1865003668"></span></a>)<br />
<br />
Asia declined from 31.84% to 31.72% (though up slightly in absolute terms)<br />
Europe declined from 28.99% to 28.20%<br />
Americas declined from 8.92% to 8.75%<br />
Africa and Middle east - 4.56% to 4.12%<br />
Oceania excl Aus declined from 5.25% to 4.97%<br />
Australia increased from 16.55% to 17.94% (90% of the overall increase)<br />
"not stated" increased from 3.88% to 4.31% (an absolute 13% increase)<br />
<br />
So really, the story told by the data, without pandering to demands for provocative headlines is that immigration increased modestly (1.9%), with most of that growth coming from Australia, and a notable trend for more people to not state their country of origin. "Asians" are actually declining as a share of immigration.<br />
<br />
And what about their claim about China, India and Philippines combined being more than double the UK? well:<br />
<br />
For the year to Feb 2013, the UK actually wasn't the biggest source country for permanent and long term arrivals like it was in 2012, Australia was. Also, China India and the Philippines combined only contributed 18% more than the UK.<br />
<br />
Well, maybe they were talking about just the month of February. There seems to be a seasonal pattern with long term arrivals from China and India where many more come in February than in an average month. There is also a slight opposite effect with those coming from the UK.<br />
<br />
For just the month of February, again the single largest contributing country was Australia, but the claim about China, India and the Philippines is closer to the mark. They were between them 194% of the contribution from the UK. In fact, in 2012 they were 241%, so if this claim was printed last year, it would have only been misleading, not false. (misleading because it was not explained as part of dramatic seasonal effects and only valid for one month of the year)<br />
<br />
So, where were they looking to get their facts? well, despite the article clearly mentioning immigration, these stats were actually for *net migration*. The actual figures behind this:<br />
<br />
2011 - 228% (+11,600 net vs +5,100 net)<br />
2012 - 222% (+11,800 net vs +5,300 net)<br />
2013 - 209% (+12,400 net vs +5,900 net)<br />
<br />
So yes, there is a number that "more than doubles the British", but this number they used (net migration) is:<br />
a) not about immigration, it is just as much about emigration (when commenting on "immigration", they should have used arrivals data only)<br />
b) nothing new (it has been true for at least the last 2 years and probably much longer)<br />
c) actually on a course to no longer be true in another year or two.<br />
d) the next paragraph in the article refers to this as a "rapid rise in numbers", which is a lie. The rise in net migration (because that's what he's quoting) from China (+605), India (-109) and the Philippines (+152) combined (+648) is nearly the same as the rise from the UK (+638), and barely over a quarter of the rise from Australia (+2394).<br />
<br />
The figures the Herald quotes only work in their claims like this because so few kiwis emigrate to Asia. For every 2 immigrants from the UK, there is 1 emigrant <i>to</i> the UK (14,000 vs 8,100). For China, there is only 1 in 3 (7,900 vs 2,400), for India, 1 in 5 (6,200 vs 1,400), and for the Philippines, more like 1 in 7 (2,400 vs 370). A more honest headline based on the exact numbers they used (comparing net migration from the UK with China, India and the Philippines combined) would be "UK dominates NZ emigration" (excluding Australia), though this is also nothing new. If they had used data without misrepresenting it, i.e. if they used the permanent and long term arrivals data, they would not be able to make their dramatic claims.<br />
<br />
In Summary, "Asians" do <b>not</b> dominate NZ immigration, they make up 32% of it, and this figure is declining. The UK is <b>not</b> the largest source country for immigrants, Australia is, though the UK takes 2nd with a very large margin. The combined total <i>immigration</i> from China, India and the Philippines did <b>not</b> more than double the British. It's just that unlike Australia and Britain, kiwis don't emigrate to Asia in nearly comparable numbers. Of course, the NZ Herald could never say that, because it just isn't provocative enough, and who wants to let the truth get in the way of a good story?<br />
<br />
[Update <a href="http://xkcd.com/1179/">2013-04-02</a>: re-wrote a few sections for an utterly marginal improvement in clarity] Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-48555728197086506472013-02-19T23:53:00.000-08:002013-02-19T23:53:03.351-08:00Random Birthday Speech<span class="userContent">Well, as somewhat of a fan of the duodecimal, today is rather a semantically important one for me.<br /> <br />
It was less than a week ago that I visited my old high school (the one
in New Zealand, if anyone was unsure). Seeing that which was the same as
when that place was a pole of my commute, and the great deal which is
not. Seeing the additions to the lists on the hall walls of teachers,
trophies, prefec<span class="text_exposed_show">ts and awards which had
come and gone in the intervening time. Meeting again after such an
extended absence my former form and maths teacher (appreciation of whom
was highly correlated with that of socks). Well it's fair to say that I
was feeling rather old. Like days past were days preferable. In a way
similar to how i've often felt in the past half dozen years, I felt time
has passed too quickly and I wasn't yet ready for the next milestone.<br /> <br /> All that, up to just less than a week ago. <br /> <br /> But no longer.<br /> <br />
Whether driven by deceptive grudging acceptance, by time-measurement
based perspective shift, or by the numerous greatly successful events of
the remainder of my travel, that feeling is gone. Now, I *am* ready. My
life has caught up with time. I have overtaken my adversary, and now
*I* am in the lead.<br /> <br /> I'm grateful for the second dozen years of my life, but I'm also finished with them. Mission accomplished. BRING ON THE THIRD!</span></span>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-36136618022195010332012-06-17T01:27:00.001-07:002012-06-17T01:29:25.496-07:00Shenzhou 9: The Decentralization of Manned SpaceSo, last night, China launched Shenzhou 9, with a crew of 3 including the world's first female taikonaut. That news is all over Chinese social and news media.<br />
<br />
However, for me, the launch is not the most exciting part of the mission. Yes, it means there are now 6 people in space, but that is less than a full space shuttle crew used to be. It is not the first Shenzhou flight with a crew of 3. Even though this is a first for China, Liu Yang is only the 56th woman to travel to space.<br />
<br />
The most exciting part of this mission will be the docking with Tiangong 1, and the crew transferring between the two craft. This will happen around the 21st of June, and once this happens mankind will once again have two occupied space stations.<br />
<br />
Now, it is not the first time in history this has happened, but it is still a very notable event. The 3 times this has happened before were in 1998, 1999 and 2000, while the Russian Mir station was being wound down and replaced by the International Space Station (ISS) project. Each of these periods of double occupation lasted only 5-7 days and involved the first 3 brief space shuttle flights to the ISS, during the last two permanent crews and then one final visiting mission to Mir.<br />
<br />
This time it is different. It is different because the ISS is <i>not</i> being decommissioned. If things go to plan over the next few years, the ISS will remain permanently occupied while China develops its own permanent space presence. Manned space is starting to be decentralized!<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<img height="464" src="http://space.alglobus.net/Basics/whatImages/mir.jpg" width="462" />
</div>
<br />
Here is a bit of history on manned space stations:<br />
<br />
Up to 1971: zero, unless you count the moon landings from 1969<br />
<ul>
<li>No space stations yet.</li>
</ul>
<br />
1971: one, but only one crew for 22 days.<br />
<ul>
<li>Salyut 1 was launched by USSR in April, and after one partially successful docking, the first 3 man crew entered the station from Soyuz 11 in June and stayed 23 days. This was not a successful mission either though, because tragically, this crew died during their return to earth.</li>
</ul>
<br />
1972: back to zero. The last moon landing also happened this year.<br />
<br />
1973-1974: between zero and one, sequentially, each occupied by one crew at a time<br />
<ul>
<li>Skylab was launched by the USA, and had 3 manned crews, with gaps in between. It was occupied for a total of 171 days over 9 months. The last crew left before the USSR's next space station was launched.</li>
</ul>
<br />
1974-1986: between zero and one, sequentially, with crews receiving short term visitors. <br />
<ul>
<li>Salyut 3 thru 5 each launched by USSR after the final visit to the previous one. These were manned numerous times, each time for less than 2 months, with gaps in between. After 1977, Salyut 6 and 7 were occupied by several crews for up to 8 months at a time. Unlike previous space stations, Salyut 6 and 7 had two docking ports, and resident crews received visitors during their stay, however there were still gaps for months at a time in between crews.</li>
</ul>
<br />
1986: two operational space stations, but only 1 occupied at a time<br />
<ul>
<li>Mir was launched by the USSR, and Soyuz T-15 flew to both Mir and briefly to Salyut 7 before returning to Mir. This was the first time a new space station was commissioned before its predecessor was abandoned, but Mir was unoccupied while the crew visited Salyut 7 for the last time.</li>
</ul>
<br />
1987-1999: one, constantly occupied with overlapping crews. (one exception)<br />
<ul>
<li>Mir was progressively expanded by the USSR and later Russia, and visited by Cosmonauts from 10 different countries and from 1995, Astronauts from visiting American space shuttles. During this time, new crews arrived before the previous crew departed, so the space station was constantly occupied, although Mir was left unoccupied for one four month period in 1989, after which Mir was constantly occupied for 8 days short of 10 years.</li>
</ul>
<br />
1998, 1999, 2000: two, for three brief moments each less than a week, then zero<br />
<ul>
<li>The International Space Station (ISS) had its first compartment launched in 1998 and started receiving brief space shuttle visits for up to 6 days 18h, including two flights while Mir remained occupied. In August 1999, Mir (and outer space in general) was left unoccupied for the first time since 1989. One final, privately funded mission to Mir lasted for 2 months in 2000, during which time the ISS was visited by a third space shuttle for 5 days. Mir was subsequently decommissioned and deorbited.</li>
</ul>
<br />
2000-present: one, 12 years constantly occupied with overlapping crews<br />
<ul>
<li>After two more brief American space shuttle visits, man's permanent presence in outer space was re-established by Expedition 1, arriving in a Russian Soyuz. During this time, there have been up to 10 people at the ISS when space shuttles visited, twice bringing the total number of people in space briefly up to 13. This happened once in 2001 when space shuttle STS-100 and Soyuz TM-32 visited in quick succession with the space shuttle landing while the Soyuz was en-route, and again in 2008 while China's unrelated Shenzhou 7 mission was in space. Currently, ISS is occupied by Expedition 31 - the 31st crew of continuous occupation.</li>
</ul>
<br />
Now: there will be two, briefly, and then one will remain<br />
<ul>
<li>The ISS remains occupied by Expedition 31, while Tiangong 1 will receive its first brief crew, Shenzhou 9. This will be the first time in 12 years and the first time since outer space was last abandoned that mankind has had two occupied space stations.</li>
</ul>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-59736138239897227542012-05-26T23:18:00.004-07:002012-05-26T23:26:09.906-07:00Houla Massacre 2012 - Opposing PerspectivesHoula massacre 2012 from opposing perspectives:<br />
<br />
The situation - on 25 May 2012, at least 92 people including at least 32 children are massacred in Syria. Beyond that fact, sources don't all agree.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/05/201252616111118780.html">Al Jazeera, pro opposition</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"This appalling and brutal crime, involving indiscriminate and
disproportionate use of force, is a flagrant violation of international
law and of the commitments of the Syrian government to cease the use of
heavy weapons in population centres and violence in all its forms"</blockquote>
<br />
<a href="http://www.rt.com/news/fsa-annan-plan-307/">RT News, pro regime</a>:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Syrian state TV meanwhile reported that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups [...] </blockquote>
<blockquote>
So far, there were no official statements blaming any particular party for the deadly attack [...] </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Although there was no confirmation of the Syrian government's
involvement in the attack, international media and world leaders rushed
to accuse the Assad regime of being behind the bloodshed."</blockquote>
<br />
My perspective: RT's claims are looking more and more far-fetched
each time, and the scarcity of journalists actually inside Syria counts
against the regime in a big way. It's like a denial that any of their
claims stack up. Though I note that this time, RT has stepped back from actually denying the regime probably did it.Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-32746958189394996062011-11-20T01:14:00.000-08:002011-11-20T01:36:01.197-08:00Electoral System ReferendumJust writing down a few predictions about the referendum between MMP FPP STV SM PV.<div><br /></div><div>1. I think MMP will probably win the first question</div><div><br /></div><div>2. I think FPP will win the second question</div><div><br /></div><div>3. I think STV will come the closest to beating FPP (despite the 'vote for change' campaign targeting SM)</div><div><br /></div><div>4. I think that, if MMP wins the first question and there is a review, the 5% threshold will be reduced to 3 or 4%, and will generally be more proportional than the current MMP system</div><div><br /></div><div>5. I think there will be MMP supporters who vote for FPP in the second question, despite that being their least preferred option, because they think it has the least risk of beating MMP in a second referendum</div><div><br /></div><div>6. I think that, If MMP loses the first question, and FPP wins the second question, that FPP supporters will run a much larger and more expensive campaign in 2014, and come close to winning.</div><div><br /></div><div>If it's not clear, I am an MMP / PR supporter. I intend to vote for MMP and for STV, because STV is the next best (proportional) option after MMP, and because it has the best chance of beating FPP.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-50329284784253467262011-10-30T01:01:00.000-07:002011-10-30T01:07:54.055-07:00Economy vs Election Results 1935-2008<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XEvGUXpkALE/TqYmazaW6yI/AAAAAAAAAgk/yc4CM5v90dc/s1600/lab-vs-nat-gdp-growth-records1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 450px; height: 400px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XEvGUXpkALE/TqYmazaW6yI/AAAAAAAAAgk/yc4CM5v90dc/s1600/lab-vs-nat-gdp-growth-records1.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.politicaldumpground.com/2011/10/principles-or-statistics.html">http://www.politicaldumpground.com/2011/10/principles-or-statistics.html</a><div><br /></div><div>So, Labour gets in when the economy is good, and National gets in when the economy is bad. How surprising.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also, if Key stays in until growth reaches 4%, that graph will be perfectly striped ;)</div><div><br /></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-72781685866561185002011-10-29T17:02:00.000-07:002011-10-29T19:36:23.521-07:00NZ Post-Earthquake Demographics<div style="text-align: left;">data source: <a href="http://stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationEstimates_HOTPJun11.aspx" style="text-align: left; ">http://stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/SubnationalPopulationEstimates_HOTPJun11.aspx</a></div><div><br /></div><div>5 days ago, Stats NZ released the first population data about a time after the Canterbury earthquakes in Feb 2011. Note that it is for June, just 4 months after the quake, and that things could have changed significantly between June and now. Here I make a few observations:</div><div><br /></div><div><ul><li>Only 10,600 people migrated out of Christchurch (net). This in only 2.9% or 1 in 35. (it is 12,200 compared to what would be expected without the earthquakes - 3.1% or 1 in 31)</li><li>It was mainly young people who left, 0-14 year olds decreased 7%, and 15-39 year olds decreased 3.8% in Christchurch City, older groups actually increased (whether by natural increase or inward migration).</li><li>Using the net migration trend over the previous 4 years as a base, out of the people who left Christchurch because of the earthquake, it looks like only 28% max settled elsewhere in the South Island. 29% max moved to the North Island, and 43% min moved overseas.</li><li>The natural increase and 'normal' migration to the South Island over a year was almost exactly canceled out by people leaving the South Island because of the earthquakes. The total population of the South Island in June 2011 was the same as a year before.</li><li>Since the people leaving shakey town were young, the median South Islander is now 3 1/2 years older than the median North Islander, compared to 3 years in June 2010. (the median North Islander normally ages 2 months/year, but earthquake migrants actually cancelled this out for a year)</li></ul><div>Now for a couple of things not specifically related to the earthquake:</div></div><div><ul><li>Out of 43 "Territorial Authorities" in the North Island, between 2006 and 2010, 30 grew in population, Horowhenua held steady, and 12 declined. This is basically a steady overall growth plus a gradual migration from the countryside to the cities.</li><li>Out of the 23 in the South Island, all of them grew except Gore. The overall growth is slightly higher, and the urban migration is more even, so it's not as noticeable.</li><li>In the North Island, when you take into consideration only the 0-14 year olds, only 9 Territorial Authorities grew, 1 held steady, and 33 declined. This shows a bit about the nature of the population growth. </li><li>In the North Island excluding Auckland, there is an overall growth in population and decline in 0-14 year olds.</li></ul><div>In this image, the dark green areas are territorial authorities with declining populations (2006-2010), the light green have growing population but declining numbers of 0-14 year olds, gray areas have steady numbers of 0-14 year olds, orange has numbers of 0-14 year olds growing at less than 1% pa, and red areas have greater than 1% pa growth in 0-14 year olds.</div><div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uSSKAKzlE5g/Tqy3HsfBLZI/AAAAAAAAAC4/gR6rAH82II4/s1600/NZ%2BTAs%2B-%2Bpop%2Bdec%2B-%2B0-14yo%2Bdec%2B-%2B0-14yo%2Bgrow%2B1pcpa.bmp" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-uSSKAKzlE5g/Tqy3HsfBLZI/AAAAAAAAAC4/gR6rAH82II4/s320/NZ%2BTAs%2B-%2Bpop%2Bdec%2B-%2B0-14yo%2Bdec%2B-%2B0-14yo%2Bgrow%2B1pcpa.bmp" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5669107373780839826" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 560px; height: 640px; " /></a></div></div><div><br /></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-26994075205947591222011-10-17T19:49:00.000-07:002011-10-17T20:16:13.044-07:00Silver Fern vs NZ Blue Ensign at RWC 2011When you fly the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silver_fern_flag.svg">Silver Fern flag</a>, here is a list of the RWC 2011 teams you could be referring to:<br /><ul><li>NZ All Blacks</li></ul><div><br /></div><div>When you fly the NZ national flag - the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_New_Zealand.svg">NZ Blue Ensign</a> - here is a list of RWC 2011 teams you could be referring to, who have players or coaches from New Zealand:</div><div><ul><li>NZ All Blacks</li><li>Manu Samoa</li><li>Flying Fijians</li><li>Tongan Sea Eagles</li><li>Japanese Cherry Blossoms</li><li>England national rugby union team</li><li>Wales national rugby union team</li><li>Canadian Canucks</li><li>Australian Wallabies</li><li>Romanian Oaks</li><li>Ireland national rugby union team</li><li>USA Eagles</li></ul><div><br /></div><div>In fact, there are only 8 teams you are NOT supporting when you fly the NZ Blue Ensign: Scotland, France, Italy, Georgia, South Africa, Namibia, Argentina, Russia.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>This is (one reason) why people use the Silver Fern flag at the RWC and not the NZ flag. It doesn't mean they have adopted a different flag for New Zealand - just for a rugby team.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-86091523249171104692011-06-04T19:43:00.000-07:002011-06-04T23:36:34.869-07:00Fashion Police Bill 2.0<a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5102271/Govt-to-back-ban-on-gang-patches">http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/5102271/Govt-to-back-ban-on-gang-patches</a><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.politicaldumpground.com/2011/06/patch-focus-wrong.html">Someone else</a> (<a href="http://www.politicaldumpground.com/">Political Dumpground</a>) has already written something so similar to my own feelings on this, that I won't bother writing my own piece.</div><div><br /></div><div>The main area of difference is that I think the first bill, banning fashion crimes in the town formerly known as Wanganui, and the new bill, banning fashion crimes in buildings the govt owns or rents on your behalf, probably DO in fact have the potential to permit the govt of the day to commit "<span class="Apple-style-span">serious breaches of freedom of expression". This is mainly due to the inevitable discrepancy between "organizations who have no other purpose than conspiracy to commit crime" and all groups that may fall under the scope of the law.</span></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-27823277518775789312011-05-08T22:03:00.000-07:002011-05-10T01:39:23.007-07:00MMP Scottish Style: Why do Scots Call 44% a Majority?Last thursday, 5 May, Scotland <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Parliament_general_election,_2011">elected</a> 129 MSPs. Scottish elections use MMP - the same system as we are familiar with in New Zealand - but not the same MMP. In the Scottish election, the SNP won a 53.5% majority of seats with <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/election2011/region/html/scotland.stm">44%</a> of the vote. <span class="Apple-style-span">(representing 47.2% of party votes for the 5 elected parties and 1 elected independent, 47.7% of the party votes for just the 5 parties which got over 4% and 50.1% of the party votes for just the 4 parties which got over 5%)</span><div><br /></div><div>Coming soon: An analysis of the Scottish election under various subtly different types of MMP.</div><div><br /></div><div>Some summary: (detail to come later)</div><div><br /></div><!-- chart table generated at www.isdntek.com/tagbot/grids.htm --><br /><table cellspacing="4" cellpadding="5" border="1" style="background-color:#FFFFFF;"><!-- row 0 --> <tbody><tr><td class="grdhdr" rowspan="2">System (variations of MMP)<br /></td><td class="grdhdr" rowspan="2">Used in<br /></td><td class="grdhdr" colspan="7" style="text-align: center;">MSPs<br /></td></tr> <!-- row 1 --> <tr><td class="grdbdy">SNP<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">Lab<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">Con<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">Lib Dem<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">Greens<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">Other<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">Total<br /></td></tr> <!-- row 2 --> <tr><td class="grdhdr">D'Hondt, No Overhang, no exclusion, Regions<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">Scotland<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">69<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">37<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">15<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">5<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">2<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">1<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">129<br /></td></tr> <!-- row 3 --> <tr><td class="grdhdr">Same only with St Laguë</td><td class="grdbdy"><br /></td><td class="grdbdy">64<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">34<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">15</td><td class="grdbdy">7</td><td class="grdbdy">7<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">2<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">129<br /></td></tr> <!-- row 4 --> <tr><td class="grdhdr">St Laguë, Overhang, 5% exclusion, no Regions<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">New Zealand<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">64<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">39<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">18<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">8<br /></td><td class="grdbdy"><br /></td><td class="grdbdy"><br /></td><td class="grdbdy">129<br /></td></tr> <!-- row 5 --> <tr><td class="grdhdr">D'Hondt, No Overhang, no exclusion, only 4 Regions</td><td class="grdbdy">Scotland*<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">64<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">38<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">15<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">7<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">4<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">1<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">129<br /></td></tr> <!-- row 6 --> <tr><td class="grdhdr">St Laguë, Overhang, Scandinavian exclusion**, no Regions</td><td class="grdbdy">My Ideal System<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">58<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">35<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">16<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">7<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">6<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">7<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">129<br /></td></tr> <!-- row 7 --> <tr><td class="grdhdr">Exact Proportion to Votes</td><td class="grdbdy"><br /></td><td class="grdbdy">56.8<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">33.9<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">15.9<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">6.7<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">5.6<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">10.0<br /></td><td class="grdbdy">129<br /></td></tr> <!-- end rows --></tbody></table><br />* - This is if each Region was merged with one of its neibours, i.e. Region 1: Highlands & Islands plus North East, Region 2: Mid & Fife plus Central, Region 3: Glasgow plus West, Region 4: Lothian plus South<div><br /><!-- chart table generated at www.isdntek.com/tagbot/grids.htm --> <div>** - where the first quotient is 1.4 in stead of 1. The following quotients remain at 3, 5, 7 etc.</div></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-90509939841575094992011-04-29T03:58:00.000-07:002011-04-30T23:59:43.888-07:00Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two Music Video<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px" width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GTQnarzmTOc?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GTQnarzmTOc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object><div><br /></div><div>The quality of this is just impressive. I already agreed with the message, but to come up with all those succinct yet poetic soundbites? I don't know how they do it. A definite improvement over the first one (which i also think is good), though they used the "hair of the dog" line in both videos.</div><div><br /></div><div>Also liked the "Hayek splosives" line, and the court/inquiry theme.</div><div><br /></div><div>Found at <a href="http://pc.blogspot.com/">Not PC</a></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-43774501553091128522011-04-25T14:37:00.000-07:002011-04-25T14:43:13.309-07:00ANZAC Day Blog Posts<div>Some ANZAC day perspectives on national defense:</div><div><br /></div><a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11906042&postID=3106973676675705826">Not PC</a><div><a href="http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/?p=22557">Whale Oil</a></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-87930066941338083422011-03-16T13:57:00.000-07:002011-04-17T04:06:32.221-07:00Kiwiblog Spindoctoring on the Offenders' LevyIn response to <a href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/03/the_offenders_levy.html">this piece</a> at Kiwiblog:<div><br /></div><div>To summarize the situation, this offenders' levy is a $50 fee charged to all convicted offenders at time of sentencing. National introduced it (it was in their 2008 campaign) and considers it a significant and worthwhile source of new income for their victim support scheme, while Labour considers it a "gimmick" which will not raise significant new income because of the cost of collecting it. From here, it is one big argument about the numbers.</div><div><br /></div><div>From Simon Power's <a href="http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/offender-levy-collection-rate-exceeds-expectations">announcement</a>:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(119, 119, 119); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; "><em><blockquote>The levy is collected after reparation and before fines, and is in addition to any sentence or court order.</blockquote></em></span></div><div>This is the main point that i feel Kiwiblog has willfully ignored. How many of the 55% of offenders from which the levy has been collected have outstanding fines? In my view, any money raised from such people is not new income and should not be included in the figures when working out whether the levy raises enough to cover it's own set-up and administration costs. Rather, since the offender has not earned an extra $50 anywhere, it will mean he will pay $50 less off his fines. It is simply a transfer of funds from the account to which the fines are due into the levy account.</div><div><br /></div><div>It is the same smoke and mirrors as when Kiwiblog says things like "The government has saved $X Million in spending cuts and redirected them into higher priority areas." This is looking at a spending reshuffle and trying to sell it as a spending cut, which it is not. With the offenders' levy, DPF is looking at (specifically in the case of offenders with outstanding fines) a spending reshuffle, and trying to sell it as a revenue increase, which it is not.</div><div><br /></div><div>Discussion on the numbers coming soon. [EDIT: or maybe not]</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-86702507086961606352011-03-10T13:16:00.000-08:002011-03-10T14:00:43.800-08:00Re Goff's "firing squads" comment - It wasn't that badKiwiblog and Whaleoil often have interesting things to say, which i appreciate when i read. Other times, they are partisan beyond sense. One example i can't ignore:<div><br /></div><div>This is all about a quote from Phil Goff (source: <a href="http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8988281/phil-goff-says-call-to-shoot-looters-a-joke/">here</a>)</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(102, 102, 102); font-family: 'Droid Sans', 'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; "><span class="dquo" style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "></span><blockquote><span class="dquo" style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">“</span>I saw the army out in the street and I thought court martial, firing squads you just can’t believe how low a small minority of people can get,”</blockquote></span></div><div>Which imo means the idea crossed his mind, a normal human instinct in such a situation. DPF even admits to having this reaction <a href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/03/why_we_shouldnt_give_into_our_primal_instincts.html">here</a>. Note what Phil Goff did not say - anything about considering such a measure, or even actively thinking about it. There is really nothing he said that DPF didn't, so it is odd that DPF said the following: (also <a href="http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/8988281/phil-goff-says-call-to-shoot-looters-a-joke/">here</a>)</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 14px; "><blockquote>"Interesting that Phil Goff on radio said that army should shoot looters. Wonder how his caucus feel about his law and order policy?"</blockquote></span></div><div>Now this looks like a quick joke at Goff's expense, especially considering it was only on twitter. Although it does misrepresent what was said, it's not an accusation. This is in contrast to Whaleoil's post (here) where he says:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: 'Droid Sans', 'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; "><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "></p><blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; ">I wonder perhaps if he will ask Phil Goff he similarly regrets his comments made on <span class="caps" style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; ">BFM</span> on 28 February where he said:</p><blockquote style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0.786em; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0.786em; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(221, 221, 221); color: rgb(102, 102, 102); "><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; ">I saw the army out in the street. I thought, okay, court martial, firing squad. You just can’t believe how low a small minority of people can get. You know, to exploit people’s misery in this way is just beyond forgiveness.</p></blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; ">As you can see that is a whole magnitude worse than anything Judith Collins suggested, which was a long prison sentence. Phil Goff meanwhile was considering firing squads.</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; ">The media really needs to ask Phil Goff what he meant by thinking of firing squads. I mean seriously they do. “Beyond forgiveness” and “court martial, firing squads” for looters!</p><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; ">Will Grant Robertson ask Phil to retract?</p></blockquote><p style="padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 1.571em; margin-left: 0px; "></p></span></div><div>Now this also misrepresents what Goff said, although the actual quote and context was provided, and is an accusation. This is what i mean by "partisan beyond sense." DPF involves himself in this accusation by linking to it with the statement <a href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/03/why_we_shouldnt_give_into_our_primal_instincts.html">here</a>:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(85, 85, 85); font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; "><blockquote>"Talking of due process though, <a href="http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/?p=21666" style="color: rgb(48, 148, 208); text-decoration: none; ">Whale Oil has a quote</a> from a senior politician calling for looters to get court-martialed and a firing sqaud. Go check it out – you may be surprised with who the politician is."</blockquote></span></div><div>Whaleoil then continues his behaviour <a href="http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/?p=21670">here</a>. An extract:</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: 'Droid Sans', 'Lucida Grande', Tahoma, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px; "><blockquote>"It is clear that he isn’t joking. And even if he was he shouldn’t have been."</blockquote></span></div><div>I don't think Phil Goff was joking either when he suggested firing squads - his comment was never a suggestion!</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't find it enjoyable to read such false accusations all in the name of partisanship. Stick to something i do enjoy - partisan critique of Labour's actual policies.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-2513815839528929812011-02-19T23:29:00.001-08:002011-02-19T23:51:48.306-08:00Borders and administration and AustraliaThis is an interesting point. Basically blaming copyright law for what's happening to Borders in Australia. Haven't decided whether i think it's right yet, but it's interesting. Not sure how applicable it is to NZ though, although Borders is under administration in NZ and everyones complaining about vouchers losing their value.<div><br /></div><div><a href="http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/copyright-strikes-borders-au-angus-and-robertson/">http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2011/02/17/copyright-strikes-borders-au-angus-and-robertson/</a></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-11351403664274962032011-02-12T17:36:00.000-08:002011-11-01T01:07:19.963-07:00Updated: Elections in Tunisia and Egypt<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0v7b1SsmkMfVLHcB91VhSgApnuA?docId=CNG.05f50962e91c5906726818f7488d1bdb.7e1">AFP report</a> <a href="http://af.reuters.com/article/egyptNews/idAFLDE71925M20110210">Reuters Interview</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Tunisia">Constitution</a> <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/02/12/egypt.revolution/index.html?hpt=T1">CNN report</a><div><br /></div><div>[UPDATE: Tunisia had their first ever free elections on October 23, 2011. This was 10 months after the beginning of the revolution and 9 months after the departure of the former dictator. Elections in Egypt start on 28/11/11, 10 months after the beginning of their revolution and 9½ months after the departure of the former dictator - and just 2 days after NZ's own election. | 01/11/11]</div><div><br /></div><div>It has been a month now since Ben Ali was removed and escaped, with the Tunisian constitution requiring "the obligation to call for elections within 45 to 60 days".</div><div><br /></div><div>There is still no date for an election, though there is a "proposal" to have an election in mid July - 4 months late, and some want to extend it even further. In the meantime, the caretaker government is still keeping a tight grip on the judiciary, which wants to be independent, and the main labour union is still calling the situation "explosive."</div><div><br /></div>Meanwhile in Egypt, there still not been so much as a mention of planning elections, but only a request that the people respect the police again. Thousands of Egyptians were in a still electric Tahrir Square yesterday, vowing to stay there until, as one protester put it, "Egypt is ruled by a civil government, not a military one."<div><br /></div><div>Many people have been celebrating "victory" in Egypt recently, but this victory is still many months away, and even then it is not guaranteed. This is not the time for people in those countries to go home or become complacent.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-81616421616725261212011-01-28T08:27:00.000-08:002011-01-28T08:44:43.068-08:00Economics of the Queensland Flood<span>Seen <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10702500">here</a>:</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 15px; font-size: 12px; "><blockquote>The Government will also save A$1 billion by deferring work on road projects in Queensland and other states, releasing skilled labour for rebuilding.</blockquote></span><span>This is something normally only seen on libertarian and Austrian blogs, so i was quite surprised and pleased to see it coming from Julia Gillard.</span><div><span><br /></span></div><div><span>It is a recognition that government spending crowds out and has a negative effect on other activity(though arguably not always a <i>net</i> negative effect). Because of this, a billion dollars of government spending is being deferred, specifically work in areas which use a lot of the same resources - in order to crowd out the rebuilding less.</span></div><div><span><br /></span></div><div>There's seemingly only one step left before they think about government spending crowding out the private sector, and the implications that "stimulus" government spending does more harm than good, and that government projects in general - including broadband network spending -come at a higher cost to the country than is currently accepted, and that in many cases these projects are simply not worth it.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-13559093431251164312011-01-17T18:46:00.000-08:002011-01-17T19:06:21.363-08:00People who don't know the difference between "contribute" and "facilitate"<a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10700427"><span class="Apple-style-span" >http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10700427</span></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><br /></span></div><div><blockquote></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " ><blockquote>Auckland Airport could <i><b>contribute</b></i> nearly a fifth of national gross domestic product</blockquote></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " ><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " >And how do they justify that statement?</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " ><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " ></span><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; ">The Market Economics study, <b>commissioned by Auckland Airport</b>, said [...] </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; ">The airport was projected to generate and <i><b>facilitate</b></i> 14-19 per cent of national GDP</span></span></blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " ></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " >Well, all that means is that 14-19% of businesses will use *something* that gets flown in or out via the airport. Hardly surprising. The journo makes it sound like 1/6 of GDP will be made just <i>operating</i> the airport.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " ><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " >The whole study appears to be an exercise in vanity, and the article appears to be a repeated press release with nothing of substance.</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; " ><br /></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" ><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; ">On a lighter note, things look promising for Tunisia. I just hope they can work through things peacefully and resist the desire to get revenge. Congratulations particularly </span><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18px; ">to the new secretary of state for the youth.</span></span></span></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-70599336618814713422010-11-01T03:03:00.000-07:002010-11-02T15:57:12.356-07:00John Campbell and Samoa<div style="text-align: left;">I was watching TV3 this arvo, Campbell Live (<a href="http://ondemand.tv3.co.nz/Monday-November-01-2010/tabid/59/articleID/1439/MCat/73/Default.aspx">video here</a>) was pretending to investigate what happened to $152 Mill of money donated to the Samoan government by the likes of the IMF after the tsunami. Now i DO believe that this money trail is an issue worth investigating, but what John Campbell did is a shocking abuse of his viewers.</div><div><br /></div><div>About 7.35 minutes in, he visits a new house (shack really) built from government money, in a small village in rural Upolu. He makes a big point of there being "no toilet, no bathroom, no kitchen, no running water, no glass in the windows" - the point being that the government should have given them all these things as part of the tsunami response.</div><div><br /></div><div>My problem with this piece, is that he makes this point by taking the situation completely out of perspective. He knows that most of his viewers in their cozy western houses in New Zealand will compare this shack to what is normal in New Zealand. Now i have been to Samoa - I have seen normal samoan villages, where people live in fales. There <i>are</i> no toilets, bathrooms, kitchens, windows made of glass, water pipes. We are talking about Samoa here - a third world country. It is normal in Samoa to have none of these things. In Samoa, if you have these things, you are rich. Here is a building somewhat similar to where a lot of samoans outside the capital live. Note the polas mats which are used basically as window shutters. In actual fact, the shack built by government money looks roughly similar to the normal standard of living in Samoa.</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 238); -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: underline; "><img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Samoan_faleo'o_(thatched_home),_Falealupo_village,_Savai'i,_Samoa.JPG" border="0" alt="" style="display: block; margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: auto; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 612px; height: 459px; " /></span></div><div>Contrary to my initial thoughts, the people here <i>did</i> have these things before the tsunami - they had western style houses financed by overseas relatives - they were rich samoans. Nevertheless, once put into perspective, the question is "When a rich person get's their uninsured property destroyed, should the government provide them with everything they had before?" In a New Zealand setting, imagine there's a tsunami on the former North Shore, and a row of $10 million cliff-top mansions fall into the sea. A few in particular did not have any insurance. What would you expect the government to build for these people? a normal house, or a brand new $10 million mansion?</div><div><br /></div><div>I am not trying to provide an answer one way or the other on that question, and yes there are questions to answer about the Samoan governments bookkeeping, but John Campbell's angle on this - that these are appalling conditions for anyone in Samoa to be living in - is completely illegitimate and he has done a disservice to his viewers by intentionally misleading them in this way.</div><div><br /></div><div>He also comes off as extremely arrogant at about 12.15 minutes in when he approaches and harasses the samoan prime minister - in english - when he had said the previous day that something more important had come up than talking to John Campbell. I just have to imagine what we would think of some foreign journalist accosting John Key while he was carrying out his duties and harassing him in french.</div><div><br /></div><div>This piece was worse than fluff news - it was a "story" created out of thin air by intentionally misleading their viewers, with a meek attempt to attach legitimacy to it by association with the question about missing donation money (which he never answered). The real shame is that there <i>was</i> a good topic right there which he could have spent his time investigating. I consider what he did do to be an abuse of Campbell Live viewers.</div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE: <a href="http://savaii.blogspot.com/2010/11/tuilaepa-sailele-in-red-corner-john.html">Here</a> is a perspective from someone with much closer ties to Samoa than me. Like he says, John Campbell's story did do some good by shining a light on the missing money, given the legal limitations of homegrown Samoan media. I just wish he had done more of that and less of the off-topic misleading sensationalism about the houses.</div><div><br /></div><div>Cheers also to <a href="http://www.samoanews.com/">Samoa News</a> and <a href="http://cafepacific.blogspot.com/2010/11/samoan-side-to-john-campbell-tuilaepas.html">Cafe Pacific</a> for mentioning NWBW.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-46601900412252060342010-10-13T16:09:00.001-07:002010-10-13T16:30:35.178-07:00The arrogance of government<a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10680423">Increased GST rate applied to September bills - National - NZ Herald News</a><div><blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; ">But the Government introduced legislation to allow companies to charge GST at the lower rate for invoices up until October 11 for goods and services provided before October 1. </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode', 'Lucida Grande', Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; ">Revenue Minister Peter Dunne said it was regrettable that companies had decided to ignore the new legislation, which would have saved their customers money.</span></blockquote></div>They go out of their way to make things complicated. Do they really expect everyone in the country to learn their whole new system just for one invoice in one particular month? what difference does it make anyway?<div><br /></div><div>GST is charged on everything all the time every month. Every time anyone buys anything anywhere, GST must be calculated and handled by people who need to be paid to do this - twice in fact, once by business and once by bureaucrats. If you really want to complain about GST, there are much better targets than businesses who don't hire extra accounting staff every time the government has a whim.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-28114674902114008812010-10-11T02:32:00.001-07:002010-10-11T02:50:03.521-07:00The fuss about Paul HenryThis has blown all out of proportion - it seems everyone's talking about it. <a href="http://whaleoil.gotcha.co.nz/2010/10/11/wallace-chapman-nails-it/">Here</a>'s one article in particular.<div><br /></div><div>His resignation is being framed as a "freedom of speech" issue. It's not.</div><div><br /></div><div>If he had been charged with a crime for what he said, that would have been a freedom of speech issue. If he had been sued for something he said, that would also be a freedom of speech issue. If he had been fired for something he said in his own time, that would arguably also be a freedom of speech issue.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is about something he said at work, as part of his job, representing his employer. This is about how he does his job, and whether that is acceptable for his employer.</div><div><br /></div><div>In the article above, Wallace Chapman explains that, while he hates what Paul Henry said, his job should have been protected from any consequences of what he says. I have the opposite opinion. I have no problem with anything Paul Henry has said (though I never watched his show), and while i agree that all speech should be protected from legal consequences, employers should be able to direct employees in the way they do their job - including the way they represent their employer while at work.</div><div><br /></div><div>There was nothing wrong with firing Paul Henry.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-61736709303509534812010-10-08T04:04:00.002-07:002010-10-08T04:09:06.768-07:00Ipredict<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_d5gigzY_sdM/TK764ZBjVmI/AAAAAAAAABw/GzYBCta40NQ/s1600/ROI_9_10_2010.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 640px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_d5gigzY_sdM/TK764ZBjVmI/AAAAAAAAABw/GzYBCta40NQ/s400/ROI_9_10_2010.png" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5525629639527192162" /></a>Well, <i>I</i> think i'm doing pretty well...<div><br /></div><div>This is all on a $20 base, the x axis runs from 26 april 2010 to 9 october 2010. I have so far made an 88% return, in just under 6 months. Not much compared to other ipredicters, but i'm happy with it.</div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-37838131783134373592010-07-07T22:08:00.000-07:002010-07-07T22:17:09.728-07:00Icosahedral Spherical Approximation Mapping<img src=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_d5gigzY_sdM/TDVdIXj4M8I/AAAAAAAAABY/cYmPKWlpydM/s1600/IcoMap-765275.png width=600>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9213497457367790159.post-62432857316908609592010-06-25T17:33:00.000-07:002010-10-06T14:10:04.447-07:00Soccer World Cup Final PlacesPlaces 1-16 based on:<div>- Highest round</div><div>- Goal difference in highest round</div><div>- Goals for in highest round</div><div>- Time of the last goal (earlier goals count for more)</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#009900;"><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#000000;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></b></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0); "><b></b></span>Places 17-32 based on:<div>- Place in group</div><div>- Points</div><div>- Goal difference</div><div>- Goals for</div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="white-space: normal; color: rgb(0, 153, 0); "><b>Teams in green can still win</b></span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"><br /></span></div><table border="1" cellpadding="6"><tbody><tr><th>Place</th><th>Team</th><th><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stage">Highest Round</a></th><th>Goal Difference</th><th>Goals For</th><th>Time of last goal for(+) against(-)</th><th><a href="http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html">FIFA Ranking</a></th></tr><tr><th><span class="Apple-style-span">1</span></th><th>Spain</th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">Winner</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">+1</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">1</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">116"</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">2</span></th></tr><tr><th>2</th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">Netherlands</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">Final</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">-1</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">0</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">-116"</span></th><th><span class="Apple-style-span">4</span></th></tr><tr><th>3</th><th>Germany</th><th>Semi Finals</th><th>-1</th><th>0</th><th>-73"</th><th>6</th></tr><tr><th>4</th><th>Uruguay</th><th>Semi Finals</th><th>-1</th><th>2</th><th>+92"</th><th>16</th></tr><tr><th>5</th><th>Ghana</th><th>Quarter Finals</th><th>-0</th><th>1</th><th>P.S.O. (2-4)</th><th>32</th></tr><tr><th>6</th><th>Brazil</th><th>Quarter Finals</th><th>-1</th><th>1</th><th>-68"</th><th>1</th></tr><tr><th>7</th><th>Paraguay</th><th>Quarter Finals</th><th>-1</th><th>0</th><th>-83"</th><th>31</th></tr><tr><th>8</th><th>Argentina</th><th>Quarter Finals</th><th>-4</th><th>0</th><th>-89"</th><th>7</th></tr><tr><th>9</th><th>Japan</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-0</th><th>0</th><th>P.S.O. (3/4-5/5)</th><th>45</th></tr><tr><th>10</th><th>USA</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-1</th><th>1</th><th>-93"</th><th>14</th></tr><tr><th>11</th><th>Korea</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-1</th><th>1</th><th>-80"</th><th>47</th></tr><tr><th>12</th><th>Slovakia</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-1</th><th>1</th><th>+94"</th><th>34</th></tr><tr><th>13</th><th>Portugal</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-1</th><th>0</th><th>-63"</th><th>3</th></tr><tr><th>14</th><th>Mexico</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-2</th><th>1</th><th>+71"</th><th>17</th></tr><tr><th>15</th><th>England</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-3</th><th>1</th><th>-70"</th><th>8</th></tr><tr><th>16</th><th>Chile</th><th>Round 2</th><th>-3</th><th>0</th><th>-59"</th><th>18</th></tr><tr><th>Place</th><th>Team</th><th>Position</th><th><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Group_stage">Points</a></th><th>Goal Difference</th><th>Goals For</th><th><a href="http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html">FIFA Ranking</a></th></tr><tr><th>17</th><th>Côte d'Ivoire</th><th>3rd</th><th>4</th><th>+1</th><th>4</th><th>27</th></tr><tr><th>18</th><th>Slovenia</th><th>3rd</th><th>4</th><th>0</th><th>3</th><th>25</th></tr><tr><th>19</th><th>Switzerland</th><th>3rd</th><th>4</th><th>0</th><th>1</th><th>24</th></tr><tr><th>20</th><th>South Africa</th><th>3rd</th><th>4</th><th>-2</th><th>3</th><th>83</th></tr><tr><th>21</th><th>Australia</th><th>3rd</th><th>4</th><th>-3</th><th>3</th><th>20</th></tr><tr><th>22</th><th>New Zealand</th><th>3rd</th><th>3</th><th>0</th><th>2</th><th>78</th></tr><tr><th>23</th><th>Denmark</th><th>3rd</th><th>3</th><th>-3</th><th>3</th><th>36</th></tr><tr><th>24</th><th>Greece</th><th>3rd</th><th>3</th><th>-3</th><th>2</th><th>13</th></tr><tr><th>25</th><th>Serbia</th><th>4th</th><th>3</th><th>-1</th><th>2</th><th>15</th></tr><tr><th>26</th><th>Italy</th><th>4th</th><th>2</th><th>-1</th><th>4</th><th>5</th></tr><tr><th>27</th><th>Nigeria</th><th>4th</th><th>1</th><th>-2</th><th>3</th><th>21</th></tr><tr><th>28</th><th>Algeria</th><th>4th</th><th>1</th><th>-2</th><th>0</th><th>30</th></tr><tr><th>29</th><th>France</th><th>4th</th><th>1</th><th>-3</th><th>1</th><th>9</th></tr><tr><th>30</th><th>Honduras</th><th>4th</th><th>1</th><th>-3</th><th>0</th><th>38</th></tr><tr><th>31</th><th>Cameroon</th><th>4th</th><th>0</th><th>-3</th><th>2</th><th>19</th></tr><tr><th>32</th><th>Korea DPR</th><th>4th</th><th>0</th><th>-11</th><th>1</th><th>105</th></tr></tbody></table></div>Pervachhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06075342877623883382noreply@blogger.com0