It's news you can use from places with different views! (Don't misuse or abuse you yahoos.)
Absolutely embarrassing results in both countries. The polls showed that the writing was on the wall in nz for a while now, so at least it wasn't a shock. I did hope that the Voice referendum might go through though. Sadly, it wasn't even close.
Yeah.
The Voice referendum was a disaster but it showed the hidden rottenness of Australian society that likes to be seen as fair, trots out an apologetic school curriculum which recognises the sins of colonialism, but ultimately does not seek to address the gaping chasm between First Nations people and the rest of Australia.
My siblings and parents were equally divided on the referendum.
What surprised me about this vote was that there was huge support for same sex marriage a couple of years ago. Yet here, on another social equity issue, there was a resounding negative response.
Only one Territory (the ACT, which has the highest income per capita from memory as most of the population are tied to our political system and federal government bodies) voted yes. The next closest State to passing a Yes vote was Victoria (45-46%), which was surprisingly more than New South Wales (40%) which was on par with Tasmania. Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia were unsurprisingly and unapologetically No states at less than 1/3 of voters supporting the Voice. It's not a coincidence the latter 3 states have the lowest proportion of multiculturalism in their populations.
Perhaps we'll see a change demographically in the next 20 years? A sad reality for Australia.
It's fear among White folks that they'll lose something. Plus they don't want to confront the past.
I mean, based on my public school education, why would white people not want to confront their past? It has so much good in it. Columbus discovering the Americas, pilgrims making peace with Native Americans, the taming of the wild and uninhabited west, the large-scale immigration of Africans, giving those same people's descendants freedom and (mostly) equal rights, need I go on?
/sarcasm.
That is the same tune they played in my public school. Rather depressing when you find out more. We do ourselves a disservice.
There was a huge disinformation campaign against the Voice from the right too. I spoke to people who were convinced that if it went through a new tax would be introduced on their pensions in order to pay reparations.
I thought there was a threshold of misinformation that couldn't be crossed but that line has shifted. I wonder how much of that was attributable to our former Prime Minister taking up the disgraceful habits of the former US President?
It's so mind boggling to me that our consumer law prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct but political advertisement and conduct is in no way restrained along similar lines.
...waiting for the downside...
Because it'd basically end "politics" as we've known it for centuries. :lol:
it would be silly to not accept that the 24 hour news cycle, instant tweets, etc. hasn't changed 'politics' in a very real way.
Only because "news" became a profit center decades back, had restrictions on reporting balance removed, and was deliberately adopted as propaganda in mainstream Right outlets. The Right has also socialized the idea that "there is always bias so there can be no truth in news" very completely.
A 24 hour news feed like NPR, dedicated to accuracy, transparency and balance, shows how different "old school" news was from today's propagandistic cacaphony. It also shows that "everyone does it, all sources are untrustyworthy" is completely wrong.
Back in the '60's and '70's the idea that a news source should cater to the Right or the Left would have been laughed out of Journalism, and the public would have reacted in horror, citing Orwell and other dystopic views of propaganda. Now, it's a mantra that it's the only way news - infotainment - can be done, with very few exceptions.
Nota bene - I cited NPR because of its excellent, unbiased radio reporting, not its left-leaning Opinion content (which seems to be due mostly to issue/article selection rather than adding in bias). I'd also cite the reporting of the Wall Street Journal as a good source of news, rather than it's Opinion pages, which seems to appeal to people who think Genghis Khan was a weak-minded flower-sniffer. There's also AP, Reuters and other news wires that tend to just dump facts for other services to use.
Because they're very polite or they appear to be for this foreigner looking from far away.
Without taking the time to read into it, it most likely is because they haven’t yet been arrested and then gone on to either make a confession or been found guilty in court. Once either of those occurs, they can be deported and barred from reentry. From skimming the quoted text, I can only assume that at least some of these jackasses will be deported soon.
nuisance influencers
Oh, damn, I have heard nothing of this beyond the coup and thinking "Yeah, this will go nowhere good." But I did not have "Myanmar turns into Chinese client state after revolt" on my dance card.
Very interesting update from Iceland.
You can’t even pay people to have more kids
The failure of dozens of often very expensive pronatalist policies to produce much of a return has policymakers and observers alike wondering whether there’s any way for governments to convince their citizens to have more babies.
I would start with "making sure the world is going to be a habitable place for said babies".
You can’t even pay people to have more kids
The failure of dozens of often very expensive pronatalist policies to produce much of a return has policymakers and observers alike wondering whether there’s any way for governments to convince their citizens to have more babies.
They never actually want to pay anywhere near enough to convince people. When you actually run the numbers on how much the state benefits from a citizen versus how much the state pays for a child’s upkeep, it’s tens of thousands in the state’s favour. That’s before we look at the direct costs to parents to have a child and the opportunity costs are huge too.
So tell me how €800 for a first child and €1000 for a second is actually offsetting that? That’s how much Italian pro natalist payments are. They are once off payments so good luck.
The collapse in birthrates in the developed Western world is product of just how much extra costs to have a child. Every survey tells us people want to have between 2 or 3 children, and every survey tells us that costs of childcare, housing and career costs prevent people from having children.
Pages