I took part in the second #twecon conference last Monday. The twitter-based conference was organised by Matthew Dentith, who has archived the 19 papers presented on his blog EPISTO.
In short, you have a maximum of six numbered tweets featuring the #twecon hash tag to make your point, or to make an artistic statement, or whatever. It’s very open.
It was a lot of fun, and I’ll take part again next time (there’s another to be organised later this year I believe). I also think having to make a coherent case in six 130-character entries is an interesting challenge and could be a useful discipline. (The 130 character figure is if you leave out the numbers and hash tag.)
I like the new rule, allowing for a non-numbered ‘appendix’ tweet. As long as the case is made cogently in the six tweet maximum I think one more tweet for references and background reading links is still in the spirit of the enterprise. Some of the #twecon papers are quite poetic, and the effect may in some cases be lessened if they had to be interrupted by tiny urls.
I enjoyed the Q&A aspect, but could only take part later in the day, because I cannot really contribute while I’m at work. Maybe #twecon could be held on a weekend or public holiday?
Anyway, here is my paper.
1 No agarrarse su lengua: A case for teaching second languages to children at an early age #twecon
2 Debatably, younger children more naturally learn language. Children who learn second languages more easily learn further languages #twecon
3 Language learning can seem intimidating to an adult, especially if we are too comfortable with the quasi-world language of English #twecon
4 We should teach children a second language as soon as possible or we are missing an opportunity. Some say it should not be forced #twecon
5 That’s a weak objection: at early ages most subjects are compulsory; we don’t say “only take PE if you want” #twecon
6 Te reo and/or a foreign language should be taught to children early. Then they will have the genuine choice to continue or not #twecon
Fellow tweconer stacefamily made the very good point that "NZ Sign Language should be on curriculum too. Useful throughout life".
16 July 2011
22 May 2011
05 May 2011
Easter Special
.
Belated Easter special.
I have finally written my first article for Poplitiko: Jesus Who.
Yes, it is about Jesus Christ and Doctor Who.
I hope to post moderately regularly there, now I'm under way. Pop culture writing is, er... safer than politics, now that I'm in the public service. (Not that I won't continue to post here.)
--------------
This is not an Easter song:
Belated Easter special.
I have finally written my first article for Poplitiko: Jesus Who.
Yes, it is about Jesus Christ and Doctor Who.
I hope to post moderately regularly there, now I'm under way. Pop culture writing is, er... safer than politics, now that I'm in the public service. (Not that I won't continue to post here.)
--------------
This is not an Easter song:
12 February 2011
Taxing the ideologue
This is a response to this blog post by property investment lawyer David Whitburn, which in turn was a response to a series of articles in the New Zealand Herald about the worth of a capital gains tax. (They start here, but it’s the second installment where you can read the argument in favour of a capital gains tax.)
I’ll say upfront that arguments such as those of Chye-Ching Huang and Craig Elliffe have put me in favour of the introduction of a capital gains tax. However, this post is not about the benefits of such a tax per se, but a criticism of Whitburn’s response.
Whitburn makes the early claim that Elliffe and Huang "were disappointingly emotive". Yet, Whitburn himself then goes on to make several statements that could be described as ‘emotive’ to say the least. For example:
- “Do we want to borrow several billions of dollars every year until 2016 and create a noose for the taxpayers now, our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ generations...”
- “The idea of a new tax really offends me. It smacks of arrogance and a neanderthal like ‘big Government is good’ mentality...”
And most laughably, he concludes with: “New Zealand needs a capital gains tax as much as we need the plague to strike us.” Yes, the original comment was in bold. But hey, let’s not get emotive.
Next, he moves on to claim that Elliffe and Huang have apparently “forgotten that New Zealand’s mountain of debt is mainly not government (or sovereign) debt. In fact New Zealand is an outstanding performer globally when compared to most other countries" ... “As a country we are in the safe dark grey zone with Government debt at (considerably) less than 30% of GDP.”
Okay, so we don’t need a capital gains tax, because the public debt is not a big problem. Yet strangely, as soon as Whitburn has finished reassuring us that we don’t need capital gains tax or any other increase in public revenue – because public debt is low, we’re safe – he then comes up with a number of suggestions to cut public spending - some of them quite drastic. For example: “Don’t let people leave NZ until they have paid off their student loan.”
What could justify this kind of action, along with the other 15 suggestions he makes to cut government spending? The problem with our public debt, that's what. You know: that low, safe level of public debt.
[Some minor edits have been made to the following points.]
So what other arguments does he make against a Elliffe and Huang? None. That one inconsistent, misdirected point about public debt was it. He addresses none of the benefits they discussed; he addresses nothing else in their case at all.
There are many other suggestions he raised in regard to spending cuts that I diagree with (cuts to education spending, disposing of MMP), but will limit myself to a few more quick points. Whitburn asks: “Do we want to run the risk of more good Kiwis going overseas?” Well apparently, David, you consider a ban on people leaving the country a viable option, so why worry?
He says he does not approve of increasing government income by raising taxes. Yet, one of his suggestions is to raise tax. “Raise the tax on cigarettes so they cost at least $25 per packet (that will stop a great number of smokers and therefore save a lot of money on our pressured healthcare system)”. He claims he doesn’t like a Big Government mentality, and is in favour of individual liberties and personal freedom. Raising the tax on cigarettes is a move often criticised as “Big Government” or “nanny state”.
I do agree with some of what Whitburn suggests. We need, at some point, to raise the age at which the universal pension becomes available, or otherwise address the cost of the system. And I think a 4-year electoral cycle is worth considering.
Also, I’m not against increasing taxes on cigarettes. Then again, I’m not saying that the introduction of a tax is an arrogant compromise of my personal freedom.
I prefer the stance of libertarians over Whitburn’s stale conservatism. I still disagree with them, but at least they’re more consistent. Whitburn will have a lot of people largely agreeing with his position. The problem is that they don't even realise their own ideological myopia.
I’ll say upfront that arguments such as those of Chye-Ching Huang and Craig Elliffe have put me in favour of the introduction of a capital gains tax. However, this post is not about the benefits of such a tax per se, but a criticism of Whitburn’s response.
Whitburn makes the early claim that Elliffe and Huang "were disappointingly emotive". Yet, Whitburn himself then goes on to make several statements that could be described as ‘emotive’ to say the least. For example:
- “Do we want to borrow several billions of dollars every year until 2016 and create a noose for the taxpayers now, our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ generations...”
- “The idea of a new tax really offends me. It smacks of arrogance and a neanderthal like ‘big Government is good’ mentality...”
And most laughably, he concludes with: “New Zealand needs a capital gains tax as much as we need the plague to strike us.” Yes, the original comment was in bold. But hey, let’s not get emotive.
Next, he moves on to claim that Elliffe and Huang have apparently “forgotten that New Zealand’s mountain of debt is mainly not government (or sovereign) debt. In fact New Zealand is an outstanding performer globally when compared to most other countries" ... “As a country we are in the safe dark grey zone with Government debt at (considerably) less than 30% of GDP.”
Okay, so we don’t need a capital gains tax, because the public debt is not a big problem. Yet strangely, as soon as Whitburn has finished reassuring us that we don’t need capital gains tax or any other increase in public revenue – because public debt is low, we’re safe – he then comes up with a number of suggestions to cut public spending - some of them quite drastic. For example: “Don’t let people leave NZ until they have paid off their student loan.”
What could justify this kind of action, along with the other 15 suggestions he makes to cut government spending? The problem with our public debt, that's what. You know: that low, safe level of public debt.
[Some minor edits have been made to the following points.]
So what other arguments does he make against a Elliffe and Huang? None. That one inconsistent, misdirected point about public debt was it. He addresses none of the benefits they discussed; he addresses nothing else in their case at all.
There are many other suggestions he raised in regard to spending cuts that I diagree with (cuts to education spending, disposing of MMP), but will limit myself to a few more quick points. Whitburn asks: “Do we want to run the risk of more good Kiwis going overseas?” Well apparently, David, you consider a ban on people leaving the country a viable option, so why worry?
He says he does not approve of increasing government income by raising taxes. Yet, one of his suggestions is to raise tax. “Raise the tax on cigarettes so they cost at least $25 per packet (that will stop a great number of smokers and therefore save a lot of money on our pressured healthcare system)”. He claims he doesn’t like a Big Government mentality, and is in favour of individual liberties and personal freedom. Raising the tax on cigarettes is a move often criticised as “Big Government” or “nanny state”.
I do agree with some of what Whitburn suggests. We need, at some point, to raise the age at which the universal pension becomes available, or otherwise address the cost of the system. And I think a 4-year electoral cycle is worth considering.
Also, I’m not against increasing taxes on cigarettes. Then again, I’m not saying that the introduction of a tax is an arrogant compromise of my personal freedom.
I prefer the stance of libertarians over Whitburn’s stale conservatism. I still disagree with them, but at least they’re more consistent. Whitburn will have a lot of people largely agreeing with his position. The problem is that they don't even realise their own ideological myopia.
11 February 2011
Brian Edwards vs the Sun
...day Star Times.
Okay, lame joke aside, I just want to have a quick word about the idiotic decision by the Sunday Star Times to threaten defamation action against Brian Edwards.
Here is the Edwards post that summaries the situation.
I am against our defamation law as it stands, but even if I were not, I think this case amounts to little more than intellectually feeble reasoning and, frankly, bullying, on the part of the Sunday Star Times' editor and the journalist cited as the other client, Jonathan Marshall. This will clearly end up being a counter-productive threat (in part due to the Steisand effect), if it isn't already. If the SST and Marshall were advised to take this step, they received some very bad advice. Maybe they should sue.
Anyway, I just wanted to vent that, and show some support for Edwards' stance on this issue.
Okay, lame joke aside, I just want to have a quick word about the idiotic decision by the Sunday Star Times to threaten defamation action against Brian Edwards.
Here is the Edwards post that summaries the situation.
I am against our defamation law as it stands, but even if I were not, I think this case amounts to little more than intellectually feeble reasoning and, frankly, bullying, on the part of the Sunday Star Times' editor and the journalist cited as the other client, Jonathan Marshall. This will clearly end up being a counter-productive threat (in part due to the Steisand effect), if it isn't already. If the SST and Marshall were advised to take this step, they received some very bad advice. Maybe they should sue.
Anyway, I just wanted to vent that, and show some support for Edwards' stance on this issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
