tatjna (tatjna) wrote,
tatjna
tatjna

"Mixed ownership" means "Someone else gets part of our profits."

Hmm.. so the results hadn't arrived at the doctor's by this morning, which in some respects is a good thing - I have no desire to troop up to the University (sea level to 125m in 15 minutes' walk) in the rain that we're having today. My doctor tells me he'll call me if anything happens but given that Easter is nearly here and tomorrow is all about losing my wisdom (teeth), I'm not expecting to know anything before next week. Ah well.


Asset sales. Kiwis will know what I'm on about, probably nobody else will.

If you find this boring, click away now.

Submissions on this bill close on Friday. I made mine this morning - it was short and to the point. Mostly it was about how last time we did this it was shit for us as a country and we paid through the nose to get our stuff back*. It was also about how it makes no economic sense to sell things that are making a profit and reduce our 100% pocketing of said profit to a smaller percentage. I pointed out that the government does not have a mandate to do this. And I couldn't help but include some stuff about how calling it a "Mixed Ownership Model" was not fooling anyone into thinking it was anything other than selling off our assets which IMO is a short-sighted and ill-thought-out idea.

I also took the advice of my friends who work in policy and stated very clearly at the start and the end how strongly I oppose this bill.

* Obviously I used slightly more academic-sounding language.

If you give a shit, you should probably go make a submission too. It's kind of our last chance to have a say about this.


I have to write about the social construction of drugs. I'm tempted to do a comparison between coffee and cocaine - both being plant-derived stimulants, coffee having been the first psychoactive substance to be banned in Western culture and now being ubiquitous, and cocaine having started out as a medicine and subsequently ended up as a Class A prohibited substance.

A couple of years ago I wrote about the construction of LSD so this isn't a new topic for me, but this one requires me to critically evaluate the construction of use vs misuse and explain the bifurcation of licit and illicit use of drugs. So I figured picking two substances that have histories that include a variety of constructions, one which is available in cafes and the other the cause of the moral panic of the 1980s, and exploring their various histories, might be a fairly good way of doing that.

Also, it means I get to use the phrase "Crude and Flatulent Humours" in an academic essay.

Finally, and on a complete tangent, I totally fail to understand the appeal of Woody Allen. His work strikes me as cynical, obvious and boring. I can't think of anything worse than being subjected to a three hour documentary about him, which is apparently part of our Film Festival this year. Ew.

PS The UN Narcotics Board is refusing to condemn torture when the torture is associated with drug control.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 6 comments