Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
hey Kyle, or anyone who with the time, i'm really interested in hearing some of the justifications for some of these laws, still can't get my head around them.
-
Why is it important to know who has how many? and moreover why should who having whatever, somehow find it's way into the same legislation requiring old Tom Pink puts his home address on his protest placard?
-
seasons 1-5 of The Wire sitting on my desk, came highly recommended, maybe this weekend is the time to break it open. Thanking the lord for less stringently policed anti piracy laws. and US creativity.
-
Thanks for that Rachel, exactly what i wanted someone to say. The whole argument against money spent on advertising hinges on the notion that vast swathes of voters are braindead, which seems ironic whistled in the same breath as 'long live democracy'.
And by heck, it's not as if squillions spent on ads to curtail drink driving have successfully docked the bastard.
-
As i recall protesting the past carried no such requirement.
-
Was the address previously required for clothing and placards?
-
I want people safe to follow their political ideals without risking any of the complications that personal identification could bring.
but to your point Kyle. what is the issue with peope spending money on elections? they have more advertising? and people are so blinded by the bigger advertisers that they can't make informed decisions based on policy?
to me that seems like something to be addresed by the education system. anonymous donations are as easily handled as a briefcase in a parking lot switch. Regardless of whatever legislation is in place.
furthermore, imposing caps on political action, merely reinforces the abject notion that the advertising should be taken heed of. That it is somehow dangerous, which brings us back to education.
-
my objection is not the street address, it's the lack of anonymity RoO. Why not just publish everyone's votes in the newspapers? Why shouldn't citizens be able to protest controversial legislation in election year, providing absolutely no contact information. Aren't our voices substantial enough? and what of the homeless? why must a protest placard be validated by anything more than the message it reads?
-
Sorry, it probably sounded racist.
-
Sorry, perhaps the lack of punctuation wasn't accounted for by the grammar, rendering whole thing incoherent to some readers.
1. What I mean to say is, I think it's particularly presumptuous of the government to assume that all members of a household are going to vote in unison
2. It's particularly presumptuous to assume a more public knowledge of people's personal political leanings isn't going to produce the same conflict and discord inside the household, as it does in the media, on the message boards, on the street and in the very government that deems this policy a worthy protection of individuals democratic rights.
Sure. Under NZ law, it's ok to make copies of the music you've bought for members of your household, and maybe you'll all enjoy it, but that doesn't necessarily lead to the assumption that the entire household will vote along the same lines.
There will be some families, where one or both partners become privvy to the other members voting record. I think it's better to decrease that, rather than enhance the magnification.