Posts by Moz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to BenWilson,
I think compulsory voting is probably a good idea, but I'm not sure I would extend that to local body
The Oztrayns are actually pretty good about not fining people who are not in the country. Much better than the merkins, who have compulsory taxation of ex-pats and will apparently arrest you at the border if you fail to comply. I know which I'd prefer, put it that way.
I'm simultaneously in awe of NZ for allowing almost any legal resident to vote, and annoyed that I have to actually visit the country in order to vote. I am interested and want to vote, but not so much that I'm willing to fly over just for the privilege. This election I donated instead, which may or may not be legal (isn't there some restriction on forn influence now?)
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to izogi,
Could you cast an invalid vote? ... I probably could have, but when I checked out the electoral law (as far as I was able to), I couldn’t find any specific info to say it was even legal
It's definitely legal (AEC offenses list), and if you read the law even more carefully you actually are only required to turn up, get marked off, accept the voting papers and put something into the ballot box. You may not even be required to do the last two except by specific direction of the returning officer (should that be given), I have not looked that deeply into it. I suspect defacing is legal but some version of altering is not (you can't wipe your bum with them sort of thing). It's very common, in the sense that every time I've scruted there's been a bunch of penises, the occasional rude remark and a couple of times a written objection to compulsory voting or the existance of politicians.
If you want to be a complete and utter bastard about it removing the voting papers rather than depositing them will drive the returning officers insane. Losing a ballot is a very serious problem. They do watch though, so you would need to put something in the envelope and deposit it, and removing ballot papers is an offence.
I took completely the opposite position to you, in that I got citizenship largely so I can vote. Sod paying taxes and having politicians thrust themselves into my life if I don't have any say on who gets elected. Not to mention being able to vote for decent politicians and against the ... um... "others". So my knowledge of how to skirt the mandatory voting rules is incidental.
-
Speaker: Vote for Water, in reply to Bart Janssen,
National have basically said screw it we are just going to make money off the cows and to hell with the future because by then we won't be in power and don't care.
That's a malicious slander, Bart, and you know it. National do care, they care deeply about this issue and their position is clear: rivers have value as a source of irrigation water and a channel for sewage. National care a great deal about freeing up kiwi farmers to use those natural resources and turn them from worthless natural features into income-producing assets that we can all benefit from. On a going-forward basis with full acknowledgement of future utility.
-
Up Front: Oh, God, in reply to UglyTruth,
Denying that a divine being exists is pretty irrational, considering that the denial implies omniscience on the part of the denier.
I have yet to meet a theist who limits themselves to that level of belief. Once you get into the details of what constitutes a divine being and how one would qualify as such it's usually pretty easy to say very firmly "I believe that cannot exist". After a while it becomes easier to say "I have yet to hear of a divine being that can exist, nor can I imagine such a thing existing as would satisfy any definition of same". Which is fairly strong atheism in most people's books.
I mean, obviously we can rule out omniscience and omnipresence as either meaningful or plausible traits, but never both. "weak omnipresence" is trivial, but also useless - God is everywhere, but can act nowhere. So any definition of "divine being" that requires either, I'm happy to say I'm certain such a thing cannot exist.
-
Speaker: Election 2014: Mental Health Policies, in reply to Marc C,
They (WINZ, government) are not looking at themselves, they lay blame at the clients, that cause problems, so it is an ongoing "warfare" instead of "welfare".
I expect the "defense" measures will also come out of the welfare budget. So the pressure on the most vulnerable people will only increase.
It's interesting how many articles about Ferguson are starting to talk about how militarisation raises tensions rather than reducing them, and to prevent that sort of violence the authorities need to act non-violently.
I can't imagine that using an intercom to discuss your homelessness and mental health issues with someone who's behind a bank-style barrier will help people feel that their needs are being addressed. Especially if the response is "we can only help you by providing this barrier and then we've run out of money".
-
Hard News: Why we thought what we thought, in reply to Alfie,
I've worked with soundies who can mix six radio mics ... I think part of the problem with the current debates is the candidates being encouraged to shout over each other.... mute or at least dip the other mics when someone has the floor.
This! No offense to anyone honestly trying to do a good job, but I am a numpty with this gear and I have done a better job, albeit with only 3 speakers at a time. It seemed at times that pulling a few random people out of the audience and saying "manage the level on this mic" would have worked better.
Either that or give the moderator some kind of weapon. A taser, maybe. "sir, I have already asked you to let the other gentleman answer" "sir, I remind you again", bzzzzzt. Not that it would make Key twitch any more, I suspect.
I didn't watch the whole thing, it was unendurable.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Paul Williams,
What's frankly unfathomable to me is that Australia seems to oscillate between a few significant of high points, Mabo, Keating's Redfern speech and Rudd's apology, and extended periods of indifference or punitive interventions.
The key difference is that almost all the positives are symbolic, but the negatives are practical, hands-on stuff. Keating and Kevin both talked a fine talk then struggled to follow through. Howard, on the other hand, talked about "a few small improvements to the legislation" then sent in the army to make sure that his rules were obeyed to the letter.
The "Foreshore and Seabed" controversy could never happen in Australia, because the whole idea that aboriginal groups can collectively own land has been diverted into "native title", a special type of "title" that doesn't mean what a naive kiwi might assume. Decisions like Mabo sound great to us because we operate in the context of Waitangi where "native land rights" equals owning the land. In Australia, though, "native title" can and must co-exist with pastoral and mining leases on the same land.
So your blackfella, he has his "native title", and that means that if the pastoralist agrees, and the mining company agrees, he can use the land for things that don't interfere with the mining and farming, if he asks first every time. Thing is, if anything is damaged while he's on "his" land, he's liable for that. And sure, if the mining company "accidentally" bulldozes a sacred site that they've agreed to protect, the court might find that they have to pay compensation. But that means the blackfella has to take them to court first, and that's expensive. And if the blackfella loses, he has to pay costs, and mining company QC's are not cheap. But still, legally there's a degree of equality.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Paul Williams,
Coon is the name of the founder, it's not a racist term, at least in so far as it relates to the cheese
The "rape" in rapeseed comes from the Latin for turnip, rāpa or rāpum, but somehow they still decided to change it to "canola". There are a whole lot of other products that have done the same thing as times and language has changed (nigger brown shoe polish, for example). Deciding to be the one defiant exception to that rule is explicitly political and racist.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Rob Stowell,
I hope he’s not thinking he can use the magical super-legal powers of the ‘minister for the Canterbury recovery’ to step outside reality and launch the masterplan to morph Chch into Planet Key
No, because we have our own super-hero "Geddis, Man of Law" who will foil his dastardly plot!
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
I couldn't believe the total disrespect for Aboriginals. I couldn't live with it in the end.
I struggle. Politics here is pretty awful, but the government(s) have very solid support for the most objectionable policies because, as you say, so many of them are terrible people. In that "he seemed like such a nice guy, who would have thought his freezer was full of severed heads" way. And it goes right through to the little things, like they still sell Coon cheese "proudly Australian".
Interestingly "The Conversation" had an article on the Dirty Politics stuff and someone has popped up in the comments saying that Key would be a better Australian PM than Abbott. In some ways I agree, because he's not yet shown himself to be such a crazy racist as Abbott has, but aside from that I don't think there's much in it. The advantage of Abbott is that he doesn't seem to be quite as corrupt as Key, and he's restrained by an upper house that he doesn't control.
Unfortunately my partner is committed to staying here, so that pretty much ends the discussion for me.