labellementeuse | (no subject)

Current Mood: tired

(no subject)

Of the good:

- pursuant to previous entry I went and purchased GK #32, like, an actual paper copy. ♥ have read it about fifty times.

- meeting

blythely on Wednesday, which was heaps of fun & I'm afraid I blabbed rather a lot. :P

- I have a strict policy of no fucking dieting in exam time, and I am currently digging chocolate chip cookies in a major, major way. Tonight me and the flatmates had some disgusting dinner with steak and chips followed by jellybeans followed by peanut slabs followed by ICE-CREAM SANDWICHES. cookies + icecream = finger lickin' good!

- two exams and one majormajor portfolio down, one exam to go! \o/

- Psych, which I ran through recently and really enjoyed. Where's the Shawn/Lassiter? It must be out there...

- the ability to function on three-to-four hours of sleep - I love this about myself - life is so much easier when you can fall asleep at 3:30 and still get up at 7:30.

Of the bad:

- the latest shit John Howard is crapping all over the Aborigines, including: a six month alcohol ban, seizing control of indigenous territories for five years, "quarantining" the welfare (telling people what and how they can spend it) - I just cannot deal with this man - aussies, you're our neighbours and you make us look bad. This is unbelievable.

- the weather. SOCOLD. I couldn't get to sleep last night because my toes were cold.

Of the weird:

- Sue Bradford's latest bill: to drop the voting age to sixteen. I am all for youth rights and all, but I think there are more pressing issues: how about changing the benefit restrictions so under-25s aren't treated like dependents and paid accordingly?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

He's even taking porn of the koori, the bastard!

yes. I mean seriously, he is a fucker. *cannot really deal*

Gotta say though, I don't really like the self-congratulatory "wow, aren't we New Zealanders awesome for not being that racist" trope that's been doing the rounds.

Sure. I would like to see a lot more definitive condemnation from, for example, the government, and I agree that self-congratulatory is not the mode we should really be in especially since orewa.

Seriously, sometimes when I read the news I think it must all be a big fucking joke, like people are sitting round going "what can we get people to believe next? to accept?" Because, like, You're Not Really People With Rights--I kept blinking as I was reading that article earlier today, hoping that the next paragraph would miraculously make some kind of rational sense. I was doomed to disappointment.

Yeah. My flatmate came into the lounge and started shouting about it (because she is awesome and pays attention to these things) and I actually didn't believe her until I checked it out online because this is just... it stretches the bounds of credibility. It makes me sick. :-/

16? Omg. In my brother's class at school he was the only one who could name the deputy Prime Minister. So much word on the dependents thing. So, so frustrating.

How many thirty year olds could name the Deputy Prime Minister?

Seriously though, I think you've got this the wrong way around. After all, if you can't vote, why bother being informed?

ooh, ooh, I can! (though not actually 30...)

IMO, really as far as 16yos go, there's just the degree to which the government affects them. Most 16yos are still being supported by their parents, whatever the government does affects them only through the parents. And they are less informed and it's not all because there's no point, frankly.

Here's some interactions the average sixteen year old will have with the government that are independent of their parents.

- Getting a driving license
- Sitting their unit standards
- Applying for a scholarship
- Participating in a government funded extracurricular education program, eg DARE modules

And that's simply for positive measures where there's direct two way interaction, I'm not counting negative ones (being prevented from buying alcohol) or passive ones (being taxed on everything they buy and earn).

By contrast, the average eighteen year old's interaction with the government independent of their parents is all of the above, plus...

- Getting a student loan. (Which only 12% of the population does)

I realise that I can be accused of comparing apples to oranges, but I am rather reminded of the arguments levied against woman's suffrage in 1893 (and sadly, much later elsewhere in the world - although Montana, that bastion of feminine liberation, beat NZ to the punch. But, I digress). It was alleged that women weren't independent of their husbands and were ignorant of politics. Both were doubtless true - I imagine few Kiwi housewifes and laundry ladies at the time could have named the Deputy Prime Minister. And yet they got the vote. And the only bad thing that happened was that they voted for the same shitty governments that their husbands had.

If you feel being informed and independent from parental control is a prerequisite for being allowed to vote, you must feel that the current system is at best a half-hearted compromise. Would you support a system whereby each individual was tested on basic political knowledge before being allowed to vote? Or do you feel disenfranchising people by age group is the most cost-effective way to do it? Because there's politically apathetic and unknowledgable thirty year olds who live with their parents out there who are allowed to vote (to say nothing of eighteen year olds in the same position).

I realise that I can be accused of comparing apples to oranges

Well... yeah. Animals are affected by the government, but they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Maybe you're right and I am being prejudiced, but from what I remember of being sixteen (which was only a few years ago, I feel compelled to add) was that I was extremely likely to either vote for whoever my parents voted for or vote on a single issue. Which is not to say that plenty of eighteen year olds don't do the same thing, but I think eighteen year olds cannot conscionably be denied the vote. Also: young adults are, ok, maybe I'm being prejudiced, but they just don't know that much. They are not prepared to make any big decisions about their own lives and mostly they're not given the opportunity to make those decisions; we spend a lot of time protecting under-18s from the responsibility of their own decisions, and generally, I think that's a good thing. While adults - and yes, the 17/18 adulthood division ias basically arbitrary, but any decision is going to be somewhat arbitrary - these people are making their own decisions about their lives. Maybe some steps should be taken to make young adults increasingly aware of their own lives and give them more control. But I don't know that voting is one of them.

Animals are affected by the government, but they don't undertake one-on-one interactions with it in the way a teenager applying for a driver's license or a scholarship does.

To me this is the crucial part of your argument:

Which is not to say that plenty of eighteen year olds don't do the same thing, but I think eighteen year olds cannot conscionably be denied the vote

And yet it is conscionable to be able to deny the vote to sixteen year olds despite, as you say, their situations not being that different. Why? Does it have anything to do with it being the status quo? I've got to admit, if the voting age were 21 (as it has been in the past) it is very easy to imagine all the arguments you've used in regard to sixteen year olds - dependence on their parents, apathy, ignorance - being used on eighteen year olds too.

I have to ask though - you say that at sixteen you were extremely likely to vote for who your parents voted for. Do you vote differently to them now?

So much word on the dependents thing. So, so frustrating.

It's just a ridiculous relic from a really long time ago, IMO. At least they could drop it to 21, you know?

Re: the Aborigines/John Howard thing

Yeah, I was reading about that and ... I mean, he's allowed to do that?

Apparently. I don't know why I'm surprised, really: the aussies fucking hate the aborigines. Even my relatives over there are just comfortable with so much more... racism, and stereotyping, than we would ever be here. it's awful.

What I want to know is how banning porn is going to stop child abuse. I mean, that's....where is the causal link? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

That, and I can't believe the fucking hypocrisy of the Australian government spending a century alternately ignoring, murdering, abusing, kidnapping, and generally mistreating their native populations, thus forcing them into poverty and depression, and then assuming that taking away the alcohol and porn WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.

And is that even legal? They're Australian citizens, right? How can some Australian citizens be legally stopped doing things which are legal for every other Australian citizen? Just...gah. *headdesk*

What I want to know is how banning porn is going to stop child abuse. I mean, that's....where is the causal link? IT MAKES NO SENSE.

Well, child porn, yeah, but pretty sure that's ALREADY ILLEGAL. but aussie is notoriously fucked up in re: porn. for example, they're happy to convict people for having fictional child pornography. Like, fanfiction about people under the age of consent? Very illegal in Australia.

That, and I can't believe the fucking hypocrisy of the Australian government spending a century alternately ignoring, murdering, abusing, kidnapping, and generally mistreating their native populations, thus forcing them into poverty and depression, and then assuming that taking away the alcohol and porn WILL SOLVE EVERYTHING.

Yeah. I mean, they're doing a couple other things too, also bad ones, but ugh. I am just disgusted. It's totally abrogating responsibility - we fucked this group of people and we fucked them hard, and now they're abusing themselves and their children! Bad Aborigines, no alcohol or porn for you! Come on - instead of blaming the consumption of alcohol and porn (after all, if alcohol and porn are responsibile for child abuse, for consistency they should be banned EVERYWHERE) how about blaming poverty and lack of education and a subsistence lifestyle and incredibly virulent racism and a poverty trap? Things that actually need something done about?

nd is that even legal? They're Australian citizens, right? How can some Australian citizens be legally stopped doing things which are legal for every other Australian citizen? Just...gah. *headdesk*

Apparently australians don't think aborigines are people. However, I think that his wiggle-room is that he's banning it from an area (the territories) rather than a group of people. I think. But I'm not sure about that.

fucking html. Also, what I want to know is why this wasn't on the news tonight. Surely they could have fit it in somewhere between the twenty minutes on bad weather in Otago and the sniggering about the man who was trapped for eight hours in a car with a hooker.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only