(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

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?

Comments

[amarynth.livejournal.com]

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?