That fake Obama just below the video is a real blow for credibility
Hah I was wondering about that
LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
121–130 of 154 posts
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Australia is behind the times in this respect. Voting is a right, not an obligation and non-participation is a form of protest against the system as a whole rather than a forced choice between multiple options none of which you may agree with.
Did you read the parent? You don't have to vote in Australia. You just have to show up and not vote -- or alternatively accept a trivial fine. (I personally think mandatory voting is a crappy system, but less crappy than all the alternatives. Much like capitalism.)
Actually the fine isn't trivial; the last time I saw a news article about someone being fined was ~2002, from memory the fine was AUD$500 (approximately USD350 then, more now). Having said that it isn't actively enforced, so much so that when someone is fined it quite often makes the news (even if local).
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to show up means there is a compulsion in effect, whether or not you have to make a choice is between you and the piece of paper (otherwise you are violating another principle of a good voting system: that it is secret what you voted). The situation (quoted from the WP page) is precisely this: "Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person…
You forget that mandatory voting also mean that minorities and other "difficult" groups also don't have to make excuses as to why they are voting and also that everything is done to make them votes (since it's mandatory). An employer can't refuse a employee to go voting for example.
@jacquesm: I suspect what the parent was saying is in the face of Jim Crow laws or even implicit or subliminal discouragement of minority voting (whatever the cause or reason).
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forget that mandatory voting also mean that minorities and other "difficult" groups also don't have to make excuses as to why they are voting and also that everything is done to make them votes (since it's mandatory). An employer can't refuse a employee to go voting for example.
@jacquesm: I suspect what the parent was saying is in the face of Jim Crow laws or even implicit or subliminal discouragement of minority voting (whatever the cause or reason).
Jim Crow laws were LAWS!!
So if there are such laws then they would contradict each other, in that case you have a completely different problem, putting your constituents in the position of having to comply with one law (for instance compulsory voting) or the other (for instance a law to take away the right to vote) but never able to be compliant with both laws at the same time.
Implicit or subliminal discouragement of minority voting would not stop with a compulsory voting law, it would just make those influenced now subject to breaking the law and subject to fines beyond merely (I use that word lightly) being dis-enfranchised.
Such discouragement should be dealt with through the criminal justice system, rather than by forcing everybody to vote.
As you probably realize (or maybe not) I am categorically against nation states forcing their subjects to perform certain acts, be it military service, compulsory voting and many others beside because I think in the aggregate nothing good can come of it.
In the case of compulsory voting, fortunately most countries have seen the light for this lowest-of-all-barriers protest against the way a particular slice of society is run, and 'voter turnout' is a good bell-weather for how well a country is actually representing the interests of its constituents.
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to speculate on what Assange's real motivations are for hiding out in that embassy, he's said enough on the subject and whether you agree with him or not that those are his true motivations is between you and him. So no, he hasn't been convicted and/or charged and as such calling him a rapist is getting ahead of the timeline. What he does in the meantime doesn't change that one bit.
I think calling him a rapist is correct. AFAIK, no-one (including him and his lawyers) is contesting the accusations against him, including the one that he had sex with a sleeping woman, which IMO is definitely rape. Of course, I still think that the whole charade around having him extradited to Sweden for questioning is just a tiny little bit too convenient for the powers-that-be to think it's only about the rape.
The people he "raped" were singing his praises on Twitter after the supposed incident took place. The woman only went to the police to see if she could compel him to take an STD test.
"definitely rape" is so far off base, it's ridiculous. You're either gravely misinformed, or shilling.
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
You forget that mandatory voting also mean that minorities and other "difficult" groups also don't have to make excuses as to why they are voting and also that everything is done to make them votes (since it's mandatory). An employer can't refuse a employee to go voting for example.
Minorities or 'difficult groups' (whatever they are) have a right to vote, so they can exercise it if they want to. No excuse needed! This is about being compelled to participate, not about wanting to go and needing an excuse. You never need an excuse, there is an election in progress and you exercise your rights. Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote? Are polli…
>Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote?
In the US.
It has not been too many years since minorities were harassed if/when seen going to the polls. On the other end of that stick there is the fact that minorities were paid/coerced into voting a certain way.
It is definitely not the case that an employer can prevent employees from voting specifically, but they can arrange the workday in such a way as to make it inconvenient for certain employees. Example: Salaried staff can be given time off to vote while hourly staff are told to work overtime; not to mention the fact that salaried workers tend to already have accumulated paid time-off, where hourly workers have none, or less.
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Minorities or 'difficult groups' (whatever they are) have a right to vote, so they can exercise it if they want to. No excuse needed! This is about being compelled to participate, not about wanting to go and needing an excuse. You never need an excuse, there is an election in progress and you exercise your rights. Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote? Are polli…
>Do you have examples of places where employers can interfere so easily with the right to vote? In the US. It has not been too many years since minorities were harassed if/when seen going to the polls. On the other end of that stick there is the fact that minorities were paid/coerced into voting a certain way. It is definitely not the case that an employer can prevent employees from voting specifically, but they can…
Then sue the bastards.
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually Australians don't have to vote, they are required by law however to attend a polling station on polling day or have registered for a postal vote and returned the postal vote envelope. The actual vote papers can be blank, or indeed you can write in if you want; even for people who aren't on the official ticket (i.e. you can legally vote for Mickey Mouse). If a write in gets enough votes they are free to accep…
Australia is behind the times in this respect. Voting is a right, not an obligation and non-participation is a form of protest against the system as a whole rather than a forced choice between multiple options none of which you may agree with.
You can still choose not to participate by spoiling the ballot paper.
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the parent? You don't have to vote in Australia. You just have to show up and not vote -- or alternatively accept a trivial fine. (I personally think mandatory voting is a crappy system, but less crappy than all the alternatives. Much like capitalism.)
Actually the fine isn't trivial; the last time I saw a news article about someone being fined was ~2002, from memory the fine was AUD$500 (approximately USD350 then, more now). Having said that it isn't actively enforced, so much so that when someone is fined it quite often makes the news (even if local).
Nope it's $20 if you pay the fine when you get it, or $170 if you let it go to court
Re: LIVE NOW: Glenn Greenwald, Assange, and Kim Dot Com in NZ
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Greenwald didn't mention this supposed email once. He talked about the mass surveillance of NZ citizens only, evidence for which is pretty substantial. That is something he would have validated. No one, as far as I can tell, has said that Dotcom's email came from Snowden or Greenwald or anyone connected to them.
The problem is one of juxtaposition. Imagine standing next to Al Capone when he's showing a letter from a congressman implicating a whole industry. You might not have anything to do with the subsequent fall-out, especially if the thing turns out to be a falsification. But it will still tarnish your reputation. The only way it will not is if it turns out that it is all true. And all that would not even require you to…
Bingo. Better worded than I did.