Sunday, May 15, 2005
New Legend, Tosser
New Legend: Ed Broadbent, a fine example of what a left-wing MP can be, restoring some civility to the increasingly fractious Canadian Parliament (about to dissolve itself after less than a year), and all round good bloke. And by "civility" I mean not being willing to take political advantage of the illness of another.
New Tosser: Matt Robson, a fine example of a hack MP with few detectable principles, other than a desperate "please re-elect me" populism. You, sir, are insufferable. Lots more about this on the Discussion Board.
As Yamis notes, we could ban alcohol altogether if we are worried about drunks causing accidents and getting up to mischief. Then we could ban cars and insist that everybody walk or get public transport everywhere because people die and get injured on the road everyday by an irresponsible few.
Then we could ban all fatty food.
And, continues Yamis, there are more people dying from tobacco related illnesses each year than there are from accidents caused by 18 and 19 year olds. So we ban the smokes as well.
Just to add to my two cents on the absurdity of all this, one of the major arguments (perhaps the most significant one?) seems to go ... some children (under 18) have trouble with alcohol, and we need to educate them more before they get their hands on the rotten stuff, so we're going to take rights away from people older than them (who are, in all other respects, adults) to further this aim.
Unfortunately, few MPs are "courageous" enough to speak out on this ... identify the absurdities, insist on principle. Nandor and Phil Goff to date, the rest rushing to be seen as "family friendly" whatever that means.
The pettiness and lack of informed debate in this country (first on the "iraqi immigrant" bollocks, now this) is pathetic ... MPs make decisions based on the most half-arsed, illogical crap fed to them by a few big mouths and some compliant media willing to run sensationalist headlines.
New Tosser: Matt Robson, a fine example of a hack MP with few detectable principles, other than a desperate "please re-elect me" populism. You, sir, are insufferable. Lots more about this on the Discussion Board.
As Yamis notes, we could ban alcohol altogether if we are worried about drunks causing accidents and getting up to mischief. Then we could ban cars and insist that everybody walk or get public transport everywhere because people die and get injured on the road everyday by an irresponsible few.
Then we could ban all fatty food.
And, continues Yamis, there are more people dying from tobacco related illnesses each year than there are from accidents caused by 18 and 19 year olds. So we ban the smokes as well.
Just to add to my two cents on the absurdity of all this, one of the major arguments (perhaps the most significant one?) seems to go ... some children (under 18) have trouble with alcohol, and we need to educate them more before they get their hands on the rotten stuff, so we're going to take rights away from people older than them (who are, in all other respects, adults) to further this aim.
Unfortunately, few MPs are "courageous" enough to speak out on this ... identify the absurdities, insist on principle. Nandor and Phil Goff to date, the rest rushing to be seen as "family friendly" whatever that means.
The pettiness and lack of informed debate in this country (first on the "iraqi immigrant" bollocks, now this) is pathetic ... MPs make decisions based on the most half-arsed, illogical crap fed to them by a few big mouths and some compliant media willing to run sensationalist headlines.
Comments:
After having various conversations with people on this and working through my own feelings I have decided that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and if they die from it - fuck them. If they kill someone as a result - fuck them too - hardline punishment. Death if need be. Actually thinking about how to make the world a better place is a waste of time. Why bother?
It'll keep the population down anyway. We're more fun in our reactive animal states anyway.
: )
Polar Bob
It'll keep the population down anyway. We're more fun in our reactive animal states anyway.
: )
Polar Bob
# posted by 
: 17 May 2005 at 20:24
: 17 May 2005 at 20:24
Are there 18 and 19 year olds dying from alcohol poisioning (or killing themselves or others while driving under the influence), and if so is there any evidence that raising the drinking age would change this?
There's a more specific point here, Polar Bob ... who should decide whether a particular group of adults (aged 18-19) should drink ... the adults themselves, or Matt Robson and friends?
There's a difference between thinking about how to make the world a better place, and resorting to the coercive power of the state to criminalize things at every opportunity. Cheers.
There's a more specific point here, Polar Bob ... who should decide whether a particular group of adults (aged 18-19) should drink ... the adults themselves, or Matt Robson and friends?
There's a difference between thinking about how to make the world a better place, and resorting to the coercive power of the state to criminalize things at every opportunity. Cheers.
Yip, Robson is just earnestly trying to make the world a better place.
Whether the method by which he proposes to do this is flawed doesn't seem to warrant a mention.
After-all, if raising the drinking age by two years doesn't create a reposnsible drinking culture in New Zealand, what will?
Lets look at 18-year-olds' public role-models; New Zealand's politicians and sports heroes get horsed then proceed to urinate in public, in bars, in hotel lobbies, they get into brawls with bouncers, jump through closed ranchsliders, not to mention self-righteous Ministers getting DICd.
Why should teenagers take notice of politicians' claims to know best when they set such a piss-poor example of responsible indulging themselves?
Sure, New Zealand can raise the drinking age by two years to delay young adults legally aquiring piss but surely its a nieve attempt to postpone the inevitable hangover.
The way i see it, Polar Bob, raising the drinking age does nothing to attack the underlying binge drinking mentality yet tells 18 and 19-year-olds they're too immature, in the Government's eyes, to have a beer.
We both agree there's a problem just not that Robson's got the answer.
Whether the method by which he proposes to do this is flawed doesn't seem to warrant a mention.
After-all, if raising the drinking age by two years doesn't create a reposnsible drinking culture in New Zealand, what will?
Lets look at 18-year-olds' public role-models; New Zealand's politicians and sports heroes get horsed then proceed to urinate in public, in bars, in hotel lobbies, they get into brawls with bouncers, jump through closed ranchsliders, not to mention self-righteous Ministers getting DICd.
Why should teenagers take notice of politicians' claims to know best when they set such a piss-poor example of responsible indulging themselves?
Sure, New Zealand can raise the drinking age by two years to delay young adults legally aquiring piss but surely its a nieve attempt to postpone the inevitable hangover.
The way i see it, Polar Bob, raising the drinking age does nothing to attack the underlying binge drinking mentality yet tells 18 and 19-year-olds they're too immature, in the Government's eyes, to have a beer.
We both agree there's a problem just not that Robson's got the answer.
I agree with both of you. And raising the drinking age is, IMO, stupid. Especially when comparing the responsibilites they still can enjoy- or loath- depending on what they are.
Robson is being genuine. Dead wrong, but he's has at least proposed something, as opposed to sitting on his chuff like other MPs'. Still doesn't mean I'd vote for him if he was in my electorate, but there is a worthy end goal instead of the self-serving bollocks others come out with.
As for coercive power, well thats kind of what governments do. They try the easy stuff and occasionally they have to threaten the populace (figuratively), or smack them upside their collective heads. Whether they use those tactics on the right things is another matter.
We are really just teenagers who have chosen our parents - we get to choose again this year - and think we know better.
Sometimes we do.
Either way, just playing devils advocate. I can't be righteous all the time. Although I am working on becoming more indignant.
Polar Bob
Robson is being genuine. Dead wrong, but he's has at least proposed something, as opposed to sitting on his chuff like other MPs'. Still doesn't mean I'd vote for him if he was in my electorate, but there is a worthy end goal instead of the self-serving bollocks others come out with.
As for coercive power, well thats kind of what governments do. They try the easy stuff and occasionally they have to threaten the populace (figuratively), or smack them upside their collective heads. Whether they use those tactics on the right things is another matter.
We are really just teenagers who have chosen our parents - we get to choose again this year - and think we know better.
Sometimes we do.
Either way, just playing devils advocate. I can't be righteous all the time. Although I am working on becoming more indignant.
Polar Bob
# posted by : 18 May 2005 at 18:16
: 18 May 2005 at 18:16
Judging by the chat in a year 12 class (that's 6th form for us old timers) I was in today I'd say them youngins aren't gonna give a shit about the law change because they are already drinking under the age of 18 anyway.
As said above by Bennyasena, we need to address binge drinking, and bad examples... set by those older than 18 if we really want to sort the problem out.
Robson is attacking it from the wrong end completely.
They should be targeting 18-50 year olds (mainly male) and leaving the under 18s to sit back and watch and hopefully learn a few decent things and not how to drink a yard glass in under 60 seconds, how to drink a dozen beers and then drive home from the pub and how to perform the tasks that Bennyasena highlighted.
As said above by Bennyasena, we need to address binge drinking, and bad examples... set by those older than 18 if we really want to sort the problem out.
Robson is attacking it from the wrong end completely.
They should be targeting 18-50 year olds (mainly male) and leaving the under 18s to sit back and watch and hopefully learn a few decent things and not how to drink a yard glass in under 60 seconds, how to drink a dozen beers and then drive home from the pub and how to perform the tasks that Bennyasena highlighted.
Wait a minute Yamis - you've gone too far - you can't call yourself a Kiwi if you haven't attempted a yardie can ya?
I must confess there were a few minutes this morning as I wiped the spittle from my face that I wished Robson would ban alcohol for those over 20.
But just what are the chances of popping into a bar that just happens to be launching Montieths Winter Ale?
Unlimited free pints and free bluff oysters to wash them down, or vice versa.
Strange though, even being, reasonably cut, I didn't feel the urge to drive or shoulder-barge or fight or urinate on anyone...shame about the shit in the flatmate's shoe. ;)
I must confess there were a few minutes this morning as I wiped the spittle from my face that I wished Robson would ban alcohol for those over 20.
But just what are the chances of popping into a bar that just happens to be launching Montieths Winter Ale?
Unlimited free pints and free bluff oysters to wash them down, or vice versa.
Strange though, even being, reasonably cut, I didn't feel the urge to drive or shoulder-barge or fight or urinate on anyone...shame about the shit in the flatmate's shoe. ;)
Post a Comment