Comment Re:Why is it nobody is happier? (Score 1) 542
Somebody mod this insightful!
To say they were incompetent, would still be a disgusting insult to the incompetent.
Yes this perfectly describes the situation in Australia. Senator Conroy (the man responsible) simply refuses to listen to the advice of anyone who disagrees with his ideology or points out the gaping flaws in the implementation. He is obsessed by his own personal ambitions and is too stupid to recognise good advice when he receives it.
It seems, that Australia went for the political suicide.
I certainly hope this is the case, although I have my doubts. Apparently being stupendously incompetent is insufficient grounds for removing a minister from their post. I fear this will be one in a long serious of blunders he inflicts on the Australian people.
Schedule 2 to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 places three key requirements on the broadcasters of political advertisements. Clauses 3, 3A and 4 of Schedule 2 require broadcasters to:
Thanks for confirming that. About what I was expecting. A pretty significant loophole.
The Act in question [austlii.edu.au] Doesn't seem to include social media -- it has television and radio. I'm no lawyer, but to be honest if any of Australia's laws were that current I would be shocked. I mean, we have a communications minister who thinks that you can filter bit torrent without killing it [nocleanfeed.com]
Ah yes the venerable (lol) Senator Conroy. Probably the entire reason for that mans existence is to distract attention onto more trivial and unresolvable matters. Avoiding scrutiny on the real issues is a great way to ensure such loopholes stay open (amongst other things.) But that's probably giving the morons that selected him as communications minister way too much credit!
I don't really see how censoring politicians could ever be a bad thing? Most of the time when politicians speak I get an overwhelming urge to punch them in the face until they shut up! (Senator Conroy I'm looking at you!)
Seriously though I think this measure was designed by the relatively less corrupt current government to prevent the significantly corrupt former government from using it's ill gotten billions to buy it's way back into office by sending out propaganda to the poorly educated rural population.
This is also the point where profiling takes place: While most Jewish Israeli citizens will be waved through after the brief conversation, others, mainly Israeli Arabs and non-Jewish visitors, will be taken aside for lengthy questioning and a thorough luggage and physical check.
So in other words they do racial profiling. Or in yet other words, they interrogate every Arab or African that comes through, whilst engaging in a bit of security theatre of their own.
you really think it's likely the US government is going to want to shoot protesters?
They have. They will again. An armed populace makes it less likely, not more.
You really think government staff can order the killing of protesters and keep their job/stay out of jail? The fact that protesters have been shot is proof that people just can't be trusted with guns because there's always some moron that mistakenly decides that killing someone is necessary, when it isn't. Ideally no-one would have guns, but I think we can agree that's not possible, so it's best to keep them to a minimum.
With the guns they weren't "allowed" to have, but got anyway. How do you prevent [a corrupt] government from getting guns? By voting the leaders out of office in 4 years? How does a legitimate government prevent an invading force from conquering them without guns (the prior example stated a universal ban on guns by all world governments, as if that could happen)?
There are a whole bunch of checks and balances preventing the sorts of levels of corruption necessary for a government to start suppressing their population. You have to somehow fly under the media radar, co-opt all branches and all levels of the military, the police, state governments, etc etc. It's just not practical these days. It's not the 18th Century anymore.
Really? Ground troops are only crowd control? And they don't use guns? A corrupt government isn't going to send in "lightly armed police" into a protest rally. And that's what the right to bear arms is about: allowing a populace to defend itself from a corrupt government. Sure, if the US sends in tanks and helicopters against its own people, the protesters are screwed at that moment, but when the fighting escalates, it can't always be tanks and choppers; at some point, traitorous military would have to be outside of a vehicle, and guns will do more than sharp pointy sticks, even if they're wearing body armor. You're trying to think of a great balancing act where all parties involved are benevolent (well, the state anyway; if the people were benevolent, then you'd not have a problem with them owning guns), but the framers were concerned with a(n all too real) worst case scenario. It was fairly recent for them, and we've seen examples in modernity.
Well for starters humans basically are benevolent en masse. When was the last time you saw hundreds of thousands of people rallying to achieve something really evil? In just doesn't happen! This is why democracy works. Evil requires a small number of selfish people with a high concentration of power. So long as you dilute power enough and spread it around it's reasonable to believe that there will be enough good people to prevent the nasty ones from consolidating the power required for totalitarian rule.
Every able bodied person of sound mind needs one. Maybe two. And proper training in their use both in home defense, and in defense of nation. I know people who defended themselves with their firearms, and I'm glad they were able to do so, but I'm even more glad that their ownership of firearms is threatening to some in the government. That's what the framers intended. Ballot, Jury, Cartridge.
That may have been their intention but they lived in a very different time. Our institutions are now very well developed, we have instant global communications, high levels of scrutiny on government activities. Corruption is still very possible and will endure. But not to the levels required to start executing people.
I suppose there is always a slim chance of that happening, but frankly the chance of being indiscriminately killed by some asshole with a gun is much more likely.
THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE
