h a l f b a k e r y
"My only concern is that it wouldn't work, which I see as a problem."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Whatever your political stripe, it's quite likely that
campaign advertisement, especially the TV ads, drive
The US Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. I
don't aim to dispute that.
I notice, however, that my blood pressure goes up in
I hear "tell congress to protect our (fill in the
Since products that affect our health have to be
with a complete set of disclaimers, imagine the political
ad, presented as a medical ad -- where whatever point
view is promoted requires not equal time -- but a
examination of risks.
Tell Congress to vote NO on raising the retirement age.
you are younger than 50, this may result in a substantial
loss of benefits by the time you need to retire.
Tell Congress to make China play by the rules of the
This may result in a trade war similar to the one that
Incredibly, medical products are advertised all the time
with a longer list of sideeffects than benefits. So I
doubt this would stop campaign ads. But it would make
them more entertaining.
||You may be suprised to learn that American political parties do not pay to run these ads in other countries.
||Using money for speech does not make me angry,
any more than the speed of light makes me angry.
And yes, I do want to raise the retirement age.
If every campaign ad had to be a 30 minute
infomercial with some depth to it I think I would
be perfectly fine with it. The 30 second ad is
problematic, though, it's just not sufficient to
||To me, the irritant is lack of relevant content, not
attempt to influence -- that's the right of
everyone who has an opinion.
||A pretty priceless quote out of Wikipedia, while
on topic: //Funding campaigns from the
government budget is widespread in South
||You may also be surprised to learn that the only countries which allow television advertising of prescription drugs are the US and New Zealand. This means that my conception of advertising disclaimers comes solely from advertisements for financial products ("231% typical APR, your home may be at risk..."). Which leads me to wonder why the narrow focus of your idea? Why not specifically disclaim all aspects of all advertising: "drinking this smoothie may not transport you to a wheatfield"; "wearing this deodorant may not make you more attractive to the opposite sex" etc?
||that might be the way to go. BTW, calum, I've not
noticed that elections in any country with public
financing produce particularly better politicians. I
wonder if someone has done a study on the subject.
||On the other hand... drugs that are normally
prescription only in your (insert name here) country
are available over the counter in India.
||India is the source of most antibiotic-resistant
||Like politicians, for instance.
||This is a bit like TV Licencing ideas seen from
outside, i.e. highly specific to a limited number of
jurisdictions. I just have to float over it with
inadequate experience to comment helpfully,
which gives me pause due to the fact that
ignorance rarely prevents me from contributing
elsewhere on here.
||However, i wanted to comment on the drug issue.
It seems that the problem is restraint and
judicious application, and there's a thin line
between publicity and promotion. If people as a
whole tried to avoid using antibiotics and various
other prescription drugs, the problem of
resistance would be less serious even if they were
available OTC. Applying that to the likes of deadly
nightshade, hemlock and the like, which have
similar legal status, right now my feeling is that
they shouldn't be restricted but the public then
needs to inform itself in much more detail about
toxicology and pharmacology than it currently
does. It also needs to do that autonomously.
How to do that? Hmm.
||I first read this as "erections lasting longer than four hours"
||//I first read this as "erections lasting longer than four hours"//