General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't doubt it. How much they got so far?
The following is a list of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group. Sinclair owns or operates 294 television stations across the United States in 89 markets ranging in size from as large as Washington, D.C. to as small as Ottumwa, Iowa/Kirksville, Missouri.[1] Several of these stations are owned by affiliate companies with varying ties to Sinclair—including Cunningham Broadcasting, Deerfield Media, and Howard Stirk Holdings—and operated by Sinclair using local marketing agreements.[2


 
Yes, and that is the claim made by many stations, but nowadays, those same alerts get broadcast over cell phone networks and can reach far more people.
What happens when they lose battery though
 
What happens when they lose battery though
The same thing that happens if you are not listening to a radio when an alert goes out. :D
 
That's getting up there! Seems about on target, eh? Considering.
 
I believe that the manner of French colonial rule in Syria demonstrably contributed to the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, actually. Specifically the French were the ones who literally divided what is now Syria into ethnic and religious blocs (not to mention breaking Lebanon off as a separate country), part of a strategy of empowering Syria's various ethnic and religious minorities so as to have some local counterweights to the Sunni Arab majority and generally to impede the development of a united Syrian nationalism in opposition to French rule.

Here is a handy article covering this stuff:
So French mess up the place for 25 years, after which there is 75 years mostly free of influence, but somehow nothing could be fixed in the meantime and it's still responsible for a civil war that actually came from protests against authoritarian rule ? Yeah...

Anyway, what I get from the past few pages, is that people don't really mind democracy denial, as long as it goes their way.
 
Yes, and that is the claim made by many stations, but nowadays, those same alerts get broadcast over cell phone networks and can reach far more people.

Cell phone networks are much more susceptible to power outages, though.
 
So French mess up the place for 25 years, after which there is 75 years mostly free of influence, but somehow nothing could be fixed in the meantime and it's still responsible for a civil war that actually came from protests against authoritarian rule ? Yeah...

Anyway, what I get from the past few pages, is that people don't really mind democracy denial, as long as it goes their way.

Yeah, and the current problems in the UK were caused by the roman invasion.

We should seek reparations from Italy.
 
Cell phone networks are much more susceptible to power outages, though.

Er, what leads you to think that?
 
So French mess up the place for 25 years, after which there is 75 years mostly free of influence, but somehow nothing could be fixed in the meantime and it's still responsible for a civil war that actually came from protests against authoritarian rule ? Yeah...

Who would win? A Middle East expert with a PhD or a CFC poster who can count years and thinks historical events can only have one discrete cause?
 
Last edited:
So French mess up the place for 25 years, after which there is 75 years mostly free of influence, but somehow nothing could be fixed in the meantime and it's still responsible for a civil war that actually came from protests against authoritarian rule ? Yeah...
It is a massive simplification, but one could say that the reason for the authoritarian rule is the creation of a country with straight lines as borders that contains so many different ethnic and religious groups. That is pretty much on France.
 
Er, what leads you to think that?

The radio access network for cell phones operates at much higher frequencies, which means that the range of each station is much lower, which means that you have a lot more of them.

This has two consequences: First, the probability is much higher that the area of a power outage includes all of the relevant cell phone towers, while AM stations far away might still with power. Second, because there are so many cell phone towers that providing backup power capabilities for all of them is usually not economical. The cell phone networks I know, usually do not have any backup power for most of the stations (none of those are American operators, though, I don't know about those). If you have just a few long-range towers, providing backup power to these (for example with generators) becomes much easier.
 
Yeah AM is like notoriously low maintenance and resilient. It'll generally be the last connection you lose in a widespread disaster.
 
The following is a list of stations owned or operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group. Sinclair owns or operates 294 television stations across the United States in 89 markets ranging in size from as large as Washington, D.C. to as small as Ottumwa, Iowa/Kirksville, Missouri.[1] Several of these stations are owned by affiliate companies with varying ties to Sinclair—including Cunningham Broadcasting, Deerfield Media, and Howard Stirk Holdings—and operated by Sinclair using local marketing agreements.[2


"Howard Stark Holdings"??? Oh, wait. Stirk. Darn.
 
AM is frequently used to broadcast emergency messages, or, at least that is the intention. Signs on highways in the US I've seen frequently give an AM station to tune to for road-related emergencies. It would be a real shame if motorists lost this resource because "they can just look that up on their phone". You need redundancies.
 

Spain congress votes against Catalan separatists amnesty bill​

The Spanish congress has blocked a controversial amnesty law that aimed to benefit Catalan separatists involved in separatist activities, in a shock move.

The Together for Catalonia (JxCat) party voted against it over fears it does not provide enough protection for those politicians who are being investigated for terror-related crimes.

They included the ex-president of the Catalonia region, who was involved in a failed bid for independence in 2017.

The legislation has divided Spain.

The bill, presented by Socialist Pedro Sánchez's government, faced its first major parliamentary test on Tuesday.

With an array of nationalist parties, including JxCat - led by former Catalan president Carles Puigdemont - in favour of an amnesty, the law appeared set to be approved by congress.

However, instead it was blocked as JxCat voted against it, citing what it said was judicial interference aimed at sabotaging the law.

"We cannot participate in allowing the Catalan independence movement to be exposed to the whims of the politicised Spanish judiciary," said Miriam Nogueras, spokeswoman for JxCat.

The conservative People's Party (PP) and the far-right Vox, which have both been fierce critics of the amnesty, also voted against it, meaning the bill received 171 votes - five short of the majority it needed.

It will now be returned to a parliamentary commission which must resubmit the bill within a month, after revision. The law would also need to be approved by the senate before being implemented.

Last week, a national court judge, Manuel García-Castellón, issued a report suggesting Mr Puigdemont and some others could be accused of terrorist offences because of alleged involvement with Democratic Tsunami, a pro-independence activist group which staged mass protests in 2019, including one which brought Barcelona's El Prat airport to a halt.

The terrorism claim meant that the former Catalan president risked being excluded from the amnesty.

Mr Sánchez's Socialists immediately negotiated with JxCat and their fellow nationalists of the Catalan Republican Left (ERC) amendments to the bill aimed at ensuring Mr Puigdemont remained within the amnesty's ambit.

The modification stated that those involved in terrorist crimes that did not knowingly violate human rights were still eligible to benefit from the amnesty.

Nonetheless, a second report issued by Mr García-Castellón specified that Democratic Tsunami may indeed have breached human rights.

In a separate development another judge, Joaquín Aguirre, raised the possibility of Mr Puigdemont being investigated for high treason for alleged contacts with Russian officials ahead of the 2017 secession attempt. That crime would also exclude him from the amnesty.

Despite JxCat demands that further amendments be added to the legislation to adapt to these developments, the Socialists insisted on leaving it untouched.

ERC reprimanded JxCat for voting against the law.

"This law has enough strength to not be changed by the prevaricating judges who want it to hit the rocks," said Pilar Vallugera, of ERC.

The right-wing opposition has claimed the amnesty is unconstitutional and that Mr Sánchez is trying to push it through because he needs the parliamentary backing of ERC and JxCat.

"Sánchez has decided to be a hostage [to Catalan nationalism], but we Spaniards are not going to pay the ransom," said PP leader Alberto Núñez Feijóo.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68147811
 
2000 years is the same as 100 years. I am very smart.
The imperial-rights murderers do usually like the 100 year old dead men's excuses instead of the 2000 year old dead men's excuses. You need to loop in the religious murderers along with, then you get the 2000 year old excuses too. So different. Much distinction.
 
Who would win? A Middle East expert with a PhD or a CFC poster who can count years and thinks historical events can only have one discrete cause?
Depends on the contest... If the contest is PhD dissertations, I know who I've got my money on. On the other hand if the contest is, say... arguing on CFC... meh, 50/50?:dunno:
 
Depends on the contest... If the contest is PhD dissertations, I know who I've got my money on. On the other hand if the contest is, say... arguing on CFC... meh, 50/50?:dunno:

It's a meme
And the contest is actually knowing things about the history of the Middle East, and as a bonus challenge having a historical consciousness greater than that of a goldfish
 

Thailand: Popular reformist party Move Forward could be dissolved after court loss​

The Thai pro-democracy party which won the most votes at last year's election could now be forced to dissolve after a court ruled its key policy illegal.

Move Forward is not in government but its promises to campaign on changing royal defamation laws violated the constitution, a Thai court has found.

Such lese majeste laws have increasingly been used to stifle political criticism, activists say.

It is possible Move Forward's leader could now be banned from politics.

Pita Limjaroenrat, a young, Harvard-educated politician, had been viewed as a significant threat to Thailand's monarchy and military-aligned elite, winning over a majority of voters in 2023 with his party's promises to rein in their influence.

His attempts to be nominated prime minister, however, were then blocked by the unelected Senate.

Last week he survived another legal case aimed at disqualifying him from parliament. But he and his party failed to win the crucial second case on Wednesday on their key policy platform.

The Constitutional Court ruled that Move Forward's campaign promise to amend the lese majeste law amounted to an attempt to overthrow the entire political system in Thailand.

The verdict carries no immediate penalty, but is widely expected to be used to justify dissolving Move Forward, and banning its leaders from politics for several years.

By ruling this way, the court has in effect made the lese majeste law untouchable - even by an elected parliament.


The law has been widely criticised for stifling freedom of expression in Thailand and for its harsh operation.

Earlier this month, a 30-year-old man in Bangkok was sentenced to 50 years in jail for criticising the Thai monarchy.

And more than 260 people have been charged under the law since November 2020 - a date stamp tied to the beginning of King Maha Vajiralongkorn's reign.

Wednesday's ruling in the Thai courts also sends a clear message that any discussion of the powerful monarchy will not be permitted.

Four years ago Move Forward's previous incarnation, a party called Future Forward, was also dissolved after doing unexpectedly well in an election.

That action by the Constitutional Court set off months of student-led protests, in which unprecedented demands were made for changes to the monarchy.

Today, many of the leaders of those protests find themselves fighting charges under the lese majeste law, and could face many years in prison.

The court has also previously ruled on the legality of calling for a change to lese majeste.

In November 2021 the court ruled that three leading activists who called for reform of the monarchy during the months-long protests of 2020 had "hidden intentions to overthrow the constitutional monarchy".

It ordered them to stop and all three have faced multiple criminal charges since then.

This latest verdict, though, states that even suggesting changes to the lese majeste law is unacceptable.

Move Forward had argued that it was the legitimate role of an elected parliament to scrutinise a law which is part of the regular penal code. Thailand's lese majeste law has already been significantly changed twice.

Moreover, in its election campaign the party shied away from activist demands for a complete abolition of the law, calling only for amendment. It won far more votes than any other party on that platform, even if much of its support was for its other proposed reforms, so could legitimately claim a public mandate for it.

But the judges ruled that Move Forward and its leaders "demonstrated behaviour" which amounted to calling for the overthrow of Thailand's democratic system of government with the King as Head of State.

It ordered them stop any acts or expression of views, through any medium, which advocated abolition of the lese majeste law, and prohibited amendments to the law by any means other than "lawful legislative measures".

That suggests it might be possible to change the law through parliament, but that no public discussion or social media debate will be allowed.

Given the number of times in Thailand that political parties have been dissolved and leaders banned from politics on much flimsier pretexts, there will now be strong pressure to do the same to Move Forward.

Some Thais will conclude that this was always the real objective of the petition to the court.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-68151262
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom