Scrolls of Lore Forums

Scrolls of Lore Forums (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/index.php)
-   Halls of Lordaeron (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Yakisoba Hungering - The International Games Thread (http://forums.scrollsoflore.com/showthread.php?t=30985)

RobLore 06-12-2013 11:14 AM

Quote:

PBS and the BBC are ranked amongst the best journalistic institutions in the world partly because they don't have to sell themselves out to sponsors.
I guess it depends on the country. I don't think the Swedish public broadcasting network comes close to the quality of the BBC. I also don't like how it's tax-funded. It should be funded with an optional public service fee so you can decide yourself if you like it.

Lord Eliphas 06-12-2013 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pajamasalad (Post 844372)
Is that why we make a super military and make sure our preferences reign supreme?

Not necessarily.

That way of style is most unproductive, though we keep using it as old traditions die hard.

The CIA and IMF are much more "Modern" ways of making sure we keep our little dictators in power.

Quote:

If the US got involved every time people got pissed at their government, rightfully or not, we wouldn't have time to run our own.
The US gets more involved when people aren't pissed at their government, or a select few are.

We are far more involved than you let on. While not in the days of the 60s, where we held a literal Empire based on intrigue - it still exists in a far more "refined" format.

But it's certainly hypocritical of us to "get involved" in Syria with ambiguous rebels who may or may not have used Sarin gas, and definitely used chlorine gas in Aleppo - yet ignore Turkey and Bahrain as if they don't exist.

As in, it shows we actually don't give a shit about people's interest in the Middle East. We don't mind if the people of Bahrain are run over by Tanks, fuck 'em.

Because the Monarchies of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are our life-long allies.

Shaman 06-12-2013 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobLore (Post 859363)
I guess it depends on the country. I don't think the Swedish public broadcasting network comes close to the quality of the BBC. I also don't like how it's tax-funded. It should be funded with an optional public service fee so you can decide yourself if you like it.

But budgets don't really work that way, you don't get to choose for yourself à la carte each individual program that you would like to fund with your taxes. Public broadcasting is a public investment that has a pretty good rate of return for society as a whole, so an opt-in can't really work. You have to go to the legislature to change how its funded.

Dithon1 06-13-2013 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobLore (Post 859363)
I guess it depends on the country. I don't think the Swedish public broadcasting network comes close to the quality of the BBC. I also don't like how it's tax-funded. It should be funded with an optional public service fee so you can decide yourself if you like it.

Off-topic, but is it true there's always a baby-boom after the Swedish Midsummer festival?

Ashendant 06-15-2013 11:54 AM

So the Iranian election has been won by the most Reformist candidate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22916174

What does everyone think of this?

Fojar 06-15-2013 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashendant (Post 867346)
So the Iranian election has been won by the most Reformist candidate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22916174

What does everyone think of this?

The Prime Minister is a puppet. The clerics and ayatollah hold the real power, and they're dictators for life.

Ujimasa Hojo 06-15-2013 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashendant (Post 867346)
So the Iranian election has been won by the most Reformist candidate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22916174

What does everyone think of this?

Looks like the strategy of the regime to ban other reformists backfired because reformist voters ended up rallying behind Rouhani. Nonetheless, no matter how much he pushes for reforms, Ayatollah Rock'n'Rolla still has the final say I'm afraid.

Lord Eliphas 06-15-2013 12:12 PM

One can wonder at the 'reform' and British support.

Concerning the Britons wanted to merely have BP control all of Iranian oil again. As, before, the Sha was more..for the US. Than the UK.

One can only hope Iran gets out of this nice and easy.

Fojar 06-15-2013 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord Eliphas (Post 867375)
One can wonder at the 'reform' and British support.

Concerning the Britons wanted to merely have BP control all of Iranian oil again. As, before, the Sha was more..for the US. Than the UK.

One can only hope Iran gets out of this nice and easy.

Everything is a foreign plot to simply gain imperialist control over the plucky little Iranians, right Eliphas?

Korath 06-15-2013 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fojar (Post 867379)
Everything is a foreign plot to simply gain imperialist control over the plucky little Iranians, right Eliphas?

Well, the track record of the western countries in such cases are just as bad as Blizzard's one toward the Alliance, so it's not so far-fetched to believe.

Fojar 06-15-2013 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korath (Post 867387)
Well, the track record of the western countries in such cases are just as bad as Blizzard's one toward the Alliance, so it's not so far-fetched to believe.

Don't forget half the middle-east which also hates Iran, and the Russians who regularly competed with the British in the Great Game, and the lust that the Chinese hold for Iranian resources.

I'm getting sick of Eliphas' "the west is always wrong, the non-west is always right" bullshit attitude.

Lord Eliphas 06-15-2013 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fojar (Post 867379)
Everything is a foreign plot to simply gain imperialist control over the plucky little Iranians, right Eliphas?

ho ho ho.

Do notice that there is hardly a genuine bone in the "human rights efforts" set up by the British or Americans.

Or there is a plethora of favorites. Such as Iran and Bahrain, one is favorite. The other..noooot so much. There are aspects of Iran that are hardly support-worthy, but it becomes the "which will not end up shittier".

And with Libya, I believe we can both agree that a more "Western-friendly" government typically means a loosely concentrated or heavily concentrated dictatorship, which all shipping rights to the Western powers.

Unless, Libya is a bountiful democracy now?

Quote:

Don't forget half the middle-east which also hates Iran,
Turkey - Republic now under control of a more Islamic mind-set party who has been more controversial with environmental issues and de-secularizing the army

Syria - in the midst of civil War between rebels that range from al-qaeda supporters and terrorists to actual geniune people who are far and few between.

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Arab Emirates - Kingdoms, Monarchies and Dictatorships of a Sunni caliber that have been dying to rid any presence of a Shia leadership.

Iraq - a Client state that has been less and less seen as a Republic, let alone a democracy

Kuwait - Do we really need to talk about this.

Quote:

I'm getting sick of Eliphas' "the west is always wrong, the non-west is always right" bullshit attitude.
I never knew the Sandinistas were non-west. Silly me. Nicaragua is actually in Antarctica.

I'm more saying, western media is to be taken critically given the history of interventions just in the past decade. Not even accounting the personal history Britain and Iran have shared, with Britan's full support of the Sha and hardly fidgeting when the Sha and his SAVAK terrorized his people for the past 20 years.

The British also seem to have said or spoken of nothing during Pinochet's or Vidale's "leadership". Why isn't Saudi Arabia given a stern talking to.

HlaaluStyle 06-15-2013 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fojar (Post 867393)
Don't forget half the middle-east which also hates Iran, and the Russians who regularly competed with the British in the Great Game, and the lust that the Chinese hold for Iranian resources.

I'm getting sick of Eliphas' "the west is always wrong, the non-west is always right" bullshit attitude.

The class graduating after mine in my grad school program had a couple of Bahraini students, and one of them wrote a class term paper on the danger Iran posed to the Gulf States. The largely Shi'ite people of Bahrain, of course, may be more sympathetic to Iran, but most Gulf states have majority Sunni populations (I think Oman is primarily Ibadi, and I don't know how they feel about the divide).

In general, the Gulf states are far more worried about Iran than they are about Israel. Didn't Wikileaks or something show that they were pretty much willing to give Israel the go ahead to bomb Iranian facilities? Syria is Iran's only steady ally in the Arab world.

It's also worth noting that Assad and many of his supporters are Alawites, not Sunnis. The Iranians have been trying to woo the Alawites by presenting them as fundamentally similar to the Twelver Shi'ites. There may be some theological justification for this, but I suspect it's mostly done for political reasons.

Morsi was reaching out to Iran, but this upset his Islamic Brotherhood constituency because of the old Sunni-Shi'a divide, and may have given some rhetorical ammo to the more extreme Salafists (so Heaven knows Morsi is miserable now). Turkey's also under the very Sunni AK Party, and there's already tension between the two countries.

Omacron 06-15-2013 02:35 PM

It's not "just" Islam in the middle east. Iran is a completely different sect than its neighbors- a buncha people dislike them.

Millenia 06-19-2013 11:47 PM

JP Morgan to eurozone periphery: “Get rid of your pinko, anti-fascist constitutions”

Lord Eliphas 06-20-2013 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omacron (Post 867619)
It's not "just" Islam in the middle east. Iran is a completely different sect than its neighbors- a buncha people dislike them.

Also doesn't help that their neighbors are ruled (in the Gulf) by Wahhabists, the most conservative branch of Sunni islam.

Korath 06-20-2013 12:46 AM

Oh boy...

Jiwat 06-20-2013 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobLore (Post 859339)
they often (unfairly) compete with commercial channels since they can buy the best tv series etc with tax money.

This hasn't been the case in most countries. The BBC makes incredible nature documentaries that don't get much in commercial funding anymore, and runs commercial free radio stations that run everything from pop music to radio plays to live orchestra concerts they arrange to have put on. But they also make this junk and silly soap operas and game shows as well as love/hate stuff like TopGear and Doctor Who.

Most of that crap, for what it's worth, has sold well when imported elsewhere, like America. BBC owns Dancing With The Stars (though it goes by another name in the UK and elsewhere), which is very popular here. Because they can make a US version and sell it to the American networks, they get money from sources beyond just taxing their public.

Planet Earth etc look like a loss, but can be sold to our Discovery Channel, a channel that used to be nature and science documentaries all the time when I was a child but is now usually an endless stream of stupid reality shows because those are cheaper to make.

Public TV is a completely voluntary thing in the US, and so it targets specific charitable niches (turns out, people who value educational/science programming, and children's TV without commercial marketing involved, have money to give.) But that means most people ignore it almost completely, and watch nothing but for-profit content from a group of 5-7 media bigwigs. And they pay quite heavily for it (the US cable bill is quite a bit higher than the UK license fee.)

I am an advocate of public media at home and abroad, because the past twenty years of consolidation and high access fees and sensationalism replacing journalism has taught me that having a network that does NOT have to go looking for a sponsorship dollar because they've been given a guaranteed public grant to work with can set a quality baseline and improve the private commercial channels by forcing them to be better than it.

Ma Caque Attaque 07-03-2013 01:40 PM

Good times in Egypt.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...eadline/66815/

Morsi is out.

Ashendant 07-03-2013 03:28 PM

And my country has suffered a lot of economic backlash over a political crysis.

Kir the Wizard 07-15-2013 03:48 AM

Here's a question for Romanians.

I'm curious, from your perspective as citizens... Was entering the EU any good economically? Did anything actually change for the better? Or was it a big waste of time?

C9H20 07-15-2013 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kir the Wizard (Post 910486)
Here's a question for Romanians.

I'm curious, from your perspective as citizens... Was entering the EU any good economically? Did anything actually change for the better? Or was it a big waste of time?

Well, I can say a bit about Bulgaria which is in the same boat, only worse. From what they've told me they got a momentary surge after getting access to EU aspiring members funds, but after that things went downhill fast and now they are worse off than before.

I'd personally just get Serbia access to those funds, made use of them and then NOT go any further than that. If possible, if not then just no to EU. I presume they'd be quite pissed if we did that, but it is not like they aren't cockblocking us at every turn now so who cares.

Kir the Wizard 07-15-2013 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C9H20 (Post 910504)
Well, I can say a bit about Bulgaria which is in the same boat, only worse. From what they've told me they got a momentary surge after getting access to EU aspiring members funds, but after that things went downhill fast and now they are worse off than before.

I'd personally just get Serbia access to those funds, made use of them and then NOT go any further than that. If possible, if not then just no to EU. I presume they'd be quite pissed if we did that, but it is not like they aren't cockblocking us at every turn now so who cares.

I mostly want EU membership to stop dealing with this idiotic Schengen Visa bullshit. I doubt it will actually magically do wonders for the economy (and if our government guys get the funds... suffice to say, those will stay in their pockets).

That's why I'm asking. Is there any good to it, from a citizen's POV, aside from the aforementioned border removal?

(Though I thought Bulgaria was mightyfine nowadays, tourist resort and all that?)

SmokeBlader 07-15-2013 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kir the Wizard (Post 910486)
I'm curious, from your perspective as citizens... Was entering the EU any good economically? Did anything actually change for the better? Or was it a big waste of time?

No. Economically, things are worse than before. Nothing improved.

Kir the Wizard 07-15-2013 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeBlader (Post 910507)
No. Economically, things are worse than before. Nothing improved.

What qualifies as "before"? The early two thousandths?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.