Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Thom Hartmann Program"
channel.
-
1
-
A comment from an Austrian pulmonologist (head of inner medicine and pulmonology in Floridsdorf). They have some Covidiots, too. They are not as vocal, not even the right wingers (the party) dare to pull it off like the Republicans. A lot of people are unfortunately still in the Let's wait and see camp. That could have worked without the Delta variante, that they could have taken a free ride on herd immunity w/o contributing).
He said: we have the ICU beds and then we have the beds that require MORE care and monitoring but that amounts to: they get some oxygen, ar checked upon more often, and are released within a few days. He calls that "intermediary care".
[Maybe these patients also get infusions so they do not have to eat (and spend energy on digestion).]
We have hardly any of the ICU cases among the people that got 2 shots.
He complains that the statistics about "ICU beds" or the communication im media is unclear.
The two categories are not the same regarding severity, costs, and chances for a relatively good outcome despite the need for (a few days of) hospital stay.
The average time for a stay is given with 2 weeks but that is missleading. For one group it is much shorter and for the ICU (where the unvaccinated dominate it is at least 2 weeks, often 3,4 and up to 6 weeks. And it is hard to ramp up those capacities because the care is so specialized, staff and machines. If persons only need more oxygen and a frequent check up that can be scaled up to a degree, calling in retired nurses or even rookies).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
3,8 % of those who tested positive died (certificate that they died OF corona and only specialized doctors are allowed to issue that), versus of 3,9 % died WITH corona virus) in Austria (in theory the person could have died of something unrelated while having tested positive. But the number is tiny).
They don't do mass testing, but contact tracing based testing, and strategic testing (care homes, ...).
There is also no incentive for the population to not get testing or seek mediical help or to do the quarantine. Single payer healthcare, and mandatory paid sick leave and protection from being fired during that time.
With the children and teenagers out of the picture (they could be asymptomatic carriers, but schools just reopen) they found hardly any asymptomatic or mild cases that would have gone unnoticed. 16,000 tested, because of a cluster. 7,000 tests were due to contact tracing, but the rest was strategic testing to be on the safe side.
And they found only 2 asymptomatic carriers.
Under these circumstances the 3 - 4 % death rate (of all that are infected) seems to be realistic.
With flu people tend to die fast and not that often with complications that get them into the hospital.
So the complication rate (think: 1 - 5 weeks ICU, or 2 weeks normal hospital bed) is also much worse than with the flu.
1
-
it is only "murder" if you assign personhood to the zygote, embryo, fetus. _The law and medicine/science does not define the fetus as human. The beginning of "life" (egg and sperm cell unite) does not count - a lot of beings and plants, bacteria, are "alive" (the more developed species have a heart, a spine, limbs or the beginning of limbs)
... All of that does not mean they are human Even if the form starts to look like a tiny human being 3 months into the pregnancy - it has no or only a very undeveloped brain, no thinking ability.
Having a heart or the start of a nervous system does NOT constitute a person or a human.
It is the POTENTIAL to become a human if the pregnancy is carried to term, and the potential is more realized as with an egg or a sperm cell before they united.
Overjoyed hopeful soon-to-be parents will talk about the "baby" and psychologically treat the situation as if the child was already born and they have it for sure. The people around them naturally go along, congratulate and everybody refers to the "baby".
But that is not the REALISTIC situation, it is testimony to the hopes for the future, and the emotional investment of the aspiring parents.
The pregnancy can fail - once the child is born and healthy the expectation that the child will stay with you as family member is realistic. But many miscarriages happen at the stage of 3 - 4 months.
The overwhelming majority of abortions also happen at that stage of 3 - 4 months into the pregnancy (since so many pregnancies end spontanuously then, most nations feel comfortable to set that as the time limit when a woman can dedice to not have a child or another child. Later abortions usually require exceptional circumstances).
In the early stage there is no "grey zone" (as would be with a 6 month old fetus - which could survive with extensive medical care, althoug often with damages).
The Catholic church used to date the "begin of life" with the time when the pregnant woman could feel the movements for the first time. They later changed that stance - update to modern medical insights about the start of a pregnancy.
The Old Testament does allow abortions (when the man suspected the wife of cheating but did not catch her red handed and could not prove it). And they had no problem to order to stab the pregnant wives of the enemy into the womb to kill them and the fetus in a very gruesome manner. Not even a quick end.
In the Chinese and Indian and other Asian cultures having a lot of children is valued (as is the tradition in EVERY agricultural society with a lot of poor people). However, there seem to be no "religious" or absolute cultural ban on abortions.
The U.S. constitution does not give one religion preference over the other, and no religious view should inspire the law. All religion - and cultures - recognize that (some) murders, theft, etc. have to be outlawed in order to have a functioning society.
They differ on other issues howerver: matters of inheritance. Some societies do (did) not allow divorces, others made infidelity an offense or even a crime (or being gay). Drug use and posession (if it is not much) is decriminalized in Portugal and Switzerland). In Singapore and I think in Thailand and now also in the Philippines you would be in deep trouble, probable a life sentence of death sentence (never mind the fundamentalistic Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia. Speaking of which: Alcohol ! And it used to be outlawed in the U.S. The mormons claim to be Christians and do not allow alcohol, they skipped the part where Jesus turned water into wine to provide for a wedding).
One does not need religious rules as base for the laws necessary to have a stable society. It just used to be that organized religion propped up whoever held power in soicety and religion was pervasive.
The constitution of every modern state with good reason separates church and state.
If your religion of personal philosphy inspires another stance on abortions and from what stage on the zygoe or fetus should have the same protection as a human being - that is fine, don't have an abortion - and do not work in a field where you could be asked to participate in things that are O.K. to use for other people and that are allowed by the law.
That includes the bigot that works in a pharmacy and felt entitled to refuse to give the medication necessary to drive out a fetus that had already died. The body of that woman (who wanted another child) failed to abort the dead fetus - so her doctor prescribed her a pill that would trigger the miscarriage - else she would die of the infection.
An anti-abortion staff member felt entitled to put his or her personal views over the directions of the doctor and over the needs of the patient. - A Catholic working in a pharmacy may be required to sell birth control. Or the morning after pill (which is ALSO contraception). Or the abortion pill.
In short: follow the constitution that grants freedom of religion and opinion for all as long as it does not hurt other PEOPLE - meaning your personal (religious) beliefs cannot dictate the decisions of other people about their pregnancies. Or influence the law.
1
-
1) The deal was about NUCLEAR weapons - and there it worked PERFECTLY. - 2) The funding of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah was a strategic priority. They did not need any "improved" economy for that - that funding was always found if they wanted to.
3) And the economy did not improve much, anyway. - They had to do their homework and get some good grades (8 times visited by UN weapons inspectors) and would get the economic sanctions GRADUALLY lifted. It would have started around last summer - I think in July or August there was an inspection report.
They got the frozen accounts earlier - but that is not REALLY relevant. people think that is important - not really in the big picture. They made it all the years just fine w/o that money.
Consider the size of the country and their oil revenue. The problem for them is that even a healthy economy needs to import a lot of things (spare parts, chemicals, ...) there are ways around or they can trick and import via a country that is not bullied by the U.S. - like China or India - but it makes things more complicated and expensive. And dampens the entrepreneurial spirit.
Also: in 1980 Saddam Hussein (then still cozy with the West, especially the US) was encouraged to start a war against Iran, 10 years, 1 million people dead in total. That was devastating for Iran, war is very expensive, the human cost, the disabled veterans, the people crippled by mines - and they were under sanctios then as well.
Still they persevered. -
It helps that Iranian oil is cheap to extract.
1
-
1
-
The U.S. does a fine job to counter their own interests in the Middle East - no Iranian help for that needed. - Iraq is a country with a Shia Muslim majority (like Iran) but the Iraqi ruling class (Saddam Hussein and his clique) were Sunnis. They were a secular dictatorship. And like I mentioned they were at war with Iran from 1980 - 1990.
Since the regime change in Iraq the Shias (the majority) are in charge (still a secular country although the sectarian divisions became more important). So Iran naturally can increase their influence in Iraq NOW - and they need to - if only for their OWN security interests. Especially since Iraq is not very stable (they could not even contain AlQaeda or ISIS). A lot of extreme militant Sunni groups (Saudi sponsored !) are active in Iraq, too.
In the interview it is mentioned that the Iranians COULD leverage some Shia groups agains the US troops in Iraq and cause trouble (and they did in the past to some degree) - but they don't do that - NOW.
That suggest to me that they are rational players, that one can do deals with them, and that they calculate their costs. Unlike the crazies of ISIS or also AlQaeda who have a purely ideological agenda (the caliphate, the jihad). Iran also gets along fine with Syria - and Syria is a secular society.
Take a map and look at the shared borders - the borders are hard to control for Iran, they need Iraq to be stable and if possible friendly. and no marauding Sunni militias.
In Iraq many Sunni Muslim that had formed the backbone of the military, the leadership but also lower ranks, the public adminstration, even teachers were kicked out. Not all had been raving fans of Saddam Hussein.
So the experienced military leaders and soldiers lost income, pension - many enlisted as mercenaries with groups like Al Qaeda (extreme Sunni terrorists), didn't even matter if they were into jihad or not.
A former military leader (?general ) founded the group that morphed into ISIS.
The Iraqi government tolerated by the U.S. had promised to have a strategy of integration and reconciliation. But they didn't do that, nor did the U.S. hold them to account when they foolishly kicked out the experienced soldiers and public employees.
When ISIS started fighting for real in Iraq the new U.S. trained and equipped Iraqi "army" rolled over before even being pushed. They ran and left the shiny humvees and the other new equipment behind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The Danish McDonalds worker already get the equivalent of 15 USD (by now likely more, I watched that clip during the Obama years). Plus paid sick leave, maternity leave, universal healthcare free at the point of delivery, 5 weeks paid vaccation time, likely some paid holidays on top of it.
At the moment they are getting some pandemic related relief. They were willing to set that up in Europe
80 - 85 % turnout in high profile elections are realistic in Europe (or Australia where voting is mandatory - well people have to show up and sign off, they can of course refuse to fill out the ballot).
They have popular vote which means even 5 - 7 % parties get seats in parliament. That gives choice to the voters. No lesser evil. The small parties can breathe down the neck of the larger more mainstream parties.
So letting the population hanging when it comes to pandemic response and relief like in the U.S. is not an option.
"What is the base gonna do - vote for a Republian ? - Or the Liberal_ ?" if the shoe is on the other foot. That cynical game does not fly in the U.S.
Voters can and will abandon the complacent established parties, their vote is NOT wasted, and the smaller parties can grow fast. In the meantime the voters can punish the governing party (or parties) in the nex major election (state / province level for instance).
Not necessarly because those politticians had any direct power or are to blame. The terms are longer, so voters use any chance to show their frustration.
That means that the lower levels push the the party "leadership", they fear that they will be kicked and through no fault of their own.
all of that straightens out politicians - at least to a degree.
Danes have especially good public afforable childcare. Childcare staff is well paid (the profession also attracts males), and well trained (public training, so that is standardized and monitored, and of course also free).
The facilties well equipped and funded. Same is true for Japan btw.
In the last 10 - 20 years forest kindergardens have become very popular in Denmark. Not sure if those are private. I saw a BBC clip. Lovely.
Now, the burgers in Denmark might be slightly smaller and cost a little more than in the U.S. I assume (but have no numbers, that the chains play less of a role in most of Europe). Starbucks for instance does not stand a chance in italy or Austria. They have a tradition of the coffee shops, and Starbucks is not as attractive.
They also have smaller businesses, shops, restaurants in Denmark (or Italy, or Germany,... ) The Danes like good food.
A McDonalds worker in Denmark is also lower income - but with those provisions they cope well enough. Or one spouse makes a little extra money with part time work.
More importantly: the income status of the parents does not hinder the children. If the child has a learning disability the well trained child care workers will realize that.
And it does not depend on the knowledge of the parents, or the patience or skills to explain things whether a child will get help if they fall behind in school. Parents are also not as overworked as in the U.S.
1
-
1
-
In Germany, Austria and Switzerland they long ago decided that the land is too valualbe to dump garbage on it. A lot of separation and recycling is going on for metals, incl. Aluminium, glass, wood, paper (admitted plastics is a mess) they BURN the rest (and use the heat to produce peak electricity and hot water. The plants have to be nearby settlements so they need to hve good filters. It is important that the population does not dump consumer batteries and paint and things like that in the trash. And also no material that is wet and could becomposted. Tehy have tons for that as well (ir suburban and rural areas people often have a compost heap).
Companies have strict rules for their waste. consumers can dispose of toxic garbage in communal centers and usually that is free of charge. In Austria it costs an arm and a leg to dispose off the materials when taking down a building. ONLY if the waste is sorted (concrete, bricks, wood, glass, metall, styrofoam, cables / copper) the costs for dumping the waste are bearable.
Even with high labor costs they do sort the the waste of the construction site.
Concrete, bricks take up a lot of space and are heavy. The energy needed to burn cement, lime, or bricks make them valuable resourcea.They use that as bed for streets, and construction projects, not sure if they can meanwhile recycle it / upciycle it to higher value building materials. So it is not mixed with other trash and takes up space in landscapes, the material is put to use.
1
-
1
-
Did you listen too much to Rachel Maddow ?? IF the system is hackable - I would not be worried about the NATIONS. I would be worried about rogue actors. - Neither nation - the U.S., China, Russia, any European country - could protect itself sufficiently. It is like the nuclear threat of mutual destruction. They all are hesistant to start it - and with good reason.
IF the U.S. would have reasonable suspicion that Russia or China had carried out such an attack - it would be a declaration of war. And the Russians and Chinese KNOW how grave that would be.
Likewise the U.S. will not hack major facilities (well let's hope they are so reasonable). There are attacks of course ("see what we could do if we meant business").
- China and Russia have (de facto) dictatorships. That allows to play for the long game in foreign policy.
both nations had famine, civil war and suffered a lot. The Soviet Union lost 27 millions in WW2 (soldiers and civilians). I do not know the numbers of China, they had civil war, paused that when the Japanese invaded them, and continued the civil war after the end of WW2.
Their leaders are likely the same selfish, greedy bastards as our leaders - but the collective memory contains FEAR of war.
The Europeanas are also more hesistant regarding war - they had WAR, RATIONING, OCCUPATION, almost famine, bombing, and people fleeing in masses (German speaking minority from Czech areas, Eastern Germany) during and at the end of WW2. The Titanic was NOT the shipping accident that cost the most lives. If was a ship with German civilians fleeing from the Eastern areas, that was attacked.
That sobers up a nation. The U.S. civilians have not experienced war in the homeland. which may explain the hysteria after 9/11.
After all: the FIRST 9/11 (coup supported by the U.S. on September 11th, 1973 in Chile) also cost 3000 lives immediately. And ended a legitimate democratic government, that was not a threat to the U.S. (and could not have been if they wanted to be a threat). Look at the size of the country, no major military, no nukes, no geostrategic importance.
No one bat an eye. The U.S. citizens let their government get away with it. (and the other Western democracies colluded with the U.s. - meaning those voters allowed that to happen as well).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Trump blew Helsiniki. Unger got that wrong, too. They did not get what they wanted. At all. - The extension of the deal was very necessary, good for the U.S., Russia, the world. Trump could have wagged his finger at Putin for the (alleged) "interference" in U.S. elections or attempts, end then have a phrase ready to elegantly gloss over it. Or just not holding a press conference, giving a statement, both of them and the (war / military spending lusting) media could not embarrass him. Grilling the press secretary, who should have been able to deal with it.
Invoking Reagan, let bygones be bygones, this is larger than us, a weapons deal for 30, or 40 years.
The Russian were pleased in Helsinki, but there are many actors in the U.S. who WANT a new arm's race and Trump made it so easy for them to derail him. The media COULD attack him because he is so stupid. So as soon as he returned home he did not dare to go on, has of course not the knowledge to get it started and did not surround himself with the people wanting to do it.
Likewise every time he wanted to bring the troops home from Syria chemical weapons attacks were claimed. (the second time it was allegedly chlorine, but poison gas sounds better, a lot of people could get their hands on cholrine). Trump the coward gave in and attacked Syria twice. BEFORE the fact finding mission. Theodore Postole from MIT says they were hindered to express their findings in the report.
1
-
1
-
@sharonmores8697 Even IF Donziger's sentence gets overturned (AFTER he has served it) - the goal is to put fear in any lawyer daring to represent the vicitims of big biz, and fear into activists. And that was already accomplished - even IF Donziger would have been cleared now. He already had house arrest for over 700 days, he was disbarred for a while (until the board found they had nothing to justify that), he had no income, the stress, the costs of the lawsuit (the corporate prosecutor gets paid from public funding, and Chevron is not directly engaged in that case. The judges also get paid for their "services").
Donzige is a target so new clients would think twice. Lawyers like him are a potential threat because if you hire them (could be another case) they could be ordered to violate attorney / client privilege and if they have to surrender a comupter ALL information can be abused. Even if not related files are deleted. the crooks can easily restore them, leak them - it is not like anyone would hold them accountable. The reason for such a leak would be to make it impossible for law firms to get any work, the damage to other clients would be collateral damage.
The pretext for having a case were trumped up corruption/ extorition charges against Donziger. Those were the pretext to demand that he surrender his laptop and violate private / attorney privilege.
Anyone that has the laptop (the hardrive) can restore ALL files that were deleted (if he deletes non related cases or private communications and info). They knew of course that he would refuse to surrender the laptop, it would endanger the activists - if he had names in the CONFIDENTIAL files that were not already known to the crooks of Chevron. Not hard to find a killer in a poor country.
So the sham trial provided the pretext to have a sham contempt of court case. (Note how did NOT sentence him on the original charge that Donziger extorted Chevron, well even in the U.S. that might be a hard case to win. And the judge could not avoid a jury because blackmail is more than a misemeanor (under 6 months prison time they can deny the defendant a jury).
The corrupt players - Chevron, and the judges, and that private lawfirm - needed to have a LOT of things going their way - and all things did go their way. Incl. the ABSOLUTE COMPLIANCE of all politicians and mainstream media that cannot be bothered to report on the case.
Where is Michael Moore on this ??
Chevron WANTED the trial to be in Ecuador. That way they could - IF they would get sentenced - ignore the sentencing of another country. If they would have been sentenced in the U.S. and lost the case up to the Supreme Court their assets in the U.S. would be seized, and how would they can claim that the court case in the U.S. had been corrupt, so no we are not paying.
And they would have had a jury trial in the U.S. - so everything can happen if the pollution is so easy to prove.
But they just claimed there had been corruption against them (in Ecuador) after they lost the case, and they brought ONE witness to prosecute Donziger because he allegedly tried to extort them (or they claimed that a witness in Ecuador lied and Donzinger had something to do with it. Note how he was NOT the only one on the team of lawyers. And that pollution case was glaringly obvious they did not rely on one witness or soil or water probe to make their case).
That witness for the alleged extortion by Donziger is a former judge from Ecuador. He got help from Chevron to migrate into the U.S. and was on their payroll.
He recanted his testimony. The corrupt U.S. judge ignored that change of heart and did not allow it to be considered as new evidence (they have no case, it was flimsy anyway, but now it has collapsed. But if they have no case - how is the surrendering of the computer still relevant).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Climate is not of human origin - but it has always been - among other factors affected by CO2 and methane output. For the effect on climate it does not matter HOW additional CO2 or methane comes into the atmospere - it will trigger some warming (or counteract a cooling that would otherwise be on the schedule). That warming can result in a feedback loop and cause runaway warming.
The main factors are sun activity (which increased over the course of billions of years), the cycle around the sun - distance and cyclic wobbling of the axis of the earth, and greenhouse gases). There are other greenhouse gases, but CO2 and methane are the most influental little hinges that swing big doors in the history of the globe.
CO2 triggered warming or cooling has happened in the past (it was not always the cause, with a natural occuring warming CO2 and methane did become increasing factors, they were released from the oceans, or wildfires caused by drier conditions increased output).
There were times when volcanoes released greenhouse gases over hundreds of thousands of years.
Since humans NOW have the ability to put Co2 into the air that took millions and millions of year to sequester inot an inactive form (in the cold oceans or buried as coal, gas, oil) - humans CAN now influence the climate. They cannot control it - but change it. Like we can create death zones in the oceans, or engineer mass extinction of species.
Which is under way and can be observed (by scientists) - that would be even going on w/o climate change caused by humans.
Humans move more earth now on the planet than the natural processes like erosion, floods, .... No other species (other than insects) has done that !
1
-
In the UK they had a snap election (general election out of order) in 2017. 65 million inhabitants of which 2 (TWO) millions registered to vote (first voters, and people who moved, students for instance CAN be registered in one place, but are only allowed to vote in one place of course). Registration can be done online. The UK government had a well made ad for that, encouraging people to register and how to do it.
On the last possible day 650,000 people registered. (the whole campaign lasted 6 weeks, the registration phase maybe was shorter).
Else it is good old fashioned "technology". Paper ballot, hand count. The results of each district are read to the public. They are counted in sports halls by pairs of volunteers under the eye of the public.
So if one was inclined to do it, one could add up the numbers manually (the U.S. has 325 million people, that is more - but definitely scaleable).
They do use computers to aggregate the votes, but it is all out in the open.
And it is possible that the results per district are conveyed by phone (too). They show that on TV (Manchester calling, etc.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
Lessons to be learned: a) it is the economy stupid (many European countries went to the far right in that time)
b) it is a danger to hollow out or have infiltrated the institutions, parliament, agencies, justice system - or in the case of the U.S. undermining the constitution. No more due process, mass spying allowed.
That does not necessarily mean a dictatorship - but it is the first step. And whenever a power grab is attempted it is very convenient when the formal rules have been weakened.
In the case that the crazy people rise up it is essential what the police, and the military will do !! The members of police, the justice system lean to the right anyway. If they are willing for tribal reasons to apply the law selectively ....
The right hooligans in the Weimar Republic had often free reign (it depended on the local leadeship). Often the left (activists or union members) had to defend themselves while the police looked the other way.
Then the narrative was created how the "left" was responsible for the "violence" - setting the tone so that later an exasperated population under a lot of economic stress would agree to be ruled by a strong man. Anything to have order and someone who would take care of the economy.
c) progaganda works (see the current liberal Trump derangement syndrome that matches the uncritical support of the Trump Cultists). It helps to justify a later power grab. If there is so much "unfair" resistance going on from the "others" than it "justifies" the power grab and overrreach of the stong man.
d) the "haves" and the "elites" are quite cynical and cowardly in exploiting a stressful situation. The conservatives in Germany then.
The Democrats NOW. They could win in a landslide with a left populist message - but they would rather not bother their Big Donors, they want to keep the gravy train.
The Consevative / Right parties in Germany after WW1 did that for class reason, for petty hate of the left and unions.
The left in Germany was divided and did not get their act together.
The conservatives and right wingers (the parties) were hell bent after the war to NOT cooperate with the left. And the economic situation was especially difficult, and they did not have the economic insight (as if in academia) to deal with it. So they applied "kitchen table" economics = austerity. (FDR was smarter he tried out the new ideas of John Meynard Keynes, 1933 and following, but that wasn't a thing in the 1920s).
The German middle class and conservative leaning people were shell shocked after WW1. In summer 1914 they had a strong monarchy, and no idea that war was coming.
In winter 1918 they had lost the war, the emperor was dismantled, the unwashed masses (incl. women) had gotten the vote, the blue collars had their say, too. And the times were really, really bad.
Not that it had been rosy for the low income people before, but then it got worse and much more unstable (hyperinflation, followed by austerity and deflation, mid 1920s France occupied the steel and coal region - Germany had not been allowed to have much of a military after 1918 to enforce payment of reparations).
The world had turned upside down. Even the lower white collar middle class did not like "democracy". Before they were at least "better" than the workers.
Now they were hanging on to the middle class for dear life.
And another thing:
The conservatives created the myth how the "Left" was to blame for the harsh peace treaty of Versailles and how the war could still have been won (or lost less catastrophically) and therefore the peace treaty would have been less desastrous.
That was a) reinventing history
b) ignoring the fact that the war was not winable after the U.K. had successfully dragged the U.S. into the war (allegedly there was a Jewish conspiracy)
c) ignoring the fact the the monarch and the conservative establishement were all FOR the war while the Left had demonstrated against it in July 1914 when tensions increased.
They should have refused to vote in parliament to fund it likewise (war bonds). And called the young men to refuse service.
But they did not dare to do it once the pro-war decision was made and war had been declared. They were afraid of being called unpatriotic. And I suppose the emperor would have gone ballistic and dissolved parliament and sent the police and / or army against them.
1
-
1