SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the *-*.*-.*-**.*-**.-*-.-.**-.*-*.***.*.-*.*-.-.-.*-* dept.
This week the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed The Ham Radio Parity Act -- a huge victory for grass-roots advocates of amateur radio.
This will allow for the reasonable accommodation of amateur radio antennas in many places where they are currently prohibited by homeowner associations or private land use restrictions... If this bill passes the Senate, we will be one step closer to allowing amateur radio operators, who provide emergency communications services, the right to erect reasonable antenna structures in places where they cannot do so now.
The national ham radio association is now urging supporters to contact their Senators through a special web page. "This is not just a feel-good bill," said representative Joe Courtney, remembering how Hurricane Sandy brought down the power grid, and "we saw all the advanced communications we take for granted...completely fall by the wayside."
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday September 18 2016, @12:52PM
Speaking for the bit of forest I am most intimately familiar with, it had no settled human habitation until my euro-ancestors got there. In ancient times the area was only good for hunting, and men would hunt there in the summer only, and go back home to the women before the snows came. My non-euro ancestors probably included some of the men that hunted there as well.
But at any rate I think it's wrong-headed and quite frankly rude to make that sort of assumption about another without having any evidence or reason for it. Nearly every piece of land on earth has been conquered or overrun at one point or another. It's incredibly counterproductive to focus on not just ancient but really *generic* grievances in this case. When you buy a piece of property in good faith that should be respected. There's something very perverse and very destructive in the notion that crimes committed centuries ago by and against people who long ago ceased to exist require vengeance be taken on people living today.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 18 2016, @02:17PM
This argument is chopped over in australia every couple of years. A few thousand people arrived on this island ~40000 years ago, were promptly killed off by the next wave of humans, then 39000 years later people with guns moved in.
Not all land is claimed. Only if someone lives on or near it and is willing to defend it. History tells us this should be "and can defend it" because you lose what you cannot hold.
Where it gets silly is calling people indig or non-indig. Given that the second wave of people killed the first 40K years ago does this mean that to claim to be from a place is just a matter of time?
Should all people not recognised as being indig be expelled from Australia? If so, what happens then?
Good luck getting anyone to even listen to a claim of land ownership.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Sunday September 18 2016, @05:35PM
Sure, we're all Africans after all. Indig or non-indig makes sense in some contexts, just like a lot of things it gets reified and turned into stupidity too. When people ask my 'race' they typically aren't interested in the diverse corners of the globe I've tracked some of my more adventurous ancestors to, they just want to know what my complexion is. Neither of which are really any of their business.
"Should all people not recognised as being indig be expelled from Australia? "
As much as I hate to ever be in the position of posing litmus tests and saying anyone that doesn't agree with my position up front is not serious (because those tactics are so commonly and blatantly misused) but in this case I actually think it fits.
ANYONE that seriously thinks they can redress past wrongs and solve todays racial problems through ethnic cleansing, of any group from any area, is just daft. They should be instantly disqualified from holding public office or voting.
That said, you've got a population that isn't doing very well at all, and by all accounts your ancestors just marched in and kicked their ass and took their stuff, I don't know how anyone could be completely serious and not feel some sympathy to the idea of trying to make up for it somehow.
But well-meaning 'help' often does damage instead of harm. I know much of what the US government did to help the first nations here was felt as deeply vicious and hurtful rather than aa help. I'd imagine the same is likely true in Oz. It's probably not possible to single an ethnic group out for special assistance without simultaneously stigmatizing them as inferior, which can easily do more harm than the assistance does good. Just because a plan is well-intentioned doesn't mean the results will be beneficial.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?