News

RedShirt Chair Says Movement will Double within Five Years

Red shirt chairwoman Thida Thavornseth say we already have 10 million supporters

CHIANGRAI TIMES – Red shirt chairwoman Thida Thavornseth said the red-shirt movement will double within five years and will facilitate a legal revamp as well as media reform.

Thida said that if a new Constitution is adopted next year, and the processes of media and justice-system reform are conducted accordingly, by 2017 Thailand should be 60-per-cent democratic.

Red shirt chairwoman Thida Thavornseth Photo The Nation

The number of red-shirt supporters by then should have increased to 30 million.

“I think the number of people who agree with us should increase. Consider the labour force; that should be over 30 million people. Eligible voters number over 40 million people. Now we have over 10 million supporters, which can be seen from the election result plus those who did not vote for Pheu Thai,” she said.

Asked what Thailand would look like if the red shirts dominated the country, Thida said now that Yingluck Shinawatra had been elected the prime minister, Thailand is 20-per-cent democratic, as there are appointed senators and members of independent organisations.

“I don’t know when Thailand will be 100-per-cent democratic. But at least, after the Constitution amendment, we might get 30 per cent to 50 per cent more, as some laws will be better, such as the ones relating to the Senate. Some people might say that some elected people are embarrassing. They are seen to be people from the lower section of society, but they are elected, and that’s legitimate,” she said.

“To have 100-per-cent democracy, first, people must see military coups as the worst kind of conduct. Second, the state mechanism must be entirely linked with the people via direct or indirect elections. We don’t expect 100 per cent, but 70-80 per cent is alright.”

Thida refused to discuss the status of the monarchy in her definition of democracy.

She said it would be up to the Constitution Drafting Assembly.

Thida said the red shirts are not necessarily Thaksin's supporters.Thaksin was only a symbol, as he was abused just like the red shirts.

She said the red shirt movement’s main aim is to eradicate military coups and fight for equality.

All the senators, if the Senate remains must be elected, she said.

Thida said the red shirts are not necessarily Thaksin’s supporters.

Thaksin was only a symbol, as he was abused just like the red shirts.

“Whoever takes the people’s side is on our side. If you reject military coups, you are one of us,” she said.

“Are Thaksin and [Deputy Prime Minister] Chalerm Yoobamrung like me? No. There are a lot of elites in the Pheu Thai Party. But if anyone opposes military coups, they’re on our side. There’s no need to push anyone out just because they think differently. The point is whether to accept military coups,” she said.

She said grassroots people love Thaksin because he served their needs.

He became a hero because of the military coup.

She said people in the bureaucratic polity network cannot get over Thaksin because they think the red shirts are acting for Thaksin.

This is not true, Thida said.

“Even if Thaksin died today, or if we put Thaksin in a space capsule and shot it out of the Earth, or even General Prem likewise, even if he died today or he was put in a capsule and shot away, will there still be fighting? Would the red shirts end their movements if Prem was dead? No. If something happens to Thaksin, will the red shirts stop? No. They will try harder.”

On whether it is possible that the red shirts would split from the Pheu Thai Party, Thida said it depended on whether Pheu Thai remained a political party for the masses.

“Our goal is to get away from the bureaucratic polity, and we need justice. So people came and supported us. If we don’t fight, we can’t stay. People won’t accept us and we are not worth it,” Thida said about the red shirts.

“But the government’s duty is to administer the country until the end of its term. Stay as long as possible without any military coup to topple it. If it doesn’t do its duty well, people will blame it and it won’t be able to stay.

“We have to consider what kind of political party it is; if it’s a party of capitalists who think they have money and can win – many MPs think so – if they don’t care about the masses, the red shirts, and only want canvassers or want to change the red shirts into canvassers. In that case, the red shirts will have to decide if it will quit, be part of the party or be a fighting agency,” she said.

Asked about the red shirts’ path to reconciliation, Thida said the question did not concern the group, as creating reconciliation was not its business, but an issue for the government.

The red shirts’ duty is to call for justice, she said.

“The people do not have to reconcile with the rulers. The people can reconcile among themselves for peace in the country. The only duty of the people is to fight with the rulers. Do not ask the red shirts how to reconcile. This is not our duty,” she said.

“You have to first understand the principle. In this world, there are the rulers and the ruled. We are the ruled, we are abused. How could you ask us to reconcile while our people are still in jail and charged with many cases?” Thida said.

She said the red shirts do not oppose the government’s reconciliation effort, but their peaceful campaign is the best reconciliation.

Thida, nevertheless, is known to be an advocate for national reconciliation.

In private talks with her red shirt supporters, she reportedly always expresses concerns that the ongoing confrontation will only lead to a lose-lose situation.

She accepted that the government has tried to deliver justice to the red shirts via compensation and rehabilitation measures, as well as bail for red shirt detainees.

But these are not sufficient, she said.

Real reconciliation, on the other hand, must start with finding the truth – an area in which there has been very little progress, according to Thida.

The red shirts have been misunderstood by the global community as fighting with weapons, she said.

“Don’t say that the red shirts do not reconcile. We have been very patient in the past five or six years. Some have been jailed, some died. If we don’t reconcile, we must have fighting with weapons. But the government’s reconciliation measures, such as pouring water [to pay respects], are childish acts done by adults,” she said.

Thida stressed the importance of media reform as she said there was a conspiracy to frame the red shirts.- By Olan Lertrattanadamrongkul

News

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.

According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.

Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.

The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.

Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.

Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.

To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.

Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.

On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.

In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.

Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay

Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding

On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.

TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.

When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.

And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.

Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.

A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.

google

Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.

But today, it feels more like reality.

Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.

Could we remember Google in the same way that we remember Yahoo or Ask Jeeves in decades? These next few years could be significant.

SOURCE | CNN

News

The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.

The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.

Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.

This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.

In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.

The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.

This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.

The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.

In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.

According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.

Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.

The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.

For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.

Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.

Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.

As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.

As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.

The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.

SOURCE: AP

News

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli, To repay $6.4 Million

Washington — The Supreme Court rejected Martin Shkreli’s appeal on Monday, after he was branded “Pharma Bro” for raising the price of a lifesaving prescription.

Martin appealed a decision to repay $64.6 million in profits he and his former company earned after monopolizing the pharmaceutical market and dramatically raising its price. His lawyers claimed the money went to his company rather than him personally.

The justices did not explain their reasoning, as is customary, and there were no notable dissents.

Prosecutors, conversely, claimed that the firm had promised to pay $40 million in a settlement and that because Martin orchestrated the plan, he should be held accountable for returning profits.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Martin was also forced to forfeit the Wu-Tang Clan’s unreleased album “Once Upon a Time in Shaolin,” which has been dubbed the world’s rarest musical album. The multiplatinum hip-hop group auctioned off a single copy of the record in 2015, stipulating that it not be used commercially.

Shkreli was convicted of lying to investors and defrauding them of millions of dollars in two unsuccessful hedge funds he managed. Shkreli was the CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals (later Vyera), which hiked the price of Daraprim from $13.50 to $750 per pill after acquiring exclusive rights to the decades-old medicine in 2015. It cures a rare parasite condition that affects pregnant women, cancer patients, and HIV patients.

shkreli

He defended the choice as an example of capitalism in action, claiming that insurance and other programs ensured that those in need of Daraprim would eventually receive it. However, the move prompted criticism, from the medical community to Congress.

Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From ‘Pharma Bro’ Martin Shkreli

Attorney Thomas Huff said the Supreme Court’s Monday ruling was upsetting, but the high court could still overturn a lower court judgment that allowed the $64 million penalty order even though Shkreli had not personally received the money.

“If and when the Supreme Court does so, Mr. Shkreli will have a strong argument for modifying the order accordingly,” he told reporters.

Shkreli was freed from prison in 2022 after serving most of his seven-year sentence.

SOURCE | AP