“then in comment #75 Ralph Kramden has given a Link to Nation ! (perhaps the most biased of Thai newspapers) the article which clearly shows that Army has admitted the usage of LIVE ammo (although I have watched many TV reports prior to that where officials also admitted that).”
If you look at my posts, you will see that I always pointed out that the army from the beginning had admitted using practice rounds, which are generally accurate up to 25 metres but can still be lethal up to about 200 metres, in addition to blank ammunition. I also suggested that certain soldiers, probably NCOs (a corporal is an NCO by the way), were issued with ball ammunition for use in case their lives or those of their colleagues were threatened. The situation when they were faced with a bus that had a brick placed on the accelerator bearing down on their lines was clearly a justifiable use of ball ammunition. Anyway where are the bodies and the queues of relatives looking for missed loved ones? There still seems to be great disappointment amongst red shirt leaders and their foreign fans that the hoped for news clips of massed slaughter and truck loads of bodies have not yet materialized. Perhaps the next red assault on the capital will prove more fruitful.
“How about their stolen rights, the rights to have leader of the country of their own choosing, not one chosen for them by the palace-military-judiciary complex? Is this “not clear” enough?”
Yes, it is clear enough that this is a periphrasis of “whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM”. While Thai citizens certainly have the right to choose their own political leaders, none of the Thai constitutions has never given the Thai people the right to choose their own head of state or even prime minister. The head of state is the king and the prime minister is elected by MPs. The Thai republic and presidential elections remain a pipe dream for red shirt intellectuals.
On the issue of Animism and Buddhism, here is a small anecdote.
About two decades ago, the group pf students of which I was a member, was taught by Niels Mulder. He had come to Thailand in the 60ies with the aim of explaining the behavior of Thai people by reference to their Buddhist beliefs. After all, it was assumed that the Thais were Buddhists, and that religion had a substantial influence on shaping their behavior. The longer he studied the Buddhist scriptures, the bigger the gap between them and the Thais’ observable behavior became. In his following search for what really informed much of Thai behavior patterns, he came to the conclusion that Thais are animists at heart, and that Buddhism only covered a very thin upper layer on their syncretistic belief system.
Obviously, much more could be said about this issue, and there is a good measure of literature on it. Still, one might want to read what Mulder had to say.
Mulder, Niels (1996) Inside Thai Society: Interpretations of Everyday Life. Amsterdam and Kuala Lumpur: The Pepin Press.
I recall that the Democrats changed the hair colour of their Mae Thorani statue outside their HQ on the advice of a mor doo – to red I think it was, The advice was that this would impact the election result. There was a picture in the Nation or the Post.
I also recall that the war on drugs was especially popular amongst Bangkok’s middle class. The idea that it was rural people and taxi drivers who were the main supporters of this policy is belied by the opinion polls of the time.
Any evidence for the claim that “the biggest devotees of astrology and magic” are “the rural masses”? I guess it depends on what “biggest” might mean. But the amulet markets and resort to big name and expensive astrologers and ceremonies appears to be the preserve of celebrities, the new rich and the middle class. And quite a few palace ceremonies have a lot to do with astrology and related beliefs.
actually you don’t even have to prove anything to those who attack you ! you can reply to them simply : “burden of evidence” lies upon the accuser, not the accused – so, let THEM prove their accusations and provide evidences for that ! 😉
and when I say “evidences” – I mean solid hard evidences, NOT some theoritizing or speculations based on some theoretical knowledge or even more precisely on their own INTERPRETATIONS of that theoretical knowledge !
by solid evidences I mean – let them produce something like : some WITNESS who was there beside Nick and may say “no Nick is lying – there was no any bullets flying over our heads, certainly not real bullets”, or any such, as well as, say, proper investigation among the troops who were actually participating in those events, and whoever else – like may be who were shot by “blank” bullets.
I bet my a$$ they can’t provide ANY such evidences !
whatever….
but the main point is – it is THEM (like Portman) who must proove their accusations with solid evidences – NOT accused (Nick) !
and ANY attempt to charge Nick with accusations without providing sufficient evidences for such accusations is baseless because of “presumption of innocense” – basic principle in legal practice in all civilised countries !
on other hand, their challenge to dare Nick to “provide evidences” – is nothing else than a DIRTY TRICK ! 🙂
because they are accusers, yet they lay the “burden of evidence”.
Nick,
personally I don’t think you’re biased – at most what you can be accused of is being sympathetic towards reds, yes – “sympathetic” is the ONLY correct word is applicable here ! and I don’t see anything wrong in person having certain sympathies in FREE and democratic society, and those who would accuse another of being sympathetic perhaps need to check their own “bias-ometer” ! 🙂
2. a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
(An inclination for or against that inhibits impartial judgment)
I didn’t find in your story ANYTHING which was “partial judgement” or “unfair” !
I am sure – you would have (and wanted) to say more than that, according to many other things you’ve seen or heard – but you withheld those “more” things precisely because you have taking a big care to present the story in as much IMPARTIAL way as possible.
In fact, I think it is those who attack you are biased ! because :
“In psychology, cognitive bias is bias based on cognitive factors. One type of cognitive bias is confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new information in such a way that confirms one’s prior beliefs, even to the extreme of denial, ignoring information that conflicts with one’s prior beliefs. The fundamental attribution error, also known as “correspondence bias”, is one example of such bias, in which people tend to explain others’ behavior in terms of personality, whereas they tend to explain their own behavior in terms of the situation”
confirmation bias – is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.
so, there are people who are thoroughly BRAINWASHED by “Combined Propaganda” (Thai MSM + gov. + army PR + “ajarns” + their own interests to preserve the status quo) and they FILTER all the facts and informatin through their prism of deluded perseption of reality ! ( this is especially typical of “Yellow zombies” 🙂
therefore ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they hear or read – they filter, or interpret in their own BIASED (cognitive bias) twisted way.
however if once in a while they come across something which they can’t neither “filter” nor interpret – they get furious ! mainly because such information challenges and destroys their carefully constructed ILLUSION – they can’t maintain their own dellusional ideas anymore, they can’t allow doubts or anything to undermine their own cognitive bias !
that’s why they have no choice but PROTECT their own bias – they have to confront and attack the source of such disturbing information (“shooting the messanger” allegory comes to mind 🙂 ).
and the best way to do it – of course to accuse that person of bias.
now, first of all – this in itself can be considered as “Argumentum ad Hominem” fallacy (or “personal attack”) – because in a decent debate people would avoid attacking person, but only stick to attacking argument itself. however accusing person of bias is a trick which accomplishes exactly what “attack on person” constitutes : switching the debate from the ARGUMENT itself (the premise) towards the personality of opponent, then attempting to DISCREDIT the opponent by some accusation (as “bias” here) and in such away to DISMISS the argument made by opponent as lacking credibility.
the logic is : person A is “bla-bla-bla” therefore whatever he say is BS, because he can’t be trusted.
(I know – I’m fully aware that I’ve practically done the same thing in #122 – I did it on purpose to let him get the idea of the feeling – sort of paid with the same coin 🙂 although my charges to him have more sense than his charges to Nick)
now, coming back to “evidences” !
check it out, more interesting part :
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill [of critical thinking] is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it
so, how about that, huh ? 😉
to me it is pretty obvious that what is mentioned above can be seen in the posts of many those here who attack Nick !
they have their own preconceived idea (“Reds are evil, violent, uneducated mob paid by eveil monster from hell Thaksin to help him back his money” or something like that) and they always get more than plenty of confirmation for that all over the Thai Media (which reflects the opinions of other sources aligned with it). but once they come accross of something which challenges their such preconceived idea – they ONLY apply rigorous ctirical scrutiny to that information, and demand EVIDENCES, or try to dismiss it if they think there are not evidences, or if there are evidences – they are EXTREMELY critical of those evidences too (as in recent Parliament debates the Dems said that photos provided by PT are fake and edited in Photoshop 🙂 )
but
whatever the twist in such “debates” – we can NEVER see these people applying the SAME amount of rigorous ctirical scrutiny to the “evidences” whihc rather support their own preconceived idea (fair to say – prejudice) !
why is that? 😉
because of …. their own cognitive bias !!!!
(confirmation bias).
and what is more ! if someone is attempting to find evidences which prove that wrong preconceived idea – they accuse them of “smearing campaign” etc.
this is like a hillarious comedy !
if only it didn’t have such a serious consiquences to the real world we live in – the careful and thorough formation of public opinion based entirely on BIAS of preconceived idea !
the main problem is – there are very few people (among general public) who bother to examine carefully such bias, because it takes time and effort. there are of course few who see it through instantly. but even they usually do not attempt to challenge it in public – because again, for general public it would seem more like bnickering or quarrel (as recent Parliament debates). and those very few who does try – they are instantly booed and ridiculed, even may be risk “pesonality assassination” (term usually used in US, like who was that – Clark ? the guy who held high position in Bush’s government and dared to voice his doubts about 9/11 and then faced huge smearing campaign by MSM till he had no choice bu resign)
that’s why this sort of affairs continues.
I’m glad that still there are some honest intellectuals (even those who comments here) who do voice their disagreement with such “confirmation bias”.
although some of them eventually are silenced (for example, it is too easy to find something in their statements which can be charged with certain draconian laws 😉 – it is even sufficient to simply make such charge, not even necessarily it to be proved … ) and are forced either keep quite, or “be in line”, or …. go elsewhere 😉
so, as I mentioned previously – their bias and demagoguery is quite easy to defeat for anyone who simply tries. no even need to be any sort of profi. I’m nobody – but I do use my brains and I don’t swallow the crap pushed by such demagogues. and I’m 100% sure that there are a lot more people out there who see it through too, and have muhc higher skills.
therefore, as saying goes “you can fool some people some time – but you can’t fool all the people all the time”
I believe that eventually TRUTH prevails anyway and I thank Nick again for sticking to the truth. as well as all those who give support to Nick (like ajaran Somsak here – as one of the very few remaining honest intellectuals who do not prostitute themselves to the Establishment !).
thanks for your general agreement and constructive attempts to clear up my use of language.. .. mmm, should I have said “majority” rather than “overall”?
I did say representatives of other classes and groups, meaning less than a majority of some of the groups
so, will you all accept that Sidh, Portman disparage the majority of Thai people when they choose emotive, slighting terms to describe Thaksin? I dont mind if they make specific allegations about Thaksin but object to drawing broad disparaging conclusions in a way that seems to assume agreement by the majority of Thai people
meanwhile, Portman raises some good points:
“his brand of vote buying poltics is not permitted in the West). On the other hand we must not use Western standards to judge him as unfit for political office, due to his appalling human rights record and corruption in office”
firstly, I agree that Thai style vote buying is (as far as possible) not permitted in the West… I think its important to note that as far as I know the law appears to be applied fairly and only those directly guilty are penalised. The hysterical, disproportionate and selectively applied penalties of Thai law are not a feature of any other countries political process to my knowledge. If the purpose of the Thai laws was really to assist in the democratic process their scope and misapplication defeats the purpose.
Sadly, Thaksin’s appalling human rights record seems almost normal in Thailand. Not just the events but the same or relatred people are involved. The primary reason is that the military are not under civilian control and are unable, unwilling and secretly encourage their rogue elements. The Border Patrol Police are a part of the military and have a particularly sordid history. I believe Thaksin was trying and failed to bring the military under control of his civilian government. Noone else is even trying!
In the West, corruption is handled according to the law as it applies at the time of alleged offences. If a politician does not break the law but people do not like something he/she does then the people can take personal revenge through voting at the next election. They can also agitate to change the law which will not apply to that politician but can ensure the same thing does not happen again.
I note that there are many allegations against Thaksin but, like most well-organised people he has had good legal advice along the way so no allegations are proven. I discouint the conflict of interest case because of the obvious perversion of the judicial process in contradicting past judgements on the status of the FIDF by the Supreme Court to gain the conviction.
Tht two writers presented this paper at the Siam Society, but if I recall correctly, unlike what the paper indicates, Thaksin did not complete that 99 wat tour. In fact, did he not complete very little of it?
As to ‘the people,’ they are victims of homage fraud on the part of the entire political process. While everything is for the people, nation, monarchy and religion, that is, during campaign promises, after election it’s all for number one.
The combination of what’s wrong politically in the country is indeed scary.
u ask: “I’m interested if anyone can point to instances where Abhisit has turned to the supernatural?”
i doubt it’d fit his “mind set”; that’s traits & habits & training. a lot of people call it “education”, these days 😉
i guess he’d “encountered” so-called “supernatural” the moments he experienced his very fragile life a human being when he was physically attacked in pattaya & in bkk.
& after that… “mind set” integrates experience into predominant patterns. people once called that “karma” 😉
tomorrow is May 4,
Don’t forget the Kent State shooting.
The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre,[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others were wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]
Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. However, other students who were shot had merely been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[6][7]
There was a significant national response to the shootings: hundreds of universities, colleges, and high schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of eight million students, and the event further divided the country, at this already socially contentious time, along political lines.
What are the grievances of the rank and file red shirts? Apart from whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM, it is not clear what these are?
How about their stolen rights, the rights to have leader of the country of their own choosing, not one chosen for them by the palace-military-judiciary complex? Is this “not clear” enough? Or perhaps you’re so deluded yourself into thinking that you’re ‘devada’ and your view on Thaksin must be accepted by them as well, in order for you to see any grievances that these ordinary folks may have?
What are the grievances of the rank and file red shirts? Apart from whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM, it is not clear what these are?
Gee, where do I start? How about the double-standard treatment of the Yellow Shirts and the Red Shirts, some of whom (but not all) were involved in illegal acts of violence and insurrection? I think the gov’t has gotten wind of this, and have ordered the cases against the PAD leaders to move now that they’re bringing charges against the reds, but before the red uprising, it looked like the PAD leaders were getting away with their crimes.
How about the fact that the PAD want to take away the votes of the rural poor, by allowing only 30% of parliament to be elected, with the remaining 70% appointed (and who presumably will be middle and upper class – just look at the appointed senators today). And the fact that this group that is implacably opposed to their right to participate in democracy enjoys the patronage from the very highest levels of Thai society?
How about the fact that their first choice for government (whether they made the right choice or wrong choice – I personally think they made the wrong choice, but I don’t doubt the legitimacy of their choice, even though I think it was wrong) was ousted in a military coup and then their second and third choices ousted by judicial fiat?
How about the vast social and income inequalities in the country, and most of all the great inequalities of opportunity? The reds and the poor are now told that the first PM in generations to have made substantial progress in alleviating these inequalities was the wrong choice. Now I criticized the implementation of these policies and doubted their long-term sustainability, but it’s been documented widely, even among scholars and journalists who don’t like Thaksin, that policies such as 30 baht health care and the village fund did have a positive effect on the life of the poor (we don’t know whether they could have been sustained long-term because the people weren’t given an opportunity to see them through). I disagreed with Thaksin’s 1-district-1 scholarship to study at a foreign university at the time because it was poorly planned and the implementation was botched, but by the time of the coup, several adjustments had been made and the program was beginning to show some promise to provide real educational opportunities for the gifted among the poor. But we’ll never know how it will have turned out because it was 1 of the first programs that the junta cut, while at the same time they increased the military budget by 50%.
I could go on, but just looking at these events at face value, many of the lower classes who support the reds have gotten the message that time and time again that their votes and their opinions on politics do not matter one cent.
“I agree I use the term poor loosely”… David Brown Post#39
It would have been sufficient to just add a word:
“Thaksin was and is the ‘overwhelming’ choice of the poor….”
But you have confused me (and perhaps many others) by saying :
“the Thaksin led government was the democratic choice of the Thai people overall, including representatives of all classes and groups in the Thai population………….”
Now you seem to be confusing the issue, even more, by including others, you didn’t think of before.
Even then, you are once again,”loose” with your words:
“disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall.”
Really ?
What about people in “all” these group (including many in the UDD/Red Shirts movement), who didn’t /don’t support him ?
Won’t most of these Thai people feel slighted by such a statement?
Or, do you just “write them off”, because they were/are seemingly outnumbered ?
Please think through what you want to say, rather than mouth off emotional statements and catch phrases.
Then, more people might take notice of what you want to say – rather than criticize you.
I would prefer to criticize the post – not the poster – so would many others.
“What are the grievances of the rank and file red shirts? Apart from whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM, it is not clear what these are?”
I rest my case, thank you for clearly beating me in terms of bias, and proving this so well. It may have escaped you that there are endless speeches about the so called “Armatayatipatai” vs. “Prachatipatai”, equal rights and opportunities, and similar topics held on the stages of the Red Shirts.
“antipadshist”:
Thank you very much.
Some of the accusations here are slightly ridiculous indeed. As to the bullets – picture no. 59 – the windows of the bus soldiers walk by – does show bullet holes. The bullet that passed the tree under which i was standing was very real, and i believe, judging from the sound of the gun that was fired just before the bullet passed – it might have been a handgun, and not an assault rifle. Also, when i spoke with the young corporal, there was no question about “fake bullets” in the morning attack.
I was accused that i did not write about the gas tanker incident at Din Daeng apartments. I have done that on purpose, as i have not been there when this happened. I only wrote what i saw of the clashes of 13th, and what was told to me by proven and trusted sources. Obviously i will not expose my sources. I have pointed out at the introduction of my report, that this is not a complete report.
Nirmal Gosh in one of his blogs has a very good article about the gas tanker incident, and at a later stage i will include reports by others that i know are trustworthy on incidents that were important, and where i have not been able to be present.
after having a closer look at Portman’s comments, including the last one #122 – I come to conclusion that he himself is SHAMELESS DEMAGOGUE – a typical for ….. PAD (“Yellow zombies” as they are known now for their too obvious brainwashedness)
Portman – you keep accusing others of partisanship.
so, I think to be consistent – you must state your own allegence !
so far all I can see is – you DISTORT the facts. and that is with too obvious advantage to certain group of people – so called “People’s Alliance for Democracy” – which are in fact “Elitist Alliance for Dictatorship”
PAD ruthless propaganda is unmatched.
however it is TOO EASY to defeat for anoyne with at least 1 cell of brains in the skull.
as, for example the last Portman’s comment #122 – TOTAL BS and nonsence.
Portman – I dare you to PROVE your statement ! 😉
since you love to challenge others to provide evidences, you must be well able to do that yourself.
otherwise you would lose tha last shread of credibility and firmly fall into the category of “Yellow Zombies” whom I deeply despise.
PAD [i.e.- both lay leadership and PAD men in the Dem. gov’t.] wants to focus some money on “Red” areas with “Yellow” civil servants. I think that cash will come from a different piggy than the cash mentioned above, but the tactic is the same. So then, per #1, the rationale for distributing the money via the army is that they are a more trustworthy player (in Red areas) than the local SAO/amphur staff.
But the goal of this cash has always been to weaken the PPP’s hold on the local level. A new program is given a new name and then the present gov’t disperses it in such a way that the face of the largess is yellow or green.
Also, two slight tangents:
SML has been renamed the “Sufficiency Economy Fund” or something similar. If the Nation article is in fact referring to this fund, then the 300,000/per would make sense. There were articles talking about doubling the SML/village, but 300,000Bt/village is the median (mean; mode; ???) for a TRT-era village SML grant.
One of the Eng-lang papers mentioned a cut in “Sufficiency Economy” or “Community Sufficiency” funds within the upcoming round of budget cuts (about a week+ ago). Again, dunno if the two are related, or just the Dems marketing another program under the S.E. label…
It is amazing to see how much outrage and even almost a hate is expressed at Nick by people like Portman, Les Abbys etc.
WOW !
they blame him for bias. alright, I understand that they must be a champions of FREE SPEECH than – the famous “fair and balanced” cliche ! 🙂
but then …
I can’t see them speaking about the TOO OBVIOUS BIAS unleashed by Thai partisan MSM, government PR propaganda campaign (Satit), and army’s own (Kansern). I don’t see them denounce the TOTAL MEDIA BLACKOUT conducted by MICT (all the TV, radio and websites of Reds being blocked).
so, EVEN IF Nick was biased (I don’t agree with that) – his ALTERNATIVE coverage of events is perhaps a tiny drop in the raging ocean of BLATANT PROPAGANDA conducted by Thai MSM, amry, gov, ajarns (especial SHAME on them – thery are disgrace to the word “intellectuals” – more like a “prostitutes for the Establishment ” !!! )
Portman, here is my challenge :
can you refer to at least ANY ONE SINGLE genuine UNbiased source in Thai Media ? WHY DON’T YOU talk about MUCH LARGER BIAS conducted by all those mentioned Propaganda players ?
my guess is – because you’r either one of them, shamelessly dishonest to the core – or you are an “armchair demagogue” !
now, how about that, huh ? 😉
just one simple example:
you kept raving about Nik mentioning LIVE bullets…
you accuse him of distortion. well, as you might know – the “burden of evidence” lies upon the accuser, not the accused. yet you DID NOT provide ANY evidences to prove your accusations – instead you ….. demand evidences from Nick !
this is dishonest, my friend. you demand from others something what you don’t even bother to do – although in CIVIL debate (and in legal process) – it is YOU who must provide evidences.
then in comment #75 Ralph Kramden has given a Link to Nation ! (perhaps the most biased of Thai newspapers) the article which clearly shows that Army has admitted the usage of LIVE ammo (although I have watched many TV reports prior to that where officials also admitted that).
then the most intersting part is:
I couldn’t find ANY of your comments on that. it seems like you have simply dissapeared and shrunk, hey ?
WHERE HAS GONE YOUR OUTRAGE AND RIGHTEOUS ANGER at Nick’s mentioning the LIVE bullets, dude ?
WHERE is your APOLOGY for all your accusations and raving all along ?
NIck – don’t you get upset by this kind of personal attacks !
keep up the good work – because you’re right in your effot of “giving a voice to the people that generally have no voice in society” !!!
because this is what I consider as “subversive truth” – the one which comes from the grassrots, NOT from the top down, given by “officials”.
to me personally (and I am sure that I’m not alone) – no matter what Portman and others would say in attacking you, your kind of reports is worth a million times then INSINCERE pontification of those people.
as saying goes: “dogs bark and caravan goes on”
DON’T BE AFFECTED by these insincere comments, my friend !
once again : DEEPEST RESPECT to standing up to them and defending your ADHERENCE TO TRUTH !
all those who have balls and audacity to shamelessly blame him of bias – go and collect your own “facts” and write your own story – why don’t you ?! as I know NM has stated time and again that they accept the contribution by “visitor authors” .
otherwise – STOP pointing fingers, because as saying goes : “when you point a finger to someone – 3 other fingers point back to you !”
what a nerve these guys have, huh? simply unbelievable !
“kettle calls pot black”
We are stuck in a circular argument here whereby foreign Thaksin fans say that, on the one hand, we must respect Thaksin’s right to rule purely using Western liberal democratic standards (and ignoring the fact that his brand of vote buying poltics is not permitted in the West). On the other hand we must not use Western standards to judge him as unfit for political office, due to his appalling human rights record and corruption in office, because that is all considered acceptable or even laudable by most Thais and er I forgot – because there are no receipts.
“disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall”
I think that an overwhelming majority of Thai people would support the king wholeheartedly, if ever there were such a referendum. Does that mean that disparaging the king and his achievements, as the majority of posters on New Mandala are so happy to do, is also tantamount to disparaging the Thai people overall?
Got lots of time and was drawn to some verbal duels of past.
I never realized I was such a schmuck at NM! But don’t blame me, blame my DNA. (Thaksin can copy this line from me if nothing else helps in his quest to recover his treasure first, and his name last).
I never did get to meet and ‘sch-waltz’ Lleij Samuel Schwartz’ mother?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Antipadshist #123
“then in comment #75 Ralph Kramden has given a Link to Nation ! (perhaps the most biased of Thai newspapers) the article which clearly shows that Army has admitted the usage of LIVE ammo (although I have watched many TV reports prior to that where officials also admitted that).”
If you look at my posts, you will see that I always pointed out that the army from the beginning had admitted using practice rounds, which are generally accurate up to 25 metres but can still be lethal up to about 200 metres, in addition to blank ammunition. I also suggested that certain soldiers, probably NCOs (a corporal is an NCO by the way), were issued with ball ammunition for use in case their lives or those of their colleagues were threatened. The situation when they were faced with a bus that had a brick placed on the accelerator bearing down on their lines was clearly a justifiable use of ball ammunition. Anyway where are the bodies and the queues of relatives looking for missed loved ones? There still seems to be great disappointment amongst red shirt leaders and their foreign fans that the hoped for news clips of massed slaughter and truck loads of bodies have not yet materialized. Perhaps the next red assault on the capital will prove more fruitful.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Somsak Jeamteerasakul #127
“How about their stolen rights, the rights to have leader of the country of their own choosing, not one chosen for them by the palace-military-judiciary complex? Is this “not clear” enough?”
Yes, it is clear enough that this is a periphrasis of “whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM”. While Thai citizens certainly have the right to choose their own political leaders, none of the Thai constitutions has never given the Thai people the right to choose their own head of state or even prime minister. The head of state is the king and the prime minister is elected by MPs. The Thai republic and presidential elections remain a pipe dream for red shirt intellectuals.
Pasuk and Baker on “spirits, stars and Thai politics”
David #3 Sidh S.
On the issue of Animism and Buddhism, here is a small anecdote.
About two decades ago, the group pf students of which I was a member, was taught by Niels Mulder. He had come to Thailand in the 60ies with the aim of explaining the behavior of Thai people by reference to their Buddhist beliefs. After all, it was assumed that the Thais were Buddhists, and that religion had a substantial influence on shaping their behavior. The longer he studied the Buddhist scriptures, the bigger the gap between them and the Thais’ observable behavior became. In his following search for what really informed much of Thai behavior patterns, he came to the conclusion that Thais are animists at heart, and that Buddhism only covered a very thin upper layer on their syncretistic belief system.
Obviously, much more could be said about this issue, and there is a good measure of literature on it. Still, one might want to read what Mulder had to say.
Mulder, Niels (1996) Inside Thai Society: Interpretations of Everyday Life. Amsterdam and Kuala Lumpur: The Pepin Press.
Pasuk and Baker on “spirits, stars and Thai politics”
I recall that the Democrats changed the hair colour of their Mae Thorani statue outside their HQ on the advice of a mor doo – to red I think it was, The advice was that this would impact the election result. There was a picture in the Nation or the Post.
I also recall that the war on drugs was especially popular amongst Bangkok’s middle class. The idea that it was rural people and taxi drivers who were the main supporters of this policy is belied by the opinion polls of the time.
Any evidence for the claim that “the biggest devotees of astrology and magic” are “the rural masses”? I guess it depends on what “biggest” might mean. But the amulet markets and resort to big name and expensive astrologers and ceremonies appears to be the preserve of celebrities, the new rich and the middle class. And quite a few palace ceremonies have a lot to do with astrology and related beliefs.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Nick (#125)
actually you don’t even have to prove anything to those who attack you ! you can reply to them simply : “burden of evidence” lies upon the accuser, not the accused – so, let THEM prove their accusations and provide evidences for that ! 😉
and when I say “evidences” – I mean solid hard evidences, NOT some theoritizing or speculations based on some theoretical knowledge or even more precisely on their own INTERPRETATIONS of that theoretical knowledge !
by solid evidences I mean – let them produce something like : some WITNESS who was there beside Nick and may say “no Nick is lying – there was no any bullets flying over our heads, certainly not real bullets”, or any such, as well as, say, proper investigation among the troops who were actually participating in those events, and whoever else – like may be who were shot by “blank” bullets.
I bet my a$$ they can’t provide ANY such evidences !
whatever….
but the main point is – it is THEM (like Portman) who must proove their accusations with solid evidences – NOT accused (Nick) !
and ANY attempt to charge Nick with accusations without providing sufficient evidences for such accusations is baseless because of “presumption of innocense” – basic principle in legal practice in all civilised countries !
on other hand, their challenge to dare Nick to “provide evidences” – is nothing else than a DIRTY TRICK ! 🙂
because they are accusers, yet they lay the “burden of evidence”.
Nick,
personally I don’t think you’re biased – at most what you can be accused of is being sympathetic towards reds, yes – “sympathetic” is the ONLY correct word is applicable here ! and I don’t see anything wrong in person having certain sympathies in FREE and democratic society, and those who would accuse another of being sympathetic perhaps need to check their own “bias-ometer” ! 🙂
because “bias” is :
2. a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.
(An inclination for or against that inhibits impartial judgment)
I didn’t find in your story ANYTHING which was “partial judgement” or “unfair” !
I am sure – you would have (and wanted) to say more than that, according to many other things you’ve seen or heard – but you withheld those “more” things precisely because you have taking a big care to present the story in as much IMPARTIAL way as possible.
In fact, I think it is those who attack you are biased ! because :
“In psychology, cognitive bias is bias based on cognitive factors. One type of cognitive bias is confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new information in such a way that confirms one’s prior beliefs, even to the extreme of denial, ignoring information that conflicts with one’s prior beliefs. The fundamental attribution error, also known as “correspondence bias”, is one example of such bias, in which people tend to explain others’ behavior in terms of personality, whereas they tend to explain their own behavior in terms of the situation”
confirmation bias – is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions and to avoid information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs.
so, there are people who are thoroughly BRAINWASHED by “Combined Propaganda” (Thai MSM + gov. + army PR + “ajarns” + their own interests to preserve the status quo) and they FILTER all the facts and informatin through their prism of deluded perseption of reality ! ( this is especially typical of “Yellow zombies” 🙂
therefore ANYTHING and EVERYTHING they hear or read – they filter, or interpret in their own BIASED (cognitive bias) twisted way.
however if once in a while they come across something which they can’t neither “filter” nor interpret – they get furious ! mainly because such information challenges and destroys their carefully constructed ILLUSION – they can’t maintain their own dellusional ideas anymore, they can’t allow doubts or anything to undermine their own cognitive bias !
that’s why they have no choice but PROTECT their own bias – they have to confront and attack the source of such disturbing information (“shooting the messanger” allegory comes to mind 🙂 ).
and the best way to do it – of course to accuse that person of bias.
now, first of all – this in itself can be considered as “Argumentum ad Hominem” fallacy (or “personal attack”) – because in a decent debate people would avoid attacking person, but only stick to attacking argument itself. however accusing person of bias is a trick which accomplishes exactly what “attack on person” constitutes : switching the debate from the ARGUMENT itself (the premise) towards the personality of opponent, then attempting to DISCREDIT the opponent by some accusation (as “bias” here) and in such away to DISMISS the argument made by opponent as lacking credibility.
the logic is : person A is “bla-bla-bla” therefore whatever he say is BS, because he can’t be trusted.
(I know – I’m fully aware that I’ve practically done the same thing in #122 – I did it on purpose to let him get the idea of the feeling – sort of paid with the same coin 🙂 although my charges to him have more sense than his charges to Nick)
now, coming back to “evidences” !
check it out, more interesting part :
Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill [of critical thinking] is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it
so, how about that, huh ? 😉
to me it is pretty obvious that what is mentioned above can be seen in the posts of many those here who attack Nick !
they have their own preconceived idea (“Reds are evil, violent, uneducated mob paid by eveil monster from hell Thaksin to help him back his money” or something like that) and they always get more than plenty of confirmation for that all over the Thai Media (which reflects the opinions of other sources aligned with it). but once they come accross of something which challenges their such preconceived idea – they ONLY apply rigorous ctirical scrutiny to that information, and demand EVIDENCES, or try to dismiss it if they think there are not evidences, or if there are evidences – they are EXTREMELY critical of those evidences too (as in recent Parliament debates the Dems said that photos provided by PT are fake and edited in Photoshop 🙂 )
but
whatever the twist in such “debates” – we can NEVER see these people applying the SAME amount of rigorous ctirical scrutiny to the “evidences” whihc rather support their own preconceived idea (fair to say – prejudice) !
why is that? 😉
because of …. their own cognitive bias !!!!
(confirmation bias).
and what is more ! if someone is attempting to find evidences which prove that wrong preconceived idea – they accuse them of “smearing campaign” etc.
this is like a hillarious comedy !
if only it didn’t have such a serious consiquences to the real world we live in – the careful and thorough formation of public opinion based entirely on BIAS of preconceived idea !
the main problem is – there are very few people (among general public) who bother to examine carefully such bias, because it takes time and effort. there are of course few who see it through instantly. but even they usually do not attempt to challenge it in public – because again, for general public it would seem more like bnickering or quarrel (as recent Parliament debates). and those very few who does try – they are instantly booed and ridiculed, even may be risk “pesonality assassination” (term usually used in US, like who was that – Clark ? the guy who held high position in Bush’s government and dared to voice his doubts about 9/11 and then faced huge smearing campaign by MSM till he had no choice bu resign)
that’s why this sort of affairs continues.
I’m glad that still there are some honest intellectuals (even those who comments here) who do voice their disagreement with such “confirmation bias”.
although some of them eventually are silenced (for example, it is too easy to find something in their statements which can be charged with certain draconian laws 😉 – it is even sufficient to simply make such charge, not even necessarily it to be proved … ) and are forced either keep quite, or “be in line”, or …. go elsewhere 😉
so, as I mentioned previously – their bias and demagoguery is quite easy to defeat for anyone who simply tries. no even need to be any sort of profi. I’m nobody – but I do use my brains and I don’t swallow the crap pushed by such demagogues. and I’m 100% sure that there are a lot more people out there who see it through too, and have muhc higher skills.
therefore, as saying goes “you can fool some people some time – but you can’t fool all the people all the time”
I believe that eventually TRUTH prevails anyway and I thank Nick again for sticking to the truth. as well as all those who give support to Nick (like ajaran Somsak here – as one of the very few remaining honest intellectuals who do not prostitute themselves to the Establishment !).
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
Regular Reader
thanks for your general agreement and constructive attempts to clear up my use of language.. .. mmm, should I have said “majority” rather than “overall”?
I did say representatives of other classes and groups, meaning less than a majority of some of the groups
so, will you all accept that Sidh, Portman disparage the majority of Thai people when they choose emotive, slighting terms to describe Thaksin? I dont mind if they make specific allegations about Thaksin but object to drawing broad disparaging conclusions in a way that seems to assume agreement by the majority of Thai people
meanwhile, Portman raises some good points:
“his brand of vote buying poltics is not permitted in the West). On the other hand we must not use Western standards to judge him as unfit for political office, due to his appalling human rights record and corruption in office”
firstly, I agree that Thai style vote buying is (as far as possible) not permitted in the West… I think its important to note that as far as I know the law appears to be applied fairly and only those directly guilty are penalised. The hysterical, disproportionate and selectively applied penalties of Thai law are not a feature of any other countries political process to my knowledge. If the purpose of the Thai laws was really to assist in the democratic process their scope and misapplication defeats the purpose.
Sadly, Thaksin’s appalling human rights record seems almost normal in Thailand. Not just the events but the same or relatred people are involved. The primary reason is that the military are not under civilian control and are unable, unwilling and secretly encourage their rogue elements. The Border Patrol Police are a part of the military and have a particularly sordid history. I believe Thaksin was trying and failed to bring the military under control of his civilian government. Noone else is even trying!
In the West, corruption is handled according to the law as it applies at the time of alleged offences. If a politician does not break the law but people do not like something he/she does then the people can take personal revenge through voting at the next election. They can also agitate to change the law which will not apply to that politician but can ensure the same thing does not happen again.
I note that there are many allegations against Thaksin but, like most well-organised people he has had good legal advice along the way so no allegations are proven. I discouint the conflict of interest case because of the obvious perversion of the judicial process in contradicting past judgements on the status of the FIDF by the Supreme Court to gain the conviction.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
“How about their stolen rights, the rights to have leader of the country of their own choosing….”
Do those rights extend to allowing that chosen leader to manipulate (by whatever means) the outcomes of any legitimate cases against him?
Pasuk and Baker on “spirits, stars and Thai politics”
Tht two writers presented this paper at the Siam Society, but if I recall correctly, unlike what the paper indicates, Thaksin did not complete that 99 wat tour. In fact, did he not complete very little of it?
As to ‘the people,’ they are victims of homage fraud on the part of the entire political process. While everything is for the people, nation, monarchy and religion, that is, during campaign promises, after election it’s all for number one.
The combination of what’s wrong politically in the country is indeed scary.
Pasuk and Baker on “spirits, stars and Thai politics”
@ nganadeeleg, c.6:
i like & enjoy ur blog, lots of thx 4 it.
u ask: “I’m interested if anyone can point to instances where Abhisit has turned to the supernatural?”
i doubt it’d fit his “mind set”; that’s traits & habits & training. a lot of people call it “education”, these days 😉
i guess he’d “encountered” so-called “supernatural” the moments he experienced his very fragile life a human being when he was physically attacked in pattaya & in bkk.
& after that… “mind set” integrates experience into predominant patterns. people once called that “karma” 😉
Student massacres
tomorrow is May 4,
Don’t forget the Kent State shooting.
The Kent State shootings, also known as the May 4 massacre or Kent State massacre,[2][3][4] occurred at Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio, and involved the shooting of students by members of the Ohio National Guard on Monday, May 4, 1970. Four students were killed and nine others were wounded, one of whom suffered permanent paralysis.[5]
Some of the students who were shot had been protesting against the American invasion of Cambodia, which President Richard Nixon announced in a television address on April 30. However, other students who were shot had merely been walking nearby or observing the protest from a distance.[6][7]
There was a significant national response to the shootings: hundreds of universities, colleges, and high schools closed throughout the United States due to a student strike of eight million students, and the event further divided the country, at this already socially contentious time, along political lines.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
Portman #122
What are the grievances of the rank and file red shirts? Apart from whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM, it is not clear what these are?
How about their stolen rights, the rights to have leader of the country of their own choosing, not one chosen for them by the palace-military-judiciary complex? Is this “not clear” enough? Or perhaps you’re so deluded yourself into thinking that you’re ‘devada’ and your view on Thaksin must be accepted by them as well, in order for you to see any grievances that these ordinary folks may have?
The crushing of the Red Shirts
What are the grievances of the rank and file red shirts? Apart from whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM, it is not clear what these are?
Gee, where do I start? How about the double-standard treatment of the Yellow Shirts and the Red Shirts, some of whom (but not all) were involved in illegal acts of violence and insurrection? I think the gov’t has gotten wind of this, and have ordered the cases against the PAD leaders to move now that they’re bringing charges against the reds, but before the red uprising, it looked like the PAD leaders were getting away with their crimes.
How about the fact that the PAD want to take away the votes of the rural poor, by allowing only 30% of parliament to be elected, with the remaining 70% appointed (and who presumably will be middle and upper class – just look at the appointed senators today). And the fact that this group that is implacably opposed to their right to participate in democracy enjoys the patronage from the very highest levels of Thai society?
How about the fact that their first choice for government (whether they made the right choice or wrong choice – I personally think they made the wrong choice, but I don’t doubt the legitimacy of their choice, even though I think it was wrong) was ousted in a military coup and then their second and third choices ousted by judicial fiat?
How about the vast social and income inequalities in the country, and most of all the great inequalities of opportunity? The reds and the poor are now told that the first PM in generations to have made substantial progress in alleviating these inequalities was the wrong choice. Now I criticized the implementation of these policies and doubted their long-term sustainability, but it’s been documented widely, even among scholars and journalists who don’t like Thaksin, that policies such as 30 baht health care and the village fund did have a positive effect on the life of the poor (we don’t know whether they could have been sustained long-term because the people weren’t given an opportunity to see them through). I disagreed with Thaksin’s 1-district-1 scholarship to study at a foreign university at the time because it was poorly planned and the implementation was botched, but by the time of the coup, several adjustments had been made and the program was beginning to show some promise to provide real educational opportunities for the gifted among the poor. But we’ll never know how it will have turned out because it was 1 of the first programs that the junta cut, while at the same time they increased the military budget by 50%.
I could go on, but just looking at these events at face value, many of the lower classes who support the reds have gotten the message that time and time again that their votes and their opinions on politics do not matter one cent.
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
“I agree I use the term poor loosely”… David Brown Post#39
It would have been sufficient to just add a word:
“Thaksin was and is the ‘overwhelming’ choice of the poor….”
But you have confused me (and perhaps many others) by saying :
“the Thaksin led government was the democratic choice of the Thai people overall, including representatives of all classes and groups in the Thai population………….”
Now you seem to be confusing the issue, even more, by including others, you didn’t think of before.
Even then, you are once again,”loose” with your words:
“disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall.”
Really ?
What about people in “all” these group (including many in the UDD/Red Shirts movement), who didn’t /don’t support him ?
Won’t most of these Thai people feel slighted by such a statement?
Or, do you just “write them off”, because they were/are seemingly outnumbered ?
Please think through what you want to say, rather than mouth off emotional statements and catch phrases.
Then, more people might take notice of what you want to say – rather than criticize you.
I would prefer to criticize the post – not the poster – so would many others.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
“Portman”
quote:
“What are the grievances of the rank and file red shirts? Apart from whitewashing Thaksin, giving him his money back and bringing him home to be a vengeful PM, it is not clear what these are?”
I rest my case, thank you for clearly beating me in terms of bias, and proving this so well. It may have escaped you that there are endless speeches about the so called “Armatayatipatai” vs. “Prachatipatai”, equal rights and opportunities, and similar topics held on the stages of the Red Shirts.
“antipadshist”:
Thank you very much.
Some of the accusations here are slightly ridiculous indeed. As to the bullets – picture no. 59 – the windows of the bus soldiers walk by – does show bullet holes. The bullet that passed the tree under which i was standing was very real, and i believe, judging from the sound of the gun that was fired just before the bullet passed – it might have been a handgun, and not an assault rifle. Also, when i spoke with the young corporal, there was no question about “fake bullets” in the morning attack.
I was accused that i did not write about the gas tanker incident at Din Daeng apartments. I have done that on purpose, as i have not been there when this happened. I only wrote what i saw of the clashes of 13th, and what was told to me by proven and trusted sources. Obviously i will not expose my sources. I have pointed out at the introduction of my report, that this is not a complete report.
Nirmal Gosh in one of his blogs has a very good article about the gas tanker incident, and at a later stage i will include reports by others that i know are trustworthy on incidents that were important, and where i have not been able to be present.
The crushing of the Red Shirts
after having a closer look at Portman’s comments, including the last one #122 – I come to conclusion that he himself is SHAMELESS DEMAGOGUE – a typical for ….. PAD (“Yellow zombies” as they are known now for their too obvious brainwashedness)
Portman – you keep accusing others of partisanship.
so, I think to be consistent – you must state your own allegence !
so far all I can see is – you DISTORT the facts. and that is with too obvious advantage to certain group of people – so called “People’s Alliance for Democracy” – which are in fact “Elitist Alliance for Dictatorship”
PAD ruthless propaganda is unmatched.
however it is TOO EASY to defeat for anoyne with at least 1 cell of brains in the skull.
as, for example the last Portman’s comment #122 – TOTAL BS and nonsence.
Portman – I dare you to PROVE your statement ! 😉
since you love to challenge others to provide evidences, you must be well able to do that yourself.
otherwise you would lose tha last shread of credibility and firmly fall into the category of “Yellow Zombies” whom I deeply despise.
$ufficiency economy
PAD [i.e.- both lay leadership and PAD men in the Dem. gov’t.] wants to focus some money on “Red” areas with “Yellow” civil servants. I think that cash will come from a different piggy than the cash mentioned above, but the tactic is the same. So then, per #1, the rationale for distributing the money via the army is that they are a more trustworthy player (in Red areas) than the local SAO/amphur staff.
But the goal of this cash has always been to weaken the PPP’s hold on the local level. A new program is given a new name and then the present gov’t disperses it in such a way that the face of the largess is yellow or green.
Also, two slight tangents:
SML has been renamed the “Sufficiency Economy Fund” or something similar. If the Nation article is in fact referring to this fund, then the 300,000/per would make sense. There were articles talking about doubling the SML/village, but 300,000Bt/village is the median (mean; mode; ???) for a TRT-era village SML grant.
One of the Eng-lang papers mentioned a cut in “Sufficiency Economy” or “Community Sufficiency” funds within the upcoming round of budget cuts (about a week+ ago). Again, dunno if the two are related, or just the Dems marketing another program under the S.E. label…
The crushing of the Red Shirts
It is amazing to see how much outrage and even almost a hate is expressed at Nick by people like Portman, Les Abbys etc.
WOW !
they blame him for bias. alright, I understand that they must be a champions of FREE SPEECH than – the famous “fair and balanced” cliche ! 🙂
but then …
I can’t see them speaking about the TOO OBVIOUS BIAS unleashed by Thai partisan MSM, government PR propaganda campaign (Satit), and army’s own (Kansern). I don’t see them denounce the TOTAL MEDIA BLACKOUT conducted by MICT (all the TV, radio and websites of Reds being blocked).
so, EVEN IF Nick was biased (I don’t agree with that) – his ALTERNATIVE coverage of events is perhaps a tiny drop in the raging ocean of BLATANT PROPAGANDA conducted by Thai MSM, amry, gov, ajarns (especial SHAME on them – thery are disgrace to the word “intellectuals” – more like a “prostitutes for the Establishment ” !!! )
Portman, here is my challenge :
can you refer to at least ANY ONE SINGLE genuine UNbiased source in Thai Media ? WHY DON’T YOU talk about MUCH LARGER BIAS conducted by all those mentioned Propaganda players ?
my guess is – because you’r either one of them, shamelessly dishonest to the core – or you are an “armchair demagogue” !
now, how about that, huh ? 😉
just one simple example:
you kept raving about Nik mentioning LIVE bullets…
you accuse him of distortion. well, as you might know – the “burden of evidence” lies upon the accuser, not the accused. yet you DID NOT provide ANY evidences to prove your accusations – instead you ….. demand evidences from Nick !
this is dishonest, my friend. you demand from others something what you don’t even bother to do – although in CIVIL debate (and in legal process) – it is YOU who must provide evidences.
then in comment #75 Ralph Kramden has given a Link to Nation ! (perhaps the most biased of Thai newspapers) the article which clearly shows that Army has admitted the usage of LIVE ammo (although I have watched many TV reports prior to that where officials also admitted that).
then the most intersting part is:
I couldn’t find ANY of your comments on that. it seems like you have simply dissapeared and shrunk, hey ?
WHERE HAS GONE YOUR OUTRAGE AND RIGHTEOUS ANGER at Nick’s mentioning the LIVE bullets, dude ?
WHERE is your APOLOGY for all your accusations and raving all along ?
NIck – don’t you get upset by this kind of personal attacks !
keep up the good work – because you’re right in your effot of “giving a voice to the people that generally have no voice in society” !!!
because this is what I consider as “subversive truth” – the one which comes from the grassrots, NOT from the top down, given by “officials”.
to me personally (and I am sure that I’m not alone) – no matter what Portman and others would say in attacking you, your kind of reports is worth a million times then INSINCERE pontification of those people.
as saying goes: “dogs bark and caravan goes on”
DON’T BE AFFECTED by these insincere comments, my friend !
once again : DEEPEST RESPECT to standing up to them and defending your ADHERENCE TO TRUTH !
all those who have balls and audacity to shamelessly blame him of bias – go and collect your own “facts” and write your own story – why don’t you ?! as I know NM has stated time and again that they accept the contribution by “visitor authors” .
otherwise – STOP pointing fingers, because as saying goes : “when you point a finger to someone – 3 other fingers point back to you !”
what a nerve these guys have, huh? simply unbelievable !
“kettle calls pot black”
No!
Me too (as a schmuck, not you) although I still like by my comment #3 in this thread.
At least you didn’t have LSS quoting Catullus 16 at you!
A few blasts from the past in this thread – I particularly miss Taxi Driver ! (& Nirut)
Battle at Dindaeng, Bangkok, 13 April 2009
David Brown #37
We are stuck in a circular argument here whereby foreign Thaksin fans say that, on the one hand, we must respect Thaksin’s right to rule purely using Western liberal democratic standards (and ignoring the fact that his brand of vote buying poltics is not permitted in the West). On the other hand we must not use Western standards to judge him as unfit for political office, due to his appalling human rights record and corruption in office, because that is all considered acceptable or even laudable by most Thais and er I forgot – because there are no receipts.
“disparaging Thaksin disparages the Thai people overall”
I think that an overwhelming majority of Thai people would support the king wholeheartedly, if ever there were such a referendum. Does that mean that disparaging the king and his achievements, as the majority of posters on New Mandala are so happy to do, is also tantamount to disparaging the Thai people overall?
No!
Got lots of time and was drawn to some verbal duels of past.
I never realized I was such a schmuck at NM! But don’t blame me, blame my DNA. (Thaksin can copy this line from me if nothing else helps in his quest to recover his treasure first, and his name last).
I never did get to meet and ‘sch-waltz’ Lleij Samuel Schwartz’ mother?