JaiRai

Trayvon Martin case was a reflection of our own system/cultural shortcomings. The biggest was an egomaniacal prosecution going for the most serious charge possible and ignoring manslaughter, tossing it in as an afterthought at the last moment. Several jurors have come forward saying in no way was Zimmerman 'innocent' but they were conflicted on the more serious murder charge and confused. Horrible case - and conservative commentators have redacted their support of Zimmerman in lieu of his domestic violence, paranoia, and firearms obsession coming to light since. Zimmerman was acting out his fantasy, and Martin defending himself was all the spark needed for Zimmerman to gun him down. Repulsive human being, I hope Karma gets him somehow someway.

Did he rock his happiness ballad and pose for a few selfies with soldiers? It's the happiness coup, yeeeee-haw! Nothing but good old home served anti-corruption folks, nothing shady going on here. Ps. Oh yeah, and if you're in the media and decide to be critical - you'll need to come to our 5 star military resort for a little attitude adjustment. Just more happiness!!!

Thailand's star is waning. Fuck, I hope it doesn't become to resemble its neighbors.

People are either rabidly against Israel (majority of Western media, especially one of my favorite papers, 'the guardian'), or a smaller faction rabidly for Israel -- eg fox news and American neocons. Found this to be one of the best articles I've read addressing the conflict. http://www.samharris...riticize-israel <snip> I was going to do a podcast on a series of questions, but I got so many questions on the same topic that I think I’m just going to do a single response here, and we’ll do the #AskMeAnything next time. The question I’ve now received in many forms goes something like this: Why is it that you never criticize Israel? Why is it that you never criticize Judaism? Why is it that you always take the side of the Israelis over that of the Palestinians? Now, this is an incredibly boring and depressing question for a variety of reasons. The first, is that I have criticized both Israel and Judaism. What seems to have upset many people is that I’ve kept some sense of proportion. There are something like 15 million Jews on earth at this moment; there are a hundred times as many Muslims. I’ve debated rabbis who, when I have assumed that they believe in a God that can hear our prayers, they stop me mid-sentence and say, “Why would you think that I believe in a God who can hear prayers?†So there are rabbis—conservative rabbis—who believe in a God so elastic as to exclude every concrete claim about Him—and therefore, nearly every concrete demand upon human behavior. And there are millions of Jews, literally millions among the few million who exist, for whom Judaism is very important, and yet they are atheists. They don’t believe in God at all. This is actually a position you can hold in Judaism, but it’s a total non sequitur in Islam or Christianity. So, when we’re talking about the consequences of irrational beliefs based on scripture, the Jews are the least of the least offenders. But I have said many critical things about Judaism. Let me remind you that parts of Hebrew Bible—books like Leviticus and Exodus and Deuteronomy—are the most repellent, the most sickeningly unethical documents to be found in any religion. They’re worse than the Koran. They’re worse than any part of the New Testament. But the truth is, most Jews recognize this and don’t take these texts seriously. It’s simply a fact that most Jews and most Israelis are not guided by scripture—and that’s a very good thing. Of course, there are some who are. There are religious extremists among Jews. Now, I consider these people to be truly dangerous, and their religious beliefs are as divisive and as unwarranted as the beliefs of devout Muslims. But there are far fewer such people. For those of you who worry that I never say anything critical about Israel: My position on Israel is somewhat paradoxical. There are questions about which I’m genuinely undecided. And there’s something in my position, I think, to offend everyone. So, acknowledging how reckless it is to say anything on this topic, I’m nevertheless going to think out loud about it for a few minutes. I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible. [Note: Read this paragraph again.] Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable. [Note: It is worth observing, however, that Israel isn’t “Jewish†in the sense that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are “Muslim.†As my friend Jerry Coyne points out, Israel is actually less religious than the U.S., and it guarantees freedom of religion. Israel is not a theocracy, and one could easily argue that its Jewish identity is more cultural than religious. However, if we ask why the Jews wouldn’t move to British Columbia if offered a home there, we can see the role that religion still plays in their thinking.] Needless to say, in defending its territory as a Jewish state, the Israeli government and Israelis themselves have had to do terrible things. They have, as they are now, fought wars against the Palestinians that have caused massive losses of innocent life. More civilians have been killed in Gaza in the last few weeks than militants. That’s not a surprise because Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth. Occupying it, fighting wars in it, is guaranteed to get woman and children and other noncombatants killed. And there’s probably little question over the course of fighting multiple wars that the Israelis have done things that amount to war crimes. They have been brutalized by this process—that is, made brutal by it. But that is largely the due to the character of their enemies. [Note: I was not giving Israel a pass to commit war crimes. I was making a point about the realities of living under the continuous threat of terrorism and of fighting multiple wars in a confined space.] Whatever terrible things the Israelis have done, it is also true to say that they have used more restraint in their fighting against the Palestinians than we—the Americans, or Western Europeans—have used in any of our wars. They have endured more worldwide public scrutiny than any other society has ever had to while defending itself against aggressors. The Israelis simply are held to a different standard. And the condemnation leveled at them by the rest of the world is completely out of proportion to what they have actually done. [Note: I was not saying that because they are more careful than we have been at our most careless, the Israelis are above criticism. War crimes are war crimes.] It is clear that Israel is losing the PR war and has been for years now. One of the most galling things for outside observers about the current war in Gaza is the disproportionate loss of life on the Palestinian side. This doesn’t make a lot of moral sense. Israel built bomb shelters to protect its citizens. The Palestinians built tunnels through which they could carry out terror attacks and kidnap Israelis. Should Israel be blamed for successfully protecting its population in a defensive war? I don’t think so. [Note: I was not suggesting that the deaths of Palestinian noncombatants are anything less than tragic. But if retaliating against Hamas is bound to get innocents killed, and the Israelis manage to protect their own civilians in the meantime, the loss of innocent life on the Palestinian side is guaranteed to be disproportionate.] But there is no way to look at the images coming out Gaza—especially of infants and toddlers riddled by shrapnel—and think that this is anything other than a monstrous evil. Insofar as the Israelis are the agents of this evil, it seems impossible to support them. And there is no question that the Palestinians have suffered terribly for decades under the occupation. This is where most critics of Israel appear to be stuck. They see these images, and they blame Israel for killing and maiming babies. They see the occupation, and they blame Israel for making Gaza a prison camp. I would argue that this is a kind of moral illusion, borne of a failure to look at the actual causes of this conflict, as well as of a failure to understand the intentions of the people on either side of it.[Note: I was not saying that the horror of slain children is a moral illusion; nor was I minimizing the suffering of the Palestinians under the occupation. I was claiming that Israel is not primarily to blame for all this suffering.] The truth is that there is an obvious, undeniable, and hugely consequential moral difference between Israel and her enemies. The Israelis are surrounded by people who have explicitly genocidal intentions towards them. The charter of Hamas is explicitly genocidal. It looks forward to a time, based on Koranic prophesy, when the earth itself will cry out for Jewish blood, where the trees and the stones will say “O Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come and kill him.†This is a political document. We are talking about a government that was voted into power by a majority of the Palestinians. [Note: Yes, I know that not every Palestinian supports Hamas, but enough do to have brought them to power. Hamas is not a fringe group.] The discourse in the Muslim world about Jews is utterly shocking. Not only is there Holocaust denial—there’s Holocaust denial that then asserts that we will do it for real if given the chance. The only thing more obnoxious than denying the Holocaust is to say that it should have happened; it didn’t happen, but if we get the chance, we will accomplish it. There are children’s shows that teach five-year-olds about the glories of martyrdom and about the necessity of killing Jews. And this gets to the heart of the moral difference between Israel and her enemies. And this is something I discussed in The End of Faith. To see this moral difference, you have to ask what each side would do if they had the power to do it.

They neutralized Thaksin. Period. You're right. In the final analysis he was the vapid egomaniac everyone thought he was. They say up until the end he felt certain a deal would be struck where he could be brought back and even his own people thought he was out of touch, he even asked the redshirts to go home after he brought them to Bangkok thinking it would expedite the process - in a recorded video call to the redshirt camp he used the analogy of them being his boat and carrying him across the ocean, and now he had reached the mountain and would have to walk up alone. What an ass. Who knows what the conversation was behind the scenes but we know the junta spoke of seizing the rest of his assets as well as inferred threats towards his son and other family members - none of whom can leave the country. Anyway, we can't go into detail here criticizing events. There's no doubt Suthep and the general were in the same camp pressing for use of force against the redshirts in 2010. And so far the most of the PDRC's goals have been met. It will be a long time before any of us have a good idea of what's actually going down. I'm waiting to see how this pans out. There has not been any mass resistance, but there are some disturbing things being hinted at. We shall see.

Take a look through the time warp and observe our specimen KS a couple decades from now -- ready to seize the day after having his daily snack of bitterballen and stroopwafels http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDFqlRSJIjI

Interesting - with the Thais I know this story was a big deal and they were all irritated, a little because of the redshirt comments but mostly because everyone was 100% convinced that her father bought her the title. Straight out. Even learned a new Thai phrase which I've already forgotten - something about 'pulling the string' or doing something with the string to exercise influence and change an outcome.

"New Standards Men." What the f***....I can imagine. Encountered a small handful of guys who were overtly touched/disturbed emotionally or mentally when i was in. Army had just ceased a stop-loss program and was actually downsizing, and those fellas didn't last long. And you know I never saw combat, shudder to think of being in that environment with any of those folks.

Robert McNamara, one of the chief architects of the Vietnam war and US foreign policy at the time has a handful of dialogs published on his regret and hindsight. A few of my favorites (which have obviously been ignored - to our detriment - the past decade): - We [the U.S.A.] are the most powerful nation in the world—economically, politically, and militarily—and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend directly the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii. - Moral principles are often ambiguous guides to foreign policy and defense policy, but surely we can agree that we should establish as a major goal of U.S. foreign policy and, indeed, of foreign policy across the globe: the avoidance, in this century of the carnage—160 million dead—caused by conflict in the 20th century. - We, the richest nation in the world, have failed in our responsibility to our own poor and to the disadvantaged across the world to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health and employment.

Man develops powerful love of Johnny Cash following deep brain stimulation Dutch man has sudden urge to listen to country singer following pattern of localised electrical pulses to his brain Link: http://www.theguardi...ion-urge-listen "Brain implants have had the unexpected and intriguing side effect of causing a 60-year-old Dutch man to develop a sudden and powerful love for the music of Johnny Cash, a new paper reveals. A case study in the journal Frontiers in Behavioural Neuroscience describes how "Mr B", a married man with a very severe form of obsessive compulsive disorder, developed the urge to listen to the country singer while receiving a form of treatment called deep brain stimulation. Deep brain stimulation is a procedure by which electrodes are implanted into specific parts of the brain. When these electrodes are connected to an outside battery pack, they send a pattern of localised pulses which act like a pacemaker to regulate activity in that region. Doctors at the University of Amsterdam implanted the device into Mr B's nucleus accumbens, a part of the brain which processes rewards and pleasurable behaviour – and which, when not functioning correctly, can be the cause of addictive or compulsive disorders. Within six weeks, it was clear the surgery had been effective. Mr B reported a sharp decline in anxiety and compulsive behaviours. The authors of the case study report note that he began to call himself "'Mr B II,' the new and improved version of himself." Over the course of the next six months, an unexpected side effect started to emerge. It first happened, according to the report, when Mr B happened to hear the Johnny Cash song Ring of Fire on the radio. "From this moment on," the report says, "Mr B kept listening simply and solely to Johnny Cash and bought all his CDs and DVDs.†When listening to his favourite songs, the report adds, Mr B felt like he was the hero in a movie, and although he played Johnny Cash songs almost exclusively for the following years, the music never annoyed him. His favourite songs are Fulsom Prison Blues, Ring of Fire and Sunday Morning Coming Down. However, when the batteries on the electrode implants run down, Mr B's musical taste returns to what it had been before the surgery: a few Dutch singers, and the Rolling Stones. Deep brain stimulation has been routinely used to treat Parkinson's since the mid-90s, and was first used for patients with severe OCD by doctors in Belgium in 1998. It is estimated that 100,000 patients worldwide now wear the device. Dr Ali Rezai, a neurosurgeon who routinely performs deep brain stimulation implants, and also heads up the neuroscience program at Ohio State University, believes that Mr B may always have had the potential to be a Johnny Cash fan, but that it was a predilection that could only emerge when his disorder was being suppressed. “Whereas before, his severe anxiety meant he was not able to connect with music,†he told the Guardian, “afterwards it could become rewarding for him. His brain wasn't functioning normally before.†“I don't know why he had a particular predilection for Johnny Cash,†he added. “Maybe it has a certain rhythm.â€

Used "mai mii kwam khid hen" a couple times the past few days -- no problem at all was easily understood. Danke Schoen. One caveat - was told that I could just shorten it to "mai mii kham hen" and it would mean basically the same thing. (And this is the old kon Thai input). Was also told to be cautious NOT to say just "mai mii kwam khid" (without hen) as it would make me sound stupid. Mai dee loei. Also boo radley on choi choi (sorry for changing spelling) - my understanding is it conveys indifference if used with a verb. For instance if you asked me why I talk about these things and I said "Puut choi choi" it means I'm just making conversation- it's not something I feel strongly about. Or if you say "Yaak ruu choi choi" in follow up to a line of questioning it means I asked about something but whatever, it's no big deal.

Most Thais I know use Facebook, Instagram, a lot. Instagram is more popular in Bangkok than anywhere else I've been in or out of Thailand. Everyone except 3 people in the hill tribes has a smart phone and uses the Line app. Whatsapp comes in 2cd place, WeChat 3rd. Twitter not as common as in the West but seeing more of it, especially now. How has it changed things? Hmmm. People are more oblivious and glued to their gadgets. Constant barrage of selfies and photos every day. Txt'ing is preferable to phone calls (you can include me on that one). I don't know.

I think you're absolutely right. Also, a lot of things are just murky and it's a challenge not to be judgmental. I'm not against people having things with spiritual significance in their lives either, sometimes I think we don't have enough of this in Western culture - but at the same time am wary of how religious sentiment can be manipulated and I become alarmed when something is outright shut off for discussion. But yeah, I think you make a darn good point re: things misunderstood.

The double-speak is so thick in the news and on all the forums it's literally starting to remind me of 1984 (the book, not the year). There are people (expats) definitely afraid to criticize and they get viscerally angry at you for even innocuous questions of why and are you sure. Amongst the country's population there seems to be enormous manipulation of national symbolism - elevated to a religious level - being exercised to control folks. It's just weird. I never saw this side of things before, it's an eye opener for me personally. I've recently spoken to a few expats who had to qualify every conversation with how much they love Thailand and love this and that (national symbols). Even I won't comment because I don't want to put people in jeopardy or make them upset. Once the formalities are through there's a great big pretend that nothing is happening. Need time to process all this. Good luck.

Well researched piece in the AP devoid of inflammatory gibberish. Article references the Amnesty Bill as the point where things went wrong. With the caveat I'm an outsider with limited perspective - fully agree with that point, and it seems like one of the most incredibly stupid acts of diplomacy I've been exposed to in Thailand. IMO at that point Yingluck was put under the bus by her brother and it was a horrible political move. Don't agree with the coup at all. That's not a criticism of the Monarchy - and this isn't the appropriate forum for any discussion of that one way or the other. Regardless of how you feel stay safe on the ground gentleman. http://news.yahoo.com/thailand-coup-leader-strong-defender-monarchy-110944937.html

My understanding is that the generals, including Prayuth, all have to be sponsored by the ring around the Monarch, eg the Ammart, establishment, whatever you want to call them. Prayuth is certainly a royalist and not in any way, shape or form 'unbiased.' It seems that this was end game from the beginning of the protests - or at least it was certainly predicted accurately: destabilize the government via attrition, set up the coup. There's also the question of who will be controlling the government when a certain transition of power takes place - and they do NOT want it to be the redshirts. I don't know. There's this kind of expat ecstasy on display in going after Thaksin, but this coup bullshit seems far far uglier (than Thaksin) in my book. Actually a lot of expats are kind of repulsive in their jubilation (not here, have a lot of respect for my friends here who definitely disagree with me). And yes, the 10 million is paltry, it's more about publicity and face and relations - not a threat to bankrupt the kingdom. Actually one of the rare instances I agree with US policy, though personally I think we stick our nose where it doesn't belong way too often.

Wow, a lot just happened since yesterday when I asked this question. Thanks gents.

ps. on that second one I meant "yaak ruu jing jing law?" (to make it a question). is that right?

Pretty easy for you guys. I think I know how to say but want to confirm before I use. Gonna sound out the Thai in English. "I don't have an opinion" - would that be "mai mii kwam hen" (have heard this before and am about 70% sure) "do you really want to know" - "Yaak ruu ru-blao'? or "yaak ruu jing jing" - or something else? -- less sure on this one but I think I'm on the right track. Thanks.

j Really? C'mon now KS. They're not revoking her title mate, people are just pissed off. I imagine if she posted on Facebook "I hate all these Dutch scum around Bangkok, they're dirty, they should all be taken out and executed" some of the Dutch might be a little irked too. Sheeeeeeesh.

It depends on which one of my personalities I'm dining with that day.

When I was a kid I came up with the plan to have Jehovah's Witnesses deliver the mail. I thought it was pretty fucking brilliant myself...

There's a bitterness and anger out there now gaining momentum. Slow burn is starting. This process was not a good thing for Thailand, just hope it doesn't get violent. This is the first time I've ever agreed with Robaus, and I agree with him 10,000% Dump your Thai stocks.

At first I thought it was corny - and it is. And agree, I don't think these fellas are aware of the brutality around this symbolism or what would likely be done to them if they showed up in Scal like that (by the very folks they idolize). Ahhhhh, youtube, the new arbiter of cool. On the other hand, actually liked the one fella's anti-corruption 'fuck the po po' liturgy. I suppose most of us were at one point kids trying to be cool and show that flag some way or another. The 'news' story put a smile on my face. And I wrote LoS (for land of smiles) in the subject line, software auto-changed it. grrrrrrrrrrrrr.