Very Interesting and, IMHO, Balanced Article on Thailand

[Gadfly]

But a warning: it is long. I am not going to try to summarize it here, but if you are interested in the conflict, this is certainly worth a read. Article.

 

[Flashermac]

<< To this day, the corruption, abuses, and personal wealth of Thaksin are glossed over by his rural supportersâ€â€not denied, just treated as irrelevant. >>

 

 

I don't know about that. I've had red shirt taxi drivers steadfastly insist that Thaksin NEVER DID ANYTHING ILLEGAL. IT IS ALL LIES! And they obviously believe it.

 

 

[chuckwoww]

'I've had red shirt taxi drivers steadfastly insist that Thaksin NEVER DID ANYTHING ILLEGAL.'

 

By Thai standards he probably didn't.

[Gadfly]

I have heard both, meaning (a) he didn't do anything illegal or ( he didn't do anything that other politicians's don't do. The more important point is that taxi drivers, and many red shirts in general, don't really attach much significance to the corruption charges.

 

On a more pratical level, this means that citing the language of a particular section of the Thai Penal Code and then explaining, in technical detail, how a red politician violated that law is irrelevant. Like removing Samak because he got paid for running a cooking show. He probably did violate that law, but who cares? In the Thai context it's trivial when protestors who closed an airport for eight days go unpunished.

 

This is why I like the article. He deals with most of the technical points, but then puts them in their proper context.

 

My favorite is the recommendation for Thaksin. Ignore the bastard. This was evident long ago. Continuing to make my the bogey man simply gives him more strength. This moved far beyond a poltical context between two or even several months ago.

[bust]

It can be the most perfectly balanced article ever written....but useless with the opinions of a divided population.

[Gadfly]

The article is good because it does such a good job of describing the division and the blind spots on both sides of that division. It's worth the read.

[Nervous God]

Agree - good read

[ThaiHome]

A well written article coached in carefully chosen words to appear neutral. There are, however, a couple of glaring omissions and points that need to be made.

 

How can someone say they are describing Thai politics and not mention once, except to describe one as “one of Thailand’s more unsavory politicians†the role of the rural faction leaders? To ignore the rural faction leaders also ignores how Thaksin was able really able to form the TRT and later win control of the Parliament. It had nothing to do with his policies. The rural poor did not “vote for Thaksinâ€Â, they voted for MP candidates that the local faction leader chose. He also plays down the demagoguery the community radios stations and the “Red Schools†used in “political education†of the rural poor. Nor does he address in any of his paths to reconciliation what must be done to control the rural factions leaders. He fails to explain why Abhisit is unable to visit areas of the North and Northeast due to the rabid, hate filled propaganda that has been going on for over a year now, making Abhisit the devil incarnate and cause of all their troubles.

 

The other telling item is his use of the word “amatâ€Â. This shows how much he is a tool of the UDD propaganda that brought that obsolete term back into common usage.

 

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into a context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on “Thai Particularism†in which he says fits into a pattern of belief by the “elite†and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or an over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

 

TH

 

[LizardKing]

To me, this is just another attempt by a western left wing liberal to put the situation into a context that fits his paradigm. Perhaps maybe unique in that he actually addresses this with his section on “Thai Particularism†in which he says fits into a pattern of belief by the “elite†and therefore idea that this is not a western type political struggle is wrong. He fails to acknowledge that in most cases, particularly the BBC and CNN, they did a very shallow job of reporting and continued to portray events in the incorrect or an over simplified context. You only have to watch the BBC Hard Talk interview of Abhisit to see that bias.

It's funny. I am a very liberal guy by US political standards. I never think so, I just try to be fair and follow the truth always.

 

So we are on the same side here. There has been sooooo much bullshit by the reds and their scary propaganda that it is impossible for me to sympathize, even with a few of their complaints that have merit. Mainly because they are unreasonable about solutions, refusing to meet anyone anywhere but at 100% of their demands, which is hardly democracy. Ya the yellows are no angels either, but not even in the same game, let alone league or ballpark as the reds, so they are easily ignored as minor annoyance.

 

I find farangs whom I consider (in a friendly, teasing sense) as right-wingnut fascists (Palin-lovers, FFS) with US politics are the equivalent of Che Guevara on this subject tho'.

 

As I said. Funny. What makes people think one problem through, but not another similar one? Maybe it's that far right inbred hatred of government and love of anarchy, or as they claim, libertarianism (strictly on paper, cuz we don't see many moving to the libertarian paradise of Somalia LOL). Remind me of these guys:

 

ExWfh6sGyso

 

Sorry, got off on a tangent there.

 

 

[gladius69]

LK wrote;

 

"right-wingnut fascists (Palin-lovers, FFS)"

 

How are Sarah Palin followers fascist?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

I don't know a single Palin supporter who does not have individualism and individual liberty as the cornerstone of their support for her. Read her book, listen to one of her speeches, or look at how she ran Alaska. Criticize her and her supporters, but for the proper reasons. If you want to criticize the use of fascist-type tactics, you need to look somewhere else.

 

Fascism is the most misunderstood and misused word. When people on the Left, and many Liberals, do not like what someone believes, they call it "fascism" to demonize them.

 

Most Americans are sick of this shit, and it's starting to boomerang.

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/liberal-fascism