Thailand Thread

[bill13060 0]

As far as i know it is legal to sleep with a 19 yo girl here in the states. Or did i miss a new law that was passed? Boy, i haven't slept with a 19yo since i was um uh 19. I sure miss those days.

[scandal 951]

Thanks, Scott. That means a lot to me, because I think we have very similar views and experiences of Thailand.

Because of the Thai laws regarding disrespectful speech towards the King, I tend to get up in arms when someone says anything bad about the Royal family, because I respect those laws, and I respect the King. American's forget that our "freedom of speech" is not upheld worldwide! Even my wife, when I had her read some of the posts, was shocked and worried that "someone" would track the IP address and go after anyone saying anything negative towards the King!

I fully believe in the adage “when in Rome, do as the Roman’s do”, which means when I’m in another country, I learn their language, customs, and laws, and abide by them. It amazes me how anyone would go to a foreign country to find a wife, without any regard for that countries laws, customs, and culture, just so they can fetch themselves a “trophy wife” that wouldn’t necessarily be possible for them in the US. Respect is a two way street.

You speak for all Americans? You decide what we can & can not remember? You & your wife are warning me or others that you will track us down? Let me know what that means .

You are up in arms. I am really concerned now. Mabey you have forgotten some of us are in America, living under American laws.

You should go back to Thailand so you can sit at the airport & judge the farang as they enter, turning away all the ones that dont meet your standards. What is your opinion of the ones going to Thailand to sleep with the 19 year olds? Hows your wife feel about that?

Is the King proud to preside over a country that has a muti billion dollar sex industry?

Leave the throne to the King & go back to the two way street you said you lived on.

Huh??

I'm not saying I agreed with 100% of what Robert wrote. But I certainly didn't take it as offensive or provocative to Thais or Americans, in a general sense. I don't feel your sense of outrage at all... not sure where you're coming from??? Just where did Robert say he "speaks for all Americans", exactly?

[*Robert* 2]

Huh??

I'm not saying I agreed with 100% of what Robert wrote. But I certainly didn't take it as offensive or provocative to Thais or Americans, in a general sense. I don't feel your sense of outrage at all... not sure where you're coming from??? Just where did Robert say he "speaks for all Americans", exactly?

What do you mean you don't agree with me?!

[ThaitoUSA 15]

It was certainly quite an interesting experience being only 22 and teaching hundreds of beautiful Thai women between 18 and 24. I taught at Assumption University (ABAC), which is known for having actors, singers and children of politicians among its student body. Whenever I told taxi drivers where I taught, they'd ask "nak-su-saa suay mai" (Aren't the female students beautiful?) I'd replay "suay mak leoy" (You bet they are!) "tae-wa som-phan mai gin gai wat" (But the monk doesn't eat chicken in the temple - Teachers can't sleep with their students).

That would always send them into a fit of laughter. I loved the taxi drivers; some of the funniest, kindest, most interesting and informed folks I met in Bangkok. I'd always make a point to strike up a conversation, and once they saw I spoke Thai, they would ramble on and on. Another thing I really miss.

[anya-D 8]

I was away from VJ for a couple days preparing for our interview and come back to see myself being quoted and rebuked. I just want to apologize to people... I must not have expressed myself well. I believe I said I try to stay out of the politics. I spend a lot more time looking at what other people think than actually making opinions... it's my way. As I said I really enjoy reading everyone's opinion's here and I am sorry if I offended someone.

I live in the Isaan... 80% of my village went and applied to go to Bangkok as red shirts. I don't agree with the protesting... I don't agree with what Taksin has done. But rather than express judgement I listen to the people. I was trying to share what the people around me... the red-shirt, largely Isaan people think.

I don't know much about Abisit, don't claim too but this is what the people say. About the "suicide bomber" the woman was shot by the police which caused the bombs which she had taped to herself to go off... okay, she didn't detinate but it is strange she had them on herself... again I am sharing the voices of the uneducated masses around. I feel like there is a lot of judgement on the red-shirt people without trying to understand where they are coming from... what thier understanding (may it be limited) is of the situation.

The people around me, Isaan people, often go ignored and they saw someone take interest in them, thier villages develop and beyond that they don't see much. I personally think rather than judge them for what may seem like silly political affiliations we should educated them, equip them to think as the rest of you do.

Again I really had no intention to spark so much controversy... and no need to correct me unless someone is going to come correct the people all around me.

Thanks for everyone's informative posts.

I apoligise if I come off harsh. But I still have to quote you Where did you hear that this girl strape bombs on herself? please give me a reputable source, since I still couldnt find it anywhere.

I know Isan people feels left out. They are good people but pretty naive. Generally, Thai people will give back, pay back to those who they feel helped them. So I know this is pretty much the case. But that doesnt make them have a right to thresten to bomb Bangkokian community or burned buses (and in my opinion, I think the one who came becasue they actually think they are doing good to this country wasnt the one who did that.....and one of the local talked to the guy who moved the gas truck infront of the Din Dang condo community, and he's from Ubonratchatani). Nobody said anything when they protest peacefully, that's their right. But when the leader cannot control or not even have a strong standing on what they could or couldnt do, and plant hate and anger to the protesters's heart, then therere chaos.

To actually asnwer Ricker -

Roi is right about those are society problem and the government's job. EVERY time the King speaks, he would say for his people to live honesty, hard work, and be a good citizen.. (a lot more but too long to write) He know that poverty casued people to fled to Bangkok to work or sell their body. He tried and thaught a lot of them projects tha will help them better their life but, you know, being a farmer is hard work and doesnt pay as much. What should he do? order them to stay home and farm as he told?

You know Roi, I think it's in Thai people heart not to bad mouth our elders or that's a bad karma.. especially the King who we respect and loved. i dotn think there's much secreat service but people around you can be very sensitive about this subject. Look at gossip about the price... you heard about it a lot and eventhough it's bad people still said it. The king himseld said he can be critic...constructively critic. and its not the king who create that law. Eventhough there's no law I still think Thai people who loves the king wwill still not said bad things (but I dont see any bad thing to say.. why gossip on something nobody actually know it's true?)

I'm waiting for my plane in Korea... it's bording time

[bill13060 0]

I have a question. what is an Isan person. From what my wife and her family has told me, Isan people are lao people living in Thailand. whats the deal?

Edited April 18, 2009 by will92104

[scandal 951]

Huh??

I'm not saying I agreed with 100% of what Robert wrote. But I certainly didn't take it as offensive or provocative to Thais or Americans, in a general sense. I don't feel your sense of outrage at all... not sure where you're coming from??? Just where did Robert say he "speaks for all Americans", exactly?

What do you mean you don't agree with me?!

Well, here's what you originally wrote:

Thanks, Scott. That means a lot to me, because I think we have very similar views and experiences of Thailand.

Because of the Thai laws regarding disrespectful speech towards the King, I tend to get up in arms when someone says anything bad about the Royal family, because I respect those laws, and I respect the King. American's forget that our "freedom of speech" is not upheld worldwide! Even my wife, when I had her read some of the posts, was shocked and worried that "someone" would track the IP address and go after anyone saying anything negative towards the King!

I fully believe in the adage “when in Rome, do as the Roman’s do”, which means when I’m in another country, I learn their language, customs, and laws, and abide by them. It amazes me how anyone would go to a foreign country to find a wife, without any regard for that countries laws, customs, and culture, just so they can fetch themselves a “trophy wife” that wouldn’t necessarily be possible for them in the US. Respect is a two way street.

I do agree with the general intent of what you wrote. Like you, I have a philosophy of "when in Rome..." about visiting other countries. I've had the good fortune to sample the foods, wines, beers, dance,song, arts, culture, history and political life, and women (ahhh, the women!) (*) in countries in Europe, Asia, South America and right here at home. I always feel I come away richer for the experience. I do believe that tolerance and respect for others is the fundamental golden rule we should all live by.

(*) I actually have not really sampled "the women" ... but it just felt sooo right to include that in the above sentence. It's what a writer like Hemingway would toss in there.. couldn't resist

In Thailand, there is a strong cultural tradition of deep respect and reverence for the royal family, and for the King in particular. I respect that and admire that. That's a good, wonderful, proper thing which reflects well on Thailand's culture and history.

In Thailand, there is also a LAW on the books which metes out severe penalties (including many years of imprisonment) for anyone (Thai or foreigner) who is considered to have disrespected the King or royal family. "Disrespect" has come to mean even actions such as writing fictionalized novelized accounts that are seen as offensive - as in the Australian journalist who is in deep doo-doo, refer to the NPR piece I referenced yesterday http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=99855383 . This law is apparently being enforced more frequently and with harsher sentences of late.

I affirm that Thailand has every right to put whatever laws they please in their codes. This is an internal domestic matter for Thais to decide, and I as a foreigner have no say in the matter. Certainly while in Thailand, I obey this particular law (much as I in general obey all laws wherever I happen to be.) I obey it - but unlike you, I don't respect it (see your words above in bold text).

I am not a Thai. And I don't reside in Thailand. I reside in a country that has a Constitutional protection of free speech, in which such a law would instantly be ruled as a First Amendment violation and tossed. In this country (the US), I can exercise my First Amendment rights and SAY what I THINK of any matter - including what I think of foreign laws that foreign countries put on their books. We do this routinely when we blasted Taliban-era Afghanistan for its abuses, or Iran, or Sudan, or any other country that has egregious human rights violations. On that basis, I think it's perfectly consistent for me as an American to state that the Thai law which bans speech critical of the royal family is an inherently UNFAIR law, with DRACONIAN punishment, and is contrary to the spirit of universal human rights and freedom of expression which I cherish - for myself, and for all people, including Thais. I fear that this law is stifling political speech and discourse in Thailand - something it desperately needs to make progress on its many pressing social and economic problems. Hence, when in Thailand I obey this law, but I do not respect it. The irony is that I (and virtually everyone) would obey this law just as well if it were not on the books!! The cultural reverence for the King would be just as strong, possibly stronger, if they repealed the law!

Ok, that's about it.

I think the difference between us is that your "as the Romans" philosophy - as expressed above - appears to extend an uncritical "it's all good" attitude to whatever goes on in that foreign place.

I have an "as the Romans" philosophy too, but I am quite willing to say that when something those foreigners are doing seems wrong to me - call it for what it is. It's wrong.

[daboyz 36]

I have a question. what is an Isan person. From what my wife and her family has told me, Isan people are lao people living in Thailand. whats the deal?

Isan in Thai means Northeast.

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

They speak a version of Thai that has Lao, and a little Khmer mixed in. Most of them can speak Lao, and some Khmer. Instead of saying Sabai dee Mai to them, say Sabai dee Bow. They'll get a kick out of that.

[daboyz 36]

Huh??

I'm not saying I agreed with 100% of what Robert wrote. But I certainly didn't take it as offensive or provocative to Thais or Americans, in a general sense. I don't feel your sense of outrage at all... not sure where you're coming from??? Just where did Robert say he "speaks for all Americans", exactly?

What do you mean you don't agree with me?!

Well, here's what you originally wrote:

Thanks, Scott. That means a lot to me, because I think we have very similar views and experiences of Thailand.

Because of the Thai laws regarding disrespectful speech towards the King, I tend to get up in arms when someone says anything bad about the Royal family, because I respect those laws, and I respect the King. American's forget that our "freedom of speech" is not upheld worldwide! Even my wife, when I had her read some of the posts, was shocked and worried that "someone" would track the IP address and go after anyone saying anything negative towards the King!

I fully believe in the adage “when in Rome, do as the Roman’s do”, which means when I’m in another country, I learn their language, customs, and laws, and abide by them. It amazes me how anyone would go to a foreign country to find a wife, without any regard for that countries laws, customs, and culture, just so they can fetch themselves a “trophy wife” that wouldn’t necessarily be possible for them in the US. Respect is a two way street.

I do agree with the general intent of what you wrote. Like you, I have a philosophy of "when in Rome..." about visiting other countries. I've had the good fortune to sample the foods, wines, beers, dance,song, arts, culture, history and political life, and women (ahhh, the women!) (*) in countries in Europe, Asia, South America and right here at home. I always feel I come away richer for the experience. I do believe that tolerance and respect for others is the fundamental golden rule we should all live by.

(*) I actually have not really sampled "the women" ... but it just felt sooo right to include that in the above sentence. It's what a writer like Hemingway would toss in there.. couldn't resist

In Thailand, there is a strong cultural tradition of deep respect and reverence for the royal family, and for the King in particular. I respect that and admire that. That's a good, wonderful, proper thing which reflects well on Thailand's culture and history.

In Thailand, there is also a LAW on the books which metes out severe penalties (including many years of imprisonment) for anyone (Thai or foreigner) who is considered to have disrespected the King or royal family. "Disrespect" has come to mean even actions such as writing fictionalized novelized accounts that are seen as offensive - as in the Australian journalist who is in deep doo-doo, refer to the NPR piece I referenced yesterday http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=99855383 . This law is apparently being enforced more frequently and with harsher sentences of late.

I affirm that Thailand has every right to put whatever laws they please in their codes. This is an internal domestic matter for Thais to decide, and I as a foreigner have no say in the matter. Certainly while in Thailand, I obey this particular law (much as I in general obey all laws wherever I happen to be.) I obey it - but unlike you, I don't respect it (see your words above in bold text).

I am not a Thai. And I don't reside in Thailand. I reside in a country that has a Constitutional protection of free speech, in which such a law would instantly be ruled as a First Amendment violation and tossed. In this country (the US), I can exercise my First Amendment rights and SAY what I THINK of any matter - including what I think of foreign laws that foreign countries put on their books. We do this routinely when we blasted Taliban-era Afghanistan for its abuses, or Iran, or Sudan, or any other country that has egregious human rights violations. On that basis, I think it's perfectly consistent for me as an American to state that the Thai law which bans speech critical of the royal family is an inherently UNFAIR law, with DRACONIAN punishment, and is contrary to the spirit of universal human rights and freedom of expression which I cherish - for myself, and for all people, including Thais. I fear that this law is stifling political speech and discourse in Thailand - something it desperately needs to make progress on its many pressing social and economic problems. Hence, when in Thailand I obey this law, but I do not respect it. The irony is that I (and virtually everyone) would obey this law just as well if it were not on the books!! The cultural reverence for the King would be just as strong, possibly stronger, if they repealed the law!

Ok, that's about it.

I think the difference between us is that your "as the Romans" philosophy - as expressed above - appears to extend an uncritical "it's all good" attitude to whatever goes on in that foreign place.

I have an "as the Romans" philosophy too, but I am quite willing to say that when something those foreigners are doing seems wrong to me - call it for what it is. It's wrong.

Hmm. I can see in some places this law would be abused. I personally don't feel that it is in Thailand. You can't apply western thinking to a culture like Thailand. Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it has worked for them. Look at their neighbors. Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos are a joke compared to Thailand. Malaysia is probably economically ahead of Thailand, but politically the ruling party has consistently jailed the opposition leader for things such as Sodomy.

Singapore, which I think should be the model for the world, has a zero tolerance policy for public protest. They have a park where public dissenters can show up every day and air their grievances without fear of arrest. Kinda like speakers corner in London. There is only one guy that shows up there every day. But I would venture to say it is the nicest place in Asia.

This thinking that if other countries don't have the right to absolute free speech like America has, then there is something wrong with them. I disagree with that 100%.

I think free speech is a good thing. I also think it's dangerous to just let anyone say what they want. I personally disliked Bill Clinton. But all the on air jokes about him and Monica Lewinsky made America look like a bunch of fools. The 2000 election thing didn't help much.

At the end of the day, all Thailand is asking, is please don't say bad things about someone who has done more for the country than anyone in history.

I personally don't think that kind of respect is too much to ask. He deserves it, and he has earned it.

[scandal 951]

Ok, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll take another stab at this.

Hmm. I can see in some places this law would be abused. I personally don't feel that it is in Thailand. You can't apply western thinking to a culture like Thailand.

I believe there are such things as "western" thinking and "eastern" thinking. I also believe there are universal truths which supercede such concepts. Quite obviously, there are truths in mathematics and science that transcend any human cultural bias. But moreover, I mean that there are universal truths about HUMAN society that are (or ought to be) self-evident. It's not just me saying this: the world has in place frameworks of international law, courts of justice and tribunals. We don't consider government organized murder, rape and assaults on their own civilians in countries like Sudan and Iran to be merely internal domestic matters, that we should just "culturally" recognize are the way the Sudanese, the Iranians wish to organize their lives. No, these things are shocking affronts, criminal and illegal acts, and horrible violations of human rights. I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean I'm some kind of cultural relativist who thinks a "when in Rome" philosophy extends to letting "Romans" abuse their own people.

Similarly, basic freedoms of expression are also - at least in my view (and in Voltaire's, and Jefferson's and ...) - universal human rights. They are not eastern or western, American, or European. They apply to every human who is born. They are, in the words of our framers, inalienable rights. They even said "god given" rights, but I won't go there.

In this country we felt strongly enough this matter to put enshrine them into the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Many other countries adopted similar language into their own constitutions, many did not. It does not change the fact that these are universal freedoms which every human has a right to expect, no matter what country or political system they were born into. The striving for freedom is a universal struggle, imho.

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it has worked for them. Look at their neighbors. Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos are a joke compared to Thailand. Malaysia is probably economically ahead of Thailand, but politically the ruling party has consistently jailed the opposition leader for things such as Sodomy.

Singapore, which I think should be the model for the world, has a zero tolerance policy for public protest. They have a park where public dissenters can show up every day and air their grievances without fear of arrest. Kinda like speakers corner in London. There is only one guy that shows up there every day. But I would venture to say it is the nicest place in Asia.

This thinking that if other countries don't have the right to absolute free speech like America has, then there is something wrong with them. I disagree with that 100%.

I would flip this around. Essentially I AGREE with the premise in your sentence 100%! Any countries that do not give their peoples the right of free expression without fear of government retaliation DO HAVE something fundamentally wrong them. Namely, they fear their own citizenry and feel a need to protect their power from the people by denying expression to their people.

I think free speech is a good thing. I also think it's dangerous to just let anyone say what they want. I personally disliked Bill Clinton. But all the on air jokes about him and Monica Lewinsky made America look like a bunch of fools. The 2000 election thing didn't help much.

Please excuse me, but I think that's silly. On several levels. The rights we are talking about are not absolute. People cannot say "whatever they want". There are limits on all rights, including speech. We have speech limits on slander & libel. There are limits on speech that harm minors (e.g. child porn laws). Companies have limits placed on their speech for false claims in their advertising. There are limits on speech that are treasonous and harm national security. So, where speech can do actual harm, we take care to weigh the right of the speaker with the rights of those who may be harmed. However Clinton/Lewinsky jokes harmed nobody (well, Monica would disagree, but the limits on speech regard slander. She wasn't slandered, she really did smoke the guy's pipe!)

I found the 2000 election offensive due to the serious harm it did to America's fundamental democracy. Votes were never counted in Florida that may have tipped the balance. The Supreme court railroaded the process under political pressure. The Florida secretary of state made up the law as she went along. Yes, that was ugly. But in what way did too much free speech play a role there?

Within the established constraints, I don't think free speech EVER does harm. I think repression of free speech is what causes harm. I think McCarthyist black-listing was incredibly harmful to America. And in contrast, I think letting Larry Flynt publish Hustler magazine strengthens our society. You don't have to READ the damn offensive thing, but aren't you glad Flynt's smut is out there, available to be read? Personally, I can't stand Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Ann Coulter, all those arrogant uptight prickish nincompoops. But to quote Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

At the end of the day, all Thailand is asking, is please don't say bad things about someone who has done more for the country than anyone in history.

Actually, no, that is NOT all that Thailand is asking. If all it were doing was asking "please" (indicating a respectful request) - that would be entirely appropriate - that's what I wrote in my previous post. But they go further. They have a law on the books with very stiff sentences, being enforced harshly, that throws people in the SLAMMER if they don't abide. That's not a request. And that's not "please". And that's a violation of basic civil liberties in any society that takes civil liberties seriously.

I personally don't think that kind of respect is too much to ask. He deserves it, and he has earned it.

Now THAT - I entirely agree with. I do think asking for respect for the King is appropriate. He does deserve it, he has earned it. And I personally do respect him and wish him and his people well.

[daboyz 36]

Ok, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll take another stab at this.

Hmm. I can see in some places this law would be abused. I personally don't feel that it is in Thailand. You can't apply western thinking to a culture like Thailand.

I believe there are such things as "western" thinking and "eastern" thinking. I also believe there are universal truths which supercede such concepts. Quite obviously, there are truths in mathematics and science that transcend any human cultural bias. But moreover, I mean that there are universal truths about HUMAN society that are (or ought to be) self-evident. It's not just me saying this: the world has in place frameworks of international law, courts of justice and tribunals. We don't consider government organized murder, rape and assaults on their own civilians in countries like Sudan and Iran to be merely internal domestic matters, that we should just "culturally" recognize are the way the Sudanese, the Iranians wish to organize their lives. No, these things are shocking affronts, criminal and illegal acts, and horrible violations of human rights. I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean I'm some kind of cultural relativist who thinks a "when in Rome" philosophy extends to letting "Romans" abuse their own people.

Similarly, basic freedoms of expression are also - at least in my view (and in Voltaire's, and Jefferson's and ...) - universal human rights. They are not eastern or western, American, or European. They apply to every human who is born. They are, in the words of our framers, inalienable rights. They even said "god given" rights, but I won't go there.

In this country we felt strongly enough this matter to put enshrine them into the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights.

Many other countries adopted similar language into their own constitutions, many did not. It does not change the fact that these are universal freedoms which every human has a right to expect, no matter what country or political system they were born into. The striving for freedom is a universal struggle, imho.

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it has worked for them. Look at their neighbors. Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos are a joke compared to Thailand. Malaysia is probably economically ahead of Thailand, but politically the ruling party has consistently jailed the opposition leader for things such as Sodomy.

Singapore, which I think should be the model for the world, has a zero tolerance policy for public protest. They have a park where public dissenters can show up every day and air their grievances without fear of arrest. Kinda like speakers corner in London. There is only one guy that shows up there every day. But I would venture to say it is the nicest place in Asia.

This thinking that if other countries don't have the right to absolute free speech like America has, then there is something wrong with them. I disagree with that 100%.

I would flip this around. Essentially I AGREE with the premise in your sentence 100%! Any countries that do not give their peoples the right of free expression without fear of government retaliation DO HAVE something fundamentally wrong them. Namely, they fear their own citizenry and feel a need to protect their power from the people by denying expression to their people.

I think free speech is a good thing. I also think it's dangerous to just let anyone say what they want. I personally disliked Bill Clinton. But all the on air jokes about him and Monica Lewinsky made America look like a bunch of fools. The 2000 election thing didn't help much.

Please excuse me, but I think that's silly. On several levels. The rights we are talking about are not absolute. People cannot say "whatever they want". There are limits on all rights, including speech. We have speech limits on slander & libel. There are limits on speech that harm minors (e.g. child porn laws). Companies have limits placed on their speech for false claims in their advertising. There are limits on speech that are treasonous and harm national security. So, where speech can do actual harm, we take care to weigh the right of the speaker with the rights of those who may be harmed. However Clinton/Lewinsky jokes harmed nobody (well, Monica would disagree, but the limits on speech regard slander. She wasn't slandered, she really did smoke the guy's pipe!)

I found the 2000 election offensive due to the serious harm it did to America's fundamental democracy. Votes were never counted in Florida that may have tipped the balance. The Supreme court railroaded the process under political pressure. The Florida secretary of state made up the law as she went along. Yes, that was ugly. But in what way did too much free speech play a role there?

Within the established constraints, I don't think free speech EVER does harm. I think repression of free speech is what causes harm. I think McCarthyist black-listing was incredibly harmful to America. And in contrast, I think letting Larry Flynt publish Hustler magazine strengthens our society. You don't have to READ the damn offensive thing, but aren't you glad Flynt's smut is out there, available to be read? Personally, I can't stand Fox News, Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Ann Coulter, all those arrogant uptight prickish nincompoops. But to quote Voltaire "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

At the end of the day, all Thailand is asking, is please don't say bad things about someone who has done more for the country than anyone in history.

Actually, no, that is NOT all that Thailand is asking. If all it were doing was asking "please" (indicating a respectful request) - that would be entirely appropriate - that's what I wrote in my previous post. But they go further. They have a law on the books with very stiff sentences, being enforced harshly, that throws people in the SLAMMER if they don't abide. That's not a request. And that's not "please". And that's a violation of basic civil liberties in any society that takes civil liberties seriously.

I personally don't think that kind of respect is too much to ask. He deserves it, and he has earned it.

Now THAT - I entirely agree with. I do think asking for respect for the King is appropriate. He does deserve it, he has earned it. And I personally do respect him and wish him and his people well.

Thanks Ron. I wanted to relax tomorrow. Now I feel like I have a history paper due.

I'll get on it.

[scandal 951]

Thanks Ron. I wanted to relax tomorrow. Now I feel like I have a history paper due.

I'll get on it.

You have no idea who you're messing with, dude! I'll defer to you in a knife fight anyday, but when it comes to constitutional and civil rights issues, let's just say I read Federalist Papers the way some guys read the sports section. I LIVE this stuff, man.

Peace.

[*Robert* 2]

You guys crack me up!!!

Like Daboyz said... I too feel I have a history paper due tomorrow. Since I've been yacking on the phone for the last 5 hours to a couple of my old Navy buds... I missed all of these posts, but I will work on digesting and responding to them later!

Anya, have a safe trip! Chok Dee!

La dee sawat everyone!

[Niels Bohr 72]

I love those parts of the world. The weather is so nice.

[*Robert* 2]

I have a question. what is an Isan person. From what my wife and her family has told me, Isan people are lao people living in Thailand. whats the deal?

Isan in Thai means Northeast.

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

They speak a version of Thai that has Lao, and a little Khmer mixed in. Most of them can speak Lao, and some Khmer. Instead of saying Sabai dee Mai to them, say Sabai dee Bow. They'll get a kick out of that.

Or you can say Boh Aw, instead of Mai Aw.! Or instead of saying Aroy Mak, say Sep Ilee!

Scott's definition of Isan is spot on. The two areas that are Khmer are Buriram and Surlin. One area that is very Lao, is where Noi is from, Maha Sarakam.

Edited April 18, 2009 by roi_aggie