friendphil

Looking at the government's actions (inaction) to date I am sort of reminded of Nero fiddling while Rome burned..

Roman contributions include;

Architectural styles : the Roman were inspired by the Greeks. But they were the ones to use extensively the arch, mosaics and frescoes. They built the largest free-standing dome in the world until the 20th century (the Pantheon in Rome, 43m of diametre, or 1m wider than the Bruneleschi's Duomo in Firenze).

Aqueducts and viaducts merit a separate category. They were the ancestors of modern viaduct (suspension bridges, etc.). Aqueducts would bring drinkable water from hundreds of kilometres away and were designed with just the right inclination so that the water would not run too fast (and erode the stone), nor too slow (and evaporate or become muddy). Combined with canalisations and sewers, they enabled a city like Rome to sustain a population of over 1 million.

The Romans developed spectator sports beyond anything seen until then. The Greeks invented the Olympic Games (incl. stadiums), but the Romans gave us the idea of mass entertainment.

The Roman highways were so straight, plane and resistant that some are still used nowadays (e.g. Via Appia). Many modern European highways follow the old Roman highways, as they used the most direct route to connect cities (and most Roman cities still exist nowadays).

Wine-making was not invented by the Romans, but they planted so many vines throughout the empire, that they created a tradition in France, south-western Germany and Mediteranean countries lasting to this day. The world's greatest wines are direct heirs to Roman wines.

The Roman weren't the first to come up with central or floor heating or hot baths, but they certainly spread its used across the empire. Ironically, it is the Japanese who are fans of hot springs and baths nowadays, not the Europeans. But famous thermal springs still exist in Europe, and were especially popular in the 19th century. Some have Roman origins.

The Roman Senate was supposedly founded by Romulus 2756 years ago. The Republic is "only" 2514 years old, but was one of the oldest such system in the world, and one that deeply influenced modern democratic states. The Greek idea of "democracy" is probably further from the current "democratic" system than was the elitist Roman Republic (in fact, politicians nowadays are almost always the same few oligarchs, like in Roman times).

The Julian Calendar, name after its inventor (Gaius Julius "Caesar"), is almost identical to the modern Western calendar reformed by Pope Gregory 1600 years later, and still used by many national Orthodox churches. It has/had all the current months, which names all have meanings in Latin : January (from "Janus", god of the beginning of times), February (from "Februa" a Roman festival), March (from "Mars", the god of war), April (from "aprire" meaning "open", referring to the blossoming of spring), May (from "Maia", goddess of the fertility), June (from "Juno", goddess of women and marriage, hence the expression "June bride"), July (from Julius Caesar himself), August (from emperor Augustus), September ("7th", as March was the 1st month at the time, and September was thus the 7th month), October ("8th"), etc.

The Romans seem to have been the ones to introduce the system of 3-course meal (starter, main dish, desert), inherited by most Western cultures. Note that in India, China, Japan, etc. there is no such tradition.

Interesting, but what's this got to do with Inevitable flooding in parts of Bangkok?

PM Yingluck has hardly had time to assimilate AND address this natural catastrophe---- which has been made worse by years of poor planning, of which she inherits the consequences. Not that Thailand is the ONLY place with such indifference to nature-- it's been the modern way, hasn't it? Why do we build cities near rivers to begin with, knowing they will sooner or later flood? So, I'd say (being admittedly rather uneducated about the details) the responsibility must be shared among many.

Anyone using the forum who IS actually well educated about this situation, please raise their hand, stand up, or post a sensible post that is not the typical, cynical view that we see so much of here.

My two cents worth-- (I've been to Myanmar four times in the last four years): Once you have a visa, you need to use it within a month. So you wouldn't want to get it too far ahead of time.

Anytime I've exchanged money in Myanmar, any notes that were not clean and crisp were not accepted. Better to have nice, new bills and be sure about them. The gov't there does not give a good exchange rate-- it is better to exchange possibly at your hotel or guest house, or at the market.

Plan ahead for your return. I think you need ten US dollars to exit the country. (that is per person) I once saw a fellow who didn't have it in a panic, as he wasn't going to be let out of the country until he'd paid the ten (clean, crisp) US dollars at the airport. I didn't know the need, either, but fortunately had that much in Thai baht that I easily traded for dollars from another person in the line.

Good luck, and I hope you enjoy Myanmar!

This last sentence in the story interests me:

"The authorities have clamped down on Red Shirt media and last month police raided more than a dozen local radio stations sympathetic to their cause."

I'm surprised that I haven't seen postings on this site reporting any of these raids. Has anyone seen news of them before? Maybe I'd need to be listening to the Red Shirt-sympathetic media to have wind of it. Chai mai krap?

I don't understand. Headline: "Thai workers call for alcoholic drinks ban." But the story doesn't mention what Thai workers this is coming from.

It DOES say that "Wichai Poonkerd, president of the Otani Tyre Labour Union, said that a regulation by the PM's Office to ban the sale and consumption of alcohol in factories during working hours would need approval from the National Committee on Alcoholic Drink Policies and the PM's signature to take effect. But it was a good idea that would benefit Thai workers in terms of health, economically and for families. He urged that a ban put in effect for 24 hours a day." Yet, I don't see just where the "Thai workers" are in this story.

I admit, I know nothing of Thai labor unions or Thailand political process. But.... well, there ought to be some substantiation of a headline such as this, or the headline perhaps should read differently. Perhaps something about what the "PM" wants would be more accurate? NOT that it's a bad idea! To the contrary. I just dislike shoddy journalism.

HOT TOPIC, HUH?? I find it interesting that the article speaks as if this already is the law. (pardon me for not having the right word; any others i use would show contempt for very poor journalism-- not that I expect to find good journalism here!) OR, maybe I am just naive about Thailand? Can we assume a proposal to be a law already?

I agree with those who think this would be an economic blow to Thailand. For sure. Farangs over 50 generally are the ones that have the money and the time to be here, and make an investment in family, from my observations.

I also wonder about the "magic number" of fifty years old. I've heard a proposal that foreign teachers not be over fifty years age.

In my opinion this would certainly be very lame-brained law, and of more negative consequence that positive. I also echo the sentiments of those who ridicule the lawmakers for mimicking Cambodia.

IMO if the majority of people in a given society feel that such an arrangement isn't "immoral", then ipso facto it isn't - for that society.

Over the past few years I've come to know many Thai families from the female POV, via friends of my wife. These aren't wealthy, nor very poor, mostly middle-class shop-owners/landlords, mostly mixed Chinese/Thai. And the VAST MAJORITY of them are in families where the men have mia luang/noi, relatively openly within the family even if it's kept hush-hush in more public circles.

In one family I am friends myself with the two older, now mostly cast-off wives who have become very close friends/partners and together try to support each other against the newest younger one - but they somehow all manage to get along from a functional/financial/social point of view.

And the VAST MAJORITY of these women have their "gik" on the side as well. So more power to them, and let's not get on our high horse about it, this is one area where "morality" is definitely relative and who are we to pass judgment?

In a situation where the woman **expects** and man to be faithful, and the man is *lying* to her about it, then sure there are moral issues there. But much of the time neither applies here.

My impression is that usually the woman accepts this will happen, and as long as the husband continues to provide for her and lets her maintain the public illusion that she doesn't know about it (lets her save her all-important face), then it's all par for the course.

Now if he's not in a financial position to afford his bit on the side, and threatens the financial situation of the family - that's another matter and even becomes grounds for divorce legally.

But not the infidelity itself, that's a concept. pretty alien to most of the non-farang world.

Thanks to 'BigJohnnyBKK' , quoted above, for filling in the blanks with some informative cultural insights regarding this rather lame story, as reported by The Nation, in response to a rather lame survey. And thanks to this forum for doing so in many instances, though wading through the garbage to find the goodies is often a chore.

How ironic that this discussion is interspersed with online dating ads.

The story doesn't make clear, at least not to me, whether this was just an internet relationship or more than that. What does strike me, having spent way too much time and energy "dating " online, is that it is a poor substitute for meeting meeting people and getting to know them in person.

If this was solely an "online" relationship, how tragic that the victim was perhaps, and I repeat, perhaps, as much as anything else, a victim of her own projections. But, this is just my projection. Whatever the reasons behind it, it is nevertheless tragic.

As a native English speaker who is teaching English in a Thai public school, I very much appreciate seeing this editorial and the interesting comments that have ensued.

I find the editorial to be "right-on" in many respects. The antiquated teaching/learning methods, the lack of competence of Thai English teachers, their unwillingness to hand over much responsibility to teachers like myself, a system that doesn't reward student achievement, etc. etc. all compound the problem. One visiting administrator to our school had the simple-minded notion that somehow, student contact with a native English speaker would somehow magically have the students speaking English. Not so, and from what I have observed, not even many of the Thai English teachers seem willing to better their English through such contact.

The fix? I don't know, but I hear there are demonstration schools that are teaching more hours a week (how much can a student be expected to retain when exposed to one or two hours a week of a very foreign language?) to students, and giving their native English teachers more responsibility. These kids are indeed progressing much more rapidly. And the foreign teachers are paid commensurately. Maybe these schools will provide some examples of what works. I hope so. In the meantime, declaring English as the official second language may seem kind of a joke, but perhaps it points a direction to aspire towards.