Jim Waldron

If the results of this survey (of a whopping 11,700 respondents) are to be believed, then one has to wonder whether the same serial complainants re-emerge if reformists win again? Surely, everyone must remember that Pita won the most seats in 2023, but was blocked by the courts after a legal complaint by Ruangkrai Leekitwattana (the serial complainer who has made a career out of filing technical challenges against reformist politicians). It would seem that especially younger voters, who backed reform then, haven’t forgotten how their choice was overridden by elite manoeuvring, and this polling suggests that resentment is justifiably still there. Should Pita win, it will be interesting to see if, this time, Thailand’s political system is prepared to respect the outcome, or will voters again see that winning doesn't guarantee victory.

Firing her was the right call! Advocating violence is never acceptable, even as a political protest. This is what happens when division gets so deep that people feel powerless and see this is the only way to be heard. A sad sign of the times.

RTP’s decision to issue verbal warnings instead of fines for some traffic violations between January and March may seem at first to be rediculous, however it appears that it may actually have some merit! Apparently, road-safety research does recognise warnings as an educational tool, particularly for minor or first-time offences. However, the evidence suggests that warnings alone are a weak deterrent. According to Zhu et al (2023), a recent U.S. study found that drivers who had received warnings showed no real reduction in future crash risk compared with drivers who had no enforcement history. Fines were more strongly associated with behavioural change. This study would to suggests that the RTP initiative will have limited success at best. An Italian working paper examining warning systems says that while warnings may help drivers understand regulations, there is only limited evidence to support this (Buonanno & Galizzi, 2019). It seems that strong road-safety records rely on "graduated enforcement" , where education is paired with credible, visible penalties for repeat or serious offences. While it may seem like a good idea at the time, I think it's going to be well nigh impossible to verify its success once the test is over. My Web search revealed no actual precedent that a time-limited suspension of fines improves traffic safety on its own. Without clear follow-up enforcement, the RTP test risks being well-intentioned but ineffective at meaningfully changing driver behaviour. So, continue to keep your ฿1,000 get-out-of-jail-card tucked safely next to your drivers licence! References: Buonanno, P. and Galizzi, M.M. (2019) Testing the deterrence and learning hypotheses in traffic enforcement: evidence from a warning system. University of Southern Switzerland Working Paper No. 639. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/p/usi/wpaper/639.html (Accessed: January 2026). Zhu, M., Srinivasan, R. and Teoh, E.R. (2023) ‘Association between prior traffic violations, warnings and crash culpability’, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 181, 106919. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37253280/ (Accessed: January 2026).

Interesting, but from an Asian-Pacific perspective, hardly anything to get too excited about. The UK Prime Minister engaging directly with the world's second-largest economy makes perfect sense. While the UK's domestic politics might frame it as a daring or contentious move, in Australia this would go largely unnoticed. Australia, ASEAN nations, and much of the world are now deepening trade with China while managing strategic diversifications. If anything, with Trump's erratic "America First" posturing likely to hang around like a bad smell, I would argue that Starmer's visit looks less like a provocation and more like sensible contingency planning. It aligns with the trend already set by others, like Canada’s recent push for a revised, multipolar framework. The real question shouldn't be why he's going, but what tangible, balanced outcomes he can actually secure. Just for the record, were the critics so vocal about the following SE Asian and Oceania leaders' visits to China: ·March 24-29, 2024: Nauru – President David Adeang (Head of State) · March 31 – April 4, 2024: Singapore – Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong (Head of Government) · Early April 2024: Indonesia – President-elect Prabowo Subianto (President-elect, diplomatic visit) · April 1, 2024: Malaysia – Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim (Head of Government, Boao Forum) · April 1-2, 2024: Indonesia – President Joko Widodo (Head of State) · April 2024: Singapore – Deputy Prime Minister Heng Swee Keat (Senior leadership delegation) · April 2024: Thailand – Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn (Royal visit) · April 8-12, 2024: Laos – Prime Minister Sonexay Siphandone (Head of Government) · April 15-19, 2024: Timor-Leste – Prime Minister Xanana Gusmão (Head of Government) · June 9-15, 2024: New Zealand – Prime Minister Christopher Luxon (Head of Government) · June 24-27, 2024: Vietnam – Prime Minister Phạm Minh Chính (Head of Government) · June 28 – July 3, 2024: Fiji – Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka (Head of Government) · July 8–10, 2024: Bangladesh – Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (Head of Government) · July 7-12, 2024: Vanuatu – Prime Minister Charlot Salwai (Head of Government) · September 15-19, 2024: Papua New Guinea – Prime Minister James Marape (Head of Government) · October 14-16, 2024: Cambodia – Prime Minister Hun Manet (Head of Government) · June 2025: Singapore – Prime Minister Lawrence Wong (Head of Government, first visit since taking office) · July 6-10, 2025: Solomon Islands – Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele (Head of Government) · July 12–18, 2025: Australia – Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Head of Government) · November 13–17, 2025: Thailand – King Maha Vajiralongkorn (Head of State, Royal State Visit) · January 4–8, 2026: South Korea – President Lee Jae-myung (Head of State, included as a major East Asian neighbor)

Reading this article, I wondered what would happen if these clowns tried that in Thailand. A quick Web search reveals that it is illegal here! Under the 1979 Flag Act, hoisting or presenting any foreign flag in public is strictly prohibited unless you are at a diplomatic mission or a registered international organization. While many expats may think it's just about "respect," the law is actually quite specific: unauthorized use of a foreign flag can land you in prison for up to a year or hit you with a fine! Even if you're just want to hang a foreign flag from your balcony, the Thai flag must always take the position of honor. Showing any perceived "disrespect" toward the Tri-Rong,,or even another foreign flag, can carry a much heavier sentence of up to two years!

If the official statements are to be believed, there appear to be a number of reasons for the increased pressure on Iran. Pompeo and Trump have repeatedly said that it is to force Iran into a new and more comprehensive negotiation. Any "deal" according to Trump would not be negotiable, and would result in: 1. A Permanent halt to any nuclear weapons ambitions. 2. An end to Iran's development of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. 3. A curbing of Iran's regional influence and support for proxy groups across the Middle East. We are told that the objective is not "regime change"! But, surely Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign must result in significant changes in the Iranian government's behavior. A cynic would suggest that the issue of oil must also be a component of Trump's strategy. By reducing Iran's oil exports Trump could deprive the regime of revenue to fund its activities.

Reading this article, makes me I think that while well-intentioned, it appears to be written from a primarily Western perspective. As such, it overlooks the profound cultural complexities that shape how sexual harassment is perceived and addressed in Thailand. The stated goal of a society that rejects harassment and upholds dignity is universal. However, attaining that goal in Thailand is uniquely challenging due to deeply ingrained social structures. The idea of whistleblowing is especially problematic here because of the overwhelming power of social and professional hierarchy. Challenging a superior (be it a boss, teacher, or senior figure) isn't merely a question of right or wrong, it is often seen as an act of social insubordination that threatens one's livelihood and standing. This is compounded by the related concepts of kreng jai (deferential consideration) and "face." The immense pressure to stay silent, to avoid causing conflict or shame (การเสียหน้า - sia naa) for oneself, one's family, or even the perpetrator, acts as a powerful silencer. Furthermore, social norms can sometimes distort the perception of persistent flirtation and harassment, making clear condemnation difficult. However, even in Thailand, culture is not static. I am confident that younger Thais are actively reshaping these established perceptions to their own cultural norms. We live in a globally connected world, and Thai youth are especially savvy in using technology and modern communication to access information and solidarity. They are now much more aware of anonymous reporting channels and international discourses on consent. They are also far better educated and increasingly willing to reinterpret kreng jai, not as a duty to protect harassers, but as a reason to consider the profound harm done to victims. As reported in the article, the cultural shift is now being powerfully reinforced by The Penal Code Amendment Act (No. 30) B.E. 2568 (2025), which came into effect at the end of last year. The Act provides a clear, standalone statutory definition of "sexual harassment" as a distinct crime. It also covers physical acts, verbal remarks, gestures, and online behavior with explicit penalties. This gives concrete legal weight to the changing social attitudes. While the cultural stigma attached to speaking out undeniably lingers, Thailand's understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment has changed dramatically since I first arrived here in the early 1970s. Much to the consternation of my older Thai friends, their children and grandchildren seem hell bent on challenging deep-rooted social norms. In so doing, they are much more assertive in calling out sexual harassment for what it always has been - a criminal act! References cited: Chariyalertsak, S. et al. (2021) 'Understanding and challenging stigma and discrimination toward key populations in Thailand: a scoping review', Journal of Population and Social Studies, 29, pp. 666–684. Holmes, H. and Tangtongtavy, S. (1995) Working with the Thais: a guide to managing in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus Press. Komin, S. (1991) Psychology of the Thai people: values and behavioral patterns. Bangkok: National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA). Pandey, M. and Srithanpong, P. (2022) 'Sexual harassment in the workplace: A review of literature and the legal framework in Thailand', Journal of Population and Social Studies, 30, pp. 674–690. Poompruk, P. and Leylabi, R. (2022) '#DontTellMeHowToDress: The online campaign against victim-blaming and sexual harassment in Thailand', Feminist Media Studies. Thailand. Penal Code Amendment Act (No. 30) B.E. 2568 (2025). Royal Thai Government Gazette, Volume 142, Part 71 A (13 November 2025).

This article got me thinking about Carney's "New World Order", and how this is being forced upon nations by Trump's "America First" policy. While the world watches the landmark India-EU Free Trade Agreement, might I suggest that the real "elephant in the room" for the US is the accelerating warming in the relationship between India and China. In securing a trade agreement with the EU, India is effectively creating a buffer against Trump’s 50% "Russian oil penalty" tariffs. However, Trump's tarrifs could have a far greater fallout for the US! Consider the potential for a massive "Asian Pivot" where India and China (two of the world's three largest consumer markets) decide that their economic interdependence is more valuable than their border disputes. A quick search of the Web reveals that in the final months of 2025, Indian exports to China surged by over 33%, while shipments to the US began a steady decline under the weight of Trump's punitive tarrifs. If India and China were to formalize a trade agreement, then that must surely put the US in a "lose-lose" scenario. It loses access to India's ever-increasing middle class while simultaneously watching its own domestic prices rise as Indian textiles, electronics, and marine products (that once filled American shelves) are redirected to feed China's massive internal demand. For Thailand, ASEAN, and Pacific Island nations this shift would also have critical effects. A formal India-China trade axis would create a regional economic bloc so powerful it could effectively marginalize US influence in Indo-Pacific commerce. In weaponizing tariffs to force India’s hand on geopolitical issues like Russian oil, Trump has potentially fast-tracked an "Asia for Asians" trade reality where the US is no longer the partner of first resort. The EU deal is the buffer, but an India-China deal would be the ultimate game-changer in the new world order! References Al Jazeera (2025) ‘Trump slaps 50 percent tariff on Indian goods over imports of Russian oil’, 6 August [online]. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/6/trump-imposes-25-percent-tariff-on-indian-goods-over-russian-oil (Accessed: 28 January 2026). Al Jazeera (2026) ‘“Mother of all deals”: How India-EU trade deal creates $27 trillion market’, 27 January [online]. Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2026/1/27/mother-of-all-deals-how-india-eu-trade-deal-creates-27-trillion-market (Accessed: 28 January 2026). BBC News (2025) ‘Trump threatens 50% tariffs on India for buying Russian oil’, 6 August [online]. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1dxr1g4y7yo (Accessed: 28 January 2026). Firstpost (2026) ‘India’s exports to China grows 37% in first 9 months of 2025-26 as ties warm up’, 22 January [online]. Available at: https://www.firstpost.com/business/indias-exports-to-china-grows-37-in-first-9-months-of-2025-26-as-ties-warm-up-13971455.html (Accessed: 28 January 2026). Livemint (2026) ‘India-EU free trade agreement: Experts recommend these 40 stocks to buy today’, 28 January [online]. Available at: https://www.livemint.com/market/stock-market-news/indiaeu-free-trade-agreement-experts-recommend-these-42-stocks-to-buy-today-for-long-term-11769504253575.html (Accessed: 28 January 2026). Manohar, A. (2026) ‘India-EU free trade agreement finalised. Can it accelerate an India-US trade deal?’, Mint, 28 January [online]. Available at: https://www.livemint.com/market/stock-market-news/indiaeu-free-trade-agreement-finalised-can-it-accelerate-an-india-us-trade-deal-11769154632124.html (Accessed: 28 January 2026). The Times of India (2026) ‘Can "mother of all trade deals" offset impact of Trump's tariffs? Explained’, 27 January [online]. Available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/india-eu-fta-can-mother-of-all-trade-deals-offset-impact-of-trumps-tariffs-explained/articleshow/127635546.cms (Accessed: 28 January 2026). Wikipedia (2026) ‘2025 United States–India diplomatic and trade crisis’, 28 January [online]. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States%E2%80%93India_diplomatic_and_trade_crisis (Accessed: 28 January 2026).

The appointment of Tom Homan as the lead immigration official in Minneapolis raises serious questions for me about suitability and ethics. While he may well have a long career in immigration enforcement, it amazes me that this high-profile appointment can even happen, given that a well-documented and serious allegation has be made against him. A simple Web search of sites including news outlets, legal firms, and even a U.S. House committee site, show a common theme - that Homan is alleged to have accepted a $50,000 bribe from undercover FBI agents. As if that's not enough of a concern, it seems that investigations into this ceased after Trump took office. Surely, given the serious nature of the allegation, it can't simply be just dismissed and forgotten? In a role where public trust and significant authority are involved, the incumbent must be above reproach. For me then, the ethics of Homan's appointment as Trump's "Border Csar" undermines this principle. Placing Homan in charge of this sensitive and controversial operation risks further eroding people's confidence, while sending a message that serious ethical allegations are unimportant and can be ignored. It also distracts from the critical debate about immigration enforcement, instead shifting focus to Holman's suitability for the job. Regardless of a person's view on US immigration policy, everyone must agree that high-profile individuals with state power over vulnerable populations must have unimpeachable credibility. For me, Homan's appointment fails that basic test!

My sympathies to our British friends! The inevitable conclusion of the Great British Porn Panic. After years of tutting at continental licentiousness, your legislators have now officiously unplugged your internet’s whoopee cushion. So, where does that leave the stoic, rain-coated Briton in search of a harmless… chuckle? I suspect you will be right where you’ve always been: parked in front of your telly, with a cuppa and a biscuit, watching Benny Hill reruns. Think about it. It’s the perfect, OFCOM-compliant solution. Why bother with risky age-verification portals when you can have thrilling chase scenes (to the tune of 'Yakety Sax') with barely-concealed innuendo, and aesthetic nudity (usually involving a strategically placed hat or a conveniently passing police officer). Most importantly, a complete absence of any requirement to prove you’re over 18, just a vague sense that you probably remember the 1970s. Your government, in its quest to shield the nation’s eyes, has mandated a cultural reset. You’re not really being driven to “darker corners of the web”, you’re being taken back in time to Thames Television, circa 1982 and those risqué holiday postcards. Still, there's always VPN!

And the silence from the pseudo Nobel Peace Prize recipient is deafening!

CNN need to be severely reprimanded for this obscene news item! It's immoral of them to get my hopes up like that.

Another Day, Another Half-Trillion Another week, and another "too good to be true" headline from a government agency announcing an astronomical sum of investment secured for Thailand. THB 500 billion for digital and AI? A stunning figure, truly. It would be even more stunning if the announcement included basic details like which companies are investing, what specific projects they're funding, or a timeline for when this mythical half-trillion will materialize. As so often happens in Thailand, government officials take a high-profile trip abroad, meet with important people, and return with a spectacular, round-number "investment secured" press release that is long on elevating "status" and "positioning" but remarkably short on actual facts! Merely saying a number loudly and proudly enough, doesn't mean it will magically become real! Until we see names, contracts, and groundbreakings, forgive me for filing this under "Concept of a deal" rather than reality!

"...appropriate conduct by tourists at cultural and ceremonial sites..." Same rules - different country!

The news item refers to the Maritime Industry. However, I would suggest that the real culprit here is actually the Thai fishing industry! It's well documented that, for some time, this has been notorious for human trafficking and exploitation. Workers from Myanmar, Cambodia, and Laos are lured by false promises only to find themselves trapped in cycles of abuse like: 20-hour shifts; wage withholding; confiscation of passports; violence; and confinement on vessels far from shore. Announcing stricter port checks is the easy part - the real, ongoing challenge will be enforcing these rules at sea where the abuses occur. This renewed push must be more than a public relations exercise. To be credible, it must directly confront the systemic failures that allowed this exploitation to flourish. Inspections must be random and unpredictable, and extend beyond mere paperwork to include private interviews with crew members on board vessels. It also needs to provide protection of victims, and the prosecution of vessel owners and captains. The statement of "not tolerating violations" won't mean anything if it doesn't break the impunity that has long defined this industry. Information sources: International Labour Organization https://www.ilo.org Combatting Forced Labour in the Thai Fishing and Seafood Industry, accessed 28 January 2026. The Guardian, https://theguardian.com, 'Such brutality': tricked into slavery in the Thai fishing industry, accessed 28 January 2026.

Communication rather than confrontation! I appreciate caretaker Prime Minister Anutin’s measured and diplomatic tone in addressing these border concerns. At moments of heightened tension, public statements from leaders can either inflame passions or pave the way for calm. Anutin’s remarks are commendable in that they emphasize restraint, adherence to agreed protocols, and ongoing dialogue. His focus on the binding nature of the December 27 agreement, especially regarding humanitarian mine clearance, is crucial. It frames the issue not as a bilateral contest, but within the context of shared international obligations and human safety. It also acknowledges each nation's right to build defences within its own territory, while firmly stating Thailand's commitment to its own sovereignty. For me, this strikes the necessary balance of firmness without provocation. Let's hope Cambodia is amenable to what Anutin is saying here. The real test of the December 27 agreement will be genuine communication and demonstrated acts of good faith from both countries. This approach is the only way to achieve a lasting peace. But, it's one thing to simply talk about it - let's hope both sides are prepared to walk it too!

Precautionary principle in action. Another forum news item surprisingly received a rather negative response from members (maybe, they viewed it as a COVID-style intrusion on their "freedom")! https://aseannow.com/topic/1385577-thailand-heightens-alert-over-nipah-virus-after-india-outbreak/#comment-20343805 Now, as this news item reports, we have the Vietnamese government (just like Thailand) taking NIV seriously. While there are those who may see this as an overreaction by the Thai and Vietnamese governments, there are also those who know that, although the risks for the individual are extremely low, the risk to governments are particularly high. A Nipah outbreak, with its high mortality rate and potential for human-to-human transmission, could quickly overwhelm healthcare systems, devastate public confidence, and cause severe economic disruption - especially in regions dependent on tourism. And, especially if they are not proactive!

This article should make uncomfortable reading for the next Prime Minister of Thailand. Out of curiosity, I did a Web search of two key indicators cited above comparing Thailand with other South East Asian nations and the results highlight a worrying trend. The first indicator I looked at was the median age in each country: 1. Singapore: ~42.8 years (2023 est.) 2. Thailand: ~40.5 years (2023 est.) 3. Vietnam: ~33.6 years (2023 est.) 4. Brunei: ~33.2 years (2023 est.) 5. Malaysia: ~30.8 years (2023 est.) 6. Myanmar (Burma): ~30.0 years (2023 est.) 7. Indonesia: ~30.0 years (2023 est.) 8. Philippines: ~25.7 years (2023 est.) 9. Cambodia: ~26.8 years (2023 est.) 10. Laos: ~24.4 years (2023 est.) 11. Timor-Leste: ~21.6 years (2023 est.) Next, I looked at each country's growth rate: 1. Singapore: ~0.43% (subject to immigration policy fluctuations) 2. Thailand: ~0.42% (as per your 2025 census data) 3. Brunei: ~0.74% 4. Vietnam: ~0.73% 5. Myanmar (Burma): ~0.72% 6. Indonesia: ~0.74% 7. Malaysia: ~1.26% 8. Cambodia: ~1.31% 9. Laos: ~1.56% 10. Philippines: ~1.54% 11. Timor-Leste: ~1.96% This growth rate ranking is almost the inverse of the median age ranking! Now, I'm no demographer, but these figures suggest that Thailand is facing some challenges in the future that its neighbours are better placed to address. The combination of Thailand's median age of ~40.5 years and an annual population growth rate of just 0.42% signals (what the Web says is) an imminent and sustained contraction of its working-age population. Consequently, the nation faces a daunting triple squeeze: a shrinking tax base from fewer workers, soaring government expenditures on pensions and elderly healthcare, and potential labor shortages that could stifle economic growth and competitiveness. Thailand's population is (like many Western nations) aging but without the same level of wealth to cushion the blow. Meanwhile, neighbors like the Philippines (median age ~25.7, growth ~1.54%) and Vietnam (~33.6 years, ~0.73% growth) face a different set of challenges and opportunities. Their younger populations and positive growth rates provide, what I'm told by the Web is, a demographic dividend (a large, growing workforce that can fuel economic expansion if paired with sufficient education and job creation). Their primary concerns for the other nations are investing in youth, generating employment, and building infrastructure. For them, the fiscal crises of aging are a future concern. Whereas for Thailand, they are a present and pressing reality. This divergence means that while the region's younger nations must manage the dynamism of growth, Thailand must engineer a complex response to demographic decline, requiring profound policy shifts in immigration, labor productivity, and social security to avert a fiscal and societal crisis. Sources & Attribution: The comparative demographic data (median age and growth rate estimates for Southeast Asian nations) was compiled from current CIA World Factbook and UN Population Division estimates, consistent with figures widely reported for 2023-2024. The analysis of the implications - specifically the concepts of the "triple squeeze," "demographic dividend," and the comparative challenges facing Thailand versus its neighbours - was developed with the assistance of an AI analysis tool to help structure the economic and policy implications of the raw data. The core observation and concern regarding Thailand's trajectory are my own.

The news item hits on a critical point about inadequate training and systemic failures, but it stops at the symptom. As I see it, the root cause of the confrontations, like those involving Renée Good and Alex Pretti isn't just how enforcement is carried out, but what is being enforced. The protestors aren't "urban terrorists"; they're ordinary citizens driven to desperation by inhumane federal policies. The Trump administration's blanket approach that labels all undocumented individuals as vicious criminals (and prioritizing mass, forcible removals), creates a tinderbox. It forces law enforcement into impossible, adversarial situations and demonizes entire communities. Also, when state investigators with a warrant are barred from a scene by federal actors, it shows this isn't just about procedure. It's about a policy that operates in the shadows, resistant to oversight and divorced from local realities. The real reform needed isn't just better de-escalation training (though that's vital). It's a complete rethink of a racist and counterproductive immigration policy. The US should consider a balanced, skill-based system that makes allowances. Who's beng deporting? A potential nurse, a future engineer, a contributor to US society? A more humane policy that assesses individuals on their skills and potential to contribute to the US. Paradoxically, if Trump moved to such a balanced approach, he would likely expand his support base. It would show pragmatic leadership, separate him from the hardline fringe, and address a major source of division in the US today. The tragedy highlighted in Minnesota is a direct result of a failed policy. You can't train our way out of a problem created by poor choices. You need to change the choice!

Well, it is Tuesday in BKK! But, this isn't a real change of heart, it’s simply a PR retreat forced by video evidence. They’re not rethinking ICE’s brutal system, they’re just shifting blame from "urban terrorists" to "Democrat chaos" to try and duck accountability. The root problem (a deportation machine that treats people as less than human) remains untouched. Sending a "czar" won't fix that. It just gives them a some breathing space while the same cruel machine keeps running. It’s nothing more than a cheap tactical pause, not any genuine reform of either their brutal immigration policy or how it is being enforced.

US Ambassador O'Neill names Thailand its "leading regional ally". I would suggest it's more likey America's only regional ally! The irony is sublime: celebrating 250 years of American democracy under the current administration, while the drills focus on countering the very 'disinformation' and cyber chaos that have become its hallmark. You truly couldn't write a better satire. Thailand's position, of course, reflects a prudent and centuries-old strategic wisdom. They will rightly accept the training and goodwill, while continuing to diversify their sources of hardware and friendship. To rely solely on such a demonstrably volatile partnership would be the mark of a naïve state, which Thailand is not. Cobra Gold may well be a useful military exercise for Thailand. But O'Neill's ancillary boast about the US "restoring cooperation with other partners" quite frankly, doesn't walk the talk!

Given the references to Darwinism in this forum, it’s worth remembering that Darwin was, first and foremost, a geologist who studied fossils — not modern justifications for violence.

"...The death toll from recent protests has hit a jaw-dropping 33,000..." Having Iranian friends I was upset by this death toll. A quick check of the web seemed to support this figure as most media outlets are reporting similar numbers. However, Al Jazeera is reporting that Iranian state television has released the first official death toll from the recent antigovernment protests that engulfed the country, suggesting that 3,117 people were killed during the crackdown. At least 3,117 people killed during Iran protests, state media reports | Protests News | Al Jazeera Wow! That's a 10x difference! This disparity in casualty figures really makes you think about how the media is so heavily involved in modern information warfare. Obviously, this is not a simple error in counting, rather we have two entirely different realities being manufactured by political players. On one side, a state-funded outlet like Al Jazeera relays a stark, "official" number from Tehran, a figure designed for regime survivability. While on the other we have a wave of web media broadcasts of a "jaw-dropping" death toll clearly designed to outrage us. This article has made me consider whether there is there any meaningful difference between a network funded by a state like Qatar, and one functionally controlled by a political party in say the US? I thought that Al Jazeera's courageous, ground-level reporting in Gaza was quite beneficial to my understanding of that conflict. There is no denying that its journalists paid a horrific price in doing their job on the front line. But, Al Jazeera is a foundation funded by the Qatari government. So, can it be fully independent from the state's political and foreign policy interests? This must create some inherent structural biases! Similarly, if we take a network like Fox News or MSNBC, can they produce legitimate investigative reporting while ultimately serving as the broadcast arm of a domestic political faction, framing every story through a lens of supportive political message to those loyal to the cause? I'm still left wondering what the true death toll actually is. This only goes to prove the adage that in war, truth is the first casualty - not merely killed in the crossfire, but often deliberately taken hostage by the very narrators who claim to report the news accurately and without bias.

Canada ignites a trade storm? Hardly a "David vs. Goliath" story! If we look past the posturing, I think it's obvious that Canada isn't signing a new free trade deal with China. It's simply removing a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles. This is a tariff that Canada itself put in place a few years ago during a trade war. I would suggest the real goal is to get China to ease its own tariffs on Canadian farm goods like canola and pork, which is hardly likely to affect the North American pact. The explosive Trump reaction, threatening another 100% tariff, simply ignores the reality. The economies of Canada and the US are tightly fused together, with an incredible amount of daily cross-border trade. A tariff that severe would wreck North American supply chains and raise prices for everyone, acting more as a political threat than a sane policy (nothing new here). I think that Canada is seeking to do a balancing act that sees it trying to stay firm with allies and the US, while khao trying to manage a difficult relationship with China. Calling this treason or weakness is just theater. The actual move is a minor adjustment in a long, complicated game in the new world order.

And the response from the dear leader, a tweet: "Record Cold Wave expected to hit 40 States. Rarely seen anything like it before. Could the Environmental Insurrectionists please explain — WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING???" Just so we're all clear on this: There is a big difference between weather and climate!