earthpig

At the Nurnberg Trials, a certain Julius Streicher was hung as a war criminal. His indictment included no charge of murder. The judgment read, in part: " In his speeches and articles, week after week, month after month, he infected the German mind with the virus of anti-Semitism, and incited the German people to active persecution."

There is no question that Streicher's anti Semitism was an abomination. But either his hanging was also an abomination, or what these terrorists did in Paris was justified. I assure you, I don't think the latter to be the case.

What the terrorists did was wrong, full stop. What the French magazine wrote or drew was also wrong, full stop. While their sins are hardly equal, and the cartoonists harsh punishment completely undeserved, we should not relegate punishment of incitement only to our defeated enemies.

I congratulate the OP for an intelligent article on an important subject. His central thesis that the high rates of slaughter on Thai roads is connected with high motorcycle usage is worth noting, but several other observations and implications are in my view flawed.

The central statistical flaw is not introducing the concept of miles driven into cross border comparisons. This is very important. US average miles per year are some 50% greater than in many European countries, for example, and account for most of the difference in rates of accidents and even life expectancy. Any conclusions about relative safety of Thai versus US automobile driving need to take this into account.

Empirical observations comparing two places also has to be made with a certain humbleness when it comes to drawing conclusions. The author doenst live in Bangkok and finds drivers better wherever he does live in Thailand compared to where ever he does live in the USA. I do live in Bangkok, have lived in in five countries including the USA, and find drivers here the worst of them all by an order of measure. The OP is not wrong; nor am I. These are our differing opinions, based on differing life experiences. But neither observation, by itself, is terribly useful in drawing comparisons.

That's why the OP's main emphasis on hard stats is refreshing.

There is however the OP makes which is simply preposterous:

" I also find the joy of riding a motorcycle to be well worth the risk, since Im gonna die anyway. At the end of the day, I understand that I am responsible for keeping myself alive. Its not up to the other guy."

True in some circumstances, but in other circumstances this attitude may one day cost him his life. If he truly values his life less than the thrill of all those horses running thru his hands, then that is surely his business. But short of finding employment as a terrorist, it is about as stunning a denunciation of the value of human life that you could find anywhere.

I hope the OP comes to his senses. Good luck to him.

Seriously who goes on vacation with travel insurance. Travel ins. is a scam.

There are two types of travel insurance: medical coverage and coverage for a wide variety of other problems, such as when you luggage is lost. I would not call either a scam, but I certainly believe, after thorough research, that the other variety isn't worth it.

But travel medical insurance is to me as important as my passport.

If it doesn't bother you to potentially become a burden on society or your family, by all means, skip the travel medical insurance. Just imagine, with the proceeds saved you could even spend a night in Bangkok making your hard man humble, bareback.

Anyone who has tried driving in Russia knows that a motor vehicle and a Ruskie don't mix well at all. Wouldn't be surprised if pretty soon more of them die holidaying in Thailand than Brits.

A man commits a robbery slapping the victim across the face, then not only resists arrest but punches the arresting police officer who, in self defense, shoots the perp.

Another 350 lbs, 6'4" tall perp resists arrest for obviously committing a crime, forcibly resists arrest, and is accordingly forcibly subdued.

Both perps die.

These deaths are is not remotely tragedies, though it is certainly beyond sad what their survivors are experiencing.

What is tragic is the fate of the Ferguson police officer, a fate likely to be shared by the New York cop. These two, and society generally, are the victims here.

The time is long past for society itself to stand its ground.

But Brits are raised on the fable of a competent properly-funded well-equipped patient-focused national health-service, they ought to know better, and be just a tad more cynical/worldly.

Last I looked, the NHS had a five year cancer survival rate that was 15-20% rate lower than in the USA. That translated into some 6,000 needless deaths per year, all sacrificed on the altar of socialist fantasy. But what is even more stunning than NHS incompetence is the blind ignorance displayed by many Brits in not understanding how poor their system is, at least on this comparison, with that of other countries. British health care, it turns out, is indeed a pretty good primer for private health care in Thailand.

And no word of the man who, through his wars, internal repressions and diversion of food resources away from Iraqi children to bribe European and UN politicians, was responsible for an estimated 2.5 million deaths, or around 100k for each of his 25 years in power?

Yes, whereas Bush won the war now Obama has lost the peace. Yes, there were bad apples at Blackwater and elsewhere.

And yes, the world is still better off without Saddam.

A person who tarts up his carnal desires as a "civil right" is also a bigot. For what greater hate is there than to debase that concept which protects us all from tyranny? It is a hate directed at the very basis of civilization.

At Valley Forge, where it might be argued he had better things to do, Washington took time out to prosecute one of his men for "buggery." Why: to undermine the very freedoms for which he and his soldier were freezing to death defending?

Quite the contrary, Washington understood that there is no point to fight for freedom if you do not defend civil society.

The great enlightenment figures, including the American Founding Fathers, didnt argue for homosexuality as a civil right. The documents of the great American and French revolutions dont argue for it. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didnt grant the status of civil right to homophiles, any more than it did to necrophiles, zoophiles, pedophiles or ephobophiles. And why is that?

Homosexuality is not a right, It is a behavior, a behavior which the vast bulk of social science research shows to correlate to one of the least happy existences imaginable. I'm gay; my heart goes out to the many homosexuals who clearly are not. They certainly deserve a measure of compassion. Love the sinner as we hate the sin.

But to grant civil rights status to a behavior with such personally disasterous consequences would be an indefensible encouragement to vulnerable youth to follow this saddest of all of life's paths.

That's not hate. Its love.

Who would like to drop earthpig in the middle of mardi gras, with no map, telephone or clothes?

So, gentle OxfordWill, you fanatasize about penetration of anal sex virgins do you? Particularly-- it would appear from your words--ones that are lost and helpless.

That wouldnt include anyone under age would it?

For peace to break out, the Thais must do to their Malays what the Russians did to their Chechens or what the Chinese did to their Uighers or what Bush did to his Falluhjans.

And once they have done it, they have to keep on doing it for a long, long time, and not pull an Obama and stop the Global War on Terror and as a result give up all the ground gained in Iraq and then some.

Southern Thai is very bad, indeed horrible, tragedy. But it is what it is and not confronting it directly increases dramatically the lives lost. Those are the wages of the soft power advocates, as Gordon Brown proved so dramatically in Basra and Helmand.

You do know most homophobes are closet homosexuals that can't live with the guilt of their own desires?

Really?

I am scared of male homosexuals because of social science research which shows that as a group they represent a hugely elevated risk, compared to the population of males as a whole, of molesting my young boy. I am not scared of female homosexuals because social science research is equally adamant that they represent no similar risk. Before having my boy and studying the research, I was never scared of homosexual males; indeed I have close male homosexual friends who date from my days of innocence and, knowing them very well, greatly enjoy their companionship.

But then again I have never had the sort of desire to which you allude, so I cannot disprove your assertion that "most" fear of homosexuality stems from self knowledge. I can only say that from my non homosexual vantage point, I have known a non scientific sample of closeted homosexuals and none to my knowledge were scared of other homosexuals, though a couple certainly did strike me as depressives.

For whatever it might be worth, it strikes me that male homosexuals would do well to consider a little deeper the various reasons why some others so dislike them. Yes, some of this phobia is rank unjustifiable prejudice directed at those who are different, and to the extend that this can be isolated as the reason for the dislike homosexuals deserve protections under the law just as any other citizen. But to the extend that this dislike is based on other considerations, particularly peer reviewed studies which appear in professional journals, homosexuals might do well to show a little more understanding for the reasons they may be feared.

To compare modern Western decadence to that of late stage Rome is an insult to history. It is inconceivable that Rome at any stage of its history would have condoned such diplomatic abomination. For all the abundance or Roman arrogance, I know of no record of any similar insult to another country not defeated on the battlefield.

But savor the irony. As Britain stands on the precipice of unGreating itself in Scotland, of flushing away what was once greatness in more than territory but as the very flame of civilization, its diplomats today flaunt their turpitude, and make clear the greatest difference between Late Rome and the West today: in the latter case, the barbarians are already well inside the gate.

Too many politicians of all stripes and countries say one thing and do another. We all gain when these sods bite the dust.

This was a major victory for the Republican Party. May the housekeeping continue until all the big government Quislings have been shown the door. Once the party has cleansed itself of this rot, the abomination of far left rule will create the impetus for a return to Conservative governance.

Typical ignorant comment conflating high murder rates with high rates of gun ownership. Were this true, Switzerland would be one of the most violent societies on earth.

In the larger countries of the Americas, what correlates to high rates of homicide is percentage of blacks (and mestizos) in the population. Canada and Chile have the lowest rates of black population, and the lowest rates of homicide; Brazil has the highest percentage of blacks in the population (approx. 50%) and the highest rate of homicide.

The USA has in comparison to other countries in the Americas a middling percentage of blacks, and a middling homicide rate. Exclude the black population--roughly one sixth of the total--from the data, and the number of US homicides is reduced by over half and brings the US homicide rate among non blacks to roughly in line with European countries. Interestingly Puerto Rico, with a percentage black population approximately three times higher than in the rest of the USA, has a homicide rate approximately 6-7 times higher, putting both its percentage of black population and murder rates on par with Brazil.

Note, correlation doesnt necessarily imply causation. And since I take it as self evident that the majority of blacks everywhere are not violent, it is an arithmetic certainty that a minority percentage of them are extraordinarily violent compared to the population as a whole. Just why this is so is perhaps the most urgent question of all for social science.

Disclosure: I hate guns.

Without knowing the truth, the problem cant be fixed.

If you offered full disclosure it would read: I hate guns AND black people.

In a Clutch, use the racism card.

The truth hurts, doesnt it old boy?

Folium,

Thank you for confirming my point that in Switzerland widespread access to firearms coexists with one of the lowest rates of homicides on the planet. Your point about ammo being more available prior to 2007 simply proves my point: more wide spread access to that ammunition then made no material difference to the homicide rate as compared to now. So your point is well taken: ammo, like guns, isnt what kills.

Tell us are you an NRA member?

As for the black population being minimal in certain of the states you cite, that is irrelevant since I explicitly made the point that I was looking at the mestizo population as well. Yes Honduras is the murder capital of the Americas and, as you fail to note, its mestizo population is 90% of the total. Thanks for bringing up Honduras and pointing out that my thesis applies to smaller Latin American countries as well.

Finally, thank you for pointing out that pre insurgency Ukraine--oh yes and several other European countries you dont mention including Russia, Moldova, Estonia, Georgia and Latvia--all have murder rates higher than America's non black population as you calculate it, and another, Finland is only slightly behind, proving, yet again, the point I make in my first post.

Disclosure: no, I really am not Folium posting as a straw man.

Sad event but also shows violence happens in nearly every country including a peaceful place such as Canada.

Who said Canada was a peaceful place?

Maybe more guns on the street their than in Thailand.

Gang wars, Chinese & Indian Mafia, Bikers, Growers & and all of the other usual suspects are there and

gun battles are a common occurance.

You're joking right? You think there are more guns in Canada, then in Thailand; I think not. Canada has the lowest homicide rate in North, and South America; and problems Canada does have with guns, stem from the fact that they are are living next-door to the gun toting Americans; with almost no protected boarder. The difference here is; in Thailand this guy would still be on the run. Canada; He'll probably be caught or shot by the end of the day.........

Typical ignorant comment conflating high murder rates with high rates of gun ownership. Were this true, Switzerland would be one of the most violent societies on earth.

In the larger countries of the Americas, what correlates to high rates of homicide is percentage of blacks (and mestizos) in the population. Canada and Chile have the lowest rates of black population, and the lowest rates of homicide; Brazil has the highest percentage of blacks in the population (approx. 50%) and the highest rate of homicide.

The USA has in comparison to other countries in the Americas a middling percentage of blacks, and a middling homicide rate. Exclude the black population--roughly one sixth of the total--from the data, and the number of US homicides is reduced by over half and brings the US homicide rate among non blacks to roughly in line with European countries. Interestingly Puerto Rico, with a percentage black population approximately three times higher than in the rest of the USA, has a homicide rate approximately 6-7 times higher, putting both its percentage of black population and murder rates on par with Brazil.

Note, correlation doesnt necessarily imply causation. And since I take it as self evident that the majority of blacks everywhere are not violent, it is an arithmetic certainty that a minority percentage of them are extraordinarily violent compared to the population as a whole. Just why this is so is perhaps the most urgent question of all for social science.

Disclosure: I hate guns.

Without knowing the truth, the problem cant be fixed.

Looking for love, or whatever, in Soddom by the Sea was never going to end well, was it?

Perhaps Mr. Bright wasn't. Or perhaps life simply dealt him a bad hand.

Either way, RIP.

Condolences to his family, and to all the other families who lose their loved ones to desperate illusions.

Apply for sole custody based on that the mother is not to be found and get a competent lawyer.

Second option is to go to the UK and apply for sole custody there and then try to get a Thai passport at the Thai embassy.

Mario,

the second option might be interesting but Im not from the UK and my country demands a consent letter from the missing parent for entry.

thanks.

Thanks for all the input thus far, and it seems a mixed bag of posibily or not, So to add so detail.

Yes the Child has never left Thailand, Whilst as far as i can see the documents should be sufficient to legally get a thai passport, when we went to get one, basically they would not allow it, to paraphrase, As i wasn’t the mother, they explained it would be the same even if i was a thai father. Unless i can prove she is either dead, or have documents showing sole custody, which i don’t. and cannot afford the cost of pursuing this or the time it would take, (3-6 months)Apparently this is a recent change in the law (procedure).

From what i understand, you need valid documentation for the country you are traveling to, this is the only legal requirement i can find. So in this case a uk passport is a valid travel document. I also need proof he is in Thailand legally, did not enter Thailand illegally. these to me seem to be the only requirements, As i can proof he was born here in Thailand, is a Thai resident, ID Card birth cert, School ID card. name on taben barn, I cannot see any legal reason wht he needs a thai passport, to leave Thailand and travel to the UK.

I appreciate the need if / when he comes back to Thailand, but that’s can be resolved in the future

Does this extra detail help?

Appreciate your comments feedback and insights

you have parental rights, if you are the legal father of the child (in essence you were married to the mother or went through court)

you have sole parental right when you alone have the right to make decisions regarding your child. The rights of the mother have then be taken away by the court, or she is dead or she signed her rights away.

For a passport application both parents need to sign, unless the parent has sole parental rights. The passport office was right in their denial.

I have nothing to add to my earlier post. Try it with birth certificate and Thai passport. Might be better at a land border, as they check less for permission of the mother there and take a flight from a neighboring country to the UK.

I would advise getting sole parental rights, all though that takes a while. As you will/might need it in the future.

Mario,

Would you kindly advise specifically how in this case one can get sole parental rights and, of even greater interest, on what basis do you suggest such a thing is possible? I ask because my experience suggests otherwise, with only two narrow exceptions.

I petitioned the Family court to both legitimize and get sole parental rights. The mother, who had already abandoned the child and moved overseas, even returned to Thailand to attend the hearing to support my request for sole parental rights, but it was not granted, though legitimization was.

Now several years later, the mother has not been seen and while having returned to Thailand is out of contact and as a result we are trapped here, as the child was born in Thailand and hence did not enter on a foreign passport. Without the mother's suignature we are unable to get Thai and foreign passports renewed much less a consent letter.The amphur refuses to act without a court order and even if it did our embassy would not issue a new passport without a court order anyway.

My research suggests only two ways such a court order might be obtained, First is when the other parent is deemed to be a danger to the child which, thankfully, is not an issue in this case.

The second may be when a missing in action parent fails to show up, despite repeated adjournments to give her another chance, to the court hearing requesting sole parental powers. Of course, there is nothing stopping the missing parent from showing up, objecting to the granting of sole powers for reasons of face or whatever, and then continuing to do absolutely nothing for the child and perhaps even refusing to renew passports. And even in the case of a no show, sole parental powers might not be granted as this is at the sole discretion of the judges. All of which suggest that this path may prove to be an expensive and time consuming way to end up poorer and as now, without passports and hence virtually imprisoned in the Land of Smiles.

So then, are you suggesting these two avenues to get sole parental rights, or might you have a far better idea in mind?

Thanks for any thoughts you might have!

Gender Identity Disorder is a serious condition that often though not always correlates with very serious psychosocial pathologies including violence. In addition, you are dealing with a culture with which apparently you have no familiarity and which is extraordinarily different from that with which, it can be assumed, you are familiar. This presents fascinating challenges in everyday life, but when you are dealing with issues of intimacy it can prove to be a real...well, drag.

Finally, it is evident that you are resisting what you have told as bluntly as the culture allows. Your paramour is what he is. It is utterly irrelevant whether he has been castrated as some here flippantly suggest; the issues he so regretably faces are above the neck not below the waist.

The very fact that you have allowed this silliness to progress this far suggests that, perhaps, you may be emotionally vulnerable. Only you will know if this might be true; but be warned that Thailand is a place where the emotionally vulnerable tend to impale themselves.

My advice is save yourself. Good luck in whatever you decide.

Pay to play, maybe you have shot at getting your money's worth?

But this bit is for sure: "Money cant buy you love, cant buy you loooove, money cant buy you love...."