Suthichai Yoon Interviews Stephen Young

[TAWP]

Bottom line, this thread again proves the good professor correct.

that so called professor is only good for comical and zany quotes. for entertainment purposes only. hilarious. correct is something else.

check this out: Professor Stephen B. Young: Notes on the 2008 election. taken from his Blog at the Twin Cities Daily Planet newswire. i am sure you will love it.

John McCain

Unlike two other men who were similarly irresponsible and self-referential (one also angry, alcoholic, adolescent, given to acting out and pouting braggadocio), McCain went to war. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush dodged military service.

McCain’s wartime suffering provided him with character. This was a stroke of fortune as elections are largely about character, not issues.

When McCain speaks of “country first”, of placing civic responsibility above service of self, he is turning the clock back to a pre Boomer culture. He is closer to the mythic stance of the Greatest Generation who fought a great war than he is to those who fought to stay out of the Vietnam War.

McCain is closing the chapter of Boomer culture in American history, putting that childishness behind us.

Hillary Clinton

Hillary’s address to the Democratic National Convention in Denver basically said it all: it was always about her: her ideas, her plans, her nagging the rest of us, her getting power to do what she wants because she wants to.. Hillary is a Boomer – cold at her core and self-referential; spoiled and arrogant, insincere in her claims to fellowship with the rest of us, keen to make money and live the good life, put upon by mean-spirited social enemies.

Sarah Palin

Here is a find; an original; another Andy Jackson come from the frontier to take no prisoners. We have seen the arrival of a person who will be in national politics for a long time to come.

She will give Hillary a run for the money and, I would guess, will outclass Hillary in the coming years. Hillary is a whiner while Sarah is a doer.

It is also a generational transfer of style: from the Boomer Hillary to the post-Boomer Sarah. ...

http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/blog-entry/20...8-election.html

there is no publishing date given, but i guess it was written before Obama was named the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party.

please don't blame that as off-topic. to have a look at what the comedian Stephen B. Young had said about the us-american election maybe can provide other us-americans, ko samui tourists, '77 peace corps veterans and otherwise clueless white men without a degree some hints about the mindset of Stephen b. Young.

Date: 2008/09/06 says the url.

And a hint is that Palin is mentioned. Which she would only be after being picked up as vice-president running mate, long after Obama de facto won the nomination.

[mca]

You didn't see the 2000 Baht/person handout to people who earn less than 15,000 Baht a month?

And how long ago was that then? Election time? Few months wasn't it?

So when the Dems dangle the carrot in front of the people it's OK but when Thaksin does it's not? Is that it? I suppose the Dems were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they thought "Shit we need to get the proles on our side pronto!"

[way2muchcoffee]

So when the Dems dangle the carrot in front of the people it's OK but when Thaksin does it's not?

Improving the lot of the neediest in society is the job of every government (IMO). Perhaps in the past the Dems didn't get this point too well. Point is, they certainly understand the need today. This is one very positive thing I think we can attribute to Thaksin.

[ThNiner]

You didn't see the 2000 Baht/person handout to people who earn less than 15,000 Baht a month?

And how long ago was that then? Election time? Few months wasn't it?

What about other long-term programs I listed? Just swept them under the carpet so that you could argue a little easier?

So when the Dems dangle the carrot in front of the people it's OK but when Thaksin does it's not? Is that it? I suppose the Dems were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they thought "Shit we need to get the proles on our side pronto!"

You are aware of the global financial crisis the Dems inherited when they came into office right? I'm pretty sure governments all over the world were handing out money left and right to their people. That kind of policy seemed like a global consensus at the time, don't you think?

However, Thaksin was in power during the global economy boom time. Circumstances under which the Dems and Thaksin implemented the policies were quite different, and that coud easily explain the different intuition and agenda behind them. Don't you think?

[mca]

So when the Dems dangle the carrot in front of the people it's OK but when Thaksin does it's not?

Improving the lot of the neediest in society is the job of every government (IMO). Perhaps in the past the Dems didn't get this point too well. Point is, they certainly understand the need today. This is one very positive thing I think we can attribute to Thaksin.

I fully agree. Wonder what the Dems stance would have been for the rural masses had Thaksin never come on the scene. How much rural development would there have been. Infrastructure building etc. Oh. I forgot. According to the Prof (He is the topic of this thread right-sorry I think I've hijacked it!) the fact that Sombat can now have a shit in the comfort of his own home without dashing to the klong and have that magic picture box in the corner of the room is all down to the BKK crew already. Question answered!

[mca]

What about other long-term programs I listed? Just swept them under the carpet so that you could argue a little easier?

Not at all but if you're going to quote complete inaccuracies from the off to support your claim it's not a very good start is it?

And Thaksins programs? Not valid because he had a self serving agenda? Are the Dems any less self serving under their veneer of "respectability"?

[way2muchcoffee]

Wonder what the Dems stance would have been for the rural masses had Thaksin never come on the scene. How much rural development would there have been. Infrastructure building etc.

We'll never know. Probably less benefits from the Dems to the poor in the scenario you describe would be my guess. I would, however, place my bets on the Dems doing a better job implementing policies that have real benefit to the poor, with greater transparency and much less graft.

Edited September 12, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[ThNiner]

Not at all but if you're going to quote complete inaccuracies from the off to support your claim it's not a very good start is it?

And Thaksins programs? Not valid because he had a self serving agenda? Are the Dems any less self serving under their veneer of "respectability"?

I'm pretty sure the Dems never hired a foreign PR company to discredit their own country so they could get back into power. Nor were they ever instrumental in spearheading the types of mayhem we saw in past April. Did the Dems ever sanction the police to maim and kill innocent civilians (Oct 7 massacre) so they could delcare their policies and hence legitimize their gov't? Did the Dems ever change any laws so that they could evade paying billions of Baht in taxes? Did the Dems ever enrich themselves at the expense of the entire nation (like Prah Vihea deal + Burma's ExIm bank loan deal?)

I don't know. What do you think who's more self-serving?

[mca]

So when the Dems dangle the carrot in front of the people it's OK but when Thaksin does it's not? Is that it? I suppose the Dems were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they thought "Shit we need to get the proles on our side pronto!"

You are aware of the global financial crisis the Dems inherited when they came into office right? I'm pretty sure governments all over the world were handing out money left and right to their people. That kind of policy seemed like a global consensus at the time, don't you think?

However, Thaksin was in power during the global economy boom time. Circumstances under which the Dems and Thaksin implemented the policies were quite different, and that coud easily explain the different intuition and agenda behind them. Don't you think?

ThNiner. With all due respects mate why are you asking questions in reply to my post that is a different area of discussion to what I posted? Aha! You're playing some sort of Jedi mind trick aren't you?

Either that or when someone asks you "What's the time mate?" you reply "Toyota Camry."

[ThNiner]

So when the Dems dangle the carrot in front of the people it's OK but when Thaksin does it's not? Is that it? I suppose the Dems were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they thought "Shit we need to get the proles on our side pronto!"

You are aware of the global financial crisis the Dems inherited when they came into office right? I'm pretty sure governments all over the world were handing out money left and right to their people. That kind of policy seemed like a global consensus at the time, don't you think?

However, Thaksin was in power during the global economy boom time. Circumstances under which the Dems and Thaksin implemented the policies were quite different, and that coud easily explain the different intuition and agenda behind them. Don't you think?

ThNiner. With all due respects mate why are you asking questions in reply to my post that is a different area of discussion to what I posted? Aha! You're playing some sort of Jedi mind trick aren't you?

Either that or when someone asks you "What's the time mate?" you reply "Toyota Camry."

Ok, mca, let me make it a bit clearer for you. The Dems implemented the populist polices when the country clearly needed it (see the global financial crisis), while Thaksin did it when we didn't.

A bit clearer now? Sorry that I made it a bit complicated for you.

Edited September 12, 2009 by ThNiner

[mca]

Not at all but if you're going to quote complete inaccuracies from the off to support your claim it's not a very good start is it?

And Thaksins programs? Not valid because he had a self serving agenda? Are the Dems any less self serving under their veneer of "respectability"?

I'm pretty sure the Dems never hired a foreign PR company to discredit their own country so they could get back into power. Nor were they ever instrumental in spearheading the types of mayhem we saw in past April. Did the Dems ever sanction the police to maim and kill innocent civilians (Oct 7 massacre) so they could delcare their policies and hence legitimize their gov't? Did the Dems ever change any laws so that they could evade paying billions of Baht in taxes? Did the Dems ever enrich themselves at the expense of the entire nation (like Prah Vihea deal + Burma's ExIm bank loan deal?)

I don't know. What do you think who's more self-serving?

Let's just agree that both sides are in reality self serving so we don't get bogged down when I mention things like Wichai Srikwan. the Sufficiency Community Project etc

[way2muchcoffee]

The Dems implemented the populist polices when the country clearly needed it (see the global financial crisis), while Thaksin did it when we didn't.

I must disagree with you here ThNiner. The neediest people have always needed any populist policy that might make their lives just a little more manageable. Whether good economic times or bad for the country overall, there are always poor people who need assistance. Thaksin realized this and capitalized on it.

Edited September 12, 2009 by way2muchcoffee

[ThNiner]

Let's just agree that both sides are in reality self serving so we don't get bogged down when I mention things like Wichai Srikwan. the Sufficiency Community Project etc

You asked me if the Dems were less self-serving, didn't you? Or was I mistaken? But I see that when you got facts stacked up against you, it's a proper time to resort to the old cliched "everyone is corrupt, so Thaksin is ok" thingy.

[ThNiner]

The Dems implemented the populist polices when the country clearly needed it (see the global financial crisis), while Thaksin did it when we didn't.

I must disagree with you here ThNiner. The neediest people have always needed any populist policy that might make their lives just a little more manageable. Whether good economic times or bad for the country overall, there are always poor people who need assistance. Thaksin realized this and capitalized on it.

True. And Thaksin actually went a bit further than that by actually duping the poor to believe that he's actually helping them, when in fact he unloaded more debts onto them with his numerous governmental loan deals. Right now, on average, the poor people are more indebted than ever thanks to Thaksinomics.

[mca]

So when the Dems dangle the carrot in front of the people it's OK but when Thaksin does it's not? Is that it? I suppose the Dems were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they thought "Shit we need to get the proles on our side pronto!"

You are aware of the global financial crisis the Dems inherited when they came into office right? I'm pretty sure governments all over the world were handing out money left and right to their people. That kind of policy seemed like a global consensus at the time, don't you think?

However, Thaksin was in power during the global economy boom time. Circumstances under which the Dems and Thaksin implemented the policies were quite different, and that coud easily explain the different intuition and agenda behind them. Don't you think?

ThNiner. With all due respects mate why are you asking questions in reply to my post that is a different area of discussion to what I posted? Aha! You're playing some sort of Jedi mind trick aren't you?

Either that or when someone asks you "What's the time mate?" you reply "Toyota Camry."

Ok, mca, let me make it a bit clearer for you. The Dems implemented the populist polices when the country clearly needed it (see the global financial crisis), while Thaksin did it when we didn't.

A bit clearer now? Sorry that I made it a bit complicated for you.

So those upcountry folks didn't really need Thaksins help back in the day because the economy was OK? Is that what you're saying? They weren't living on the breadline back then? Sure. Everybody had a downpayment on a new Benz out in the villages. Nobody was living had to mouth. It was kobe steak for breakfast.

Good to see how a supporter of the current government thinks. When we've got a good economy everythings rosy in the land of smiles.

A lot of these folks struggle no matter what the state of the economy is. When it's good life is slightly less shit for them than when it isn't. Unless you consider earning less than 180 baht a day booming (if you're lucky to have a job that pays minimum wage that is).

You're Thai right? Ever seen beyond the farthest skytrain station?

A bit clearer now? Sorry that I made it complicated for you. (Sarcasm-a 2 way street)

[mca]

Let's just agree that both sides are in reality self serving so we don't get bogged down when I mention things like Wichai Srikwan. the Sufficiency Community Project etc

You asked me if the Dems were less self-serving, didn't you? Or was I mistaken? But I see that when you got facts stacked up against you, it's a proper time to resort to the old cliched "everyone is corrupt, so Thaksin is ok" thingy.

I don't think Thaksins OK. He is a bent bastard and anybody who can;t see that must be brain damaged. I've stated in numerous posts that I consider him a turd. Of course me thinking him to be a bag of shit wouldn't fit in with your blinkered "anti government = pro Thaksin" view would it? I just consider that no matter whether Thaksin was a saint or sinner his popularity (bought or not) threatened the real powers in Thailand and they didn't like it. The real reason why I sadly think Thailand will be running around in this "developing country" circle forever. All the real top guys want is for the proles to know their place and how deep to wai. Thakisin in his own arrogance to match theirs didn't know his place or how deep to wai. I feel that a number of the supposed "red shirt supporters" on this forum feel the same.

The facts stacked against me? Your first "fact" was wrong. Here we are. 2 for the price of one.

[animatic]

There's a difference between :

Targeted populist policies for short term political gain.

Long term policies to elevate poverty NATION WIDE,

and improve lives in general.

Stimulus policies to keep the country functioning

when the bottom has fallen out.

Thaksin sepcialzed in the first form,

to the exclusion of other equally needy parts of the country...

that didn't vote for him.

Stimulus is needed because of gargantuan external problems

beyond any one governments abilities to control.

People stop buying, and people stop building, and workers stop eating.

Yet besides these obvoius issues, the current government has made

concrete steps to help people ALL over the country.

Not just their voting blocks.

And that is a VERY large difference between PPP a todays Dems now.

Children's education has seen major steps forward,

and free milk are just two issue dealt with strongly.

And not coincidentally pulled back from companies that were dropping the ball

having gotten Thaksin sweetheart monopoly contracts, serving children bad milk...

Now the contracts offered to many suppliers, IF they maintain quality.

I have asked this before an NOT ONE Thaksin/Samak / Somchgai fan has EVER answered.

List me the actual things that PPP / PTP have EVER done for this country?

Regarding their near year in power, a typical span in Thailand, nada...

The silence has been deafening

[Plus]

I said that democratic is that the opinion of the majority is represented in parliament - nothing further.

What???

The parliament represents ALL people of Thailand. The government represents the majority of parliamentarians. That's ABC of Thai political system for you.

What you are addressing is a problem here in general that MPs jump from one ideology to the other as they see fit, eg which benefits them the most over the near future.

Biggest cause of this problem is that MPs represent people, and people on the ground don't particularly care about ideologies in Bangkok. They want MPs help with local development, how the MPs are going to get those funds out of Bangkok government doesn't matter.

MPs, btw, are supposed to legislate, not govern, but governors are not elected in Thailand and getting those sweet positions is not as easy as winning elections.

Someone said that some local poo yais shifted their attention from getting national MPs to local Provincial elections, 'cos that's where the money is. MPs, in the meantime want to amend the constitution so that they can work as advisors to budget dispersal committees instead of writing laws and pursuing ideology.

You also mentioned switching the camps. That's a problem, but in 2007 elections no party has promised to form a coalition with PPP so you can't talk about betrayal in this particular case.

....

MCA, Thai political system is pluralistic and inclusive. People are free to support any party they want, their choice is not restricted to either Thaksin or Democrats.

The scenario you proposed is not only highly hypocritical but also denies people their choices and so is undemocratic.

[LaoPo]

the ultimate 1-MILLION-DOLLAR-QUESTION is:

WHO granted him that monopoly ?

Your ultimate 1-MILLION-DOLLAR-QUESTION has already been answered in another thread a while ago. And it's never been an "ultimate" secret either. Majority of informed Thais know this. I know this. But you obviously don't despite your seemingly expertise in Thailand's matters.

post #21

The Monopoly was granted by the Government under General Sunthorn Kongsompong who, on his death in 1999, had an Estate valued at over US $ 150 million including a Villa and Wine Estate in France.

Pretty good going on a Generals Salary.

Patrick

Guess you were buried by this ultimate question of yours the whole time that you could miss this galringly obvious answer.

And I can dig up a sort of photographic proof of this. Will post it later.

"the ultimate 1-MILLION-DOLLAR-QUESTION" <---

I'm very well aware that the question was answered* by the esteemed member p_brownstone. It's not necessary you reply with such a biting comment mr. ThNiner

I was merely answering Mr. Jingthing and if the previous topic hadn't been closed it wouldn't have been necessary for me to repost the same in this topic. But you seem to have missed my point when I wrote in post #83 in blue: I posted as follows:

I never EVER claimed that my "seemingly expertise in Thai matters" is better than other members as I'm convinced that there are lots of them, knowing much better than me, including yourself, so I can see.

No need for you to post a sort of photographic proof; here it is:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/National-Div...98#entry3000398

Be a bit more friendly next time, will you please?

* if that answer contains the complete truth remains to be seen since there seems to be no 100% evidence but there must be some out there, no doubt, and you, being an expert in Thai matters is most likely able to supply that evidence, right ?

I'm sure you didn't forget it was about my question: "WHO granted him (Thaksin;LP)that monopoly ?"; and for the ones who didn't read the answer by member p_brownstone:

"The Monopoly was granted by the Government under General Sunthorn Kongsompong who, on his death in 1999, had an Estate valued at over US $ 150 million including a Villa and Wine Estate in France."

That answer is quite interesting...but is it true and the complete truth ? If the "Government" granted the Monopoly, it must be in writing and a (sub)-law must have been passed...or was ir done under the table ?

Surely, you must know mr. ThNiner!?

LaoPo

[ThNiner]

Ahh..that grand conspiracy theory never gets old around here, doesn't it? Hey, mca, have you ever wondered why King Rama V bothered trying to give Thai people democracy in the first place, if your grand old conspiracy theory did stand up to the facts? The historical facts kind of contradict the ever popular conspiracy theory of yours, don't you think? Why didn't Thailand remain the absolute monarchy then? Why bother?

[mca]

The scenario you proposed is not only highly hypocritical but also denies people their choices and so is undemocratic.

My scenario was not aiming to be undemocratic. Just for the ease of considering the 2 major players without confusing the basic question of who would win (because I'm sure you agree it'd be one of the two).

A bit like when you go to a restaurant. You order Coke or Pepsi right? Not "A glass of the Tesco own brand cola please"

[mca]

Ahh..that grand conspiracy theory never gets old around here, doesn't it? Hey, mca, have you ever wondered why King Rama V bothered trying to give Thai people democracy in the first place, if your grand old conspiracy theory did stand up to the facts? The historical facts kind of contradict the ever popular conspiracy theory of yours, don't you think? Why didn't Thailand remain the absolute monarchy then? Why bother?

I'm not talking about a certain personage or institution. Let's just leave it at that shall we? I feel we're skirting around the forum rules going down this road.

[jasreeve17]

Animatic said: "I have asked this before an NOT ONE Thaksin/Samak / Somchgai fan has EVER answered.

#1 List me the actual things that PPP / PTP have EVER done for this country?

Regarding their near year in power, a typical span in Thailand, nada...

The silence has been deafening"

Wouldn't want the sky to keep falling upon you; there has been to much love recently...

I'm not your targetted audience because I'm not a Mr T, Samak or Somchai fan, but let me do two things:

1) Answer your question #1: MrT: the cheap health scheme. A great leap forward for the Thai masses. I know many Thais whose lives have been dramatically improved by this policy.

[if you mean the Samak government then I agree 100% - the worst government I've ever seen. Somchai wasn't around long enough to judge, but in his few days around I don't remember him doing any government duties...]

2) Pose a question for Dem fans. Before MrT's tenure, please name one actual thing that the Dems ever did that benefitted the Thai masses.

Going back to the Stephen Young interview: I agree with the couple of posters who pointed out the ridiculous hypocracy of the interviewee - a pure propaganda piece. Revolting and disgusting.

(Above; always amuses me when Plus starts to talk about his view of what's 'democratic' or 'undemocratic', )

[ThNiner]

LaoPo, it's Sunthorn Kongsompong plus a few of his 1991 coup buddies like Suchinda Kraprayoon I'm sure.

[Samuian]

Populism is often mistaken for it's genuine meaning...

it's nothing morethan actually a political philosophy supporting

the rights and power of the people in their struggle against the

privileged elite.

it's meaning has been hijacked to fool the "Popolo" the people... the Electorate.

Who made the wolf eat chalk...?

[mca]

Somchai wasn't around long enough to judge, but in his few days around I don't remember him doing any government duties...

He was too busy trying to hang on to his job. Bet he rued the day he got married. Always looked as if he was about to shit himself.

[LaoPo]

For LaoPo's information:

Thaksin humbly cupping his nuts in the presence of General Sunthorn Kongsompong, the 1991 Coup leader, who granted Thaksin the telecom monoploy.

Another pic of Thaksin, the champion of democracy for the reds, wishing the 1991 coup leader General Sunthorn Kongsompong a very very happy birthday. Also in the picture, General Suchinda Kraprayoon, another leader of 1991 coup.

:D

Thank you so much Mr. ThNiner

What a relief to have such a well informed member who's able to dig old photos within no time, especially when it's Thaksin-related. Well done, although it doesn't prove anything yet, does it ?

In the (almost) 5 years I am a member of TV I can recall only ONE, just ONE previous, now banned, member who was also very well informed and also having a huge photo database about Thaksin, and that was Mr. Sriracha_John. Funny, he had the same habit as you have, posting photos with biting subtitles about Mr. Thaksin

What a coincidence Mr. ThNiner, isn't it ?

Friend of yours or do you have access to his photo database ?

LaoPo

[ThNiner]

2) Pose a question for Dem fans. Before MrT's tenure, please name one actual thing that the Dems ever did that benefitted the Thai masses.

For one, the Dems were actually the ones who pulled the country out of IMF loan deal mess. They were the ones who actually amassed gov't treasury druing that time. You can look up the data from Bank of Thailand. I once read it somewhere.

And LaoPo, you are totally off base if you believe I'm Khun Sriracha_John. The mods can easily see where I log in from. I'm sure they know there's no way that Khun Sriracha_John and I are the same person. Besides, my English is still poor by native speakers' standard.

[emsfeld]

I should have elaborated as I already had before - the majority opinion is acted upon. Usually when new laws come to pass, they are proposed by the government and then voted on by parliament. Also, usually the government or to be precise the coalition of factions making up the government will have the dominant voice in parliament. Hence, my statement,

"I said that democratic is that the opinion of the majority is represented in parliament - nothing further."

in the sense that usually the government is representative of the most mainstream ideology after votes have been counted after elections took place (and coalitions have been formed as a result). Hence, the government (coalition) will have 50% + x votes to count on when it comes to passing legislative bills and the "opinion of the majority is represented in parliament". Of course a lot of opinions (surely not all) are represented in parliament, BUT the most mainstream one will succeed. After all, elections are in the statistical sense just held to "sample" the opinions of the whole population and gauge the proportionate distribution of ideologies - based on which the parliament is formed.

Biggest cause of this problem is that MPs represent people, and people on the ground don't particularly care about ideologies in Bangkok. They want MPs help with local development, how the MPs are going to get those funds out of Bangkok government doesn't matter.

which is an ideology - not in the sense of left, right, center, green, fascist... but the local communities and regions have interests in their local development. Naturally their interests collide with each others as they all are competing for the same pot.

So basically you are saying that it doesnt matter which party (or group of factions) is the reigning party as long as it is not Thaksin's? Again, I still wonder though...if MPs truly represent their people and that's what people are only concerned with, how would it matter if Thaksin's party was in power? Since it also doesnt matter which "banner they are flying under"?

Edited September 12, 2009 by emsfeld

[ThNiner]

Friend of yours or do you have access to his photo database ?

I just googled "ทักษิน สุนทร" for pictures. You can try it too. It's incredibly easy and simple you know.