Bangkok Broils Under Red Shirt Protest

Posted on 9 April 2010 by christao408

Those of you who follow the news from Thailand know that for almost the past week, the center of the shopping district – the Ratchaprasong intersection – has been taken over by “red shirt” protesters. An estimated 100,000 were sitting in the street and plaza outside Central World shopping center this weekend and while the numbers have diminished significantly, the area is still paralyzed.

And as the Kingdom bakes under warmer than normal temperatures during what is already the usual peak of our hot season, tensions are rising on the political front. I went down to the area yesterday to take a look around and snap some photos.

I’ve updated my initial entry with some more pictures, explanation, and responses to your questions and comments.

P1010806
Looking west towards the Ratchaprasong intersection from the walkway that leads to Gaysorn Plaza, which is to the right of this picture.

Who are the Red Shirts?

The “Red Shirts” are a coalition of interested parties under the banner of the National United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD). They are mainly supporters of Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister who was ousted in a September 2006 coup and subsequently convicted in absentia to two years in prison and the seizure of about $1.3 billion in assets on charges of corruption. The UDD also represents some other interests, including those who aren’t supportive of Thaksin but who are against the coup and what they see as subsequent interference with the democratic process by a military/judicial elite.

A map of the area around Ratchaprasong intersection that is affected by the protests.

Affected Area

While there are scattered protests in other areas of the city, especially in the “Old City” where the government ministries are, the area that is attracting the most attention at the moment is the Ratchaprasong intersection. This is where Rama I Road (what turns into Sukhumvit as it heads southeast) and Rajadamri Road meet at the heart of the shopping district.

Is it paralyzing the city?

Vivek asks about the effect it is having on everyday life in Bangkok. Central World Plaza, Gaysorn Plaza, and Erawan shopping centers are all located right at the intersection. It is also the site of the popular Erawan Shrine, often mistakenly called the Four-Face Buddha by tourists. Siam Square with the Paragon, Siam Center, and Siam Discovery shopping centers is only a block away. These six major shopping centers have a combined floor space of more than four times the Mall of America’s and have been closed for almost a week now causing an estimated 200-300 million baht ($6-9 million) in losses per day.

View from the bridge connecting BTS Chidlom station to Central Chidlom department store, looking west towards Ratchaprasong.

UDD guards have set up barricades and are limiting traffic on the affected streets to only local traffic. For example, the Intercontinental, Holiday Inn Ploenjit, and Renaissance hotels are all in the affected area. Taxis and private vehicles going to and from these hotels are allowed to enter. Notice that in the picture above there are no police offers – they seem to be keeping their distance and letting protesters handle things.

Other businesses in the area are shut down or are operating on a very limited basis. Hotel bookings in the area are down significantly and bookings and tourist arrivals are off about 30% from normal for this time of year, particularly bookings from elsewhere in Asia. The Stock Exchange of Thailand dropped about 3.5% Thursday on news of the latest emergency decree and anticipation of a worsening political environment.

As for those of us who live here, it is kind of like having the middle of your living room be a no-go zone. You can still live in your house and get around, but you have to avoid one of the main areas that you would regularly travel to for work or entertainment. It is inconvenient but not impossible. Thankfully, this is the slow season for tourism and it is also summer break for students, so there is already less traffic than normal.

Looking south at the Ratchaprasong intersection. The Erawan shrine beyond the stage and to the left. Central World Plaza is back over your shoulder to the right in this picture.

At the main intersection, a stage is set up beneath the BTS Skytrain tracks. There is a bit of irony in the placement of the stage beneath the metropolitan government’s “Bangkok – City of Life” advertising.

Turning around 180 degrees and looking north along Rajadamri Road, Central World Plaza is on the left. There is a second pedestrian walkway in the distance. Over the weekend the entire street stretching beyond that second walkway was filled with protesters. At noon on a Thursday the crowds had dwindled and most were seeking refuge in whatever thin stretches of shade they could find.

Protesters camp out in the median strip foliage under the Skytrain tracks. Based on the number of plastic bags and other bits of rubbish strewn about, the UDD isn’t doing a very good job caring for its environment.

Are they compensated?

Rob asked whether protesters are there of their own volition or whether they have been paid to be there. There is no doubt that in a country where the vast majority of people earn less than $150 a month that there has been some compensation in addition to assistance transporting them to the capital. These protests have gone on for more than four weeks in different parts of the city. There are reports that protesters have received up to 2000 baht – about $60 – to come to the city. Most of the supporters are from the Issan region, northeast Thailand, a very poor and relatively dry area in comparison to the rest of the country.

The banner reads “Welcome to Thailand – We just want democracy”

Is it safe for you to be there?

Jason asked after the safety of me going to the protest area and several other people raised their concerns about my safety in general. Thanks to everyone for your concern. In deciding to visit, I evaluated the situation carefully, first viewing it from the passing Skytrain to see what the crowd looked like, and then approaching it on foot from a half-kilometer away.

As I walked from the Rajadamri BTS station back towards the Ratchaprasong intersection, my senses were on heightened alert and being one of the only foreigners on the street, I was very cognizant of what was going on around me. Had there been any signs of aggression or any direct conflict between protesters and security forces, I would not have entered the area. As it was, the police have stayed well to the fringes of the protest and other than scuffles at other locations – the protesters stormed the Parliament building briefly yesterday, for example – there has been a notable lack of confrontation between the protesters and security forces.

These plastic clappers have become symbolic of the UDD, who use them to cheer speakers and signify their protest. The ones in the shape of a foot have special meaning because the foot is considered the lowest and dirtiest part of the body. By raising your foot against whomever (authorities, military, the PM, etc.) you are insulting them.

Why is the government taking a hands-off approach?

Gary commented about the low-conflict approach that the government has taken so far against the protesters. Among some Thais and almost all foreigners, the question has been why the police and military aren’t moving in and arresting and/or dispersing protesters who are in clear violation of the law.

The answer is complex and there are some areas of speculation I won’t get into here. The larger, safer answer is that the military does not want to provoke a situation that could escalate into violence, much like what happened in April 2009, when police moved aggressively against protesters who responded with Molotov cocktails, bombs, and other violence. For all their image of being peaceful people, Thais’ tempers can be as easily triggered as anyone else’s and the history of such confrontations in Thailand politics (1973, 1976, 1992) have led to the conventional wisdom that such conflicts are not resolved until blood is shed, an outcome nobody wants.

There’s always money to be made as vendors sell color-appropriate supplies in front of the Louis Vuitton store at Gaysorn Plaza. At some point, you have to wonder which of the vendors (the foot masseuses, the ice cream vendors?) are there for capitalistic purposes rather than because of their political beliefs.

What’s going to happen next?

Meg commented that she had heard that martial law has been enacted. While it isn’t exactly martial law, the “Internal Security Act” has been invoked, giving the government and the military more powers to intervene in affairs of safety and security. Specifically, gatherings of more than five people for political purposes is not allowed. Additionally, the cable TV and radio stations supporting the UDD have been shut down because they are “spreading misinformation” and “destabilizing the peace”. The Internal Security Act applies to Bangkok and parts of surrounding provinces.

The protests show no signs of abating and while some people expect the crowds to diminish during the three-day Songkran (Thai new year) holiday next week, you can be certain that the situation will continue to simmer. We were lucky last year to be out of the country when things boiled over and with a trip to Macao and Hong Kong scheduled for next week, perhaps we will be lucky again.

Without turning this into a news blog or a political blog, I will share any significant developments with you. In the meantime, I have more food porn to post!

For more information: You may find this article in the Economist helpful in explaining some of the context and background of the current political situation, about which I will not write in this blog because of Thailand’s strict lese majeste laws.

Questioning Hour for the President

Posted on 30 January 2010 by christao408

Two days after the State of the Union address, President Obama went to speak in front of the Republican Caucus at their meeting in Baltimore. In what I gather is an unusual event, he not only spoke to them but took questions for more than an hour, something I’ve never seen. Part debate, part “Question Time” from the UK Parliament, this was one of the more helpful things I’ve seen politically.

Here’s the entire one hour, seven minutes of the Q&A from C-SPAN. Well worth a view for my American readers. Others may be less interested.

I liked it because, for one of the first times, I’ve seen an environment where the merits of the President’s positions and the truth of the claims of those positions and the opposition’s views relative to them can be discussed and debated openly and in more depth than on a cable talk show. It went beyond the usual talking heads and punditry to something more articulate and more substantial.

Truly, I like this format and would encourage the President to engage in more of these meetings both with Democrats and Republicans members of congress.

Additionally, I’d like to see political debates held in this style where the rules and questions are not so tightly scripted, allowing the sides to discuss back and forth, to call each other out on false choices and untrue assertions. It gets us beyond the soundbytes.

DC Awash in Cash, Our Interests Washed Down the Drain

Posted on 21 January 2010 by christao408

Corporations are not people. They do not have the same inalienable rights of people. These are two core beliefs I hold. The individual people who are owners of corporations have their individual rights but the corporation itself, a legal contract between those owners, does not have the same rights as if it were a human being, too. Contracts are pieces of paper, not living, breathing human beings.

Sadly, five members of the United States Supreme Court disagree with me and decided today that corporations are in fact people and have the same rights to free political speech as individuals do.

Why does that matter? Already, the degree of influence of corporate money through lobbyists, direct donations and other political actions has reached startling proportions. One look at the messy legislative process in creating the competing health care reform bills and you can see the dirty handprints of corporate money all over the place. One deal cut after another until all the “reform” has been removed from the final product with the precision of a surgeon’s scalpel but with far uglier consequences.

But at least there were some attempts at limits to corporate influence such as the McCain-Feingold Act.

It matters because we as individuals, even if we all became actively involved in politics, still don’t have the financial resources of corporations. We can’t afford to hire lobbyists, produce attack ads and smear campaigns and let millions of people know what we think. As individuals (true human beings) we will have a limited influence on friends, family and community – and that’s only if we get involved. Most people don’t. The corporations will inevitably have outsized influence on the democratic process because they have deeper pockets and the infrastructure to pay attention and get involved.

You see, I’m not anti-corporate. I don’t bemoan the spread of Starbucks or McDonald’s. Corporations that are successful are a great example of capitalism at work – a system that I believe in. But democratic capitalism has to respect the needs of the individual citizens as much as (if not more so) than the needs of the shareholders and consumers. This is an important balance discussed by former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich in his book Supercapitalism.

But as we sit here bemoaning why our legislators can’t seem to step up to any of the real challenges we face, make the tough decisions, etc. we need to realize that they can’t do those things because it costs a lot of money to run for election and in order to win (and win again and again) they are beholden to the coffers of big business.

Republican or Democrat, Libertarian or Socialists, your political views don’t matter here. The question is whether you believe that corporations and their billions (yes, billions) of dollars should be allowed equal footing with you in the arena of political ideas. I like a sumo wrestling match as much as the next guy, but only if both opponents are sumo-sized. In this case, it is more like an ant fighting a sumo wrestler. And I’m afraid to tell you, we’re the ant!

The Post-American World

Posted on 31 August 2009 by christao408

Every so often, I encounter a book whose author has managed to give voice to feelings I have, points I want to articulate, and perspectives I want to share. Fareed Zakaria’s “The Post-American World” is one such book.

As an American citizen living outside of the United States for an indefinite period of time, I’ve been privileged to gain a lot of perspective on the world as a whole and America’s position in it. Both living here as well as in Hong Kong a decade ago, I’ve seen things that make me want to run back to my fellow countrymen, shake them by the shoulders and deliver the message: The world is different than we thought!

Much like the ancients who thought the world was flat or that the Sun orbited the Earth, Americans are largely convinced that the United States is the most important country on the planet. Yes, America is the “most” in several different measures, but the ugly truth is… that doesn’t make us the most important country. There are other countries out there and their importance relative to their size, economic output, military power, etc. is definitely on the rise.

I won’t launch into a sermon about how Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and better understand what’s happening in the world. Suffice it to say that Americans need to get their heads out of the sand and better understand what’s happening in the world. Zakaria’s book is a good, balanced place to start.

Zakaria, who was born and raised in India but has lived in the United States for a quarter century, is the editor of Newsweek International. In his book, he describes “the rise of the rest” – the political and economic ascendance of countries such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Russia and Kenya. He does not write about the fall of America, but rather how America’s position as the sole superpower will become a lot less lonely, and what that means for America.

The short answer is: we need to get real and get our act together. This rise of the rest presents enormous challenges and enormous opportunities, if we are willing to recognize and act on them.

If I may, let me share one short excerpt that particularly spoke to me. This is from his concluding chapter titled “American Purpose” in which he presents six guidelines for America to operate successfully in this new, post-American world. One point he makes that particularly resonates with me:

“America has become a nation consumed by anxiety, worried about terrorists and rogue nations, Muslims and Mexicans, foreign companies and free trade, immigrants and international organizations. The strongest nation in the history of the world now sees itself as besieged by forces beyond its control. While the Bush administration has contributed mightily to this state of affairs, it is a phenomenon that goes beyond one president. Too many Americans have been taken in by a rhetoric of fear.”

I encourage you to seek out and read this book. It is incisive and well thought-out, drawing on the lessons of history and steering clear of partisan ideologies. I hope you enjoy it.

Food Safety Enhancement Act Won’t Enhance Food Safety

Posted on 14 July 2009 by christao408

The House of Representatives is considering HR 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, and it will soon come to a floor vote. From its title, it sounds good, right? Don’t believe it. This one-size-fits-all approach will harm small farms and local artisinal food producers, the ones you like to support at your local farmers’ market.

HR 2749 does not effectively address the underlying causes of food safety issues in the United States, namely, the industrial food system. Instead, it will give the FDA sweeping powers that will hurt exactly the type of local producers that are finally gaining support through the local and sustainable food movement.

Some examples of the impacts HR 2749 will have:

GEOGRAPHIC QUARANTINE

HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.” Under this provision, farmers’ markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination.

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES

HR 2749 would empower FDA to make warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation. Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.

TRACING SYSTEM

HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food. Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.” The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods. With all these ambiguities, it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.

REGISTRATION FEE

HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food. Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly. And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times.

CROP REGULATION

HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested. It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.

In the past few years, a lot of awareness has been raised about our food safety and the negative influence of factory farms, CAFOs (Confined Animal Feedlot Operations), and industrial-scale food production.

They are bad for the environment, bad for communities and small farmers, and bad for our health. They are the type of food operations that need better regulation, not small family farms!

Books such as Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and the recent documentaries “Fast Food Nation” and “Food, Inc.” have helped raise awareness.

Action You Can Take:

If you are a U.S. resident and are concerned about food safety issues and local, sustainable and small family food production, please contact your member of the House of Representatives.

This bill has been sent from committee to the floor of the House and will be voted on soon. Please tell your Representative to vote no on HR 2749.

If you are not sure who your Representative is, you can go use the “Find Your Representative” feature in the upper left-hand corner of the House of Representatives website.

Thanks for your support! For all of my non-American readers, I apologize for going into US politics today and hope that you will encourage your government to support small, local and sustainable food production in your country.

Gotta vent

Posted on 25 June 2009 by christao408

Update below

Excuse me. I hate to get political on you, but I just need to let off some steam. On Wednesday, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford joined a long list of Republican big-wigs who – ooops! – cheated on their wives. Newt Gingrich, John Ensign, Mark Foley, Larry Craig (well, kind of… does having a wide stance in a restroom stall count?), the list of Republican sexual indiscretions goes on and on.

Right: Sanford posing with his family. Filed in the dictionary under “sanctimonious”.

Now, let’s be clear, the Republicans aren’t alone in the world of wayward moral compasses. Democrats Elliot Spitzer, John Edwards and Jim McGreevey have done no better.

But here’s what really burns me up: In general, the Republicans are the ones who are anti-same sex marriage because – get this – they want to protect the sanctity of marriage.

Excuse me!?

There is a special place in hell for hypocrites like that. Unlike many Americans who are hung up on issues that in other cultures would largely be seen as a personal matter between a wife and her philandering husband, I don’t see these affairs as any of my business.

But when the people having those affairs tell me at the same time that me getting the right to marry would somehow cheapen marriage for everyone else, that crosses the line of all decency. It is an indefensible argument and leads me to believe that the Republican leaders have no moral standing whatsoever to lecture me about the sanctity of marriage.

Oh, and let’s add Rush Limbaugh to the list. Sanctity of marriage, my ass! He’s been married and divorced three time, the pill-popping windbag.

Update

So after having the opportunity to blow off some steam and get a full night’s sleep, I’m over it. Ready to move on and see the hilarity in the news of Sanford’s affair. But there have been so many Republican sex scandals lately that I get confused about them all.

Thankfully, this web site has posted a handy flow chart to keep things clear:

I hope you find it helpful. It certainly got things sorted out for me!

Families United

Posted on 6 June 2009 by christao408

Immigration is a hot-button issue in the US, most often for reasons that are purely political rather than practical. On a practical level, though, immigraiton rights have a very human impact and America’s tangled web of immigration policies results in families being kept apart and even torn apart. This is the case for me and Tawn.

Two years ago I wrote about this issue and I’d like to take a few minutes of your day to write about it again, as there is some recent action taking place in the US Congress and if you are a US citizen or resident, we could use your help.

Uniting American Families Act (UAFA)

Under current United States immigration law, an unmarried citizen or permanent resident can sponsor an immigration visa for his or her opposite-sex partner.

Same-sex couples, however, are not afforded this right. Binational same-sex couples (one partner is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, the other a foreign national) make up an estimated 36,000 couples in the US, plus an untold number who, like me and Tawn, now live abroad.

Here’s an important point: Even though same-sex marriage is now legal in a few states, those marriages are not recognized by the US Federal Government including for immigration purposes.

This year for the fifth time, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) have introduced versions of the Uniting American Families Act (HR 1024 and S.424) in both the House and Senate.

The act would add the term “or permanent partner” to those sections of the Immigration and Naturalization Act that apply to legally married, opposite-sex couples.

The act will afford equal immigration benefits to permanent partnerships – but it will also apply the same restrictions and enforcement standards including steep fines and jail terms for immigraiton fraud.

Progress

On June 3rd, for the first time ever, this proposed legislation received a hearing. Senator Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, bypassed the sub-committee process and held a full Judiciary Committee hearing for the bill.

The hearing featured Shirley Tan, a Filipina mother of 12-year-old twins from Pacifica, Calif., who is facing deportation despite having been with her partner for 23 years. Though Tan’s children and partner are American citizens, she cannot be sponsored for residency because her partner is female. Unless Congress takes action to pass UAFA, Tan will be forced to return to the Philippines.

Joining Tan as a witness was Gordon Stewart, Vermont native who was forced to sell his family’s farm and relocate to London to be with his partner, a Brazilian man. Stewart, who transferred his job with Pfizer Pharmaceuticals to the United Kingdom, has been welcomed in that country, where his partner received a visa to be with him. Under U.S. immigration law, his partner was unable to join him in the United States, and Stewart was forced to leave his family behind to be with the person he loves.

Other witnesses included Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and attorney Christopher Nugent, who represented the American Bar Association (ABA).

Here is an embedded playlist of the witnesses’ testimony, the first two of which are espcially compelling:

Reuniting Families Act (RFA)

Last week, California Representative Mike Honda and New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez introduced the Reuniting Families Act (RFA), an omnibus immigraiton reform bill that address the need to reform America’s family-based immigration system to end lengthy separations of loved ones, promote family stability and foster the economic growth that immigrant families have provided throughout our history. Specifically, the bill:

Recaptures unused family-based and employment-based visas previously allocated by Congress which remain unused.
Allows a green card holder to reunite with their spouses and minor children: The bill classifies the children and spouses of lawful permanent residents as “immediate relatives.” This would allow lawful permanent residence spouses and children to immediately qualify for a visa.
Increases the per country limits of family and employment-based visas from 7% to 10%, eliminating the absurdly long wait times for individuals to immigrate from certain countries like the Philippines, China, and India.
Allows orphans, widows and widowers to immigrate despite death of a petitioner.
Ends discrimination in immigration law, allowing same-sex partners to reunite

The RFA is the first time that issues of binational same-sex couples has been included in comprehensive immigration legislation. Effectively, if RFA is passed it would address UAFA’s concerns.

Why Now?

The Democrats have been promising GLBT constitutents that once they control the White House and Congress, our families and our rights would finally be protected. That time is now and despite my feeling that there are also many other important issues which need to be addressed by the President and the Congress, I don’t think they have any good excuse left to not take action. Inequality is not excusable.

I would ask that you consider this proposed legislation and how it impacts people such as me and Tawn and then take the simple step of making your opinion heard.

There are two easy things to do:

Email your Representative. If you do not know his or her name, you can go to www.house.gov and look it up using your zip code.
Email your two Senators. If you do not know their names, you can go to www.senate.gov and look them up by state.

Online forms on each Representative and Senator’s website make it easy to quickly submit your thoughts. If you are at a loss for words, the most important thing they need to hear is that you want them to support the Uniting American Families Act and the Reuniting Families Act.

It is time to right this wrong and protect all American families. Please get involved and thank you for your support.

Update:

I was asked by Sion to provide a sample letter to your Senator/Representative. Nothing fancy is required; something as simple as this will suffice:

Dear Senator/Representative ______
As your constituent I encourage you to support the Uniting American Families Act (HR 1024/S 424). This act would bring an end to discrimination that results in American families being torn apart, discrimination that has already ended in countries such as Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Israel and the United Kingdom. Permanent, committed bi-national couples where one partner is an American citizen or permanent resident should be allowed the same immigration rights regardless of whether they are a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.
Sincerely,
_________

Who Is to Blame for the Next Attack?

Posted on 1 June 2009 by christao408

Most of the time, I’m content to create my own content. Recently, I’ve been thinking a lot about the culture of fear that is the United States. It is something I’ll write about in the near future. This morning, though, I read Frank Rich’s op-ed column in the New York Times are found that he had put into words many of the thoughts that have been floating around my head the past week or two, even since the “Cheney vs. Obama Dustup.” I’d like to share his column with you.

Frank Rich, NY Times

After watching the farce surrounding Dick Cheney’s coming-out party this month, you have to wonder: Which will reach Washington first, change or the terrorists? If change doesn’t arrive soon, terrorists may well rush in where the capital’s fools now tread.
The Beltway antics that greeted the great Cheney-Obama torture debate were an unsettling return to the post-9/11 dynamic that landed America in Iraq. Once again Cheney and his cohort were using lies and fear to try to gain political advantage — this time to rewrite history and escape accountability for the failed Bush presidency rather than to drum up a new war. Once again Democrats in Congress were cowed. And once again too much of the so-called liberal news media parroted the right’s scare tactics, putting America’s real security interests at risk by failing to challenge any Washington politician carrying a big stick.
Cheney’s “no middle ground” speech on torture at the American Enterprise Institute arrived with the kind of orchestrated media campaign that he, his boss and Karl Rove patented in the good old days. It was bookended by a pair of Republican attack ads on the Web that crosscut President Obama’s planned closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center with apocalyptic imagery — graphic video of the burning twin towers in one ad, a roar of nuclear holocaust (borrowed from the L.B.J. “daisy” ad of 1964) in the other.

Read the rest of the column here.

Maybe We’ll Get Married in Iowa Instead?

Posted on 3 April 2009 by christao408

Last year I wrote about Tawn and I planning to get married in California when we returned to visit family over the holidays. That plan was upset by the voters of California, who passed Proposition 8 thanks largely to the help of a (possibly illegal) injection of funds by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

That said, it looks like we may have another marriage option when we return to Kansas City this summer to see the family: Iowa.

That’s right, restrictions to same-sex marriage have been overturned by the Iowa State Supreme Court and marriages will begin before the end of the month.

Does this surprise you as much as it surprises me? It seems it shouldn’t. Iowa has a history of being a progressive state. It was one of the first to allow interracial marriage and women to own property. It ended segregation shortly after the Civil War. It was the first state to allow a woman to practice law and it was a leader in school desegregation. The governor and legislature are Democratic.

Based on the first news reports, those opposed to same-sex marriage aren’t rushing to the “activist judges” defense quite as quickly. For starters, the court issued a 7-0 ruling in favor of striking down bans on same-sex marriage. There was no split decision.

Furthermore, the state constitution requires a lengthy process to be changed: two consecutive legislatures have to pass the amendment and then it has to be approved by voters, too. That’s at least a two-year process and current Democratic leadership has indicated that they’re not inclined to introduce such an amendment.

The third reason the same-sex marriage opponents probably haven’t done the “activist judges” route is that the court’s decision addresses the role of the court to make this decision, walking step by step through the role of the three branches of government in the State of Iowa. The full decision, which is interesting reading, can be found here. Quoting from that decision:

A statute inconsistent with the Iowa Constitution must be declared void, even though it may be supported by strong and deep-seated traditional beliefs and popular opinion. Iowa Const. art. XII, § 1 (providing any law inconsistent with the constitution is void). As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote over two centuries ago, “It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it . . . .” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L. Ed. 60, 73 (1803).

Like any journey towards equality, this one is a long, slow march. But today, we’ve taken another step to the point where we look back and ask ourselves, “What was all the fuss over same-sex marriage about?”

Op-Ed Feature from The Nation: Without Equality, Tolerance is Just A Myth

Posted on 2 April 2009 by christao408

Since you may not have a chance to read it yourself, I’m sharing an op-ed piece byPaisarn Likhitpreechakul written for The Nation, one of Thailand’s two English language daily newspapers.

Without equality, tolerance for gays is just a myth

By PAISARN LIKHITPREECHAKUL

SPECIAL TO THE NATION

Published on April 3, 2009

Thee’s a myth, especially among foreigners, that Thailand is “tolerant” towards gays and transgenders. After all, hardly a day goes by without one seeing ladyboys or katoeys (male-to-female transgenders). Most Thais also like to believe in such a feel-good story, as well as spin it to foreigners. To say anything to the contrary will cause a loss of face. However, that kind of simplistic rationale based on visibility is akin to reasoning that Thai women must have equal rights to men because every other Thai appears to be female.

Even long-term foreign residents aren’t likely to have heard about, for example, a bisexual woman who was burned alive in 2006, and the rape, murder and burning of a lesbian last year. Both cases were reported only in the Thai dailies. Continue reading →

christao408

The adventures of an expat American who moved to Bangkok for his husband.

Tag Archives: politics