April 5, 2006

WHICH IS WHY THE IDEAL MIXED REPUBLIC IS TOPPED BY A KING:

After months of people power, king persuades leader to resign (Richard Lloyd Parry, 4/.05/06, Times of London)

A HUNDRED thousand demonstrators left him defiant, weeks of protests did not dent his confidence, and even ten million protest votes failed to dislodge him. But last night, Thaksin Shinawatra, the Thai Prime Minister, finally agreed to resign after a word in his ear from the country’s 78-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

Posted by Orrin Judd at April 5, 2006 12:34 PM
Comments

The mob in the street prevailed in this battle. All the types which one typically finds such disdain for here, intellectuals, academics, leftwing journalists, et al, were the ones who conspired to unseat a popularly elected Prime Minister. While the esteemed King may have influenced the outcome in order to avoid an impending crisis and preserve stability this is still a result which sets a undesirable precedent for this fledgling democracy.

Posted by: MB at April 5, 2006 12:52 PM

Yes, yes, because Thailand is the City on the Hill, a light unto the nations. How often I've heard Mexican immigrants wish that the Mexico was situated on the Gulf of Thailand, rather than the Gulf of Mexico.

Posted by: David Cohen at April 5, 2006 1:07 PM

Fortunately, this Republic doesn't need a King ... we have Hollywood.

Posted by: Genecis at April 5, 2006 1:44 PM

David:

We'd be burrowimng under the fence to get to Mexico if it still had a king.

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 2:00 PM

Orrin:

Yes? We still have a queen and all we seem to get are your disaffected boomer crafty types.

Posted by: Peter B at April 5, 2006 2:11 PM

Elvis has left the building.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 5, 2006 2:40 PM

Peter:

You have the mere shadow of a monarch.

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 2:52 PM

The last time Mexico had a king (well, emperor) we helped to overthrow him.

Posted by: Brandon at April 5, 2006 3:20 PM

So we can't really complain about the consequences.

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 3:22 PM

King?

We used to have one of those. He kept taking out money, telling us what we couldn't do to the Indians and he was getting ready to tell us how to run our plantations, so we told him to eff off. Good riddance.

Posted by: Lou Gots at April 5, 2006 3:34 PM

So we now pay more money, kept our plantations until we tore apart ourselves in a war, and the Indians are fleecing us. Pretty bad deal.

Posted by: oj at April 5, 2006 3:41 PM

If the Great Spirit had not meant for the Palefaces to be fleeced, He would not have made them sheep.

Posted by: ghostcat at April 5, 2006 5:00 PM

King Charles III. Nuff said.

Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 5, 2006 7:37 PM

Having a monarch hasn't prevented the UK from having a higher tax burden or nationalised healthcare.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at April 6, 2006 8:26 AM

Ali;

Yes, the don't have a monarch anymore. They need to turn back power to the King and the Lords.

Posted by: oj at April 6, 2006 8:35 AM
« I'M THE ONE YOU NEED TO KNOW: | Main | THE SECURITY MODEL: »