Toxin Avenger

Trump Is A Toxin

Homonym – Trump is a Toxin Homonym. Sorry, the subtitle must have cut off, like a long-winded Tweet (but I was too lazy to send a follow up).  This is not an ad hominem attack on the President of the United States.  That would be wrong.  Instead, this is an ad homonym attack, which is completely different, and much more respectful.  Or maybe not.  The premise is that POTUS is a lot like Thaksin, the deposed ruler of Thailand (a bad guy you’ll learn more about shortly, also a short guy you’ll learn more about badly), only I’m immature and used a homophonetic spelling of the Thai guy because I also find DJT to be similar to a carcinogen or another noxious substance that no one would want to touch with a ten-foot toupee.  (Thaksin is pronounced like Toxin. It’s like how Thailand is pronounced “Tieland”, not “Thighland”, though the latter sounds more appealing if you like leggy women).  And before anyone complains to the FCC, I’m not calling either of them gay, nor am I saying that either is afraid of gays.  A homophone or homonym is not the same as a homophobe, so Mike Pence should be safe from this piece of writing (but he’s not).

Okay, in case anyone is confused by these three terms, I’ll explain as best I understand it, and expect someone more literary to later tell me I’m wrong (it’s been known to happen from time to time, every time). Homonyms are two (or more) words that are either spelled the same but have different meanings or sounds (also known as homographs), or two (or more) words that are spelled differently but sound the same (also known as homophones).  A homophonic homonym would be dear and deer or two, too, and to, or ore, or, or oar, or whore and hoar, or pour, pore, and poor, or for, fore, or four for four more for sure (shore?); (outside of a Special Olympics regatta, have you ever seen so many oars (or / ores) jammed together as in this sentence?  Sorry, that was mean).  A homographic homonym would be lead (metal) and lead (leader) or wound (injury) and wound (like a clock).  A homophobe is a closeted homosexual who supports legislation obsessed with who sticks what where, when they should just live and let live (live (rhymes with give) and live (rhymes with dive) would be two more homographs, while we’re at it).  A homophobe like Mike would avoid going to Bangkok because it homophonically sounds like something two gay guys might do, and his Lord (the guy who preached about loving thy neighbor, turning the other cheek, and not casting stones) would not approve.  WWJD?  Probably tell Pence to live and let live, and that it’s even okay to socialize with a woman not named Karen Sue.  And now he’s a heartbeat or impeachment hearing away from the ultimate position of power in America (Mikey, not Jesus).  It’s such a sad end of times.  Got it?  Toxin / Thaksin is a homophone, and hominem / homonym are close to a homophone, and Trump / Pence both suck, but that’s beside the point.  Enough homo talk, back to my thesis.

So for those unaware of Thaksin, I’ll offer a little history (courtesy of the bits and pieces I picked up from a Thai wife, supplemented by Wikipedia and other googly sources). First, mine.  I first visited the Land of Smiles in 2008, for a two-week solo adventure between jobs.  The closest things to Thai national politics I experienced during this awesome trip were: 1. People stopping everything every day to stand silently for the National Anthem (patriotic, not partisan); 2. Pictures everywhere of the very popular King (recently deceased as of this writing in 2017, but alive and old when I was there nearly a decade ago; royal, not really political); and 3. During a visit to the small town of Kanchanaburi (site of the Bridge on the River Kwai), I struggled to find an open bar to drink Thai beer during their elections (just plain unfortunate).  It was as if they didn’t want their people to get drunk and elect some fool to run their country, as if they’d had this problem before. Some sly proprietors offered me a cold, beer-flavored “coffee” with a wink that filled the void, which was much appreciated.  Thailand is very hot, and cold beer helps.  Anyway, besides these three tangentially (at best) related aspects, I was blissfully unaware of any deeper political rumblings during this trip.  With the exception of some brutal violence at a Muay Thai event, Thailand seemed very peaceful to me.  In hindsight, I was there during an intermission of the Shinawatra rules / revolts, so it was generally peaceful at this particular time.

A couple of years later, I returned to Thailand with a Thai tour-guide named Sai, and things were much different. First, because I had someone with me at all times who could tell me what was going on (interrupting my bliss), and second, because the country was sharply divided between redshirts and yellow shirts, with the rest of us wearing neither color to stay out of the crossfire. There was a civil war between two factions (“what’s so civil about war anyway?” asked Axl; “absolutely nothing”, sang Andrew Jackson’s ghost in his best Edwin Starr impression), fighting over the legitimacy of the government.  There were tire fires in the middle of the street, airport disruptions, explosions, a curfew, and general craziness this time around.  The State Department suggested staying away, but the girlfriend at that time called me chicken.  (She is now Mrs. Chicken).  Behind the chaotic scenes (hiding out overseas) was a previously deposed Prime Minister, Mr. Thaksin Shinawatra.  I may have been sneakily drinking when I visited the first time, but I swear I didn’t vote for the guy.  But who is he?  And why would otherwise peaceful Thais riot for or against?  And what does this have to do with the Donald?

Thailand has a royal family. They are exalted like royalty.  Think England.  These figureheads do the same kinds of public service announcements, outside the ugly world of politics.  Thailand also has a government to run the country, outside the fancy world of royals.  They’ve struggled with democracy, because they keep electing corrupt people to the positions of power.  Their Prime Minister was their version of our President, though in their culture, it was less of a fixed position, as you’ll see shortly.

Thaksin Shinawatra was a very successful businessman (billionaire) who then decided to enter politics. He became a man of the common people (populist), appealing to the rural class (farmers, villagers, not sure about coal miners), with a nationalist view.  He rallied his supporters by telling them that he cared about them, while the elites in the big cities did not care.  [Another hypothesis – is the density of a voter inversely proportionate to the density of their region?  i.e. the thinner the population in an area, the thicker the skulls of those voters?  This one will have to wait.]  He railed against previous corrupt establishments (Crooked Hillary, Thai version; drain the swamp, etc.), vowing to fix things.  He spoke of improving the healthcare system and infrastructure.  He was also well-regarded for his CEO stylings, as a businessman was needed to fix the screwed up Thai economy after its suffering through an Asian financial crisis prior to this savior. In 2001, his rural supporters trumped the big city slickers and put him into power as prime minister.

However, while in power, people began to question some of his actions, as we’re wont to do (I always say that people suck; if it weren’t for people, who would we complain about? My money’s on the birds).  Questions arose regarding his financial disclosures at the time of his election, possible tax evasion, corruption, and conflicts of interest.  Not enough?  How about his being authoritarian, treasonous, acting non-diplomatically (my personal favorite), restricting the press, selling out his country to foreign powers, and profiting his own businesses while in office.  He was even charged with lese majeste (insulting the beloved King), which may be the one offense DJT has not yet committed, though it’s hard to say; he’s insulted just about everyone else at one time or another.  There may have been an anti-Thai king tweet somewhere in there that I missed.  More specifically, Thaksin shadily shielded (allegedly, of course) his financial holdings and interests by putting businesses in his children’s names (as well as in the names of maids and drivers, though they were unaware of it).  He made major moves that he said would help the country, but were later revealed to have made himself or his partners richer, such as land deals to his wife.  Outside the political arena, similarities abound as well.  Thaksin got his start in business using family money; he had several unsuccessful ventures on his resume; he founded a shitty university; he once owned a football club; he staunchly opposed Muslims; he’s a teetotaler hardline anti-drugger; he once rode a bus with Billy Bush and bragged about… No, I made that last one up.  But tell me if this sounds familiar: “Each time he faced pressure, Mr. Thaksin appeared to ride out the storm, his backing among his key supporters – Thailand’s rural voters – apparently unscathed.”  [BBC News Profile, 6/24/2011].  Geographically ironically, the heart of this base is in Thailand’s northeast, while in USA, the northeast is the antithesis to the heartland of Trump’s supporters.

So, allow me to recap. Spoiled kid becomes wealthy businessman becomes leader of his country by promising to help the poor people and to clean up the corruption.  He lies about his financial holdings, pretends his kids are running his businesses, makes deals with foreign powers that directly benefit himself and potentially harm his country, and tries to control the media to prevent them from reporting unfavorably.  Before Donald Trump, he was Donald Trump!  He’s actually a couple of years younger though.

So what happened to this great man? The walls closed in.  Despite his best attempts to control the media narrative, those pesky kids (fake news!) persisted to unravel his deceit.  Before the Scooby Doo crew could unmask the villain, he bolted (can you picture a better Scooby Doo ending than the Donald being unmasked to show Voldemort Vladimir underneath?  Zoinks!).  While he was away, they took away his seat of power.  After massive protests of his corruption in the major cities (remember, the rural rednecks (a.k.a. redshirts in Thailand) still loved him), the military stepped in and took over.  This was in 2006, before my first trip.  Note that he was on his second term at this point, after being first elected in 2001.  Believe it or not, he was the first prime minister to serve a full term! Stability is not the word I’d use for Thailand’s government.  It was not an overnight resistance.  In 2008, I was apparently there in the eye of the toxic political storm, which is why things seemed so serene to me.  That and because I was drinking a lot of cheap Thai beer and didn’t speak the funny language, krup.  Thaksin enjoyed his life in exile, globetrotting to find a new haven, since most places didn’t want to touch him (like a toxin).  If he returned to Thailand, he was likely to be jailed for corruption.  Much of his fortune was frozen in his absence, though he still managed to buy a soccer team at one point, which he later sold at great profit (a better investment than Trump’s foray into the USFL).  Forbes still pegs his net worth at $1.7B, which is roughly half of what they list DJT at as of March 2017.  Not too bad for a bad guy.

So the story has a happy ending. That’ll be the day.  My stories never have happy endings.  Thaksie (my little nickname for the guy) came to power, did some good things for the poor people of his country, did some bad things for his country itself, did some really sketchy things for the good of his bank account, and was run out of office to live a life of leisure elsewhere on his accrued fortune.  If only it were that simple, we could foresee a light at the end of Donald’s tunnel of doom.  Instead, Thaksie did not go quietly and accept the results of his rejection.  From afar, he continued to rally and rile his home supporters (the redshirts), inciting (violent) action to protest the opposition (the yellow shirts).  Of course he denied any responsibility and denounced the deadly violence after the fact.  He is like the cowardly Stacy Keach character from American History X, avoiding prison while encouraging impressionable others to do his dirty work.  Ed Norton is still looking for Shinawatra to kick his ass.

The parties changed names, leadership changed hands, and in 2011, Thaksie’s sister Yingluck was elected by the same populist movement to be his little poppet puppet or puppet poppet, take your pick. Everyone knew who was pulling her strings.  Her proposals to forgive previous political dissidents were seen as a super-thinly veiled attempt to pave the way for big bro Thako to come home (which would have saved a lot of internationally stretching string).  And she was in trouble for some shady rice subsidies that seemed to help the rural farmers (their base voters) but destroyed the country’s exports.  For these reasons, an impression of idiocy, and a GWB / Katrina-like response to flooding Bangkok, she was not well-regarded at home by the same urbanites and elites that disavowed her brother, and in 2014 the military again intervened to take over the government.  The cycle seemed to be that Thaksin and his ilk owned the rural masses to the point where they dominated the elections; the opposition (yellow shirts) either boycotted said elections, or the redshirts rebounded and rejected the yellow’s candidates.  Back and forth, a nasty, uncivil war, all the while with Thaksin working to protect his interests, until the military would step in to run things more smoothly.

To be fair (I wouldn’t want to unfairly insult Thaksin), there are some striking dissimilarities between his situation and Trump’s. Does Donald even have a sister?  To start, Thaksin didn’t just go straight from the corporate boardroom to the oval office (I don’t even know if Thailand has an oval office.  My guess is it’s a little more slanted).  Shinawatra actually worked his way up the ranks of government as part of previous administrations before he founded his own tarty party (TRT – Thai Rak Thai, or Thais Love Thais) and became prime minister in an actual landslide victory.  And once in office, although he may have made some shady deals to sell off assets to private and/or foreign investors, he really did reduce poverty in the country.  He didn’t kick people off healthcare, screw them on education, or charge them more so his billionaire peers could pocket more.  Sure, he implemented his own crooked cronyism to run things rather than really cleaning up corruption, but he also held true to some of his promises in helping the poor.  So he was slimy, but not so sinister, at least while in power.  Also, in another ironic twist, Thaksin ended up in Montenegro as a last resort / safe haven.  It is doubtful that this small nation will be as welcoming to an ousted Trump.

My supposition based on my biased knowledge of the toxic Donald and even more limited knowledge of Thaksin is that these two predatory cats are really birds of the same feather, if you follow my mixed metaphors. My underlying fear is that if (when) our Commander in Chief is forcibly removed from power (I don’t see him stepping down on his own), unless his twitter thumbs and lying tongue are physically removed, he will continue to encourage his baskets of red-hatted (MAGA) people to rise up in his defense.  He already laid the groundwork for this resistance during his campaign.  So popping the pimply head of our current government will not clear up our embarrassing face of freedom, but will lead to more outbreaks of violence and divisiveness and acne.  Plus, unless we go full-on military coup, we’d be following one horrible toxin homophone with a horrible homophobe.  Not exactly an upgrade.  And we also can look forward to Ivanka’s rise to power down the road, with Papa Don pulling her strings (you know he wants to).  Long story short, a trump card and a Trump leader are two very different things, our unpresidented president is not without precedent, and I am scared.  But how are you?

 

[Note that I have drawn my own conclusions on both men. Sai is apolitical.  Also note that I am not a historian, and I am a lazy researcher, so you should not rely upon my findings as fact, or alternative facts.  Just food for thought.]