No laughing matter
Re: "End vs means", (PostBag, Sept 30).
I appreciate Khun Songdej Praditsmanont's chuckling response regarding Pheu Thai's flexibility on ethical issues.
He usefully cites the Machiavellian view that "the ends justify the means, so long as the end result is good".
In Pheu Thai's case, unfortunately, the end appears ethically dubious, albeit not so morally indefensible as overthrowing your own nation's constitutional democracy primarily to achieve the end of entrenching a status quo that is itself intrinsically unethical, a fact increasingly recognised for some decades at least, as reflected in the voting in May last year.
Or is Pheu Thai secretly pursuing some cunning plan that will suddenly bring about the popular reforms that Thailand has desperately needed for even more decades?
I'm not sure that the plight of voters, yet again denied a voice by a greedy minority diligently serving its own ends by unethical law and any other means they can, whose end goal is reflected in Thailand's gross income inequality, is really a laughing matter, or even one to chuckle over.
Fed up with Israel
Re: "UN power imbalance", (PostBag, Sept 28).
Jacques Fortier wants a seat on the Security Council for Israel. This would require the consent of the General Assembly. Israel is in breach of international law with its ongoing genocide against the Palestinians.
The assembly has just voted by a wide margin for it to end its occupation of Palestine, a resolution that it is ignoring. I wouldn't bet on their succeeding with a resolution to join the UNSC.
Is Israel the world's 10th most powerful country? It has no power beyond that provided by US financial support. The US can turn off the tap. And there are signs the US -- especially its younger people -- is getting a bit fed up with Israel.
No giving up dogs
Re: "Canine conundrum", (PostBag, Sept 30).
While I have had many disagreements with Eric Bahrt over the years, I would never stoop to the ad hominem, vile, vituperative attack that Enough of Dogs launched on him and other dog owners in his letter.
Most rational people, whether they are dog owners or not, will see Enough of Dogs's letter, with its extreme views and use of outlandish language, as evidence of the writer's own instability. No wonder he hides behind a pseudonym.
And I am sorry to tell you, Enough of Dogs, that you will have to learn to live with the situation because we are not giving up our dogs.
Time to deplatform
Re: "Canine conundrum", (PostBag, Sept 30).
Enough of Dogs has written letters calling for the extermination of all dogs.
Every civilised human on earth already knows that dogs have well-earned the reputation of being "man's best friend".
I don't know what Enough of Dogs' problem is.
But would you run a letter by someone who wants to exterminate everyone of a particular race or religion? Then why give a platform to someone who has made a career out of promoting the extermination of dogs?