Letters

After months of protests by Thais against Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, the military seized power in a bloodless coup. Readers hoped the less-than-democratic act would put Thailand back on track

The past five years under the democratically elected government of Thaksin Shinawatra were a nightmare [Oct. 2]. He was a tyrant in disguise. He bought votes to pave his way to power. He and his Cabinet members destroyed the system's checks and balances, abused state power, blocked access to information and violently suppressed peaceful protests. Can you still call that democracy? We want democracy in practice as well as in form. Thaksin's manipulation so deeply divided Thailand that the coup can be regarded as a coup de grace, not a coup d'état. The military did not tear up our constitution and harm our democracy, since we had already materially lost them during the past five years under Thaksin's regime.
Suwimon Issararaksa
Bangkok

In an immature democracy, an ultra-rich and clever person could manipulate elections by buying votes from poor people, then take advantage of loopholes in the constitution; and with complicated, time-consuming government procedures helping him, he could stay in power. He could use his position to fill senior government posts in the civil service, law enforcement and the military with his followers. That is what I believe happened in Thailand before the coup; the hijacking of our government in a very slick and seemingly lawful way.
Maung Maung Myint
Pathomthani, Thailand

Bridget Welsh's viewpoint, "Damage Assessment," was the best analysis I have read on this coup. But it did not allow for a scenario of the return of a working democracy by October 2007 if the military sticks to its promises. Maybe this latest military coup should be viewed as the strong medicine Thailand needs to make it work for a better tomorrow. The military takeover should serve as a strong warning to future rulers to respect the letter and spirit of Thailand's constitution. The current coup leaders should take a lesson from the events of 1992, when the leaders tried to hang on to the power they had grabbed and were eventually forced to leave in disgrace. Going outside the system to save the system may be somewhat unpalatable to most lovers of democracy, but in the long run it could do more to perpetuate Thailand's democracy.
Songdej Praditsmanont
Bangkok

It's a shame the Thai military can't perform a coup in the United States. There would then be a chance of getting democracy back.
Gary L. Green
Kuala Lumpur

As the analyst you quoted said, General Sonthi Boonyaratglin "is not someone with an appetite for political power." This statement captures the nature of not only the general but also of the coup itself. The coup was conducted to ensure the security and stability of Thailand, and, in doing so, to ensure [returning] power to civilians with a stronger and sounder democratic foundation.
Kitti Wasinondh
Director-General
Department of Information
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Bangkok

Hurricane Hugo
Hugo Chávez's speech at the U.N. General Assembly, in which he called President George W. Bush the devil, made no contribution to peace [Oct. 2]. Chávez tried to transform an important forum of debate into a circus. Maybe he thought that he was on Jon Stewart's Daily Show, or maybe he was trying to mimic Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, who banged the lectern with his shoe in the same forum. Both leaders were disrespectful to the delegates, U.N. officials and the U.N. as an institution that represents our ultimate hope for peace. Secretary-General Kofi Annan should take measures to avoid such occurrences in the future and uphold the dignity of the institution.
José Thomaz Gama da Silva
Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Instead of criticizing Chávez for his verbal attack on the President, perhaps we should ask why foreign leaders like him are attacking Bush. Has a U.S. President ever been so vilified worldwide? Is the rest of the world wrong? I applaud the courage of Chávez, Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and others who are not afraid to speak out. If our leaders are pigheaded and hell-bent on having their erroneous way, we should stop them from pursuing their ill-conceived, self-destructive course.
David Chen
Hacienda Heights, California, U.S.

I find it ironic that the U.S. has made such a fuss over Chávez's remarks. At last, Americans have experienced what other countries feel when Bush spouts off. The big difference? Venezuela hasn't attacked anyone.
Lorne G. Sykes
Caesarea, Canada

I was disappointed that your story did not mention what everyone should know about Chávez: there is legitimate opposition to his rule in Venezuela, but his method for dealing with it has been to replace the legislature and decree that all law come from a special council he appointed. The judicial branch of the Venezuelan government was packed with Chávez loyalists, and the constitution was rewritten. He might have come to power by the ballot box, but he has remained in power using different tools. In short, Chávez is actually the kind of President that many delusional leftists accuse Bush of being: an ideologue who has reshaped his country's government to stifle political competition and consolidate his authority.
Mike Grady
Atlanta

In discussing Chávez's praise of Noam Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival at the U.N., TIME stated that "only loyal fans still read" Chomsky's work. That is light-years from the truth. Chomsky's numerous books are featured on university reading lists around the globe. I include his work to encourage students to consider alternative interpretations of how power is used and how it is reported by the media. Even if one disputes Chomsky's analyses, few people dispute the quality of his writing, the coherence of his arguments or the depth of his research. Love him or loathe him, Chomsky and others who challenge the world's loudest voices play a vital role in maintaining pluralism, a fundamental feature of democracy.
Gary J. Merrill, Lecturer
Cardiff School of Journalism,
Media and Cultural Studies
Cardiff, Wales

Surviving Loss, Regaining Life
I was riveted by Weisskopf's story of horrific pain and soul searching [Oct. 2]. It made me think of the soldiers who have died in Iraq and the more than 20,000 Americans who have suffered terrible physical and mental wounds there. Weisskopf's story brought attention to thousands of soldiers who left their youth, limbs and peace of mind overseas. They will never forget their government's deception in leading them into an unnecessary war.
Florence Graff
Wappingers Falls, New York, U.S.

Weisskopf's story brought back memories of my experiences in World War II. I was awarded a Silver Star, but I'm fortunate to have survived for 83 years without having to pay as dearly as Weisskopf has. If he were in uniform, he would have been decorated with the Medal of Honor. Since so many reporters are losing lives or limbs, there should be a special decoration for their bravery. Of course, a medal can't replace the loss of a limb, but it can be a way for the American people to give recognition to reporters who have acted with valor.
Jesse E. Foster
Major, U.S.A.F. (ret.)
Tokyo

Weisskopf's tale of losing a hand in Iraq and his struggle to understand his ordeal was one of the most touching pieces of journalism I have read in many years. In the troubled Middle East, such a story is all too familiar. People are too eager to enter into wars that solve no problems, and the results are devastating. Let's hope that the world's problem solvers can lead us to a different, peaceful path for the future of this planet and its people.
Lillian Cohen
Kfar Monash, Israel

Folding Newspapers
Michael Kinsley's piece on the apparently dismal future of the newspaper industry made some valid arguments about the value of traditional journalism [Oct. 2]. Kinsley's attempt, however, to place most of the blame for newspapers' decreasing readership on the Internet and bloggers—whom he characterized as "some acned 12-year-old in his parents' basement recycling rumors"—is simply ridiculous. Kinsley's hyperbolic criticism confirms many of the reasons for the general distrust of mainstream media.
Kristine F. Collins
Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.

Kinsley should ask why people visit blogs for information instead of getting their news from larger, mainstream media like newspapers. It is because organizations lose credibility when they make judgments that are wrong. I got the impression that Kinsley wants journalists to be above accountability, that no matter what they print they are above it all. But the marketplace decides which products survive and which don't.
William Rolston
Vancouver, Canada

Please Feed the Models
Columnist Belinda Luscombe addressed the decision of the organizers of the Madrid fashion shows to bar from the runways any model who falls below a certain weight [Oct. 2]. ¡Viva España! ¡Viva Madrid! I have never met a man or woman who thinks those gaunt and pathetically unappealing models, who look like something from the worst of the World War II POW camps, do anything for clothes, fashion or themselves. It's time we objected to the twisted concepts of the fashion-industry nitwits.
Louis C. Kleber
Las Vegas

When the Truth Hurts
Telling lies will always be easier than spotting liars, but the U.S. is hoping to decrease the deceiver's advantage with new lie-detection technology [Sept. 18]. Could gadgetry expose the fabrications of politicians? Our Oct. 5, 1992, cover story addressed the elusive nature of truth when power is at stake:

"What the current hubbub over political lying ignores or drowns out is the fact that there are disabling truths, messy realities that positively stymie adequate response unless their particulars are reduced to deceptive simplicities. Every sentient human being knows this from daily experience ... Constantly hearing the truth, the cold, hard, brutal unsparing truth, from spouses, relatives, friends and colleagues is not a pleasant prospect. 'Human kind,' as T.S. Eliot wrote, 'cannot bear very much reality.' TRUTH TELLING MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO COEXIST; A LITTLE LYING MAKES SUCH SOCIETY TOLERABLE. At what point does 'a little' become 'too much'? The nervous boy who cried 'Wolf!' in the admonitory tale told one lie too many and was eaten alive. The irony of this denouement, of course, is that when the boy met his fate, he was, at last, hollering the truth. This story demonstrates the creation of what is sometimes, and euphemistically, called 'a climate of mistrust.' (Translation: Everybody's lying.)" Read more at timearchive.com.