It’s been hard to focus on work, what with the pace of events, the phone calls and the temptation to check the Twitter and e-mail universe every minute or so for breaking news.
Yesterday I also kept finding myself drawn to the roof of our apartment building for a panoramic view of events. (These photos were taken by the lovely Ms. Plug, a downstairs neighbor and freelance photographer who joined me.) What with the spotter plane soaring around the Baiyoke II Tower, homemade rockets bursting white against billowing black smoke, you could almost see King Kong wrapped around Bangkok’s tallest skyscraper. Worse, of course, we had our absentee/fugitive deus ex machina wrapped around much of the Thai polity. Charming fellow that he is.
Following a day described by this morning’s Nation front page as FIERY ANARCHY, or some such, last night was relatively calm here in Bangkok. And so was today, though I fear that’s because the insurrectionists have merely been catching up on their sleep, and they’ll set to with renewed energy this evening. But I hope not.
This morning, after the 8pm to 6am curfew ended, Sara and I went to the local Villa, a posh supermarket to add to our cache of hard rations, insurance against these troubled times and the threat of power outages in near-40 degree temperatures.
I’d promised her hi-so* panic, with wild-eyed locals stripping the shelves of basic necessities. But it seems hi-so types panic later in the morning than do your average citizens, for the supermarket was nearly deserted and there was plenty of everything.
So I bought lots of Japanese green tea, almonds, peanut butter and other essentials, while Sara added drinking water and rice in quantities that would see us through us maybe two changes of government or, given that this is modern Thailand, even three.
* Hi-so (adj.) Thai slang from the English “high-society.”
I’m still waiting for the photo of the lovely Ms. Plug, and I note that The Nation has even worse problems contriving decent headlines than the Bangkok Post does. I compliment you on your mastery of Latin (“dei” is the plural of “deus”), but would use a term referring to an entity from the opposite end of the moral spectrum to characterize the particular individual to whom I believe you are alluding. (Note the abundance of “to” constructions, the sure mark of a true wordsmith.)
The individual to which you assume I am referring is indeed that very individual, who shall go nameless in case he ever does perform this masterpiece of messing with the mass mind and return on his white charger to unleash his dogs on me just because I made nasty insinuations about his ludicrous posturing as a man of the people and a candidate for godhood, his temple being that of Mammon; gee, I wonder who we could be talking about? I did note your prodigious application of “to”s, and remain suitably impressed with your mastery of the written language.