Bob

Just for the record, Scotty's been a gentleman and an officer (for that, Scotty, I expect a few baht floating this way) in not bringing his other board experiences over here. I didn't take Scotty's comments to be a swipe at me in any event; however, just because somebody has had trouble or even been banned on another board is no basis in my view to support their right to vent their fury here. I've somewhat blasted a board owner or two in the past but I've done that on their boards. Just didn't feel right (kinda chickenshit and arguably unfair to whoever I was attempting to criticize) to run to another board to do it.

I too watched the longer clip and have to agree with Scotty's comments. Amazing how Galloway can think on his feet and rapidly string together coherent sentences. And, even though he's right about so many things, he's as guilty as the side he opposes in exaggerating and using unfair hyperbole about many things. He's right that the sanctions program in Iraq mainly harmed the average person and no doubt led to many deaths; however, regardless of what he claims (that those who supported the "food for arms" program were also responsible for many deaths), he's a bit daft to not recognize that the goal of the supporters of that program was to help the less fortunate weather the sanctions (notwithstanding that some higher-ups mixed in a whole lot of corruption in the process). But you gotta admire the guy for standing his ground. Nobody has to question where he's coming from.

Gun laws? Just for Khun Khortose's benefit, we ought to ask the mods to get us some emoticons that look like bullet holes! (just kidding, Khun Charlton.....whoops, meant Khun Khortose). And could there possibly be an emoticon of mass destruction?

Up to you (and, perhaps, the board owner and mods) but there are at least some of us here who would appreciate it if posters would not regurgitate their other board sagas and complaints over here.

The Google camera car took a photo of my place here in Chiangmai at the end of February of 2011 and we've been able to use Street View since at least September of 2011. Rather surprised it took so long to get down there.

First, as a matter of brief background, what's obviously a "federal" crime is something that involves crossing state lines (i.e., the completed crime occurred in more than one state) and where the act occurred in an outside territory where federal (US) law applies. The more difficult concept - can't blame you for the confusion - is where the entire act occurred only in one state (such as the recent Boston events). The federal government, although an entity of limited jurisdiction, has grown into a rather large and controlling beast over the last couple of centuries. There is a "commerce clause" in the constitution - which basically states that the federal government has the right to control interstate commerce - and it is normally that clause that the federal government, backed by the Supreme Court, has intruded into damn near everything. If they can argue that an act affects interstate commerce, then they will argue they have a right to control it. That's how they can control what happens in a meat packing plant in the middle of Idaho as the plant's products will enter and "affect" interstate commerce (even if those meat products are neither sold, taken, or sold outside Idaho!). Plus, to be frank, the US Congress has somewhat taken the view that they can make anything they want a "federal" crime and it seems they don't even bother trying to justify it constitutionally. Thus, possession of a tiny bit of pot in Seattle is a federal crime. Sorry for the diversion but, answering directly your question, the federal government makes the call to assert jurisdiction. That's routinely handled by the local US Attorney who would make the call on his/her own; however, in important or poltically sensitive cases, the local US Attorney might get a call (and orders) from Washington (on the surface, from the US Attorney General's office). There is no doubt in my mind that the US Attorney in Boston would have asserted jurisdiction here and charged a federal crime; however, there's also no doubt in my mind that Eric Holder had several discussions with Obama about the matter and that his office was heavily involved in suggesting the particular crimes to be charged. And you ask is if (some federal crimes) based on the type of weapon involved. The answer is generally "yes" to that. I can actually understand why it's generally not a federal crime to use a gun to commit a crime or to even kill somebody with a gun. There aren't enough federal district courts let alone prosecutors to handle all the murders and shootings that happen in the "wild west" United States these days. As to your grenade question, I'd think that would meet the definition of a weapon of mass destruction so, yep, that could be charged federally. Does all this make sense? Just consider the source (i.e, the Senate and the House of Representatives). Come to think of it, I don't even want to know what was made "illegal" in Alaska during the tenure of the brain trust we know as Sarah Palin!

As a simple answer (presuming there are any in this or most cases of this nature), the kid was charged under federal law and that term (weapon of mass destruction) is as found under the federal statute. The definition includes bombs, grenades, and other things but does not include a gun (i.e., if these two guys shot and killed 50 people with the semi-automatic handguns they had or even if with semi-automatic rifles, they couldn't have been charged even under federal law for causing death using a weapon of mass destruction). As I understand it, this particular federal phrase turns on the item being used to cause deaths and not the number of deaths that result. I'm doubtful that Massachusetts criminal law (each state has their own criminal statutes) even contains the words "weapon of mass destruction." I'd also note, although not directly asked, that federal criminal statutes do at times overlap with the state criminal statutes. We started out as a country with no "federal crimes" (other than treason and sedition, I think) and there has been a somewhat major expansion of that in the last 100 years (and some of the expansion was for good reason and some of it was, in my view, too much federal meddling). For example, kidnapping (perhaps due to the Lindbergh case) became a federal crime, bank robberies became a federal crime, etc. It's somewhat discretionary with the US Attorney as to whether to charge a person in a given case with a federal crime. And some federal crimes do carry a possible death penalty (whereas, for example, Michigan and probably Massachusetts do not allow capital punishment for any crime). And we have some weird situations too. The State of Washington legalized possession and use of marijuana but the same acts still violate federal law. So, theoretically, you can smoke your brains out in Seattle but there technically is the possibility you could end up in federal court charged with a crime. Not likely but it could happen (and surely will be a complicated legal fight the first time the feds find somebody with a half of ton of pot in Seattle!).

As you note, they already screen all blood donations for HIV or, perhaps more correctly, they screen for the antibodies that the body later produces in reaction to the HIV. The problem, I gather, is how to deal with the knowledge that the antibodies doesn't show up in the blood until sometime after the infection/HIV has already entered the bloodstream. Regardless of all that, I'm guessing you probably agree that neither you or I are all that qualified to decide what standards to use. So just leave it up to some medical or scientific panel?

I'm presuming that you both agree that any outfit distributing blood to the public ought to exercise some efforts/precautions to prevent HIV (as only one example) from being transmitted via the public blood supplies. Who should we allow to decide what efforts/precautions are the most reasonable? Us? Doctors? Scientists? (I'm obviously leaving out the clergy and politicians...hehe).

There are no international Red Cross rules....the Red Cross of each country makes their own determinations as to what standards they'll adopt to ensure that the blood they are providing to the public is safe. But you knew that, of course, didn't you? I do know that several countries (the US, the UK, most European countries, and at least South Africa for a time) refuse blood donations from people who acknowledge that they are actively engaging in homosexual behavior. As to what standards are applied in Kenya or Somalia or other african countries to homosexuals or straights, I have no clue but perhaps you can google it if you really want to know.

Agree largely with Fountainhill's statements. The Red Cross' job of providing safe blood products to the public (everyone) has been fraught with all kinds of problems and "damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don't" decisions over the years and, frankly, I'm not sure if I (had I been sitting on the board of the Red Cross) would have objected to most of their decisions. If, for example, any specific population (gays, Amish, tall people, or any definable subset) was known to have a substantially higher percentage of HIV infections, I'd sure as hell hope somebody would do whatever is necessary to prevent those issues from becoming part of the public's blood supplies. Perhaps I see the Red Cross as discriminating against blood that has a significantly higher probability of being tainted. Rather difficult to argue against that proposition in my view.

While I'm not getting into the pissing match, I tend to remain unimpressed when an infrequent visitor to an area starts making sweeping statements (based on his whole 2-3 days or week up here in Chiangmai) about what Chiangmai boys want or do, what Chiangmai expats want or are like, etc., etc.. It's surely appropriate to report on what one sees in another area based on a short vacation but probably somewhat wise not to reach too many broad conclusions based on one's contacts with half a dozen or so barboys.

Hmmm, no and no (I ain't "esteemed" and my beloved pays me to stay away from him).

Pretty funny, Michael.

Governments take the credit for good economic times and the blame for bad economic times. Neither the credit or blame are all that often truly due. If we go by reduction in manufacturing activity, then I'd guess we'd have to say that all the western governments (the US included) for the last 50 years have been lousy. In reality, we can't afford to make a widget when our Asian brethren can manufacture, ship, and sell it to us for far less than it costs us to make. Loss of agricultural or manufacturing jobs might only be a sign of a mature economy and/or our own long-term successes in raising our own living standards.

So far, yes. Given they've found and disarmed one or two other bombs and given all the information that the bombs, witnesses, security cameras, and whatever may likely provide, my guess is they'll be able to figure out who was responsible. Let's wait for some of that.

I had a discussion last night with a English gentleman who, although somewhat classy, basically frothed at the mouth when the name Thatcher came up. He had nothing nice to say about her which, frankly, I chalk down in part to some rather intense bias. An opinion or two in this thread seems to be tinged with the same. What peaked my interest were his comments - polite though pointed - that he couldn't seem to understand how outside nations (including the US) saw her more favorably than those in the UK. Unfortunately, while his language was polite, his message boiled down to "how is it that the dumb fuck Americans can have any respect for this bitch?!?" Unless you dug for the articles in the back pages of a few major newspapers, we in the US didn't see or pay attention to the domestic troubles she was involved in (a miner's strike in England generates almost no interest on our side of the pond); as such, what we Americans basically became aware of were her foreign policies and international statements. Even if I don't agree with a politician, I tend to at least grudgingly admire them if they voice a strong opinion and stand their ground (versus the many politicians these days who stick their finger up in the air to figure out what they ought to say). Thatcher seemed to me to be the master of this and, rather than call her the Iron Lady, I think more of her as the lady with iron balls. She may not have been right on all international issues (let's say, the Falklands for one) but you didn't have to guess where she stood and she was not going to bend or yield to anyone. We on the western side of the big pond got a kick out of her various pronouncements with my favorite being: “When I'm out of politics I'm going to run a business, it'll be called rent-a-spine”

I can't figure out what that last reviewer is complaining about....almost sounds like they'd have trouble figuring out how to put his/her pants on in the morning. For example: (1) Arrival by taxi is confusing. I have to admit that I haven't done that in 4-5 years but last time I did it the taxi took me right to the friggin' departure hall and not over by the parking ramp. Unauthorized taxis not allowed to drive right up next to the departure hall? (2) Check-in isn't clear? Again, I'd think a youngster could easily figure that out (provided you knew how to spell and you could figure out what letter represented your airline). (3) As for arrivals, I've never had a problem figuring out where to go (if in doubt, follow the rest of the passengers!). But, admittedly, sometimes a long walk. (4) "Getting your bags is badly organised and not clear where to go." Geez, again, it's an airport and pretty easy in my eyes to figure out which of the carousels your bag is on (provided you can remember your flight number and airline name). As to the comment about "not clear where to go" after that, you've got to be kidding. Out the only way you can go! Most of this person's complaints almost make me think that this person was actually at a different airport and thinks he/she was at Swampy!

Preparations (food and hat and squirt gun booths, roping off prime sections of the moat area, and even a litle water-tossing) were well underway Friday, all in preparation for the all-out water war starting yesterday. As usual, the main water war was around the moat of the old city although there were activities just about everywhere. I took a raft of photos and only had to wipe water off the camera lens a few times. Two photos, though, struck my fancy. The first depicts some kids figuring out a way to avoid anybody else getting them wet. Pretty clever and obviously having a lot of fun. The second photo joined my "wtf?" list as a young teen was carrying his possible date on his back....and he got a fair number of laughs doing it. I doubt if he was taking this item home.

God/Buddha joined in the Songkran spirit here in Chiangmai and capped off a hot and wet day with a fairly heavy rain late in the afternoon yesterday. Not much effect, though, as anybody outside was already soaked to the bone.

Very important.....and, yet, so easy to do. I can't count the times that there was a nightmare and extra expense after death while the heirs attempted to sort out what the decedent owned, where the heck his/her Will (if any) might be located, where the paperwork for some real estate might be, etc. I sincerely think it is very incumbent on all of us not to depart and then require our heirs to play "where's Waldo" or some such trivial game trying to figure out what's there and where it might be. And it's so simple to do - just sit down at a typewriter (whoops....computer) for 30 minutes and go through a list of all your assets, where same might be located (not counting the miscellaneous personal property in your home), and any other information that you might think the heirs might want to know (location of bank accounts, life insurance (if any), location of your Will (if any), location of a safety deposit box (if any), combination to any combination locks you might have, what real estate you own and where the paperwork is for same, etc., etc.). You might also want to advise them of your email addresses (along with usernames and passwords) and other relevant internet information that you might want somebody to know. And, of course, make a Will and include specific instructions as to what you want done with your body. Don't make your heirs guess what you want. And, given funerals often occur before anybody bothers locating or reading a Will, it'd be wise to make sure your executor (and/or close friends) know your preference for a funeral (repatriation to your home country, burial or cremation, etc.). As for Living Wills (which, frankly, is a rather weird name for your instructions for end-of-life care), I understand they are not technically valid in Thailand; nevertheless, there's no reason you can't make some written instructions so your heirs or close friends will feel a bit less guilty about make some tough decisions.

Since you asked, it sounds like (not having been there) I would have just paid him the 2k and chalked it off to a learning experience. Absent him putting his hands on me, there's simply no way I would have physically moved him out the door. I'm somewhat of the mindset that it's the obligation of the older adult to make certain up front as to what is expected as to services and payments, regardless if it's taking off an obvious money boy from a bar or elsewhere or hooking up with somebody where the situation is clearly more unknown. But, on the other hand, I have almost no experience in the latter category so my opinion might be fairly worthless in this situation. Glad to hear, though, you didn't wind up receiving an unwanted muay thai lesson or even something worse than that.

Okay, guys, send some of that north. Just sweltering hot up here in the boonies.

Hmmm....my golden rule is to always wear a hardhat when walking by one of the Pattaya highrises... As for the subject of the original post, I have very mixed feelings. On the one hand, I feel bad for people who are undergoing significant medical problems and that even includes former posters who irritated the living hell out of just about everybody. On the other hand, I also have some fairly strong feelings about expats who come over here without adequate financial resources, health insurance, contingency planning, etc. What the heck, aren't we all supposed to get just a little wiser as we get older?

I bitched for years when they introduced the fax machine. I mean, what the hell, can't they wait a few days for the mail? It and the later emergence of email simply made things "too fast." As for facebook, I see zero value in it. Had an account for 6 months or so and, given all the "friend requests" (90% of them from people I hardly knew and/or didn't really want to know), I deactivated the account. Four or five months later, I all of a sudden got a load of emails from various siblings and friends asking me why the hell would I send them advertisements and junk from my facebook account (thankfully, most of them were ads for Sony products versus, let's say, viagra, dildos, or whatever). Somehow somebody hacked into my facebook account and sent the crap to everybody who's email was listed there (on the "wall" and wherever) (and, for the record, I can guarantee it happened through Facebook and not through my own computer). That really pissed me off. So, I reactivated the account, deleted everything in sight, added a new 25-digit password, and deactivated again. Never again. [i also wish to note that I spent hours trying to figure out how to actually contact somebody at Facebook - to report the problem and blow off some steam as to how they allowed outsiders to hack into one of their accounts. I ultimately discovered that it is simply impossible to get an email address, telephone number, or physical address to contact anybody at Facebook. Only a questionable outfit would leave its members in a lurch like that.]