Bob

Even the late-night talk show hosts are having a field day with the Twit these days; however, based on the continuing doldrums of the US economy and the mood I'm detecting in the US this summer, it's going to be a very, very, close election. If Mr. Twit wins, I sure as hell hope he keeps his dancing horse off the White House lawn! "Mitt Romney believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Which is better than his grandfather, who believed that it should be between one man and five women." -Jimmy Kimmel

Lol. The likelihood of me ever joining the Apple cult is slightly less than zero.

Ah, memories (most of them I won't share here!). Based on a recommendation from a US pal (Dave), the first boy bar I entered in the late 90's in Thailand was the Super A (which then was located down the same soi but on the opposite side). I was a bit overwhelmed the first night but I ultimately became charmed by the little pixie owner (Manoo) and some of the employees (excepting only the screetching ladyboy mamasan whose name I've thankfully forgotten). I wandered in there during my trips to Thailand for a few years and often would take off a few of the boys (mainly for dinner, disco, trip to the Grand Palace, trip to Pattaya, etc.). One time, I even went along to Nakon Ratchisma with Manoo and a few of the boys to extricate one of the boys from the ghastly prison up there. I can relate one experience that's stayed with me. One afternoon, about 2 PM, Manoo invited Dave and I to come over for lunch with him and some of the boys we knew. Suprisingly, when we arrived, Manoo had several bags of McDonald's goodies on site (somehow we expected Pad Thai or the like) but we sat there in the brightened main room (and, yes, it's even sleazier when the lights are on!) having a good time chomping on burgers and fries, telling stories of all kinds, and having lots of laughs. An old man came in the door and sat on the couch immediately behind Dave and me but, at first, we paid no attention to him until I started hearing some unusual sounds. After a while, hearing what sounded like some kind of porn movie, I turned around and saw the old man had a fully naked boy working on his "lap" and another fully naked boy straddling the old man with his crotch in the old man's face. I poked Dave to turn around and look and, after he quickly stole a glance, both Dave and I had rather strange expressions on our faces (like deer in car headlights) while neither Manoo or any of the other boys (all of whom were facing us two and clearly saw the entire show going on behind us) showed any glimmer of interest in the proceedings. Dave and I both fidgeted a bit and had trouble finishing our lunch while trying to ignore the ever-loudening show behind us. Yep, that was the Super A.

I don't have a clue but, based on personal perceptions and bias, I'll take these wild guesses: 1. Singapore 2. Japan 3. Hong Kong 4. Malyasia Lowest life expectancy? Phillipines?

In spite of my eternal pledge to remain in the 19th century, I finally broke down and took delivery this week of a Samsung Galaxy III phone. So far - after playing with it for three days - it most definitely is sleek and much smarter than me. My only trepidation so far is how much Khun Khortose will charge me per hour to instruct me how to make all the bells and whistles work when I return to Chiangmai.

Romney's handlers made a big point before his "international" trip that his journey was to be non-controversial and wholly a "charm offensive." Rather funny that the British newspapers (the reasonable ones) are now saying that Romney's trip and remarks so far have been "utterly uncharming" and "mildly offensive." As for the rag British newspapers, one of the headlines reads: "MITT THE TWIT!"

I had no idea what the word "complot" meant so I looked it up. It means engaged in a conspiracy or plot together. But I still am not sure what Christian is trying to say or why he elected to include that little tidbit in a discussion about gun control laws or the lack thereof. Christian, you care to explain?

There is a rather significant difference between cars and guns as I don't believe the cars generally are designed to kill nor do people generally intend to use their vehicles to kill. And, while we likely don't have enough space to go into it here, Khun FH has somewhat noted that constitution ought to be interpreted in the context of the time it was enacted and the historical changes and advances that occur afterwards. That has exactly occurred by the Supreme Court with respect to the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause (they've even acknowledged that what they have judged "cruel and unusual" now was in no manner considered "cruel and unusual" to either the people of the late 1700's including the founders). No reason that the same logic isn't applied to other clauses including the second amendment. And, while we're on that track, I'm all for allowing most citizens to have a long-gun musket (which is exactly the "arms" that the founders must have been thinking about as that's all they had then!) but that's a far cry from either an automatic or semi-automatic AK-47 with a 30-shot clip.

Interesting discussion but we're somewhat mixing several concepts here - the wisdom of circumcision, the right of parents versus the government to decide if the practice can continue, and, to some degree, the rights of infants/children (or the governmental right to intervene in decisions parents make about them). We all don't seem to disagree about either the need or wisdom of circumcision although some of us disagree and/or have mixed feelings about the other issues. On a somewhat related issue, I remember during a couple of my first trips to Thailand that two different boys "warned" me in the bars that they were "Muslim" and I quickly figured out that they were not actually noting religious affiliation but were trying to tell me they were circumcized. I found that rather cute in a way and, instead of confusing them by trying to communicate that I was a circumcized Catholic, I simply told them "okay with me, I'm Muslim too!" P.S. A special award respectfully goes to Khun FH for adroit use of loaded language to advance his views. I'm about to take my morning shower and was planning on clipping my fingernails thereafter; however, I'm hesitating now that I know I'll be amputating them.

Nature of the beast, I suppose. Parents have made choices (vaccinations, circumcisions, etc.) for their children since the beginning of time. As noted, I'm not "for" circumcision as I personally don't see the purpose of it; yet, a sizeable percentage of humanity has engaged in the practice for thousands of years for various reasons (religious, cultural, or whatever) and I don't agree that a government ought to tell parents that they are going to jail if they make the decision to circumcize their child.

I've always been doubtful that TAT's figures have been accurate but, assuming they are, I wonder just exactly what they mean by "tourist arrivals?" I guess I always presumed they meant arrivals by foreigners at the three international airports only. I didn't think they included the day-pass crossings in the South, at Mae Sai, Nong Khai, etc. What do you all think?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the second amendment provision relating to the right to keep and bear arms. You're right that the Supreme Court has generally upheld private ownership as a personal right. Not that it matters but I've always disagreed with those holdings as I believe the founders meant that the states had the right to have armed militias and that the amendment in essence meant that the federal government had no business telling the states what to do with repect to guns and other weapons. At the time of enactment, it was understood that each state was to defend itself. But, Khun Khortose, there's a bit of intellectual dilemma here. If, as you say, each of the citizens has the personal right to "keep and bear arms" (mind you, arms under any definition is not limited to handguns and long guns) and neither the state or federal government can infringe on that right in any manner, how is it legally justified that both the state and federal government can "legally" stop a citizen from owning a fully-automatic weapon, a canon, a tank, etc.?

I think you misunderstand my comment. While I also don't like body piercings or tattoos, I hardly support governmental interference or regimentation involving personal choice issues. Unless a given action carries with it some significant harm to persons or society in general, government ought to stay the hell out of regulating it. And I think this concept is particularly true where there exists historical, religious, or cultural reasons for the conduct.

That's fairly obvious, isn't it? Somebody made an assertion in another thread that "'most' posters here do not like the style in the bangkokbois blog" and so then posted this poll to gain the evidence that his assertion was correct. Rather than taking a swipe at Khun TW about statistical analysis, perhaps a wiser course would be to acknowledge that the polling adventure was slightly less than successful.

A very difficult subject. Although I have been a responsible owner of both handguns and long guns (I sold the handguns when I started spending most of the year in Thailand as I couldn't stand the notion of somebody breaking into my US house to steal them and then subsequently killing somebody with one of them), I've advocated for decades that all handguns need to be strictly regulated. I even advocated that those allowed to own a handgun ought to be required to keep them at a local police station and one could simply pick up the gun when you're going target shooting or whatever. There is absolutely no legitimate purpose for anyone having a weapon that holds a 30-shot clip. Even for legitmate hunting purposes, the hunting laws of the states prohibit possession of any weapon that holds more than 3-5 cartridges or shotgun shells. Yet, the NRA and its minions (all well-financed politicians and mostly Republicans) have gutted any reasonable effort (including repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban intelligently legislated a decade or more ago) to impose reasonable regulations that balance the safety of society with legitimate gun ownership rights. The NRA, in my book, is the slimiest organization around and it reached its rock bottom when it fought legislation to ban the teflon-coated bullets (also called "cop killer" bullets) which were worthless for hunting or target shooting and served the sole purpose of having the ability to penetrate "bullet-proof" vests. Before my friend Khun Khortose starts telling us that recent relaxation of handgun ownership has actually led to lower crime rates in the US, I do wish to note two things: (1) the crime rates for almost all crimes has abated in the US over the last two decades or so and simply saying this is due to "more guns on the street" simply doesn't make it so (I actually don't believe it in any event), and (2) comparing the current let alone old murder rate by guns in the US to those of countries that limit gun ownership (the UK, for example) leads to the inescapable conclusion that thousands of lives a year would be saved in the US if we had the UK limitations. I'd vote for them in a heartbeat.

Those Americans in the Chiangmai area can register online via the US Consulate website and others elsewhere in Thailand can register via the US Embassy website. Easy to register. There are two purposes for the registration. First, you provide contact information to the embassy so they can contact you if needed or contact somebody you designate if you end up in an emergency situation. Second, it allows the embassy to send you an email providing warnings about topical events (such as their recommendations to stay away from a given protest area or whatever).

While I've welcomed the US position (somewhat more severe punishment for at least well-publicized or large-scale economic or white-collar crimes), generally it's still not true. The fat cats still tend to get away with it completely or, as you say, get the effective slap on the wrist (fining a guy worth a couple of hundred million dollars only a million or two is no effectively punishment at all). As you've noted before, how many people have been truly taken to task for the investment banking fiasco that effectively led many countries into the economic dumper? None as far as I know....and the Lehman guys and others of their ilk were not even required to give up their golden parachutes. What's ultimately laughable is that any fines levied against these institutions come out of the money owned by the investors (who had no idea what the morons were doing) instead of out of the pockets of the crooked money managers' pockets themselves. Hardly much of a deterrent let alone punishment for personal (and sometimes criminal) behavior.

Of course, the guy just happens to be selling a book when he comes out with this "information." Surely only a coincidence he'll likely claim.... The notion that the US or any country could keep this type of event secret for 50+ years is fairly preposterous for me. Don't believe it for a second. But maybe the fact that no aliens have landed here since may be some proof of a superior intelligence out there (having understood what humans have done to each other and their planet, they crossed the earth off the list of desirable places to visit...hehe).

Hmmm, I've forgotten most of them! I'm not sure I'd call it a momentous moment but John Glenn's first ride into space was pretty exciting for a young teen. And, although I was 21 at the time, the moon landing was fairly exotic and memorable. As for "scary" exciting, I thought the Cuban missile crisis (when the soviet ships where approaching the US naval blockade) was about as real as it got especially for a 14-year-old attempting to figure out the world. As for momentous, the only thing I can think of now is my first trip to Thailand in the late 90's. That changed a lot for me including my future living plans (which for the most part have now been realized).

Since I have no idea who's behind this version and since the registration requirements are unusual and in my view onerous, I'll sit this one out. I'm not providing my real name to any board owner until I know who's behind it and I trust him/her/them. I've provided my email address and other data to board owners over the last 15+ years but I don't remember ever being required to provide my real name; regardless, it's a question of personal trust with me. Bahtstop "1" essentially had 3 groups of posters: (1) a reasonable group of posters who, although there was a lot of cut-and-pasting of news reports by one or two, reasonably engaged in discussion; (2) the group of 3 or 4 who love to bash Israel as well as anyone who should dare to post a contrary or more moderate position; and (3) the group of 3 or 4 morons who should never have been allowed to infest the place (most of whom have been kicked off of one or more boards before). When/if I figure out who's behind the new version (and he/she is from the first group mentioned above), I'll maybe reconsider my current choice but it's very doubtful I'm giving my real name to any board owner that I don't know at all.

Too late - been there, done that (like probably 99% of people raised Catholic in the 40's and 50's, I've already been had - and I'm still looking for the doctor to file the malpractice action as he obviously cut off way too much....). But I'll do your ears if you let me borrow those pinking shears....

As noted, I'm with Rogie on this one even though I personally don't support circumcision. What's next, banning parents from allowing their 8-year-old girls/boys from getting their ears pierced?

The internet has a load of examples of incredibly stupid questions (google "stupid lawyer questions") and equally incredible witness responses from real cases. One of my favorites: Lawyer: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? Witness: No. Lawyer: Did you check for blood pressure? Witness: No. Lawyer: Did you check for breathing? Witness: No. Lawyer: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? Witness: No. Lawyer: How can you be so sure, Doctor? Witness: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. Lawyer: But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless? Witness: It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere.

Lawyers face penalties (fines, contempt charges, a suspension, or even disbarment) under their local ethics and court procedural rules as well as under national bar rules for filing cases that have "no reasonable basis in fact or law." Presuming this lady's claim is as described in the news media (sometimes that's a stretch!), I hope her lawyer gets nailed.

As is the usual case, those involved in the LIBOR setting scandal (i.e., the upper echelon) will likely escape with no issue and likely with whatever golden parachutes they took with them out the door; however, the long-term implications on the civil side (states, counties, cities, etc., within the US alone who borrowed funds based on the LIBOR rate) will add up to many billions. If you own stock in one of the banks caught up in this, now might be a good time to sell.