Bob

Dame Edna Everage was one of the few cross-dressing entertainers (as in males who wear women's clothing, gaudy or otherwise) that I actually "got" and thought was funny. Somewhat in the vein of the "church lady" (Dana Carvey?) on Saturday Night Live or Flip Wilson as "Geraldine." At times simply hilarious. It sounds time, though, that she hang up her high heels while she still has the ability to walk across the stage without breaking a hip or two. Now....slightly different topic....those other guys (mainly Brits for whatever reason) who dress up as women and sing or entertain (both of those terms being used in their most expansive and perverted forms) in bars or other venues are simply way beyond my understanding and wholeheartedly deserve plaudits to be tossed their way (in my mind, plaudits would include chairs, beer bottles, and or sharp/pointed objects). But I will admit that Dame Edith has been one funny broad.

As Khun Thaiworthy intimates, "long term" after retirement ain't anywhere near what "long term" meant when one was 40 or even 50 years old. And, of course, any money somebody may need in the next 2-3-4 years sure as hell ought not to be in stocks. I'm also a little (a little, not entirely) wary of the notion of using the past to predict the future especially when it comes to economics. In my view, we're never going to see the 80's and 90's again (at least not in our lifetimes) and I don't think anybody would have ever guessed that we would have such a prolonged downturn in the US. And we could be back in the worst part of it in a heartbeat with all sorts of things happening (e.g., an Iran attack and oil hitting $140.00 or $150.00a barrel - and then we're all up shit's creek!). Heck, we all probably could have made a ton of money taking bets in Japan or elsewhere 10+ years ago that the Japanese economic doldrums wouldn't last more than a few years.

Okay, maybe I'll try to figure out how to do that tomorrow; however, be warned, you're likely going to get the same Hanuman monkey face I use elsewhere (which, of course, is somewhat of a likeness).

For those in the UK and US who have money stashed in banks back in their home country, one way to partially hedge is to shift funds to savings accounts here in Thailand. That totally protects that money from currency fluctuations and, as a current bonus, you can get 2-3 times the interest here that you get back in your home country. As a matter of safety, probably not wise to put it all in one Thai bank. [Come to think of it, Thailand earlier last year was saying it was going to institute some kind of deposit protection similar to the FDIC in the US; however, I've read nothing about that in the last 6 months or so and I wonder if anybody knows if they actually did anything about that issue?] In my earliest vacation days here, I once got 44.5 baht to the dollar. It ultimately fell to about 28 baht to the dollar (just a year or so ago) but is now hovering around 31 baht to the dollar. I personaly don't see any more large swings (at least with the baht appreciating) for the next 10+ years as I'm guessing the US and UK economies will steadily (albeit, slowly) recover whereas I don't see Thailand doing all that well over that same time period for a myriad of reasons. But, who knows, its like reading tea leaves I suppose. Inflation everywhere is likely a more potent concern to those pensioners who are here on a tight budget but they'd be facing the same problem in their home country as well.

After having that enlarged photo thrust into my eyesight, somewhat difficult to stay on topic. Not sure why, must be the colors or something..... In any event, please don't even mention the name of that one poster on the odd chance he will come back to infect this board. He remains regularly active (a euphemism for "pissing people off") by posting his fake "I've been there" comments and attempting to maintain (largely unsuccessfully as enough people have finally caught on) his imaginary persona on two other boards that will go nameless.

I got an 8 although I could have answered 5 or 6 questions either way. I frankly don't see this particular test as anything definitive one way or the other but, on the other hand, I was happy that the results didn't peg me as a serial killer.

Lol. Well, actually went and took a look. And far down on the right was a photo of an apparently new, permanent, and likely painful method of removing public hair. Here it is:

Yikes, never thought of that one. No thanks, I'd rather eat glass. My guess is there's some kind of symbiotic relationship between waxing and leather, whips, and chains..... My god, come to think of it, where does the proprietor buy truckloads of wax? So....for those who've had a good waxing, what's the cost?

I have no interest whatsoever (something about an aversion to voluntary pain) but, simply out of curiosity, what's it cost to have somebody wax your chest and back waxed?

Or sounds like a group of extras for the movie "Deliverance?"

While we likely don't disagree in general, FH, I wasn't the one who said: "How many of us, I wonder, have ever bothered to ask where the inspiration came for such atrocities? I never realised until this morning that the United States provided Nazi Germany with much of that inspiration and, what’s more, much of the research!" Suggesting that the "United States" was the inspiration for such atrocities is what I take issue with. [Have sent a PM to FH as maybe the rest of what I was going to say might be off topic to some degree; regardless, so nobody gets the wrong idea, poster FH and I get along just fine although we do occasionally argue a bit (geez, sounds like some falang/thai couples I know! haha)]

No big deal but not an apt term for what you are describing. Eugenics is hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding and normally connotes an evil motive. Using the term to describe women or men who use birth control methods to avoid having children they either don't want or can't afford isn't even close to the meaning of that term. And there's a very real dilemma with what to do with severely mentally handicapped people who are nevertheless procreating children who won't have capable parents and do add a significant financial burden on the state. I realize that one needs to tread carefully in this area but some thoughts of eugenics (if you broaden that term out to mean prevention of births) make perfect moral and maybe even some legal sense. And I can conjure up potential positive aspects of eugenics practiced under some strict ethical guidelines (i.e., should a government stop people from having a genius child or a child with blue eyes or a child that would live to be 150 years old if science could allow it?). As to being "shocked" at all by the notion that some in the US (and other nations) have considered the whole issue, I'm not. But the notion that the US or some other nation is somehow responsible for what the Nazis atrocioualy did with the concepts is totally beyond me.

I saw the story in the news this morning about this "revolutionary" product and read it. Doesn't tickle my fancy but, then again, I'm a tech dinosaur. I noticed Apple is touting it has raised the resolution of the Ipad's camera to 5 megs and it got me thinking as to why the heck would one want a camera on a tablet? Beats me given the tablet holder already has one or two digital cameras stashed away in his tech closet not to mention the camera on his phone sitting in his pants pockets. But I can see it now, the Princess (or Prince) of Hannibal, Wackmanistan, strolling past the crowds as the thousands in the throng hold up their 9.7 inch display screens to snap a photo or two of the royalty while simultaneously watching an internet photo site displaying photos of the same royalty taken a few yards down the line (or better yet, watching the streaming of video of the one side/backside of the royalty they're unable to take in from their vantage point). And maybe even one of the hi-tech microphones might pick up the muffled sounds of a royal wind-breaking that too could be transmitted to the world. And when, oh when, will an app be offerred so we can all experience the regal odor itself? And one (at least one who claims no grip on reality) begins to wonder what the onlooking aliens, watching the throng of bugs below holding up their electronic gizmos, are making of these events. Do all those bugs have one of those gizmos? Do they gain sustenance with them? Do they use them to communicate with each other? And, most importantly, do they all have the 7.1 Odor App?

Khun Khortose, you didn't like Dancing with Wolves?!? Wow. But I bet you loved Waterworld....hehehehe.

No kidding?!? I thought it was in memory when the big guy, JC, came out of his cave and, if he saw his shadow, we had 6 more weeks of Seinfeld re-runs.

Avatar - enjoyed it. Years back, I enjoyed a movie because of a great script, great acting, cinematography, etc.; however, there are times in the more recent past that I've just wanted to be entertained (please leave the thinking, moralizing, and whatever at the door). Avatar was just entertainment to me and so I enjoyed it.. Nevermind that it was pure fantasy. Juno - I also thought this film was just light entertainment. Nothing great about it but it was fine. There Will Be Blood. You know, a couple of us have made comments about actors who seem to play the same character (either themselves or some made-up screen persona). Well, now that I think of it, what's all that different between Daniel Day Lewis' character in this movie and his performance in Gangs of New York? The Gangs movie may or may not have been an accurate portrayal of the absolute worst parts of the Irish gangs of New York City but that movie was simply bloodletting after bloodletting for simply the sake of gore. Somebody involved in that movie must have had a blood fetish or something. And, to some degree, There Will Be Blood was the plains' version of that movie......and, for the moment, the only difference in the Lewis characters is that the character in There Will Be Blood actually acted like a human being on rare occasion (the New York dude never did). Anyway, both are very good period pieces if you don't mind a whole lot of blood and gratuitous violence. Social Network. Have the DVD and didn't even bother watching the whole thing, How fucking boring and silly (thought I was watching a Seinfeld rerun or something). Napoleon Dynamite. As noted, mind-numbing juvenile stuff that, to me, wasn't funny at all. Sorta like watching Jerry Seinfeld. Guess I've picked on Seinfeld twice here. Was he the illegitimate son of Jerry Lewis or something?

Glad to hear it. Looked again yesterday and couldn't find the movie.....yet. If I don't find it soon, maybe I'll ask a buddy to "torrent" it for me (I now declare "torrent" to be a verb....). I loved the Larrson trilogy...read all three of them two years ago and then again last year. And I noticed that all three of the books remain within the top 12 of the New York Times Combined Ebook & Print Fiction bestsellers. Been there for years too.

It seems so at least in the Star Wars trilogy and the swashbuckling (but still smart-assed) adventures of Indiana Jones; however, I'm still a big fan of his. His performance in Witness, I thought, was brilliant and I would have to say his performances as Jack Ryan (Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger) were a bit more nuanced.

I saw the movie yesterday and I simply can't put it in the "love it" category. There certainly are a few startling and gnawing (pun intended) moments and I even recall one where popcorn flew onto me from the seat to my left (occupied by Koko's admirer). Decent acting by Liam, for sure, although I remarked that he somewhat always seems to be playing the same character (himself, a somewhat more sophisticated and laid-back version of Clint Eastwood, perhaps). And I'm not sure that the attention-getting moments are due more to directing or editing. It make take me a while to sort out how I feel about the movie. Presently (reserving the right to change my mind, expecially for cash in advance), I somewhat think that the whole plot/script was too "small" for a movie and, in a way, seemed more like a made-for-tv flick; on the other hand, a bit too intense/grizly for regular television. I'm still trying to figure out what it was all about...what was the point of the whole thing (it sure as hell wasn't "entertainment" in the traditional sense) and/or what the scriptwriter was or wasn't trying to say (if anything). [Why is Khun Khortose's print in places so dinky? Are you posting via that Blackberry thingie of yours?]

Those Thais must be living on a deserted island or something of the sort. Macha Bucha Day is a public holiday besides being one of the most important religious (buddhist) holidays of the year. I would think that anybody in Thailand that calls themselves a buddhist certainly is aware of the holiday. But, on the other hand, I suppose it's possible that there is a small minority of Americans who are not aware of Easter or Christmas.

Yes, watched it Sunday (so did Khun Khortose). Acting by Streep and the British (I think?) man who played her husband was as good as it gets. She certainly deserved the Oscar. I'm amazed every time I see her. As for the script/story, I found it to be fine but not all that great. I think The Help (and maybe even The Descendants) were better overall movies (still haven't seen The Artist or Midnight in Paris though). At times, I thought the pacing of the movie through the different time eras was a bit contrived and/or forced and, predictably, I thought too much time was spent dwelling on riots, terrorism, and the Falkland war. To be honest, I probably would have liked the movie better if it was just snippets of home life between Thatcher and her husband and/or spent more time on one subject which Thatcher had to work her way through. But, a very good movie. I'd give it a 9 or so overall (but, without Streep, it would have likely gotten no more than a 6 or 7 from me).

For many years, that's all I've flown - premium economy on Eva (it's called "evergreen duluxe on 747's and "elite" on 777's). When I looked at the photos of the seating for Cathay Pacific as noted by Fountainhill above, the seating somewhat looked like EVA's. Two seats by the window (but, in the middle of the plane, it's either 4 or 6 seats together). I always sit at the two-seat area by the window and, as far as I'm concerned, it's almost the same as business class (or, perhaps, the poor man's business class.....although it ain't so inexpensive anymore!). Once in a great while...it's been a few years for me....it's difficult for some flights from the states to get the premium economy leg from Taipei to Bangkok and they'll try to place you in economy class for that 3.5 hour leg. But I think I've only had to do that once and that was because I wanted that particular flight time and date. So, at least to me, the PE seating looks about the same. In EVA, the PE seating is fine, adequate legroom, etc., and I note (not that it's all important) that the seat trays come out of the arm rest and stretch across the space (Cathay Pacific seems to make some big deal out of this like it's a new thing and it isn't as it's been on EVA for years).

I'm not sure if I knows anymore, at least not until Khun Thaiworthy graciously provides a translation.

Whoops - no problem: guess that flew right over my head (I at least didn't get the tongue-in-cheek part). [but I plead partial insanity given I've been translating today some of the absolutely dumbest stories from Thai into English. My god (or buddha or the moon, as the case may be), the last story was about some bonehead walking into a blind alley, stumbling in the dark over a rock, coming up to a wall that's too tall to climb, and having an Einstein-moment to go back and get the rock so he could step up on it to jump over the wall. And the moral of the story was that children need to turn the obstacles of life into advantages. My guess is the only lesson they would learn is to either not stumble on a rock in the first place and/or laugh at the dolt that did! ] Well, we could have a tallest ogre award as I always had a hankering for Hagrid.....

Picked up Hugo, War Horse, and The Artist the other day and plan to watch them soon. Still can't find The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (which is the one I most want to see due to my fondness for the Larrson books) or Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. And hope to pick up the Iron Lady soon. But I'm a bit dumbfounded at your comments about the Potter movies and your suggestion that they didn't win or get nominated in various categories because of some anti-British bias? Oh, come on. Let's see.....now which Potter film would you suggest ought to get Best Picture? And which Potter performance has gotten to the quality level of any of the supporting or lead actors and actresses who won in those categories? I don't think I saw such a performance but maybe I missed it. Maybe they ought to add a couple of other categories like "most popular film" or "biggest box office money maker" or the like but, until they do, Harry and his pals aren't what I would call first-tier actors regardless of where they're from. And the adulation by Americans of tons of British actors and actresses over the years ought to dispel any anti-British bias. I can't recite all the British winners over the years (I presume Gielgud, Guiness, Burton, Oliviet, etc., probably got a few) but, if my memory is not too bad for the last 10 years or so: The King's Speech and Colin Firth (hmmm....just last year, wasn't it?), Helen Mirren, Kate Winslet, Daniel Day Lewis, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Thompson, and probably a few others I can't remember. Come to think of it, given the percentage of British actors and actresses in the films who've won Oscars, maybe there's a pro-British bias?