Bob

I was concerned because of the various stories as to how long it would take me to get through immigration exiting Thailand earlier this month....but it only took about 10 minutes. Still, it'd help if they just hired enough people to do the job (more than half the immigration exit booths were empty of personnel).

Well, that might have something to do with the fact that the federal government bailed out the failing big banks. The bad news was that the US Treasury, through the TARP program, paid out (loaned) 245 billion dollars to help the banks. The good news (which never seems to get that much reported) is that the US Treasury has already been repaid ALL of those funds (in fact, it's projected that the US Treasury will make a profit of about 20 billion dollars on the bank loans altogether). The US banking system is actually in good shape now other than they're still reluctant to lend and they are paying miniscule interest on deposits. But, on the negative side, the big investment banks really have not been called to task for all the damage done due to their worthless investment schemes and, given the political and economic climate, likely will never have to substantially answer for the untold damage they caused to the entire system.

Somewhat like Fox News saying over and over and over that it's "fair and balanced" news coverage and, finally, somebody actually believes it. ZeroHedge is a blog written by anonymous writers (all of whom, for whatever strange reason, write under the pseudonym of "Tyler Durden"). They love conspiracy theories and I'm sure the birthers would love it. No wonder they remain anonymous. I'll side with Khun Khortose's prediction.

In my city, I've never known it to happen (the "intentional" part, that is); however, there's about a 75' sidewalk between the jail building door and the courthouse door and there have been a few occasions where the press has snapped photos of suspects in a few notorious cases. My guess is that most of the intentional part is being done by the cops as the prosecutors would be subject to bar rules which generally subject the attorneys to fines, suspensions, and/or disbarment.

If the parading is intentional, I'd support disciplinary action against police or prosecutors involved in it given I do support the notion of a presumption of innocence. I would note, however, that many so "paraded" have been found not guilty by juries.....juries not only being sophisticated enough to do their job well but also being expressly instructed by the judge that the fact somebody has been arrested and charged with a crime is no evidence whatsoever that the person is guilty of anything.

I understand your concerns but I don't agree with your premise. It's a little hard to argue that the prosecutors in this case intended any "perp walk" (if what you mean by that was an intentional parading of the defendant in front of the press to cause derision or whatever). Right or wrong, the court was open to cameras (the day before and day after too) and there were hundreds of journalists that couldn't be avoided (regardless, the defendant was promptly escorted and placed in the back of the car). Except for juvenile cases, we've had an open and public criminal trial system that's worked very well (not perfectly but well) for a very long time. I favor that system far more than the closed and secret hearings where only certain people are allowed to know what the government is claiming somebody did.

While we're at it, what particular "law" does anyone want to argue is applicable here? UK law, US law, Thai law, or what? In the US we have what's called the Fair Use Doctrine and that basically provides that quoting parts of a work for a non-commerical purpose and/or for criticism is usually exempt from copyright infringment. There are four factors to consider and one of them is whether you've reproduced the entirety of an article (which, on it's face, indicates it always safer NOT to quote an entire article - but, given we can link articles here, there would be no good purpose in doing that here in the first place in my view). Admittedly, there isn't enough space here to cover all the aspects of the doctrine and, if you're interested and think US law would apply in the first place, then maybe you should google it and review the topic at your leisure.

Hmmmm.....it is so interesting to learn that all of the US's problems have been caused in the last 28 months. That fits with some political views but it's hardly accurate. But there's no need to let facts get in the way.

What might be more precious is if it turns out the maid's real name is Ralph. Sort of a Thai angle to the story....hehe.

As long as the poster in whatever way makes it clear that an article (or part of an article) is not his own and clearly attributes the source, I really don't see any problem or issue here. The only issue I've seen regarding this is on a couple of other boards where the same poster would fail to attribute the source of his comments (it wasn't hard to tell he was doing that as his own spelling and grammar was atrocious).

Up to you (how's that for a "Thai" answer?). We don't seem to usually have enough posts to worry much about whether on one or more forums. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other but, if some desire it, that's fine.

A couple of years ago, there were several newspaper articles about Immigration indicating that they were going to stop issuing repeated 30-day visas (or "exempt" things) and tourist visas and were going to attempt to restrict anybody from staying in Thailand more than 180 days in a year without a legitimate long-term visa (business, educational, or the so-called retirement visa). The reasons given were the same as given now (too many people trying to cheat the system and simply permanently living in Thailand based on the regular border running). This "new" policy - limiting the tourist visas to 180 days total for a year - doesn't seem so new to me but perhaps is just a continued step toward enforcement of the policy declared in the past.

Well, surprisingly, there just might be another reason....that he didn't lie at all [nor did the myriad of other officials (Gates, Clinton, Biden, Petreus, etc.) that have had a long history of telling it straight to the news media]. Given all the reports, photographs, dna evidence, the acknowledgement by al-Qaeda (etc., etc.), you're really stretching here to conjure up a conspiracy theory. I can understand somebody being sceptical of governments but I don't understand suggesting something different might have happened based on no evidence at all.

Generally, I agree with that assessment. I checked flights for 11 days in November and only one flight on one day (the 6:40AM flight on November 2nd) had the low fare. Whenever I have checked their deals before involving flights from Chiangmai to Bangkok, the only flight that I've ever found that is involved is that 6:40AM flight. But, then again, most of the airlines have a lot of bullshit running through their alleged promotions. As to Michael's question, I've used Air Asia almost exclusively for the last few years between BKK and CNX and I've been generally satisfied with the flights and service. Generally on time and the prices beat the hell out of Thai Air and Bangkok Airways (often by half) and even are usually substantially lower than the other (allegedly) low-priced airline (Nok).

Obama affirmatively said he was dead and that's good enough for me. But, I suppose, that won't satisfy the conspiracy nuts that will crop up. Heck, somebody will probably spot Osama eating donuts with Elvis next week in Cleveland! Some have suggested that this was simply an assassination but, again, there's no evidence of that and those that make the accusation aren't stating any available facts but, rather, their personal bias. The President and others have detailed some of the contigency plans had he been captured alive and that would seem to me to support the notion that this was not a targeted killing. Whether the two Seals who entered that room chose to act otherwise will likely never be known but, so far, the official line (being the line from those who are the only people who know for sure) is that he resisted in some manner.

My sentiments exactly. When they just happen to fail to mention that this poor victim has been prime mover in the killings of thousands in the US and many more than that in the middle east, their whinny complaints fall on deaf ears. The poor dears ought to come to NYC for the 10th anniversary remembrance activities this September and make their complaint there. Hell, I'm sure the New Yorkers will kindly hear their complaints.....

I'm doubtful that you'll notice anything and any "insights" we'd provide would be pure speculation. But, with that in mind, I'd expect a coup within 7 days of any election where Peua Thai wins a majority of the seats. And, even if that happened, I'm doubtful (based on the ho-hum response of the populace to the last coup) it still would make any difference to any falang visiting the country. So, I'd be more concerned about the weather (and that shouldn't be any significant concern either).

Presuming the insecticide was indeed the cause of death, I have mixed feelings about blaming all of the deaths on the owner of the involved hotel. Once a pattern developed, I could blame the owner if no aggressive investigation occurred and I suppose a responsible owner might even have closed the place down pending a determination as to what caused the deaths. But, this hotel, like thousands of private residences and businesses in Chiangmai, hire firms to spray monthly and I wonder how many of the owners are really competent to know what type of insecticide is being used let alone knowing how to monitor how the spraying is done. And, of course, there's the question of the competence of the people selling those services in the first place. A good friend of mine has his townhouse sprayed monthly and, while he has the good sense to vacate the place during the spray job and for a few hours afterward, I'm doubtful if he has any clue what type of chemicals are being used or if the sprayers are applying it correctly or in the proper dosage. On the other hand, I will occasionally spot spray around the doors and patio of my townhouse and I have no clue what product I'm using (I just buy it at Topps, I know it works, and I just ignorantly presume that Topps wouldn't sell something too lethal).

I've repeatedly read that the A-380 pilots cannot see their wingtips but your photo almost makes it look possible if they strained themselves a bit. As to who wins the bet, heck if I know....and we'll probably be waiting a long time for any definitive conclusion (presuming we get one). But (and I admit I don't know) your notion that ground controllers are responsible for distance between all aircraft taxiing on the ground seems a bit strange to me. There's enough controllers to take care of all air traffic (which I presume means looking at radar screens, etc.) and to keep a watch on every airplane moving in the airport? And, of course, it's reallly tough to do that if one's asleep. P.S. With all the money involved in these aircraft, I wonder why they didn't incorporate some type of cameras in strategic locations so the pilots or engineers could easilly keep an eye on what's going on around the aircraft. A couple of cameras at the wingtips might have helped, huh?

Hmmm.....lovely photos (but I didn't seem to notice the rooms).

Out of curiosity, why is it that you somehow know that the person you talked with over the phone was "black?" And why did you happen to mention that (does it somehow add to or clarify your information in any regard)?

Much ado about nothing in my opinion. And tossing around the word "marxism", although true to form, only continues to reflect the author's opinion about the current president (to which I continue to respond "who cares"). And I'm sure Obama has been working on this every single day (I doubt if he knows much if anything about it). I read the new "proposed" form and I don't see anything there that bothers me. I'd admittedly would have to guess on a few items and I wouldn't remember exact years or, perhaps, some addresses, but I could fill it out in less than 5 minutes without any problem. One section only needs to be filled out a bit more if you weren't born in the US or a medical facility (which, in this day and age, involves almost nobody born in the US). For anybody interested in reading the form (again, it's only a "proposed" form at the moment), here it is (in PDF form): Proposed Passport Form

My experience has been in Chiangmai....where at least all of the old city and some of the rest is set out in a somewhat straight directional manner. But I can understand how one would have difficulty applying some of those concepts (north/south/east/west) to Bangkok given how it's a city originally laid out along a meandering river. I've always been orientated to those directions and I'm always puzzled by people who have no clue about them. Two days ago, I went to lunch with a falang friend and his about 30-year-old boyfriend. I asked the bf if he understood "north", "south", and the like and he assured me he did. So, I asked him on what side (north, south, etc.) of the old city was the Chang Phuak gate. No clue at all. Then, figuring I'd switch to an easy one, I asked in what direction were the mountains. He eventually said it was "north." I politely indicated that, no, it was "west" and, as we were driving in that direction at the time at about 4:00PM and could see the sun somewhat receding right over our windshield, I mentioned that (figuring he understood the sun rose in the east and receded in the west). Not much recognition of any of those concepts. I'd guess....but don't know at all....that Thai farmers have more sense of directions given they have more involvement with surveyed farm fields, laying out lines of plants or fruit trees, and can even have a very accurate sense of the time by the sun's position in the sky. P.S. I would note that the very intelligent falang with me in that car also at first asserted the mountains (and 4PM sun) we were looking at out the windshield were north. But at least he quickly accepted that "west" was the right answer.

I don't disagree with that at all. Where one is born doesn't seem to me to be that related to ability, loyalty, or the like. On the other hand, any notion of just eliminating the "natural born" requirement and replacing it with nothing is not all that appealing. Logically, at least to me, some time period of exclusive residency in the United States with some required time period of citizenship would seem to be reasonably required - so we're not electing people who have little knowledge or experience in the US and so we have some lengthy history that should give voters some idea as to the nature of the given candidate. Rather than say a presidential candidate must be 35 and natural born, maybe require them to have been a citizen for 20-30 years and having their "primary residency" in the US during that time period? [i use the phrase "primary residency" for a reason as it implies application of the usual rules that people living overseas involved in educational studies, military work, diplomatic work, and the like are still deemed to be primarily residing in the US.]