Bob

If Thai Air can keep getting occasional grants from the national treasury, I suppose they can do whatever they want to do; however, but for the public support, they would have been out of business years ago. I like Thai Air and used to fly the airline regularly. But I think it's unfortunately an example of mixing national pride and national money with private commercial business (and that usually spells economic disaster). The Concorde comes to mind there.....

Lol.....well, literally it's "he who/that loves the beach." No big deal but I see all these old threads lit up and start reading them before realizing it's an old post. Just confusing a bit but I'll get through it (plus I'm now paying more attention to the dates).

Somebody has been wholesale resurrecting older threads recently for the obvious reason of simply racking up posts (I didn't see anything of value added, usually just a pithy comment). I wish he'd stop doing that and proceed to add a new thread (presuming whatever that's on his mind merits it). His name in Thai might read something like "kao tee rak talay".....

But it is annoying at times. A couple of years back, I flew on Thai Air from Chiangmai to Bangkok on a fully loaded 747 (yep, that's right, a 747) and, in spite of the fact that I counted 17 airbridges empty, they bussed the whole lot of us to the terminal. One would think that flights on the national carrier to and from their two biggest cities might merit actually using the terminal facilities a little more effectively.

Corruption in Thailand is much more direct - you pay a couple of hundred baht to all the voters who will take it, you take 20% of a government-funded project, or the cop steals your money. In the US, corruption is just as big a problem but it is just more insidious - you buy an election (why anybody spends 20 million to get a job that pays $150,000 would seem to make poor economic sense but, once you've got that job, the 20 million pales in comparison to the billions you can use to benefit your friends) and/or you donate money to politicians who'll pass laws that make you money. As an example of the latter, the oil companies paid close to 900 million to both political parties in the 90's to be rewarded with lower taxes that, between 1999 and 2007, allegedly gave the oil industry a 25 billion dollar tax break (now there's some economic sense!). As the old saying goes, money corrupts. Without a true effort to get it out of politics as much as you can, almost nobody is going to vote their conscience and do what's right. Simple as that.

In years past, I actually respected the guy a bit. But then, like his buddy Mitt Romney on the east side of the country, he blatantly began to alter his personal convictions just to attempt to get the vote of some right-wing constituency and, at that point, he stood for nothing. For one example only, he previously worked with Sen. Ted Kennedy and the two of them came up with and sponsored a comprehensive immigration reform bill (aptly named the "McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Act") which was quite reasonable and fair; however, McCain, responding to political winds versus any personal convictions he might have, would no longer sponsor that bill again or even vote for his own proposal! And, of course, then he made the absolutely dumbfounding selection of Miss Sarah as his Vice President and that simply shattered any respect I still had for the guy.

When you've got more chins than a Hong Kong phonebook?

Wow!?! Jack Benny (a now-deceased American commedienne who was a penny pincher) wants to go with you! For those coming from the west to Thailand for a week and presuming they "off" somebody 3 times during that week, you'd really have to do it on the cheap to spend only 50,000 baht for the trip (including airfare). My guess is the average cost for a complete trip for a week is much higher than that. [Whoops....I now realize you're talking about internal airfare within Thailand.....so, yea, it's probably doable at 20,000 baht for the week but even that sounds a little bit low if you take somebody off from the bars more than a couple of times. And I'm guessing that you don't drink alcohol much at the bars or elsewhere.]

Somewhat common American slang. "AM" means sometime in the morning and "see you in the PM" usually means afternoon hours.

Reminds me of Junior from the back hills of Tennessee. After his first gym class in third grade, he asked his mom as to why he was so different (you know, bigger down "there") than the other kids. She said: "Well, Junior, you are 23!"

Very good points and perspective, YardenUK. And, just so we don't see this as a "Thai only" issue, a whole lot of 18-25 year-old kids throughout the world are pretty damn foolish with their money (and blow every baht, dollar, euro, etc., they can get their hands on). Heck, I was regularly broke and scrambling for every dollar I could get until I completed my formal education at age 25 (and, come to think of it, for a few years after that too!).

People stick with jobs they dislike (mildly to severely) because it's a job they have, they're not qualified for other jobs, they've got bills to pay, etc., and I suspect that most people at least dislike part of what they do for a living. But that's the reality for most people. Rich people(like Steve Jobs) and those with unique job qualifications have other options and are the rather haughty ones out there proclaiming that everybody just simply should seek the job they love to do. Life and employment, unfortunately, don't work that way all that often for most people. I'm retired now from a job/profession I liked at times and intensely disliked at other times. And that's just about how everybody else I knew felt about their jobs - whether they were lawyers, accountants, nurses, factory workers, or whatever. With respect to Z's question, it seems to me that you probably shouldn't retire until you believe you can afford to do so. You ought to know what lifestyle you want and the cost of it by the time your in your 50's and the rest of it is simply a matter of figuring out if you have enough financial resources to safely make it into your mid-80's or so (and one certainly ought to factor in some form of likely inflation). It's not a gamble one ought to take lightly, at least in my view. I probably could have retired a decade ago if all I wanted to do was to move permanently to Thailand; however, I wasn't (and still am not) ready to sell my house in the US or to not return to the US for a few months a year to maintain relationships with friends and family. And essentially maintaining two residences, flying back and forth, etc., adds a substantial figure to your financial needs. I felt financially safe and secure when I permanently retired last year but I would say I ultimately didn't make the decision until I realized or accepted that I was fully entitled to expend my resources during my lifetime (i.e., before I was somewhat hesitant because of the notion that I needed to only live off income from my assets and not ultimately expend the assets themselves).

Lol, I can understand your "sheeze!" It's only a "let's get together for a yak yak and a drink" versus a formal state dinner with the friggin' Queen of England!

Nah, you wouldn't need nametags for us. I'm the handsome dude. GB is the mean looking guy in the corner with the eraser. Unfortunately, I shall still be in the US during your party and won't be returning to LOS (and Chiangmai at that) until next month. Have a good time. And please pick the good-looking dude to wear my nametag.

You know, I gave my weight bench and weights to somebody (I actually forget who) about 8-10 years ago and I do remember that hauling those damn things upstairs (from the basement) was the first time I picked those damn things up in at least another 10 or 15 years. I'm still recovering. What's worse - and I probably shouldn't admit this - the balcony of the condo I rented in Chiangmai this past season overlooked the new and fancy Powerhouse Gym exercise joint. And, yes, on a couple of occasions I recognized falang I knew going into the place to exercise - and every one of those wusses declined the cigarettes I offered them from the balcony!

Lol, sounds familiar. I have this really nice treadmill at home too and I do get a little bit of exercise from it when I have to move it to vacuum around it. The damn thing is heavy! If/when I get the urge to exercise, I sit down until the urge goes away.....

It's difficult for me to believe I missed that news. What November elections?

Unfortunately, if you say something enough times, there are enough gullible people around to eventually believe it. Murdoch has made a bloody fortune based on that premise and his sole criteria is whether his rag sheets and other investments such as Fox make money.

Yep, hope you had a good one. For me, I don't have birthdays any more.....just have had too many of them already.

I certainly agree with that and so does the language of the US Constitution. But absent amendments to the US Constitution or the grant of new federal rights by the US Congress as authorized by the US Constitution, those other or additional rights can come only from the states. That's the federal system we have. Legally speaking, what's going on here is somebody is trying to use the US Constitution to ultimately hold that the voters of a state can't pass a law under a process authorized by their state constitution deciding those additional or other rights. Admittedly, those same voters cannot take away or limit those rights granted by the federal constitution but, under our system, they ought to have fairly free reign beyond that. It's always been hard for me to understand how gays think they have the inherent right to be married. Sure, I like the concept and it surely fits into a my notions of a fair and modern society but it's hardly a notion that was acceptable or even considered when both the state and federal constitutions were enacted. In fact, it's not acceptable to a majority of state voters anywhere (one of our more "liberal" states, California, has made that abundantly clear). Marriage is in essence both a status issue and an economic issue. It's the "status" issue that the courts have been wrestling with in recent years and I'd like to see, from a gay point of view, solely the economic issues being pushed to the forefront. If somehow gay couples (perhaps those under some form of civil union or partnership authorized by the states) can attain the same economic rights (for example only, social security survivor benefits, joint income tax filing rights, etc.), the issue of whether somebody thinks (or officially proclaims) that you're either married or not married becomes rather irrelevant.

While I totally agree that the religious right and the wealthy have too much political influence in this country, I can't agree with your first statement which implies that the US Constitution is supposed to guarantee human rights in general. It was specifically designed to guarantee only enumerated rights as determined to be important by the people who drafted and supported it in the first place and by those who have gone through the extremely difficult process to amend it so as to adapt it to new attitudes and conditions. The US Constitution specifically states that every power and right not expressly reserved for control by the federal government continues to belong to the states - and there have been a raft of rulings that the control of and definition of what constitutes a marriage is one of those areas where (1) the US Constitution is silent and (2) that issue is exclusively within the purview of the states. That background probably compels the Court of Appeals to overturn the District Judge's ruling but, if they don't do it, the US Supreme Court surely will. If and when that happens, some will view the outcome (upholding Proposition as an attack against or as a setback for gays. I won't view it that way at all but rather as upholding the rule of law and our constitutional framework (regardless if I do or don't see the inability of gays to marry in California as a good thing or not).

Lol. For most people, including the "ex" and the "current" would likely mean a bloody war! I've actually been able to stay friends with a couple of "exes" but, given they are "exes", I don't do their birthday and they don't do mine.

I don't have a clue what you mean by "individualized" lenses. I've purchased progressive bifocals (progressive bifocals with my prescription which is different for each eye) from Top Charoen (Chiangmai branch) but they were a hell of a lot cheaper than what you note (but, if you get all the bells and whistles (polarized lenses, sunglasses, etc.), they can be around 20,000 baht for a pair). In my experience, the progressive bifocals are the way to go but you have to be careful that they don't start the "bifocal" part too high up (i.e., you don't want any of that when you are looking straight ahead).

What's referred to as a "blog" (the word "blog" is a shortened version of "web log") is sort of a running commentary or diary online. Some websites are only blogs while others have blogs as one of its features.

No need to be, it was a bad joke (and indicative of my lack of familiarity with torrents). Of course, drinking lots of beer does produce torrents of something....