Bob

You mean to tell me that our Chinese-manufactured products are cheaper than Britain's Chinese-manufactured products? Amazing.

The key, at least to me, is to be sure of what the normal slot looks like that swallows your card (i.e., next time you use one, take a little longer look at it). And, if you ever see a slot that looks the slightest bit out of normal, don't use it. The slot device shown in the newspaper article is rather large compared to the one I saw on the two SCB atm machines. But somebody made it the right color to match the dark color (either a dark purple or black) of the SCB machines.

As an American, I'm also curious as to what we have "more and better" than England. Certainly we have had dumber leaders during my lifetime and probably have people who physically have "more" (wow, that's being kind...). What do we yanks have that's better? I'm a bit stumped to figure that one out.

Thanks, just trying to express an opinion. On the other hand, the only way society can deal with certain repeat offenders (especially if it involves injury to other people) is to "lock'em up and throw away the key." I can almost agree to do that on the first conviction of a child rapist.....but I definitely agree with that concept for the second offense (and I'd feel rather sorry that society didn't stop the second offense by doing the "lock and toss" the first time!). While it may or may not be society's fault, prision almost never rehabilitates anybody. More often (at least in my view) it aids and abets the convict become a repeat offender; yet, if the guy's remains a reasonable danger to other people, he shouldn't be let out. I have some compassion for the convict but that's miniscule to the compassion I have towards his victims.

Most of them aren't but, unless you've had to work with the convict - or unless he or she is a friend or a family member - one tends to naturally lump all the criminals you read about in one category. For whatever reason, it's always seemed to me that most serious criminals appear to be fairly normal people that simply can't seem to control behavior on occasion in one or more categories. They often simply think differently. Outside of the Bernie Madoffs and Michael Milkens, most criminals never make crime pay. They hit a brinks truck for a million and, when caught a year later, all they have left is a boombox, a beat-up old car, and $5,000.00 in the bank. We're puzzled or perplexed as we think that, if we all of a sudden grabbed a million dollars, we'd have a ton of it left as we would have known enough not to splurge (show sudden wealth to others) and how to intelligently invest and save it for a rainy day. That difference in thinking often underlies why we didn't commit the crime in the first place. I've always argued that 90% of future criminals can be identified by the fifth grade teachers (I truly believe the vast bulk of them can be so identified). And I've always argued that intervention then (some counseling and family assistance) is a hell of a lot cheaper to society than what it costs in the future damage they do, the cost to prosecute them, and the cost to house them in jail/prison.

The call an "accident" an "accident" for a reason. If it was intentional, it'd be called a crime. Being negligent and causing some damage isn't the same as intending the damage and a government (or "the law") attaches different consequences to those acts for that reason. And, yes, there are some variations - the occasional but rare attachment of criminal penalties to simple negligence and the more certain attachment of criminal penalties to what is called gross negligence. "Trying" to do something is intentional, at least in my understanding. Being a little careless (like taking your eyes off the road to fiddle with the radio or to grab papers that fell off the carseat) is not recognized as intentional conduct for the reason one had no intent to cause the damage/injury that happened to follow. Sometimes I wonder how Thais look at causation and responsibility. Too many times I've asked why they don't take some precautions (like why they won't wear the seat belt or why they won't wear the helmet) and I get a simple stare (you know, the one which tells you you're a simpleton) and I always get the same response: "Why? It's not my day to die!"

Yep, part of work. Sickening? Not all that often, guess you develop a thick skin. Plus, in most cases, you actually get to like some aspects of the individual. I do recall one case where a woman was writing to her boyfriend in prison (the guy being there for child rape) and was actually asking the guy to be her daughter's (who was 3 at the time) "first." The guy got out, the woman held her daughter down, and the guy used a child's toy as an implement. Took six hours of surgery to put the little girl back together. Then - and this is the part where I was royally pissed and frustrated - they made a deal with the mother to ensure a conviction of the guy. She got 4 years and he got life without the possibility of parole. What pissed me off is the deal the mother got - a person who was just as guilty as the guy but who should have had the instinct to protect her young daughter. Needless to say, her parental rights were permanently terminated but it's also too bad they couldn't have sterilized her to avoid almost certain abuse/neglect of any child she might bear in the future. There was only one time I was scared shitless by somebody, a guy charged with killing two guys during a poker game. The guy was in leg chains and handcuffs attached to belly chains and the look he gave me made me feel that my life was about to end. Thankfully, he's serving life without the possibility of parole. Speaking of recidivism, this guy was 42 at the time of his murder conviction and he did the deed within two weeks of the first time he would have been off of either probation or parole since he ws 17 years old!

Never counted but probably 100-150. And, when I say "met", my meaning is that I talked to them on one or numerous occasions and the topics, amongst others, were their personal histories. These were not social contacts. As to peripheral contacts with others (through the other people mentioned), in the many hundreds, for sure. I'd guess that there has to be somebody out there who molested a kid and wasn't molested himself/herself as a child; however, I never found one. I'd note that I don't count an 17-year-old having consensual sex with a 14-year-old as a sex offender (or at least not in my eyes). It's technically illegal but I don't view consensual high school sex as an offense.

Sorry, but the high recidivism rate of sex offenders is absolutely a fact. And that's based on what we know (some organizations assert that a significant percentage of sex offenses against kids are never reported). What's additionally sad is that many sex offenders essentially create new offenders. I've never met an adult who molested kids who wasn't molested himself/herself when he/she was young. The older creep does something nasty to a kid and a much higher percentage of those victims than the normal population will go on to molest other kids. I've asked every offender I've personally met in my 33+ year career and I've asked lawyers, prosecutors, and judges in every other case I heard about - and always the same answer (yes) about whether the offender was molested as a kid. A rather sad and vicious cycle*. Some people see the sex registry laws - the ones that require notification to police agencies of your address, prohibiting residing near a school, etc. - as somehow unfair additional punishment to the poor convicted soul. I don't see that at all. We know they're likely to re-offend and doing nothing seems to me to be aiding and abetting further sex offenses against children. [*This doesn't seem to occur to any significant degree to older victims of sexual abuse. I have no clue why but perhaps it has to do with the emotional state or developmental stage of the child and the damage/disruption sexual activity causes to that. ]

While that does happen on occasion, it's rather rare. What is typical (certainly 95% or more of the time) is that the offender has a long list of offenses prior to entering a prison for the first time. It's not a high percentage of people that commit serious crimes, it's the rather small percentage of people that commit lots of serious crimes. And I disagree with the expressed notion that most offenders don't get caught - eventually most of them are caught. Recidivism for serious felonies is a substantial problem and the notion that "ok, you served your time, we'll now treat you like everybody else" simply places people at peril. Presuming or thinking they will likely just be peaceful citizens once they've "done their time" is naive and contrary to known data. I can understand the philosophical good notion of "forgive and forget" but, presuming it was my job to protect society, I'd feel obligated to follow the known data. Getting back to the original point, every country has the right to say who can or cannot enter its territory and I, for one, would not allow a convicted felon into any country I controlled absent some special circumstances (where, for example, it's obvious that it was a political prosecution, that there was no semblance of a fair trial, etc.). Thailand should (in my view) never allow a foreigner into the country if he/she has been convicted of a sex-related offense (again, absent special circumstances) as it is more than likely that the same foreigner is going to commit the offense again here. And, if they were serious about trying to protect their children from serial pedophiles, they'd make sure that information is available via computer as their passports are swiped.

As an American, I think he should get another 6 months tacked on his sentence - and that's for missing Bush!

It continues to be rather sad to me that any of the kids are being publicly targeted....but I guess inquiring minds (a National Enquirer saying) just have to know. Blast the candidate if you wish but the kids deserve some privacy regardless of the bad choices they or their parents make.

Yep, not only desirable but mandatory if you have any interest in trying to protect your country. If I ran country "x", I sure as hell want to know that some guy trying to get into my country has been convicted of underage sex, murder, bank robbery, or what have you (felonies, not misdemeanors) as I don't want the guy in my country. Convicted felons have a high repeat rate in their home country....and I'd guess that it's even worse in foreign countries where he's not known. No, the info isn't on your passport. If you get stopped for speeding or even a taillight out in the US, the cop runs your driver's license number.....and what'll show up is a felony warrant issued anwhere in the country or even by Interpol. Nothing wrong with that in my book, that's how they pick up a lot of criminals. In my view, every country ought to have computer/internet connections to the lien systems of other countries as that's how you'll know a serial killer is trying to come into your country. One can always make allowances and investigate further for some rogue countries (i.e., just because somebody has a criminal record in Burma might not mean the same to me as somebody with a criminal record in the US or europe). Are mistakes made with the records? Sure....but it's not a common occurrence and the alternative is just to totally ignore the information that's available that may very well keep some of your citizens alive or unmolested. P.S. As an additional tool, perhaps a country might want to consider revoking the passport of anybody convicted of a certain-level crime. If certain felons aren't allowed to own a gun or vote, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to travel as what they do overseas does reflect on the home country. Unfortunately, historically nobody often cares what somebody does as long as it's not on "my turf."

Another example of how incredibly insufficient/stupid Thailand (and probably many other countries) is about letting slimeballs into their country. Their passports are swiped at immigration and their information goes into a database in a nano second. Doesn't that database contain even public information (like arrest information, conviction information) from the crime records in England? If not, why not? If a country was serious about stopping convicted murderers, pedophiles, or whatever from entering their country, it would be a fairly simple matter of coordinating criminal databases throughout the world. Maybe Interpol or the FBI ought to show them how to do it.

Concentrating on the blowjob rather simplifies the matter. If all Clinton did was have extra-marital sex (of any variety), the whole issue would have been simply relegated to the National Enquirer and other such rag sheets. The first issue is that he did his deed with a 23-year old executive office employee in the oval office, an action viewed by many as way over the top (given where it happened and given the perception in the states that bosses ought to be smart enough to avoid sexual acts with subordinates). But, the clincher was the lying about it under oath. Perjury by somebody in his position - and being a lawyer to boot - handed a lot of rope to his opponents and I can't blame them a bit for trying to hang him with it. It's amazing how we have seen extremely powerful and intelligent (he is a Rhodes scholar) people do incredibly stupid things. I lost pretty much all trust in Clinton when he acknowledged many years before that he smoked marijuana but added that he "didn't inhale." I was dumbfounded by that comment (how could anybody be so fucking stupid to say that even if it was actually true - as, presuming he was so smart, he should have known that nobody would believe him). Had he simply acknowledged that he smoked marijuana (and one could argue he never had to answer that question and maybe shouldn't have - simply saying "it's none of your business" or "I did some stupid things when I was younger, just like most people, and I'm not going to recount them now"), the whole issue would have vanished in a day or two. But no, his goofy brain had to go further. Sorta like acknowledging you had sex but you didn't enjoy it, that you did rob the bank but never spent any of the money, etc.

This trip, I've come across some ATM issues for the first time. I used the SCB atm right across the street from the Duangtawan Hotel several times at the end of January and early February. Upon returning for another withdrawal, I noticed some small added device where you insert your card. It looked as if the device was part of the machine but, since it definitely was different than I had seen before, I walked down to Changklan and used the atm in front of the SCB branch bank. That new "device" was not in any of the other SCB atm machines. Since arriving in Hua Hin, I've occasionally used one or two SCB machines, including the one right in front of the SCB bank on Petch Kasem (the main drag). That machine was down for a couple of days last week and the manager was standing by the machine saying not to use it as there was a "problem." I looked more carefully at the machine and it had the same added device at the card slot as the one in Chiangmai. It was gone the next day, everything looked normal, and use of the machine was back to normal. The "device" I've seen and wondered about is rather small, looks quite official, and essentially is a protrusion around the card slot that sticks out no more than three-quarters of an inch. It's black or dark, the same general color of the card slot, but what makes it look different to me at first is that the device somewhat interupts the normal green light/color you see at the card slot. Most people wouldn't even notice anything different. Probably wise to actually take a look a more careful look at the atm machine you normally use - and then simply don't use any machine that doesn't look completely normal especially around the card slot.

Same issue with the two idiots (O'Reilly and Hannity) that you mention. Those dorks - and the rest of Fox news - keep saying "fair and balanced" so often they end up actually believing it! I hope nobody else does (unfortunately, probably too many do). We're far from true impartial news provided by almost anybody. CNN used to be fairly neutral and moderate but the trend (Lou Dobbs, for example) is to put strident and opinionated people on the air. I pine (an old enough word) for the likes of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow......but it doesn't appear that they are coming back anytime soon. Jan Leno's "Man on the Street" repeating routine reflects that Americans (hey, I'm one) are far dumber than I ever thought. Pretty fascinating (read: pathetic) when less than half the people can name the Vice President or just about anybody else.

Sorta sounds like the illegal Mexican immigrant problem in the US, Jim. Can't really blame the Lao (or Burmese) boys, they wouldn't be coming to Pattaya or Thailand for the most part except for the economic opportunities. In one sense, maybe blame the Lao government for not improving its economy and attempting to provide decent jobs for its citizens. In the US, we're finally getting around to nailing the owners of businesses who hire the undocumented illegals and, until there's a penalty for the bar owners of some kind for doing that, they'll hire who they can get. But, frankly, none of my business other than to protect myself by seeing a valid Thai ID should the urge to off ever hit me. Down here in Hua Hin, I've talked to many of the boys from the three bars here and, so far, I've not encountered anybody who I thought was not a Thai citizen.

It's absolutely exasperating to me that Limbaugh dominates the talk radio scene in the US. He's nasty and juvenile with many of his comments (all ultra right-wing) and what exasperates me is that the millions of his viewers lap up whatever he says without thinking for themselves. Unfortunately, that says a lot about his listeners and the quality of thinking that's going on in a large segment of the American population. Limbaugh, to me, is just another Joe Pyne with a better suit and a much larger audience. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised given the National Enquirer is usually one of the top selling "newspapers" (a rather broad use of that term!) in the states.

Well, don't forget that a "Thai" 4-lane road is what, 20 feet wide?

Although I may be nuts, Beach Road is the name which has always been referred to the road along the beach and which turns into "Walking Street."

SCB doesn't charge me to use the atm card in the province (Chiangmai) where I opened the account. It charges me for use of the card only in other provinces. As for the charge for the passbook update, that just started upon my return to Thailand in January (it never happened before). And they charge me for that update regardless if I use the teller or one of the machines (inside or out). That's the charge (it's 20 baht) that somewhat irritates me. I suspect that many of the banks have initiated new fees in the last 60-90 days to help deal with the expected financial problems here in Thailand due to lower growth, possible recession, etc.

You're correct....you don't pay the 500 baht exit fee (or whatever it is now) at Suvarnabhumi. Some time ago (about a year?), the Thai government required the airlines to collect the fee for them - so, if you have your ticket out of here, you've already paid it.

I opened my SCB account in Chiangmai and I can use it anywhere in Chiangmai province without charge; outside of that province, there's a fee (last I knew it was something like 50 baht) to use it. I suspect your setup is the same with Kasikorn. What has pissed me off is SCB is now charging 20 baht to update your passbook. When I first did that at a branch that didn't have a machine (I had to go up to the tellers to get it done), I just figured that they charged the 20 baht because I had their people do it; however, I used an outside machine a day or two later and was still charged 20 baht. A ripoff in my view.

Obama's been in office for about 40 days and now the Republicans are already jockeying to see who might run against Obama in 2012?!? Seems rather premature in my eyes. Six months ago, McCain's candidacy was dead, Romney was allegedly the big cheese (shortly after Rudy gave up the alleged throne), and Hillary was the Democratic shoe-in. It almost sounds like whoever is leading now will surely be passe 3-6 months down the road. If things improve for the US in any reasonable fashion in the next 3 years, it won't matter who the Republicans nominate as Obama will win his second term. If things don't improve in the US during the next 3 years, who the hell would want the job?