Leaderboard

When I first came to Thailand in 1973, there were comparatively few cars in Bangkok (population c. 2 million). Traffic moved very fast, and most people traveled by buses, which were dirt cheap (1/2 baht) and provided very good service. Most people didn't need or want a car. Then as the city grew, cars suddenly became a status symbol. Surveys have shown that newly wed couples put buying a car ahead of buying a home or condo. The traffic becomes worse every year, but a car still seems to be a "must have". It wouldn't be so bad, if it was just one car per family, but that is not the Thai way. If a family has 4 or 5 people, they will "need" 4 or 5 cars. Car pools to go to work? Nonsense, where is the status symbol in that? It's one car, one person. It no longer make any sense to drive downtown, since not only do you face the massive traffic jams, but you probably won't be able to find a parking space when you get where you're going. Nevertheless, look at all the red plates (new cars) you see on the road. I bought my car when I lived in rural Banglamung and needed it to get around. Now that I'm back in Bangkok, it sits parked more often than not and I take the MRT and BTS, both of which are now getting to be almost as crowded as trains in Tokyo. The way things are going, Bangkok will soon be unlivable. I'm on the very edge of the city, in a quiet area with tree lined streets. But how long before the pollution reaches here too? Rural Thailand is still nice, and I may well end up moving to the North one of these days. Tourists don't stay very long in Bangkok now, instead heading for the beach or the mountains. Can you blame them?

New Yers Resolutions, I will Exercise more, I Will Drink Less I will stop Smoking, why do people make false promises to themselves which no chance of keeping? Why presure oneself just because it is New Year? One has another 364 days of the year to make a lifestyle change. Look at me, self confessed heavy smoker, smoking for about 40 years now at th last count on over 2 packs per day, you won’t hear me say “I will stop smoking for New Year” Why? I chose to give up 1 Month ago that’s why, It was a Saturday Morning, no stress from work and an easy date to remember 1 December, I have been threatening to stop just just said “Kong Stop ya fool” no time like the present. So as people are waking up tomorrow and struggling with their resolutions, especially smoking, I can have a wee smile to myself and think, “I know th hell you ar going through, been there” stick in there those who are trying it does get easier if I can do it so can anyone. My NY Resolution 2019 is to continue what I refrained form in 2018, no pressure since I am already not doing it

This is my attempt at complete balance, and fairness. I think the best thing about Trump's election was that it is now feasible for a non politician, who isn't a General (Washington, Grant, Ike) to be President. We have had way too many "professional politicians". So, Trump breaking that mold is great for the country in that sense. However, is he the right non Politician? There are tons of people I would suggest who would be much, much better for the job. Warren Buffet is one person that comes to mind. Jesse Ventura...don't laugh, yes, THAT Jesse Ventura comes to mind. Colin Powell would have been good, Iraq war support notwithstanding. Trump simply lacks any moral and ethical standard for the job. His supporters have lowered or eliminated any standard for him. Standards that are hypocritically applied to everyone else. Standards that were applied to Obama, rightfully so, but removed for Trump. Things work both ways. If or when we ever get the left version of Trump, and what that entails, we will have deserved whatever havoc he brings to the office, because we allowed his or hers counterpart on the right. Putting a person above morality, the law, the Constitution and America itself, is basically conceding the Republic is a Republic in name only and not in practice. I supported Obama twice. The second time weakly as a lesser of two evils between him and Romney. Any illusion I was under he would be a great president was gone by that time. I would have supported his removal for a few things he conducted such as the extrajudicial killing of American citizens abroad via drone strikes or special ops operations. As much as we want to see American citizens conspiring with known terrorists killed, they were denied their constitutional rights. As much as it angered me that Bill Clinton didn't have bin Laden kidnapped and brought to America during his presidency when a foreign leader (can't recall, but I think it was Somalia) gave him that opportunity, Clinton, and I say this grudgingly knowing the havoc bin Laden caused in 9/11 but Clinton was right in that he could not legally do it and would have not been able to convict him in a fair trial due to a lack of evidence, witnesses and having to compromise top secret information. It's how a democracy and a Republic works. You have to trust that it in the end, it will all be for the long term good if we adhere to the laws we all agreed to follow. Violate those laws wantonly and you give any future despot the precedence to violate your progeny's rights. I actually agree with Trump about certain aspects of the so-called 'deep state" (not all but some). I actually agreed with him during thhe election that the economy and jobs numbers and the stats were all "cooked" numbers. I think this is one of the reasons he was voted in. He didn't continue the lie that both sides were using. However, e is simply the wrong man for the job. Not even close to being the right man if the known history of him is anything to go by. His conduct as President proved it. This is not a post about Trump per se but the abdication of moral standards. When that democratic woman called him a 'MFer', that was the standard that Trump himself lowered the rhetoric to be. Had she said that sans Trump, the Dems would have censured her for the lack of respect to the office. He really had no cause to criticize with his own name calling. One can be brash and even a bit "rough" as President. I think there is room for that. A slight lack of perceived dignity. Johnson wasn't the most dignified person. He was a Texas good ol boy who used corrupt small town politics and applied to the Speaker of the House when he was speaker and continued a certain lack of civility as President at times. Nixon used the term MF liberally in private. FDR was said to use language not consistent with his patrician background. The American people will make allowances for a certain coarseness IF it's from a person who is morally and ethically sound. Nixon knew about the vote fraud in the 1960 election but for the better good of the nation, he didn't challenge it. Johnson had proof the same Nixon talked the South Vietnam leader into rejecting a peace deal for an "October surprise" in 1968 that would give a boost to the Democratic challenger but didn't do anything about it because it would make the people not trust in the democracy. Nixon in '60 and Johnson in '68 both took losses for what they perceived as the greater good for the Republic. Obama could have rightfully make public Trump''s campaign connection to Russia and hand the election to Hillary but in doing so it would always be questioned. Trump doesn't have an ounce of that in him. The electorate, at least portions of it, is way too short sighted and way too married to identity politics. This is in no directed at Cav. I am not including you in that. It's just a general statement. There are some people who support Trump in earnest. I just believe there are too many who do but accept clear violations of tradition and ethics.

lol...All Blacks 346 , Wallabees 0.

Irish Viagra-- An Irish woman of advanced age visited her physician to ask his advice on reviving her husband's libido. "What about trying Viagra?" asked the doctor. "Not a chance" she replied. "He won't even take an aspirin". "Not a problem," said the doctor. "Give him an Irish Viagra. "What on Earth is Irish Viagra?" she asked. "It's Viagra dissolved in his morning cup of coffee. He won't even taste it. Let me know how it goes," he said. She called the doctor the very next afternoon. "How did it go?" he asked. "Oh faith, bejaysus and begorrah, doctor, it was terrible. Just horrid, I tell ya! I'm beside meself!" "Oh, no! What in the world happened?" "Well, I did the deed, Doctor, just as you advised. I put the Viagra in his morning coffee, and he drank it. Well, you know, it took effect almost immediately, and he jumped straight up out of his chair with a smile on his face, a twinkle in his eye and his pants a-bulging. Then, with one fierce swoop of his arm, he sent the cups, saucers, and everything else that was on the table flying across the room, ripped me clothes to tatters and passionately took me then and there, right on top of the table. T’was a nightmare, I tell ya, an absolute nightmare!" Why so terrible?" asked the doctor. "Wasn't the sex good?" "Freakin jaysus, it was the best sex I've had in me last 25 years, but sure as I'm sittin here, doctor, I'll never be able to show me face in Starbucks again!"

Reminds me of when I was working in the US nearly 20 years ago ... The Drive Thru ATM's had keyboards with Braille .... always made me smile. 😊

Cons of Illegal Immigration 1. Menial and entry-level jobs go to illegal immigrants, not legal citizens. A substantial number of low-paying training-type positions in certain industries are lost to illegal aliens, when these jobs could help prepare America’s workforce for the future. 2. Loss of tax revenue can hurt government programs. Without the tax dollars that should be paid for jobs held by illegal immigrants, government programs that benefit all of us are being reduced or dropped. That hurts everyone to help a few. 3. Educational costs are rising. The cost of teaching illegal immigrant children who aren’t legally eligible for special assistance programs like tutors and other educational resources, may be passed on to taxpayers. 4. Hospitals and medical providers treat illegal residents cheaply or at no cost. Few practitioners will turn away illegal immigrants who apply for medical treatment or medicine, even if they cannot afford to pay for medical assistance. The unpaid cost of treating people who cannot afford to pay and are ineligible for social service programs is passed on to paying patients and their insurance providers, which means their costs can go up. 5. Bilingualism divides the nation. 6. Illegal immigration removes motivation for legal immigration. 7. Increased crime and terrorist activity etc

One persons abuse is an other's good parenting.

Sort of like some Patpong bars, but on a larger financial stage.

Why not do let the candidates fight it out. Last man/woman standing is elected. At least it would make things more fun.

Tropical Cyclones within the Western Pacific are named by the Japanese Meteorology Agency 14 Member States each submitted 10 names, the order of names to be used is determined by placing the English names in Alphabetical Order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_cyclone_naming#Western_Pacific_Ocean_(180°_–_100°E)

Term limits are a great start but it doesn't completely solve the problem. States that have term limits, what we found is that its musical chairs. A person is a state senator, termed out, he runs for state representative or mayor. Wins because he has name recognition and a machine behind him he built up as state senator. Person is a mayor, termed out, runs for state rep or senator. And it's musical chairs, rarely any new blood. Backroom deals say you run for this while I run for that, you are termed out, so.... Obama got the ire of the Chicago alderman game because he ran for office when it wasn't "his turn". People don't know this but he was initially not supported by any of the black pols in Chicago nor by the Congressional Black Caucus, the latter supported Hillary initially until they couldn't afford to politically. Anyway, term limits help, but we also need other laws, such as working for the industry you regulated. FDA (Food and Drug Admin) head will often get a job for Merck or big Pharma...heck, the head of it often comes from big Pharma. Politicians need you to vote them into office but they only listen to the ones that paid for the campaign to get your vote.

This is implying the Republicans had no solutions either. They had control of all branches of government, with the Supreme court now having a conservative slant. Both parties are at fault and neither party will be adult about it. Both are paid by the same groups to some extent (Wall Street, rich donors, etc.). Until the money is out of politics nothing will happen and that won't happen because there is no demand from the average voters.

He did, she did...gets the USA no where. The US government needs to implement solutions but this constant bickering is a distraction from solutions! Someone, one of the parties has to step up and promote solutions. Now is the time for the Dems to step up, show that they offer solutions, not obstructions. Where is their candidate for 2020?what is their platform? and we hate Trump is no platform!!! The Dems have the house....let's see some solutions brought forward or are we in for two years of, we hate Trump, impeach Trump, etc

No one openly called Obama a motherf***er. Benghazi was real and Obama and Hillary destroyed Libya and Syria. International war crimes!

Coss, I am surprised NZ unis cost so much. The impression we have from America is that the other 'western' countries have free or nearly free university costs.

Yes, Though I raised my view of Ariana Grande, for politely refusing a damehood this year, as she felt the tragedy was too close, too recent. Mind you that coulda been her marketing division speaking.

Don't EVER let your printer know, that you've waited until the last minute to print something out and you're in hurry, because they can sense fear.

Wrong farking video above, but I can't get rid of it. It's supposed to be this one!

haha...I wouldn't want that kind of attention and scrutiny. I'd prefer to be the anonymous voice behind the public face.

Where ever they fall in a set of bilaterally agreed upon criteria. The criteria, in theory, would be as free from business influences as possible. No former Goldman Sachs, Google or Ford CEOs allowed. The two criterias would be knowledge and independence.

The market had one of, if not, the biggest one day gain ever, over 1000 points on the Dow Jones. It was not a reversal of the economy. The market went down more over recent times than it has in many years so a rebound of some quality is normal. It's a 'dead cat bounce' though. As I write now, the market is already falling and has lost about 30% of that 1k gain. The trend is down and we are heading into more economic despair. There is still a bit of confidence left in large parts of the general economy. But once people open up their annual 401k statements in January, they are going to start losing confidence about the immediate and intermediate future. They are going to move money out of stocks into something safe, interest bearing so they don't lose money and when millions start moving out of the market, it will drive the market lower. Blaming the Federal Reserve as Trump is doing is passing the blame. Especially since HE appointed the Fed Chairman. Its his guy. The guy is a Republican. But the Fed can't be partial to anyone. It has to act in the best interest of the economy and the country's financial health. Trump, you or I are trained economists. If they believe raising rates is needed, we have to accept it as such and even if we don't, we have to accept they are not doing to hurt Trump specifically. That's a bit narcissistic. The truth is that rates have to go up for a myriad of reasons. Let's say the kept it near zero as it us now. The economy is headed towards a crash if not a recession and one of the biggest tools and it's a major tool, the fed has is to be able to cut rates. If its already low, they have lost their biggest weapon. The economy's true rate, natural rate is at least 5% and right now its artificially low. That is a HUGE issue. For one thing, we can't sell government bonds in a changing economy for the worse, offering 1 or 2 percent. No one is going to want to buy it as such because it's not worth it to lend the government money with the inherent risks for only 1 or 2 percent. They will need 5 or 6 percent to bite. It's a double edged sword. How would President Chocolat Steve deal with it. What I we must do as a nation is to get key Dems and Republicans, politicians, CEOs, etc. and meet and agree on things that are beyond politics. In the '60s getting to the moon was beyond politics. It didn't matter who was in the white house, as a nation, we were committed to going to the moon. No party took credit. A Republican got us into space with satelites (Eisenhower), A Democrat told the nation we were heading to the moon (JFK) and a Republican was there to receive them when they landed (Nixon). Neither party said they put the man on the moon. We MUST get back to core things that are apolitical. One of them should be infrastructure. Both parties must agree to make it apolitical. That whomever is in the white house they are committed to rebuilding the infrastructure. I would suggest that ALL infrastructure spending should be American companies that give a priority to American citizens first and and greed card holders second. And to rule out pork and projects done in whomever has the most political power, that its spend on need by a truly independent committee. On another note, I would change the corporate tax rules. I would suggest a tiered tax system. If you are an American company, headquartered in America both physically and tax recognition and you have all American workers, you pay the lowest corporate tax. That percentage can be determined. However, if you are a 'so called" American company that is tax domiciled in the Caymans, Isle of Mann or whatever and you are an international company with 1000s of workers in other countries you pay the most taxes. Incentive (tax wise, subsidies, etc.) should be greatest for American companies, in America, hiring American citizens. Trump is right in that America has to start taking care of itself. For truly international companies like Coca Cola for example, they can set up a wholly owned subsidiary in America, employing Americans and if they can show those profits STAY in America, they can at least have that subsidiary enjoy low taxes. If its a hybrid company where operations are outside and some inside your taxes are somewhere between the lowest and highest depending on how the number of American workers, etc., they are employing.

I've got no problem with advocacy for your cause. We call came from somewhere other than America. Paul Ryan recently made it easier for people from Ireland to emigrate, Irish Americans celebrate St. Patrick's day with much more emotion than the rest of us who see it as a day to drink beer without public shaming. Being of African descent roughly 400 years or so, I have a soft spot for the continent. People are proudly Italian American, etc. We have this unique duality in America where we can be 100 percent American and still have a soft spot for our ancestral homes. However, this (the recent post) crosses a line when you get into violating people's rights. It's a confluence of groups. Jewish Americans, the Israeli government and the fundamentalist Christian right. 99% of people think its purely those of the Jewish faith. Again, I have no problem with advocacy for Israel, Zionism, whatever, UNTIL my rights are violated or restricted. And if its for an ally, it doesn't make it right. And credit to Sanders and Feinstein for seeing the bigger picture and the possible ramifications if this overreach escalates where people abandon support for Israel. https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-bernie-sanders-dianne-feinstein-urge-senate-leaders-to-scrap-anti-bds-bill-1.6762918 The Christian right are the main problem. They have a lot of power within the country. https://www.vox.com/2017/12/12/16761540/jerusalem-israel-embassy-palestinians-trump-evangelicals http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp