newnative

What's confusing? They go easy on all the laws.

Yes, always just 'plans'. Lots and lots of planning.

Keep him in jail and pay the 300,000 baht bail to the victims--as just a start in the compensation.

So true. And they refuse to eliminate parking on the major roads, which would instantly add another lane in each direction without any construction. North Pattaya Road is a good example. Large parts of it are already striped no parking but you have small stretches where parking is allowed. So, cars will be driving in the no parking/parking here and there lane, come to 1 car parked blocking the lane, and then have to merge into the traffic lane, causing tie-ups and delays. Just nuts, especially since the road is often grid-locked on weekends with all the cars going to the beach, T21, and all the big hotels in that area. Bad now, and all the tour buses haven't even started up much yet.

He still alive?

How many children does this dude have???

"Just a slap", says the teacher. Clearly thinks she could have done much worse if she felt like it--as many of the sub-standard teachers here have done, with all the news reports we've seen. And, likely, the many unreported. Give her a warning and if she does it again, sack her.

Yes, that was the case with the last condo I owned in the US.

Your items 2 and 3, along with a number of other reasons, are why I like living in Thailand. Even your number 1 is not bad here, at least for things I routinely deal with. Today I got a reminder email from Immigration that my 90 day report is due later this month on the 24th. I'll renew it on-line in a few days, now an easy process.

As always, no doubt he is 'satisfied' with his performance and he has instructed himself to continue with his fine service to his people.

I was just re-reading this post and I think one of your statements may be incorrect. You say that if you sell a house you have lived in but don't buy a replacement you will pay a capital gains tax on the profit, which, as you say, can be 'huge' as most homes do increase in value over time. However, this seems to be current tax law, which I'll paste from Investopedia: On Aug. 5, 1997, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 took effect. The act did away with the continual unlimited deferral of profits and replaced it with capped exclusions.4 The current capital gains rules around the sale of your main home allow single taxpayers to exclude $250,000 in profits on their home's sale. Married couples who file jointly can exclude $500,000 from their taxable income. Age is not a factor, and you do not have to buy a replacement home. After you take the exclusion, you could buy a less expensive home or revert back to being a renter. Better still, the IRS will let you use the exclusion each time you sell your primary residence.5 To qualify for the current deferral rules, there are two rules: You must have owned and used the home as your primary residence for at least two out of the previous five years. These two years do not need to be consecutive. You cannot have used the exclusion during the preceding two years.5 The change in the tax law wouldn't have helped your father if he sold before 1997 but if he sold after the new law and the home was his primary residence for 2 of the last 5 years, it seems he should not have had to pay any capital gains tax except on any of the profit over the limit allowed, depending on his filing status. This 1997 tax law seems like a positive change for homeowners, unless I am misreading it.

Uh, oh. The dreaded word 'should'.

Committee after committee after committee. Where's the acceleration?

As always with the police, laser-focused on what is not in the least bit important or relevant.

It doesn't really matter, anyway. The important thing is TAT always counts the same way, whether it's 2019 or 2022. In 2010 there were about 16 million visitors, including me moving to Thailand. In 2019 there were 39 million visitors. This year, around 3 million and change so far. Easy to see, still very bad compared to 2019. And 2010.

I was just going to text the same thing. Madness, indeed. Take them off the market already so customers don't keep making the cheap, dangerous, deadly choice.

Yes, there will always be some racists. But, there has been change in racial attitudes. And, it doesn't need your 'A few more generations need to go before there might be a change' to see that change. It's happening already. A prince of Britain marries a bi-racial American and it's celebrated with a broadcast seen around the world. A person can be racist to their heart's content in the voting booth; their vote is completely private. To refresh your memory of another change in racial attitudes, Americans went into the private voting booths and freely chose to elect the son of an interracial marriage between a Black man and a White woman, along with his Black First Lady, President of the United States. Twice. Nice it didn't take 'a few more generations' to see that change.

Yes, let's definitely focus on what is good for the children. But, with the caveat that we live in an imperfect, diverse, and often messy world. So, what is good for the children? What some research is finding is that children do better when raised in a stable two-parent environment. It doesn't matter if the two parents are straight or gay. The key is a stable family environment--whether gay or straight--which can produce better outcomes. It's true that some children raised by a single parent, gay or straight, can face some disadvantages. Some single parents have to work longer hours, resulting in less family time, and some have lower incomes than a two-parent family, which can present some added challenges. But, there have also been a number of strengths identified in being raised by a single parent, including a strong parent-child bond and a more independent and responsible child. I wonder what is more, in your words, 'sub-optimal'--keeping a child in impersonal government foster care or allowing the child to be adopted by a single adult yearning to be a parent? What I think would be an interesting study would be charting the outcomes of children adopted at birth by single parents, gay or straight, who have passed stringent adoption requirements, vs. children not adopted and raised in foster care until they age out. Studies have shown that the earlier a child is adopted the better but I couldn't find anything focused solely on outcomes with single parent adoption. Getting back to same-sex couples, one interesting study from the Netherlands, which had gay marriage before any other country, showed that children from same-sex families performed better in school, both at the primary and secondary level, than children from straight families. Good to know that academic outcomes are not compromised for children in families lacking either a mother or a father in the equation. Other research also supports the growing body of data coming to the conclusion that children from same-sex marriages at least do equally as well as those from straight marriages. It can be confusing, though, because some research reached different conclusions. Happily, Cornell University has stepped in. Cornell took on the task of reviewing all the credible research studies it could find on the topic of the well-being of children raised by gay or lesbian parents. They identified 79 scholarly studies. Of those, 75 came to the conclusion that children raised by same-sex parents fared no worse than those raised by straight parents. With the other 4, Cornell found that the research was flawed as most of the children studied had not actually been raised by same-sex parents but by parents with one partner who later came out as gay. In any case, 75 out of 79 is good enough for me. One argument that is sometimes raised has to do with children of same-sex marriages being possibly bullied or ridiculed in school. Likely this has occurred but should something that may or may not happen in the future nix the possibility of children being adopted by gay parents? In an earlier post, I mentioned that in 1958, 96% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. Imagine the bullying and discrimination a mixed-race child faced back then. However, despite the possibility of bullying and discrimination, laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages were struck down; a fundamental equal right outweighed a possible, initial negative impact on the children of these unions. Eventually, attitudes changed. Now, there's been a complete reversal, with 94% of Americans supporting interracial marriage. Quite a turn around. Gay marriage and gay adoption are still relatively new but both have seen approval ratings increase as people adjust to change, and as they see that there has not been a negative impact with either.

I think you are way behind the times. Even a majority of Republicans now support gay marriage by 55%. But, yes, let's definitely differ on this.

If they had checked Mountain B for weapons, exits, and 'safety' (whatever that is), it likely would have passed, too. "No weapons, check, there are exit doors, check, certainly looks very safe with those tires on the roof keeping it from blowing away. Check. Next!"

Buh bye bye

Oh, for sure, there likely will always be a minority against. 6% of Americans are still opposed to inter-racial marriage. In 1958, that figure was 96% opposed. Changing attitudes takes time. For gay marriage, the percentage in favor of it keeps going up. As recently as 2014, a small majority of 55% supported it. Today, it's at an all-time high of 71%.

There's no going back. Not with gay marriage rights, not with inter-racial marriage rights, not with women's rights, not with abortion rights, not with minority rights. Those in opposition, including a handful of conservatives on the Supreme Court, are swimming against a tide that has turned. It was quite heartening to recently see very conservative Kansas vote overwhelmingly to retain abortion rights in the state.

How about not just 'entertainment venues' but all buildings where large numbers of people gather?

As always, a few weak, useless words from the PM with no force behind them. In a few weeks, another useless statement that the PM is 'satisfied' with the results.