Fat is a type of crazy

7 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

From the Knickerbocker magazine of Sept. 1842 (can't determine the author):

 

"You can neither legislate a man into virtue nor vice. You cannot legislate a class up or down. Their salvation must come from themselves. It is an inward revolution that is needed, not an outward."

 

The author of the above quote from 179 years ago understood perfectly well what I wrote, as I understand what he wrote.  Attempting to legislate behaviour, with a design to protect ones self from ones self, appears to be a good idea on the surface.  One needs to think much more deeply about it to gain the understanding of an immutable truth;  you cannot protect people from themselves.

Those who do not understand this are free to make democratic policy choices which would attempt to defy this truth.  They will then deal with the resultant problems and once the problems become too large to ignore the questions will then be asked which will lead to the truth being exposed.  At which point the policy will be reversed or rescinded.

This last statement can be summed up by Any Rand:

"You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

The reality is that no one has the power to protect people from themselves.  One can ignore this fact or reality, go against it, and implement, via legislation, all sorts of laws to protect people from themselves in literally endless ways.  Going against reality is certain to produce one effect . . . problems.  Problems are the telltale of all policies that avoid. or attempt to counter reality.

 

In my opinion philosophy can get in the way of reality and do gooders can do good.

Ayn Rand had good things to say but in her free market world  there is no equality between a large corporation selling an addictive product and a 15 year old kid.

You might hark back to 1970 when movie and sports stars were free to advertise smoking, where governments didn't force companies to tell the truth on smoking, or provide a counter argument to the health effects or help people quit.  

That changed. The do gooders then went further by hiding cigarettes on shop counters and had clear packaging with horrible images, taking away the power of Marlboro red or Benson and Hedges gold. Taxes were increased. All a bit controversial but the outcome was a huge decrease in smoking. 

Banning may be a step to far but I have a theory that smoking is simply not that appealing like other drugs, and ongoing use is more about addiction than pleasure, and it is a poison that won't be missed. Could be wrong. 

You might say next will be fatty food etc  but I think there is still some common sense and the freedom of the ballot box will do the trick. 

These arguments can apply to covid too but I won't go there. 

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't blame anyone for wanting to eradicate what they deem to be a damaging vice.  And on it's surface it sure seems to be a great idea to do so via legislation.  But once you start thinking about it much more deeply you find out that not only is it a not-so-good idea but one that is practically unworkable and may bring unexpected outcomes which themselves are quite damaging.

 

Considering just a single aspect of what you would be asking for would be the opening of a Pandora's Box.  For first it will be cigarettes.  Then it will be alcohol and fast food, as BritManToo suggested.  After that it will be 16 oz. or greater soft drinks, as proposed by then Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City in 2013.

For one the list will never end.  And who are those who will be lobbying with shrieking voices for their own personal pet peeves to be added to the list, for reasons which may be connected to hidden or sinister agendas (profit)?  For another, in a world where one man's good is another's evil and vice versa who is going to be anointed to the lofty position of final judge and arbitrator to declare what's best for all where there is no best for all?

 

That, my friend, is only the first of the difficulties to be encountered by traveling down that path.

Not everything is possible in this world.  And one of those things is the idea that you can protect people from themselves.  No one has that power.  And for good reason which you may or may not understand, nor should they.

 

It's a good point but I think in a healthy democracy like New Zealand the people can speak and if enough people are against it it will be overturned. Smoking doesn't seem like a habit where people look back and say 'gee those years of smoking were fun. Hate to have missed out on that.' I could be wrong. I have close family members who likely died from the habit. It actually takes guts to fight big tobacco. Australia had to fight hard to get the clear packaging and then other's followed. 

There tends to be a move to, and then away, from limits based on health issues. Sugar taxes don't seem to be popular. There was a push to add taxes to wine as Australians can buy half  decent wine cheaply.  People can and do have a good time with Australian wine and don't want to pay tax because a few people can't control themselves. It's a bit subjective but a healthy ballot box hopefully keeps the politician's a little bit honest and careful. 

46 minutes ago, ppatrick said:

Thanks for the info. I was wondering what SHA Plus mean and found the answer in your reply. So the hotels that advertise SHA Plus mean that they have PCR tests and airport transfer for quarantine stay? I'm vaccinated. Unless I test positive, I should be allowed to wonder the island ???? My destination is Bangkok though.

To be honest I get a bit confused too. I have a booking for Phuket for February and I am not sure if I'll use it. All the hoops, and the risk of being near an infected person and getting quarantined,  and wearing masks everywhere might not make it a fun holiday. It was a cheap ticket so I'll just see what happens. 

I think in your case if you are landing in Phuket you had to stay at an SHA Plus  hotel for 7 days and then you could go to Bangkok. At one point they changed it to 5 days. Hopefully someone can explain clearly how it works for you now. 

You can look at those hotels on Tripadvisor and other sites such as Agoda with reviews included of course. Most big sites tell you if the hotel is SHA Plus. 

When you search on Agoda it will ask if you want to  'Book stays for vaccinated travelers with inclusive PCR tests and airport transfer or all-inclusive quarantine stays for non-vaccinated travelers.'

So then the search will include only those appropriate hotels. 

I assume you are aware you are not quarantined in your hotel as such, if you don't test positive, so you'll want a hotel that meets your needs e.g. near shops, beach, etc.

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Those are not examples. 

 

Are you not able to provide even one real world example of conservatives trying to find simple answers for complex problems? There are so many you must be able to come up with at least one without having to link to what someone else thinks. 

 

Here's an example:

Complex problem: Too many poor people

Simple solution: Give people money 

 

 

The problem as I see is you run the risk of taking something from the obscure, or noisy, part of the left and tarring the Democrats with the same brush. 

Complex problem: Too many poor people

Simple solution: There are no poor people or just give them money

Right wing solution: Lower taxes, economy thrives, poor become not poor.

Left wing solution: Support business but offer real support including financial support, skills training etc.

Truth may be in the middle. Not sure who said there are no poor. Trickle down economics often sees money not trickle down and the poor stay poor. 

Complex problem: Climate change

Simple solution: Eliminate fossil fuels

The right has tended towards no action. Inaction is not a solution. The left has a range of solutions such as policies that promote alternatives. Few policies talk of eliminating fossil fuels straight away but look to reduce by incentives and penalties to promote low carbon alternatives.  To actually do something. 

Complex problem: Inner city youths are unable do math at grade level

Simple solution: Eliminate math as a requirement for graduation 

Need to see context. A helping hand can be practical and is not always  a bad thing.  This could be a policy of a university that is far left and not representative of  most Democrats. 

Complex problem: A disproportionate number of black men in prison

Simple solution: Defund the police

Defund the Police was a stupid name for a real problem.  Democrats have clearly rejected the literal idea of defunding the police.  

In summary, in my opinion:

the far left  tend to be naive, often young and idealistic, some good ideas that can be impractical and taken too far.

the far right tend to be cold, artless, lacking in nuance, fighting those with knowledge and education just because, sometimes straight out ignorant and proud of it.

Meanwhile most Democrats, and sadly fewer and fewer Republicans, are not at the extreme and have reasonable solutions to real problems. 

I read the mainstream media. I like to think I can think and call stuff out if it is too biased. Some stuff a bit left and stuff a bit right. Those media that have a record of fact checking. 

Some stuff is called 'left' when to me it is just fair and reasonable e.g. it might be seen as anti right wing politicians but not just because of politics or economics but the illogical and sometimes anti democratic stands they take. Left politicians can be illogical too of course. 

It is interesting to read new perspectives but the less fact checking the less seriously they are taken. 

11 minutes ago, Led Lolly Yellow Lolly said:

If that's a sincere question I'll answer sincerely. We shut down completely for most of this year, but fully reopened a couple of months ago due to increased demand from the government sector (much of our business is servicing government offices locally and regionally, they like our nice meeting facilities). Also, all of the inventory we put onto OTAs is sold already for New Year.

 

One of the reasons we survive is we're debt free and have the support of a much larger parent company. Our family business is a large construction company HQd in Bangkok and this sector has not been affected much by covid (beyond the swathes of construction workers we employ being Covid pools)

 

We are 'Preferred Partners' on Agoda/Booking and you are correct in your assumption that there are strict criteria to participate. The comparison to Amazon doesn't really work. If a customer turns up without a passport and we turn them away, Agoda etc etc will stay on our side. If the customer wants to get all 'legal' (usually Americans) they can go get all 'legal' if they want, it's their time they're losing.

 

I see what you're doing, I guess I'll bite. I'll be ambiguous so you don't try to ID us, but we're more than 3 stars. In the 7 years we worked with Booking.com, our guest score has been >=9.0 and I don't think it ever dropped below 8.5 on Agoda. What do you think I'm doing so wrong???

We don't work with Expedia/Hotels.com, not worth it for us.

 

 

 

Just out of interest why is Hotels.com not so good as compared to the others. I assume they charge the hotel more. I have liked them because they price match other websites then have a stay 10 get one free so you get a further 9 per cent off. They have kept my credits going over covid whereas the Agoda ones expired. Hotels.com has  a better call centre than Agoda too but otherwise Agoda is good. Agoda tends to be cheaper before price match. 

I have found sometimes there is a discount for single travel and it normally relates to if it has a decent breakfast but often the price is the same for 1 or 2. For what it's worth, I put my girlfriends name on the booking at the first hotel in a trip, so there's no issues if I get  there at a different time. 

30 minutes ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

Fifty years in my home country became a bit boring and bland. Once retired, it's nice to get out and experience something different.

That's my thinking. I have lived and worked within a 50 km radius all my life. Travelled a bit but good to actually live somewhere a bit fun. I don't want to play lawn bowls or pokies and drink at the RSL.  

2 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Truly an affectation, as you say.

However, if one needed an affectation, then why would one choose such a difficult-to-maintain affectation, such as has Boris.

 

IF his hair were in curls, then would it not be more easily maintained, each day?

 

But, in order to get the same unkempt look, day after day, with each hair arranged in exactly the same way, this must require a great deal of effort.

 

It is one thing to wake up in the morning with unkempt hair. But then, after showering in the morning, and drying one's hair, then to try to put it back in place, in an unkempt way, as if one had just risen from bed, ....think of the time this must require.

 

Have you ever read any essays written by Mark Twain?

Obviously, you have, and pardon my asking.

 

Clemens was famous for poking fun at pomposity.

 

Do you think Boris uses some sort of gel?

 

If one wishes to serve in government, one should be tall and have good hair.

 

Has there ever been a bald US president?

 

Also, has there ever been a female US president, even though most females are not bald?

 

So many interesting questions, and so few qualified enough to answer them.

 

One more question is... will women, fairly soon, supplant men in the leadership roles in most important sectors of society and education?

 

yes...they will....

 

Does this mean that we might begin to find peace in our world, when women take over?

 

Difficult to say.

 

I pray for peace.

I pray for a piece of a--s.

My prayers, on both accounts, will never be answered.

 

Fortunately, life is short.

No need to dwell on such things, for long.

I think maybe it's his way of seeming a bit more down to earth or 'charming' given his fairly up market heritage. Or maybe not.

It interests me that Twain went to my city of Melbourne Australia. Be good to know what he made of it. Have to read it up. 

Eisenhower was bald. Few bald Presidents probably because appearance is too important sadly.

If I get too cynical of America it is good to remember what they did in World War 2 that helped Australia. Eisenhower of course, eventually as General of the Army,  helped fund Australia's defence. 

Watched a fascinating thing on youtube last night on the Battle of Midway that showed the sacrifice made and victory against the odds. 

I don't follow UK politics but I get the feeling that, if he is bad, he's normal bad, as against Republican, crazy, do anything for a vote, bad. So I don't mind if that sort of conservative right wing party is in power as compared to the right fascist leaning parties in other countries. 

His hair does seem like an affectation and the fact that he spends so much time to make it look unkempt says something about the his vanity. Most politicians are probably a bit the same. 

I consider myself a feminist if that means letting women do their thing. 

Men can and do cop it in different ways as you say. So I guess I am a masculinist too. 

I had a marriage with a thai girl that was up and down. The feeling of love and romance can fade fast and it when it does things got nasty.  The simple fact was that having a pre nup meant she got little in the separation. 

We are better friends now than much of our marriage. 

Once I got that ball and chain off my leg I thought it's going to take a hell of a lot to want to remarry and I have just had girlfriends since. 

I actually like living alone and seeing girls sometimes.  It's a bit tough on the current long term girlfriend but I am just honest with her and she comes to Australia and I go there. 

I like control of my life and finances and so I probably have a bit in common with your concept. I am no doubt missing some things that go with marriage but I am OK with that. When my girlfriend has her odd serious tantrum I thank Lord Jesus that I am not a married man. 

Delete

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I thought he said 25,000 a day ( perhaps for all of Australia ), but I'll take your word for it.

 

He did say that WA is still under restrictions and will be till next year.

WA have been over the top. They have nil new cases and want to keep it that way despite low risk given less than 3000 new cases Australia wide per day and that people coming could be tested before they get there. 

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've already stated my preferred option a few times, but apparently you missed them.

I'd provide isolation support for the actually vulnerable if they wished to isolate, and provided information to the populace as how to protect themselves, then done what Sweden did initially.

 

Interesting interview with an Australian NSW journalist on the radio this morning. He said basically that the citizens of Sydney are so over covid, and are back to normal as much as possible- businesses open, no masks no checking/ QR codes etc.

25,000 positive cases a day, but he says low numbers in ICU, hospitalizations steady.

He said NSW had spent 60 BILLION $ on covid.

He also said what I've been saying, "should have got back to normal much earlier".

 

https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/easing-covid-19-restrictions/opening-in-dec

 

 

NSW has also apparently given up on penalising the unvaccinated. Pity the NZ government isn't as enightened. NZ government has IMO embarked on a campaign to create a divided country. The "team of 5 million" is well and truly gone.

https://7news.com.au/lifestyle/health-wellbeing/nsw-covid-restrictions-to-ease-on-december-15-changes-to-masks-check-ins-unvaccinated-freedoms-c-4923081

The changes - which came into effect on Wednesday, December 15 - see restrictions align for all, regardless of vaccination status.

 

No doubt many will disagree with him ( and me ), but the government response has IMO caused more problems for the future than a less draconian response would have.

The numbers of people I know that "dislike" government is certainly higher now than before corona happened.

 

 

Just to clarify NSW has a bit over 1000 cases a day. The 25000 cases is one  prediction and this may or may not lead to significantly higher levels  in ICU and hospitalisations depending on how omicron plays out.

Australia is pretty much back to normal and have had low deaths and illnesses thanks to the policies such as lockdowns, when there was low vaccination rates,  and then getting 90 per cent vaccinated. Good job. 

When I first started going to Thailand regularly in 2004 I flew Thai airways for about $1100 to $1500 return from Melbourne Australia. Then the discount airlines started and I started flying Air Asia which wasn't that flash but OK. I was going to Phuket in those days so I had to stop somewhere. That was supercheap and I found the legroom was the same as Thai Airways. Thai airways filled you up with food but it was often a late night flight so who wants a big meal.

Then I started with Jetstar who are excellent for what I want. Direct flights to Bangkok and Phuket. Pay a bit extra for legroom and meals if you want it. Often $400 to $600 return. Save and stay at nice hotels. Got a booking in February for $300 return. This is all AUD of course. 

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am sure lots of people will not like my lifestyle. And I couldn't care less.

I also don't think any feminist or gay person would care if I like what they do or not. Why should they care?

 

I am no specialist in feminism. But it's impossible not to read and hear something about feminists at least from time to time. Some of them say they want equality. But then it seems they want a lot more than equality.

I think the best short summary what I think about humans is that they should have similar opportunities. I.e. if a women want to become a bricklayer she should be able to do that. But I strongly oppose the idea that i.e. half of politicians or directors in companies should be women. Why should they? They should be qualified for whatever job they want to do. And why should maybe better qualified men lose a job to a woman only because she is a woman?

Fair point. A bit of a cliche but I think human nature can be good and bad. Fair and then not fair. Power corrupts. Give an inch and they take a mile. 

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Anti something like this:

 

They look OK to me. Though I might still pick a traditional Thai girl as my partner.
I just see a contradiction in that your lifestyle with women could be seen as controversial but you judge others on issues such as feminism and gay parenting. Each to their own but I wonder if part of your negativity to feminism is that you think they are judging you rather than about what they actually stand for. 

You can believe that women can dress up sexy and have fun. You can believe that woman can sell their bodies...to old ugly men if they see fit.

You can believe too that women are OK to find this lifestyle is not for them or possibly abhorrent. You can believe that women can be as intelligent or more intelligent than men and can be doctors and computer programmers.

If you believe the above you may be a feminist.

Point being you don't have to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Not liking the opinions of some feminists might just mean you can make your own definition, or put definitions aside,  and just say that women can do their thing free of controls if they so desire. 

This may be painfully obvious but sometimes when people say they are anti feminist I wonder what it actually means. 

When I was teenager he put out a special called Elephant Parts that was funny and it had music videos showcasing his songs. A song off it 'Rio' had been a hit in Australia. It was released at the same time as 'I go to Rio' by Australian Peter Allen as it happens. I preferred the Mike Nesmith song and the video is fun.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

Inflation and fuel prices are not products of governmental policies.  Of the three you name only 1 is about policy.  If you claim otherwise state the exact policies that have increased inflation and fuel prices.

 

Looks like you got an F.

The strength of the economy affects inflation. Spending by government can have a big effect on the economy but also inflation and covid relief could have been a factor. Some say all the new spending could exacerbate the problem. Biden is arguing it's a short term issue primarily due to supply and hopefully he's right.  

When you are the United States too you can influence fuel suppliers at home and overseas  to increase supply. He can and did release some fuel reserves too to put less pressure on prices.

10 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so out of touch with the world. Like the BBC and the Guardian, the NY Times is entirely leftist spin. Even the sports pages serve their social engineering agenda. And what is more, their agenda has an emotional rather than a rational basis. This should be transparent enough to any clear-minded individual.

 

Anyone who discredits the idea of consipiracy theories need only consider the existence of political bias in the news media. Or are the conspiracy deniers also saying it also a conspiracy theory to assume that each news organisation has a covert political agenda?

If you are clear minded you will recognise that the above produce some excellent reporting but you can go to a range of sources to get a  complete picture.

The Guardian can have some stories, particularly opinion pieces, that are tediously to the left but they also have good stuff and everything is fact checked. NY Times is less to the left and is fact checked.

The two organisations are also much more likely, than other media, to break meaningful news stories that takes dollars and care to produce.

That's why I admire them and do not think they are based on emotion but are based on a certain concept of morality and fairness that influences the stories that are considered newsworthy.   

At the same time I look to other sources to get a different take on what is happening.