KanchanaburiGuy

My wife and I own a small hotel. 14 rooms in Lat Ya, about 20 km north of downtown Kanchanaburi. We have a woman who comes in to clean the rooms, do laundry, and do assorted other chores. Since we are not yet back to our pre-Covid volume, there frequently isn't a full day's work to do. But this is good! Because my wife has recently been saying "I'm boring food; I'm boring cooking!" So we've been letting Jaep do some of the cooking for us, to give my wife a break. She's a good cook; almost as good as my wife. What I haven't had the heart to remind my money-cautious wife is............ We're paying this nice woman 150 to 200 baht a day (a portion of her daily wage as our "hotel housekeeper") to cook for us............ using our own groceries.......... to make food we could buy freshly made up the road, for 45 or 50 baht a plate! Now, I don't mind, of course. My wife is getting the break she wants; I'm getting the food I want; Jaep enjoys the cooking a lot more than the cleaning, so it's a nice change-of-pace for her; and we'd be paying her those wages, regardless. So it's A-Okay..........as long as we have impressively clean rooms to rent, and clean towels and sheets to use when we need them! Sure, sometimes prices are worth complaining about. But sometimes, it's just better to........ not! Jaep deserves it............... whether we technically need that part of what she's does for us, or not.

Lol Well, that could turn out much, MUCH worse than most "Christians" imagine. Lol That's because most Christians are woefully uninformed......... or misinformed........... about what "Christian Laws" should actually be put in place. They mistakenly believe it would be limited to the "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Turn the Other Cheek"...........give, help, share, care version of "Christianity." But much of that is PAUL'S reimagining of what Jesus wanted, not actually based on what Jesus himself (supposedly) said. So, what did Jesus himself say? Check out Matthew 5! In Matthew 5, Jesus is quoted as saying [paraphrasing]: "All the Laws of the Prophets are still in force, and will be in force until the end of time!" So, Jesus's "Christianity" doesnt just include the love and peace stuff that Paul would have us believe. It ALSO includes all the Old Testament Laws-----God's Laws as handed down through the Prophets............. "until the end of time!" If you're familiar at all with the Old Testament Laws........... the "Laws of the Prophets"............ you'll know they aren't all that different from Sharia Law! They are commanding, controlling, bloody and bloodthirsty! They are brutal and unforgiving, misogynistic, homophobic, and domineering. Give "false witness?" Death! Don't respect your parents? Death! Take the Lord's name in vain? Death! In Jesus's version of "Christianity"........... (and isn't that the one we're SUPPOSED to be following, not PAUL'S reinterpretation?).......... Islam would have very few complaints about how "Christians" live their lives! Sadly, though, it seems very few Christians have any idea that Jesus said this! But it's right there in Matthew 5............ But what most people have done is just listen to what their preacher has told them to think........... rather than reading for themselves what the actual passages say! Do I find the love and peace, post-60s-hippie, modern version of "Christianity" appealing? Sure! Of course! Who wouldn't? But thats not the version of "Christianity" that Jesus himself said was supposed to reign supreme "until the end of time?" Would I want THAT ONE? Nah, no thanks! No way! Lol

Well, just as we're talking about Rights that are still Rights, whether mentioned or not............... perhaps we might accept that there may be more than one applicable Amendment............. whether specifically argued or not. If it were me and I had to build a compelling argument based on an Amendment, I might choose the Fourteenth Amendment, also! Lol See, while the Ninth Amendment certainly makes the case, simply and clearly. At its core, it is still primarily a philosophical statement, rather than a series of specific directives. So, if you want to frame the Roe v Wade argument based on the Ninth Amendment, first you need a compelling argument that there is, in fact, a Right to Privacy; and second, that choosing to have an abortion is a PRIVATE decision, and therefore protected by that Right to Privacy. You'd have to do this because the Ninth Amendment protects Rights. So you have to prove that what you're trying to protect with your decision are, indeed, "Rights." The Fourteenth Amendment, on the other hand, has a lot more bones on which to hang an argument. There is a lot more meat for examining both precedents and previous errors. So it winds up being much easier to craft a deep and convincing historical argument based on the Fourteenth Amendment, than it ever would be for the Ninth. Indeed, the argument for the Ninth could almost be summed up in a single sentence........... "We recognize and acknowledge these things as Rights, and the Ninth Amendment requires the government to respect, protect and preserve all the Rights of its Citizens." Period.

It's actually the Ninth Amendment that's critical here, not the Fourteenth. The Ninth dates back to the beginning and eliminates any question about when a Right was recognized as such. The Ninth makes clear it is the Constitutuonal responsibility of government to protect peoples Rights, not step on them. And that apples to those delineated in the Bill of Rights, as well as any Rights not mentioned. The Fourteenth Amendment can get confusing. The Ninth is remarkable simple and to rhe point.

The baby already born but needing machines to help it live.......... is not acting as a parasite, feeding off another person. Thats the difference. And that's why started my post discussing the "parasite" aspect. And that's why I said that if technology improves and those unwanted parasites can be extracted and LIVE.......... then my position will change. But a woman should have a right to be free of a parasite that is "attacking" her body, regardless. But since that "valuable parasite" can change from something that cannot live to something that can, she shouldn't be allowed a blank check as to when she can make that decision. Thus: limited to First Trimester, when living outside the womb isn't an option, under any circumstances.

She volunteered to have sex, but she didn't volunteer to become pregnant. Becoming pregnant was a RISK she accepted, when agreeing to have sex. But when she accepted that risk, it was done knowing full well there were remedies and alternatives available that in effect bring that risk back down to zero. So, for the last 50 years, while a woman having intercourse was always facing the risk of becoming pregnant............ that risk was always mitigated by the fact that there was no reason she had to REMAIN pregnant. That has changed now. Being careful........... being vigilant......... was always a good idea, before.......... and is even more important, now. Because before, there was a remedy.......... and now there isn't.......... (or, at least, there isn't guaranteed to be one).

Please refer to the Ninth Amendment. Thr Ninth Amendment makes clear that although not all Rights are itemized in the Constitution, people still retain those Rights, and the government is not allowed to cancel, abuse, or infringe upon them. The fact that the Ninth Amendment specifically limits government action regarding retained but unlisted Rights............. makes the Right to Privacy [also not mentioned in the Constitution!]........... (the basis for the Right to have an abortion......... that being a PRIVATE decision!)......... a "Constitutional" Right. The Ninth Amendment.......... The Constitution............ specifically limits how the government can behave toward those Rights.

Actually, there are apparently several states that had abortion bans in place prior to Roe v Wade, that reinstated them immediately. There are apparently also a few others that passed abortion bans while Roe v Wade was in force and left them dormant, in anticipation of the time when Roe v Wade would be overturned. So yeah....... There ARE places where abortion has been banned, already, and things have changed.

My view, for what its worth............. A child feeding off a mother that wants it, is a blessing. A child feeding off a mother that doesn't want it, is a parasite. The perspective of the mother matters; it's her body that is being used as a willing or unwilling incubator. There shouldn't be a law that requires a parasite be allowed to feed off a person's body. There just shouldn't. A person MUST have an opportinity to rid themselves of that parasite. And you know what? I don't think there is ANYONE who would disagree with this.............. if we were talking about anything other than a human embryo, zygote, fetus. So, the question becomes............. At what point should a human embryo/zygote/fetus be given status greater than......... just another parasite? We know that at seven or eight or nine months, the fetus is developed enough to live outside the womb. We know that before eighteen or nineteen weeks, with our current technology, the fetus is incapable of surviving outside the womb, under any circumstances! Thus, after the beginning of the seventh month, there is really no longer a question of status. At that point, it's really just a question of WHERE that human being is living; not of whether it is........ or is not......... a "human being." Likewise, before the eighteenth or nineteenth week........... when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances........... there is no justification for assigning it the status of being "alive." Of it being a "living human being." It simply has not developed far enough, yet, to warrant that status. At that point, the fetus is no more "alive".......... than a brain-dead person whose body is kept functioning by a machine.......... is "alive." Remove the machine........... (the womb, in this case).......... and discontinuation is both automatic and inevitable. For me, this becomes a clear and easy point of demarcation......... If it cannot survive outside the womb under any circumstances............ then there's no justification for ascribing it "rights." It is not yet a "living being." And non-living things don't have "rights." So............. this is why I am okay with mother choosing to abort during the first trimester. That window is still many weeks ahead of the point where a fetus is capable of surviving outside the womb. It also allows a buffer for technology to move the possible survival window forward. (Presently 20 weeks, but even that is exceedingly rare.) During the first trimester, a woman must have the option of removing that parasite from her body. She must have that choice! But, because that thing growing inside of her (and feeding off of her!) isn't just a "parasite," she doesnt get carte blanche to abort at any time she chooses. She gets a choice. But if she hasn't chosen to abort before the end of the first trimester........... then she HAS chosen! She let her window of opportunity lapse. What was once an opportunity to choose.......... now becomes an obligation to follow through, a responsibility. Because not choosing........... is just another form of choosing! And, before anyone asks............ Yes, if our technology changes in ways that cause these dynamics to change.......... I'm fully prepared to revise my position. If, for example, technology makes it possible for a 10-week fetus to survive outside the womb......... the definition of when an abortion is allowable.......... would need to change, also. ----------------- So, there it is. That's my take on it. And unless you can give me better answers than the ones I already have............ it's not going to change. Not, at least, until our technology causes it to!

Lol May I recommend you stop by Mr DIY if you have one handy. A handle and 24 double-blade cartidges for 65 baht. They work good, but are not long lasting. Good clean shave, though. But at 65 baht for 24 razors, who needs long lasting? Lol

Yeah, driving choices........! I live 20km from the movie theater. But gasoline right now costs me 5 baht/km. So, to go to the before-12:00 movie at that theater cost me only 100 baht for the ticket.......... but 200 baht round-trip for the gas! Can I afford it? Sure, no problem. But it becomes a question of whether I WANT to waste my money this way. The ticket price is a bargain. But the gas to get there? I dunno! ------------- The gas math for anyone who's curious. Fill-up to fill-up was 2060 baht. KM driven on that fill-up was 396. (I'm tracking right now to show the step-son just how much he spends of the gas we pay for, as he complains we "dont give him enough money!" Lol) 2060 baht divided by 396 km = a little over 5 baht per km! ------------------------------ Found a street vendor burger grill in one of the touristy parts of Kanchanaburi. "Kan King" the place calls itself. I'm American............. I love my cheeseburgers! She makes a really nice beef cheeseburger with a fresh bun, tasty fixin's, and a load of perfectly cooked, fresh, crispy-soft french fries for 120 baht. But it'll cost me 160 baht round-trip to drive there! Aargh!

Hmmm. You seem to be talking about two different glaziers, and not giving comparative details. Since your friend was apparently NOT the one giving the quote, might there have been necessary work he was not aware of, never having seen the job? And did your friend say that "$7,000 to $9,000" was a fairly common and typical price for a two-day, one-man installation? Did you even ask? And I'd guess that where your friend is located........... and where your sister is located.......... are different.......... (which can dramatically affect overhead costs)............ since your friend was apparently NOT one of the people she got bids from. (She DID get multiple bids........... didn't she?) And, related to my post above, how much competition do the "7,000 to $9,000" glaziers have in that area? Little competition means higher prices; more competitors almost always drives prices lower. See, I'd like to take what you said at face value. But there are just too many questions hanging out there to do so. Im prepared to be proven completely wrong............. but I suspect if she's been quoted "$7,000 to $9,000 labor" for a two-day, one-man job............ she's been quoted a price that is 4 to 5 times higher than it should be. Maybe, as the saying goes, "they saw her coming"............. (saw someone they could sucker!).......... or it was an emergency situation........... one involving an insurance company they could gouge. (I had a windshield replaced by a company that did all the insurance paperwork, waived me having to pay any deductible, AND gave me $100 cash in pocket, t'boot! Obviously.......... something seriously wrong with their insurance billing, here! Lol)

Lol After being in the U.S. Marines for 20 years, my father's "second career" was teaching restauranteurs and managers how to properly run restaurants. Because of this, he knew exactly how petty and vindictive cooks and wait-staff could be about complaints and food being returned. Among the many bits of restaurant-wisdom I picked up from him was........... "At three meals a day for an average lifetime, I'll eat 70,000 meals in my life. THIS ONE is not important enough to get worked up about!" (Of course, a wholly unacceptable position for a restaurant operator/ manager/ server to take!) The only time I ever saw him reject a meal.............. was when the food served was altogether the wrong food. (And then we kids........... [not the server!].......... would hear a lecture about how it was the server's RESPONSIBILITY to make sure the order is 100% correct BEFORE bringing it to the table, not serve it wrong, and only remedy it when there's a complaint! Lol) Of course, if you DON'T say something........... how will they ever know what they are doing wrong? --------------- Later, when I was the one teaching business owners and entrepreneurs how to build a successful business, I addressed it this way............. "I'm sure you've all heard that 'No News is Good News.' This alone can bury your business, if you're not careful! Because the truth can be very different. 'No News'........... may mean........... they are so pi$$ed-off at you, that they don't even want to talk to you! " A smart business WANTS to know when people are unhappy! Unfortunately, in my experience, most businesses are NOT run by smart business people! LOL

Most of what you said is true, but let's be honest about it........... "Bad" stories are so much more fun to talk about than "good" stories! "Good" stories can bring a tear to the eye or a chuckle............. and then you move on. "Bad" stories can get the juices flowing............. and keep them flowing for quite a long time! Newspapers and TV News broadcasts figured this out a long time ago. Bad news sells. Bad news keeps people tuned in. And when they DO tell a "good" story, a "happy" story? I'm convinced they do it only to try to prove they aren't COMPLETELY cold-hearted, COMPLETELY callous. Only MOSTLY! lol

Supply and Demand. A psychiatrist doesnt get the fee he gets because of all the schooling he's been through. He gets it because there are not very many people doing that job. If there were a lot more, he'd never be able to command those prices. Right now, and for a couple of decades, "The Trades" have suffered from a labor shortage. People simply are not interested in working that hard. This is why a lot of illegals who come to America have been happy to take those jobs, the jobs "americans won't do." Of course, a shortage of workers doesn't mean there's a shortage of work! So contractors have had to raise wages to attract enough workers so they can accept the jobs that are out there. And, as it turns out, Americans WILL work that hard............. if there's enough money in it! Supply and Demand is why psychiatrists get paid so much for their time.............. and Supply and Demand is why people working in "The Trades" now get paid somewhat more than they used to. But please note, the "daily/hourly" wages that were mentioned in the post you responded to.......... (build a fence in two days, paint a house in one day).......... are almost certainly paying for A CREW, not an individual. No individual is going to build a complete fence in two days, or paint a ranch house in one day. And since we don't have more detail, we don't know how many people that "$475 per hour" actually pays for. (My guess would be that pays for four to six people: Two to four who are "skilled" and "semi-skilled," a couple more who are "grunts.") Low-skilled workers tend to get low wages because there's an abundant supply of low-skilled workers. Supply and Demand. I guarantee you, if your city had only five plumbers............. they'd be pulling down more bucks annually.......... than just about any class of doctor!

10 baht? I could only hope my wife would withhold complaining until the difference was as much as 10 baht! 2 baht more? "Expensive!" 5 baht more? "Expensive!" And she'll say this on something like 120 baht bottle of shampoo. One brand is 120 baht, another is 122 baht. "Expensive!" Hahahaha! And it's not like we buy a bottle every day or every week. A bottle of shampoo may last a couple of months! 2 baht on an item used over a couple of months? "Expensive!" What a relief it'd be if she'd hold off complaining until the difference is at least 10 baht! Lol

Funny, you said "knew" and I said.......... many, many times.......... "believed." Those are very different things. You getting that wrong is probably why you mistakenly believe I "want it both ways." In the Trump Era, haven't you seen enough evidence yet that what Trump BELIEVES............ is far more important to him than facts? Why then would you believe that just because someone "told" him............ that he would accept that as something he "knows?" No, more likely he would interpret it as more deception and lying (which is how he interpreted what Barr had to say about it............. despite Barr's nearly two years of almost blind loyalty and fealty to Trump.)

Kind of a pointless point, isn't it, when THERE IS NO JURY! Happy to revisit the question.......... when there is one...............! Your jury will inevitably have Republicans on it. And an ungodly number of Republicans believe Trump!!!)

Hmmm Barr telling Trump....... and Trump believiing him........... are two different things. One need only look at the things Trump had to say about Barr AFTER Barr was no longer his subordinate.......... to know which way that went! ???????????? Cheers! (Besides, given Barr's despicable behaviour throughout his tenure as Attorney General under Trump........... it's much more reasonable to believe that Barr........... at that moment .......... was merely trying to scrape a sliver of his dignity off the side of the toilet bowl, before it ALL went down the drain, forever! Barr's words would only carry weight if he had retained any integrity. But he had thrown all that away, even before he started the job! )

Its called an analogy. Analogies are very useful for helping someone understand something they are NOT clear on...............by pointing out something similar that they ARE clear on. You see, people frequently already have the means to arrive at a correct answer............. they just need to be coaxed to apply those pre-existing means....... to the new situation! That's what analogies do! (The SATs and IQ tests tend to ask a bunch of analogy questions, to gauge education and intellect............ "A is to C, what B is to ____?"............. "A puppy is to a dog, what a ____ is to a cat?"............ If you're good with analogies, these tend to be a breeze. If not.......... well....... that's why they make a bell-shaped curve, isn't it? ????????????) Cheers!

No, actually, it can't. Because if you don't understand WHY you need to be careful and WHAT you need to be careful about........... then you'll be very poorly equipped to decide HOW to be careful! It's kind of like why Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign did virtually nothing to curtail drug use. Bumper-sticker slogans can only be effective AFTER all the explanations have been laid out, as a quickie reminded of already-received, more detailed information................ not instead of!

Property can produce income if it's used to produce income. But it is still just "money." Property can be used to buy things............ just like anything else. One guy has a vintage car that's gathering dust; another guy has a piece of land the vintage car guy wants. The car buys the land (money); the land buys the car (money). But the basic premise underlying money remains the same.......... it only has value if the person receiving it believes it has value. Will I let my tenant pay his rent in Monopoly Money? ABSOLUTELY........ if...... IF!......... the next guy in the chain will take it from me! If the next guy in the chain believes Monopoly Money has value.......... there's no reason for me to refuse to take it as payment. Ah, but if he DOESN'T..........! If you've got stockpiles of gold bars when what people really need is food or gas or clean water.......... you could well turn out to be the poorest guy in the neighborhood! ???????????? Cheers! ------------- By the way, I've never read anything by Warren Buffet except snippets here and there. But what I've seen other "experts" say about property is this............ Never consider property you buy for your own residence............ an "investment." It should be placed on the liability side of your balance sheet, not the asset side. That's because, as your residence, it creates expenses, not income! If you sell it later for a profit----income----or move out and turn it into an income-producing property........... THEN you can slide it across the page to the assets column! Not having read Buffet, I can't be sure. But I suspect he said something like this......... NOT......... that property doesn't/can't produce income. Cheers!

Nah, not really. I just thought it was worth remembering that security that depends on a particular paradigm........... may not be so secure, ultimately........ if that manufactured one falls apart, and the natural order reappears. Lol Cheers!

Ah, let's never forget the only thing that gives money its value. And by "money" I mean.......... paper money, precious metals, diamonds, art, possessions and property, and on and on. Because at the cold heart of it all, everything is just "money!" So, what's the only thing that gives money its value? The only thing......... the ONLY thing........... that gives money its value............ is that the person on the receiving end.............. believes it has value! However much one might have tried to secure themselves............. if they haven't secured a buyer who values what they have in the same ways they do............. they haven't necessarily created much security for themselves, at all! For example : Gold may prove to be no more valuable than aluminum or or copper............ when what's needed more than anything............ is steel to build warships! Gold sure is pretty............. but it makes a lousy building material! ???????????? Cheers!

"Seditious Conspiracy" is a type of Conspiracy, not an act of Sedition. And twice "Sedition" laws have been thrown out because of the way "Sedition" conflicts with our First Amendment Right to Free Speech: One was repealed by Congress itself, and one was tossed by the Supreme Court. Sedition laws overstep the limitations imposed on the government by the Constitution. They allow the government to be abusive, under the guise of being "responsible." Soviet gulags primarily existed as a place to dump "seditionists." They were filled with people who committed "crimes" that never should have been crimes! As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Sedition laws make good paving stones for such a road! Cheers.