Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Report: Rubio to endorse on “Hannity” tonight; Update: Yep, Romney

DDDD
Drudge has busted out the red font for the occasion, which I guess makes this officially “news.” I wonder who it’ll be. The guy who just fired his campaign manager and started laying off staffers? The guy who struggles to win among electorates that aren’t heavily evangelical and who may well end up dropping his own home state? Or the guy with a prohibitive lead in delegates, who won Rubio’s home state in a landslide, and who’s better positioned than anyone else in America right now to make him vice president of the United States?


Here’s your thread if you’re watching. Although it’s a foregone conclusion that he’s backing Romney, this is news simply because Rubio’s star shines brighter than any other young Republican’s on the national landscape. It’s a signal to grassroots conservatives that the war is over and it’s time to fall in line; I wonder, in fact, if Romney didn’t coordinate the timing of it with Bush 41′s formal endorsement in order to hand the media a meme about Republican leaders past and future crowning the Republican leader of the present. While we wait, here’s audio of the left’s Romney-related outrage du jour: He told a “humorous” story on the radio today which involves his dad having closed down an American Motors plant in Michigan and moved it to Wisconsin. Ergo, he’s “out of touch” and hates the working man and thinks it’s hysterical when a state loses jobs, etc etc etc. Serious question: Is it worth even covering these gaffes anymore? He’s the all-but-certain nominee and he does in fact have a tin ear when it comes to innocuous comments that can easily be demagogued for class warfare purposes. If Democrats are going to use it against him later, it’s newsy. It’s increasingly tiresome, though, having to endure their theatrical pearl-clutching again and again, and of course it inadvertently helps them spread their message by circulating the soundbite they want people to hear. Time for a hiatus.

Video: Obama message to Planned Parenthood supporters oddly silent about key Planned Parenthood service

DDDD

Via the boss emeritus’s new Twitter aggregator Twitchy. I hate to say it but after watching this I think there might be something to the DNC’s “war on women” message. It’s inexplicable that the GOP wants to yank federal funding for this excellent health organization that provides cancer screenings and contraception and apparently nothing else. Can anyone blame the left for having a screeching, frothing-at-the-mouth fit whenever a conservative suggests having PP pay its own way? They’re all about protecting contraception and cancer screenings and nothing else.

I’m trying to decide whether I prefer his elephant-in-the-room silence here or his cynical dissembling about his true position on gay marriage. Look on the bright side, pro-choicers: He may be afraid to utter the A-word, venturing no closer than gassy euphemisms about “women’s health,” but at least he’ll admit to being on your side when pressed. If an abortion bill made it to his desk tomorrow, he’d say a few words in your favor and sign it. Whereas if a gay marriage bill made it to his desk, he’d … do what? Say a few words against it, then sign it? I prefer the comparative honesty of the silence-and-euphemisms approach. And hey, maybe he’ll be bolder in his next vid as we get closer to election day. Look for something vague about relief from “burdens.” Exit question: Do you suppose PP’s federal funding problem would be solved if it chose to no longer do “nothing else”?
Friday, March 23, 2012

The Ed Morrissey Show: Gov. Mitt Romney, Duane Patterson, Week in Review

DDDD

posted at 1:21 pm on March 23, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
Today, on the Ed Morrissey Show (special time: 2:45 pm ET), Governor Mitt Romney will join us for a few minutes as he campaigns in Louisiana.  I’ll ask him about Rick Santorum’s comments, the two-year anniversary of ObamaCare, how he will engage the conservative base, and perhaps a little on foreign policy, if we have the time.
After, we’ll take a look at the past week with Duane “Generalissimo” Patterson of the Hugh Hewitt Show. Duane and I will talk about the Governor’s comments, as well as the rest of the news this week. All of this and more — and stay tuned for a preview of tonight’s Hugh Hewitt Show.
The Ed Morrissey Show and its dynamic chatroom can be seen on the permanent TEMS page — be sure to join us, and don’t forget to keep up with the debate on my Facebook page, too!
Marizela Perez has been missing for a year.

Marizela’s case has a connection here at Hot Air, as she is the cousin of the Boss Emeritus, Michelle Malkin. Michelle is trying to spread the word through Facebook and Q13Fox/KCPQ in Seattle. We want to encourage prayers for Marizela’s family, and also try to reach anyone in the area who knows where Marizela might be and ask them to contact the police.
The search has its own website now, Find Marizela, for the latest in the efforts to bring Marizela home. There is also a fund for the family to keep the search efforts going. Be sure to check there and at Michelle’s site for further developments, and keep the family in your prayers.
America’s Most Wanted is now on the case, too.
Michelle has a new update on the case on the one-year anniversary:
    Exactly one year ago today, my 18-year-old cousin Marizela (known affectionately to her family and friends as “Emem” or “Mei”) Perez disappeared from the University of Washington campus in Seattle.
    She is still missing.
    Those words form on the computer screen with disembodied disbelief. But my heart is screaming:
    SHE IS STILL MISSING. WHY, DEAR GOD, WHY?!!!!!
    The not-knowing is every parent’s worst nightmare. It brought normal life to a standstill for Marizela’s parents, Edgar and Jasmin. And yet, they have to keep living and working and praying for their only daughter. Because that is what they must do. Their strength and dignity through all the suffering has been an inspiration to me.
    There have been no new developments in Emem’s case. No word from the police or the medical examiner’s office. No activity on her bank accounts or social media accounts.
    And no response from the Google legal department to our request for help in January.
Keep the prayers coming.

Obama team gaming out open support for gay marriage among top Democrats?

DDDD
Greg Sargent gets the leak from a Democratic strategist in the loop on what could best be described as focus-group testing to change Barack Obama’s stated values system.  In the 2008 campaign, Obama opposed gay marriage while supporting civil unions and decrying discrimination, a rather safe position even in the Democratic Party.  No one really believed it, though, and almost ever since taking office Obama and his team have talked about his “evolving” state of mind on the issue of gay marriage.  Now it seems that Obama wants to have party honchos test out his, er, theory of evolution:
    Obama’s top political advisers have held serious discussions with leading Democrats about the upsides and downsides of coming out for gay marriage before the fall election, a Democratic strategist who has discussed these matters directly with Obama’s campaign inner circle tells me.

    This does not mean that it will happen, and there are plenty of reasons to assume it won’t. Indeed, it would be political malpractice if Obama’s top advisers didn’t discuss every permutation and possibility, no matter how far fetched. However, the fact that it has been discussed seriously at high levels means it’s not out of the question.
Well, sure, it’s good to get the messaging right when laying out a statement on values.  On the other hand, Obama has already made a statement on these values — he supports the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman.  Have those values “evolved”?  If they have, then shouldn’t Obama be honest and say so?  This sounds like Obama has either changed his mind, wasn’t honest before, or cares less about the issue than in leveraging it for the best political outcome.
That’s what makes this sound so ridiculous:
    Those advisers are convinced that Obama will make this call based on his gut, and ultimately without regard to the fine-grained political analysis of the situation, the source says.
If that were true, he wouldn’t need to check with “leading Democrats,” or send his advisers out to do so.  Obama would prepare a statement explaining his position and its evolution, which he could do with his advisers alone.  Asking whether or not to do so isn’t making a “gut” call — it’s practically the polar opposite of a gut call.
Greg seems to think this could be a game changer among Democrats, who would be invigorated for the fall election “far beyond the gay community.”  That’s only true if one believes Obama actually changed his mind, “evolving” or otherwise.  Most people have assumed that Obama supports gay marriage personally, and that all of the talk about “evolving” thoughts were just a dodge for the sake of political expediency — and a focus-group-tested switch would just be more of the same.

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

No ObamaCare anniversary celebration for Obama

DDDD

posted at 12:10 pm on March 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In just two days, Barack Obama will celebrate the two-year anniversary of his signature legislative achievement as President — ObamaCare. Or rather, he won’t celebrate it.  In fact, according to The Hill, the White House won’t even bother defending the bill against its critics in the days leading up to the Supreme Court review of ObamaCare:

    President Obama will not mark the two-year anniversary of his signing of the healthcare law — which takes place days before the Supreme Court offers a decision on the constitutionality of his signature legislative achievement.

    Senior administration officials said on Tuesday that Obama will not be offering a vigorous public defense of the law, holding events or even making public remarks in the lead-up to the Supreme Court case.

Amie Parnes reports that White House officials labeled it a “faux milestone,” which might surprise some who also think of it as faux reform, too.  Others think it’s a missed opportunity:

    “It’s a little surprising that they’re not trying to get more out of it,” said Martin Sweet, an assistant professor of political science at Northwestern University. “They could go out to the American people, explain what’s happening and set themselves up for whatever happens.

    “They might be a little worried about the backlash,” Sweet said, adding that he thinks it is a miscalculation.

If they’re worried about a backlash, they’re almost exactly two years too late for that.

If the White House had confidence in its arguments at the Supreme Court, one would guess that they would use their media power to make that case to the public at the same time, especially in an election year.  I’d guess that they’re worried about having to use arguments about the mandate being a tax as justification for its constitutionality, and they don’t want to have to make that argument explicitly in public any more than they have to do so.  Otherwise, they may be hoping that the media doesn’t cover the substance of the arguments at the Supreme Court in order to play down the arguments of the plaintiffs who are suing to have it overturned.

Either way, this should make good grist for a campaign ad or two.  “Barack Obama hides on anniversary of ObamaCare” has a nice, punchy ring to it, doesn’t it?

Obama fundraising 28% off 2008 pace

DDDD

posted at 9:50 am on March 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Yesterday I noted that the latest fundraising numbers for Barack Obama came to $45 million, but that combined his fundraising with that of the DNC.   Politico breaks it down further to find that the actual total money raised for Obama by three different committees in February comes to $39.4 million — far off of the pace of his 2008 fundraising:

    Barack Obama is spending heavily to bring in money and relying more on big donors than he did in 2008, but his fundraising pace has slipped from his first presidential campaign, reports filed with the Federal Election Commission Tuesday show.

    Three Obama campaign committees, including two that have higher donor limits, brought in a combined $39.4 million last month.

    Compare that to February 2008, when Obama had one campaign committee, which was limited to smaller donations, but still raised $55 million.

That is a 28% drop in fundraising, even as Obama has set new records for fundraising events.  He had almost doubled the number of fundraisers Bush held in the 2004 campaign at this stage of his presidency, even before his six-event frenzy on Friday:

    Obama, who came into office bemoaning a broken electoral system, has proved surprisingly energetic at fundraising from wealthy donors and using his office to his political benefit in states that could decide his re-election.

    He’s attended 103 reelection fundraisers — about double the 52 such events Bush had attended at this point in 2004, according to tallies kept by CBS’s Mark Knoller. …

    And while Bush and his Cabinet members were slammed by Democrats for official travel to swing states before key elections, Obama has made more than 60 trips to swing states since taking office. His travel after his State of the Union address this year was exclusively to states potentially pivotal this fall: Iowa, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Michigan.

Don’t forget that Obama also had some competition for Democratic contributors in February 2008, too.  Hillary Clinton raised $34 million, not much below what President Obama raised in a field all by himself last month.  Combined, that’s a drop of 55.7% in Democratic presidential fundraising in February, even with the frenetic — dare we say desperate — pace of fundraising by Obama.

That’s not to say that Obama won’t get plenty of cash.  He has $91 million in the bank, and several months more of fundraising to go before the convention.  But that’s far, far off the presumed pace of one billion dollars that Team Obama expected to set, and it’s a pretty good indicator of enthusiasm for another Democratic term in the White House this term.
 

Royal Thai Air Force to Drop Water to Help Ease Haze

DDDD
CHIANGRAI TIMES – In Chiang Rai, the smog problem was also very serious, with the amount of small dust particles touching 431.6 micrograms per cubic metre of air.

Chiang Rai Governor Thanin Supasan said the provincial government was now securing the help of the Royal Thai Air Force in combating the smog.

“Two RTAF planes will be deployed to sprinkle water in the sky over Chiang Rai so as to ease the problem,” he said.

Water-sprinkling efforts are expected to help at least a little, as rainfall last week led to a significant fall in smog intensity in the North.


RTAF deputy chief-of-staff Air Marshal Thongchai Chalamket said the aircraft could each carry about 3,700 litres of water per flight, which was sufficient to cover an area of more than one rai.

“We can arrange about 12 flights per day,” he said, adding that such planes were normally used for extinguishing forest fires.

The smog has now hit most areas of the North. The Pollution Control Department said the level of small dust particles now ranged between 111 and 432.6 micrograms per cubic metre in the region.

Chiang Rai’s Mae Sai district was found blanketed by 441.6 micrograms/cubic metres (ug/m3) of fine particle dust for a second day in a row Tuesday, while six other provinces suffered from PM10 dust above the safety level of 120 ug/m3, the Pollution Control Department said Tuesday.



Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra expressed concerns over situation at the Cabinet meeting yesterday and instructed Interior, Agriculture and Science ministries to have a team visit the affected areas and launch a campaign to stop fires from being lit outdoors and implement harsher punishment for violators.

Thailand to Strengthen Trade with Canada

DDDD
CHIANGRAI TIMES – Thailand is planning a major pitch to open free trade talks with Canada this week, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper begins his second Asia trip in three months.

Thailand will sweeten its offer by positioning itself as a comfortable and safe entry point from which Canada could make further inroads throughout South Asia — raising the potential of a broader trade deal with the region’s emerging, 10-country bloc, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Thailand is planning a major pitch to open free trade talks with Canada this week, as Prime Minister Stephen Harper begins his second Asia trip in three months

China is not an ASEAN member, so any economic gains with the bloc would represent a significant broadening of the Harper government’s pro-Asia trade aspirations.

Harper, who made his second trip to China in January, has said increasing trade with Asia is a major economic priority after a series of economic hurdles soured relations with Canada’s largest trading partner, the United States.

“It’s understandable that Canada has to diversify and be less dependent on the U.S. market. We welcome the realization,” Srirat Rastapana, director general of Thailand’s Department of Trade Negotiations, told The Canadian Press in an interview.

“This year would be an important year that we can lay the foundation for a stronger relationship with Canada. We welcome Canada’s participation in ASEAN forums. We think Canada could be an invaluable partner for ASEAN.”

Srirat said Canada and Thailand will explore how to promote and enhance trade and investment.

“We (will) also touch on the possibility of preparing a kind of a joint study, scoping for the free-trade agreement,” she said.

Earlier this month, Canada and Japan released their own joint study on the possibility of a trade agreement that concluded “there remains much untapped potential” in their relationship.

The study predicted that a trade deal would lead to gains in gross domestic product of $4.4 billion to $4.9 billion for Japan and between $3.8 billion to $9 billion for Canada.

Harper will travel to Japan after his stop in Thailand, before finishing his three-country tour in South Korea.

Canada has modest trade with Thailand, with exports of $839 million and imports of $2.7 billion in 2011.

Srirat said there is potential for greater co-operation in energy, food and green technology.

Last fall, Canada and ASEAN signed a joint declaration that pledged to promote trade and investment.

In a wide-ranging interview from Bangkok’s trade ministry, Srirat said doing business with Thailand would open doors for Canada with other ASEAN countries. Thailand, she said, can also help Canada make progress with China and India.

“We can be a gateway, we can be partners,” she said. “We can work with other countries, the emerging markets in Asia. Thailand has several free trade agreements at the level of ASEAN. Now we are in the process of concluding our negotiations with India.”

ASEAN leaders are committed to establishing an economic community by 2015 that would allow for a freer movement of goods, services, labour and capital among member countries.

Srirat said Canada has a lot of catching up to do in the region, and Thailand could help.

“Canada, could in fact, be the latecomer because your private sector has to adjust to the new environment, which is more complicated,” she said.

“Getting to know the environment and the culture is the basic for any business to start in a new country or region.”

Unfamiliar laws and cultural practices make setting up shop in the region a challenging experience, said Toronto-born John Casella, president of the Thai-Canada Chamber of Commerce.

“Thailand is actually an easier place to do business once you’ve got through the learning curve of getting through the Thai bureaucracy,” Casella, an accountant and tax consultant, said in an interview.

“Canadians are a little bit more naive to certain things. Things that might be taken for granted in terms of how the courts might work, or how commercial practices are, I think leave Canadians at a disadvantage.”

An investment now could pay off later for Canadian companies, said Casella, because huge growth is predicted for ASEAN in the coming decade.

“Stephen Harper has expressed more interest in doing business with Asia. It’s well long overdue,” said Casella. “As a Canadian living in this part of the world, I’m excited that Canada is starting to wake up to that fact.

“There are very good opportunities for Canadians, because they are well received in this part of the world, more so than some other countries.

“Our neighbours to the south do not always make the best friends in terms of the ease of doing business.”

Harper was supposed to visit Thailand last fall, but his trip was cancelled due to severe flooding in the country.

Casella said he hopes Harper’s trip helps raise Asia’s profile in Canada as a business destination, because that is sorely needed.

He pointed to a poll last year by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada that showed ambivalence towards the region. Only 26 per cent of respondents agreed that Canada was part of the Asia-Pacific region, compared with 30 per cent in 2008.

“With the way that the economy is going and developments being made here, it’s in Canadians’ best interest to be more aware of opportunities here.”

Jean Chretien led the last official visit by a prime minister to Thailand in 1997, when he brought along a Team Canada trade delegation.

“If the Canadian prime minister waits another 15 years for the next visit, I think some huge opportunities will be lost,” said Casella.

Chalerm wants Drug Smugglers Executed Faster

DDDD
CHIANGRAI TIMES – Presiding over a press conference yesterday to announce the seizure in Chiang Rai of 2.5 million ya ba tablets and 50 kilograms of crystal meth, or “ice”, worth Bt800 million, Deputy Premier Chalerm Yoobamrung vowed to change the law to ensure that drug dealers who are sentenced to death are executed within 30 days of the final verdict in their cases.

Chalerm also warned hospitals and pharmacists not to supply pseudoephedrine-based cold medicines to makers of ya ba and “ice”, or they would face serious punishment.

Meanwhile, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) said cold medicine from some 30 hospitals had reportedly been smuggled to drug networks. The DSI would probe Kalasin’s Kamalasai Hospital and Chiang Mai’s Doi Lor Hospital this week. Central Udon Thani Hospital clarified that a check of its cold medicine stocks for the past three years found that 4.8 million tablets had been embezzled – not 37 million tablets as some news agencies said.

During yesterday’s conference at Suvarnabhumi Airport, where male suspect Damrong Samawawiang, 39, and females Hassareudee Arthorn-prachachit, 34, and Parichart Charoonwit, 27, were presented with the seized drugs, Chalerm said officials had been investigating the alleged drug ring since January. It allegedly sent drugs from Chiang Rai to Bangkok, leading to a stakeout at a Muang Chiang Rai house.

Police on Thursday followed the two female suspects, who had packed boxes at the house and taken them to Damrong at a warehouse on the Chiang Rai Super-Highway. Police presented themselves at the warehouse and searched the six boxes, in which they found the drugs, leading to the arrest of the three. The boxes were bound for Bangkok’s Saphan Sung, with bogus names.

Damrong reportedly told police he sent such packages 10 times before in smaller amounts. Chalerm said the husband of Parichart, who rented the house, was arrested with accomplices in a previous bust involving 300,000 ya ba tablets and Bt3 million in assets.

Hassareudee – who is the sister of Parichart’s husband – was arrested once before in a police sting with 200 ya ba tablets, Chalerm said. He added that the group didn’t seem to fear the law or to have learnt a lesson, so they deserved the severest punishment. He said he would propose an amendment requiring drug dealers sentenced to death to be executed within 30 days of their final verdict, as drug-trafficking was a serious issue and many inmates continued to deal drugs in jail.

The National Command Centre for Drugs (NCCD) said that from Sept 11, 2011 to March 15 authorities had arrested 321 suspected ya ba dealers and seized 26 million tablets; plus 143 suspected “ice” dealers and seized 600kg of the drug. They also seized 200kg of heroin, 4.6 tonnes of marijuana, 13.7kg of cocaine and 4.2 million tablets with pseudoephedrine.

Commenting on the probe into alleged theft of cold medicine at Central Udon Thani Hospital, Uttaradit’s Thong Saeng Khan Hospital and Chiang Mai’s Doi Lor Hospital, DSI chief Tharit Pengdit said investigators had traced drug-lot numbers and found a link to a February 18 cold-medicine seizure in Chiang Mai. Tharit said the DSI-Food and Drug Administration probe found many hospitals and clinics bought suspiciously large amounts of cold medicine.

Based on the lot numbers, he said three public hospitals, one private hospital, eight clinics and one pharmacy were linked to the Chiang Mai cold-medicine seizure. He said this had led to a suspicion that a gang was siphoning cold medicine from the public health system through some 30 hospitals to San Kamphaeng in Chiang Mai for narcotics production.

After the case at Kalasin’s Kamalapisai Hospital, in which 356,535 cold medicine tablets were missing, was made public, three drug-dispensing personnel were suspended and face disciplinary probes. Kalasin deputy police said an initial investigation found at least five people were involved. A check of last year’s receipts found 21 had inflated the amount of drugs actually distributed. The case report would be sent to the Drug Suppression Police this week.

Police also seized 9,019 ya ba tablets in Rayong’s Klaeng district, but the suspect, Theerawat Sriserm, 24, the son of an official, fled. Police seized 32,000 ya ba tablets in Lop Buri’s Tha Wung district but the alleged owner, female village head Panida Meejaijeu, 33, fled.

A policeman lines up heavy packs of illicit drugs in preparation for yesterday’s press conference at Suvarnabhumi Airport about the seizure.

Red Bull Co-Founder Dies

DDDD
CHIANGRAI TIMES – Billionaire Chaleo Yoovidhya, the co-founder of energy drink Red Bull and the second richest man in Thailand, died Saturday at the age of 89, a company spokeswoman said.

Chaleo was Thailand’s second richest man, with a fortune of $5 billion last year according to business magazine Forbes, having fallen from the top spot on its annual list which he held in 2009.


According to local reports he was born into a poor Sino-Thai family in the northern province of Phichit who made their living from duck farming and fruit trading.

Chaleo moved to Bangkok to help his brother in his drug store before becoming a salesman and later set up his own pharmaceutical factory in the old quarter of Bangkok.

His TC Pharmaceuticals produced a “tonic drink” called Krating Daeng (“Red Bull”) which was popular with factory shift workers and truck drivers and provided the inspiration for the international beverage.

In 1984 Chaleo founded Red Bull with Austrian marketing whiz Dietrich Mateschitz, who had become aware of “tonic drinks” while travelling in Asia, and they started selling the drink in Austria in 1987.

According to the company website, Mateschitz got the idea for the business while sitting at the bar in the Mandarin Hotel in Hong Kong in 1982.

The pair each owned 49 percent of the company, with Chaleo’s son Chalerm holding the remaining two percent.

The drink, which was produced in Chaleo’s factory, is now sold in more than 70 countries worldwide.

Chaleo married twice and has 11 children, five from his first wife and six from his second.

Apart from its energy drink business, Red Bull also owns two football teams, Red Bull Salzburg in Austria and the New York Red Bulls in the United States, and a Formula One stable of the same name.

Chaleo’s family were due to start week-long traditional Buddhist rites at a monastery west of Bangkok, a temple worker said.    

http://www.chiangraitimes.com/news/6243.html

Ford plant opens in Sihanoukville

DDDD
A Ford assembly plant in Preah Sihanouk province will supply Cambodia’s limited but growing car market, the American carmaker’s local representative RMA Cambodia announced yesterday.

The US$3 million investment, wholly owned by RMA, has a capacity of up to 6,000 vehicles per year, and is expected to drop the domestic price of the Ford Everest model by up to 25 per cent, according to RMA CEO Rami Sharaf.

Initial production figures, however, were undetermined as the Kingdom’s second vehicle assembler tested the market.


“We’re cascading down to the consumer,” Sharaf, who is also chairman of the Cambodia Automotive Industry Chamber, said yesterday. “Production will depend on the demand we see in the market this year.”

He declined to say how many Cambodians the plant employed.

The country’s annual demand for autos was “limited”, Sharaf said.

Of the annual 30,000 new vehicles sold in Cambodia in 2011, only 10 per cent were bought from authorised dealers such as RMA’s Ford, he said.

The vast majority of sales go to unlicensed dealers but the reduced price of domestically assembled cars – which would dodge high import tariffs – could attract more buyers to authorised dealers, Sharaf said.

“Markets like Cambodia are particularly appealing to us because they are starting on their growth curve,” Ford Asia Pacific regional manager David Westerman said at yesterday’s press conference in Phnom Penh.

An estimated 7 per cent of Ford Motor Co’s growth would be in the Asia Pacific region during the next 10 years, he added.

Cambodia’s car market is virtually off the radar of regional market analysts.

Demand for cars in Cambodia and Myanmar was low, said Ammar Master, manager at LMC Automotive in Bangkok, a global car sales and production forecaster.

The planned integration of ASEAN member countries and tariff-free treatment on regional trade, however, could stir demand for cars assembled in Cambodia, Master said.

“When [integration] happens, you will see markets like Cambodia and Myanmar becoming active. [Original equipment manufactures] are rethinking their strategies in developing markets,” he said yesterday.

Cambodia’s Ford plant would focus on the domestic market in the short run, but would also consider exports to regional markets, Sharaf said. “If we can overcome regulatory and logistic barriers, then we can surely look into these markets.”

Cambodia’s auto market had constraints in both supply and demand, said Lim Visal, director of Hyundai’s Cambodian assembler Camko Motor Company.

Despite cheap labour and land, the Kingdom has a low level of human capital and few supporting industries, he said.

Cambodia’s small market is also shared by many distributors.

A hike in the value-added process would come with the localisation of parts manufacturing, not assembly, said Lim Visal, whose Koh Kong factory aims to assemble 800 cars a year by 2013.

Assembly creates about 15 per cent of the value generated by a manufacturing plant, he said.

“Wherever [the market] is, we still have a very long way to go,” he said.

Duch: Leaders had final say

DDDD
In this second day on the stand this week, former S-21 prison chief Kaing Guek Eav, aka Duch, yesterday described a regime marked by a rigid top-down hierarchy.

Duch, who is testifying in the Khmer Rouge tribunal’s Case 002 against three surviving senior leaders of the regime, said little if anything could be done without a superior’s direct orders.

“For example, one time, a cadre arrested someone (without orders), and then he too was later arrested,” Duch said, explaining that arrest meant the subject should then be “smashed and convicted”.


Prosecutors must establish that the three leaders, “Brother No 2” Nuon Chea, ex-president Khieu Samphan, and former Foreign Affairs Minister Ieng Sary were part of a joint criminal enterprise responsible for the deaths of more than 2 million Cambodians.


Duch’s testimony will be particularly key in implicating Nuon Chea in the common criminal plan.

“I met Nuon Chea and I reported to him on a regular basis,” the torture and detention centre chief, responsible for the deaths of more than 12,000, said yesterday.

Nuon Chea interrupted Duch’s testimony, using one of his trademark analogies to express his desire for Duch to be disqualified as a witness.

“The people never use bad tree stumps to ... sculpt into a Buddha for people to pay homage to,” Nuon Chea said, likening a respected Buddha figure to a court witness and Duch to a witness crafted from bad wood.

Nuon Chea, who customarily retires from the courtroom at lunch time, requested at about 3pm for proceedings to be adjourned and for him to rest in the holding cells at the court.

Judge Nil Nonn followed the request by ordering an immediate medical examination of Nuon Chea, then quickly accusing his defence lawyer Michiel Pestman of interfering in the exam by entering the examination room.

He subsequently adjourned the hearing.

Earlier in the day, Duch gave testimony on the evacuation of Phnom Penh, which is the key crime the first segment of Case 002 is focused on.

“The people were told to walk,” Duch said of the city’s population.

“The evacuation of the people was done forcibly … Those who refused the evacuation would be shot.”

Defence counsel for Ieng Sary and Nuon Chea raised concerns that Duch’s narrative had been reconstructed by information Duch has learned about events after the fact.

“A clear foundation must be laid as to what exactly the gentleman knew,” defence counsel Michael Karnavas said.

“What he read after 1979 and since he has been incarcerated and ... from his lawyers – all this information has been incorporated not just into his memory but into his narrative.”

Cambodia sells off national park for city-sized pleasure resorts

DDDD
The Cambodian government has handed over nearly 20 percent of Botum Sakor National Park to a Chinese real-estate firm building a massive casino and resorts in the middle of pristine rainforest, reports Reuters. The city-sized resorts, costing $3.8 billion, will include a 64 kilometers highway, an airport, hotels, and golf courses. Botum Sakur is home to a number of endangered species including the pileated gibbon (Hylobates pileatus) and Asian elephant (Elephas maximus).


"Cambodia is giving away 36,000 hectares to a foreign entity with little if any oversight or obvious benefit to the people," Mathieu Pellerin, a researcher with Cambodian human rights group Licadho, told Reuters. Construction of the pleasure cities by Union Group is displacing local Cambodians, some who have lived there for generations.

Researchers have recorded 44 mammal species and 533 birds in the park. Other imperiled species include the white winged duck (Asarcornis scutulata), Sunda pangolin (Manis javanica), Asian slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis), Indochinese silvered langur (Trachypithecus germaini), hog deer (Axis porcinus), dhole (Cuon alpinus), the elongated tortoise (Indotestudo elongate), the Siamese crocodile (Crocodylus siamensis), and the fishing cat (Prionailurus viverrinus).


This is not the first time Cambodia has taken land from conservation areas. Last year the government carved out 9,000 hectares from Virachey National Park for a rubber plantation. In 2007 the government approved Australian gold-mining company, Indochine Mining, rights to exploratory mining in half the park.

Recently Licadho released a report showing that more than half of all Cambodia's arable land had been handed to private corporations as economic land concessions.

Myanmar president starts state visit to Cambodia

DDDD
PHNOM PENH (Xinhua) - Myanmar President U Thein Sein arrived here on Wednesday afternoon for a two-day state visit to boost bilateral ties.

At the Phnom Penh International Airport, U Thein Sein was greeted by Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Royal Palace Kong Sam Ol and Tourism Minister Thong Khon.

U Thein Sein's visit was made at the invitation of Cambodian King Norodom Sihamoni, according to a press release from Cambodia' s Foreign Ministry.


During the stay, he will receive royal audience led by King Norodom Sihamoni and meet with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen.

U Thein Sein started a three-ASEAN member state tour on Tuesday, beginning from Vietnam, then, Cambodia and will leave Cambodia for Laos on Thursday.

Tom Hanks, Robert DeNiro kinda sorta apologize even though it wasn’t really their fault, you know

DDDD

posted at 9:40 pm on March 20, 2012 by Allahpundit

A little late-evening closure for you on two of the more heavily trafficked items of the day. All we need now is for Chris Rock to hug it out with Jason Mattera and the triangle of celebrity healing will be complete.

Here’s Hanks’s statement, via the Daily Caller. One lingering question: What the hell was Glenn Frey doing co-hosting a fundraiser that was swank enough to land Tom Hanks as emcee?

    “I was blindsided when one of the parents got up on the stage in a costume that was hideously offensive then and is hideously offensive now,” Hanks’ said in a statement provided by his New York City publicist.

    “What is usually a night of food and drink for a good cause was, regrettably, marred by an appalling few moments,” said Hanks, who is a prominent supporter of President Barack Obama.

DeNiro is less apologetic, but then he has less to apologize for:

    DeNiro’s response was polite, if not particularly apologetic.

    “My remarks, although spoken with satirical jest, were not meant to offend or embarrass anyone —- especially the First Lady,” DeNiro said in a statement to TPM.

    A campaign spokeswoman for the First Lady, who was present at the fundraiser, said earlier in an e-mail that the joke was “inappropriate.”

I tried to muster the requisite outrageous outrage for his silly joke about whether America’s ready for a white First Lady and, like Ann Coulter and Ace, just couldn’t get to the top of the hill. But that’s not the point, right? The point is to rub the left’s faces in these moments of “insensitivity” until they either (a) tone down their own politically calculated outrageous outrage at the right or (b) apply their standards for civil discourse equally to their own side, even though neither of those things will ever happen precisely because so much of it is politically calculated. (Why disarm an effective weapon or, worse, use it against your own side?) In any case, Hanks, DeNiro, and Bill Maher represent three distinct points on the sensitivity spectrum. DeNiro made an innocuous joke on a sensitive subject; he gets hit purely as a quid pro quo, on the assumption that a conservative would be demagogued for any similar joke touching on race, however innocuous. Hanks is further down the spectrum. As Ed noted this morning, he didn’t interact much with the guy in blackface (it was Frey who did most of the egging on) but he didn’t object either so he gets dinged on guilt by association, a perennially useful political tool for both sides. And then further down the spectrum is Maher, who spouts plenty of nastiness himself and gets a pass for it because, unlike Limbaugh, he carries water for the left. He’s the most egregious offender of the three because the hypocrisy in covering for him is the most glaring. That’s why he’s been taking heat for two weeks while Hanks and DeNiro will be forgotten tomorrow. Anyway, outrage metrics are fun.
 

Too dumb to check: Bloomberg blocks food donations for homeless due to … salt and fat content

DDDD

posted at 8:50 pm on March 20, 2012 by Allahpundit

I really did think it was too dumb to check. I saw this column in the Post yesterday and passed on blogging it because I figured it’d turn out to be an exaggeration. Nope. That’s what I get for giving the benefit of the doubt to a guy who worries about people on food stamps buying sugary drinks.

You might die cold and hungry on the streets of New York, my friends, but at least you won’t have to worry about high salt intake.

    In conjunction with a mayoral task force and the Health Department, the Department of Homeless Services recently started enforcing new nutritional rules for food served at city shelters. Since DHS can’t assess the nutritional content of donated food, shelters have to turn away good Samaritans…

    DHS Commissioner Seth Diamond says the ban on food donations is consistent with Mayor Bloomberg’s emphasis on improving nutrition for all New Yorkers. A new interagency document controls what can be served at facilities — dictating serving sizes as well as salt, fat and calorie contents, plus fiber minimums and condiment recommendations.

    The city also cites food-safety issues with donations, but it’s clear that the real driver behind the ban is the Bloomberg dietary diktats.

What is with this guy running his little nutritional experiments on the city’s poorest people? Are they simply targets of opportunity, dependent upon NYC’s government for survival and therefore forced to follow whatever pleasure-stifling nannyism Bloomberg can cook up for them? Or does he focus on the poor because in America cheap eats tend to be bad eats, which leads (paradoxically) to more obese poor people? Or maybe it’s a preventive measure aimed at minimizing health-care costs for the poor by improving their diets before they get sick? Or maybe Bloomberg just has deep psychological issues about salt? All theories are welcome.

Monday, March 19, 2012

Outrageous outrage: “I don’t care what the unemployment rate is going to be,” says Santorum

DDDD
The clip comes from Team Mitt, which has taken enough cheap shots from the Democrats and media quoting Romney out of context (most infamously when he said he liked being able to fire people) that apparently it felt it was justified pulling this edit on Santorum. The full quote, conveniently omitted here:

    “We need a candidate who’s going to be a fighter for freedom. Who’s going to get up and make that the central theme in this race because it is the central theme in this race,” Santorum told a crowd of about 200 voters during a rally here on Monday. “I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be. Doesn’t matter to me. My campaign doesn’t hinge on unemployment rates and growth rates. It’s something more foundational that’s going on.”

“I don’t care what the unemployment rate’s going to be” is an exceptionally dumb way to make your point in the age of ubiquitous video editing software and YouTube, and Romney took full advantage in his own stump speech later today. But Santorum obviously didn’t mean that he doesn’t care about the unemployment rate in the abstract. He meant that, unlike Romney, his vision for the country is bigger than whatever the most important issue at this particular moment happens to be. Dave Weigel elaborates:

    I’ve heard Santorum make this point in other speeches. Roughly: Mitt Romney can only win if the economy is lousy. I, a full-spectrum conservative, can win in any situation. Juanna Summers, a Politico embed on the Santorum campaign, clipped another line from this speech: “My campaign doesn’t hinge on unempoyment rates and growth rates.” Santorum’s meaning is pretty obvious. You can disagree with the theory that a guy who lost his last race by 18 points, when the economy wasn’t an issue, can more easily defeat Barack Obama than Mitt Romney. But that’s a different point than “the unemployment rate doesn’t matter to me.”…

    The Romney campaign is attempting to press its rapid-response advantage, because the Santorum campaign isn’t ready to push back on this, and the media generally moves quickly enough for the bogus version of this quote (complete with a Romney campaign version of the clip) to traffic everywhere. It’s a meta-story, as if there were any other kind of story these days — Republicans should nominate the guy who can punch quickly, not the guy who brags about not needing a teleprompter and as a result can be easily taken out of context.

It’s also a way for Romney to try to pigeonhole Santorum as a niche “values” candidate for the benefit of undecideds who might be leery of all the time spent lately on social issues. Watch the clip and see for yourself: Why, Team Sweater Vest is so consumed with contraception and battling pornography that he doesn’t care about unemployment by his own admission! That’s what they want voters to take away, replete with Mitt sonorously reminding audiences at his town halls that he, of course, cares deeply about unemployment. On the other hand, Santorum’s attacks on Romney have gotten so sharp that he’s now taken to repeating Axelrod/Plouffe talking points about how Mitt has no “core.” You might see the clip of him saying that on CBS this morning in a Democratic ad or two this fall. They’re both fighting bareknuckle now.

I don’t want to leave you without an eyebrow-raising Santorum video, though, so watch the second one (via BuzzFeed) from 2008 for a quickie refresher on why libertarians loathe, loathe, loathe him.

Bristol Palin to Obama: When should I expect your call?

DDDD

posted at 1:20 pm on March 19, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Like her mother, Bristol Palin has been on the receiving end of incredibly cruel criticisms. The negativity has run the gamut from passing remarks about a lack of intelligence to hateful indictments of the mistakes she’s made (and earnestly attempted to rectify). But perhaps no one has been more unkind to the Palins than Barack Obama’s million-dollar man, Bill Maher. Maher’s mean-spirited, unrepeatable remarks about Sarah Palin have been well-documented, but he also once said Bristol Palin was “f—-d so hard a baby fell out.” Who says that sort of thing about an unwed teenage mother? Who says that sort of thing about anyone?

Bristol, though, truly not “afraid of life,” has now echoed her mother’s call to the president to reject the money Bill Maher donated to Obama’s Super PAC. Obama might not technically have control over when and where and how “his” Super PAC spends its money, but he could publicly disavow Maher — or reach out to the conservative women who’ve been insulted by him.

In a post on her new blog and in clear, sincere language, Bristol appeals to the president’s highest, noblest instincts — most especially his instinct to protect his daughters, the instinct he cited as the reason he felt compelled to call Sandra Fluke to apologize for Rush’s insults. She writes:

    If Maher talked about Malia and Sasha that way, you’d return his dirty money and the Secret Service would probably have to restrain you.  After all, I’ve always felt you understood my plight more than most because your mom was a teenager.  That’s why you stood up for me when you were campaigning against Sen. McCain and my mom — you said vicious attacks on me should be off limits.

    Yet I wonder if the Presidency has changed you.  Now that you’re in office, it seems you’re only willing to defend certain women.  You’re only willing to take a moral stand when you know your liberal supporters will stand behind you.

    But…

    What if you did something radical and wildly unpopular with your base and took a stand against the denigration of all women… even if they’re just single moms? Even if they’re Republicans?

New documents: ATF had “Fast & Furious” prime suspect in custody in 2010 — and let him go

DDDD

posted at 7:45 pm on March 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

He told them he was in contact with Mexican cartel members at the time, too. But he promised them — cross his heart and hope to die — that he would help them with their imbecilic gunrunning operation if they let him go. Which they did. And of course, they never heard from him again.

If that sounds insane to you, I’d gently suggest that perhaps you need a bit more brainwashing.

    An ATF “Report of Investigation” obtained by CBS News shows Border Patrol agents stopped [Manuel] Acosta’s truck on May 29, 2010. Inspectors said they found illegal materials including an “AK type, high capacity drum magazine loaded with 74 rounds of 7.62 ammunition underneath the spare tire.” They also noted ledgers including a “list of firearms such as an AR15 short and a Bushmaster” and a “reference about money given to ‘killer.’”…

    ATF knew even more about Acosta’s alleged illegal activities than what he described in the interview. ATF trace records showed “a large number of the weapons purchase by the Acosta organization are AK type rifles or FN Herstal pistols” which Acosta referred to as “cop killers” and said were preferred by drug cartels.

    Instead of pursuing charges, Agent MacAllister asked Acosta if he’d be willing to cooperate with federal agents. He agreed and was released. Apparently, the promised cooperation never materialized. The report notes that 17 days after Acosta was let loose, he still had “not initiated any contact with Special Agent MacAllister.”…

    Before releasing Acosta, MacAllister wrote her contact information on a $10 bill at Acosta’s request, gave it to him, then warned him “not to participate in any illegal activity unless under her direction.”

That final bit is the surreal essence of Fast & Furious distilled to one unforgettable phrase. The last time we blogged about Acosta was back in September when Ed wrote a post marveling at the fact that one of the FBI’s own informants had helped smuggle guns across the border even while he was on the feds’ payroll. The man he obtained those weapons from? The “big fish” of the F&F indictment, to borrow the LA Times’s phrase: Manuel Acosta, who was finally arrested in February 2011. We had him eight months earlier but let him go, apparently because America’s brain trust in the battle against cartels is willing to take a guy who trafficks in “cop-killer” weapons at his word.

I wonder why we haven’t tried this approach with any Gitmo detainees yet. What say we drop Khaled Sheikh Mohammed off in Waziristan if he makes us a solemn promise that he’ll tell us when he locates Zawahiri? The war on terror will be over in no time.

posted at 7:45 pm on March 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

He told them he was in contact with Mexican cartel members at the time, too. But he promised them — cross his heart and hope to die — that he would help them with their imbecilic gunrunning operation if they let him go. Which they did. And of course, they never heard from him again.

If that sounds insane to you, I’d gently suggest that perhaps you need a bit more brainwashing.

    An ATF “Report of Investigation” obtained by CBS News shows Border Patrol agents stopped [Manuel] Acosta’s truck on May 29, 2010. Inspectors said they found illegal materials including an “AK type, high capacity drum magazine loaded with 74 rounds of 7.62 ammunition underneath the spare tire.” They also noted ledgers including a “list of firearms such as an AR15 short and a Bushmaster” and a “reference about money given to ‘killer.’”…

    ATF knew even more about Acosta’s alleged illegal activities than what he described in the interview. ATF trace records showed “a large number of the weapons purchase by the Acosta organization are AK type rifles or FN Herstal pistols” which Acosta referred to as “cop killers” and said were preferred by drug cartels.

    Instead of pursuing charges, Agent MacAllister asked Acosta if he’d be willing to cooperate with federal agents. He agreed and was released. Apparently, the promised cooperation never materialized. The report notes that 17 days after Acosta was let loose, he still had “not initiated any contact with Special Agent MacAllister.”…

    Before releasing Acosta, MacAllister wrote her contact information on a $10 bill at Acosta’s request, gave it to him, then warned him “not to participate in any illegal activity unless under her direction.”

That final bit is the surreal essence of Fast & Furious distilled to one unforgettable phrase. The last time we blogged about Acosta was back in September when Ed wrote a post marveling at the fact that one of the FBI’s own informants had helped smuggle guns across the border even while he was on the feds’ payroll. The man he obtained those weapons from? The “big fish” of the F&F indictment, to borrow the LA Times’s phrase: Manuel Acosta, who was finally arrested in February 2011. We had him eight months earlier but let him go, apparently because America’s brain trust in the battle against cartels is willing to take a guy who trafficks in “cop-killer” weapons at his word.

I wonder why we haven’t tried this approach with any Gitmo detainees yet. What say we drop Khaled Sheikh Mohammed off in Waziristan if he makes us a solemn promise that he’ll tell us when he locates Zawahiri? The war on terror will be over in no time.

Flashback to 2007: Romney made pornography an issue in a campaign ad

DDDD


If it was obligatory to highlight Rick Santorum’s pledge to crack down on Internet pornography as president, then it should be equally obligatory to highlight Mitt Romney’s public position on porn in 2007.

    While running for president last cycle, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2007 cut a campaign ad called “Ocean,” where he vowed to “clean up the water in which our kids are swimming.”

    “I’d like to keep pornography from coming up on their computers,” Romney said in the ad.

    He also expressed a desire in the ad to “keep drugs off the streets” and “see less violence and sex on TV and in video games and in movies.”

Unlike Santorum, Romney makes no mention of the enforcement of anti-obscenity laws, so a reporter might still pin him with a question or two on that. He also stays exclusively focused on ensuring pornography doesn’t come up on kids’ computers. That’s a little different than wanting to restrict access for everybody. Still, surely this is enough to obviate the need for a GOP civil war on social issues, after all: Our two frontrunners agree that pornography has negative consequences for society. Don’t most people?

Tennessee bill would direct state Health Department to post a report of every abortion

DDDD

posted at 5:25 pm on March 19, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Under consideration in the state legislature of Tennessee right now is a bill — the Life Defense Act of 2012 — that would direct the state Health Department to post a report of every abortion. Not surprisingly, the bill has already become a source of controversy:

    The reports must include the “identification of the physician who performed the abortion and the physician’s office, clinic, hospital or other facility where the abortion was performed,” according to the official summary of the bill.

    Chas Sisk of the Nashville Tennessean reports that abortion-rights advocates are worried that this could result in the intimidation of doctors, given violent acts against abortion providers in the past.

    Although the bill states that patients will not be identified in the reports, it says the documents must include the woman’s county, age, race, marital status, plus her number of prior pregnancies, number of prior abortions, the gestational age of the fetus, and her preexisting medical conditions. That, critics say, could make it easy to guess identities, particularly in sparsely populated rural areas.

    The sponsor of the bill, Matthew Hill, is a Republican state representative from the east Tennessee town of Jonesborough.

    “The Department of Health already collects the data, but they don’t publish it,” Hill told the Tennessean. “All we’re asking is that the data they already collect be made public.”

In general, I’m highly in favor of state-level measures to deter abortion up to and even including personhood amendments, but this one stumps me. Right now, the law treats abortion as just another medical procedure. To direct the state Health Department to publish the details of a medical procedure in this way sets a dangerous precedent. Would we want the state Health Department to publish records of every medical procedure we receive? While I don’t want to invoke that awful “right to privacy” that abortion advocates pretend gives women the right to kill their unborn children, if ever a “right to privacy” existed, wouldn’t it be in relation to doctor-patient privilege?

The problem, of course, is that the law treats abortion as just a medical procedure, rather than the elimination of an innocent life. The criminalization of abortion is probably a long way off, but, in the meantime, a variety of less-drastic, pro-life legal measures can at least create or advance the awareness that a fetus is actually a human person with the right to life. Ultrasound requirements, for example, have that as their aim. So, too, do parental consent laws. But this new measure seems to have a different, less sympathetic aim: To shame doctors who perform abortions and to shame women who seek them. But I worry that such a law would do less to change the hearts and minds of abortion advocates than to harden in them the denial of the very awareness of reality we seek to awaken in them.

Sunday, March 18, 2012

ทำยังไง? ให้ โปรโมชั่นความรักไม่มีวันหมด

DDDD


เมื่อ เวลาผ่านเลยไปจากวันเป็นเดือน จากเดือนเป็นปี ความหวานที่เคยมีให้กันในตอนแรกอาจจะลดลงไปบ้าง อย่างที่ใครต่อใครเขาเรียกกันว่า “หมดช่วงโปรโมชั่น” ถ้าเรารู้อย่างนี้แล้วต้องทำยังไงหละ … อย่าอายที่จะ “บอกรัก” ลองบอกรักกันวันละครั้งดูสิคะ อย่างน้อยก็เป็นสิ่งที่ทำให้เขาคนนั้นรู้ว่า เรายังคิดถึงเขาเสมอไม่เคยเปลี่ยน

อย่าหงุดหงิดไปกับเรื่องเล็กๆ ... สาวๆ จำไว้ว่าบางทีเราก็อย่าไปใส่ใจกับเรื่องเล็กๆ น้อยๆ จนทำให้เป็นประเด็นทะเลาะกัน เช่น ถ้านัดกันแล้วเรามาสาย 10 นาที ก็ไม่จำเป็นที่เราจะต้องเหวี่ยงหรือโวยวายใส่ แค่พูดเล่นๆ แซวๆ เขาว่า “มาสายแบบนี้เลี้ยงข้าวเลยนะ” จากสถานการณ์มาคุ ก็จะเปลี่ยนเป็นบรรยากาศแบบ Feel Good ไปเลยล่ะ



ถ้ารู้สึกว่าเริ่มจะเหวี่ยงเมื่อไหร่ ให้หายใจลึกๆ แล้วนับ 1 – 10 ... แนะนำว่าถ้าอารมณ์ไม่ดี มีสัญญาณว่าระเบิดจะลงเมื่อไหร่ อย่าเพิ่งคุยกันนะจ๊ะ ต่างคนต่างอยู่กับตัวเองไปก่อน ดังนั้นการให้เวลาซึ่งกันและกัน พิจารณาตัวเอง ย่อมดีกว่าการคุยกันทั้งๆ ที่ยังไม่มีสติอยู่แล้วล่ะ



อย่าพูดถึงจุดอ่อนของเขาเด็ดขาด … บางทีสิ่งที่อาจดูไม่สลักสำคัญ จิ๊บจ๊อย หรือน่ารักในสายตาของเราอาจเป็นเรื่องซีเรียสสำหรับเขาก็ได้นะ เราควรจะรู้เรื่องไหนที่เขาซีเรียสและให้ความสำคัญ อย่าเอาไปพูดกับเพื่อน พ่อแม่ หรือใครเด็ดขาด และอย่าได้เอามันมาโจมตีเขาเวลาที่ทะเลาะกันด้วย

ให้เกียรติซึ่งกันและกัน … ไม่ ว่าเขาคนนั้นจะมีอายุรุ่นราวคราวเดียวกับเรา แก่กว่า หรือเด็กกว่า เราก็ควรจะให้เกียรติและรับฟังความคิดเห็นเสมอ และที่สำคัญที่สุดเราไม่ควรพูดถึงเขาในทางไม่ดี



ใช้เวลาด้วยกันวันละนิด … ง่ายๆ อาจจะแค่กินอาหารเย็นด้วยกัน เดินเล่นกัน หรือไปช้อปปิ้งด้วยกัน ประเด็นก็คือใช้เวลาด้วยกันทุกวัน พูดคุยหรือแม้แต่อยู่ด้วยกันเงียบๆ มันจะยิ่งสร้างความใกล้ชิดสนิทแน่นระหว่างกันจ้า

ความรักยังไงก็เป็นสิ่งที่สวยงามนะคะ ถ้าเราหมดรักแล้วอย่างน้อยก็ควรนึกถึงสิ่งดีๆให้กันนะ ^^ เก็บไว้เป้นความทรงจำที่ดี ..

ขอบคุณข้อมูล นิตยสารแคนดี้ ฉบับเดือนมีนาคม มาร์กี้-ราศรี เล่มที่ #86 คะ

เขียนโดย pornphanh.
เมื่อ March 8, 2012 at 10:52.
หมวด Love and tagged love, ความรัก, มาร์กี้-ราศรี, เคล็ดลับความรัก.
 

ร้อนๆแบบนี้กินไอติม แล้วมาทายนิสัยจากไอติมที่ชอบกัน

DDDD


หน้าร้อนแบบนี้ หนุ่มๆสาวๆคงคอแห้งเพราะอากาศที่ร้อนสุดๆกันแน่นอน ก็ต้องหาของหวานมากระแทกปากให้คลายร้อนกัน แต่!รู้ป่าวว่าไอติมที่เราชอบกินนั้น มันบ่งบอกว่าเรานั้นเป็นคนนิสัยยังไงได้นะ ไม่เชื่อลองดู …

ช็อกโกแล๊ต

แสดงถึง เป็นคนขี้เหงา จิตใจไม่ค่อยเข้มแข็ง อ่อนไหวง่าย ชอบเก็ยเรื่องอดีตมาคิดอยู่เสมอๆ เตร่งครัดและยึดมั่นในขนบธรรมเนียมประเพณีต่างๆ

ช็อกโกแล๊ตชิป

เป้นคนที่แก้ไขปัญหาเฉพาะหน้าได้ดี เอาตัวรอดยามขับขันได้ดี แก้ไขเรื่องราวร้ายๆให้กลายเป็นดีได้เก่ง มองโลกในแง่ดี มักตั้งความหวัง เป้าหมายยในชีวิตไว้สูง

กาแฟ

คนนันชอบเป็นผู้นำ ชอบการแข่งขัน ตั้งใจทำงานด้วยความจริงจัง เน้นผลงานต้องดีเลิศกว่าคนอื่น ยิ่งได้รับความรับผิดชอบมากเท่าไหร่ยิ่งพอใจ

วนิลลา

อุปนิสัยร่าเริง รักในศักดิ์ศรีตนเองสูง เป้นที่รักของทุกๆคน ผูกมิตรกับคนอื่นได้ดี ชอบงใช้ชีวิตแบบเรียบง่ายไม่ต้องมีพิธีรีตรองมาก

สตรอเบอร์รี่

เป้นคนที่มีความเอื้อเฟื้อเผื่อแผ่สูง ชอบช่วยเหลือผู้อื่น มอบความอบอุ่นและความรักกับคนกล้ตัวได้เป็นอย่างดี เป็นคนที่ทำตัวง่ายๆ ประเภทติดดิน คบกับคนอ่นได้ง่าย แม้จะเป็นคนแปลกหน้าก็ตาม มองโลกใแง่ดีอยู่เสมอ

ไอศกรีมรสผลไม้

ปรับตัวได้เก่ง มีความยืดหยุ่นนตัวสูง ชอบอะไรที่หลากหลายไม่จำเจ มักชอบการประนีประนอม ไม่ชอบการตัดสินด้วยกำลัง

ไม่ชอบกินไอศกรีมเลย

ชอบใข้ขีวิตด้วยหลักการและเหตุผล มีความเป็นส่วนตัวสูง เป็นตัวของตัวเองสูง

เป็นยังไงกันบ้างจ๊ะ ตรงกันบ้างรึเปล่า แต่!!ถ้าเรากินทุกรสละ 555 งั้นคงนิสัยรวมๆกันละเนอะ ^^

ขอบคุณข้อมูล FWMail

เขียนโดย pornphanh.
เมื่อ March 16, 2012 at 02:00.
หมวด Love and tagged ice cream, ความรัก, ทายนิสัย, ไอติมทายนิสัย, ไอศกรีม.
 

Don’t be too disappointed, but … George Clooney doesn’t plan to run for office

DDDD

posted at 7:30 pm on March 18, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Yesterday evening, as I was browsing the Internet, I found myself absentmindedly clicking through a slideshow of “Supermodels: Then and Now.” What can I say? I like fashion, the intriguing artistry and aggravating arrogance behind it. I also really like slide shows, with their wordless imagery and quippy captions. At the end of a long day of reading, slide shows are relaxing.

My wandering attention was vividly arrested, though, by a slide that featured a sleek Linda Evangelista with a fire-engine red bob. So, I read the caption. Apparently, Ms. Evangelista once said this about the life of a supermodel: “We don’t wake up for less than $10,000 a day.”

Ah, the rich and famous — so blissfully disconnected from the reality the rest of us live. Note that I don’t begrudge Ms. Evangelista her $10,000 a day. I’m not a member of the 99 percent (well, technically I am, but you know what I mean). I just think it’s interesting that liberals forget how many members of the one percent are actually … liberals. (I don’t happen to know whether Linda Evangelista leans left, but, if she’s anything like Elle MacPherson …)

George Clooney is like that, a liberal member of the one percent, who, because he travels to the Sudan and speaks out about genocide, is never accused of being “unable to connect” with “the average American.” The guy is worth $160 million — just a little shy of Mitt and Ann Romney’s collective $200 million net worth — but people still talk about him as though he’s a people’s hero and plead for his opinion on politics.

At least, I assume they do. Why else would he — like Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and others — make a point to give political opinions over and over again? Surely they wouldn’t risk alienating half their audiences for any other reason.

Apparently, people also clamor for these guys to run for office because interviewers perennially ask them whether it’s a possibility. In a recent issue of InStyle magazine, for example, an interview with Affleck’s wife Jennifer Garner included the question as to when Ben and Jen are gonna take the political plunge. In an interview pre-taped for today’s “Meet the Press,” Clooney addressed the same question.

Here’s what he had to say:

    The actor turned human-rights activist told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday that he believes he has more of an impact on U.S. policy now than he would have if he ran for public office. …

    “I can actually have an opinion and it may not fit what the U.N. wants and it may not fit what other people want,” Mr. Clooney told NBC. “And so I think it’s a lot easier than running for office. I don’t have any interest in that.”

According to Jesse Watters, Clooney is actually quite nice when he expresses his political opinion in person. Nor could anyone really find fault with his attempts to increase awareness of the horrors that are occurring halfway around the world. Fame can and should be used in accordance with the consciences of those who possess it.

So, it’s not actually anything George Clooney has said or done of late that I find so aggravating: It’s that here, too, is detectable the double standard that so pervades the MSM and the culture. A woman who has enriched herself through beauty or a man who has enriched himself through art and has come to hold liberal views loses no credibility because of wealth but a man who has enriched himself through private equity and has come to hold conservative views does?

Then again, perhaps we should cease to complain about the double standard and instead recognize that, yes, artistry does give the one who possesses it a special kind of clout. If we did that, perhaps we’d begin to meet “the people” where they are — at the movies.
 
 

“National Defense Resources Preparedness” executive order: Power grab or mere update?

DDDD

posted at 10:30 am on March 18, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

We’re getting a lot of e-mail this weekend about an executive order issued on Friday afternoon by President Obama titled “National Defense Resources Preparedness.”  While the timing of the EO is curious — why send it out on a Friday afternoon when an administration is usually trying to sneak bad news past the media? — the general impact of it is negligible.  This EO simply updates another EO (12919) that had been in place since June 1994, and amended several times since.

Let’s start with Friday’s EO:

    Section 101.  Purpose.  This order delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the “Act”).

    Sec. 102.  Policy.  The United States must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency.  The domestic industrial and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.  The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs of the United States.

Sounds dramatic, doesn’t it?  This actually matches the language in EO 12919, however, even the part about “in peacetime.”  What follows is significantly less dramatic:

    Sec. 103.  General Functions.  Executive departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and programs, shall:

    (a)  identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

    (b)  assess on an ongoing basis the capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled labor, and professional and technical personnel;

    (c)  be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;

    (d)  improve the efficiency and responsiveness of the domestic industrial base to support national defense requirements; and

    (e)  foster cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors for research and development and for acquisition of materials, services, components, and equipment to enhance industrial base efficiency and responsiveness.

Again, this is almost identical to EO 12919 from 18 years earlier.  Note what this EO specifically orders: identify, assess, be prepared, improve, foster cooperation.  None of these items claim authority to seize private property and place them at the personal disposal of Obama.  What follows after Section 103 are the directives for implementing these rather analytical tasks, mostly in the form of explicit delegations of presidential authority to Cabinet members and others in the executive branch.

Why the update?  If one takes a look at EO 12919, the big change is in the Cabinet itself.  In 1994, we didn’t have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS.  In EO 12919, the FEMA director had those responsibilities, and the biggest change between the two is the removal of several references to FEMA (ten in all).   Otherwise, there aren’t a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate.

In fact, that’s almost entirely what it is.  The original EO dealing with national defense resources preparedness was issued in 1939 (EO 8248) according to the National Archives.  It has been superseded a number of times, starting in 1951 by nearly every President through Bill Clinton, and amended twice by George W. Bush.

Barack Obama may be arrogant, and the timing of this release might have looked a little strange, but this is really nothing to worry about at all.

Update: It’s worth noting, too, that the second change by Bush to EO 12919 came through an amendment to EO 11858 that eliminated requirements of Cabinet officials to report on attempts by foreigners to invest in “critical technologies” in the US or “industrial espionage activities” targeting defense contractors (Section 801).  Obama’s new EO doesn’t reverse that action, either.

Update II: William Jacobson comes to the same conclusion I do at Legal Insurrection:

    There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny.

    I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems, but unless and until someone does more than merely state that martial law is coming, I’ll consider this to be routine.

Agreed.  All the links are above, so if there’s something significant added between this EO and 12919 and the Bush-amended versions of it in 2003 and 2008, point it out.  Otherwise, this just restates the Bush-amended 12919 with current Cabinet nomenclature.

Update III: One commenter notes that Obama has added to Section 201(b) the phrase “under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.”  In 12919, though, the duties of the Cabinet Secretaries were not limited to emergency situations in Section 201(b), either.  And in both EOs, section 102 specifically notes that the EO is intended to ensure defense preparedness “in peacetime and in times of national emergency.”

Update IV: Section 308 is new, but all it does is delegate authority already granted to the President under US statute.  Here’s the EO language:

    Sec. 308.  Government-Owned Equipment.  The head of each agency engaged in procurement for the national defense is delegated the authority of the President under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to:

    (a)  procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes, or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government and to procure and install Government owned equipment in plants, factories, or other industrial facilities owned by private persons;

    (b)  provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under sections 301, 302, or 303 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2091, 2092, 2093; and

    (c)  sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under section 303(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2093(e), to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.

And here’s the existing statutory language that originated in the Defense Production Act of 1950 (pardon the formatting):

    (e) Installation of equipment in industrial facilities
    (1) Installation authorized
    If the President determines that such action will aid the national defense, the President is authorized—

    (A) to procure and install additional equipment, facilities, processes or improvements to plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by the Federal Government;

    (B) to procure and install equipment owned by the Federal Government in plants, factories, and other industrial facilities owned by private persons;

    (C) to provide for the modification or expansion of privately owned facilities, including the modification or improvement of production processes, when taking actions under section 301 [section 2091 of this Appendix], 302 [section 2092 of this Appendix], or this section; and

    (D) to sell or otherwise transfer equipment owned by the Federal Government and installed under this subsection to the owners of such plants, factories, or other industrial facilities.

    (2) Indemnification
    The owner of any plant, factory, or other industrial facility that receives equipment owned by the Federal Government under this section shall agree—

    (A) to waive any claim against the United States under section 107 or 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9607 and 9613); and

    (B) to indemnify the United States against any claim described in paragraph (1) made by a third party that arises out of the presence or use of equipment owned by the Federal Government.

Again, this is nothing new or outside of existing statutory authority — and the EO makes that clear by explicitly citing that authority.  All this does is delegate the authority for these actions to the Cabinet officials.  This again is nothing new, just a delegation of existing authority.

Update V: Gabriel Malor concurs over at AoSHQ.

Update VI: I don’t disagree at all with Doug Mataconis:

    It all sounds pretty scary, and it wasn’t long before the usual suspects were citing this as evidence of some kind of plan for martial law, just as there were people on the left and far-right in asserting that George Bush was going to declare martial law and cancel the elections in 2004 and 2008. Considering who it was who was spreading the meme that this was some kind of power grab by the Obama Administration, I wasn’t inclined to believe it to begin with. However, once you actually look at the facts (yes, I know, how dare I muddle up a good conspiracy theory with actual facts) it becomes pretty clear that not only is the reaction to this wildly over the top in some corners, but the Executive Order itself is nothing more than a restatement of policy that has been in place in decades and grants no authority to the President or the Cabinet that they don’t already have under existing law. …

    There are, perhaps, some issues worth discussing that this EO raises. The fact that the President of the United States is still exercising authority granted during the Korean War and the height of the Cold War is yet another reflection of how power, once assumed by the Imperial Presidency, is never surrendered. The fact that an Executive Order like this was released on a Friday afternoon and has been largely ignored by the traditional media is an indication of just how easy it is for politicians to manipulate the news cycle. And the idea that the government has authority like that described in this document, even only in theory, and that most Americans aren’t even aware of it, is a reflection of just how little we know about the things that are done in our name. Those are all legitimate issues, but they go far deeper than this one relatively innocuous Executive Order.

Indeed — but all of that was equally true before Obama issued an update to a 73-year-old effort that changed nothing about his executive authority and power.  To the extent that we’re all more aware of it, that’s good, but we shouldn’t act as though this was an Obama novelty, and we really shouldn’t jump to conspiracy-think conclusions without understanding the history of these EOs.
Tags: executive order, executive power, national defense resources preparedness, obama
 
© Copyright 2010-2011 Washinton Post All Rights Reserved.
Template Design by Herdiansyah Hamzah | Published by Borneo Templates | Powered by Blogger.com.