Now try and explain how "Suvarnabhumi" is pronounced! It's funny that the transliteration from Thai actually looks nothing like the way it is pronounced.

As some one who follows the Thai news very closely I can tell you that the new airport was beset by a whole raft of problems when it was rushed into service, way behind schedule but as a matter of politics it needed to open according to the corrupt former PM. When it first open there were a multitude of complaints about the lack of working toilets, the dim lighting, the heat during the day that comes through all of that unshaded glass. And the over-reliance on remote stands (i.e. "bus gates") because Airports of Thailand charges so much to use a gate. People still complain about the long security lines, although with the current tourism downturn thanks to the political instability I guess it's not so bad at the moment. The neighboring community has had all sort of problems with the noise and vibrations, including roof tiles falling off of temples. Then there was all of the cracking asphalt on the taxiways and the cracks in the runways too. The place is built on a swamp! But I agree it does look pretty and shiny, especially at night. And compared to DMK it is a huge upgrade.

I think the architect who designed Suvarnabhumi is German so perhaps that explains the similarities to MUC.

According to Kurtz on his chat this afternoon at the WP website the segments in question will be broadcast on Weds and Thurs in the lead up to the VP debate. So, Sullivan can un-knot his knickers.

I am with bschoch on this one too. Even if we "bailout" or "rescue" the banks from their bad decisions now, then what happens?

The system is still a flimsy house of cards. We're still tens of trillions in debt that we have no prospect of ever re-paying. Our money is still going to eventually be worthless.

How does propping up crippled banks really make any difference in the long run? No one seems to be explaining that.

I think most Americans intuitively understand that our economic system doesn't make any logical sense, even if they don't understand all of the details.

Her answer to the gay question was a bit odd as well. She claims one of her best friends is a lesbian, but then she says that her friend made a "different choice" than she would have. I wish Katie has followed up and asked her if she really thought being gay was a choice.

I don't read this as her trying to say she reads every paper every day. She's trying to say that she reads whichever paper is put in front of her at any given time but she doesn't know their names.

I agree that she is the female George Bush. She is a bully with a limited worldview and an incurious mind. That's an angle the Dems should push to scare the crap out of the independents who finally came to their senses too late on Bush.

I also agree that she is afraid for some reason to tell us what exactly she does read. She needs to be a blank slate. Remember how everyone accused Obama of being an empty suit who gives a good speech, but basically doesn't say anything? And that allowed people to attach whatever transference to him that they wanted so they felt good about themselves and about him? I think this is the same phenomenon with her. The base needs some one "like them" to attach their hopes to. As soon as she starts actually taking positions or tell us more about herself the more she risks alienating people. So, if she can hold on for just a few more weeks as an empty vessel they could just win.

remember that the population of Alaska is a few hundred thousand. How many people actually watched those debates there? 50,000....60,000? Now she's on a huge stage with millions paying attention. Maybe that's making her nervous. And the issues in Alaska are much different than the national and world issues she's needs to know about now.

Perhaps deep down she knows she's really not qualified to be doing this so that is coming through.

From what little I saw of the debate they both seemed to be looking down a lot at their lecterns. So I assumed that they had notes of some sort that they were referring to.

If "degrading and humiliating" is the new standard, my guess is that they will start going after more mainstream porn producers than this specialty S&M porn. My guess is that they could argue all sorts of sex acts performed in your basic porn movie are degrading or humiliating.

Even people who live here sometimes call it "The People's Republic of Arlington". The fact is we are on the whole pretty liberal here. I think we voted something like 75-25 in favor of Kerry in 2004 here in Arlington. Webb clobbered Allen by an enormous margin. It's probably the most liberal jurisdiction in the state.

But I agree calling us "socialist" instead of "communist" would have probably been more correct.

There is no reason why Obama can't do both. Hit McCain on this, and as Harold Meyerson suggested this morning Phil Gramm, while at the same time doing as you suggest and cutting an ad telling people that McCain wants to distract you, here's my economic plan.

must be something in the water down there that makes the politicians horny old SOBs.

wow, that 90% quote from however many years ago is the gift that just keeps on giving for Obama.