Your Health & Happiness: Health, Fitness and Exercise

Heart to Heart  with Hillary

Camera Class:  by Harry Flashman

Getting the phuzz out of photos

Modern digital technology is promising us sharp photos. Some cameras even make people smile in the final image, even though they might have been scowling. So, have the days of ‘bad pictures’ finally gone?
Unfortunately, the technology does not cover all possibilities, but undoubtedly the number of ‘bad pictures’ will be less. With today’s anti-shake in my latest digital I have successfully hand-held at one third of a second. Or should I say, the camera has been able to stabilize the image at a one third of a second shutter speed. I am sure I am not that steady!
Everyone these days seems to have a small digital camera in a purse, pocket or handbag, which is brandished triumphantly as everyone attempts to record the “good times”. This is an admirable use of the digital camera, but unfortunately the “good times” can still be spoiled by “bad pictures”. And one of the reasons is the One-Two-Three. That is the “One-Two-Three” that every social photographer seems to think has to be said before popping the shutter, which is accompanied by the photographer holding up One-Two-Three fingers, leaving the camera held in one hand only.
Now I am aware of the fact that the new mini, compact digitals will easily fit in one hand, but to get a sharp picture, you have to make sure the camera is still while the shutter is tripped. One handed picture taking just doesn’t keep the camera still enough. Especially when as the happy photographer is waving the free hand in the air, the camera is also waving!
The manufacturers are trying to counteract this by either the lens or the sensor being programmed to move to counteract unsteadiness in the camera, caused by the photographer not holding the camera firmly - or perhaps suffering from Parkinson’s disease, or perhaps trying to photograph the moon hand-held at a five second time exposure.
However, this technology is not the be all and end all. It has its limitations. You only need a slight movement in the camera to produce ‘soft’ photographs. You will not realize this when you look at the postage stamp sized LCD screen on the back of your camera, but when you go for larger prints it all becomes too obvious, or when you digitally magnify areas of the image.
With the larger cameras, SLR’s and the like, it becomes even more important to avoid camera shake. After all, why spend thousands of baht to buy super sharp lenses and get soft “blurry” photographs. You might as well have stuck with a cheap disposable “camera in a film box” and saved your money for booze - which will also give you the shakes just as easily but possibly more enjoyably!
The simple fact of the matter is that to get sharp photographs, the camera must be held still while the shutter is held open, despite all the electronic gizmos. Now, in most daylight situations if the camera is set on “auto” it will select a shutter speed of around 1/125th of a second, and while that sounds “fast” it really isn’t. You will still get noticeable “softness” in the final print if the hand holding the camera has allowed any movement.
The secret really is in the grip. And it is a two handed one. You will not see any professional photographer taking shots with one hand free. I also recommend that you take a short breath in and then hold it while gently squeezing off the shutter. Another good practice is to keep the elbows in by your sides, and even lean against a solid object, like a telephone pole! In overcast weather when the camera will select slower shutter speeds, this is even more important. Your camera will also most likely have two “hand/finger” impressions on either side of the camera body. They are not there for decoration. Use them!
No, if you really must let your subjects know that they are about to be recorded for posterity, a simple verbal One-Two-Three (while hanging on to the camera with two hands) is all that is necessary. I guarantee you will get pictures more sharp than you used to get before.

Money Matters:  Paul Gambles MBMG International Ltd.

A beginner’s guide to the credit crunch, part 1

Recently many people have asked questions about ‘Le crunch’ and we’re guessing that many others want to but are too embarrassed. Heck, it’s not them who should be embarrassed - if the Tsars of Wall Street had asked a few more questions we might not be in this mess today. We’ve written some really detailed pieces about this but one client recently pointed out that while these might serve as great theses for other economists to pore over; they’re not always what you might call ‘accessible.’ So, here goes - A beginner’s guide to the credit crunch.
The credit crunch is basically a global phenomenon whereby the global economy is running out of money.
How can that be?
Well, we find ourselves in a situation where those who have the money won’t or aren’t able to give it quite so readily to those who need it. An obvious example is the banking sector. In a number of countries including the USA, UK, Australia, Spain, Ireland a record amount of lending took place during the last decade. Most of this was focused on property as record amounts of money poured into the residential and commercial property sectors.
Is this why property prices went up so much?
It was certainly the major factor - all asset prices tend to be primarily determined by supply and demand. The huge increase in the availability of easy credit on both sides of the Atlantic and in countries like Spain and Ireland enabled many people who previously couldn’t get credit to suddenly do so. This extra demand forced up property prices in these places.
These people who previously couldn’t get credit - is this the sub-prime that we hear so much about?
That’s right - prime rate mortgages are those given to borrowers who can substantiate good credit credentials. Below that we get Alt-A or self-certificated loans where the applicants say that their credit is good but that they can’t prove it. These tend to be referred to as ‘liars loans’ for obvious reasons; would you admit your credit was bad if you didn’t have to and if that admission would cost you money in the form of a higher interest rate or would result in the refusal of your loan application? Ranking below that category are sub-prime applicants, namely those unfortunates who can’t hide that their credit isn’t good.
So people with bad credit could suddenly get loans?
People with damaged credit should always have the right to prove that they have repaired their situation and can now service debt but suddenly all previous criteria went out of the window and instead of proper credit checking everyone could now get approval for loans that in many cases they couldn’t afford.
What happened then?
The so called sub prime borrowers were the ones least able to pay and who found themselves most at risk of defaulting. These defaults built up to the extent that they became a problem for lenders who had totally under-estimated the extent of defaults.
Is this the so called toxic debt?
Yes - it’s normal banking practice that lenders lend much more money than they have in their own reserves. They need to attract some deposits so they have some reserves of cash to fall back on but they have been increasingly borrowing more and more money from other lenders. Often this in sold as an asset.
You can sell your debts as an asset?
You can if you’re a bank. If someone owes you money (a debt obligation) the income stream from that is really an asset - the bank that originally leant the money can sell it on and take a fee. Meanwhile the right to collect the capital and interest every month suddenly belongs to the buyer. The bank who sold the loans is suddenly debt free and can go and do the same thing all over again.
Why would anyone buy debt?
Well this happens all the time. Someone has a chunk of capital and wants to earn interest - he can usually get a better return than the bank rate by buying a debt vehicle. Government Treasury Bills and Corporate bonds are typical examples of debt vehicles. Buy a US Government T-Bill and you are giving capital to the US government in return for regular interest payments in the interim and a promise that they will repay the capital on maturity.
But isn’t that different? Surely the US government will always pay back?
You would hope they would - although the US Government has defaulted before and only last week the markets for government debt indicated that the risk of US Government default is now higher than it’s ever been. In fact it rated the risk of US government default virtually comparable to the risk of debt default by public corporations like McDonalds! But I take your point - not all mortgages get repaid. Sometimes houses end up being repossessed and lenders can lose money on these transactions.
Exactly - not everyone will repay these mortgages, will they?
No they won’t. At the moment it’s impossible to guess how many of these mortgages will be OK and how many won’t. Usually the law of big numbers means that it’s possible to make an extremely close estimate but right now, that really doesn’t apply.
What’s the law of big numbers?
Many recurrent patterns of events are capable of being quantified, provided that the historical data is accurate, the sample data is broad enough and the comparison is like for like. In other words it’s generally true in financial transactions to believe that, “If you always do what you’ve always done, then you’ll always get what you always got.”
Take a broad enough sample of mortgages with comparable key data and the default rate will be very consistent at comparable parts of the economic cycle. Roughly the same percentage of Illinois Alpha-rated sub-urbanites would have defaulted in the boom periods of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Applying probability of default rates means that probability of losses and write-offs from mortgage defaults can also be accurately calculated. Buy big enough batches of clearly defined mortgages and you can be virtually certain what profits you will realize on these. To help buyers identify what is contained within batches of mortgages credit ratings agencies used historical data and the law of big numbers to predict the expected repayment quality of these batches of mortgages.
To be continued…

The above data and research was compiled from sources believed to be reliable. However, neither MBMG International Ltd nor its officers can accept any liability for any errors or omissions in the above article nor bear any responsibility for any losses achieved as a result of any actions taken or not taken as a consequence of reading the above article. For more information please contact Paul Gambles on paul@mbmg-international.com

Life in Chiang Mai: by Mark Whitman

Musing on Boozing

And how Chabrol dealt with Orson Welles

Last week I wrote about the collected letters of Dirk Bogarde (Weidenfeld and Nicholson) and mentioned his account of giving dinner to the Attenboroughs, with his characteristically dyspeptic comment that the guests had drunk the bottle of wine on offer. Leaving aside the parsimony of offering only one bottle to be shared at a generous meal, it occurs to me that Dirk and his partner Tony were the real drinkers at that table and probably abstained from the vino as much out of indifference to it as well as a reluctance to open a second much needed bottle. Many heavy drinkers are well ahead of the pack before the meal is served.
His amusing letters contain innumerable references to alcohol: often the ‘need’ for a beer, a lament about the change of the clocks which means that he has to wait an extra hour before the first noon-day drink. Harold Pinter – another heavy drinker – I was with him when he drank a bottle of Scotch one evening in Exeter, claiming a ‘head cold’ in – has a brilliant scene in No Man’s Land where the writer draws the curtains on a bright early evening so that it becomes dark enough to justify a drink. Another is a Christmas meal involving six bottles of Crystal and, on the early morning set of a lame brain movie, The Serpent with Ava Gardner, drinking Dom Perignon at 5.30 whilst she got into her make up.
I recall taking Champagne to his home at Clermont one lunch time and being less than amused to see the two bottles of chilled Veuve Cliquot (perhaps they were considered of inadequate quality!) placed dismissively inside the hallway. We were then plied with large vodkas which were in circulation since it was already 12.30. The best aperitif ever invented (by the aforementioned Dom) was discarded in favour of the hard stuff. So, poor Richard A. modestly enjoying a glass of wine was pilloried for such indulgence.
Not that Bogarde was in the same league as the screen’s monumental drunks, the incomparable Robert Newton or Wilfred Lawson, nor our greatest ever film actor Trevor Howard or his equivalent from across the pond Spencer Tracy, who went on three-day benders in times of great depression, much to the distress of his companion Katherine Hepburn. Howard also had a devoted partner – his actress wife Helen Cherry – who defended his behaviour against all comers. Responding to a friend who remarked that ‘Trevor never does anything around the house,’ she said, ‘Yes he does – he fills up the ashtrays.’ Howard too had a nice line in put downs. Approached by a ‘fan’ at a bar one day he was asked, ‘Aren’t you Trevor Howard?’ ‘Yes,’ he agreed, ‘When I’m working I am.’
I recall being on a plane with him from London to Biarritz and he kindly invited me to join him in his car to the San Sebastian Film Festival, where he was a guest of honour. I was there simply to work. We arranged to meet later for dinner and I called for him at his suite, only to find him happily downing Johnnie Walker from the bottle. At dinner he was charming and relaxed, and suitably caustic about some of his latter day movies including the then current Wagner. But he left the wine to me. Still, I doubt whether he mentally criticized me for drinking most of the Rioja. He, like many Thais and Americans, would possibly have been happier continuing with whisky during the meal. It is a matter of taste and very un-European.
The early morning drink is, of course, a matter of necessity rather than taste, and Howard could certainly enjoy that too, although not perhaps to the extent of ‘Fats’ Waller whose breakfast traditionally was a quart of gin. Even more than that consumed by the once magical Richard Burton – dubbed by Bogarde throughout his correspondence ‘the fat Welshman’ – who began the day with a Bloody Mary. In Melvyn Bragg’s definitive biography of Burton, it is recounted that this was the start of the normal three bottles of vodka each day. It was less on occasion depending on what other booze was consumed and what state his marriage to Elizabeth Taylor was in – since she could keep pace with him. How did he remember his lines, one might ask, especially on stage in often monumental roles such as Hamlet. The answer was with great difficulty and a deal of improvisation. Such boozing led to a loss of his beauty, much of the quality of his wonderful voice and a host of lousy movies (he had no taste anyway in film) made for the money.
Paul Newman was another heavy drinker, but had the great fortune to lead a rich and full life and to marry Joanne Woodward who helped his career and I believe much else besides. He worked with great presence until well into his seventies and, although he drank to calm his nerves (I recall several strong beers on the way to his National Film Theatre interview, as Joanne sat out of sight on the floor of the limousine urging us to take the long way round from the Berkeley Hotel to London’s South Bank), and he abandoned the stage for much of his working life. But he was too much of a professional to let the drink affect his work and the same could – on occasion – go even for Burton, who went ‘dry’ as did poor Robert Newton on his last film Around the World in 80 Days. In his case the effect was so dramatic that he died soon after.
Orson Welles, a great director and a powerful screen presence, became known in his latter years for his indulgences, and when signed to act in 10 Days Wonder for Claude Chabrol was seen by that director as a potential problem. Chabrol – now in his eighties and still making fine movies – devised a sophisticated and very Gaelic solution. He arranged a deal with Moet and Chandon (an early example of product placement), so that well chilled champagne was constantly available for Welles on set. Chabrol reckoned correctly that this steady supply of not too potent alcohol would keep his star content but on the right side of inebriation. Also, bubbly takes more consuming, even for someone of Welles’ vast bulk and capacity. The film was not much cop, but at least it finished on schedule. A rather better movie, The Wedding, featured another well known Hollywood drinker, Dana Andrews, who played a guest at the reception. Director Altman gave him one of the best lines in the film as he props himself up, glass in hand and asks a fellow guest if he too would like a drink. The man replies rather sniffily, ‘No thanks, I don’t drink’. Andrews retorts, ‘So you mean that when you get up in the morning that’s the best you are going to feel all day?’ I’ll drink to that…

Let's Go To The Movies: Mark Gernpy

Now playing in Chiang Mai
Max Payne: US Action/ Thriller – Starring Mark Wahlberg. Based on the popular interactive video game, it’s the story of a maverick cop determined to track down those responsible for the brutal murder of his family. Basically for fans of the game and action movies; has some striking and stylish visuals in a somber mood, and an intense performance by Wahlberg.
City of Ember: US Adventure/Family/Fantasy – A fun family film with a subtly dark feel rarely seen in kids’ movies. It has almost everything one could want from a science fiction-based family film: likeable characters, an imaginative setting, and a fast pace. But for me the fabulously designed underground metropolis proved more involving than the teenagers running through its streets. The story: For over 200 years the crumbling, labyrinthine underground city of Ember has been run by a generator. Now it is breaking down and no one knows how to repair it. Ominous blackouts regularly plunge the city into darkness and supplies are depleted. Because the people of Ember, forbidden to venture into the above-ground world, have forgotten their past, they face extinction. Mixed or average reviews. Airport Plaza only.
Body of Lies: US Action/ Drama – Directed by Ridley Scott, with Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe. I liked this very much: a spy movie as dark as night and as ruthless and vile as Abu Ghraib. Smart and tightly drawn; it has a throat-gripping urgency and some serious insights. About a CIA operative who attempts to infiltrate the network of a major terrorist leader operating out of Jordan. This film did not have a very impressive opening weekend box office in the US. It’s really too bad. Moviegoers around the world seem to be allergic to matters revolving around Iraq and the war on terror. Films like Rendition and Redacted have foundered at the box office (and never even made it to Chiang Mai), as have movies only tangentially linked to the conflict (like The Kite Runner, set in a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan; although that one did run here in Chiang Mai at Vista awhile back). It would be a shame if such sentiments kept you from seeing this really quite excellent, thinking-person’s action drama, which unapologetically raises issues concerning terrorism and the fight to combat it. Rated R in the US for strong violence including some torture, and for language throughout. Mixed or average reviews.
E-Tim Tai Nae: Thai Action/ Comedy – A boxer in a show in Pattaya falls in love with a Japanese tourist. Looks dreadful.
Disaster Movie: US Comedy – From a seemingly bottomless well of flatulence humor, racial stereotypes, and stale pop culture gags, comes what is arguably the worst in the “Movie” series. Seldom has a film been more appropriately titled. Reviews: Extreme dislike or disgust.
Luang Pee Teng II / The Holy Man II: Thai Comedy – Bad boy becomes monk, meets misadventures, makes merit.
Eagle Eye: US Action/ Mystery/ Thriller – Shia LaBeouf and Michelle Monaghan play two strangers thrown together by mysterious phone calls from a woman they have never met. Threatening their lives and their families, the phone calls push the two into a series of increasingly dangerous situations. I found it very disappointing. The script has the feel of something once substantive, but which was poked, prodded, cut, and crimped until all semblance of intelligence was wrung out of it. Mixed or average reviews.
Scheduled for Oct 23
Beverly Hills Chihuahua: US Comedy/ Adventure/ Family – In this Disney comedy, a pampered Beverly Hills Chihuahua (voice of Drew Barrymore) finds herself accidentally lost in the mean streets of Mexico without a day spa or boutique anywhere in sight. I thought this one looked quite delightful, to gauge by the previews I saw, and it was the top film in the US over this last weekend, but reaction seems to be very mixed, with people either loving it or hating it. Overall, it comes out as mixed or average reviews.
Tropic Thunder: US Comedy/ War – I have seen this, and I heartily recommend it, but only for those not easily shocked. You might just have the best laughs you’ve had in years. Robert Downey, Jr. gives another amazing performance, this time playing a black. It’s an action comedy about a group of self-absorbed actors who set out to make the biggest war film ever. After ballooning costs (and the out of control egos of the pampered cast) threaten to shut down the movie, the frustrated director refuses to stop shooting, leading his cast deep into the jungles of Southeast Asia where they inadvertently encounter real bad guys. Directed by Ben Stiller. Generally favorable reviews.
Queens of Langkasuka: Thai Adventure/ Fantasy – Nonzee Nimibutr’s 200-million-baht historical action-fantasy, more than three years in the making, has all the makings of a blockbuster – big stars, loads of special effects, lavish costumes and an exotic seaborne setting.

Bridge in Paradise : by Neil Robinson

Here is another interesting distributional hand which was dealt when I was sitting South. Imagine you are sitting West and hear the bidding below. You lead a high diamond against three spades doubled, and this is what you see. Your lead is ruffed on board. Declarer leads the ace of hearts from dummy and then leads a low heart, with everyone following. You win. What is your plan for the defence?

West dealer, North-South vulnerable

                         S: KQ9852
                           H: AJ84
                           D: -
                           C: J42            
S: 6                                          S: ?
H: KQ2                                     H: ?
D: AK932                                  D: ?
C: K1063                                  C: ?
                           S: ?
                           H: ?
                           D: ?
                           C: ?                
This was the bidding:
West      North         East          South
1D           Dbl             P               1S
Dbl         3S               Dbl           All pass

Declarer’s play looks a little strange. Why not cross to his hand and try a finesse in hearts, leading towards dummy’s AJ, in the hope that West has the KQ? West did most of the bidding, so might well hold the missing high hearts. Then, if declarer leads twice towards dummy, he can score the jack. It looks like declarer has problems getting to his hand twice. Also, declarer did not try to pull trumps, in spite of having so many on board. Putting both these facts together, declarer probably has only two hearts and plans to ruff dummy’s two losing hearts in hand before pulling trumps.
So, is there any hope for the defence? If declarer has the ace of spades, then the answer is no. Declarer will win six spade tricks, the ace of hearts and two heart ruffs in hand, adding up to nine tricks. Even if East has the ace and queen of clubs, defence is still hopeless. All you can win is three clubs and a heart. So, the only hope for the defence is that East has the ace of spades and a couple more. Having thought that through, you lead a spade. Eureka! East wins the ace of spades and leads a low spade back. Now, declarer’s goose is cooked – see the full hand diagram below. Declarer takes five spade tricks, two aces, but only has one trump left in hand to ruff a heart. He goes down one doubled.

                        S: KQ9752
                          H: AJ84
                          D: -
                          C: J42           
S: 6                                       S: A103
H: KQ10                                 H: 9652
D: AK1032                              D: QJ7
C: K1063                                C: Q95
                          S: J84
                          H: 73
                          D: 98654
                          C: A87         

The bidding might need some explanation. West opened 1D and North doubled for takeout, instead of bidding his spades. This gives NS a chance to find a heart fit, if there is one. I briefly thought of passing the double, because of my long diamonds. However, my hand is so weak, I thought they would make 1D. So, I was left with a choice of two three card suits to bid. I chose spades because my partner’s takeout double guarantees at least four spades, and I could bid spades at the one level. West now doubled for takeout, telling his partner to bid something, and showing that he had a good hand. To my considerable alarm, partner bid three spades. East, with his good nine points and good spades, reasoned that EW must have the majority of the points (he was right – EW have 24 high card points to 16 for NS) and decided to double. It was a good decision, if only his partner were thinking about the defence.

Very fortunately for me, when I played it, West did not think the defence through. After winning the heart, he switched to a club. I won the ace in hand and ruffed a diamond to get back to board. A heart from board was ruffed low in hand and another diamond trumped on board. Now, another heart was ruffed in hand with the eight. By now, I had taken seven tricks – two aces, three diamond ruffs on board and two heart ruffs in hand – and I still had the KQx of spades on board and the jack in hand. Between them, I was bound to take two more tricks, making the contract. I was lucky – it should be defeated. Would your plan have got it down??
Send me your interesting hands at: bridgethailand@live.com.