As always, "reader beware". Jeremiah Norris of the Hudson Institute presents some dangerous thinking without offering any sensible solutions. Mr Norris seems to indicate that doing nothing would be better than increasing spending on HIV and Aids treatments for all that need them. Not surprising if one knows exactly what the Hudson Institute is - a neo-conservative think tank based in Washington DC, which pretends to be "non-political" although its associates and advisers include people such as senior fellow, L "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff and national security adviser to US vice president Dick Cheney before he was indicted by a federal grand jury (Valerie Plum/NY Times leak); convicted felon Elliot Richardson (Iran-Contra scandal); and failed US Supreme Court nominee and ultra-conservative Robert Bork, to name a few.

The Institute was founded by James Kahn, most famous for his war strategies that advocated the use of nuclear weapons, as stated in his own 1960 book, "On Thermonuclear War": "... even though the amount of human tragedy would be greatly increased in the post-war [i.e. nuclear] world, the increase would not preclude normal and happy lives for the majority of survivors and their descendants".

I guess Norris and the Hudson fellows believe the same about people living with HIV/Aids: their survivors will be able to lead normal and happy lives - so what if we have a few million needless deaths in the meantime. In the future, as a service to us, your readers, please do some research on your sources and include it with the article, including on the Internet; or maybe consider either not running the piece or at least invite a rebuttal from more reliable sources such as UNAIDS.

Paul Causey

Bangkok

Animal lovers appalled at Olympic host's dog cull

Dear Mr Qi Liu, as President of the Olympic Committee, I am sure you are interested in receiving international opinion at this time, when athletes from around the world are looking forward to competing in the 2008 Olympiad. I am therefore writing to let you know the feeling of I, my family, as well as a large circle of friends and contacts about the ruthless, cold-hearted mass murder of dogs in Beijing. Not only is this carnage inhumane, but it sends a very clear message to the rest of the world that Chinese citizens with companion animals are not to be respected and that their love for these non-human family members is considered trivial. Many people around the globe love dogs. When they hear about this atrocity, they are appalled. China is showing the world what she is like with this slaughter, which so strongly illustrates that neither non-human animal rights nor human-animal rights are sacred to the Chinese government.

This is my statement that I am boycotting Chinese products, travel, and sports events, including the Olympiad. Until the killings are stopped and a mandate of compassion is born in your country, my personal boycott of everything Chinese will only escalate.

Nuntanit Bumrungsap

Bangkok

US to blame for problems at the Chiang Mai flora expo

Re: "Chiang Mai flora expo is environmentally unfriendly", Letters, December 6.

So, again, we read that Mr Eric Bahrt has yet another negative experience in Thailand. This time he goes to the Royal Flora Fair, cannot locate suitable food for his alternative lifestyle, and finds himself lost in the process. He asks two "foreigners" for help but discovers to his horror that they are lost too! True to the premise found in most of his letters, Mr Bahrt is able put some of the blame for his multiple dilemmas on the United States of America with his brilliant illustration regarding that country's livestock industry wasting water.

First, can anyone explain how and why anyone hungry and lost at the Royal Flora Fair is able to rationally segue into an anti-American rant?   Secondly, and most importantly, why are the readers of The Nation constantly subjected to this drivel?

David Barkdull

Bangkok

Lots of food for vegetarians available at the flora expo

Re: "Chiang Mai flora expo is environmentally unfriendly", Letters, December 6.

If Eric Bahrt was so disappointed with all the carnivorous food on offer at the flora expo in Chiang Mai, why didn't he bend down and nibble a plant or two? I thought that's what vegetarians do when peckish.

Django Peg

Bangkok

Urgently required: a sensible taxation system on alcohol

It's good to see that the Excise Department is reviewing duties on beer, but why not on alcoholic beverages as a whole?

Three suggestions:

1) Excise duty on alcoholic beverages should be based simply on alcohol content, with a flat rate of so many baht per litre of alcohol and scope to adjust the rate annually. This would be a radical change from the existing method, so may need to be phased in with pre-announced steps over a specified period of time.

2) Make the calculation of excise duty simple and transparent. The current "tax on tax" calculation translates a nominal rate of 60 per cent into an effective rate of 176 per cent on wine at the high end, or turns a nominal 25 per cent into an effective 34 per cent for the government-promoted lao khao.

3) Stop the tax privilege for lao khao, which accounts for about 33 per cent market share by value, 66 per cent by volume of beverage, more than 75 per cent of actual alcohol consumed, and no doubt in the order of 80 per cent of alcohol-related problems in Thailand.

Tax the alcohol and do so equably.

Graham Catterwell

Bangkok

Hypocrites should think first before opening their mouths

Re: "One should never trust the pot that calls the kettle black", Letters, December 4.

The sex drive and the need to eat are curious in that it is not long after either has been indulged in, the desire to repeat the process rises to the fore again. Of course, this is common to all living creatures, though the need to lie in an attempt to avoid troubling consequences is natural only to the human animal.

It is odd therefore, that the two nations whose standards in many areas are claimed to be so high, stand out as the most hypocritical of peoples: the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

The point of the above is that you recently published a letter criticising the former US president, Bill Clinton, for his sexual dalliance and subsequent denial, in which the writer stated that as a consequence, Clinton could not be trusted in anything. This is the utmost piffle! Because of national hypocrisy, he, as most other people would, lied in a futile attempt to preserve his reputation. Like most lies, his was discovered but it had absolutely nothing to do with his handling of the affairs of state.

Unlike the present incumbent, Clinton will go down in history as one of America's better presidents. He is certainly viewed by the world at large as a statesman and therefore very much in a position to express a valued opinion. Very few people (other than perhaps a few hypocritical Republicans) make the crass error of muddling a weakness for sex with ability in other areas. It really is nonsense to suggest that lying about sex means that one would necessarily lie about anything else.

Henry Ashe

Bangkok

Bombing is no answer to Mideast violence and terror

Re: "Bombing is the answer to Mideast violence and terror", Letters, December 6.

Does Dr Stephen Carter, PhD really believe that by systematically bombing all and sundry in the Middle East, with all the resulting death and destruction, the ideals that he espouses (and which I share - namely peace, prosperity and freedom) would be promoted throughout the region?

I would suggest that the good doctor has been unduly influenced in his worldview by that great Stanley Kubrick film, "Dr Strangelove, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb".

Edward B Duhigg

Bangkok

Even honourable people get led astray sometimes

Re: "There are honest people in government and civil service", Letters, December 4.

After various governments - with scandal haunting all, at one time or another - I realise how hard it is to trust anyone. But my point was that there are men and women of honour and integrity who are "proven products". They have served this nation with distinction and enjoy the trust and confidence of all levels of society. Most did not seek any political office, and did indeed shun politics. But, they were called to serve in crisis and did not shun their duty.

Twenty-five years ago some of them, members of the past government, and I worked together. They were all outstanding soldiers. But at some point the paths diverged and some became attached to political entities. Recently that group chose money and power over honour. This caused great sorrow among those who served beside them in the past and the mentors who had trusted them. The other group continued in selfless service. They now sit in the seats of power, reluctantly.

Though rarely spoken of, there are men and women around this country who serve only. Should any of them prove to be corrupt, the retribution would be swift. Some now lead this interim government. They enjoy the trust and confidence of the most important person in the land. This was reiterated in clear remarks this week. That was more than sufficient for me and I suspect most in this Kingdom.

Major Mark A Smith (US Army, Ret.)

Bangkok