You can't visit Central America and not make at least some effort to see the monkeys. That's just wrong. Monkeys are way too cute to be missed.

Like Costa Rica, and other countries in this region, Belize is also trying to brand itself as an ecotourism destination.

The Community Baboon Sanctuary, a conservation project in which over 200 private landowners in Belize have voluntarily pledged to conserve their land for the protection of the Black Howler Monkey (called 'baboon' in the local Creole dialect) habitat, is well-worth the trip inland. It's only about an hour drive from Belize City.

But, there is a but.

Mosquitoes. Mosquitoes. Mosquitoes.
Before I begin talking about how cute the monkeys are, I am going to say this: I had never, ever before, seen so many mosquitoes before visiting the Community Baboon Sanctuary (CBS). Anywhere.

The closest I had ever come to this kind of mosquito infestation was in Venice. (Camping outside a city built on a swamp is not a good idea, note to self.)

The great thing about running a communist state is that you can dream up and enforce any crazy rule you want -- and the people can't do anything about it.

China, scrambling to clean up its image as the Olympics draw closer, has been making changes to the landscape left and right -- beautifying Beijing, planting flowers and cleaning up the streets.

This week, in an effort to clean up the chronically bad air conditions, the government decided to cut down on vehicle pollution by forcing half of the population to take public transportation. Odd and even ending license plates are now supposed to alternate days that they're able to drive in the city -- and violators are faced with a stiff fine.

As a result, half of the population that formerly commuted by automobile and motorcycle is now trying to cram into the city's public transportation system. The resulting load on the subway system was recently so great that authorities had to shut down several lines to prevent the suffocating crowds -- passengers were only allowed get off of the trains for a while. Perhaps the volumes are a bit larger than the Chinese had predicted.

What would happen to you if you were suddenly forced to take public transportation to work or class? Could you walk far enough to reach the bus or train stop and make it to your morning appointments? Would you let your government prevent you from driving every other day of the week?

The US Senate, whose public approval rating has been hovering around the high single digits, has finally done something right.

After fifteen years on the books, a law allowing border officials to refuse entry to HIV-positive visitors to the United States may finally be repealed. The bill, already passed by Congress, will be sent to the president's desk in the near future. He is expected to sign it.

As we wrote four months ago, the US is one of only a dozen countries-- including Saudi Arabia, Libya, and the Sudan-- with such a law. Even China decided last year to relax its restrictions on HIV-positive travelers.

The passage of the bill was a bipartisan effort, headed by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR).

Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic, whom we quoted in our previous post calling the ban "anachronistic and stigmatizing," is understandably elated. Sullivan is an HIV-positive British citizen who lives in America-- he was the recipient of a hard-to-obtain entry waiver-- and says he wants to become an American citizen, but cannot because of his HIV status. Sullivan writes:

"Barring some unforeseen event, the HIV Travel Ban - a relic of the days when HIV was a source of fear and stigma and terror - is finally over... I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's one of the happiest days of my whole life. For two and a half decades, I have longed to be a citizen of the country I love and have made my home. I now can. There is no greater feeling."

So a thumbs up to Congress, for once.

South Carolina is outraged over an advertisement campaign by Amro Worldwide, a UK specialist in gay and lesbian travel, which labeled the Palmetto State "so gay" in a series of posters throughout the London Underground.

Looking to boost its profile among the UK's gay and lesbian community, Amro devised its 'so gay' campaign nearly a year ago and reached out to various U.S. tourism boards last October to see if they would participate.

Shortly thereafter, Atlanta, Boston, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. confirmed their participation. Last November, South Carolina jumped on board.

The campaign debuted at Underground stations in Leicester Square and Covent Garden during London's recent Gay Pride Week celebrations. For South Carolina, the posters touted the state's gay beaches and Civil War-era plantations.

Apparently, it seems that South Carolina tourism officials didn't really understand what they was agreeing to. At first, top officials said the campaign sent a positive message to gay travelers. But as outrage increased, they now say they knew nothing about the campaign and are disavowing participation, according to MSNBC.com, refusing to pay the campaign's promoter, Out Now, the $5,000 fee for the posters.

The low ranking official in the state's department of parks, recreation and tourism department who got the state involved with the campaign in the first place has resigned.

Oran Smith, the president of a South Carolina conservative activist group, tells MSNBC.com: "I think with today's economy, we have to be really smart with our tourism dollars, and South Carolina's market, very clearly, is the family-friendly market. So if we want to spend our dollars in a way that's wise, we need to go after our market, and our market is families."

Amro Worldwide wants to know what all the fuss is about. The view among many in the gay and lesbian community is that being 'so gay' is not the putdown it perhaps once was, but rather a positive thing, the company says.

Just don't expect Main Street South Carolinians to agree. One Charleston resident who spoke to MSNBC.com says, "We're so gay? Nah. Wrong state. Go to California."

It's worth noting that the other U.S. destinations involved in the campaign are not complaining.

Over at Slate, Tim Hardford, the "Undercover Economist" and a favorite economist of mine*, tells people to stop blaming speculators for high oil prices. It's an often-repeated myth that oil speculators-- investors who bet on whether the price of oil will rise or fall-- are responsible to a large extent for the increase in oil prices.

Some of the major airlines even spammed their customers last week, asking them to raise a stink to their elected representatives about these greedy, America-hating speculators.

Harford contends that some speculators-- the profitable ones-- actually help stabilize the price of oil. For this he calls them "veritable philanthropists." He writes: "When they think oil is going to become more expensive, they buy and hoard oil, or they buy oil futures, encouraging others to buy and hoard. This raises oil prices when they are relatively cheap and lowers them when they are relatively expensive."

So it's the bad speculators we need to worry about then? Not so fast. "True, when speculators make mistakes, that is destabilizing. But in the case of oil prices, it's hard to see that speculators are playing much of a role. For one thing, inventories don't seem to be rising. If the inventory data are correct, consumers were burning all that $135 oil."

So maybe it's our fault for using so much oil. But how satisfying is it to blame ourselves?

[*Yes, I have a favorite economist-- actually several. They're like my baseball players.]

The TSA blog: I read it so you don't have to.

Yesterday I highlighted some fun bits from the Q&A over at the TSA blog about the new ID requirements for flying. As promised, here are some entertaining and insightful posts from the comments following that exchange.

• One commenter wonders whether the "No Fly List" isn't more trouble than it's worth: "What kind of threat do they pose if they have already been screened for weapons? They going to punch a hole in the plane?"
• Chris (the TSA blogger) writes in the comments that his original snark was merely an attempt "to bring some levity to a long drawn-out discussion of a serious matter while providing some insight into why we think ID is important." Another commenter responds: "Christopher, while I understand your intent, you did not succed at either of your goals. Address the hard queston with some real answers, let Leno and Letterman handle the comedy."

Questions to ponder next time you're waiting to hand over your ID at the airport:

• "Why is a guy who says he lost his ID less dangerous than a guy who says he prefers not to show his ID?"
• "I show up a the airport and say I forgot my ID, because I have memory loss. You ask me questions I can´t answer because I have memory loss. Can I fly?"
• "Let´s say I turn up at an airport and say I forgot my ID, and that my name is John Smith. There are probably a few thousand John Smiths. How will you 'establish my identity'?"

Grant reported a couple weeks ago on the TSA's new ID requirement for airline passengers. In case you missed it, last week the snark-tastic security whiz named Christopher over at the TSA's Evolution of Security blog (sort of) answered your questions about the new rule. Here are some highlights from the Q&A:

Q: So it only took 48 hours before the first reported instance of a question about political affiliation being required [to verify identitiy after a passenger forget his ID]. I'll make two predictions: 1) The TSA employees who did this will never be reprimanded in any serious manner; the worst thing they will face will be some additional "training".

A. Nostranonymous, I think Kip [Hawley, TSA's head honcho] was pretty clear when he wrote, "It's unequivocally not our policy to use political, religious, or other sensitive personal topics as identity validation. If it happened, it was wrong and will not be repeated."

The person that did this made a mistake and has been corrected. Hope you never make a mistake at your job.

[The person has been corrected? If that's not accountability, what is? Also, "hope you never make a mistake at your job"? What the hell kind of a statement is that? If an employee in any other job responded in such a flippant way to a customer complaint, you can be sure he'd be "corrected" by his boss real quick.]

Q: If requiring ID is truly instrumental in keeping the flying public safe, why did it take the TSA until June of 2008 to institute that policy?

A: Good question. We've been increasing layers of security for years and now that TSA officers check documents at every airport in the country, we've effectively moved the issue and are trying to address this threat.

[Wait, what? What does that mean?]

Back in March, Gadling blogged about a firearm training system, Lamperd, which had patented a bracelet that worked like a stun gun when activated.

At the time, Lamperd was lobbying the Transportation Security Administration to make it mandatory for all airline passengers to wear one, with the thinking that it was the best way to thwart a terrorist.

Well, here's an update.

The Department of Homeland Security, ever the shepherds watching over their flocks, appears to be seriously weighing making this bracelet mandatory and has sent a letter to Lamperd encouraging the company to draft a formal proposal for integrating its bracelet into flight security.

That's right. Your tax dollars are funding the R&D arm of DHS, which wants to develop technology that acts essentially as a GPS attached to your wrist, allowing the government to track pretty much everywhere you go once you check in for your flight, and giving the flight crew the ability to waylay you if you get out of hand.

O.K., that might be overstating it: Officials say the bracelet would only be activated in the event of a terrorist attack. But still....

Here is a promotional video for the bracelet that piqued DHS's interest.

The Washington Times today quotes a letter from DHS's Paul S. Ruwaldt, of the Science and Technology Directorate, in which he writes to Lamperd saying, "To make it clear, we are interested in...the immobilizing security bracelet and look forward to receiving a written proposal."

The Times says the letter was written on Federal Aviation Administration letterhead.

The Times goes on to detail what the bracelet could do. It would:

• Eliminate the need to carry a boarding pass
• Contain personal data about you, including your travel history
  
• Monitor the whereabouts of both you and your luggage after check-in
  
• Employ Electro-Musclar Disruption technology that could immobilize a passenger for nearly 10 minutes

Now, with all the idiotic things passengers have been doing on planes of late, I could maybe get behind employing some kind of bracelet stun gun.

But seriously, I consider all this with some foreboding. I mean, slipping a bracelet on a little kid that could deliver a shock powerful enough to make an electronic dog fence zap seem like a pinprick is a scary thought. What if a flight attendant accidently activates one of them?

What do you think? Would mandatory bracelets like these make air travel safer, or is this just another way for the government to look over our shoulders?

What other strange things have been found on planes?

Click the image to read the bizarre story...

Remember that trade embargo that the US has against all of Cuba? The one that forces you to drive to Tijuana to pick up Cuban cigars and the one that prevents you and your family from stopping in Havana on your annual cruise? Yep, that embargo.

We as Americans have been forbidden from trading with the Socialist nation for over forty years now, as our good buddy Fidel Castro kept the country under lockdown and its population in poverty. Our "sanctions," which have recently come under increased scrutiny, are meant to punish the totalitarian government and encourage democracy in the island nation. How well that's working is another debate.

But our trade embargo sure isn't stopping Spirit Airlines from doing business with the Cubans. They've been paying the government regularly to use Cuban airspace on their flights over the Carribbean -- something that spokeswoman Misty Pinson claims was not premeditated, saying: ``Spirit Airlines never had the intention of violating any requirements or laws to carry out its international operations.''

How does your morality buzzer NOT go off when you're writing checks to Cuba? Aren't all business transactions with the communist state illegal?

Needless to say, the embattled airline is now coughing up 100G's in fines for illegal payments to the Cubans. Better to fly around next time.

Whoa! Wait a minute. How can that be? Where have I been? I keep thinking I have more freedom of movement about the world than I actually have. Here's one more place I can't go.

I just read that at the Phoenix Country Club women are not allowed in the men's grill room where the serious business deal making and dining occurs. No, the women who want find food to nosh on are pushed off into the women's grill which is smaller and without the buffet, the bar or the lovely view of the golf course. The women's grill has a hotplate.

There's a bit of a fuss going on at the country club since some members want to move on into modern times where a couple can eat eggs together for breakfast, for example. Some of the men are as appalled by living in the days when women weren't allowed in saloons--"respectable" women mind you and are having a time of it for standing up for their wives. This is true. Here's the article that covers the details. The story involves peeing on a pecan tree as well as other juicy grammar school-like tidbits.

But before you go to the article, consider this. Several years ago, and I'm talking many--when I lived in Columbia, South Carolina during middle school, my mom took my brother and me to a roller skating rink. When we found out we had to be members in order to skate, we decided that rink wasn't for us. Why not? Becoming members had to do with religion and skin color. We just happened to be the right religion and and the right skin color, but we didn't like the rules. We thought the rules should change.

Since then, I think, rules have changed. But, I often live in La-La-Land where we all get along, so I can't say if this is 100% so. *Before those of you from the south start sputtering, let me assure you I loved so much about South Carolina. Seventh grade was my Renaissance year and I was sad to move.

But, this story is about men and women and not race and religion--so perhaps, they aren't similar. After all, there are men's clubs and women's clubs--and most people wouldn't argue about that, so what's the difference?