Monday - October 27, 2008

WWRD?

Selected excerpts from Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater. Originally titled “A Time for Healing” it is better known as his “Rendezvous With Destiny” speech.

All this was said in 1964. 44 years ago. Some things simply do not change. An earlier post here today points out how John McCain’s camp is upset that Sarah Palin is going off on her own and past his limits. But they don’t seem to realize that that is exactly what she has to do. She’s an actual Conservative. And he’s a Democrat. Her words seem to echo back to an earlier time ...

Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to.” In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.” Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they’ve had almost 30 years of it, shouldn’t we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
...
... anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always “against” things, never “for” anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood.
...
Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities.
...
We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
...
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness?

Posted by Drew458     on 10/27/2008 at 10:31 AM   
Filed Under: • Republicans •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

McCain and Palin aides at war.  (oh great. so we’re fighting among ourselves now?)

Just what I bloody well need to start the day, on top of everything else going on around here.
And in a foreign paper too.  Good. Show everyone how divided we are among our own kind.  Gee people, when the heck did the enemy become US?
Does Democrat/Liberal/Obama/Supreme Court/Taxes and heaven know what else, does any of that ring any bells?  Jeesh!

Have any of you seen Mrs. Palin in blue jeans?  Gosh she looks good in everything. I’m glad she answered her clothing critics and now we need to move on and stop the political death wish that seems to be encroaching our ranks.

PALIN IN 2012!  Y E S !

McCain and Palin aides at war
Aides to John McCain and Sarah Palin have exchanged bitter barbs over the handling of the campaign.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 12:39AM GMT 27 Oct 2008

One adviser to Mr McCain was reported to have called the Republican nominee’s running mate a “diva” after her allies complained bitterly that she was too tightly controlled by Mr McCain’s aides.

The Alaska governor’s supporters said that she was so frustrated by her role in the campaign that she threatened to “go rogue” more often and do things her own way.

With Mr McCain already struggling to stay in the race with Mr Obama ahead in the polls, the row over his vice-presidential nominee is threatening to drain energy from the uphill challenge of beating his Democratic rival. Despite the strains in his campaign, and an average poll lead for Mr Obama of 7.8 percentage points, Mr McCain maintained a plucky outlook, declaring that he was still capable of a squeaking a narrow victory on Nov 4. “I believe that I’m going to win it. It’s going to be tight, and we’re going to be up late, but we’re going to win,” Mr McCain told NBC’s Meet the Press.

For encouragement he clung to the example of a new Reuters-Zogby poll that put his rival’s advantage at five points, compared to others placing it at 11 points. “The polls are all over the map,” he said, asserting that American voters were growing wary of Mr Obama’s plans for tax increases.

Yet again, he was forced to defend Mrs Palin, whose favourability ratings have slipped to 40 per cent from a high of 64 per cent shortly after her nomination two months ago.

Asked about the $150,000 (£93,000) spent on designer clothes for Mrs Palin and her family by the Republicans, Mr McCain insisted: “She lives a frugal life.”

However his backroom staff appear to be at war with Mrs Palin’s aides. As mutual hostilities rose within the Republican campaign at the weekend, an ally of the Alaska governor cited the bad publicity over the shopping spree as an example of how poor treatment by McCain staffers had tarnished her image and turned her into the butt of late-night comedians.

A senior Republican complained to Politico.com that “she never even set foot in these stores”, and had no idea of the cost. He blamed the fiasco on “completely out-of-control operatives”.

Adding that she had “lost confidence in most of the people on the plane,” referring to the staff who accompany her, he said she wanted to “go rogue” more often.

“These people are going to try and shred her after the campaign to divert blame from themselves,” said the insider, referring to Mr McCain’s chief strategist Steve Schmidt and to Nicolle Wallace, the former communications director for George W Bush who has overseen Mrs Palin’s media strategy.

An opponent of Mrs Palin within the McCain camp however lambasted her for branching out on her own and for criticising tactical decisions made by the senator and his advisers.

“She is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone,” a McCain adviser told CNN. “She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party. Remember: divas trust only unto themselves as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom.”

(A McCain adviser?  Really nice quote from someone who’s supposed to be ON OUR SIDE.)

Over the weekend Mrs Palin once again took a campaign message further than her senior partner. For days both have warned that Mr Obama’s tax policies are tantamount to “socialism”. But speaking in Des Moines, she warned that the Democrat would create the kind of country “where the people are not free”, raising the spectre of a communist state.

http://tinyurl.com/6r3m2h

Just out of curiosity.  Are you folks seeing this at home?  This report I mean. With days to go till election, this can’t look very smart. 

Posted by Drew458     on 10/27/2008 at 08:08 AM   
Filed Under: • Politics • Republicans •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

WELL, IF THE THEME BE HUMOR TO START THE DAY, HOW’S THIS. (and heaven help SF)

H/T J. Miller

( “not that there’s anything wrong with it” )Seinfeld

IMAGINE BEING A COP IN SAN FRANCISCO

Chief Heather Fong (left), the first SFPD female chief of police;

Theresa Sparks (center, former male), president of the San Francisco Police Commission, CEO of a multimillion-dollar sex toy retailer, and a transgender woman.

Sgt. Stephan Thorne (right, former female), the first transgender SFPD police officer.

Oh, Lord, please help us!

Posted by Drew458     on 10/27/2008 at 07:51 AM   
Filed Under: •   
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - October 26, 2008

Blame Macker

I found this on Macker’s World (did you know he’s been BANNED in India?)

I’m not a World of Warcraft fan, but this is just too funny! Especially when you recall that I spent six years as a seaman on the USS Truxtun.

Posted by Christopher     on 10/26/2008 at 05:46 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Spread the wealth

Posted by Christopher     on 10/26/2008 at 02:24 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Fun-Stuff • Government •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

SHARIA LAW IN ENGLAND?  IT’S OFFICIAL. BRIT COURTS TO RUBBER STAMP SOME SHARIA RULINGS.

MAYBE NOT THE FULL MONTY.  Not yet, but the thin edge of the Sharia blade is here.

So, ya think we’re next in the USA?  Hey, if they’re only ruling on fellow muslims. ?  What’s the problem?
Surely you don’t think they will eventually rule on everything.  Nah ... couldn’t happen.  After all, they belong to the ROP.
Reasonable and civilized folk.  Our new best friends.

Kind of arbitrary for me to have posted this when it has nothing to do with the story.  Couldn’t resist the urge.

Sharia rulings on divorces and disputes to be rubber-stamped by English courts
A Government decision to allow Islamic courts in Britain the right to rule on family disputes and divorces has been condemned as discriminatory to women.

By Chris Hastings, Public Affairs Editor
Last Updated: 9:03AM GMT 26 Oct 2008

Civil rights campaigners are angry that ministers have approved plans to allow Sharia councils in Britain the right to settle disputes regarding money, property and access to children.

They say such tribunals are institutions for male domination which treat women like second-class citizens.

Couples who choose to use the Sharia system must get the ruling rubber-stamped by a judge sitting in an ordinary family court.

But neither party has to attend this hearing and approval can be obtained by filling in a two-page application.

The endorsement of Sharia was announced to MPs by Bridget Prentice, a junior minister, in answer to a parliamentary question.

She said Sharia councils would still have no jurisdiction in England, and rulings by religious authorities would have no legal force.

But she added: “If, in a family dispute dealing with money or children, the parties to a judgement in Sharia council wish to have this recognised by English authorities, they are at liberty to draft a consent order embodying the terms of the agreement and submit it to an English court. This allows English judges to scrutinise it to ensure that it complies with English legal tenets.”

Campaigners condemned the plans as unacceptable and said that the rulings were not compatible with English law, while the Conservatives insisted that should be safeguards for women.

Nick Herbert, the shadow justice secretary, said: “There can be no place for parallel legal systems in our country.

“It is vital that in matrimonial disputes where a Sharia council is involved, women’s rights are protected and judgments are non-binding.”

Another Conservative spokesman, Paul Goodman, the shadow minister for communities and local government, accused the Government of keeping the public in the dark and warned: “There must be one British law for everyone.”

Dr David Green, the Director of the Civitas think tank, said: “I think there are a number of problems with regards to Sharia law. These Sharia councils are supposed to operate under the Arbitration Act which allows citizens in a free society to settle their disputes on a voluntary basis if they so wish.

“But that legislation assumes that both parts are regarded as being equal. I think the problem is with tribunals like these you can’t always be sure that women would be treated equally.

“Under Islam a man can divorce a woman just by saying I divorce you three times. But a woman must go to a Sharia court to seek a divorce. Often the ruling goes in favour of the woman, but I think on the whole these councils are institutions for male domination. As a result I do not believe these rulings and proceedings should be recognised under British law.

“Under the traditions of Sharia law the voice of a women is not equal to that of a man.”

Mr Goodman said he did not object to the new rules in principle, on condition that all women were in receipt of proper safeguards. But he criticised the manner in which the Government had quietly introduced the new rules.

“The manner in which the Government has introduced these rules has been completely unsatisfactory,” he said. “There was no major announcement about this when it was quietly introduced in 2007. The public have been kept in the dark about what is going on.”

“Our understanding is that certain Muslim arbitration tribunals have been licensed to operate in the confines of the Arbitration Act just like the Jewish beth din courts. We have no objection in principle to these organisations operating within the confinements of the Arbitration Act.

“But we would be concerned about Sharia councils operating outside the confines of the Arbitration Act. We have raised concerns that in all circumstances women who attend these proceedings should and must attend on a voluntary basis.”

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice defended the changes. She said: “These procedures would not allow anything that would not be permissible under UK law.

“The Sharia Council can sit both parties down if both sides agree and produce a consent order. This then has to be approved by a judge sitting in a family court.”

Islamic tribunals have authority to make decisions in business and financial disputes where both parties are free to accept arbitration. Five Sharia courts operate mediation systems under the Arbitration Act of 1996.

But campaigners say financial disputes are less controversial because they are much less likely to raise problems over the status of women.

A spokesman for the Bar Council also defended the new changes, saying: “Anything that is decided under the Arbitration Act cannot run counter to the fundamental principles of English law.”

http://tinyurl.com/5elgqr

Posted by Drew458     on 10/26/2008 at 10:10 AM   
Filed Under: • RoPMA • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Television producers say swearing reflects “the way we live” - but so does the production of sewage.

Not so long ago there was a brief discussion here at BMEWS on the subject of bad language.

I got to thinking about it at the time.  Sometimes you know things can get so frustrating you can’t find the words you want and so you let fly with bad language.  Makes one feel a fraction better once in awhile.  But not always.
The thing about TV in this case however, is bad language used in place of anything else.  It’s simply gratuitous.
I’ve been away from American TV for four years now, so don’t know how much it’s changed there.  Heck, I don’t even know what shows are on and popular.  But unless it’s cable, I don’t think we go quite as far as these folks do.  So, I thought you might be interested in the argument on that subject here.

Empty out the swear box

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/10/2008

Listening to a constant succession of swear-words is almost always depressing and unpleasant. We associate them with personal animosity and aggression. So why have television programmes, after the “watershed” of 9pm established by the regulations, become full of people who seem to do little except compete with each other in the production of offensive language?

We have yet to hear a good answer to that question. Television producers say swearing reflects “the way we live” - but so does the production of sewage, and no one thinks that is a reason for putting the process on TV every night. As the statistics we have gathered show, swearing has become so commonplace on television that it has long ceased to have the desired effect of shocking the audience. The response of those responsible for TV schedules seems to have been to increase the amount of bad language, on the principle that if one swear word does not upset the audience, 20 surely will. Thus one episode of Gordon Ramsay’s cooking programme had him use the f-word 80 times in 50 minutes.

No one benefits from the cascade of obscenity. It is time for television to grow up, and to stop thinking that there is something “cool” about swearing. In an ideal world, there would be a moratorium on bad language. That is too much to hope for: but a significant cut in the amount of pointless obscenity would be an enormous benefit, and it is eminently achievable.

Television has a responsibility to set standards, and in tolerating, indeed encouraging, expletives of the most obscene kind, it is failing to meet that responsibility. It is not merely children who need to be protected from constant swearing. Most of the rest of us are bored, irritated and offended by switching on the telly and being assaulted by the crudest, crassest and most vulgar language. Is it too much to ask that writers and producers exercise some self-restraint?

http://preview.tinyurl.com/55m2et

TV has set standards.  All ya have to do to see them is open your eyes and look down.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/26/2008 at 09:25 AM   
Filed Under: • Miscellaneous •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

A NEW QUIZ FOR FIVE YEAR OLDS?  (NAME THAT BODY PART) couldn’t make it up folks.

Alright it isn’t really a quiz but heck .... it is bizarre.

Some short while ago I posted this subject and then forgot about it with so much else going on.
Well, apparently the powers that be haven’t forgotten and so we re-visit the subject with a mom who also writes for the Telegraph.

She makes legitimate points.  Even as a non parent, I’m certain I would not be too comfortable with this if I were.
She’s right.  There really is something ‘creepy’ about this.

Must they know about sex at five?

By Jenny McCartney
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 26/10/2008

One thing stumps me about the news that the Government is to provide compulsory “sex and relationships” lessons for children from the age of five: how much can there really be to say?

On the subject of relationships, obviously, one could go on forever, recommending lengthy homework on everything from Jane Austen to Leonard Cohen lyrics. On sex, I would have thought there was rather less to discuss: one could surely exhaust the topics of contraception, pregnancy, abortion and sexually transmitted diseases in a matter of weeks at the age of 11, perhaps with a brief refresher course at 13. After that, in what precise style young people proceed with sex in later life is surely a matter for them: there must be some areas to which even the omnipresent hand of the nanny state does not reach.

The news that there will now be a “naming of parts” session for five-year-olds, however - in which they learn the correct words for genitals and the differences between the sexes - gives me the creeps. By the age of five, many children have their own names for their private parts, often of a friendly, silly variety that will do them perfectly well until they are older. Is there really any point in school insisting on teaching them otherwise?

If a friend or relative suddenly insisted on lecturing your five-year-old about the official name for their genitals, apropos of nothing, I imagine they would be asked to shut up pretty sharpish. I am at something of a loss as to why this interference should be thought preferable coming from a primary teacher. And yet a sex education comic - Let’s Grow With Nisha and Joe - is already being promoted to primary schools. We learned to read with Dick and Dora: I shudder to think what they would do with that pair today.

The great irony in the Government setting itself up as the supreme educator on sexual and emotional matters is that, when it is given the task of actually looking after confused and vulnerable children all by itself, it is the worst parent imaginable. Girls who have grown up in care are sexually active earlier than other teenagers, and are 2.5 times more likely to become pregnant. A quarter of girls leaving care are already mothers or pregnant.

These girls are subjected to the same sex education at school as everyone else: I would be extremely surprised if any of them did not know in theory how to avoid having a baby. The real point, surely, is that they do not greatly want to avoid it. The emotional isolation they experience during their period in the unfeeling British care system means that they gravitate towards men as a source of affection and attention. The prospect of motherhood then offers them both an acknowledged social status and perhaps a reason for continued financial support from the state. Their early pregnancy is entirely logical, for any state that cares to read its own shortcomings written in the logic.

This, to a lesser degree, holds true for very many teenage girls who “accidentally” find themselves pregnant. The phenomenon is not helped by the fact that at the moment there is a wealth of information on what it means to have sex and very little on what it means to be in sole charge of a small baby that cries round the clock.

I believe in the good sense of basic sex education at school for older children, even if my own was pretty much confined to a terrifying film of a woman giving birth, and a hilarious, crackling 1960s film about male puberty called From Boy to Man. (We never got to see From Girl to Woman, despite being primed for yet more helpless laughter: the projector broke.)

There is a danger, however, that any philosophy that mainly concentrates on the somewhat deceptive notion of “safe sex” and the judicious use of contraception is in fact misleading. If a teenager doesn’t think that he or she is ready for the life-changing complications that might arise from sex - and few are - then the best advice is not to do it at all. Otherwise, they should be warned that contraception is very far from infallible, and they would be advised to double up on their methods.

I yearn for the day when “sex and relationships” lessons actually do something to make teenage behaviour wiser, and when lessons include: “Just because he sleeps with you doesn’t mean he loves you” and “New mum Mary can’t go out for two years. It’s 3am and the baby’s screaming with colic.” Sadly, the glum news that Jim Knight, the Schools Minister, has decided instead to start badgering the nation’s five-year-olds into naming their private parts doesn’t lead me to think that will happen any time soon.

for more:
http://tinyurl.com/6kttyo

Posted by Drew458     on 10/26/2008 at 09:02 AM   
Filed Under: • Education • Nanny State • Sex • UK •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - October 25, 2008

Wasted Effort

Something other than McCain / Obama Politics

On Tuesday, November 4, the citizens of South Dakota will vote on the most restrictive abortion law in the country. Dr. Allen Unruh of VoteYesForLife.com says the opponents have launched a major battle against the pro-life measure. “Planned Parenthood is bringing in Barbara Streisand,” he explains. “They’re filling the airwaves with deceptive ads that are lies, and we’re going to attack for false and misleading advertising.”

The opponents of the abortion ban have raised almost double the amount of money for their campaign as the pro-life side has. So far, the pro-life campaign has not been able to buy advertising to combat it. “We haven’t had the funds to get on the air war,” Dr. Unruh adds. “This whole war on our side has been on the ground up until now, but it’s critical that we overcome their lies and deception.”
pregnancy illustration
Opponents in South Dakota have received a majority of their campaign’s funding from other states because, according to CNSNews.com, this ban could become a national concern. Leslee Unruh, executive director of VoteYesForLife.com, is thrilled at the idea that South Dakota would be the first “abortion-free state.”

“We are asking Christians all across America to stand up and be counted to say, ‘You know what, I want to make a difference. This is one place where I can make a difference,’” Dr. Unruh adds.

Read the rest over at One New Snow

This bill is known as Measure 11 on the South Dakota ballot. It is what is called an Initiated constitutional amendment.

The ballot entry for Measure 11 will state

For the actual text of the measure click here

This is not the first time such a measure has come up in South Dakota. It was voted down 3 years ago. Even if this measure should pass, how will it be able to stand up against Roe v. Wade? I don’t think it can. Federal law trumps state law. Period.

Running over to CNN for a bit of background ...

Public opinion on abortion has remained remarkably stable over the years. A CNN/Opinion Research survey in October found 36 percent of Americans think abortion should be legal in most or all circumstances, 40 percent believe it should be available in a few circumstances, such as to save the mother’s life, and 22 percent say abortion should never be legal. That is almost unchanged in the past 15 years.

Justices William Rehnquist, Byron White and Anthony Kennedy said they would allow restrictions on abortion, but only if the restrictions had a rational basis. More important, the three conservative justices said a compelling government interest need not be required to justify restrictions on abortion. That was a blow for anti-abortion forces.

Then came the Planned Parenthood ruling, in which the justices clearly outlined their views on Roe. The decision (also 5-4) reaffirmed the heart of Roe while giving states the power to regulate procedures so long as they did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion. The standard: Undue burden exists if “the purpose and effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.” The ruling left supporters on both sides of the issue dissatisfied, feeling it was ambiguous.

Sounds to me like making a general abortion a Class 4 Felony is an Undue Burden and then some. Sorry South Dakota, your Measure is doomed to failure.

At least two other states have issues pertaining to abortion on their ballots this fall.

• California is trying yet again - 3rd time in 4 years - to push through a parental notification bill


• Colorado is trying for an amendment that would “recognize the personhood” of a fertilized egg as a person. BIG implications on that one! On the ballots Initiative 36 will read
  Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term “person” to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as “person” is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?

So this perennial Conservative Issue is still in play. Yet another issue that somehow didn’t make an appearance in any of the big deal Presidential Debates.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/25/2008 at 09:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Abortion •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Obama No Merci Beaucoup

In keeping with Peiper’s French theme:

H/T to the Emperor Misha I

Or, in this case, the Imperial Sniper.

UPDATE: ‘He’d rather give away the pond than fight’

Yeah. We did this before WW2

No merci beaucoup indeed.

Posted by Christopher     on 10/25/2008 at 06:27 PM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

French accuse English of war crimes and exaggeration over Agincourt, (593 years ago. ahhhhhh)

OKAY ... BACK TO SCHOOL TO LEARN THE FRENCH VERSION .... ANY BRITS LURKING OUT THERE?  NAUGHTY BRITS. NAUGHTY. SAY SORRY TO THE FRENCH IMMEDIATELY. LOL BRITS STILL GET UP FRENCH NOSE AFTER ALL THIS TIME.  THEY’LL NEVER FORGIVE YA WATERLOO EITHER.

French accuse English of war crimes and exaggeration over Agincourt
The French are using the anniversary of the Battle of Agincourt to accuse England’s men of acting like ‘war criminals’.

By Peter Allen and Nabila Ramdani in Agincourt
Last Updated: 6:19PM BST 24 Oct 2008

Exactly 593 years after King Henry V’s legendary victory, a revisionist conference will be held at the scene of the triumph.

Academics will suggest that the extent of the feat of arms was massively exaggerated, with claims that the English were hugely outnumbered a lie.

More controversially still, they will say that the foreign invaders used numerous underhand tactics against an honourable enemy.

These included burning prisoners to death and setting 40 bloodthirsty royal bodyguards on to a single Gallic nobleman who had surrendered.

‘There’s been a distortion of the facts and this conference will attempt to set the record straight,’ said Christophe Gilliot, a distinguished French historian who is director of the Medieval History Museum in Agincourt, where the conference will take place.

‘We have historians arriving from all over France, and all will produce hard facts concerning the battle, rather than rumours and speculation.

‘At the very least the English forces acted dishonourably. The middle ages were a very violent time, of course, but some might accuse the English of acting like what might now be called war criminals.’

It was on Friday October 25 1415 - St Crispin’s Day - that a force led by Henry V engaged the French at Agincourt, a small village not far from Calais in northern France.

The English army, made up mainly of archers using longbows, massacred a vast force of noblemen in the most famous battle of the Hundred Years’ War.

Immortalised by William Shakespeare in his play Henry V, Agincourt has since become a byword for English heroism in the face of apparently insurmountable odds.

In fact, detailed bureaucratic records of French king Charles VI’s army reveal that they were made up of 9000 travelling soldiers, perhaps with another 3000 locals from the Picardy region where the battle took place.

This compares to the total force of 12000 who travelled to France with Henry, although some 3000 were lost during the preceding siege of Harfleur, and through dysentery.

English chroniclers writing in the years following the battle have wrongly claimed that there were as many as 150,000 French, compared to 6000 odd English.

Mr Gilliot said notably horrific acts perpetuated by the English included placing prisoners in a barn and setting in on fire, with the permission of Henry V.

When the Duke of Alençon, who commanded the second division of the French army, had failed to put an axe through Henry, he tried to surrender but was killed by the King’s 40-strong bodyguard.

Mr Gilliot said: ‘There were numerous heroic acts by the French on the field of battle, but they were met with barbarism by the English.’ While, significantly, no English academics have been invited to today’s conference in France, the revisionist theories have found support on the other side of the Channel.

Professor Anne Curry, a military historian from Southampton University, admitted that many accounts of the battle have been exaggerated to give the impression of “plucky little England” against the evil French.’

Professor Curry, author of ‘Agincourt: A New History’, added: ‘For the French, Agincourt was such a disaster that someone had to be blamed. For the English, it afforded an opportunity to eulogise Henry and his army.’

http://tinyurl.com/5m3ffh

Posted by Drew458     on 10/25/2008 at 02:17 AM   
Filed Under: • History • News-Briefs • UK • War-Stories •  
• Comments (18) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

MORE FUN AND IT’S THE ONLY ONE I EVER LEARNED.

Not even 8am on Sat. morning and I’m doing this?  LOL.  I’d have been an hour or two earlier, but I was reading Drew’s offering. Whew ... break time.
So here’s my humble but cute contribution. The first and only poem and or rhyme I ever managed to memorize in school more then 60 yrs ago.
Ah ... BMEWS starts my 2nd childhood I guess.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/25/2008 at 01:35 AM   
Filed Under: • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - October 24, 2008

More Fun, More Service

Posted by Drew458     on 10/24/2008 at 10:40 PM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

Just For Laughs

Thandie Newton and Ricky Gervais have a bit of fun on some UK talk show when they have to re-enact a scene from the cheesy porno Nailin Paylin.

No visually naughty bits, but the stage directions are quite explicit!

Posted by Drew458     on 10/24/2008 at 02:18 PM   
Filed Under: • Humor •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner