MyFox
 

leasheryn's Blog

by leasheryn from Sarasota

Last Post 3 days, 3 hours Ago


'The Perfect Stranger' By Charles Krauthammer

 WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose
 talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his
 own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

 Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is
 laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United
 States . A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the
 Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton
 psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a
 man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments -- bearing even
 fewer witnesses.

 When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an
 honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him
 on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such
 personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or
 fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for
John
 McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that
 roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy,
 with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.

 Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of
 stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life
 standing up to say: 'I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama.
 We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.'

 Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama
 had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for
 the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her
 to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to
 admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his
 judgment. Whatever. Anything.

 Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was
 entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He
 believes what you believe. So we must elect him -- I am currently
 unavailable -- to get Democratic things done. God bless America

 Clinton 's withholding the, 'I've come to know this man' was
 vindictive and supremely self-serving -- but jarring, too, because you
 realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of
 any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a
 reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the
 standard of presidential candidates.

 Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She
 could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man
 in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so
 far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.

 Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver
 that Obama is 'ready to lead.' However, he offered not a shred of
 evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he
 pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting
 precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.

 Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised
 his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had 'reached across
 party lines to ... keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of
 terrorists.' But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood
 and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that
 it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.

 Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics.
 Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching
 across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration
 Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? 'In fact ,' reports the
 Annenberg Political Fact Check, 'the two worked together for barely a
 week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing'' --
 and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.

 So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual
 soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was
 Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom
 he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?

 The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the
 ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable
 apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger -- a deeply engaging,
 elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid
 affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who
 exactly they married last night.




4 Comments | Add a Comment

'The Perfect Stranger' By Charles Krauthammer

 WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama is an immensely talented man whose
 talents have been largely devoted to crafting, and chronicling, his
 own life. Not things. Not ideas. Not institutions. But himself.

 Nothing wrong or even terribly odd about that, except that he is
 laying claim to the job of crafting the coming history of the United
 States . A leap of such audacity is odd. The air of unease at the
 Democratic convention this week was not just a result of the Clinton
 psychodrama. The deeper anxiety was that the party was nominating a
 man of many gifts but precious few accomplishments -- bearing even
 fewer witnesses.

 When John Kerry was introduced at his convention four years ago, an
 honor guard of a dozen mates from his Vietnam days surrounded him
 on the podium attesting to his character and readiness to lead. Such
 personal testimonials are the norm. The roster of fellow soldiers or
 fellow senators who could from personal experience vouch for
John
 McCain is rather long. At a less partisan date in the calendar, that
 roster might even include Democrats Russ Feingold and Edward Kennedy,
 with whom John McCain has worked to fashion important legislation.

 Eerily missing at the Democratic convention this year were people of
 stature who were seriously involved at some point in Obama's life
 standing up to say: 'I know Barack Obama. I've been with Barack Obama.
 We've toiled/endured together. You can trust him. I do.'

 Hillary Clinton could have said something like that. She and Obama
 had, after all, engaged in a historic, utterly compelling contest for
 the nomination. During her convention speech, you kept waiting for her
 to offer just one line of testimony: I have come to know this man, to
 admire this man, to see his character, his courage, his wisdom, his
 judgment. Whatever. Anything.

 Instead, nothing. She of course endorsed him. But the endorsement was
 entirely programmatic: We're all Democrats. He's a Democrat. He
 believes what you believe. So we must elect him -- I am currently
 unavailable -- to get Democratic things done. God bless America

 Clinton 's withholding the, 'I've come to know this man' was
 vindictive and supremely self-serving -- but jarring, too, because you
 realize that if she didn't do it, no one else would. Not because of
 any inherent deficiency in Obama's character. But simply as a
 reflection of a young life with a biography remarkably thin by the
 standard of presidential candidates.

 Who was there to speak about the real Barack Obama? His wife. She
 could tell you about Barack the father, the husband, the family man
 in a winning and perfectly sincere way. But that only takes you so
 far. It doesn't take you to the public man, the national leader.

 Who is to testify to that? Hillary's husband on night three did aver
 that Obama is 'ready to lead.' However, he offered not a shred of
 evidence, let alone personal experience with Obama. And although he
 pulled it off charmingly, everyone knew that, having been suggesting
 precisely the opposite for months, he meant not a word of it.

 Obama's vice presidential selection, Joe Biden, naturally advertised
 his patron's virtues, such as the fact that he had 'reached across
 party lines to ... keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of
 terrorists.' But securing loose nukes is as bipartisan as motherhood
 and as uncontroversial as apple pie. The measure was so minimal that
 it passed by voice vote and received near zero media coverage.

 Thought experiment. Assume John McCain had retired from politics.
 Would he have testified to Obama's political courage in reaching
 across the aisle to work with him on ethics reform, a collaboration
 Obama boasted about in the Saddleback debate? 'In fact ,' reports the
 Annenberg Political Fact Check, 'the two worked together for barely a
 week, after which McCain accused Obama of 'partisan posturing'' --
 and launched a volcanic missive charging him with double cross.

 So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual
 soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was
 Jeremiah Wright. But he's out. Then there's William Ayers, with whom
 he served on a board. He's out. Where are the others?

 The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the
 ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby. The palpable
 apprehension is that the anointed is a stranger -- a deeply engaging,
 elegant, brilliant stranger with whom the Democrats had a torrid
 affair. Having slowly woken up, they see the ring and wonder who
 exactly they married last night.




16 Comments | Add a Comment

Change is coming. That seems to be all the Presidential candidates want to talk about these days. We have been listening to the two of them promise change throughout most of the summer and fall but can we really expect to see any changes starting to take place this upcoming January when either John McCain or Barack Obama takes office or will it just be business as usual up in DC once all this hoop-la is over?

Change means that things will be different; that life with either improve or perhaps take a down turn in the near future. But the truth is, we never really know what the future holds or what is around the next corner. There is always something different to come and the next thing might be better or it might be worse; who knows?

Can one man, or one woman, make that much of a difference in the future that the world will change for the good? Does one person ever make such a great impact that they can make such changes to the way we live our day-by-day lives? It seems this is very unlikely to happen and, if it is possible, such an impact is hardly something we can expect to happen within a day or a month or even within the course of a year. This is, of course not something we can realistically expect to happen in a place like Washington, DC where business seems to take place in the same way, time and time again.

No, if we wish for change and if we expect change, it is not the politicians in Washington who are going to make it happen. They don’t want change; they want to continue to live their comfortable lives in the same way as they always have. If we expect change, we will be sadly disappointed by yet another load of empty promises brandied about by a couple of butt kissers who want your vote.

If we want change, it is the good people of the United States of America who are going to have to stand up and make these changes happen and happen for their own benefit. In case anyone has forgotten, this is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. We are a brave, strong people who hold the power and the will to make changes and to improve our own lives.

Many of our ancestors came to this land because they were dissatisfied with life in the land of their births. They left the old homeland and the property of their fathers and their father’s fathers in order to find their dreams in a newly developing land which offered the freedom and the ability to stand upon their own two feet and to create a life for themselves out of a bare wilderness. They came as pilgrims and adventurers; they came to build cities and towns and farms. They became frontiers people and pioneers who faced grave dangers in order to build up this country, to make it a vast nation peopled by a diverse population.

When they didn’t like what life was handing them, they pushed on; they changed their lives to accommodate their needs and their desires. They never allowed their situation to hold them back or to keep them from their dreams. These people were strong and brave and lived by their own abilities and their own intelligence.

If we want change, it is up to us to make it. It is time for each and every one of us to take stock of our lives, to decide what is right for us and what is wrong and what has to be done to make improvements. If we don’t like what’s going on in our lives, we are the ones to decide what the next move is. If we don’t like the way we are treated in the workplace, it is up to us to decide whether we want to stay there or not. If we don’t like the way our children are being raised, it is up to us to change the way we are doing it. If we don’t like how banks are doing business or how the retailers are doing business, we don’t do business with them; we find another way or find another place.

As Americans, we don’t expect help from anyone and we don’t ask for anyone’s help. We help ourselves and stop being dependant on government or the boss or the banks for help that we can ill-afford. As Americans, we don’t whine and cry and moan that we can’t. We are Americans and no matter what is around the next bend, we can face it and we can conquer it. WE CAN DO IT, should be our motto.

This is not only the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, it is a place of Independence. Afterall, this country was based on independence and freedom but if we allow ourselves to be dependent on government and bosses and banks, the fundamentals of our great country are lost to one and all.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Change is coming. That seems to be all the Presidential candidates want to talk about these days. We have been listening to the two of them promise change throughout most of the summer and fall but can we really expect to see any changes starting to take place this upcoming January when either John McCain or Barack Obama takes office or will it just be business as usual up in DC once all this hoop-la is over?

Change means that things will be different; that life with either improve or perhaps take a down turn in the near future. But the truth is, we never really know what the future holds or what is around the next corner. There is always something different to come and the next thing might be better or it might be worse; who knows?

Can one man, or one woman, make that much of a difference in the future that the world will change for the good? Does one person ever make such a great impact that they can make such changes to the way we live our day-by-day lives? It seems this is very unlikely to happen and, if it is possible, such an impact is hardly something we can expect to happen within a day or a month or even within the course of a year. This is, of course not something we can realistically expect to happen in a place like Washington, DC where business seems to take place in the same way, time and time again.

No, if we wish for change and if we expect change, it is not the politicians in Washington who are going to make it happen. They don’t want change; they want to continue to live their comfortable lives in the same way as they always have. If we expect change, we will be sadly disappointed by yet another load of empty promises brandied about by a couple of butt kissers who want your vote.

If we want change, it is the good people of the United States of America who are going to have to stand up and make these changes happen and happen for their own benefit. In case anyone has forgotten, this is the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. We are a brave, strong people who hold the power and the will to make changes and to improve our own lives.

Many of our ancestors came to this land because they were dissatisfied with life in the land of their births. They left the old homeland and the property of their fathers and their father’s fathers in order to find their dreams in a newly developing land which offered the freedom and the ability to stand upon their own two feet and to create a life for themselves out of a bare wilderness. They came as pilgrims and adventurers; they came to build cities and towns and farms. They became frontiers people and pioneers who faced grave dangers in order to build up this country, to make it a vast nation peopled by a diverse population.

When they didn’t like what life was handing them, they pushed on; they changed their lives to accommodate their needs and their desires. They never allowed their situation to hold them back or to keep them from their dreams. These people were strong and brave and lived by their own abilities and their own intelligence.

If we want change, it is up to us to make it. It is time for each and every one of us to take stock of our lives, to decide what is right for us and what is wrong and what has to be done to make improvements. If we don’t like what’s going on in our lives, we are the ones to decide what the next move is. If we don’t like the way we are treated in the workplace, it is up to us to decide whether we want to stay there or not. If we don’t like the way our children are being raised, it is up to us to change the way we are doing it. If we don’t like how banks are doing business or how the retailers are doing business, we don’t do business with them; we find another way or find another place.

As Americans, we don’t expect help from anyone and we don’t ask for anyone’s help. We help ourselves and stop being dependant on government or the boss or the banks for help that we can ill-afford. As Americans, we don’t whine and cry and moan that we can’t. We are Americans and no matter what is around the next bend, we can face it and we can conquer it. WE CAN DO IT, should be our motto.

This is not only the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, it is a place of Independence. Afterall, this country was based on independence and freedom but if we allow ourselves to be dependent on government and bosses and banks, the fundamentals of our great country are lost to one and all.

18 Comments | Add a Comment

I've spent hours and hours  thinking of what would be the best song that is most appropriate to describe Pelosi.  Okay I admit it was actually less than 5 minutes but when it comes to Pelosi, 5 less than 5 mins is about all I can spare.  I've much better things to do than waste time on this particular waste of space.  However, this is the only song that is at all appropriate.  LOL  (And for anyone who wants to get on their high horse, this is all done in fun)

Cruella De Vil
Cruella De Vil
If she doesn't scare you
No evil thing will
To see her is to
Take a sudden chill
Cruella, Cruella De Vil

The curl of her lips
The ice in her stare
All innocent children
Had better beware
She's like a spider waiting
For the kill
Look out for Cruella De Vil

At first you think
Cruella is the devil
But after time has worn
Away the shock
You come to realize
You've seen her kind of eyes
Watching you from underneath
A rock!

This vampire bat
This inhuman beast
She ought to be locked up
And never released
The world was such
A wholesome place until
Cruella, Cruella De Vil

4 Comments | Add a Comment

It's funny what a topic makes you remember.  Here's a song for you, Floyd:

And the sign said "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said "You look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do"
So I took off my hat, I said "Imagine that. Huh! Me workin' for you!"
Whoa-oh-oh

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight
So I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house, "Hey! What gives you
the
right?"
"To put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in"
"If God was here he'd tell you to your face, Man, you're some kinda sinner"

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

Now, hey you, mister, can't you read?
You've got to have a shirt and tie to get a seat
You can't even watch, no you can't eat
You ain't supposed to be here
The sign said you got to have a membership card to get inside
Ugh!


And the sign said, "Everybody welcome. Come in, kneel down and pray"
But when they passed around the plate at the end of it all, I didn't have a
penny to pay
So I got me a pen and a paper and I made up my own little sign
I said, "Thank you, Lord, for thinkin' 'bout me. I'm alive and doin' fine."
Wooo!

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Sign
Sign, sign

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?

It is an obvious fact, all people are made in the same way, that they are equiped with a definate ability to prosper freely and fortunately. 

 

8 Comments | Add a Comment

MONEYNETDAILY
Guess again who's to blame for U.S. mortgage meltdown
Analysts point not to greed, but to social activist politics

Posted: September 19, 2008
6:19 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 


Stan J. Liebowitz

While many pundits are pointing to corporate greed and a lack of government regulation as the cause for the American mortgage and financial crisis, some analysts are saying it wasn't too little government intervention that cased the mortgage meltdown, but too much, in the form of activists compelling the government to pressure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into unsound – though politically correct – lending practices.

"Home mortgages have been a political piñata for many decades," writes Stan J. Liebowitz, economics professor at the University of Texas at Dallas, in a chapter of his forthcoming book, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis.

Liebowitz puts forward an explanation that he admits is "not consistent with the nasty-subprime-lender hypothesis currently considered to be the cause of the mortgage meltdown."

In a nutshell, Liebowitz contends that the federal government over the last 20 years pushed the mortgage industry so hard to get minority homeownership up, that it undermined the country's financial foundation to achieve its goal.

"In an attempt to increase homeownership, particularly by minorities and the less affluent, an attack on underwriting standards was undertaken by virtually every branch of the government since the early 1990s," Liebowitz writes. "The decline in mortgage underwriting standards was universally praised as 'innovation' in mortgage lending by regulators, academic specialists, (government-sponsored enterprises) and housing activists."

He continues, "Although a seemingly noble goal, the tool chosen to achieve this goal was one that endangered the entire mortgage enterprise."

"As homeownership rates increased there was self-congratulation all around," Liebowitz writes. "The community of regulators, academic specialists, and housing activists all reveled in the increase in homeownership."

An article in the Los Angeles Times from the late '90s praised the sudden surge in homeownership among minorities, calling it "one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era."

John Lott, a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, however, claimed in a Fox News article yesterday that the success came at a great price.

According to Lott, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston produced a manual in the early '90s that warned mortgage lenders to no longer deny urban and lower-income minority applicants on such "outdated" criteria as credit history, down payment or employment income.

Furthermore, claims Lott, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraged and praised lenders – like Countrywide and Bear Stearns – for adopting the slackened policies toward minority applicants.

"Given these lending practices mandated by the Fed and encouraged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," writes Lott, "the resulting financial problems for financial institutions such as Countrywide and Bear Stearns are not too surprising."

Liebowitz' contention that lenders were under pressure to loosen their standards for racial and political goals was confirmed years ago by the companies at the heart of today's crisis: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

A New York Times article from Sept. 1999 states that Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton administration to expand mortgage loans among low- and moderate-income people and that the corporation loosened its lending requirements to comply.

An ominous paragraph of the article reads, "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s."

Liebowitz likewise predicted in a 1998 paper the risk of sacrificing sound financial policy for social activism.

"After the warm fuzzy glow of 'flexible underwriting standards' has worn off," Liebowitz wrote, "we may discover that they are nothing more than standards that led to bad loans. … It will be ironic and unfortunate if minority applicants wind up paying a very heavy price for a misguided policy based on a badly mangled idea."

And though some have speculated that lenders in the '90s dove into sub-prime mortgages in an effort to gouge new markets, the president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac in 1999, David Glenn, confessed his company was pushed by a federal agenda.

"The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership," Glenn said in his remarks at the annual convention of the Mortgage Banker Association of America.

"The federal government in the meantime has increased pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories," Glenn said. "Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets."

In that same year, Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.

The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.

Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.

The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism.

A few years later, when Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, voiced a warning about weakened underwriting standards, Congress rebuffed him as well.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"

Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

9 Comments | Add a Comment

It is my understanding that when one accepts Christ as their Savior, they become followers of Chirst and are indeed respresentives of Christ.  We are meant to live in His spirit and to be Christ-like in our actions and deeds.  As representives of Christ, we are to act in a way in which He Himself would approve and imulate His Words, Deeds and Teachings.  We are in fact to go forth as examples of His Life on Earth and to spread this example to one and all. 

The way we look and act and behave should be Christ-like.  Sure, none of us are perfect and we all have to face temptations and often we are lead along the wrong path even though we may think that we are doing the right thing.  But as we go along in life, we should think of how Jesus would have responded and what He would have done in such a circumstance.  If we realize we have gone wrong, it is up to us to go to Him or go to the Father and confess what we have done.  Not only this but we should make a good attempt to do better or to be better. 

Many of us get too wrapped up in the immediate focus or too interested in the wrongs that others are doing to consider that we, ourselves, may not be facing ourselves or realizing that we too may be doing wrong by getting involved in the salvation of the next guy.  It is for each of us to make up our own minds and to make our own decisions.  If someone wishes to accept Jesus as their Savior, they should do so and, if they do not, then it is for them to face the Almighty at the end of the day.

We should live in peace with each other and we should know that it is God who decides who is acceptable and who is not.  But if we show a peaceful nature and know the joy of accepting Christ is our hearts as our Savior, that should be enough to make others stop, look at us and wonder what it is that gives us that peace when they are living under the stresses of the world.  It is always easy to fall into temptation but the hard work that goes into knowing peace and living with Christ should give each one who believes great joy.  Great joy is truly a reward for a little hard work so who should complain about a little extra effort. 

"Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn,
for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful,
for they shall obtain mercy.

Blessed are the pure of heart,
for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they shall be called children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

 

8 Comments | Add a Comment

69BC-30BC Cleopatra held sole rule of Egypt

 AD 60-61 Celtic Queen Boudicca of the Iceni tribe in Britian leads an uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire

 1135 Matilda, daughter of Henry I, was the first female ruler, of the Kingdom of England.  Her crown was usurped by her Cousin, known as King Stephen, upon who she raged a civil war, riding into battle at the head of her armies

 1122-1204 Eleanor of Aquitaine, Duchess of Aquitaine, Gascony and Countess of Poitou was one of the wealthiest and most powerful women in Europe.  Eleanor was Queen consort of both France and England (Louis VII and Henry II) and mother of Kings Richard and John.  She participated in the Second Crusade

 1412-1431 Joan of Arc, a peasant girl, who was to become a Catholic Saint and national heroine of France, led the French army to several important victories during the hundred years war and was responsible for the coronation of King Charles VI

 1474-1504 Isabella Queen of Spain often referred to as one of the Most Catholic Kings (the other being Ferdinand) united the kingdom of Spain under one rule, banished the Moors from her Kingdom often riding into battle at the head of her armies and sent Christopher Columbus on his journey of discovery.  She, during her reign, she was the most powerful monarch of her time.

 1519-1589 Catherine de' Medici, Queen Mother of France, rules France as Regent during the reigns of three of her sons, Francis II, Charles IX and Henry III. 

 1473-1541 Margaret Pole (nee Plantagenet) Countess of Salisbury.  Margaret Pole was executed, beheaded by Henry VIII for the simple reason that she stood closer to the English throne than he did.  She was such a threat to his kingship, that the only way to rid himself of the treat was to execute her.

 

 1505-1544 Margaret Roper, nee More, daughter of Sir Thomas More and student of Erasmus.  Meg Roper was so highly educated that she translated the works of Erasmus.

 

  1521-1546 Anne Askew was an English poet and Protestant who was persecuted as a heretic.  She is the only woman on record to have been tortured in the Tower of London before being burnt at the stake on orders of Henry VIII.

 

 1527-1608 Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, known as Bess of Hardwick, owned extensive property in her own right.  She was chosen by Elizabeth I as one of the jailers of Mary Queen of Scots.

 

 1533-1603 Elizabeth I sometimes called The Virgin Queen, Gloriana and Good Queen Bess.  Upon the execution of her mother, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth was declared a bastard by her father Henry VIII and treated as an outcast.  She was however educated in several languages including French, Spanish, Latin and Greek.  She was taught diplomacy and mathematics.  Despite her background as a bastard child, she rose to the throne of England.  The only person to ever stake a claim above hers was Mary Queen of Scots who was later beheaded for treasonous acts against Elizabeth.  Men like Drake, Raleigh and Hawkins bent their knees to her and explored the world on her behalf. Elizabeth was not only the most powerful woman of her time but the most powerful monarch of the world as she knew it

 

 1595-1617 Pocahontas, at the point of the attempted execution of Capt John Smith, Pocahontas threw herself across his body, thus saving his life.  Pocahontas was the first Native American woman to marry an Englishman, John Rolfe, and later traveled with him to England 

 

 1665-1714 Queen Anne, known as Good Queen Anne,  was ruler of England, Scotland and Ireland.

 

 1717-1780 Maria Theresa of Austria reigned as Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia and a Holy Roman Empress

 

 1729-1796 Catherine II or Catherine the Great of Russia reigned for 34 years as Empress of Russia until her death.  Marrying into the Imperial family, she came to power with the deposition of her husband Peter III then presided over a significant period of growth in Russian influence and culture

 

 1820-1910 Florence Nightingale, known as the Lady with the Lamp, Florence Nightingale took a band of nurses out to the front lines of the Crimean War, to care for the injured soldiers.  She was not only a pioneering nurse but a writer and statistician

 

 1819-1901 Victoria, born Alexandrina Victoria, she was Queen of England and Empress of India.  Her reign as Queen lasted 63 years and seven months, longer than any other British monarch to date.  Her reign included the Empire Upon Which the Sun Never Set.  It was my intention of list the nations and colonies that were included in the British Empire but it is far too extensive to include each and everyone.  The Empire did include, in short, Canada, several Caribbean Islands, parts of South America, Middle Eastern countries, colonies in Africa and China, the whole of India, Australia and New Zealand, not to mention several South Pacific Islands.  No one, neither King nor Queen, in the history of the world ever held as much territory as the British Empire during the reign of Queen Victoria.  Her name itself means victorious and with the extent of her empire, she surely was.  

 

 I cannot by any means include all the women who took part in the formation of our history.  Although this is somewhat an extensive list, this is only a small number of them.  Others would include Mary Shelley, Louisa May Alcott, Elizabeth Barret Browning, Jane Austen, and the Bronte Sisters. 

Women in history were well educated side by side with the men of their world, they were capable landowners and heiresses of great estates or used their minds in the creation of their art.  They were royals, nobles and peasants but they were strong of character and willing to take their part in the world around them.  It is these women who paved the way for women of today.  They did not break through the proverbial glass ceiling; they prove, by their existence, that there was no need for a glass ceiling to exist, in their day or ours.   

Add a Comment

69BC-30BC Cleopatra held sole rule of Egypt

 

 

 

AD 60-61 Celtic Queen Boudicca of the Iceni tribe in Britian leads an uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire

 

 

 

1135 Matilda, daughter of Henry I, was the first female ruler, of the Kingdom of England.  Her crown was usurped by her Cousin, known as King Stephen, upon who she raged a civil war, riding into battle at the head of her armies

 

 

 

 

 

1122-1204 Eleanor of Aquitaine, Duchess of Aquitaine, Gascony and Countess of Poitou was one of the wealthiest and most powerful women in Europe.  Eleanor was Queen consort of both France and England (Louis VII and Henry II) and mother of Kings Richard and John.  She participated in the Second Crusade

 

 

 

 

 

1412-1431 Joan of Arc, a peasant girl, who was to become a Catholic Saint and national heroine of France, led the French army to several important victories during the hundred years war and was responsible for the coronation of King Charles VI

 

 

 

1474-1504 Isabella Queen of Spain often referred to as one of the Most Catholic Kings (the other being Ferdinand) united the kingdom of Spain under one rule, banished the Moors from her Kingdom often riding into battle at the head of her armies and sent Christopher Columbus on his journey of discovery.  She, during her reign, she was the most powerful monarch of her time.

 

 

 

1519-1589 Catherine de' Medici, Queen Mother of France, rules France as Regent during the reigns of three of her sons, Francis II, Charles IX and Henry III. 

 

 

 

1473-1541 Margaret Pole (nee Plantagenet) Countess of Salisbury.  Margaret Pole was executed, beheaded by Henry VIII for the simple reason that she stood closer to the English throne than he did.  She was such a threat to his kingship, that the only way to rid himself of the treat was to execute her.

 

1505-1544 Margaret Roper, nee More, daughter of Sir Thomas More and student of Erasmus.  Meg Roper was so highly educated that she translated the works of Erasmus.

 

 1521-1546 Anne Askew was an English poet and Protestant who was persecuted as a heretic.  She is the only woman on record to have been tortured in the Tower of London before being burnt at the stake on orders of Henry VIII.

 

1527-1608 Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury, known as Bess of Hardwick, owned extensive property in her own right.  She was chosen by Elizabeth I as one of the jailers of Mary Queen of Scots.

 

1533-1603 Elizabeth I sometimes called The Virgin Queen, Gloriana and Good Queen Bess.  Upon the execution of her mother, Anne Boleyn, Elizabeth was declared a bastard by her father Henry VIII and treated as an outcast.  She was however educated in several languages including French, Spanish, Latin and Greek.  She was taught diplomacy and mathematics.  Despite her background as a bastard child, she rose to the throne of England.  The only person to ever stake a claim above hers was Mary Queen of Scots who was later beheaded for treasonous acts against Elizabeth.  Men like Drake, Raleigh and Hawkins bent their knees to her and explored the world on her behalf. Elizabeth was not only the most powerful woman of her time but the most powerful monarch of the world as she knew it

 

1595-1617 Pocahontas, at the point of the attempted execution of Capt John Smith, Pocahontas threw herself across his body, thus saving his life.  Pocahontas was the first Native American woman to marry an Englishman, John Rolfe, and later traveled with him to England 

 

1665-1714 Queen Anne, known as Good Queen Anne,  was ruler of England, Scotland and Ireland.

 

1717-1780 Maria Theresa of Austria reigned as Archduchess of Austria, Queen of Hungary, Croatia and Bohemia and a Holy Roman Empress

 

1729-1796 Catherine II or Catherine the Great of Russia reigned for 34 years as Empress of Russia until her death.  Marrying into the Imperial family, she came to power with the deposition of her husband Peter III then presided over a significant period of growth in Russian influence and culture

 

1820-1910 Florence Nightingale, known as the Lady with the Lamp, Florence Nightingale took a band of nurses out to the front lines of the Crimean War, to care for the injured soldiers.  She was not only a pioneering nurse but a writer and statistician

 

1819-1901 Victoria, born Alexandrina Victoria, she was Queen of England and Empress of India.  Her reign as Queen lasted 63 years and seven months, longer than any other British monarch to date.  Her reign included the Empire Upon Which the Sun Never Set.  It was my intention of list the nations and colonies that were included in the British Empire but it is far too extensive to include each and everyone.  The Empire did include, in short, Canada, several Caribbean Islands, parts of South America, Middle Eastern countries, colonies in Africa and China, the whole of India, Australia and New Zealand, not to mention several South Pacific Islands.  No one, neither King nor Queen, in the history of the world ever held as much territory as the British Empire during the reign of Queen Victoria.  Her name itself means victorious and with the extent of her empire, she surely was.  

 

I cannot by any means include all the women who took part in the formation of our history.  Although this is somewhat an extensive list, this is only a small number of them.  Others would include Mary Shelley, Louisa May Alcott, Elizabeth Barret Browning, Jane Austen, and the Bronte Sisters. 

 

 

Women in history were well educated side by side with the men of their world, they were capable landowners and heiresses of great estates or used their minds in the creation of their art.  They were royals, nobles and peasants but they were strong of character and willing to take their part in the world around them.  It is these women who paved the way for women of today.  They did not break through the proverbial glass ceiling; they prove, by their existence, that there was no need for a glass ceiling to exist, in their day or ours.   

 

 

 

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Radio host Howard Stern is set to shock his listeners- by auctioning off a girl's virginity on his show.  

The 22-year-old brunette is auctioning off her virginity in a desperate bid to pay for her college tuition.

The San Diego brunette, who is using the pseudonym of Natalie Dylan for 'safety reasons', was introduced to the RJ by the owner of a legal Nevada brothel, where her sister already works. 

The winner of the auction will get to consummate the relationship at the brothel.

 "I don't have a moral dilemma with it," the Sun quoted Dylan, as saying. 

"We live in a capitalist society. Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?

 "I understand some people may condemn me. But I think this is empowering. I'm using what I have to better myself," she added. 

Dylan is willing to submit to a polygraph test and a gynaecological exam, in case anyone doubts her virginity.

 The auction will be launched on Stern's Sirius radio in San Diego and conducted on the brothel's website.  

The girl, who already has a bachelor's degree in women's studies at Sacramento State, wants to study for a master's in marriage and family therapy

26 Comments | Add a Comment

My kind of loyalty was to one's country, not to its institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death." Mark Twain

I've posted this into one of my other topics but thought it interesting enough to place seperately as well. 

3 Comments | Add a Comment

There is a certain four letter word that Obama uses again and again and again in his speeches.  Many people will find this word offensive; many are allegeric to this word and many so badly that they will actually claim to break out in a rash at the mere thought of such a word effecting their lives.  There are people who will certainly not vote for Obama if he continues to disrespect them by using this word over and over.  Many may not vote at all since this word scares them so much and they certainly don't want any thing to do with it or any thought that it might someday be a part of their lives! 

And you might wonder what exactly this four-letter word is that is so offensive and so terrible.  Well, it's WORK!   

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Drastic and terrible  events have unfolded in America.  Surely we all feel as though we have been devastated, as if the unspeakable has happened.  To have lost so much and so many lives in one day is a loss that we will long remember.   

I, like many, watched with awe as a hijacked plane flew directly into the World Trade Center in New York City.  Moments later another hijacked plane attacked the second of the twin towers.  And again, in moments, In Washington, yet another hijacked plane struck the Pentagon.  Surely, surely we are lost in this total, unexpected, devastation.

Yet, as I watched the second of the twin towers collapse, sinking to the ground, followed by the first one that was hit, the skyline of New York appeared complete except for the addition of a billowing cloud of ugly smoke that hid the fact that the towers were gone. 

Yet, yet...

Standing firmly, bold and straight in New York Harbor (just as she always has for generations of immigrants who believed in our country enough to leave their homes in search of a new and better life), despite the devastation, is our defiant Lady Liberty with her torch upraised to the sky.  Our country's symbol remains to encourage.    

"Oh say can you see             

By the dawn's early light

What so proudly we hail'd

In the twilight's last gleaming"

Think of these immortal words written so long ago by Francis Scott Key, also under fire and thinking the worst had come.  It was the end of a horrible time, and he could see a great symbol of our country still boldly waving in the wind.  Our flag was still there!

Our Lady Liberty is still there!

Firm and bold and strong! There is nothing that will stop us or hold us back.

Sarasota Herald Tribune Sunday September 16, 2001

These were my views seven years ago shortly after 9/11.  I share them with you in memory of the fallen.

 

6 Comments | Add a Comment


leasheryn

I am in Sarasota and enjoy reading avidly, mostly about historical subjects and biographies. Also have travelled in England and Wales, visiting family and historical sights. I like a good conversation on nearly all subjects and, although I have opinions, am willing to listen to all sides of a topic. I believe in listening and learning so your opinions are always necessary to me.

Member Since: 12/23/2006