I could not agree more and that's how it was. I still have a problem thinking it has changed, that the place you describe and I knew is gone. It is even harder to get to the idea that the failed policies of state intervention to solve or even improve the situation of low income families or individuals that do exist in continental europe have found some fans across the ocean, really.

For the first time, the newly elected President of the french Federation is today celebrating the National Corsican Heritage Day to honor and thank a great community at the Elysees Palace. Awaiting the President, the garden is now full of people representing every area of talent of the Island from arts, sports, business to elected officials who, we were told, will deliver the first part of his speech in Corsican. Many will be today honored to thank their great services for the year with a special for the Corsican Education Dept.

The President when finished with the first part of his speech apoligised for his less than perfect accent in the native language of his audience sparkling some good laughs and added, "Well, at least for now, you guys are still with us, hopefully we'll have next year another great day of celebration of the Corsican Heritage, if not I guess we'll be opening diplomatic ties...." ( more laughter)

Just wondering, why is it that I never saw that before?

May 19th Breizh Heritage National Day

The Small Nations Council is now working to elaborate a complete calendar for the Heritage National Days.

Can't get to the streaming though. No no wimax around I mean come on.

In fact I didn't get that at the heart of the french ideology, deeply rooted, there was that much hatred for the Small Nations, they act like the destruction of their language, culture and heritage is a matter of survival, anything not "french enough" must disappear ? See what I mean? Of course I ask myself sometime why did it take so long to find out the obvious? Or.... (not very flattering) if I wasn't able to word it but I knew something was wrong, didn't know what it was exactly nor how to explain it but I knew and tried by ignoring it to escape the face off?

Guess what, I'm shared.

It can be so deep. You mention rights, they answer entitlements. You mention the risk of a moral vaccum the marginalisation of a language and culture exposes a given population they just don't know? At least they pretend that. You tell them of the Corsican or Breizh rights and the consequences they mention US society is about money and profit...??? I tried to find but I have to admlit I didn't, are they serious when they play down American Culture or they just genuinely ignore it? When you tell them that the marginalisation of a language and a culture goes far beyond any given generation that does endure the forced change and loss but thazt it will reflect for generations and gen,erations on their ability to create, to go ahead with their lives, to ry things, to pursue happiness, that it will induce self destruction behaviours such as drugs or alcool addictions, violent behaviours sometimes criminal activities and in other cases sexual misconducts and violence inflicted to their descent... they say nothing....

Some days I just don't know who they are. Criminals, ignorants, full of themselves, all of that ?

I guess there are days like that. Hope you can read alright, it's rather sunny right now and I hardly see what's on the screen. Despite what you mentioned earlier, I stll think, it"s worth it aven though it does appear quite desperate sometimes. Somewhere, someone may get enlightened, never know. What appear to be so difficult is the Bill of Rights changed so dramatically the course of evolution in such a broad way that it happens you feel, well, they're a lost case and you reach the conclusion that as many generations went through the Ellis Island doors leaving behind a world ignoring everything of the natural rights there is today very little that can be done to allow a catch up.

I just missed MC's board but I saw he's smiling, I guess everything is fine.

Side to side to offset the excess any of these two freedoms may have on society? Without the Freedom of Speech, may the Freedom of Religion soon to turn into the majority's faith to be the only suitable faith able to impose on each and everyone the majority's faith most rigorous views? Without the Freedom of Religion, may the Freedom of Speech to allow to mock and then ban any faith based speeches and actions should the majority to decide to do so?

Is my right to blaspheme your right to worship, my right to be critic of one's faith writings your right to support it, my right to worship the way I want your right to worship the way you want?

Does the First Amend create for everyone an individual relation towards the faith you choose with the combined Freedoms of Religion and Speech opposed to a situation without a Bill of Rights where the majority's faith authorities rule the relations one has with his faith often inclined to favor the most rigorous views rule ?

"Now, with the defamation of Muhammad reaching the shores of America, I wonder whether the patriotic American Muslim will still have the audacity to claim that he enjoys the right to be a Muslim in America?" Awlaki wrote. "Does he understand that this right includes his duty to fight against those who blaspheme his Prophet?"

Isn't that strange? How is it that someone who grew up with an American education can fail so badly to understand the Bill of Rightsor is it just a dubious assertion?

Any American Muslim alike any American enjoys the privilege of the Bill of Rights. First Amend is in charge here of "His duty to fight against those who blaspheme his Prophet" by protecting the right of every Muslim and everybody else to worship the way they want, "he doesn't have to". It is possible to foresee the consequences of repeated and widely spread blasphemous assertions for any faith in a society somewhere in the world, sometime, on the right without constrain for its followers to freely practice their faith ?

But, any blaspheme even outrageous for any faith in a society enjoying the Bill of Rights cannot have any consequence for the Freedom of Religion part of the Bill and so, protected, explaining why the very same Bill protects the Freedom of Speech allowing precisely that ourageous blaspheme?

Have you ever ask yourself why the Founders made sure Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are side to side in the First Amend? Do you really think they ignored everything about blaspheme or any of the debates these two freedoms have entertained at all times?

Googled I get the Vines but in fact it's on the radio I guess?

Awkward really is as I wrote I crawled to the radio came back to me to the radio something to do with Peron?

No, just read the story and thought hum, must be what he was doing then, not exactly the kind of outfit to use everyday... to go to the office, is it? I went unless it was your last one birthday party but I had in mind it was a bit later.

So, you are now in the movie industry or was it just an unexpected opportunity?

Well, didn't think either it took so long to reach me. Weird isn't it?

Too bad really. I mean I'd be really upset. Getting to appear in a South Park episode is a tough job even dressed like that and learn at the last minute that the daBIPBIp thing won't be shown because of some Bipbipbip. It's sad. Hope you have been paid.

Didn't know you were given a spot in the controversial Southpark episode... just found out today.

Did find a voice crawling the web, the radio... better than nothing. By the way, how is your lady and the kids? Took me sometime but at last I got it.
I mean about the outfit you dressed with.

It's a bit difficult you can hear me but I can't for now.

Thought Shep had joked but no.

Just wondered.

Things turned out well for Jaimie and saw briefly Ralitsa perfectly fine too. What were you doing exactly anyway with that kind of outfit?

Walking down the road to the subway station heading to meet with my lady when she finishes work in a few hours. Around 0630pm your time.
Have it good.
A bit brief but had to go. Got there now but I don't have a tv here. Isn't it hot under there?

My biggest worry is the unwilling to be uplifted who has in mind to show the Bill of Rights isn't uplifting?

The President said mistrust and suspicion are ill advisers but what if the goal of such a controversial project and the very offensive and hurting associated rethoric is to revive some violent groups, inspire a future Timothy, to suscitate violent actions against the proposed center to create a kind of fake equivalent?

Warn about the dangers of feeding islamic radicals to go ahead with a project giving some good opportunities to feed and revive resentment eventually leading to violence to have the job that can't be done anymore from the outside done by groups within society reaching out a double target, undermine big time the society and relations between communities while proving mulims are victims of western violence, freedom of religion and all west rethoric about civilisation being lies?

That are my worries.

Hadn't the Founders no limit in the trust they had in the Bill of Rights power to uplift the People no matter who they were, where they come from, their faith, their education or not, their beliefs?

Frankly, I was a bit surprised you wondered about the Founders writings should the Fed Gov let down some its missions leading to the States to adopt some legislation to fix it (was the third circuit judge right? ie State Immigration laws). At first, I'd approve the decision. Why should anyone want to fix a failed federal mission by adopting some State legislation, a conclusion you should only reach if the supposed failure results from a Congress's decision or the evaluation the Constitutional frame will not allow any future Congress to fulfill the mission? Did you reach the conclusion Congressmen and Ladies whatever sides of the alley they belong to are involved or did you mean that the frame, the decision making process and both the Senate and the House rules prevent to adopt the appropriate legislation?

Aren't Congress elections a more appropriate solution?

Sense of urgency?

Could a State adopt in the mean time a provisional legislation fixing the issue should its dearest interests and dearest People's interests be at stake while awaiting for the federal appropriate legislation to be adopted and the Executive branch to enforce it? I'd say yes if it is established its dearest interests and security are at stake and the provisional character of the legislation undiscussly linked to the lack of an appropriate federal legislation and repeated Congress failure to adopt one or the lack of the Executive branch enforcement of an existing legislation?