Thursday, April 14, 2016
Jakovasaurs
http://www.tv.com/shows/south-park/jakovasaurs-2451/
tv.com
South Park Season 3 Episode 4
Jakovasaurs
Aired Wednesday 10:00 PM Jun 16, 1999 on Comedy Central
Cartman finds a strange, yet annoying, creature in the woods. The boys get Jimbo and Ned to capture it, and they show it to the rest of South Park. It is determined that it is a Jakovasaur -- a species long thought to be extinct. The creature's mate arrives and Mephesto helps them reproduce, creating a multitude of little, annoying, loud creatures. Everybody in South Park, except Cartman, despises the creatures and go to various lengths to get rid of them.
AIRED: 6/16/99
http://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/bitstream/handle/10827/5614/GOV_Inaugural_Program_1979-01-10.pdf?sequence=1
The State of South Carolina
Inaugural Program
January 10, 1979
page 5
Richard Wilson Riley was born in Greenville County on January 2, 1933
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
Michael Kitz: Your having sent this announcement all over the world may well constitute a breach of national security.
Ellie Arroway: This isn't a person-to-person call.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=46450
The American Presidency Project
William J. Clinton
XLII President of the United States: 1993-2001
Remarks on Presenting the Teacher of the Year Award
April 20, 1993
The President. Good afternoon. Please be seated.
I want to say, first, how delighted I am to be here with Secretary Riley and with Senator Graham. The three of us served as Governors together during the 1980's when we worked constantly on strategies to improve our schools, when we led often difficult and long efforts to upgrade the standards in American education and to improve the quality of instruction our children were receiving.
There were no two Governors whom I admired more during that period than the two who now stand on this stage with the Teacher of the Year. And I think both of them would join me in saying that, after all the testimony has been heard and all the bills have been passed and the funds have been raised and allocated, it all comes down to what happens between the teacher and the students in the classroom.
That's why today's ceremony honoring the National Teacher of the Year is so important. Tracey Leon Bailey has won recognition all across our country for highly advanced and innovative science programs. He's developed and introduced into Florida's classrooms cutting-edge programs in molecular biology and DNA fingerprinting, subjects usually taught only in college and, I might add, probably only dimly understood here in the Nation's Capital.
Within 3 years of being hired by a satellite high school, Mr. Bailey's institution had one of the strongest science programs in the entire State of Florida, and it won numerous national and international awards. These advanced programs aren't just for a favored few. Tracey Bailey has inspired all kinds of students, including those previously known as low-achieving or at-risk, to reach for excellence and to attain it. This is what our students need and what our country needs.
Today, we know that a good future with high wages and rich opportunities rests on the foundation of quality education for a lifetime. The basics aren't enough anymore. All our kids need competence in math and science and advanced problem-solving. That's why Tracey Bailey's accomplishments are so important and why I am so pleased and proud to participate in recognizing and honoring these accomplishments.
Tracey, you represent the best in the United States. I'm glad to recognize you today and to formally present you with this apple award as the Teacher of the Year for 1993.
[At this point, the President presented the award, and Mr. Bailey made a brief statement of appreciation.]
The President. In closing, I would like to also welcome the education leaders from Florida who are here, those representing the national education groups who have also come. I'd like to recognize Tracey's Congressman, Representative Jim Bacchus in the back, himself a great advocate of education. And I'd like to remind all of you that the ultimate purpose of the National Teacher of the Year Award is to find a way for the rest of us to express our appreciation to people all across this country who give their lives to our children, all of the teachers of this country who get up every day and do their best to try to advance the cause of learning for all the children of America. They are, in so many ways, our most important public servants.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The President spoke at 1:25 p.m. in the Rose Garden at the White House.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
S.R. Hadden: The powers that be have been very busy lately, falling over each other to position themselves for the game of the millennium. Maybe I can help deal you back in.
Ellie Arroway: I didn't realize that I was out.
S.R. Hadden: Well, maybe not out... but certainly being handed your hat.
http://www2.ed.gov/offices/OS/riley.html
RICHARD W. RILEY
U. S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
The Christian Science Monitor says that many Americans regard Dick Riley as "one of the great statesmen of education in this century." David Broder, columnist for The Washington Post, has called him one of the "most decent and honorable people in public life." And when Riley was governor of South Carolina, he was so popular that the people amended their constitution to enable him to run for a second term.
Wherever he goes, Richard Wilson Riley--U. S. Secretary of Education and grandfather of ten--wins respect for his integrity, principled leadership, commitment to children, and passion for education.
President Clinton chose Dick Riley to be Secretary in December 1992 after Riley won national recognition for his highly successful effort to improve education in South Carolina. During the President’s first term, Riley helped launch historic initiatives to raise academic standards; to improve instruction for the poor and disadvantaged; to expand grants and loan programs to help more Americans go to college; to prepare young people for the world of work; and to improve teaching. He also helped to create the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education, which today includes over 4,000 groups.
Riley gets things done by reaching out to all citizens. He prefers partnership to partisanship. His quiet, self-effacing style "can drive impatient, assertive young Washington movers and shakers crazy," the National Journal has written. "He doesn’t grab headlines or clamor for credit... But, inevitably, Riley reaches his goal."
Riley’s efforts were so successful that President Clinton asked him to stay on in his second term to lead the President’s national crusade for excellence in education. Riley and the President agree that education must be America’s number one priority in the years ahead. Already in the second term, Riley has helped win an historic ruling by the F.C.C. to give schools and libraries deep discounts for Internet access and telecommunications services and helped win major improvements in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Riley’s goals now include helping all children to master the basics of reading and math; making schools safer; reducing class sizes in grades 1-3 by helping states and schools to hire 100,000 more good teachers; modernizing and building new schools to meet record-breaking student enrollments and to help students learn to use computers; and expanding after-school programs.
Dick Riley was born in Greenville County, S. C., on Jan. 2, 1933. He was graduated cum laude from Furman University in 1954 and served as an officer on a U. S. Navy minesweeper. In 1959, Riley received a law degree from the University of South Carolina. He was a state representative and state senator from 1963-1977 and was elected governor in 1978 and reelected in 1982.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
Ellie Arroway: Some celestial event. No - no words. No words to describe it. Poetry! They should've sent a poet.
From 1/2/1933 ( Richard Wilson Riley ) To 3/29/2000 is 24558 days
24558 = 12279 + 12279
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 6/16/1999 ( premiere US TV series episode "South Park"::"Jakovasaurs" ) is 12279 days
From 1/2/1933 ( Richard Wilson Riley ) To 3/29/2000 is 24558 days
24558 = 12279 + 12279
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 6/16/1999 ( premiere US TV series "The Man Show" ) is 12279 days
From 6/4/1963 ( premiere US film "The Nutty Professor" ) To 10/29/1997 ( Iraq threatens to shoot down United States U-2 surveillance aircraft ) is 12566 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/29/2000 is 12566 days
From 3/16/1991 ( my first successful major test of my ultraspace matter transportation device as Kerry Wayne Burgess the successful Ph.D. graduate Columbia South Carolina ) To 3/29/2000 is 3301 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 11/16/1974 ( the Arecibo radio telescope message beamed into space ) is 3301 days
From 9/8/1966 ( premiere US TV series "Star Trek" ) To 3/29/2000 is 12256 days
12256 = 6128 + 6128
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 8/13/1982 ( premiere US film "Fast Times At Ridgemont High" ) is 6128 days
From 11/12/1936 ( Winston Churchill "we are entering a period of consequences" ) To 3/29/2000 is 23148 days
23148 = 11574 + 11574
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/11/1997 ( premiere US film "Contact" ) is 11574 days
From 7/25/1960 ( Dwight Eisenhower - Statement by the President Following the Firing of the Polaris Missile by the Submarine Patrick Henry ) To 12/20/1994 ( in Bosnia as Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps captain this day is my United States Navy Cross medal date of record ) is 12566 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/29/2000 is 12566 days
From 7/25/1960 ( the desegregation of the F. W. Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro North Carolina ) To 12/20/1994 ( in Bosnia as Kerry Wayne Burgess the United States Marine Corps captain this day is my United States Navy Cross medal date of record ) is 12566 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/29/2000 is 12566 days
From 10/29/1949 ( Harry Truman - Statement by the President Upon Signing the National Military Establishment Appropriation Act ) To 3/29/2000 is 18414 days
18414 = 9207 + 9207
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/17/1991 ( the date of record of my United States Navy Medal of Honor as Kerry Wayne Burgess chief warrant officer United States Marine Corps circa 1991 also known as Matthew Kline for official duty and also known as Wayne Newman for official duty ) is 9207 days
From 10/29/1949 ( Harry Truman - Statement by the President Upon Signing the National Military Establishment Appropriation Act ) To 3/29/2000 is 18414 days
18414 = 9207 + 9207
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 1/17/1991 ( RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS US Title 18 - the Persian Gulf War begins as scheduled severe criminal activity against the United States of America ) is 9207 days
From 7/19/1989 ( the United Airlines Flight 232 crash ) To 3/29/2000 is 3906 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 7/13/1976 ( Gerald Ford - Remarks Following a Meeting With Law Enforcement Officials on the Successful Completion of Two Undercover Operations ) is 3906 days
From 6/27/1994 ( the US NASA Stargazer Pegasus rocket failure ) To 3/29/2000 is 2102 days
2102 = 1051 + 1051
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 9/18/1968 ( premiere US TV series "The Outsider" ) is 1051 days
From 4/27/1942 ( premiere US film "The Man Who Wouldn't Die" ) To 9/21/1976 ( premiere US TV series pilot "Baa Baa Black Sheep" ) is 12566 days
From 11/2/1965 ( my birth date in Antlers Oklahoma USA and my birthdate as the known official United States Marshal Kerry Wayne Burgess and active duty United States Marine Corps officer ) To 3/29/2000 is 12566 days
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=58129
The American Presidency Project
William J. Clinton
XLII President of the United States: 1993-2001
Remarks at a Reception for Representative James E. Clyburn in Columbia, South Carolina
March 29, 2000
Well, it's certainly a relief, after this long trip I just took from Washington to India and Bangladesh and Pakistan and Switzerland, to be with such a laid-back crowd tonight. [Laughter] I'll tell you, I don't know how many people said to me tonight, "You must be so tired." If I had been tired, I'd be so pumped after this, I may not sleep for 3 more days. [Laughter] I want to thank you all for the wonderful welcome. I want to thank the young people who performed for us tonight, and I want to thank all of you who brought your children tonight, to remind us of why we're really all here.
I want to say to you, Bishop, Mrs. Adams, I am honored to be here with you. We've been friends a long time, since before I was President, and I've heard you give a lot of talks, and you get better every time you do it. [Laughter] I want to thank the first AME bishop I ever knew, Bishop Fred James, who is out here, my longtime friend. Thank you very much, my good friend.
Dr. Waddell, thank you for having us here at Allen University. I want to say a special word of appreciation to Dick Harpootlian, who—he and Pam, they did have me down here 8 years ago, and I had a wonderful time, and he's been a great chairman of this party. I want to thank Don Fowler for his leadership of the Democratic National Committee, for being here with me tonight.
I thank Bob and Beth Coble. And I'm glad to see that Mayor Riley made it upstate a little tonight. We're glad to see you, too; thank you. And thank you, Bob, for coming out to the airport to meet me and always making me feel so welcome in Columbia.
I want to thank some of my old friends who are here: Dwight Drake, whom I've known now more than 20 years; and thank you, McKinley Washington, for being one of my cochairs in 1992 when even my mother wasn't sure I could be elected President. I want to thank Inez Tenenbaum and Jim Lander for being here. And I want to thank Governor Bob McNair; thank you for being here. And Governor John West, also my friend of more than 20 years, thank you for being here.
I want to say, I might have been the happiest non-South Carolinian in the entire United States of America when Jim Hodges was elected Governor in 1998. When he filed, Erskine Bowles and his wife, Crandal, told me that he would be elected. And I got so used to Republicans winning down here, I have to admit I was a Doubting Thomas. But they turned out to be right, and it's been good for South Carolina. And he and Rachel have really brought dignity and direction to the Governor's office.
And let me say that I am so delighted to be here for Jim Clyburn. You know, when the Governor was building Jim up, I was sitting there talking to Emily, and she said, "You know, I'm going to have to talk to Jim after this introduction. He might get to believing all that stuff." [Laughter]
I have to tell you that even though he told that golf joke, I still like Jim Clyburn. [Laughter] And I respect him. And I wish all of you could see him operate in Washington, and I say that in a complimentary way. But he has such a good, reassuring way of doing his business.
When the freshman class in 1992—you know, he was elected when I was, so we went there together, but unlike me, he's not term-limited, so he can stay—he goes in 1992, and the freshman class of that year elected him the class president. First thing he did was to propose sharing his term with Representative Eva Clayton from North Carolina, to pay homage to the fact that it was the year of the woman. That's the kind of thing that he does that is genuine and generous and also smart. [Laughter] This guy didn't fall off the truck yesterday. [Laughter].
He's got a way of standing up for what he believes in and still working to build consensus. That's how he became the unanimous choice to head the Congressional Black Caucus. And he's even trying to use his ability to build consensus to resolve this bitter debate over the Confederate flag.
You know, I know everybody expects me to say something about that. I just want to say this: I was, a couple of Sundays ago, I went to Selma, Alabama, for the 35th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. And my mother-in-law said it was the best talk I ever gave. And I told her, it's because I'd been waiting all my life to give it. I was there with John Lewis and Hosea Williams and Mrs. King and Reverend Jackson, and Dick Gregory came back. Hosea Williams got up out of his wheelchair; we walked across the Edmund Pettus Bridge together. And I said then all I have to say about this, that as long as the waving symbol of one American's pride is the shameful symbol of another American's pain, we still have bridges to cross in our country, and we'd better go on and get across them.
I very much agree with what Governor Hodges said when he said there is a new South Carolina. And I began to see it when I came here in 1991 and 1992 and in all the times since. I saw it when Jim Clyburn was elected. I saw it when Jim Hodges was elected. I saw it in the dialog you've had on issues of racial and religious tolerance. I see it in the commitment you're made to education. I see it in the ratification of the leadership Jim has given on everything from supporting the vital mission of historically black colleges and universities to maintaining affirmative action to promoting economic development for all his constituents.
He is one of the sponsors, as he said, of my new markets initiative. It's a simple little idea, really. We've been sitting around thinking about, for months, how can we keep this economic growth going without inflation, number one; and number two, how can we do something to get the benefits of this economic recovery to the people and places that have been left behind?
We may have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years, but there's still some people left behind. In my State, and I'll bet you in this State, there are still some counties with unemployment rates that are twice the national average. In the Mississippi Delta, where I come from, or in the Rio Grande Valley or in some of the inner-city neighborhoods from New York to Los Angeles, there are still people and places that have been left behind.
Jim and I were talking tonight coming in here about the trip we took and how he went with me and we both saw Mount Rushmore for the first time at night when they turn the lights on. It was one of the most breathtaking experiences I think either one of us have ever had. And almost in the shadow of Mount Rushmore, there is the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, the home of the Lakota Sioux, the tribe of Crazy Horse, where the unemployment rate is 73 percent.
So we were thinking, well, guess what? It would be not only good to give people who are dying to work and aren't part of this deal yet a chance to do it, it would not only be the morally right thing to do, it would be good economics, because if you make new businesses and new employees and new taxpayers at the same time you're making new consumers, it's by definition noninflationary growth.
So our idea with this new markets initiative is pretty simple. It is that we ought to give American investors with money the same incentives to invest in poor areas in America we give you to invest in poor areas in Latin America or Africa or Asia or any other place around the world. So I thank Jim for his leadership there, for the work he's done for the South Carolina Heritage Corridor or the—something that he really believes in that I thought was great.
I signed the bill that he sponsored to protect the airline whistle-blowers. If you ride the airplanes a lot, you'll appreciate that. [Laughter] And he said that Vice President Gore signed the bill—I mean, voted for the bill, cast the tie-breaking vote that passed the '93 Budget Act, which began all this marvelous expansion. That's true. But so did he, because we didn't have a vote to spare in either place, because we couldn't get any Republicans to help us. So thank you, Jim Clyburn, for bringing the America economy back and for sticking with us.
I would like to say a word of greeting to you from three people who aren't here. The first is the best Secretary of Education this country ever had, Dick Riley, who is in China tonight.
The second is Vice President Gore. We were together yesterday when we hosted the President of Egypt. And I used to complain, because he'd get to do things like this. When I was— before, whenever I was running or being President, they've never let me come to State party events. They'd always say, "Well, you know, Al gets to do that." And it really used to steam me. [Laughter] So I told him yesterday, I said, "You know where I'm going tomorrow night? I'm going to South Carolina. Eat your heart out." [Laughter] And he said, "Well, tell them not to forget me." So I did. And you shouldn't. You shouldn't.
And I thank you for the wonderful round of applause you gave to Hillary when the bishop mentioned that I'm trying to get into the Senate spouses club. [Laughter] She's in California tonight, and I'm flying back, and we're going to spend tomorrow in New York together. But I'm very proud of her for what she's done as First Lady and for doing what she's doing now, and I thank you for that.
I want to say just a couple of words seriously, and then I'll let you go. You've been patient, and I know you're probably tired. But I don't get to come here very much, and Jim said, "Just give them a whole dose tonight, will you?"
I got tickled, you know, when the bishop said—he talked about how mad the Republicans got at me all the time. I was glad he told me why. [Laughter] You know, I always thought I was a pretty nice fellow. I've been sitting around here for 7 1/2 years trying to figure out— he reminded me of the story—you know about the story about this guy's walking along the edge of the Grand Canyon, just an ordinary guy, a good guy, and he—looking over the side, and he slips off. And he's hurtling down to his certain demise. And he looks out on the edge of the Canyon, and he sees this little plant, and he grabs onto it, and it breaks his fall. And he just sighs relief. Then, all of a sudden, the roots of the plant start slowly coming out of the side of the cavern. He looks up in the sky, and he says, "God, why me? I am a good man. I work hard. I pay my taxes. I take care of my kids. I contribute to my community. I have done everything in the world I'm supposed to do. Why me?" And this thunderous voice comes out of the sky and says, "Son, just something about you I don't like." [Laughter] Well, I've had a few days like that in Washington. [Laughter] But now that the bishop explained it to me, you know, I feel better about it.
And I thank you for what you said about my knowing the lyrics to "Lift Every Voice and Sing." A couple years ago when I was in a— Toni Morrison, the Nobel Prize-winning author, said that I had become America's first black President. [Laughter] And you know, Chris Tucker is making a movie in which he plays the first black President. So he came to the White House, and I sat him down at my desk, and he was feeling pretty good. And I said, "Eat your heart out. You're second." [Laughter] "Toni Morrison told me so."
Then the next week, a man named Miguel Loisel, who is a great friend of mine from Puerto Rico, introduced me, and he said I had a Latino soul. And then I went to Turkey, and I went to see all these earthquake victims, and I picked up this little baby. And the baby squeezed me on my nose real hard, and it was in every newspaper in Turkey—this kid squeezing my nose. And so the headline said that "He's a Turk." [Laughter] And I thought to myself, I'll never be able to go home to Ireland if this keeps up. What am I going to do? [Laughter]
But I want to say a couple of things seriously about that. I think it is so interesting that at this time of unparalleled prosperity and at a time when, because of the nature of the economy we're living in, we can, if we're smart, bring technology and science and wealth to people and places that have never had it before. I was in a little village in India a week ago, a little village in a country where the per capita income is $450 a year. And in this little village, I met with the city government, representing all the different tribes and castes, women as well as men, in a society that never had such a thing before, people elected, governing together.
And then I met with this women's dairy cooperative, and I watched these women, poor village women in India, every transaction they have now recorded in a computer that they get a receipt from and they can operate. And then I went into the little municipal building in this remote village in India, and I saw they had a computer there with a screen that you could work if you could speak English or Hindi or if you were virtually illiterate, because of the way the software was constructed. And I saw a woman come in there who just had a baby. And on this computer, she was able to get all of the kinds of instructions of what she should do with her child the first few months of life, and then she printed it out and took it home with her, stuff that would be unheard of in a society like that just a few years ago.
And all these things that are out there. In the next few years, you'll be able to drive a car that gets 80 miles a gallon. And if we can crack the chemical barrier to converting agricultural products, not just corn, maybe rice hulls, other kinds of waste products, into fuel, you may be able to get the equivalent of 500 miles per gallon of gasoline in no time at all.
We're going to release in the next several weeks the whole sequencing of the human genome, 3 billion elements, 80,000 segments. And within a few years, they will figure out how to prevent older people from getting Alzheimer's, how to cure cancer, how to find it when it's just a few cells, no metastasis. They'll be able to give young mothers sort of a roadmap of their baby's lives when they leave from the hospital. So if the little baby girl has one of the genes that's a high predictor of breast cancer, they'll be able to say, "Well, if you do these 10 things, you can reduce the risk by two-thirds or more." All these things are going to happen in this very modern world.
When I became President, there were 50 sites—50—on the World Wide Web. Today, there are 50 million—7 years. I've got a cousin in Arkansas that plays chess once a week with a guy in Australia—amazing. And don't you think it's interesting that all over the world, in the face of all this opportunity and all these modern things, that the biggest problems of the world are the oldest problems of human nature? Man, this flag controversy here, you shouldn't be surprised by how tough this has been. Why are the Catholics and Protestants still fussing in Northern Ireland? Why did the Orthodox Christians run the Albanian Muslims out of Kosovo, a million of them? Why did 800,000 people in Rwanda get killed in a tribal war in 100 days with no guns, practically? They were almost all hacked to death. And I could go on and on and on. Why can't we make peace in the Middle East? Obviously, if they would all quit fighting and figure out how to divide up the land and go to work on economics and education—both the Jews and the Arabs of the Middle East have a history of success in areas that are most rewarded in this economy.
I just came from the Indian subcontinent where India and Pakistan are two of the poorest countries in the world, but they've got to have nuclear weapons and increase their defense budgets by 20 percent so they can argue about Kashmir. And you come to America, we've got 200 ethnic groups in this country, and the Indians and the Pakistanis in this country—of the 200 ethnic groups in this country—rank in the top 5 in education and per capita income. If they could just let it go, there's nothing they couldn't do.
Now, I think the South has got something to teach the rest of the country and to help our country teach the rest of the world. We've got to let this go. And if we can—and I know, you know, you say, "Well, it's easy for you to say, but look, everybody's got a beef in life."
I'll tell you, one of the most meaningful conversations I ever had in my life was with Nelson Mandela, who has been a wonderful friend to me and to Hillary and especially to our daughter. And I remember one time, you know, after I got to know him, I said, "You know, Mr. President, you're a very great man with a great spirit and all that, but you're also a shrewd politician," kind of like what I was saying about Jim. You know, he is a good guy, but the stuff he does makes sense, too. And I said, "That was pretty smart of you to have your jailers come to the Inauguration and all of that, but let me ask you something." I said, "Didn't you really hate them for what they did?" He said, "Oh, yeah, I hated them for a long time." He said, "I stayed alive on hate for 12 years. I broke rocks every day, and I stayed alive on hate." And he said, "They took a lot away from me. They took me away from my wife, and it subsequently destroyed my marriage. They took me away from seeing my children grow up. They abused me mentally and physically. And one day," he said, "I realized they could take it all except my mind and my heart." He said, "Those things I would have to give to them, and I simply decided not to give them away."
And so—so I said to him, I said, "Well, what about when you were getting out of prison?" I said, "The day you got out of prison in 1990, it was Sunday morning, and I got my daughter up early in the morning, and I took her down to the kitchen, and I turned on the television, and she was just a little girl then, and I sat her up on the kitchen counter. And I said, 'Chelsea, I want you to watch this. This is one of the most important things you'll ever see in your life."'
And I said, "I watched you walk down that dirt road to freedom." I said, "Now, when you were walking down there, and you realized how long you had been in their prison, didn't you hate them then? Didn't you feel some hatred?" He said, "Yes, I did a little bit." He said, "I felt that." And he said, "Frankly, I was kind of afraid, too, because I hadn't been free in so long." But he said, "As I felt the anger rising up, I thought to myself, 'They have already had you for 27 years. And if you keep hating them, they'll have you again.' And I said, 'I want to be free.' And so I let it go. I let it go."
And you know, that's what I tried to tell the Kosovar Albanians and the Serbs and the other minorities that I met with in Kosovo recently. I said, "Look, you know, I brought you guys home, but I can't make you behave now that you're here. And you do have a gripe. You've seen murder and slaughter, and you were all uprooted. And then the others, they have their gripes because, in retaliation, things have been done to them." I said, "What you've got to understand is that everybody in life has got a beef, a real one. Some of them are truly horrible, but you've just got to let it go."
Now, what's the point of all this? If God came to me tonight and he said, "I'm not going to give you 8 years. You've just got one more day, and then you've got to check out. And I'm no genie. I'm not giving you three wishes. I'll just give you one." I would not wish for all these programs that I talked about in the State of the Union. I would just wish simply for us to be one America, because if we could work together, the rest of it would take care of itself. It would take care of itself.
And I'll leave you with this thought. When we celebrated, last month, America being in the longest economic expansion in history, I felt very humble. I felt so grateful that what we had done had made a contribution, and it had worked, and that it had been my great good fortune to be President at this time, see 21 million people get jobs and all of that.
And so I got interested in when the last longest expansion in American history was. Do you know when it was? Nineteen sixty-one to 1969. Now, here's the point I want to make. All the southerners of a certain age can identify with this. Every veteran from the Vietnam war can identify with this. Everybody who opposed the Vietnam war can identify with this.
Nineteen sixty-four, up until that time the most prosperous year in American history, I graduated from high school. My President was Lyndon Johnson. I was heartbroken when President Kennedy was killed, like most Americans were. But Johnson had taken over this country and pulled us together. He was a southerner with a passionate commitment to civil rights. And in 1964, this country had low inflation, high growth, low unemployment. And everybody thought it was going to go on forever, I'm telling you. We thought, moreover, that the civil rights problems would be solved in the Congress and in the courts, not in the streets. We thought we would win the cold war as a matter of course. And if anybody told you that we would become mired in Vietnam and divided, no one would have believed it—1964—and we were just all kind of relaxed about it.
Two years later, we had riots in the streets. Two years later, I was graduating from college. The day I graduated from college was 2 days after Robert Kennedy was killed, 2 months after Martin Luther King was killed, and 9 weeks after Lyndon Johnson said he wouldn't run for President anymore because this country was split right down the middle over the war in Vietnam. And then our cities started burning after Dr. King was killed. And we had a Presidential election based on what the winner, Mr. Nixon, called the Silent Majority.
Now, that was one of those "us" versus "them" elections, the kind of stuff I saw in the Republican primary down here. You know what the—the Silent Majority means if you're not with them, you're in the loud minority. That's what I was; I was in the loud minority. But it was "us" versus "them."
Now, we southerners are well-schooled in this sort of politics, aren't we? We were raised with it. But the point I want to make to you is, people thought they could just indulge themselves in those few good years in the 1960's. It was going to go on forever. And within 2, 3, 4 years, it was gone. Poof.
So we had our "us" versus "them" election in 1968. Within a few months, the economic recovery was over. And the country went through all those divisive elections, all of that economic turmoil, all that social division.
And look, I want you to listen to this. I'm not going to be President anymore, after this election. I'm telling you this as an American citizen and as a southerner. I have waited 35 years for my country to again be in the position to build the future of our dreams for our children. And we dare not blow this opportunity. We will never have it again.
So I tell you, yes, I want Vice President Gore to be elected, not just for personal reasons but because I know that he backed me on every tough, controversial, momentarily unpopular decision I had to make, because he understands the future and he can lead us there. And we need somebody who understands the future and can lead us there.
This is not a sloganeering election. We can't let people be casual with their votes. We need people who care, who work, who have the kind of intensity about what they do that Jim Clyburn does. I'm telling you, we cannot afford to be relaxed just because times are good. I came of age when times were good, and I saw it go away in the flash of an eye.
I want you all to think about that. I don't want you to be down. I want you to be up. I don't want you to be sober about it. But every grownup in this audience has lived long enough to be able to remember some time in your life when you got in trouble not because times were tough but because they were going along so well you thought you didn't really have to concentrate or be responsible.
And this country has got the chance of a lifetime to build the future of our dreams for the kids in this audience. We need to support people like the people that are bringing the Democratic Party back in South Carolina. And we need, most important of all, to keep centered and keep in our heart a burning sense of humility and gratitude that America is so blessed at this moment in history that we can rear back and do what we always wanted to do.
This is a moment for making tomorrows, not for just thinking about today. You go out, stick with these folks, and help them make tomorrow.
Thank you, and God bless you.
http://www.tv.com/shows/south-park/jakovasaurs-2451/trivia/
tv.com
South Park Season 3 Episode 4
Jakovasaurs
Aired Wednesday 10:00 PM Jun 16, 1999 on Comedy Central
Quotes
Man: Jimbo, Ned, come quick!
Jimbo: What's going on?
Man: They've found another Jakovasaur!
Ned: Blimey.
http://www.tv.com/shows/the-man-show/oprahization-44692/
tv.com
The Man Show Season 1 Episode 1
Oprahization
Aired Wednesday 10:30 PM Jun 16, 1999 on Comedy Central
AIRED: 6/16/99
http://www.tv.com/shows/south-park/jakovasaurs-2451/trivia/
tv.com
South Park Season 3 Episode 4
Jakovasaurs
Aired Wednesday 10:00 PM Jun 16, 1999 on Comedy Central
Quotes
Department of Interior Guy #2: (about Joon-Joon) This one Jakovasaur could mother an entire population of the animals.
Lady: Well, in that case, I think we should name it... Hope.
Random Guy #1: Hope.
Random Guy #2: Yes, Hope.
http://www.tv.com/shows/south-park/jakovasaurs-2451/trivia/
tv.com
South Park Season 3 Episode 4
Jakovasaurs
Aired Wednesday 10:00 PM Jun 16, 1999 on Comedy Central
Quotes
Jakov: THANKS FOR INVITING ME TO THE GAME YOU GUYS!
Randy: No problem, Jakov.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057372/releaseinfo
IMDb
The Nutty Professor (1963)
Release Info
USA 4 June 1963
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057372/fullcredits
IMDb
The Nutty Professor (1963)
Full Cast & Crew
Jerry Lewis ... Professor Julius Kelp / Buddy Love
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-105sjres54enr/html/BILLS-105sjres54enr.htm
[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[S.J. Res. 54 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]
S.J.Res.54
One Hundred Fifth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety- eight
Joint Resolution
Finding the Government of Iraq in unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations.
Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease-fire were specified in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 686 (March 2, 1991) and 687 (April 3, 1991);
Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to conduct inspections in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing Americans to conduct inspections and threatening to shoot down United States U-2 surveillance flights
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975Icar...26..462.
SAO/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service
Title: The Arecibo message of November, 1974
Publication: Icarus, vol. 26, Dec. 1975, p. 462-466. (Icarus Homepage)
Publication Date: 12/1975
Category: Space Sciences (General)
Origin: STI
On November 16, 1974, the Arecibo Observatory transmitted at 2380 MHz at an effective bandwidth of 10 Hz a message directed at the globular cluster M13. The message consists of a 1679-bit picture portraying a counting scheme, five biologically significant atoms (H, C, O, N, and P), the generic structure of the four purines and pyrimidine bases of DNA; a schematic of the DNA double helix with an order-of-magnitude estimate of the number of base pairs; a representation of a human being and his or her dimensions; a depiction of the solar system with an indication that human beings inhabit the third planet and an estimate of the human population of the earth; and finally, a schematic representation of the Arecibo Observatory and a description of its dimensions.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/releaseinfo
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Release Info
USA 11 July 1997
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/fullcredits
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Full Cast & Crew
Jodie Foster ... Eleanor Arroway
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
David Drumlin: I know you must think this is all very unfair. Maybe that's an understatement. What you don't know is I agree. I wish the world was a place where fair was the bottom line, where the kind of idealism you showed at the hearing was rewarded, not taken advantage of. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world.
Ellie Arroway: Funny, I've always believed that the world is what we make of it.
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Locusts.html
The Churchill Society
London.
'The Locust Years'
House of Commons.
12 November 1936
I have, with some friends, put an Amendment on the Paper. It is the same as the Amendment which I submitted two years ago, and I have put it in exactly the same terms because I thought it would be a good thing to remind the House of what has happened in these two years. Our Amendment in November 1934 was the culmination of a long series of efforts by private Members and by the Conservative party in the country to warn His Majesty's Government of the dangers to Europe and to this country which were coming upon us through the vast process of German rearmament then already in full swing. The speech which I made on that occasion was much censured as being alarmist by leading Conservative newspapers, and I remember that Mr Lloyd George congratulated the Prime Minister, who was then Lord President, on having so satisfactorily demolished my extravagant fears.
What would have been said, I wonder, if I could two years ago have forecast to the House the actual course of events? Suppose we had then been told that Germany would spend for two years £800,000,000 a year upon warlike preparations; that her industries would be organised for war, as the industries of no country have ever been; that by breaking all Treaty engagements she would create a gigantic air force and an army based on universal compulsory service, which by the present time, in 1936, amounts to upwards of thirty-nine divisions of highly equipped troops, including mechanised divisions of almost unmeasured strength and that behind all this there lay millions of armed and trained men, for whom the formations and equipment are rapidly being prepared to form another eighty divisions in addition to those already perfected. Suppose we had then known that by now two years of compulsory military service would be the rule, with a preliminary year of training in labour camps; that the Rhineland would be occupied by powerful forces and fortified with great skill, and that Germany would be building with our approval, signified by treaty, a large submarine fleet.
Suppose we had also been able to foresee the degeneration of the foreign situation, our quarrel with Italy, the Italo-German association, the Belgian declaration about neutrality - which, if the worst interpretation of it proves to be true, so greatly affects the security of this country - and the disarray of the smaller Powers of Central Europe. Suppose all that had been forecast - why, no one would have believed in the truth of such a nightmare tale. Yet just two years have gone by and we see it all in broad daylight. Where shall we be this time two years? I hesitate now to predict.
Let me say, however, that I will not accept the mood of panic or of despair. There is another side - a side which deserves our study, and can be studied without derogating in any way from the urgency which ought to animate our military preparations. The British Navy is, and will continue to be, incomparably the strongest in Europe. The French Army will certainly be, for a good many months to come, at least equal in numbers and superior in maturity to the German Army. The British and French Air Forces together are a very different proposition from either of those forces considered separately. While no one can prophesy, it seems to me that the Western democracies, provided they are knit closely together, would be tolerably safe for a considerable number of months ahead. No one can say to a month or two, or even a quarter or two, how long this period of comparative equipoise will last. But it seems certain that during the year 1937 the German Army will become more numerous than the French Army, and very much more efficient than it is now. It seems certain that the German Air Force will continue to improve upon the long lead which it already has over us, particularly in respect of long-distance bombing machines. The year 1937 will certainly be marked by a great increase in the adverse factors which only intense efforts on our part can, to effective extent, countervail.
The efforts at rearmament which France and Britain are making will not by themselves be sufficient. It will be necessary for the We~tern democracies, even at some extension of their risks, to gather round them all the elements of collective security or of combined defensive strength against aggression - if you prefer, as I do myself, to call it so - which can be assembled on the basis of the Covenant of the League of Nations. Thus I hope we may succeed in again achieving a position of superior force, and then will be the time, not to repeat the folly which we committed when we were all-powerful and supreme, but to invite Germany to make common cause with us in assuaging the griefs of Europe and opening a new door to peace and disarmament.
I now turn more directly to the issues of this Debate. Let us examine our own position. No one can refuse his sympathy to the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. From time to time my right hon. Friend lets fall phrases or facts which show that he realises, more than anyone else on that bench it seems to me, the danger in which we stand. One such phrase came from his lips the other night. He spoke of "the years that the locust hath eaten". Let us see which are these "years that the locust hath eaten" even if we do not pry too closely in search of the locusts who have eaten these precious years. For this purpose we must look into the past. From the year 1932, certainly from the beginning of 1933, when Herr Hitler came into power, it was general public knowledge in this country that serious rearmament had begun in Germany. There was a change in the situation. Three years ago, at the Conservative Conference at Birmingham, that vigorous and faithful servant of this country, Lord Lloyd, moved the following resolution:
That this Conference desires to record its grave anxiety in regard to the inadequacy of the provisions made for Imperial Defence.
That was three years ago, and I see, from The Times report of that occasion, that I said:
"During the last four or five years the world had grown gravely darker..... We have steadily disarmed, partly with a sincere desire to give a lead to other countries, and partly through the severe financial pressure of the time. But a change must now be made. We must not continue longer on a course in which we alone are growing weaker while every other nation is growing stronger"
The resolution was passed unanimously, with only a rider informing the Chancellor of the Exchequer that all necessary burdens of taxation would be cheerfully borne. There were no locusts there, at any rate.
I am very glad to see the Prime Minister [Mr Baldwin] restored to his vigour, and to learn that he has been recuperated by his rest and also, as we hear, rejuvenated. It has been my fortune to have ups and downs in my political relations with him, the downs on the whole predominating perhaps, but at any rate we have always preserved agreeable personal relations, which, so far as I am concerned, are greatly valued. I am sure he would not wish in his conduct of public affairs that there should be any shrinking from putting the real issues of criticism which arise, and would certainly proceed in that sense. My right hon. Friend has had all the power for a good many years, and therefore there rests upon him inevitably the main responsibility for everything that has been done, or not done, and also the responsibility for what is to be done or not done now. So far as the air is concerned, this responsibility was assumed by him in a very direct personal manner even before he became Prime Minister. I must recall the words which he used in the Debate on 8 March 1934, nearly three years ago. In answer to an appeal which I made to him, both publicly and privately, he said:
Any Government of this country - a National Government more than any, and this Government - will see to it that in air strength and air power this country shall no longer be in a position inferior to any country within striking distance of our shores.
Well, Sir, I accepted that solemn promise, but some of my friends, like Sir Edward Grigg and Captain Guest, wanted what the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, in another state of being, would have called 'further and better particulars', and they raised a debate after dinner, when the Prime Minister, then Lord President, came down to the House and really showed less than his usual urbanity in chiding those Members for even venturing to doubt the intention of the Government to make good in every respect the pledge which he had so solemnly given in the afternoon. I do not think that responsibility was ever more directly assumed in a more personal manner. The Prime Minister was not successful in discharging that task, and he admitted with manly candour a year later that he had been led into error upon the important question of the relative strength of the British and German air power.
No doubt as a whole His Majesty's Government were very slow in accepting the unwelcome fact of German rearmament. They still clung to the policy of one-sided disarmament. It was one of those experiments, we are told, which had to be, to use a vulgarism, 'tried out', just as the experiments of non-military sanctions against Italy had to be tried out. Both experiments have now been tried out, and Ministers are accustomed to plume themselves upon the very clear results of those experiments. They are held to prove conclusively that the policies subjected to the experiments were all wrong, utterly foolish, and should never be used again, and the very same men who were foremost in urging those experiments are now foremost in proclaiming and denouncing the fallacies upon which they were based. They have bought their knowledge, they have bought it dear, they have bought it at our expense, but at any rate let us be duly thankful that they now at last possess it.
In July 1935, before the General Election, there was a very strong movement in this House in favour of the appointment of a Minister to concert the action of the three fighting Services. Moreover, at that time the Departments of State were all engaged in drawing up the large schemes of rearmament in all branches which have been laid before us in the White Paper and upon which we are now engaged. One would have thought that that was the time when this new Minister or Co-ordinator was most necessary. He was not, however, in fact appointed until nearly nine months later, in March 1936. No explanation has yet been given to us why these nine months were wasted before the taking of what is now an admittedly necessary measure. The Prime Minister dilated the other night, no doubt very properly, the great advantages which had flowed from the appointment of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. Every argument used to show how useful has been the work which he has done accuses the failure to appoint him nine months earlier, when inestimable benefits would have accrued to us by the saving of this long period.
When at last, in March, after all the delays, the Prime Minister eventually made the appointment, the arrangement of duties was so ill-conceived that no man could possibly discharge them with efficiency or even make a speech about them without embarrassment. I have repeatedly pointed out the obvious mistake in organisation of jumbling together - and practically everyone in the House is agreed upon this - the functions of defence with those of a Minister of Supply. The proper organisation, let me repeat, is four Departments - the Navy, the Army, the Air and the Ministry of Supply, with the Minister for the co-ordination of Defence over the four, exercising a general supervision, concerting their actions, and assigning the high priorities of manufacture in relation to some comprehensive strategic conception. The House is familiar with the many requests and arguments which have been made to the Government to create a Ministry of Supply. These arguments have received powerful reinforcement from another angle in the report the Royal Commission on Arms Manufacture. The first work of this new Parliament, and the first work of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence if he had known as much about the subject when he was appointed as he does now, would have been to set up a Ministry of Supply which should, step by step, have taken over the whole business of the design and manufacture of all the supplies needed by the Air Force and the Army, and everything needed for the Navy, except warships, heavy ordnance, torpedoes and one or two ancillaries. All the best of the industries of Britain should have been surveyed from a general integral standpoint, and all existing resources utilised so far as was necessary to execute the programme.
The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence has argued as usual against a Ministry of Supply. The arguments which he used were weighty, and even ponderous - it would disturb and delay existing programmes; it would do more harm than good; it would upset the life and industry of the country; it would destroy the export trade and demoralise finance at the moment when it was most needed; it would turn this country into one vast munitions camp. Certainly these are massive arguments, if they are true. One would have thought that they would carry conviction to any man who accepted them. But then my right hon. Friend went on somewhat surprisingly to say, 'The decision is not final'. It would be reviewed again in a few weeks. What will you know in a few weeks about this matter that you do not know now, that you ought not to have known a year ago, and have not been told any time in the last six months? What is going to happen in the next few weeks which will invalidate all these magnificent arguments by which you have been overwhelmed, and suddenly make it worth your while to paralyse the export trade, to destroy the finances, and to turn the country into a great munitions camp?
The First Lord of the Admiralty in his speech the other night went even farther. He said, 'We are always reviewing the position. Everything, he assured us is entirely fluid. I am sure that that is true. Anyone can see what the position is. The Government simply cannot make up their minds, or they cannot get the Prime Minister to make up his mind. So they go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all-powerful to be impotent. So we go on preparing more months and years - precious, perhaps vital to the greatness of Britain - for the locusts to eat. They will say to me, 'A Minister of Supply is not necessary, for all is going well.' I deny it. 'The position is satisfactory.' It is not true. 'All is proceeding according to plan.' We know what that means.
Let me come to the Territorial Army. In March of this year I stigmatised a sentence in the War Office Memorandum about the Territorial Army, in which it was said the equipment of the Territorials could not be undertaken until that of the Regular Army had been completed. What has been done about all that?
It is certain the evils are not yet removed. I agree wholeheartedly with all that was said by Lord Winterton the other day about the Army and the Territorial Force. When I think how these young men who join the Territorials come forward, almost alone in the population, and take on a liability to serve anywhere in any part of the world, not even with a guarantee to serve in their own units; come forward in spite of every conceivable deterrent; come forward - 140,000 of them, although they are still not up to strength - and then find that the Government does not take their effort seriously enough even to equip and arm them properly, I marvel at their patriotism. It is a marvel; it is also a glory, but a glory we have no right to profit by unless we can secure proper and efficient equipment for them.
A friend of mine the other day saw a number of persons engaged in peculiar evolutions, genuflections and gestures in the neighbourhood of London. His curiosity was excited. He wondered whether it was some novel form of gymnastics, or a new religion - there are new religions which are very popular in some countries nowadays - or whether they were a party of lunatics out for an airing. On approaching closer he learned that they were a Searchlight Company of London Territorials who were doing their exercises as well as they could without having the searchlights. Yet we are told there is no need for a Ministry of Supply.
In the manoeuvres of the Regular Army many of the most important new weapons have to be represented by flags and discs. When we remember how small our land forces are altogether only a few hundred thousand men - it seems incredible that the very flexible industry of Britain, if properly handled, could not supply them with their modest requirements. In Italy, whose industry is so much smaller, whose wealth and credit are a small fraction of this country's, a Dictator is able to boast that he has bayonets and equipment for 8,000,000 men. Halve the figure, if you like, and the moral remains equally cogent. The Army lacks almost every weapon which is required for the latest form of modern war. Where are the anti-tank guns, where are the short-distance wireless sets, where the field anti-aircraft guns against low-flying armoured aeroplanes? We want to know how it is that this country, with its enormous motoring and motor-bicycling public, is not able to have strong mechanised divisions, both Regular and Territorial. Surely, when so much of the interest and the taste of our youth is moving in those mechanical channels, and when the horse is receding with the days of chivalry into the past, it ought to be possible to create an army of the size we want fully up to strength and mechanised to the highest degree.
Look at the Tank Corps. The tank was a British invention. This idea, which has revolutionised the conditions of modern war, was a British idea forced on the War Office by outsiders. Let me say they would have just as hard work today to force a new idea on it. I speak from what I know. During the War we had almost a monopoly, let alone the leadership, in tank warfare, and for several years afterwards we held the foremost place. To England all eyes were turned. All that has gone now. Nothing has been done in 'the years that the locust hath eaten' to equip the Tank Corps with new machines. The medium tank which they possess, which in its day was the best in the world, is now looking obsolete. Not only in numbers for there we have never tried to compete with other countries - but in quality these British weapons are now surpassed by those of Germany, Russia, Italy and the United States. All the shell plants and gun plants in the Army, apart from the very small peace-time services, are in an elementary stage. A very long period must intervene before any effectual flow of munitions can be expected, even for the small forces of which we dispose. Still we are told there is no necessity for a Ministry of Supply, no emergency which should induce us to impinge on the normal course of trade. If we go on like this, and I do not see what power can prevent us from going on like this, some day there may be a terrible reckoning, and those who take the responsibility so entirely upon themselves are either of a hardy disposition or they are incapable of foreseeing the possibilities which may arise.
Now I come to the greatest matter of all, the air. We received on Tuesday night, from the First Lord of the Admiralty, the assurance that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that we are 'vastly behind hand' with our Air Force programme. It is clear from his words that we are behind hand. The only question is, what meaning does the First Lord attach to the word 'vastly'? He also used the expression, about the progress of air expansion, that it was 'not unsatisfactory'. One does not know what his standard is. His standards change from time to time. In that speech of the 11th of September about the League of Nations there was one standard, and in the Hoare-Laval Pact there was clearly another.
In August last some of us went in a deputation to the Prime Minister in order to express the anxieties which we felt about national defence, and to make a number of statements which we preferred not to be forced to make in public. I personally made a statement on the state of the Air Force to the preparation of which I had devoted several weeks and which, I am sorry to say took an hour to read. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister listened with his customary exemplary patience. I think I told him beforehand that he is a good listener, and perhaps he will retort that he learned to be when I was his colleague. At any rate, he listened with patience, and that is always something. During the three months that have passed since then I have checked those facts again in the light of current events and later acknowledge, and were it not that foreign ears listen to all that is said here, or if we were in secret Session, I would repeat my statement here. And even if only one half were true I am sure the House would consider that a very grave state of emergency existed, and also, I regret to say, a state of things from which a certain suspicion of mismanagement cannot be excluded. I am not going into any of those details. I make it a rule, as far as I possibly can, to say nothing in this House upon matters which am not sure are already known to the General Staffs of foreign countries; but there is one statement of very great importance which the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence made in his speech on Tuesday. He said:
"The process of building up squadrons and forming new training units and skeleton squadrons is familiar to everybody connected with the Air Force. The number of squadrons in present circumstances at home today is eighty, and that figure includes sixteen auxiliary squadrons, but excludes the Fleet Air Arm, and, of course, does not include the squadrons abroad".
From that figure, and the reservations by which it was prefaced, it is possible for the House, and also for foreign countries, to deduce pretty accurately the progress of our Air Force expansion. I feel, therefore, at liberty to comment on it.
Parliament was promised a total of seventy one new squadrons, making a total of 124 squadrons in the home defence force, by 31 March 1937. This was thought to be the minimum compatible with our safety. At the end of the last financial year our strength was fifty three squadrons, including auxiliary squadrons. Therefore, in the thirty two weeks which have passed since the financial year began we have added twenty eight squadrons - that is to say, less than one new squadron each week. In order to make the progress which Parliament was promised, in order to maintain the programme which was put forward as the minimum, we shall have to add forty three squadrons in the remaining twenty weeks, or over two squadrons a week. The rate at which new squadrons will have to be formed from now till the end of March will have to be nearly three times as fast as hitherto. I do not propose to analyse the composition of the eighty squadrons we now have, but the Minister, in his speech, used a suggestive expression, 'skeleton squadrons' applying at least to a portion of them but even if every one of the eighty squadrons had an average strength of twelve aeroplanes, each fitted with war equipment, and the reserves upon which my right hon. Friend dwelt, we should only have a total of 960 first-line home-defence aircraft.
What is the comparable German strength? I am not going to give an estimate and say that the Germans have not got more than a certain number, but I will take it upon myself to say that they most certainly at this moment have not got less than a certain number. Most certainly they have not got less than 1,500 first-line aeroplanes, comprised in not less than 130 or 140 squadrons, including auxiliary squadrons. It must also be remembered that Germany has not got in its squadrons any machine the design and construction of which is more than three years old. It must also be remembered that Germany has specialised in long-distance bombing aeroplanes and that her preponderance in that respect is far greater than any of these figures would suggest.
We were promised most solemnly by the Government that air parity with Germany would be maintained by the home defence forces. At the present time, putting everything at the very best, we are, upon the figures given by the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence, only about two-thirds as strong as the German Air Force, assuming that I am not very much under stating their present strength. How then does the First Lord of the Admiralty [Sir Samuel Hoare] think it right to say:
On the whole, our forecast of the strength of other Air Forces proves to be accurate; on the other hand, our own estimates have also proved to be accurate. I am authorised to say that the position is satisfactory'. I simply cannot understand it. Perhaps the Prime Minister will explain the position. I should like to remind the House that I have made no revelation affecting this country and that I have introduced no new fact in our air defence which does not arise from the figures given by the Minister and from the official estimates that have been published.
What ought we to do? I know of only one way in which this matter can be carried further. The House ought to demand a Parliamentary inquiry. It ought to appoint six, seven or eight independent Members, responsible, experienced, discreet Members, who have some acquaintance with these matters and are representative of all parties, to interview Ministers and to find out what are, in fact, the answers to a series of questions; then to make a brief report to the House, whether of reassurance or of suggestion for remedying the shortcomings. That, I think, is what any Parliament worthy of the name would do in these circumstances. Parliaments of the past days in which the greatness of our country was abuilding would never have hesitated. They would have felt they could not discharge their duty to their constituents if they did not satisfy themselves that the safety of the country was being effectively maintained.
The French Parliament, through its committees, has a very wide, deep knowledge of the state of national defence, and I am not aware that their secrets leak out in any exceptional way. There is no reason why our secrets should leak out in any exceptional way. It is because so many members of the French Parliament are associated in one way or another with the progress of the national defence that the French Government were induced to supply, six years ago, upward of £60,000,000 sterling to construct the Maginot Line of fortifications, when our Government was assuring them that wars were over and that France must not lag behind Britain in her disarmament. Even now I hope that Members of the House of Commons will rise above considerations of party discipline, and will insist upon knowing where we stand in a matter which affects our liberties and our lives. I should have thought that the Government, and above all the Prime Minister, whose load is so heavy, would have welcomed such a suggestion.
Owing to past neglect, in the face of the plainest warnings, we have now entered upon a period of danger greater than has befallen Britain since the U-boat campaign was crushed; perhaps, indeed, it is a more grievous period than that, because at that time at least we were possessed of the means of securing ourselves and of defeating that campaign. Now we have no such assurance. The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences. We have entered a period in which for more than a year, or a year and a half, the considerable preparations which are now on foot in Britain will not, as the Minister clearly showed, yield results which can be effective in actual fighting strength; while during this very period Germany may well reach the culminating point of her gigantic military preparations, and be forced by financial and economic stringency to contemplate a sharp decline, or perhaps some other exit from her difficulties. It is this lamentable conjunction of events which seems to present the danger of Europe in its most disquieting form. We cannot avoid this period; we are in it now. Surely, if we can abridge it by even a few months, if we can shorten this period when the German Army will begin to be so much larger than the French Army, and before the British Air Force has come to play its complementary part, we may be the architects who build the peace of the world on sure foundations.
Two things, I confess, have staggered me, after a long Parliamentary experience, in these Debates. The first has been the dangers that have so swiftly come upon us in a few years, and have been transforming our position and the whole outlook of the world. Secondly, I have been staggered by the failure of the House of Commons to react effectively against those dangers. That, I am bound to say, I never expected. I never would have believed that we should have been allowed to go on getting into this plight, month by month and year by year, and that even the Government's own confessions of error would have produced no concentration of Parliamentary opinion and force capable of lifting our efforts to the level of emergency. I say that unless the House resolves to find out the truth for itself it will have committed an act of abdication of duty without parallel in its long history.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=11889
The American Presidency Project
Dwight D. Eisenhower
XXXIV President of the United States: 1953-1961
244 - Statement by the President Following the Firing of the Polaris Missile by the Submarine Patrick Henry
July 25, 1960
THIS DEMONSTRATION exceeds in significance for the nation's security even the most optimistic predictions that I had heard about the expected efficiency of this new weapons system. I am proud of the patriotic and competent personnel who have brought about this great achievement. Moreover, in the crew, officers and men, I find another example of traditional morale and training of our armed services personnel.
Note: The President made a noon tour of the submarine U.S.S. Patrick Henry, then boarded the Barbara Anne, from which he watched the firing of two Polaris missiles from the submarine.
http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/6-legacy/freedom-struggle-2.html
Smithsonian
National Museum of American History
Freedom Struggle
Sitting for Justice: Woolworth’s Lunch Counter
On February 1, 1960, four African American college students sat down at a lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, and politely asked for service. Their request was refused. When asked to leave, they remained in their seats. Their passive resistance and peaceful sit-down demand helped ignite a youth-led movement to challenge racial inequality throughout the South.
Woolworth lunch counter
In Greensboro, hundreds of students, civil rights organizations, churches, and members of the community joined in a six-month-long protest. Their commitment ultimately led to the desegregation of the F. W. Woolworth lunch counter on July 25, 1960.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
News Reporters: Reverend Joss! Reverend Joss, what do you believe? What do you believe?
Palmer Joss: [pause] As a person of faith I'm bound by a different covenant than Doctor Arroway. But our goal is one and the same: the pursuit of Truth. I for one believe her.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
Ellie Arroway: So what's more likely? That an all-powerful, mysterious God created the Universe, and decided not to give any proof of his existence? Or, that He simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created Him, so that we wouldn't have to feel so small and alone?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
Ellie Arroway: I read your book.
Palmer Joss: Here we go.
Ellie Arroway: You want me to quote you? "Ironically, the thing people are most hungry for - meaning - is the one thing science hasn't been able to give them."
Palmer Joss: Yeah.
Ellie Arroway: [humorously] Come on! It's like you're saying that science killed God. What if science simply revealed that He never existed in the first place?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035027/releaseinfo
IMDb
The Man Who Wouldn't Die (1942)
Release Info
USA 27 April 1942 (New York City, New York)
http://www.tv.com/shows/black-sheep-squadron/flying-misfits-1-321/
tv.com
Black Sheep Squadron Season 1 Episode 1
Flying Misfits (1)
Aired Tuesday 8:00 PM Sep 21, 1976 on NBC
AIRED: 9/21/76
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
Ellie Arroway: Why did you do it?
Palmer Joss: Our job was to select someone to speak for everybody. And I just couldn't in good conscience vote for a person who doesn't believe in God. Someone who honestly thinks the other ninety five percent of us suffer from some form of mass delusion.
JOURNAL ARCHIVE: Posted by H.V.O.M at 1:20 AM Tuesday, April 28, 2009 - http://hvom.blogspot.com/2009/04/bawk-bawk-bawk-bawk.html
Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk
You tell me.
Is that chicken talk or just gibberish to a chicken?
You're the expert. Chicken.
Either way you are just a goddamned chicken.
You have always been a goddamned chicken and you will always be a goddamned chicken.
Punk.
Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk
Worthless goddamned chicken punk.
Bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk bawk
[JOURNAL ARCHIVE 28 April 2009 excerpt ends]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
IMDb
Contact (1997)
Quotes
Rachel Constantine: I assume you read the confidential findings report from the investigating committee.
Michael Kitz: I flipped through it.
Rachel Constantine: I was especially interested in the section on Arroway's video unit. The one that recorded the static?
Michael Kitz: Continue.
Rachel Constantine: The fact that it recorded static isn't what interests me.
Michael Kitz: [pauses] Continue.
Rachel Constantine: What interests me is that it recorded approximately eighteen hours of it.
Michael Kitz: [leans forward so he is looking directly in the camera] That is interesting, isn't it?
- posted by H.V.O.M - Kerry Wayne Burgess 4:17 PM Pacific Time Spokane Valley Washington USA Thursday 14 April 2016
