โอ้ว แม่เจ้า นมใหญ่มาก x สุดๆ

คำถวายพระพร
เนื่องในวโรกาสเฉลิมพระชนม์ครบ ๘๐ พรรษา

๘๐ พรรษามหาราช
ขอให้คลาดแคล้วภัยพาลทั้งผอง
ขอให้กระจายทรัพย์สินและเงินทอง
เป็นกองๆ แจกราษฎรให้อยู่เย็น ฯ
หากพระราชานำในทางดี
พวกหลวงชีคงเลิกงกทางทรัพย์สิน
ไสยเวทต่างๆ ทางมลทิน
คงหมดสิ้นจากเมืองทองของพวกเรา ฯ
สยามคงหันเข้าหาสัจธรรม
เลิกทำตนตามก้นคนผิวขาว
หากเข้าหาภูมิธรรมของไทลาว
เลิกร้าวฉานกับมุสลิมมลายู ฯ
อันพรที่ว่านี้จักสัมฤทธิ์
จำต้องตั้งจิตอย่าอดสู
เดินตามคำสอนขององค์ครู
หาผู้รู้มาใกล้ชิดติดพระองค์ ฯ
กัลยาณมิตรจะพูดในสิ่งซึ่งสดับยาก
หากจะช่วยหันเหราชประสงค์
เพื่อรับใช้ราษฎรอย่างซื่อตรง
ธำรงราชบัลลังก์ให้เกริกไกร ฯ
พวกประจบสอพลอและตอแหล
ที่แห่ห้อมสรรเสริญเกินวิสัย
ที่คุมเงินทองของหลวงอย่างมากมาย
สุรุ่ยสุร่ายร้ายกาจอย่างบาดตา ฯ
ยังพวกทำรัฐประหารทั้งหลายเล่า
ควรห่างเหินพวกเขาจะดีกว่า
กระจายอำนาจออกไปในพารา
เริ่มแต่พระราชาเป็นต้นไป ฯ
ประชาธิปไตยของไทยเรานั้นเก่าแก่
มีมาแต่คณะสงฆ์ในบุราณสมัย
อยู่ในวัฒนธรรมไทยแต่ไหนแต่ไร
ช่วยให้ไพร่ฟ้าเป็นสุขสวัสดี ฯ
ก่อให้เกิดเสรีภาพอย่างแท้จริง
สิทธิมนุษยชนก็เป็นสิ่งควบคู่กับศักดิ์ศรี
มหาชนถูกเบียดเบียนอย่างย่ำยี
เพราะว่าโครงสร้างสมัยนี้พิกลพิการ ฯ
ถ้าแก้ไขความข้อนี้ได้อย่างสามารถ
นี่จะเป็นบรมราชกฤษฎาภินิหาร
ลบรอยร้าวรอยด่างตลอดรัชกาล
พระภูบาลจักสุขสบายเมื่อวายพระชนม์ ฯ
โรคาพาธทางพระวรกาย
ไม่เลวร้ายเท่าที่แอบแฝงอยู่ทุกหน
ทำให้เจ็บปวดรวดร้าวพระกมล
จำต้องฝนพระธรรมมาแก้ไขและเยียวยา ฯ
พุทธศาสนาไม่ใช่พิธีกรรม
หากจำต้องเดินตามไตรสิกขา
ควรยอมรับความผิดพลาดที่แล้วมา
แล้วความสัตย์จะกลับมาคู่พระบารมี ฯ
บ้านเมืองจะเรืองรุ่งในทางธรรม
เพราะทรงนำหนทางอย่างเป็นเกียรติเป็นศรี
จักเกิดสุขสำราญทั่วธาตรี
ราชสดุดีย่อมไม่ใช่คำลวง
ด้วยเกล้าด้วยกระหม่อม
ขอเดชะ

ป.ล.
สำนักงานทรัพย์สินส่วนพระมหากษัตริย์
จงขจัดออกไปให้ไกลในหลวง
เพื่อเป็นของขวัญแด่ราษฎรทั้งปวง
จะเกิดความช่วงโชติชัชวาลทั้งแผ่นดิน



EIGHTIETH BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSASRY

Eightieth Anniversary O Maharaja
Prevail Ye above perils near and afar
Dispenses of all Thy wealth and riches
That joy befalls deprived masses.

If Raja followed righteous paths
Clerics high would heed, avarice gashed
Else, refrain from black magic vices
Exorcize from our Capital Golden Site

Siam will pursue Eternal Truth
Stops caressing whites' rumps profuse
Returns to Tai-Laos wisdoms long ensued
Ending conflicts Muslim-Malayus
For blessings to be fulfilled
Upholds Thyself in penitence
Walks the path One Enlightened Guru
Seeks at Thy side those wise and astute
Faithfuls will utter odious to regal ears
Dare flout royal wishes and peers
Only to serve nation's needs genuine
Exhort the Crown in joyful ‘Halleluiahs'!
Those fawning, flattering, fudging,
Surround Thy side with praise conjuration
Dire keepers of royal possessions
Spawning waste to one's revelation
Besides, usurpers of coup d'etat
Distant Thyself ranked militia
Mete out Thy power to the domain
Commencing with the Sovereign
Siam democracy old and ancient
Derived from Sangha's tradition
Dwelling within Tai-life of yore
Lending to life untainted grandeur
Espouses ideal true liberty
Human right, honor, dignity,
Multitude wronged and oppressed
Nation's structures most warped, depressed
If corrected beneath true penchant
Lead to royal propitious exaltation
Removing blemishes of the reign
Into ‘seventh heaven' when life eternal
Scores of illnesses corporal
Less dismal than veiled attendants
With piercing ache to cranium, pummel,
Exact Dharmic verses to right immoral
Religious rituals not cust' sacred
Observes ‘Trisika' venerated
Gladly admit aberrant errs
And truth will abide by Thy seer
At last, nation will Dharma flourish
By One honor-dignity leads
Bestowing happiness to this realm
Accolades not vernacular sham!

PS
Crown Property, chattels of royal Sovereign
Be banished to distance afar
A communal gift of munificence
So imparts opulence to Thy province
May it please Your Majesty

Boston Terrier Health Watch: Teeth, Gums, and Jaw

With their short, broad heads and flat faces, Boston Terriers don't have a lot of space for their jaws and teeth. As a result, their jaws may develop abnormally and their mouths tend to be crowded, causing misaligned teeth and jaw problems.

The technical terms for these conditions are prognathia and teeth crowding:

Prognathia: This condition occurs when the dog's mandible, or lower part of the jaw, is longer than his maxilla, or the upper jaw. This malocclusion, or abnormal bite, is considered normal in dogs with flattened faces.
Teeth crowding: Crowding occurs when there is inadequate space for the teeth in the lower or upper jaw, resulting in tooth contact or overlap. Because your Boston must fit 42 teeth in his shortened mouth, it's likely that his teeth will be misaligned.
A Boston with prognathia or crowded teeth requires you to be diligent about his oral hygiene. A secondary effect of teeth crowding is increased plaque with resulting gingivitis, or inflammation of the gums, and a predisposition to periodontal disease, the most common cause of tooth loss in dogs (and humans).

Brush your Boston's teeth regularly to rid his mouth of plaque buildup and bacteria that can lead to halitosis (bad breath), behavior changes linked to oral pain, and gum infection.

If your Boston develops halitosis, chews his toys less frequently, paws at his mouth, changes his eating habits, stops grooming himself, or shows any other signs of oral pain, contact your veterinarian. She won't recommend braces to straighten his teeth, but she may inspect his mouth, give it a thorough cleaning, and treat any localized infections.

A Down Side of Evolutionary Change: Antibiotic Resistance

In the days before antibiotics were widely available and widely used, people knew the dangers of infection. Even minor injuries like cuts and scrapes were taken far more seriously. Like they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure — all the more so when there isn't any cure.

Fast-forward to today. People tend not to view cuts and scrapes as being potentially serious medical conditions. Prevention seems less important because we have a pound of cure — tons, in fact. In 2007, people in the United States used millions of pounds of antibiotics, and therein lies the problem. With each passing year, antibiotics become less effective as bacterial populations evolve to be resistant to them.

Although recent news stories warning people about antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria may lead you to believe that the phenomenon is relatively recent, it's actually as old as the use of antibiotics. Penicillin, the first widely used antibiotic, dates to the end of World War II. Within four years of its introduction, scientists found penicillin-resistant bacteria, and the incidence of resistance has increased steadily to the present day.


You'd think that having identified that bacteria began to evolve almost immediately in response to penicillin would have encouraged people to be a bit more careful about the use of antibiotics. But we weren't, partly because it's hard to not use a medication that's so effective (many people considered penicillin to be a miracle drug) and partly because, at the time, new antibiotic compounds were being discovered regularly. When one compound was no longer effective, doctors simply switched to a different one. The scenario is very different today.

In recent years, bacteria have been gaining on us: The rate at which researchers have discovered new medically useful antibiotics has slowed, but the steady march of the evolution of resistance continues unchecked. Again, the evolution of resistance isn't new. In every case, scientists have noted the existence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria shortly after the antibiotic is introduced.

Today, we humans now find ourselves facing bacteria that are resistant to many — and, in some cases, all — available antibiotics. Examples include staph, tuberculosis, syphilis, and gonorrhea. The most frightening thing we can observe from this information is that, in the end, all of our antibacterial compounds end up being defeated.

Erupting France

Both enlightenment ideas and economics link the American and French revolutions. Just as England excited unrest by raising taxes in the colonies to pay for the French and Indian War, so did the French. And King Louis XVI's administration made the situation worse by stretching the French finances even further to support American patriots. Indeed, Louis's generosity made him more vulnerable to the French Revolution of 1789.

That was the year that Louis XVI called a meeting of the Estates-General, the French Parliament, which was a bold move considering the body hadn't met in over150 years. Smart enough to know that things must change, Louis was trying not to lose his crown, and calling the Estates-General into action was an attempt to get agreement on necessary reforms.

But reactivating the organization opened a pressure valve. The idea that the king might permit any reform brought forth a flood of discontent. People were fed up with the privileged class and high taxes. Then on July 14, 1789, an angry mob stormed the Bastille prison, a symbol of arbitrary injustice. Then the Estates-General, under the leadership of some of its more radical members, became the democratic National Assembly, which abolished the monarchy in 1792.

Supreme Court Case Study: Bush v. Gore

Perhaps no event better illustrates the power of the United States Supreme Court than the resolution of the 2000 presidential election. Just when you thought the separation of powers issue had been settled once and for all, the Court stepped in to adjudicate who had won the biggest political contest of all. Legions of Court watchers, law professors, media commentators, and armchair legal analysts across the country thought the Court's willingness to step into the fray was a major misstep. Still, somebody had to decide who's in charge!

Background info
Election night 2000 was a cliffhanger that went on for weeks. Many people went to bed that night thinking that Al Gore had won, only to discover in the morning that George W. Bush had been declared the winner. In fact, the election was simply too close to call. Several states were up for grabs, but in the end it came down to one: Florida, where Bush's younger brother, Jeb, was governor. Florida electors were unable to commit themselves to either Bush or Gore owing to the closeness of the vote. Brush fires erupted in several precincts where the candidates' surrogates traded allegations about various improprieties. Recounts were started, then stopped as Republicans and Democrats wrangled over what standards to apply. It was more than a little chaotic.

The Court steps in
The Supreme Court actually interposed itself into the election contest three times. Only the last two are known as Bush v. Gore. In the first of these cases, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, the Court hoped to end the election crisis by putting a stop to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to extend the time for certifying the vote past the period set by state law. But by the time the Court began hearing arguments in the appeal on December 1, the certification had already occurred. The embarrassed justices sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, instructing the lower court to rewrite its opinion so that it would not create a conflict between state and federal law.

A week later, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of ballots. Unlike its earlier decision, however, this one was not unanimous. With the Florida justices split 4-3, the U.S. Supreme Court once again exercised its discretionary appellate review jurisdiction and granted certiorari, or review, to Bush v. Gore. The day after the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a recount, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a temporary stay, or delay, in enforcing the Florida Supreme Court's order. The U.S. Supreme Court justices, too, were narrowly divided, 5-4. The five justices voting in favor of the stay were the same five conservatives who had been moving the Rehnquist Court to the right for more than a decade. The first hearing of Bush v. Gore telegraphed to the nation what would happen if the Court took further action in the case.

The Court's third and final intervention in the 2000 presidential election came just days later. In its unsigned opinion, the Court explained that it had voted 5-4 to put a stop to the Florida recount. Allowing the recount to go forward, the Court said, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back down to the Florida Supreme Court, which had no alternative but to dismiss it. The presidential election of 2000 had been decided, in essence, by the vote of one Supreme Court justice.

Needless to say, the George W. Bush camp was jubilant. Al Gore supporters were incensed. Many people were simply happy to have things settled. But others worried that the Court had gone too far. In the past, in landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which put an end to legal segregation, and United States v. Nixon (1974), which led to the first presidential resignation under threat of impeachment, were unanimously decided. After Bush v. Gore, the concern was that the Court had not only overreached itself but undermined its authority by not speaking with one voice. That split decision, 5-4, suggested that Bush v. Gore was a political, not a judicial, decision.


Precedents
Bush v. Gore wasn't the Court's first foray into the realm of king making. The election of 1876 pitted Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic governor of New York, against Rutherford B. Hayes, the Republican governor of Ohio. After the votes had been counted, it seemed that Tilden had won the popular vote and had 184 uncontested electoral votes to Hayes's 165. The magic number was 185 electoral votes. Twenty votes of the Electoral College were still up for grabs, however — all but one of them in the southern states of Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. (The exception was Oregon. They always have marched to a different drummer.)

The Twelfth Amendment stipulates that in a contested presidential election, "The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and the House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted." Because in 1876 Congress was equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democrat-controlled House set up an electoral commission to decide who would become president. The Senate chose three Republicans and two Democrats to sit on the commission, and the House chose two Democrats and three Republicans. The remainder of the commission was to consist of five justices of the Supreme Court. The bill setting up the commission named two Republican justices and two Democratic justices, but let those four select their own nonpartisan tiebreaker.


The only truly neutral member of the Court at the time was David Davis. But Davis resigned from the Court almost immediately, leaving only Republican justices as alternatives. Joseph Bradley, seemingly the least partisan of those remaining, was selected as the final member of the commission. To no one's great surprise, the commission voted along party lines, selecting the Republican Hayes. Democrats, who were mostly Southerners, cried foul, claiming that Davis, and perhaps Bradley, had been subjected to political blackmail. When the uproar threatened to derail the orderly transfer of power, a deal was struck. The Republicans agreed to withdraw the federal troops still occupying the South in the wake of the Civil War, to appropriate funds for Southern improvement, and to appoint at least one Southerner to the cabinet. In return, the Democrats agreed not to delay Hayes's inauguration. It was a flat-out political deal, and ever since its implementation, the Court has been criticized for having played a part in what many saw as outright log rolling.

And the winner is . . .
Why, then, did the Supreme Court agree to get back into the fray after the election of 2000? In a sense, the justices had no choice. When the contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore proved too close to call, the contestants resorted to a series of lawsuits in an effort to settle the matter. These suits proceeded simultaneously in the state court system and in federal court. The cases largely concerned the matter and manner of vote counting (and recounting) in the pivotal state of Florida. There were charges of voter intimidation, ballot rigging — all manner of political shenanigans. Something had to be done.