MALAYSIA AND ME

I am 23, so generally I sleep at the break of dawn. The sound of the azan is the indicator of time to sleep, contradicting from the general idea of the azan which is to wake Muslims up for prayers. Fast forward 5 hours, will be me waking up hair all messed up reaching for my Colgate. Fascinating how most Malaysians might not know the word toothpaste, but everyone knows the word Colgate. Maybe it has something got to do with the tooth-brushing session in school, that makes Colgate so Malaysian. Probably the only multiracial people in the world who look for rice when it comes to breakfast, be it the nasi lemak gang or the Bak-Kut-Teh gang. Being in the nasi lemak gang myself, it’s of course accompanied accompanied by a glass of the national breakfast drink teh-tarik. Believe or not we are so obsessed by teh-tarik that we even have an annual competition to match the skills of people ‘tariking’ our tea around Malaysia. Common practice in Malaysia would be to punch our work card at nine, and get our delicious day starting teh-tarik at 930. That’s how much we treasure a drink that should be considered a national treasure. Walking into class would be quite a journey, between browsing through the dailies while cursing the national football team about reaching the world cup and upholding the high standards of the English league like they are gods. Then there’s the diverse shape and sizes of the opposite sex that gives us a plus point to being Malaysian, each with their shortcomings and their advantages gives you a splendid eye candy to start a new day on a high note.

In class it’s hard to not notice people sitting within their own races apart from the rest forming quite a unique color chart. The big questions prevail, are we really racist? Why can’t we shrug off this feeling after 50 years of independence? Though the general view doesn’t really look positive but on a psychological perspective you have to also look at humans in general and how our brain works. According to the mirror-and-match exercise, if you mirror a person’s behavior without them noticing, naturally they will tend to be very friendly and warm towards you. Being in the same race category definitely creates a bigger mirror with a person than that of a person from a different race group, therefore what we Malaysians generally perceive to be racism is just human and though its needs mending it’s not all negative. Boys being boys, I often don’t bring stationary to class as I find that I have too much testosterone to put together a pencil case. When there arises a situation where I need to scribble something important, I can just randomly borrow stationary from whomever I see having the largest pencil case in the class regardless of race, somehow we don’t seem too racist anymore. The culture of giving in Malaysia is fascinating, when in need regardless of race, color or political views we are very generous. The fascinating thing is that sometimes we tend to be more generous when it comes to giving to another race than our own. Though cursing at each other at the coffee table, a Chinese shop keeper will always be friendlier to a Malay customer than to a Chinese customer, even going to the extent of offering free sweets to the kids. An Indian restaurant owner will be very excited if a Malay or Chinese comes to his shop and tries out a traditional Indian delicacy, even to the extent of giving free samples and shunning off even regular customers. The clearest example of all is when we have tourist, tourist love Malaysia and Malaysians because of our warmth and our ability to go the extra mile to make them feel at home or have a great holiday. Hidden in all of us Malaysians is the urge to exhibit or values and cultures which we brought from home to the other races, we need to be more in touch with this part of us, rather than sink ourselves into what the tabloids and blogs have to say about each other.

     When I sit in class and I look at my friends, and the look at me. We know that deep down inside there is pride that only in this beautiful country of mine that the both of us can sit together in a class while the lecturer unfolds to us the mysteries of the physical universe to us in peace. We also know what each and every one of us is missing, the Malays know that they have special rights that give them an upper hand when it comes to opportunities and on the contrary the Chinese and Indians also know that they control most of the economic pie that makes our economy. Perhaps it is time we also took a look over the fence into the other side to see why is the situation such, why do the non-Malays keep questioning the special rights when they know that without them the Malays would drown and get drifted away if they were lifted. On the same basis, being the third generation in Malaysia why does the issue of the non-Malays being immigrants keep popping out at every turn, why are we not being considered as a single integrated race. The truth is that the new generation doesn’t really care about these issues and want to move away from it and address the real issues which are plaguing us, but as soon as we try to do that the moans and groans of our parents echoing the advice of our grandparents are heard. I strongly believe that the sooner the generation and the generations that had any interactions with the first Malays that saw the immigrants or the first immigrants that saw the Malays are wiped out the closer we will get to totally diminishing the racial issues in Malaysia. We have learnt to live with each other in harmony in our own unique and odd way, so why bring up old tales to disrupt them. We should remember lessons from bad history, not bad history itself. As I walk out of class I can hear moans and groans about the next assignment due date, even when it comes to completing assignments we are united as a unit, though the methods of completing may still be improvised with plagiarism rampant, but at least we feel the warmth of being together and helping each other. This has a glaring similarity with the way we annihilated the communist from Malaysia and the way me and my classmates complete our assignments, when there were communist we were Malaysians against the communist. As soon as the communist left, we crawled back into our racial cocoon and start to point at each other differently.

     Being borned a Malaysian is a gift, from a very young age we are ready to accept people’s differences, and pointing out a glaring difference is as good as a sin in the Malaysian community. We become more tolerant towards the weaknesses and shortcomings of others and focus more on the strengths that they have. We do not like to flaunt our strength as it may seem arrogant towards the others who are different, it is this innocent natural Malaysian instinct instilled in us since young that makes us show our dark feathers rather that our shiny ones just so that everyone feels comfortable and warm towards each other. This became apparent to me when I attended a mock interview, a few months ago, the interviewer was from a foreign oil and gas company, so the question arised questioning my greatest strength. I was dumbfounded, I couldn’t come up with a single good answer but negative strengths of mine hovered in my head almost instantaneously. Then in hit me that I have been being so innocently Malaysian for so long sub-consciously that when the situation arises for me to flaunt my bright feathers, I couldn’t do as I felt that doing so would make it seem like I am trying to show that I am better than the others. Then I noticed that it wasn’t just me, all Malaysians do it, but my course mates who are from different nations are more interested in flaunting themselves than blending in. This is exactly why I feel that Malaysia is the greatest nation in the world, we are all different and we all have our own strengths but when it comes to facing each other we tend to usher the other person as the best. While we know our strengths, we also know that showing them off is a symbol of insecurity and that is just not the Malaysian way.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is the greatest nation in the world and there is no other place I would rather be borned in, I love my Malaysia.          

Felixia Yeap first Malaysian playboy bunny

Name: Felixia Yeap Chin Yee
Date of Birth: Jul 3, 1986
Height: 173 cm
Eye color: Dark brown
Weight: 49 kg
Hair color: Black
Measurements: 32C 25 35

China Press reported that the 25-year-old former kindergarten teacher said the public had a wrong perception towards the bunny girls.

“We are only waitresses and entertainers. We are not required to strip,” she said.Although she had only signed a one-month contract with the Macau Playboy Club, Yeap still has to undergo a series of training before she is qualified for the job.“The most difficult is the serving posture.“We are not allowed to bend our upper body forward, so we have to bend our knees, squat down slowly while holding the plate to serve the customers.”

Born in Kuala Lumpur and raised in Ipoh, Yeap said her mother was quite supportive of her job.
“My father did not say anything, so I don't know if he agrees or not. My mother supports me all the way.”

Leadership 2013

Leadership 2013, looking into the future is an abstract idea we all at some point of time in life wished we had. The superhuman ability to look into the future so that we can be prepared to take full advantage of what we know is going to happen. There is this fascination that us mutual among all people regardless of race and creed. When I got this topic, I realized I was suppose to try and comment on what god has in store for us in 2013. Sounded quite interesting at first, till I sat down to try and plan my speech. We are talking about 2 years from now, I don’t think I can even give a speech about what’s going to happen tomorrow.  So there I sat on my laptop wondering to myself about what would leadership be like in 2013, then it hit me. Leadership 2013 will be largely influenced by a contradicting issue of natural leaders or honed leaders.

Before we compare them we should first and foremost understand both terms, a natural leader is an individual whose leadership abilities and values form instinctively when a situation arises. He does not need motivation or encouragement to strive, he encourages and motivates himself to achieve a set goal. His methods are unique and original, or maybe an adaptation of various other  aspirations and inspirations. He is not afraid to be unconventional and go out of the norm to solve an arising problem, even if the masses feel he might fail. He is tough in his man management as  naturally he will be opposed by conventionalist leaders who maybe his superiors or peers. A shrewd result oriented man with a smile on his face, that could woo even the judges of a beauty pageant. The final outcome of if he will prevail as a successful leader clearly depends on his determination and cunningness in implementing his strategies and ideas that he strongly believes in. You will find great similarities between the leader  we have discussed and leaders like Dr Mahathir, Adolf Hitler and Lee Kuan Yew.

Now as for a honed leader, he must be a strong and firm follower of his predecessor ‘s methods and ideas, or at least the strategy in which the ideas are made. Though he may seem less bold than a natural leader, there is nothing wrong in being timid so long as your methods are spelling progress to the nation. He is less likely to feel the uproar the masses as his methods have already been  applied successfully in the past. He might not stand out as a rare talent in the beginning of his leadership, but sooner or later thanks to the tracks that have already been laid out in front of him he will emerge a prominent figure in  being a leader with vision and strength. Though it may take some time for him to learn the tricks of the trade from his mentors, he will also earn bit by bit the confidence and trust of his superiors and peers. He will be well versed in what the masses want and will know well enough the strategies to deliver to them their needs just enough to keep them content and of course to remain in power. These leadership characteristic  are more similar to describing Najib Tun Razak, George W Bush and Genghis Khan.

Now come 2013, like every different year. It will have it own set of dilemma and issues to be resolved, now we have made it very clear that each different leadership style is different from the other. Therefore their natural response towards similar issues will differ from each other and so will the solutions that each one of them thinks will be best to resolve the issues. This will be the cornerstone that will decide who prevails victorious and who gets left behind. Will it be the traditionalist, conventionalist with proven applied solutions. Who has the overwhelming support of his peers and superiors due to his conditioned leadership style. Will it be the bold, new and refreshing ideas of a rebellion leader who ways may differ from everyday solutions. The talent to size up a situation

accurately maybe his biggest asset as his methods make him a place in the hearts of those he leads.

Whatever happens in 2013, nonetheless it will be an interesting year to watch the charade of leaders, especially of politicians. We live in an interesting time of Malaysian politics that may exhibit the greatest change of Malaysian history or it may be another false alarm like many before. An interesting spectacle to behold, ladies and gentlemen, enjoy the show.      

"ENGINEERING" has been chosen as the TOUGHEST

"ENGINEERING" has been chosen as the TOUGHEST course among all d courses including BCOM, Bca, IAS, IPS n MBBS; by d Guinnes Book of World Recrds, on 18Aug2010. It hs 58 univrsty xams + 130 seris xams + 174 asignmnts wthn 4 years (max 750 wrkng dys). All engineers post dis on ur wall 4 atleast 2hrs & b proud to be an engineer !!

Today's her birthday

She was so beautiful, with eyes that you could dwell in and only emerge with happiness and confidence. As magical as the first drop of rain on blazing hot day, when all you want is to be cosy in your house drinking hot MILO watching the rain pour as you smell it. Fresh, with a zest of life, giving hope for mere mortals to achieve Nirvana when all seem grey and pale. One gaze at her eyes, makes you wanting to be challenged by the world just so that you can be beaten down again to look into her eyes again and feel the comfort and the warmth that lies only in her eyes that you know is the most beautiful sight to behold despite the numerous beauty the world posseses. Black like the color of night itself with a slight tinge of brown like the moon and the stars, lying on your back and looking at them reminds you of the beauty yet to be discovered by man. Makes you wonder and believe in achieving the impossible dream to be an achiever and a world beater just so that she can see it with her beautiful eyes and smile or perhaps say a few words that you will keep with you for all eternity, buried from within you.

 Smile bright enough it could light up a room, how am I just a figment of time and space not be engulfed with it and be full joy. Roses are the only equal to her smile, but even they wither and die. Her smile lives on forever haunting me at every turn of my life, wishing that if I could have just one more fix of it. Just another shot of it would really help me go the extra mile in achieving so much more than ordinary and normal. To achieve greatness and happiness, coexisting with eachother for the first time in the history of the world. To recover the bridge to the unattainable, that all men seem to be looking for but fail. I achieve all this not in a lifetime and not in numerous years but only by looking at her sweet and charismatic smile.

7 years of cold winter has passed since it was the summer that she brought into my life, thats the price you have to pay maybe for being in paradise. For seeing it will always attract you towards wanting it and holding on to it for as long as you can connect to it and recall that you were an achiever once. She hasnt spoken to me since, yet people say that there has been really good music made ever since. Yet I have not heard of anything close to her voice, calming and assuring. Yet I would still say that she was so beautiful, and only deserve the best in the world. I guess maybe some birds are not meant to be caged, the feathers are just to bright. Yet when they leave they leave a dark spot in you that you realise will never be lit no matter how colorful birds can be. Its like the painful and the suffering will say that the first cut is the deepest, maybe that is the proper definition first love.

Yet she was so beautiful, and a remarkable person that I will forever cherish for being part of my life. Today on her birthday I only wish her all the greatest things in life, even if life turns out to be cruel enough to exclude me from it. You will always be my sweetheart, Happy Birthday gorgeous.

Benjamin Franklin invented bifocal today

In 1990 the year of the bicentennial celebration of Benjamin Franklin’s death (1706-1790) a comprehensive article was published by Dr. Charles Letocha, “The Invention and Early Manufacture of Bifocals”. It presented Benjamin Franklin as the inventor of bifocals. It is still considered the definitive paper on this topic because no new information has surfaced to the contrary during the past 15 years. This current year 2006 is the tercentenary of Franklin’s birth and therefore we can again recognize Franklin for his major role in the development of bifocal eyeglasses. No one else deserves this esteemed honor: Ben Franklin-Father of the Bifocal.

The invention of bifocals had been reviewed in great detail by Dr. John R. Levene in Chapter 6 of his book Clinical Refraction and Visual Science, Butterworth’s, 1977. Highly regarded as a diplomat and as a scientist, Franklin is generally acknowledged for all his ingenious contributions to many very practical inventions. He had talents and also numerous interests and his natural curiosity led to the search to discover ways to make things work better. One of his greatest innovations was “my double spectacles” and Franklin has been quite appropriately recognized and universally admired as their inventor.
Certainly among the most useful inventions of all time bifocals have serviced billions of people over the past 200 + years. Compound corrective lenses, usually bifocals or trifocals, and with increasing frequency, progressive multifocal length eyeglasses are the modern-day result of the remarkable evolution from Benjamin Franklin’s original simple and practical creation.

THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FRANKLIN

1). Benjamin Franklin was a hyperope who likely required eyeglasses originally in the 1730s. By the late 1750s he was usually described wearing them and they became an integral part of his face, at least for distance use. Many paintings and contemporary sketches and satirical cartoons show him represented wearing his eyeglasses. He admitted that he could not “distinguish a letter or even of large print without them”.
2). The Library Company of Philadelphia, founded by Franklin and some of his friends, became America’s first lending library. In its print archives there exists a 1764 political cartoon which depicts Franklin wearing an unusual pair of eyeglasses, interpreted by some knowledgeable people as bifocals because the upper portion of each lens appears different from the lower portion. Take a close look and decide for yourself.
3). Von Rohr and several others credit optician Samuel Pierce with making bifocals for Franklin. Pierce described people wearing bifocals in 1775 and he himself may have worn them in the 1760’s. Although this is all noted in the Levene’s chapter no hard evidence is presented.
4). Mr. H. Sykes, an English optician living in Paris, with a business on the Place du Palais-Royale, wrote to Franklin April 24, 1779 and explained the delay in sending Franklin’s order, complained he was having difficulty making the eyeglasses. “I should have sent your spectacles sooner, but in compliance with your favor of the 20th inst., have cut a second pair, in which I have been unfortunate for I broke and spoilt three glasses.”Sykes had apparently damaged them while “cutting” them in half. The word “cut” is emphasized as opposed to the word “grind”. Even Sykes’ charge for this service (18f a pair) was quite excessive when compared to the normal fee of making simple ordinary glasses.
5). During his stay in Passy, outside of Paris, Franklin (serving as the American envoy to the Court of Louis XVI) described in a letter dated August 21, 1784 to his close friend and philanthropist George Whatley:
…….”I cannot distinguish a letter even of large print; but am happy in the invention of double spectacles, which serving for distant objects as well as near ones, make my eyes as useful to me as ever they were: If all the other defects and infirmities were as easily and cheaply remedied, it would be worth while for friends to live a good deal longer…..”
6). In a letter dated November 15, 1784 Whatley wrote back:
“I have spoken to Peter Dollond about YOUR invention of double spectacles, and, by all I can garner,…….”
7). Another correspondence with Whatley May 23, 1785 further explains Franklin’s basic position on this matter. Noted London optician Peter Dollond had stated they were only good for “particular eyes”. Franklin’s reply is certainly very persuasive evidence that he was the inventor:
…………..”By M. Dollond’s saying that MY double spectacles can only serve particular eyes, I doubt he has not been rightly informed of their construction. I imagine it will be found pretty generally true, that the same convexity of glass, through which a man sees clearly at distance proper for reading, is not the best for greater distances. I therefore had formerly two pairs of spectacles, which I shifted occasionally, as in traveling I sometimes read, and often wanted to regards the prospects. Finding the change troublesome, and not always sufficiently ready, I had the glasses cut and half of each kind associated in the same circle, thus

Saint Joan of Arc

Saint Joan of Arc, nicknamed The Maid of Orléans (French: ''Jeanne d'Arc'',^[1] IPA: [ʒan daʁk]; ca. 1412^[2] – 30 May 1431) is considered a national heroine of France and a Catholic saint. A peasant girl born in eastern France who claimed divine guidance, she led the French army to several important victories during the Hundred Years' War, which paved the way for the coronation of Charles VII. She was captured by the Burgundians, sold to the English, tried by an ecclesiastical court, and burned at the stake when she was 19 years old.^[3] Twenty-five years after the execution, Pope Callixtus III examined the trial, pronounced her innocent and declared her a martyr.^[3] Joan of Arc was beatified in 1909 and canonized in 1920.^[2] She is — along with St. Denis, St. Martin of Tours, St. Louis IX, and St. Theresa of Lisieux — one of the patron saints of France.

Joan asserted that she had visions from God that instructed her to recover her homeland from English domination late in the Hundred Years' War. The uncrowned King Charles VII sent her to the siege of Orléans as part of a relief mission. She gained prominence when she overcame the dismissive attitude of veteran commanders and lifted the siege in only nine days. Several more swift victories led to Charles VII's coronation at Reims and settled the disputed succession to the throne.

Joan was born the daughter of Jacques d'Arc and Isabelle Romée.^[15] in Domrémy, a village which was then in the duchy of Bar (later annexed to the province of Lorraine and renamed Domrémy-la-Pucelle).^[16] Joan's parents owned about 50 acres (20 hectares) of land and her father supplemented his farming work with a minor position as a village official, collecting taxes and heading the local watch.^[17] They lived in an isolated patch of north-eastern territory that remained loyal to the French crown despite being surrounded by Burgundian lands. Several local raids occurred during her childhood and on one occasion her village was burned.

Joan said she was about 19 at her trial, so she must have been born around the year 1412. She later testified that she experienced her first vision around 1424 at the age of 12 years, when she was out alone in a field and saw visions of figures she identified as Saint Michael, Saint Catherine, and Saint Margaret, who told her to drive out the English and bring the Dauphin to Rheims for his coronation. She said she cried when they left, as they were so beautiful.^[18
]
At the age of 16, she asked a kinsman, Durand Lassois, to bring her to nearby Vaucouleurs where she petitioned the garrison commander, Count Robert de Baudricourt, for permission to visit the royal French court at Chinon. Baudricourt's sarcastic response did not deter her.^[19] She returned the following January and gained support from two men of standing: Jean de Metz and Bertrand de Poulengy.^[20] Under their auspices, she gained a second meeting where she made a remarkable prediction about a military reversal near Orléans.^[21]

Robert de Baudricourt granted her an escort to visit Chinon after news from the front confirmed her prediction. She made the journey through hostile Burgundian territory in male disguise.^[22] Upon arriving at the Royal Court she impressed Charles VII during a private conference. During this time Charles's mother-in-law Yolande of Aragon was financing a relief expedition to Orléans. Joan asked for permission to travel with the army and wear the equipment of a knight. She depended on donated items for her armor, horse, sword, banner, and other items utilized by her entourage. Historian Stephen W. Richey explains her attraction to the Royal Court by pointing out that they may have viewed her as the only source of hope for a regime that was near collapse:

After years of one humiliating defeat after another, both the military and civil leadership of France were demoralized and discredited. When the Dauphin Charles granted Joan’s urgent request to be equipped for war and placed at the head of his army, his decision must have been based in large part on the knowledge that every orthodox, every rational, option had been tried and had failed. Only a regime in the final straits of desperation would pay any heed to an illiterate farm girl who claimed that the voice of God was instructing her to take charge of her country’s army and lead it to victory.^[23]

Upon her arrival, Joan effectively turned the longstanding Anglo-French conflict into a religious war.^[24] But this course of action was not without its risks. Charles' advisers were worried that unless Joan's orthodoxy could be established beyond doubt — that she was not a heretic or a sorceress — Charles' enemies could easily make the claim that his kingdom was a gift from the Devil. To circumvent this possibility, the Dauphin ordered background inquiries and a theological examination at Poitiers to verify her morality. In April 1429, the commission of inquiry "declared her to be of irreproachable life, a good Christian, possessed of the virtues of humility, honesty and simplicity."^[24] The theologians at Poitiers did not pass judgment on her divine inspiration; rather, they informed the Dauphin that there was a 'favorable presumption' to be made on the divine nature of her mission. This was enough for Charles, but they put the ball back in his court by stating that he had an obligation to put Joan to the test. 'To doubt or abandon her without suspicion of evil would be to repudiate the Holy Spirit and to become unworthy of God's aid', they declared.^[25] The test for the truth of her claims would be the raising of the siege of Orléans
.
She arrived at the siege of Orléans on 29 April 1429, but Jean d'Orléans, the acting head of the Orléans ducal family, initially excluded her from war councils and failed to inform her when the army engaged the enemy.^[26] This did not prevent her from being present at most councils and battles. The extent of her actual military leadership is a subject of historical debate. Traditional historians such as Édouard Perroy conclude that she was a standard bearer whose primary effect was on morale.^[27] This type of analysis usually relies on the condemnation trial testimony, where she stated that she preferred her standard to her sword. Recent scholarship that focuses on the nullification trial testimony asserts that the army's commanders esteemed her as a skilled tactician and a successful strategist. Stephen W. Richey's opinion is one example: "She proceeded to lead the army in an astounding series of victories that reversed the tide of the war."^[22] In either case, historians agree that the army enjoyed remarkable success during her brief career.^[28]

Joan of Arc rejected the cautious strategy that had characterized French leadership during previous campaigns. During the five months of siege before her arrival, the defenders of Orléans had attempted only one aggressive move and that had ended in disaster. On 4 May the French attacked and captured the outlying fortress of Saint Loup, which she followed on 5 May with a march to a second fortress called Saint Jean le Blanc, which was found deserted. The next day she opposed Jean d'Orleans at a war council where she demanded another assault on the enemy. D'Orleans ordered the city gates locked to prevent another battle, but she summoned the townsmen and common soldiers and forced the mayor to unlock a gate. With the aid of only one captain she rode out and captured the fortress of Saint Augustins. That evening she learned she had been excluded from a war council where the leaders had decided to wait for reinforcements before acting again. Disregarding this decision, she insisted on attacking the main English stronghold called "les Tourelles" on 7 May.^[29] Contemporaries acknowledged her as the heroine of the engagement after she was wounded in the neck by an arrow but returned to lead the final charge.^[30]

The sudden victory at Orléans led to many proposals for further offensive action. The English expected an attempt to recapture Paris or an attack on Normandy. In the aftermath of the unexpected victory, Joan persuaded Charles VII to grant her co-command of the army with Duke John II of Alençon and gained royal permission for her plan to recapture nearby bridges along the Loire as a prelude to an advance on Rheims and the coronation of Charles VII. This was a bold proposal because Reims was roughly twice as far away as Paris and deep within enemy territory.^[31]

The army recovered Jargeau on 12 June, Meung-sur-Loire on 15 June, and Beaugency on 17 June. The Duke of Alençon agreed to all of Joan's decisions. Other commanders including Jean d'Orléans had been impressed with her performance at Orléans and became her supporters. Alençon credited her with saving his life at Jargeau, where she warned him of an imminent artillery attack.^[32] During the same battle she withstood a blow from a stone cannonball to her helmet as she climbed a scaling ladder. An expected English relief force arrived in the area on 18 June under the command of Sir John Fastolf. The battle at Patay might be compared to Agincourt in reverse. The French vanguard attacked before the English archers could finish defensive preparations. A rout ensued that decimated the main body of the English army and killed or captured most of its commanders. Fastolf escaped with a small band of soldiers and became the scapegoat for the humiliating English defeat. The French suffered minimal losses.^[33]

The French army set out for Reims from Gien-sur-Loire on 29 June and accepted the conditional surrender of the Burgundian-held city of Auxerre on 3 July. The other towns in their path returned to French allegiance without resistance. Troyes, the site of the treaty that had tried to disinherit Charles VII, capitulated after a bloodless four-day siege.^[34] The army was in short supply of food by the time it reached Troyes. But the army was in luck: a wandering friar named Brother Richard had been preaching about the end of the world at Troyes and had convinced local residents to plant beans, a crop with an early harvest. The hungry army arrived as the beans ripened.^[35]

Reims opened its gates to the army on July 16. The coronation took place the following morning. Although Joan and the duke of Alençon urged a prompt march on Paris, the royal court preferred a negotiated truce with the duke of Burgundy. Duke Philip the Good broke the agreement, using it as a stalling tactic to reinforce the defense of Paris.^[36] The French army marched through towns near Paris during the interim and accepted more peaceful surrenders. The Duke of Bedford headed an English force and confronted the French army in a standoff on 15 August. The French assault at Paris ensued on 8 September. Despite a wound to the leg from a crossbow bolt, Joan continued directing the troops until the day's fighting ended. The following morning she received a royal order to withdraw. Most historians blame French Grand Chamberlain Georges de la Trémoille for the political blunders which followed the coronation.^[37] In October Joan took Saint-Pierre-le-Moûtier and was granted nobility.

After a minor action at La-Charité-sur-Loire in November and December, Joan traveled to Compiègne the following April to help defend the city against an English and Burgundian siege. A skirmish on 23 May 1430 led to her capture, when her force attempted to attack the Burgundian's camp at Margny.^[38] When she ordered a retreat into the nearby fortifications of Compeigne after the advance of an additional force of 6,000 Burgundians,^[38] she assumed the place of honor as the last to leave the field. Burgundians surrounded the rear guard, and she was unhorsed by an archer and initially refused to surrender.^[39]

It was customary for a captive's family to ransom a prisoner of war. Joan was in an unusual circumstance. Many historians condemn King Charles VII for failing to intervene. She attempted several escapes, on one occasion jumping from her 70 foot (21 m) tower in Vermandois to the soft earth of a dry moat, after which she was moved to the Burgundian town of Arras. The English government eventually purchased her from Duke Philip of Burgundy. Bishop Pierre Cauchon of Beauvais, an English partisan, assumed a prominent role in these negotiations and her later trial.^[40]

The trial for heresy was politically motivated. The Duke of Bedford claimed the throne of France on behalf of his nephew Henry VI. Joan had been responsible for the rival coronation, hence condemning her was an attempt to undermine her king's legitimacy. Legal proceedings commenced on 9 January 1431 at Rouen, the seat of the English occupation government.^[41] The procedure was irregular on a number of points.

To summarize some major problems: Under ecclesiastical law, Bishop Cauchon lacked jurisdiction over the case.^[42] He owed his appointment to his partisan support of the English government which financed the trial. Clerical notary Nicolas Bailly, commissioned to collect testimony against Joan, could find no adverse evidence.^[43] Without such evidence the court lacked grounds to initiate a trial. Opening a trial anyway, the court also violated ecclesiastical law in denying her right to a legal adviser. Upon the opening of the first public examination Joan complained that those present were all partisans against her and asked for "ecclesiastics of the French side" to be invited.^[44]
The trial record demonstrates her remarkable intellect. The transcript's most famous exchange is an exercise in subtlety. "Asked if she knew she was in God's grace, she answered: 'If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.'"^[45] The question is a scholarly trap. Church doctrine held that no one could be certain of being in God's grace. If she had answered yes, then she would have convicted herself of heresy. If she had answered no, then she would have confessed her own guilt. Notary Boisguillaume later testified that at the moment the court heard this reply, "Those who were interrogating her were stupefied."^[46] In the twentieth century George Bernard Shaw found this dialogue so compelling that sections of his play Saint Joan are literal translations of the trial record.^[47]
Several court functionaries later testified that significant portions of the transcript were altered in her disfavor. Many clerics served under compulsion, including the inquisitor, Jean LeMaitre, and a few even received death threats from the English. Under Inquisitorial guidelines, Joan should have been confined to an ecclesiastical prison under the supervision of female guards (i.e., nuns). Instead, the English kept her in a secular prison guarded by their own soldiers. Bishop Cauchon denied Joan's appeals to the Council of Basel and the pope, which should have stopped his proceeding.^[48]
The twelve articles of accusation that summarize the court's finding contradict the already doctored court record.^[49] The illiterate defendant signed an abjuration document she did not understand under threat of immediate execution. The court substituted a different abjuration in the official record.

Heresy was a capital crime only for a repeat offense. Joan agreed to wear feminine clothing when she abjured. A few days later she told a tribunal member that "a great English lord had entered her prison and tried to take her by force."^[51] She resumed male attire either as a defense against molestation or, in the testimony of Jean Massieu, because her dress had been stolen and she was left with nothing else to wear.^[52] In terms of doctrine, she had been safe to disguise herself as a page during her journey through enemy territory and she was safe to wear armor during battle. The Chronique de la Pucelle states that it deterred molestation while she was camped in the field. Clergy who later testified at the posthumous rehabilitation trial affirmed that she continued to wear male clothing in prison to deter molestation and rape.^[53] Preservation of chastity was another justifiable reason for cross-dressing: her apparel would have slowed an assailant, and men would be less likely to think of her as a sex object in any case.^[54] She referred the court to the Poitiers inquiry when questioned on the matter. The Poitiers record no longer survives but circumstances indicate the Poitiers clerics had approved her practice. In other words, she had a mission to do a man's work so it was fitting that she dress the part.^[55] She also kept her hair cut short through her military campaigns and while in prison. Her supporters, such as the theologian Jean Gerson, defended her hairstyle, as did Inquisitor Brehal later during the Rehabilitation trial.^[56] Nonetheless, at the trial in 1431 she was condemned and sentenced to die.

Eyewitnesses described the scene of the execution by burning on 30 May 1431. Tied to a tall pillar in the Vieux-Marché in Rouen, she asked two of the clergy, Fr Martin Ladvenu and Fr Isambart de la Pierre, to hold a crucifix before her. A peasant also constructed a small cross which she put in the front of her dress. After she expired, the English raked back the coals to expose her charred body so that no one could claim she had escaped alive, then burned the body twice more to reduce it to ashes and prevent any collection of relics. They cast her remains into the Seine.^[57] The executioner, Geoffroy Therage, later stated that he "...greatly feared to be damned."^[58]

Bonnie and Clyde shot dead today 77 years ago by Captain Frank Hamer.

Bonnie and Clyde

On this day in 1934, notorious criminals Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are shot to death by Texas and Louisiana state police while driving a stolen car near Sailes, Louisiana.

Bonnie Parker met the charismatic Clyde Barrow in Texas when she was 19 years old and her husband (she married when she was 16) was serving time in jail for murder. Shortly after they met, Barrow was imprisoned for robbery. Parker visited him every day, and smuggled a gun into prison to help him escape, but he was soon caught in Ohio and sent back to jail. When Barrow was paroled in 1932, he immediately hooked up with Parker, and the couple began a life of crime together.

After they stole a car and committed several robberies, Parker was caught by police and sent to jail for two months. Released in mid-1932, she rejoined Barrow. Over the next two years, the couple teamed with various accomplices to rob a string of banks and stores across five states--Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, New Mexico and Louisiana. To law enforcement agents, the Barrow Gang--including Barrow's childhood friend, Raymond Hamilton, W.D. Jones, Henry Methvin, Barrow's brother Buck and his wife Blanche, among others--were cold-blooded criminals who didn't hesitate to kill anyone who got in their way, especially police or sheriff's deputies. Among the public, however, Parker and Barrow's reputation as dangerous outlaws was mixed with a romantic view of the couple as "Robin Hood"-like folk heroes.

Their fame was increased by the fact that Bonnie was a woman--an unlikely criminal--and by the fact that the couple posed for playful photographs together, which were later found by police and released to the media. Police almost captured the famous duo twice in the spring of 1933, with surprise raids on their hideouts in Joplin and Platte City, Missouri. Buck Barrow was killed in the second raid, and Blanche was arrested, but Bonnie and Clyde escaped once again. In January 1934, they attacked the Eastham Prison Farm in Texas to help Hamilton break out of jail, shooting several guards with machine guns and killing one.

Texan prison officials hired a retired Texas police officer, Captain Frank Hamer, as a special investigator to track down Parker and Barrow. After a three-month search, Hamer traced the couple to Louisiana, where Henry Methvin's family lived. Before dawn on May 23, Hamer and a group of Louisiana and Texas lawmen hid in the bushes along a country road outside Sailes. When Parker and Barrow appeared, the officers opened fire, killing the couple instantly in a hail of bullets.

Captain Frank Hamer

All told, the Barrow Gang was believed responsible for the deaths of 13 people, including nine police officers. Parker and Barrow are still seen by many as romantic figures, however, especially after the success of the 1967 film Bonnie and Clyde, starring Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty.