Worldwide Story

Hispanic population tops 50 million in U.S.

admin — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:34:10 +0000

The U.S. Census Bureau reports the Hispanic population has surpassed 50 million and accounted for more than half of the 27.3-million population increase in the last decade.

The Hispanic population in the United States grew by 43% in the last decade, surpassing 50 million and accounting for about 1 out of 6 Americans, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.

Analysts seized on data showing that the growth was propelled by a surge in births in the U.S., rather than immigration, pointing to a growing generational shift in which Hispanics continue to gain political clout and, by 2050, could make up a third of the U.S. population.

“In the adult population, many immigrants helped the increase, but the child population is increasingly more Hispanic,” said D’Vera Cohn, a senior writer at the Pew Research Center.

In 2010, Hispanics made up 23% of people under the age 18, compared with 17% in 2000. In California, 51% of children are Hispanic, up from 44% in 2000.

Overall, Hispanics accounted for more than half of the 27.3 million U.S. population increase since 2000.

About 75% of Hispanics live in the nine states that have long-standing Hispanic populations — Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York and Texas.

That figure is down from 81% in 2000, indicating the population has begun dispersing to other parts of the country, particularly in the Southeast, Cohn said.

New Mexico has the largest percentage of Hispanic residents (46.3%), followed by Texas and California (37.6%).

The Hispanic population more than doubled in Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Carolina and North Carolina.

“This is a sign that the Hispanic population is spreading out more widely than in the past,” Cohn said. “You now see Hispanic communities in many places that hadn’t had them a decade or two ago.”

The population growth among Hispanics also kept the population steady in states that would have shown a decline or no growth, including Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Louisiana.

The non-Hispanic population grew at a slower pace in the last decade, at about 5%. Within that population, those who reported their race as only white grew by 1%.

While the population of those who reported only as white grew in number in that time, from 196.6 million to 196.8 million, its proportion of the total U.S. population declined to 64% from 69%.

As in the 2000 census, individuals were asked to identify their ethnic or racial background. As guidance, the Census Bureau said the term Hispanic refers to people who trace the origin of their parents or ancestors to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Spanish-speaking Central and South America countries and other Spanish cultures.

A 2008 Census Bureau projection estimated that ethnic and racial minorities will become the majority in the United States by 2050 and that about 1 in 3 U.S. residents will be Hispanic by then.

“Our country is becoming racially and ethnically more diverse over time, as is clear in the growth rates of minority populations,” said Robert Groves, director of the Census Bureau.

stephen.ceasar@latimes.com

Michael A. Memoli in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

(Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-census-hispanic-20110325,0,7508036.story)

History of Libya

admin — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:46:10 +0000

The Barbary coast: 16th – 20th century AD

With the decline of the local Berber dynasties in the 15th and 16th centuries, the valuable coastal strip of north Africa (known because of the Berbers as the Barbary coast) attracts the attention of the two most powerful Mediterranean states of the time – Spain in the west, Turkey in the east.

The Spanish-Turkish rivalry lasts for much of the 16th century, but it is gradually won – in a somewhat unorthodox manner – by the Turks. Their successful device is to allow Turkish pirates, or corsairs, to establish themselves along the coast. The territories seized by the corsairs are then given a formal status as protectorates of the Ottoman empire.

The first such pirate establishes himself on the coast of Algeria in 1512. Two others are firmly based in Libya by 1551. Tunisia is briefly taken in 1534 by the most famous corsair of them all, Khair ed-Din (known to the Europeans as Barbarossa). Recovered for Spain in 1535, Tunisia is finally brought under Ottoman control in 1574.

Piracy remains the chief purpose and main source of income of all these Turkish settlements along the Barbary coast. And the depredations of piracy, after three centuries, at last prompt French intervention in Algeria. This, at any rate, is stated by the French at the time to be the cause of their intervention. The reality is somewhat less glorious.

Algiers is occupied by the French in 1830, but it is not until 1847 that the French conquest of Algeria is complete – after prolonged resistance from the Berber hinterland, which has never been effectively controlled by the Turks on the coast.

It is in the European interest to police this entire troublesome Barbary region. Tunisia becomes a French protectorate in 1881, and Morocco (which has maintained a shaky independence, under its own local sultans, since the end of the Marinid dynasty) follows in 1912. Italy takes Libya from the Turks in 1912. The regions of the Barbary coast thus enter their last colonial phase before independence.

Italo-Turkish War: AD 1911-1912

Turkish control over over the region of modern Libya has been little more than nominal during much of the Ottoman period. In the western region, Tripolitania, the descendants of an Ottoman governor, Ahmad Karamanli, win hereditary rights as pashas in 1711 and retain them until 1832. In the eastern district of Cyrenaica real power resides with the Senussi, followers of a 19th-century religious reformer (al-Senussi al-Kabir), whose creed of a strict and simple Sunni life proves popular with the Bedouin tribesmen.

But the eventual removal of the Turks from the region is not the result of local antagonism. It derives from the wish of Italy, a latecomer in the imperial scramble, to increase her stake in Africa while there is time.

By the first decade of the 20th century Algeria and Tunisia are French. Egypt is British. Libya, situated between these French and British regions, is a part of north Africa in which Italy has been developing extensive commercial interests. In 1900 the French and Italian governments come to a cool-headed secret agreement. France has designs on Morocco, Italy on Libya. Each will allow the other a free hand.

In 1911 Italy finds a trumped-up reason to send a 24-hour-ultimatum to Istanbul, demanding the presence of Italian troops in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica to protect the local Italian population. This is followed a day later by a declaration of war and almost immediate invasion of north Africa.

The Italians make relatively little headway, partly because of a spirited resistance by the Sennusi tribesmen on behalf of their imperial masters, who at least are fellow Muslims. But by the autumn of 1912 Turkey, beset by troubles elsewhere, is ready to concede. Under the terms of a treaty signed in October at Ouchy (the lakeside district of Lausanne), Tripolitania and Cyrenaica are ceded to Italy.

The new imperial power soon also occupies Fezzan, a region to the southwest under Sennusi control. With the annexation of Fezzan, modern Libya takes shape – though as yet only as a broad area suffering and greatly resenting Italian occupation.

World Wars and Fascism: AD 1914-1945

In its short span of existence the Italian colony of Libya sees two world wars and the rise of fascism. These events have profound and differing effects in the region.

The demands of World War I cause Italian troops to be withdrawn until only the coastal towns of Libya are safely held. Elsewhere control returns to the network of local Senussi zawiya (fortified outposts around a mosque). After the war the Senussi leader, Mohammed Idris, attempts to achieve a compromise with the Italians. In 1920 he acknowledges their sovereignty over coastal Cyrenaica. In return he is granted the title of emir. But this uneasy relationship crumbles with the onset of fascism.

Idris flees in 1923 to Egypt, while fascist governors in Libya take strong measures – including the use of concentration camps – to subdue resistance in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica. (The two provinces are united in 1934 to form the colony of Libya.)

World War II at last brings the Senussi into a winning team. As enemies of Italy, they are natural allies of Britain and the USA. They play their part in the all-important campaign of 1942-3 which drives the Italian and German armies out of north Africa.

During the later stages of the war and in the immediate postwar years Tripolitania and Cyrenaica are adminstered by the British, while Fezzan is under the control of the French. But it is agreed that the future of Libya shall be referred to the United Nations.

The result is a resolution for Libyan independence. In December 1950 a national assembly representing all three provinces elects Mohammed Idris to be Libya’s king. As Idris I, he formally declares the independence of the new state on 24 December 1951.

Royal Libya: AD 1951-1969

Idris rules as an old-fashioned monarch, with scant regard for any democratic ideals. For the first eight years his realm is similarly backward, an impoverished region in which a subsistence economy is boosted only by revenues from British and US airbases and by international aid.

This situation is transformed in 1959 by the discovery of major oil reserves. Idris, with the luxury now of a massive national revenue, begins to assert Libya’s new independence. Negotiations are begun to secure the withdrawal of foreign troops from Libyan soil. But the king’s leisurely pace is suddenly trumped. In 1969, when absent on a visit to Turkey, he is deposed in a bloodless coup led by a 27-year old captain, Moamar al-Gaddafi.

The Gaddafi regime: from AD 1969

Gaddafi immediately becomes commander-in-chief of the armed forces and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council which now governs Libya. From 1979 he is known simply as Leader of the Revolution, ruling with a firm grip which means that Libya’s policies are entirely his own.

Gaddafi soon acquires a reputation as one of the world’s more eccentric and unpredicable dictators. The various roots of his political philosophy – Islam, Arab nationalism, socialism – are combined in his personal manifesto The Green Book (published in two volumes, in 1976 and 1980).

An extra element is added in a new name of the country, introduced in 1977. It is now to be known as the People’s Socialist Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. The phrase Jamahiriya (’government through the masses’) implies that power is transferred to some 1500 local committees. But the reality remains very much a personal rule by one man.

Gaddafi’s unpopularity on the international stage derives from his use of Libya’s oil wealth to meddle in the affairs of other nations. Locally this means often tense relationships with Egypt and Chad. Further afield it brings international condemnation, as assassination squads eliminate Libyan opponents living abroad and Libyan funds support terrorist activities in far-flung parts of the world.

In 1972 Gaddafi announces that he is supporting the IRA in northern Ireland. Libyan cash is also believed to lie behind Black Panther and Nation of Islam activities in the USA, as well as funding terrorist acts by extremist Palestinian groups.

To demonstrate US commitment against international terrorism, President Reagan launches in April 1986 an air strike (in bombers flying from Britain) against what are said to be terrorist targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Various members of Gaddafi’s family are killed or wounded, and he himself narrowly escapes.

A new escalation in Libya’s status as an international pariah follows the Lockerbie air disaster of 1988. A Pan Am airliner explodes over Lockerbie in Scotland, killing all 259 people on board and another eleven on the ground. Evidence later suggests that two Libyans may have been responsible for planting a bomb on board in Paris. But Gaddafi resolutely refuses to hand over the two suspects for trial.

This refusal leads to UN-approved sanctions from 1993. An embargo is placed on trade and air contact with Libya, followed by a ban on the sale of equipment needed for Gaddafi’s oil industry.

Libya in the 1990s is a place increasingly isolated by the vagaries of one man (by now one of the world’s longest established rulers). Almost immediately after taking power, Gaddafi expels in 1970 nearly all the Italians and Jews living in Libya. In 1995 he even throws Palestinians out of his Muslim state, along with citizens of neighbouring north African nations. He doubts their loyalty to Libya.

Thus Libyans, at the end of the century, are in a very real sense on their own in a hostile world. However isolation begins to end early in the new milliennium after Gaddafi allows the Lockerbie suspects to stand trial in the Netherlands. The UN sanctions are suspended, and Libya starts trying to attract tourists to its famous archaeological sites.

(Source: http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa83)

Last World War I veteran Frank W. Buckles dies at 110

admin — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 11:21:25 +0000

By Paul Duggan

Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 28, 2011

Frank W. Buckles died early Sunday, sadly yet not unexpectedly at age 110, having achieved a singular feat of longevity that left him proud and a bit bemused.

In 1917 and 1918, close to 5 million Americans served in World War I, and Mr. Buckles, a cordial fellow of gentle humor, was the last known survivor. “I knew there’d be only one someday,” he said a few years back. “I didn’t think it would be me.”

His daughter, Susannah Buckles Flanagan, said Mr. Buckles, a widower, died of natural causes on his West Virginia farm, where she had been caring for him.

Buckles’ distant generation was the first to witness the awful toll of modern, mechanized warfare. As time thinned the ranks of those long-ago U.S. veterans, the nation hardly noticed them vanishing, until the roster dwindled to one ex-soldier, embraced in his final years by an appreciative public.

“Frank was a history book in and of himself, the kind you can’t get at the library,” said his friend, Muriel Sue Kerr. Having lived from the dawn of the 20th century, he seemed to never tire of sharing his and the country’s old memories – of the First World War, of roaring prosperity and epic depression, and of a second, far more cataclysmic global conflict, which he barely survived.

Mr. Buckles, who was born by lantern light in a Missouri farmhouse, quit school at 16 and bluffed his way into the Army. As the nation flexed its full military might overseas for the first time, he joined 4.7 million Americans in uniform and was among 2 million U.S. troops shipped to France to vanquish the German kaiser.

Ninety years later, with available records showing that former corporal Buckles, serial No. 15577, had outlived all of his compatriots from World War I, the Department of Veterans Affairs declared him the last doughboy standing. He was soon answering fan mail and welcoming a multitude of inquisitive visitors to his rural home.

“I feel like an endangered species,” he joked, well into his 11th decade. As a rear-echelon ambulance driver behind the trenches of the Western Front in 1918, he had been safe from the worst of the fighting. But “I saw the results,” he would say.

He saw the world

With his death, researchers said, only two of the approximately 65 million people mobilized by the world’s militaries during the Great War are known to be alive: an Australian man, 109, and a British woman, 110 .

Mr. Buckles said he was just a naive schoolboy chasing adventure when he enlisted Aug. 14, 1917, after the United States joined a war that had been raging for three years, with millions dead. “I knew what was happening in Europe, even though I was quite young,” he told a Washington Post reporter when he was 105. “And I thought, well, ‘I want to get over there and see what it’s about.”

After the armistice, he traveled the globe as a purser on commercial ships and was caught in Manila when Japan invaded the Philippines in 1941. He endured 38 months of cruel deprivation as a civilian prisoner during World War II before being freed in a daring military raid.

In 1953, he and his wife bought a cattle farm with a Colonial-era stone house near Charles Town, W.Va., and there Mr. Buckles quietly spent the rest of his life, his doughboy tunic hanging in a closet. As his generation passed away, he held fast as a centenarian, doing daily calisthenics and immersing himself in books and newspapers.

Then, on Feb. 4, 2008, a Florida man who had been in Army basic training when hostilities ended in November 1918 died at 108. As best as the VA could determine, that left only Mr. Buckles, who warmly indulged people’s growing fascination with him.

He was an honored guest on Capitol Hill, at the Pentagon and in the Oval Office. School children, history buffs, journalists, younger veterans, and even Britain’s defense secretary visited him at the farm, admiring him like a museum piece.

“Well, I guess I’m famous now,” he said slyly. Not surprisingly, some were quick to declare him “a hero” – a notion he dismissed as sentimental.

The VA, established in 1930, does not have complete records from World War I. But amid all the attention Mr. Buckles received, no one surfaced claiming to have also served in the U.S. military before the armistice. Mr Buckles’s secret to longevity: “When you think you’re dying,” his son-in-law once heard him quip, “don’t.”

Letters from strangers, some seeking autographs, arrived at his home in stacks. He signed as many as he could until a frail hand forced him to stop. And despite the ailments of age, he went on championing his favorite cause: a proposal to refurbish the District of Columbia’s neglected World War I monument and rededicate it as a national memorial.

Appearing before a U.S. Senate panel in 2009 in support of the idea, Mr. Buckles greeted lawmakers and others as they filed toward him in a reverent procession. With his old Army ribbons pinned to his blue blazer, he seemed a memorial in his own right to a dimly remembered catastrophe that left an estimated 16 million people dead worldwide.

‘I was just 16′

Wood Buckles – his given name, recorded in the family Bible before birth certificates were required in his home state – was born Feb. 1, 1901, on his parents’ farm in Bethany, Mo. He said destiny seemed to side with him early, in 1903, when he and his brother Ashman fell deathly ill together with scarlet fever.

Ashman, 4, succumbed; Mr. Buckles pulled through and experienced a century. Few others born during the McKinley administration lived to have a Facebook page, as he did.

“My father took newspapers,” he told the Library of Congress’s Veterans History Project a decade ago. “I read about the war.”

The tangle of alliances and volatile rivalries among Europe’s old empires, the diplomatic deceits and blunders that ignited the conflict in 1914 were hard for an adolescent to sort out. But the din of rabid patriotism surrounding America’s entry into the war in April 1917 stirred his imagination, Mr. Buckles said.

“I was just 16 and didn’t look a day older,” he once wrote. After Navy and Marine Corps recruiters shooed him away – “they’d take one look at me and laugh” – the Army, expanding massively, inducted Mr. Buckles, who swore without proof that he was old enough to join.

A sergeant insisted that he needed a middle initial, Mr. Buckles recalled. So he adopted an uncle’s name, Frank Woodruff Buckles, and never stopped using it.

“Every last one of us Yanks believed we’d wrap this thing up in a month or two and head back home before harvest,” he said. “In other words, we were the typical cocky Americans no one wants around until they need help winning a war.”

In December 1917, as his Army detachment steamed for Europe on the British liner Carpathia, Mr. Buckles said, crewmen shared stories of the grim dawn less than six years earlier when their ship had been the first to reach survivors of the Titanic. From England, he said, “I was anxious to get to France, and I used several methods, including, I should say, pestering every officer of influence in the place.”

A lifetime later, recalling the scorched French countryside from the comfort of his den, he spoke of the weary, grateful German POWs, some of them teenagers like himself, who he helped repatriate after the vast bloodletting of the world’s first industrialized war.

One gave him a souvenir, a soldier’s belt with a buckle inscribed, “GOTT MIT UNS” [God with us], which he kept for the rest of his years.

In war and peace

The nation’s official toll from 19 months of war: 116,516 deaths, about half in battle, most of the rest from illnesses, mainly the 1918 influenza pandemic.

After his discharge, Mr. Buckles said, he paid for typing and shorthand classes and took a clerical job with a steamship line – a generation before the first G.I. Bill would make college and home ownership possible for millions of returning World War II vets.

He weathered the Depression at sea on his purser’s salary, regularly making port calls in newly Nazified Germany. He saw Adolf Hitler at the 1936 Summer Olympics, he said, and watched Jesse Owens anger the dictator by sprinting to victory in Berlin’s Reichssportfeld.

Then, in December 1941, he was working in a shipping company’s Manila office when Japanese invaders landed in Luzon after the attack on Pearl Harbor.

“Three years, two months,” he said of his captivity in the Philippines, eventually at a notorious camp in Los Banos. There, under pitiless Japanese guards, hundreds of Allied civilian and military internees lived in squalor, subsisting on often wormy rations.

“The starvation was so bad . . . it is surprising that any of us survived,” said Mr. Buckles, who was among 2,147 Los Banos prisoners liberated Feb. 23, 1945, in a risky assault by U.S. paratroopers and Filipino guerrillas.

American commanders in the fight to retake the Philippines had ordered the rescue mission, 25 miles behind Japanese lines, fearing that the guards would begin massacring the captives before the main U.S. ground advance reached the camp.

Mr. Buckles turned 44 that winter, suffering from beriberi and dengue fever. Deciding he had had enough adventure, he said, he worked in sales for a West Coast paint company after marrying in 1946. Then he settled on his 330-acre Gap View Farm, driving a tractor past his 100th birthday until the years finally caught up with him.

His wife, Audrey Buckles, died in 1999 at age 78, after which Flanagan, their only survivor, moved to the farm to help care for her father.

Because Mr. Buckles served just one hitch in the Army and returned from France with no wounds or medals for bravery, he was eligible under Arlington National Cemetery protocols only for inurnment in a vault for cremated remains. In March 2008, however, the Bush administration ordered a rare exception for an old corporal of the so-called war to end all wars, and for the passing of living memory.

Mr. Buckles wanted a grave site at Arlington and a traditional white marble headstone. And he will get his wish.

(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/28/AR2011022800165.html?hpid=topnews)

No Wonder AIG Needed a Bailout

admin — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:07:06 +0000

Richard Grenell

Longest serving U.S. Spokesman in the history of the United Nations

When you get a $173 billion dollar bailout from American taxpayers you don’t have to worry about making good financial decisions — especially when Congress and the Obama administration aren’t paying attention to what you’re doing. Ever since AIG got their enormous taxpayer bailout, they have been dragging their feet on paying back the money. In Taiwan, AIG has failed repeatedly in what should have been an easy sale of its local insurance unit, called Nan Shan. Most recently, AIG inexplicably chose the low bidder in a deal that Taiwanese regulators may have to reject for the second time. This is no way to run a company, unless you aren’t worried about the bottom line because you are owned and backed by the U.S. government. The American taxpayer owns 92% of AIG but has no say in its decision-making process.

Last year, AIG CEO Robert Benmoche said, “I’m confident you’re going to get your money back plus a profit.” But today, AIG remains one of the largest debtors under the TARP bailout program. The Taiwan example may be the perfect illustration for why they haven’t been able to pay the U.S. taxpayer back. As part of AIG’s original agreement with the U.S. government, it is required to sell off their assets. U.S. regulators assumed that meant they would sell them to the highest bidder. Since AIG is using our money, they have a responsibility to the American taxpayer to take the best price they can get, right? Well, not really. The financial wizards at AIG took the 4th highest price for their Taiwanese unit and left $800 million on the table.

AIG’s incompetence is on prominent display in Asia — and the Obama administration and Congress seem not to care. In its first go-round, which began in May of 2009, AIG tried to sell Nan Shan to a consortium consisting of a battery manufacturer with operations in mainland China and a Hong Kong-based venture capital group. Included in the consortium were people with official positions bestowed by the Chinese Communist Party. Astonishingly, it didn’t occur to AIG that this might be a sensitive issue for Taiwanese regulators. The deal was announced in September of 2009 and rejected the following summer by overseers. But few people outside of AIG’s executive suite were surprised.

Round two does not appear to be going any better for the bailed out company. Just last month, AIG chose a supermarket operator named Ruentex from 4 different bidders who wanted to buy their Taiwan business. You’d think AIG would prefer a finance company be owned by a company with finance experience, right? More stunningly, AIG reportedly left almost $1 billion sitting on the table — money that rightly belongs to U.S. taxpayers — in the deal. They reportedly passed over three would-be buyers, offering up to $3 billion for Nan Shan, in order to take a $2.2 billion offer from a company that sells more wontons than insurance policies. It’s no wonder AIG needed a bailout.

The outcome, which surprised not only onlookers in Taiwan, but Wall Street analysts in New York, continues to defy serious explanation. AIG claims the Ruentex offer was the most credible and best overall. But the deal seems suspect. Obama’s Treasury Department and Congress should be asking some serious questions. But the Obama team hasn’t even instructed our de-facto embassy in Taipei to talk to the Taiwanese government about the U.S. interest the deal. This means, nobody is watching what AIG is doing. But since AIG is gambling with our money, someone in Washington should start asking some tough questions.

(Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-grenell/no-wonder-aig-needed-a-ba_b_828411.html)

Abraham Lincoln

admin — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 04:45:28 +0000

First Inaugural Address

Monday, March 4, 1861

The national upheaval of secession was a grim reality at Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier. The former Illinois Congressman had arrived in Washington by a secret route to avoid danger, and his movements were guarded by General Winfield Scott’s soldiers. Ignoring advice to the contrary, the President-elect rode with President Buchanan in an open carriage to the Capitol, where he took the oath of office on the East Portico. Chief Justice Roger Taney administered the executive oath for the seventh time. The Capitol itself was sheathed in scaffolding because the copper and wood “Bulfinch” dome was being replaced with a cast iron dome designed by Thomas U. Walter.

Fellow-Citizens of the United States: IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President “before he enters on the execution of this office.”	1
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.	2
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that— I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.	3
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.	4
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.	5
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions: No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.	6
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause “shall be delivered up” their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?	7
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?	8
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that “the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States”?	9
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.	10
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.	11
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.	12
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?	13
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union.”	14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.	15
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.	16
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.	17
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.	18
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.	19
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?	20
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?	21
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.	22
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.	23
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?	24
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.	25
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.	26
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.	27
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.	28
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.	29
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.	30
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.	31
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.	32
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.	33
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”	34
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. (Source: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html)

The world’s biggest family: The man with 39 wives, 94 children and 33 grandchildren

admin — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 02:09:42 +0000

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 9:39 PM on 19th February 2011

He is head of the world’s biggest family – and says he is ‘blessed’ to have his 39 wives.

Ziona Chana also has 94 children, 14-daughters-in-law and 33 grandchildren.

They live in a 100-room, four storey house set amidst the hills of Baktwang village in the Indian state of Mizoram, where the wives sleep in giant communal dormitories.

The full monty: The Ziona family in its entirety with all 181 members

You treat this place like a hotel: With 100 rooms the Ziona mansion is the biggest concrete structure in the hilly village of Baktawng

Mr Chana told the Sun: ‘Today I feel like God’s special child. He’s given me so many people to look after.

‘I consider myself a lucky man to be the husband of 39 women and head of the world’s largest family.’

The family is organised with almost military discipline, with the oldest wife Zathiangi organising her fellow partners to perform household chores such as cleaning, washing and preparing meals.

One evening meal can see them pluck 30 chickens, peel 132lb of potatoes and boil up to 220lb of rice.

Coincidentally, Mr Chana is also head of a sect that allows members to take as many wives as he wants.

Feeling peckish? The senior ladies of the Chana family show what it takes just to make a meal

The wives and I: Mr Ziona Chana poses with his 39 wives at their home in Baktawang, Mizoram, India

He even married ten women in one year, when he was at his most prolific, and enjoys his own double bed while his wives have to make do with communal dormitories.

He keeps the youngest women near to his bedroom with the older members of the family sleeping further away – and there is a rotation system for who visits Mr Chana’s bedroom.

Rinkmini, one of Mr Chana’s wives who is 35 years old, said: ‘We stay around him as he is the most important person in the house. He is the most handsome person in the village.

She says Mr Chana noticed her on a morning walk in the village 18 years ago and wrote her a letter asking for her hand in marriage.

Shared bedroom: A look inside the four-storey mansion, Chhuanthar Run – The House of the New Generation

Another of his wives, Huntharnghanki, said the entire family gets along well. The family system is reportedly based on ‘mutual love and respect’

And Mr Chana, whose religious sect has 4,00 members, says he has not stopped looking for new wives.

‘To expand my sect, I am willing to go even to the U.S. to marry,’ he said.

One of his sons insisted that Mr Chana, whose grandfather also had many wives, marries the poor women from the village so he can look after them.

(Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358654/The-worlds-biggest-family-Ziona-Chan-39-wives-94-children-33-grandchildren.html)

Green is a way of life in Europe’s eco capital

admin — Sun, 20 Feb 2011 13:28:43 +0000

By Emily Smith for CNN

(CNN) — With its winding canals and large public parks sitting alongside a busy port and bustling business district, Hamburg is a city that contradicts itself.

But by combining its industrial strength with a commitment to reduce its impact on the environment, Germany’s second-largest city is becoming a model for major metropolises around the world.

It’s already lowered its carbon emissions by 15% since 1990, thanks largely to its efficient public transit system, and it’s set a target of reducing its emissions by 40% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

Hamburg’s eco-friendly credentials aren’t immediately obvious to those visiting the city located on the River Elbe.

“It’s embedded in their culture,” says Anna Shepard from Green Traveller, a website that specializes in helping travelers plan vacations that keep carbon emissions to a minimum.

As 2011 European Green Capital, the city is showcasing a number of its initiatives and programs — yet one more reason for environmentally-minded travelers to visit.

WHAT TO SEE & DO

To get the best sense of what the city has to offer, head to the waterways. Alster Lake, located in the city center, is a hub for activities. One of the best ways to truly appreciate it is on a rented canoe or peddle boat.

Taking a public ferry is a great way to cruise the River Elbe, says Kim Sawford of Sandemans New Europe Tours, a service which connects travelers with local guides in more than a dozen cities in Europe, including Hamburg.

“They come every 15 minutes and take you alongside the harbor, the artificial beaches, stopping off at some little fishing villages just outside the city. It’s the best way to see the waterway.”

Hamburg boasts an abundant amount of green space. More than 16% of the urban area consists of forest, recreation and green spaces. Stroll around Stadtpark, one of the city’s largest parks which hosts open-air concerts during the summer.

The city is littered with beautiful old buildings such as the Town Hall, however for a glimpse at Hamburg’s future, head to the waterside district of HafenCity. Still under development, the ambitious urban project is being designed as a model for counteracting sprawl and promoting sustainable living.

GETTING AROUND

It’s easy to explore the city center on foot, and Hamburg’s public transport system is renowned for being easy to use and accessible, even for the foreign traveler.

But if you want to have more freedom when exploring the city, hop on a bike from the city’s StradtRAD network.

“I always recommend using it, it’s the best way to see everything and with dedicated bike lanes, you feel very safe,” says Sawford. Bike stations are located throughout Hamburg and can be rented by registering a credit card.

WHERE TO EAT

In a city where being green is simply a way of life for residents, several cafes and restaurants pride themselves on using local produce. And unlike other major cities, eating with an environmentally-friendly approach won’t cost you the earth.

Locals often head to the Sternschanze district, an alternative area known for its graffiti and street art, to grab a coffee and meet friends.

Ottensen is full of young professionals enjoying some down time. When the weather is good, the streets are filled with tourists and residents dining al fresco. Shepard recommends Café LilliSu, for what she says is the best organic coffee and cake in town.

Mutterland is known for its German specialties. The deli and café bases its delights on traditional dishes. It offers organic bakery goods and regional cheeses and meats, along with homemade soups and salads.

WHERE TO STAY

Outside the city center is The Okotel, a stylish hotel built using environmentally safe products. Windows are triple glazed, ventilation is controlled and even the floors are made from untreated wood.

The classical Hotel Atlantic is a favorite for visitors who want the convenience of having the city at their door step. “It’s very glamorous and old-fashioned,” says Shepard.

The hotel prides itself on using eco-friendly cleaning products. “We buy them in large sizes and refill them ourselves to avoid additional packaging,” says the hotel’s Jannika Eibach.

The chef focuses on local products to fill his menu, avoiding unnecessarily long food miles, and employees are offered financial incentives to use public transport.

(Source: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/02/18/hamburg.green.capital/index.html?hpt=Sbin)

My Go-To Places for Regional Italian Food in San Francisco

admin — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:31:53 +0000

By MARK BITTMAN

ABOUT 20 years ago a friend took me to Caffe Trieste in San Francisco’s North Beach for an espresso. It wasn’t easy to find a stand-up espresso in those pre-Starbucks days, but — more to the point — it helped me to recognize the strength and authenticity of that city’s not-especially-large Italian community.

Northern Italians, mostly from Liguria (specifically Genoa), were among the first European immigrants to arrive in San Francisco in significant numbers, right about the time of the Gold Rush. Perhaps because their arrival coincided with the region’s development, and because much of California is essentially “Mediterranean” in both climate and topography, their impact was profound.

It’s not novel to say that so-called Californian cuisine is essentially Italian (perhaps “Italian-dominated Mediterranean” would be more accurate). But no comparably sized city has more authentic and better regional Italian food — of all the cities in Italy only Rome has the audacity to support restaurants whose food originated in other regions — and, really, with the possible exception of New York, it may be said that San Francisco is the world’s best city for regional Italian food.

There have been better-than-average Italian restaurants in San Francisco for as long as I can remember, but at no time have there been more than there are right now. (The East Bay is equally good.) In addition to those described here, there are Pesce, 54 Mint, Dopo, A-16, Incanto, SPQR, Ragazza, Little Star, Adesso, Corso, Boot & Shoe and others. These four, all in San Francisco proper, are my go-to places for regional Italian food.

Perbacco

Now nearly five years old, Perbacco would be the best restaurant in the vast majority of American cities; here, where the cult of the new dominates, it’s become an afterthought. (It doesn’t help that it’s in the financial district, which is not exactly happening, at least at night — more’s the pity.) Few corners are cut and few accommodations made to timid eaters; this is not what the Italians would call a trattoria (unlike the other places here, more or less), but a real ristorante, an establishment that focuses on traditional dishes done in the highest possible style. The space is large and elegant — if anything, a bit sterile, though not unattractive. The emphasis is on the food of the Piedmont, among the most luxurious of regional Italian cuisines.

Yet two perfect examples sound anything but luxurious: tripe, slow-cooked in white wine and diced aromatic vegetables, with big white beans, rosemary and of course garlic; and pig trotter meat made into cakes, cooked very crisp, with a vinaigrette — known locally (in Piedmont, that is) as batsua, or “silk stocking.” Indeed, the latter dish, though as humble in origin as they get, is really high-class eating — carefully prepared and beautifully served — while the first could convert many who are repelled by offal.

Not that all the food here is challenging. The pastas are accessible and just short of incredible: agnolotti stuffed with veal and cabbage and sauced with a reduction of veal stock and grated cheese (a must); taglierini with a ragù of pork and porcini, with Parmesan; and gnocchi that were light, not eggy or doughy, topped with sheep’s cheese and hazelnuts. They all left our party clamoring for more.

Meat dishes keep the quality level high: a plate of salumi was brilliantly varied and heavenly; meatballs of pork and veal, lightened with apples, is a creation I wanted to replicate at home; hare cooked in its own blood — a dish I’d never previously taken to — was easily the best I’ve ever tasted. Everything was spot on.

Unlike too many good San Francisco restaurants, it’s open for lunch. The wine list is fantastic (there are 20 wines by the glass, most of them interesting), and the desserts are almost as good as the savory dishes. It’s a winner, and one that promises to stay that way.

Perbacco, 230 California Street; (415) 955-0663; perbaccosf.com. An average meal for two is about $100. (None of the prices include drinks or tip.)

La Ciccia

On my last visit to San Francisco I found myself near the once-remote corner of 30th and Church (I think this is called Upper Noe Valley, though there are disagreements) three times. One visit was to Incanto — which is good — and to Tataki South, my friend Casson Trenor’s excellent “sustainable sushi” restaurant. The third was my now-regular visit to La Ciccia, the Sardinian restaurant that holds close and well to its roots. Its menu, written in the Sardinian dialect (translated, fortunately), is small and appealing.

(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/travel/30choice-san-francisco.html?_r=1&scp=23&sq=travel&st=cse)

Profile: Nelson Mandela’s long walk

admin — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:18:17 +0000

(CNN) — Former South African President Nelson Mandela toiled for 27 years in South African prisons before gaining his freedom and leading his nation from white minority rule to full democracy. In the process, he became an international symbol of strength and hope.

This month he celebrates his 90th birthday with a lavish, star-studded concert in London that confirms his enduring status as a revered global icon. But his journey from young protester to political prisoner to leader of his nation has not been without heartache and personal loss.

Mandela was born in 1918 in the South African village Qunu.

He was the son of the chief councilor to a Thembu chief, and he soon became passionate about political reformation, founding the African National Congress Youth League in 1944 with lifelong friend Oliver Tambo.

Mandela’s natural leadership skills pushed him front and center during the ANC’s 1952 Defiance Campaign, which urged South African citizens not to cooperate with certain laws deemed discriminatory.

Mandela urged nonviolent solutions to the South African government’s political, economic and social oppression of the nation’s black majority.

His commitment to nonviolent change was tested, however, in March of 1960 when black protestors in the township of Sharpeville were fired upon by South African police as they gathered to protest a law that required all black citizens to carry passbooks at all times.

Sixty-nine people were killed and more than 180 were injured in the clash.

The Sharpeville Massacre sparked riots, strikes and protest demonstrations across South Africa, and the government declared a state of emergency.

But the massacre also highlighted the tragedy of apartheid to the rest of the world. The United Nations condemned the massacre, and its security council convened on April 1, 1960, to consider the ravaging effects of apartheid on South Africa’s people.

Inside the country, Mandela and his colleagues reconsidered the use of violence to further their cause for freedom. Mandela formed the revolutionary group Spear of the Nation In 1961 and was named its commander in chief. He slipped out of South Africa for military training in Algeria in 1962 but was arrested soon after he returned. See pictures of Mandela’s life »

Mandela had several previous run-ins with police, and he was eventually sentenced to life in prison for his actions protesting South Africa’s apartheid government.

At the time of his sentence Mandela made a dramatic statement that illustrated his overarching commitment to freedom: “During my lifetime I have dedicated myself to the struggle of the African people,” he said.

“I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But, if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.” Listen to famous speech »

During his long incarceration, Mandela nearly became a myth. He smuggled out notes of encouragement to his followers that read like pronouncements.

“Any man or institution that tries to rob me of my dignity will lose,” one note said.

He might have been condemned to hard labor in a limestone quarry, but Mandela’s unyielding moral stance held him high on a pedestal to his followers.

In 1990, it became clear to then-South African President F.W. de Klerk that Mandela’s release was necessary for the nation to heal.

Mandela was 71 years old when he walked free from Victor Verster prison, his clenched fist held high.

He’d lived a life of protest for a cause for which he’d been prepared to die. And now he would lead a nation on the brink of civil war to democracy.

Three years later, de Klerk and Mandela would share the Nobel Peace Prize.

“The policy of reconciliation that Nelson R. Mandela and Frederik Willem de Klerk represent provides hope not only for South Africa; it is also a shining example for the world that there are ways out of the vicious circle of violence and bitterness,” said Francis Sejersted, chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee as he awarded the shared prize.

In 1994, Mandela was elected president in South Africa’s first all-race general elections.

Since his retirement in 1999, Mandela has turned his attention to international diplomacy: He convinced Libya to hand over two suspects for trial in the Lockerbie airplane bombing, and he played a role in the Burundi peace process.

In 2005, he took up a personal cause closer to home. Mandela’s son, Makgatho Mandela, 54, died of an AIDS-related illness.

Nearly 5 million South Africans may have AIDS, medical experts estimate, and for many in the country discussing the disease is a taboo.

“Let us give publicity to HIV/AIDS and not hide it, because the only way to make it appear like a normal illness like TB, like cancer, is always to come out and to say somebody has died because of HIV/AIDS,” Mandela said in January at a news conference where he announced his loss.

“And people will stop regarding it as something extraordinary.”

On Mandela’s 80th birthday he wed his 52-year-old companion, Graca Machel, from Mozambique at a private ceremony in his home in Johannesburg, South Africa.

He danced at the double celebration surrounded by his grandchildren, family and close friends.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/06/23/mandela.profile/index.html#cnnSTCText)

Men: Avoid These Valentine’s Day Faux Pas

admin — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 23:53:15 +0000

Martha Rosenberg

Posted: February 11, 2011 05:36 PM

A recent poll revealed that while women plan their holiday gifts in advance, men often buy them at the gas station on the way to a family gathering.

Other men who resist the gas station consider the hardware store fertile gift-buying territory; if they buy a tool for their wife, then they will have a new tool. Or drill bits. Or a seed tiller. How would they like it if we “gave” them new linens or a coffee pot for Valentine’s Day? A yoga mat?

Of course, few believe that women’s feet are smaller than men’s so we can get closer to the kitchen sink — anymore. Nor does anyone laugh at the joke about the man who didn’t realize his wife had passed away until the dishes piled up. But our feet are smaller. That means the size large slippers men pick up at the drug store — along with the frozen box of candy — fit like snow shoes or snorkel fins.

And speaking of romantic, men, don’t tell your wife or girlfriend she looks beautiful by the light of one candle. Impaired observer compliments haven’t worked since Blanche DuBois covered the light bulbs in Streetcar Named Desire to look younger.

If your wife or girlfriend spent three hours getting blond streaks, asymmetrical layers or a weave at the salon, don’t say, “Hey, you got a hair cut.”

If she’s wearing a clingy, turquoise, silk top with beading, don’t say, “Nice dress.” If she’s wearing a cheetah-print tank dress from Bebe, don’t say, “Nice skirt.”

Dress is a noun to women, not an adjective, as it is to men. It is fanned out by colors like navy, cornflower, robin’s egg and azure — all of which men call what? “Blue.”

Few things make women feel more under-appreciated and romantically obsolete than wearing rubber gloves, a dust mask and eau de Lysol. Yet how often do men think to help her with the housework, not just lifting their legs while she vacuums around their camp site on the couch?

Any man who says, “Don’t touch the windows,” and, “Don’t eat that in here” about his car or, “Don’t step on the seeds” about his lawn has the concept of housecleaning. All he has to do is enlarge its application.

But give men the controls to our housework workhouse, the vacuum cleaner, and they think it’s a game. You wonder why they’re spending so long in the hallway and find them trying to vacuum a penny! If this little experiment works, the vacuum will rattle, smoke and stop working. (Right. That’s why they do it.)

They’ll clean with a dish rag after it’s fallen on the floor, as if the germ theory of disease is still a hypothesis, and they leave laundry in the washer for 36 hours — like they don’t know where mildew comes from. They’ll put dirty dishes waiting in the dishwasher back in the cupboard — thanks for that — and empty ice trays in the freezer. Don’t they know where ice comes from?

Still, even the most housework-impaired man can take his wife or girlfriend to a restaurant so she doesn’t have to cook — as long as it’s not a restaurant that gives you a beeper that vibrates when your order is ready, plays emo oldies and has Wi-Fi-ing tweens giggling in the next booth.

He can buy her something sexy to wear — or not wear — as long as it’s not marked “large,” isn’t a snuggie and doesn’t have the price tag attached.

And he can give her something metallic and eternal in a small box — as long as it’s not drill bits.

(Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-rosenberg/valentines-day_b_821852.html)