| LOS ANGELES (AP) West beats East 148-143 in NBA All-Star game.
Breaking News Alerts may be sent before a story is available on Yahoo! News. A story should be published shortly. Search for related news on Yahoo! News Search. |
|
| | TV2Africa just uploaded a video:
Drug addiction is a growing problem in many African countries, but Tanzania is stepping up the fight, launching the first medication-assisted therapy program in sub-Saharan Africa. VOA's Ndimyake Mwakalyelye talks with fashion designer Asia Idarous.
African Americans' use of the legal system is important, given the trajectory of Reconstruction.. Sanders asserts that because federal case law to date has not developed a uniform definition for "cocaine base," the statute is unconstitutionally vague because his conduct may or may not fall within § 841(a)(1) depending on how "cocaine base" is defined. Sanders has the burden of demonstrating that § 841(a)(1) is unconstitutionally vague. United States v. Cherry, 983 F.2d 748, 754 (7th Cir.1991). In challenging a statute as void for vagueness, the defendant-appellant is initially required to establish that § 841(a)(1) fails to "define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement." Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-58, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 (1983); United States v. Antzoulatos, 962 F.2d 720, 726 (7th Cir.1992). More importantly, Sanders must establish that the statute fails to "establish minimal guidelines to govern the discretion of law enforcement officials." Kolender, 461 U.S. at 358, 103 S.Ct. at 1858-59; Antzoulatos, 962 F.2d at 726. The defendant-appellant does not argue that § 841 fails to define the criminal offenses for which he was convicted, rather he contends that the § 841(a)(1) prohibition against distributing cocaine base fails to "establish minimal guidelines to govern the discretion of law enforcement officials" because the federal courts have not arrived at a uniform, consistent definition of what constitutes "cocaine base." It is true that neither the statute nor the Sentencing Guidelines contains a definition of cocaine base, United States v. Shaw, 936 F.2d 412, 416 (9th Cir.1991), and that the circuit courts are not in complete agreement on the substance's identifying characteristics. Compare United States v. Lopez-Gil, 965 F.2d 1124, 1134-35 (1st Cir.1992) with Shaw, 936 F.2d at 416. However all the circuits which have addressed the question agree that cocaine base includes "crack." See, e.g., United States v. Jackson, 968 F.2d 158, 162 (2d Cir.1992); Lopez-Gil, 965 F.2d at 1134-35; Shaw, 936 F.2d at 416; United States v. Levy, 904 F.2d 1026, 1033 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 974 (1991); United States v. Williams, 876 F.2d 1521, 1525 (11th Cir.1989); United States v. Brown, 859 F.2d 974, 976 (D.C.Cir.1988). In the instant case, the record clearly reveals that the substance sold in two of the drug buys arranged by Sanders was "crack." Specifically, chemist Avedesian stated at Sanders' trial that the "cocaine base" (which Avedesian said is known as "crack") Ellis bought from Sanders on March 8, 1991 was chemically distinguishable from cocaine hydrochloride or powder cocaine because: "cocaine hydrochloride, normally the powder comes in the salt form which makes it soluble in water. Cocaine base or crack is missing the hyrdochloride, a salt, which would make that cocaine base, just [the] plain form of the cocaine, and its insoluble in water
PBS just uploaded a video:
| Hiram I |
|---|
| King of Tyre |
|---|
| Reign |
980 – 947 BC |
|---|
| Born |
1000 BC |
|---|
| Birthplace |
Tyre, presumed |
|---|
| Died |
947 or 946 BC |
|---|
| Predecessor |
Abibaal, ?? – 981 BC |
|---|
| Successor |
Baal-Eser I (Beleazarus I, Ba‘l-mazzer I) 946 – 930 BC |
|---|
| Dynasty |
Dynasty of Abibaal and Hiram I |
|---|
| Father |
Abibaal |
|---|
| Mother |
unknown |
|---|
Hiram I ( Hebrew: חִירָם, "high-born"; Standard Hebrew Ḥiram, Tiberian vocalization Ḥîrām, Arabic: حيرام), according to the Hebrew Bible, was the Phoenician king of Tyre. He reigned from 980 BC to 947 BC, succeeding his father, Abibaal. Hiram was succeeded as king of Tyre by his son Baal-Eser I. [1] Hiram is also mentioned in the writings of Menander of Ephesus, as preserved in Josephus’s Against Apion, where some additional information is given that is not found in the Bible. One such item is that Hiram lived 53 years, and reigned 34.
During Hiram's reign, Tyre grew from a satellite of Sidon into the most important of Phoenician cities, and the holder of a large trading empire. He suppressed the rebellion of the first Tyrean colony at Utica, near the later site of Carthage ( Against Apion i:18).
VOAvideo just uploaded a video:
As the political impasse persists in divided Ivory Coast, the West African country, which was once the region's economic powerhouse, faces further decline. VOA's Nico Colombant reports residents, diplomats, and analysts are very worried about the situation.
The Bible says that he allied himself with King David of the United Kingdom of Israel as well as that the status of both Kings was equal and that the treaty between them was a parity treaty (2 Samuel 05:11, 1 Kings 05:01, 1 Chronicles 14:01). After the death of King David, Solomon, a son of David, succeeded to David's throne and Hiram continued the relation with Israel through King Solomon, the upcoming power of the region. They were also equal ("אחי", meaning "brothers" 1 Kings 9:13, Amos 1:9) [2] Through the alliance with Solomon, Hiram ensured himself access to the major trade routes to Egypt, Arabia and Mesopotamia. The two kings also joined forces in starting a trade route over the Red Sea, connecting the Israelite harbour of Ezion-Geber with a land called Ophir ( 2 Chronicles 8:16,17). Both kings grew rich through this trade and Hiram sent Solomon architects, workmen and cedar wood to build the First Temple in Jerusalem. He also extended the Tyrean harbour, enlarged the city by joining the two islands on which it was built, and built a royal palace and a temple for Melqart ( Against Apion i:17). BereanBeacon just uploaded a video:
http://www.icr.org/article/ancient-teeth-overturn-human-evolutionThe evolutionary age assignment for mankind just doubled, according to new research. Teeth were discovered in an Israeli cave in a context of unprecedented age for human remains. This evidence refutes long-held ideas about human evolution, including the " out of Africa" story and the whole presumed timing of human development.
Hiram’s Reign
Hiram’s beginning date is derived from the statement of Josephus, citing both Tyrian court records and the writings of Menander, [3] relating that 143 years passed between the start of construction of Solomon’s Temple until the founding of Carthage (or until Dido’s flight that led to its founding). Josephus also related that Hiram’s reign began 155 years and 8 months before this event, and that Temple construction began in his twelfth year, 143 years before the building of Carthage. The redundancy inherent in these multiple ways of expressing the total years (the 143 years is mentioned twice, and the 155 years minus 12 years once) has guaranteed that all extant copies of Josephus/Menander that contain these passages give 155 years and 8 months between the start of Hiram’s reign and the foundation of Carthage. (One copy has 155 years and 18 months, but this is an obvious error for 155 years and eight months.) Modern historians have therefore had confidence in the 155-year figure and have used it to date Hiram’s reign. However, classical authors give two dates for the Carthage’s founding: 825 BC and 814 BC. The 814 date is derived from the Greek historian Timaeus (c. 345-260 BC) and the 825 date from the writings of Pompeius Trogus (1st century BC). The 814 date is more generally accepted, and so earlier historians calculated the start of Hiram’s reign as occurring in 814 + 155 = 969 BC.
know4life just uploaded a video:
My humble tribute to a Living Legend: The Honorable Louis Farrakhan. Clips were taken from: What is Saviours' Day? An Educational Compilation of Saviours' Day and World Friendship Tour: http://store.finalcall.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=HLF+WORLD+TOURDVDInformation about Saviours' Day 2011 http://noi.org/sd2011/Support Know4LIFE in our ongoing effort to bring relevant news and information by working with individual and organizations. Make a tax deductible donation today: http://bit.ly/gT1FIdListen to Know4LIFE's weekly radio show Tues. and Thurs. from 11am to 2pm and Sunday 7pm to 10pm est at: See the Pygmalion article for the proposal of J. M. Peñuela that 825 BC was the date Dido left Tyre, but she did not start construction of Carthage until 11 years later, in 814 BC.
In 1951, an inscription was published that showed that Shalmaneser III of Assyria received tribute, in 841 BC, from a certain Baa‘li-maanzer of Tyre. [4] The name Baa‘li-maanzer was interpreted by eminent philologists such as Frank Moore Cross[5] as referring to Baal-Eser II/Balazeros, grandfather of Pygmalion. According to Josephus/Manetho, it was during Pygmalion’s seventh year that Dido fled from Tyre. Consequently, the dates of Pygmalion have always been computed based on the date calculated for Dido’s flight, which was assumed to take place in the same that she founded Carthage. But when 814 was taken as Pygmalion’s seventh year, the dates for his father and grandfather, as based on the best texts of Josephus/Manetho, were not compatible with his grandfather being on the throne in 841 BC and giving tribute to Shalmaneser in that year. For this reason, several scholars reexamined the 825 date for Dido’s flight (Pygmalion’s seventh year) and found that 825 BC was consistent with the Assyrian inscription. For further details of the scholars involved and their reasoning, see the Pygmalion article. Measuring the 155 years from 825 BC gave a new date for the first year of Hiram: 825 + 155 = 980 BC. 980 BC also proved an excellent match with another date, one calculated from the Scriptural texts related to the reign of Solomon. Based on Edwin R. Thiele’s widely accepted date of 931/930 BC for the division of the kingdom after the end of Solomon’s 40-year reign, [6] Solomon’s fourth year, when construction of the Temple began (1 Kings 6:1) can be calculated as starting in Tishri (roughly October) of 968 BC. [7] Josephus, citing both Tyrian court records and the writings of Menander, says that it was in Hiram’s 12th year that he sent assistance to Solomon for building the Temple. With 980 as the starting date for Hiram, his twelfth year would be 969 or 968 BC, in excellent agreement with the Biblical date for this event.
oldmancabowabo just uploaded a video:
http://hermannmonews.blogspot.com/2011/02/wisconsin-governor-ready-to-call.html LINK FULL STORY
As pointed out by William Barnes, the date for the start of Temple construction using the Tyrian data is derived “wholly independently” of the way that date is derived using the Scriptural data. [8] It is this consideration, plus the evidence of the tribute from Baa‘li-maanzer/ Baal-Eser II to Shalmaneser III, that has led to the adoption of the chronologies of Frank M. Cross and other scholars for the Tyrian kings in the present article. Hiram’s first year is therefore accepted as 980 BC instead of the 969 BC that was favored before publication of the Shalmaneser inscription. Sarcophagus
The alleged sarcophagus of Hiram is located "two hours" walk southeast of Tyre, a colossal limestone sarcophagus on a high pedestal" [9], so-called Qabr Hiram. [10] It is not to be confused with the famous Ahiram sarcophagus Born December 25, 1849, son of John and Marilyn Butler. John was owned by Frank Collier and Marilyn by Ben Butler, both of Washington-Wilkes, Georgia. Ellen Butts (TX). Born near Centerville, Virginia. Mentions masters named William and Conrad, and a Dr. Fatchitt, who bought a birth-defective infant slave and pickled her in a jar he same Reconstruction-era lawmakers who extended civil and political rights to African Americans also made other changes that were not as democratic. Legislation in the late nineteenth century centralized state authority and systematized a body of state law around the concept of individual rights. Those changes built on trends from the late antebellum period, spearheaded by reform-minded southern lawmakers who tried to move governing authority away from local jurisdictions and create a uniform body of state law that slotted individuals into generic categories. Ironically, the efforts of these southern statesmen were not fully realized until after the Civil War, as part of the systematic reform of the region under the terms of the congressional Reconstruction plan and the dramatic revision of state constitutions under Republican rule. The institution of capitalist labor relations and the extension of individual rights to former slaves required a hierarchical legal system, which construed law as a set of universal rules, consistently applied within defined categories. Although most southern legal reformers who lived through the Reconstruction era bitterly opposed the abolition of slavery, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments, and other changes that came with Republican rule, their basic vision of the legal system was similar to that of Reconstruction-era Republicans. It is no coincidence that Democrats left these changes in place when they took over after Reconstruction. 51
... if any would not work, neither should he eat.
—II Thes. 3:10 When the Income Tax Amendment was adopted in 1913, one of its main but unmentioned
objectives was the plot to tax the “have nots,” e.g., the productive blue and white collar classes, and
leave the “haves,” the millionaire elite, tax free. In order to accomplish this purpose it had to be
presented as a humanitarian, generous and socially desirable measure. In keeping with Karl Marx’s
money-minded platform, it was an ideal method of taxing the middle classes out of existence. One
of the means to accomplish this end was the use of the tax-free foundation. The foundations were
designed with tax evasion and avoidance in mind so that under the guise of philanthropy, millions
of dollars could be used for the purposes of rearranging society in accordance with the goals of the
neo-feudalists.
The earliest of these foundations were oriented into the field of education, primarily at the
university and graduate level. Educational foundations had been set up even prior to the
establishment of the Income Tax Amendment and Federal Reserve Banking Act of 1913, but the
purpose of these earlier ones was to gain a footing in the teaching field of American colleges. The
purpose was to train, and ultimately control, the teaching profession and religious seminaries,
| 45 | The Browns, one of the great mercantile families of colonial America, were Rhode Island slave traders. At least six of them -- James and his brother Obadiah, and James's four sons, Nicholas, John, Joseph, and Moses -- ran one of the biggest slave-trading businesses in New England, and for more than half a century the family reaped huge profits from the slave trade. "When James Brown sent the Mary to Africa in 1736, he launched Providence into the Negro traffic and laid the foundation for the Brown fortune. From this year until 1790, the Browns played a commanding role in the New England slave trade."[1] Their donations to Rhode Island College were so generous that the name was changed to Brown University. Consider the experience of African American men during and after Reconstruction. The extension of civil and political rights to them also formally linked possession of those rights with citizenship—in the broader sense that civil and political rights were considered essential markers of citizenship and, more than that, prerequisites to participation as full members in the polity, whether at the state or the national level. That link between individual rights and citizenship actually redefined the basis of participation in law and governance. As Redemption and Jim Crow rolled back the legal changes of the Reconstruction era, the subsequent denial of those individual rights had devastating effects for men, denying them what had become the only entry to law and governance. That outcome highlights the problems of relying on the conventional, theoretical legal subject—a (masculine) individual with an unrestricted array of civil and political rights—as the historical standard against which to measure historical change. In legal practice, most men were more like women, in the sense that they never enjoyed the full array of rights associated with that theoretical individual. Assessing change in those terms—that is, the acquisition or loss of individual rights—fails to capture the complexities of most Americans' legal status and the radical changes they experienced in that regard. Moreover, the trajectory of change in the Reconstruction-era South suggests the limits inherent within legal changes that emphasized individual rights and that usually are associated with democracy and political progress. Although individual rights held great promise, they arrived with new legal institutions that undermined other forms of access to law that had existed within a localized system. In that localized system, a person's subordination and lack of rights were not always a barrier either to making claims on the community or to participation in the basic processes of community governance.The Cherokee national government freed their slaves in June 1863, the only one of the Five Nations to do so until after the war, although few slave holders acknowledged this law. Black Indians joined both the Union and Confederate armies, leaving their elderly, women, and children behind. Many slaveholding Indians sold their slaves and left the territory. Others remained on their lands until the violence forced them to retreat with their slaves to Arkansas or south to the Red River and into Texas. Black Indian refugees fled to Kansas, moved onto the farm lands previously occupied by their owners, or huddled for protection near Fort Gibson. Hunger, disease, exposure, fear, and violence marked their lives. When the war ended with Cherokee Brig. Gen. Stand Watie's surrender in June 1865, the Five Nations no longer exercised the autonomy over their own tribal affairs.Status without Rights: African Americans and the Tangled History of Law and Governance in the Nineteenth-Century U.S. South
| During the Civil War and Reconstruction, black southerners regularly made claims through formal legal channels. The documentary record—which is voluminous at the federal, state, and local levels—has inspired a new generation of scholarship that explores how former slaves used the legal system to express and pursue their goals as free people.1 |
| 46 | | The emphasis on southern legal culture and African Americans' position within it thus reveals an important historical counternarrative, one in which individual rights were only one way to imagine and produce claims on the state. African Americans' persistent use of the legal system reveals not just the fight to obtain individual rights, but also the presence of a broader legal culture in which citizenship and participation in governance were not defined exclusively in those terms. Local court records indicate that many white southerners approached the legal system and other institutions of state governance before and after the Civil War laden with the same expectations. White women marched off to local officials to demand redress for the various problems in their lives. During the Civil War, they sent off missives to state leaders and Confederate officials, with every expectation that the government would deal with their personal problems. White men did so as well, requesting favors, transfers, and leaves as if the war should accommodate their desires. Even though white men could rely on their individual rights for access and could assume that their interests were central in defining the social order, they were accustomed to operating in a legal system in which individual rights were not the only way to define justice. Of course, white southerners' conceptions of that public order were very different from those of African Americans. But the way they viewed the process of achieving that order—however it might be defined—was strikingly similar. Turning our attention to people at these local levels provides a different understanding of legal and political history. In this history, ordinary men and women without civil and political rights would have more substantive roles. This history also would be based in a different narrative of political development, one defined through expansive historical contests over the content of the public order, instead of the acquisition of individual rights. | 47 |
This article first appeared as a paper for the Fourth Avignon Conference on Slavery and Forced Labor, Avignon, France, October 2002. I would like to thank Michael Grossberg, Robert Schneider, and the reviewers for the AHR, whose thorough, thoughtful critiques challenged me to clarify the central arguments in this piece. I thank Priscilla Wald, Dylan Penningroth, Giovanna Benadusi, Joe Miller, Chris Tomlins, Adrienne Davis, Gunther Peck, Jolie Olcott, the audience at the Jean Gimbel Lane Humanities Lecture at Northwestern University (2006), and the participants at the Political History Workshop at the University of Chicago (2006) for their invaluable comments. The biggest debts are to John McAllister, whose insights were crucial in shaping the article, and to Jacquelyn Hall, who read innumerable drafts and whose thoughts on writing and history have been an inspiration. I also thank Kirsten Delegard, Kelly Kennington, and Alisa Harrison for research assistance. A National Endowment for the Humanities Postdoctoral Fellowship, a Mellon Postdoctoral Fellowship in the Humanities at the Newberry Library, and leaves from Duke University provided time to research and write.
Laura F. Edwards is Professor of History at Duke University. She is author of Gendered Strife and Confusion: The Political Culture of Reconstruction (1997) and Scarlett Doesn't Live Here Anymore: Southern Women and the Civil War Era (2000). She is currently working on a new book project, The People and Their Peace: The Re-constitution of Governance in the Post-Revolutionary U.S. South.
|
| | |
http://about.me/mikekib1/bio
Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment