text:
day I die.

 * Incidentally, it seems to me that's why Andrew Cohen tells his students to be fearless and deadly serious. It takes that kind of one-pointed commitment to detach from the delusion of feelings and finally discover the blessing of the valiant; once freed of personal feelings the troublesome mind stops forever.

 * Enlightenment is enlightenment. And that's that. It's an unalterable, unwavering state of knowledge and being beyond doubt, a completion every moment by grace of the Most High, the unspeakable one, God. That's the ultimate; the absolute being beyond any description. But the ultimate, the enlightenment of man, must translate into his living life. And to me and my teaching that means an enlightened man is liberated from unhappiness. Being and living free of unhappiness is the natural and simple state of all life on earth - except man. He has been misled away from it by spiritual lures and glamour and the result is the conflict and pain, the fluctuating unhappiness, of his short life.

 * Enlightenment can't be pursued or sought after. [...] Truth is here now; no past, no future. People are unenlightened only because they believe in the truth of the past and therefore must look to the rewards of the future. To be enlightened, to return to the original state of life on earth, requires action now in the present with no reference to the past. What has to be done is to kill the old priest in you, starve out the traditionalist, the follower, the believer.

 * In other words, to be enlightened of the acquired burden every spiritual belief and notion has to be abandoned, every reference to what any spiritual teacher or master has ever said must be set aside. What does that leave? Your own experience. Not your historical or memorable experience, for that's the problem. Your own experience is your self-knowledge of life. Let's establish once and for all what this means now. Forget everything I've said in this article except this question: Do I want to suffer or not suffer NOW? That's the only truth for you. There's no tradition, no past, no discussion in it. It's all you need. Keep it with you and at the next temptation to suffer it will prevent you suffering. But only if you've learned in your own experience what causes you to suffer. If you haven't learned that, you're still attached to suffering and will unwittingly embrace it. In that case you have to read on, take more time and ask yourself more questions.

 * Have you learned yet that you only suffer when you think about events or feel about them, that you don't suffer from events themselves? Have you learned yet that every thought about yourself is a thought of the past, that worry is thinking and that all thinking eventually leads to worry, fear and insecurity? If so, each time you go to think, or catch the thinker thinking even about "good" things like last night's movie, don't; stop. Not because Barry Long says so but because you've realised the truth of thinking in your own experience. It's what you've learned from life, not from someone else's experience. Therefore it is the truth for you now and every moment. Otherwise you must go on thinking and go on suffering. One day, when you've had enough of the pain, you'll come to your senses. Have you learned yet that every feeling is a feeling of the past and that every "good" feeling soon changes and eventually becomes the feeling of doubt, confusion, boredom or sorrow? If so, stop believing your feelings; don't act on them; wait.

 * Action will happen in its own time. Action taken on strength of feelings inevitably leads to more feelings to correct the action previously taken - and so the feelings of discontent and conflict, and corrective actions go on and on repeating themselves.

 * If in your own experience you haven't yet learned the truth of the deception of feelings, then you just have to go on believing and thinking, having faith in the past and hope in the future, being happy today and unhappy tomorrow, but never being in command of your own life for long.

Love is not a feeling ~ The Interview (1995)

 * An interview of Barry Long by Hal Blacker, editor of What is Enlightenment magazine, published in What is Enlightenment magazine, Volume 4, Number 2, Summer 1995.

 * Love is the state of enlightenment and enlightenment is the state of love. You can't make any separation between them. Enlightenment is the state of no feelings and pure knowledge and so is love.

 * All your problems come down to love. Your love life is what your problem is, and everybody else's on earth. God in existence is man and woman. There's nothing else. And unless you have loved God in existence - your duality which is woman or man - unless you have united with that through love and devotion without going through your feelings of love, you're not going to be enlightened.

 * The love of man and woman is the beginning of the love of God. You can realise God within like many men have done. It's one of the rarest things on earth to realise God, but everybody seems to think that that's the end. Where I come from, realising God was the easy part of it. That God of love which is already here anyway - who wouldn't be able to realise it? The difficult part is to bring that God into this world where God or love is not, into that body listening to these words and this body speaking them. That's the task.

 * Do you know what humanity is, what the word "human" means? The word human where I come from - which is the enlightened state - means suffering. So when you say you're a human being, you're saying you're a suffering being. And I say you have to get rid of your suffering and then be being. Enlightenment is the state of being which I am, this moment and every moment. So I'm not suffering. But humanity loves to suffer. People love to suffer because they love to get excited with their feelings. All you've got to do is get rid of your feelings, which are always negative. Why not get rid of the whole lot of it, now? That means you don't know feelings and then you don't know negativity, and then you'd be in love, and then you would love everybody by not loving anybody in particular as a feeling. That's the state of enlightenment.

 * Yes, well I noticed that in your last issues' interviews with those Eastern teachers ["From light to Light," Jan. 1995], emptiness was mentioned a lot. I find that a wrong word. Because in God realisation and being one with God the Most High, the unspeakable one, there's no sense whatsoever of ever having done anything yourself. It is all done for you. It's by grace. And so it's not being empty, it's being emptied. There's a different emphasis or a different connotation to that.
 * Response to the question "You write, "Enlightenment is to be emptied (not empty) of feelings and thus at one with the purest sensation of divine being." What's the distinction here between being "emptied" and being "empty" of feelings?"

Allow the humblest man an equal chance (1860)

 * "Allow the humblest man an equal chance" speech (6 March 1860) at New Haven, Connecticut

 * The truth is, that this question is one of national importance, and we cannot help dealing with it: we must do something about it, whether we will or not. We cannot avoid it; the subject is one we cannot avoid considering; we can no more avoid it than a man can live without eating. It is upon us; it attaches to the body politic as much and as closely as the natural wants attach to our natural bodies. Now I think it important that this matter should be taken up in earnest, and really settled. And one way to bring about a true settlement of the question is to understand its true magnitude.

 * Look at the magnitude of this subject! One sixth of our population, in round numbers -- not quite one sixth, and yet more than a seventh, -- about one sixth of the whole population of the United States are slaves! The owners of these slaves consider them property. The effect upon the minds of the owners is that of property, and nothing else -- it induces them to insist upon all that will favorably affect its value as property, to demand laws and institutions and a public policy that shall increase and secure its value, and make it durable, lasting and universal. The effect on the minds of the owners is to persuade them that there is no wrong in it. The slaveholder does not like to be considered a mean fellow, for holding that species of property, and hence he has to struggle within himself and sets about arguing himself into the belief that Slavery is right. The property influences his mind. [...] Certain it is, that this two thousand million of dollars, invested in this species of property, all so concentrated that the mind can grasp it at once -- this immense pecuniary interest, has its influence upon their minds.

 * To us it appears natural to think that slaves are human beings; men, not property; that some of the things, at least, stated about men in the Declaration of Independence apply to them as well as to us. I say, we think, most of us, that this Charter of Freedom applies to the slave as well as to ourselves, that the class of arguments put forward to batter down that idea, are also calculated to break down the very idea of a free government, even for white men, and to undermine the very foundations of free society. We think Slavery a great moral wrong, and while we do not claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a wrong in the Territories, where our votes will reach it. We think that a respect for ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the God that made us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes will properly reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free white men -- in short, we think Slavery a great moral, social and political evil, tolerable only because, and so far as its actual existence makes it necessary to tolerate it, and that beyond that, it ought to be treated as a wrong.

 * No policy that does not rest upon some philosophical public opinion can be permanently maintained. And hence, there are but two policies in regard to Slavery that can be at all maintained. The first, based on the property view that Slavery is right, conforms to that idea throughout, and demands that we shall do everything for it that we ought to do if it were right. We must sweep away all opposition, for opposition to the right is wrong; we must agree that Slavery is right, and we must adopt the idea that property has persuaded the owner to believe -- that Slavery is morally right and socially elevating. This gives a philosophical basis for a permanent policy of encouragement. The other policy is one that squares with the idea that Slavery is wrong, and it consists in doing everything that we ought to do if it is wrong. [...] I don't mean that we ought to attack it where it exists. To me it seems that if we were to form a government anew, in view of the actual presence of Slavery we should find it necessary to frame just such a government as our fathers did; giving to the slaveholder the entire control where the system was established, while we possessed the power to restrain it from going outside those limits. From the necessities of the case we should be compelled to form just such a government as our blessed fathers gave us; and, surely, if they have so made it, that adds another reason why we should let Slavery alone where it exists.

 * If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I might seize the nearest stick and kill it; but if I found that snake in bed with my children, that would be another question. I might hurt the children more than the snake, and it might bite them. Much more if I found it in bed with my neighbor's children, and I had bound myself by a solemn compact not to meddle with his children under any circumstances, it would become me to let that particular mode of getting rid of the gentleman alone. But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were to be taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how I ought to decide! That is just the case! The new Territories are the newly made bed to which our children are to go, and it lies with the nation to say whether they shall have snakes mixed up with them or not. It does not seem as if there could be much hesitation what our policy should be!

 * There is a falsehood wrapped up in that statement. "In the struggle between the white man and the negro" assumes that there is a struggle, in which either the white man must enslave the negro or the negro must enslave the white. There is no such struggle! It is merely an ingenious falsehood, to degrade and brutalize the negro. Let each let the other alone, and there is no struggle about it. If it was like two wrecked seamen on a narrow plank, when each must push the other off or drown himself, I would push the negro off or a white man either, but it is not; the plank is large enough for both. This good earth is plenty broad enough for white man and negro both, and there is no need of either pushing the other off.

 * So that saying, "in the struggle between the negro and the crocodile," &c., is made up from the idea that down where the crocodile inhabits a white man can't labor; it must be nothing else but crocodile or negro; if the negro does not the crocodile must possess the earth; [Laughter;] in that case he declares for the negro. The meaning of the whole is just this: As a white man is to a negro so is a negro to a crocodile; and as the negro may rightfully treat the crocodile, so may the white man rightfully treat the negro. This very dear phrase coined by its author, and so dear that he deliberately repeats it in many speeches, has a tendency to still further brutalize the negro, and to bring public opinion to the point of utter indifference whether men so brutalized are enslaved or not.

 * But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party -- where are they? Let us apply a few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong, that you are not willing to deal with as a wrong? Why are you so careful, so tender of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a single thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will allow it to be even called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the Free States, because it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the Slave States because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such unsuitable places, and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!

 * It is easy to demonstrate that "our Fathers, who framed this government under which we live," looked on Slavery as wrong, and so framed it and everything about it as to square with the idea that it was wrong, so far as the necessities arising from its existence permitted. In forming the Constitution they found the slave trade existing; capital invested in it; fields depending upon it for labor, and the whole system resting upon the importation of slave-labor. They therefore did not prohibit the slave trade at once, but they gave the power to prohibit it after twenty years. Why was this? What other foreign trade did they treat in that way? Would they have done this if they had not thought slavery wrong? Another thing was done by some of the same men who framed the Constitution, and afterwards adopted as their own act by the first Congress held under that Constitution, of which many of the framers were members; they prohibited the spread of Slavery into Territories. Thus the same men, the framers of the Constitution, cut off the supply and prohibited the spread of Slavery, and both acts show conclusively that they considered that the thing was wrong. If additional proof is wanting it can be found in the phraseology of the Constitution. When men are framing a supreme law and chart of government, to secure blessings and prosperity to untold generations yet to come, they use language as short and direct and plain as can be found, to express their meaning. In all matters but this of Slavery the framers of the Constitution used the very clearest, shortest, and most direct language. But the Constitution alludes to Slavery three times without mentioning it once! The language used becomes ambiguous, roundabout, and mystical. They speak of the "immigration of persons," and mean the importation of slaves, but do not say so. In establishing a basis of representation they say "all other persons," when they mean to say slaves -- why did they not use the shortest phrase? In providing for the return of fugitives they say "persons held to service or labor." If they had said slaves it would have been plainer, and less liable to misconstruction. Why didn't they do it. We cannot doubt that it was done on purpose. Only one reason is possible, and that is supplied us by one of the framers of the Constitution -- and it is not possible for man to conceive of any other -- they expected and desired that the system would come to an end, and meant that when it did, the Constitution should not show that there ever had been a slave in this good free country of ours!

 * I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixed condition of labor, for his whole life. I am not ashamed to confess that twenty five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on a flat-boat -- just what might happen to any poor man's son! I want every man to have the chance -- and I believe a black man is entitled to it -- in which he can better his condition -- when he may look forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the true system.

 * You have done nothing, and have protested that you have done nothing, to injure the South. And yet, to get back the shoe trade, you must leave off doing something that you are now doing. What is it? You must stop thinking slavery wrong! Let your institutions be wholly changed; let your State Constitutions be subverted, glorify slavery, and so you will get back the shoe trade -- for what? You have brought owned labor with it to compete with your own labor, to underwork you, and to degrade you! Are you ready to get back the trade on those terms?

 * Let us notice some more of the stale charges against Republicans. You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section -- gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. The fact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started -- to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No? Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who framed the Government under which we live thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is, in fact, so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.

 * But you say you are conservative -- eminently conservative while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slavetrade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the Judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rin-ciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" [great laughter,] but never a man among you in favor of Federal prohibition of Slavery in Federal Territories, according to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. And yet you draw yourselves up and say "We are eminently conservative!"

 * It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. [...] we must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches, we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them, Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

 * These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only; cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly -- done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated -- we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that Slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State Constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected of all taint of opposition to Slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. So long as we call Slavery wrong, whenever a slave runs away they will overlook the obvious fact that he ran because he was oppressed, and declare he was stolen off. Whenever a master cuts his slaves with the lash, and they cry out under it, he will overlook the obvious fact that the negroes cry out because they are hurt, and insist that they were put up to it by some rascally abolitionist.

 * Slavery is wrong. If Slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and Constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality -- its universality; if it is wrong they cannot justly insist upon its extension -- its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought Slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this? Wrong as we think Slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored -- contrivances such as groping for middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man -- such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which all true men do care -- such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance -- such as invocations of Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington did.

 * Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might; and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it.

State Action/State Actor doctrine
Individual liberties guaranteed by the United States Constitution protect with exception of the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery not against actions by private persons or entities, but only against actions by government officials. With respect to the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court ruled in Shelley v. Kraemer, : "[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful." And the court added in Civil Rights Cases, : "It is State action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."

Vindication of federal constitutional rights are limited to those situations where there is “state action” meaning action of government officials who are exercising their governmental power. In Ex parte Virginia,  the Supreme Court found that the prohibitions of the 14th Amendment "have reference to actions of the political body denominated by a State, by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public position under a State government, deprives another of property, life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State."

There are however instances where people are the victims of civil-rights violations that occur in circumstances involving both government officials and private actors. In the 1960s the United States Supreme Court adopted an expansive view of state action opening the door to wide-ranging civil-rights litigation against private actors when they act as state actors i.e. acts done or otherwise "sanctioned in some way" by the state (Compare Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the state action doctrine is equally applicable to denials of privileges or immunities, due process, and equal protection of the laws.

The critical factor in determining the existence of state action is not governmental involvement with private persons or private corporations is not the critical factor in determining the existence of state action, but "the inquiry must be whether there is a sufficiently close nexus between the State and the challenged action of the regulated entity so that the action of the latter may be fairly treated as that of the State itself." "Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can the nonobvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance."

The Supreme Court asserted that plaintiffs must establish not only that a private party "acted under color of the challenged statute, but also that its actions are properly attributable to the State. [...]'' And the actions are to be attributable to the State apparently only if the State compelled the actions and not if the State merely established the process through statute or regulation under which the private party acted.

The rules developed by the Supreme Court for business regulation are that (1) the "mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment," and (2) "a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must be deemed to be that of the State."

United States v. Windsor
A day after the decision in Windsor, the federal judge hearing McLaughlin v. Panetta asked the parties to explain by July 18 why the logic that found DOMA's section 3 unconstitutional did not apply equally to federal regulations that control eligibility for veterans' spousal benefits, which define "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex." On July 18, 2013, BLAG stated in a court filing that in light of Windsor, they would no longer seek to defend this case or similar statutes in court, and sought leave to withdraw from defending the case.

In September 2013, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state's refusal to issue same-sex marriage licenses contradicted Windsor. Governor Chris Christie dropped his appeal of this ruling in October 2013 after the State Supreme Court signaled that they were likely to reject his appeal, making New Jersey the 14th state in the union to permit gay marriage.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor and the New Mexico Supreme Court's ruling in Griego v. Oliver holding that marriage licenses must be issued to couples without respect to gender four United States District Court judges (see Kitchen v. Herbert, Bishop v. Oklahoma,  Bostic v. Rainey, and De Leon v. Perry ) interpreted the Windsor decision as meaning that state laws defining marriage as one man and one woman are likewise unconstitutional. In December 2013, a U.S. District Court judge for example ruled in Kitchen v. Herbert that Utah's prohibition of same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, citing Windsor to support his findings with respect to Baker v. Nelson and equal protection.

A 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott (Case 11-17357, Case ID:8944502) resolved a dispute between the two pharmaceutical companies SmithKline Beecham and Abbott Laboratories whether gay people could be kept off a jury in a trial involving HIV drugs. It ruled unanimously on January 21, 2014, that, based on its reading of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, distinctions based on sexual orientation are subject to the "heightened scrutiny" standard of review and that "equal protection prohibits peremptory strikes based on sexual orientation". The decision was not appealed.

The Ninth Circuit looked at the Windsor decision and ruled that the Supreme Court applied heightened scrutiny, without naming it directly: “Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation.” The Windsor Court, the opinion noted, reviewed the actual purposes and justifications for the law i.e. Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and not under the more lenient rational basis standard where any conceivable rationale is enough to sustain a law. The Ninth Circuit court also observed that the Windsor Court shifted the burden from the same-sex couple to the government when it wrote that the government has to “justify disparate treatment of the group.” In sum the Ninth Cirucuit concluded: "In sum, Windsor requires that we reexamine our prior precedents, and Witt tells us how to interpret Windsor. Under that analysis, we are required by Windsor to apply heightened scrutiny to classifications based on sexual orientation for purposes of equal protection." In holding that heightened scrutiny is required for classifications based on sexual orientation within the Ninth Circuit the court in SmithKline Beecham v. Abbott handed down a ruling whose underlying rationale could have broad implications outside of the case with respect to “the quest for marriage equality in every state in this country and greater constitutional protections for all LGBT Americans,” Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin said in a statement.

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling the Obama Administration and several federal agencies began to extend federal rights, priveleges and benefits to same-sex by changing regulations in order to conform with the Supreme Court decision in Windsor:
 * Medicaid annouced in August 2013 that "all beneficiaries in private Medicare plans have access to equal coverage when it comes to care in a nursing home where their spouse lives."
 * All same-sex couples who are legally married will are recognized as such for federal tax purposes, even if the state where they live does not recognize their union.
 * Federal employees in same-sex marriages can apply for health, dental, life, long-term care and retirement benefits.
 * Legally married same-sex seniors on Medicare are eligible for equal benefits and joint placement in nursing homes.
 * Death benefits are paid to survivors of a same-sex marriage by the Social Security Administration.
 * The Department of Homeland Security treats same-sex spouses equally for the purposes of obtaining a green card if the spouse is a foreign national.
 * Starting on Monday 8 February 2014 the Justice Department instructed all of its employees across the country to give lawful same-sex marriages sweeping equal protection under the law in every program it administers, from courthouse proceedings to prison visits to the compensation of surviving spouses of public safety officers. This means among other things that same-sex couples have the right to decline to give testimony that might incriminate their spouses, even if their marriages are not recognized in the state where the couple lives; and that federal inmates in same-sex marriages are entitled to the same rights and privileges as inmates in heterosexual marriages, including visitation by a spouse, escorted trips to attend a spouse’s funeral, correspondence with a spouse, and compassionate release or reduction in sentence based on the incapacitation of an inmate’s spouse. An inmate in a same-sex marriage can also be furloughed to be present during a crisis involving a spouse. Same-sex married couples can also apply for federal programs such as the Sept. 11 fund to compensate victims of the terrorist attacks and are eligible in bankruptcy cases to file for bankruptcy jointly. Domestic support obligations include debts, such as alimony, owed to a former same-sex spouse. Certain debts to same-sex spouses or former spouses should be excepted from discharge.

Despite the foregoing efforts the U.S. federal agencies are not working in concert. Instead "they are creating a patchwork of regulations affecting gay and lesbian couples — and may be raising questions about discrimination and fairness in the way that federal benefits are distributed."

NSA phone data ruling
US district court judge for the District of Columbia Richard Leon on declared      on December 16, 2013 that the mass collection of metadata of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency probably violates the fourth amendment prohibition unreasonable searches and seizures. “Given the limited record before me at this point in the litigation – most notably, the utter lack of evidence that a terrorist attack has ever been prevented because searching the NSA database was faster than other investigative tactics – I have serious doubts about the efficacy of the metadata collection program as a means of conducting time-sensitive investigations in cases involving imminent threats of terrorism.” “Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood of showing that their privacy interests outweigh the government’s interest in collecting and analysing bulk telephony metadata and therefore the NSA’s bulk collection program is indeed an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment,” he wrote.

"The Fourth Amendment typically requires 'a neutral and detached authority be interposed between the police and the public,' and it is offended by 'general warrants' and laws that allow searches to be conducted 'indiscriminately and without regard to their connections with a crime under investigation,'" he wrote. He added: "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval. Surely such a program infringes on 'that degree of privacy' that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment. Indeed I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware 'the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power,' would be aghast." Leon granted the request for an preliminary injunction that blocks the collection of phone data for two private plaintiffs (Larry Klayman, a conservative lawyer, and Charles Strange, father of a cryptologist killed in Afghanistan when his helicopter was shot down in 2011) and ordered the government to destroy any of their records that have been gathered. But the judge stayed action on his ruling pending a government appeal, recognizing in his 68-page opinion the “significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues.”

As a consequence of proposals made by his NSA-review pnale, the Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technology, U.S. President Obama is considering as of January 2014 to propose
 * 1) court approval and review of national security letters compelling businesses, under a gag order, to turn over records about customer communications and financial transactions.
 * 2) to have telecommunications firms or a private consortium, rather than the U.S. government, store vast troves of telephone metadata.
 * 3) the establishment of a public advocate who argue against the U.S. government before the secret intelligence court FISC that oversees surveillance.
 * 4) the extension of the protections of the Privacy Act of 1974 to non-U.S. citizens.

According to the New York Times, The Guardian and ProPublica

Negotiations among intelligence agencies, the White House, lawmakers and their aides, and privacy advocates in the summer of 2014 led to a modified bill (S. S.2685) in the U.S. Senate. This bill version addressed most privacy concerns regarding the NSA program that collects records of Americans’ phone calls in bulk and other issues. Under the bill the NSA would no longer collect those phone records. Instead, most of the records would have stayed in the hands of the phone companies, which would not have been required to hold them any longer than they already do for normal business purposes, which in some cases is 18 months. The bill would require the NSA to request specific data from phone companies under specified limits i.e. the NSA would need to show it had reasonable, articulable suspicion that the number it is interested in is tied to a foreign terrorist organization or individual. The proposed legislation would still have allowed analysts to perform so-called contact chaining in which they trace a suspect’s network of acquaintances, but they would been required to use a new kind of court order to swiftly obtain only those records that were linked, up to two layers away, to a suspect — even when held by different phone companies. It would also require the federal surveillance court to appoint a panel of public advocates to advance legal positions in support of privacy and civil liberties, and would expand company reporting to the public on the scope of government requests for customers’ data. This USA Freedom Act version thus gained the support of the Obama Administration, including the director of national intelligence and attorney general, as well as many tech companies including Apple, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo as well as a diverse range of groups, including the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.ref>

Obsidian Press case
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages. Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. The federal appellate court thus essentially said that journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment and, in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does." The unanimous three-judge panel rejected the argument that the negligence standard established for private defamation actions by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1974's Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. only applied to "the institutional press." "The Gertz court did not expressly limit its holding to the defamation of institutional media defendants," Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the three-judge panel. "And, although the Supreme Court has never directly held that the Gertz rule applies beyond the institutional press, it has repeatedly refused in non-defamation contexts to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers." Hurwitz wrote: "The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones."

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Obsidian Finance Group LLC and Kevin Padrick vs. Crystal Cox (2014) that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless he acted negligently. The Ninth Circuit court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment and in the words of Eugene Volokh, a professor at the UCLA School of Law, that nonprofessional press, especially bloggers, "for First Amendment purposes, have the same rights as others do, as for example the institutional media does." The Ninth Circuit panel found the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. … In defamation cases, the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue -- not the identity of the speaker -- provide the First Amendment touchstones."

Obsidian Press case shortened
The Ninth Circuit Court ruled in 2014 ruled that liability for a defamatory blog post involving a matter of public concern cannot be imposed without proof of fault and actual damages. Bloggers saying libelous things about private citizens concerning public matters can only be sued if they’re negligent i.e. the plaintiff must prove the defendants negligence – the same standard that applies when news media are sued. The Court held that in defamation cases not the identity of the speaker, but rather the public-figure status of a plaintiff and the public importance of the statement at issue provide the First Amendment foundation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in 2014 that a blogger is entitled to the same free speech protections as a traditional journalist and cannot be liable for defamation unless the blogger acted negligently. The Ninth Circuit court essentially said journalists and bloggers are one and the same when it comes to the First Amendment because the "protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others' writings, or tried to get both sides of a story."

The issue whether First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to both the institutional press and individual speakers has never been decided by the U.S. Supreme. But every United States appeals court which adressed this issue concluded     that that the First Amendment defamation rules in Sullivan (1964) and its progeny case Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) apply equally to the institutional press and individual speakers.

While it is an open question whether people who blog, twitter or use other social media are journalists entitled to protection by Shield laws in the United States, they are protected equally by the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause, because both clause don't difference between media businesses and nonprofessional speakers. This is further evidenced by the United States Supreme Court who constantly refused to to accord greater First Amendment protection to the institutional media than to other speakers. For example in a case involving campaign finance laws the Court rejected the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by” non-institutional-press businesses.

Warrant
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement must receive written permission from a court of law, or otherwise qualified magistrate, to lawfully search and seize evidence while investigating criminal activity. A court grants permission by issuing a writ known as a warrant. A search or seizure is generally unreasonable and unconstitutional if conducted without a valid warrant and the police must obtain a warrant whenever practicable. Searches and seizures without a warrant are not considered unreasonable if one of the specifically established and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement applies. These exceptions apply "[o]nly in those exceptional circumstances in which special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impracticable." In these situations where the warrant requirement doesn't apply a search or seizure nonetheless must be justified by some individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. However the U.S. Supreme Court carved out an exception to the requirement of individualized suspicion. It ruled that "In limited circumstances, where the privacy interests implicated by the search are minimal and where an important governmental interest furthered by the intrusion would be placed in jeopardy by a requirement of individualized suspicion" a search [or seizure] would still be reasonable.
 * Your comment and content deletion is based on wrong assumptions. I'm gonna respond to your comment by dividing my response into two parts: 1.) Thor's dream sequence and 2.) January 2015 trailer. Thor's dream sequence: The main aspect of the content addition was the splitting of Thor's dream sequence into two parts and why it was trimmed down i.e. the opinion differences between Whedon and Marvel Executives, not the info about Tom Hiddleston. Since the info about Tom Hiddleston not appearing in the movie has been already mentioned in the article I reworded the passage accordingly. (See this edit and the edit summary. January 2015 trailer: The content addition wasn't about "the fact that an image used in the trailer never was featured in the film." The content addition was about the information Marvel's marketing strategy for Avengers: Age of Ultron i.e. why and with what purpose a certain image from Thor's dream sequence was added to the January 2015 trailer. And that information is not "trivial", but "distinctive" enough to be mentioned. Based on the foregoing remarks I offer the following rewording as a proposal to get consensus in this issue: Instead film makers decided to split Thor's dream scene into two parts, but the second part was cut because Marvel Executives felt introducing the antagonist from the 2012 Avengers film at this point doesnt' work. Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige explained a trailer scene showing a mysterious woman disrobing in a cave was added purposefully for marketing reasons since her appearance was "an arresting image" which in Feige's view would mean that "‘People are going to read into all this stuff.’"  Questions: Can these rewording be added  as content. And if not which information in which way can be added? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Afghanistan End of combat operations
After 13 years Britain and the United States officially ended their combat operation in Afghanistan on October 26, 2014. On that day Britain handed over its last base in Afghanistan, Camp Bastion in the southern province of Helmand, to Afghanistan, while the United States handed over its last base, Camp Leatherneck in the southern province of Helmand.

Afghanistan and the United States signed the BSA signed through U.S. Ambassador James B. Cunningham and Afghan national security adviser Mohammad Hanif the bilateral security agreement on September 30, 2014 in a cordial ceremony at the presidential palace in Kabul, Afhanistan. On that day the NATO Status of Forces Agreement was also signed, giving forces from Allied and partner countries the legal protections necessary to carry out the NATO Resolute Support mission when International Security Assistance Force comes to an end in 2014. Under both agreements 9,800 American and at least 2,000 NATO troops are allowed to remain in Afghanistan after the international combat mission formally ends on December 31, 2014 while also enabling the continued training and advising of Afghan security forces, as well as counterterrorism operations against remnants of al-Qaeda. Most of the troops will help train and assist the struggling Afghan security forces, although some American Special Operations forces will remain to conduct counterterrorism missions. The Nato-led ISAF mission will transition to a training mission headquartered in Kabul with six bases around the country. Under the BSA the United States are allowed to have bases at nine separate locations across Afghanistan. A base in Jalalabad, in eastern Afghanistan, could also remain a launching point for armed drone missions in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan. The agreement also prevents U.S. military personnel from being prosecuted under Afghan laws for any crimes they may commit; instead, the United States has jurisdiction over any criminal proceedings or disciplinary action involving its troops inside the country. The provision does not apply to civilian contractors. The troop number of 9.800 Americans is to be cut in half by 2016, with American forces thereafter based only in Kabul and at Bagram air base. By the end of 2017, the U.S. force is to be further reduced in size to what U.S. officials have called a “normal” military advisory component at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, most likely numbering several hundred. The BSA goes into force on January 1, 2015 and remains in force "until the end of 2024 and beyond" unless it is terminated by either side with two years' notice.

At the end of March 2015 U.S. President Obama announced to slow the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal by maintaining the current force levels of 9,800 troops through at least the end of 2015. This annoucement came after a request by the Afghan government under its new president Ashraf Ghani. Obama and Ghani stated the troops were needed to train and advise Afghan forces. According to U.S. official keeping the current force in place would allow American special operations troops and the Central Intelligence Agency to operate in southern and eastern Afghanistan, where the insurgents are strongest and where Al Qaeda’s presence is concentrated. Obama also stated to close the remaining U.S. bases in Afghanistan, to withdraw all but about 1,000 troops by the time he leaves office at the beginning of 2017 consolidate the remaining U.S. forces in Kabul. Those forces would operate largely in Kabul and protect embassy personnel and other American officials there.

title: User:P3Y229/sandbox


text:
Ed Zifcak

Ed Zifcak is an American retired ice hockey left winger who was an AHCA Second team all-american for St. Lawrence.

Career
Zifcak was a star player for the Burrillville Broncos as a junior player and his scoring punch garnered him an athletic scholarship with St. Lawrence University. He started playing for the varsity team in 1952, just after the team made its first NCAA tournament appearance. The Saints were a decent team in his first year with the squad but it was in his second year that the team began to dominate their competition. The Saints finished the year with an 18–3–1 record and tied for the Tri-State League championship. However, a loss at the end of the year to co-champion Rensselaer proved costly and the Bachelors received a tournament bid instead of the Saints.

Zifcak's scoring improved dramatically in his junior season and the Larries were again the class of the east, winning the league championship outright and earning an NCAA tournament appearance. The Saints faced Colorado College in the semifinal and had a difficult time scoring. CC held the Larries at bay in the first two periods before Zifcak broke through in the third but his goal was the only one for St. Lawrence and the team headed to the consolation game once again.

For his senior season Zifcak was named co-team captain along with Bill Sloan and led the team to another stellar season (17–4). The Saints made their third tournament appearance but because Zifcak was in his 4th year of varsity play (the NCAA limited players to 3 years of varsity play at the time) Zifcak was unable to play. Despite having to watch from the sidelines, Zifcak was named as an AHCA Second team all-american along with two other teammates.

After graduating Zifcak joined the US national team. While the team boycotted the 1957 World Championships due to the Soviet Union's response to the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, he remained with the team and played in the 1958 tournament. The team finished in 5th place with Zifcak being held scoreless in four games.

Zifcak continued to play hockey, appearing in games as late as 1967. He was inducted into the Rhode Island Hockey Hall of Fame in 2018.

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ed Zifcak


text:
Talk:Liberal Party of Canada candidates in the 1984 Canadian federal election

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1984 Canadian federal election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110828024857/http://stkittsdailynews.com/?p=705 to http://stkittsdailynews.com/?p=705

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


text:
To Your Eternity

To Your Eternity (不滅のあなたへ) is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Yoshitoki Ōima. It has been serialized in Weekly Shōnen Magazine since November 2016, with individual chapters collected by Kodansha into twenty-two volumes as of June 2024. The story is about an immortal being, Fushi, who takes on multiple forms and freely utilizes their respective natural abilities at will, including that of an abandoned white-haired boy and his white wolf, in order to further evolve and stimulate as it learns what it means to be truly human over the decades and centuries.

Ōima, inspired by her own grandmother's death, aimed to write about survival and the character Fushi, who initially is an emotionless stone but gradually develops a self and personality as a result of interacting with humans. In contrast to her previous work, A Silent Voice, To Your Eternity puts little focus on the characters' past but instead upon their future.

To Your Eternity has received acclaim in Japan, earning many awards and generating major sales. Critical response to the series debut was very positive, based on the emotional focus on the villagers and Fushi to the point of often earning perfect scores. Fushi's continuous character arc was praised while Ōima's artistry enjoyed critical acclaim due to its detailed facial expressions and environments. In North America, the manga is licensed by Kodansha USA for a digital and printed English release. An anime television series adaptation of the manga, produced by Brain's Base, aired from April to August 2021 on Japan's NHK Educational TV; a second season produced by Drive aired from October 2022 to March 2023. A third season has been announced.

Part one
An otherworldly being called the Beholder creates a white orb (later named Fushi by a rambunctious young girl). Fushi takes on the form of a rock, then a dying arctic wolf. Fushi meets a white-haired boy living alone who mistakes him for his pet wolf, Joaan. After the boy dies, Fushi takes his form. He travels to the land of Ninannah, and meets a young girl called March, who was chosen as a sacrifice to a large white bear named Oniguma. March names Fushi and teaches him the rudiments of speech, and how to use his hands. Fushi defeats Oniguma, and he, March, Parona (an older sister figure to March), and the elderly woman Pioran, are taken prisoner by Hayase, to Yanome. They escape, but young March is killed protecting Parona and becomes a spirit. Fushi part ways with Parona and leaves Ninannah to escape Hayase, who is determined to control Fushi.

Accompanying Pioran, Fushi begins to speak like a child. As they travel to Takunaha, they are attacked by a plant-like being that can steal Fushi's forms and memories, a Nokker. Fushi kills it, regaining his memories. In Takunaha, Fushi meets a boy named Gugu, who was disfigured in an accident after saving Rean. Gugu saves Fushi from another Nokker, and Fushi, Gugu and Rean become friends. For four years, Fushi refrains from transforming or creating objects in order to live as a human. A Nokker attacks and Gugu was killed in the process while sacrificing himself to save Rean, who becomes a spirit like March. Fushi leaves Takunaha, paranoid of Nokker attacks, followed by Pioran.

Hayase pays a girl named Tonari to lure Fushi and Pioran onto a prison ship to Jananda island. Fushi enters the island's gladiatorial tournament. In the final round, Fushi faces Hayase, who reveals she killed Parona, assuming her form. An enraged Fushi is defeated by Hayase, who captures and attempts to rape him. Tonari and her friends come to try and save him, but at the same time, Nokkers attack the island, and three of Tonari's friends are killed. Fushi kills the Nokkers, and leaves the island with Hayase, abandoning her to die in the ocean, where she is attacked by a Nokker. Fushi reunites with Pioran and travels to an uninhabited island, but she develops dementia. Before her death, she asks the Beholder to have herself reborn as something useful to Fushi, a horse that Fushi later acquires.

Fushi remains on the island for forty years, until Nokkers begin attacking humans off the island. As he prepares to leave, he meets Hisame, the nine-year-old granddaughter and reincarnation of Hayase. Hisame's left arm contains the Nokker which had merged with Hayase. The two travel to the site of the Nokker attack, where they meet the grown Tonari and Sander. Hisame tries to kill Tonari, and is wounded herself, but escapes. Tonari dies in front of Fushi, and becomes a spirit. Fushi rescues Hisame and refrains from killing the Nokker in her arm after she agrees to leave him. For the next two centuries, Fushi avoids extensive human contact, and is regularly visited by the obsessed Hayase's reincarnations and descendants; one of which is a male named Kahaku. They establish a religious cult called the Guardian Force, worshiping Fushi and opposing the Nokkers. After rival religions begin denouncing Fushi, Kahaku removes Fushi from his solitude to further improve his image.

The two are captured by Prince Bonchien, who had been instructed by Tonari to find Fushi. Bon lends his princely approval to Fushi and the Guardians, becoming a target for those opposed to Fushi. Bon witnesses Fushi resurrect a dead princess, but hides the fact from Fushi. Fushi is arrested by another kingdom and forced to demonstrate resurrection, but fails. Both Bon and Fushi are imprisoned, with Fushi encased in solid iron. Fushi escapes and rescues Bon, faking his death. The Nokker in Kahaku's arm warns that the Nokkers will attack the large city Renril in one year. Bon and Kahaku gather allies and warn the city, while Fushi further develops his ability to create objects from nothing.

In disguise as Booze Man, Fushi destroys and recreates buildings in Renril as extensions of his body. Hundreds of Nokkers attack the city, and during the battle March is accidentally resurrected. Tee of Bon's allies are killed, and Bon tells Fushi they can return to life. Fushi uses them to defend the city, resurrecting them where needed. As the battle continues, Kahaku's Nokker attacks Fushi, returning him to his original orb form. Bon kills himself near Fushi, giving him his form. Able to see the spirits of his friends, Fushi remembers them and returns them to life, and the battle is won as Fushi regains strength. Kahaku leaves the city with his Nokker, and later kills himself and his Nokker, but not before expressing his strong love for Fushi.

Part two
Fushi tells his friends he will make the world peaceful, and resurrect them after he has done so. He sleeps and spreads his body across the planet, to stop the Nokkers from returning. Fushi's friends live their lives and all die as Fushi sleeps. After 600 years, Fushi's body encompasses the entire planet, now at a modern level of technological advancement. During his sleep, the Nokkers become microscopically small, secretly living inside of and controlling human beings. Kahaku's Nokker lives in the brain of Mizuha, the eighteenth reincarnation of Hayase, and this Nokker leads the others in preparation for Fushi's return.

After awakening five centuries into the modern era, Fushi resurrects the eleven spirits following him, including his closest friends March, Gugu, Tonari Dalton and Bonchien. The Beholder transforms himself into a twelve-year-old boy, calling himself Satoru. Fushi meets a boy named Yuki, and Mizuha, who falls in love with Fushi, being Hayase's eighteenth reincarnation. Mizuha murders her mother, but she returns to life without Fushi's involvement, alerting him to the Nokkers' return. As he learns that the Nokkers are now living peacefully among humanity, Fushi becomes confused about what to do. He attempts to fight the Nokkers on his own, but Hayase's Nokker launches an attack on Yuki's school.

Hayase's Nokker is ultimately killed, and its organization collapses, but Nokkers continue living among humans. Satoru offers Fushi omnipotence, but he refuses. Before losing his memories Satoru reveals that he created the world out of boredom, then wanted to die in his creation, leaving Fushi to watch over it. After six decades, knowledge of Nokkers has become commonplace, Yuki dies, and Fushi leaves Yuki's home with his resurrected closest friends.

Characters

 * Fushi (フシ)

 * A divine creature who can change his form and grow objects from his body. He was sent to Earth to preserve information and experiences. Through his journey he learns how to communicate with humans.
 * A divine creature who can change his form and grow objects from his body. He was sent to Earth to preserve information and experiences. Through his journey he learns how to communicate with humans.

 * Nokkers (ノッカー)
 * Shapeshifting and parasitic entities that attempt to thwart the Beholder and Fushi's purpose in preserving all that exists. They are recurring antagonists throughout the series, one of which actually merges with the human Hayase, and continues to have some power over her many reincarnations/descendants over the centuries.

 * The White-Haired Boy
 * A young and lonely unnamed boy and the very first human being Fushi meets in the form of his good longtime wolf friend Joaan. After he dies, Fushi takes his form, often using it as a default appearance.

 * March (マーチ)
 * A young girl who adopts Fushi after escaping from a sacrifice ritual.
 * A young girl who adopts Fushi after escaping from a sacrifice ritual.

 * Parona (パロナ)
 * An exiled villager; a friend and older sister figure to March.
 * An exiled villager; a friend and older sister figure to March.

 * Pioran (ピオラン)
 * An elderly woman who takes care of Fushi. She ultimately dies of old age and is reborn as a horse who aids Fushi over the decades as per her dying request.
 * An elderly woman who takes care of Fushi. She ultimately dies of old age and is reborn as a horse who aids Fushi over the decades as per her dying request.

 * Hayase (ハヤセ)
 * (Japanese); Kira Buckland (English)
 * A warrior who tries to sacrifice young March and later killed her. She takes an obsessive interest in Fushi and his ever-developing otherworldly abilities. She served as a primary antagonist for the first few arcs of the manga, and first season of the anime. Her descendants and reincarnations then entirely devote themselves to protecting Fushi in her stead and intend to carry on her twisted bloodline for future generations as devoted cult-like unit called the Guardians.

 * Gugu (グーグー)
 * A young man who works in Booze Man's restaurant after being treated by the latter when he was nearly dying and thus covers his damaged face with a mask.
 * A young man who works in Booze Man's restaurant after being treated by the latter when he was nearly dying and thus covers his damaged face with a mask.

 * Shin (シン)
 * Gugu's older brother who abandoned him.
 * Gugu's older brother who abandoned him.

 * Rean (リーン)
 * A wealthy young girl who frequents Booze's store as she befriends Gugu and Fushi.
 * A wealthy young girl who frequents Booze's store as she befriends Gugu and Fushi.

 * Booze Man (酒爺)
 * The owner of a distillery and friend of Pioran.
 * The owner of a distillery and friend of Pioran.

 * Tonari (トナリ)
 * A young girl who accompanied her father when he was exiled to Janada, an island for criminals.
 * A young girl who accompanied her father when he was exiled to Janada, an island for criminals.

 * Hisame (ヒサメ)
 * Hayase's granddaughter and the leader of a group called Guardians, who seek to protect Fushi.
 * Hayase's granddaughter and the leader of a group called Guardians, who seek to protect Fushi.

 * Kahaku (カハク)
 * A distant male descendant of Hayase and current leader of the Guardians.
 * A distant male descendant of Hayase and current leader of the Guardians.

 * Bonchien Nicoli la Tasty Peach Uralis (ボンシェン・ニコリ・ラ・テイスティピーチ=ウラリス)
 * An extremely eccentric prince of the Uralis Kingdom, who seeks to capture and get close to Fushi.
 * An extremely eccentric prince of the Uralis Kingdom, who seeks to capture and get close to Fushi.

 * Torta (トルタ)
 * Bonchien's little brother.
 * Bonchien's little brother.

 * Pocoa (ポコア)
 * Bonchien's little sister.
 * Bonchien's little sister.

 * Fen (フェン)
 * One of Bonchien's ghost confidantes.
 * One of Bonchien's ghost confidantes.

 * Nixon (ニクソン)
 * One of Bonchien's ghost confidantes.
 * One of Bonchien's ghost confidantes.

 * Todo (アイリス)
 * Bon's love interest.
 * Bon's love interest.

 * Cylira (サイリーラ)
 * The head of the Church of Bennett, a religious organization opposing Fushi, believing him to actually cause the conflict with Nokkers.
 * The head of the Church of Bennett, a religious organization opposing Fushi, believing him to actually cause the conflict with Nokkers.

 * Kai Renald Rawle (カイ・レナルド・ロウル)
 * An experienced soldier in the Uralis army.
 * An experienced soldier in the Uralis army.

 * Hairo Rich (ハイロ・リッチ)
 * A skilled soldier and a member of the Church of Bennett.
 * A skilled soldier and a member of the Church of Bennett.

 * Messar Robin Bastar (メサール・ロビン・バスタル)
 * A mysanthrope soldier, who is secretly a prince of Renril.
 * A mysanthrope soldier, who is secretly a prince of Renril.

 * Alme (アルメ)
 * The princess of Renril and acting queen, Messar's half-sister.
 * The princess of Renril and acting queen, Messar's half-sister.

 * Iddy (エコ)
 * A mute little girl from a distant village, where people use vases to communicate, who Fushi takes in.
 * A mute little girl from a distant village, where people use vases to communicate, who Fushi takes in.

 * Cam (カム)
 * A chubby and cheerful soldier of Renril, who is attracted to Yuiss.
 * A chubby and cheerful soldier of Renril, who is attracted to Yuiss.

 * Yuiss (ユイス)
 * A stoick archer in Renril's army.
 * A stoick archer in Renril's army.

 * Sera (セラ)

 * Sebas (セバス)

 * The Beholder (観察者)
 * The narrator and Fushi's creator who threw Fushi, as the Orb, to Earth in the series' beginning to observe it as it further changes form and acquires more and stimulation. He ultimately makes the choice to abandon his creation and have his own fey/vital spiritual essence reborn as a young human boy named Satoru.
 * The narrator and Fushi's creator who threw Fushi, as the Orb, to Earth in the series' beginning to observe it as it further changes form and acquires more and stimulation. He ultimately makes the choice to abandon his creation and have his own fey/vital spiritual essence reborn as a young human boy named Satoru.

Production
Manga artist Yoshitoki Ōima conceived the title To Your Eternity after learning that her sick grandmother was going to pass away. At the outset, she was only certain of the title's nuance, but could not arrive at a decision. With the encouragement of colleagues, she eventually chose To Your Eternity. The decision to give the manga a fantasy setting was taken for the freedom it afforded, with supernatural beings offering unusual possibilities. She compares To Your Eternity to her other works, and states that, while A Silent Voice focuses on characters in the present confronting their past, To Your Eternity focuses on the future. She also mentions exploring the theme of death in Mardock Scramble, A Silent Voice and To Your Eternity. The character Fushi originated from Ōima's work in primary school, although the setting changed before the series started. Fushi was originally to be female, but a colleague suggested a male protagonist for a different appeal. Ōima wanted to make the protagonist neutral, and said she prefers neutral female characters. Each volume cover represents a character's dream such as the first one, which depicts the unnamed youth finding freedom. According to Oima, Fushi does not want to forget the people he meets on his journeys.

Characters featured in the series are based on real life personalities. For example, Pioran reminded Ōima of her deceased grandmother. She furthermore expresses some guilt for having characters die. There are approximately 13 characters that are greatly affected by Fushi and which, before the series' beginning, would lead Ōima to the title, "Ash Swords of 13 People" (『13人の灰剣』), before being replaced by "To Your Eternity". When it came to drawing, March was Ōima's favorite character due to her short stature. Furthermore, Ōima says she likes drawing children in confined places.

The overall setting is that of a main character being "a boy who knows nothing". Ōima wanted the reader to find themself, like Fushi, in this situation where they do not know anything. It is for this reason that she did not give prominence to any character other than the hero. A common theme portrayed in the manga is death and immortality. To reinforce the blank slate themes, she decided to create a white universe, which was how she obtained a snowy landscape. As characters living in this snowy region are not part of an indigenous population, she decided not to depict them as, for example, Inuit. For research, she watched several documentaries in order to learn how to make the boy look like he was living in a world of "survival", with limited resources and skills. To accomplish this, she had to think deeply about what was practical under such difficult circumstances. March was created to be talkative and balance the quiet ones. The manga presents the climate, disease and the polar bear as obstacles to the human will. Ōima elaborates that people have to live with these challenges, and it is to show how to overcome them that she included them in the scenes.

Adaptation
Director Masahiko Murata expressed surprise when first reading the manga series, initially believing the young villager would be the lead character rather than Fushi. He felt that the themes Ōima was approaching were thought-provoking, which he found challenging. Murata stated that, as minor parts of the manga were changed, the anime would stay true to the original printed version. The official Twitter account of the anime series stated that the main theme presented through March (and later Fushi) was the notion of growing into adulthood.

In casting the actors, Reiji Kawashima's voice quality was befitting for Fushi—from his point of view. "The Observer", played by Kenjiro Tsuda, is a narrative role that was not all that involved in the story due to Murata's view that Tsuda's voice was "cool". The first episode only had two voice actors: Kawashima and Tsuda. The former expressed relief when working as he felt that Tsuda was a friendly person. Tsuda felt that Kawashima was a passionate actor, exemplified by his early arrival for each episode's recording session. Kawashima thought his character to be exhausting based on his varied experiences, while Tsuda felt Fushi was too mysterious. Rie Hikisaka, who plays March, enjoyed Kawashima's work and his interactions with Pioran. For the sixth episode, Kawashima expressed difficulty portraying Fushi's lines due to the fact that the character was learning how to speak. Ryoko Shiraishi commented that while she enjoyed voicing Gugu, the character's fluid personality made the work more challenging.

Manga
Written and illustrated by Yoshitoki Ōima, To Your Eternity started in Kodansha's Weekly Shōnen Magazine on November 9, 2016. It was Ōima's second series featured in the publication, the first being the critically acclaimed A Silent Voice. The series' first arc finished on December 4, 2019, while the second started on January 22, 2020. Kodansha has collected its chapters into individual volumes. The first volume was released on January 17, 2017. As of June 17, 2024, 22 volumes have been released.

On January 17, 2017, Kodansha USA announced that they would digitally publish the first ten chapters of the series on various digital platforms. Thereafter, they would publish the manga's new chapters simultaneously with the Japanese releases. The first printed volume in North America was released on October 31, 2017. The seventeenth volume was released on July 26, 2022.

Anime
On January 8, 2020, Kodansha announced that the manga would receive an anime television series adaptation, to air on NHK Educational TV. The series was animated by Brain's Base and directed by Masahiko Murata, with Shinzō Fujita handling series composition, Koji Yabuno designing the characters, and Ryo Kawasaki composing the music. Originally scheduled to premiere in October 2020, the series was delayed until April 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The series aired from April 12 to August 30, 2021, and ran for 20 episodes. A second season was announced in the final episode of the first season. Drive replaced Brain's Base in animating the second season, while Kiyoko Sayama replaced Masahiko Murata as the director. The rest of the main staff are returning from the first season. It aired from October 23, 2022, to March 12, 2023, and ran for 20 episodes. A third season was announced in the final episode of the second season. Crunchyroll has licensed the anime for streaming outside of Asia. Medialink has also acquired the series to stream it under its Ani-One brand. Hikaru Utada performed the series' opening theme song "Pink Blood", while Masashi Hamauzu composed "Mediator", which was used for the first season's ending theme.

Manga
The first collected volume of the series sold 29,288 copies, ranking 17 on the weekly Oricon manga chart. Its second volume ranked 34, selling 22,565 copies in its first week, while its third debuted at 41 with 20,445 copies sold.

The manga was nominated for the 11th edition of the Manga Taishō awards in 2018 and it managed to gain a total of 47 points. In 2018, Ōima won the Daruma de la Meilleure Nouvelle Série at the Japan Expo in Paris, France for To Your Eternity. In May 2019, it won the award for Best Shōnen Manga at the 43rd annual Kodansha Manga Awards, alongside The Quintessential Quintuplets. In both 2018 and 2019, Anime News Network listed it as one of the best series for young readers. The first five volumes were listed by the American Library Association as one of the best manga series written for a young audience in 2019.

The manga's narrative and setting have been praised by critics like Otaku USA due to its multiple fantasy and drama elements. However, he felt the story provided in the first volume lacked the emotional impact from the mangaka's previous work, A Silent Voice. Two reviewers from Anime News Network (ANN) and one from UK Anime Network gave the first volume perfect reviews, impressed by the narrative's depth in exploring the multiplicity of characters as well as how the first chapters handled the lonely youth who met Fushi in an Ice Age-like area. Two other writers from ANN wondered whether the new chapters would carry forward the emotional impact of the first. Anime UK News was engaged by the manga's first chapter based on the characterization of the unnamed villager rather than by Fushi. As the manga progressed, Fushi's character arc was the subject of praise as he was closer to acting like a human in contrast to his nearly emotionless introduction. As a result, writers felt the tone of the series was still tragic, thanks to the handling of this character. Manga News furthermore enjoyed the series' time-skips as Fushi's immortality allowed him to blend in with newer, more modern scenarios.

The critical response to the artwork was mostly positive. Anime UK News praised the way Ōima drew the pages, by giving the characters detailed features and the way its settings were presented. Similarly, Manga Mexico writer Tania Ávila praised the artwork—especially in the later chapters of the first volume. Fantasy Mundo noted that the drawings helped to further detail the characters and improve their emotional value. The Fandom Post felt that the artwork "is light on textures and right with detailed backgrounds once the story moves from the snowfields to the forest" and felt that the wildlife was often drawn strangely. UK Anime Network praised the way the backgrounds were detailed and how the author built the characters' emotions.

Anime
The anime adaptation also attracted positive reactions. IGN listed it among the best anime series of Spring 2021, directing readers to its portrayals of Earth's culture but refrained from further explaining the premise to avoid spoilers. In a Filmmarks survey, To Your Eternity was voted the ninth "Most Anticipated 2021 Spring Anime Ranking". In the website Anime Trendz, the series was often listed as one of the most popular series from 2021. In 2022, the series was awarded Best Drama at the 6th Crunchyroll Anime Awards, and was nominated in the Kids: Animation category at the 50th International Emmy Awards.

Three ANN writers gave the anime's premiere a perfect score, based on the emotional storytelling involving Fushi and the nameless youth, most notably when the latter, initially cheerful and talkative, quickly becomes filled with despair, as he cannot find any other people in the region. Similarly, The Fandom Post gave the series' premiere a perfect score despite having read the manga years before, based on the cast's performances and Utada Hikaru's theme song "Pink Blood" which helped to convey a moving story. James Beckett, from the same site, continued reviewing the anime and while still enjoying the anime, was afraid of it becoming too melodramatic. Comic Book Resources felt the adaptation series was well done and given an appealing soundtrack as the emotional scenes became stronger thanks to the music provided. Critics praised the bonding involving Fushi, March and Parona, noting how heroic they were for each other while providing opportunity for more entertaining scenes. However, March's death in the fifth episode was found to be heartbreaking. Fushi's increasing display of humanity was praised, with the sixth episode giving him enough screentime to become the sole main character. Fushi's fight with Oniguma was also listed as the seventh best anime fight from 2021 by Crunchyroll.

The prison arc, however, was panned by Anime News Network for lacking the appeal of previous arcs as well as the animation being poorly done.

title: To Your Eternity


text:
oksi

Etymology
From, , from , from.

Noun

 * 1) ox
 * 2)  bull

Usage notes
The old plural genitive forms øksna and yksna are found in place names, such as Øksnadalur, Øksnagjógv, and Yksnagjógv.

Etymology 1
From. Related to 🇨🇬.

This term was displaced by euphemisms such as, and  due to traditional Finnic beliefs relating to bears.

Noun

 * 1) bear

Etymology
+.

title: oksi


text:
Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3/testcases

2015 Australian Open – Men's doubles
Sandbox:

2006 French Open – Women's doubles
Sandbox:

2006 US Open – Boys' Singles
Sandbox:

First qualifier
Sandbox:

Second qualifier
Sandbox:

Third qualifier
Sandbox:

Fourth qualifier
Sandbox:

Fifth qualifier
Sandbox:

Sixth qualifier
Sandbox:

Seventh qualifier
Sandbox:

Eighth qualifier
Sandbox:

Ninth qualifier
Sandbox:

Tenth qualifier
Sandbox:

Eleventh qualifier
Sandbox:

Twelfth qualifier
Sandbox:

Thirteenth qualifier
Sandbox:

Fourteenth qualifier
Sandbox:

Fifteenth qualifier
Sandbox:

Sixteenth qualifier
Sandbox:

title: Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3/testcases


text:
Talk:Robotics/Design Basics

This goal is too simple. The ideal "robot" to traverse a powered track is not a robot at all, but an automaton: namely an electric train. A simple electric train may be purchased for less than the cost of an electrical engineering textbook.

 * Well what's the difference? One uses sensors and feedback decision-making to stay on the track, and the other uses mechanical forces (feedback) to stay on the track?  Where does one end and the other begin? - Omegatron 14:16, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The difference is how it acts when something goes "wrong". Let's say someone puts a big box on the robots track. Can it addapt? If it just bumps into it, it's an automaton. Otherwise if it looks for a way around then it could be called a robot. But that's my oppinion. The border between the 2 is very fuzzy. --Patrik 13:35, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this particular goal can be fulfilled (and at lower cost) by simple electric train, rather than a robot. However, I think this book needs some "simple" goals before working towards more complicated goals. Simple goals are good.
 * The lowest-cost "program" to display the words "Hello, world" is to simply write them on paper with a pencil.
 * But writing a program to display those words is still an excellent early goal while learning a programming language.
 * The lowest-cost hardware to blink an LED certainly does not include a microprocessor.
 * But programming a microprocessor to blink an LED is still an excellent early goal while learning embedded Systems.

Would an even simpler goal (simpler than "follow a powered track") be even better? --DavidCary 05:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Robotics/Design Basics


text:
User:Jrankin345

Jon-Mikol Rankin was born in the Grand Cayman Islands January 6th 1995 to parents Dwight Rankin and Renee Rankin. He grew up in the Bodden Town area of the island.

title: User:Jrankin345


text:
Tomos Moped

Tomos is a defunct Slovenian moped maker with several models including Targa LX and Revival.

How-To

 * Help! Show me how to fix ...
 * Tools You Should Carry With You..
 * How do I protect my Tomos...

Sound Guides

 * I'm getting a strange clicking sound and acceleration is poor...

title: Tomos Moped


text:
Gohtong Jaya

Gohtong Jaya (Jawi: ڬوهتوڠ جاي, ) is a service township of Genting Highlands named after Lim Goh Tong, the founder of Genting Group and Genting Highlands himself. It has several facilities such as hotels (including one Hotel Seri Malaysia branch), restaurants, shops, apartments, housing areas, a sports centre, one Aminuddin Baki Institute branch, three schools - Sri Layang National Primary School, Sri Layang National Secondary School and Highlands International Boarding School (Saleha Private High School) and two lower stations for the two cable car systems which both ascend to the top of Genting Highlands - the Awana Skyway at the Pahang side and Genting Skyway at the Selangor side.

Gohtong Memorial Park is located in this township, burial site for the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong.

title: Gohtong Jaya


text:
Karasuma

Karasuma (written: 烏丸 or 烏間) is a Japanese surname. Notable people with the surname include:

 * Yūichi Karasuma (烏丸 祐一, born 1982), Japanese voice actor
 * Setsuko Karasuma (烏丸 せつこ, born 1955), Japanese actress
 * Tasuku Karasuma (烏丸 匡, born 1978), Japanese manga artist

Fictional characters

 * Tadaomi Karasuma (烏間 惟臣), a character in the manga series Assassination Classroom
 * Renya Karasuma (烏丸 蓮耶), a mysterious character in Case Closed also known as Detective Conan

Other

 * Karasuma Station one of the busiest stations in Kyoto
 * Karasuma Line is one of two lines of the Kyoto Municipal Subway

title: Karasuma


text:
University of Botswana Non-Academic Staff Union

The University of Botswana Staff Union, formerly the University of Botswana Non-Academic Staff Union (UBNASU) is a trade union affiliate of the Botswana Federation of Trade Unions (BFTU).

Gadzani Mhotsha, General Secretary of the UBNASU, also served as general secretary of the BFTU.

Strikes
In November 2006, UBNASU took strike action against university management in a dispute over access to parking. In September 2010, UBNASU along with the University of Botswana Academic and Senior Support Staff Union (UBASSSU), opposed salary adjustments at the university which would have seen the vice-chancellor's salary increase 100 percent. Both unions called off strike actions when the salary increase was scrapped.


text:
Italian Socialists

The Italian Socialists (Socialisti Italiani, SI) were a minor social-democratic political party in Italy active from 1994 to 1998. The party was the legal successor of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI), following its dissolution by the 47th Party Congress due to the severe financial crisis following the Tangentopoli scandal. A minoritarian group of the congress, who proposed an autonomist and centrist solution against the PSI dissolution, instead founded the Reformist Socialist Party.

1994 general election
In occasion of the 1994 general election and the introduction of the majoritarian electoral system of "Mattarellum", the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) of Ottaviano Del Turco joined the Alliance of Progressives coalition; however, the PSI obtained poor results compared to the main parties of the coalition: PSI received 2.2% of votes in the proportional quota for the Chamber of Deputies and the 0.3% for the Senate. However, PSI parliamentarians were elected in single-members districts according to the agreements within the centre-left coalition and, thanks to the majoritarian system, obtained 14 seats in the Chamber and 9 in the Senate.

Due to their number, PSI deputies were forced to join the unitarian centre-left group "Progressives - Federative" (Progressisti - Federativo) while PSI senators managed to create their own autonomous group, thanks also to the adhesion of the Senator for life and former PSI National Secretary Francesco De Martino.

Exit of the Labourist faction from PSI
After the disappointing outcome of the elections, Del Turco resigned as secretary and the PSI Directive Committee appointed Valdo Spini as national coordinator on 21 June 1994, giving him the task to organise the Extraordinary Congress of the Party until September of the same year.

However, Spini was convinced that PSI had to change its entire identity, which was associated with corruption after the role of the party in the Tangentopoli scandal, and he convened a meeting on 26 July 1994 to promote the "Labourist Constituent". On 22 September, Spini resigned as coordinator and formed the Labour Federation on 5 November 1994 in Florence and much of parliamentarians, who were elected among Socialist lists, joined this new political formation and left the PSI, deepening its financial crisis.

Last PSI Congress
In a climate of high tension, the 47th Congress of the Italian Socialist Party was held in Rome in November 1994 and saw the participation of Socialist delegates who decided to not follow Spini into his new Labour Federation party.

The majoritarian side of the Congress, which was supported by former PSI Secretary Ottaviano Del Turco and Enrico Boselli, proposed the liquidation of the Party due to its disastrous financial situation and the creation create a new political formation called "Socialisti Italiani". The minoritarian side, supported by Fabrizio Cicchitto and Enrico Manca, was opposed to the dissolution of the PSI.

At the end, the congress decided to liquidate the PSI, considering the debts accumulated during the rule of former Prime Minister Bettino Craxi and the decline of subscriptions and contributions which led to the foreclosing of various properties belonging to the party.

Foundation of Italian Socialists
Despite the sadness for the closure of the historical Italian Socialist Party after 102 years of activity, all delegates wanted to continue and preserve the history and the identity of PSI: after a few hours, the new "Italian Socialists" (SI) was proclaimed as the official successor party to the PSI and its traditions. Delegates of the new party elected Enrico Boselli as Secretary and Gino Giugni as President, with the indication to keep the party among the democratic left.

At the Chamber, 11 deputies, of whom 9 elected for the PSI, joined the Labour Federation; the five remaining PSI deputies (Giuseppe Albertini, Enrico Boselli, Ottaviano Del Turco, Gino Giugni and Alberto La Volpe) decided instead to join the Italian Socialists. They left the "Progressives" parliamentary group and formed a united group called "The Democrats" (I Democratici) on 21 February 1995, along with some members of the Segni Pact and Democratic Alliance.

At the Senate, the Socialist group was preserved but most of its members joined the Labour Federations, and only senators Maria Rosaria Manieri and Cesare Marini adhered to SI.

First elections
At the 1995 regional elections, the Italian Socialists formed a list with the Democratic Alliance and Segni Pact called the Pact of Democrats. The coalition obtained 4.2% of the vote and 33 regional councillors, mostly Socialists. However, the alliance was dissolved shortly after the election due to the good results achieved only by SI.

For the 1996 general election, the Italian Socialists joined the electoral list of Italian Renewal (RI), a newly formed liberal-centrist party led by Lamberto Dini, within The Olive Tree centre-left coalition. SI participated then to the electoral victory of the centre-left: RI obtained the 4.3% of vote for the Chamber while The Olive Tree list obtained the 39.9% of votes for the Senate.

The Italian Socialists had 7 deputies (Giuseppe Albertini, Enrico Boselli, Enzo Ceremigna, Giovanni Crema, Leone Delfino, Sergio Fumagalli and Roberto Villetti) and 5 senators (Livio Besso Cordero, Ottaviano Del Turco, Giovanni Iuliano, Maria Rosaria Manieri and Cesare Marini). Del Turco was nominated as the group's senate leader.

However, the federation with RI did not last long, disbanding on 21 December 1996, with the exit from the parliamentarian group in the Chamber by Socialist deputies, who joined the component of Italian Socialists in the Mixed Group.

Socialist senators in turn left the parliamentarian group of the Senate on 6 February 1997, determining the dissolution of RI. They instead joined the Mixed Group the Senate, forming the component of Italian Socialists and the one of "Italian Democratic Socialists" (SDI) on 9 November 1998.

Merger with the SDI
On 10 May 1998 and under the proposal of Party Secretary Boselli, the Italian Socialists merged with the SDI, along with a segment of the Socialist Party (led by Ugo Intini), Labour Federation (led by Alberto Benzoni) and the remains of the Italian Democratic Socialist Party (led by Gianfranco Schietroma).

Leadership

 * Secretary: Enrico Boselli (1994–1998)
 * Deputy-Secretary: Roberto Villetti (1994–1998)
 * President: Gino Giugni (1994–1996), Ottaviano Del Turco (1996–1998)

title: Italian Socialists


text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/examinationonline.com

Links

 * examinationonline.com resolves to [//<IP_ADDRESS> <IP_ADDRESS>]
 * Link is not on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the domainredlist.
 * Link is not on the Monitorlist.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.
 * None of the mentioned users is on the blacklist.
 * Link is not on the whitelist.
 * Link is not on the monitor list.

Additions

 * Displayed all 5 additions.