text:
La Convention de Philadelphie ( en anglais) a eu lieu du 25 mai au  à Philadelphie (Pennsylvanie). Initialement prévue pour traiter des problèmes aux États-Unis à la suite de l'indépendance vis-à-vis de la Grande-Bretagne déclarée le  en amendant les Articles de la Confédération, elle résulta en la rédaction et l'adoption de la Constitution des États-Unis toujours en vigueur aujourd'hui. La volonté de nombreux participants, dont les fédéralistes  et , était en effet d'instaurer un nouveau mode de gouvernement plutôt que de corriger simplement celui établi par les Articles de la Confédération.

En raison du résultat de cette convention, elle est un événement majeur de l'histoire des États-Unis et est aussi appelée Convention constitutionnelle (de Philadelphie) (), Convention fédérale () ou Grande Convention ().

Contexte historique

Le , le Second Congrès continental, réunion des treize États ayant déclaré ensemble leur indépendance vis-à-vis de la Grande-Bretagne le , achève d'élaborer les Articles de la Confédération après une année de débats. Ces articles, qui n'entrent en vigueur que le  après ratification par un nombre suffisant d'États, forment une constitution minimale qui lie les États en une confédération appelée « États-Unis d'Amérique » («  »). Le Congrès continental est alors remplacé par le Congrès de la Confédération où chaque État dispose comme auparavant d'une voix et donc d'un poids égal, indépendant de son importance ou de sa population. La nouvelle confédération a autorité pour faire la guerre, négocier les traités, résoudre la question des territoires de l'Ouest, produire des devises continentales et lancer des emprunts à l'intérieur comme à l'extérieur du pays. Mais sans véritable pouvoir exécutif et sans autorité pour réglementer le commerce entre les États, il s'agit plus d'une « ligue d'amitié » que d'une véritable union.

Cette organisation est critiquée par les tenants d'un pouvoir central fort qui voient notamment la fragilité induite par le manque de revenus : la confédération ne prélève pas d'impôt, mais est financée pas les États, chacun payant en proportion de sa richesse. Cette différence de contribution exaspère les États les plus peuplés qui ne possèdent qu'une seule voix au Congrès. Ce manque d'ordre pose problème dans le contexte de la guerre d'indépendance qui ne s'achève qu'en 1783 avec les signatures des traités de Paris et de Versailles et pour l'établissement d'une économie structurée. Un sérieux différend opposant la Virginie au Maryland au sujet de la navigation sur le Potomac et dans la résolution duquel s'était engagé  est un événement déclencheur de la modification des articles. Le conflit avait été réglé par une conférence qui avait eu lieu dans la résidence de  de  qui avait des intérêts commerciaux en jeu dans l'affaire. Cette conférence ne devait mettre fin qu'à un différend local et les commissaires réunis n'avaient été désignés que par les deux États directement concernés. Il avait été néanmoins décidé que le Potomac était une voie commune aux citoyens de la Virginie et du Maryland mais aussi de tous les États-Unis : pour la première fois, on avait considéré que tous les citoyens de la Confédération étaient concernés au même chef par un problème commercial et des mesures avaient été prises en conséquence. L'affaire est un prétexte saisi par  à l'occasion de la ratification de l'accord par la Virginie pour appeler à une réunion de représentants des États.

Ainsi, le , le Congrès de Virginie adopte une résolution proposant une rencontre de délégués d'États pour discuter « de telles réglementations commerciales qui pourraient sembler nécessaires à leur commun intérêt et à leur permanente harmonie ». Une convention se tient en conséquence à Annapolis (capitale du Maryland) en septembre 1786 avec pour but de  remédier aux défauts du gouvernement fédéral. Seuls s'y rendent les délégués de cinq États (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvanie, Delaware et Virginie) dont ,  et . Le Maryland par exemple refuse de désigner des délégués, considérant l'objet de la convention comme étant de la compétence exclusive du Congrès. Constatant qu'il leur faudrait des pouvoirs élargis pour atteindre le but fixé, et que la présence de délégués d'un plus grand nombre d'États est souhaitable, les délégués se dispersent sans prendre de décision autre que de faire un rapport aux États et de faire élire dans chaque État des délégués à une nouvelle convention qui se tiendra le deuxième lundi de mai 1787 à Philadelphie. Le but alors assigné à cette convention est de « prendre en considération la situation des États-Unis et de mettre au point les mesures supplémentaires qui lui semblent nécessaires pour rendre la constitution du Gouvernement fédéral conforme aux exigences de l'Union. »

Délégués

La Convention de Philadelphie réunit au total cinquante-cinq délégués élus par les assemblées des États. Tous sont par définition des pères fondateurs et sont considérés parmi les hommes politiques les plus brillants du pays à l'époque.  lui-même décrit la Convention comme une « assemblée de demi-dieux ». Sur les 55 membres de l'assemblée, 34 sont ou ont été avocats, 39 avaient siégé dans les Congrès continentaux. La moyenne d'âge est légèrement supérieure à 40 ans : Hamilton a 30 ans et Madison 39 ans.

Parmi les absents notables se trouvent  et , ambassadeurs respectivement à Londres et Paris et . Les deux premiers écrivent depuis l'Europe pour encourager la Convention dans son travail.  refuse de se rendre à Philadelphie au motif qu'il y « flairait un rat ». Il est en effet de ceux qui refusent un pouvoir fédéral centralisé et pressentent les intentions des fédéralistes d'agir au-delà de leur domaine de compétence lors de cette convention. Le Rhode Island qui avait été le premier à déclarer son indépendance de la Grande-Bretagne refuse d'envoyer des délégués ; il sera par la suite le dernier des treize États fondateurs à ratifier la Constitution.

Les délégués des douze États représentés sont :

, héros de la guerre d'indépendance et présent en tant que délégué pour la Virginie, est élu à la présidence de la Convention à l'unanimité des délégués présents : il préside les débats. Le secrétaire choisi est , qui n'est pas un délégué mais simplement chargé du travail de secrétariat. Sa signature figure tout de même au bas de la Constitution rédigée, en tant que témoin.

Parmi les délégués, , l'un des délégués de la Virginie, se distingue particulièrement. Il prend une part si active à la Convention (plus de 160 interventions) et influence tant le résultat, ayant été l'initiateur du , qu'il est généralement considéré comme étant l'auteur de la Constitution et est surnommé « père de la Constitution » (« ) bien que lui-même ne se considère pas comme tel, ayant conscience que la Constitution est le fruit d'un travail collectif. Il prend également les notes les plus complètes sur le déroulement de la convention, ne se contentant pas comme d'autres de noter les résultats des votes et de relever quelques faits qui lui semblent plus intéressants. Ces notes destinées à son usage propre, mais par lesquelles il est conscient de pré-constituer des archives pour la postérité sur ce qu'il espère être la naissance de la première république moderne ne seront publiées qu'après la mort de .

Déroulement des débats
Les événements prennent place dans la  où avait déjà été discutée et adoptée la Déclaration d'indépendance. La date prévue pour le début de la Convention était le , mais le mauvais temps a détérioré les routes et le quorum de sept États représentés n'est atteint en réalité que le 25 mai qui marque le début effectif.

Les premiers jours sont consacrés à la mise en place : on élit le président de la convention (), le secrétaire de séance () et l'on décide des règles qui seront suivies par la suite. Chaque motion est débattue, amendée et le vote se fait avec une voix par État, une majorité de sept États l'emportant. Ceci est déjà contradictoire à l'esprit des Articles de la Confédération dont le treizième article stipule que tout amendement doit être approuvé par les organes législatifs de tous les États. Bien que l'esprit en soit violé, les Articles de la Confédération sont respectés en ce que la convention ne se destine qu'à proposer un texte qui sera adopté par ailleurs par les législatures. Des comités sont créés lorsque le besoin s'en fait sentir pour travailler sur des points spécifiques. Ces comités se réunissent en dehors des réunions de la convention afin que les membres puissent assister à tous les débats. Un comité particulier rassemblant tous les délégués de la convention («  ») prend occasionnellement la place de la convention afin de donner un cadre plus informel aux débats concernant le détail de certaines propositions.  est élu président de ce comité et  laisse vacant le fauteuil de président de lors de ces séances.

Les délibérations sont marquées par le secret absolu : les fenêtres sont condamnées et les entrées gardées en permanence. Les délégués ont interdiction de relater le cours des débats. Thomas Jefferson qui est loin de Philadelphie regrette cette décision. À cela s'ajoute la décision de ne pas noter les résultats de chaque vote dans le procès-verbal de la Convention, afin de ne pas faire obstacle artificiellement à un changement d'avis de la part des délégués au cours des débats. C'est possiblement dans cet esprit, ainsi que par peur de l'usage que ses ennemis pourraient en faire contre lui, que James Madison retiendra jusqu'après sa mort (et Madison était le dernier des délégués présents à décéder) la publication de ses notes et la divulgation de la teneur exacte des débats. Il semble qu'il n'ait pas non plus eu le temps de préfacer et corriger ses notes de manière qui le satisfasse.

Il est remarqué dès le premier jour que les délégués du Delaware n'ont pas mandat pour modifier les Articles de la Confédération en ce qu'ils attribuent le même nombre de voix à chaque État.

Lorsque les débats à proprement parler commencent, les fédéralistes prennent immédiatement la parole et présentent des structures complètes de gouvernement. Chacune de ces propositions est cohérente mais contient des blancs concernant des détails pratiques tels que la durée des mandats. Ces structures sont discutées point par point.

Plan de Virginie

Dès le 29 mai,  propose à l'assemblée un programme conçu au préalable par les délégués de la Virginie. Ce programme, le  ou , avait été élaboré dans le temps d'attente pour la réalisation du quorum à la convention en s'appuyant sur l'expérience acquise par les délégués lors de la conception de la Constitution de la Virginie.  avait fait un important travail préparatoire dans les mois qui précédaient, publiant notamment un memorandum (Vices du système politique des États-Unis) dans lequel il pointait des défauts constitutifs de la confédération. Il joue un rôle prépondérant dans l'élaboration du  et il rédige l'essentiel de la proposition que  présente en 15 points. À l'époque, l'essentiel des documents est manuscrit, mais l'exemplaire de  de ce plan n'existe plus. Il en reste quatre copies connues : celles de , de ,  et .

Contenu du plan

 propose en substance :
 d'amender et élargir les Articles de la Confédération afin qu'ils atteignent mieux leur but ;
 que la représentation des États dans le système législatif se fasse proportionnellement à leur contribution ou à leur nombre d'habitants libres (selon ce qui parait le plus approprié) ;
 que le système législatif soit constitué de deux « branches » (deux chambres) ;
 des modalités d'élection des membres de la première branche : les représentants seront élus par les peuples des États ;
 des modalités d'élection des membres de la seconde branche : les représentants seront élus par les membres de la première branche parmi des candidats proposés par les systèmes législatifs de chaque État ;
 que chaque branche ait le droit de proposer un texte et que cette Législature nationale soit compétente dans les cas suivants : pour ce qui était du domaine de compétence du Congrès de la Confédération, pour tout ce qui n'est pas du ressort des États séparés, ou lorsque la législation des États peut rompre l'harmonie de l'Union, pour rejeter une loi d'un État qui contreviendrait d'après la Législature nationale aux Articles de l'Union et pour demander l'usage de la force contre tout État manquant à ses obligations envers l'Union :
 que l'Exécutif national soit institué, et désigné par la Législature nationale pour un mandat non renouvelable ;
 qu'un Conseil de révision composé des membres de l'exécutif et de certains membres du judiciaire soit autorisé à examiner chaque acte de la législature avant son entrée en vigueur, y compris le rejet d'une loi d'un des États. La décision du Conseil s'impose à moins que l'acte soit voté à nouveau ;
 que le pouvoir judiciaire soit constitué d'un ou plusieurs tribunaux suprêmes (dernier ressort) et de tribunaux inférieurs (premier ressort) désignés par la législature. Leur compétence comprendra : la piraterie et les infractions en haute mer, les ennemis capturés, les cas mettant en cause des étrangers ou des citoyens d'autres États, les cas en relation avec la collecte du Revenu national, la destitution de responsables nationaux et tout ce qui touche à la paix et l'harmonie nationale ;
 qu'un nouvel État puisse être admis dans l'Union par un vote non unanime de la Législature nationale ;
 que les États-Unis garantissent à chaque État un gouvernement républicain et son territoire, mis à part pour une fusion volontaire de ceux-ci avec un autre État ;
 que le Congrès actuel garde son autorité et ses privilèges pour l'accomplissement de ses engagements jusqu'à une date postérieure à l'adoption des Articles d'Union ;
 qu'il soit possible d'amender les Articles d'Union quand nécessaire sans l'autorisation préalable de la Législature nationale ;
 que les pouvoirs exécutifs et judiciaires de chaque État jurent d'appliquer les Articles d'Union ;
 que les Articles d'Union soient, en temps opportun, après approbation par le Congrès soumis pour approbation à une assemblée de représentants choisis par les législatures des États et expressément choisis par le peuple.

Le  donne dès le départ le ton de la Convention : le champ du débat est élargi bien au-delà de la simple correction des Articles de la Confédération. Il s'agit de créer un véritable nouvel État qui contient les treize États existants. Pour cela on s'appuie davantage sur le peuple des États-Unis considéré comme un tout que sur des États souverains et l'Union a autorité pour se prononcer sur les lois des États.

L'innovation réside dans la séparation du pouvoir  en trois parties (pouvoirs législatif, exécutif et judiciaire) et en l'assurance d'un équilibre entre elles grâce à un système de « poids et contrepoids » («  »). Cette forme nouvelle de gouvernement est inspirée des écrits de Locke et Montesquieu. Il est également proposé un système législatif à deux chambres : une chambre basse élue par le peuple et une haute élue par la première. La répartition du nombre de sièges dans chaque chambre sera le point de débat et d'opposition principal entre les « petits » et les « grands » États au cours de la Convention. L'exécutif dont le seul but est d'assurer la bonne application de la volonté du législatif doit être désigné par celui-ci. L'équilibre des pouvoirs est assuré par la possibilité qu'a un comité émanant de l'exécutif et du judiciaire de poser son veto à une décision du législatif. Ce veto peut toutefois être outrepassé par une majorité non spécifiée dans la proposition.

Discussion du plan de Virginie
À la suite de cette première proposition, le point de désaccord principal lors de la Convention est la représentation des États dans chacune des deux chambres législatives. Le plan de Virginie propose dans les deux chambres un nombre de voix pour chaque État fonction de sa population libre ou de sa contribution, ce qui revient dans l'esprit des proposants à considérer les États-Unis comme un État et l'ensemble des citoyens des États-Unis comme un peuple duquel provient directement la légitimité du gouvernement, sans l'intermédiaire des États. La même logique rend inutile une unanimité des États dans l'acceptation d'un nouvel État comme membre de l'Union. Ce système a la faveur des États les plus peuplés (la Virginie était à l'époque l'État le plus peuplé), mais est rejeté par les États plus petits qui craignent d'être écrasés et de voir leur souveraineté bafouée. Les Articles de la Confédération donnaient pour leur part un poids égal à tous les États, chacun ayant une voix à exprimer.

Dès le lendemain de sa présentation, le plan est examiné dans le cadre d'un comité () réunissant tous les délégués et dont les réunions remplacent momentanément la convention. Cet examen approfondi dure deux semaines du 30 mai au 13 juin. Il en résulte un rapport donnant une version modifiée du plan en 19 points qui respecte l'essentiel de ce que proposait . Le débat avait pourtant amené  et  à proposer dès le 11 juin que les votes soient répartis différemment dans les deux chambres législatives. Cette proposition avait été rejetée par 6 voix contre 5.

Le plan de Virginie amendé demeure inacceptable pour certains délégués pour plusieurs raisons dont les principales sont :
 le mode de représentation proposé va à l'encontre de l'égalité entre les États et l'autorité du Congrès bafoue leur souveraineté d'États indépendants, ce qui est contradictoire avec la Déclaration d'indépendance elle-même, avec le traité de Paris qui donne l'indépendance des États comme base de la paix et avec la pratique qui avait existé jusque-là dans toutes les représentations des colonies. Cette interprétation de la Déclaration d'indépendance est rejetée le 19 juin par , soutenu par . Pour eux, les États ne sont pas indépendants les uns des autres mais formant une confédération, ils sont collectivement indépendants du Royaume-Uni ;
 en proposant un nouveau mode de gouvernement plutôt que le simple amendement des Articles de la Confédération, la Convention agit illégalement, au-delà de sa compétence ;
 l'extrême nouveauté des idées avancées fait craindre un rejet de la part des législatures des États dont l'adhésion au texte est nécessaire pour sa ratification ;
 la conception la plus répandue du républicanisme, influencée par Montesquieu, soutient que la république est un régime qui convient mieux aux petites communautés qu'aux grandes (les personnes sont « plus heureuses dans les petits États que dans les grands »), ce qui est un argument contre la constitution d'une grande démocratie englobant les treize anciennes colonies.

En conséquence, la convention se réunit à nouveau le 14 juin pour décider à la demande des délégués du New Jersey d'ajourner la séance, leur permettant ainsi de mettre au point un autre plan en réponse à celui de .

Bien que le plan de Virginie soit loin d'avoir été adopté tel quel par la Convention, son influence sur la Constitution des États-Unis à laquelle il servit de base est telle qu'elle vaut à  le surnom de « père de la Constitution ».

Plan de

Le 29 mai également, en réponse à l'exposé de ,  présente son propre plan en 25 points. Ce plan n'est pas détaillé dans les notes de  et  n'en donna pas de copie écrite. Une trace écrite en a été retrouvée dans les papiers de . Ce plan propose également un système législatif bicaméral : une chambre basse composée d'un élu pour  et une chambre haute élue par la précédente et dont chaque sénateur, élu pour quatre ans, représente une de quatre régions.

Ce plan n'a pas été débattu en détail mais présente des points qui seront repris et feront l'objet de débats :
  introduit le premier dans la convention l'idée de l'élection d'un président des États-Unis. Dans son projet, l'élection de celui-ci ainsi que la désignation de l'exécutif est faite par le pouvoir législatif ;
 en proposant de compter pour la répartition des sièges dans la législature un siège pour mille habitant, en comptant 3/5 des Noirs,  pointe un autre sujet d'opposition majeur entre les États. Après l'opposition entre grands et petits États se révèle l'opposition entre États du Sud et du Nord, où la différence de proportion de population esclave est déjà très marquée. Le débat sur l'esclavage est intense dans la suite de la convention.

New Jersey Plan

Le 15 juin, après que le  eut rendu ses conclusions, , délégué pour le New Jersey, proposa en réponse au  une structure prenant en compte les inquiétudes des « petits » États. Cette proposition est aussi appelée  ou  (littéralement : « programme des petits États »).

Contenu du plan
 propose en substance :
 d'amender et élargir les Articles de la Confédération afin qu'ils atteignent mieux leur but et permettent la préservation de l'Union ;
 qu'en plus des pouvoirs actuellement conférés par les Articles de la Confédération, le Congrès puisse lever des taxes ou des droits sur tous les biens cultivés ou manufacturés à l'étranger ; que le Congrès soit compétent pour réguler le commerce entre les États de l'Union aussi bien qu'avec l'étranger ;
 que le Congrès puisse procéder à des réquisitions en proportion de la population de chaque État en tenant compte de toute la population libre ainsi que des 3/5 de toute autre population mise à part les Indiens ;
 que le Congrès élise un exécutif national non rééligible et révocable par le Congrès ;
 que le pouvoir exécutif nomme les juges du Tribunal suprême qui constitue l'organe judiciaire fédéral. Leur compétence inclut la révocation de tout agent fédéral en première instance et en dernière instance tous les cas touchant aux droits des ambassadeurs, aux captures d'ennemis, aux cas de piraterie, aux cas impliquant des étrangers, à la construction de traités et à tout ce qui à rapport à la régulation du commerce et à la levée de l'impôt fédéral ;
 que toute loi produite par le Congrès et tout traité ratifié par les États-Unis s'impose aux États concernés et prenne le pas sur d'éventuelles lois contradictoires des États. L'exécutif fédéral est autorisé à employer la force pour faire appliquer ces lois et traités ;
 que des conditions à l'entrée de nouveaux États doivent être décidées ;
 que tous les États doivent avoir les mêmes règles pour la naturalisation ;
 qu'un citoyen commettant une infraction en dehors de son État soit jugé comme un citoyen de l'État dans lequel l'infraction a été commise.

Ce plan n'est qu'une modification des Articles de la Confédération et y reste fidèle en augmentant leur champ d'application. Le Congrès reste l'unique chambre législative de la fédération où chaque État dispose d'une voix. Ceci reflète l'idée que les États sont des entités indépendantes et souveraines. Ce principe est celui qui prévaut actuellement dans l'Organisation des Nations unies et inspira certains points du texte de constitution finalement adopté tel que le fonctionnement du Sénat.

Discussion du plan du New Jersey
Il est décidé avant même l'exposé du plan par  qu'il recevrait une attention équivalente à celle accordée au  et serait donc examiné en comité. Ainsi, du 16 au 19 juin se réunit à nouveau le  qui discute le plan de  et le compare au .

La différence d'intention entre les deux projets est si grande que Madison rapporte dans la marge de ses notes la remarque que lui fait John Dickinson, délégué du Delaware :  Les dissensions sont si fortes qu'un accord semble impossible et la poursuite de la convention est menacée.  va jusqu'à mettre en doute la bonne foi des délégués du New Jersey qui doutent de la légitimité de la convention à faire plus qu'amender les Articles :

 récapitule les différences entre les deux plans :

La discussion du plan est alors brève. Il s'y insère le 18 juin l'exposé par Hamilton de son plan qui n'est pas débattu. Le 19 juin, Madison énonce son argumentation pour le rejet du plan du New Jersey. Le vote qui suit confirme à sept voix contre trois (le New Jersey, le New York et le Delaware votent contre) l'assentiment du comité pour le plan de Virginie amendé.

Notes et références

Articles connexes
 Articles de la Confédération
 Constitution américaine
 Révolution américaine
 Compromis du Connecticut

Politique aux États-Unis
Révolution américaine
Constitution des États-Unis
XVIIIe siècle
1787 aux États-Unis


text:
Photo by: ASSOCIATED PRESS
Denise Nickerson, who portrayed spoiled child Violet Beauregarde in the 1971 film, "Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory" poses at Jacques Torres Chocolates during an event promoting the 40th anniversary of the popular children's film and the Warner Home Video Ultimate Collector's Edition Blu-ray and DVD launch on Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011 in New York. (AP Photo/StarPix, Marion Curtis)
'Willy Wonka' actress Denise Nickerson dies at 62, family Facebook post indicates
'She's gone' was posted to a family Facebook page hours after announcing Nickerson had been taken off of medications and an oxygen pump.
Author: Travis Pittman
Updated: 8:38 AM EDT July 11, 2019
"Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" star Denise Nickerson has died, based on a posting on a Facebook page run by her family. A two-word message simply said, "She's gone." It came hours after an earlier post that Nickerson was passing slowly and being taken off medications.
Nickerson, 62, played Violet Beauregarde in the 1971 version of "Willy Wonka."
Nickerson was taken to the ICU in June 2018 after suffering a severe stroke and entered a rehab facility. Her family posted on Facebook Tuesday that she had undergone a major medical emergency and had suffered seizures.
Post by SupportForJazzyandJoshNickerson.
RELATED: 'Willy Wonka' actress Denise Nickerson taken off medication
Her condition continued to worsen. The family posted to Facebook Wednesday that she was still alive, writing, "The doctors, nurses, and we are surprised that this is the case as it was expected her respiratory system would've shut down hours and hours ago. She's still not going to improve at all, she's just going very slowly."
The family also clarified some misinterpretation that Nickerson had been taken off life support. They wrote that she was never on life support. They say she had been taken off an intravenous drip with antibiotics and anti seizure medications, as well as a "very strong oxygen pump" which they said was not the same as life support.
Her family has started a GoFundMe campaign to support death expenses. The page had not been updated as of Thursday morning to confirm Nickerson's passing.
Nickerson's son announced in March that he was expecting a baby girl with his wife, Jasmine.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
/* hw_zencod_err.c */
/* ====================================================================
 * Copyright (c) 1999-2002 The OpenSSL Project.  All rights reserved.
 *
 * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
 * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
 * are met:
 *
 * 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
 *
 * 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
 *    notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
 *    the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
 *    distribution.
 *
 * 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
 *    software must display the following acknowledgment:
 *    "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
 *    for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit. (http://www.OpenSSL.org/)"
 *
 * 4. The names "OpenSSL Toolkit" and "OpenSSL Project" must not be used to
 *    endorse or promote products derived from this software without
 *    prior written permission. For written permission, please contact
 *    openssl-core@OpenSSL.org.
 *
 * 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "OpenSSL"
 *    nor may "OpenSSL" appear in their names without prior written
 *    permission of the OpenSSL Project.
 *
 * 6. Redistributions of any form whatsoever must retain the following
 *    acknowledgment:
 *    "This product includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project
 *    for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.OpenSSL.org/)"
 *
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE OpenSSL PROJECT ``AS IS'' AND ANY
 * EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
 * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
 * PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.  IN NO EVENT SHALL THE OpenSSL PROJECT OR
 * ITS CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
 * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
 * NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
 * LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION)
 * HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT,
 * STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE)
 * ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED
 * OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
 * ====================================================================
 *
 * This product includes cryptographic software written by Eric Young
 * (eay@cryptsoft.com).  This product includes software written by Tim
 * Hudson (tjh@cryptsoft.com).
 *
 */

/*
 * NOTE: this file was auto generated by the mkerr.pl script: any changes
 * made to it will be overwritten when the script next updates this file,
 * only reason strings will be preserved.
 */

#include <stdio.h>
#include <openssl/err.h>
#include "hw_zencod_err.h"

/* BEGIN ERROR CODES */
#ifndef OPENSSL_NO_ERR
static ERR_STRING_DATA ZENCOD_str_functs[] = {
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_BN_MOD_EXP, 0), "ZENCOD_BN_MOD_EXP"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_CTRL, 0), "ZENCOD_CTRL"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_DH_COMPUTE, 0), "ZENCOD_DH_COMPUTE"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_DH_GENERATE, 0), "ZENCOD_DH_GENERATE"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_DSA_DO_SIGN, 0), "ZENCOD_DSA_DO_SIGN"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_DSA_DO_VERIFY, 0), "ZENCOD_DSA_DO_VERIFY"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_FINISH, 0), "ZENCOD_FINISH"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_INIT, 0), "ZENCOD_INIT"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_RAND, 0), "ZENCOD_RAND"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_RSA_MOD_EXP, 0), "ZENCOD_RSA_MOD_EXP"},
    {ERR_PACK(0, ZENCOD_F_ZENCOD_RSA_MOD_EXP_CRT, 0),
     "ZENCOD_RSA_MOD_EXP_CRT"},
    {0, NULL}
};

static ERR_STRING_DATA ZENCOD_str_reasons[] = {
    {ZENCOD_R_ALREADY_LOADED, "already loaded"},
    {ZENCOD_R_BAD_KEY_COMPONENTS, "bad key components"},
    {ZENCOD_R_BN_EXPAND_FAIL, "bn expand fail"},
    {ZENCOD_R_CTRL_COMMAND_NOT_IMPLEMENTED, "ctrl command not implemented"},
    {ZENCOD_R_DSO_FAILURE, "dso failure"},
    {ZENCOD_R_NOT_LOADED, "not loaded"},
    {ZENCOD_R_REQUEST_FAILED, "request failed"},
    {ZENCOD_R_UNIT_FAILURE, "unit failure"},
    {0, NULL}
};

#endif

#ifdef ZENCOD_LIB_NAME
static ERR_STRING_DATA ZENCOD_lib_name[] = {
    {0, ZENCOD_LIB_NAME},
    {0, NULL}
};
#endif

static int ZENCOD_lib_error_code = 0;
static int ZENCOD_error_init = 1;

static void ERR_load_ZENCOD_strings(void)
{
    if (ZENCOD_lib_error_code == 0)
        ZENCOD_lib_error_code = ERR_get_next_error_library();

    if (ZENCOD_error_init) {
        ZENCOD_error_init = 0;
#ifndef OPENSSL_NO_ERR
        ERR_load_strings(ZENCOD_lib_error_code, ZENCOD_str_functs);
        ERR_load_strings(ZENCOD_lib_error_code, ZENCOD_str_reasons);
#endif

#ifdef ZENCOD_LIB_NAME
        ZENCOD_lib_name->error = ERR_PACK(ZENCOD_lib_error_code, 0, 0);
        ERR_load_strings(0, ZENCOD_lib_name);
#endif
    }
}

static void ERR_unload_ZENCOD_strings(void)
{
    if (ZENCOD_error_init == 0) {
#ifndef OPENSSL_NO_ERR
        ERR_unload_strings(ZENCOD_lib_error_code, ZENCOD_str_functs);
        ERR_unload_strings(ZENCOD_lib_error_code, ZENCOD_str_reasons);
#endif

#ifdef ZENCOD_LIB_NAME
        ERR_unload_strings(0, ZENCOD_lib_name);
#endif
        ZENCOD_error_init = 1;
    }
}

static void ERR_ZENCOD_error(int function, int reason, char *file, int line)
{
    if (ZENCOD_lib_error_code == 0)
        ZENCOD_lib_error_code = ERR_get_next_error_library();
    ERR_PUT_error(ZENCOD_lib_error_code, function, reason, file, line);
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Inspired by railroad bridges of old times, the Stackable Bridge has a unique look and feel. Build it as high as you like to add another layer to your BRIO layout. Whether on its own or as an addition, your BRIO World wooden railway will never look the same.


To celebrate the Sacrament of Confirmation your child must be in the 9th grade or above and must have been in religious education the previous year.
WHY SHOULD MY CHILD MAKE THEIR CONFIRMATION?
Need Information About Adult Confirmation?
If you have any questions concerning Adult Faith Formation please visit our RCIA page.


The 20th ASEAN Finance Ministers' Meeting (AFMM) kicked off in Vientiane, Laos on April 4.
Newly-accredited Japanese Ambassador to ASEAN Kazuo Sunaga has voiced his hope to work closely with ASEAN member states and the ASEAN Secretariat to further enhance ASEAN-Japan relations.
Ambassador Nguyen Hoanh Nam, head of the Vietnamese mission to ASEAN, attended the 11 th Coordinating Conference on the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community in Jakarta, Indonesia, from March 29-30.
The 2nd ASEAN Women Entrepreneurs Forum, titled "Fostering women entrepreneurs in advancing the AEC development", was opened in Hanoi on March 4.
The 22nd ASEAN Economic Ministers' (AEM) Retreat wrapped up in Thailand's Chiang Mai province on late March 3, agreeing on ways to boost the regional and inter-regional economic connectivity.
The Foreign Ministers from the ten ASEAN member countries convened their first Retreat in 2016 in Vientiane, Laos, on February 27 with the attendance of ASEAN Secretary General Le Luong Minh.
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand Don Pramudwinai has visited the ASEAN Secretariat, seeking to carry out the next steps after the launch of the ASEAN Community at the end of last year.
Hungary on February 5 expressed its strong interest to forge closer ties with the Southeast Asian region and said it recognised the immense potential of the ASEAN Community.
Laos officially took over the chairmanship of ASEAN's Committee of Permanent Representative (CPR) in 2016 from Malaysia at a ceremony in Jakarta, Indonesia on January 8.
Former ASEAN Secretary General Surin Pitsuwan announced on January 1 that he will run for Prime Minister of Thailand in the next general election.
Its summits and ministerial meetings get a lot of media coverage, but ASEAN's engagement with its stakeholders, partners and constituencies goes far beyond official venues.
Malaysia has been successful in turning a new chapter in regional integration in 2015, the year it served as the Chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Narrowing the development gaps within and between the ASEAN member states is one of the top and long-term priorities of the association to build a dynamic, connective, and integrative bloc.
ASEAN Secretary General Le Luong Minh and Indian Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj explored areas of cooperation during their meeting in New Delhi on December 11.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) hopes to forge ties with the ASEAN member states and ASEAN Secretariat, said SCO Secretary-General Dmitry Mezentsev.
ASEAN Secretary-General Le Luong Minh appreciated Japan's significant support to the association over a couple of years, especially in the formation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC).
The 15th ASEAN Telecommunications and Information Technology (IT) Ministers' Meeting (TELEMIN) will be held in the central city of Dang Nang on November 26-27.


The Anaglypta Supaglypta Inca Wallpaper is a much-loved design from the Supaglypta range which has been reintroduced for a limited time only. This is your chance to create a bold style statement in your home whilst reinforcing walls for strength and durability. This wallpaper has been made from well managed sources and is PVC free so is environmentally conscious. The exquisite, textured design is reminiscent of the ancient Inca tribes yet is perfectly suited to today's modern homes.
Well suited for disguising wall imperfections and of tough construction, the Anaglypta Supaglypta Inca Wallpaper is perfect for high traffic areas of your home including family rooms, hallways and staircases. Allowing walls to breathe and offering an excellent surface for painting, you can customise the look to fit your tastes. A welcome addition to any room.


text:
George Canyon
AugustAug 22, 1970
New Glasgow, Canada
AugustAug 22, 1970 (age 52)
Most Popular#84867
Born in New Glasgow, Canada#4
August 22 Singer#24
Leo Named George#10
Canadian country star who won nine Canadian Country Music Association Awards between 2004 and 2011. He has worked as an actor in movies and on television.
Before Fame
He worked as a beef inspector and police officer before starting his music career.
He released his debut album One Good Friend in 2004.
He has two children with his wife Jennifer Canyon.
He featured Richard Marx on his 2011 single "When Love Is All You've Got."
George Canyon Popularity
George Canyon Is A Member Of
Country Singers
First Name George
Leos
George Canyon Fans Also Viewed
More Leos


text:
Mauritius by Type
Mauritius by Region
History of Mauritius
- Discover Mauritius -
Featured Events in Mauritius
TomorrowISLAND - The Last Call | AFTER PARTY
Sat 6th Feb, 2021 Mauritius , Le Morne
#TheLastCallAfterParty 🇲🇺😍🔥 After the great success of our event The Last Call last December, DGH7 Events and FourAces Entertainment are delighted to inv
Burning Monkey Festival Chapter 2
Fri 29th Jan, 2021 Mauritius Mauritius
Monkey Burners, and we are back for the second Edition of the Burning Monkey Festival. Hello 2021, Hello Kids, Teenagers, Parents, Party animals ! We are ready to welco
Bun Hay Mean aka Chinois Marrant à l'île Maurice
Bun Hay Mean "Chinois Marrant" Friday January 29 20.30 Trianon Convention Center New Show « Le monde appartient à ceux qui le fabriquent »
VINEET SINGH LIVE IN CONCERT@Backstage Hennessy
Sat 30th Jan, 2021 Mauritius Mauritius
KRISH SMARTINE BOLLYWOOD PRODUCTION presents The runner up of SaReGaMaPa "VINEET SINGH LIVE IN CONCERT Tour" at Backstage Hennessy Park Hotel on SAT 30th Jan 2021 as from
The Mystik Beach Festival II : DEBORAH DE LUCA
Sat 6th Feb, 2021 Mauritius , Roches Noires
If you were blown away by THE MYSTIK BEACH & MYSTIK GARDEN parties a few days ago, this one will be another event to look forward to with lots of new surprises on the
Mauritius was colonized by the Dutch, the British, and the French and it became independent recently in 1968
Mauritius though being a small island in the Indian Ocean and being a tiny point on the world map, has a very rich history. The first historical evidence of the existence of an island now known as Mauritius is on a map produced by the Italian cartographer Alberto Cantino in 1502. From then on, it has been discovered, visited and colonized by a whole number of different countries.
Going through Mauritius history will help you understand its present blended culture and identity. Mauritian Creoles trace their origins to the plantation owners and slaves who were brought to work in the sugarcane fields. After slavery was abolished in 1835, indentured labour was brought to Mauritius namely Chinese, Malay, African and Malagasy labourers, but ultimately, it was India which supplied the much needed laborers to Mauritius. Indo-Mauritians are descended from Indian immigrants who arrived in the 19th century via the Aapravasi Ghat in order to work as indentured laborers.
Arab Sailors in the 10th Century
Mauritius was first discovered by Arab sailors in the 10th century, who named it Dina Arobi (which means Desert Island in English). It's difficult to know the exact date when this happened due a lack of documentary evidence from this period. They did not seem interested in the island since they left it uninhabited. It is also known that they were followed by tribes of Malays, but very little information is available about that period.
The Portuguese in 1507
After the Arabs and Malays, Mauritius was visited by the Portuguese between 1507 and 1513. However no permanent colony was established on the island by the Portuguese. Mauritius as well as Reunion island and Rodrigues were encountered by chance during an exploratory expedition of the Bay of Bengal (It is the largest bay in the world with waters flowing straight out of the Himalayas through Bangladesh, it is bordered by Bangladesh to the North, Myanmar to the East, Sri Lanka and India to the west) by the ship Cirne.
The expedition ran into a cyclone and was forced to change course and that is how Réunion island was sighted by the captain Diogo Fernandes Pereira, on 9 February 1507. At the same time Mauritius as well was discovered and the Portuguese seaman named it "Ilha Do Cerne" (Island of the Swan). Five years later, the 3 islands (Mauritius, Rodrigues and Reunion) were visited by the Portuguese Captain Dom Pedro de Mascarenhas. The Group of islands, were then named Mascarenes after him. Today the group of islands is still known as the Mascarene Islands.
However, the Portuguese took no interest in these isolated islands. They were already established in Asia in Goa, on the island of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) and on the Malaysian coast. The Portuguese navigators preferred to use the Mozambique Channel to go to India as their main African base was in Mozambique. The Comoros at the north proved to be a more practical port of call.
The Dutch in 1598
In 1598, a Dutch expedition consisting of eight ships, sailing towards the Indian sub-continent faced bad weather conditions after passing the Cape of Good Hope (It is a rocky headland on the Atlantic coast of the Cape Peninsula, South Africa). As a result they lost their way and the fleet were separated in 2 groups. Three of them succeeded in sailing to the northeast of Madagascar. The remaining five ships found their way together and sailed in a southeasterly direction under the orders of Admiral van Warwyck. They came into view of Mauritius on the 17st of September, and on 20th September, they entered a sheltered bay in the South East of the island which they named "Port de Warwick". It is better known nowadays as the village of Grand Port. They landed on the island and named it "Prins Mauritz van Nassaueiland," after Prince Maurits (the Dutch Stadtholder known also as Maurice of Nassau - Prince of Orange). The island's name Mauritius is thus a legacy of the Dutch.
The island was not permanently inhabited for the first forty years after its discovery. The Port de Warwick was used by the Dutch as a stopover after long months at sea. They visited it also for its raw materials such as ebony and wild animals like the famous Dodo, pigs, goats and tortoises. Dutch presence on the island largely contributed to the extinction of the endemic bird Dodo and giant tortoise populations as they used them for food.
In 1606, two expeditions, consisting of eleven ships and 1,357 men under the orders of Admiral Corneille, came to Mauritius but this time through another bay, in the North West of the island. They found a great number of terrestrial tortoises there, thus they named it "Rade des Tortues" (Tortues means tortoises in English). From that date, Dutch sailors shifted their port from Port de Warwick to Rade des Tortues which is well known today as Port Louis.
In 1615, Governor Pieter Both who was coming back from India through the Indian Ocean route died during a shipwreck. After this event the Dutch sailors started considering the route as cursed and tried to avoid it. During that time, the British and the Danes began making incursions into the Indian Ocean. They landed on the island freely and cut the ebony trees which were available everywhere on the island and took the precious wood.
Dutch colonization (1638–1710)
In order to prevent the French and the British from occupying the island, the Dutch established the first permanent settlement in 1638. Cornelius Gooyer was appointed as the first Governor. The Dutch built a square wooden fort which they named Fort Frederik Hendrik with bastions and cannons at each corner to protect their harbour. Nowadays there is a museum named after Frederik Hendrik in the village of Grand Port which recounts the early Dutch occupation of the island.
Gooyer's role was to develop the commercial potential of the island; send ebony trees and wood to Batavia and Holland, to find Ambergris (used for producing expensive perfumes), produce food and tobacco, rear cattle for settlers, supply fresh food and products for the Dutch ships travelling along the Indian Ocean route. But he did not succeed, and was thus recalled. His successor was Adriaan Van der Stel, who brought with him various seeds and fruits including sugar cane saplings. He also brought along rabbits, sheep, geese, ducks, pigeons and stags, which multiplied over the years. They were sources of fresh provisions to passing ships. Van der Stel began to develop the export of ebony wood. In order to cut down the ebony trees for exportation, he brought Malagasy slaves to the island. During the period of 3 years where the Governor Van Der Stel was on the island, he developed the agriculture: cultivated rice, indigo, tobacco and cane.
In 1644, the islanders faced many months of hardships, due to delayed shipment of supplies, bad harvests, and cyclones which damaged the crops and the fort. During those months, the colonists could only rely on fishing and hunting for food. Van der Stel was then transferred to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka). Numerous governors came afterwards; Jacob van der Meersh, Reinier Por, Dirk Jansz Smient, George Frederik Wreeden, Hubert Hugo, Johannes Lamotius, Roelof Diodati, Abraham Momber Van de Velde.
The continuing hardships affected the commercial potential of the island and a pullout was ordered in 1657. In 1664, a second attempt was made, but continuous hardships such as cyclones, droughts, pest infestations, lack of food, and illnesses finally took their toll, and the island was definitively abandoned in 1710.
The French in 1715
Once the Dutch withdrew, Mauritius remained unoccupied for some years. The French, who were already trying to control the Indian Ocean entered the island in 1715. Guillaume Dufresne d'Arsel landed and took possession of this port of call on the route to India. The island was seen important, from a strategic point of view to control Madras and other parts of India, which was colonized by the British. The island was named "Isle de France". The French brought infrastructure, agriculture, and industry to the island.
In 1721, the French started settling on the island with Denis Denyon being assigned as governor. People came from Bourbon Island (which is now known as Reunion island) and from France to settle on the island in Port North West (Port-Louis) and Port South East (Grand Port). Acres of land were cleared and tobacco maize and rice were planted. But due to the island's climate, they were soon destroyed by cyclones
However, it was only as from 1735, with the arrival of the French governor, Bertrand Mahé de Labourdonnais, a great sailor and trader, that "Isle de France" started developing effectively. He transferred the headquarters of the island from Port South East to Port North West. Mahé de La Bourdonnais established Port Louis as a naval base and a shipbuilding centre. Under his governorship, there have been the construction of numerous roads and buildings; a number of which still stand today: part of Government House, the Chateau de MonPlaisir at Pamplemousses and the Line Barracks. He encouraged settlers to cultivate their land and obtained slaves from Mozambique to help them.
Thus sugarcane, wheat, rice, cotton, coffee and indigo, were planted. The first factory was built in Pamplemousses. To carry out public works and to cultivate more lands, Indian sailors and artisans were brought to the island. These many developments transformed Isle de France into a prosperous colony. It was under the administration of the French East India Company which maintained its presence until 1767.
In 1767 the crown took over the island from East India Company, and Governor Dumas and Intendant Pierre Poivre became the new administrators. Pierre Poivre was a great botanist and has brought pepper and cinnamon plants from Moluccas and other spices from Philippines to the island. Under their rule roads were straightened and widened, and many stone houses were built in Port-Louis (few still exist today).
In 1806 the Governor General, Charles Mathieu Isidore Decaen, created the city of Mahébourg, named in honour of Mahé de La Bourdonnais. It was originally known as Bourg Mahé. From that year until 1810, the island was in charge of officials appointed by the French Government, except for a brief period during the French Revolution, when the inhabitants set up a government virtually independent of France.
The British in 1810
After the French being defeated in India, Britain became the most powerful nation in the Indian Ocean. The British made several efforts to conquer Mauritius, but these efforts were each time deflected by the French. The British's main focus in captivating Mauritius was to protect their main sea route from England to India from the French. It was only during the Napoleonic Wars that the British succeeded in invading Mauritius in 1810, they landed in Cap Malheureux with a greater number of forces. The French who were outnumbered had to surrender. The British were thus able to capture the island merely six months after they were defeated by the French during the Battle of Vieux Grand Port.
Their possession of the island was confirmed four years later by the Treaty of Paris (1814). In order to gain the support of the locals the British promised to them that their customs, laws, language and culture will be respected, thus French institutions, including the Napoleonic code of law, were maintained. The French language was at that moment still used more widely than English.
Ile de France was renamed Mauritius. Robert Farquhar was appointed as the first English Governor of Mauritius. He made rapid social and economic changes. In August 1833 the law of abolishing slavery was passed by the British parliament and came into force in Mauritius in 1835. The abolition of slavery had important repercussions on the socio-economic and demographic fields. Since slaves could no longer be used, the local planters turned to India from where they brought a large number of indentured laborers. They were brought to work in the sugar cane fields. They were also skilled workers and artists. There was a tremendous change in the structure of the population on the island, as the immigrants and colored people modified the political structure in the 19th century. At the end of the 20th century, economic reforms were introduced in the country which helped in the development of the island. The credit for building the airport at Plaisance and the Vacoas meteo station goes to the British, who tried to change the face of the island during the World War II. The first underwater telephone cable in Mauritius was placed in 1901, connecting Australia to South Africa.
On the constitutional plane, the Council of Government was first established in 1825, a new Council of Government including 10 members elected on a restricted franchise was brought in 1886. In 1933 the Constitution was significantly amended. But the Constitution was still restricted to persons within a certain income bracket and to property owners. In 1948, after years of negotiations for a more liberal Constitution, a major breakthrough occurred when franchise was extended to all adults who could pass a simple literacy test. The Council of Government was replaced by a Legislative Council composed of 19 elected members, 12 members nominated by the Governor and three ex-officio members. General elections were held in August 1948 and the first Legislative Council met on 1st September 1948.
Conflicts arose between the sugarcane labourers and the owners in the 1920s, leading to several deaths. Following this, the Mauritius Labour Party was founded in 1936 by Maurice Cure based on the British Labour Party to safeguard the interest of the labourers. When Cure was forced to step down as President of the Labour Party in 1941, Anquetil took over and tried to gain the support of the port workers. After his death, Guy Rozemont took over the leadership of the party until his death in 1956 at the age of forty-one. The arrival of Seewoosagur Ramgoolam in 1958 marked an important step in the history of the party. He was in favour of an independent Mauritius within the Commonwealth of Nations. An independence campaign gained momentum after 1961, when the British agreed to permit additional self-government and eventual independence. Following the victory of the Labour Party in the general election of 1967, a constitutional agreement was made in Parliament. The coalition government, including the Labour Party, Independent Forward Block & Muslim Action Committee sealed the pact for Independence. Then the Labour Party, along with Veerasamy Ringadoo, Satcam Boolell, and Harold Walter, in coalition with the Muslim Action Committee led by Abdool Razack Mohamed and the Independent Forward Block led by the Bissoundoyal brothers, Lall Jugnauth and Anerood Jugnauth, pushed a motion in the Legislative Council to provide for independence. In 1968, the people of the island were able to secure independence from the colonial British rule. Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam became the first prime minister of Mauritius and held the reins of the country until 1982.
Mauritius became a Republic in 1992
In December 1991, the Constitution was amended to make Mauritius a republic within the Commonwealth. Mauritius became a republic on 12 March 1992, with the last governor general, Sir Veerasamy Ringadoo, as interim president. He was succeeded by Cassam Uteem on 30 June 1992.
Written by: My Guide Mauritius
PUBLISHED: Jun 16th 2017 | UPDATED: Sep 26th 2017


text:
Tag Archives: play
March 2018 Trans Talk on KKFI
We have another full house today on Trans Talk. We are going to kick off the program by talking with Cassandra Peters, who is the founder of the Johnson County Q-Space, the only LGBTQ+ youth center in Johnson County, Kansas. Joining Cassandra in the studio today are some of the kids from the Q-Space.
In the second part of the program we have in our studio Marissa Wolf, who is the director of new works and the associate artistic director of Kansas City Repertory Theatre. Ms. Wolf is here on Trans Talk to share the details of an upcoming new play reading titled "CLICK" by Jaqueline Goldfinger, which features a transgender character.
We will have a new take on the transgender news of the month, and finish up the show with the community calendar update. I do hope you will be able to join me this Saturday, March 24th at 1:00 pm on 90.1 KKFI, Kansas City Community Radio! You can also stream the program live on kkfi.org, or via various apps on your phone.
This entry was posted in Activism, Entertainment, Youth and tagged play, q-space on March 24, 2018 by .
October 2017 Trans Talk on KKFI
On the October Trans Talk edition of The Tenth Voice, we will open the show by listening to an interview that Fiona and I conducted with the directors and one of the cast of the local production of Casa Valentina. This is a play exploring the struggle for acceptance by cross-dressing men in the 1960's, which is based upon a real event in the history of gender non-conformity. Then we are going to talk to a special guest in the studio with us today, a transgender woman of color who has faced many terrible obstacles in her life journey, leading to her entering sex work and being the victim of violence right here in Kansas City. She has a powerful story that I believe will speak to all of us.
We will have Una's News Rant, a round up of some of the LGBT news this week, and we will finish up the show with the community calendar update. I do hope you will be able to join me this Saturday, October 28th at 1:00 pm on 90.1 KKFI, Kansas City Community Radio! You can also stream the program live on kkfi.org, or via various apps on your phone.
This entry was posted in Activism, History, Testamonial, Transition and tagged casa susanna, play, prostitution on October 28, 2017 by .
Local Dramatic Production – Kings of Israel, a Gay Take on the Biblical Story of David and Saul
At the Roeland Park City Council meeting last night, where the anti-discrimination ordinance was voted upon (more on that in another post), I met a young man named Schaeffer Nelson. Schaeffer came to support the anti-discrimination ordinance, and after the disastrous vote we spoke in the hallway for some time. He told me of his original play, Kings of Israel, which is premiering at Kansas City's 10th Annual Fringe Festival this July.
The play is described as "…a Biblical story with a queer sensibility that places the young shepherd David in a series of bedroom conversations with a violent, paranoid King Saul. David must test the limits of intimacy with a king whom he is secretly charged by God to overthrow. The boundary lines of love, violence, and trust must be crossed if David is to achieve his goal."
The play is being performed at Phosphor Studios, 1730 Broadway Blvd, Kansas City, MO 64108 with performances on:
Friday, July 18 @ 6:00pm
Sunday, July 20 @ 7:30pm
Saturday, July 26 @ 6:00pm
A synopsis follows:
Irreverently comedic and increasingly tense, Kings of Israel retells the complex and dangerous relationship between King Saul and David, the first two kings of Biblical Israel. After King Saul proves to be unstable and violent, the Prophet Samuel secretly anoints an isolated young shepherd, David, to be Saul's usurper. But before David fulfill God's plan and assume the throne, he is dispatched to be Saul's private musician. Over the course of a series of bedroom conversations, the intimacy between the two men deepens. As bloody choices draw near, David questions where his loyalty to God ends and his relationship with King Saul begins. Kings of Israel takes the Biblical story in a provocative new direction.
The play contains sexual content, violence, and adult language and is for mature audiences.
More information on the play can be found here.
Schaeffer tells me that the earlier shows are sold out, but tickets are still available for the 9:00pm Friday and 6:00pm Saturday shows (July 25 and 26, respectively). If you are interested in LGBT history or LGBT religious topics, I recommend going to see it.
This entry was posted in Entertainment and tagged antidiscrimination, gay, play on July 22, 2014 by .
Southern Comfort, Exploring Transgender Lifestyles
A play which makes me wonder about its intent. The article contains the following:
A musical with a folk/bluegrass score, Southern Comfort, according to BSC, "is a true story based on Kate Davis' 2001 Sundance Award-winning documentary about transgender friends in rural Georgia. Winner of the Jonathan Larson Award, Southern Comfort is the story of male transgendered Robert Eads (O'Toole) and his trans girlfriend Lola Cola (McCarthy) as they navigate life and its challenges in the back hills of 'Bubba Land' Georgia. A celebration of a uniquely American family living life openly, honestly and courageously in the community they have grown to love."
Southern Comfort, Exploring Transgender Lifestyles, Begins July 19 at Barrington; Annette O'Toole and Jeff McCarthy Star – Playbill.com.
This entry was posted in Entertainment and tagged georgia, play on July 19, 2013 by .
The Transgender Inspiration Behind the Award-Winning Play, "Kinky Boots"
This is a cool true story of how a struggling shoe factory got new life by catering to transgender customers. The stage version just won an award for "Best Musical." Some of the story:
In his 30s Pateman had taken over from his father as boss of WJ Brookes – a traditional shoe factory in the village of Earls Barton in Northamptonshire which had existed for more than a century.
Struggling with changes in fashion and competition from abroad Steve had started to look for new markets. He was persuaded by an unexpected phone-call to think about expansion into "kinky boots" – women's shoes in men's sizes for transgender people.
"…I explained we were having real difficulty getting hold of well-made women's shoes which would fit men. I persuaded him the market wasn't as niche as he thought and suddenly he was keen.
"In fact at one point Steve got carried away. He was talking about leopard-skin boots and other exotic lines. But what my customers want is classic black patent boots and shoes which will take a man's weight."
BBC News – Kinky Boots inspiration comes out of the shadows.
This entry was posted in Entertainment, History and tagged award, clothing, play, united kingdom on July 14, 2013 by .


Mycronic is at the forefront of the electronics industry. The Swedish company creates world-leading production solutions for the electronics assembly, display and packaging industries. Solutions that are used in flat screen TV's and displays, medical implants and interplanetary space technology equipment, just to name a few examples.
Up until 2016, Mycronic was using ENOVIA SmarTeam as their PDM/PLM solution, but the internal group ICT department at Mycronic started to question the functionalities of the current system. And as the software was nearing its end-of-life stage, the department looked for suitable solutions to replace the legacy system that was soon to be phased out.
"The problem with the old system was that it was not fulfilling the architecture that we needed. As we are a growing company, we depend on efficient collaboration with our different sites around the world. We knew that we had to switch system to something more comprehensive and modern," says Claes Klang, PLM Application Manager at Mycronic.
After evaluating several solutions, Mycronic chose to go with Aras Innovator.
"We were able to download, get training and through our organization prove to ourselves that the Aras solution had the flexibility, we require. We felt comfortable with the effort required for making changes and the functionality out of the box", says Britta-Karin Spåls, CIO at Mycronic.
Especially the subscription model was interesting for Mycronic.
"We liked the licensing model of Aras. The other systems have this named-user licensing model. In Aras, you can purchase bundle licenses to start with and expand slowly from there. That is a match for us because we continue to grow our personnel and need flexibility," says Claes Klang.
Mycronic chose Aras Innovator to standardize the management of product data, design and development processes.
"Overall, we are quite satisfied. As we see it now it has been a quite successful and quite fast implementation. I think that Aras is a very scalable and flexible system, and I think it is a solution that has the future for it," concludes Claes Klang, PLM Application Manager at Mycronic.
In the old system we were not working with processes, but more with PDM functionalities. In Aras, we now have taken advantage over the workflow handling capabilities, so we now have five or six workflow handlings for different change managements. That is a huge improvement to our workflow.


Today was Day 4 of the commercial shoot. The weather was a lot better today plus we were surrounded by greenery and water sprinklers so they were both helping in keeping us cool. Tomorrow is the last day of the shoot, I really don't feel like going back to the office once this is all over. I hate being stuck behind a desk..
hmmmm... after being out for a few days, you will feel cramped and boxed inside the office. don't you think it's time to ask for a corner office with glass walls?


text:
Aishi Chakraborty
Does religion permit mercy killing?
Euthanasia is a term that has been globally misinterpreted and has been the subject of many social and psychological studies. Today for this blog post , I have attempted to look at Euthanasia or mercy killing through the lens of religion. The word Euthanasia originates from Greece. According to Philosopher Helga Kuhse: "'Euthanasia' is a compound of two Greek words — "eu" and "thanatos" meaning, literally, 'a good death'. Today, 'euthanasia' is generally understood to mean the bringing about of a good death — 'mercy killing,' where one person, A, ends the life of another person, B, for the sake of B." Euthanasia can be divided into three categories — voluntary, non-voluntary, or involuntary.
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in a growing number of countries.
Non-voluntary euthanasia (patient's consent unavailable) is legal in some countries under certain limited conditions, in both active and passive forms.
Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder.
Ramayan is a widely read Hindu text which we often grow up listening to our grandparents telling us in a blissful summer afternoon or as a bedtime story.
According to Wikipedia, The epic Ramayana dated variously from the 5th century BCE to the first century BCE. The story revolves around the life of prince Ram a prince of Ayodha ( a province in India ). Among Hindus, Ram is perceived to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu the creator of the world. Sita was the wife of Ram and the daughter of Bhūmi (the earth) and the adopted daughter of King Janaka of Videha and his wife, Queen Sunayana.
Did Ram and Sita both actively participate in what we call the modern-day practice of Euthanasia?
Google Image Result for…
images.app.goo.gl
Well as the history and records suggest. Everyone who is slightly familiar with the plot of the Epic might know that the story concludes with Sita returning to her mother Bhumi ( the earth ) by willingly descending underground ( might be a form of self burial ). She faces a lot of issues with her conjugal life with Ram due to her abduction by the demon King Ravana which leads her to go back to her mother ( this might connote to her taking her own life from her will ). Ram on the other hand drowns himself in River Sarayu after the incident. His devout follower and worshiper Lord Hanuman received a parting gift which gave him the power to chose his time of death.
Through these aforementioned incidences, we can comprehend how subtly one may assume that Religion may not condemn practices of euthanasia. Euthanasiathrough correct practices or measures may benefit a lot of people for whom living is an eternal purgatory. Patients who are terminally ill or suffering from major illnesses should be given a right to end their lives just like everyone has the right to live.
Writing about life , culture , art and literature 🌙
More from Aishi Chakraborty
Learning I Was Psychic
Sara Shermis
Joshua Stump in I'm Stumped
Choice Insights from Matthew Henry's Commentary on Ezekiel Chapter Three
Kevin Cox
About The Amethyst Eye
Grey Hen With A Pen in The Amethyst Eye
What It Means to Be a Man
Catherine Carrigan
The Oracle Ritual
Eleanor Hadley
Hardships help campus missionary to pave the way for a future generation
Morgan Buompastore
So, You're Done with the Church?
Jonas Ellison


Israel's seven weeks of attacks this summer on heavily populated civilian neighborhoods in Gaza has led to unprecedented concern among Americans who, while still broadly supportive of Israel, found the attacks to be disproportionate and unnecessary.
Close to 1,500 Palestinian civilians in Gaza were killed in the Israeli attacks – more of 500 of whom were children – and 18,000 homes were destroyed, leaving over 100,000 people homeless. Despite this devastating civilian toll, leading Democrats in Washington have joined Republicans in claiming that Israel's actions were legitimate acts of self-defense against military targets, dismissing reports by reputable Israeli and international human rights groups saying otherwise.
In July and August, the two houses of Congress passed four resolutions and forwarded a series of letters providing unqualified backing for the massive Israeli air and ground assault, echoing the Israeli government's justifications for the war and directly contradicting findings by United Nations officials on the ground, as well as investigations by both Israeli and international human rights groups.
What is particularly shocking is not just the vehemence with which the vast majority of congresspersons so enthusiastically supported a military operation condemned by most of the international community, but that they went on record making demonstrably false accusations despite being repeatedly confronted with evidence directly contradicting their claims.
The resolutions and letters seem to assume that while Hamas was guilty of terrorism in the deaths of the five civilians killed by Hamas rockets inside Israel, the Israeli government bore absolutely no responsibility for the deaths of nearly 1,500 Palestinian civilians killed by Israeli ordnance inside the Gaza Strip. Indeed, members of Congress have repeatedly asserted that the Palestinian side was somehow responsible for the deaths of its own people at Israel's hands.
The congressional reaction to reports like Amnesty International's was swift.
These were just two in a series of similar bipartisan resolutions and public letters that went through Capitol Hill as part of a concerted campaign to discredit human rights groups, journalists, medical workers, UN officials, and any other eyewitness who discredited the Israeli government's talking points.
These human rights groups and UN officials also strongly denounced Palestinian militants for firing rockets into civilian areas in Israel and for keeping armaments and soldiers in close proximity to civilian areas in Gaza, as well as for their refusal to accept several ceasefire proposals that could have ended the carnage earlier. Congress had no problem with that. By contrast, since Israel is considered an important strategic ally of the United States and a lucrative market for US arms manufacturers, both major political parties made it a priority to lie and cover up for Israel's war crimes, effectively insisting that Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, and the United Nations were simply wrong and that they – from the comfort of their air-conditioned offices in Washington, DC – somehow knew better.
No eyewitnesses in the Gaza Strip during the war found any evidence of this, however. For example, in late July, New York Times reporters in Gaza noted, "There is no evidence that Hamas and other militants force civilians to stay in areas that are under attack." Likewise, Jeremy Bowen of the BBC that he saw "no evidence" for "Israel's accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields." According to reporters from The Independent and The Guardian, it was a "myth" that Hamas forced civilians to stay in their neighborhoods during Israeli attacks. Contrary to accusations by members of Congress, the Gazans who failed to heed Israeli warnings to evacuate did so because areas Israel had declared safe were being attacked as well.
Similarly, on July 25, Amnesty International noted that it had no evidence "that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to 'shield' specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks." Preliminary investigations by the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and other groups – while noting that Hamas had illegally engaged in hostilities in close proximity to populated areas and had stored weaponry in unoccupied homes and schools – found no evidence that Hamas had actually engaged in actions that met the widely accepted legal definition of using human shields.
Again, the response in Congress was swift: In less than a week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) pushed through a Senate resolution claiming that "Hamas intentionally uses civilians as human shields" and condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for not saying so. Similarly, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) – who serves, ironically, as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee focusing on human rights – drafted a letter to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, signed by 34 of her colleagues, insisting that "Hamas is using Palestinian men, women, and children as human shields to deter Israeli attacks." When I contacted them, neither senator's office was able to provide any evidence backing their claims, nor did they explain how they were able to somehow locate information that journalists, UN officials, and human rights monitors in Gaza were unable to find.
Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention makes it clear that even if one party to a conflict is in fact shielding itself behind civilians, such a violation "shall not release the [other] Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians." In other words, even if Hamas actually had used civilians as shields, it would still have been a war crime for Israel to kill them. To use a domestic example: if bank robbers were holding tellers and customers hostage while shooting at the police, the police could not get away with killing the hostages along with the criminals. Indeed, the implications of such broad bipartisan support in Congress for such a concept are chilling, given that this rationale could be replicated by law enforcement officials here in the United States – particularly given the militarization of local police forces in the name of fighting terrorism.
In reality, empirical investigations during and following the conflict by several reputable investigative bodies found absolutely no evidence supporting this charge. A detailed study by Human Rights Watch published at the end of the fighting in Lebanon found "no cases in which Hezbollah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack." Similarly, Amnesty International, in a well-documented report of its own, observed that "While the presence of Hezbollah's fighters and short-range weapons within civilian areas is not contested, this in itself is not conclusive evidence of intent to use civilians as 'human shields', any more than the presence of Israeli soldiers in a kibbutz is in itself evidence of the same war crime." In addition, Amnesty reported that while Hezbollah did store weapons and fire from civilian areas, it was only long after most of the civilian population had been evacuated. Subsequent reports for the US Army War College and elsewhere also failed to find any evidence for the charge, which was nonetheless repeated by the House resolution years later.
In apparent anticipation of the US bombing in Syria and Iraq, which would commence soon thereafter, the bipartisan House majority also went on record saying that Islamic State forces "typically use innocent civilians as human shields." Following the logic from this and other resolutions supporting Israel's attacks on Palestinian civilians in Gaza, this appears to have been a preemptive effort to exempt US forces from any moral or legal culpability for the deaths of Syrian and Iraqi civilians caused by the imminent bombing of urban areas in those countries as well.
Attacking the United Nations used to be the reserve of right-wing Republicans. Under the current congressional leadership, however, it has become a bipartisan affair, at least when concerns are raised about war crimes by a right-wing ally of the United States.
Another target of congressional wrath has been the United Nations Refugee and Works Agency (UNRWA), the relief and development agency that provides education, health care, social services, and other assistance for Palestinian refugees in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere in the Middle East. UNRWA Commissioner General Pierre Krahenbuhl has repeatedly condemned Hamas for a number of illegal activities, including storing weapons in two unoccupied UN schools, and called for an end to the indiscriminate rocket fire from Gaza aimed at Israel. But when Krahenbuhl also noted that Israeli forces were acting "contrary to international humanitarian law" in attacking UN schools housing refugees, Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Mark Kirk (R-IL) co-authored a bipartisan letter to Secretary of State John Kerry calling for an investigation into the allegedly "one-sided statements from UNRWA leadership that unjustly condemn Israel." The six Israeli attacks on UNRWA schools – which killed 46 civilians, including 10 UN staff members – took place after UNRWA officials notified the Israelis of their exact locations and the absence of any Hamas military equipment or activity.
The primary target of Congress was the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), which had been praised by many in Congress only months earlier for its efforts to expose war crimes by the Assad regime in Syria. The UNHRC found itself the target of bipartisan wrath when it voted to establish a commission of inquiry looking into "all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law" in the hostilities in Gaza. The United States was the only one of the UNHRC's 47 members to vote against establishing the commission.
The full chambers of both the House and Senate went on record condemning the UN investigation as well, with Democratic leader Reid, on the Senate floor, declaring he was "disgusted" that the UNHRC would adopt a resolution "accusing Israel of human rights violations in the ongoing Gaza conflict," calling such accusations "anti-Israel." The desperation with which both political parties in Congress have rushed to block a UN inquiry exemplifies their determination to minimize the availability of data that would expose how their previous resolutions and letters were essentially efforts to hide the truth.
None of the resolution cosponsors I contacted could cite any terrorist attacks carried out from those tunnels, yet none of these senators who supported the resolution have thus far distanced themselves from this claim.
Additional misleading information has concerned the alleged role of outside actors in supporting the Hamas attacks. For example, one of the House resolutions contains the bizarre claim that the Syrian government was providing "material support and training to Hamas" in its "rocket and mortar attacks from Gaza." Not only is there no evidence for this charge, but Hamas and the Syrian regime are now bitter rivals; Hamas has not even had a diplomatic office in the Syrian capital of Damascus since 2011. Indeed, the Palestinian Islamist group has denounced the Assad regime and thrown its support to armed rebel groups seeking its overthrow. Hamas is on much friendlier terms with other Middle Eastern governments – such as Turkey and Qatar – that are considered US allies. Again, requests to congressional offices to back up this claim were unanswered.
When it comes to Israel, both parties allow ideology to trump the facts. A majority of both Democrats and Republicans are determined to attack the United Nations and discredit human rights groups if they dare document war crimes by the right-wing Israeli government.
This is nothing new, however. Back in the 1980s, members of Congress (primarily Republicans, but some Democrats as well) also tried to undermine the credibility of the UN and human rights organizations when they provided evidence of war crimes by US allies in the Central America. In recent decades, leaders in both parties have also covered for atrocities committed by allied governments in Indonesia, Turkey, Colombia, Rwanda, and beyond.
What's different today is that liberal and progressive groups that used to expose "Death Squad Democrats" along with Republicans who defended such governments are now giving unconditional support to Democratic defenders of Israel's war crimes.
Barbara Boxer, perhaps the most outspoken Democratic supporter of Israel's actions in the Senate, has been named a "progressive hero" by such groups as MoveOn and Democracy for America. Peace Action has endorsed Oregon Democrat Jeff Merkley, whom – despite his co-sponsorship of Senate Resolution 498 – they label as a "peace leader." Backers of these and other resolutions covering up for Israeli war crimes – including Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Sens. Brian Schatz (D-HI), Al Franken (D-MN), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) – have been labeled "bold progressives" by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is raising money for their reelection. Meanwhile, MoveOn has endorsed Sens. Mark Udall (D-CO), Kay Hagan (D-NC), and other unconditional supporters of Israel's actions.
While most Americans are still broadly supportive of Israel, only a minority agree that Hamas was mostly responsible for this summer's violence. Even in the early weeks of the conflict, when sympathy for Israel was strongest, only 29 percent of Democrats surveyed agreed Hamas was mostly at fault, a demonstration that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress – who have gone on record insisting that Hamas was solely responsible – are at odds with their constituents. This gap is particularly apparent among the core Democratic constituencies, such as liberals, minorities, women, and young people, whose enthusiasm is needed to get the vote out in November. Already, there are signs that the strident support by most congressional Democrats in defense of Israeli war crimes has alienated some of the party's base – particularly among young people, who tend to trust human rights groups over politicians.
Still, it's important to note that not everyone in Congress supported these right-wing initiatives. Scores of House and Senate members, particularly progressive Democrats and libertarian-leaning Republicans, refused to do so. Though four of these resolutions were adopted by a parliamentary procedure known as "unanimous consent," it does not mean they had unanimous support. While technically anyone present could block it by demanding a roll call vote, such resolutions are often pushed through without advance warning when hardly anyone is on the floor. Indeed, the very fact that the party leadership went to some lengths to avoid virtually any roll call votes on the war may have stemmed from an awareness that a growing number of members from both sides of the aisle are reluctant to go on record supporting war crimes.
The bottom line, though, is that there is currently a large majority of both parties willing to undermine and discredit UN agencies and reputable human rights groups in their investigations of war crimes and suppress the reporting and enforcement of international humanitarian law.
The bipartisan implication that, in the name of fighting terrorism, a government can legitimately engage in the massive bombardment of urban areas where 70 percent of the casualties are civilians goes well beyond Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, the willingness of supposedly "progressive" activist groups to provide unconditional support for the reelection campaigns of those pushing this kind of agenda shows these politicians that they have little to lose when they do.


text:
Hospitals could face larger cut
by Arielle Levin Becker
MidState Medical Center in Meriden
Gov. Dannel P. Malloy cut $192 million in Medicaid funding for hospitals last month, but the actual hit to hospitals could end up being 25 percent higher.
The state is holding back additional payments to hospitals that weren't part of the cut, and a spokesman for the governor's budget office said decisions about whether to pay them will be "based on whether we have enough money to keep the budget in balance."
Citing stock market volatility and lower-than-expected income tax receipts, the Malloy administration last month rescinded nearly $103 million in state spending. That included certain payments to hospitals for the second, third and fourth quarters of this fiscal year. Because Medicaid spending generates federal matching funds, the cut to hospitals amounted to $192 million.
Malloy did not cut first-quarter payments to hospitals, but they have not yet been distributed. The first quarter ended Wednesday. Hospital officials said that in previous years, the first-quarter payments were made in August.
Asked whether the payments would be made, Gian-Carl Casa, undersecretary for legislative affairs in the state Office of Policy and Management, said the budget office would consult with the governor, legislators, Department of Social Services and others "to determine the best approach," which he said would be based on whether there was enough money to keep the budget balanced.
The funding at issue includes two pools of money. One, referred to as the Medicaid supplemental pool, gives back to hospitals money the industry pays the state in taxes, a process that allows the state to collect federal matching funds. This fiscal year, hospitals are slated to pay $556.1 million in taxes, up from $349.1 million last year. The state budget that passed in June called for them to receive $241.1 million back in supplemental payments. But Malloy's cut to three-quarters of those payments will leave hospitals with an expected $60.3 million – if the first-quarter payment is made.
The other funding affected by the cut is an $11.1 million pool of money – $3.6 million in state funds, the rest covered by federal matching funds – intended for small, independent hospitals, which was slated to go to Bristol, Day Kimball, Griffin, Charlotte Hungerford, Johnson Memorial and Milford hospitals.
Funding cuts by hospital
Here is how much state and federal funding each Connecticut hospital will lose under the budget cut Gov. Dannel Malloy ordered last month. Connecticut Children's Medical Center and UConn's John Dempsey Hospital do not receive funding from the initiatives that were cut and so are not affected by the reduction.
Backus $4.8 million
Bridgeport $18.2 million
Bristol $5.9 million
Connecticut Children's NA
Danbury $6.9 million
Day Kimball $4.2 million
Dempsey NA
Greenwich $1 million
Griffin $3.6 million
Hartford $20.4 million
Hospital of Central Connecticut $9.6 million
Hungerford $4.4 million
Johnson Memorial $1.7 million
Lawrence + Memorial $6.5 million
Manchester $4.7 million
MidState $5.2 million
Middlesex $4.4 million
Milford $1 million
New Milford $581,722
Norwalk $6.3 million
Rockville $879,817
St. Francis $20.4 million
St. Mary's $8.8 million
St. Vincent's $13.9 million
Sharon $334,418
Stamford $7.8 million
Waterbury $8.4 million
Windham $1.7 million
Yale-New Haven $20.4 million
Office of Fiscal Analysis
Legislators have criticized the cut to hospitals, as well as additional cuts the governor made to mental health and addiction treatment services and programs for people with developmental disabilities.
House Speaker J. Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden, and Majority Leader Joe Aresimowicz, D-Berlin, issued a joint statement Friday calling on Malloy to release the first quarter payments immediately.
"This is an obligation of the state, and it is not an option to not pay our bills for services our hospitals have already provided," the leaders wrote. "Having already cut future commitments to hospitals, the administration's holding back these funds makes a bad situation worse. Legislative Democrats are developing a package of alternative cuts that address potential budget shortfalls, and we await similar suggestions from our Republican colleagues. In the meantime, we urge the governor to not exacerbate the problems his cuts have already created for our hospitals."
"We have made clear publicly and privately for over a month that we have been open to their alternative ideas," Malloy spokesman Devon Puglia said. "We look look forward to eventually seeing them, because we continue to wait for them."
Hospital officials have warned that Malloy's cuts could lead to layoffs and service reductions. Bristol Hospital President and CEO Kurt Barwis said this week that if nothing changes, the hospital would default on its bonds in 12 to 18 months. Earlier this year, the hospital eliminated 43 positions, reducing its workforce by 5 percent in response to Medicare and Medicaid cuts.
Other hospitals have laid off employees and attributed the job cuts fully or in part to fiscal pressures from the state budget, not including Malloy's September cut.
Stamford Hospital last month announced that it was laying off 20 employees, leaving 113 open positions unfilled, closing its mobile wellness center, consolidating community outreach and education programs, and would, in 2017, discontinue its annual subsidy to primary care clinics. Hospital officials said the changes were made to offset an increase in hospital tax payments, but had not taken Malloy's most recent cut into account.
In June, Hartford HealthCare announced plans to eliminate 335 positions, affecting 418 workers, and the Yale New Haven Health System announced plans to close two clinics.
The Malloy administration has pointed to hospital financial performance to suggest the industry remains highly profitable, noting that hospital corporate systems, which include parent companies and subsidiaries, took in $916.4 million more than they spent during the 2014 fiscal year.
The governor can cut up to 5 percent from most budget line items without legislative approval. Because nearly all of the state's Medicaid spending is included in one $2.45 billion line, Malloy has the ability to unilaterally cut up to $123.4 million from the program. (Total Medicaid spending is close to $6 billion, but the state doesn't budget some of the funding that gets reimbursed by the federal government.)
Arielle Levin Becker Arielle Levin Becker covers health care for The Connecticut Mirror. She previously worked for The Hartford Courant, most recently as its health reporter, and has also covered small towns, courts and education in Connecticut and New Jersey. She was a finalist in 2009 for the prestigious Livingston Award for Young Journalists and a recipient of a Knight Science Journalism Fellowship and the National Health Journalism Fellowship. She is a graduate of Yale University.
CT Voices proposes major state tax shift to reverse inequality
The plan is at odds with Gov. Ned Lamont, who blocked an income tax surcharge last spring on the investment earnings of wealthy households.
Racial disparities persist in CT health care, two groups find
Despite efforts, significant health disparities remain between state's residents of color and white residents, two new reports found.
Lawmakers set hearing on proposal to repeal state's religious vaccine exemption
Lawmakers are wasting no time seeking public input on a proposal to erase Connecticut's religious exemption from mandatory vaccinations. They have scheduled a public hearing on the plan for Feb. 19 – just two weeks into the legislative session. A draft of the bill is expected to be released next week.


text:
Uroplata severini is een keversoort uit de familie bladkevers (Chrysomelidae). De wetenschappelijke naam van de soort werd in 1911 gepubliceerd door Julius Weise.

severini

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Here are the steps to add webfonts from Google webfonts.
2. Select some fonts you wish to add. In this example we add 'Roboto'.
3. Choose the weights you need and copy your Embed code.
4. Please leave this site open as you need the fontweights later.
6. Choose 'Webservice' as the Fontset Type.
8. Now fill in the weights. For the Google Webfonts, this is pretty straight forward. In this Example we use 'Roboto' in the weights: 'light', 'regular', 'semibold' and 'bold', Always have in mind that not every font got the same css weight for light, semibold etc. In this case 'semibold' hast the css weight '500'. Normally it has '600'.


What is UBI? | University Business Intelligence, U.Va.
Home / What is UBI?
Welcome to University Business Intelligence at the University of Virginia!
UBI is UVA's enterprise reporting environment, with tools that support the University's needs for transactional reports, managerial reports, and executive dashboards. UBI leverages a foundational structure for data governance and stewardship to maintain data quality. Report data is pulled from an enterprise data warehouse, designed with robust data models that fully integrate and leverage data assets.
Already a UBI User? Go to UBI, or go to the UBI Community for questions, answers, resources, access to experts, training materials, a forum for technical questions, and UBI advice. UBI Team members and Subject Matter Experts from around the University will answer questions and provide support.
Still Have Questions? Email the UBI Team @ ubi@virginia.edu.


The Kavalkade Akila Bridle was designed for comfort for both horse and rider. The noseband and anatomical crown piece are softly padded and the laced reins are made with soft leather lacing for a comfortable grip. The browband and reins have attractive light stitching. This bridle can be adjusted evenly on both sides.
Designed for comfort for both horse and rider.
The noseband and anatomical crown piece are softly padded and the laced reins are made with soft leather lacing for a comfortable grip.
The browband and reins have attractive light stitching.