Times are getting tough on The Chase and friends are slowly becoming enemies due to the choices they make in their Nomination session. Elikem expressed to Biggie how much he respects South Africa’s Angelo but insisted that there can only be one winner at the end of the day.
Having Saved himself and Replaced Angelo in his place yesterday, Elikem feels no remorse for his move as the time to choose friends to be Evicted has come. It was all dandy in the beginning where there were a lot of Housemates to choose from but with only seven people in the House, a Chasemate’s choice gets limited.
“As much as some people are competition to me, I wouldn’t mind them having the money if I don’t get it and Angelo is one of those people,” Elikem said confidently. He also made it clear that he wouldn’t mind Cleo, Melvin and Beverly getting the money but obviously he would like to win. The tough part was him having to swap Angelo instead of Melvin, Beverly or Cleo. “I first chose Cleo but then you sounded like you would’ve gotten a little upset with me,” he said justifying his decision.
As much as everyone knows that this is a game and this particular stage is the hardest, it doesn’t make the Save and Replace any easier and Elikem is living proof of a man having to make the hardest decisions as HoH. We hope this doesn’t come back to haunt him and that Angelo will understand that the game is more important than the friendship they have.
How do you think Angelo will react to Elikem’s Save and Replace?
Angelo, Bimp and Dillish are up for possible Eviction this week. Vote here to keep your favourite Housemate in the game.
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
When the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. took the lectern at the March on Washington 50 years ago to deliver his "I Have a Dream" speech, the text in his hand didn't contain the words "I have a dream."
That refrain, and the part of the address it punctuated and propelled, was improvised on the spot. Having written a good speech — a working title was "Normalcy — Never Again" — King instead gave one of the greatest of the 20th century.
There are other things that most of us don't know about this storied speech. The march wasn't King's first use of the "dream" refrain. He came to rue the phrase, and by the time he died, the speech had faded from public memory.
King spoke on Aug. 28, 1963, at the biggest, most important civil rights demonstration in American history. It was the heart of the civil rights movement — eight years after the anti-segregation Montgomery bus boycott; three years after the lunch-counter sit-ins in Nashville and Greensboro, N.C.; two years after the first Freedom Rides on interstate buses through the South; and three months after police in Birmingham, Ala., horrified the nation by using attack dogs and fire hoses against women and children protesting segregated public facilities.
At least 250,000 people had jammed the National Mall to demand "jobs and freedom," including passage of a civil rights bill. But all many people know or remember is King, preaching a gospel of hope from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Rarely has such a famous speech been surrounded by so many myths and misconceptions, according to historians who have studied the march and people who attended it.
• The rally was not, as often described, "Martin Luther King's March on Washington."
The march was officially led by the black labor leader A. Philip Randolph, who had advocated a similar rally in 1941 to demand equal opportunity in the war effort. King was just one of several march leaders.
"It was King's dream — not his march," said Eric Arnesen, a George Washington University civil rights movement historian.
• The march was far from the first time King told an audience, "I have a dream."
King employed the phrase, and the oratory it framed, a week earlier in Chicago; two months earlier at a mass rally in Detroit; and several other times in the previous year or so.
• Within two years of the march, King was saying that his optimistic dream of 1963 had turned into a "nightmare.''
King attributed his own growing discouragement to urban riots, the Vietnam War, indifference to black poverty and opposition to desegregation in Northern cities.
• Only King's murder rescued the speech from public oblivion.
Drew Hansen, author of The Dream, a book on the speech, said that between 1963 and 1968 it was "largely forgotten" — first, because of the crush of events, and later, as King's earlier optimism began to seem ill-founded and he became more controversial, especially for his opposition to the war.
"In '65 or '66, most people would not have said it was the most powerful speech ever," said William P. Jones, author of a new history, The March on Washington.
King's assassination on April 4, 1968, led the nation to rediscover the speech. It heard a statement of national purpose on a par with the Gettysburg Address or the Declaration of Independence — "one of those things that we look to,'' said Hansen, "when we want to know what America means."
A SPEECH TO REMEMBER
The name of King's most famous speech is on schools and street signs, on posters, pins and T-shirts. It's in a hip-hop song. It's been invoked by Nelson Mandela and the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. It's the centerpiece of a national holiday.
However, Hansen pointed out, "it almost didn't happen." If King hadn't improvised as he did, or died when he did, things might have been different.
On the day of the march, more than two-thirds of Negroes (as African Americans were then known) lacked the right to vote, attend integrated schools or use the same public facilities as whites.
But King's movement finally had made civil rights the nation's top domestic political issue. The summer would see 1,122 civil rights demonstrations around the nation and about 20,000 arrests, almost all in the South.
On the Wednesday morning of the march, Washington was tense. Outside the city, thousands of combat troops were ready to move in, in case of trouble. Many businesses were closed. White House lawyers had drawn up martial-law orders for President Kennedy to sign if necessary.
The crowd gathered slowly at the Washington Monument and marched to the Lincoln Memorial, where the movement's leaders would address them. King, not yet 35, went last.
He had worked on the speech over the previous four days, finally finishing a few hours before dawn in his suite at the Willard Hotel.
As millions watched on television — all three networks had cut away from regular programming — King began reading from typed text. He invoked the words of the president whose likeness loomed in the background: "Five score years ago …" King said, the Emancipation Proclamation "came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night" of the slaves' captivity.
But 100 years later, he said, "the Negro still is not free." The promises of Lincoln's proclamation, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were like a "bad check." Now, he said, we're here to cash it.
After 10 minutes, he was more than halfway through a recitation that had been well received but was, as King biographer Taylor Branch would write, "far from historic" and in places "clubfooted."
Then, King looked up. He put aside his text, for he had seen — or just as likely sensed — an opportunity.
This in itself was not unusual; King rarely spoke from a text, preferring to assemble speeches and sermons from an array of what Hansen called his "set pieces" — bits of oratory based on Bible stories or verses, songs, old sermons and other sources.
Now, King began skipping whole paragraphs from his prepared text. Some on the platform noticed, including Clarence Jones, a King adviser who had worked on the speech. "He's off. He's on his own now. He's inspired," Jones told Hansen in 2002, four decades later.
Mahalia Jackson, who had performed earlier and was one of King's favorite gospel singers, cried, "Tell 'em about the dream, Martin!"
Although it's not clear whether King heard her, he did.
"I say to you today my friends, even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. It is a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
Having raised his eyes, he now had to raise his voice to be heard over the growing applause. He continued to profess his dream, repeating the refrain seven more times, moving from justice and equality to something deeper — a human bond transcending race.
"I have a dream that some day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."
It was as if only once he was up there, gazing out, could King see a future many that day could not: "… in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!"
To his wife, Coretta, it seemed King had forgotten time itself, that his words flowed "from some higher place."
He ended suddenly, returning to the speech that had been lying unread on the lectern for the last line: "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty — we are free at last!"
For a moment the audience was stunned. Silence. Then, a rocking ovation.
Ralph Abernathy, King's deputy and a fellow preacher, told him, "Leader, you swept today."
At the White House, President Kennedy — who with King would produce much of 20th-century America's memorable oratory — turned to an aide: "He's damn good."
Kennedy and his aides had honed his inaugural address for weeks, and he had read its stirring words as written; at Gettysburg, Lincoln gave the speech he had written. But King created a masterpiece on the fly, "like some sort of jazz musician," said David J. Garrow, whose King biography, Bearing the Cross, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1987. "It's the spontaneous parts of the speech that people remember."
Why did King decide to insert the "dream" section? He never really explained, and no one pressed him. When he spoke with Donald Smith, a graduate student, later that year, he didn't seem sure himself:
"I started out reading the speech, and I read it down to a point, and just all of a sudden I decided — the audience response was wonderful that day, you know — and all of a sudden this thing came to me that I'd used many times before, that thing about 'I have a dream.' I just felt I wanted to use it. I don't know why. I hadn't thought about it before that speech."
King's comment about "the audience" may refer to Mahalia Jackson's admonition, but he didn't mention her. Hansen, author of The Dream, thinks King sensed that the last section of his written speech did not match the emotions of the occasion and resorted to a riff he had used successfully for more than year, albeit one more commonly heard from a Baptist pulpit than on national TV.
After the march ended peacefully — not a single marcher was arrested — Kennedy met the leaders of the march at the White House.
When he walked into the Cabinet Room, the president looked at King and grinned. "I have a dream," he said.
Three months later, Kennedy was dead. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, rammed the Civil Rights Act through a previously unreceptive Congress by saying it was the best way to honor the fallen president.
'A NIGHTMARE'
King's speech was a hit, not just among blacks. Covered live by all three networks, it offered many whites their first exposure to the black sermonic tradition.
The speech soon began to recede, however. So much was happening so fast — the Birmingham church bombing the following month that killed four girls, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Selma-to-Montgomery marches, the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
And King's image changed. He began an unpopular and unsuccessful attempt to desegregate urban ghettos in the North. He came out against the war, alienating allies in the White House and organized labor. Race riots from Los Angeles to Newark seemed to suggest King's non-violent tactics were passé.
King inverted his own refrain. In 1965 he told an audience in Chicago, "I have had to watch my dream transformed into a nightmare." The lament became one of his set pieces.
But within days of his death, King's speech at the March on Washington became his signature, endlessly reprinted and replayed. It clearly had been the high point of his career, and a dream — because it's immortal — is all the more powerful in the face of death. King's dream, President Johnson told the nation, "has not died with him."
Also, it was easier to canonize the King who dreamed of a utopian future than the one who challenged the nation to dissolve the ghettos, stop the Vietnam War and guarantee the poor an annual income. When President Carter awarded King the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977, he said, "His dream sustains us yet."
King himself never gave up on it. On Christmas Eve 1967, at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, the weary pastor told his congregation:
"I am personally the victim of deferred dreams … but in spite of that, I close today by saying I still have a dream, because, you know, you can't give up in life. If you lose hope, somehow you lose that vitality that keeps life moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps you go on in spite of it all. And so today I still have a dream."
One more time, he restated the dream — judgment based on "content of character," not color of skin; "brotherhood will be more than a few words at the end of a prayer"; and "one day justice will roll down like water, and righteously like a mighty stream."
Less than four months later, he was dead. His dream, tattered and worn, lives on.
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
This is amazing, No doctor, no nurse, no midwife and this woman gives birth not even on her back, but standing. Water birth refers to childbirth, usually human, that occurs in water. Proponents believe water birth results in a more relaxed, less painful experience that promotes a midwife-like model of care.
Critics argue that the safety of water birth has not been scientifically proven and that a wide range of adverse neonatal outcomes have been documented including increased mother or child infections and the possibility of infant drowning.
A 2009 Cochrane Review of water immersion in the first stages of labour found evidence of fewer epidurals and few adverse effects but insufficient information regarding giving birth in water. Parent, child and birthing organizations have produced statements both supporting and criticizing water birthing.
They say women are strong but this woman is bold, brave and strong. Watch the video below (Warning: Explicit Content):
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Little Viet was born with one of the world's rarest facial deformities: a cleft palate and bilateral facial clefts. In the bone on each side of his face the two-year old has a two-inch gap, which will increase as he grows. His condition does not just affect the way he looks; it makes him blind in both eyes too.
If Viet doesn't have surgery now, he will not be able to speak or eat properly — ever. This documentary is the story of one British medical team's attempt to rebuild Viet's face and offer him a future.
Viet's mother, Nho, has been desperate for something to be done ever since her son was born. Now she has found hope in the form of Niall Kirkpatrick, one of the world's leading cranio-facial surgeons.
For years Niall has been going to Vietnam to help children with facial disfigurements, but when he meets Viet, he decides that his case is so complex that he needs to bring him back to the UK for surgery. We follow Viet and Nho as they travel from their small fishing village to London.
As Niall and his team embark on a series of lengthy and extremely challenging operations on her son, Nho has to cope with homesickness, anxiety and deeply unfamiliar surroundings. But if the operations have the effect everyone hopes they will, it will transform both of their lives.
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Seven years ago Isabelle Dinoire became the first-ever person to have a face transplant. In a rare interview, she describes how she copes with the stares, and her yearning to meet the family of the woman whose face became her own.
"The most difficult thing is to find myself again, as the person I was, with the face I had before the accident. But I know that's not possible," says the 45-year-old mother of two from northern France.
"When I look in the mirror, I see a mixture of the two [of us]. The donor is always with me."
After a moment, she adds: "She saved my life."
Dinoire regularly turns down media requests and rarely agrees to be photographed. She comes across as relaxed and self-assured, but her traumatic ordeal has left its mark, physically and mentally.
She still has a visible scar running from above her nose to down under her chin where specialist doctors at Amiens University Hospital in northern France, spent 15 hours sewing the donor's face on to hers. One of her eyes is slightly drooping.
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
BEIJING (AP) — A medicine mogul spent six years building his own private mountain peak and luxury villa atop a high-rise apartment block in China's capital, earning the unofficial title of "most outrageous illegal structure." Now, authorities are giving him 15 days to tear it down.
The craggy complex of rooms, rocks, trees and bushes looming over the 26-story building looks like something built into a seaside cliff, and has become the latest symbol of disregard for the law among the rich as well as the rampant practice of building illegal additions.
Angry neighbors say they've complained for years that the unauthorized, 800-square-meter (8,600-sq. feet) mansion and its attached landscaping was damaging the building's structural integrity and its pipe system, but that local authorities failed to crack down. They've also complained about loud, late-night parties.
"They've been renovating for years. They normally do it at night," said a resident on the building's 25th floor, who added that any attempts to reason with the owner were met with indifference. "He was very arrogant. He could care less about my complaints," said the neighbor, who declined to give his name to avoid repercussions.
Haidian district urban management official Dai Jun said Tuesday that authorities would tear the two-story structure down in 15 days unless the owner does so himself or presents evidence it was legally built. Dai said his office has yet to receive such evidence.
The villa's owner has been identified as the head of a traditional Chinese medicine business and former member of the district's political advisory body who resides on the building's 26th floor. Contacted by Beijing Times newspaper, the man said he would comply with the district's orders, but he belittled attempts to call the structure a villa, calling it "just an ornamental garden."
Authorities took action only after photos of the villa were splashed across Chinese media on Monday. Newspapers have fronted their editions with large photographs of the complex, along with the headline "Beijing's most outrageous illegal structure."
The case has resonance among ordinary Chinese who regularly see the rich and politically connected receive special treatment. Expensive vehicles lacking license plates are a common sight, while luxury housing complexes that surround Beijing and other cities are often built on land appropriated from farmers with little compensation.
China's leader Xi Jinping has vowed to crack down on official corruption, and Beijing itself launched a campaign earlier this year to demolish illegal structures, although the results remain unclear.
Demand for property remains high, however, and the rooftop extralegal mansion construction is far from unique. A developer in the central city of Hengyang recently got into hot water over an illegally built complex of 25 villas on top of a shopping center. He later won permission to keep the villas intact as long as they weren't sold to others.
While all land in China technically belongs to the state — with homebuyers merely given 70-year leases — the rules are often vague, leaving questions of usage rights and ownership murky.
A city in Sichuan province recently caused a minor stir when it was discovered to have cut the length of land leases from the normal 70 years to just 40 years.
The local government's response to public queries drew even more jeers. Officials posted a statement online maintaining that the law allows for lease periods of less than 70 years and adding: "Who knows if we'll still be in this world in 40 years. Don't think too long-term."
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
So now that the task brief has been read and the Housemates are in the garden trying to get some inspiration for the Airtel song, some of them were basking in the morning sun trying to get warm while others were eating. It kind of makes one wonder how serious they are about getting the first part of the Task right.
The brainstorming session started off with a variety of ideas being thrown out in terms of how the beat of the song would go. So Elikem and Angelo were trying different beats that would go well with the lyrics that they were making up as they went along. Elikem suggested they take some suggestions from Airtel’s “keep the conversation going” tagline.
As if to say that they are serious about this Task, Dillish and the boys started practicing the lyrics that they had written on the board. They seemed quite impressed with what they have so far as Dillish started dancing to the beat. They all sang along to the bit they had prepared while acknowledging that there was a long way to go. We can’t wait for the final product.
Do you think the Housemates will win their Wager?
Angelo, Bimp and Dillish are up for possible Eviction this week. Vote here to keep your favourite Housemate in the game.
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Wagering 100% seems to be the way Housemates negotiate their weekly supply of food. How this works is they get a Task and decide how much of their food they’d like to risk and when they win, the reward is usually glorious. This week was no different, the Housemates agreed that are giving it all in except Beverly who was a bit skeptical about their success in this particular Task.
The Task: Big Brother and Airtel wanted the Housemates to create a new song and dance routine for Airtel. The dance must incorporate football, graffiti and the ‘keep the conversation going’ tagline. Housemates will also have the opportunity to create their own graffiti style Airtel t-shirts to wear while doing the dance. They also had to cook lovely Italian meals for their fellow Housemates using the best pasta, Honeywell. And lastly, they need to design the outside of an airplane and create a promotion insert for Big Brother.
The gang settled on Wagering it all so as to get it all at the end of it all. Beverly and Dillish were not entirely convinced with Wagering their everything but they were outvoted. And so it remained that the Housemates need to give it their all so they can have it all once again. The rest of the Housemates were confident that they’ll do good, like they have been these past few weeks.
The brief had to be read at least three times as the Housemates were not particularly sure what needed to be done. So as HoH, Elikem did exactly that and then ordered them to get started with the song as soon as the Ruby doors were opened. Good luck to you Chasers.
Angelo, Bimp and Dillish are up for possible Eviction this week. Vote here to keep your favourite Housemate in the game.
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
People with more brothers and sisters are less likely to divorce than only children or those with one or two siblings, suggests a new study that looks at the effect siblings may have on divorce in adulthood.
Each additional sibling a person has (up to about seven) reduces the likelihood of divorce by 2%, finds the analysis, based on data from 57,061 adults in the General Social Survey, collected between 1972 and 2012.
"There are a lot of other factors that affect divorce that are more important than how many siblings you had. However, we're finding that the number of siblings is a factor," says Ohio State University sociologist Doug Downey, a co-author of the study. It is being presented Tuesday at a meeting of the American Sociological Association in New York City. "Each additional sibling reduces their chances of divorce a little bit."
The authors suggest that siblings further the development of social skills useful in navigating marriage.
However, others who study divorce and family size say the study — while interesting — is far from definitive.
People from large families may be more family oriented, says sociologist S. Philip Morgan, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He says the data from the General Social Survey are "somewhat problematic" for the issue of divorce.
"I'm not yet convinced." he says. "The theory is interesting and plausible but not overpowering."
Demographer Paul Amato of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, Pa., agrees that the premise is "an interesting idea."
"It's the first study I know of to have looked at this, but in the social sciences, you shouldn't get too excited about a single study," he says. "It would have to be replicated multiple times before you can have too much faith in it."
Although this research doesn't suggest that only children should worry about their marriages, Morgan says he's not sure the underlying theory is correct — that only children are at a disadvantage.
"We're not in the 1950s, where (an only child) might live in a household and mom might stay home and you'd interact all day with an adult. No kids do that anymore," he says. "There are lots of opportunities to gain interpersonal skills."
A study of only children and adult sociability published two years ago in the Journal of Family Issues found that "adults who grew up without siblings do not appear to be different from others in their patterns or frequency of interaction across a wide variety of social interactions, such as with neighbors and coworkers. Nor do adults who grew up without siblings differ from others in their engagement in other social activities … Thus, in this study we find little evidence of long-term effects of growing up without siblings."
Lauren Sandler, 38, of Brooklyn, N.Y., an only child and the mother of a 5-year-old daughter, says school is the "great equalizer."
"As much as the culture would tell us we need to have siblings to learn how to manage conflict, all the data actually tell us that school does that just fine," says Sandler, author of the book One and Only, out earlier this summer. "Unless you're raising only children in a situation away from other kids, they will learn those skills with friends and classmates throughout their lives."
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
Anthony-Claret is a software Engineer, entrepreneur and the founder of Codewit INC. Mr. Claret publishes and manages the content on Codewit Word News website and associated websites. He's a writer, IT Expert, great administrator, technology enthusiast, social media lover and all around digital guy.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
