United Nations Security Council Resolution 602

United Nations Security Council resolution 602, adopted unanimously on 25 November 1987, after hearing representations from the People's Republic of Angola, the Council recalled resolutions 387 (1976), 428 (1978), 447 (1979), 454 (1979), 475 (1980), 545 (1983), 546 (1984), 567 (1985), 571 (1985), 574 (1985) and 577 (1985), expressing its concern at the continuing military incursions into the country by South Africa through occupied South West Africa (Namibia).
The Council demanded South Africa cease Operation Moduler and respect Angola's sovereignty and territorial integrity, noting the "illegal entry of the head of the racist South African regime and some of his Ministers" into Angola. The representative of Ghana, which introduced the resolution, said the continued attacks were an affront to the Council's authority. It called for a complete and unconditional withdrawal of South African forces from southern Angola, requesting the Secretary-General to monitor the implementation of the current resolution and reporting back no later than 10 December 1987.
The resolution was a direct rejection of South Africa's offer to withdraw its troops from Angola if other nations, such as Cuba, did the same.


Christian Democratic Party (France)

The Christian Democratic Party (, PCD) is a conservative Christian-democratic party in France. The party was known as the Forum of Social Republicans (FRS) between 2001 and June 2009 before being adopting its current name. The party was founded by Christine Boutin.
The FRS was established in March 2001 as a social conservative faction within the Christian democratic Union for French Democracy (UDF) and emerged as an independent party in December of the same year, when Boutin announced her candidacy in the 2002 French presidential election, in contrast with UDF leader and official candidate François Bayrou, and was consequently expelled.
In 2005, the FRS called for a NO vote in the referendum over the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe.
The PCD is a Christian democratic social conservative party, opposed to gay marriage, abortion and euthanasia.
The PCD is an associate party of the Union for a Popular Movement and is a member of the Liaison Committee for the Presidential Majority.
Since November 2013, Jean-Frédéric Poisson has been the new president of the party.
Elected officials.
The party also claims 9,500 members as of 2009.


Galway Connemara (UK Parliament constituency)

Connemara, a division of Galway, was a UK Parliament constituency in Ireland, returning one Member of Parliament (MP) from 1885 to 1922.
Prior to the 1885 United Kingdom general election the area was part of the Galway County constituency. From 1922 it was not represented in the UK Parliament.
Boundaries.
This constituency comprised the north-western part of County Galway. In 1918, with the abolition of the Galway borough constituency, the constituency was redrawn to include the town of Galway and exclude an area which had been transferred to County Mayo under the 1898 Local Government Act.
1885–1918: The baronies of Ballynahinch, Moycullen, and Ross.
1918–1922: The rural districts of Clifden and Oughterard, the District Electoral Divisions of Barna, Furbogh, Kilcummin, Killannin, Moycullen, Selerna, Slievenaneena, Spiddle and Tullokyne in the rural district of Galway, and the urban district of Galway.
For details of the area's traditional boundaries see Connemara.


Price/wage spiral

In macroeconomics, the price/wage spiral (also called the wage/price spiral or wage-price spiral) is a theoretical concept that represents a circle process in which wage increases cause price increases which in turn cause wage increases, possibly with no answer to which came first. According to the concept, it can start either due to high aggregate demand combined with near full employment or due to supply shocks, such as an oil price hike. There are two separate elements of this spiral that coexist and interact:
According to the concept, "wages chase prices and prices chase wages", persisting even in the face of a (mild) recession. This price/wage spiral interacts with inflationary expectations to produce long-lived inflationary process. Some argue that incomes policies or a severe recession is needed to stop the spiral.
The first element of the price/wage spiral does not apply if markets are relatively competitive.
The spiral is also weakened if labor productivity rises at a quick rate. Rising labor productivity (the amount workers produce per hour) compensates employers for higher wages costs while allowing employees to receive rising real wages, and while allowing the company's margin to stay the same.


Charles Friderich

Charles Marie Friderich (20 March 1828 – 9 January 1880) was a Swiss politician and President of the Swiss National Council (1872).


Province of Cattaro

Province of Cattaro (in Italian: "Provincia di Cattaro") was a province of the Italian Governorate of Dalmatia, created in May 1941 during World War II (by the "Regio Decreto Legge del 18 maggio 1941"). It lasted until September 1943.
History.
In April 1941, the Italians conquered coastal Dalmatia from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. They created some provinces in that region that lasted until September 1943. One was the "Province of Cattaro", around the "Gulf of Cattaro". The administrative capital was the city of Cattaro (now Kotor).
The province (subdivided in 15 "Comuni") had an area of 547 Km2 and a population of 39,800 inhabitants. Prior to the war in 1931, the area consisted out of 13,000 Croats and 18,000 other (mostly Montenegrins and Serbs). with a small Dalmatian Italians minority, concentrated in Cattaro and Perasto (now Perast).
The Italians in summer 1941 improved the region by building hospitals and infrastructure, but started a process of Italianization (related to the history of Venetian Albania & the Republic of Venice). Because of this, after one year of peaceful administration & control, in summer 1942 there was a small insurrection against the Italian conquest, but without huge consequences until summer 1943.
In September 1943, the German army took control of the region from the Italians, who had surrendered to the Allies, and soon started a terrible guerrilla war between the Nazi occupiers and Joseph Broz Tito's partisans. The province was abolished in the same September.
Administrative subdivision.
The 15 "Comuni" were (first in Italian the official name and then in Croatian and Montenegrin the actual):


Nudd v Taylor

Nudd v Taylor, was a court case, decided in the Supreme Court of Queensland on 30 August 2000. The case concerned Australian Private International Law, specifically giving a Queensland authority to the application of the Moçambique rule.
Facts.
[1] The plaintiff and defendant in this matter lived in a de facto relationship for a number of years. The plaintiff has sought declarations of constructive trust in respect of a number of properties in Queensland, as well as a sum of money which is said to have been a loan to the defendant. The defendant has brought a counterclaim in which she seeks a declaration that she is entitled to a proportion of the proceeds of sale of property situated in California, as well as an accounting in relation to other monies, and damages.
[2] In response the plaintiff has filed a conditional notice of intention to defend, disputing the court's jurisdiction to entertain the counterclaim. By the present application he sought a declaration under Rule 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules to the effect that there is no jurisdiction in the court to deal with the causes of action pleaded in the counterclaim. Upon the hearing of the application, however, the plaintiff's counsel, Mr Taylor, confined his submissions to the claim in respect of the proceeds of sale of the Californian properties, and couched the relief sought in terms of striking out of the relevant paragraphs, rather than seeking a declaration.
[3] For the purposes of the present application, the following was common ground. The parties lived together for some seventeen years in the course of the 1980s and 1990s. A number of properties were purchased in Queensland in the name of the defendant. In 1987 they moved to the United States. From 1992 properties were acquired in California. Each of them has been sold. The plaintiff continues to reside in California, while the defendant is resident in New Zealand..
Judgement.
Holmes J in determining whether there could be an exception to the "Moçambique" rule applied in regard to the counterclaim, stated:
[15] In the present case, the defendant's claim to a share of the proceeds of sale of the properties in California depends entirely on her ability to demonstrate a beneficial interest in the properties. The outcome of her counterclaim must depend on how that question is determined. Her claim is, in my view, properly described as one which essentially concerns her right to an interest in the properties as the gravamen of her claim. Accordingly, it becomes necessary to consider whether the second exception applies. Clearly enough, the claim involves the assertion of an equitable obligation of a kind which courts have been prepared to enforce notwithstanding a connection with foreign immovables; but what of the situation when the party against whom the obligation is asserted is not within the jurisdiction?
Holmes J in determining that a foreign litigant had submitted himself to this jurisdiction stated:
[21] It is too broad a statement to say that a foreign plaintiff who proceeds in Queensland thereby submits himself to the court's jurisdiction at large. The position, is, in my respect view, correctly stated by Holland J in "National Commercial Bank v Wimborne":
That case was cited with approval by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in "Marlborough Harbour Board v Charter Travel Co Ltd". In the latter case, the court was prepared to go somewhat further, deciding that the foreign plaintiff's submission to the jurisdiction extended to a counterclaim which raised a new cause of action, provided that such a cross-claim was founded on or directly arose out of the same subject matter as that of the action.
To similar effect, the English Court of Appeal in "Republic of Liberia v Gulf Oceanic Inc" concluded that a plaintiff submitted himself to the incidents of his litigation, including liability to a counterclaim properly brought. In that case the plaintiffs had sought a declaration in relation to a contract for the purchase of oil and a resulting arbitration. The defendant's counterclaim for damages for breach of the same contract and tort for wrongful procuring of the breach was permitted to stand, notwithstanding that the foreign defendants could not, in the absence of their own litigation, have been made amenable to the jurisdiction of the court on such an action.


Aleksei Argun

Aleksei Khutovich Argun (Russian: Алексей Хутович Аргун; April 1937 – 1 July 2008) was Minister of Culture of the Abkhazian ASSR from 1971 or 1973 to 1980.


Gregory Lee Johnson

Gregory Lee "Joey" Johnson (born 1956) is a political activist affiliated with the Revolutionary Communist Party USA. His burning of the flag of the United States in a political demonstration during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, in violation of a Texas law prohibiting flag desecration, led to his role as defendant in the landmark United States Supreme Court case "Texas v. Johnson" (1989).
Early life.
Johnson was born in Richmond, Indiana. His father spent several years of Gregory's childhood in prison. His mother, Sally, was a supporter of the civil rights movement who married a staff sergeant in the United States Army. Johnson grew up in a racially mixed, low-income neighborhood of Richmond. In 1969, he moved with his family to an American military base in West Germany, where he was influenced by growing opposition to the Vietnam War among Vietnam War draftees.
His family returned to the United States in 1971. In 1973, he dropped out of high school and joined the United States Merchant Marine, which took him to Panama and Mexico, where he observed American sociopolitical and economic influence. After moving to Tampa, Florida in 1976, he joined the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, the youth arm of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA.
At the time of his arrest for flag desecration in Dallas, Johnson was a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, and had traveled to Dallas to protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention.
Role as defendant in "Texas v. Johnson".
On 22 August 1984, Johnson participated in a political demonstration called the "Republican War Chest Tour" in Dallas, Texas to protest the policies of several Dallas-area businesses and of the Ronald Reagan presidential administration. The demonstration was timed to coincide with the 1984 Republican National Convention being held in downtown Dallas. During the demonstration, approximately one hundred protestors marched in the streets, chanted slogans, and staged anti-nuclear weapons and anti-war die-ins at various corporate offices. Some protestors vandalized businesses by spray-painting building walls and knocking over potted plants and ashtrays. Johnson did not take part in the vandalism, but took an American flag that had been seized from a flagpole at one of the buildings by another protestor.
At the culmination of the protest outside Dallas City Hall, Johnson poured kerosene on the flag and set it on fire. While the flag burned, he chanted political slogans, including "Reagan, Mondale which will it be? Either one means World War III;" "Ronald Reagan, killer of the hour, Perfect example of U.S. power;" and "red, white and blue, we spit on you, you stand for plunder, you will go under." Some witnesses testified that they were seriously offended. No one was hurt or threatened with injury during the protest.
Johnson was not the only protestor to be charged with a crime. Other charges included: vandalism, disorderly conduct, and a class C misdemeanor with a two hundred dollar fine, and of using abusive and obscene language in a public place causing a crowd to form. He was convicted of the desecration of a venerated object in violation of Texas Penal Code Annotated § 42.11(a)(3), sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000.
Johnson appealed his conviction to the Fifth Court of Appeals of Texas, but lost. He next petitioned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to review the decision. That court overturned his conviction, saying that the State of Texas could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects such activity as symbolic speech. The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace.
The State of Texas asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. Attorneys David D. Cole and radical civil rights activist William Kunstler acted as Johnson's lawyers. In 1989, the Supreme Court handed down a controversial 5-4 decision in favor of Gregory Johnson, holding that Johnson's conviction for flag desecration was inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Court's decision invalidated laws against flag desecration in force in forty-eight of the fifty states.
Second flag burning.
In response to the Supreme Court decision in "Texas v. Johnson", the United States Congress enacted legislation outlawing the desecration of the flag, which then-President George H. W. Bush allowed to pass into law without his signature. The Flag Protection Act of 1989 went into effect at midnight on 28 October 1989.
On 30 October, Gregory Johnson joined Shawn Eichman, David Blalock, and Scott Tyler on the steps of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C., where they set fire to three American flags while chanting "burn, baby, burn." The four protestors were arrested and spent the night in jail. The next day, Eichman, Blalock, and Tyler were charged with violating the Flag Protection Act of 1989, demonstrating without a permit, and disorderly conduct. However, the United States Attorney's Office declined to file charges against Johnson, claiming that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him. Johnson declared that the government's decision not to charge him was an "act of cowardice" and a "miscarriage of justice," and stated that he was outraged.
The consolidated cases of Shawn Eichman, David Blalock, and Scott Tyler eventually reached the Supreme Court with Eichman as the named respondent in "United States v. Eichman" (1990), which was argued together with the case "United States v. Haggerty" (1990). Mark Haggerty, Jennifer Campbell, Darius Strong and Carlos Garza were also charged with having violated the Flag Protection Act of 1989 outside a Seattle, Washington post office just a few minutes after the law went into effect on 28 October. The Supreme Court handed down its decision on "United States v. Eichman" on 11 June 1990, ruling 5-4 in favor of Eichman, Haggerty, and the other respondents, and striking down the Flag Protection Act of 1989.
The failed federal legislation triggered many unsuccessful efforts to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution banning flag desecration, including one attempt during the two weeks in October 1989 between the passage of the Flag Protection Act of 1989 and its taking effect, and another just eleven days after the "United States v. Eichman" ruling. The most recent attempt to send a flag desecration amendment to the states for ratification failed in the United States Senate by one vote on 27 June 2006.
Later years.
Johnson lived in Houston for four years after his arrest for flag desecration, during which he worked in a warehouse while his attorneys worked on his case. He was described by a contemporaneous Houston activist, Geov Parrish, as an "obnoxious young transplanted New Yorker" who would show up at "every local demonstration with a bloody, severed pig's head (tendrils still trailing along) that he'd drag along on a leash and collar while shouting anti-imperialist slogans; the pig, of course, was the United States."
Afterwards, Johnson moved to the South Bronx in New York City, then to San Francisco and Los Angeles, where he remained active with the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, in time becoming the Youth Brigade's national spokesperson. He continued to speak out against legislation targeting flag desecration. He also became a Los Angeles organizer for the October 22 Coalition against police brutality and for Not in Our Name, an antiwar foreign policy organization.
Throughout 2009, Johnson, who during his Supreme Court case was a client of American civil rights attorney William Kunstler, promoted the film "", a documentary that premiered at the 25th Sundance Film Festival.
On 14 October 2011, Johnson was arrested after he and two others chained themselves to the front doors of the headquarters of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in Sacramento, California. The three were protesting in support of a hunger strike being conducted by Pelican Bay State Prison inmates.
On 20 June 2016, Johnson and Revolution Club members were arrested after burning the United States flag at the 2016 Republican National Convention, but the charges were unclear. In June 2019, the City of Cleveland agreed to pay Johnson $225,000 because his 2016 arrest had been determined to have violated his free speech rights.


United Nations Security Council Resolution 606

United Nations Security Council resolution 606 was adopted unanimously on 23 December 1987, after recalling Resolution 602 (1987) and noting the Secretary-General's report authorised by that resolution. The Council condemned South Africa for its continued occupation of southern parts of the People's Republic of Angola and for its delay in withdrawing its forces from the area.
The Council then requested the Secretary-General to continue monitoring the total withdrawal, with a view to obtaining a full-time frame from South Africa. It also requested him to report back at the earliest date regarding the withdrawal.
The draft Resolution 606 was submitted by Argentina, the Congo, Ghana, the United Arab Emirates and Zambia. The representative from Angola present said that while South Africa was announcing its withdrawal, it was, in fact, reinforcing its positions, while the South African Defence Force said it could not provide a timetable.


North Kildare (UK Parliament constituency)

North Kildare was a UK Parliament constituency in Ireland, returning one Member of Parliament 1885–1922.
Prior to the 1885 United Kingdom general election the area was part of the Kildare constituency. From 1922 it was not represented in the UK Parliament.
Boundaries.
This constituency comprised the northern part of County Kildare.
1885–1922: The baronies of Carbury, Clane, Connell, Ikeathy and Oughterany, North Naas, North Salt and South Salt, and that part of the barony of South Naas contained within the parishes of Kill, Killashee and Tipperkevin.
Members of Parliament.
Notes:-


The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong

The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong is an example of The New Journalism by Nicholas Tomalin, an English journalist, in 1966. It relates a day’s activities of General James F. Hollingsworth during the Vietnam War. It first appeared in the British newspaper "The Sunday Times".
Nicholas Tomalin (30 October 1931 – 17 October 1973) was an English investigative reporter and foreign correspondent who wrote for various London newspapers. He died while reporting the 1973 Arab-Israeli Yom Kippur War. Tomalin wrote "The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong" for the weekly London paper "The Sunday Times", which ran the story on 5 June 1966.
General James Francis Hollingsworth (24 March 1918 – 2 March 2010) was born in Sanger, Texas on a family farm. He graduated from Texas A&M in 1940 and was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Army. A decorated and battle hardened World War II veteran, Hollingsworth was a forty- eight year old Brigadier General when Tomalin wrote this "Sunday Times" article.
Historical context.
1966 saw a period of escalation (i.e. increased U.S. involvement in the ground war) initiated by President Lyndon B. Johnson. This escalation was carried out in an attempt to halt the U.S. and South Vietnamese "losing trend" that had prevailed in prior months. The escalation was carried out in accordance with Phase Two of General William Westmoreland’s three- point victory plan. The escalation marked a significant shift in U.S. strategy (defensive to offensive), and provoked a matching escalation on the part of the North Vietnamese, trapping the two combatants in a perpetuating cycle of escalation.
A key region wherein this escalation strategy was employed was the Iron Triangle, a 120 square mile area located roughly twenty-five miles north of Saigon, precisely the region that Hollingsworth describes to Tomalin at the outset of the article. Route 13 is a major thoroughfare running from Saigon, through the Iron Triangle, to the Cambodian border. It is a landmark that General Hollingsworth refers to specifically early in Tomalin’s article. The divisional office at Ki-Na (where Tomalin begins the narrative) is situated twenty miles north of Saigon, meaning that it was just to the south (or on the southern edge) of the Iron Triangle. The Iron Triangle was an insurgent stronghold during this period, where the Viet Minh maintained an elaborate tunnel system and logistic outposts. The strength of insurgent forces in this region posed a particularly palpable threat to the U.S. Forces and U.S.- backed South Vietnamese government due to the region’s close proximity to Saigon.
The U.S. Army 1st Infantry Division (A.K.A. "The Big Red One", in which Hollingsworth was a general) carried out operations throughout this area during the period 1965-1970. These missions employed typical counterinsurgency tactics that were being fine- tuned in many countries engaged in civil and revolutionary wars during this era. Some major offensive missions undertaken (or participated in) by the 1st Infantry Division during this period were Operation Attleboro, Operation Cedar Falls, and Operation Junction City. Operation Attleboro was carried out in November 1966, the same year that Tomalin reported on General Hollingsworth.
Of particular importance to these operations were Search and Destroy tactics, with forces inserted, seeking out and destroy the enemy, and then quickly withdraw. This allowed a smaller number of troops to secure and occupy a comparatively larger geographic area. The civilian casualties that could result was one factor contributing to international dissent and protest regarding the conflict, and also proved to be a significant obstacle to the pacification of the region.
Against this background, the mission described by Tomalin was evidently a search and destroy mission, carried out in the southern part of the Iron Triangle in 1966, which General Hollingsworth participated in actively. The General uses an M16 rifle, flies in a Bell Iroquois UH-1B helicopter, which carries two M60 7.62×51mm calibre machine guns; all of these items were typical standard- issue equipment. On the whole, it seems that Tomalin witnessed a fairly representative Search and Destroy mission, a quotidian undertaking for General Hollingsworth.
Story summary.
The story starts out describing how General Hollingsworth eliminates his enemies nonchalantly and is not bothered by their deaths. After pinning two medals on the Colonel's doctor for his outstanding efforts, Hollingsworth displays a map showing their next target. He states that the next mission is to free Routes 13 and 16 of any Viet Cong. Hollingsworth notes that these two roads were initially used to carry supplies up from Saigon to Phuoc Vinh. After the General motivates his team, he tells them all that they are going to "zap" all of the enemies so that no more remain. Once in his helicopter, he tells the pilots that it hasn’t been a very productive day for his unit; Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie Companies were unsuccessful in killing any enemies after finding a possible Viet Cong headquarters. When Hollingsworth learns that there has been some sniper activity in the area, he orders the pilots to take him to Battalion HQ, despite the pilots’ hesitation. Once he arrives, Hollingsworth asks the soldiers if they have killed any Congs yet. After hearing that they have not, he is infuriated and demands that they start killing as soon as possible. Back in the helicopter, Hollingsworth sees the white smoke and then witnesses the air strike that is supposedly going to eliminate all enemy targets. He says that he wasn’t sure if the snipers were in this location, but if they weren’t, he was going to "zap" the whole forest if he had to. After the pilot points out two VC running in the bushes, General Hollingsworth grabs his M16 off of the rack and leans out of the helicopter, ready to shoot the two soldiers. A smoke canister is dropped and a white vapor covers the scene. Hollingsworth circles the area five times to secure the enemies killing. These attempts were unsuccessful after the narrator admits that he just saw the running figures in the bushes. The chopper is flown low into the ground and the Lieutenant grabs the runner. General Hollingworth assures himself that the man they captured was in fact a Cong, and then they land at a base camp. An ambulance quickly arrives to administer health care to this victim. Hollingsworth discovers that this man's objective was to mine at Route 16 and fire at enemy helicopters. The General compliments himself back and forth and says that he will attack whomever he has to in order to succeed. He then states that nothing is better than "killin’ Cong".
Literary elements.
Opening and theme.
"The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong" opens with two brief, one- sentence paragraphs. These statements set the scene and establish the dual objective of the piece: first, to provide a brief, action- packed profile of a particularly martial general (the first sentence), and second, to investigate the causes of the tremendous civilian casualties resulting from the war. The first sentence says, in part, that the General "…took off in his personal helicopter and killed more Vietnamese than all the troops he commanded." (Wolfe, 197). Although there is much violence and bloodshed during the course of Tomalin's afternoon with the General, the narrative does not explicitly say that the General killed anyone on this day—although as much can be assumed. The second brief paragraph relates a rumored statistic of civilian casualties: "…more than four injured civilians for every wounded Viet Cong—unavoidable in this kind of war." (Wolfe, 197) This initially raises the running theme of the tremendous civilian casualties that are a consequence of the indiscriminate violence resulting from helicopter- based search and destroy missions.
Tone and narration.
For the subject matter portrayed, the tone of "The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong" is remarkably light. Tomalin's phrasing seems mostly descriptive, rather than evaluative or normative, allowing the reader to evaluate the situation (characters, events) described for him- or herself (and enabling Tomalin to provide a more impartial account). Tomalin's tone conveys a sense of action and adventure, but does not give the impression that the primary focus of the piece is the issue of civilian casualties. Tomalin's narration style is unobtrusive—presumably in another attempt to provide "hard", objective coverage, he rarely interjects his own voice. He switches to first- person point of view occasionally ("I point at a paddy field full of peasants less than half a mile away." (200), "A shower of spent cartridge cases leaps from the General’s carbine to drop, lukewarm, on my arm." (200)) for a number of plausible reasons- perhaps to provide a realistic sense of perspective. The entire piece is written from Tomalin's perspective, although most of it is in the third- person, recounting the General's actions rather than Tomalin's internal experience. Tomalin only interjects his voice as an investigative reporter into the dialogue on a few occasions, and every time he does, his goal is to reinforce the theme of civilian casualties— for example, Tomalin asks "But General, how do you know those aren’t just frightened peasants?" (200). This technique creates a sense of narrative distance that helps Tomalin's account of the facts seem balanced and disinterested. Also, by employing a relatively light tone, Tomalin seems to express something about the nature of the mission; it is a combat mission, but the soldiers fighting from the air have a tremendous technological advantage over their enemies, and as such run a much smaller risk when entering into combat. Tomalin's relatively light tone (as well as the General's) conveys this sense of detachment from the battle.
Plot structure and setting.
The plot of "The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong" is very simple (and necessarily so given its length). The exposition can be considered to be everything from the opening sentence to the point when they take off in the General's helicopter. This section introduces the General, the theme of civilian casualties, and the day's mission and purpose. The rising action is the trip to Battalion HQ and the episode with the napalm strike. The climax comes during the episode involving the young Viet Cong who the General captures. This section is particularly relevant to the theme because, in this instance, the General captures, rather than kills the enemy—although it is a close call for the young Viet Cong. The denouement is the final section of the work, after medics treat the injured Viet Cong, when Tomalin is debriefing with the General. Hollingsworth relates his justification for his "shoot first, ask questions later" approach, and expresses his delight at having a journalist witness the events of the day.
The setting, aside from the broader historical context discussed earlier (see History and Background) is the interior of the General's personal helicopter. Other than several brief scenes in various regional bases, the events of the story unfold inside the helicopter.
Characters.
The only "round" (i.e. developed) character is the General. This conveys the sense that "The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong" is a character profile of the General, even though the central issue of the piece is civilian casualties. Tomalin's physical description depicts the General as typical —"…reminiscent of every movie general you have seen." (198). Tomalin pays special attention to the General's mannerisms and colloquialisms. For instance, one of the General's lines is, "There’s nothing alive in there[…] or they’d be skedadling. Yes there is, by golly." (201) An important aspect of the General's character is his certainty and justification for fighting in such an indiscriminate manner. The General relies on his battle- hardened instincts to determine if a potential threat is posed to himself or his men. His long military career and high rank make this explanation viable. However, it seems fair to wonder (in spite of the General's certainty), whether any civilians were injured or killed in these blind, airborne attacks, and also, whether the General behaved differently due to Tomalin's presence and observation.
The other military personnel mentioned are utterly "flat" (i.e. undeveloped) characters. A few names are mentioned, but no additional details. After the General, the two most developed characters are the young Viet Cong insurgent who the General captures, and Tomalin, neither of whom can really be considered "round".
Effects and criticism.
There is very little criticism about Tomalin's work. This story was included in Thomas Wolfe's collection of short articles known as "The New Journalism". This collection covered an assortment of subject matters and served as a vehicle for this new type of journalism to flourish. Tomalin's work received notoriety after being published in this collection. The impact on English society, according to Wolfe, was effective because it gave them a sense of emotion for the Vietnam war. The English saw how the Congs were being murdered and "zapped" across the board and felt a sense of sorrow for the Vietnamese civilians that were being mistaken for soldiers. Wolfe also notes how Tomalin's piece created somewhat of an attraction of the war. One typically does not enjoy the act of war. "The General Goes Zapping Charlie Cong" spiked British people's interest and encouraged "Sunday Times" readers to follow the proceeding of the war.
References.
2. Brief biography of General Hollingsworth: http://www.riley.army.mil/bigredone/commandteam/former/ADC/Hollingsworth,%20James%20F.htm


American University speech

The American University speech, titled "A Strategy of Peace", was a commencement address delivered by United States President John F. Kennedy at the American University in Washington, D.C., on Monday, June 10, 1963. Delivered at the height of his rhetorical powers and widely considered one of his most powerful speeches, Kennedy not only outlined a plan to curb nuclear arms, but also "laid out a hopeful, yet realistic route for world peace at a time when the U.S. and Soviet Union faced the potential for an escalating nuclear arms race." In the speech, Kennedy announced his agreement to negotiations "toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty" (which resulted in the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty) and also announced, for the purpose of showing "good faith and solemn convictions", his decision to unilaterally suspend all U.S. atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons as long as all other nations would do the same. Noteworthy are his comments that the United States was seeking a goal of "complete disarmament" of nuclear weapons and his vow that America "will never start a war". The speech was unusual in its peaceful outreach to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, and is remembered as one of Kennedy's finest and most important speeches.
Background.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, Kennedy was determined to construct a better relationship with the Soviet Union to discourage another threat of nuclear war. He believed that Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev was also interested in renewing U.S.–Soviet relations. On November 19, 1962, Khrushchev had submitted a report to the Central Committee of the Communist Party that implicitly called for a halt in foreign intervention to concentrate on the economy. One month later, Khrushchev wrote Kennedy a letter stating "the time has come now to put an end once and for all to nuclear tests." Kennedy greeted this response with enthusiasm and suggested that technical discussions for nuclear inspections begin between representatives of the two governments. However, Kennedy faced opposition for any test ban from Republican leaders and his own State Department. After several months the opposition in the Senate lessened and gave the Kennedy Administration the opportunity to pursue the ban with the Soviet Union. In May 1963, the president informed his National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy that he wished to deliver a major address on peace. According to Special Assistant Ted Sorensen the speech was kept confidential in fear that the unprecedented tone would "set off alarm bells in more bellicose quarters in Washington" and allow political attacks against Kennedy in advance of the speech. In the days before the speech, Kennedy was committed to addressing the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Honolulu and asked Sorensen to construct the initial draft with input from several members of Kennedy's staff. The speech was reviewed and edited by Kennedy and Sorensen on the return flight from Honolulu days before the address. Historian and Special Assistant Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. observed in his diary, "from the viewpoint of orderly administration, this was a bad way to prepare a major statement on foreign policy. But the State Department could never in a thousand years have produced this speech."
Style.
Sorensen had been Kennedy's aide since the 1953 Massachusetts Senatorial election, and eventually served as his primary campaign speechwriter and as Special Counsel during and after the 1960 Presidential election. By 1963 he had written drafts for nearly every speech Kennedy delivered in office, including the inaugural address, the Cuban Missile Crisis speech, and the Ich bin ein Berliner speech. Common elements of the Kennedy-Sorensen speeches were alliteration, repetition and chiasmus as well as historical references and quotations. Although Kennedy often interposed off-the-cuff ad-libs to his speeches, he did not deviate from the final draft of the address. Anca Gata described Ted Sorensen as "the chief architect of the speech in language, style, composition, and rhetoric. One of the most original issues in the speech was the reintroduction of the Russian people to the Americans as a great culture with important achievements in science and space, and as promoting economic and industrial growth on their own."
The content of the speech was unapologetically "dovish" in its pursuit of peace. Kennedy noted that almost uniquely among the "major world powers" the United States and Russia had never been at war with each other. He also acknowledged the massive human casualties that Russia suffered during World War II and declared that no nation had "ever suffered more than the Soviet Union in the Second World War," a fact that had gone largely unheralded in the West due to the onset of the Cold War. Kennedy sought to draw similarities between the United States and the Soviet Union several times and called for a "reexamination" of American attitudes towards Russia. He warned that adopting a course towards nuclear confrontation would be "evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the world."
Jeffrey Sachs, American economist and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, was deeply moved by the speech, "not only for its eloquence and content, but also for its relevance to today's global challenges. For in it Kennedy tells us about transforming our deepest aspirations—in this case for peace—into practical realities. He almost presents a method, a dream-and-do combination that soars with high vision and yet walk on earth with practical results." In reviewing the history and context of Kennedy's speech at American University, Sachs' esteem for Kennedy grew further, concluding, "I have come to believe that Kennedy's quest for peace is not only the greatest achievement of his presidency, but also one of the greatest acts of world leadership in the modern era."
Aftermath.
Soviet response.
Kennedy's speech was made available, in its entirety, in the Soviet press so that the people in the Soviet Union could read it without hindrance. Additionally, the speech could be heard in the Soviet Union without censorship because jamming measures against the western broadcast agencies such as Voice of America didn't take place upon rebroadcast of Kennedy's speech. Khrushchev was deeply moved and impressed by Kennedy's speech, telling Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman that it was "the greatest speech by any American President since Roosevelt."
After 12 days of negotiations and less than two months after the president's speech the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was completed. The Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed by the governments of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States (represented by Dean Rusk), named the "Original Parties", at Moscow on August 5, 1963. US ratification occurred by the U.S. Senate on September 24, 1963, by a vote of 80–19 and the treaty was signed into law by Kennedy on October 7, 1963. The treaty went into effect on October 10, 1963.
Other reactions.
The speech was met with little response in the United States; after one week, only 896 letters were sent to the White House concerning its content (in contrast to over 28,000 related to a bill affecting the price of freight). The response from Republicans in Congress was mostly dismissive in nature. Senator Barry Goldwater accused Kennedy of taking a "soft stance" on the Soviet Union.
Legacy.
Robert McNamara, Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, declared at a 2003 memorial event at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum that the speech was "one of the great documents of the 20th century." He later commented that it "laid out exactly what Kennedy's intentions were." Ted Sorensen considered the address Kennedy's most important speech.


Dmitri Serikov

Dmitri Serikov is a Vice Premier and the Minister for Finance of Abkhazia.
Early life, education and career (until 2015).
Serikov was born on 29 November 1976 in Moscow. In 2000 he graduated from the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, and in 2002, from the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation. Between 2000 and 2002, Serikov also worked at the All-Russian Research Institute for Automation.
In 2002, he became accountant-economist at the mobile phone operator Sonic Duo CJSC, which was merged into MegaFon that year. In 2004, Serikov became financial director of Aquafon in Abkhazia. In 2011, he was promoted to the position of Deputy Director General for Operations.
Political career (since 2015).
On 8 April 2015, Serikov was appointed as Vice Premier of Abkhazia in the new cabinet head by Prime Minister Artur Mikvabia, succeeding Viktor Khilchevski and Suren Kerselyan, as the numbers of Vice Premiers was reduced from two to one.
On 12 August 2016, following the replacement of Mikvabia as Prime Minister by Beslan Bartsits, Serikov was re-appointed as Vice Premier and additionally appointed to the post of Minister for Finance, succeeding Amra Kvarandzia.


Hans Kaufmann

Hans Kaufmann (born 13 June 1948) is a Swiss politician and business consultant. He was a member of the Swiss National Council from 1999 to 2014.
Political career.
He was born in Ettiswil.
 He was first elected to the Swiss National Council in 1999 as a member of the Swiss People's Party (SVP/UDC) of the Canton of Zurich. In parliament, he was a member of the Committee for Economic Affairs and Taxation (CEAT), the Finance Committee (FC), and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CE) in Strasbourg. In 2003, Hans Kaufmann was elected with 123'317 votes for the second time. In 2011, he was re-elected for his third term in office.In May 2014, he resigned from the national council due to the "unedifying collaboration with the federal council and some backers on matters related to the Swiss financial center".
Work life.
Between 2011 and 2018, he was member of the Board of Directors of Zürcher Kantonalbank. Between 1999 and 2018, Hans Kaufmann was the President of the Board of Directors of Kaufmann Research AG. He consults on several other boards, particularly within the pension fund sector. Kaufmann was a member of the board of Swissfirst. Prior to that he was employed as Director and Chief Economist at Bank Julius Baer, where he was responsible for investment strategies in Switzerland. From 1986 to 1997 he headed the Department of Swiss Company Research. In addition to his work in this area, Hans Kaufmann has had extensive experience with a variety of brokers, such as Goldman Sachs, Salomon Brothers, and Kidder, Peabody & Co. in New York. He began working with Bank Julius Baer in 1980, after having served as a financial analyst with the Zurich Cantonal Bank (Zürcher Kantonalbank) since 1974. Hans Kaufmann began his career in 1973 as a gold mining analyst in Johannesburg. He has a master's degree in economics from the University of Zurich (lic.oec.publ.).
Private life.
Since 1976, he is married to Jana Kaufmann with whom he has two adult children. Since 1994, Hans Kaufmann has lived and worked in the village of Wettswil am Albis, Switzerland. He is the nephew of the organ player Eduard Kaufmann.


Dimitar Obshti

Dimitar Obshti () was a 19th-century Bulgarian revolutionary, who fought for the liberation of Bulgaria, Serbia and Crete from the Ottoman Empire, as well as for the "Risorgimento" of Italy.
Biography.
Obshti was born around 1835 in Gjakova, Sanjak of Peć, Ottoman Empire. He joined the first Bulgarian Legion organised in exile, in Serbia's capital Belgrade, in 1862.
There he received military training and met Vasil Levski who became his lifetime comrade in arms. They fought together against the invading Ottomans in Serbia. In April 1868 the Serbian authorities disbanded the Bulgarian legion and expelled its participants from the country. Obshti subsequently joined the forces of the Italian revolutionary Giuseppe Garibaldi and took part in the 1866–1869 Cretan uprising.
In 1869 he became one of the founders of the Bulgarian Revolutionary Central Committee (BRCC) in Bucharest, Romania.
In June 1871 Obshti was sent to Ottoman Bulgaria to serve as Levski's first deputy but compromised his superior's efforts by his adventurous endeavours. He led an assassination attempt against deacon Paisius, vicar to the bishop of Lovech, who was suspected of collaboration and treason. Against the opinion of Levski, in September 1872 Obshti organized the robbery of the Ottoman postal convoy in the Arabakonak Pass in order to fund the BRCC activities. The Ottoman authorities reacted harshly and managed to arrest a number of BRCC militants, including Obshti and Levski. Obshti grasped at the chance to publicize the BRCC activities in order to arouse the Great Powers' interest in liberating Bulgaria. He made some revealing statements in court which led to a great number of arrests and the effective ruin of the clandestine network. He was sentenced to death and hanged in Sofia on January 10, 1873. A month later, the same fate fell on Levski.


List of Doonesbury characters

The comic strip "Doonesbury", by Garry Trudeau, features an extensive cast of characters with complex interpersonal relationships; as of 2018, the strip's official website lists twenty-four primary characters, with dozens more having been featured over the years, including some who were phased out of the strip only to be reintroduced years later. Kim Rosenthal, for example, first appeared as a recurring child character in the 1970s, then as a teenager in the 1980s, and was reintroduced as an adult in the 1990s.
Real people.
Numerous real-world figures, especially from politics, have appeared in the strip. Since the late 1980s some prominent politicians were given direct, but metaphorical, visual portrayals via Doonesbury Icons, avatars in the strip which abstractly represented them.
Most other prominent figures, after the strip's early years, stopped appearing directly in-frame, and were represented solely by their dialogue emerging from outside the frame, or from a television or a building shown from the outside (especially the White House). The small number of exceptions to this rule are below.
The following figures have been directly portrayed in-frame in the strip.


Alberta Social Credit Party

Alberta Social Credit was a provincial political party in Alberta, Canada, that was founded on social credit monetary policy put forward by Clifford Hugh Douglas and on conservative Christian social values. The Canadian social credit movement was largely an out-growth of Alberta Social Credit. The Social Credit Party of Canada was strongest in Alberta, before developing a base in Quebec when Réal Caouette agreed to merge his Ralliement créditiste movement into the federal party. The British Columbia Social Credit Party formed the government for many years in neighbouring British Columbia, although this was effectively a coalition of centre-right forces in the province that had no interest in social credit monetary policies.
The Alberta Social Credit party won a majority government in 1935, in the first election it contested, barely months after its formation. During its first years, when led by William Aberhart, it was a radical monetary reform party, at least in theory if not in effect. After Aberhart's death in 1943 and the rise to leadership of Ernest Manning, followed quickly by the discovery of oil in north-central Alberta and its accompanying wealth for many, Social Credit took on a more conservative hue. Its policies were pro-business and anti-union, and largely opposed to government intervention in the economy. It stayed in power until 1971, one of the longest unbroken runs in government at the provincial level in Canada. However, it held no seats after 1982, and finished a distant seventh in the 2012 and 2015 general elections, before the party's name change.
In May 2017, the party changed its name to the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association following the election of anti-abortion activist Jeremy Fraser as leader.
History.
Origins.
William Aberhart, a Baptist lay-preacher and evangelist in Calgary, was attracted to social credit theory while Alberta (and much of the western world) was in the depths of the Great Depression. He soon began promoting it through his radio program on CFCN in Calgary, adding a heavy dose of fundamentalist Christianity to the Social Credit theories of C.H. Douglas. The basic premise of social credit is that all citizens should be paid a dividend as capital and technology replace labour in production; this was especially attractive to farmers sinking under the weight of the Depression. Many study groups devoted to the theory sprang up across the province, which united into the Social Credit League of Alberta.
Rise to power.
From 1932 to 1935, Aberhart tried to get the governing United Farmers of Alberta (UFA) to adopt social credit. However, the 1935 UFA convention voted against adopting social credit and UFA Premier Richard Reid rejected the proposals as being outside the province's constitutional powers, so Aberhart entered Social Credit candidates in that year's provincial election. There was widespread discontent with the overly cautious behaviour of the UFA government, and in some cases, local UFA chapters openly supported Social Credit candidates. The UFA government was also reeling from a scandal that had forced Reid's predecessor, John Brownlee, to resign a year earlier. This, in particular, caused some socially conservative UFA members to transfer their allegiance to the Christian-based Social Credit movement.
In the August 22, 1935, election, much to its own surprise, Social Credit won a landslide victory, taking 54% of the vote and winning 56 of the 63 seats in the Legislative Assembly. The only elected opposition was five Liberals and two Conservatives. The UFA lost all of its seats in the worst defeat for a sitting provincial government in Canadian history. Alberta thus elected the first Social Credit government in the world.
Not even the Socreds had expected to win the election. Indeed, they hadn't even named a leader during the campaign. The Socreds now found themselves having to choose a formal leader who would become the province's new premier. Aberhart was the obvious choice, having been the party's driving force from the beginning. He didn't want the office, but was persuaded to take power. He was elected as leader and premier-designate at the party's first caucus meeting, and was sworn in on September 3. He became a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) a year later in a by-election.
The first year and a half in power was a period of adjustment for the newly elected Socred MLAs and their premier. Negotiations between Aberhart and Douglas, who had been hired by the UFA as a financial advisor, were colourful but unproductive. Aberhart, consumed with details of governance and administration, made little progress along the social credit monetary reform road. After election he hired an orthodox financial expert named Magor, much to Douglas's displeasure, thus forestalling radical monetary reform. In March 1937 many Socred MLAs revolted against Aberhart's leadership, refusing to pass the provincial budget until Aberhart promised serious reform of the banking system.
Not "funny money".
Following the 1937 revolt, the government made a serious attempt to implement social credit policies. It passed several pieces of radical populist legislation, such as the issuance of prosperity certificates to Alberta residents (dubbed "funny money" by detractors) in accordance with the theories of Silvio Gesell. Douglas, the main leader of the Social Credit movement, did not like the idea of prosperity certificates, which depreciated in value the longer they were held, and openly criticized Gesell's theories.
The Socreds also passed bills that would have placed the province's banks under government control. However, Lieutenant-Governor John C. Bowen refused to grant Royal Assent to the bills. The Supreme Court of Canada sided with Bowen and struck down the bills because only the federal government can legislate on banking. Thwarted in its attempt to gain control of Alberta's private banks, Aberhart's government gained a foothold in the province's financial sector by creating the Alberta Treasury Branches (ATB) in 1938. ATB has become a lasting legacy of Social Credit Party policies in Alberta, operating as an orthodox financial institution and crown corporation. It is today the only government-owned financial institution in Canada that provides commercial banking to the public.
Bowen also refused Royal Assent to the government's "Accurate News and Information Act", which would have forced newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories to which the Executive Council (cabinet) objected. The government's relationship with Bowen became so acrimonious that in 1938, Bowen threatened to use his reserve power to dismiss Aberhart. In the end, Bowen chose not to take this extraordinary action. Had Bowen sacked Aberhart, it would have triggered a new election, and the Socreds were so popular that they would have almost certainly been re-elected.
Other policies.
To uphold its election promise of democratizing Alberta's government, Aberhart passed a law allowing for the recall of members of the Legislative Assembly by petition of constituents. However, he repealed the legislation when he himself became the target of a recall drive.
Continuing the UFA government's conservatism (which verged on prohibition) on the matter of drinking, Aberhart's government enacted several socially conservative laws, notably one restricting the sale and serving of alcohol. It was one of the strictest such laws in Canada. Well into the 1960s, commercial airlines could not serve alcohol while flying over Alberta.
As well, the government passed stronger labour legislation, such as a minimum wage law for male workers (female workers already coming under legislation passed by the UFA government), and centralized the province's school system.
Manning era.
Social Credit was elected with a slightly reduced mandate in 1940. "Bible Bill" Aberhart died in 1943 and was replaced by his Provincial Secretary and Minister of Trade and Industry, Ernest Manning.
Manning's government was much more pragmatic. Under his leadership, the party largely abandoned social credit monetary theories, though it did issue prosperity certificates from oil royalties in 1957 and 1958. His government was one of the most conservative provincial governments in Canada. Manning moved to purge anti-Semites from the party. While anti-Semitism had been part of the party's Christian populist rhetoric for years, it had become far less fashionable after World War II. Several socially conservative laws remained in place for years, such as the ban on airlines serving alcohol over provincial airspace.
Due in part to what was seen as its good government of the province, Manning led Social Credit to seven consecutive election victories. He governed with very large majorities for virtually his entire tenure, winning well over 50 percent of the popular vote and rarely facing more than ten opposition MLAs. For most of the next two decades, Alberta was virtually a one-party state.
He wielded considerable influence over the party's federal counterparts as well. For example, he let it be known that his province would never accept francophone Catholic Real Caouette, leader of the party's Quebec wing, as the party's leader—even though Caouette headed the party's third-strongest faction (behind the Alberta and British Columbia Socreds). This led to rumours that Caouette had defeated Robert N. Thompson for the federal party's leadership in 1961, only to have his win vetoed by Manning and the Alberta Socreds.
The discovery of significant reserves of oil in 1947 transformed Alberta from one of Canada's poorest provinces to one of the country's richest with resource revenues pouring into the government's treasury.
Decline.
Manning's last election win, in 1967, proved ominous for the party. Despite winning 55 of the 65 seats in the legislature, it received less than 45% of the popular vote—its lowest share of the popular vote since 1940. This was a significant drop from 1963, when it took all but six seats.
More importantly, the once-moribund Progressive Conservatives, led by young lawyer Peter Lougheed, won six seats, mostly in Calgary and Edmonton. Despite having long-standing support in Calgary and Edmonton (Manning himself represented an Edmonton riding), Social Credit was at bottom an agrarian-based party, and never really lost this character. The party didn't react nearly fast enough to the changes in Alberta as Calgary and Edmonton gained more influence.
Manning retired in 1968 and was replaced by Agriculture Minister Harry Strom at the party's first leadership election. However, Strom soon was eclipsed by Lougheed, whose modern and urbane image contrasted sharply with that of the dour Strom. His cause was not helped when the Tories picked up an additional four seats during the term.
In the 1971 election, Lougheed's PCs ended Social Credit's 36-year hold on power. The Socred share of the popular vote decreased slightly, but still they finished only five points behind the PCs and won a record number of votes (due in part to Alberta's larger population). While they mostly held their own in their rural heartlands, their support in Edmonton and Calgary plummeted from 1968. The PCs took every seat in Edmonton, and all but five in Calgary. The Socreds lost a number of ridings by a small margin. However, due to the first past the post system, which awards seats to the candidate with the most votes in a district, even if they do not get a majority of votes (and awards power based on seats won), Social Credit's caucus was cut almost in half. It was cut down to 25 seats, and was consigned to the opposition benches for the first time in party history.
Strom led the Socreds into opposition, but resigned as party leader in 1973. Former Health Minister James Douglas Henderson became interim leader, and hence Leader of the Opposition. In the 1973 leadership election, Werner Schmidt, vice-president of Lethbridge Community College, who didn't hold a seat in the Legislative Assembly, ran against former Highways Minister Gordon Taylor, former Education Minister Robert Curtis Clark, and John Ludwig, dean of business education at Alberta College.
Clark, who had the support of half of the party's MLAs, led Schmidt on the first ballot, 583 votes to 512 votes. But in an upset victory, Schmidt won on the second ballot with 814 votes, defeating Clark by 39 votes.
First ballot
Second ballot
Social Credit sank into near-paralysis in opposition. Having spent all but a few months of its history prior to 1971 in government, it was unable to get the better of the Tories. It didn't help matters that Schmidt was never able to get into the legislature; he lost a by-election shortly after taking the leadership. Henderson remained parliamentary leader until September, when Clark succeeded him.
The party's support collapsed in the 1975 election, when it fell to four seats—just barely holding onto official party status—and lost half of the popular vote it had received in 1971. Schmidt failed to win a seat and resigned as party leader, leaving Clark to take the leadership unopposed. Under Clark, the party staved off total collapse in the 1979 election, holding onto its four seats.
Dormancy in the 1980s.
Clark returned to the backbench a little more than a year after the election. On November 29, 1980, former Calgary mayor Rod Sykes became the party's new leader, defeating Edmonton alderman Julian Kinisky 538-292. Again without its leader in the legislature, the party continued to sag in the polls.
The beginning of the end for Social Credit came when Clark retired from politics in 1981. His seat of Olds-Didsbury, a longstanding Social Credit bastion, was resoundingly lost to Western Canada Concept. In the process, Social Credit lost official status in the legislature. Unable to resolve the party's internal and financial problems, Sykes quit as leader in March 1982.
On March 31, 1982, Social Credit parliamentary leader Raymond Speaker, the leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly, announced that Social Credit would sit out that year's election. In his press release, he said it would be useless for Social Credit to fight the next election since there were not enough Social Credit voters left in the province.
The Social Credit Party council quickly distanced itself from Speaker's statement. There was wide speculation at the time that Speaker would cross the floor to Western Canada Concept. Unable to attract a new leader, the Social Credit membership held an emergency meeting September 18, 1982. A resolution was put forward that would have dissolved the party. This was soundly rejected by the attending delegates and a new president was elected.
As soon as the writs were dropped in October, Speaker and Walt Buck and left the party to become independent candidates for the legislature. The party's third MLA, Fred Mandeville announced his retirement. For the first time since 1935, the party had no incumbents. George Richardson was named acting leader.
Social Credit went into the 1982 election in a precarious position. Not only was it without a full-time leader or incumbents, but it had been unable to get its leader elected to the legislature at any point during the parliamentary term. The party ran only 23 candidates and garnered only 0.8 percent of the vote. It was shut out of the Legislative Assembly altogether for the first time, and has never elected another MLA.
In 1986, Social Credit, Western Canada Concept and the Heritage Party of Alberta joined to form the Alberta Alliance Political Association. The Alliance fell apart when the WCC left, followed by Social Credit. The AAPA became the present-day Alberta Party. Social Credit sat out the 1986 election. Most of its remaining supporters joined and ran for the Representative Party, which had been formed by Speaker after he and Buck were denied funding normally reserved to opposition parties.
Rebirth in the 1990s and decline.
Interim leadership of the party was given to Martin Hattersley, an Edmonton lawyer, and later to Harvey Yuill of Barrhead. The party ran six candidates in the 1989 election. The party was rekindled under the leadership of Robert Alford from 1990 to 1992. In 1991, Randy Thorsteinson, a Reform Party of Canada activist, was elected as party president. In 1992, Thorsteinson was elected as leader, and Robert Alford as president. Social Credit improved its performance in the 1993 election, but won no seats. In the 1997 election, the party nominated 70 candidates, and won 64,667 votes, over 7% of the popular vote.
After the 1997 election, polling revealed that the Social Credit Party was poised for a break-through: an estimated 150,000 Albertans would have been ready to once again support Social Credit as an alternative. This could have meant eight seats in the Legislature. However, in April 1999, Thorsteinson, a devout member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, resigned to protest an internal party proposal to limit Mormon involvement within the party. Social Credit's fortunes quickly faded.
In November 1999, James Albers was elected over Jon Dykstra and Norm Racine to lead the party in a hotly contested race. Wiebo Ludwig was disqualified. During the election of 2001, the right wing vote fractured between the newly formed Alberta First Party and Social Credit. Most right-wing voters went back to supporting the Progressive Conservatives, who had experienced a resurgence in popularity.
Thorsteinson founded the Alberta Alliance Party in October 2002.
Lavern Ahlstrom was appointed Social Credit leader in February 2001. Under Ahlstrom's leadership, the party made moves toward re-embracing elements of social credit monetary theory.
The party nominated 12 candidates in the 2001 election (down from 70 in 1997) and received 5,361 votes (0.5% of the popular vote), down from 64,667. The party nominated 42 candidates for the 2004 election, and won 10,874 votes (1.2% of the popular vote, an increase of 0.7% from 2001.) It polled well in a few ridings, most notably Rocky Mountain House where Lavern Ahlstrom tied for second place.
In late 2005, the party entered discussion about merging with the Alberta Party and the Alberta Alliance. Despite cooperation and successful merger talks between the party leaders, the Social Credit Party membership voted down the motion to merge at the 2006 Social Credit Convention. ("See:" and )
In the Drumheller-Stettler by-election on 12 June 2007, the party's candidate Larry Davidson placed third with 11.7% of the vote.
Alberta Social Credit in the 21st century.
In early November 2007, Len Skowronski replaced Lavern Ahlstrom as leader of the party.
The party fielded eight candidates for the 2008 general election on March 3. The party received 0.22% of the total or 2,051 votes, a decline of 1.0% from the previous election. The best individual riding result, and the only result over 3.0 percent, was for Wilf Tricker in Rocky Mountain House, who received 6.4% of the vote, finishing fifth in a field of seven candidates, just 0.62% behind the Green candidate and well ahead of the NDP and Separation Party of Alberta candidates.
It fielded three candidates in the 2012 election, and garnered 0.023% of the total vote. Its six nominated candidates won 832 votes in the 2015 election, 0.056% of the total vote—an increase of 0.033% over its 2012 result.
In 2016, anti-abortion activist Jeremy Fraser won the party's leadership in what was called an "invalid takeover" by Skowronski. The party changed its registered name with Elections Alberta to the Pro-Life Alberta Political Association in 2017.