text:
Glass ceiling

A glass ceiling is a metaphor usually applied to people of marginalized genders, used to represent an invisible barrier that prevents an oppressed demographic from rising beyond a certain level in a hierarchy. No matter how invisible the glass ceiling is expressed, it is actually an obstacle difficult to overcome. The metaphor was first used by feminists in reference to barriers in the careers of high-achieving women. It was coined by Marilyn Loden during a speech in 1978.

In the United States, the concept is sometimes extended to refer to racial inequality. Minority women in white-majority countries often find the most difficulty in "breaking the glass ceiling" because they lie at the intersection of two historically marginalized groups: women and people of color. East Asian and East Asian American news outlets have coined the term "bamboo ceiling" to refer to the obstacles that all East Asian Americans face in advancing their careers. Similarly, a multitude of barriers that refugees and asylum seekers face in their search for meaningful employment is referred to as the "canvas ceiling".

Within the same concepts of the other terms surrounding the workplace, there are similar terms for restrictions and barriers concerning women and their roles within organizations and how they coincide with their maternal responsibilities. These "Invisible Barriers" function as metaphors to describe the extra circumstances that women go through, usually when they try to advance within areas of their careers and often while they try to advance within their lives outside their work spaces.

"A glass ceiling" represents a blockade that prohibits women from advancing toward the top of a hierarchical corporation. These women are prevented from getting promoted, especially to the executive rankings within their corporation. In the last twenty years, the women who have become more involved and pertinent in industries and organizations have rarely been in the executive ranks.

Definition
The United States Federal Glass Ceiling Commission (1991–1996) defined the glass ceiling as "the unseen, yet unbreachable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements."

David Cotter et al. (2001) defined four distinctive characteristics that must be met to conclude that a glass ceiling exists. A glass ceiling inequality represents: Cotter and colleagues found that glass ceilings are correlated strongly with gender, with both white and minority women facing a glass ceiling in the course of their careers. In contrast, the researchers did not find evidence of a glass ceiling for African-American men.
 * 1) "A gender or racial difference that is not explained by other job-relevant characteristics of the employee."
 * 2) "A gender or racial difference that is greater at higher levels of an outcome than at lower levels of an outcome."
 * 3) "A gender or racial inequality in the chances of advancement into higher levels, not merely the proportions of each gender or race currently at those higher levels."
 * 4) "A gender or racial inequality that increases over the course of a career."

The glass ceiling metaphor has often been used to describe invisible barriers ("glass") through which women can see elite positions but cannot reach them ("ceiling"). These barriers prevent large numbers of women and ethnic minorities from obtaining and securing the most powerful, prestigious and highest-grossing jobs in the workforce. Moreover, this effect prevents women from filling high-ranking positions and puts them at a disadvantage as potential candidates for advancement.

History
In 1839, French feminist and author George Sand used a similar phrase, une voûte de cristal impénétrable, in a passage of Gabriel, a never-performed play: "I was a woman; for suddenly my wings collapsed, ether closed in around my head like an impenetrable crystal vault, and I fell...." [emphasis added]. The statement, a description of the heroine's dream of soaring with wings, has been interpreted as a feminine Icarus tale of a woman who attempts to ascend above her accepted role.

Marilyn Loden invented the phrase glass ceiling during a 1978 speech.

According to the April 3, 2015, The Wall Street Journal the term glass ceiling was notably used in 1979 by Maryanne Schriber and Katherine Lawrence at Hewlett-Packard. Lawrence outlined the concept at the National Press Club at the national meeting of the Women's Institute for the Freedom of the Press in Washington DC. The ceiling was defined as discriminatory promotion patterns where the written promotional policy is non-discriminatory, but in practice denies promotion to qualified females.

The term was later used in March 1984 by Gay Bryant, who is credited with popularizing the glass ceiling concept. She was the former editor of Working Woman magazine and was changing jobs to be the editor of Family Circle. In an Adweek article written by Nora Frenkel, Bryant was reported as saying, "Women have reached a certain point—I call it the glass ceiling. They're at the top of middle management and they're stopping and getting stuck. There isn't enough room for all those women at the top. Some are going into business for themselves. Others are going out and raising families." Also in 1984, Bryant used the term in a chapter of the book The Working Woman Report: Succeeding in Business in the 1980s. In the same book, Basia Hellwig used the term in another chapter.

In a widely cited article in the Wall Street Journal in March 1986 the term was used in the article's title: "The Glass Ceiling: Why Women Can't Seem to Break The Invisible Barrier That Blocks Them From the Top Jobs". The article was written by Carol Hymowitz and Timothy D. Schellhardt. Hymowitz and Schellhardt introduced glass ceiling was "not something that could be found in any corporate manual or even discussed at a business meeting; it was originally introduced as an invisible, covert, and unspoken phenomenon that existed to keep executive level leadership positions in the hands of Caucasian males."

As the term "glass ceiling" became more common, the public responded with differing ideas and opinions. Some argued that the concept is a myth because women choose to stay home and showed less dedication to advance into executive positions. As a result of continuing public debate, the US Labor Department's chief, Lynn Morley Martin, reported the results of a research project called "The Glass Ceiling Initiative", formed to investigate the low numbers of women and minorities in executive positions. This report defined the new term as "those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational bias that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organization into management-level positions."

In 1991, as a part of Title II of the Civil Right Act of 1991, The United States Congress created the Glass Ceiling Commission. This 21 member Presidential Commission was chaired by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, and was created to study the "barriers to the advancement of minorities and women within corporate hierarchies[,] to issue a report on its findings and conclusions, and to make recommendations on ways to dis- mantle the glass ceiling." The commission conducted extensive research including, surveys, public hearings and interviews, and released their findings in a report in 1995. The report, "Good for Business", offered "tangible guidelines and solutions on how these barriers can be overcome and eliminated". The goal of the commission was to provide recommendations on how to "shatter" the glass ceiling, specifically in the world of business. The report issued 12 recommendations on how to improve the workplace by increasing diversity in organizations and reducing discrimination through policy.

The number of women CEOs in the Fortune Lists has increased between 1998 and 2020, despite women's labor force participation rate decreasing globally from 52.4% to 49.6% between 1995 and 2015. Only 19.2% of S&P 500 Board Seats were held by women in 2014, 80.2% of whom were considered white.

Glass Ceiling Index
In 2017, The Economist updated their Glass Ceiling Index, combining data on higher education, labour-force participation, pay, child-care costs, maternity and paternity rights, business-school applications, and representation in senior jobs. The countries where inequality was the lowest were Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Poland.

Gender stereotypes

In a 1993 report released through the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, researchers noted that although women have the same educational opportunities as their male counterparts, the Glass Ceiling persist due to systematic barriers, low representation, mobility, and stereotypes. The perpetuation of sexist stereotypes is one widely recognized reason as to why female employees are systematically inhibited from receiving advantageous opportunities in their chosen fields. A majority of Americans perceive women to be more emotional and men to be more aggressive. Gender stereotypes influence how leaders are chosen by employers and how workers of different sex are treated. Another stereotype towards women in workplaces is known as the "gender status belief" which claims that men are more competent and intelligent than women, which would explain why they have higher positions in the career hierarchy. Ultimately, this factor leads to perception of gender-based jobs in the labor market, so men are expected to have more work-related qualifications and hired for top positions. Perceived feminine stereotypes contribute to the glass ceiling faced by women in the workforce.

Gender stereotyping is thinking that men are better than women in management and leadership roles; it is the concept of alluding that women are inferior and better suited in their biological roles of mother and spouse. The nature of this stereotype is toxic and hindering to women's success and their rights in every aspect but it is even more damaging in the workplace in a patriarchal society. It represents an invisible but strong barrier that stands in the way of women. Men are put at the utmost positions for they are primally viewed as better leaders whereas women are stuck in low or medium level positions. These barriers to women's progression in management roles and a of significant issue. For example, the few women that have worked hard and relentlessly to break those barriers and have earned their deserving place in a leadership role are either viewed as "competent or warm" but never both. This is because the idea of a successful woman is stereotyped within the idea that she must be a ruthless, competitive, cold person whereas a woman of a warm and caring nature will be perceived as not having the right skill set for leadership and progression because "she does not have what it takes".

Hiring practices
When women leave their current place of employment to start their own businesses, they tend to hire other women, and men to hire other men. These hiring practices (seemingly) diminish "the glass ceiling" effect because there is a perception of less competition of capabilities and sex discrimination. They appear to ally with the idea of "men's work" and "women's work".

Cross-cultural context
Few women tend to reach positions in the upper echelon of society, and organizations are largely still almost exclusively led by men. Studies have shown that the glass ceiling still exists in varying levels in different nations and regions across the world. The stereotypes of women as emotional and sensitive could be seen as key characteristics as to why women struggle to break the glass ceiling. It is clear that even though societies differ from one another by culture, beliefs, and norms, they hold similar expectations of women and their role in society. These female stereotypes are often reinforced in societies that have traditional expectations of women. The stereotypes and perceptions of women are changing slowly across the world, which also reduces gender segregation in organizations.

Overcoming glass ceiling
Despite significant improvement of women's participation in the labor force due to equity programs, advanced education levels, and work-life balanced policies, women are still underrepresented in upper-level positions in the workplace. There has been substantial invisible barriers for them to reach high-level management position such as lack of social capital, low level of self-efficacy and self-esteem, gender stereotypes. and masculine organizational culture. In fact, individual, government and organization effort are needed to break double glass ceilings in which not only cultural and gender biases but also limitation of access to resources and opportunities have been rooted in the male-dominated workplace.

"Individual effort"
One of the effective strategies that women can use to overcome the glass ceiling effect on their own is networking. Social networks are critical for promoting one's career and receiving access to resources. Establishing intensive connections within and outside an organization can contribute to better interpersonal understanding and reduction of negative stereotypical views of women and thus achieving career advancement in return. Social networks can be constructed through connections with individuals on various dimensions such as formal vs. informal, homogeneity vs. heterogeneity, instrumental vs. psychosocial and strong vs. weak ties. Women have strong capabilities of building and maintaining social relationship. They can create internal network within their organizations that influence on deciding promotion and acceptance while an external network with outsiders contributes to psychosocial support. They can build social networks in different ways depending on their social identity and cultural background. However, building and maintaining networks can be time-consuming and not straightforward. Women can also face additional barriers to construct networks in an organization that have been dominated by powerful men.

The benefits accumulated from social networks become social capital for individuals. Thus, the quality of one's social network can determine the value of its social capital. Social capital can contribute several positive career outcomes such as task accomplishment and social support for career advancement. Women can enhance their social capital and promote their professional images through mentoring. Mentoring plays a critical role in supporting women to achieve executive-level positions in an organization. Mentoring means a senior with advanced knowledge, skills and experience helps a junior through career and psychological support. Career support includes sponsorship, coaching and visibility while psychological support includes acceptance, emotional support and role modeling. A supportive supervisor or mentor can enhance the opportunity of being appointed to the critical roles and increase the probability of actual promotions through temporary promotions. To achieve this, women can intentionally forge relationships across race, gender, occupation level and organizational culture. Moreover, they can borrow this kind of social capital from strategic partners to get important contacts. But, such kind of connection is related with only temporary promotions. Mentors are more likely to support the same-gender mentee in an organization. Female mentors may be sympathetic and understand about women's challenges and emotions in the battle of promotions. However, this benefit could be realized only when female mentors reach relatively high-level positions. In fact, it is difficult for women to receive mentoring from the same gender since there are fewer senior management positions occupied by female.

Positive attitude towards glass ceiling can also help women to break glass ceiling. Optimistic beliefs about chances of being promoted in an organization can cause positive actions towards pursuing promotions. Resilience and denial are optimistic glass ceiling beliefs for subjective career success. Resilience means women believe that they are able to break glass ceiling: they can fight for their rights to promotion and career development. Denial means women think that men and women experience the same issues and barriers in pursuing executive positions. On the other hand, resignation and acceptance are pessimistic glass ceiling beliefs for subjective career advancement. Resignation means women are unwilling to break glass ceiling due to the belief of experiencing more negative consequences than men. Acceptance deals with women's preference on other goals such as family involvement instead of career advancement. Women who want to reach higher levels of management in an organization can analyze their levels of resilience and denial. Then, they will be able to build resilience skill through attitude, behavior and social support in order to overcome glass ceiling in a highly competitive contemporary workplace.

"Organization effort"
Overcoming the glass ceiling is not only a moral imperative but also a strategic advantage for organizations aiming to thrive in an increasingly diverse in a complex world. To break through this barrier and promote diversity and inclusivity in leadership, organizations must adopt a multifaceted and sustained approaches including development of policies, programs, leadership commitment and evaluation.

1. Policies

Effective diversity and inclusion policies play a pivotal role in breaking through organizational glass ceilings. Firstly, organizations must develop robust recruitment and retention strategies that not only attract diverse talent but also address attrition rates among underrepresented employees through targeted retention programs. To foster diversity at all levels, from recruitment to promotions, organizations should establish clear and comprehensive diversity and inclusion policies. These policies should not only outline specific objectives but also incorporate metrics and strategies that serve as guiding principles. Furthermore, compliance with all relevant anti-discrimination and equal opportunity laws is fundamental in cultivating a fair and inclusive workplace. Moreover, transparency in promotion and succession processes is essential. Maintaining clear communication regarding the criteria for advancement empowers employees to understand and actively pursue leadership opportunities, thereby dismantling the glass ceiling and promoting a more inclusive and equitable workplace. In addition to focusing on policy, organizations should also prioritize their programs for breaking through the glass ceiling.

2. Program

Firstly, organizations should prioritize the creation of comprehensive diversity and inclusion programs that clearly show their dedication to fairness and equal opportunities to all employees in workplaces. In addition, ensuring fairness in promotions is vital. Transparent promotion criteria must be developed and consistently applied across the organization to maintain fairness and equal opportunities for all. Furthermore, the implementation of leadership development programs is essential to identify and nurture potential leaders from diverse backgrounds. These programs may include elements such as mentorship, training, and opportunities for high-potential employees to gain valuable leadership experience.

To increase awareness and mitigate unconscious bias, organizations should provide diversity and inclusion training for all employees, including management and executives. This training should equip individuals with strategies to minimize the impact of bias on decision-making and team dynamics. Lastly, organizations should create platforms and events that facilitate networking opportunities for employees from diverse backgrounds to interact with senior leadership. Enhanced visibility through these initiatives is paramount for career progression and reinforces an organization's commitment to breaking through the glass ceiling and promoting diversity and inclusion.

3. Leadership commitment

Firstly, leaders must exemplify unwavering commitment to diversity and inclusion, serving as champions of this vital initiative. This should be evident in the organization's values, policies, and in the actions of its leaders. Secondly, organizations should establish clear accountability mechanisms. Leadership should be held responsible for achieving diversity and inclusion goals, with performance metrics directly tied to these objectives. Additionally, promoting inclusive leadership is crucial. Organizations should invest in training their leaders to make equitable and inclusive decisions, manage teams with fairness, and engage in inclusive interactions. Effective communication plays a pivotal role in this journey. Organizations should transparently communicate their commitment to diversity and inclusion, both internally and externally. Regularly publishing diversity and inclusion reports helps maintain transparency and keeps stakeholders informed about progress. Lastly, cultural transformation is essential. Cultivating a workplace culture rooted in respect and open communication is paramount (Bhasin, 2020). Encouraging employees to report any instances of discrimination or harassment and providing a safe and supportive space for such reports is vital to addressing issues promptly and effectively.

4. Performance evaluation

To successfully overcome the glass ceiling at the organizational level, a commitment to continuous improvement is paramount. This entails regularly evaluating the effectiveness of diversity and inclusion initiatives through methods such as surveys, feedback mechanisms, and data analysis. Organizations must remain adaptable, ready to adjust their strategies as necessary to tackle evolving challenges and capitalize on opportunities for enhancement.

"Glass escalator"
A parallel phenomenon called the "glass escalator" has also been recognized. As more men join fields that were previously dominated by women, such as nursing and teaching, the men are promoted and given more opportunities compared to the women, as if the men were taking escalators and the women were taking the stairs. The chart from Carolyn K. Broner shows an example of the glass escalator in favor of men for female-dominant occupations in schools. While women have historically dominated the teaching profession, men tend to take higher positions in school systems such as deans or principals.

Men benefit financially from their gender status in historically female fields, often "reaping the benefits of their token status to reach higher levels in female-dominated work".

A 2008 study published in Social Problems found that sex segregation in nursing did not follow the "glass escalator" pattern of disproportional vertical distribution; rather, men and women gravitated towards different areas within the field, with male nurses tending to specialize in areas of work perceived as "masculine". The article noted that "men encounter powerful social pressures that direct them away from entering female-dominated occupations (Jacobs 1989, 1993)". Since female-dominated occupations are usually characterized by more feminine activities, men who enter these jobs can be perceived socially as "effeminate, homosexual, or sexual predators".

"Sticky floors"
In the literature on gender discrimination, the concept of "sticky floors" complements the concept of a glass ceiling. Sticky floors can be described as the pattern that women are, compared to men, less likely to start to climb the job ladder. This is often due to discriminatory employment pattern that keeps workers, mainly women, in the lower ranks of the job scale, with low mobility and invisible barriers to career advancement. Thereby, this phenomenon is related to gender differentials at the bottom of the wage distribution. Building on the seminal study by Booth and co-authors in European Economic Review, during the last decade economists have attempted to identify sticky floors in the labour market. They found empirical evidence for the existence of sticky floors in countries such as Australia, Belgium, Italy, Thailand, and the United States.

"The frozen middle"
Similar to the sticky floor, the frozen middle describes the phenomenon of women's progress up the corporate ladder slowing, if not halting, in the ranks of middle management. Originally the term referred to the resistance corporate upper management faced from middle management when issuing directives. Due to a lack of ability or lack of drive in the ranks of middle management, these directives do not come into fruition and as a result the company's bottom line suffers. The term was popularized by a Harvard Business Review article titled "Middle Management Excellence". Due to the growing proportion of women to men in the workforce, however, the term "frozen middle" has become more commonly ascribed to the aforementioned slowing of the careers of women in middle management. The 1996 study "A Study of the Career Development and Aspirations of Women in Middle Management" posits that social structures and networks within businesses that favor "good old boys" and norms of masculinity exist based on the experiences of women surveyed. According to the study, women who did not exhibit stereotypical masculine traits, (e.g. aggressiveness, thick skin, lack of emotional expression) and interpersonal communication tendencies were disadvantaged compared to their male peers. As the ratio of men to women increases in the upper levels of management, women's access to female mentors who could advise them on ways to navigate office politics is limited, further inhibiting upward mobility within a corporation or firm. Furthermore, the frozen middle affects female professionals in western and eastern countries such as the United States and Malaysia, respectively, as well as women in a variety of fields ranging from the aforementioned corporations to STEM fields.

"Second shift"
The second shift focuses on the idea that women theoretically work a second shift in the manner of having a greater workload, not just doing a greater share of domestic work. All of the tasks that are engaged in outside the workplace are mainly tied to motherhood. Depending on location, household income, educational attainment, ethnicity and location, data shows that women do work a second shift in the sense of having a greater workload, not just doing a greater share of domestic work, but this is not apparent if simultaneous activity is overlooked. Alva Myrdal and Viola Klein as early as 1956 focused on the potential of both men and women working in settings that included paid and unpaid types of work environments. Research indicated that men and women could have equal time for activities outside the work environment for family and extra activities. This "second shift" has also been found to have physical effects as well. Women who engage in longer hours of work in pursuit of family balance often face increased mental health problems such as depression and anxiety. Increased irritability, lower motivation and energy, and other emotional issues were also found to occur as well. The overall happiness of women can be improved if a balance of career and home responsibilities is found.

"Mommy track"
"Mommy track" refers to women who disregard their careers and professional responsibilities in order to satisfy the needs of their families. Women are often subject to long work hours that create an imbalance within the work-family schedule. There is research suggesting that women are able to operate on a part-time professional schedule compared to others who worked full-time while still engaged in external family activities. This research also suggests that flexible work arrangements allow the achievement of a healthy work and family balance. A difference has also been discovered in the cost and amount of effort in childbearing between women in higher skilled positions and roles, as opposed to women in lower-skilled jobs. This difference leads women to delay and postpone goals and career aspirations over many years.

"Concrete floor"
The term concrete floor has been used to refer to the minimum number or the proportion of women necessary for a cabinet or board of directors to be perceived as legitimate.

title: Glass ceiling


text:
Talk:Bowie Baysox

This article makes no sense - I guess that this is some sort of qmerican sporting team. What sport they play or what their significance is, are not specified! David Thrale 23:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Baysox.PNG
Image:Baysox.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BowieBaysox.PNG
Image:BowieBaysox.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Bowie Baysox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051124151306/http://www.baseballlibrary.com:80/baseballlibrary/submit/Mileur_Ray1.stm to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/submit/Mileur_Ray1.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

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

title: Talk:Bowie Baysox


text:
Rose Revolution

The Rose Revolution or Revolution of Roses (ვარდების რევოლუცია) was a nonviolent change of power that occurred in Georgia in November 2003. The event was brought about by widespread protests over the disputed parliamentary elections and culminated in the resignation of President Eduard Shevardnadze, which marked the end of the Soviet era leadership in the country. The revolution derives its name from the climactic moment, when demonstrators led by Mikheil Saakashvili stormed the Parliament session with red roses in hand.

The revolution was led by Shevardnadze's former political allies, Mikheil Saakashvili, Nino Burjanadze and Zurab Zhvania. Consisting of twenty days of protests from 3 to 23 November 2003, the Revolution triggered new presidential and parliamentary elections in Georgia, which brought the National Movement–Democrats coalition to the power. The death of Zurab Zhvania in uncertain circumstances and the withdrawal of Nino Burjanadze into opposition eventually established the United National Movement as the single ruling party. The next change of power in Georgia was brought by the 2012 Georgian parliamentary election.

The Rose Revolution is considered one of the early examples of colour revolutions. It was marked by strong role of non-governmental organizations and student activism. The role of the United States, as in other colour revolutions, has been a subject of significant controversy.

Fragmentation of the political elite
The Citizens' Union of Georgia (CUG) had been the ruling party for most of Eduard Shevardnadze's Presidency, and represented the interests of Shevardnadze loyalists. The ineffectiveness of the government and the decreasing popularity of the regime led to the defection of numerous parliamentary deputies from the ruling party in 2000. The first group to leave the CUG represented the business community and would go on to form the New Rights Party (NRP) in 2001. This began the collapse of the party, as numerous party officials and deputies defected to join or form other parties. Eduard Shevardnadze himself resigned from the chairmanship of the CUG in September 2001. Fatefully, Mikheil Saakashvili (the Minister of Justice) left the ruling party in September and would form the National Movement opposition party one month later. The defections continued for the next two years, and left the Citizens' Union of Georgia as a far weaker party with support clustered in a few regions, and a leadership notorious for accumulating wealth illegally through their positions in government. The disintegration of the party highlighted the weakness of the Shevardnadze regime and dispersed the political elite amongst a number of new parties and independent platforms.

The collapse of the Citizens' Union of Georgia and more apparent public discontent with Shevardnadze allowed for the formation of numerous new parties after 2000. The ruling party showed its vulnerability in the 2002 local elections, losing decisively to independents and new parties. The local elections saw independents secure 2754 seats, with the New Rights Party (NRP) being the most successful political party, obtaining 558 parliamentary seats. The Citizens' Union of Georgia won only 70 out of approximately 4,850 local parliamentary seats.

Following the disastrous 2002 local elections, Shevardnadze made a concerted attempt to rebuild a political coalition that could support him. The CUG was rebuilt before the 2003 parliamentary election, which was understood to be a key trial before the 2005 presidential election. However, President Shevardnadze's popularity rating had plummeted to around 5%, undermining any attempt to revive the CUG under his leadership. The new CUG further found itself divided over internal disputes, and lacking effective leadership to replace those that had defected.

Rise of non-governmental organizations
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) played a significant role in the Rose Revolution. By the end of 2000, the number of NGOs estimated to be in Georgia numbered around four thousand. The 1997 Civil Code made the registration of an NGO relatively easy, and they operated in Georgia with few restrictions. Though only a small portion of those likely had influence on the government or were successful in lobbying, several had leverage in parliament. While public participation in these NGOs was relatively low, they were ultimately successful in mobilizing the population to play a more active role in government. Two of the most important were the Georgian Young Lawyers Association and the Liberty Institute, both of which were active in the promotion of human rights and freedom of information legislation before the Rose Revolution.

Shevardnadze had allowed the development of NGOs before the Rose Revolution, and numerous large and relatively uninhibited NGOs were able to operate in Georgia prior to the 2003 parliamentary elections. Georgia's weak economy allowed these NGOs, who were often partially foreign funded, to pay decent salaries that would not have been available in working for the Georgian state. As early as the Summer of 2002, there was great concern amongst the leaders of Georgia's most influential NGOs that Shevardnadze was not prepared to relinquish power voluntarily, and that other ways to remove him from power might be necessary. Some of these leaders hoped to make the 'Serbian scenario' a reality in Georgia, in the sense that they wanted to promote non-violent protests to force the resignation of an authoritarian leader. Before the Rose Revolution, a large network of NGOs with foreign financial support already existed in the country that could later coordinate protest.

Foreign support
Foreign support for the Shevardnadze regime declined from 2000 to 2003, with notable figures outwardly calling for a more democratic transition. These included Richard Miles (the US ambassador to Georgia), and allies of the Bush administration, including a visit from James Baker (the former U.S. Secretary of State) who pressured Shevardnadze to accept parallel vote tabulation and pushed for free election standards.

In the three years before the Rose Revolution, foreign financial support for the regime began to become severely limited. Instead, foreign states and organizations gave financial assistance to NGOs and opposition parties within Georgia, worsening the desperate budget situation of the Shevardnadze government. The United States announced a reduction in aid, coinciding with a decision by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to suspend aid to Georgia. As international support for the regime deteriorated (particularly in the West), public perceptions of Shevardnadze's political weakness increased. A significant source of funding for NGOs and election monitoring organizations came from foreign governments and individuals. The U.S. and European governments gave the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) the funds to support foreign election observers. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)§ spent $1.5 million to computerize Georgia's voter rolls. The Open Society Institute (OSI), funded by George Soros, supported Mikheil Saakashvili and a network of pro-democratic organizations. Western democracy promoters also circulated public opinion polls and scrutinized election data throughout Georgia.

Role of the media
An important factor in the Rose Revolution was the independent television channel Rustavi-2, which served as an ally for the opposition movement for years. It was highly critical of the regime, and openly supported the opposition. Georgia's broad Freedom of Information law gave media outlets the legal protection to criticize the government, making it a leader amongst the former Eastern Bloc. Nonetheless, the government tried repeatedly to shut Rustavi-2 down. The station operated out of Tbilisi and managed to survive the regime's harassment and intimidation techniques. Rustavi-2 was partially financially supported, trained, and sometimes protected by USAID and the Eurasia Foundation, which often mobilized public and international support to prevent government interference in the station's reporting. The broadcasts of Rustavi-2 ended up being instrumental in building the opposition and encouraging protest.

Two events in 2001 caused an outcry of public opinion against the government. In July, a popular anchor for the Rustavi-2 network, Giorgi Sanaia, was murdered. The consensus among Georgian journalists and the public was that he was killed because of his anti-government work on the Chechen conflict and corruption investigations. In October, agents from the National Security Ministry raided the headquarters of Rustavi-2. The tax-raid was broadcast on television from outside the building. Upwards of seven thousand student-led protestors, many mobilized by the Liberty Institute NGO, amassed outside the headquarters and demanded the resignation of the Shevardnadze government. Shevardnadze responded by sacking his cabinet and his minister of security. Importantly, this event triggered the defection of Mikheil Saakashvili and the abdication of Zurab Zhvania from their positions in the Citizens' Union of Georgia, eventually leading to the formation of the National Movement and United Democrats opposition parties.

While still the target of government harassment, Rustavi-2 continued to air anti-Shevardnadze material until 2003. This included the repeated airing of Bringing Down a Dictator, a film portraying the fall of Slobodan Milošević in the nonviolent Serbian revolution. Other networks, such as Imedi television and Mze began to report on the political process more objectively, possibly influenced by Rustavi-2's defiance. Rustavi-2 would eventually be the network to commission and broadcast the exit poll results of the 2003 parliamentary election, which found Saakashvili's National Movement party victorious over the pro-Shevardnadze bloc.

Economic factors
The susceptibility of Shevardnadze's government and his plummeting popularity between 2000 and 2003 can partially be traced to economic problems and mismanagement. Beginning in 1998, actual national budget revenues began to fall far short of projections. In 1999, the Georgian state collected only 70% of its projected revenue, a state of affairs that would continue through 2003. To address this problem, the government began to use deceptive accounting techniques to mask budget deficiencies. Shevardnadze's government found itself both starved of funds and unable to meet IMF standards for international loans. The IMF finally suspended its own funding for Georgia in 2002. Without access to international loans, Georgia would not be able to restructure or repay its significant debts.

In the period before 2003, the growth rate of the Georgian economy fell. The 1998 economic crisis in Russia, Georgia's main energy provider and trade partner, put an end to Georgia's modest recovery. While there was some economic growth in 2003, a budgetary crisis weakened the state. The Georgian government's meager program of public goods and basic services had been chronically underfunded for years. By the end of 2003, debt in the form of unpaid salaries and pensions reached $120 million. Deterioration of public infrastructure was also poorly addressed by Shevardnadze's government. Georgian businesses lost an average of 110 business days per year because of failures in infrastructure (usually in the energy sector). The state was unable to repair the crumbling infrastructure or consistently enforce the law. Social conditions also further deteriorated, with over half of the population finding itself under the poverty line, creating even greater dissatisfaction with the Shevardnadze administration.

Corruption among state officials and police, while not new, was certainly exacerbated by Georgia's lack of budget revenue. The official salary of a Georgian state minister was around 150 Lari in 1998 (approximately US$75). Low pay forced many state employees to turn to alternative sources of income, often involving corrupt activities. President Shevardnadze came to be seen as a man who was unwilling to break the Soviet patterns of personal power, political corruption, and authoritarian rule embedded in traditional Soviet cadre politics. Corruption had become so rampant, that off-the-record deals may have accounted for 60-70% of Georgia's total economic activity. The Shevardnadze regime was not seen as being capable of addressing corruption. Opposition candidates, such as Saakashvili, could successfully gain much support with an anti-corruption political platform.

Elections and protests
Georgia held parliamentary elections on November 2, 2003. At stake were 235 seats in parliament of which 135 would be decided by a nationwide proportional party-list system and 85 were "majoritarian" contests in which a winner would be determined in each of Georgia's 85 electoral districts. In addition, a nationwide referendum was held on whether the future parliament should be reduced to 150 members. Voters used a separate ballot for each of these three contests, folding them together and placing them in a single envelope which was then put in the ballot box. This was not a presidential election; that was set to occur in the spring of 2005, at the expiration of President Shevardnadze's second and final term.

In July 2003, U.S. president George W. Bush sent former secretary of state James Baker to meet with both opposition leaders and President Shevardnadze. To the latter, Baker delivered a letter from Bush sternly stressing the need for free elections. Baker proposed a formula for representation of the various parties on the electoral commissions at each level. Shevardnadze agreed, but immediately began maneuvering against the Baker formula.

On 3 November the International Election Observation Mission, composed of the Parliamentary Assemblies of the OSCE and the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), concluded that the 2 November parliamentary elections in Georgia fell short of a number of OSCE commitments and other international standards for democratic elections. Mikheil Saakashvili claimed that he had won the elections (a claim supported by independent exit polls). This was confirmed by an independent parallel vote tabulation (PVT) conducted by the ISFED (International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy, a local election monitoring group). Saakashvilli and the United Opposition accepted ISFED's PVT as "official" results, and urged Georgians to demonstrate against Shevardnadze's government and engage in nonviolent civil disobedience against the authorities. The main democratic opposition parties united to demand the ousting of Shevardnadze and the rerun of the elections.

In mid-November, massive antigovernmental demonstrations started in the central streets of Tbilisi, soon involving almost all major cities and towns of Georgia in a concerted campaign of civil resistance. The "Kmara" ("Enough!") youth organization (a Georgian counterpart of the Serbian "Otpor!") and several NGOs, like the Liberty Institute, were active in all protest activities. Shevardnadze's government was backed by Aslan Abashidze, the semi-separatist leader of the autonomous Adjara region, who sent thousands of his supporters to hold a pro-governmental counter-demonstration in Tbilisi.

Change of power
The opposition protest reached its peak on November 22, when President Shevardnadze attempted to open the new session of parliament. This session was considered illegitimate by two of the four major opposition parties. Supporters of two of those parties, led by Saakashvili, burst into the session with roses in their hands (hence the name Rose Revolution), interrupting a speech of President Eduard Shevardnadze and forcing him to escape with his bodyguards. He later declared a state of emergency and began to mobilize troops and police near his residence in Tbilisi. However, the elite military units refused to support the government. In the evening of November 23 (St George's Day in Georgia), Shevardnadze met with the opposition leaders Saakashvili and Zurab Zhvania to discuss the situation, in a meeting arranged by Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov. After the meeting, the president announced his resignation. That prompted euphoria in the streets of Tbilisi. More than 50,000 protesters celebrated the victory all night long, accompanied by fireworks and rock concerts. Following the resignation of Eduard Shevardnadze, new elections were planned to bring power to a new leader. The outgoing speaker of parliament, Nino Burjanadze, assumed the presidency until new elections could be held. The Supreme Court of Georgia annulled the results of the parliamentary elections. New elections happened six weeks later on January 4, 2004. Unopposed and with 96.2 percent of the vote, Saakashvili became the new president of Georgia and was inaugurated on January 25. He became the youngest European president at the age of 36. On March 28, 2004, new parliamentary elections were held, with a large majority won by the Saakashvili-supporting National Movement - Democrats, and a minority representation of the Rightist Opposition.

After being elected, Saakashvili wasted no time in passing a series of legislation and reforms. Criticized as being very "pro-western," his agenda was able to improve the country's economy and launch a new anti-corruption campaign. He was able to bring the country's rating according to the World Bank from 122nd to 18th in the world by expanding the banking sector by 40 percent, increasing foreign investment to $3 billion, and maintaining an annual growth of 9.5%.

International involvement
Many countries watched Georgia transition from an autocracy to a democracy, but the key players were primarily Russia and the United States. Russia was suspected of being involved in Georgia's affairs from the beginning as it was assumed to have been involved in various coup and assassination attempts of Shevardnadze. Georgia, a state that was previously under Soviet influence, took independence in the 1990s, but saw much disarray in the form of separatist Groups, particularly those that were Russian-backed. The United States felt the revolution was a good opportunity to make a serious attempt in the establishment of democracy not only in Georgia, but the region it was in. The U.S. Agency for International Development was reported to have spent $1.5 million on modernizing Georgia's voting system. They also invested in 3,000 election observers throughout the country.

One of the biggest forms of international involvement was with George Soros and the Open Society Foundation located in the United States. A non-governmental organization whose mission is to promote democracy, human rights, and reform in various areas, such as the economy helped in the making of Kmara, a student movement that was brought to Serbia by the foundation to get insight for the resistance, particularly training in non-violent methods of protest. Translating as "Enough," it resembled a Serbian organization that played an important role in the Bulldozer Revolution that happened three years prior and which ended the presidency of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia.

A significant source of funding for the Rose Revolution was the network of foundations and NGOs associated with Hungarian-American billionaire financier George Soros. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies reports the case of a former Georgian parliamentarian who alleges that in the three months prior to the Rose Revolution, "Soros spent $42 million ramping-up for the overthrow of Shevardnadze.

Among the personalities who worked for Soros' organizations who later assumed positions in the Georgian government are:
 * Alexander Lomaia, Secretary of the Georgian Security Council and former Minister of Education and Science, a former Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation (Soros Foundation), overseeing a staff of 50 and a budget of $2,500,000.
 * David Darchiashvili, the chairman of the Committee for Eurointegration in the Georgian parliament, is also a former Executive Director of the Open Society Georgia Foundation.

Former Georgian Foreign Minister Salomé Zourabichvili wrote:

"These institutions were the cradle of democratization, notably the Soros Foundation ... all the NGOs which gravitate around the Soros Foundation undeniably carried the revolution. However, one cannot end one's analysis with the revolution [only] and one clearly sees that, afterwards, the Soros Foundation and the NGOs were integrated into power."

The amount of international involvement created a variety of conspiracy theories. The most popular implies that the United States was responsible for the overthrow of Shevardnadze. Many non-governmental organizations from the U.S. were in Georgia actively educating the people on human rights and the ideals of democracy. Also, the U.S. Ambassador in Georgia at the time, Richard Miles, was also the U.S. Ambassador in Belgrade from 1996 to 1999.

Adjara
In May 2004, the so-called "Second Rose Revolution" took place in Batumi, Adjara. After months of extreme tension between Saakashvili's government and Aslan Abashidze, the virtual dictator of the autonomous region, thousands of Adjarans, mobilized by the United National Movement and Kmara, protested against Abashidze's policy of separatism and militarization. Abashidze used security forces and paramilitary groups to break up the demonstrations in the streets of Batumi and Kobuleti. However, he failed to suppress the protests, and they grew in size and scope. On May 6, 2004 (again St George's Day), protesters from all Ajara gathered in Batumi despite being dispersed by force the day before. Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania and Interior Minister Giorgi Baramidze negotiated with Adjaran Interior Minister Jemal Gogitidze to withdraw his forces from the administrative border at the Choloki River and led Georgian Special Forces into the region. Abashidze bowed to the inevitable, resigned in the same evening and left for Moscow. President Saakashvili visited Batumi the next day and was met by celebrating Adjarans.

International effects
The Orange Revolution, which followed the disputed November 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, is said to have been partly inspired by the Georgian Rose Revolution.

title: Rose Revolution


text:
George Stibitz

George Robert Stibitz (April 30, 1904 – January 31, 1995) was an American researcher at Bell Labs who is internationally recognized as one of the fathers of the modern digital computer. He was known for his work in the 1930s and 1940s on the realization of Boolean logic digital circuits using electromechanical relays as the switching element.

Early life and education
Stibitz was born in York, Pennsylvania, the son of Mildred Murphy, a math teacher, and George Stibitz, a German Reformed minister and theology professor. Throughout his childhood, Stibitz enjoyed assembling devices and systems, working with material as diverse as a toy Meccano set or the electrical wiring of the family home. He received a bachelor's degree in mathematics from Denison University in Granville, Ohio, a master's degree in physics from Union College in 1927, and a Ph.D. in mathematical physics from Cornell University in 1930 with a thesis entitled "Vibrations of a Non-Planar Membrane."

Computer

Stibitz began working at Bell Labs after his doctorate, where he would remain until 1941. In November 1937 he completed a relay-based adder he later dubbed the "Model K" (after his kitchen table, on which it was purportedly assembled), which calculated using binary addition. Replicas of the "Model K" now reside in the Computer History Museum, the Smithsonian Institution, the William Howard Doane Library at Denison University and the American Computer & Robotics Museum in Bozeman, Montana.

Bell Labs subsequently authorized a full research program in late 1938 with Stibitz at the helm. He led the development of the Complex Number Calculator (CNC), completed in November 1939 and put into operation in 1940. Employing electromagnetic relay binary circuits for its operations, rather than counting wheels or gears, the machine executed calculations on complex numbers. In a demonstration at the meetings of the American Mathematical Society and Mathematical Association of America at Dartmouth College in September 1940, Stibitz used a modified teletype to send commands over telegraph lines to the CNC in New York. This was the first real-time, remote use of a computing machine.

Wartime activities and subsequent Bell Labs computers
After the United States entered World War II in December 1941, Bell Labs became active in developing fire-control devices for the U.S. military. The Labs' most famous invention was the M-9 Gun Director, an ingenious analog device that directed anti-aircraft fire with uncanny accuracy. Stibitz moved to the National Defense Research Committee, an advisory body for the government, but he kept close ties with Bell Labs. For the next several years (1941–1945), with his guidance, the Labs developed relay computers of ever-increasing sophistication. The first of them was used to test the M-9 Gun Director. Later models had more sophisticated capabilities. They had specialized names, but later on, Bell Labs renamed them "Model II", "Model III", etc., and the Complex Computer was renamed the "Model I". All used telephone relays for logic, and paper tape for sequencing and control. The "Model V", was completed in 1946 and was a fully programmable, general-purpose computer, although its relay technology made it slower than the all-electronic computers then under development.

The application of Math via a machine was an extraordinary effort of Stibitz with Claude Shannon, and is easily understated. Decimal numbers were encoded as groups of two and five relays, somewhat like the beads on a Chinese abacus. This biquinary code allowed for elaborate error checking, which ensured that he machine would stop and alert an operator before ever delivering a wrong answer. Relay computers, unlike their electronic counterparts, had to have error-detecting circuits because a relay can fail intermittently, usually when a piece of dust interferes with a few contact cycles before being dislodged. Such intermittent errors would have been almost impossible to detect without some sort of internal redundancy. By contrast, vacuum tubes failed catastrophically, with a resulting computer failure obvious to its operators. See https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/1074100.1074162 Even today AI Artificial intelligence makes many mistakes, called "uncertain reasoning" and error detection is much needed. The Bell Labs computers were powerful, reliable, and balanced machines. They often outperformed their vacuum tube contemporaries in solving problems for which slower speed was not decisive. But once the von Neumann-inspired notions of computer architecture became known and accepted, that advantage was lost, as designers elsewhere learned to build electronic computers with none of the architectural drawbacks suffered by machines like the ENIAC. Thus, the Bell Labs machines represent an evolutionary dead end, although their contribution to the mainstream history of digital computing was profound.

At the end of the war, Stibitz did not return to Bell Labs, but went into private consulting work. From 1964 until his retirement in 1974, Stibitz was a research associate in physiology at the medical school of Dartmouth College.

Use of the term "digital"
In April 1942, Stibitz attended a meeting of a division of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), charged with evaluating various proposals for fire-control devices to be used against Axis forces during World War II. Stibitz noted that the proposals fell into two broad categories: "analog" and "pulse". In a memo written after the meeting, he suggested that the term "digital" be used in place of "pulse", as he felt the latter term was insufficiently descriptive of the nature of the processes involved. In the very same moment, he also pointed to the limits of this opposition between analog and digital. He presented it as a rather theoretical opposition with no practical use, as most computers of the time would consist of both analog and digital mechanisms.

Awards

 * Harry H. Goode Memorial Award in 1965 (together with Konrad Zuse)
 * IEEE's Computer Pioneer Award, 1982
 * election to the National Academy of Engineering, 1981
 * election to the National Inventors Hall of Fame, 1985
 * election to the National Inventors Hall of Fame, 1985

Stibitz held 38 patents, in addition to those he earned at Bell Labs. He became a member of the faculty at Dartmouth College in 1964 to build bridges between the fields of computing and medicine, and retired from research in 1983.

Computer art
In his later years, Stibitz "turned to non-verbal uses of the computer". Specifically, he used a Commodore-Amiga to create computer art. In a 1990 letter, written to the department chair of the Mathematics and Computer Science department of Denison University he said:

"I have turned to non-verbal uses of the computer, and have made a display of computer 'art'. The quotes are obligatory, for the result of my efforts is not to create important art but to show that this activity is fun, much as the creation of computers was fifty years ago."

The Mathematics and Computer Science department at Denison University has enlarged and displayed some of his artwork.

Publications

 * (4 pages)
 * (102 pages)

title: George Stibitz


text:
The World Starts with Me

The World Starts With Me is a computer-based sex education and AIDS prevention program aimed at young Ugandans, developed and produced by the Butterfly Works Foundation and the World Population Foundation (a Dutch non-governmental organization) in association with Ugandan Schoolnet. It has so far reached children all around the globe and Kenyans have now joined in the learning process. Teenagers get to learn more about their bodies and sexually transmitted diseases. This helps in showing teenagers the consequences of having unprotected sex. In 2004, it won a Prix Ars Electronica Golden Nica for Digital Communities.

title: The World Starts with Me


text:
Wars of the Diadochi

The Wars of the Diadochi (Πόλεμοι τῶν Διαδόχων ', literally War of the Crown Princes), or Wars of Alexander's Successors''', were a series of conflicts fought between the generals of Alexander the Great, known as the Diadochi, over who would rule his empire following his death. The fighting occurred between 322 and 281 BC.

Background
Alexander the Great died on June 10, 323 BC, leaving behind an empire that stretched from Macedon and the rest of Greece in Europe to the Indus valley in South Asia. The empire had no clear successor, with the Argead family, at this point, consisting of Alexander's mentally disabled half-brother, Arrhidaeus; his unborn son Alexander IV; his reputed illegitimate son Heracles; his mother Olympias; his sister Cleopatra; and his half-sisters Thessalonike and Cynane.

Alexander's death was the catalyst for the disagreements that ensued between his former generals resulting in a succession crisis. Two main factions formed after the death of Alexander. The first of these was led by Meleager, who supported the candidacy of Alexander's half-brother, Arrhidaeus. The second was led by Perdiccas, the leading cavalry commander, who believed it would be best to wait until the birth of Alexander's unborn child, by Roxana. Both parties agreed to a compromise, wherein Arrhidaeus would become king as Philip III and rule jointly with Roxana's child, providing it was a male heir. Perdiccas was designated as regent of the empire, with Meleager acting as his lieutenant. However, soon after, Perdiccas had Meleager and the other leaders who had opposed him murdered, and he assumed full control.

The generals who had supported Perdiccas were rewarded in the partition of Babylon by becoming satraps of the various parts of the empire. Ptolemy received Egypt; Laomedon received Syria and Phoenicia; Philotas took Cilicia; Peithon took Media; Antigonus received Phrygia, Lycia and Pamphylia; Asander received Caria; Menander received Lydia; Lysimachus received Thrace; Leonnatus received Hellespontine Phrygia; and Neoptolemus had Armenia. Macedon and the rest of Greece were to be under the joint rule of Antipater, who had governed them for Alexander, and Craterus, a lieutenant of Alexander. Alexander's secretary, Eumenes of Cardia, was to receive Cappadocia and Paphlagonia.

In the east, Perdiccas largely left Alexander's arrangements intact – Taxiles and Porus ruled over their kingdoms in India; Alexander's father-in-law Oxyartes ruled Gandara; Sibyrtius ruled Arachosia and Gedrosia; Stasanor ruled Aria and Drangiana; Philip ruled Bactria and Sogdiana; Phrataphernes ruled Parthia and Hyrcania; Peucestas governed Persis; Tlepolemus had charge over Carmania; Atropates governed northern Media; Archon got Babylonia; and, Arcesilas ruled northern Mesopotamia.

Lamian War
The news of Alexander's death inspired a revolt in Greece, known as the Lamian War. Athens and other cities formed a coalition and besieged Antipater in the fortress of Lamia, however, Antipater was relieved by a force sent by Leonnatus, who was killed in battle. The Athenians were defeated at the Battle of Crannon on September 5, 322 BC by Craterus and his fleet.

At this time, Peithon suppressed a revolt of Greek settlers in the eastern parts of the empire, and Perdiccas and Eumenes subdued Cappadocia.

First War of the Diadochi, 321–319 BC
Perdiccas, who was already betrothed to the daughter of Antipater, attempted to marry Alexander's sister, Cleopatra, a marriage which would have given him claim to the Macedonian throne. In 322 BC, Antipater, Craterus and Antigonus all formed a coalition against Perdiccas's growing power. Soon after, Antipater would send his army, under the command of Craterus, into Asia Minor. In late 322 or early 321 BC, Ptolemy stole Alexander's body on its way to Macedonia and then joined the coalition. A force under Eumenes defeated Craterus at the battle of the Hellespont, however, Perdiccas was soon after murdered by his own generals Peithon, Seleucus, and Antigenes during his invasion of Egypt, after a failed attempt to cross the Nile.

Ptolemy came to terms with Perdiccas' murderers, making Peithon and Arrhidaeus regents in Perdiccas's place, but soon these came to a new agreement with Antipater at the Treaty of Triparadisus. Antipater was made Regent of the Empire, and the two kings were moved to Macedon. Antigonus was made Strategos of Asia and remained in charge of Phrygia, Lycia, and Pamphylia, to which was added Lycaonia. Ptolemy retained Egypt, Lysimachus retained Thrace, while the three murderers of Perdiccas—Seleucus, Peithon, and Antigenes—were given the provinces of Babylonia, Media, and Susiana respectively. Arrhidaeus, the former regent, received Hellespontine Phrygia. Antigonus was charged with the task of rooting out Perdiccas's former supporter, Eumenes. In effect, Antipater retained for himself control of Europe, while Antigonus, as Strategos of the East, held a similar position in Asia.

Although the First War ended with the death of Perdiccas, his cause lived on. Eumenes was still at large with a victorious army in Asia Minor. So were Alcetas, Attalus, Dokimos and Polemon who had also gathered their armies in Asia Minor. In 319 BC Antigonus, after receiving reinforcements from Antipater's European army, first campaigned against Eumenes (see: battle of Orkynia), then against the combined forces of Alcetas, Attalus, Dokimos and Polemon (see: battle of Cretopolis), defeating them all.

Second War of the Diadochi, 318–316 BC
Another war soon broke out between the Diadochi. At the start of 318 BC Arrhidaios, the governor of Hellespontine Phrygia, tried to take the city of Cyzicus. Antigonus, as the Strategos of Asia, took this as a challenge to his authority and recalled his army from their winter quarters. He sent an army against Arrhidaios while he himself marched with the main army into Lydia against its governor Cleitus whom he drove out of his province.

Cleitus fled to Macedon and joined Polyperchon, the new Regent of the Empire, who decided to march his army south to force the Greek cities to side with him against Cassander and Antigonus. Cassander, reinforced with troops and a fleet by Antigonus, sailed to Athens and thwarted Polyperchon's efforts to take the city. From Athens Polyperchon marched on Megalopolis which had sided with Cassander and besieged the city. The siege failed and he had to retreat losing a lot of prestige and most of the Greek cities. Eventually Polyperchon retreated to Epirus with the infant King Alexander IV. There he joined forces with Alexander's mother Olympias and was able to re-invade Macedon. King Philip Arrhidaeus, Alexander's half-brother, having defected to Cassander's side at the prompting of his wife, Eurydice, was forced to flee, only to be captured in Amphipolis, resulting in the execution of himself and the forced suicide of his wife, both purportedly at the instigation of Olympias. Cassander rallied once more, and seized Macedon. Olympias was murdered, and Cassander gained control of the infant King and his mother. Eventually, Cassander became the dominant power in the European part of the Empire, ruling over Macedon and large parts of Greece.

Meanwhile, Eumenes, who had gathered a small army in Cappadocia, had entered the coalition of Polyperchon and Olympias. He took his army to the royal treasury at Kyinda in Cilicia where he used its funds to recruit mercenaries. He also secured the loyalty of 6,000 of Alexander's veterans, the Argyraspides (the Silver Shields) and the Hypaspists, who were stationed in Cilicia. In the spring of 317 BC he marched his army to Phoenica and began to raise a naval force on the behalf of Polyperchon. Antigonus had spent the rest of 318 BC consolidating his position and gathering a fleet. He now used this fleet (under the command of Nicanor who had returned from Athens) against Polyperchon's fleet in the Hellespont. In a two-day battle near Byzantium, Nicanor and Antigonus destroyed Polyperchon's fleet. Then, after settling his affairs in western Asia Minor, Antigonus marched against Eumenes at the head of a great army. Eumenes hurried out of Phoenicia and marched his army east to gather support in the eastern provinces. In this he was successful, because most of the eastern satraps joined his cause (when he arrived in Susiana) more than doubling his army. They marched and counter-marched throughout Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Susiana and Media until they faced each other on a plain in the country of the Paraitakene in southern Media. There they fought a great battle −the battle of Paraitakene− which ended inconclusively. The next year (315) they fought another great but inconclusive battle −the battle of Gabiene− during which some of Antigonus's troops plundered the enemy camp. Using this plunder as a bargaining tool, Antigonus bribed the Argyraspides who arrested and handed over Eumenes. Antigonus had Eumenes and a couple of his officers executed. With Eumenes's death, the war in the eastern part of the Empire ended.

Antigonus and Cassander had won the war. Antigonus now controlled Asia Minor and the eastern provinces, Cassander controlled Macedon and large parts of Greece, Lysimachus controlled Thrace, and Ptolemy controlled Egypt, Syria, Cyrene and Cyprus. Their enemies were either dead or seriously reduced in power and influence.

Third War of the Diadochi, 315–311 BC
Though his authority had seemed secure with his victory over Eumenes, the eastern dynasts were unwilling to see Antigonus rule all of Asia. In 314 BC they demanded from Antigonus that he cede Lycia and Cappadocia to Cassander, Hellespontine Phrygia to Lysimachus, all of Syria to Ptolemy, and Babylonia to Seleucus, and that he share the treasures he had captured. Antigonus only answer was to advise them to be ready, then, for war. In this war, Antigonus faced an alliance of Ptolemy (with Seleucus serving him), Lysimachus, and Cassander. At the start of the campaigning season of 314 BC Antigonus invaded Syria and Phoenicia, which were under Ptolemy's control, and besieged Tyre. Cassander and Ptolemy started supporting Asander (satrap of Caria) against Antigonus who ruled the neighbouring provinces of Lycia, Lydia and Greater Phrygia. Antigonus then sent Aristodemus with 1,000 talents to the Peloponnese to raise a mercenary army to fight Cassander, he allied himself to Polyperchon, who still controlled parts of the Peloponnese, and he proclaimed freedom for the Greeks to get them on their side. He also sent his nephew Ptolemaios with an army through Cappadocia to the Hellespont to cut Asander off from Lysimachus and Cassander. Polemaios was successful, securing the northwest of Asia Minor for Antigonus, even invading Ionia/Lydia and bottling up Asander in Caria, but he was unable to drive his opponent from his satrapy.

Eventually Antigonus decided to campaign against Asander himself, leaving his oldest son Demetrius to protect Syria and Phoenica against Ptolemy. Ptolemy and Seleucus invaded from Egypt and defeated Demetrius in the Battle of Gaza. After the battle, Seleucus went east and secured control of Babylon (his old satrapy), and then went on to secure the eastern satrapies of Alexander's empire. Antigonus, having defeated Asander, sent his nephews Telesphorus and Polemaios to Greece to fight Cassander, he himself returned to Syria/Phoenica, drove off Ptolemy, and sent Demetrius east to take care of Seleucus. Although Antigonus now concluded a compromise peace with Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander, he continued the war with Seleucus, attempting to recover control of the eastern reaches of the empire. Although he went east himself in 310 BC, he was unable to defeat Seleucus (he even lost a battle to Seleucus) and had to give up the eastern satrapies.

At about the same time, Cassander had young King Alexander IV and his mother Roxane murdered, ending the Argead dynasty, which had ruled Macedon for several centuries. As Cassander did not publicly announce the deaths, all of the various generals continued to recognize the dead Alexander as king, however, it was clear that at some point, one or all of them would claim the kingship. At the end of the war there were five Diadochi left: Cassander ruling Macedon and Thessaly, Lysimachus ruling Thrace, Antigonus ruling Asia Minor, Syria and Phoenicia, Seleucus ruling the eastern provinces and Ptolemy ruling Egypt and Cyprus. Each of them ruled as kings (in all but name).

Babylonian War, 311–309 BC
The Babylonian War was a conflict fought between 311 and 309 BC between the Diadochi kings Antigonus I Monophthalmus and Seleucus I Nicator, ending in a victory for the latter, Seleucus I Nicator. The conflict ended any possibility of restoration of the empire of Alexander the Great, a result confirmed in the Battle of Ipsus.

Fourth War of the Diadochi, 307–301 BC
Ptolemy had been expanding his power into the Aegean and to Cyprus, while Seleucus went on a tour of the east to consolidate his control of the vast eastern territories of Alexander's empire. Antigonus resumed the war, sending his son Demetrius to regain control of Greece. In 307 he took Athens, expelling Demetrius of Phaleron, Cassander's governor, and proclaiming the city free again. Demetrius now turned his attention to Ptolemy, invading Cyprus and defeating Ptolemy's fleet at the Battle of Salamis. In the aftermath of this victory, Antigonus and Demetrius both assumed the crown, and they were shortly followed by Ptolemy, Seleucus, Lysimachus, and eventually Cassander.

In 306, Antigonus attempted to invade Egypt, but storms prevented Demetrius' fleet from supplying him, and he was forced to return home. Now, with Cassander and Ptolemy both weakened, and Seleucus still occupied in the East, Antigonus and Demetrius turned their attention to Rhodes, which was besieged by Demetrius's forces in 305 BC. The island was reinforced by troops from Ptolemy, Lysimachus, and Cassander. Ultimately, the Rhodians reached a compromise with Demetrius – they would support Antigonus and Demetrius against all enemies, save their great ally Ptolemy. Ptolemy took the title of Soter ("Savior") for his role in preventing the fall of Rhodes, but the victory was ultimately Demetrius's, as it left him with a free hand to attack Cassander in Greece.

At the beginning of 304, Cassander managed to capture Salamis and besieged Athens. Athens petitioned Antigonus and Demetrius to come to their aid. Demetrius gathered a large fleet and landed his army in Boeotia in the rear of Cassander's forces. He freed the cities of Chalkis and Eretria, renewed the alliance with the Boeotian League and the Aetolian League, raised the siege of Athens and drove Cassander's forces from central Greece. In the spring of 303, Demetrius marched his army into the Peloponnese and took the cities of Sicyon and Corinth, he then campaigned in Argolis, Achaea and Arcadia, bringing the northern and central Peloponnese into the Antigonid camp. In 303–302 Demetrius formed a new Hellenic League, the League of Corinth, with himself and his father as presidents, to "defend" the Greek cities against all enemies (and particularly Cassander).

In the face of these catastrophes, Cassander sued for peace, but Antigonus rejected the claims, and Demetrius invaded Thessaly, where he and Cassander battled in inconclusive engagements. But now Cassander called in aid from his allies, and Anatolia was invaded by Lysimachus, forcing Demetrius to leave Thessaly and send his armies to Asia Minor to assist his father. With assistance from Cassander, Lysimachus overran much of western Anatolia, but was soon (301 BC) isolated by Antigonus and Demetrius near Ipsus. Here came the decisive intervention from Seleucus, who arrived in time to save Lysimachus from disaster and utterly crush Antigonus at the Battle of Ipsus. Antigonus was killed in the fight, and Demetrius fled back to Greece to attempt to preserve the remnants of his rule there. Lysimachus and Seleucus divided up Antigonus's Asian territories between them, with Lysimachus receiving western Asia Minor and Seleucus the rest, except Cilicia and Lycia, which went to Cassander's brother Pleistarchus.

[[Image:Diadochen1.png|thumb|left|300px|

Kingdoms of the Diadochi after the Battle of Ipsus, c. 301 BC. {{legend|#787CAD|Kingdom of Ptolemy I Soter}} {{legend|#50A249|Kingdom of Cassander}} {{legend|#C38833|Kingdom of Lysimachus}} {{legend|#C3B933|Kingdom of Seleucus I Nicator}} {{legend|#AF3662|Epirus}} Other {{legend|#A361BD|Carthage}} {{legend|#70A9BE|Roman Republic}} {{legend|#85AB54|Greek States}} ]]

The struggle over Macedon, 298–285 BC
The events of the next decade and a half were centered around various intrigues for control of Macedon itself. Cassander died in 298 BC, and his sons, Antipater and Alexander, proved weak kings. After quarreling with his older brother, Alexander V called in Demetrius, who had retained control of Cyprus, the Peloponnese, and many of the Aegean islands, and had quickly seized control of Cilicia and Lycia from Cassander's brother, as well as Pyrrhus, the King of Epirus. After Pyrrhus had intervened to seize the border region of Ambracia, Demetrius invaded, killed Alexander, and seized control of Macedon for himself (294 BC). While Demetrius consolidated his control of mainland Greece, his outlying territories were invaded and captured by Lysimachus (who recovered western Anatolia), Seleucus (who took most of Cilicia), and Ptolemy (who recovered Cyprus, eastern Cilicia, and Lycia).

Soon, Demetrius was forced from Macedon by a rebellion supported by the alliance of Lysimachus and Pyrrhus, who divided the Kingdom between them, and, leaving Greece to the control of his son, Antigonus Gonatas, Demetrius launched an invasion of the east in 287 BC. Although initially successful, Demetrius was ultimately captured by Seleucus (286 BC), drinking himself to death two years later.

The struggle of Lysimachus and Seleucus, 285–281 BC
Although Lysimachus and Pyrrhus had cooperated in driving Antigonus Gonatas from Thessaly and Athens, in the wake of Demetrius's capture they soon fell out, with Lysimachus driving Pyrrhus from his share of Macedon. Dynastic struggles also rent Egypt, where Ptolemy decided to make his younger son Ptolemy Philadelphus his heir rather than the elder, Ptolemy Ceraunus. Ceraunus fled to Seleucus. The eldest Ptolemy died peacefully in his bed in 282 BC, and Philadelphus succeeded him.

In 282 BC Lysimachus had his son Agathocles murdered, possibly at the behest of his second wife, Arsinoe II. Agathocles's widow, Lysandra, fled to Seleucus, who after appointing his son Antiochus ruler of his Asian territories, defeated and killed Lysimachus at the Battle of Corupedium in Lydia in 281 BC. Selucus hoped to take control of Lysimachus' European territories, and in 281 BC, soon after arriving in Thrace, he was assassinated by Ptolemy Ceraunus, for reasons that remain unclear.

The Gallic invasions and consolidation, 280–275 BC
Ptolemy Ceraunus did not rule Macedon for very long. The death of Lysimachus had left the Danube border of the Macedonian kingdom open to barbarian invasions, and soon tribes of Gauls were rampaging through Macedon and Greece, and invading Asia Minor. Ptolemy Ceraunus was killed by the invaders, and after several years of chaos, Demetrius's son Antigonus Gonatas emerged as ruler of Macedon. In Asia, Seleucus's son, Antiochus I, also managed to defeat the Celtic invaders, who settled down in central Anatolia in the part of eastern Phrygia that would henceforward be known as Galatia after them.

Now, almost fifty years after Alexander's death, some sort of order was restored. Ptolemy ruled over Egypt, southern Syria (known as Coele-Syria), and various territories on the southern coast of Asia Minor. Antiochus ruled the Asian territories of the empire, while Macedon and Greece (with the exception of the Aetolian League) fell to Antigonus.

title: Wars of the Diadochi


text:
New Edinburgh

New Edinburgh is a neighbourhood in Rideau-Rockcliffe Ward, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. It is located to the northeast of the downtown core. It is bordered on the west by the Rideau River, to the north by the Ottawa River, to the south by Beechwood Avenue, and on the east by Springfield Road and the former Rockcliffe Park village limits.

The area is an older, affluent neighbourhood. The Governor General of Canada's large residence and grounds are located in New Edinburgh, as is 24 Sussex Drive, official residence of the Prime Minister of Canada.

The neighbourhood is home to several embassies and consulates, including those of Spain, South Africa, France, India, Vietnam, and Slovakia. Civil servants (in particular, employees of the nearby Global Affairs Canada) compose a fair portion of the population. Like Rockcliffe Park, the neighbourhood is largely English-speaking, in comparison to the French-speaking district of Vanier to the south.

The total population of New Edinburgh is 3,539 (2016 Census).

History
New Edinburgh was founded by Thomas McKay, one of the builders of the Rideau Canal lock system. He bought the land at the junction of the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers in 1829 and created a village named for Edinburgh in his native Scotland. Often pronounced as rhyming with "Pittsburgh", the traditional pronunciation would be 'New Edinburrah' owing to McKay's Scottish heritage. The streets in the neighbourhood were named after McKay's family. Crichton was his wife's maiden name, Keefer his son in law, while Thomas, John, and Charles were his sons. The area was originally largely industrial, home to a number of mills using the power of the river. Originally part of Gloucester Township, New Edinburgh was incorporated as a separate village in 1866 by a special act of parliament, but was annexed in 1887 by Ottawa.

In August 2000, The School of Dance moved into its building in New Edinburgh where the old Crichton Street School was situated.

New Edinburgh has their own local community newspaper, New Edinburgh News, assisted by many of the locals.

Churches

 * MacKay United Church
 * St. Bartholomew's Anglican Church
 * St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church
 * St. Luke Evangelical Lutheran Church

Parks

 * New Edinburgh Park
 * Rideau Falls Park
 * Stanley Park

title: New Edinburgh


text:
Film Fun

Film Fun was a British celebrity comics comic book that ran from (issues dates) 17 January 1920 to 15 September 1962, when it merged with Buster, a total of 2,225 issues. There were also annuals in the forties and fifties. As the title suggests, the comic mainly featured comic strip versions of people from films from the 1920s to the 1960s.

Publication history
Film Fun was launched by Amalgamated Press (they would later release similar titles like Radio Fun, Sports Fun, and TV Fun). Pre-war circulation at its peak was around 800,000 copies per week.

The title was renamed Film Fun and Thrills in 1959 (when Amalgamated Press was bought by the Mirror Group; later known as IPC). In 1962, sales of Film Fun dropped below 125,000 a week, prompting IPC to merge the comic with Buster.

Mergers
Picture Fun merged with Film Fun soon after its launch in 1920, followed by Kinema Comic in 1932, Film Picture Stories in 1935, Illustrated Chips in 1953, and Top Spot in 1960.

Eddie the Happy Editor
Frederick George Cordwell was better known to Film Fun fans as "Eddie the Happy Editor." Cordwell edited the comic until his death in 1949, aged 62 in Richmond, Surrey. Cordwell wrote many scripts for the strips as well as text stories for Film Fun. He introduced the idea of characters receiving huge plates of bangers and mash, giant Christmas puddings, and pies and such from grateful beneficiaries of their efforts. Cordwell even made it into the stories himself, "meeting" Laurel and Hardy a number of times, Joe E. Brown, Wheeler and Woolsey and other characters.

Content
The cover of the first edition featured Harold Lloyd but named as "Winkle", the screen name by which he was known in Britain at the time. Apart from Laurel and Hardy, Film Fun used to feature many film and stage comedians of that era like Charlie Chaplin, Abbott and Costello, Buster Keaton, Ben Turpin, Jackie Coogan, Fatty Arbuckle, Joe E. Brown, George Formby, Wheeler & Woolsey, Max Miller, Lupino Lane, Red Skelton, Harold Lloyd (named Winkle in those days), W. C. Fields, Terry-Thomas, Sid Field, Frank Randle, Morecambe and Wise, James Cagney, Tony Hancock, Sid James, The Goon Show, Frankie Howerd, Tommy Cooper, Martin and Lewis,  Arthur Lucan (in his drag role as Old Mother Riley) and Bruce Forsyth. There would also be serialised cowboy films featuring stars like Roy Rogers and Gene Autry. There were also detective stories featuring a fictional detective named Jack Keen.

Contributing artists

 * Walter Bell
 * Bertie Brown
 * Freddie Crompton
 * Fred Holmes
 * Albert Pease
 * Tom Radford
 * Eric Roberts
 * George William Wakefield
 * Terence Wakefield
 * Jos "Josiah" Walker
 * Norman Yendell Ward
 * Roy Wilson

title: Film Fun