IFAHAMU SIKUKUU YA KWANZAA

Sikukuu ya Kwanzaa iliasisiwa na aliyekuwa Profesa na mwenyekiti wa stadi za mtu mweusi, Dr Maulana Karenga wa chuo cha California State university mnamo mwaka 1966. Baada ya machafuko na migomo ya watu weusi mwaka 1966 huko Los Angeles, Dr Karenga Alita futa njia nzuri ya kuwarejesha pamoja watu weusi Marekani.

Alianza kwa kufanya tafiti kufahamu mazao ya mwanzo ya Waafrika na sherehe zake. Aliunganisha dhana ya sherehe mbalimbali za mavuno kutoka kabila la Ashanti na Zulu wa Afrika ya Kusini, alifanya hivi kujenga misingi ya siku ya Kwanzaa.
Neno Kwanzaa limechipuka kutoka kwenye dhana ya "matunda ya kwanza" kwa lugha ya Kiswahili. Ambapo familia na kabila mbalimbali zinasherekea kwa nyimbo na namna yao ya asili kwa ngoma, kuimba, kueleza hadithi na kwa kufanya karamu ya vyakula.

Katika kila sik, kuanzia tarehe 26/12 kila mwaka kwa muda wa siku saba mshumaa unawashwa katika kinara, ambapo mishumaa hii ina rangi tofauti kila rangi ikiwa na maana yake. Anayewasha mshumaa ni mtoto na na hapo mjadala wa kanuni moja wapo ya kanuni saba hujadiliwa katika siku yake. Kanuni hizi huitwa "nguzo saba" ambapo kwa msingi wake hujali na kuthamini tamaduni ya mtu mweusi.
Vilevile kuna alama za Kwanzaa ambazo zipo saba kilele cha Kwanzaa huwa tarehe 01/01 na siku hii huwa siku ya KARAMU. Siku hii huitwa "karamu"
.
Nguzo saba za Kwanzaa

1. Umoja
Hii huwa tarehe 26/12 ya kila mwaka ambapo katika umoja jamii inakuwa katika hali ya upamoja katika umoja. Siku hii mafundisho ya masuala ya umoja hujadiliwa.

2. Kujichagulia
Hapa ni kueleza na kujipambanua wewe ni nani na kipi unakihitaji.

3. Ujima
Kuijenga jamii yetu kwa pamoja na kufanya matatizo ya ndugu zetu kama yetu na kusaidiana kuyatatua.

4. Ujamaa/uchumi wa ushirika
Kujenga na kuendesha maghala, maduka, biashara mbalimbali kwa ushirika kujenga kipato cha faida kwa maendeleo yetu.

5. Nia
Uthubutu wa kuwa tayari kujenga na kuendeleza jamii ili kudumisha utu na ukuu wa tamaduni zetu.

6. Kuumba
Kufanya kwa vyovyote vile katika ubunifu kwa namna inayofaa ili jamii inayotuzunguka iweze kudumu na kupendeza na kwa manufaa zaidi kuliko tulivyo irithi.

7. Imani
Kuwa na matumaini na watu wetu, wazazi, walimu, viongozi kuwa na tumaini katika kweli na ushindi wa mapambano yetu

The Beginning of TIme - Stephen Hawking

This  lecture  is  the  intellectual  property  of  Professor S.W.Hawking.  You  may  not  reproduce,  edit,  translate, distribute,  publish  or  host  this  document  in  any  way  with  out the  permission  of  Professor  Hawking.

 Note  that  there  may  be  incorrect  spellings,  punctuation and/or  grammar  in  this  document.  This  is  to  allow  correct pronunciation  and  timing  by  a  speech  synthesiser. In  this  lecture,  I  would  like  to  discuss  whether  time  itself  has a  beginning,  and  whether  it  will  have  an  end.  All  the evidence  seems  to  indicate,  that  the  universe  has  not existed  forever,  but  that  it  had  a  beginning,  about  15  billion years  ago.  This  is  probably  the  most  remarkable  discovery of  modern  cosmology.  Yet  it  is  now  taken  for  granted.  We are  not  yet  certain  whether  the  universe  will  have  an  end. When  I  gave  a  lecture  in  Japan,  I  was  asked  not  to  mention the  possible  re-collapse  of  the  universe,  because  it  might affect  the  stock  market.  However,  I  can  re-assure  anyone who  is  nervous  about  their  investments  that  it  is  a  bit  early to  sell:  even  if  the  universe  does  come  to  an  end,  it  won't  be for  at  least  twenty  billion  years.  By  that  time,  maybe  the GATT  trade  agreement  will  have  come  into  effect. The  time  scale  of  the  universe  is  very  long  compared  to  that for  human  life.  It  was  therefore  not  surprising  that  until recently,  the  universe  was  thought  to  be  essentially  static, and  unchanging  in  time.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  have been  obvious,  that  society  is  evolving  in  culture  and technology.  This  indicates  that  the  present  phase  of  human history  can  not  have  been  going  for  more  than  a  few thousand  years.  Otherwise,  we  would  be  more  advanced than  we  are.  It  was  therefore  natural  to  believe  that  the human  race,  and  maybe  the  whole  universe,  had  a  beginning in  the  fairly  recent  past.  However,  many  people  were unhappy  with  the  idea  that  the  universe  had  a  beginning, because  it  seemed  to  imply  the  existence  of  a  supernatural being  who  created  the  universe.  They  preferred  to  believe that  the  universe,  and  the  human  race,  had  existed  forever. Their  explanation  for  human  progress  was  that  there  had been  periodic  floods,  or  other  natural  disasters,  which repeatedly  set  back  the  human  race  to  a  primitive  state. 

This  argument  about  whether  or  not  the  universe  had  a beginning,  persisted  into  the  19th  and  20th  centuries.  It  was conducted  mainly  on  the  basis  of  theology  and  philosophy, with  little  consideration  of  observational  evidence.  This  may have  been  reasonable,  given  the  notoriously  unreliable character  of  cosmological  observations,  until  fairly  recently. The  cosmologist,  Sir  Arthur  Eddington,  once  said,  'Don't worry  if  your  theory  doesn't  agree  with  the  observations, because  they  are  probably  wrong.'  But  if  your  theory disagrees  with  the  Second  Law  of  Thermodynamics,  it  is  in bad  trouble.  In  fact,  the  theory  that  the  universe  has  existed forever  is  in  serious  difficulty  with  the  Second  Law  of Thermodynamics.  The  Second  Law,  states  that  disorder always  increases  with  time.  Like  the  argument  about  human progress,  it  indicates  that  there  must  have  been  a  beginning. Otherwise,  the  universe  would  be  in  a  state  of  complete disorder  by  now,  and  everything  would  be  at  the  same temperature.  In  an  infinite  and  everlasting  universe,  every line  of  sight  would  end  on  the  surface  of  a  star.  This  would mean  that  the  night  sky  would  have  been  as  bright  as  the surface  of  the  Sun.  The  only  way  of  avoiding  this  problem would  be  if,  for  some  reason,  the  stars  did  not  shine  before  a certain  time. In  a  universe  that  was  essentially  static,  there  would  not have  been  any  dynamical  reason,  why  the  stars  should  have suddenly  turned  on,  at  some  time.  Any  such  "lighting  up as  buttime"  would  have  to  be  imposed  by  an  intervention  from outside  the  universe.  The  situation  was  different,  however, when  it  was  realised  that  the  universe  is  not  static,  but expanding.  Galaxies  are  moving  steadily  apart  from  each other.  This  means  that  they  were  closer  together  in  the  past. One  can  plot  the  separation  of  two  galaxies,  as  a  function  of time.  If  there  were  no  acceleration  due  to  gravity,  the  graph would  be  a  straight  line.  It  would  go  down  to  zero separation,  about  twenty  billion  years  ago.  One  would expect  gravity,  to  cause  the  galaxies  to  accelerate  towards each  other.  This  will  mean  that  the  graph  of  the  separation of  two  galaxies  will  bend  downwards,  below  the  straight  line. So  the  time  of  zero  separation,  would  have  been  less  than twenty  billion  years  ago. At  this  time,  the  Big  Bang,  all  the  matter  in  the  universe, would  have  been  on  top  of  itself.  The  density  would  have been  infinite.  It  would  have  been  what  is  called,  a  singularity. At  a  singularity,  all  the  laws  of  physics  would  have  broken down. 

 This  means  that  the  state  of  the  universe,  after  the Big  Bang,  will  not  depend  on  anything  that  may  have happened  before,  because  the  deterministic  laws  that govern  the  universe  will  break  down  in  the  Big  Bang.  The universe  will  evolve  from  the  Big  Bang,  completely independently  of  what  it  was  like  before.  Even  the  amount  of matter  in  the  universe,  can  be  different  to  what  it  was  before the  Big  Bang,  as  the  Law  of  Conservation  of  Matter,  will break  down  at  the  Big  Bang. Since  events  before  the  Big  Bang  have  no  observational consequences,  one  may  as  well  cut  them  out  of  the  theory, and  say  that  time  began  at  the  Big  Bang.  Events  before  the Big  Bang,  are  simply  not  defined,  because  there's  no  way one  could  measure  what  happened  at  them.  This  kind  of beginning  to  the  universe,  and  of  time  itself,  is  very  different to  the  beginnings  that  had  been  considered  earlier.  These had  to  be  imposed  on  the  universe  by  some  external  agency. There  is  no  dynamical  reason  why  the  motion  of  bodies  in the  solar  system  can  not  be  extrapolated  back  in  time,  far beyond  four  thousand  and  four  BC,  the  date  for  the  creation of  the  universe,  according  to  the  book  of  Genesis.  Thus  it would  require  the  direct  intervention  of  God,  if  the  universe began  at  that  date.  By  contrast,  the  Big  Bang  is  a  beginning that  is  required  by  the  dynamical  laws  that  govern  the universe.  It  is  therefore  intrinsic  to  the  universe,  and  is  not imposed  on  it  from  outside. Although  the  laws  of  science  seemed  to  predict  the  universe had  a  beginning,  they  also  seemed  to  predict  that  they  could not  determine  how  the  universe  would  have  begun.  This  was obviously  very  unsatisfactory.  So  there  were  a  number  of attempts  to  get  round  the  conclusion,  that  there  was  a singularity  of  infinite  density  in  the  past.  One  suggestion was  to  modify  the  law  of  gravity,  so  that  it  became  repulsive. This  could  lead  to  the  graph  of  the  separation  between  two galaxies,  being  a  curve  that  approached  zero,  but  didn't actually  pass  through  it,  at  any  finite  time  in  the  past. Instead,  the  idea  was  that,  as  the  galaxies  moved  apart,  new galaxies  were  formed  in  between,  from  matter  that  was supposed  to  be  continually  created.  

This  was  the  Steady State  theory,  proposed  by  Bondi,  Gold,  and  Hoyle. The  Steady  State  theory,  was  what  Karl  Popper  would  call,  a good  scientific  theory:  it  made  definite  predictions,  which could  be  tested  by  observation,  and  possibly  falsified. Unfortunately  for  the  theory,  they  were  falsified.  The  first trouble  came  with  the  Cambridge  observations,  of  the number  of  radio  sources  of  different  strengths.  On  average, one  would  expect  that  the  fainter  sources  would  also  be  the more  distant.  One  would  therefore  expect  them  to  be  more numerous  than  bright  sources,  which  would  tend  to  be  near to  us.  However,  the  graph  of  the  number  of  radio  sources, against  there  strength,  went  up  much  more  sharply  at  low source  strengths,  than  the  Steady  State  theory  predicted. There  were  attempts  to  explain  away  this  number  count graph,  by  claiming  that  some  of  the  faint  radio  sources,  were  within  our  own  galaxy,  and  so  did  not  tell  us  anything  about cosmology.  This  argument  didn't  really  stand  up  to  further observations.  But  the  final  nail  in  the  coffin  of  the  Steady State  theory  came  with  the  discovery  of  the  microwave background  radiation,  in  1965.  This  radiation  is  the  same  in all  directions.  It  has  the  spectrum  of  radiation  in  thermal equilibrium  at  a  temperature  of  2  point  7  degrees  above  the Absolute  Zero  of  temperature.  There  doesn't  seem  any  way to  explain  this  radiation  in  the  Steady  State  theory. Another  attempt  to  avoid  a  beginning  to  time,  was  the suggestion,  that  maybe  all  the  galaxies  didn't  meet  up  at  a single  point  in  the  past.  Although  on  average,  the  galaxies are  moving  apart  from  each  other  at  a  steady  rate,  they  also have  small  additional  velocities,  relative  to  the  uniform expansion.  These  so-called  "peculiar  velocities"  of  the galaxies,  may  be  directed  sideways  to  the  main  expansion. It  was  argued,  that  as  you  plotted  the  position  of  the galaxies  back  in  time,  the  sideways  peculiar  velocities, would  have  meant  that  the  galaxies  wouldn't  have  all  met up.  Instead,  there  could  have  been  a  previous  contracting phase  of  the  universe,  in  which  galaxies  were  moving towards  each  other.  The  sideways  velocities  could  have meant  that  the  galaxies  didn't  collide,  but  rushed  past  each other,  and  then  started  to  move  apart.  

There  wouldn't  have been  any  singularity  of  infinite  density,  or  any  breakdown  of the  laws  of  physics.  Thus  there  would  be  no  necessity  for the  universe,  and  time  itself,  to  have  a  beginning.  Indeed, one  might  suppose  that  the  universe  had  oscillated,  though that  still  wouldn't  solve  the  problem  with  the  Second  Law  of Thermodynamics:  one  would  expect  that  the  universe  would become  more  disordered  each  oscillation.  It  is  therefore difficult  to  see  how  the  universe  could  have  been  oscillating for  an  infinite  time. This  possibility,  that  the  galaxies  would  have  missed  each other,  was  supported  by  a  paper  by  two  Russians.  They claimed  that  there  would  be  no  singularities  in  a  solution  of bythe  field  equations  of  general  relativity,  which  was  fully general,  in  the  sense  that  it  didn't  have  any  exact  symmetry. However,  their  claim  was  proved  wrong,  by  a  number  of theorems  by  Roger  Penrose  and  myself.  These  showed  that general  relativity  predicted  singularities,  whenever  more than  a  certain  amount  of  mass  was  present  in  a  region.  The first  theorems  were  designed  to  show  that  time  came  to  an end,  inside  a  black  hole,  formed  by  the  collapse  of  a  star. However,  the  expansion  of  the  universe,  is  like  the  time reverse  of  the  collapse  of  a  star.  I  therefore  want  to  show you,  that  observational  evidence  indicates  the  universe contains  sufficient  matter,  that  it  is  like  the  time  reverse  of  a black  hole,  and  so  contains  a  singularity. In  order  to  discuss  observations  in  cosmology,  it  is  helpful to  draw  a  diagram  of  events  in  space  and  time,  with  time going  upward,  and  the  space  directions  horizontal.  To  show this  diagram  properly,  I  would  really  need  a  four  dimensional screen.  However,  because  of  government  cuts,  we  could manage  to  provide  only  a  two  dimensional  screen.  I  shall therefore  be  able  to  show  only  one  of  the  space  directions. As  we  look  out  at  the  universe,  we  are  looking  back  in  time, because  light  had  to  leave  distant  objects  a  long  time  ago, to  reach  us  at  the  present  time.  This  means  that  the  events we  observe  lie  on  what  is  called  our  past  light  cone.  The point  of  the  cone  is  at  our  position,  at  the  present  time.  As one  goes  back  in  time  on  the  diagram,  the  light  cone spreads  out  to  greater  distances,  and  its  area  increases. However,  if  there  is  sufficient  matter  on  our  past  light  cone,  it will  bend  the  rays  of  light  towards  each  other.  This  will  mean that,  as  one  goes  back  into  the  past,  the  area  of  our  past light  cone  will  reach  a  maximum,  and  then  start  to  decrease. It  is  this  focussing  of  our  past  light  cone,  by  the  gravitational effect  of  the  matter  in  the  universe,  that  is  the  signal  that  the universe  is  within  its  horizon,  like  the  time  reverse  of  a  black hole.  If  one  can  determine  that  there  is  enough  matter  in  the universe,  to  focus  our  past  light  cone,  one  can  then  apply

Data-Tanzania

The rise of Alternative für Deutschland; Alternative for Germany

Introduction 

Founded in April 2013, the party won 4.7% of the votes in the 2013 federal election, narrowly missing the 5% electoral threshold to sit in the Bundestag. In 2014 the party won 7.1% of the votes and 7 out of 96 German seats in the European election, and was a member of the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) group until AfD was expelled from that group in April 2016, following AfD's alliance with the Freedom Party of Austria and after AfD leaders made controversial remarks about shooting immigrants.

As of May 2017, the AfD had gained representation in 13 of the 16 German state parliaments. The party is currently led by Frauke Petry and Jörg Methuen.The AfD's initial supporters were the same prominent economists, business leaders and journalists who had supported the Electoral Alternative 2013, including former members of the Christian Democratic Union, who had previously challenged the constitutionality of the German government's eurozone policies at the German Constitutional Court. 

Political move

If the AfD intends to transcend its role as a protest group, it “needs to decide what sort of party it wants to be,” said Konstantin Vössing, a political scientist at the Humboldt University in Berlin. Founded as a technocratic, anti-European Union party, it no longer has a clear economic message, he said, and has not been able to seize the right flank of Merkel’s party, left open by her centrist stance on issues such as immigration, the environment and same-sex marriage.

The party’s conflicting instincts were on display last month, when Alice Weidel, a 38-year-old lesbian mother and one of the party’s two leading candidates, addressed reporters in Berlin, seeking to distance herself from the party’s harsher strains of cultural and religious nationalism. She said she welcomed migrants who integrated into German society and regretted a campaign advertisement pairing the belly of a pregnant woman with the pronouncement “New Germans? We’ll make them ourselves.”

A day earlier, the other leading candidate, Alexander Gauland, 76, told supporters that the government’s integration commissioner, Aydan Ozoguz, who has Turkish roots, could learn about national culture by coming to Eichsfeld, the district in central Germany where he was speaking.

“Then she’ll never come here again, and we will, thank God, be able to dispose of her in Anatolia,” he said, in remarks described by a former federal judge as incitement to hatred in violation of Germany’s criminal code.

The two styles create a cacophonous message — with many notes still proof, for the party’s critics, that it is beyond the pale. But the different approaches may also help the relatively new bloc cast a wide net.

The important point for some supporters is that the AfD is challenging the political establishment — and the behavioral codes it upholds. Max Naegele, a 50-year-old postal worker in Augsburg, in southern Germany, acknowledged the party’s blemishes but declared himself “sick and tired of hearing the same old story. Every day I go to work and I’m poorer than the day before.”

I But others are backing away. Uli Heinemann, a retired engineer in Anklam, a stronghold of the far right in eastern Germany, has voted for the AfD before but planned to support Merkel’s party this fall.

“I voted for the AfD because I wanted to try something different,” said Heinemann, 72. “I liked that they were against the massive influx of refugees.”

Two years later, he said, the AfD’s dire predictions have not come true. “This year, I will vote for the CDU. Mrs. Merkel is leading in a pretty clever way. She’s calm and unemotional.”

Luisa Beck contributed to this report.

Novelist John Le Carré Reflects On His Own 'Legacy' Of Spying