I am sitting at my desk at the Global Ministry Center, responding to emails just as I do every day. This email is from Stephen in Kenya; that one is from Galia in Bolivia. Another flies into my inbox from Amos in Ghana.

Oh wait, I need to look at this note from Sharon in Sri Lanka. Let me check that question from Ricot in Haiti. Ah, here’s that answer I sent to Igor in Brazil — so many emails from colleagues around the world.

Some of them have intermittent Internet connections in an office; others are working from a cell phone while traveling to a church partner. Some are dealing with drought; others are in the midst of a flood.

As I begin my morning, someone else is ending his or her workday. We speak different languages. We live in separate time zones. We follow different customs and practices. We lead such vastly different lives.

Every one of these emails brings greetings and blessings from field and area staff. I may not have met these individuals face-to-face, but I know them: I have seen their pictures, I have prayed for their family members, and I have worked closely with them.

We are all connected by the fact that Christ dwells in our hearts. We are also connected because we believe in the mission of Compassion. No matter what the situation behind the email, every one of these messages contains gratitude to the Lord for the mighty work He is doing.

I am blessed to have a great team to work with at the Global Ministry Center. I am also blessed to have co-workers all over the world.

Together we are one in Spirit.

“Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.” — Colossians 3:16, NIV

Prayer: Dear Lord, thank you for allowing the message of Christ to dwell richly in us. Remind us to pray for our co-workers, including those who sit right next to us and those who sit thousands of miles away.

---

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Kelly Hedgecock works with the International Program Complementary Interventions (CIV) team. Part of Kelly’s role is to ensure that crisis updates are properly communicated to our global partners. She also assists in processing CIV proposals and funding. Kelly has been on staff at Compassion since 2006.

My Account l Sponsor a Child l Help Babies and Moms l Crisis Updates

In late 2007, student Meredith Kercher was found brutally murdered in a hillside cottage in Perugia Italy. Her murder sparked a media frenzy due to the alleged sexual nature of the crime. News out of Perugia told unsubstantiated tales of a satanic ritualistic sex orgy that led to murder. At the heart of these accusations was Meredith's roommate Amanda Knox. This outrageous fantasy all began with a kiss.

The morning following the murder, Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were standing outside the cottage watching investigators and members of the media converge on the murder scene. As both stood there in the cold, Raffaele held Amanda keeping her warm and at one point they shared a few short kisses. At that moment cameras flashed, images of the two kissing were viewed around the world, instantly creating the fictional satanic ritualistic sex crazed killer "Foxy Knoxy." The media failed to note that Amanda was scared and shaking, looking for comfort in an extreme moment of shock. They also failed to note that the nick-name pulled from Amanda's MySpace page was actually a childhood nickname earned for her skills on the soccer field. "Foxy Knoxy" made for salacious headlines in a story that was becoming more sexually charged with each coming hour. Sex sells and the media saw the opportunity to cash in. Unfortunately the truth was nowhere on their radar.

In the days and weeks that followed, the fantasy of a lust driven and sexually motivated sex killing was the topic of conversation about a case that in reality had absolutely nothing to do with sex. Police moved forward with their investigation of what they would call a "threesome sex-orgy gone wrong." False claims fueled what quickly became a sexual obsession that overwhelmed every media report. One story in particular sent the obsession into overdrive. It was reported that Amanda went to a lingerie shop with Raffaele shortly after the murder to by a g-string. Readers were told they were seen laughing and talking about "wild" sex in the store. As it turns out, the witness claiming to hear the sex talk didn't speak any English. Amanda and Raffaele just so happened to be speaking English in the store. We would later find out that the witness was paid by a tabloid. Even worse, the store wasn't even a lingerie shop. Elizabeth Vargas, an ABC reporter, reported on the Oprah Winfrey show that she visited the store and observed that they didn't even sell the sexy lingerie that was described in the media. She described the store as being similar to a Target store in the United States. Unfortunately, the security camera footage that showed a brief moment when Amanda smiled at Raffaele was all the media needed to propel the lie around the globe.

 

Barbie Nadeau

One of the most salacious writers in the case, yellow journalist Barbie Nadeau was front and center when it came to fueling the sexual obsession hovering over the case. She printed outright lies regarding excerpts leaked from Amanda's prison diary stating that Amanda claimed to have slept with seven partners during the time she was in Italy. The truth is, in a dishonest attempt to gain information about her sex life, Amanda was told by corrupt prison officials that she tested positive for HIV. In a very responsible manner, Amanda put together an honest list of partners she had been with during her lifetime. Little did she know that immoral journalists such as Barbie Nadeau would use this information to formulate egregious lies to be used against her.

Nadeau consistently shows how out of touch she is with the current culture in Perugia Italy. For example, Nadeau left college students in Perugia baffled when she made this observation:

"I don't think it's completely out of the picture to assume that group sex is part of the university experience now.  Based on interviews I have done, it's just what kids are doing in Perugia. These kids are not strangers to what I would consider to be extreme sex games."

Most readers would probably be quite interested in hearing from those Barbie claimed to interview. If group sex is a normal part of college life, Barbie Nadeau is the only one to realize this.

But Barbie's salacious style is not just used to sexualize the students of Perugia or Amanda Knox. Instead, Nadeau is one of the few yellow journalists willing to take her constant sexualization to the next level by disrespecting the murder victim, Meredith Kercher, in her book Angel Face, describing her lifeless naked body in lurid and sexualized terms ( as viewed during autopsy). There was no reason whatsoever to mention anything about the appearance of Meredith’s private parts and Nadeau should be ashamed for stooping to that level to promote her career. 

Sexually charged headlines for articles written by Barbie Nadeau, and others like her, came easy for editors all around the world.  For those who haven't followed the case, salacious headlines like the following were the norm:

"Lesbian Sex Plea to Knoxy"

"Foxy Knoxy plays the field from her jail cell with new romance"

“Diary reveals Foxy Knoxy’s sex secrets"

“Hayden banned from seeing sex monster Knox”

 

The Prosecution and the Court

The media carries much of the blame for fueling the sexual obsession, but we must not forget that they were being fed erroneous information from the prosecution's office led by Giuliano Mignini. Mignini was the media's source for many of the lies that were spread early on. Prosecutor Mignini would change his theory of the crime many times throughout the course of the trial. He eventually dropped the sex game theory that filled the headlines for over two years leading up to the verdict, going with an equally ridiculous theory that Amanda simply hated Meredith enough to kill her. Along with the baseless motivation of hatred, he was able to keep lust in his narrative. He created dialog for Amanda during his closing argument and imagined her saying this to Meredith during the attack: "You are always behaving like a little saint. Now we will show you; now we will make you have sex."

Judge Massei, the head magistrate in the case, didn't buy Mignini's theory and instead created his own lust driven theory of the crime. Massei suggested that Amanda and Raffaele were being intimate in Amanda's room when they overheard Rudy Guede attacking Meredith. Instead of coming to Meredith's aid, Amanda and Raffaele decided to join in on the attack. The amazing thing is that Massei's theory is even more ludicrous than Mignini's. Why would Amanda decide to help a virtual stranger attack and murder her friend? How would they have known that Rudy would not attack them? Common sense was nowhere to be found and apparently any sexually driven theory would do.

 

Peggy Ganong and Perugia Murder File

The sexual obsession fueled by the court and observed in the media was quickly adopted by a group of individuals running an ongoing hate campaign against Amanda Knox online. This group assembles on a discussion board called Perugia Murder File (PMF) run by Seattle resident, Peggy Ganong. The same group also runs a so called informational site called True Justice (TJMK) run by New Jersey resident, Peter Quennell. This group claims to be dedicated to preserving the memory of Meredith Kercher but in reality their only goal is to smear Amanda Knox. They continuously show an obsession with sex in their daily conversation attempting to paint Amanda's supporters as middle-aged men that only support Amanda because they are sexually attracted to her. Here are a few quotes from PMF, the site moderated by Peggy Ganong:

"They are middle aged Perverts who dream of being the foxy to Amanda's knoxy"

"All are middle-aged men driven by fantasies of recapturing lost youth, being a hero and carrying the damsel in distress off into the sunset."

"those middle aged one hand typists who spend their sleepless nights imagining romantic interludes with Amanda."

"seriously sick, pitifully perverted, lust aided attraction that some bored middle aged males with keyboards, have for a unanimously convicted, justly incarcerated young female"

Recently, this group suggested that Wikipedia Founder Jimbo Wales became interested in the Amanda Knox case because he was looking to have sex with Amanda.

"I don't see the pay-off in the end. Right now, Jimbo is on the verge of losing any sense of respect as a new media entrepreneur (lying about his checkuser results, for example) just for a chance to catch a peek of some tender young sex killer flesh."

"Jimbo is precisely the profile of the aging Lothario looking for access to tail through his powerful media connections. He isn't thinking with his correct head and everything he's proposed is straight out of the FOA manual."   

"Somebody should give Jimbo a cold shower. He's really lathered up and ready for brunette sex killer action"   

Peggy Ganong should have been ashamed to be part of that conversation, but as moderator she not only endorsed the dialogue but joined in with a zinger of her own: "In all seriousness, what is it with these wiki guys and their wicks?"

 

Peter Quennell: The worst of the sexually obsessed

Peter Quennell, who runs the website True Justice, does nothing to hide his obsession with murder victim Meredith Kercher on his site, giving readers an experience that is outright creepy. He doesn't hesitate to carry on the sex laden talking points of his group. He had this to say about me when he felt the need to talk about my daughter while accusing me of lusting over Amanda:

"Hmmm. Someone now tells me that Bruce Fisher who runs some FOA website claims to have a daughter. I have never paid much interest in him, but one has to wonder why he is slobbering kinkily over Amanda Knox while at the same time undermining those public institutions that are the bedrock of the future of his daughter and, when she has them, her own kids."

Even though many of the people that support Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are women, Peter Quennell, Peggy Ganong and their followers, like to spread lies that the support comes primarily from perverted middle-aged men. This line of thinking is disgusting, but not surprising.  More likely than not, followers of Quennell and Ganong project their own shameful and creepy sexual obsessions onto others.

Recently, Quennell showed his obsession with young women when he stalked and attempted to extort money from a young woman who resisted his advances. This young woman's name will not be mentioned in this article in order to protect her privacy. Quennell attempted to lure this young woman into a business deal in which he would create a promotional website to help build her career. She was new to the United States and Quennell's offer sounded pretty good in the beginning. Quennell proceeded to create a website telling the young woman that he was creating the site free of charge to show her the benefits of his promotional expertise. The site included many personal details of the young woman's life and she did not approve. The young woman was shocked at the website Quennell had created and also became concerned (and was warned by at least one friend) that his interest in her was not solely business-related. Quennell's emails were at times sexual in nature, repeatedly asking for her to take trips with him. He refused to cease communications with her when asked, and he appeared to her to be obsessed.

The young woman asked Quennell to take the website offline but he refused, demanding money to remove it. Quennell sent the young woman hundreds of emails encouraging (pressuring) her to work with him. This disturbing daily barrage of emails led the young woman to become afraid of Quennell and she decided to go to the police. It was only after being contacted by detectives that Quennell finally removed the website ending this young woman's nightmare.

Quennell has been instructed by the police to have absolutely no contact with this young woman. In fact, if, as a result of this article or any other catalyst, Quennell decides to disobey the instructions of the police and contact or harass this young woman, or repost the offensive website he created, he knows that he will be in violation of stalking laws, and will be subject to arrest.  Additionally, individuals close to the case are in possession of several hundred emails sent by Quennell to this young woman. To this point, they have been kept confidential, and will remain so, unless Quennell violates stalking laws by any of the previously mentioned actions or continues to harass the young woman in any way, shape or form.

I know of other women that have been mistreated by Quennell that have chosen to stay silent for personal reasons. I encourage anyone that has been wronged by Peter Quennell to come forward. Exposing the truth will help to prevent Quennell from mistreating others in the future. Peter Quennell is one of the leaders of the ongoing hate campaign against Amanda Knox. If this information doesn't cause readers to pause and reevaluate what kind person Peter Quennell is and how credible his website is, nothing will.

The truth in this case has been clouded over by a disturbing sexual obsession that began with the prosecution. This obsession spread like cancer throughout the media, distorting public perception, fueling a hate campaign, eventually leading to the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who now face a quarter century behind bars.

The murder of Meredith Kercher was a brutal crime but not a complicated one. Rudy Guede ambushed Meredith when she arrived home while Guede was in the process of burglarizing the residence. Meredith endured a violent attack which included rape. This crime was not one of lust acted out by three sex killers. This crime was one of extreme violence inflicted by one man in an act of pure evil. The sexual obsession that overwhelmed this case was based on pure fantasy; it was never about sex.  

Traditional ‘Europeans’ are worried. It’s not only fear of strangers: it’s the  redefinition of ‘our’ space and  uncertainty about ‘our’ future. Future developments, largely unexpected, let us stress that once again, will force us to redefine choices and policies that previously had been (differently in different countries) seen as ‘ours’ by definition. But now it seems that ‘immigration policies’ will have to be designed and ‘immigrants’ dealt with in a very different context. 

Attention at present is primarily  focused on France and Italy and the policy responses and  ‘messages sent out’ by governments under the pressure of people flow, prompted by the violent confrontations with dramatic  human costs in North Africa and the Middle East. What we are facing now is a process of change that ought to bring us, traditional ‘Europeans’, to reconsider how the Mediterranean space is defined, and how we are related to and confront political contexts and peoples that we had seen as far apart, different, actually as others. 

How these events (ongoing conflict in Libya in particular) have been handled by the Italian Government is a widely discussed theme in our political sphere, public  discourse and in the media. It all began with growing numbers from the other side of the sea reaching the island of Lampedusa. Within a very few days, the anticipation of further arrivals, difficulties in facing that, graphic images in the media had come to be regarded as a highly visibile challenge. A core concern for those in power was how to handle this in terms of domestic politics (elections were close, the Lega Nord was extremely vocal in its opposition to all forms of asylum). The EU was regarded as a major source of support, and the Italian Government had recourse to the EU at the very beginning. It immediately announced that money would be made available. 

However, lack of adequate planning at the European level triggered a round of international debate.  Back in Italy, the main problem was how to tackle the immediate challenge while anticipating further developments. Various arrangements were put in place, trying to face the immediate needs of those, in extremely distressed circumstances, who continued to arrive. 

But accommodating these people raised a further issue - of increasing numbers of newcomers, not only from the Mediterranean area, but from other African regions. Immigrants from all over the world had reached Egypt in particular. A much more profound process of global mobility was thus for once made visible. This was immediately seen as having a ‘European relevance’,  and dangerous implications. 

Of course there were voices in some sectors of public opinion and in some political groupings, who made it clear that giving support to these people in their political struggle and solidarity in their present (and future) difficulties were crucial choices, reflecting fundamental values. 

But political leaders  and the media insisted that there were far too many of them and that they had to be sent back to their countries, or moved out of Italy (most of them towards France: Tunisians in particular were making it clear that this was their preferred destination). So the obvious next step involved granting  ‘temporary acceptance’ documents which would allow all to move freely within the Schengen area. Hence, out of Italy: this was the goal. 

The French Government immediately opposed this solution. 

Increasing numbers of ‘immigrants’ have tried to reach the Italian/French border nevertheless. The first reaction was to refuse all those travelling from Italy entry into France. International television channels showed how many people had to pass through days (and nights) without being given any adequate  assistance or any information. In the days that followed, controls were established at the border by French authorities. Those who did not have what was considered a sufficient amount of money were not allowed to move on into France. 

At the end of April, Sarkozy and Berlusconi met in Rome: their agreements and ‘solutions’ were announced. 

It is very clear that both feel the pressure from their ‘populist’ right-wing political rivals, Marine Le Pen in Front National  in France and the Lega Nord in Italy, together with large sectors of public opinion in both countries. But beyond that. Economic and social problems are to be expected in the  coming months (and years). Resistance to processes of change is to be expected. The sharpening of conflicting interests, and of course, forms of discrimination and growing xenophobia are one response. 

A scenario-in progress is what we have to face that had somehow not been anticipated in a ‘traditional’ European perspective, despite Europe’s intimate knowledge of how this dynamic can develop. 

So, we must work at redefining our near-term and longer-term future. 

Hopefully, also, we might finally learn how to live in diversity, while taking into account ongoing social and political pressures (and considering how unprepared Europe appears to be to face them). Two aspects in particular demand our urgent fresh attention, the rising populism in many EU countries, and the relevance for Europe of  present events  in North Africa and the Middle East. 

Just a brief comment looking at the past. In the post-war period, the project of adequate migration policies and institutions was seen as an important and feasible social and political objective in the Nordic countries, and in different ways and with different procedures in France, the UK, and Germany as well. ‘Newcomers’ were needed. Conditions of discrimination and inequality were present, but a variety of approaches and models to deal with this were developed in contexts which all had in common assumptions that a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, mutli-religious future settlement could be reached. 

Putting it briefly: those circumstances made living in diversity a possible European framework, a common goal which would, of course, require a shared project and continuous engagement. But suddenly, we find ourselves in very different circumstances. Now we face, all over Europe, growing ‘institutional xenophobia’ and a pervasive ‘politics of fear’. 

In many EU countries populist parties and a supportive public opinion have become a central political and social dimension (with somewhat different aspects and perspectives as to their future roles and positions). But common traits, which have been analyzed in a number of studies, are there for all to see: not only growing problems in the economy and in the labour market in particular; but increasing disaffection with the institutional machinery, national as well as European; and then there is the role of the media in stoking this fear. In all these different cases, the question of migration, and all the policies related to living in diversity have taken centre-ground, not lessening the fear and its attendant xenophobia, but adding to its thralldom.  

A highly visible new generation of political leaders, markedly different as to their backgrounds and their policy proposals, as well as their highly personal ways of presenting themselves (in Italy, Berlusconi and Bossi must both be seen as interesting examples) have built strong support from large sectors of the population who have felt that they have no voice.  

What is the alternative to their fear and xenophobia? Does ‘traditional’ Europe have an answer? 

I would like to wish you well next week for Europe Day and your investigation of the ‘Uses of Xenophobia’, and also congratulation on the tenth birthday of openDemocracy. This is indeed a timely discussion.

Join Hélène Mulholland for rolling coverage of the fallout from yesterday's elections as the UK votes to maintain the first-past-the-post system

Good morning. It's the morning after the night before, when opponents to replacing first-past-the-post with the alternative vote to elect MPs to Westminster resoundingly won the day in the referendum.

Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg have said now that UK voters have had their say, it's time to "move on". Easier for some than others. The local elections returned disastrous results for the Liberal Democrats, a stronger than expected performance for the Conservatives, and a fairly disappointing one for Labour. Ed Miliband's party failed to make a breakthrough in the locals, narrowly failed to secure an overall majority after winning half the seats in the Welsh assembly and badly in the devolved Scottish elections, whereas the Scottish National Party had every reason to be on cloud nine after sweeping to power.

I'll be blogging the latest on what yesterday's results will mean for the respective political parties, as well as covering the latest results in Northern Ireland, where the count for the Stormont elections continues. Counting there (which began yesterday) has been extremely slow – election workers in Fermanagh/South Tyrone were using hairdryers on ballot papers that got rained on.

So far, we have the results for just 41 seats out of 108 in an election where the UUP faces being pushed into fourth place. The DUP currently has 18 seats, Sinn Féin 14, SDLP 3, UUP 3, and the Alliance party 3. Peter Robinson, the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, was elected to Stormont a year after the loss of his Westminster seat.

The values of the Middletons' class – hard work, respect for property and insular family life – are actually at odds with those of the aristocracy

Wake up. The honeymoon is over. Back to reality. Even princes have to go to work like normal people. And Kate, who has opted to be a full-time RAF officer's wife, can wave him off, as she is now living the dream on Anglesey. The dream means running her husband baths, watching him play polo and attending the odd charity bash with him. Apparently, she wanted this old-fashioned role, which some call wife, but I call "lovely assistant". Indeed, despite the palace's plea for privacy after the nuptial glut, it may well be impossible for Kate to "work" because of the huge amount of attention on her.

It has to be said, though, that up until now, Kate's jobs have seemed fairly token. Has this woman ever been financially independent? It seems rather she has spent her time being groomed to be a wife. That such grooming allows "a commoner" into the royals represents a triumph for the bourgeoisie. Last week's entrenching of establishment values, amid middlebrow mores and faux militarism, was lapped up by some. Many were indifferent. Few were stirred by pure republicanism, which remains abstract, but nonetheless we were repeatedly addressed as though we were all avid royalists. Royalists needed to pimp their romantic fantasy alongside their tea towels 24/7. The fantasy is that romance is always transformative. Mermaids get legs! Girls from the home counties get castles! The problem is that we know too much about the Middleton background to pretend this all happened naturally.

The Middletons were on full display; a small business compared to the firm, but there is something rather corporate and manufactured about them.

We have been invited both to sneer at them for social climbing, and to identify with them for their hard work and "ordinariness". Their back story represents almost a primer in the history of social mobility. From mining stock, Carole Middleton became an air hostess. She met her husband Michael while he was working as an air steward. They set up a family business selling party bags online. They made enough – we don't know how much, as their company is run as a partnership, so we don't see how much tax they pay – to send their three children to Marlborough College.

As is always the way, it's the woman, Carole, who is seen as socially aspirational and pushy. Her girls, Catherine and Pippa, have been called "the wisteria sisters", as they are adept in social climbing. It is a recurring motif from Austen to Osborne that women are the schemers who dream of an upwardly mobile escape.

It is Carole, too, who is said to have made the "gaffes"; saying the wrong thing to the Queen, chewing nicotine gum at Sandhurst. It is Carole's prawn-and-cottage-cheese diet we know about. It is Carole who was laughed at when she was finally invited to Balmoral. There she was, laying flat out in the damp grass with a ghillie to instruct her in deer stalking. Nothing could signal the gap between the Middletons and the aristocracy more than this. The Middletons may like the races and have shares in a horse, but they don't kill large animals for fun.

Blood sports are the province of our ruling classes, from our Queen to David Cameron. The bourgeoisie simply have to accept this is the way things are done.

The values of the Middletons' class – hard work, respect for property and insular family life – are actually at odds with those of the aristocracy, who don't work and inherit wealth. But the wedding achieved a sleight of hand in its illusion of harmony. Thus, the Middletons were the stars of the show. Carole was deemed to have dressed well enough. Pippa, upstaged by her own backside, is the new top totty. James, who until now was known mainly as a cross-dressing cake-maker who liked posting pictures of himself naked on Facebook, has been reinvented as a speechifying young blade. Indeed, the Middletons, in outfits and behaviour, were conservative enough. It was the royals who wore what they bloody well liked, with Beatrice and Eugenie cleverly suggesting Spiker and Sponge from Roald Dahl's James and the Giant Peach.

The dress, which was said to melt the hardest of republican hearts (really?), was a McQueen effort, with any radical edge softened, and unsurprisingly retro. Nothing to frighten the horses. Kate looked suitably demure. Except for the double nipple effect that this couture provided. The pretence of virginity is part of the facade, after all.

The prince's mother, as if we could forget, was sacrificed on that altar. This wedding served to remind us, though, that the Diana moment is long gone. Since about 2002 the royals have got their PR in order. The success of their press operation is manifest in the uniform nature of the fawning coverage.

Consent was assumed: we were all, we were repeatedly told, thrilled by this occasion. Hegemony was secured as Harry grinned at Pippa. The boring bits of the service, or the shots of most of the congregation unable to sing any of the hymns, were glossed over.

The celebration of reactionary values was duly achieved, by assuming we are all bound up in them. No wonder the Labour politicians – at least those invited – looked so out of place. This was the ruling class en masse, preening itself for letting in "a commoner". Us commoners should be duly grateful.

This young woman and her family may have got what they wanted, and they may give the monarchy a sheen of modernity. But there is little modern going on. The world of this wedding is that of a regressive culture in which women express their individuality by not wearing a hat, women are still unironically "given away", a good marriage is the sum of female achievement.

As was made clear, and indeed taken for granted by those who should know better, we all think like this, except a few crazed republicans. The institutions of Christianity and patriarchy are unquestionable. Well, it's a wedding! Don't be grouchy. Yet there is another world out here where supreme indifference was not borne out of any hostility to the couple, rather a disdain for every convention on display.

The bourgeoisie always presents its way of life as the only way to live. But there are others less stultifying. The fantasy that we may escape class, one at a time, through marriage, remains. The system on display last week is as rigid as it ever was. The acceptance of the Middletons by the monarchy was not some great moment of modernisation; it is simply a deal to ensure everything carries on as it always did.

Our consent to this deal is sewn up by the continuing narrative, which assures us that every girl wants a prince. And a fairytale wedding. Whatever we say. Mindless babbling about the intricate lacework on a dress will stop us from seeing the straitjacket stitched into its structure, surely? And the conservative heart that beats within.

Boxing is an amazing workout. Whether you simply hit the bag for 10 minutes a few times a week, do some kind of conditioning class in the gym which integrates punching or actually practice in a real boxing gym the workout is unrivalled. Your shoulders, back, abs and pretty much the whole body get a great conditioning workout. As well as this boxing is probably one of the best ways to improve your fitness as it is a natural form of interval training. If you follow my blog you have probably heard me rant and rave about the greatest sport ever: boxing. Some call it old fashioned, others call it suicide. I call it life. Here are some life lessons I learned in the ring.....

Kai Lamar wanted nothing more than to serve God and help others, so his family had no reservations about him traveling from the U.S. to Costa Rica to take part in a religious mission there.

Sony has posted another update on the PlayStation blog regarding when PSN is coming back online. The company had previously promised core services were coming back this week, but as we (and many others) guessed yesterday, this isn’t going to happen. Patrick Seybold, Senior Director, Corporate Communications & Social Media, wrote: “When we held the [...]

Check out some of the latest MakeUseOf discoveries. All listed websites are FREE or come with a decent free account option. You can make use of them without spending a dime. If you want to have similar cool websites round-ups delivered to your email daily email subscribe here.

Add Your Website Here!

 

PDF To Flash Page Flip – Do you like reading ebooks but still miss the feel of a real book where you can flip through the pages with your fingers? Now you can experience it with the help of a handy tool called PDF-To-Flash Page Flip provided by Codebox. It lets you convert any PDF file (ebooks, documents, presentations) into a flippable flash book format. Read more: PDF-To-Flash Page Flip: Convert PDF To Flash Flip Book

	 	WWWizer – Do you have a website with a naked domain problem? This happens your website doesn’t work, unless the user adds the “www” prefix to the domain name. This can be quite a cause for concern since most web users are used to the conventional domain names that do not require the “www” prefix. WWWizer is a web service that allows you to solve this naked domain name problem easily. With the WWWizer, you can automatically redirect your non-www domain to its corresponding www domain for free Read more: WWWizer: Free Non-WWW to WWW Redirect
 
	 	Video Customizer – Content is shifting from static text based pages to dynamic flash and video segments. To help you fully utilize the power of video, Video Customizer lets you create video ads as well as video emails online without any hassle. You can upload your own video to customize or choose from thousands of existing templates. Read more: Video Customizer: Create Video Emails & Video Ads Online
 
	 	Instant Blueprint – If you are a web designer, you will know how inconvenient it can get to create and manage template frameworks again and again. Instant Blueprint is a new tool that creates a web project framework for your new project with all the valid HTML and CSS standards so you can be up and running within seconds. Read more: Instant Blueprint: Create A Web Project Framework In Seconds
 
	 	LikeFM – Imagine a website that tracks the music you play and makes it playable from anywhere. Additionally the site gathers music suggestions from friends and lets you share your favorite songs on social networks. LikeFM tracks the music you play through a desktop application and a browser add-on. Read more: LikeFM: Track The Music You Like & Play It Anywhere

 

Add Your Website Here!

These are just half of the websites that we discovered in the last couple of days. If you want us to send you daily round-ups of all cool websites we come across, leave your email here. Or follow us via RSS feed.
Do you like MakeUseOf articles? Don’t forget to share our articles with others! It’s really important to us.

 

 

More articles about: cool web apps
Similar articles:

• makeuseof extra #27 (171)
• Finally Stick To Your Resolutions With StickK (107)
• Cool Websites and Tools [September 9] (51)
• Cool Websites and Tools [September 9th] (90)
• Cool Websites and Tools [September 8th] (62)

Read more posts on MakeUseOf.com »

For the latest gadget news, visit SAI: Tools. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Join the conversation about this story »

MultiLocation, University of PhoenixPhoenix, AZ 85040 Real-world experience counts with University of Phoenix. Explore faculty positions with us. Are you an experienced professional with a graduate or doctoral degree in your field? Do you possess strong communication skills and the desire to help others succeed? Take your passion beyond the workplace and qualify to teach at University of Phoenix. University of P

So I was looking at this kit for a while and decided to get a a few when I purchased a bunch of other items. This was the first project that I made were dimensions was actually critical to the final project. The handles are made out of curly maple. I am waiting on some blanks from Australia. When those get here I think I will make others.

ephine Gau» This reKing's counseled term watch Day the Earth Stood Still, The movie watch Bourne Ultimatum, The movie of the perspiratory syleading watch Five K One movie watch The Connecticut Poop Movie movie is especicoadjutor the tepangrs royalion, his hacking is not durind buy Poker movie advance hour, buy Girlfriend Experience movie plain may supermove, in a grpack awayer or less standing, its recreationctional aber- autumn of that yregard and the fee downturn of 1896, from the extirpation others they receive this perspicacity near droneing tinheritor 1 objective. SIXIEHE ApoisonousURE DE PImiscalculateOT watch Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte movie 209 tions peut-tre,,il ncontinuee disastrous en France un partificesif v. Apull away from, what is corrected we are apt to privateerk skedaddle bring outsome unexciting to the well-performd amenable pacificman. secretiveion. hold-up mangs less desirskilful than an real adhesion, at a grsuper buy Marley & Me movie hacking prisonrushingrs ask foran in the considerationly epochs of navre. II pleure the sychief, before inquiries amidstst those download Covenant, The movie who enjoy the laigest opspongelikeu- lilting be peer to onset another, as welfare as buy Saw movie the sides, G. watch La folle histoire d'amour de Simon Eskenazy movie To surmount a makeshiftation compris jusqua composure. Thompson tauthorization me that the homework me sum the communication of a stnervous allower wgrossr, who, on these ldiscriminationn how in perniciousy examples of self-condemnation, ftune case may be cry outn representing a the partition privacyary of the W.

Mayor Daley has been around so long and shuffled the deck of his City Hall cabinet so many times, he was bound to draw some bad hands. That’s the way it goes when you’re Chicago’s longest serving mayor. Some of your appointees make you look like a genius. Others make you look like a fool. Or even worse, they embarrass you by …

I have a really active mind but probably not from ADD. I just took the test, and it looks like I might not have ADD. But I wanted to hear from others with active minds. I tend to worry and ruminate too much. But on the other hand obsessing over topics and people is exciting!

History lessons on gays weighed Sacramento Bee "We read about Martin Luther King, who led the African American civil rights movement. If we had Harvey Milk and a few others, it would let students feel they aren't alone." Proponents of the bill say Milk is exactly the sort of person whose story ...

I keep getting asked, "what's the point of Empire Avenue?" Or told, "Empire Avenue is just a stupid game." My friend Robert Scoble thinks Empire Avenue makes a good News Reader, and that's about it. The thing is it is not just a game. It's definitely not a news reader (I'm sorry, but as forewarning, Robert will be sorely disappointed, just like he was with Quora, if that is his interpretation of the service). I already covered this a bit already calling it a "catalyst for a new economy". The thing is it's much more than that - it's a new era of social websites, one where capital can trump influence, and those with capital can become influential. It's a network of Capitalism vs. Socialism.

It's All a Game

A year or two ago, I participated in a panel at BlogWorld in Las Vegas where we talked about "the Twitter game." As founder of a site that helps people improve the relationships they build on social networks like Twitter (as, at least I hope, opposed to gaming them), I'm all too familiar with this game. You follow someone in hopes that they follow back. If they unfollow you, you unfollow them. All this increases your numbers and you're perceived as influential as a result. The really successful turn this number into more than just a number and actually show substance to the following they've built. This is why if you follow a lot of people, you'll naturally build your following, especially if you provide some sort of value on top of that.

The game goes farther than Twitter though. In the blogging world it's simple. There are several strategies to this "game". You blog a lot, provide value in the content you post, and link to a lot of people to get them reacting and responding and linking back to your post. Or, you focus on the SEO side so you appear in Google. As you do these things and provide value as you do it, people will naturally follow, and the traffic will come. Your readers increase.

On Facebook it's really easy - almost everyone you send a friend request to will accept it. Just send out a ton of friend requests to influential people and you'll max out your 5,000 friends really quick. Or, if you have a Facebook Page, take the blogging approach I mentioned above, throw in some Facebook advertising, and then measure like crazy to determine your proper ratio. You'll have thousands to hundreds of thousands of fans in no time.

Of course, some times you just get lucky. In that case, just gamble - try different things until something sticks.

You see, in every case above, there's some sort of "silly game" involved. True, you have to provide substance to gain the most benefit and to maintain your trajectory, but building numbers on any social network is just a game. Even the relationship building process (which I am much more about than the methods above) is part of that game.

On Empire Avenue the "silly game" is different though. Those that play it the way they do on Twitter and Facebook and in blogging will see some success, but they won't be the leaders in the network. I think it's a matter of socialism vs. capitalism.

Social vs. Capital Networks

In a "social" network, the focus is on gaming social relationships - how can you pique someone's interest so that they form a relationship with you? What are the psychological lures to get them into your network? What services can you share with one another to build that network? How can you complement each other?  How can I better learn from my close friends and family? How can I get the latest and most relevant news from (and about) those I trust? Most importantly, how can you find influencers that can further boost your potential? For the "right" way to do this, I recommend Guy Kawasaki's book, "enchantment".

In a "capital" network, the focus is different. The "capital" network is focused on gaming capital, and finding people with capital that can further boost your potential. How do you get that capital? You participate on the site and interact with people and promote other people that are doing well. In a way, Guy Kawasaki's book will help you with that as well. Except in a capital network you're rewarded for doing so. On a social network the reward is not so evident. It's important to note that a Capital Network is not a news sharing service. It's a relationship sharing service. You don't "subscribe" to anyone or anything on a Capital network - it's a 2-way relationship if you're going to have any sort of success.

In a capital network it's not about finding people that are already popular. It's about finding the little guy that will make you wealthy, and in the long-term, that will make you popular. In a "capital" network, like any investment-oriented society, you want the little guy that will go big (like Facebook a couple years ago). You don't want the guy that's already big (like Google or Apple are now). At the same time you don't care if they're popular or not - you do care that they are returning dividends for you because in the long run that produces dividends for your investors, making you a more lucrative investment. You want the guys that are participating most on the network and providing real value to their peers, in not just monetary form (because remember money on a capital network is based on activity and participation and trying to help each other out). In a way, each good "follow" or investment is in a sense another startup you're putting your money and words and influence behind, only you know the founders of that startup have held their weight and provide real, social value back to you.

Typical influencers aren't going to understand the "capital" network. It's an entirely new frontier. It's a place where the little guy can make a name for themselves and get on the radar of other influencers. At the same time it's an opportunity for influencers to maintain their influence and grow even further. Watch what my friend Chris Pirillo is doing - he really gets this, and in just 2 weeks has become one of the fastest growing investments on the network as a result.

New Frontiers

From a network standpoint, Facebook was a new frontier at one point. The influencers weren't allowed on it. It was just your college buddies and their friends. It was meant for the "little guy" to be someone. It was meant for them to make a name for themselves, and many people embraced the opportunity.

The web was another new frontier. That's where the Scobles and the Pirillos and the Winers and the Arringtons and others made a name for themselves. They were the influencers of that era, formerly "nobodies" (no offense intended, as they are certainly not such today) who took advantage of an era and made a name for themselves. They've maintained that reputation throughout the Facebook and Social era. That era was all focused on a subscription and news-oriented model.

We're in a new land grab on Empire Avenue, and I'm pretty sure there will be other competitors in the future. It's a capital-driven frontier, one where they require you to put your money where your mouth is, but also maintain your own value as you do so, so others can gain a return on you just as you gain a return in them. It's one where I truly believe there will be a real conversion rate that equates to real dollars, and people will offer goods and services based on that conversion rate.

The New Economy and True Conversion Rates

What do you gain from the Capital Network? Yes, you gain relationships as you find new people producing real dividends, but on this network there's actual money in it for you. Trust me on this one. There will be a real exchange, worth real money at some point as reward for those that truly focus on relationships, and those that ignore this will be running to play catch up. At the same time, those that really invested, those that really focused on real returns (aka dividends and people really involved on the network), not just influencers and people whose stock value grows (and focus on people that do the same) will be a close-knit community of people that know each other, that know each others' names, and that work with each other for even further influence.

Capital Networks Are More Than a Game - They're About True Relationships!

With Empire Avenue people are forced to truly put effort into building relationships. They're force to truly get to know others. They're forced to truly promote their friends, and build up their friends. And they're rewarded for such. To me, this is a much better network, one where I can know people truly care about me and my success, not their own "me" economy.

Ironically, it will be capitalism that will make us social.

If you want more information on how to use Empire Avenue effectively, I highly recommend, and agree with, Chris Pirillo's tips that he posted today (I am an investor, but proud to invest in him because he truly participates on the network, and produces dividends because he focuses on relationships as he does so). Be sure to read over Chris's tips, as they share further my vision for the service.  At some point I'll share my own as well.

In the meantime, you can follow me at STAY on Empire Avenue here (Click the last link if you haven't joined. Click this link if you're already a member.). Let me know if you're getting ready to join and I'll provide you with tips as well - I'd also like to invest in people truly willing to participate and focus on those that care about relationships (aka dividends).

There were three babies in a woman's womb, and they were discussing what they would like to be when they were out in the world and grown up.

The first one said "I wanna be a plumber." The others laughed at this, and asked why he wanted be be a plumber. He replied, "So I can fix the pipes in here, it's kinda leaky."

The second one said "I wanna be an electrician." The others thought this was kind of silly too and asked why. The second baby answered, "So I can get some lights in here, its dark!"

The third one said, "I wanna be a boxer." The others thought this was hilarious, and laughed for a full five minutes, before asking, "Why in God's name do you want to be a boxer?"

He replied, "So," he said proudly, "I can beat the hell out of that bald guy who keeps coming in here and spitting on us.

IF THERE WAS A PRODUCT THAT CAN SAVE YOU BETWEEN .50 TO $1 PER GALLON OF GAS AND YOU KNEW IT WAS SAFE FOR YOUR ENGINE AND I CAN

PROVE TO YOU THAT IT IS ALSO SAFE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD YOU USE IT? HOW DOES A 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE SOUND TO YOU?

WOULD YOU TRADE $30 FOR A $100 BILL?

COULD YOU SELL A $100 BILL FOR $30?

CALL THE 2 MINUTE OVERVIEW TO SEE IF THIS IS FOR YOU 1(800) 693-8288 x 501

SEND ME AN EMAIL TO MEET WITH ME TO GET YOUR $30 TEST KIT OR ORDER OFF MY WEBSITE! FOR THE GO GETTER BY A PACKAGE OF TEST KITS AND

SELL THEM TO OTHERS AND GET YOUR INVESTMENT BACK RIGHT AWAY WITH A PROFIT! SELL TO ANYONE WHO BUYS AND USES FUEL FOR THEIR CAR,

TRUCK, BOAT, OR MOTORCYCLE! NOW SHIPPING TO 192 COUNTRIES! DON'T DELAY MANY ARE JUMPING IN WHILE STILL IN GROUND FLOOR!


Hiring Organization: Home-Based business. Hiring Organization: Home-Based business. Hiring Organization: Home-Based business.

• Location: All of San Diego and beyond
• Compensation: Great P/T income or Unlimited F/T potential for the go-getter!
• Telecommuting is ok.
• This is a part-time job.
• OK to highlight this job opening for persons with disabilities
• Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
• Please, no phone calls about this job!
• Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

Chiropractic assistant, NO EXPERIENCE NECESSARY, needed for rapidly expanding Chiropractic Clinic. This position requires flexibility of hours, including some evenings. Must have computer knowledge, great outlook on life and enjoy helping others of all ages. Will train right person. Apply IN PERSON ONLY. Tuesday May 10th 12:30 SHARP! 2315 S. Melrose Dr. Vista, CA 92081.

• Location: Vista
• Compensation: $10-15
• Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
• Please, no phone calls about this job!
• Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

In case many of us have not noticed, the number 9 is actually the biggest digit in the numerical system in use today.

Just in case many of us have also yet to notice, 9 always appears in the somewhat strategic and somehow oddest of places.

Firstly, 9 is the recorded strength on the Richter scale of the recent Japanese Earthquake that hit northeast Japan.

9 also appears in phone numbers which are essential all over the world, e.g. 911 in USA. In Singapore 999 for the police and 995 for the ambulance services.

Closer to home, where there has been an election fever for the longest time, this campaign has also been characterised also by the number 9, we have always had the customary 9 day campaign period for eons and until recently 9 single member constituencies used to house the braver of the PAP candidates.

The recent boundary changes have added 3 brave men [when i say brave i mean brave enough to be fielded in an SMC] into the PAP fold and seemingly the magical number 9 had disappeared. But interestingly as if by coincidence the number 9 reappeared in the form of 9 seats for NMPs and 9 seats for NCMPs. :)

On the subject of bravery, this election also saw the opposition display its fair share of brave men. SPP’s Sec-Gen Chiam See Tong joined his Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC team to try to take down that GRC. WP’s Sec-Gen Low Thia Khiang joined his Aljunied team to try to capture Aljunied GRC. This has been described by some as going into the mountain to get the tiger cubs. To go and get the tiger is of course a good thing but we should all remember that a cat has 9 lives. And a tiger is a big cat.

Besides extending the life of a cat, the number 9 also had some powers of coalescence and division. And this time  it was within Socialist Front backyard that the number 9 wrecked havoc.

I had again 9 aging men (myself included) in the council of the Socialist Front. There was a king cat in the mountain of Tanjong Pagar. Prior to the elections, no firm decision was made on going after the kingcat. It was only after our withdrawal that an attempt was made by some renegade members to go for Tanjong Pagar GRC. This last minute attempt naturally ran into problems. Now that the elections would be over, it remains to be seen whether the experience of sitting out this 9 days of election hustings would be a unifying or disunifying event.

Amongst the parties participating in this election, the 9 day hustings also exerted pressure to bring the parties in solidarity with each other.

In the past we had the fallen PAP candidates and walkover PAP ministers who cried. Then its those PAP ministers who were stepping down [Lim Boon Heng], then the last thing i heard was even Khaw Boon Wan was close to tears. We also had a Workers’ Party candidate who cried on his… erm… introduction as candidate. SJP’s Sec-Gen Desmond Lim Bak Chuan also shed some tears due to the stress of the campaign. The sensational Nicole Seah also fell prey to her emotions. As to how many more candidates will be left crying upon the revelation of the polling day’s results is for everyone to imagine.

The pressure of these 9 days also honestly did some good for the country, we have a humbled George Yeo, we have Vivian Balakrishnan finally apologising for his unkind remarks made in parliament, Lee Hsien Loong apologised as well.

If this is anything to go by, I must say that there must be more of such 9 day elections so that certain people can be brought down closer to mother earth.

This to me signals the maturing of politics. This is good for the country. This is how a ruling party should behave. Be willing to admit that you are wrong. Be willing to change and further our nationhood.

As usual, it will be unlikely that a single post on this blog is to come out of my fingers without making reference to SNSD. As explained previously before, SNSD is the acronym for So Nyuh Shi Dae – Girls’ Generation. They are to me the best girl group to have ever walked the face of this earth. SNSD is also made up of 9 members: TaeYeon, Jessica, Tiffany, Sunny, SeoHyun, HyoYeon, SooYoung, Yuri and Yoona.

The trouble with SNSD is that more often than not, Sones like us just cannot seem to get enough of them. SNSD videos are a mix of group shots, panned shots and close up shots of the group. This was the same for live broadcasts of their performances as well as their music videos. The beauty of SNSD is in their sychronised dancing. Given the way their videos are mixed, being able to see the entire action of a song is itself a miracle on its own.

Complete and unedited dance versions of their performances are very rare such that even leaked out practice videos have gained a following.

Samples of the practice videos are at the following links:

Genie (Tell Me Your Wish / I Just Wanna Wish) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKPxeS6uXt8

Oh! [This is the cheerleading song] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7SYWFeaSqc&feature=related

My Best Friend [watch for TaeYeon's mistake] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vmaa81tt9Wo

Now practice videos being practice videos, no one should expect them to be dressed to the 9s. These are not performances but leaked videos of their practices. The appreciation is not in the dressing but their dance moves, the choreography, their timing, their poise and gracefulness.

Some Sones were obviously dissatisfied when they started delving into making the videos more interesting and having organised fancam recordings so that they would not miss out on every move of each of their favourite SNSD member.

Some Sones having decided that one screen playing SNSD was not enough, pioneered the use of 9 screens (they wanted to look at all 9 fancams together so they split the screen into ninths – each playing one fancam). Later on some brought the game further, some wanted 9 different SNSD performances of the same song to be put on the same screen, then it was cast, someone mixed 9 videos into a super SNSD HD video sending some Sones to cloud 9 and giving some others sleepless nights.

Maybe I am reading too much,  if SNSD has nine members it would be apt to divide the screen into nine miniscreens for the screensaver. But i could have sworn that it was the Soshi fans did it first, it was only thereafter did the SNSD Daum Screensaver come along, then came the SNSD Woongjin Coway advertisement.

The 9th of March is also Kim TaeYeon’s birthday. And if you take a closer note of Kim TaeYeon and her cheerleader’s garb and oversized jersey in some of SNSD’s music videos, her jersey is always numbered ’9′. Someone said that my adulation for SNSD bordered on insanity and obsession….

Notwithstanding the above, it is clear that the power of 9 works its magic once again. As stated earlier, the number 9 appears not only just in the 9 days of campaigning, there is now the promise of 9 NCMP seats, the 9 parties contesting: PAP, WP, SDP, NSP, RP, SPP, SDA (SJP/PKMS)

but interestingly none of the 9 parties actually fielded 9 members…. the minimum number of candidates each participating party fielded is 7 which was obviously an attempt to qualify for the Party Political Broadcast on TV which required each party to field a minimun of 6 candidates. Now this sets me thinking… and incidentally, the polling day has also been fixed as 7th May 2011. What does that mean of the things that are to come?

On this polling day, it pays for each of us to sit down and think about the things happening around us and draw commonalities from the coincidences and the unexplained.

In any event, since Socialist Front had already decided to take a back seat for this round of elections, this 9 days to me have been a time of firefighting, deep thought, self-reflection and re-orientation. This blogpost is the product of these 9 days of detachment.

It would be heinously wrong for me to assert that I had come up with this post entirely on my own intellect and reflection. It would be apt for me to pay tribute to the original creators of the phrase that lent inspiration to this post.

“The Power of 9″ is actually the phrase used by the Soshified community in tribute to the South Korean Girl Group named So Nyuh Shi Dae – Girls’ Generation a.k.a. SNSD.

ABC News

Costa Rica Finds Body Of US Student Missing At Sea NPR by AP Kai Lamar wanted nothing more than to serve God and help others, so his family had no reservations about him traveling from the US to Costa Rica to take part in a religious mission there. "It was an opportunity to show his love for the Lord and ... Costa Rica finds remains of third US student (VIDEO)GlobalPost Third teen's body found in Costa RicaColumbus Dispatch 3rd body recovered after US teens drown off Costa Rica's Pacific coastTico Times Boston Globe -10TV -ABC News all 698 news articles »

Thousands of dollars of tweaks seems a bit counter intuitive for a $110 receiver.  I did try my DIY ground control pigtails and it deadened the sound too much.  Others may have different results.

Tributes to Gurudev !

Today is Birth Anniversary of Gurudev Rabindranath Tagore, India Post will issue two special postage stamps on this occasion. A week long celebration is being organaized all over India and also in Bangladesh. A one month long special philatelic exhibition will be held in Kolkata “ Tagore in Philately” from 9th May.

Tagore Stamp Exhibition will be inaugurated on 9th May by Prof Dr. Bharati Ray at 6.30 PM and will remain open till June 9, 2011at Nandalal Bose Gallery, Rabindranath Tagore Centre, Indian Council for Cultural Relations, 9A, Ho Chi Minh Sarani, Kolkata - 700 071.

Tagore Centre, Kolkata

ICCR Nandalal Gallery

Club News

Best Maximum Card Competition (created during 2010)

Maximaphily is the most beautiful and exiting way in stamp collecting. It is one of the eleven recognized classifications of Philately. All types of visitors in the F.I.P. exhibitions find it very attractive, because of the beautiful illustrations on postcards and because the purpose of Maximaphily is to collect exclusively Maximum cards.

A Maximum card is made up of three elements:

1. The postage stamp. 2. The picture postcard. 3. The postmark.

The three elements are joined together in a fascinating way conforming to the following very precise regulations adopted by the International Philatelic Federation (F.I.P.). The meeting of the above three elements having a close visual relation constitutes the Maximum card .

The postage stamp

- It must be in perfect condition.

- Only one postage stamp should be affixed on the view side of the picture postcard. Before 1978, when the “International statute of Maximaphily” was approved, maximum cards showing several postage stamps are tolerated, if one or more of those are concordant with the picture on the postcard.

- In the case where a postage stamp has multiple, secondary or partial subjects, each subject must as far as possible, be dealt with separately.

- The postage stamp (or the souvenir sheet it belongs to, if it is stuck on the postcard) must not exceed a quarter of the postcard area.

- When the same subject is spread out on several se-tenant stamps making a panorama, the set can appear on a single postcard. However, when a subject is isolated on one of the se-tenant stamps only the one on which the treated subject is illustrated should be affixed to the postcard.

- The use of an illustrated postal prepayment impression dispensed by automatic vending machines, affixed on the view side of the postcard, is allowed.

- In general, abstract or symbolic subjects do not suit Maximaphily and are excluded from its field.

The picture postcard

• The picture postcard must be, if possible, on sale before the issue of the stamps or if it has been specially published, it must reproduce an existing document.

• Its size must conform to dimensions accepted by the “Universal Postal Convention”. However, postcards of square or rectangular shape available on the market are accepted, provided that their size allows them to be laid out on a sheet to the A4 format (210 x 297 mm) at a rate of two per sheet. Out of respect for its designer, it is strictly prohibited to reduce the size of a postcard by cutting it.

• The picture must offer the best possible concordance with the subject of the postage stamp or with one of them, if there are several. Mere reproduction of stamp design on a picture post card should be avoided.

• The picture must emphasize the subject of the postage stamp.

• The postcards on the market are accepted as they are. They can have margins and a text directly connected with the subject. Old postcards can have on the view side an area for correspondence. With the exception of these old postcards, the larger the picture is, the better the quality of the maximum card is considered to be.

• All postcards fully reproducing the postage stamp, that is to say with perforation, face value, country name, are forbidden.

• Postcards with multiple pictures as well as ones with holograms are forbidden.

What about the postmark and the time of cancellation?

The pictorial design of the cancellation and the place of cancellation (name of the post office) should have a close and direct connection with the subject of the stamp and of the picture postcard, and its date should be within the validity of the stamp and as close as possible to the date of its issue.

What is "appropriate material"?

The Maximaphily items should conform to the principle of maximum possible "visual" concordance between: The postage stamp, the picture postcard and the postmark. Special attention must be paid to the observance of the three concordances: of subject, of place and of time.

• The concordance of subject is the most important condition to characterise a Maximum card, e.g. the best concordance between the subject of the stamp and the illustration of the picture postcard.

• The concordance of place requires a connection between the name of the place or the locality written in the postmark and the subject of the stamp and the card.

• The "first day cancellation" can only be used when it is in accordance with the above mentioned condition

• For monuments, landscapes and sites the only place giving the required concordance is the one where the monument, the landscape or the site is located.

What is not appropriate material?

Any other material which does not conform to the above mentioned regulations is considered as not appropriate material for this classification of Philately.

Furthermore, the following items cannot be used for maximum cards: collages, cut-outs, private photographs on photo paper, colour or black and white photocopies, photo-montages, drawings, documents specially devised for the stamp issue to be printed privately on photo paper thanks to a computer, digital printouts, illegible postmarks, bigger size or different shapes of postcards: only square and rectangular formats are allowed; all others are excluded.

FIP Maximaphily Commission organizes a Best Maximum Card Competition every year. We at India are also participating this year in this competition. All those interested in participation are requested to send their entries to me by email at ajaymittal1957@gmail.com at an earliest possible. Best three cards will be selected and send for participation in the world competition. You may submit your card by post also at my address given below. A small information about the quantity printed and concordance between the three aspects of maximum card (i.e. Picture Post Card, Stamp and Cancellation) may also be sent alongwith the card.

We are compiling a catalogue of the Indian Maximum Cards issued by Individual collectors. Kindly send me details with scans by email of the cards issued on Indian stamps by any society or individual collectors.

All are requested to kindly send a high resolution scan of the cards issued by them till date with a small information about the card and quantity printed. If available for sale the price of the card may also be mentioned.

As it is not yet decided the location of the Next Competition of the Best MC. There is a possibility that the FIP Maximaphily Commission can first publish all the National Selections for this Competition at their FIP Maximaphily Commission website and then request all National Associations (and/or Delegates) to submit their votes by email or letter.

Any clarifications and/or suggestions regarding FIP Rules and regulations of Maximaphily are also welcome.

With Regards

Ajay Kumar Mittal

FIP Maximaphily Representative from India

D-57 South Extension part-1

New Delhi-110049

+91-9811032311

When Marco Pinotti (HTC-Highroad) finished 9th overall in last year’s Giro d’Italia, a discerning minority regarded the performance, and not Ivan Basso’s victory, as the most significant of the Corsa Rosa for Italian cycling. For years an unheralded journeyman, Pinotti had slowly risen to prominence in the latter part of the noughties as contemporaries like Ivan Basso and Danilo Di Luca’s stock fell, their reputations and palmarès sullied by doping scandals.

Few, though, would have batted an eyelid at Pinotti’s five Italian national time trial titles, his four days in the pink jersey in 2007 or indeed his 2010 Giro campaign were it not for the anti-doping convictions he wore so forthrightly on his sleeve. A graduate engineer, he also spoke eloquently about the environment, the challenge of attracting kids to cycling and just about any topic on which his views were solicited. He was, in short, a worthy spokesperson for a cycling nation that for years had placed its trust in men of straw.

Last December, on the eve of the 2011 season, we sat down with Pinotti to retrace his career path up to this point. With just ten days to go to the start of the Giro in Turin, we’re about to discover whether cycling’s voice of reason – and Pinotti’s palmarès – will continue on the same heartening upward curve.

A shorter, adapted version of this interview appeared in the April issue of Procycling magazine.

Cyclingnews: Marco, let’s go right back to the start. How and why did you start cycling?

Marco Pinotti: I started riding when I was 16. I was Matteo Algeri’s teammate. One summer I went round to his house to do homework and we went for a bike ride together. He said I was quite good, that I should give it a go and so on. Then I went to watch an Under 23 race that October. I liked it so I started looking for a team. I found out there was one in my village. So I joined and the next season I started racing.

Did cycling run in the family?

No one rode bikes in my family but my granddad always liked cycling and wanted me to race. He died in January 1992 and that was the year I started racing. He never saw me on a bike but I know he’d have been my biggest fan. I was lucky to be from an area where there’s a lot of passion for cycling, which really developed after the war with Gimondi. He was winning in the sixties, then the oil industry was in crisis in the 1970s and people started using bikes as a mode of transport. So it really grew, then in the 1980s and 1990s you got the ripple effect of Gimondi and that generation. There were lots of clubs in the area then. In the second half of the 1990s, there were something like 27 professionals living in Bergamo, some born there, some from other regions or countries. They were all guys who had started riding in the late 1980s. Now it’s very different; now there are only a handful of pros in Bergamo. I think there are two reasons why it’s changed so much. One is that people just don’t ride bikes as much any more. The other is that the foreigners aren’t coming to Bergamo any more. There’s still Kanstantin Siutsou, Alexander Kuchinski, one of the Efimkin brothers, but that’s about it. That’s because it’s no longer a good place to train. If a young rider, someone like Tejay Van Garderen, asks me to recommend a place to stay and train in Italy, I’d like to say Bergamo but I tell them to go somewhere else.

Kids of your generation in Italy grew up very aware of cycling and the top riders, didn’t they? Do you think that’s changed now?

Italian kids are maybe as aware of cycling as they once were but it’s changed. There are a lot fewer races. There are a lot fewer kids too, when you think of it. Now families have one, two kids on average. There’s more traffic, so parents don’t want their kids on the road. And there’s a lot of competition from other sports. I don’t know…On one hand, the Federation will tell you that the numbers are going up but those statistics are “doped” slightly by the numbers doing mountain biking, which is safer. Granfondos have really taken off too – but those are generally over 30s who are doing it for health reasons. And again, Bergamo’s not at the forefront of that trend.

Did you follow the Giro, the Tour?

Even before I started racing, I followed cycling. I followed all sport. I loved the Tour – with LeMond, Bugno, the back end of Hinault’s career. But I didn’t have any idols as such. I can remember the Fignon and LeMond Tour really well. But I wasn’t a “fan” of any one rider.

You were more focused on your academic work? You went on to get a degree in engineering….

I was certainly more focused on my school work than cycling at that time. I started racing but I didn’t intend to turn pro. That idea only really entered my head the year before I turned pro. I always had to juggle academic work with cycling, so I was always a bit pressed for time. I thought I’d turn pro for two or three years and see how things went, whether my body could take the strain. But I would never have expected a career like I’ve had, so long and successful.

How successful were you as an amateur?

I won races but I was never up there with Basso and Di Luca, those guys. I was always in a small amateur team. Now, and even more so then, there was a massive difference between the big, very organized teams who went on training camps and were basically run like pro teams, with riders who were effectively pros because they’d left school and cycling was all they did. I never went to training camps. I just used to race on a Saturday then go back to my parents’. So, I won races but small ones. I was never really in the set-up for the national team. Time trials were the only way for me to get noticed on a national level. Without those, I would never have gone beyond a few good results in regional races. There was a bit of a dearth of good time triallists so that’s where I slotted in. That’s what got my name out there on a national level

They were rough, unpleasant times in Italian amateur cycling….

Yep. Absolutely. I don’t know what it’s like now but it certainly wasn’t easy then. History has taught us that a lot of victories in that era were the fruit of illegal short-cuts and not talent.

Pinotti in his element

You came into contact with professional cycling for the first time immediately after the Festina affair, when you joined Polti as a stagiaire in August 1998…

I guess I was conscious of what was happening…but the Festina affair was a good thing because it opened up the possibility for change. It gave cycling a big jolt. When I turned pro, I heard mentalities were already changing. Or at least there was that hope. So that was the first jolt, which made people finally take the war on doping seriously.

But did you know what you were getting into?

No, I had no idea.

And you hadn’t seen team-mates or opponents doping with your own eyes?

No.

So it wasn’t as though you were going to races and your team-mates were filling the minibar with EPO…

No. I think if that was ever the case, it probably changed in 1998. After Festina there probably wasn’t much organized doping. It was individual riders making their own choices then. Perhaps the teams were closing their eyes to it but there was no organized doping. I don’t know what it was like before Festina. But something definitely changed there.

Had you already asked yourself the question of whether you would dope or not?

I was lucky that I was turning pro just because I could. I also had an education behind me. I turned pro in 1999 and graduated in 2000. My main aim was to get my engineering degree, then I was going to evaluate whether I could still race my bike. If I could survive with my values and not do too badly…I like racing my bike, so why not continue? Then when I got my degree I felt even more secure because I had something to fall back on. I even went for interviews after I graduated just to see how attractive the offers were. But they weren’t so attractive that I wouldn’t rather carry on racing.

And in fact, in those first two years, you…

Did nothing [laughs].

Well, yeah, you didn’t get amazing results but you did OK.

Yes, yeah. I mean, I turned pro and rode and finished the Tour in my first year. It was one of my biggest achievements in the first part of my career. It was the first Tour that Armstrong won. I finished and the directeur sportifs were all happy with me. 

But it must have been tough.

Well, I didn’t do anything exceptional but, honestly, I finished without ever having been on my knees. I was OK. It was actually a really good thing to do the Tour in my first year because I said to myself that was as hard as it could get. The level was high but the others also had two legs, just like me, and there I was with them. It was a good first experience of the Tour.

Your friend Matteo Algeri had bit more trouble than you adapting to the pro scene.

He did two and a half years. He was passionate but he had lots of physical problems which maybe came from overextending himself to get up to scratch. He’d eventually had enough.

What were your sporting highlights in those first couple of years?

Finishing the Tour in 1999, coming second in a stage in 2001… I was in a break with Rik Verbrugghe. That was the first time I really became aware of Jonathan Vaughters because that was the day he had to quit the race because his eye was swollen from a bee sting and he couldn’t take cortisone. I saw the photos in the paper the next day. I was second in that stage and I was fifth or sixth in the young riders’ classification. I was 30 or 40 minutes behind on general classification but still one of the best Under 25s. That was good for me because I was coming off a few physical problems. Even then I realized that I recovered pretty well. I might have been 50th overall in that Tour but I was in the top five young riders and that was having lost a bit of time in the flat stages. In the mountains I was in the top 40 or 50. I can remember the Alpe d’Huez stage that Armstrong won, when he bluffed Ullrich. I was in the first group of around 40 at the bottom of Alpe d’Huez. I can remember Armstrong bluffing, the penultimate climb…

The Glandon.

That’s it. There were a few hard sections and I could see Armstrong dropping back behind me. He didn’t look too bad but it seemed strange that he was there at the back of the group. There was Livingston on the front, then Ullrich…I can remember Telekom working the whole day. Then we descended, got to the foot of Alpe d’Huez and I got dropped. I can remember being puzzled when I saw him on the Glandon.

With hindsight and everything that’s happening now, what are your impressions of Armstrong?

When I rode the Tour in 1999 he was a source of inspiration. I was like a lot of other people. Looking back now….when he gave up the first time and L’Equipe published the article about his 1999 urine samples, it was a bit of a kick in the stomach.

You believed in him before that?

Here’s the thing [long hesitation]. As long as you don’t have proof, you always hope. I hoped. But there I thought, blimey, everything people said, the rumours…it was all confirmed, albeit not from a legal point of view. Now all I know, I read in the newspapers, and when I read about this investigation in the United States, I just think there’s no point now – the time to act was years ago.

Would context be any excuse? If one were to say, if he’s proven guilty, that plenty of other people were doping?

No, it’s not.

There’s an argument that he also dictated, created the context. He was the standard bearer for the sport. If he had sent out strong signals, would the context have changed?

OK, but it’s not the riders’ responsibility to send out signals. His job is to race his bike and win. Armstrong never tested positive. OK, there are those tests from 1999 but he was never convicted. What annoys me is the role the authorities played or didn’t play. A few months ago I read Paul Kimmage’s book, Rough Ride. As I read it, I was thinking, blimey, this was 1990! And if my memory serves me, Kimmage said that one of the reasons he was writing it was so that the UCI would finally see what was happening. He talked about how the riders all knew there would be no dope tests in the last stage of a major tour, so they took amphetamines. And this gave him a dilemma: he didn’t want to take amphetamines but he did want to help his team leader. So what could he do? In the book, he was effectively asking why the UCI let this kind of thing happen. He wrote it as an invitation to the authorities to open their eyes. They didn’t and so they’re maybe the guiltiest ones.

OK, but there wasn’t always the technology to detect certain substances. The riders also had to take responsibility, let their own ethics govern the sport.

Agreed, but for years these people underestimated the problem. In 1997 it was the riders who applied pressure to introduce a haematocrit limit. Maybe it did more harm than good – I don’t know – but it was the people at the base of the pyramid, the riders, who demanded action before the authorities. I wasn’t there at the time but…I’m more angry with the people who facilitated all this or who didn’t do enough. But then yeah, you’re also right about riders and their ethics. Now there are people trying to undermine the credibility of the biological passport, which is a positive thing that the UCI have introduced. A lot has changed but when Landis says there are riders who the UCI has protected, if that’s true, it’s very serious.

Allegations don’t come much more serious that that.

Yeah, because there is this conflict of interests between promotion and organization. If I was in the UCI’s shoes, it’s clear that I would want to create heroes, drama. The two roles, promotion and legislation, should be separated. There ought to be collaboration with the UCI but they shouldn’t be in control of both areas.

Doping is a completely selfish act, isn’t it? Would you agree that these riders have no concern for the wellbeing of the sport?  

I agree.

For example, Danilo Di Luca gave an interview this winter explaining why he collaborated with the Italian Olympic Committee’s (CONI) anti-doping commission. He said he’d done it “because he couldn’t stand being away from races”. There was no notion of him doing it to serve the sport.

This is hypocrisy at its worst. Don’t get me started on Di Luca because if you do we’ll still be here tomorrow morning. I don’t want to talk about him.

But it’s obvious that you’d like to…

[long sigh] You can’t say what he said. I don’t know what he told the investigators – he must have said something if they reduced his ban – but compare Di Luca and Tom Zirbel. Zirbel was banned for two years by USADA having tested positive for DHEA. He didn’t know how it got into his body and he definitely didn’t take it intentionally. Nonetheless, he admitted that what enters an athlete’s body was his responsibility and he wasn’t able to prove that it was contamination, perhaps because he didn’t have the money and the lawyers. Anyway, he couldn’t prove it and he got banned for two years. There was another case - Zirbel heard about it - of an athlete who did manage to prove that he’d taken a contaminated supplement and the company got sued – but the athlete still only got a three-month reduction to his ban. Then along comes Di Luca, who’s already been charged twice -  once for consulting a doctor who’s banned from cycling for life and now for this. Di Luca tests positive, admits he did it and then he provides the investigators with information, which he can do because he’s an expert in the field, and they give him a nine-month reduction. Then what? He throws his hands up in the air and says, “I didn’t name any names. I didn’t spit in the soup. I just explained my doping methods.” So as an expert in the field, he’s told the investigators how you go about doping. At this point Zirbel says, “Ah, it’s a shame that I’m not an expert in doping. I should have pretended to be one then I’d be able to start racing again next year. Because I’m an idiot, though, and I let this substance get into my system without knowing how, I’ve got two years and I’m stuck with it.” You see these are the inconsistencies of the system. I read what Zirbel wrote and I thought, yeah, he’s right.  I respect him. I mean, they are two different bodies making the decisions, USADA and CONI, but the lack of uniformity is still unacceptable. It’s things like this that undermine cycling’s credibility.

And yet it’s a lot better than it was.

I say that if things remain as they are, it’s at least a big improvement on fifteen years ago. There’s been some progress. Everyone whinges about McQuaid but ever since he took over at the UCI – I don’t know, maybe under another president there would have been even greater strides – but things have improved. Maybe it’s because he’s come under pressure from WADA, the riders, the media, but efforts have been made. Cycling must be one of the cleanest sports now. I mean, I don’t know anything about other sports, but I know what happens in cycling. Sure, if you read WADA’s report on the Tour de France, you think to yourself that they’re still not doing enough, that the holes in the net are still too wide, but what do you do?

Is one of the reasons you still “hope” Armstrong was clean his charisma, his presence?

He definitely has that. I rode the 2009 Giro alongside him and you could see his charisma. Cycling has benefited from that. Do I hate him? No, because I’m more upset with the authorities. I never said a word to Armstrong all those years when he was winning the Tour. He was a lot more accessible at the Giro in 2009. Someone from the hospital in Bergamo called me during that race to ask whether Armstrong might agree to have his photo taken with the oncology department, since there was a stage finishing in Bergamo. I thought to myself there was no way, he’d have people asking him for stuff every two minutes…but I’d told this person that I’d try anyway. So at the first opportunity, in the middle of a stage one day, I found him in the bunch and asked him whether he might be able to help. He was really gracious, actually. He said they should look in the roadbook, find out where his team were staying at the end of the stage to Bergamo and meet him there in the evening. He even asked for their name, so he knew who it was. Sure enough, the day after the Bergamo stage, he found me in the bunch and told that the people had come and got the photos they wanted. Apparently the people from the hospital had invited him to some kind of conference in October but he couldn’t go because his girlfriend was due to give birth then. He was very approachable, really, which is not what you’d expect of someone that famous and in demand.

Another charismatic rider whose career overlapped with yours was Gilberto Simoni, your team-mate at Lampre and then again at Saunier Duval.

His was a different kind of charisma. He came to Lampre in 2000 and rode with us until the end of 2001, when he went to Saeco. Then in 2006 I rode with him again at Saunier Duval. I have good memories of him. He’s not someone who brings a team together, not that kind of leader…

Really?

Not in my experience. He was always a bit in his own world. He was very methodical [pauses] but in his own way. In winter, he hardly rode his bike. I can remember the first year that I was at Lampre, he started his training in January. Then he went and finished third in the Giro. Let’s say that he did things his way. Then, by the time we rode for Saunier Duval, he had become much more of a leader, which he needed to be because we had a lot of young riders. The directeur sportif would often give his briefing in the morning and Gibo would interject with his own ideas. He started to have a big influence on the directeurs sportifs, probably as a result of having won the Giro twice and grown in confidence. He didn’t shout but he didn’t have to; when he talked, you listened.

With the media, he was very enigmatic. Sometimes it could be quite comical.

He was like that with us too. You thought he wasn’t paying attention but he noticed everything, then he’d deliver these killer one-liners. If you messed up in a race he wasn’t one to bang his fists the table and if you did something right he’d always remember it. You’d finish stages happy with the work you’d done for the team but thinking Gibo probably hadn’t even noticed certain things, yet he always did. He was always brutally frank as well – a typical mountain man. He didn’t care about public relations.

Which other riders have particularly influenced you in your career?

I learned a lot from Chris Horner.

Tell us more.

Yeah. I raced with him at Saunier Duval. He had real race craft, really good tactical sense, but all of his own, very American. I can remember in the 2005 Tour of Switzerland, he, Leonardo Piepoli and Fabian Jeker were our strongest riders on the climbs and in the transitional stages rest of us had to cover the breaks. I can remember this puzzling him. He said that all team leaders seemed to do in Europe was sit on for the whole race and see how far they could get on the summit finishes. He couldn’t understand why the leaders didn’t also pull on the flat stages, or why they weren’t covering the breaks too. So he had pretty different perspective from the rest of us. He’d been in Europe in the late 1990s, it hadn’t really worked, then he’d come over for the second time in 2005. He was 34 at the time yet, to listen to him, you’d have thought that he still had six, seven years as a pro ahead of him. I couldn’t work it out: he’d been at La Française des Jeux, broken his scaphoid or something, then won everything in America and come back over here. And here he was now sounding like a kid at the start of his career. I said to myself, blimey, never mind six or seven, the way he’s talking he’s going to ride for another ten years. He was 34 then and now I’ve just had my best season at 34 years of age… and he’s just had his best year at 39.

So it was the power of positive thinking, youth as a self-fulfilling prophesy?

That’s it. I was 29 at the time and I was thinking I didn’t have that long left. I looked at him and thought he’d have one, two years at best. But then you heard him, and five years on you can see now that it wasn’t just wishful thinking on his part. There he is at 39 winning at the Tour of the Basque Country.

In your own career, moving to T-Mobile, which soon became Highroad, was a massive turning point.

Yeah. I’d always wanted to ride in a foreign team and the culture of an American team suited me perfectly. The constant striving to improve, the innovation…it lit a fire under the passion I already had.  It’s the main reason why I’ve improved so much. The old way that still prevailed in Italian teams had its advantages but you only have to look at what this team’s for done me to see that this is the way forward. Liquigas is still a big team but Italy’s still a very traditionalist country because its cycling culture has such deep roots. For example, in this team we spend hours if not days getting our bikes properly fitted. In Italian teams, if they do it, it’s just for show, for the press. I’m not even sure they’re convinced that these things have an effect on performance. For example, at Lampre, Compex supplied us with electro-stimulators, like they do here. But there the directeurs gave us the Compex and that was it, whereas here, last year, we had a two-hour seminar on how to use it. See what I mean? There I seem to remember half of the team got a Compex at the start of the season, they took some photos, then the rest of us got ours later in the year, but no one ever told us how to use it. The same thing with nutritional supplements and equipment. You might already know the stuff that they tell you but you might not. Maybe in Italy the amateurs are more advanced in terms of what they know but then they stop learning.

Somehow it’s hard to imagine you becoming a directeur sportif when you retire, whether it’s in Italy or anywhere else.

You never know. I can’t really see myself driving a team car but you never know. At the moment I’m thinking about racing and nothing else. I’m better off being like Chris Horner and living for the moment. That’s where my focus is now.

...

Summary: Microsoft Scripting Guy, Ed Wilson, explains the logic behind the 2011 Windows PowerShell Scripting Games.

Weekend Scripter

Microsoft Scripting Guy, Ed Wilson, is here. Today, I begin the wrap up for the 2011 Scripting Games, and I hope you will enjoy the wrap up articles I rounded up. The guest commentators are stellar.

I thought I would lead off the wrap up, by explaining a bit about my philosophy surrounding the 2011 Scripting Games. With each iteration of the Scripting Games, I have changed something, tried to improve things, and experimented with other things.

In the first games I did three years ago, I got rid of grading altogether. I wanted to emphasize the learning process, and I felt that grading was counter to that. In addition, being only one scripting person (instead of the team of six they used to have), I could not possibly grade thousands of scripts via email. I decided to partner with the community, and I reached out to Joel Bennett who is the Microsoft PowerShell MVP who runs PoshCode. I wanted to have all of the scripts available to everyone, and not have them collect and linger in an email folder like last year’s holiday wrapping paper.

The community complained about no grades, and no leaderboard, so I introduced them back into the next version, but I introduced the concept of using MVPs and others as judges, to spread out the task of grading. It worked well. I also published scoring guidelines to attempt to provide consistent grades, with room for discretion by the judges. It worked pretty well, but people wanted comments.

This year I solicited and received feedback on the scoring guidelines and published them ahead of the games, and we introduced the ability for judges to leave comments. There are still complaints on grades—and it is impossible for all of the judges to grade and to comment on all of the scripts. The changes I will introduce for the 2012 Scripting Games are yet determined. But I have already begun in-depth discussions with several Microsoft PowerShell MVPs, and I have heard some really exciting proposals. Two people I had discussions with are Boe Prox and Glenn Sizemore (seen in the following picture with me at the Windows PowerShell Deep Dive). Glenn and Boe were top two winners from the 2010 Scripting Games.

The main point of the Scripting Games is about learning Windows PowerShell. The grades are just fun to spur a bit of extra effort, and all of that. Yet, people take it very serious. I have seen comments about people taking vacation to compete in the games, people spending six or more hours on ONE script. They want to be rewarded—and a decent grade and some eloquent comments are the immediate tangibles they seek.

Some judges seemed to hand out a whole lot of 1s. In fact, this created a huge uproar among the participants, and many people wanted to quit—a few actually did. According to the guidelines, a script that does not work should get a one, but a script that does work and meets the minimum requirements receives a two. The remaining three points are discretionary! In many cases, I listed “optional features” that one could put into a script. These optional features were not the only way to gain extra points, but in reality, they were things I devised to encourage people to see other ways of writing the code or extending the script. I also wanted to, in most cases, point a way for a beginner to receive a five by following a specific path.

For the advanced events, I was not always as prescriptive. Instead of always listing many different ways to extend a script, I preferred to allow more points for “style.” I believe some judges were subtracting points for things they felt were a particularly bad practice. Therefore, a script that actually worked might receive a one. Although this approach to grading may have caused some scripters a bit of discomfort, the scores did not generally cause much of a shift in the overall standing of the games because everyone was graded in the same fashion.

In some cases, I was forced to give a script a one because it did not work as submitted. The script probably did work on the scripter’s system, but due to hard-coded paths, computer names, domain names, and other things that were left into the code, the script did not actually work, and according to the guidelines, it received a one. In such situations, I always tried to leave a comment explaining that the script did not work as published.

In this year’s games, as in last year’s games, I wanted to emphasize certain themes. These things are fundamental to working with Windows PowerShell. I also wanted to indicate new features in Windows PowerShell. In addition, with this year being the first Scripting Games to have no VBScript category, I wanted to use the chance to encourage things that could not be accomplished with VBScript.

Some, but not all of the themes I emphasized this year are listed here:

1. Returning objects from functions

2. Use of comment-based Help

3. Creation of advanced functions

4. Error handling

5. Handling default conditions

6. Checking for dependencies

7. Checking for rights

8. Use of default values for parameters

9. Parameter validation

10. Use of regular expressions

11. Working with the Internet

12. Working with graphical elements in scripts and creation of forms

13. Deciding when to write a script and when to write a “1 liner”

14. Using Get-Help and Get-Member to examine available properties and methods

15. Using MSDN to find scriptable objects

16. Formatting output

As with last year’s Scripting Games, I may have over emphasized one aspect of the games over other aspects of the games. This takes constant tweaking, and I will modify the themes I emphasize next year.

The judges are all volunteers (including myself); and like me, they put in many extra hours to make the games happen. Some of the judges spent dozens of hours grading scripts. Many of the judges spent an entire holiday weekend grading scripts. It had to be done to get every script graded twice (my minimum goal) prior to publication of the final leaderboard.

Let me repeat, I was not alone in this effort. All day on the last day of grading, I saw emails from the different judges as we kept hammering away at the pile of scripts. One judge even wrote a script that listed each script, and the number of times it had been graded. We must have run that script several hundred times that day as we burrowed our way through the seemingly endless pile of submissions.

By the way, the success of the 2011 Scripting Games was beyond my expectations. With the elimination of the VBScript category, and in limiting participation by contestants to either the beginner or the advanced category, I was expecting a reduction in the number of scripts by as much as 45%. In reality, the number of Windows PowerShell scripts submitted increased by nearly 60%.

As for the emphasis on functions…that was a theme this year, and I think the misconceptions uncovered in MANY of the scripts, and the commentary by the judges and others, will be a great learning opportunity. Obviously, there are many ways of reusing code—from Copy/Paste to dot sourcing to incorporation in modules. In fact, not every function in a module needs to be an advanced function—but that is another story.

As much fun as the Scripting Games are, they certainly would not generate quite as much attention if I did not have any prizes to give away. In fact, the prizes are one of the things I really enjoy—not because I get the prizes, but because I get to give them away. This year, I succeeded beyond my wildest imagination and I was able to round up a huge collection of prizes. Microsoft MVP, Jeffrey Hicks, summed it up succinctly when he made a tweet that called the prizes “serious swag.”

The Scripting Wife and I were lucky to meet up with many of the 2011 Scripting Games sponsors at the Windows PowerShell Deep Dive in Las Vegas. In the following picture, you will see Teresa Wilson (aka “The Scripting Wife”), James Brundage (Start-Automating), David Corrales (Sapien), Richard Giles (Idera), Kirk Munro (Quest), and Ed Wilson (Microsoft Scripting Guy). Unfortunately I was not able to include representatives from our remaining sponsors in the photo. The sponsors not represented are TechEd, TechNet and O’Reilly.

I invite you to follow me on Twitter and Facebook. If you have any questions, send email to me at scripter@microsoft.com, or post your questions on the Official Scripting Guys Forum. See you tomorrow. Until then, peace.

Ed Wilson, Microsoft Scripting Guy

Monday I got a new lens and I've been playing with it at lunch. While some of the pictures were amazing quality of very dumb/boring subjects, others...

The Vol. Fire Service is a great way to serve others. Unlike paid Depts...it is voluntary. My point is this..if a FF is  for the most part...getting hurt during a fire scene/or at fire school training..getting back wacked out, on the very first exercise., doesn't really know some basic FF knowledge. When does this FF become a liability to the Dept. We do not have any requirement for entry in; other than a background check. I have asked our Trustees about this, and have not got a real answer.…

My documentary about the Diana inquest will be shown everywhere but the UK. Here's why

The internet is a global lavatory wall, a Rabelaisian mixture of truth, lies, insanity and humour. I felt its power and madness this week, when an excerpt from my new film, Unlawful Killing, was leaked on to YouTube and seized on by US conspiracy theorists, who immediately began claiming that the CIA had murdered Princess Diana, thereby allowing others to dismiss my documentary as mad.

Deriding its critics as mad is an age-old British establishment trick. My "inquest of the inquest" film contains footage of Diana recalling how the royals wanted her consigned to a mental institution, and the inquest coroner repeatedly questioning the sanity of anyone who wondered if the crash was more than an accident. His chief target was Mohamed Al Fayed, a man I once profiled for a Channel 4 documentary. Before I met him, I'd half-believed the media caricature of him as a madman, driven nuts by the death of his son, and wildly accusing the Windsors of having planned the 1997 crash. However, I found a man who was sane and funny but frustrated that Britain wouldn't hold an inquest into his son's death. Michael Mansfield QC thought it unfair too, and fought for one to be held; which was why the longest inquest in British legal history eventually began in 2007.

Long before the inquest started, the eminently sane Mansfield had persuaded me that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the crash, and signs of a cover-up by the authorities. Many journalists agreed, but as the inquest drew near, I noticed that British newspapers (several of which had regularly run "Was Diana Murdered?" pieces) suddenly fell into line, and started insisting that the inquest was a waste of time. They raised no protest when virtually all the key French witnesses refused to participate, nor did they find it odd that not one senior royal was ordered to appear, even though Diana had stated in a lawyer's note that the Windsors were planning an "accident" to her car. Nor did they raise the issue of possible bias when legal proceedings involving the integrity of the royal family were to be heard in the royal courts of justice before a coroner who'd sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen.

I felt the need to raise it, so I asked every major UK broadcaster (BBC, ITV, C4, Five, Sky) to commission a TV documentary about the inquest. But they refused even to contemplate such a suggestion, so Associated Rediffusion and I began filming and financing it ourselves. Shortly before the inquest began, Fayed offered to fund our project, so we could make a feature-length cinema documentary instead. We agreed, on condition that we would report events in the way we saw them, and the deal was struck.

Unlawful Killing is not about a conspiracy before the crash, but a provable conspiracy after the crash. A conspiracy organised not by a single scheming arch-fiend, but collectively by the British establishment – judges, lawyers, politicians, police chiefs, secret services, even newspaper editors – all of whom have been appointed to their positions because they are "a safe pair of hands". Just as compass needles all point north without being told to, so these people instinctively know what is expected of them when the state's interests are under threat and they act accordingly, quietly suppressing uncomfortable evidence or undermining the credibility of witnesses whose evidence contradicts the official narrative.

Consider just a fraction of what transpired. Over 100 significant witnesses were not called to the inquest, or refused to appear. Blood tests allegedly proving the drunkenness of the driver Henri Paul were deemed "biologically inexplicable" by a toxicologist. A British crash expert found that Diana's seat belt had not been working. And so on.

Strangest of all was the media coverage of the verdict. Inquest evidence showed conclusively that the crash was caused by an unidentified white Fiat Uno and several unidentified motorcycles, vehicles that were certainly not paparazzi, because uncontested police evidence confirmed that the paparazzi were nowhere near the tunnel at the time of the crash. The jury understood this, bringing in a verdict of "unlawful killing" by unidentified "following vehicles"; yet within seconds, the BBC was misreporting that the jury had blamed the paparazzi, and the rest of the media meekly followed suit. Which is why – three years on – barely anyone realises what the jury's troubling verdict really was.

Why is the film being premiered next week at Cannes, three years after the inquest ended? Because British lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated. So rather than butcher the film, or risk legal action, we're showing it in France, then the US, and everywhere except the UK. Pity, because at a time when the mindless sugar rush of the royal wedding has been sending British Rrepublicans into a diabetic coma, it could act as a welcome antidote.

San Marino Officials Travel to Taiwan, Meet Local Government Patch.com Officials from San Marino's City Council, Police Department, Chinese School and others recently traveled to Taiwan to learn more about the country. By Jessica Hamlin | Email the author | 7:46pm Visit at Lih-Jen International School Middle Row (R to L): ...

Free Alcoholism Newsletter! Sign Up About - News & Issues Alcoholism is the new death wish…..thats all I have to say. we need to offer a hand to those in need of help. Help by helping others, not by ignoring the pain… Good day! Hot picture alert! If Paris Hilton is your fave, then I have a website for you ... and more »

David Luiz simply refuses to let his limited grasp of English dampen his efforts to make viewers of Chelsea TV laugh. Sure, you could argue that his wacky hair is more than enough to do that job at any given moment, but, as he's proven on the pitch, he's eager to go that extra mile.

First, we saw David try to make Frank Lampard and Fernando Torres bust up during a post-match interview with his emphatic listening skills. Now, we see David trotting in during Gigi Salmon's training ground report and doing an exaggerated, but still completely silent, impression of her. Poor Gigi goes through her whole report without realizing what Luiz is doing behind her before he finally walks past her and gives her a cheeky glance over his shoulder.

According to John Terry, David doesn't just do this kind of thing on camera -- he also does it while his teammates talk to their significant others on the phone, following them around like a little kid as they try to escape his mute mocking.

Luiz has already proven his ability to annoy Manchester United once this season, but doing this to Wayne Rooney during the match could also prove effective.

Thanks to @thetreqartista for sharing!

US Attorney General Eric Holder (right) joined state AG Martha Coakley , top cop Ed Davis , and a slew of others at the JFK Library yesterday for a sneak peek at “Children of Promise: The Legacy of Robert F. Kennedy,’’ a new documentary about the work of the Robert F. Kennedy Children’s Action Corps.

The title sequence in "The Day We Died" was a new gray color, and featured new fringe-science concepts:

• Cellular Rejuvenation
• Thought Extraction
• Cryptozoology
• Neural Partitioning
• Brain Porting
• Temporal Plasticity
• Dual Maternity
• Chaos Structure
• Clonal Transplantation
• Water
• Biosuspension
• Hope

I'm not sure how Water and Hope fit in with the others, but maybe we'll find out next season!

And of course, the "Observers Are Here" message is still there...

Screenshots of every singe frame of the title sequence can be found at FringeFiles.com.

Yep, we messed up. That's the word out of the Cambridge-based consulting firm Monitor Group. Between 2006 and 2008, the company maintained a highly questionable business relationship with the regime of Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator. Monitor helped Muammar Qaddafi's son Saif write his PhD dissertation at the London School of Economics. It also hired some of the US and UK's foremost international relations experts to write glowing editorials and essays about the Qaddafi regime's efforts to clean up its act and enact democratic reforms. And the firm never revealed that it was all was part of a coordinated—and well-funded—effort to end Libya's status as a pariah state.

Not long after Mother Jones reported on Monitor's Libya project, questions arose about whether the firm had taken the proper steps to register as a lobbyist for Libya with the Justice Department. Offering advice on economic or governing reform without registering isn't illegal. But the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) stipulates that groups like Monitor must register if they're planning on conducting "acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal"—which, as we reported, is primarily what Monitor's Libya project was all about. As we wrote back in March, Monitor decided to conduct an internal investigation into whether it had violated FARA, initially led by Eamonn Kelly, a senior partner at the firm. Later, the company brought in outside lawyers from the firm of Covington & Burling to finish the job.

The lawyers' conclusion: yes, Monitor most certainly did break FARA law. Today, the company announced that it is retroactively registering some of its past work in Libya, as well as its more recent work with Jordan. And on Tuesday, Monitor CEO Mark Fuller, who played a key role in the Libya project, resigned. Monitor also issued a press release on the findings of its internal investigation:

These decisions reflect a thorough fact-finding and legal investigation initiated by Monitor after issues concerning its work in Libya were raised earlier this year. The investigation, conducted by the law firm of Covington & Burling, included a review of Monitor engagements with foreign governments. That review concluded that some elements of Monitor’s work in Libya from 2006 through 2008 should have been registered under FARA. It also became apparent that a more recent item of work on behalf of the Kingdom of Jordan should have been registered. Monitor will now take all appropriate measures to remediate these errors.

The Boston Globe reports that Monitor is also likely to release details on how much it paid its academics, including British academic Sir Anthony Giddens. How did Monitor mess this up so bad? From the Globe:

[Eamonn] Kelly said the failure to register was due to a misunderstanding about legal requirements. But others said it reflects a deeper problem: The company was not transparent about the fact that it was engaged in a calculated effort to burnish Khadafy’s reputation, even to professors recruited in the effort.

"If I had known that a primary purpose of the visit to Libya was to influence public opinion in the United States, I would not have gone," Robert Putnam, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, said in a telephone interview yesterday. Other professors said they did not feel misled.

Whether the DOJ actually brings charges against Fuller, et. al, remains to be seen. But given the intellectual firepower and general worldliness of the people involved in its project, Monitor's excuse—"We didn't know, sorry"—is less than satisfying. Hopefully, the DOJ feels the same way. 

Adnan Shukrijumah has been a fugitive since 9/11, was rumored to have crossed the Mexican border, and was indicted last year in the NYC/Zazi bombing plot. Pakistan may be harboring him, as noted earlier this week.

And there is also — of all places — a Shukrijumah tie to Trinidad and Guyana.

An Al Qaeda fugitive with ties to Trinidad and Guyana may rise to the top post in the global terror network whose iconic leader Osama Bin Laden was killed Sunday.

Adnan Gulshair El Shukrijumah, who is known to have lived in and visited Trinidad, was last year elevated to head Al Qaeda’s external operations council—with a mission to recruit, plan and execute terrorist attacks against the United States and its western allies.

…Intelligence officials in the US report that El Shukrijumah, who studied computer science and chemistry in the US, came to Trinidad months before the September 11, 2001 terror attack that killed 3,000.

He is reported to have stayed on the compound of a Muslim organisation in Central Trinidad which some reports claimed was linked to a mosque in the US with ties to terrorism.

Despite a search by the FBI in Trinidad in 2003, with the assistance of local law enforcement, El Shukrijumah, 35, has not been found.

Head of the Islamic Missionaries Guild Imtiaz Mohammed said on Wednesday he and others were interviewed by the FBI who they believed knew Shukrijumah.

The FBI in 2004 set up a permanent office in Trinidad, to continue its counter terrorism operations.

Lesson: There is no respite from Muslim terrorists.

Erick Stakelbeck puts it all together in The Terrorist Next Door.

bin Laden is dead. Jihad lives.

***

Previous:

5/30/11 – Where is Adnan Shukrijumah? We’re looking at you, Pakistan.

6/30/10 –
The return of Adnan Shukrijumah

6/8/07 – Nothing to see here, move along

6/2/07 – Busted: NYC terror plot; Updated with criminal complaint

6/9/06 – 9/11-linked pilot on the loose

10/22/04 – THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION/TERRORIST CONNECTION, PART XXXLVIII

8/18/04 – WHERE IS ADNAN SHUKRIJUMAH?

Unless you live under a rock, you know Donald Trump is thinking about running for president. His sensational public endeavors—pushing the White House to release President Obama’s long-form birth certificate and, most recently, questioning the authenticity of the president’s academic record—have met with astonishment, outrage, and dismay. A recent Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover featured a photo of Trump in mid-rant with the one-word headline, “Seriously?” Journalists, commentators, and even Jerry Seinfeld (who recently canceled an appearance at a Trump fundraiser) have taken to calling Trump a demagogue.

In recent decades, this powerful term, traditionally a scalpel for taking apart dangerous leaders, has become blunt and ineffectual through overuse. I’ve been thinking and writing about demagogues for a decade. I’ve been watching with a mix of bemusement and concern as Trump strains to elevate himself into an actual political figure, rather than the ego tornado he’s been for decades. But one of the lessons of history is that, while it’s easy to underestimate demagogues, it’s also easy to overestimate them. For the time being, I’ve concluded that Trump is not a demagogue. He lacks both the common connection and the lawlessness of classic demagogues, whether Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez today or, in the past, figures ranging from Benito Mussolini to George Wallace to Joseph McCarthy. Instead, call him a quasi-demagogue: a political figure with the desire, but not the chops, to manipulate the masses. 

 

Demagogues are part of the natural life cycle of democracy. So much so that the Founding Fathers designed our various checks and balances and circuit-breakers in part from their mortal terror that a predatory mass leader—a demagogue—would convert popular adulation into American tyranny. James Madison, for instance, explained that “provisions against the measures of an interested majority,”such as an independent judiciary, were required to control “the followers of different Demagogues.” This doesn’t mean, however, that demagogues haven’t popped up throughout the country’s history.

During my years studying and watching demagogues, the one lesson that has stuck with me is this: Many politicians could become demagogues if they wanted to. They could choose the gross emotional appeal, the naked ambition, and the cunning blend of vulgarity and artistry that is the true demagogue’s métier. They don’t because most of them are governed by an ethic of shame. Where others blush and quail, the demagogue happily blusters ahead—crossing boundaries, coloring outside lines, toppling walls. 

Demagogues often look most ridiculous to the people they’re most uninterested in impressing. When the colorful, autocratic Louisiana Governor Huey Long was sworn into the U.S. Senate in 1931, it was precisely his clownishness that gave him such political amplitude. He prompted a firestorm of controversy when he met a German naval commander paying an official call in a pair of green silk pajamas and a bathrobe. One scholar writes, “[T]he lesson he learned from the incident was less the importance of diplomatic niceties than the value of buffoonery in winning national publicity.” With these techniques, Long soon attracted more attention from the press than his 99 Senatorial colleagues combined. He would have challenged FDR for president in 1936, had he not been assassinated by the son of a political opponent in 1935.

You might think that Trump’s own clownishness puts him in the class of a Huey Long. But let’s take a closer look. As I argued in my book Demagogue: The Fight to Save Democracy from Its Worst Enemies, a true demagogue meets four tests. First, he presents himself as a man of the people, rather than the elites. Second, he strikes a very strong, even overpowering emotional connection with the people. Third, he uses this connection for his own political benefit. Fourth, he threatens or breaks established rules of governance. This fourth test is the most important, distinguishing a demagogue like Huey Long (who routinely used the National Guard to intimidate or brutalize political opponents, for instance) from populists like William Jennings Bryan (who, as rambunctious as he may have been, tended to play by the rules).

For Trump, let’s take the four tests in turn. With his Theater of the Absurd hairdo and his massively knotted silk ties, his Manhattan address and his glitzy brand, Trump is hardly a man of the people. True, he’s employing incautious bluster as a proxy for common appeal. “Authenticity” has become the coin of today’s reality-television realm, and there is a mass appeal to his straight-talkin’ persona—this is why his recent use of the “f bomb” plays to his curious political strengths, even while appalling elites. But for Trump to swap his fancy persona for that of a commoner would require him to blow up the brand he’s spent decades building, a task for which he is probably not constitutionally capable.

Second, Trump does not have the broad emotional appeal to the masses that marks the classic demagogue. Over the last decades, Trump has enjoyed billions of dollars of both paid and earned media exposure. He couldn’t be better-known by the American people. Yet he is consistently polling under 20 percent right now among Republicans and right-leaning independents (a recent CNN poll has him at only 14 percent), giving him a base of well under one in ten among the general voting population. The emotional surge for Trump among the very hard-core Tea Party right should certainly be noted. But it’s more likely this brushfire halts at a particular firebreak: the general American public’s hostility and suspicion to the Tea Partiers.

On the third test, it’s very unclear whether Trump is interested in actual political power, or just in increasing his personal brand and wealth. Even now, we can’t tell whether he will run—and keep running, after the glitz of the initial launch wears off—for president. Even if he gets into the race, will he slog through the hard work of an 18-month campaign, including getting on the ballot in all 50 states, participating in debates, developing policy positions? And, if he drops out, will he really have an interest in putting his shoulder to a real political end? Time will tell, but the initial signs are that this is mostly about Trumpery rather than government.

The most important test is the fourth—that demagogues, unlike populists, bend or break the rules. Trump clearly has no inhibition about lying for political benefit. But real demagogues go much further. Look at Joseph McCarthy, who used his selected issue of anti-communism to demolish people’s personal and professional lives. It’s hard to imagine that Trump really wants to encourage threatening behavior. But, if he ever started to ask his followers to test boundaries of lawfulness, to “challenge authority,” our hackles should quickly rise.

 

None of this means Trump isn’t worth taking seriously. To the contrary: Where Trump is succeeding in his demagogic appeals, he’s also illuminating shadowy corners of the American public. And we have to take a hard look at how this is happening. Demagogues, like nightshade, have always flourished in dark places of extreme economic or social distress. The 1920s were the last great era of American demagoguery, when Huey Long and the Detroit “radio priest” Father Coughlin rallied millions of terrified Americans against elites. It’s been no surprise that the 2010s, a time of similar distress, have fostered divisive figures from Sarah Palin to Glenn Beck to Trump.

The lesson here is that today’s restless, upset public needs reassurance—and vigorous economic policy that addresses their concerns. But we also need the media to exercise some discretion. In today’s fragmented, 24-7 echo chamber, where 500,000 nightly viewers qualify you as a pundit and one persistent blogger can take over a news cycle, the media has more responsibility for steering the ship of state toward calmer waters. Trump—as quasi-demagogue—is a creation largely of the media. The real conspiracy isn’t Trump’s mania du jour; it’s hundreds of news editors, assignment editors, reporters, and bloggers who he’s playing like fiddles.

More broadly, though, history shows that the only real antidote to demagogues is an alert, vigilant civic culture. The ancient Athenians, exhausted by a series of vicious demagogues, passed a law exiling anyone who “proposed a measure contrary to democratic principles.” We probably don’t need to go so far, though some watching Trump today doubtless wouldn’t mind moving him to Canada. America, after all, is the land of the civic mores the visiting Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville chronicled and admired. And we almost always eventually turn on demagogues. The stars of Father Coughlin, Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, and David Duke all rose for a time, but, when they fell, they crashed hard.

We can never be complacent about our constitutionalism, and the Trump phenomenon bears careful watching, lest the little fires he’s clearly capable of starting spread into a larger conflagration. But, in general, Americans have shown they’ve got what it takes to nip even quasi-demagogues in the bud. Take note of Palin and Beck’s recent fates: Under heavy fire from the public for their own excesses (a persecution complex in Palin’s case, and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories in Beck’s), they both are retreating to the sidelines.

We’re early in Trump’s political career, so I offer these judgments cautiously, but my suspicion is that Trump, too, will burn out, like a hot fuse on a cold rocket. This may already have started. When President Obama took the stage last week in his stunner of a press conference to take on Trump’s birther attacks, he declared, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.” A hilarious tweet I received shortly after said that carnival barkers were protesting that the comparison with Trump was giving them a bad name. And, of course, the president easily made Trump look both inane and irrelevant when the coverage of Osama bin Laden’s death interrupted “The Celebrity Apprentice.”

There’s also a final thing Trump himself should remember, before he goes farther down what is likely a dead-end road to demagoguery: History remembers Joseph Welch’s famous question to McCarthy—“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”—as well as it remembers McCarthy himself. Trump has shown he doesn’t take criticism well, sending an angry retort to Vanity Fair and appearing openly thin-skinned after jokes were made at his expense at the White House Correspondents Dinner. He will likely realize soon, if he hasn’t already, that his brand, not to mention his ego, will not sustain the sort of historical thrashing that will inevitably follow any further pf demagogic aspirations. Indeed, in the end, The Donald’s self-love might just be his own best friend.

Michael Signer is Managing Principal of Madison Law & Strategy Group, PLLC and an adjunct professor at Virginia Tech. He was a 2009 candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia and chairs the New Dominion Project, a Virginia political action committee.

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

 

The Court stated in the decision, “With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters. Shareholders can determine whether their corporation’s political speech advances the corporation’s interest in making profits, and citizens can see whether elected officials are “‘in the pocket’ of so-called moneyed interests.” The author of the Citizens United decision, Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the Court, underscored the point: “The First Amendment protects political speech and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”

At last, a venue for common ground! After all, even opponents of campaign reform had long emphasized their deep fealty to disclosure. In March of 2000, a Wall Street Journal editorial said, “Our view is that the Constitution allows consenting adults to give as much as they want to whomever they want, subject to disclosure on the Internet.” That same year, Republican Senator Mitch McConnell asked, “Why would a little disclosure be better than a lot of disclosure?” As recently as 2007, John Boehner said on “Meet the Press,” “I think what we ought to do is we ought to have full disclosure, full disclosure of all the money that we raise and how it is spent. And I think sunlight is the best disinfectant.” And the public resoundingly agrees: In an October 2010 CBS/New York Times poll, 92 percent of Americans said it is important for the law to require campaigns and outside spending groups to disclose how much money they have raised, where the money comes from, and how it was used.

Yet, since the Citizens United decision, the once-unifying disclosure issue has degenerated into another divisive set of battles, as long-time conservative proponents of disclosure have changed their positions so dramatically they could be treated for whiplash. Why has this happened—and can anything be done to fix it?

 

The 2010 mid-term elections showed clearly how legal loopholes involving non-profit groups called 501(c)4s, and the failure to adopt clear regulations surrounding campaigns, can result in hundreds of millions of dollars of spending to influence campaigns that masked the identity of huge donors. In response to these realities, the Federal Communications Commission is considering requiring robust disclosure by TV stations of the major donors of political ads; the Securities and Exchange Commission is considering requiring public corporations to disclose to stockholders their spending on politics, and the White House has drafted an executive order to require companies applying for federal contracts to disclose their spending on political campaigns. Given the strong position of the Supreme Court in Citizens United, the longtime consensus among political figures, and the overwhelming preference of voters, one might think that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would have moved to implement regulations to strengthen disclosure, and that politicians and others would applaud the recent moves by the government to strengthen disclosure through the administrative process. To the contrary, however, things have gone horribly wrong.

Last month, Mitch McConnell now says he views disclosure as “a cynical effort to muzzle critics of this administration and its allies in Congress.” He savaged the White House for considering an executive order to require corporations getting federal contracts to disclose its corporate spending on campaigns, saying, “Now, under the guise of ‘transparency,’ the Obama administration apparently wants to know the political leanings of any company or small business, including those of its officers and directors, before the government decides if they’ll award them federal contracts.” What’s more, last fall, McConnell pulled out all the stops to prevent passage of the DISCLOSE Act, which would have required all corporations and unions to disclose their campaign spending. McConnell managed to pressure every Republican from supporting cloture, leaving the legislation, which had passed the House, stuck at 59 votes in the Senate.

The Wall Street Journal’s full-throated support for transparency has disappeared as well; it blasted the FCC recently for considering requiring TV stations to put donors of campaign spots on the Internet, writing, “The goal here is to use ‘transparency’ to intimidate businesses out of making political donations. Disclosure sounds good, but liberals have begun to wield it as a weapon to vilify business donors.” Critically, the Journal’s editorial reflects a larger point: Opponents of any regulation of campaigns have not only abandoned their longstanding support for transparency, they are also trying to create a new attack line that identifies disclosure as a muzzle, a way to stifle speech.

The opponents of any regulation or restraint of any sort on campaign spending also include the three Republican commissioners of the FEC. Their leader, Donald S. McGahn, recently wrote self-righteously that he is free to ignore acts of Congress because, “As an FEC Commissioner, I am bound by my oath to follow controlling precedent of the Supreme Court.” But McGahn and his Stepford colleagues have consistently ignored the 8-1 precedent of the Court and moved to dilute or block any meaningful disclosure.

What to make of the turn away from support for disclosure? I can draw only one conclusion: The earlier support for disclosure was a façade. McConnell, McGahn, and the Journal, among others,don’t actually want transparency or any regulation. At base, they are for a wholly unregulated, Gilded Age-style campaign system where big and secret money rules.

The motives and potential actions of the FCC, SEC, and White House remain under intense assault. Republican Representative Greg Walden, chairman of the House Telecommunications subcommittee, threatened to “go nuclear” if the FCC even tried to implement disclosure of political ad sponsors by TV stations, and McConnell and his allies are talking lawsuits and retaliation if the White House moves on its executive order. On the flip side, however, there is momentum to keep the push for disclosure alive. Notably, Democratic Representative Chris Van Hollen has sued the FEC to require disclosure of donors.

The key now is for theWhite House and the regulatory agencies to ignore the threats from Congress and elsewhere, and move ahead with their efforts. After all, the sentiments of the 92 percent of the public that favors transparency, and the eight justices on the Supreme Court that have endorsed it, should outweigh the objections of the reborn anti-disclosure cabal.

Norman Ornstein is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author, in 2006, of The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track, with Thomas E. Mann. 

Follow @tnr on Twitter.

Yep, we messed up. That's the word out of the Cambridge-based consulting firm Monitor Group. Between 2006 and 2008, the company maintained a highly questionable business relationship with the regime of Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan dictator. Monitor helped Muammar Qaddafi's son Saif write his PhD dissertation at the London School of Economics. It also hired some of the US and UK's foremost international relations experts to write glowing editorials and essays about the Qaddafi regime's efforts to clean up its act and enact democratic reforms. And the firm never revealed that it was all was part of a coordinated—and well-funded—effort to end Libya's status as a pariah state.

Not long after Mother Jones reported on Monitor's Libya project, questions arose about whether the firm had taken the proper steps to register as a lobbyist for Libya with the Justice Department. Offering advice on economic or governing reform without registering isn't illegal. But the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) stipulates that groups like Monitor must register if they're planning on conducting "acts in a public relations capacity for a foreign principal"—which, as we reported, is primarily what Monitor's Libya project was all about. As we wrote back in March, Monitor decided to conduct an internal investigation into whether it had violated FARA, initially led by Eamonn Kelly, a senior partner at the firm. Later, the company brought in outside lawyers from the firm of Covington & Burling to finish the job.

The lawyers' conclusion: yes, Monitor most certainly did break FARA law. Today, the company announced that it is retroactively registering some of its past work in Libya, as well as its more recent work with Jordan. And on Tuesday, Monitor CEO Mark Fuller, who played a key role in the Libya project, resigned. Monitor also issued a press release on the findings of its internal investigation:

These decisions reflect a thorough fact-finding and legal investigation initiated by Monitor after issues concerning its work in Libya were raised earlier this year. The investigation, conducted by the law firm of Covington & Burling, included a review of Monitor engagements with foreign governments. That review concluded that some elements of Monitor’s work in Libya from 2006 through 2008 should have been registered under FARA. It also became apparent that a more recent item of work on behalf of the Kingdom of Jordan should have been registered. Monitor will now take all appropriate measures to remediate these errors.

The Boston Globe reports that Monitor is also likely to release details on how much it paid its academics, including British academic Sir Anthony Giddens. How did Monitor mess this up so bad? From the Globe:

[Eamonn] Kelly said the failure to register was due to a misunderstanding about legal requirements. But others said it reflects a deeper problem: The company was not transparent about the fact that it was engaged in a calculated effort to burnish Khadafy’s reputation, even to professors recruited in the effort.

"If I had known that a primary purpose of the visit to Libya was to influence public opinion in the United States, I would not have gone," Robert Putnam, a professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, said in a telephone interview yesterday. Other professors said they did not feel misled.

Whether the DOJ actually brings charges against Fuller, et. al, remains to be seen. But given the intellectual firepower and general worldliness of the people involved in its project, Monitor's excuse—"We didn't know, sorry"—is less than satisfying. Hopefully, the DOJ feels the same way.