MPs get in a funk over open source The Conservative's open source technology strategy may have reached its culmination at a low water mark with the coalition government's renegotiated contract with Computer Sciences Corporation. Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude and chancellor George Osborne presented open source software as the antidote to the Labour government's "catastrophic" NHS National Programme for IT - and a recipe for cheaper and less botched government computing all round - when they launched their technology strategy in 2009. Now four years on, what they have done instead is reconfirm 2bn the 2.9bn contract CSC originally signed under Labour, and dropped that bit of it that would have given them the means to open source the goods. But the original Conservative tech policy was floated on a stream of opportunistic press leaks and anchored with a fishy tie-in with the then Conservative Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee chair Edward Leigh. The coalition government's lack of progress since raises questions about whether it is prepared to put its weight behind the policy. Spin A party insider told Computer Weekly the NHS element of Conservative open source policy was spun to latch on to then current news about NPfIT - the National Programme, Labour's NHSIT disaster. Osborne floated his open source policy on 27 January 2009, the same day the Public Accounts Committee published a report warning NPfIT wouldn't be delivered till 2015, four years late and at a cost of 12.7bn, because of BT and CSC in particular. The weekend before the Public Accounts Committee released its report, Osborne's team did a last minute edit of his unpublished 2007 open source policy backgrounder. The day the committee report came out, Osborne leaked his backgrounder to the tech press. It had in fact been gathering dust in Osborne's draw for nearly two years. It was now unofficial Conservative policy : open source software would cut IT costs and "free government bodies from long-term, monopoly supply situations" such as its NPfIT contracts with BT and CSC. A week later, The Times newspaper and Computer Weekly scooped the nethermost reserves of poop from the bottom of the Conservative policy headquarters' mudslinging barrel and slung them right in the then Labour government's bullseye. It was a big bullseye. IT bodges had been par for the course since Labour took office in 1997. The Times' had done an exclusive investigation of government IT bodges. But it was old news. The paper had dug right down into the archives, dragged up a clutch of rotten old IT bodges and slapped them up as an exclusive investigation. Outrage Leigh was so gullibly outraged he told The Times: "As a result of The Times' investigation I am going to immediately ask the Comptroller and Auditor-General [the head of the NAO] to investigate the whole matter of government IT spending and in particular the contracts highlighted in the paper." The old dog must have had a short memory, because he forgot to mention he had already handled most of these IT bodges as chair of the Public Accounts Committee. And that's how The Times and Computer Weekly new about them in the first place. The Times' investigation, published on 2 February, involved simply taking a bunch of old stories about IT budget over-runs and adding up the numbers. It said the total cost of Labour IT budget over-runs was over 18bn. But 10bn of that came from the NPfIT cost over-run the NAO recorded in a report it had submitted to Leigh's committee three years before, in 2006. The NAO reviewed the situation again in May 2008 and stuck it in another report to Leigh's committee. After conducting its usual hearings into the 2008 NAO report, the committee then produced its usual report about the NAO report. That's the report the committee had published on 27 January - one that Leigh had been talking about in all the papers. Now a week later, he was calling for the NAO to produce a report about The Times' report about his committee's report about the NAO report about NPfIT, as though it was the first he had heard of it. It was an outrage. It really was. More outrage Most of the rest of The Times' 18bn budget over-runs had come from HMRC's Aspire contract with Capgemini. The NAO had reported on this one in 2007. So had Leigh's Committee. So had the press. Leigh had said in a 2007 committee press statement "the forecast figure is some 8.5 billion...compared with the original estimate of nearly 3 billion". Now two years on, The Times had reported it again. Leigh was outraged. And most of the rest of The Times' 18bn came from the publication just 18 days before of Leigh's own committee report into the Ministry of Defence's Defence Information Infrastructure. That was about 5bn over-budget - a terrible state of affairs, really. But The Times' had learned about it from Leigh's committee, and they had both got it from the NAO about six months before. Now The Times was regurgitating it again, and Leigh was outraged like it was the first he'd heard of it. Most of the rest of the 18bn came from Leigh's Committee's 2003 report into the Courts Service Libra project. Libra's cost had more than doubled to 400m, said Leigh in 2003, drawing from NAO numbers given him earlier. The cost had more than doubled to 500m, said The Times in January 2009, drawing from Leigh's earlier work. Leigh was outraged. The rest of The Times' investigation regurgitated old news about three cancellations: a DWP benefits processing system from 2006, and police and passport websites from 2007. Ah and there was the National Offender Management Information System - then still work-in-progress for the NAO. Leigh was outraged. Investigation Leigh was so forgetful that no sooner had he called for an NAO investigation of The Times' investigation of the committee report on the NAO report than the whole idea of an NAO investigation was forgotten, like it had never even been officially proposed at all. It hadn't. The NAO recorded no official request from Leigh for such an investigation. The NAO in fact never conducts general studies. So it says. So Leigh's committee would have been surprised if the NAO had done a general report into government IT bodges, because it has for the last 30 years worked to a Standing Order by which it examines about 40 of those non-general NAO reports every year. This was all nevertheless important enough for Osborne to pitch in with a commentary in The Times on 3 February. Osborne said : "Yesterday's report in The Times that government...IT is running nearly 19 billion over budget was genuinely shocking". It seemed nobody had read any of Leigh's old committee reports. Or they were so far back on his shelf that everyone else had forgotten about them as well. But at least Osborne had an answer to this old problem that he had known nothing of till The Times regurgitated it. The solution, he said, was to stop handing out big IT contracts to the same old big suppliers and break them up into manageable chunks using open source software and open standards. Maude, then head of the Conservative Party's Implementation Unit, was to lead the work. Now nearly four years on, the coalition government has still to reach a significant milestone on either its open source or open standards policies. The big departments of state have continued to sign large contracts with the same old large suppliers. The same old large suppliers have opposed the coalition's open source and open standards policies, just as they oppose the contract transparency the coalition government promised as well. The Tory top team may have been so desperate to put nails in Labour's coffin in 2009 that it would have said anything to get the vote - even that it would use open source software. The two parties were clambering over one another to make the most convincing noises about IT bodges. Labour's own open source policy had been gathering dust for years.


How to publish legend along with the .mxd with REST API Hi all, I was working on getting layers from arcgis sample servers and also displaying their legends, but I am unable to get legend info with my own published map services on my local server. The issue I believe is that as shown below, on the sample servers of arcgis there is a hyperlink "Legends" but when I publish my service through arccatalog, it doesnot show any folder/link with the name of legend. If some one can kindly solve my confusion as how to put up a legend folder like in the sample servers while publishing my map services using REST API, I would be highly grateful. Re: How to publish legend along with the .mxd with REST API Hi, Now I know that I cannot do this while using 9.3.1 as this service is only available in 10.1 . So I wanted to ask that what can be the alternative way of getting legend information from a map service which is running on local arcgis server 9.3.1 and then displaying it in a wpf/silverlight application.


Why does the spectre of May 68 still haunt French discourse? Alain Badiou on the country's longue dure sequences of restoration and revolt, and the place of Sarkozy's presidency within them. Lessons in political courage from Plato and Corneille, and a call to reassert the Manifesto's founding wager. ALAIN BADIOU THE COMMUNIST HYPOTHESIS There was a tangible sense of depression in the air in France in the aftermath of Sarkozy's victory. [1] It is often said that unexpected blows are the worst, but expected ones sometimes prove debilitating in a different way. It can be oddly dispiriting when an election is won by the candidate who has led in the opinion polls from the start, just as when the favourite horse wins the race; anyone with the slightest feeling for a wager, a risk, an exception or a rupture would rather see an outsider upset the odds. Yet it could hardly have been the bare fact of Nicolas Sarkozy as President that seemed to come as such a disorientating blow to the French left in the aftermath of May 2007. Something else was at stake -- some complex of factors for which 'Sarkozy' is merely a name. How should it be understood? An initial factor was the way in which the outcome affirmed the manifest powerlessness of any genuinely emancipatory programme within the electoral system: preferences are duly recorded, in the passive manner of a seismograph, but the process is one that by its nature excludes any embodiments of dissenting political will. A second component of the left's depressive disorientation after May 2007 was an overwhelming bout of historical nostalgia. The political order that emerged from World War Two in France -- with its unambiguous referents of 'left' and 'right', and its consensus, shared by Gaullists and Communists alike, on the balance-sheet of the Occupation, Resistance and Liberation -- has now collapsed. This is one reason for Sarkozy's ostentatious dinners, yachting holidays and so on -- a way of saying that the left no longer frightens anyone: Vivent les riches , and to hell with the poor. Understandably, this may fill the sincere souls of the left with nostalgia for the good old days -- Mitterrand, De Gaulle, Marchais, even Chirac, Gaullism's Brezhnev, who knew that to do nothing was the easiest way to let the system die. Sarkozy has now finally finished off the cadaverous form of Gaullism over which Chirac presided. The Socialists' collapse had already been anticipated in the rout of Jospin in the presidential elections of 2002 (and still more by the disastrous decision to embrace Chirac in the second round). The present decomposition of the Socialist Party, however, is not just a matter of its political poverty, apparent now for many years, nor of the actual size of the vote -- 47 per cent is not much worse than its other recent scores. Rather, the election of Sarkozy appears to have struck a blow to the entire symbolic structuring of French political life: the system of orientation itself has suffered a defeat. An important symptom of the resulting disorientation is the number of former Socialist placemen rushing to take up appointments under Sarkozy, the centre-left opinion-makers singing his praises; the rats have fled the sinking ship in impressive numbers. The underlying rationale is, of course, that of the single party: since all accept the logic of the existing capitalist order, market economy and so forth, why maintain the fiction of opposing parties? A third component of the contemporary disorientation arose from the outcome of the electoral conflict itself. I have characterized the 2007 presidential elections -- pitting Sarkozy against Royal -- as the clash of two types of fear. The first is the fear felt by the privileged, alarmed that their position may be assailable. In France this manifests itself as fear of foreigners, workers, youth from the banlieue , Muslims, black Africans. Essentially conservative, it creates a longing for a protective master, even one who oppresses and impoverishes you further. The current embodiment of this figure is, of course, the over-stimulated police chief: Sarkozy. In electoral terms, this is contested not by a resounding affirmation of self-determining heterogeneity, but by the fear of this fear: a fear, too, of the cop figure, whom the petit-bourgeois socialist voter neither knows nor likes. This 'fear of the fear' is a secondary, derivative emotion, whose content -- beyond the sentiment itself -- is barely detectable; the Royal camp had no concept of any alliance with the excluded or oppressed; the most it could envisage was to reap the dubious benefits of fear. For both sides, a total consensus reigned on Palestine, Iran, Afghanistan (where French forces are fighting), Lebanon (ditto), Africa (swarming with French military 'administrators'). Public discussion of alternatives on these issues was on neither party's agenda. The conflict between the primary fear and the 'fear of the fear' was settled in favour of the former. There was a visceral reflex in play here, very apparent in the faces of those partying over Sarkozy's victory. For those in the grip of the 'fear of the fear' there was a corresponding negative reflex, flinching from the result: this was the third component of 2007's depressive disorientation. We should not underestimate the role of what Althusser called the 'ideological state apparatus' -- increasingly through the media, with the press now playing a more sophisticated part than tv and radio -- in formulating and mobilizing such collective sentiments. Within the electoral process there has, it seems, been a weakening of the real; a process even further advanced with regard to the secondary 'fear of the fear' than with the primitive, reactionary one. We react, after all, to a real situation, whereas the 'fear of the fear' merely takes fright at the scale of that reaction, and is thus at a still further remove from reality. The vacuity of this position manifested itself perfectly in the empty exaltations of Sgolne Royal. Electoralism and the state If we posit a definition of politics as 'collective action, organized by certain principles, that aims to unfold the consequences of a new possibility which is currently repressed by the dominant order', then we would have to conclude that the electoral mechanism is an essentially apolitical procedure. This can be seen in the gulf between the massive formal imperative to vote and the free-floating, if not non-existent nature of political or ideological convictions. It is good to vote, to give a form to my fears; but it is hard to believe that what I am voting for is a good thing in itself. This is not to say that the electoral-democratic system is repressive per se ; rather, that the electoral process is incorporated into a state form, that of capitalo-parliamentarianism, appropriate for the maintenance of the established order, and consequently serves a conservative function. This creates a further feeling of powerlessness: if ordinary citizens have no handle on state decision-making save the vote, it is hard to see what way forward there could be for an emancipatory politics. If the electoral mechanism is not a political but a state procedure, what does it achieve? Drawing on the lessons of 2007, one effect is to incorporate both the fear and the 'fear of the fear' into the state -- to invest the state with these mass-subjective elements, the better to legitimate it as an object of fear in its own right, equipped for terror and coercion. For the world horizon of democracy is increasingly defined by war. The West is engaged on an expanding number of fronts: the maintenance of the existing order with its gigantic disparities has an irreducible military component; the duality of the worlds of rich and poor can only be sustained by force. This creates a particular dialectic of war and fear. Our governments explain that they are waging war abroad in order to protect us from it at home. If Western troops do not hunt down the terrorists in Afghanistan or Chechnya, they will come over here to organize the resentful rabble outcasts. Strategic neo-Ptainism In France, this alliance of fear and war has classically gone by the name of Ptainism. The mass ideology of Ptainism -- responsible for its widespread success between 1940 and 1944 -- rested in part on the fear generated by the First World War: Marshal Ptain would protect France from the disastrous effects of the Second, by keeping well out of it. In the Marshal's own words, it was necessary to be more afraid of war than of defeat. The vast majority of the French accepted the relative tranquillity of a consensual defeat and most got off fairly lightly during the War, compared to the Russians or even the English. The analogous project today is based on the belief that the French need simply to accept the laws of the us -led world model and all will be well: France will be protected from the disastrous effects of war and global disparity. This form of neo-Ptainism as a mass ideology is effectively on offer from both parties today. In what follows, I will argue that it is a key analytical element in understanding the disorientation that goes by the name of 'Sarkozy'; to grasp the latter in its overall dimension, its historicity and intelligibility, requires us to go back to what I will call its Ptainist 'transcendental'. [2] I am not saying, of course, that circumstances today resemble the defeat of 1940, or that Sarkozy resembles Ptain. The point is a more formal one: that the unconscious national-historical roots of that which goes by the name of Sarkozy are to be found in this Ptainist configuration, in which the disorientation itself is solemnly enacted from the summit of the state, and presented as a historical turning-point. This matrix has been a recurring pattern in French history. It goes back to the Restoration of 1815 when a post-Revolutionary government, eagerly supported by migrs and opportunists, was brought back in the foreigners' baggage-train and declared, with the consent of a worn-out population, that it would restore public morality and order. In 1940, military defeat once again served as the context for the disorientating reversal of the real content of state action: the Vichy government spoke incessantly of the 'nation', yet was installed by the German Occupation; the most corrupt of oligarchs were to lead the country out of moral crisis; Ptain himself, an ageing general in the service of property, would be the embodiment of national rebirth. Numerous aspects of this neo-Ptainist tradition are in evidence today. Typically, capitulation and servility are presented as invention and regeneration. These were central themes of Sarkozy's campaign: the Mayor of Neuilly would transform the French economy and put the country back to work. The real content, of course, is a politics of continuous obedience to the demands of high finance, in the name of national renewal. A second characteristic is that of decline and 'moral crisis', which justifies the repressive measures taken in the name of regeneration. Morality is invoked, as so often, in place of politics and against any popular mobilization. Appeal is made instead to the virtues of hard work, discipline, the family: 'merit should be rewarded'. This typical displacement of politics by morality has been prepared, from the 1970s 'new philosophers' onwards, by all who have laboured to 'moralize' historical judgement. The object is in reality political: to maintain that national decline has nothing to do with the high servants of capital but is the fault of certain ill-intentioned elements of the population -- currently, foreign workers and young people from the banlieue . A third characteristic of neo-Ptainism is the paradigmatic function of foreign experience. The example of correction always comes from abroad, from countries that have long overcome their moral crises. For Ptain, the shining examples were Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany and Franco's Spain: leaders who had put their countries back on their feet. The political aesthetic is that of imitation: like Plato's demiurge, the state must shape society with its eyes fixed on foreign models. Today, of course, the examples are Bush's America and Blair's Britain. A fourth characteristic is the notion that the source of the current crisis lies in a disastrous past event. For the proto-Ptainism of the 1815 Restoration, this was of course the Revolution and the beheading of the King. For Ptain himself in 1940 it was the Popular Front, the Blum government and above all the great strikes and factory occupations of 1936. The possessing classes far preferred the German Occupation to the fear which these disorders had provoked. For Sarkozy, the evils of May 68 -- forty years ago -- have been constantly invoked as the cause of the current 'crisis of values'. Neo-Ptainism provides a usefully simplified reading of history that links a negative event, generally with a working-class or popular structure, and a positive one, with a military or state structure, as a solution to the first. The arc between 1968 and 2007 can thus be offered as a source of legitimacy for the Sarkozy government, as the historic actor that will finally embark on the correction needed in the wake of the inaugural damaging event. Finally, there is the element of racism. Under Ptain this was brutally explicit: getting rid of the Jews. Today it is voiced in a more insinuating fashion: 'we are not an inferior race' -- the implication being, 'unlike others'; 'the true French need not doubt the legitimacy of their country's actions' -- in Algeria and elsewhere. In the light of these criteria, we can therefore point: the disorientation that goes by the name of 'Sarkozy' may be analysed as the latest manifestation of the Ptainist transcendental. The spectre At first sight there may seem something strange about the new President's insistence that the solution to the country's moral crisis, the goal of his 'renewal' process, was 'to do away with May 68, once and for all'. Most of us were under the impression that it was long gone anyway. What is haunting the regime, under the name of May 68? We can only assume that it is the 'spectre of communism', in one of its last real manifestations. He would say (to give a Sarkozian prosopopoeia): 'We refuse to be haunted by anything at all. It is not enough that empirical communism has disappeared. We want all possible forms of it banished. Even the hypothesis of communism -- generic name of our defeat -- must become unmentionable.' What is the communist hypothesis? In its generic sense, given in its canonic Manifesto , 'communist' means, first, that the logic of class -- the fundamental subordination of labour to a dominant class, the arrangement that has persisted since Antiquity -- is not inevitable; it can be overcome. The communist hypothesis is that a different collective organization is practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labour. The private appropriation of massive fortunes and their transmission by inheritance will disappear. The existence of a coercive state, separate from civil society, will no longer appear a necessity: a long process of reorganization based on a free association of producers will see it withering away. 'Communism' as such denotes only this very general set of intellectual representations. It is what Kant called an Idea, with a regulatory function, rather than a programme. It is foolish to call such communist principles utopian; in the sense that I have defined them here they are intellectual patterns, always actualized in a different fashion. As a pure Idea of equality, the communist hypothesis has no doubt existed since the beginnings of the state. As soon as mass action opposes state coercion in the name of egalitarian justice, rudiments or fragments of the hypothesis start to appear. Popular revolts -- the slaves led by Spartacus, the peasants led by Mntzer -- might be identified as practical examples of this 'communist invariant'. With the French Revolution, the communist hypothesis then inaugurates the epoch of political modernity. What remains is to determine the point at which we now find ourselves in the history of the communist hypothesis. A fresco of the modern period would show two great sequences in its development, with a forty-year gap between them. The first is that of the setting in place of the communist hypothesis; the second, of preliminary attempts at its realization. The first sequence runs from the French Revolution to the Paris Commune; let us say, 1792 to 1871. It links the popular mass movement to the seizure of power, through the insurrectional overthrow of the existing order; this revolution will abolish the old forms of society and install 'the community of equals'. In the course of the century, the formless popular movement made up of townsfolk, artisans and students came increasingly under the leadership of the working class. The sequence culminated in the striking novelty -- and radical defeat -- of the Paris Commune. For the Commune demonstrated both the extraordinary energy of this combination of popular movement, working-class leadership and armed insurrection, and its limits: the communards could neither establish the revolution on a national footing nor defend it against the foreign-backed forces of the counter-revolution. The second sequence of the communist hypothesis runs from 1917 to 1976: from the Bolshevik Revolution to the end of the Cultural Revolution and the militant upsurge throughout the world during the years 1966 -- 75. It was dominated by the question: how to win? How to hold out -- unlike the Paris Commune -- against the armed reaction of the possessing classes; how to organize the new power so as to protect it against the onslaught of its enemies? It was no longer a question of formulating and testing the communist hypothesis, but of realizing it: what the 19th century had dreamt, the 20th would accomplish. The obsession with victory, centred around questions of organization, found its principal expression in the 'iron discipline' of the communist party -- the characteristic construction of the second sequence of the hypothesis. The party effectively solved the question inherited from the first sequence: the revolution prevailed, either through insurrection or prolonged popular war, in Russia, China, Czechoslovakia, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and succeeded in establishing a new order. But the second sequence in turn created a further problem, which it could not solve using the methods it had developed in response to the problems of the first. The party had been an appropriate tool for the overthrow of weakened reactionary regimes, but it proved ill-adapted for the construction of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in the sense that Marx had intended -- that is, a temporary state, organizing the transition to the non-state: its dialectical 'withering away'. Instead, the party-state developed into a new form of authoritarianism. Some of these regimes made real strides in education, public health, the valorization of labour, and so on; and they provided an international constraint on the arrogance of the imperialist powers. However, the statist principle in itself proved corrupt and, in the long run, ineffective. Police coercion could not save the 'socialist' state from internal bureaucratic inertia; and within fifty years it was clear that it would never prevail in the ferocious competition imposed by its capitalist adversaries. The last great convulsions of the second sequence -- the Cultural Revolution and May 68, in its broadest sense -- can be understood as attempts to deal with the inadequacy of the party. Interludes Between the end of the first sequence and the beginning of the second there was a forty-year interval during which the communist hypothesis was declared to be untenable: the decades from 1871 to 1914 saw imperialism triumphant across the globe. Since the second sequence came to an end in the 1970s we have been in another such interval, with the adversary in the ascendant once more. What is at stake in these circumstances is the eventual opening of a new sequence of the communist hypothesis. But it is clear that this will not be -- cannot be -- the continuation of the second one. Marxism, the workers' movement, mass democracy, Leninism, the party of the proletariat, the socialist state -- all the inventions of the 20th century -- are not really useful to us any more. At the theoretical level they certainly deserve further study and consideration; but at the level of practical politics they have become unworkable. The second sequence is over and it is pointless to try to restore it. At this point, during an interval dominated by the enemy, when new experiments are tightly circumscribed, it is not possible to say with certainty what the character of the third sequence will be. But the general direction seems discernible: it will involve a new relation between the political movement and the level of the ideological -- one that was prefigured in the expression 'cultural revolution' or in the May 68 notion of a 'revolution of the mind'. We will still retain the theoretical and historical lessons that issued from the first sequence, and the centrality of victory that issued from the second. But the solution will be neither the formless, or multi-form, popular movement inspired by the intelligence of the multitude -- as Negri and the alter-globalists believe -- nor the renewed and democratized mass communist party, as some of the Trotskyists and Maoists hope. The (19th-century) movement and the (20th-century) party were specific modes of the communist hypothesis; it is no longer possible to return to them. Instead, after the negative experiences of the 'socialist' states and the ambiguous lessons of the Cultural Revolution and May 68, our task is to bring the communist hypothesis into existence in another mode, to help it emerge within new forms of political experience. This is why our work is so complicated, so experimental. We must focus on its conditions of existence, rather than just improving its methods. We need to re-install the communist hypothesis -- the proposition that the subordination of labour to the dominant class is not inevitable -- within the ideological sphere. What might this involve? Experimentally, we might conceive of finding a point that would stand outside the temporality of the dominant order and what Lacan once called 'the service of wealth'. Any point, so long as it is in formal opposition to such service, and offers the discipline of a universal truth. One such might be the declaration: 'There is only one world'. What would this imply? Contemporary capitalism boasts, of course, that it has created a global order; its opponents too speak of 'alter-globalization'. Essentially, they propose a definition of politics as a practical means of moving from the world as it is to the world as we would wish it to be. But does a single world of human subjects exist? The 'one world' of globalization is solely one of things -- objects for sale -- and monetary signs: the world market as foreseen by Marx. The overwhelming majority of the population have at best restricted access to this world. They are locked out, often literally so. The fall of the Berlin Wall was supposed to signal the advent of the single world of freedom and democracy. Twenty years later, it is clear that the world's wall has simply shifted: instead of separating East and West it now divides the rich capitalist North from the poor and devastated South. New walls are being constructed all over the world: between Palestinians and Israelis, between Mexico and the United States, between Africa and the Spanish enclaves, between the pleasures of wealth and the desires of the poor, whether they be peasants in villages or urban dwellers in favelas , banlieues , estates, hostels, squats and shantytowns. The price of the supposedly unified world of capital is the brutal division of human existence into regions separated by police dogs, bureaucratic controls, naval patrols, barbed wire and expulsions. The 'problem of immigration' is, in reality, the fact that the conditions faced by workers from other countries provide living proof that -- in human terms -- the 'unified world' of globalization is a sham. A performative unity The political problem, then, has to be reversed. We cannot start from an analytic agreement on the existence of the world and proceed to normative action with regard to its characteristics. The disagreement is not over qualities but over existence. Confronted with the artificial and murderous division of the world into two -- a disjunction named by the very term, 'the West' -- we must affirm the existence of the single world right from the start, as axiom and principle. The simple phrase, 'there is only one world', is not an objective conclusion. It is performative: we are deciding that this is how it is for us. Faithful to this point, it is then a question of elucidating the consequences that follow from this simple declaration. A first consequence is the recognition that all belong to the same world as myself: the African worker I see in the restaurant kitchen, the Moroccan I see digging a hole in the road, the veiled woman looking after children in a park. That is where we reverse the dominant idea of the world united by objects and signs, to make a unity in terms of living, acting beings, here and now. These people, different from me in terms of language, clothes, religion, food, education, exist exactly as I do myself; since they exist like me, I can discuss with them -- and, as with anyone else, we can agree and disagree about things. But on the precondition that they and I exist in the same world. At this point, the objection about cultural difference will be raised: 'our' world is made up of those who accept 'our' values -- democracy, respect for women, human rights. Those whose culture is contrary to this are not really part of the same world; if they want to join it they have to share our values, to 'integrate'. As Sarkozy put it: 'If foreigners want to remain in France, they have to love France; otherwise, they should leave.' But to place conditions is already to have abandoned the principle, 'there is only one world of living men and women'. It may be said that we need to take the laws of each country into account. Indeed; but a law does not set a precondition for belonging to the world. It is simply a provisional rule that exists in a particular region of the single world. And no one is asked to love a law, simply to obey it. The single world of living women and men may well have laws; what it cannot have is subjective or 'cultural' preconditions for existence within it -- to demand that you have to be like everyone else. The single world is precisely the place where an unlimited set of differences exist. Philosophically, far from casting doubt on the unity of the world, these differences are its principle of existence. The question then arises whether anything governs these unlimited differences. There may well be only one world, but does that mean that being French, or a Moroccan living in France, or Muslim in a country of Christian traditions, is nothing? Or should we see the persistence of such identities as an obstacle? The simplest definition of 'identity' is the series of characteristics and properties by which an individual or a group recognizes itself as its 'self'. But what is this 'self'? It is that which, across all the characteristic properties of identity, remains more or less invariant. It is possible, then, to say that an identity is the ensemble of properties that support an invariance. For example, the identity of an artist is that by which the invariance of his or her style can be recognized; homosexual identity is composed of everything bound up with the invariance of the possible object of desire; the identity of a foreign community in a country is that by which membership of this community can be recognized: language, gestures, dress, dietary habits, etc. Defined in this way, by invariants, identity is doubly related to difference: on the one hand, identity is that which is different from the rest; on the other, it is that which does not become different, which is invariant. The affirmation of identity has two further aspects. The first form is negative. It consists of desperately maintaining that I am not the other. This is often indispensable, in the face of authoritarian demands for integration, for example. The Moroccan worker will forcefully affirm that his traditions and customs are not those of the petty-bourgeois European; he will even reinforce the characteristics of his religious or customary identity. The second involves the immanent development of identity within a new situation -- rather like Nietzsche's famous maxim, 'become what you are'. The Moroccan worker does not abandon that which constitutes his individual identity, whether socially or in the family; but he will gradually adapt all this, in a creative fashion, to the place in which he finds himself. He will thus invent what he is -- a Moroccan worker in Paris -- not through any internal rupture, but by an expansion of identity. The political consequences of the axiom, 'there is only one world', will work to consolidate what is universal in identities. An example -- a local experiment -- would be a meeting held recently in Paris, where undocumented workers and French nationals came together to demand the abolition of persecutory laws, police raids and expulsions; to demand that foreign workers be recognized simply in terms of their presence: that no one is illegal; all demands that are very natural for people who are basically in the same existential situation -- people of the same world. Time and courage 'In such great misfortune, what remains to you?' Corneille's Medea is asked by her confidante. 'Myself! Myself, I say, and it is enough', comes the reply. What Medea retains is the courage to decide her own fate; and courage, I would suggest, is the principal virtue in face of the disorientation of our own times. Lacan also raises the issue in discussing the analytical cure for depressive debility: should this not end in grand dialectical discussions on courage and justice, on the model of Plato's dialogues? In the famous 'Dialogue on Courage', General Laches, questioned by Socrates, replies: 'Courage is when I see the enemy and run towards him to engage him in a fight.' Socrates is not particularly satisfied with this, of course, and gently takes the General to task: 'It's a good example of courage, but an example is not a definition.' Running the same risks as General Laches, I will give my definition. First, I would retain the status of courage as a virtue -- that is, not an innate disposition, but something that constructs itself, and which one constructs, in practice. Courage, then, is the virtue which manifests itself through endurance in the impossible. This is not simply a matter of a momentary encounter with the impossible: that would be heroism, not courage. Heroism has always been represented not as a virtue but as a posture: as the moment when one turns to meet the impossible face to face. The virtue of courage constructs itself through endurance within the impossible; time is its raw material. What takes courage is to operate in terms of a different dure to that imposed by the law of the world. The point we are seeking must be one that can connect to another order of time. Those imprisoned within the temporality assigned us by the dominant order will always be prone to exclaim, as so many Socialist Party henchmen have done, 'Twelve years of Chirac, and now we have to wait for another round of elections. Seventeen years; perhaps twenty-two; a whole lifetime!' At best, they will become depressed and disorientated; at worst, rats. In many respects we are closer today to the questions of the 19th century than to the revolutionary history of the 20th. A wide variety of 19th-century phenomena are reappearing: vast zones of poverty, widening inequalities, politics dissolved into the 'service of wealth', the nihilism of large sections of the young, the servility of much of the intelligentsia; the cramped, besieged experimentalism of a few groups seeking ways to express the communist hypothesis . . . Which is no doubt why, as in the 19th century, it is not the victory of the hypothesis which is at stake today, but the conditions of its existence. This is our task, during the reactionary interlude that now prevails: through the combination of thought processes -- always global, or universal, in character -- and political experience, always local or singular, yet transmissible, to renew the existence of the communist hypothesis, in our consciousness and on the ground. [1] This is an edited extract from De quoi Sarkozy est-il le nom? , Circonstances, 4, Nouvelles Editions Lignes, Paris 2007; to be published in English by Verso as What Do We Mean When We Say 'Sarkozy'? in 2008. [2] See my Logiques des mondes , Paris 2006 for a full development of the concept of 'transcendentals' and their function, which is to govern the order of appearance of multiplicities within a world.


Search Pretty Little Liars Halloween Recap, "This Is a Dark Ride" All aboard the ghost train: Pretty Little Liars is back, Halloween style, in one of the craziest episodes yet.  Flashbacks reveal that Ali was murdered at least three different times on the same night. Aria gets drugged and trapped in a crate alongside Garrett's fresh corpse (!!), and she's about to be pushed off board a moving train when a combination of her killer screwdriver aim and her fellow Liars' good timing saves her life. Meanwhile, Hanna's mom and Pastor Ted encounter what appears to be an actual ghost -- one of the twins from last year's Halloween special. And in the TWISTIEST TWIST since we saw Toby in A's trademark hoodie, Ezra. Fitz. Has. A. Bandage. On. His. Hand. Read on for more of the spooky twists and turns of this year's Halloween special. The Liars' Halloween costumes were, as usual, flawless. Hanna was Marilyn Monroe in her iconic white dress, Aria was Daisy from The Great Gatsby ("the book," she clarifies, although really what difference it makes with respect to her costume is unclear), Spencer was Lauren Bacall circa To Have and Have Not , and Emily was Barbarella. Which was your favorite look? And any other notable costumes from the rest of the cast? Sarah T: Hmm I can't choose a favorite, they all looked great -- and of course the choices were perfectly tailored to their personalities. (As Spencer tells Hanna, "How could you have been worried that we'd pick the same costume?") But in terms of other noteworthy costumes: Jenna showed some dry wit with her pirate eye-patch costume and admirable commitment with her dreadlock-and-curls hairstyle. I couldn't tell what Noel was supposed to be. (A prince?) It's fun that Mona wore a costume under her costume. You KNOW our girl was probably wearing a costume under the paper mache mask too. She's turtles all the way down . Phoebe B : Aaah Mona, what a wonderful evil genius. Her costume was SO scary! But I think Aria's Daisy was actually my favorite since it seemed an homage to the one book we can be certain the PLLs read and Ezra's former career as a high school teacher. Remember when they read The Great Gatsby forever?! After that, I thought Emily was rocking her Barberella costume too! Also, I kind of missed Spencer's ridiculous queen costume from last year's Halloween flashback. If Garrett's version of events is true, the night Ali died he saw her arguing with Byron. Then he threatened her with a hockey stick, making the then-blind Jenna believe he had killed her when in fact he was hacking away at a poor old tree. Do you buy Garrett's story? And if so, what might Ali and Byron have been fighting about? Sarah T: I think I do believe Garrett. For one thing, he's dead now, and I feel like on PLL people usually get axed right after they tell the truth about something. Also because we saw a flashback, and thus far none of the flashbacks have been disproven, which makes me think they're a truthiness-indicator. I think Ali may have been blackmailing Byron about his dalliances with Meredith the College Student, which makes him a new member in the ever-growing lineup of people who had motive to want Ali dead. I am thrilled about this development, because Byron has always seemed like a creeper and this seals the deal. Phoebe B : Good questions! And I agree. That was a crazy revelation and I am inclined to believe Garrett now that he is very dead. I have always suspected Byron of something as he just seems so creepy and suspicious all the time. I agree about Ali blackmailing Byron but I also thought perhaps Byron made the grave mistake of sleeping with Ali. I realize that's extra creepy, but there seemed to be something more afoot than blackmail. But the story too about Garrett fake killing Ali was so weird! What were her and Jenna fighting about? Why were they going after each other? I thought Jenna and Ali reconciled when Jenna was in the hospital. I'm so confused. A came after Aria with a vengeance this episode. Why do you think she was the target (along with Garrett), and who do you think were the most likely A-team suspects on board the train? AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: Ezra has a bandage on his hand when he makes his sudden reappearance after Garrett's body is found and just before Ali's corpse is discovered. Was he the A-team member that Aria stabbed with a screwdriver? Sarah T: I thought it was very unusual that Aria was in this life-or-death scenario! A's never come after her this hard, whereas all the other girls have dealt with murder attempts (sometimes multiple). I can't help but think that the Aria-targeting has something to do with whichever specific members of the A team were in on this plot. Which brings me to: we know Mona was on board the train wearing the same phantom costume as Caleb, and I'm willing to bet that she was the female voice we heard from Aria's perspective (the one who was arguing that they had to push the box off). But clearly she had at least one other accomplice on board, and maybe more -- the person who was wearing the joker costume, most likely a guy given the oversized fake nail clue plus the male voice arguing with Mona. I know Toby is on the A team now (perhaps as a double agent), but I don't think he was the one in the joker costume -- partly because I don't think he would beat up Spencer like that, even if he is evil (wishful thinking?) and partly because on a practical level I think that he was in some of the scenes where we simultaneously see the joker, though I'd have to go back and check. I don't really think the joker was Lucas or Noel because I guess I don't actually think they're A-team. Phoebe B : I agree! I was so surprised to see A go after Aria! The attack though also made me think that the Byron clue was real and that Ezra is now a seriously suspicious character (more than before when he was just a creepy teacher sleeping with his student). The bandage! I didn't even notice that the first time I watched him though I was super surprised at his prompt arrival aboard the Ghost Train (Also, did you notice how the party was a "Rear Window" party? Yay for PLLs love of Hitchcock!). I don't think the joker is Noel since he seemed legitimately surprised by the discovery of Ali's corpse but also I felt like Toby knew that her body was in there and picked a fight in order to reveal it or something. And then Lucas. His camera was down in one scene and he was nowhere to be found, which made me suspicious but he also was extra nice to Hanna at the beginning of the episode, which was surprising. Sarah T : If the person in the joker costume, the one who drugged Aria and beat up Spencer and was defeated by Paige, is the same person as the owner of the male voice who did not want to push the box off the train -- telling his accomplice "You lied to me," "I can't" -- then the person in the joker costume is also the one who Aria stabbed with her screwdriver through the box. So they'd have a wound. And do you know who has a fresh bandage on his hand when he sweeps in unexpectedly to comfort Aria, just as Ali's corpse is revealed chilling in a cooler full of refreshing soft drinks? EZRA FITZ. J'ACCUSE! Phoebe B: Aaaah I don't know! SO many suspects and terrible scary people in Rosewood! What was going on with the creepy ghost in Hanna's house? Is the twin from last year's special also a young Ali? Or is Pastor Ted secretly messing with Ashley? Sarah T: Good question! I think the ghost is real because we've already crossed the border into supernatural with those living dolls from last season. And I do think it would make sense if the ghost is also the ghost of young Ali. Questions: does this mean that Ashley is going to have more conversations with dead people? Can anyone else see the ghost or just her? And can ghosts make phone calls? Phoebe B: Aaah SO creepy! It totally seems like Ali's ghost ... Or her sister's ghost?! But also because I trust nobody and also think Pastor Ted is creepy, I feel like maybe he is involved in the A-team or being creepy in general. But also PLL doesn't usually do supernatural things, thus I'm inclined to believe the ghost is real and like part of some creepy A-related plan. What was your favorite (scariest) moment of the show? Sarah T: Definitely the scariest moment for me was when Aria finds out she's trapped in a box with Garrett's corpse. Aaaaa that freaks me out just thinking about it. But my favorite moment was when Mona sings a creepy  song while painting her paper mache mask and delivering her monologue. This show knows how to give the people what they want! (All Mona all the time.) Phoebe B: When Spencer said to Toby,"you make it so hard to be a modern post-feminist when you get all alpha-male!" And then Toby said, "you want me to stop" and then Spencer said, "no." And then they made out. Ugh. Terrifying. But also, yes for Mona singing! She is so amazingly villainous and wonderful. I also loved when Spencer heard a girl humming on the train (right before Garrett takes her aside) and I presumed it was Mona. Who do you think was buried alive at the shot at the end of the episode? Sarah T: Ali! I think it's Ali having been murdered a second time (post-fake-murder-by-hockey-stick, post-buried alive) and then she gets out and then she gets murdered again . She was having the worst night. Phoebe B : I too think the hand coming out of the ground (which looked like it was in the flashback, right?) was Ali's. But I am so confused! She clearly was having a bad night. But also, maybe it means Ali didn't die that night? But that she killed someone else? And has remained to haunt and destroy people's lives? Or maybe something else entirely? Aaaah I don't want to wait until January to find out more!


Friday, Jun 20, 2008 ?Believe it or not ? I?ve been able to convince people to add more money.? In the spring of 2007, as the mortgage market came unglued, two Bear Stearns executives shared their growing fears in a series of e-mail messages to each other about the perilous condition of the giant hedge funds they oversaw. The two funds had names as abstruse as the complex subprime securities in their portfolios ? High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund and its riskier sister offering, the High Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Fund.


Shakespeare work axed in Arizona schools as law bans 'ethnic studies' William Shakespeare's The Tempest is among a list of banned books in the state of Arizona by a resolution aimed at curbing resentment, government overthrow and ethnic distinction and separation in any district or charter school's curriculum. The Tuscon Unifed School District has announced they will end their 13-year Mexican American Studies Program after found in violation of the June resolution that bans the books during a court appeal this past December. If the ruling was not followed by the district they faced a multimillion-dollar penalty in state funds. Banned: William Shakespeare's play The Tempest was banned by Arizona as part of an ousted Mexican-American ethnic studies program The district had first appealed the June 15, 2011 ruling by Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal to cut the program using the books but it was rejected by an Arizona administrative law judge o n December 27, 2011. PROHIBITED COURSES AND CLASSES IN AZ BY 15-112 : A. A school district or charter school in this state shall not include in its program of instruction any courses or classes that include any of the following: 1. Promote the overthrow of the United States government. 2. Promote resentment toward a race or class of people. 3. Are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group. 4. Advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals. - Arizona State Legislature That resulted in the first planned cut of $5 million to the district's February allotment, according to Arizona Department of Education spokesperson Ryan Ducharme, speaking to the LA Times. More... At issue, the district's Mexican-American program violated the A.R.S.  15-112 which prohibits courses and classes that 'promote the overthrow of the United States government, promote resentment toward a race or class of people, are designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group or advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals , ' according to the Arizona State Legislature. The books used in the program, according to Mr Huppenthal in a statement reported by the Los Angeles times, assert that 'Latino minorities have been and continue to be oppressed by a Caucasian majority.' Pushed: Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal ruled the ban back in June of 2011 which the school district appealed and lost in December resulting in their state funding cut if not followed As it's explained by district spokesperson Cara Rene, the books 'will be cleared from all classrooms, boxed up and sent to the Textbook Depository for storage,' she said, speaking to Salon.com. The Tempest, Shakespeare's play believed to have been penned in the early 1600s by the famous British writer, accounts a banished duke of Milan who seeks revenge through his use of magic while at sea, and is among the list of books banned according to Salon. The list also includes all textbooks that deal with Mexican-American history which 60 per cent of the district's student population share a heritage with, according to Salon. Mr Huppenthal's June ruling originally axed the district's Mexican American Studies program saying that 'we would find it nearly impossible for them to cure the program,' speaking to the LA Times. Worry: The textbook Rethinking Columbus was one of several books banned and accused of teaching that Latino minorities have been and continue to be oppressed by a Caucasian majority 'The problems are so widespread and so deep that it would be very difficult. These are decisions they would have to make,' he said suggesting if the district keeps the Mexican American Studies program they would need to make resulting financial adjustments in sacrifice. If the district had continued the program, they would have lost about $14.4 million over the fiscal year, Mr Ducharme said. That's an amount the school district decided they could not afford. 'In my role as State Superintendent of Public Instruction I have a legal responsibility to uphold the law and a professional imperative to ensure that every student has access to an excellent education,' Mr Huppenthal stated in a release while praising the judge's December ruling. 'In the end, I made a decision based on the totality of the information and facts gathered during my investigation -- a decision that I felt was best for all students in the Tucson Unified School District. The Judge's decision confirms that it was the right decision,' he said. Among that list of books include Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years, a textbook described as 'resources for teaching about the impact of the arrival of Columbus in the Americas,' along with Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Brazilian educator Paolo Freire, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos' by Rodolfo Acua, Chicano!: The History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement by Arturo Rosales, 500 Years of Chicano History in Pictures, by Elizabeth Martinez and Critical Race Theory a textbook by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. The Tempest can be read as an allegory of European conquest of the Americas - Prospero arrives on the island, supplants the witch Sycorax, its former ruler, (I don't remember offhand exactly what happens to her), and enslaves her son Caliban. - Tom B, Springfield, OH, 17/1/2012 14:52 -------------I'm right there with you Tom. I can't make the connection between the issue here and The Tempest for the life of me. I too wish the writer of this "article" would have explained that part. Tom - I agree with you. I think it's a case of liberals ( the media) looking to take up for the liberal agenda even if it means to create lies around it. I live in AZ and I can tell you there is a lot more to this story than what you are reading here. The teachers and administration in charge of the program are promoting anti - American philosophies, teaching things that are not true...basically creating hostility between the Hispanic children and USA and it's history ( typical of liberals) all at the expense of the tax payer. What this boils down to is radicals teaching children that really have no business in the classroom. I've watched and read enough about this to be able to see it for what it is. Tom B. I posted a comment about 4hrs ago and it has not appeared so I can only assume that comments regarding the political climate of the southwest is not allowed, Suffice it to say Shakespeare is the baby and certain parties are content to throw it out. Maybe I'm just having a bad morning but I had to stop reading this article about 3/4 through. It's gibberish. I understand not promoting one race over another but for the life of me can't figure out why Shakespeare is even mentioned in this article. This whole story is just non-sensical garbage. If anyone can help that would be great.


Sweet cherry bliss... So light and fluffy, this cake bursts with juicy cherries and has a moist light crumb... did I mention its light too! It's the kind of cake that's got the bonus of being gluten free too and makes use of whatever beautiful fruits you currently have at hand. I've been playing around with some sour cherries at school of late... Ok we are playing around with a lot of things in the current pastry module... some of which will be up & coming soon...promise! Not only do those little dark mouthfuls burst with flavour, but that sultry liquid that can be adapted for a few more uses down the track (perhaps a roast duck breast with dark cherry sauce? Or as a homemade jelly with some vanilla bean ice cream, or even frozen into little cubes and (left for another day?) It's time for some baking therapy and with the upcoming weekend, I fancy a bit of dark cherry bliss, specifically this Dark Cherry Frangipane. Share this: Like this: I don't know how I never stumbled across this blog before...I've got A LOT of catching up to do, this blog is really awesome! This particular cherry cake looks delicious, I can't wait to see what other things you've been playing around with! Hi Lorna, wow! I'm thrilled you like them because I figure the best part about a good recipe is sharing it with like minded folks Sadly just tinned cherries at this stage but I have to say it was such a moreish cake, ultra moist and a very easy treat... I seem to be more of a teacake kinda gal, not too fussed with icing and frosting but I have a super recipe for the best (glaze in the world) so I might just need another baking session by next week. I've passed your muffin recipe on to a friend too, so it's getting a bit of circulation! I'm with you, I'm not too fussed about icing and frosting on the whole either, although occasionally I'm in the mood for something extra sweet. Hello Cecille, this was a fun tea cake for the weekend and we've been experimenting with dark cherries and fruit for my baking module. I love a clafoutis and some lovely fruit so (very similar) in a way. Thank you for visiting Your photos are stunning! I know this is probably the 100th time I said so, but they just keep getting better and better. You could easily teach a class on how to create beautiful images with your iPhone, honestly! Why don't you write a post for us when time permits. There's so much we can learn from you. Not forgetting the recipe....it looks and sounds delish. Anything with sweet cherries is my weakness. And I'd kill for the dark brown oozy sides! Thank you! It's actually a recipe that we used in the baking module as a tart. I've adapted it to suit a tea cake and (used a similar recipe to the Flourless dark choc torte from a previous post.) I'm thrilled that you enjoy the images because there's no doubt yours are also incredibly beautiful and always so vibrant. I had thought to write a little post on iphoneography, so thank you for the encouragement! As I only use my phone camera I wasn't sure if my tips would be relevant as there are many other blogs which showcase brilliant techniques but if you really want to know more, then I will down the track. Thank you for the compliments! Most folks don't have a DSLR but have an iPhone and I seriously believe that iPhonogtaphy is the future...fast, effective and almost effortless yet brilliant. I know I would love to know more from you on how you use your phone for your blog pictures, the kind of light, the filters, arranging etc. And I bet the rest of your readers would love it too! You know, pictures are worth a thousand words. As a tart or cake, I love this recipe and I'm still waiting for cherry season here so (looking forward to summer.) As for the baking bit I have to apologise as it's the current module till the end of year (but never fear,) there's some juicy Asian recipes coming up, no baking but lots of kitchen fun! Thank you! I don't want to bore you all with my new found pastry techniques but I figure there are some tricks of the trade (which) I shouldn't keep to myself! Nonetheless my next post is about zen masters.... Alice that looks absolutely mouthwatering! I wish I could take a bite right now! Shame our cherry season is past.....you can't find them anywhere! sniff sniff.......But next summer will definitely try this out! Beautiful photos too! Lol, Hi Carla! I have to add that these were tinned cherries and I too am still waiting for the cherry season to hit! I love a nice teacake and weekends are the perfect excuse for baking too. The pics are from the iphone4S using instagram per usual, they have very effective light filter which is useful Happy Snapping! Well in Barcelona there are too many gorgeous foods to eat at any given time of the year no doubt. As for the iphones, I find the apps can help to enhance what the phone already does. At least the 4 has a HD camera too Have a great week! Thank you! I gotta say your clean living and eating really is inspired. How you manage to feed hubby and not have a riot on your hands is beyond me! I amp it up with lots of veggie love to compensate but I do have a pasty habit on the side Thank you! There's a lot of martinis and wine mixed in, so it's not *that* virtuous. And as for your pasties, I have a burrito addiction that has to be fed at least once every other month or so. It's usually worth the tummyache! Thanks Erika, that pic seems to be the all round favourite! It's amazing to think they're just canned cherries but I guess the appeal is in the shiny, glossy exterior (like so many other shiny things too!) I've got a little joke with one of my readers, she's very inspired by my quirky titles sometimes. Thank you for stopping by and visiting both here and on Facebook. Loving your sausage & cider hot pots, along with fresh sausage rolls and jeruselum artichokes too! From Sydney-Australia, this site is dedicated to Girl in a Food Frenzy (aka Alice Lau) and her day to day antics from the kitchen at home to her most recent journey at school as a budding chef! From previous passions in costumes, theatre design & events to more recent ones, ... Continue reading  Follow Blog via Email Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Posted in: Guides Part 1: Infinity From the start, turn around and proceed down the slope to the right. Continue to follow the set pathway through the jungle until you reach the room with the objective marker in it. Along with the dead marine, you will also find a pair of knights. They will teleport away when you drop down into the area. Interact with the objective marker on the ground and then loot the bodies nearby for some UNSC weaponry if you are interested in such things. There is also a box of grenades behind a tree at the far side of the area from where we entered. Climb down the slope when you are ready to go. As you get around halfway down, a good size group of crawlers will appear in the clearing below on the ground and on the various trees, walls and stumps around the area. Once they are gone, work your way into the clearing and when you reach the other side another 8-10 crawlers will emerge from the trees in front along with a knight who will remain in the distance. Kill the lot and then, continue with the path around to the left. Clear any remaining crawlers out of the area as you proceed. As the path becomes narrower, you'll see into the next open area. Kill the watcher and any crawlers you can see before entering to finish off the rest. Continue around the large tree in the center of the zone and down the path opposite the entry. Check out the objective marker on the ground to pick up the Promethean vision ability. When we activate this, we'll now be able to see enemies highlighted in red and be able to see through the fog that lies just ahead. Move forward to the edge of the cliff and use Promethean vision to identify the knight and 7-8 crawlers below. Kill them all before dropping down to their level and heading to the right. Once you can go no further, look for a slope leading upwards to your right and kill the knight and the small group of crawlers that come down it. Climb the ramp and then ascend the tree roots to the left. Enter the clearing nearby and examine the objective marker. Proceed a little further, and as you reach the top of the slope leading down to the next area, 6-7 crawlers will run by. Kill them all as you enter the area. Once they are dead, continue around the corner to the right and kill the knight, watcher and another group of crawlers here. Remember to use the Promethean vision to tack down all of those pesky crawlers who might be hiding. Proceed into the area with the objective marker, kill any crawlers lurking about and then jump up to the structure approach the door for a short story scene. Part 2: Reunited Exit the building and turn to the right, kill the watcher, the pair of knights and large group of crawlers in the immediate area. Proceed further into the jungle when it is clear and follow the path to the left and up the ramp.  Continue along the winding path here until you encounter a group of three crawlers and a knight. Deal with them before continuing. When you reach the group of marines under fire, continue down the slope and help them repel the crawlers, knights and watchers in the open area beyond their cover position. When it gets quite, hop the marine's defenses and clear out any remaining enemies before proceeding to the structure at the afar end of the area. As you approach a knight, a pair of watchers and another small group of crawlers will ambush you. During this encounter, a pair of Promethean laser emplacements may also be activated, so if they do, destroy them as well. Once everything is dead, head for the structure. Place Cortana into the socket on the pillar to the right of the door and then defend the area for a few moments whilst she does her thing. You will have to fight off a healthy number of crawlers and a few knights, any remaining marines will help you out and there is also a gun turret here to make things easier if you wish to use it. Once time is up, Cortana will let you know she is finished and the door will open, giving you access to the next area. We'll be in a large open cave. We need to clear it of all enemies to create a landing zone. As you exit the tunnel, note that covenant and Promethean forces are now working together! Kill the knight and 5-6 grunts in front. Move into the main part of the cave and you will see a watcher, a couple of knights and a good number of jackals and grunts. Once you have killed a few of the baddies here, a couple of phantoms will show up and drop off some additional covenant grunts and jackals, additionally a couple of extra knights seem to appear at this point too. Now all we need to do is simply clear the area until a friendly ship shoes up. Run over to it and wait until a scene plays. Part 3: The Gun Show From the start, run down the hill to the right and jump into the scorpion tank. After entering the tank, continue forward in the direction the tank is facing and use the tank shells to deal with any bad guys that get in your way. We're essentially going to follow the linear path through covenant lines until we reach an open area. Make sure to destroy any ghosts that approach and destroy the wraiths in your path as well, you can also blow up all the the sniper hover towers along the way if you are into that kind of thing. Once you reach the tunnel leading down, cruise to the bottom and park the tank on the circular platform. Ride it up to the inside of the Infinity. We are in a cargo bay of sorts and there are a large number of covenant forces here. There are hunters, grunts and elites. They should not bother you at all with the tank though, so take them all down. Once everything is dead, you'll receive a transmission from the captain. Hop out of the tank and continue through the open door. Hit the switch at the top of the ramp inside. Part 4: Shining Armor Climb into the mantis. This is a suit of armor equipped with missiles and a mini-gun. Use the weapons to destroy the door at the bottom of the ramp and enter the hole you create. As with the previous tank section, the mantis is borderline indestructible on normal difficulty and still pretty sturdy on higher difficulties as well so it goes without saying that you'll need to kill an abundance of enemies, kill anything that gets in the way. Continue along the long hallway here and turn to the right. At the end of the hallway, turn left and continue up the ramp. At the top turn left and continue along the pathway and enter the door at the end. Kill the enemies inside and ride the lift up. Part 5: Eviction Proceedings Exit the lift and continue through the door at the end of the short hallway. We are now in an outdoor area. In the centre is a giant gun turret that we need to activate. To do this we need to destroy three covenant signal jammers. These are located against the far wall of the room as we enter, unfortunately there are a lot of enemies hanging out in this room. The lot of them can easily be taken down with rockets and a few rounds of the minigun. When you are ready, destroy the three marked jammers. As you destroy them, a number of phantoms will swoop in to drop off additional covenant forces for you to blow up. Note that you can destroy the turrets on the bottoms of the phantoms so that they cannot shoot at you. Eliminate the enemies that they drop off. This will cause a number of banshees to come in and attack the area. Whilst this is going down another pair of phantoms will come in to drop off troops. Kill them all and continue to shoot down banshees until the objective is complete. When prompted to do so, hop out of the mantis and activate the marked switch. After a few moments, a story scene will play to complete the mission.


You have to be kidding.... Okay, agreed. There's nothing about Stephen Harper that suggests he is a big joker.  He doesn't speak in public except in modulated monotones.  Very reassuring, like Prozac.  No off-script moments of hilarity.  No pirouettes in the hallways. But I had to wonder.  Was he going for political satire? Some sort of self-referential pop cultural joke in kicking off the budget implementation bill debate?  I mean, he must have read Andrew Coyne's piece in the National Post . Noting that a huge number of non-budgetary matters are stuffed in the over 420 pages of C-38, much of it dramatically changing environmental laws, Coyne wrote, "This is not remotely a budget bill, despite its name," further noting that while throwing non-budgetary matters into a budget bill is not unknown, in C-38, "The scale and scope are on a level not previously seen, or tolerated."  (Or if the PM didn't read it, he must have people who read it for him and left post-it notes somewhere he would see saying, "Coyne and others seem to have noticed the budget bill is crammed full of new laws to remove environmental protection. Offence to democracy alleged...must deflect.") No sign of recognizing anger is stirring across the land. They went for the Full Monty as it were.  No shame. The kick-off speaker to the Budget Implementation Bill?  Not the Minister of Finance. No sir. What would Flaherty have to say about a budget bill anyway?  The lead Conservative Speaker was Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.  Say it ain't so, Joe. He gave the standard Harper "energy super power" message. It goes like this: Canada is an energy super-power -- in the same way a business in bankruptcy is a super-power. Everything must go.  We are running out of time to sell everything fast.  Oil-hungry markets won't wait. Really?  "We need to act quickly," said Joe Oliver in the House on Wednesday.  But the existing pipeline infrastructure is, according to Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers projections, sufficient to meet demand until oil sands production expands by 150%. (Testimony of former government petroleum geologist, J. David Hughes, to the NEB Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project). Minister Oliver cited many statistics from the International Energy Agency (IEA), establishing that the world is energy-hungry and oil-thirsty...without once mentioning the IEA urgent warnings about the climate crisis.  The IEA is screaming from the rooftops (figuratively speaking, but the reports are increasingly frantic) that time is running out to reduce dependency on fossil fuels to avoid the catastrophic impacts of climate change at its worst. No reference either to Mr. Harper's promise to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies (now there's a budget measure), promised in 2009 at the G-20, underscored in every IEA report as an urgent step, which the PM has steadfastly ignored.  No reference to the International Energy Agency advice that Canada needs to put a price on carbon. And then for more laughs, in answer to a question from one of his colleagues, Mr. Oliver said, "Mr. Speaker, the whole point of this exercise is to ensure that we have a robust environmental review of major projects...  under the aegis of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency." Now, in fairness to Mr. Oliver, there is no particular reason he should know much about the environmental laws C-38 is destroying. He is not the author of this strategy; the Prime Minister is.  And the fact that Canada doesn't have an agency called the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency is not something he has to know...Peter Kent should know it, and, of course, he spoke next. No sign of the finance minister...but what would he have to contribute to a debate about freeing the oilsands and mining from the tyranny of environmental laws.  I expected to hear, "Free at last, free at last..." from some conservative script, recycling the end of the long-gun registry invocation of the Rev. Martin Luther King in more triumphalist Libertarian oratory. With 420 pages plus of detailed, complex and sweeping changes to laws originally passed decades ago, any thought that there was even a hint of shame in the Conservative strategy was dashed. Within the first hours of debate, Peter Van Loan made a motion to invoke time allocation on Bill C-38. After all, we are in a hurry. None of this is funny.  It is an outrage.  PLEASE, if you are angry, say so. Please insist that your MP work to pull the environmental laws impacted by this bill ( Canadian Environmental Assessment Act*, Fisheries Act, Navigable Waters Protection Act, Species at Risk Act, Canadian Environmental Protection Act, National Round Table on Environment and Economy Act*, Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act*) , out of the so-called budget bill. (Note: the bills marked with * are repealed in C-38. CEAA is replaced with a brand new, gutted version of environmental assessment law, which, at this rate will be passed by the end of June -- without a single day of hearings before the environment committee). I read your blog with growing alarm (although I like the sarcasm in there).  I would take your advice, but I am sadly in the riding of Mr. Clement.  (And that's another issue that just makes me want to scream or something more.  I have written to Mr. Clement's office--and not received any reply.  If I could have one wish for this country is that we had a representative system that really did have to work together for the common good.  Harper and cronies really don't get it.  And we and our children and grandchildren--7 generations or more--will end up paying for their greed. I am open to suggestions beyond haranging a man who won't care anyway. At some point, progressive governments, whenever they get elected need to simply do the same thing -- simply pass an omnibus bill that repeals the conservative one.  I don't understand why it never happens.  Why do progressives have to show civility and reasonableness when the other side does not?  The omnibus bill goes against the spirit of proper parliamentary process -- it simply should be undone whenever possible and then after it is repealed, we can discuss the possible merits of anything that may have been contained in it. Perhaps corporate interests would demand a little more civility in the future if this were the case. There have been a number of observers who have suggested that the only recourse may be for the opposition to ignore the call to vote upon this undemocratic Omnibus bill which effectively shows NO respect for either the wishes of the majority of Canadians OR the need for open and prolonged debate of all portions of such bills. At least untill such time as it is split into seperate bills as a minmum goal. In reading about the previous occurrence of such action in the House it would seem as if even this option has been removed. Perhaps Elizabeth with her extensive knowledge of parliamentary procedures would care to comment upon this possibility. "After a particularly acrimonious two-week continuous sitting during a filibuster of the Bill early in 1913, the government brought forward a motion on April 9, 1913, to amend the Standing Orders. As a result of this incident, rules were adopted which, among other things, introduced closure. After an uncharacteristically long debate on the motion, the rules were adopted on April 23, 1913 ( Journals , April 9, 1913, pp. 451-2; April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9; Debates , April 9, 1913, cols. 7388-414). Second, decades later, in what is known as the "Bell ringing" episode, changes were made to the Standing Orders in order to prevent a recurrence of the situation that took place in March 1982 when division bells were rung continuously for two weeks." I note that I too am in the riding of a Harper 'yes man' and on the few previous occasions I have had contact with him all I get is a regurgitation of the party line. I no longer waste my time contacting him! May I suggest, in addition to the letters and emails, make PHONE CALLS to your mp and the prime minister this time. Leave messages with their admin, ask for a call back. Call again. Let's do this en masse. If you get a hold of them - hold them to account for the confusing nature of the bill, ASK them questions about it! Even if you do this politely, it will become obvious - they didn't know what was in it EITHER! Please please call! http://www.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliamen\\...


Does anyone wake up in the middle of the night? Does anyone wake up in the middle of the night, or is it just me? I usually wake up to go potty but sometimes it's for no real reason. The last thing I'll eat is usually the only cooked food of the day and that is usually 2-3 hours before I go to bed. Help? No that definitely makes sense because I really do need to get more active. Weird though because last night I did play soccer for about 2 hours and I still woke up. Maybe if I get into a routine though it'll turn out better. Thanks! i used to have same problem for the answer was eating more which was suggested ONLY here are 30bad .  its said here that our body stays awake cuz its wants food . to me a reasonable theory . and it worked for me . also agree strongly with Vice  you got move and work the body for it to sleep wonderfully though the night... One of the possible reasons for waking up is that the pain is supposed to be the strongest at night, between 1 and 3 in the morning, the pain that you might not even be aware when you're awake... it might be joints, headaches, menstrual pain, or some other types. At what time do you usually wake up? So I should have mentioned this. I go to bed around 8-10 pm (10 occasionally) and usually wake up around 3, sometimes even around 5 am but I'm thinking thats ok maybe. Interesting about the pain thing, could you tell me more? Yes i have experienced this alot! Especially when I have gone back from all low fat raw to trying to incorporate a cooked evening meal again. Cooked food is so filling that it is easy to not get enough calories in at that last meal!! So don't save your calories for this meal!!! You think you're sooo full and then your day finishes and you go to bed and then you wake up between 2-3am(that's usually the magic time when I wake up and know I have not eaten enough) The problem with the cooked food is that I find it numbs you alot and I find I have a hard time distinguishing my hunger until it wakes me from my sleep literally! It could be also possible that you are dehydrated, make sure you go to bed with clear pee-if not drink water until it is. When I wake up in the night I will first drink some water to make sure-if i still can't fall asleep I will eat a high water content fruit like grapes (just what I prefer) than I always fall asleep. It's better to eat something rather than not I find. It really helps me! I do try not to eat late at night as much as possible though! I've learned that it is so so important to get those calories in early on in the day- if not it has come back to haunt me in my sleep;) This still happens even when I'm completely raw too, but again it'd due to not eating enough majority of the time or sometimes dehydration.. I just find it happens way to frequently when I have gone back to cooked for a few days-again the cooked meal really messes with my system on a whole now. If you are waking up to just pee well that seems fine- I wake up a few times a night just to pee and then right back to dream land I go:) I hope this helps. If you think that this is the problem, really focus on those fruit calories during the day! Load up so your cooked portion won't be so large at the end of the day. Are you planning to go all raw eventually? If not just still make sure load up on fruit through out the day either way. P.s when I wake up at that hour I don't experience hunger pains or growling-it feels more like dehydration, like a feeling in the throat-I say this because you may not think your hungry but you might very well be. It took me sometime to realize this. Yeah, so I do pack mostly raw fruits and veggies during the day and just a little bit of cooked food later in the day. Nonetheless, I think I need to increase my calorie intake and start exercising again. I'll try to drink more water too! I am planning on going raw one day. I did raw for about 3 weeks but couldn't (physically) get the calories in so thats why I am doing the cooked meal. Thanks for the insight thought and I'll pay attention to the throat thing, that's interesting. Waking up between 3 am and 5 am is a sign of cortisol imbalances. You may have elevated cortisol-levels (cortisol is a stress hormone). This can be due to too little eating. Maybe some walking and stretching could calm you down and some changes to your diet would help as well. Maybe you don't eat enough. If you feel extremely dehydrated, that can be a sign of hormonal imbalances (elevated cortisol for example) as well. I did the same thing for years on cooked food, for me when I changed to high raw i found that bananas relax me and make me a little sleepy so I have a lot of bananas for dinner or a banana smoothie.  i sleep through the night and when i do get up to use the bathroom i can go right back to sleep.  Might help.