text:
Action Steps: A decade of civil society advocacy in the information society
The purpose of this review was to look back over the past decade of country reports published in Global Information Society Watch (GISWatch) and attempt to identify trends in civil society perspectives on what needed to be done to create a people-centred information society. The period for analysis was, more accurately, just over a decade: 2007-2017, during which a GISWatch report was produced each year – a total of 11 reports. Over this period, 510 country reports covering 97 countries were published, a substantial record of civil society activism on information and communications technology (ICT) and internet rights. Over 1,900 advocacy recommendations – what were called "action steps" – were proposed by authors.
The first edition of GISWatch was published by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and Third World Institute (ITeM) in 2007 on the theme of "Participation" – two years after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, and just after the first Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Athens in late 2006. With the WSIS action agenda then firmly in mind, it was conceived as a "space for collaborative monitoring of implementation of international (and national) commitments made by governments towards the creation of an inclusive information society." The first edition reflected this priority – it offered a "WSIS review" in three reports by David Souter and Willie Currie, institutional overviews of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the UN Development Programme (UNDP), and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), as well as a section on "indicators for advocacy" by Amy Mahan, which framed the 22 country reports that followed.
Over the years, GISWatch often responded to rapidly emerging advocacy needs – for example, the edition on ICTs and the environment in 2010 sought to help build knowledge and capacity among internet rights activists on the burgeoning challenge of e-waste, while also considering the pressing problem of climate change, mitigation and adaptation. In 2014, the theme of surveillance followed Edward Snowden's revelations of global surveillance networks and growing suspicions at the country level that many governments were engaged in unsupervised or even illegal surveillance activities. In other years, themes coincided with global events, or responded to the need to capture and understand emerging experiences. In 2011, an edition on democratisation, freedom of expression and association followed the so-called Arab Spring, while, most recently, the focus on national IGFs – or National and Regional Internet Governance Forum Initiatives (NRIs) – captured country-level experiences of creating collaborative internet governance spaces for deliberation just over a decade after the first IGF in Athens.
Some noticeable shifts in the information society occur over the period of this review. Firstly, the pace of change in infrastructure roll-out and the increase in the number of internet users are at times staggering. The "information society" – a term which begins to feel somewhat anachronistic – written about in 2007 is not the same one internet rights activists confront in 2017. As the reports show, in 2007 terms such as "universal access" and "universal service" still had widespread currency, and teledensity was still a useful indicator for assessing connectedness. Some countries needed to be convinced that ICT policy was necessary, and that, at the very least, ICTs should be made an integral part of development strategies.
In 2007, 20.4% of the world's population was online – a percentage that rises to 45.7% in 2016, with a world population growth of nearly a billion people. Countries are dramatically affected by these changes: in 2007, there is 0.37% internet penetration in Ethiopia, a figure which effectively skyrockets to 15.3% over 10 years. In middle-income countries like Argentina, a 25.9% internet penetration nearly trebles in reaching 70.9% in 2016. In highly developed countries such as Japan, a 74.3% penetration in 2007 grows to 93.1% by 2016. While some countries like the Republic of Congo still face fundamental problems such as building roads and stable electricity grids, by 2017 many internet rights activists are turning to face new advocacy terrain, one shaped by algorithms, biotechnology and artificial intelligence.
A second shift is the popularisation of social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which over time civil society comes to see both as useful advocacy tools and areas that need advocacy intervention, for example, to address violence against women (VAW) online. In April 2007, Facebook had 20 million active users – a figure which exploded to two billion monthly users in 2017. Yet it is almost difficult to believe that while blogs had been used in advocacy for some time already, and social media played such a prominent part in the Arab Spring, in 2007 the words "social media" or "social networks" are not used in the GISWatch edition on the theme of participation at all.
Thirdly, the spectre of global surveillance – and what activists call corporate surveillance, the result of an insatiable thirst for "big" market data – has had multiple impacts on the internet as we knew it. The revelations by Snowden of global surveillance programmes involving the key industrialised nations came in June 2013, exposing the use of the internet and other technologies to surveil citizens, often illegally and in collaboration with telecommunications companies. The ability to conduct mass surveillance programmes tracks the penetration of mobile telephony and the rise of social media as an everyday tool – and casts a chilling shadow over the belief in the internet as a free space for open and democratic exchange.
All three of these shifts have influenced the trends observed in the reports analysed for this review – and in this respect GISWatch stands as a grassroots record of these changes and their impact on the information society at the local level. This is not an analysis of the content of specific "action steps". As discussed in the methodology section below, the sheer volume and diversity of the specific changes called for makes direct comparison difficult, and requires a different kind of study. Rather, this review tries to answer the question: What are the broad levers for change? In doing this it offers a reflection on the kinds of mobilisation tools, mechanisms and methodologies preferred by civil society in specific contexts to bring about or catalyse change. Content is used to illustrate the grouping of these tools and mechanisms. While not all of these are actions that civil society can take – some reports say what governments or business should do – most of them are. The action steps discussed here can, in this regard, be taken as an indicator of civil society capabilities, suggesting civil society's impression of its own strengths and abilities.
This report is also an index – it serves as a way to access the 510 country reports published over the past decade in a more fruitful way. While each GISWatch has an umbrella theme – such as "Access to infrastructure" or "Women's rights, gender and ICTs" – country report authors were encouraged to write on topics that they felt were important within that theme. For example, the umbrella topic "Economic, social and cultural rights and the internet" might produce reports highlighting quite different topics such as "education", "health", "language", "voice", "workers' rights" and even "memory". As a result, while many authors address cross-cutting themes in different years, there is no way for a researcher, journalist, strategist, activist, donor or student to know this without combing each report. It is hoped that this publication is a practical and useful entry point to the richness of the GISWatch archive.
The diversity of the country contexts written about over the 10 years is remarkable – countries as different as the Republic of Congo, Iceland, Cook Islands, Brazil, Japan and Kyrgyzstan have been "reported on". Over the years, consistent contributions have come from authors writing in countries such as Argentina, Colombia, India, Kenya, Peru, and, except for 2007, the Republic of Korea – an invaluable record of country-level internet rights advocacy over the period. Among the authors are civil society organisations, "hacktivists" and software developers, journalists, researchers and academics – all of these can be considered internet rights activists. For some contributors it was the first opportunity they had had to develop an overview of the ICT environment in their country and to articulate ways in which civil society could engage this environment.
Most regions have been represented in one way or another: North and Central America, Latin America and the Caribbean, the Balkan states, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Russia and China, Southeast Asia, Oceania, the Middle East and North Africa, Southern and Eastern Africa, and French-speaking Africa. While most of the countries are so-called "developing countries" – the aim of GISWatch is to be a voice of the global South – country reports have also been written about Switzerland, the Netherlands, France, Iceland, Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, among other industrialised nations.
Although what gets "watched" or monitored has shifted over time, what has not changed is the original spirit of the publication: of it serving as a tool for global accountability on progress in creating an open, democratic and inclusive information society. In 2007, TIC.pe in Peru posed several questions for civil society actors, and asked: "How can we move from reflection to direct action?"
This review is a starting point for action – and we hope that activists can use it as a tool for build- ing future strategies. It can be read in conjunction with a similar review on the issue of internet rights and democratisation conducted in 2011 by APC. While it can shed light on gaps in advocacy approaches when addressing new advocacy frontiers, it also suggests that there are advocacy needs from the past that may require renewed attention.
This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of IDRC or its Board of Governors.
Attachment | Размер |
Special report 2018 | 644.5 KB |


text:
We offer three options for our black bear hunts:
Trophy West offers rifle, black powder and bow hunting for BC black bear. You also have a choice of either land based lodge hunting trips or boat based black bear hunting trips.
Vancouver Island is home to an abundant population of trophy black bears. If you were to look up "black bear habitat" in the dictionary there would be a picture of Vancouver Island, British Columbia. This area is geographically diverse and ranges from lush river estuaries and coastal beaches at sea level, into river valleys covered in temperate rain forests to high mountain alpine abundant with flourishing berry patches. Perfect terrain for both rifle and bow hunting for trophy BC black bear!
British Columbia boasts the highest populations of black bear in North America with Vancouver Island having the highest density of black bears in British Columbia, Canada. Game records show the Vancouver Island region to have produced more successful black bear hunts than any other area in British Columbia. It is as good an area to spot and stalk big black bears as there exists today.
Responsible game management has always been our top priority at Trophy West. We have maintained a harvest level each season which ensures that the size and quality of our black bears remains consistent. It is because of this limited harvest that nearly 100% of our black bears qualify for the SCI record book each year. You can expect to harvest a BC black bear in the 6' to 7'+ range. We have no color phases other than jet black, although some bears will sport a white blaze on their chest. Hide quality is exceptional throughout the spring season.
Our black bear season begins April 15 through June 15.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Nietzsche claimed that if men took God seriously, they would still be burning heretics at the stake. In the same spirit, one supposes, are the notions that if men really cherished moral truth, they would suppress all beliefs that they considered wrong, and that if men still cared about the sanctity of the marriage bed, they would go back to making adulterers wear the scarlet A.
Today two different groups of people agree with conditional statements of this sort. In the first group are the ordinary bigots, who are always among us. The second are a kind of modern backlash—call it the reaction—found principally among the "cultural elite." For instance, whereas the bigots respond to Nietzsche's conditional by saying, "Yes, that's why we should burn heretics," the reactionaries respond to it by saying, "No, that's why we should suppress the public expression of belief in God."
These reactionaries claim to love tolerance, but, misunderstanding it, they strangle it in their embrace. Their creed is that intolerance is born at the same moment as public moral commitments; that morality must therefore be a "private" affair; that in order to say that tolerance is a good, we must forbear to say aloud that anything else is good or evil. Their god is Neutrality. In certain intellectual regions he travels under other names such as Autonomy and Rights.
We meet this jealous and negating god on the philosophic right, where conservatives like Michael Oakeshott tell us that the specific and limited activity of "governing" has "nothing to do" with natural law or morals. We encounter him on the philosophic left, where liberals like John Rawls and Marxists like Jurgen Habermas invent devices like the Veil of Ignorance and the Ideal Speech Situation to convince us that if we wish to understand truly the principles of justice, we must pretend to forget not only who we are, but also everything we ever thought we knew about good and evil. We meet this god in law, where many jurists treat ethical distinctions such as "family" vs. "non-family" as "invidious classifications" that deny citizens the equal protection of the law. We meet him in education, where elementary school children are offered books like Daddy's Roommate, Heather Has Two Mommies, and Gloria Goes to Gay Pride. In fact, we meet this god everywhere: in the university, in the movie theatre, in many churches and synagogues, and, it goes without saying, on the even more ubiquitous altar of the television.
It might seem remarkable that people who insist that tolerance means moral neutrality should themselves be so earnest in ridiculing those who aren't neutral. But of course, they themselves aren't neutral either. The scandal of Neutrality is that its worshipers cannot answer the question "Why be neutral?" without committing themselves to particular goods—social peace, self-expression, self-esteem, ethnic pride, or what have you—thereby violating their own desideratum of Neutrality. Yet even this is merely a symptom of a deeper problem, namely, there is no such thing as Neutrality. It isn't merely unachievable, like a perfect circle; it is unthinkable and unapproachable, like a square circle. Whether we deem it better to take a stand or be silent, we've offended this god in the very act of deeming.
To see the folly of neutralism is one thing; to escape from it is another. Many who understand perfectly well that tolerance cannot be defended by suspending judgment about goods and evils have difficulty defending it in any other way. They suspect the worst: that if neutrality is a square circle, then so is tolerance, along with all of its component virtues like objectivity and fairness. They fear that by leaving the reactionaries, they will join with the ordinary bigots. They are right to fear this trap, but make the difficulty of avoiding it greater than it is.
Properly understood, what is this thing called tolerance? What does it really demand of us? What do we need in order to come by it? Let's see if we can work this out.
The truth is, we already know the answer in part. To tolerate something is to put up with it even though we might be tempted to suppress it. The next step, then: which things are we tempted to suppress? Here, too, we know the answer: we are tempted to suppress those things that we deem mistaken, painful, wrong, harmful, offensive, or in some other way unworthy of approval.
Now, we use the term "temptation" when our hearts solicit us either to do something we ought not do or to forbear from doing something we ought to do. But shouldn't we suppress the things that we deem mistaken, painful, wrong, harmful, offensive, and so on? The answer is, sometimes we should, and sometimes we shouldn't. For instance, it's certainly not acceptable to tolerate the act of rape. But it is certainly right to put up with the profession, by rational argument, of opinions that we deem mistaken.
What makes these two cases different? In one respect, of course, they are just the same. Whichever we endeavored to suppress—rape, or the profession of false opinions—we would presumably be trying to avert particular evils, or, if you prefer, to protect particular goods. The goods that are injured in the act of rape include the dignity of the woman, her physical and emotional well-being, and the integrity of a certain pattern of relationships between men and women, a pattern that depends on trust rather than fear. Similarly the goods that are injured in the act of professing false opinions include the clear knowledge of the truth, the public recognition of its value, and the integrity of a certain pattern of conduct, a pattern that depends on right judgment rather than error. By suppressing rape we would be trying to protect the first set of goods; by suppressing the profession of false opinions, the latter.
And so it is with every case. People may not agree about what is good and what is evil; or they may be mistaken about what is good and what is evil. They may even call evil good, and good, evil. But every time someone wants to suppress something, we can be sure he is attempting to prevent what he thinks, rightly or wrongly, to be evil; alternately, to protect something he thinks, rightly or wrongly, to be good. Why, then—to return to the question—do we sometimes tolerate an evil, or put up with an injury to a good?
The answer is not, as some people hold, skepticism. Take the case of conducting a debate, a practice notorious for tolerating the evil of false opinions. There are three kinds of skeptics: the utter skeptic, who is in doubt about all things; the partial skeptic, who is in doubt about some things; and the non-skeptic, who is in doubt about nothing whatsoever. Can the utter skeptic say, "Because all is in doubt, all should be heard"? No, he has rather to say, "The rightness of hearing and the rightness of silencing are equally in doubt; I cannot tell you which to choose." Can the partial skeptic say, "I don't believe in debate"? Yes, but he might instead say, "I am in doubt about what is true in general. But I'm sure that truth is good, I'm sure that exchange of discursive reasoning will help to find it, and I'm sure about the kind of manners that such exchange requires." And third, can the non-skeptic say, "To put up with falsehood is wrong"? Yes, but he might instead say this: "Although I am sure of every truth, one such truth is that the exercise of rebutting error will sharpen the insight I already possess, and another is that it may convert my opponent." We see that only the non-skeptic and the partial skeptic can deal with debate. Neither does it because of what he doubts; each does it because of what he doesn't doubt. Each tolerates falsehood for the sake of truth.
Once we see this, the real reason that we sometimes tolerate evils or put up with injuries to good becomes clear: We do it to prevent graver evils, or to advance greater goods. For there is a certain paradox in this business of suppressing evils: the act of suppression itself may give rise to evils. In fact it often does. Because this is so, we must always put the two evils, the evil that suppression engenders and the evil that it prevents, on a scale. When the evil that suppression engenders equals or exceeds the evil that it prevents, we ought to put up with the thing in question instead of suppressing it.
This paradox is the very basis of the virtue of tolerance. But on closer examination we see that there are two cases, in one of which the paradox is more pronounced than the other.
The less paradoxical case is one in which the goods that are protected by suppression and those injured by suppression are different. For example, at the same time that we consider suppressing the profession of false opinions for the sake of truth, we might consider tolerating their profession for the sake of peace. Truth and peace are both goods, but of course they are not the same good. First we have to decide which of the two goods is of higher order, because that one trumps the other. If they are of the same order, then we must resort to judgments of degree. One need not suppose that judgment has mathematical precision; only that there is such a thing as judgment.
In the other, more paradoxical, case, the goods that are protected by suppression and the goods that are injured by suppression are the same. For example, at the same time that we consider suppressing the profession of false opinions for the sake of truth, we might consider tolerating their profession—at least their profession by rational argument—also for the sake of truth. On the side of suppression we might plead, "After all, the opinions in question are false, aren't they? Then isn't it a gain to get rid of them?" But on the side of toleration, we might ask, "But what better engine have we for honing truth than to try it against error in a fair fight?" In this case we don't have to decide which of two goods is of higher order, because there is only one good at issue. But we do have to compare different hypotheses about what really promotes that good.
Each of these cases reveals a different element in the practice of tolerance: the first, in which the good that suppression protects is different from the one it injures, holds up right judgment in the protection of greater ends against lesser ends; the second, in which the goods protected by suppression and injured by suppression are the same, holds up right judgment in the protection of ends against mistaken means.
In the end, element two goes more to the heart of the matter. The ends with which a given end comes into conflict are largely a matter of circumstance. The question of by which means a given end cannot, by its nature, be pursued, is a constant.
If the constant element in the practice of tolerance is right judgment in the protection of ends against mistaken means, then the constant element in intolerance is false judgment in the protection of ends against mistaken means.
Right away we see that intolerance shows itself in two different ways, for we can err in either of two different directions. One way is by an excess of indulgence—putting up with something we should suppress. Let's call this the error of softheadedness. The other way that we can err is by a deficiency of indulgence—suppressing what we should put up with. Let's call this the error of narrowmindedness. Each of these two opposite errors is a deviation from true tolerance; each of them therefore has the same claim to the name of "intolerance."
This may at first sound odd, because our language has so far reserved the word "intolerance" for narrowmindedness. By contrast, consider courage, which is easier to talk about than tolerance. Although we do sometimes forget that rashness as well as cowardice is opposed to true courage, at least we aren't burdened by a term, say "in-courage," that could be applied only to cowardice and not to rashness. It seems that either we prefer the error of softheadedness to the error of narrowmindedness, or else we don't realize that softheadedness is an error at all. But this is a deep confusion. It is just as much a deviation from true tolerance to put up with rape as it is to suppress the profession of false opinions advanced by rational argument.
Thus far we have three possibilities: two kinds of wrong judgment in the protection of ends against mistaken means, and one kind of right judgment in the protection of ends against mistaken means. Expressed in this way, what we have are three points that appear to be floating in space. Of course there is a flaw in this mental diagram. The three need to be arranged along a continuum which is bounded by two extremes, the one excessive, the one deficient; the one softheaded, the other narrowminded. Because just how indulgent we are toward something—just how much we put up with it, just where we fall between the two extremes—is a matter of degree. For instance, we might make some act a crime. Or we might shun those who do it, but without going so far as criminalization. Or we might try to persuade the wrongdoers to change their ways without going so far as to shun them. Or we might ignore them. Or we might encourage them. We might even reward them. The truly tolerant point will always be somewhere between the two endpoints of the continuum, its location depending on the act in question and on the circumstances. But precisely where it is along this line will vary. The location of true tolerance can be determined only by the exercise of case-by-case judgment about the goods and the evils involved. Just as true courage is a mean between rashness and cravenness, and true friendliness is a mean between obsequiousness and boorishness, so true tolerance is a mean between softheadedness and narrowmindedness.
This leads us to the following propositions.
(1) Tolerance cannot be neutral about what is good, for its very purpose is to guard goods and avert evils.
(2) Tolerance is not a moral rule, a moral attitude, a moral feeling, or a moral capacity, but a moral virtue. Further, although tolerance is not one of the moral virtues that Aristotle discussed, it is a moral virtue of the Aristotelian type. For it is a mean between two opposed vices, one of them characterized by excess and the other by deficiency, its location to be discovered in the case-by-case exercise of practical wisdom.
(3) The circumstantial element in the practice of tolerance is right judgment in the protection of greater ends against lesser ends. This is no different from any exercise of practical wisdom, except insofar as its constant element, right judgment in the protection of ends against mistaken means, makes it special.
To be sure, this is only a formal answer to the question of what tolerance is. It directs us toward the exercise of practical wisdom—of well-founded judgment about the goods and evils involved in putting up with things. To give a substantive answer to the question of what tolerance is, however, would be no small matter; even if one had the necessary wisdom to do it, the space of a single article could never suffice.
Still, the merely formal definition of tolerance does do certain work for us. For instance:
The fact that tolerance is a moral virtue of the Aristotelian type tells us a great deal about its relation to the others. For those of us who wonder how, if at all, tolerance might be taught, this relation carries powerful implications.
In addition, religion presents the acid test for tolerance. For the loyalty that it concerns is ultimate; if tolerance cannot survive it, then tolerance cannot survive. However, the special role of tolerance in protecting ends against mistaken means gives us the one clue we need to unscrew this inscrutable.
Explaining the first of these two points is the burden of the next section. Explaining the second is the burden of the last.
All moral virtues—or at the very least those of the Aristotelian type—are interdependent. The classical demonstration of this truth, which derives from Thomas Aquinas, pivots on the relation of these virtues to practical wisdom. For every moral virtue depends on practical wisdom; hence if practical wisdom is impaired, then every moral virtue is impaired. But on the other side, practical wisdom depends on every moral virtue; hence if any moral virtue is impaired, practical wisdom is impaired. It follows, then, that through practical wisdom, a flaw in any moral virtue entails a flaw in every other.
Think, by way of illustration, of the virtue of courage. Courage involves a mean between fear and daring—as we said before, enough fear to avoid being rash, enough daring to avoid being craven. But because the right balance between fear and daring varies from case to case, the habit of courage must be informed by practical wisdom. But how, on the other side, does practical wisdom depend on every moral virtue? Again, consider courage. In thinking of its exercises, our imaginations usually go no further than pain and death. Aristotle himself thought no evil could be greater. But this is false: to be held in contempt is more fearful, and vice, if it is not, certainly ought to be. To achieve practical wisdom, one needs enough fear to be vigilant of error and enough daring to risk it in pursuit of truth. To hold onto such wisdom, one needs enough fear to dread its loss and enough daring to risk contempt in its defense.
The same relation exists between practical wisdom and every other moral virtue. Using a bicycle wheel as our model, the moral virtues are to spokes as practical wisdom is to the hub. We all know what happens when we use a bicycle wheel with a damaged spoke. Before long, the others give in, too, and the wheel gets more and more out of true. This is the classical thesis of the unity of the virtues. If one virtue bends, then every virtue bends.
Everyday experience corroborates this. We don't even have to go through the hub, for without implying their equality we may say that all the moral virtues are connected at the rim. Tolerance is addled in the unfriendly man; friendship is addled in the dishonest man; honesty is addled in the unjust man; justice is addled in the loveless man; love is addled in the hopeless man; hope is addled in the impatient man; and patience is addled in the intolerant man. So the wheel is closed.
Thus tolerance is one of the moral virtues, and depends on all the rest of them. This has implications for the cultivation of tolerant citizens. How so? The unity of the virtues works in only one direction. That is, while impairment of one moral virtue entails impairment of all the rest, progress toward one moral virtue does not in and of itself entail progress toward all the rest. Think of the bicycle wheel again. Beginning with a perfect round, bending one spoke will soon bend all the others, too, but straightening one spoke of a crushed wheel will not simply pull the others back in true. In fact it may cause some spokes to bend even more. With damaged bicycle wheels, there are three alternatives. We can replace the wheel; we can take it apart, straighten each part separately, and put it back together; or we can leave it in one piece and straighten every part at once. With a soul, the first two alternatives are out of the question because we can neither replace it nor take it apart. The only alternative is to leave it in one piece and straighten every part at once.
Here is what follows: if all the virtues depend on one another, then tolerance cannot be taught unless all the rest are taught as well. We cannot compensate for the collapse of all our virtues by teaching tolerance and letting the rest go by, as some educators and social critics seem to think; the only cure for moral collapse is moral renewal, on all fronts simultaneously.
That is a hard adage. For even with crushed wheels, the simultaneous straightening of every spoke is hardly thinkable. With crushed souls—which is what we all are—we've no idea how our own efforts might bring it to pass. More than education, we need redemption. For virtues are complicated things: complex dispositions of character, deeply ingrained "habits," by which one calls upon all of his passions and capacities of mind in just those ways that aid, prompt, focus, inform, and execute his moral choices instead of clouding them, misleading them, or obstructing their execution. This means that virtues cannot be imparted just by encouraging certain feelings or developing certain capacities; feelings and capacities are instruments of the virtues, not their realization.
What adds to the difficulty is that virtues are much more than readiness to follow the rules. There are, of course, some rules that are true in all circumstances. Murder is always wrong. But virtues are more like a fitness to distinguish true rules from false, and to choose rightly even where there are no rules or where the rules are no more than rules of thumb and seem to contradict each other. To be sure, if rules are applied judiciously, they can help to restrain the most obvious evils. And this in turn is bound to help in the nurture of virtue. But virtue cannot, as we have said, be taught simply by means of an exhaustive list of rules. Not only would such a list be endless, but the vicious would rebel before we even reached the second page.
In sum, we aren't going to transmit the virtue of tolerance through a quick fix, like a Freshman Orientation Weekend; through a long fix, like a three-volume set of workplace sensitivity regulations; or through a false fix, like a Children of the Rainbow Curriculum. If Plato was right that justice is medicine for the soul, then such instrumentalities are its patent medicine: 5 percent poison, 10 percent flavoring, 85 percent intoxicating spirits, and pure delusion from the first to the last.
Time now to turn to the question of religious tolerance, where even the rules are far from easy to discern.
What is religion anyway? Some people say that all religions depend on faith, while all secularisms depend on reason. But as Chesterton remarked in Orthodoxy, "It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." Other people say that all religions believe in God, while all secularisms do not. But though Buddhists do not believe in God, yet we call Buddhism a religion.
Still others, like Tillich and Niebuhr, hold the mark of religion to be the practice of ultimate concern that orders all other concerns, unconditioned loyalty that trumps all other loyalties. Here we finally hit the mark. For Christians, the ultimate concern is the saving God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who has revealed himself in Messiah. Though Buddhists do not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, much less in Messiah, they do have an ultimate concern—escape from suffering, inherent in desire, which, they hold, springs in turn from the illusion of existence.
But if religion is the practice of ultimate concern, then we have another problem. In the first place, even a secularism may be the practice of an ultimate concern. We acknowledge this, for instance, by calling Leninism a religion; similarly we say of a greedy man that "his god is money" and call misplaced devotion "idolatry." In the second place, even among those secularisms that do not go so far as to identify ultimate concerns, none is without implications as to what could, or could not, count as an ultimate concern. John Stuart Mill could never decide which, if any, of the "permanent interests of man as a progressive being" was deserving of unconditioned loyalty. But one thing he was sure of, that Messiah was not among them.
What all this tells us is that "religious" and "secular" constitute a false dichotomy. We would do better with a trichotomy. An acknowledged religion like Christianity or Buddhism posits an ultimate concern and admits it. An unacknowledged religion like Leninism posits an ultimate concern but denies that so doing is religious. And an incomplete religion like Millianism has not finished ranking its concerns.
Incomplete religion can live only in the dreamworld of thought. In the light of day it must become complete or die. For in every life or way of life—whether lived simply, lived with the guidance of an ethical theory, or even lived in defiance of an ethical theory—given enough time, some concern eventually emerges as paramount. Eventually there is something to which every knee bows. This is the person's god. As a matter of theory, one may deny that any concern deserves ultimacy. But as a matter of practice, no one escapes ceding ultimacy to something, whether it deserves ultimacy or not. Choices between incompatible urgencies are unavoidable. To prevent the rise of one or another of these urgencies to supremacy, a person would have to practice a truly Stoic discipline of contradiction—and in the end we would have to ask what urgency he served in so disordering himself. In short, one need not be conscious of his god, or even conscious that he has a god. One might think he has no god, or that he is "looking for" or "waiting for" a god. One may even be converted from one god to another. But one will have a god—or at least be on the road to having one.
With all of this ultimate concern floating about, how can there be religious tolerance at all? The answer is, there can't be—unless one's ultimate concern commands it, or at least allows it. For in this case and this case alone, tolerance toward other claimants to ultimacy is obedience to one's own.
Thus St. Hilary of Poitiers: "God does not want unwilling worship, nor does He require a forced repentance." The idea is that although God demands and deserves our unconditioned loyalty, He is of such a nature that nothing exacted by threats could truly serve Him. For He desires sons and daughters, not slaves: His love is inexorable and consumes everything contrary to itself. This is not the Kantian idea that choice is lovable but rather the Christian idea that love is chosen. I do not say that His supposed followers have always practiced the loving tolerance He demands. I do say that intolerance stands under His judgment.
But notice: the same consuming fire that for its own sake demands tolerance, for its own sake sets the limits to what is tolerated. If Hilary was right that God does not want unwilling worship, then Hilary's tolerance must be absolute with respect to permitting belief in other gods. This does not mean permitting every act of service to these gods. Hilary must claim the right to say that there are evil services which nothing deserving of unconditioned loyalty could demand, and the correlative right to try to stop anyone who attempts them. For instance, whatever claims of conscience Hilary may honor he cannot permit a person to plead them in justification of murder. "God told me to kill anyone who got in my way" cuts no ice with him; nor is the case different when other ultimate concerns, other gods, are pleaded in place of God. The Defense of the Revolution, The Greater God of the Whole, The Purity of the Race, the Hunger of Moloch, The Right to Control One's Body—neither these nor any other claimants to ultimacy are accepted as justifying the sacrifice of innocents. "Even conceding your God-given right to be left alone by me in your honor to another god," I imagine Hilary saying, "that right concerns your own soul only. I will not permit you, in its service, to inflict injuries which my own God abhors and forbids."
My example is Christian because I am a Christian. But the logic works just the same if you posit some other ultimate concern, some other god than mine. For instance, the god of the Benthamite utilitarian is "aggregate pleasure." Hence if the Benthamite could tolerate other creeds at all, such tolerance would be both ordained and limited by the requirements of such pleasure. Likewise, religious tolerance for the Millian utilitarian would be both ordained and limited by the nature of man's "permanent interests" as a "progressive being," and religious tolerance for the Leninist would be both ordained and limited by the needs of "proletarian dictatorship."
One might suppose that this logic works only for so-called teleological creeds, said to give priority to achieving the good over doing the right. This is not so. No recent writer has more sternly insisted on the priority of right over good than John Rawls. Yet even he has an ultimate concern. His concern is "autonomy," the conditions for the realization of which are supposedly determined by choices made behind a Veil of Ignorance that obliterates personal memory. But the conclusion is obvious: For the Rawlsian, religious tolerance is both ordained and limited by what people could want who no longer remembered the love of God.
Where does all this leave us? The bottom line is that Neutrality is no more coherent in the matter of religious tolerance than it is in tolerance of any other sort. What you can tolerate pivots on your ultimate concern. Because different ultimate concerns ordain different zones of tolerance, social consensus is possible only at the points where these zones overlap. Note well: The greater the resemblance of contending concerns, the greater the overlap of their zones of tolerance. The less the resemblance of contending concerns, the less the overlap of their zones of tolerance. Should contending concerns become sufficiently unlike, their zones of tolerance no longer intersect at all. Consensus vanishes.
This, I believe, is our current trajectory. The embattled term "culture war" is not inflammatory; it is merely exact. And we can expect the war to grow worse. The reason for this is that our various gods ordain not only different zones of tolerance, but different norms to regulate the dispute among themselves. True tolerance is not well tolerated. For although the God of some of the disputants ordains that they love and persuade their opponents, the gods of some of the others ordain no such thing.
J. Budziszewski, a new contributor to First Things, teaches in the Department of Government at the University of Texas at Austin. He is author, most recently, of True Tolerance: Liberalism and the Necessity of Judgment.


text:
Women's Bean Boots, Rubber Moc
Item #: CA175067
Product Details
Our legendary Maine-made Bean Boot Rubber Mocs. Built for the road less traveled by "L.L." himself in 1912 and keeping feet comfortable ever since.
Size & Fit
- With light or midweight socks: Whole sizes, order one size down. Half sizes, order 1½ size down. Example: 9 or 9½, order a size 8. With heavyweight socks: Whole sizes, order your normal size. Half sizes, order one size down. Example: 9 or 9½, order a size 9.
Why We Love It
Whoever says, "they don't build things like they used to," doesn't own a pair of these. Our signature boots are still sewn right here in Maine - one pair at a time - by expert craftspeople whose technical skills and passion for their work is evident in every pair they make. As rugged and hardworking as they were over 100 years ago, chances are you'll only ever need one pair.
- Waterproof rubber boot bottom keeps feet dry.
- Iconic triple-needle stitching provides long-lasting durability.
- Waterproof full-grain leather upper sheds rain and snow.
- Convenient slip-on style with rawhide lace to adjust fit. Laces not waterproof.
- Uniquely shaped foot form offers comfort and stability, and a steel shank adds support.
- Legendary chain-tread outsole gives reliable traction.
Weather Protection
- Not designed to stay submerged in water.
- Best for rain, mud and other wet conditions.


text:
Brianna Abdoo — Babe of The Day
Check out Brianna — a 19-year-old aspiring model from Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, who has been modeling for about three years. According to her Model Mayhem profile, she's open to having ideas thrown her way as an opportunity to expand her portfolio. Yeah, we know. We've got some ideas also. Oh, she also apparently weighs 93 lbs. Wow.
Brianna is the 3rd most-viewed girl in Zoo Weekly's Australia's Beach Babes 2011 Competition and has made three different appearances in that competition.
She is interested in swimwear, fitness, fashion and runway material. Like we said, the girl wants some ideas. Get thinking pervs!
Age: 19 | Location: Newcastle, NSW | Measurements: 35″ 24″ 30″ | Ht: 5'2″ | Wt: 93 lbs
Check out more of Brianna on Facebook | Model Mayhem


text:
Excitement, pleasure, pride. These are the feelings that finding the right home can bring whether it is your first home, your next home or an investment property. We will help you find the right property.
Choosing the right home for you comes down to knowing what you need; what you can afford and knowing exactly what's available at the time you are ready to buy.
Knowing what you need
Although it seems obvious, the type of home you buy should reflect the lifestyle you are planning for the future. Think about such aspects as household numbers, proximity to local amenities, including schools, the sorts of work and leisure activities you like and the length of time you expect to live in the home.
Knowing what you can afford
Speak with your bank manager or consult our Ray White Financial Services consultant to pre-determine your budget level and perhaps obtain pre-approval from the lending institution prior to going out 'to buy'. This puts you in a position where you are able to make ' a cash offer,' or to move quickly if circumstances require it.
Knowing what is available
Newspapers, real estate publications, real estate offices, and the internet are all good places to begin your search. Our Ray White websites are updated daily featuring the very latest listings to the market. Each week we post a list of open homes for the coming weekend. Make contact with a real estate agent/salesperson that you trust and who listens and understands your needs. They will know of properties not officially on the market and they may also be able to save you hours viewing unsuitable listings.
Weekly Email:
Contact your local Ray White office or identify an individual salesperson and supply them with your email address. Each week they will send you an email with links to the latest listings.
Make your needs known to an individual salesperson who can actually search for properties on your behalf. Approximately 30% of sales are made to purchasers who were 1st introduced to the property by an individual salesperson.
Knowing local values:
Research sales in the areas you are looking and may be attend any auctions of properties to help establish current values. Attend as many open homes as possible. Ask any one of our sales agents for additional advice … they will be happy to help.
You've found your perfect property
When you find a property that suits your requirements, ask the agent for sales statistics of similar properties in the area. If the property is to be auctioned, obtain a copy of the auction agreement and send it on to your solicitor. Remember, when purchasing at auction, you must pay a 10% deposit on the fall of the hammer.
We recommend that purchasers arrange a building inspection prior to purchase and also obtain a copy of the LIM report. We also recommend you organise an independent valuation.
To comply with the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, you will be given a guide, approved by the independent Real Estate Agents Authority entitled "NEW ZEALAND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SALE & PURCHASE AGREEMENTS GUIDE."
This guide explains the process, and includes that it is advisable to obtain advice from your lawyer. You will be required to sign an acknowledgement that you have received this guide prior to signing an offer. This will also occur if you wish to make a bid at Auction.
Concluding a Sale
Once your offer has been written and negotiations are finalised you will sign a Sale & Purchase Agreement and pay a deposit; usually 10% of the sale price. Copies of the contract will be sent to your solicitor and yourself.
*If the property you wish to purchase is going to be auctioned, please go to our 'Guidelines on Purchasing at Auction'.
Settlement Day
This is when ownership of the property is transferred to you and financial transactions are completed. Prior to settlement day we recommend you request a pre-settlement inspection of the property to ensure nothing has changed in its status since purchase and agreed chattels are in place and in working order. Once all settlement procedures have been finalised the keys will be released to you.


text:
The History of the House of Rothschild
by Anonymous Andy and Daryl Bradford Smith
The Rothschilds have been in control of the world for a very long time, and I produce my evidence for this below in a timeline.
The Rothschilds have, with their founding of Zionism, betrayed the principles of the Torah, and have caused great suffering around the world.
I name individual Rothschilds where I can, but due to the secrecy which they shroud themselves in, naming the exact Rothschild is not always possible.
I also wish to point out that this article is not criticising everyone with the name Rothschilds, simply the criminal element of that group that have carried out the treachery I detail below.
Furthermore a great deal of this criminal element no longer carry the name Rothschild and there is a great deal of evidence pointing to the fact that those people currently in control of the United States, British and Israeli government are in fact Rothschilds.
Rothschild Timeline
1743: Mayer Amschel Bauer, born Frankfurt, Germany, the son of Moses Amschel Bauer, a money lender and the proprietor of a counting house. Over the entrance door he places a red sign.
1753: Gutele Schnaper (future wife of Mayer Amschel bauer) born.
1760: During this decade Mayer Amschel Bauer works for a bank owned by the Oppenheimers' in Hanover, Germany, he is highly successful and becomes a junior partner. Whilst working at the bank he becomes acquainted with General von Estorff.
Following his father's death, Bauer returns to Frankfurt to take over his father's business. Bauer recognises the significance of the red sign and changes his name from Bauer to Rothschild, after the red sign hanging over the entrance door ("Rot," is German for, "Red," "Schild," is German for, "Sign").
Now Mayer Amschel Rothschild, he discovers that General von Estorff is now attached to the court of Prince William of Hanau. He therefore makes the General's re-acquaintance on the pretext of selling him valuable coins and trinkets at discounted prices.
As he plans, Rothschild is subsequently introduced to Prince William himself who is more than pleased with discounted prices he charges for his rare coins and trinkets, and Rothschild offers him a bonus for any other business the Prince can direct his way. Rothschild subsequently becomes close associates with Prince William, and ends up doing business with him and members of the court.
1769: Mayer Amschel Rothschild is given permission by Prince William to hang a sign on the front of his business premises declaring that he is, "M. A. Rothschild, by appointment court factor to his serene highness, Prince William of Hanau."
1770: Mayer Amschel Rothschild marries Gutele Schnaper.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild draws up plans for the creation of the Illuminati and entrusts Adam Weishaupt with its organization and development.
1773: Amschel Mayer Rothschild born.
1774: Salomon Mayer Rothschild born.
1777: Nathan Mayer Rothschild born.
1788: Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild Born.
1791: The Rothschilds through Alexander Hamilton (their agent in George washington's cabinet) set up a central bank in the USA called the Bank of the United States. This is established with a 20 year charter.
1792: Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild born.
1796: Amschel Mayer Rothschild marries Eva Hanau.
1798: Nathan Mayer Rothschild leaves Frankfurt for Manchester, England, where will the help of his father and brothers he exports English textiles to Europe.
1800: Salomon Mayer Rothschild marries Caroline Stern.
1806: Napolean states that it is his, "object to remove the house of Hess-Cassel from rulership and to strike it out of the list of powers." On hearing this, Prince William of Hanau, flees Germany, goes to Denmark and entrusts his fortune valued at $3,000,000 at that time to Mayer Amschel Rothschild for safekeeping.
Nathan Mayer Rothschild marries Hannah Barent Cohen the daughter of a wealthy London merchant and begins to move his business to London.
1808: Nathan Mayer Rothschild has his first son born Lionel Nathan de Rothschild.
1809: As the Channel blockade was making the export business difficult, Nathan Mayer Rothschild, went to New Street, London and set himself up as a banker.
1810: Sir Francis Baring and Abraham Goldsmid die. This leaves Nathan Mayer Rothschild as the remaining major banker in England.
Salomon Mayer Rothschild goes to Vienna, Austria and sets up the bank, M. von Rothschild und Söhne.
1811: The charter for the Rothschilds Bank of the United States runs out and Congress votes against its renewal. At the time Andrew Jackson (who would become the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837) says, "If Congress has a right under the Constitution to issue paper money, it was given them to use by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations."
Nathan Mayer Rothschild is not amused and he stated, "Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war."
Andrew Jackson's response to this is to say, "You are a den of thieves vipers, and I intend to rout you out, and by the Eternal God, I will rout you out."
Nathan Mayer Rothschild's reply to that being, "Teach those impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status."
1812: Backed by Rothschild money, the British declare war on the United States. The Rothschilds plan was to cause the United States to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned Bank of the United States to be renewed.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild dies. In his will he lays out specific laws that the House of Rothschild were to follow: all key positions in the family business were only to be held by family members; only male members of the family were allowed to participate in the family business (It is important to note that Mayer Amschel Rothschild also has five daughters, so today the spread of the Rothschild Zionist dynasty without the Rothschild name is far and wide); the family was to intermarry with it's first and second cousins to preserve the family fortune; no public inventory of his estate was to be published; no legal action was to be taken with regard to the value of the inheritance; the eldest son of the eldest son was to become the head of the family (this condition could only be overturned when the majority of the family agreed otherwise).
This was straightaway the case and Nathan Mayer Rothschild was elected head of the family following his father, Mayer Amschel Rothschild's death.
Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild goes to Paris, France to set up the bank, de Rothschild Frères.
Nathaniel de Rothschild, the son in law of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild, born.
1814: With regard to the $3,000,000 Prince William of Hanau had entrusted to Mayer Amschel Rothschild for safekeeping, for an account of what happened next we turn to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, 1905 edition, Volume 10, page 494, which states,
"According to legend this money was hidden away in wine casks, and, escaping the search of Napoleon's soldiers when they entered Frankfurt, was restored intact in the same casks in 1814, when the elector (Prince William of Hanau) returned to the electorate (Germany). The facts are somewhat less romantic, and more businesslike."
This last line indicates the money was never returned by Rothschild to Prince William of Hanau. The encyclopaedia goes on to state, Nathan Mayer Rothschild invested this $3,000,000 in, "gold from the East India company knowing that it would be needed for Wellington's peninsula campaign."
On the stolen money Nathan made, "no less than four profits: i) On the sale of Wellington's paper which he bought at 50 cents on the dollar and collected at par; ii) on the sale of gold to Wellington; iii) on its repurchase; and iv) on forwarding it to Portugal."
1815: The five Rothschild brothers work to supply gold to both Wellington's army (through Nathan in England) and Napoleon's army (through Jacob in France), and begin their policy of funding both sides in wars.
Due to the fact that these brothers had banks spread out across Europe this gave them the facility to set up an unrivalled network of secret routes and fast couriers. These Rothschild couriers were the only merchants allowed to pass through the English and French blockades.
It was these couriers who also kept Nathan Mayer Rothschild up to date with how the war was going so he could use that intelligence to buy and sell from his position on the stock exchange in accordance with that intelligence.
At that time British bonds were called consuls and they were traded on the floor of the stock exchange. Nathan Mayer Rothschild instructed all his workers on the floor to start selling consuls. They made all the other traders believe that the British had lost the war so they started selling frantically.
Therefore the consuls plummeted in value which was when Nathan Mayer Rothschild discreetly instructed his workers to purchase all the consuls they could lay their hands on. When news came through that the British had actually won the war, the consuls went up to a level even higher than before the war ended leaving Nathan Mayer Rothschild with a return of approximately 20 to 1 on his investment.
This gave the Rothschild family complete control of the British economy, now the financial centre of the world following Napolean's defeat, and forced England to set up a new Bank of England, which Nathan Mayer Rothschild controlled. Nathan Mayer Rothschild would later state,
"I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
The Rothschilds also use their control of the Bank of England to replace the method of shipping gold from country to country and instead used their five banks spread across Europe to set up a system of paper debits and credits, the banking system of today.
1816: The charter for the Bank of the United States is renewed for another twenty years with the Rothschilds in Control of the American money supply again. The British war against the America therefore ends with the deaths of thousands of British and American soldiers, but the Rothschilds get their bank.
1818: Following the French securing massive loans in 1817 in order to help rebuild after their disastrous defeat at Waterloo, Rothschild agents bought vast amounts of French government bonds causing their value to increase. On November 5th they dumped the lot on the open market causing their value to plummet and France to go into a financial panic.
The Rothschilds then stepped in to take control of the French money supply. This was the same year the Rothschilds were able to loan £5,000,000 to the Prussian government.
1822: The emperor of Austria made the five Rothschild brothers Barons. Nathan Mayer Rothschild chose not to take up the title.
1827: Sir Walter Scott publishes his nine volume set, The life of Napolean and in volume two he states that the French Revolution was planned by the Illuminati (Adam Weishaupt) and was financed by the money changers of Europe (The Rothschilds).
1835: President Andrew Jackson (the 7th President of the United States from 1829 to 1837) starts depositing federal funds into banks directed by democratic bankers rather than in the Rothschild controlled Bank of the United States. An assassination attempt is made on President Jackson and he would later claim that he knew the Rothschilds were responsible for that attempted assassination.
The Rothschilds acquire the rights in the Almadén quicksilver mines in Spain. This was at the time the biggest concession in the world and as quicksilver was a vital component in the refining of gold or silver this gave the Rothschilds a virtual world monopoly.
1837: Following his years of fighting against the Rothschilds and their central bank in America, President Andrew Jackson finally succeeds in throwing the Rothschilds central bank out of America. It would not be until 1913 that the Rothschilds would be able to set up their third central bank in America, the Federal Reserve.
1836: Nathan Mayer Rothschild dies.
1838: Amschel Mayer Rothschild states, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
1840: The Rothschilds become the Bank of England's bullion brokers. They set up agencies in California and Australia.
1841: President John Tyler (the 10th President of the United States From 1841 to 1845) vetoed the act to renew the charter for the Bank of the United States. He goes on to receive hundreds of letters threatening him with assassination.
1844: Salomon Mayer Rothschild purchases the United Coal Mines of Vítkovice and Austro-Hungarian Blast Furnace Company that would go on to be one of the top ten global industrial concerns.
Benjamin Disraeli (who would go on to become British Prime Minister twice) publishes Coningsby, in which he characterises Nathan Mayer Rothschild as,
"the Lord and Master of the money markets of the world, and of course virtually Lord and Master of everything else. He literally held the revenues of Southern Italy in pawn, and Monarchs and Ministers of all countries courted his advice and were guided by his suggestions."
1845: Andrew Jackson (The 7th President of the United States) dies. This Great Patriot leaves instructions in his will to have, "I Killed The Bank," inscribed on his headstone, a reference to the fact he banished the Rothschilds second Central bank in the United States from the US in 1837.
Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild, now known as Baron James de Rothschild wins the contract to build the first major railway line across the country. This was called the Chemin De Fer Du Nord and ran initially from Paris to Valenciennes and then joined with the Austrian rail network built by his brother Salomon Mayer Rothschild.
1847: Lionel De Rothschild now married to the daughter of his uncle, Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild, is elected to the parliamentary seat for the City of London.
A requirement for entering parliament was to take an oath in the true faith of a Christian. Lionel De Rothschild refused to do this as he was Jewish and his seat in parliament remained empty for 11 years until new oaths were allowed.
1848: Eva Hanau, Amschel Mayer Rothschild's wife dies.
1849: Gutele Schnaper, Mayer Amschel Rothschild's wife dies. Before her death she would state, "If my sons did not want wars, there would be none."
1850: Construction begins this decade on the manor houses of Mentmore in England and Ferrières in France, more Rothschilds Manors will follow throughout the world, all of them filled with works of art.
1852: N.M. Rothschild & Sons began refining gold and silver for the Royal Mint and the Bank of England and other international customers.
1853: Nathaniel de Rothschild, the son in law of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild, purchased Château Brane Mouton, the Bordeaux vineyard of Mouton, and renamed it Château Mouton Rothschild.
1854: Caroline Stern, Salomon Mayer Rothschild's wife, dies.
1855: Amschel Mayer Rothschild dies. Salomon Mayer Rothschild dies. Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild dies.
1858: Lionel De Rothschild finally takes his seat in parliament when the requirement to take an oath in the true faith of a Christian is broadened to include other oaths. He becomes the first Jewish member of the British parliament.
1861: President Abraham Lincoln (16th President of the United States from 1860 till his assassination in 1865) approaches the Rothschilds to try to obtain loans to support the ongoing American civil war.
The Rothschilds agree provided Lincoln allows them a Charter for another United States central bank and are prepared to pay 24% to 36% interest on all monies loaned.
Lincoln was very angry about this high level of interest and so he printed his own debt free money and informed the public that this was now legal tender for both public and private debts.
1862: By April $449,338,902 worth of Lincoln's debt free money had been printed and distributed. He went on to state,
"We gave the people of this republic the greatest blessing they ever had, their own paper money to pay their own debts."
That same year The Times of London publishes A story containing the following statement, "If that mischievous financial policy, which had its origin in the North American Republic, should become indurated down to a fixture, then that government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world.
The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe."
1863: The Rothschild banking house in Naples, Italy, C. M. de Rothschild e figli, closes following the unification of Italy. The Rothschilds use one of their agents in America, John D. Rockefeller to form an oil business called Standard Oil which eventually takes over all of its competition.
1864: President Abraham Lincoln discovers the Tsar of Russia, Alexander II (1855 – 1881), was having problems with the Rothschilds as well as he was refusing their continual attempts to set up a central bank in Russia.
President Lincoln asks the Tsar for help in the Civil War and the Tsar sent part of his fleet to anchor off New York and the other part off California. The Tsar made it clear to the British, French and Spanish that if they attacked either side, Russia would take the side of President Lincoln. Lincoln subsequently won the Civil War.
1865: In a statement to Congress, President Abraham Lincoln states,
"I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the financial institution in the rear. Of the two, the one in my rear is my greatest foe."
Later that year President Lincoln is assassinated.
Nathaniel de Rothschild becomes member of parliament for Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire.
1868: Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild dies, shortly after purchasing Château Lafite, one of the four great premier grand cru estates of France. He is the last of Mayer Amschel Rothschild's sons to die.
1870: Nathaniel de Rothschild dies.
1873: The loss making Rio Tinto copper mines in Spain, are purchased by a group of foreign financiers including the Rothschilds. These mines represented Europe's largest source of copper.
1875: N M Rothschild & Sons undertake a share issue to raise capital for the first channel tunnel project to link France to England, with half of its capital coming from the Rothschild owned Compagnie du Chemin de Fer du Nord.
This year the Rothschilds also Provided Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli the finance for the British government to acquire a major stake in the Suez Canal. This deal was done in great secrecy by Lionel De Rothschild.
1876: Otto von Bismarck states,
"The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the civil war by the high financial power of Europe. These bankers were afraid that the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world.
The voice of the Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw the tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore they started their emissaries in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic."
1881: President James A. Garfield (The 20th President of the United States who lasted only 100 Days) states two weeks before he was assassinated,
"Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate."
Edmond James de Rothschild has a son Maurice de Rothschild.
1883: After 6,000 feet of tunnel in the channel tunnel project being excavated, the British government halt the project citing the fact that it would be a threat to Britain's security.
1885: Nathaniel Rothschild, son of Lionel De Rothschild, becomes the first Jewish peer and is takes the title of Lord Rothschild.
1886: The French Rothschild bank, de Rothschild Frères obtains substantial amounts of Russia's oil fields and forms the Caspian and Black Sea Petroleum Company, which quickly becomes the world's second largest oil producer.
1887: The Rothschilds finance the amalgamation of the Kimberley diamond mines in South Africa. They subsequently become the biggest shareholders of this company, De Beers, and mine precious stones in Africa and India.
1888: Noémie Halphen, future wife of Maurice de Rothschild born.
1891: The British Labour Leader makes the following statement on the subject of the Rothschilds,
"This blood-sucking crew has been the cause of untold mischief and misery in Europe during the present century, and has piled up its prodigious wealth chiefly through fomenting wars between States which ought never to have quarrelled. Whenever there is trouble in Europe, wherever rumours of war circulate and men's minds are distraught with fear of change and calamity you may be sure that a hook-nosed Rothschild is at his games somewhere near the region of the disturbance."
Comments like this worry the Rothschilds and towards the end of the 1800's they purchase Reuters news agency so they can have some control of the media.
1895: Edmond James de Rothschild the youngest son of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild visits Palestine and subsequently supplies the funds to found the first Jewish colonies there, this is to further their long term objective of creating a Rothschild formed country.
1897: The Rothschilds found the Zionist Congress and arrange its first meeting in Munich. However due to local Jewish opposition this is re-arranged for Basle, Switzerland and takes place on 29 August.
The meeting is chaired by Theodor Herzl. Herzl is subsequently elected President of the Zionist Organisation which adopts the, "Rothschild Red Sign," as the Zionist flag which 51 years later will end up as the flag of Israel.
1898: Ferdinand de Rothschild dies.
1901: The Rothschild banking house in Frankfurt, Germany, M. A. von Rothschild und Söhne, closes as there is no male Rothschild heir to take it on.
1902: Philippe de Rothschild born.
1906: Due to growing instability in the region and increasing competition from Standard Oil, the Rothschilds sell the Caspian and Black Sea Petroleum Company to Royal Dutch and Shell. 1907: Rothschild, Jacob Schiff, the head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., in a speech to the New York Chamber of Commerce, warns that,
"Unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history."
Suddenly America finds itself in the middle of another typical run of the mill Rothschild engineered financial crisis, which ruins as usual ruins the lives of innocent people throughout America and makes billions for the Rothschilds.
1909: Maurice de Rothschild marries Noémie Halphen.
1911: John F. Hylan, then mayor of New York, states,
"The real menace of our republic is the invisible government which, like a giant octopus, sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses, generally referred to as international bankers."
Werner Sombart, in his book The Jews and Modern Capitalism, stated that from 1820 on, it was the, "Age of the Rothschild," and concluded that there was, "Only one power in Europe, and that is Rothschild."
1912: In the December issue of, "Truth," magazine, George R. Conroy states of banker Jacob Schiff,
"Mr Schiff is head of the great private banking house of Kuhn, Loeb, and co, which represents the Rothschilds interests on this side of the Atlantic. He has been described as financial strategist and has been for years the financial minister of the great impersonal power known as Standard Oil. He was hand in glove with the Harrimans, the Goulds, and the Rockefellers in all their railroad enterprises and has become the dominant power in the railroad and financial power of America."
1913: The Rothschilds set up the Anti Defamation League (ADL) in the United States designed to brand as, "anti-Semitic," anyone who questions or challenges the Global Elite.
Strangely enough, the same year that they do this they also set up their last and current central bank in America, the Federal Reserve. Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated following the passing of the Federal Reserve Act on December 23,
"The Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalized…….The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill."
It is important to note that the Federal Reserve is a private company, it is neither Federal nor does it have any Reserve. It is conservatively estimated that profits exceed $150 billion per year and the Federal Reserve has never once in its history published accounts.
1914: The Rothschilds have control of the three European news agencies, Wolff (est. 1849) in Germany, Reuters (est. 1851) in England, and Havas (est. 1835) in France.
The Rothschilds use Wolff to manipulate the German people into a fervour for war. From now on the Rothschilds are rarely reported in the media, because they own the media.
1918: The Rothschilds order the execution by the Bolsheviks they control, of Tsar Nicholas II and his entire family in Russia. This is the Rothschilds revenge for Tsar Alexander II siding with President Abraham Lincoln in 1864.
It is extremely important for them to slaughter the entire family including women and children in order to show the world, this is what happens if you ever attempt to cross the Rothschilds.
1919: Following the end of the first world war, the Versailles peace conference is held to decide reparations that the Germans need to pay to the victors. Also decided at this conference is the confirmation of Israel as a Jewish homeland, with the control of Palestine being given to Britain whilst this handover takes place.
At that time less than one percent of the population of Palestine was Jewish. The host of this conference is its boss, Baron Edmund de Rothschild.
On March 29th The Times of London reports on the Bolsheviks in Russia,
"One of the curious features of the Bolshevist movement is the high percentage of non Russian elements among its leaders. Of the twenty or thirty commissaries, or leaders, who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75% were Jews."
It is reported that the Rothschilds were angry with the Russians because they were not prepared to allow them to form a central bank within their nation. They therefore gathered groups of Jewish spies and sent them into Russia to drum up a revolution.
They were given Russian names, for example Trotsky was a member of the first group and his original name was Bronstein. These groups were sent to areas throughout Russia to incite riots and rebellion. The Jewish Post International Edition, week ending January 24th 1991, confirms Vladimir Lenin was Jewish.
N. M. Rothschild & Sons' are given a permanent role to fix the world's daily gold price. This takes place in the City of London offices, daily at 1100 hours, in the same room until 2004.
1920: Winston Churchill writes in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, dated February 8th,
"From the days of Illuminati leader Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing.
And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."
1926: N. M. Rothschild & Sons refinance the Underground Electric Railways Company of London Ltd which has a controlling interest in the entire London Underground transport system. Maurice de Rothschild has a son, Edmond de Rothschild.
1934: Swiss banking secrecy laws are reformed and it becomes an offence resulting in imprisonment for any bank employee to violate bank secrecy. This is all in preparation for the Rothschild engineered Second World War in which as usual they will fund both sides.
Edmond de Rothschild dies.
1938: The Rothschilds Austrian banking house in Vienna, S. M. von Rothschild und Söhne, closes following the Nazi occupation of Austria.
1939: I.G. Farben the leading producer of chemicals in the world and largest German producer of steel dramatically increases its production. This increased production is almost exclusively used to arm Germany for the Second World War. This company was controlled by the Rothschilds and would go on to use Jews and other disaffected peoples as slave labour in the concentration camps.
1940: Hansjurgen Koehler in his book, "Inside The Gestapo," states the following, of Maria Anna Schicklgruber, Adolf Hitler's grandmother,
"A little servant girl…….came to Vienna and became a domestic servant…….at the Rothschild mansion…….and Hitler's unknown grandfather must be probably looked for in this magnificent house."
This is backed up by Walter Langer in his book, "The Mind Of Hitler," in which he states, "Adolf's father, Alois Hitler, was the illegitimate son of Maria Anna Schicklgruber…….Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back home…….where Alois was born."
1943: February 18th, Zionist, Izaak Greenbaum, head of the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee, in a speech to the Zionist Executive Council states,
"If I am asked, could you give from the UJA (United Jewish Appeal) monies to rescue Jews, I say, no and I say again no!"
He would go onto state, "One cow in Palestine is worth more than all the Jews in Poland!"
1948: In the Spring of this year, the Rothschilds bribe President Harry S. Truman (33rd President of the United States 1945 – 1953) to recognise Israel (Rothschild owned Zionist not Jewish territory) as a sovereign state with $2,000,000 which they give to him on his campaign train.
They then declare Israel to be a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine and within half an hour President Truman declared the United States to be the first foreign nation to recognise it.
The Flag of Israel is unveiled. Despite tremendous opposition the emblem on the flag is the Rothschild, "Red Sign/Star Of David," which angers many Jews who believe the, "Menorah," the oldest Jewish symbol should be used.
It is pointed out that the, "Red Sign/Star of David," used on the Jewish flag is not even a Jewish symbol, but of course as the Rothschild Zionists use it that is what ends up on the Rothschild, I mean Zionist, I mean Israeli flag.
1953: N. M. Rothschild & Sons found the British Newfoundland Corporation Limited to develop 60,000 square miles of land in Newfoundland, Canada, which comprised a power station to harness the power of the Hamilton (later renamed Churchill) Falls. At the time this was the largest construction project ever to be undertaken by a private company.
1955: Edmond de Rothschild founds Compagnie Financiere, Paris.
1957: James de Rothschild dies and it is reported (by the Rothschild owned media) that he bequeaths a large sum of money to the state of Israel to pay for the construction of their parliament building, the Knesset. He states that the Knesset should be, "a symbol, in the eyes of all men, of the permanence of the State of Israel."
Maurice de Rothschild dies in Paris.
1962: de Rothschild Frères establishes Imétal as an umbrella company for all their mineral mining interests.
Frederic Morton publishes his book, The Rothschilds, in which he states,
"Though they control scores of industrial, commercial, mining and tourist corporations, not one bears the name Rothschild. Being private partnerships, the family houses never need to, and never do, publish a single public balance sheet, or any other report of their financial condition."
This attitude reveals the true aim of the Rothschilds, to eliminate all competition and create their own worldwide monopoly.
1963: On June 4th President John F. Kennedy (the 35th President of the United States 1961 – 1963) signs Executive Order 11110 which returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Rosthchilds owned Federal Reserve.
Less than 6 months later on November 22nd, president Kennedy is assassinated by the Rothschilds for the same reason as they assassinated President Abraham Lincoln in 1865, he wanted to print American money for the American people, as oppose to for the benefit of a money grabbing war mongering foreign elite. This Executive Order 11110, is rescinded by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (the 36th President of the United States 1963 to 1969) on Air Force One from Dallas to Washington, the same day as President Kennedy was assassinated.
Edmond de Rothschild establishes La Compagnie Financière Edmond de Rothschild (LCF), in Switzerland as a venture capital house. This later develops into an investment bank and asset management company with many affiliates. He also marries his wife Nadine and they have a son, Benjamin de Rothschild.
1967: de Rothschild Frères is renamed Banque Rothschild.
1968: Noémie Halphen, wife of Maurice de Rothschild dies.
1970: British Prime Minister Edward Heath makes Lord Victor Rothschild the head of his policy unit. Whilst he is in that role Britain enters the European Community.
1973: In his book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Gary Allen states,
"One major reason for the historical blackout on the role of the international bankers in political history is the Rothschilds were Jewish… ….The Jewish members of the conspiracy have used an organisation called The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an instrument to try and convince everyone that any mention of the Rothschilds and their allies is an attack on all Jews.
In this way they have stifled almost all honest scholarship on international bankers and made the subject taboo within universities. Any individual or book exploring this subject is immediately attacked by hundreds of ADL communities all over the country. The ADL has never let the truth or logic interfere with its highly professional smear jobs…
….Actually, nobody has a right to be more angry at the Rothschild clique than their fellow Jews…
….The Rothschild empire helped finance Adolf Hitler."
N. M. Rothschild & Sons British Newfoundland Corporation, Churchill Falls project in Newfoundland, Canada, is completed. N. M. Rothschild & Sons also create a new asset management part of the company which traded worldwide. This eventually became, Rothschild Private Management Limited.
Edmond de Rothschild, a great-grandson of Jacob (James) Mayer Rothschild, bought the cru bourgeois estate of Château Clarke in Bordeaux.
1980: The global phenomenon of privatisation starts. The Rothschilds are behind this from the very beginning in order to seize control of all publicly owned assets worldwide.
1981: Banque Rothschild is nationalised by the French government. The new bank is called, Compagnie Européenne de Banque. The Rothschilds subsequently set up a successor to this French bank, Rothschild & Cie Banque (RCB), which goes on to become a leading French investment house.
1985: N. M. Rothschild & Sons advise the British government on the privatisation of British Gas. They subsequently advise the British government on virtually all of their other privatisations of state owned assets including: British Steel; British Coal; all the British regional electricity boards; and all the British regional water boards.
1987: Edmond de Rothschild creates the World Conservation Bank which is designed to transfer debts from third world countries to this bank and in return those countries would give land to this bank. This is designed so the Rothschilds can gain control of the third world which represents 30% of the land surface of the Earth.
1988: Philippe de Rothschild dies.
1989: The London and Paris Rothschilds announce the launch of a new subsidiary, Rothschild GmbH, in Frankfurt, Germany.
1995: Former atomic energy scientist, Dr Kitty Little claims the Rothschilds now control 80% of the world's uranium supplies giving them a monopoly over nuclear power.
1996: Amschel Rothschild, 41, is strangled with the heavy cord of his own towel robe in his hotel room in Paris. French Prime Minister orders the French Police to close their investigation, and Zionist, Rupert Murdoch instructs his editors and news managers around the world to report it as a heart attack, if they need to report it at all.
1997: Edmond de Rothschild dies in Geneva of emphysema.
1998: The European Central Bank is set up in Frankfurt, the city from which the Rothschilds originate.
2001: On September 11th the attack on the World Trade Center is orchestrated by Britain, America and Israel under the orders of the Rothschilds as a pretext for removing the liberty of people worldwide in exchange for security, just as they did with the Reichstag fire in Germany where the citizens were lied to in order to give up liberty for security.
They also will use the attacks to gain control of the few nations in the world who don't allow Rothschild central banks and so less than one month after these attacks, US forces attack Afghanistan, one of only 7 nations in the world who don't have a Rothschild controlled central bank.
One week prior to the WTC attack, the Zim Shipping Company moves out of its offices in the WTC, breaking its lease and costing the company $50,000. No reason has ever been given, but Zim Shipping Company is half owned by the State of Israel (The Rothschilds).
2003: The United States invade Iraq which is now one of six nations left in the world who don't have a Rothschild controlled central bank.
2005: On 7 July the London Underground Network is bombed. Israel's Finance Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is in London on the morning of the attacks in order to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the underground station where one of the blasts occurred, but stayed in his hotel room instead after he had been informed by Israeli intelligence officials attacks were expected. There are now only 5 nations on the world left without a Rothschild controlled central bank: Iran; North Korea; Sudan; Cuba; and Libya.
The Life of Napolean – Sir Walter Scott – 1827
Coningsby – Benjamin Disraeli – 1844
The Rothschilds, Financial Rulers Of Nations – John Reeves – 1887
The Jews and Modern Capitalism – Werner Sombart – 1911
Pawns In The Game – William Guy Carr – 1937
Inside The Gestapo – Hansjurgen Koehler – 1940
Barriers Down – Kent Cooper – 1942
The Mind Of Adolf Hitler – Walter Langer – 1943
The Empire Of The City – E. C. Knuth – 1946
The Jewish State – Theodor Herzl – 1946
The Curious History of the Six-Pointed Star – G. Scholem – 1949
Red Fog Over America – William Guy Carr – 1958
The Rothschilds – Frederic Morton – 1962
None Dare Call It Conspiracy – Gary Allen – 1972
Two Rothschilds And The Land Of Israel – Simon Schama – 1978
A History of the Jews in America – Howard M. Sachar – 1992
And The Truth Shall Set You Free – David Icke – 1994
Descent Into Slavery – Des Griffin – 1994
Jewish History, Jewish Religion – Israel Shahak – 1994
The Biggest Secret – David Icke – 1999
The Elite Serial Killers of Lincoln, JFK, RFK & MLK – Robert Gaylon Ross – 2001
Children Of The Matrix – David Icke – 2001
The Elite Don't Dare Let Us Tell The People – Robert Gaylon Ross – 2004
Codex Magica – Texe Marrs – 2005


text:
Part # EOIS2
Part # EOIS2XL
In high production environments like photo processing, large format, fine art, and high speed digital printing, measuring color test charts to keep your color management profiles up-to-date can be a labor intensive and time consuming process. The i1iSis family of automatic chart readers sets a new standard in terms of speed, accuracy and handling – allowing you more time to focus on taking care of your customers.
The i1iSis is available in two configurations.i1iSis allows you to measure an A4+ test chart with up to 1,100 patches. Scans A4 and letter size charts, reading 1500 patches in just 8 minutes. i1iSis XL allows you to measure an A3+ test chart with up to 2,500 patches, which can be printed on a single A3 page. Scans A3+ and tabloid size charts, reading thousands of patches in less than 10 minutes.
Because it is built on the award-winning i1 spectral technology, you'll capture the full spectral data of the charts you measure, assuring the most accurate measurements and profiles. In a single chart measurement cycle you can read both UVcut (M2) and measurements with NoFilter (M0). i1iSis is a perfect complement to the i1 family of solutions, especially high-end applications like professional photo and proofing where consistency of measurements from instrument to instrument is mission critical.
Color management has caused an explosion of opportunities for new and exotic inks, a variety of paper and substrates and new applications for those materials. i1iSis is a logical extension of the digital color workflow, giving you the ability to quickly provide color support for any media, any printer, anywhere. Meet the creative demand for the latest applications quickly and easily: measure your charts and create profiles in just minutes, for any scenario, with the i1iSis!
ColorChecker Classic Mini IN STOCK ColorChecker Nano, Original, XL and MEGA sizes are Out of Production – the upgrade to these products are now available through our global partner Calibrite. Visit calibrite.com to learn more.
The ColorChecker Classic target is an array of 24 scientifically formulated colors that has been the leading industry color reference target for more than 40 years. It is designed to deliver true-to-life color reproduction so photographers and filmmakers can predict and control how color will look under any illumination. Use the ColorChecker Classic to create custom camera and scanner profiles, color grade video footage or use as a visual reference. Available in a variety of sizes.
Out of Production – the upgrade to this product is now available through our global partner Calibrite. Visit calibrite.com to learn more.
Nothing optimizes the power of your digital camera or scanner like the ColorChecker® Digital SG (semi-gloss). It's the original ColorChecker 24 patch target plus an additional 116 patches to provide an even wider color gamut. ColorChecker Digital SG is the perfect target for creating ICC camera and scanner profiles. Ideal for photographers.
The 3-step ColorChecker® Grayscale target lets you balance your images or video footage, allows you to align the exposure and contrast of cameras you may be matching, plus simplifies the task of balancing your studio lighting. A white, gray and black target all on a single card make color adjustments and grading faster and easier with your photo processing or video editing software. Ideal for photographers and filmmakers.
Andrew Rodney, Color Guru and Digital Imagine Expert
"I've been working on a major project the last year that requires an enormous amount of targets to be measured with both UV and UV Cut. I can't imagine how I could have accomplished this without the iSis . . ." Click to read more
Douglas Dubler, Photographer
"Being an Epson Stylus Pro, I am constantly making profiles for many printers and many types of paper. I have developed my own proprietary system for doing this that involves . . . " Click to read more
i1iSis optical brightener compensation by Keith Cooper
"A very simple process that allows you to produce profiles that give noticeably better prints, in particular lighting conditions." Click to read full review
X-Rite i1iSis XL by Steve Baczewski
"If you work in a busy graphic production studio that relies on producing precision, customized ICC paper profiles on a frequent basis, the X-Rite i1iSis XL automated chart reader for A3+ and tabloid-size paper handling is a great asset." Click to read full review
X-Rite i1iSis automated patch reader review by Keith Cooper
"The two key features of the iSis are the fact that it allows you to make measurements both with and without a UV filter and that it can read a whole chart in one go, making use of codes you can add to the charts to make the measurement even more foolproof." Click to read full review
X-Rite i1iSis - Best Color Management product
"The i1iSis was recently awarded Best Color Management product of 2007 in the software category by the European Digital Press Association. The EDP awards are given for the best and most innovative digital printing products of the year, and are judged on efficiency, performance, quality/price ratio, design and ease-of-use." Click to read full review


text:
TOKYO (AP)—Apple Inc. has applied for a trademark in Japan for "iWatch" as rumors suggest it may be developing a smart wrist watch.
A document obtained Monday from the Japan Patent Office's website said the application was made June 3 and made public June 27.
It was not immediately clear when the application might be approved. Patent office and Apple officials in Japan were not available for comment late Monday.
Apple is rumored to be working on a smart watch that would run on a version of the operating system used by its iPhone and iPad. The company has not confirmed those rumors, but CEO Tim Cook has hinted that it may be developing a wearable computing device such as a wristwatch.
Applying for a trademark in Japan isn't proof of Apple's intentions. The company based in Cupertino, California, has many patents for devices it will never produce.
Source: The Associated Press