text:
April 29, 2022 | 37 minutes | comments
Protesters of the Free Speech Movement, at Sather Gate, University of California, Berkeley campus.
Unrestricted speech?
The tool of dictators
The right to offend
Public humiliation
The paradox of tolerance
The hard questions
Pro-censorship arguments
1) Science depends on consensus
2) Democracy depends on shared values
3) Polarization is a threat to democracy
4) Conspiracy theories are inciting violence
5) Social media is private property
6) Democracy needs a shared notion of truth
Progressive nonsense
Free speech is the right of an individual or community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. And it's under threat; the Internet is leading to mistrust in 20th century's institutions, with free speech being one of the casualties.
I used to write political commentary on Twitter. But we should stop doing that. Tweets are like farts in an elevator full of people. They relieve the stress, but you're ruining everyone's day, and just like farts gone in the wind, tweets have no lasting value. Quite the contrary, out-of-context tweets will be used in the court of public opinion, if you're ever found guilty of blasphemy.
Politics has a way of finding us, we all have an ideology, and if we'd like to share it, it's best if we articulate it, to explain the reasoning behind it. Which is why, occasionally, I'll write political commentary on this blog.
This article is tagged with Politics and Opinion. If you're following my RSS feed, but don't like these posts, you can probably filter them out. My favorite RSS reader, Newsblur, has such a feature.
By writing this, I know that I won't change minds, not immediately anyway. And I also know that I'm exposing myself, as I am a privileged, middle-class, white and straight man with a mind full of blasphemy. But I can pull out my born-mostly-poor-in-comunism card, and the West's phobia against my nationality was used for Brexit 🤷♂
Rights #
By "rights", we mean freedoms that humans are born with and that the state protects. Conservatives are fond of saying that access to public healthcare, for example, is only a privilege, and it can never be a "right", because in order to have access to healthcare, someone else has to give it to you, either by free labor or taxes. You can also argue that protections for rights, like free speech, also costs money. After all, you need a functional justice system paid out of taxes. But a justice system is the state's primary justification for existence, and without the freedoms that people are naturally born with, society is just another tyranny, with people wishing for a regression to city states or anarchy. The state exists primarily to protect the natural rights that free men are born with, with freedom of speech being one of those rights, and perhaps the most important right of them all.
In Western democracies, one of our shared values is individualism. This means that the rights of the individual are placed over those of the community. If you don't protect the individual, you can't protect minorities, and your so-called democracy is just a tyranny of the majority. It is only the liberal values that keep our democracies from devolving into tyrannies. Given that the modern state has a monopoly on violence, free speech is the right of the individual to speak his/her mind without fearing retaliation from the state.
Compared to 19th and 20th century, nowadays, the public square moved from multiple physical locations to the Internet, to social media networks that would become an oligopoly, affecting freedom of speech. We should also take into account that back then, information moved more slowly and was more filtered by mass-media, giving people more time to digest it. So I won't deny that we are faced with unique challenges.
Nowadays, the Internet is changing everything. Just like the invention of the printing press, the Internet may lead to more educated people, to more democratic societies, but in the meantime we are looking at years of political unrest unfolding before our eyes. Every major protest you've seen, from "Occupy Wall Street" from 2011, to "Black Lives Matter" from 2020, or the 2021 storming of the US Capitol, is a protest of the counterculture fighting the establishment, and these protests are happening due to people losing faith in institutions, in liberal values, in modernity.
From the liberal point of view, it's not hard to see why faith in institutions is dropping … for instance, in recent years the governments of the world have adopted the tools of autocracy, of dictatorships, for dealing with the crises that we are facing, and I can only point at how we've dealt with the pandemic — indefinite lockdowns, bad medical advice in the beginning (e.g. masks don't work, but force children to wear masks anyway), censorship of the lab-leak theory, loss of privacy, indirect discrimination against the poor, inflation due to relief funds (aka printing money), or weaponizing the financial system in order to squash dissent. I can also point to how we've dealt with global warming, which led to the closing of nuclear power plants, externalizing energy production to Russia and fueling the war machine of a 21st century dictator, which is now killing innocents, while energy prices have been soaring, leading to more inflation and a serious drop in well-being. It's no wonder that the far-right has been on the rise in the Western world, and it's only a matter of time before radicals such as Marine Le Pen are in charge.
I'm a child of communism, I'm an Eastern European. And even after the Soviets invaded us, forcing us to be part of the Warsaw Pact, we've always looked towards the West, dreaming that one day we'll adopt the Western values. It pains me to see the most sacred of all Western values, freedom of speech, being sacrificed on the progressive altar in order to "save democracy". When politicians ask social networks to apply censorship, what they fail to mention is that democracy is on a decline, not because of fake news, or of hate speech, but rather because state institutions have been completely incompetent in the last decade or so, driving people to seek an alternative authority. And now we have progressives making a plea to Big Tech for more censorship because the state is inconvenienced by that pesky law.
If people want to save democracy via censorship, I'm afraid we won't be left with a democracy that's worth saving.
Unrestricted speech? #
"Free speech" isn't "unrestricted" speech. This is usually a straw man argument.
Anti-defamation laws exist. For example in the US, incitement to violence isn't allowed, although incitement to violence can be abused too, and personally I don't think that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater should be punishable by law, but that's not what I'd like to talk about.
The difference between many European countries and the US, is that in Europe, "hate speech" is not protected speech. And this is where I have a problem, which is made worse by Big Tech companies going above and beyond the law in applying censorship and banning people for wrongthink.
I believe that as governments and social media networks are rushing to criminalize or censor "hate speech", "fake news" or what have you, then free speech is dying, and democracy and secularism cannot survive without it.
Words #
Many people want to keep the bigots or the fascists out of our communities. Noble goals, with which I wholeheartedly agreed. All I wanted was for us to have friendly and inclusive communities, so like many people, I adopted "bigot" to describe the baddies we're fearing. Being a non-native English speaker, it always made me uncomfortable, as it wasn't clear what I accused people of, so in my communications I alternated between bigots and assholes, but they mean different things entirely.
What does "bigotry" mean? In a US context, "bigot" seems to mean racist or hateful, but in Romanian or French I see it refers to someone who is very religious, that practices religious rituals with zeal and rigidity. When used by progressives, "bigotry" describes intolerance or prejudices based on religion.
As examples, "bigotry" is when someone is pro-life, thinking that abortion is murder. Or when someone advocates against contraceptives, thinking that it reduces sex to a pleasureful and sinful activity. Or when someone advocates against women having jobs, thinking that the wives need to stay home to give birth and then take care of children. You can see how we can go in our samples from mild to extreme reactionism.
Is all bigotry bad, though? Tough question. I am radically pro-choice, given the horrors that happened in communist Romania, but in this matter it is women that have to decide, their body, their choice. And pro-life advocates do have a point in saying that abortion can be a crime, and if not, that's nihilism and one has to wonder when is the right age at which fetuses become full humans such that killing them becomes unacceptable, or why is killing humans unacceptable anyway? This is a classic issue that needs debate, such that compromises can be made, compromises that will not make all activists happy, but that saves lives, and prevents society from tearing itself apart.
Does bigotry mean hatred? Hard question; it seems that it does from how it's getting used, but things aren't clear once you get to the nitty-gritty. I see people in Romania, that are pro-life, claiming that they are survivors of failed abortions, claiming that they wouldn't exist if abortions were legal (back in the 80s). Such people can very well claim that, if you're pro-choice, then you hate them, being against their very existence. They may claim that you're a murderer, that you've got blood on your hands, in their eyes that's hatred, and at that point all potential for compromise with them is gone. This happens when people don't acknowledge the concerns of the other side.
In Romania, about 89% of the population is religious, being in the top 10 most religious countries in the world. Quite literally, I've got bigots among my friends and family. I would estimate a vast majority of Romanians are bigots, while only a small minority of us can be classified as assholes. I can't tolerate people that advocate for violence, I can't tolerate assholes, but if I were to start labeling the people I interact with as bigots, I'd soon be left without friends, family or job opportunities.
If "bigotry" simply means ethics driven by religion, then we are screwed, because you can't separate Christianity from its ethics, it has thousands of years of tradition, billions of followers, and a cultural war against Christian ethics is a societal A-bomb. You may feel safe in your bubble, but it's much better to appeal to the better angels of human nature, as our progressive bubble is actually a minority. One of the greatest gifts for social progress that happened was secularism. Imagine a society in which being pro-choice or being gay are considered hateful blasphemies that need to be punished. We don't need much imagination, this has happened not long ago, and Western society has been regressing in that direction anyway.
What does "fascism" mean nowadays? AFAIK its primary traits are extreme statism, aka authoritarianism, forcible suppression of opposition, strong regulation of the economy, nostalgia for a glorious past, opposition to (classic) liberalism. And I know that the US and other countries still have (literal) fascists in their society, but either I must be going out of my mind, or "fascism" must have lost all meaning, given its widening umbrella, or given that many of the people using it tend to be pretty anti-liberal. It's dumbfounding for me to see Antifa (aka anti-fascists) advocating for censorship, in order to prevent fascism.
Leftist radicals labeling anything they don't like with "fascism" isn't new, the Soviet Union has a long history of doing it:
"Fascism is not only a military-technical category. Fascism is the bourgeoisie's fighting organization that relies on the active support of social democracy. Social democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism." — Joseph Stalin
I feel bad for the US progressives that are now labeled as "groomers", they don't deserve it, however it's what you get when you weaponize labels, playing the outrage game, shutting down all dialog with accusations of "bigotry", "fascism", or "hate speech". I don't fear "hate speech" at all, what I fear is society tearing itself apart, because the silent majority doesn't tweet, doesn't have time for this crap, but eventually gets tired, irritated, worried, and starts to practice revenge-voting, or abstinence from voting, so that's how you get Trump, or Brexit, or the far-right rising in polls all throughout Europe.
Words have power, labels sometimes being used to make someone or something sound bad, without the listener making an effort to understand the context. For a criticism of how we use words, I recommend Nietzsche's On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense. Note, Nietzsche was accused of fascism too.
The tool of dictators #
The logo of the former Communist Party of Romania. The hammer and sickle is a symbol meant to represent proletarian solidarity.
The first thing that communists or fascists did, when taking power, was to ban free speech. Nazis controlled less than three percent of Germany's 4700 newspapers, when Hitler took power in 1933. All the press freedom soon ended, with the people accepting their new reality due to gradual habituation. The government was acting for their own good, after all; being led by a group of wise men being a dream come true for statists everywhere.
In communism, too, people were "protected" from toxic "imperialist" or capitalist values. People supposedly had "free speech" guaranteed by the Constitution, but it was all lip service, the ban on free speech being absolute.
As a case study, the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Romania from 1965 had this to say:
Art.28: The citizens of the Socialist Republic of Romania are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of meetings, of rallies and of demonstrations;
Art.29: The freedom of speech, of the press, of meetings, rallies and demonstrations may not be used for purposes contrary to the socialist order and the interests of those who work; Any fascist or anti-democratic association is forbidden. Participation in such fascist or anti-democratic associations and propaganda is punishable by law;
Asking US progressives in earnest — would you like your First Amendment to say that? This is like an Antifa dream come true, is it not?
But you have to take into account that:
Everything can be labeled as "fascist", or being contrary to the socialist order, or the interests of the working class, which is precisely what communists did;
This was a genuine police state, we had the legendary Securitate, which was our own Stasi;
1 in 3 citizens were informants to Securitate, with the whole society living in paranoia, or in other words, the Romanians themselves were participating in squashing all dissent, and they did this in order to gain special privilege; Orwell's 1984 novel was actually unimaginative for what happened behind the Iron Curtain;
And there's more — the Constitution guaranteed "freedom of religion" (aka freedom of conscience, or of thought), however, being true to Marxist values, religion was considered the "opium of the masses", old churches being demolished, and priests oppressed to the point that they were either jailed in "re-education" camps, or they became informants for the Securitate. Religious holidays were banned too. We did not officially celebrate Easter or Christmas, what we had was Grandfather Frost. There was celebration of Christian holidays, but people were doing it in silence.
Our Constitution was effectively a piece of paper to wipe your ass with. It had no value, and note that our communist leadership was proudly proclaiming that the communist rule was a "democracy". Oh, the extreme cringeworthy irony 😬
In communist Romania, being gay was also punishable by prison. The infamous article 200 was introduced in 1968, sexual minorities being "offenders against the person", with gay people being deviant, not corresponding to official morality. AKA a blasphemy. This wasn't unlike what happened in the West. Alan Turing was chemically castrated in the UK for being gay, after pleading guilty in 1952 to the crime of "gross indecency". Those were some dark times for sexual minorities.
During communism, at least the Romanians could alleviate their suffering by telling jokes, ridiculizing the elite. People were transmitting their frustration with the ruling class by making jokes, some of which even escaped the censorship filters in state-sanctioned media, becoming legend. This happened in a system that practiced a total ban on freedom of speech. Contemporary radicals know a thing or two about the power of jokes in shaping culture. Watch out for the attempted cancelation of comedians — such attempts may be justifiable in context, but it sure sends shivers down my spine.
Two men holding a sign saying "our children will be free", from the Romanian revolution of 1989.
For Romanians at least, there is no greater freedom than was gained at our revolution in 1989. We can talk about free trade, capitalism, property, and others, but everything pales in comparison with freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
Hate speech #
If what happened in communist Romania sounds familiar, it should — what is "hate speech" anyway? Can you define it in a way that doesn't nullify freedom of speech in a court of law?
Let's consider the following, how many of these items can represent hate speech?
Criticism of Christianity;
Criticism of Islamism;
Criticism of Scientology;
Criticism of "white people";
Criticism of veganism;
Criticism of vaxxers or of anti-vaxxers;
Criticism of US republicans;
Criticism of cops;
Criticism of "white supremacists";
Criticism of gender ideology;
Criticism of "gender critical" feminists;
Criticism of men and masculinity;
Criticism of the cultures practicing female genital mutilation;
Criticism of "baby boomers";
Criticism of "Black Lives Matter" movement;
Support for slavery;
Support for race science;
Anti-Zionism;
These point to groups of people. Not all the groups have to do with sex, ethnicity, or religion (although it can be argued, an ideology is a religion). They are all groups of people, nonetheless. And for example, as any vegan will tell you, being vegan becomes part of one's identity. Criticism of these groups can offend, it may even incite violence against these groups. If you think that a slogan such as "all cops are bastards" isn't hate speech, it shows your political bias. If you haven't ticked all the boxes, it shows your political bias.
In Romania, our parliament just voted a law that criminalizes "hate speech" targeted based on political affiliation. They can do this because the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech only as long as it isn't "hate speech". And the law is meant to favor Romania's largest party. I don't know what happened to it, I no longer follow the news, I hope it will get struck down as being unconstitutional, due to common sense, but I can certainly see why a law like this is possible, and I'm not holding my breath.
Who decides what "hate speech" is? Who gives them the power to decide? There is no way to define it without shooting democracy in the foot. There is no way to define it, without giving your government enough power to censor anything and everything.
Is hate speech really responsible for violence? I've read Hitler's "Mein Kampf", it's a despicable work, filled with logical fallacies, errors, hatred, and is clearly written by a sick mind. It didn't turn me into an anti-Semite or a Nazi, quite the contrary. And even if I became that, we have personal responsibility, people are responsible for their own actions, you can't just blame it on a book. Who knows, maybe exposure to such books kept me sane. How could we tell?
Do we have any data at all showing some causality between hate speech and violence? And I'm not talking of direct incitement to violence (which is disallowed by law), or of weak correlations. Do we have any data that shows the banning of hate speech from Europe actually works, compared with the US?
I'm genuinely curious, at least if we have data, we can make a case for banning hate speech. But knowing the situation with the rise of the far-right in Europe, I sincerely doubt that any claims we have can stand up to scientific scrutiny. It's most likely just a regressive ideology.
I recommend this talk, in support of free speech, by Rowan Atkinson:
Rowan Atkinson on free speech (open on YouTube.com)
The right to offend #
An infamous example is that of Brigitte Bardot. Dedicating her life to animal activism, in 1999 she criticized the ritual slaughter of sheep by Muslims, asking for, at the very least, slaughtering those animals in a more humane way (a clash of ideologies, yikes!). She also wrote that "my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims". For this, she was fined by a French court for "community indictment".
Finding examples of wrongful court ruling is easy. I'm picking a hardcore example, precisely because it's hard to defend.
You may agree with this, we can certainly see in her writing a concrete example of speech that may be used to incite racial hatred. Her writing seems to be xenophobic, or Islamophobic. Yes, this can be seen as "hate speech". She did offend, and if you're against "hate speech", her condemnation seems justified.
However, her criticism was primarily against a religious dogma that was (arguably) going against the shared values of the French society. A society without shared values is at risk of tearing itself apart. For example, the Western society is based on individualism and secularism. Conservatives point out that in 2020 a study revealed that about 74% of Muslim youth placed Islam above secular justice — whether that is true or not, I wouldn't know, although we can point at events such as the "Charlie Hebdo shooting" from 2015, terrible events "caused" by a publication's satirical drawings of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. YES, not all Muslims. I remember one of the cops, that heroically died to save lives in that shooting, was Muslim. And YES, they are a vulnerable minority in Europe. YES, the French society may have a problem with racism. Yet, we can certainly see how criticism of (any) religion is needed, and not allowing criticism hurts the law-abiding minorities, because then the far-right happens.
You, my dear reader, are quick at directing your criticism at Christian bigotry, because you can. In the case of Brigitte Bardot, what the court rule essentially said was that criticism of any religious dogma is a punishable blasphemy, a trend in French society that has only gotten worse. Imagine living in a country in which you can't criticize Christian religious dogma. You don't need much imagination.
Blasphemy laws are still in place, in spite of our secularism. Blasphemy is what "hate speech" is. Criminalizing hate speech is criminalizing blasphemy, and we should know from history how well that went. You don't have to imagine a country in which being gay, or other Christian sins, is a punishable crime. If you're a Westerner, you may already live in a country in which similar offenses are punishable.
And blasphemy laws are wrong, because:
The law must not legislate emotions;
If the law legislates emotions, secular justice stops being secular, as all arguments based on emotions are arguments based on religion;
"Blasphemy laws" favor the powerful and religious organizations are the most powerful;
You may hate the late Christopher Hitchens. Nowadays, he would definitely be classified as alt-right, fascist, or a bigot. He would definitely be canceled. But he said it much better than I can:
Christopher Hitchens - Free Speech (open on YouTube.com)
He asks a great question: Who decides what you can say, hear or see? Whom can you trust?
Public humiliation #
When we speak of free speech, we refer to freedom from government sanctions. But societal norms are just as important.
Progressives, nowadays, hide behind legislation. Private property, freedom of association, or freedom of speech itself, are used as the weapons of choice to justify Internet mobs that deliver justice. They call it "consequences". And the problem with Internet mobs is that their effect is tremendously amplified by the sheer number of participants, coupled with archival of everything online, which means that one's actions are never forgotten.
For serious blasphemies, the offender's employer gets contacted, and thus the offender can lose their job. Death threats happen online too, with "TERFs" being regular targets. Sometimes it's just polite disagreement, but the effect gets amplified exponentially due to the many people engaging in the conversation. There are background effects, too — the offender's colleagues could reach the conclusion that the offender is associated with certain groups, such as the alt-right, and they may not get fired, but there are many ways to punish your colleagues, like denying them a promotion via bad reviews.
Note that anti-defamation laws don't help. Do you think you'd have the resources to sue hundreds of participants in a mob, many of which are overseas? And this is assuming that actual defamation happened, because usually the claims being made are just opinions. You can't sue someone for having opinions. Or, do you think you can delete resources off the internet? Good luck with that.
People can be hurt more by public humiliation, than they are by losing part of their fortune, or by corporal punishment.
Whipping of an incarcerated delinquent, Germany 17th century.
Mobs want revenge, not justice, and mobs aren't easily satisfied. Back in the day, public whipping was common, and it may have been more humane than today's cancel culture, because after the judicial punishment is served, the offender is redeemed, as people's appetite for revenge is satisfied. Internet mobs aren't so easily satisfied — and unlike Abrahamic religion, they don't offer a redemption path. Note that if you are famous or rich, having f-you money, you can be uncancelable. But everyone else can be screwed.
In this climate, self-censorship is inevitable, and so are its consequences.
For more on this topic, I recommend the book: So You've Been Publicly Shamed, by Jon Ronson. See an introduction:
How one tweet can ruin your life | Jon Ronson (open on YouTube.com)
I also recommend the following from the ever insightful Natalie Wynn (ContraPoints):
Canceling | ContraPoints (open on YouTube.com)
The paradox of tolerance #
"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance." — Karl Popper, 1945
This is used as the excuse of Internet mobs everywhere, and yet:
This is a self-defeating argument;
Paradoxes imply axioms, and in the real-world we don't have any, this is just rationalist bullshit; we only have shared values (aka tradition) that withstood the test of time;
This is just mental gymnastics, being a carte blanche for censorship and if we are to err, we should err on the side of tolerance;
Karl Popper was inspired by Plato. It isn't based on any empirical evidence, being just armchair philosophy. Plato came up with it to justify autocracy, possibly while on drugs.
The hard questions #
Do you feel comfortable about sharing political opinions that aren't popular in your tribe?
Do you feel free to state your opinions without risking being kicked out of that community, or even left without a job? Can you be a contrarian for a day without putting your life's work in jeopardy?
Can you afford to withhold opinion about the 'current thing', without being accused of not engaging in virtue signaling?
Are you so confident that your political opinions will always match those of your tribe? Are you so confident that your tribe is always right?
What online mobs don't understand is that it's far easier to criticize your perceived enemies, especially since online platforms make us forget about the humans behind the keyboards. It's much, much harder to criticize your online friends and allies, risking being ousted from the group, and seeing your life in ruin. And the Internet is amplifying everything, exponentially. People are self-censoring themselves in a way that has never happened before.
OH: "Before social media, it was only your family that knew how stupid you are."
On the Internet, we can't afford to be stupid.
Pro-censorship arguments #
For fairness, I will present some of the best arguments I've heard in support of online censorship, alongside my disagreement.
1) Science depends on consensus #
With no process for consensus, we have no science, which means that when 99% of scientists in a field tell you that you're drunk, you should probably go to bed.
But that consensus needs to be an organic process, and not decided by a committee. Instead, science is increasingly politicized, the scientific process being under threat from politicians and activists, especially from academia, that want to forward their own agenda, because we can all see that scientific arguments have power of persuasion, even if the science is weak. There is truth in the claim that fraudsters are cherry-picking or faking data, abusing scientific claims, to forward their own agenda. We all fell for spurious correlations, or for studies that don't take into account confounding variables, at least once. And the field is full of fraud, such as claims that autism is caused by vaccines.
That's still not a reason for censorship, for one because censorship increases mistrust in science, but also because every once in a blue moon the contrarians are right. There are plenty of low-hanging fruits to fix first with the scientific process, or in academia, solutions that are more obvious than censorship.
2) Democracy depends on shared values #
We'll have no democracy without those shared values.
Those shared values are crumbling, YES, I agree, except that those shared values don't get decided by a committee, or an algorithm. Those shared values get decided by the population, a population in which every vote or opinion should count, a population that isn't made of sheep that need shepherding.
Controlling people's thoughts via censorship is the opposite of democracy, and there's no amount of mental gymnastics that can fix this idea.
3) Polarization is a threat to democracy #
Our society is increasingly polarized, which makes consensus in society harder to achieve.
But polarization doesn't happen due to fake news, or conspiracies. As examples … polarization happens when governments of the world deploy coercive measures to combat the pandemic, with the privileged applauding because they can afford to work from home, and when inflation hits, it doesn't hit them. It happens when natural gas extraction, in the name of climate change, is in fact outsourced to Russia, fueling its war machine, or when energy prices soar. It happens when people are shamed out of their jobs for wrongthink, as an ever-increasing trend. Polarization happens when stories, such as the lab-leak theory, get censored, but then resurface in the mainstream media. Polarization happens when doomsday preppers continually predict the world ending, since many decades ago, forcing for ineffective policies that make life harder, and yet the world is still here, doing just fine. It happens when the state takes more and more rights away from parents. Or when the cost of living goes up for whatever reason.
Whenever things go bad in society, the left blames it on the rich, inequality, and capitalism, while the right is blaming other countries, immigrants and socialism. It doesn't matter what a government chooses to censor, as it's not treating the underlying cause for the social unrest.
Before blaming fake news for polarization, maybe we should look in the mirror first, because in our quest to "save the world", we've been contributing.
4) Conspiracy theories are inciting violence #
Some people believe the moon landing was a hoax, or that the Earth is flat, pointing to a total mistrust in institutions that provide indirect evidence. These are seemingly benign beliefs, but then we have QAnon, or the storming of the US Capitol based on the belief that the election was stolen, and these aren't so benign.
But we need to zoom out a little. These are manifestations of the counterculture fighting the establishment. Personally, I see no difference between the storming of the US Capitol and the "Black Lives Matter" or the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, except for their duration. I also believe communism is more toxic for society than QAnon, because it fools more people, we know it has led to unspeakable violence, and that failure to universally condemn it can be the cause for WW3 — yet I'm not preaching for the censoring of Marx and Hegel's bullshit, because education is always the better choice.
Education is always the answer, so we need more speech, not less.
Speech is not violence; silence is not violence; violence is violence.
5) Social media is private property #
Twitter/Facebook are private property, and as companies, can do whatever they want. If they say "we don't do that here" (aka a code of conduct), then everyone should abide by the rules.
YES, communities need moderation and codes of conduct!
Except Twitter/Facebook aren't a community, but represent an oligopoly encompassing the whole world. If you're guilty of wrongthink, there's nowhere you can move to. You can no longer rely on the free market to provide competition, with such an oligopoly, and these companies want to have their cake and eat it too.
This is why progressives are fond of saying that "deplatforming" works for limiting the reach of hateful individuals. Once deplatformed from these big platforms, they can't recover their audience elsewhere. But I believe that this doesn't solve the problem of hate speech in society, quite the contrary. By moving them to fringe communities, their hateful ideas are left unchallenged. I also don't believe that deplatforming people works for limiting hate speech at a society level, because nobody has the power to change mentalities overnight, those hateful mentalities already exist, and are then left unchallenged, only to manifest at the next protest or elections.
In such a case, for me, it's simple — either the companies are broken into multiple smaller companies, or they get regulated to no longer go above and beyond the law in their censorship. These social media companies need more transparency too, in order to avoid suspicion of favoring candidates in elections. And in the meantime I'm not going to give them a pass for being private companies.
Twitter/Facebook should provide the tools to keep communities and people safe, if they don't want to get exposed to hateful speech, but otherwise should not disallow communities with topics that aren't illegal or directly inciting to violence. Both Twitter and Facebook have the problem of the algorithmic timeline, which auto-suggests posts that people might get interested in. If they want to ban hate speech, that's because hate speech yields maximum engagement, which then attracts criticism. But that's not our problem — the clear answer for me is for them to stop using those creepy algorithms maximizing for attention, especially because hate speech isn't the only problem, yellow journalism and doomsday news pieces about the current thing are problematic too.
Reddit had the right approach, communities being silos in which you participated only if you wanted to. But unfortunately they too started a massive banning campaign, having banned thousands of communities after updating their content policies to forbid content that promotes hate based on identity or vulnerability. And don't get me wrong, some communities were abhorrent, which makes a principled stand for freedom of speech hard to swallow, but we can also say that Reddit no longer is what it used to be, which for me makes it much less appealing.
I recommend "Free Speech: Because We Can" (archive) by the late Aaron Swartz.
6) Democracy needs a shared notion of truth #
Here we're seriously getting into the metaphysical weeds 😅
Absolute truth exists, however, as humans, we are often incapable of finding it due our limited resources or understanding of the universe.
Democracy does not depend on finding truth. What we need is to live with each other, as neighbors, colleagues, or countrymen. Therefore, we need agreement, but not agreement on what is true, but rather agreement on what we can live with.
Democracy is a political system and a process that manages the eternal conflict between equality and freedom. Absolute freedom leads to inequality, whereas absolute equality leads to servitude. In other words, democracy is a process that acknowledges that people have their own personal truths, values, needs, and desires, being meant to create a compromise in society, such that the needs of everyone is taken into account … and here we must also mention the liberal values, which prevents democracy from devolving into a tyranny of the majority. Democracy is a process for compromise.
If you believe that we need a shared notion of truth, then censorship becomes attractive, in spite of this idea being not even wrong. If you believe that democracy is a process for compromise, such that we can leave with each other, it's becoming clear that censorship may be the last thing we want.
For many of these pro-censorship arguments, see the following talk, which presents these pro-censorship arguments well, with Sacha Baron Cohen being a talented actor and individual, delivering a powerful speech.
ADL International Leadership Award Presented to Sacha Baron Cohen (open on YouTube.com)
All throughout his talk, you should keep asking yourself "Who decides?" — it makes for a more interesting viewing. And no, I disagree with him that social media is like a newspaper, that should have journalistic integrity. I find his views on this matter naive, but an explanation would take a lot more effort.
Progressive nonsense #
Did you know free speech used to be a virtue of the left-wing parties in the West? The truth is, free speech is only a virtue of the underdogs. The establishment never wants free speech, political colors don't matter.
Given current events, here are some interesting quotes highlighting the insanity:
"This future in which there would actually be more abundant and equitable speech terrifies the crap out of people like Elon Musk" — Anand Giridharadas
"Abundant and equitable speech" is a euphemism for censorship of opposing views, such that your preferred side can be heard more. Free speech has no substitute and "equity" is invoked by all tyrants as the reason for why freedom needs to be suppressed.
"… For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less." — Max Boot
This man says that democracy needs more censorship. Interesting notion.
"An 'uncontrolled' Internet is … the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron on Earth." — The Guardian
Dictators want free speech now? OMFG 🤦♂
Epilogue #
Being a child of communism, to me the phenomenon is horrifying and disappointing, as I expected more from the West. People are forgetting what freedom of speech is, or why we need it. Yet I have faith that the democracy of the West will prevail. And when I say democracy, I'm not talking of the corrupt notion from communism, but rather the Anglo-Saxon version that focuses on liberal values and freedom.
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." — Edmund Burke
Truer words may have never been spoken.
Updated: May 1, 2022 | Written by Alexandru Nedelcu
Tags: Opinion | Politics
#DeleteTwitter
Personal | Politics
Scala isn't fun anymore
Languages | Personal | Politics | Programming Rant | Scala
Open Source vs Free Software
Politics | Open Source


text:
Josh Dunkley aims to kick more goals, wants to reach 'absolute extreme limits' of potential
Thread: Josh Dunkley aims to kick more goals, wants to reach 'absolute extreme limits' of potential
Axe Man
Bulldog Team of the Century
Western Bulldogs midfielder Josh Dunkley has set his sights on kicking more goals this season as he looks to reach the "absolute extreme limits" of his capabilities.
A 2016 premiership player, Dunkley kicked 11 goals from 19 games last year mixing his time between midfield and attack.
While he does not expect a significant change to that mix, the 22-year-old said he was determined to make himself a more dangerous option in the forward line, having "put on a fair bit of size" over the off-season.
"I think you'll see a few of us midfielders get down forward a little bit because there is that versatility side of the game," Dunkley said.
"I've always loved contested marking and things like that so to continue to improve that part of my game is to be able to continue to push forward, take marks and kick goals."
Dunkley said while the Bulldogs' forward line did not work as it would have liked in their first JLT Series match against Gold Coast on Sunday night he was confident it would have a new-and-improved look this year.
The Bulldogs ranked 15th for scores for last season, averaging just 71.6 points a game, and managed just 72 points in their five-point loss to the Suns in Mackay on Sunday.
"Avenues to goal and being able to score has been a big priority for us," Dunkley said.
"We've looked at that pretty heavily and throughout the pre-season we've been really good at it. The conditions didn't really help us up north but really looking forward to this week and seeing how we go."
Dunkley and teammate Marcus Bontempelli travelled to the United States during their off-season break, spending a week at Nike headquarters in Portland and another week training with Olympic coach Dr Matt Kritz in San Diego.
"I think the States stuff was knowing the sky's the limit," Dunkley said when asked what he had learnt from the trip.
"Not knowing your boundaries and being able to push yourself to your absolute extreme limits. We really learnt that we thought we had it covered but we're nowhere near it really. So to be able to go to that next level is pretty promising and exciting."
The Bulldogs meet St Kilda in their second and final pre-season match at Ballarat's MARS Stadium on Sunday.
GVGjr, bornadog, josie, Eastdog thanked for this post
Mofra
Mulligan's Boogie-board
Re: Josh Dunkley aims to kick more goals, wants to reach 'absolute extreme limits' of potential
I'm not sure I like this so much, he has the capacity to be a beast inside mid or a mediocre forward.
Western Bulldogs: 2016 Premiers
Rocket Science
Dunno though if the takeaway here is that he'll be sacrificing too many midfield minutes for forward duties -- more so that it's been put on the mid brigade as a whole to contribute scoring given our forward line has the consistency of a half-cooked omelette.
Then again we did trial Wood forward so who the hell knows what we'll be open to trying in our many hours of need.
QUALITATIVE SHEEN
Bulldog Revolution
Originally Posted by Mofra
Are you sure he cant contribute in both - he's good overhead and has often been able to generate shots on goal when playing forward - albeit his set shot goalkicking needs work
WBFC4FFC liked this post
The Pie Man
He's talking contested marking so it sounds like there's a plan he'll spend time forward RS - if that is the plan, I'm leaning towards some of the negativity expressed after the weekend.
He plays inside mid or not at all for mine - he's too slow to play forward. Have wondered if Libba returning complicates the midfield mix a bit....good problem to have, until they potentially make decisions like this.
Float Along - Fill Your Lungs
I'm not a huge fan of this - he was fantastic last year when "swapped" with McLean and directly contributed to our strong finish to the season.
I guess it comes down to thinking Dunkley can be a better forward than Libba, and that they're about the same in the middle. Still don't think it's the best way to help Josh realise his long-term potential.
https://www.instagram.com/shanebiggs/
Greystache
WOOF Moderator
Really not excited by this talk.
He's an ok forward which when combined with his terrible goal kicking means he's a below average player when playing forward. When he played in the midfield he looked an above average player. I guess playing him in his likely best position would make him "inflexible".
Western Bulldogs: We exist to win premierships
Originally Posted by Greystache
Would you play him in the middle ahead of Libba? Would you play them both together?
I don't know if there's room for him and Libba together in the middle or for him and Wallis in the forward line together, and I agree that his kicking really mitigates his effectiveness up forward.
He's too good to play in the seconds but not better than either of the above guys in their respective positions (although I could be convinced he's a better mid than Libba). It's a real headache and one I think we're going to have to watch play out on field.
Originally Posted by Happy Days
It doesn't need to be him or Libba. I would have him in centre clearances ahead of Macrae or McLean for example. They can be be effective outside and balance would be fine.
Happy Days thanked for this post
Bulldog Legend
Agree with the call on Macrae, but McLean is very effective inside the centre square and we should be utlilizing his skills in that part of the ground.
jeemak
Hawforn
He's said he doesn't expect a huge change to the mix of attack and midfield than he's played last year, but he just wants to use his ability to take contested marks and kick more goals.
Not sure what the issue is really. All he's saying is he wants to be dangerous when playing forward.
Bambi Davidson - Brunswick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieLJAZFE3zs
Originally Posted by jeemak
Agreed. Dunkley, Bont and McLean are all midfielders that are also capable forwards that will spend not insignificant amounts of time there.
As a midfielder that spends time forward I would hope he can kick +20 goals this year. It's important that we have a good spread of goal kickers as it's unlikely we have anyone currently capable of kicking +50 a season.
Originally Posted by Axe Man
Given only 6-8 players kick 50+ goals a season across the league it's a massive stretch to think that we can produce one in 2019.
Agree that we will need to share the load and improve on our conversion rates.
bornadog
Wherever the dogs are playing
Originally Posted by Mantis
McLean is great in the centre, but when he is streaming out with the ball he needs to improve his kicking
Premierships: AFL 1954, 2016 VFA - 1898,99,1900, 1908, 1913, 1919-20, 1923-24, VFL: 2014, 2016 . Champions of Victoria 1924. AFLW - 2018.
1eyedog
Dogsville
Reckon he'll take turns forward when Libba is in the middle and swing back into a midfield roll when Libba is rested which may happen a fair bit in the first half of the season. It's more Wallis / Dunkley I have an issue with in the same side re. the forward line.
One of the great moments in life is the sense of space and time you feel between taking a hanger and touching back down.
Quick Navigation Dog's Day Top

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Is anyone else having issues with the sheep? Basically the scissors and the soap for taking care of the sheep? I can play everything else fine it just won't let me do that simple part.
More for 1-3 year olds than 6-8! Don't waste your money unless you're buying this for a toddler.
easy to play and cute characters.


410 acres of Excellent farmland very close to the Town of Vulcan. This land is all cultivated and is ready for the 2019 crop year!! The land is on 4 titles and is all connecting. A rare opportunity to get some very good quality farmland. Also has a lot of Highway 23 frontage for possible commercial possibilities. Farm site was taken out and sold as a Acreage. If you are looking to expand your land base, come have a look!!!


text:
Q: Electromagnet for string vibration I recently read a lot about guitar sustainers, for those who don't know what are they - it is basically an electromagnet with an amplifier. It takes an input from pickup, amplifies it and then generates the magnetic field that vibrates the string.
I have the question - if we need magnetic field that changes corresponding to specific frequency in order to vibrate the string - why would we put a permanent magnet underneath the core? Wouldn't it be pointless, or even destructive? What's the point of it hanging around there? How does it help?
I probably missing some basic laws here, but can't find out what it is...
The picture below from one of many patents on this kind of invention(http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5932827).
Other patent I found also mention permanent magnets, but none of them describe in clear language what is the point of it.

A: You do not need permanent magnet here indeed(well, in theory).
Though using only coil can be problematic since magnetic field from it is very modest, you would need to place the coil very close to the string to vibrate it and it is not practical.
Permanent magnet helps simplify the coil, by changing the magnetic field generated by coil you would change the magnetic field of permanent magnet, therefore vibrating the string.
With this setup you can make coil suitable for amplifier(8 ohms, ~1 Henry for example) to work with.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


LIFE photographer John Olson (right) and Sgt. Mike Ball in Vietnam, 1970.
DOHA, Qatar — The International Playing Card Stacking Federation announced that its first All Middle East competition will be postponed for the 99th time since it was first announced in 1915, sources confirmed Thursday.
Tomorrow is #RedShirtFriday. Support our deployed troops by wearing RED on Friday's until they all come home.
Staff Sgt. John Mariana and his dog Bronco take a well-deserved break during a deployment to Afghanistan!


Online revenue grew by an average of just 1 percent last year, down from 23 percent growth in 2017 and the first time in 13 years of the M+R Benchmarks Study that growth was in the single digits. The 71-page report, released today, analyzed 4.4 million emails sent to 37.5 million email addresses, more than 7 million online gifts and $376 million raised by 135 nonprofits.
"What we saw was a really extraordinary spike in 2017. That growth was not able to be maintained but we didn't lose any ground either," said Will Valverde, creative director at consulting firm M+R. "One way to think about it: 2018 growth just showed up a year earlier," he said, looking over the past five years of data. There were probably lots of things that impacted the flat online revenue growth, Valverde said, and not just one simple explanation. It could have been the political reaction to the 2016 election, changing donor behaviors in light of new tax laws, or other factors.
"It's a surprise in a sense because we never reported a number like that. Every other time, we've reported double-digit growth," Valverde said. "For those of us who've been fundraising day after day through 2018, after end-of-year that a lot of nonprofits had, with December not meeting expectations for lots of groups, it's not a shock," he said. What helped to stabilize online revenue in 2018 was the steady expansion of monthly giving revenue, according to Valverde, which increased 17 percent. Also a key element in 2018 figures was online donor retention.
Overall, 37 percent of donors who made a gift online in 2017 donated online again to that nonprofit in 2018, about 3 percent less than in 2017. Only one in four new donors who made their first online gift in 2017 repeated the gift, compared with prior online donors whose retention rate was 59 percent. This year's study also looked at the distribution of donors and revenue by donor level.
Donors who gave at least $250 accounted for 17 percent of all gifts during 2018 and 57 percent of revenue, according to the study. Only 10 percent of donors who made gifts of less than $25 in 2017 gave again in 2018, according to the report. Retention rates increased as the size of gifts increased, peaking with donors in the $250 to $499 range who had a retention rate of 54 percent. Again, monthly giving had a hand in boosting those numbers as well. The average one-time gift was $123, compared to the average monthly gift of $23, which would work out to $276 over 12 months.
Email revenue decreased by 8 percent but still accounted for 13 percent of all online giving. For every 1,000 email appeals sent, nonprofits raised an average of $45. Email lists still saw growth, up 5 percent, with nonprofits sending 4 percent more fundraising emails than in 2017, with 14 percent churn.
Open rates were 15 percent, down 4 percent since 2017. Response rates were down even more, 13 percent for fundraising emails to 0.06 percent, and 15 percent for advocacy emails, to 1.8 percent. For the first time, the study analyzed almost 33,000 unique Facebook Fundraisers. The vast majority of Facebook revenue in 2018 was via Facebook Fundraisers, a peer-to-peer tool that exploded last year, accounting for 99 percent of all nonprofit revenue processed on Facebook. For every $100 in direct online revenue, nonprofits raised an additional $1.77 via Facebook.
Health nonprofits in particular took advantage of Facebook Fundraisers, receiving $29.88 via the tool for every $100 received in direct online revenue, far ahead of other categories. The average gift for health nonprofits was $37 and the number of Facebook Fundraisers per organization was highest, by far, at 690. Three of the seven subsectors averaged more than 100, with the next closest being rights groups at 132.
The average number of gifts to an individual Facebook Fundraiser was 7.4, the only outlier there were rights groups, at an average of 9.5. Almost one quarter of the revenue raised via Facebook was during November, likely due to #GivingTuesday. Otherwise, the percent of Facebook-related revenue raised in each month ranged from 5.17 percent to 8.51 percent.
* 101 Instagram followers, up 34 percent.
Also for the first time, the study examined membership and ticket revenue, which saw a pretty significant shift toward online than the previous year, Valverde said.
"Membership giving followed a similar trajectory to other kinds of online revenue. After robust 21 percent growth in 2017, nonprofits saw a 5 percent increase in membership revenue in 2018," according to the report.
The post Online Giving Flat In 2018, Open Rates Dropped appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
Give OUT Day (www.giveoutday.org) — the only national day of giving for the LGBTQ community — raised more than $1.1 million for greater than 475 participating nonprofits.
Held on April 18, Give OUT Day raised $1,132,970 for nonprofits from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and for the first time, Puerto Rico. Give OUT Day also broke its previous record for number of donations made through the campaign at nearly 14,000.
Give OUT Day is organized by Horizons Foundation (www.horizonsfoundation.org), based in San Francisco, Calif.
"The record-breaking success of Give OUT Day demonstrates the incredible power of our communities when we come together," stated Horizons Foundation President Roger Doughty. "Never before have so many nonprofits raised so much through a single-day campaign to power the LGBTQ movement. Theses nonprofits — from youth groups to senior centers, from choruses to advocacy groups, from nonprofits in Alaska to Puerto Rico — are now better equipped to advance a world where LGBTQ people thrive," concluded Doughty.
One of the participating organizations was The Source LGBT+ Community Center in Visalia, Calif. The Source has participated in Give OUT Day every year since 2016, growing its success each year. In 2017, The Source secured enough individual donors to win second place on the national leaderboard for small-budget organizations, earning additional prize money. The next year, they took first prize, which helped fund a move to a larger building for their organization to provide critical community services.
The Source has grown rapidly, this year moving to the medium-budget category – and winning first prize yet again. Funds raised on Give OUT Day this year will go toward their critical youth programs.
In addition to the funds raised by individuals, Horizons Foundation, with support from other foundation partners, awarded leaderboard prizes worth nearly $100,000. Prizes were awarded to organizations that raised funds from the greatest number of individual donors in multiple categories.
Give OUT Day leaderboards were sponsored by Laughing Gull Foundation, Harnisch Foundation, Horizons Foundation, and two anonymous funders. Additional Give OUT Day sponsors and partners include Lesbians for Good, Click & Pledge, Clever, and The Blade Foundation.
Give OUT Day has provided unrestricted operating funds to organizations since its inception in 2013. More than 58,000 individual donors' contributions have exceeded $6 million and supported more than 600 different organizations in every part of the country.
Next year's Give OUT Day is scheduled for April 16, 2020.
The post Give OUT Day Raised $1.1 Million for LGBTQ Nonprofits appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
When it comes to sponsorships, it's about audience, not cause, for most businesses that fundraisers approach. Fundraisers need to stop thinking of sponsorship as philanthropy. It's a straight line from sponsorship opportunity to audience to prospect for the potential sponsor.
Chris Baylis, president and chief executive officer of The Sponsorship Collective in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, talked about the deadly sins of sponsorship recently during a session at the annual Association of Fundraising Professionals' annual international conference in San Antonio, Texas.
Sponsors really don't exist and often the cause is irrelevant to the decision of whether or not to sponsor an event. According to Baylis, cause is important to the nonprofit's audience and that audience is important to the sponsorship prospect. Fundraisers should use the cause to attract and define your audience and your audience to define and attract a prospect. It's about bringing the prospect to their potential audience via your cause.
It is not a coincidence that the sponsors of this conference all happen to sell products to charities, Baylis told the fundraisers. It's all about audience.
The lack of valuation of the event will hurt the solicitation. There are five elements of which to be aware, according to Baylis.
Run a social media campaign.
What does your target market value?
What can you tell me about your sales goals for the coming year?
What would you consider to be the most important elements of a sponsorship package?
Tell me about a time a sponsorship deal went well/didn't go well. Why?
The post Sponsorship Is Not A Philanthropic Activity appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
Bail went from $5,000 to $1 million for a man who allegedly murdered his spouse shortly after a nonprofit posted his bail on a domestic violence case.
Samuel Lee Scott, 54, of Saint Louis, Mo., was arrested for domestic assault, a misdemeanor, after allegedly hitting his wife, Marcia Johnson and inflicting injuries to her face, ear and cheek bone. Scott was released from jail after the St. Louis Bail Project posted his bond.
That night he allegedly went to her home around 7:45 p.m. According to the office of St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner, she was assaulted again resulting in "a broken eye socket, several broken ribs, and (bruises) from head to toe." She died five days later.
The Bail Project is a national organization modeled after The Bronx Freedom Fund, which she co-founded by Robin Steinberg and David Feige in 2007. It expanded to St. Louis in January 2018 and has 13 offices, including a home base of Venice, Calif. Advisors to the organization include Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Group and entertainer John Legend.
Steinberg is also a Gilbert Foundation Senior Fellow of the Criminal Justice Program at UCLA School of Law where she works with faculty and students on bail reform initiatives and research.
The post Woman Murdered After Nonprofit Posts Man's Bail appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
The Salesforce.org social enterprise of cloud software giant Salesforce is being melded back into the company and Salesforce is paying $300 million to make it happen. The firm has been selling customer or constituent relationship software at a discount or giving it away with nonprofits eventually paying various service fees.
Salesforce.org will convert from a California public benefit corporation into a California business corporation and Salesforce will pay a one-time cash purchase price of $300 million for all shares of Salesforce.org. The $300 million will be distributed to the independent Salesforce.com Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation and 501(c)(3) organization.
Salesforce announced it will continue to provide free and discounted software to nonprofits and education institutions and will facilitate employee volunteering, strategic grants and matching employee giving up to $5,000 per employee annually. Salesforce made the announcement during a call with investors and analysts on Monday and issued a press release.
Salesforce will create a new nonprofit and education vertical led by Salesforce.org CEO Rob Acker. The new vertical will be responsible for the sales, marketing and customer success of the Salesforce Customer Success Platform to the nonprofit and education communities, as well as the development of Salesforce.org's Nonprofit Cloud, Education Cloud and Philanthropy Cloud vertical applications. The company will make additional contributions to the Salesforce Foundation.
The deal is subject to approval by the Attorney General of California. Upon the closing of the transaction, Salesforce will terminate its current reseller agreement between Salesforce and Salesforce.org, and Salesforce will incur a one-time, non-cash accounting charge in the fiscal quarter in which the transaction closes.
A spokesperson for Salesforce said the company can make no further comments until the deal is approved, which is expected in either June or July.
Salesforce estimates that this non-cash charge will be approximately $200 million, but the final amount will not be determined until the closing of the transaction. Salesforce is a traded on the New York Stock Exchange with the symbol CRM. Salesforce stock opened Tuesday down $6.95 per share, about 4 percent from its 52-week high of $166.99.
The combination with Salesforce.org is expected to increase the company's full year fiscal 2020 revenue by approximately $150 million to $200 million, depending on the transaction close date, according to the firm. During the conference call with investors and analysts, Salesforce's Chief Financial Officer Mark Hawkins admitted that margins are smaller when dealing with nonprofits and the monthly subscription rate.
"But it's also going to be on a pathway and convergence over time to our overall Salesforce operating margin over the longer term," Hawkins said during the call. Prices are expected to increase, although not immediately.
Technology experts in the nonprofit sector have been expecting this type of move for some time. "The number of nonprofits using Salesforce has been accelerating, so it's not a surprise to me at all that they want to bring Salesforce.org into the main business," said Amy Sample Ward, CEO of NTEN, the Portland, Ore., nonprofit technology organization. "I hope that building an internal vertical for nonprofits and education will mean even more investment in the unique needs those sectors have, and an increased visibility across the other verticals of the power of the technology for social good," she said.
The deal could cut two ways, according to Karen Graham at Tech Impact, based in Philadelphia, Pa. "On one hand, this could open up access to product development resources at a level not seen before in Salesforce.org. It is part of a dawning realization across the tech sector that nonprofits are not just a feel-good investment, but a huge part of the economy — with formidable buying power. On the other, giving up their public benefit corporation status means Salesfore.org will be accountable above all to Salesforce shareholders, not the good of society," she said.
The post Salesforce.org Being Folded Into Parent Firm appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
Planning a donor cultivation event takes time and planning. One element of the planning is why you are holding the event. You'd think it's about the money. It isn't.
Linda Lysakowski, ACFRE, spoke about donor cultivation events during the recent annual international conference of the Association of Fundraising Professionals held in San Antonio, Texas. Often at donor cultivation events the rule is if you ask for money you'll get advice but ask for advice and you'll get money.
Like plants, cultivation events just don't happen, she told the audience. There are two things to keep in mind. You know the first one — donor acquisition is expensive so once you have a donor you keep to keep the person. The second element is that donors want to know how you've used their money.
There are four reasons to have an event: To raise awareness of wider audience to your cause; to generate excitement about it; to get feedback from a specific sector of potential donors; and, to lay the groundwork for future cultivation.
Your event plan requires a purpose. For example, the purpose could to be to build relationships with current donors, cultivate relationships with prospective donors, get advice from supporters, obtain media exposure, secure government funding, recruit volunteers or to increase clients, Lysakowski, who is based in Boulder City, Nev., told the audience. Through it all, you need to tell your story.
There are seven steps to getting this all done. You must choose your audiences, determine your events, plan your schedule, secure your hosts, send your invitation, create your agenda and follow up.
When it comes to the event host, your chief executive should be part of the show but probably shouldn't host. Finding the perfect host might need some individual cultivation, too, she told the audience.
The post Special Events: They Just Don't Happen appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
The value of a volunteer's time hit an all-time high during 2018 at $25.43 an hour, up 3 percent from 2017. It's an increase of 20.3 percent since 2008 when the rate was $20.25.
An estimated 63 million Americans volunteer roughly 8 billion hours of their time, contributing approximately $203.4 billion in time to nonprofit organizations of all types. The data is from Independent Sector's annual value of volunteer time study.
The value of volunteer time is based on the hourly earnings approximated from yearly values of all production and non-supervisory workers on private, non-farm payrolls. It is based on averages of earnings provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The national average is increased 12 percent to estimate for fringe benefits. Independent Sector, in partnership with economic impact data firm IMPLAN in Huntersville, N.C., indexes this figure to determine state values.
Total volunteer hours are up, but the percentage of people who volunteer is declining. According to the University of Maryland's Do Good Institute, the volunteer rate nationally has dropped from about 29 percent to roughly 25 percent. Based on an adult population of 252 million, that means a decrease of more than 10 million American volunteers.
The post Volunteer Time Value Hits All-Time High appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
"One thing we're big on here is data analytics," said Eric Dill, senior vice president, human resources, at American Arbitration Association (AAA). Just don't call it "Moneyball" for nonprofits.
"We may have great ideas but we need to sell that to a wide group of individuals," he said. Senior executives and leadership have a global view while finance executives focus on whether it demonstrates actual cost savings. "They can analyze data all they want; it's the actionable side of it," Dill said.
The New York City-based nonprofit focused on alternative dispute resolution was among a number of organizations that secured a spot in the 2019 Best Nonprofits To Work For in its first year of participation in the 11th annual national study. AAA ranked No. 49 overall and fifth among large organizations (250 employees or more).
The post 2019 Best Nonprofits To Work For appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
Community Brands has made its third acquisition in the nonprofit event space in just the past two weeks, acquiring Attendee Interactive, a Marriottsville, Md., company specializing in conference planning and event management.
Attendee Interactive provides content solutions for managing event websites, speakers, session abstracts, and continuing education accreditation. The self-service tools are made available to both attendees and exhibitors, allowing event planners to maximize time, staff productivity, and budgets.
The company also provides software to help manage the logistical aspects of events. Capabilities offered include management of function requirements, space diaries, staff time and schedules, vendors, as well as the ability to easily create event function books.
This deal comes on the heels of St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Community Brands acquiring Core-apps in Arnold, Md., and TripBuilder Media in Westport, Conn. Financial details of the three deals were not released by Community Brands, a St. Petersburg, Fla.-based provider of cloud and on-premises software and payment systems for associations, nonprofits, schools and faith-based groups.
Core-apps and TripBuilder Media added capabilities for mobile event apps, attendee engagement, digital attendee wayfinding, and attendee tracking to the Community Brands event technology portfolio. Together with the capabilities of Attendee Interactive and the company's existing event management solutions, the combined capabilities present one of the most comprehensive event technology offerings available.
Attendee Interactive has existing product integrations with both Core-apps and TripBuilder Media, according to information from Community Brands. As a part of the integration, speaker and session abstract data from Attendee Interactive is integrated into the attendee touchpoints from Core-apps and TripBuilder Media.
The integration is intended to save conference planners time and ensure that attendees are accessing the most up to date information about an event. In addition, onsite data gathered from Core-apps and TripBuilder Media can be made available in the online planner tool from Attendee Interactive, for a two-way sync between attendees and planners.
The post Community Brands Buys Attendee Interactive appeared first on The NonProfit Times.
Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County embodies the spirit of hope, improves Southern Nevada communities, and makes Nevada a better place to live. We care about the entire community and we are dedicated to helping people help themselves and each other.
Through the work of dedicated members and other collaborations with the Economic Opportunity Board of Clark County, many lives have been changed for the better.


text:
Le pain tressé et natté est un pain à base de pâte à brioche, en forme de natte, très apprécié en Martinique, en Guadeloupe et en Guyane.

Annexes

Liens externes
 « Pain au beurre antillais au four », cuisine.journaldesfemmes.fr (consulté le ).
 « Pain au beurre », cuisine-creole.com (consulté le ).

Pain
Cuisine antillaise
Cuisine guyanaise

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
From its base in Alnwick, MSP is changing the face of global manufacturing with its innovative software, products that are being embraced by many of the world's biggest and best-known names. North East Times meets its founders Tony Brown and Peter Hammond
From a belief that traditional part manufacturing processes needed to evolve, came a concept that has truly changed the world.
Back in 1998, when Tony Brown and Peter Hammond first started to develop their unique metrology software solutions, they could not have predicted the impact their innovations would have – and with a new hardware product about to launch that will revolutionise manufacturing further still, that impact looks set to continue.
"We just thought there had to be another way of doing things. Manufacturing companies were suffering from the same problems, regardless of the sector they were in. We both saw a lot of troubles and complaints about bad parts, wasted time and money, and we knew there had to be a solution to this," says Tony, who worked for a company writing software for machining parts, with Peter working for a company that inspected machined parts.
Now, 20 years on from their initial musings, the technology developed by their business, MSP, is used on all five continents of the world. It has been used to pioneer two models of fighter jet, is used by three top Formula 1 teams, and, in the coming months, the business will introduce its AutoClock and NC-Inspect products, which will fully automate the production process for the first time.
Such hugely impressive global achievements are being done, discreetly and quietly, from MSP's base in Alnwick. Its 40-strong workforce, half of whom work in research and development, are continually innovating to ensure the company stays ahead of the game and continues its stellar upward trajectory. The business has grown consistently each year since being formally founded in 2002, with annual growth of up to 25 per cent year-on-year and international sales increasing by 70 per cent last year alone.
With its suite of patented products – NC-Checker, NC-PerfectPart and AutoClock, all of which bring automation to aspects of the traditional manufacturing process – its services are commissioned by an increasing number of major global companies. Its first commission, shortly after MSP launched, was from BAE Systems to help make its new generation Eurofighter Typhoon. This project won them a BAE Systems Chairman's Award, immediate projection onto the world stage, and grabbed particular attention in the aerospace sector. This led to work on a number of high-profile projects including the F35 fighter jet and Airbus' A320, A350 and A380.
"The Eurofighter project was what really established us as a company, it was massive for us, particularly in terms of profile at such an early stage. Through the use of our products and the introduction of automation, the time taken to manufacture a part was reduced from seven days to under one. That helped us demonstrate the impact we could have in the aerospace sector and has been instrumental for our continued success within the industry," says Tony.
Success in reducing manufacturing times, while dramatically improving efficiency and reducing error, while making cost savings of often millions of pounds, is at the heart of why so many globally-renowned names are turning to MSP. In its work in Formula 1, again the statistics speak for themselves. Through use of NC-Checker and NC-PerfectPart, part set-up time has been reduced by an incredible 9.5 hours.
Peter adds: "Traditionally, a lot of the process to make components like the chassis would be done manually and would take around 12 hours. That's just for one component. By using our software, we were able to get set up down to 38 minutes – added to 2 hours for the machining, that's 2.5 hours, and a very significant time saving. In Formula 1, where innovation is everything, that has proved to be very important, and we now work with three leading Formula 1 teams based in the UK."
Having achieved so much already, MSP – who were recently acknowledged for its efforts with both a Dynamo Dynamites 18 and Made in the North East award – is now preparing for the launch of its AutoClock and NC-Inspect products, which are set to raise the innovation stakes even higher.
"In the short term, the launch of our AutoClock product will completely automate the production system, and that will be very significant for us. We will be able to return to many clients we have worked with previously to fully automate their process. We would say that many of our clients have become friends, such is the relationship we have with them, and we are really looking forward to working with them on the next stage of development of their processes," says Tony.
Peter continues: "Longer term, we want to create ever more simple solutions to complex problems for manufacturers worldwide. Growing our team – particularly our software development and application engineering teams – is key to that. Research and development are central to our continued growth so we can continue to innovate and, get in front of our customers, listen to the problems with their manufacturing processes and know we can solve them. This process will never be finished as our customers always have to be advancing, and so do we."
www.metsoftpro.com
10 Questions: Nigel Perry


text:
Our Story So Far
Inquiron was borne out of the need to manage data in unpredictable regions like Iraq, Afghanistan and East Africa.
Operating in these regions brought the challenge of handling complex and sensitive datasets in low bandwidth areas. We've utilized this experience to build accessible and intuitive platforms that are proven to work in the world's most isolated areas.
We are a dedicated team, and proud to be working on critical problems for some of the world's biggest organisations. Our clients include western governments, Oil and Gas majors, NGO's and tier one security and risk management companies.
We love talking about what we do and would love to tell you more about where we've come from and where we're going.
Everything we design has the user in mind and we are proud that our software is complex behind the scenes, yet simple by appearance. We're not all computer science grads – we have MBAs, Arts, and Science degrees. This allows us to fuse technology with the humanities and build platforms that are accessible to all.
Our team has a range of experience from working with corporates, militaries, governments and academic research.
We're always interested in talented people, whatever your background. With offices in Dubai and London, our small team represents 10 nationalities.
We look for people with a passion for making things better, with a keen eye on the future and a focus on customer experience. If you're interested in working with us, please get in touch.


text:
Lowe's drives successful growth home
Categories Retail News, Top News
Among the lessons of the pandemic was a new definition of "home." Residences have always been places of investment, pride and personal reflection, said Lowe's Companies Inc. Chairman and CEO Marvin Ellison at NRF 2022: Retail's Big Show, but they quickly became something else — the place for school, office work, recreation, entertainment and sanctuary, too.
Lowe's had to step up its game to be there for customers, and those customers responded "incredibly well," Ellison said. The company has not only kept pace amid the challenging times, but also grown exponentially.
Throughout the pandemic, stores have remained open with the exception of Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas. In 2021, Lowe's saw revenue of $95 billion, representing 33 percent comparable sales growth on a two-year basis. It has hired almost 100,000 new team members and invested almost $1 billion in incremental bonuses and incentives for front-line hourly associates.
And as for Ellison? "I couldn't be more proud of my leadership team," he said.
Ellison joined NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay virtually for a keynote on Lowe's becoming the "total home" destination. Shay commended Ellison on that leadership team, calling it "part of the transformation that's taken place."
Ellison, Shay continued, had already been making major investments in the company prior to the pandemic, including a renewed focus on retail fundamentals. Those investments helped the company execute at the level it did over the last two years.
When Ellison took the helm of Lowe's in July 2018, the company was not "modern" in relation to modern retail. There was a 10-year-old dot.com infrastructure; there was no coherent merchandising strategy; the supply chain was more suited to bricks-and-mortar; and the labor scheduling system was a static schedule handed down from the corporate office to 2,200 stores, among other challenges.
Lowe's began making investments in these areas in late 2018 into 2019, so when the pandemic hit, great strides had already been made.
Even so, the company still wasn't where it needed to be, and some of those investments had to be reprioritized. Lowe's leaned into things like curbside pickup, buy online pick up in store, improving the mobile app and working to ensure the health and safety of the workforce and customers.
The next plateau is the "total home" strategy to help sustain market share growth. It's a basic philosophy to make Lowe's the provider of everything a customer might need for the home. That means, for example, towels for the bathroom remodel, and pots and pans for the kitchen.
Home improvement is a roughly $900 billion market, Ellison said, and Lowe's and its chief competitor make up only $300 billion of it combined. There's still room for expansion.
The conversation also touched on a partnership with AARP that helps customers "age in place" with solutions for changing mobility needs; Ellison's unique perspective as one of only a few Black Fortune 500 CEOs, as well as someone who came up through the workforce loading trucks, being a janitor, catching shoplifters and working graveyard shifts; and how Lowe's celebrated its 100th birthday in 2021 by completing 100 impact projects in communities nationwide.
"As we think about what we need to be as a company, it's been really simple," he said. "We want to take care of associates and be the best workplace we can be. We want to delight our customers. We want to make our communities better."
And doing those things consistently, he said, will satisfy shareholders and create great shareholder value. "I'm proud of the work that we've done," Ellison said, "but we have to maintain it."
Source: NRF
gsiino
Nordstrom expands its offerings through creativity
Manhattan's retail market ticks up toward rebound


2019). Innovating Pedagogy 2019: Open University Innovation Report 7. At the same time, playful learning doesn't fit well in many current education systems. He saw his Waldorf School as a place to foster a spirit of wonder that combines thinking, feeling, and doing.


(CNN) -- Salwa Salah was 16 years old when she was arrested by Israeli forces and jailed for seven months.
Israeli court minutes said Salwa Salah, 16, had been involved in "planning military operations."
To this day she says she does not know her crime and is struggling to get her life back on track.
She was released shortly before her final school exams but was unable to catch up and now has to re-sit before she can go to university.
Salah was held under administrative detention - detention without charge or trial. It is legal under international law which permits its use only in exceptional cases to protect the security of a state.
But human rights groups say Israel abuses this right.
A report released Wednesday by human rights groups B'Tselem and HaMoked has called on Israel to release the detainees or charge them. They say there are currently 335 Palestinians being held under administrative detention, three of them women, one a minor.
Salah insists she is a schoolgirl and not a terrorist but no further information was given to her lawyer. Much of the evidence in these cases remains secret.
Sahar Francis, a lawyer from Ademeer human rights association said: "It is submitted to the military judge and me as a lawyer. I don't have access to this file so actually I can't defend my clients properly since I don't know what the exact suspicion against my client is."
Talking to CNN about her incarceration, Salah said the prison conditions were fit only for animals and she found her time inside psychologically hard. "The prisoner does not know if he or she is going to be released or not," she said.
"So sitting in a prison confused and weary asking 'am I going to be released?' You are distorted by this one question."
Israel says administrative detention is a valuable pre-emptive tool in its ongoing war on terrorism and often evidence cannot be made public. Lt. Col Maurice Hirsch, Israeli prosecutor, said: "Most of the evidence is not shown to the detainee but rather is kept a secret in order to protect the lives of the people that provide the information and the technological means by which the information is acquired."
The al-Hidmi family has found itself on the wrong side of administrative detention for many years.
One son Islam, 20, was held for twenty one months without charge or trial.
Two months ago there was an emotional homecoming for Islam, his mother had not seen him since his arrest.
Two weeks ago, Islam was arrested again, again without charge.
Islam's brother, Wa'ad is also in prison. Held since April 2008 from the age of 16, his administrative detention has been renewed six times. His father Arafat al-Hidmi tells CNN, "They arrested him and said this is an administrative detention meaning his file is secret and no-one can look at it except the Israelis."
His mother, Fawzia al-Hidmi says of her 18 year old son, "I want my son here so he can do his exams and I can be proud like everyone else who celebrated their children's graduation."
Both sons had previously been charged with throwing stones at Israeli troops and affiliation with Islamic Jihad.
"The default should always be towards trial and punishment," said Mark Ellis of the International Bar Association.
"These types of administrative detention can never be a substitute for punishment and trials. Based on the numbers of individuals detained, the Israeli military appears to be using it as the default and that is what makes it in my opinion illegal under international standards."


text:
Lady Bugs Perspective
Meghan Markle – Not First Black UK Royalty
April 7, 2016 Lady Bug
On Tuesday, April 12, 2016, police entered the Mossack Fonseca Panama offices under the command of a prosecutor who specializes in organized crime and money laundering. Some question the government's delay in investigating the Mossack Fonseca offices stating; "The day after the Panama Papers revelations came to light the Panama government should have intervened immediately in Mossack Fonseca. They should have collected the data, the computer, gotten all of the evidence," "A lot of evidence could have been diluted, altered."
A United Nations expert called for the need to end tax secrecy, saying: "Tax evasion destroys trust in public institutions and the rule of law, and shrinks the fiscal space for investing in public healthcare, education, social security and other goods and services,".
"Public funds that are essential to guarantee economic, social and cultural rights to all are robbed by tax evaders."
Mossack Fonseca has denied any wrongdoing.
A huge leak of documents revealed how the rich and powerful use tax havens to hide their wealth. The leak is referred to as Panama Papers. The files were leaked from one of the world's most secretive companies, a Panamanian law firm called Mossack Fonseca. Over 11-million documents were obtained by the German newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). The ICIJ has worked with journalists from 107 media organizations in 76 countries to analyze the documents for over a year.
Although there are legitimate ways of using tax havens, what appears to be going on is about hiding true owners of money or origin of money and avoiding paying tax on money. A main allegation is the creation of shell companies, which have the outward appearance of being legitimate businesses, but are empty shells. They do nothing but manage money, while hiding who owns that money.
Mossack Fonseca has denied that the Panama Papers establish any wrongdoing, noting there is nothing illegal about setting up offshore companies. There are legitimate reasons why people might want anonymity or to protect their money overseas. A 2012 study reported that at least $21 trillion, perhaps as much as $31 trillion has been parked in offshore accounts to put it out of reach of various authorities and Mossack Fonseca has set up more that 240,000 offshore companies.
Panama Papers links 12 current or former heads of state and government s in the files, including dictator accused of looting their own counties. Click here for a current list of names. The Panama Papers leak has revealed that more than 500 banks, including their subsidiaries and branches, registered nearly 15,600 shell companies with Mossack Fonseca.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) does not know the identity of the source but the firm says it has been the victim of a hack from servers broad.
I encourage your comments and feedback.
Categories: Banking.
On the Escalator
Homelessness in the Golden State – California
#Bystander Abuser
Archives Select Month November 2018 May 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 July 2017 September 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 November 2015 October 2015
Meghan Markel – Not First Black UK Royalty
Lady Bug on Mexican Repatriation Campaigns
Lady Bug on Earthquake Preparedness
Lady Bug on Jeff Sessions Recinds Cole Memo – Marijuana Enforcement
Maxelois Dorsey on Child Custody Battle – Indian Child Welfare Act Prevails
Maxelois Dorsey on A Border Wall, Really?


text:
Q: UnmarshalException in Spring 3.1 Restful Service Using xml Request i use spring web 3.1.1 and spring oxm 3.1.1.
when jaxb2marshaller attempt to unmarshall xml source to object
blow Exception occured.
2012-12-03 13:38:41,152[k.c.s.s.c.r.AuthenticationController:154][ERROR] JAXB unmarshalling exception; nested exception is javax.xml.bind.UnmarshalException: Namespace URIs and local names to the unmarshaller needs to be interned
org.springframework.oxm.UnmarshallingFailureException: JAXB unmarshalling exception; nested exception is javax.xml.bind.UnmarshalException: Namespace URIs and local names to the unmarshaller needs to be interned
at org.springframework.oxm.jaxb.Jaxb2Marshaller.convertJaxbException(Jaxb2Marshaller.java:761) ~[org.springframework.oxm-3.1.1.RELEASE.jar:3.1.1.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.oxm.jaxb.Jaxb2Marshaller.unmarshal(Jaxb2Marshaller.java:682) ~[org.springframework.oxm-3.1.1.RELEASE.jar:3.1.1.RELEASE]
at org.springframework.oxm.jaxb.Jaxb2Marshaller.unmarshal(Jaxb2Marshaller.java:665) ~[org.springframework.oxm-3.1.1.RELEASE.jar:3.1.1.RELEASE]

i configured jaxb2 marshall on my sevlet setting like this.
<oxm:jaxb2-marshaller id="marshaller">
    <oxm:class-to-be-bound name="kr.co.skcomms.simon.bean.rest.Authentication" />
</oxm:jaxb2-marshaller>

and on the Controller try to unmarshall like this.
@Autowired
public Jaxb2Marshaller marshaller;
....
Source source = new StreamSource(new StringReader(body));
Authentication authentication = (Authentication) marshaller.unmarshal(source);

and My Authentication Object .

@XmlRootElement
public class Authentication {
private String simon_auth;

private String client_ip;

private String request_url;

public Authentication(){
}

@XmlElement
public String getSimon_auth() {
    return simon_auth;
}

public void setSimon_auth(String simon_auth) {
    this.simon_auth = simon_auth;
}

@XmlElement
public String getClient_ip() {
    return client_ip;
}

public void setClient_ip(String client_ip) {
    this.client_ip = client_ip;
}

@XmlElement
public String getRequest_url() {
    return request_url;
}

public void setRequest_url(String request_url) {
    this.request_url = request_url;
}

}

i refered this article..
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/wa-spring3webserv/index.html
i think my sources are absolutly same with article's sample code.
but it doesn't work well.
i appreciate your help.

A: solved problem myself.. (lol)
download the source of springframework-oxm-3.1.1.source..
and logged orign Exception stack trace of org.springframework.oxm.jaxb.Jaxb2Marshaller Class.
2012-12-03 21:28:14,864[o.s.o.j.Jaxb2Marshaller:698][DEBUG] [JAXBException] : javax.xml.bind.UnmarshalException: Namespace URIs and local names to the unmarshaller needs to be interned.
javax.xml.bind.UnmarshalException: Namespace URIs and local names to the unmarshaller needs to be interned.
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.UnmarshallingContext.handleEvent(UnmarshallingContext.java:631) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.Loader.reportError(Loader.java:236) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.Loader.reportError(Loader.java:231) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.Loader.reportUnexpectedChildElement(Loader.java:103) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.UnmarshallingContext$DefaultRootLoader.childElement(UnmarshallingContext.java:1038) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.UnmarshallingContext._startElement(UnmarshallingContext.java:467) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.UnmarshallingContext.startElement(UnmarshallingContext.java:448) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.SAXConnector.startElement(SAXConnector.java:137) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.caucho.xml.XmlParser.addElement(XmlParser.java:2615) ~[resin.jar:3.1.0]
    at com.caucho.xml.XmlParser.parseElement(XmlParser.java:663) ~[resin.jar:3.1.0]
    at com.caucho.xml.XmlParser.parseNode(XmlParser.java:381) ~[resin.jar:3.1.0]
    at com.caucho.xml.XmlParser.parseInt(XmlParser.java:256) ~[resin.jar:3.1.0]
    at com.caucho.xml.AbstractParser.parse(AbstractParser.java:644) ~[resin.jar:3.1.0]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.UnmarshallerImpl.unmarshal0(UnmarshallerImpl.java:200) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at com.sun.xml.internal.bind.v2.runtime.unmarshaller.UnmarshallerImpl.unmarshal(UnmarshallerImpl.java:173) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at javax.xml.bind.helpers.AbstractUnmarshallerImpl.unmarshal(AbstractUnmarshallerImpl.java:137) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at javax.xml.bind.helpers.AbstractUnmarshallerImpl.unmarshal(AbstractUnmarshallerImpl.java:105) ~[na:1.6.0_16]
    at org.springframework.oxm.jaxb.Jaxb2Marshaller.unmarshal(Jaxb2Marshaller.java:694) [classes:na]
    at org.springframework.oxm.jaxb.Jaxb2Marshaller.unmarshal(Jaxb2Marshaller.java:672) [classes:na]

as u can see. java UnmarshallerImpl Object choose Resin's XmlPaser...
this is the problem.. Resin set the System Property that important for xml handling
javax.xml.parsers.DocumentBuilderFactory
javax.xml.parsers.SAXParserFactory

these Factory Beans are work for springframework-oxm parser. then... it couldn't work.
so i change resin.conf file (maybe [resin_dir]/conf/resin.conf)
<!-- Uncomment to use Resin's XML implementations
 -
 - <system-property javax.xml.parsers.DocumentBuilderFactory
 -                 ="com.caucho.xml.parsers.XmlDocumentBuilderFactory"/>
 - <system-property javax.xml.parsers.SAXParserFactory
 -                 ="com.caucho.xml.parsers.XmlSAXParserFactory"/>
-->

Conclusion
Resin's XmlPaser and other Factory doesn't have flexibility with springframework-oxm library.
i hope u don't waste ur time!