US money burning, Copyright Filip Fuxa

I just want to warn all my friends and family that this social networking company is the biggest ponzi scheme since AOL and Netscape crashed, hey maybe since the South Sea bubble.

At least if you get stuck with a tulip, you can eat it.

So a few things have been happening these past few days, and I’ve been busy.  Then I hear Facebook has it’s IPO for a few billion.  Now, I know that Yahoo initially made a few young billionaires (and yes, then we learned it was overpriced) and Google did Okay (and they were smart enough to buy up Youtube.)  But Facebook is a fad.  And there’s a difference between a few billion and a hundred billion.

Don’t get me wrong, Google is also in trouble.  The quality of its search in places has been dropping, and Microsoft’s Bing is the default on many public computers now (meaning kids are learning to use Bing before Google.)  And the way Google promotes Youtube (at the expense of other video services it indexes) might put it into trouble with some competition authorities.

But Google has cornered a lot of the advertising market.   It does still have a chance.  It has many services that its competitors seem unwilling to offer.

Facebook, on the other hand, has no real security.  I think that the twelve year olds who sign up have the right idea, don’t give Facebook your real date of birth.  I’d suggest you give them a false month and day of the month too.

Facebook has a little advertising, and I find that it isn’t at all targeted to my interests.  I think Facebook is about the only webpage I’ve used where I have never seen an advertisement that I wanted to click on.

I’ve tried advertising with both Facebook and Google Ad Words in the past (my bids were too low, so I didn’t end up paying anything.  I didn’t get any traffic out of it either.)  I found Google’s way of choosing adverts to be much more intuitive.  When people are searching for something, the right keyword pops up.  With Facebook, your ads come up compared to what groups someone is a member of, or what their declared “interests” are.  There are a few other ways it works, but it’s about as intelligent as a dead jellyfish.

While I’m unlikely to pay to advertise with either company in the near future, of the two, I’d recommend using Google Ads to my clients.

Will the economy see an increase in spending in online advertising?  Maybe.  Advertising on Youtube looks like a fantastic option, as well as using Youtube’s distant rivals Daily Motion and Vimeo.  Youtube is addictive, and it is slowly offering more networking options.

Vimeo is also excellent for the artistic community, and Daily Motion seems to target more of the thinking crowd.  Each has its own personality, and best of all, unlike with Facebook, the ads are targeted.

In the future, I see some of these (and similar) video networks replacing Facebook.  They could add gaming features, eventually, and integrate into a few MMOs like the Sims and Worlds of Warcraft.

Photo companies are good too.  But Facebook’s recent purchase of a no name photo company, with money it didn’t really have, was ridiculous.  I mean, it made AOL’s purchase of Time-Warner look normal.

All my Facebook connections are invited to connect with me on LinkedIn, or to continue to communicate by email.  If you don’t get the invitation, my linked in page is http://www.linkedin.com/in/vascodesousa .

Well, I’m destroying my Facebook account today, as a protest against how overpriced that lousy piece of trash has become.  Come on, at least a tulip you can eat.

Picture credits:
© Filip Fuxa | Dreamstime.com

NRP Sagres III, Portuguese naval training ship, photo by Jose Manuel

It has been more than 500 years since the first Portuguese ship carrying envoy Duarte Fernandes sailed into Trangque, but the celebrations of the long lasting relationship between Portugal and Thailand continue.

The celebrations began a year ahead of time, in 2010 when a Portuguese training ship called the Sagres sailed into port to commemorate the long relationship.

(The Sagres was on a trip around the world at the time, but rather than taking Vasco da Gama’s famous route around the cape of Good Hope, it cut through the Suez Canal.  The ships first such trip in over a decade, it selectively stopped at several countries with strong historical ties to Portugal.)

After sailing to Siam, the Portuguese exchanged some food ideas with the Thais.  Apparently, the Portuguese introduced dessert into Thai culture, before the two countries met people used to just drink a glass of water after meals.

Well, today Portuguese people are being influenced by Thai culture, and learning a thing or two.  Here’s a picture of Andrew, a Portuguese in Thailand who is learning to dance as the celebrations continue.  (He’s at the Vira do Minho in the Siam Museum.)

Well, I’ve been getting a lot of pictures about these celebrations, but not much information.

If you can’t see the video for one reason or another, I’ll leave the following abridged transcript and screenshots.

Chinny: “You know what I always say? You know what I always say? Follow your dream, follow your dream.”

Chinny: “So the other day, by Boy comes over. And you know what I say to him? You know what I say? I say, are you just going to stand there picking your nose all day? And do you know what he says? He says-”

Chinny Jr: “Yeah dad, I’m just going to stand here picking my nose all day…”

How would you react if you were Chinny? What career tips do you have for Generations X, Y and Z?

Well, Professor Chinny McGringo knew exactly what he wanted to say, and if you watch this video, Professor McGringo may be able to help you too.

Perhaps you’ve even fallen for one or two scams, but don’t want to admit it.  Although there were pyramid schemes and other frauds in the days before the World Wide Web was really world wide, we vaguely remember that “they”, the scam artists, used to wear shady trench coats and hang out in dark alleys.

Today, however, “they” wear trendy clothes and hang out in mainstream networking groups.

So, there’s a tradeoff for wanting to do business with people from across the world on your laptop “while wearing your pyjamas.”  You don’t really know who you are communicating with.  Who knows, that smart looking young recruiter could actually be that same shady old man in a trench coat.  Hey, for all we know, he could be working in that same dodgy dark alleyway.

Well, here’s a reality check for you.  I was around before 2003, and I remember life back then.  I was approached by people selling fake watches, and sometimes they’d be clean cut, young, and professional looking.

There were MLM companies who pretended to have “jobs”, and many of these advertised in mainstream newspapers.  Some of us who didn’t want to work in sales, we just wanted some cash for our hard work but were deceived by the advertisement.  No, instead of a real job they told us to sell second rate water filters (and overpriced vitamin supplements) to our friends and relatives.

Those weren’t the scams though, and you soon learned to recognise them.  Earn money in your free time meant MLM sales, or at best envelop stuffing.  The advertisements might have been deceptive, but where they lies?

The social networking scams are worse than those in the old days, right?  Not always.  A lot of the “scams” actually say what they do on the tin.  You pay 50 dollars, and you get a list of writing jobs.  The list may not be what you wanted, and you may not be qualified to write medical copy or to translate from Albanian, but many deceived writers didn’t bother reading the description before taking the credit card out of the wallet.

(Note:  If someone pretends to have a job when they really have something to sell, that’s dishonest, online or off. )

Some scammers are online.  There are people out there trying to steal your identity.  There are others just out to take you for a ride by selling false software.  Recently two brothers from the UK tricked Americans out of millions pretending to have software that tracks the stock market.

These clever scammers aren’t always easy to spot, and it can take the authorities years to catch up with them.  Many of them work with or through respectable companies, from real estate to financial planning.  However, they usually have some kind of glamour angle.  Flattery, dream jobs, dream holidays and dream homes can fool people with false hope.

Social Media is very glamorous right now.  The smart scammers probably know that.  They know that many people want to work from home, be without a boss, go to the shop at noon, or whatever.  The expert scam artists don’t play on gullibility, they play on desire.

Now, some might think that social networking itself is an elaborate scam, or at best some kind of pyramid scheme.  Those who run the networks get rich.  A few who know how to manipulate it see smaller returns.  The majority of participants merely provide free content that brings more advertising revenue to the big boss, with the hope of some kind of small career advancement as a reward.

Yet we all know what we mean when we say scammers.  We mean those people who pretend to have a job, but are really trying to sell us something.  We mean those who pretend to be helpful, but really have a hustle.

Street smarts and the ability to read “body language” and “voice tone” can’t always help here.  These people have read the same bad-advice blogs on how to detect a liar at work as we have.  They have the time to rehearse their answers, to check for typos, and sharpen their act to look “genuine”.

They have other warning signs, like they don’t want to give their physical address out to the world, but don’t other users have the same misgivings?

A one person writing business owner who works from home might not want everyone to know where she lives.  A small media company in an incubator might not be planning to stay there long, and so be reluctant to share an address that will soon be obsolete.  An artist might never have enough money to own his own place, and so might have to move every few years as the landlords decide to sell.  Then there is the wildlife photographer, or the seminar speaker, who travels most of the year and can’t be found at the office.

All of these may use a virtual office, but then so might a scammer.  All of these might have some legitimate reasons to remain partially anonymous, or at least not to give a physical address, and may benefit from the same kinds of services that help scammers remain anonymous.

It seems that there are more of these kinds of legit businesses today than there used to be.  So, how can social media companies find them?

Keeping the scammers out with filters.

Social networks could create filters on who can join.  Here are some filtering systems that have been tried.

1. limit membership to those who already know someone within the network.  The problem with this is it stunts the growth of the social network, so most social networks will abandon this filter for membership within their “beta” or secondary testing period.

2. Limit the service to users with a credit card.  If your social network charges for a service, it’s harder for users to be anonymous, but not impossible.  Anyone who has purchased software more than once on eBay has probably purchased some pirated software, or even malware.  You’ll find that the sellers of this software often disappear, despite having a valid paypal account.  Until enough users are willing to pay to join social networks, this option will not be viable.

3.  Pay moderators to moderate content.  This is not free.  The expenses involved would hit large companies more than small ones, as small companies tend to know their content creators personally anyway.  That’s why big Internet companies (especially social media companies) opposed the recent intellectual property laws in the US, it would eat into their profit margins.    Some organisations brag about keeping costs down by not paying people.  They don’t outsource or use cheap labor, instead they just wait for their users to moderate content for free.  So they employ nobody to moderate content.  This option of hiring a large number of moderators will probably not be implemented unless governments force the social media giants to take more responsibility for their content.

4.  Create electronic algorithms which detect abusive content.  This option has met some opposition in the press.  It’s not very effective, as any scammer who could be caught by a computer would have difficulty fooling even the most gullible user.  Also, the algorithms involved could end up discriminating against certain regional accents, or people with learning disabilities.  However, LinkedIn and others do make use of Catchphas and a few other small programs which may limit some of the worse kinds of spam, and at least keep out a few annoying repetitive messages.

5.  Ask users to contribute and moderate content.  This is what is currently being used.  You can join a LinkedIn group that’s fully moderated, and wait a day or two for your post to go live.  Another option is to join a restricted group that applies some of the above filters.  Or, you can take your chances with another group that lets anyone post anything.

6.  Act on complaints, after the breach of rules.  This is related to letting users moderate the service.  The problem is, how quickly do you respond, and how in depth do you look at a comment or question before it is censored?  If every complaint resulted in automatic deletion of a post, then anybody could censor opinions they disagreed with.  A scammer could easily abuse this to censor all those who were onto the scam.  If, however, every complaint were examined in minute detail and quick and fair decisions were made, it would cost a lot of money.  So, the social media company needs to find a happy medium.

7.  Moderate a representative sample of comments.  This is kind of like skimming a book.  You can chose comments at random, and moderate those.  This can involve having a small team of employees scan new profiles, and throw out anything that looks obvious.  They can occasionally search for common terms, like video or opportunity or writing, and check every third or tenth message to see if it is abusive or a scam in any way.

There are other options being tried all the time, but I think I’ve covered some of the most effective and common methods of quality control of content.  Got any more ideas?

Once again, President James Madison seems to be a man of contradiction.

 That is, when we try to oversimplify things.

To understand what Madison wanted, we can look at his time. It seems that the early 19th century was a time of religious awareness.  Deists and Atheists were given credit for the French Revolution.   A reaction against the revolutions of the time resulted in religious revivals, from mainstream Protestant missionaries to a midwife who called herself the mother of Shiloh.

Europe was rethinking about how it treated its religious minorities, and religious figures were politically active in all kinds of movements from abolitionism to vegetarianism.

War, economic disaster, uncertainty about the future, and attacks on faith from the outside created an atmosphere in which religious ideas flourished, much like that of the 1960s.  Some of those ideas were tradition, others were experimental and have since disappeared.

Along with war, sport, the economy, fashion and entertainment, religion seems to have occupied the minds of the peoples of Europe and throughout the English speaking world in the year 1812.  And religion seemed to enter most of the other fields, plays were made about religion, and religion was used to boost morale or spread propaganda against the enemy.

The religious question wasn’t only asked in Europe and the Americas.  The early ninetieth century saw great clashes of religion between traditionalists and “reformers” in Africa and Asia as well, and an abundance self-proclaimed prophets on a scale that must have seemed strange to people of the time.  Today, we might call some of these reformers fundamentalists, others cult leaders, and a few have simply been accepted as part of the status quo.

With all this religious agitation, was President Madison simply swept up in the spirit of his time?  He seems to smart for that.

James Madison didn’t have anything against religion in general.  He saw the separation of church and state, or the lack of an established church, as a good thing.

Looking at Europe, and at the views of visitors from Europe, it’s easy to see why.  As William Cobbett put it, “in America, no one cares what religion you are, or if you have no religion at all.”  This was a great contrast to his native England, where it seemed the government demanded to know.

Ok, so Cobbett kind of contradicted himself, in pointing out that the lazy gluttons of America disliked the Quakers because they were jealous of the Quaker’s well earned wealth.  And he also noticed that the hard working Irish in New York went to their Catholic churches on Sunday without a problem, and were well adjusted part of society.  (This was in relation to Cobbett’s Britain, where the Catholics didn’t yet have full privileges, and the Irish tended to be seen as a poor underclass.)

Cobbett had a great respect for certain religious groups, even if he opposed the establishment of religion on a national scale.  In his objection to the tithe laws, Cobbett wrote that “tithing is not religion.”  The tithe in England and elsewhere on the British realm was more of a tax that went to support the priests in the Church of England.  People had to pay this whether they agreed with those priests or not.

The government in Britain treated its citizens and residents differently depending on which religion those citizens and residents professed to have.  The Established church in Britain wasn’t Cobbett’s favourite.

In the ‘New World’, by contrast, the government had a tradition of dealing with religion to a lesser degree.  That doesn’t mean that there was no religious persecution in the United States or elsewhere, but that persecution was likely to be result of the acts of unruly mobs or unstable individuals.

After independence, some state and city governments did pay the salaries of local ministers, and they did pay to build church buildings.  The wall between church and state was not complete.

However, men like James Madison thought that, where it existed, that wall helped the church to thrive. Seven years after the National Day of Prayer, James Madison proclaimed that “The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state.”

It seems to me pretty obvious that James Madison would not have funded faith-based groups through government money.  Government funding made religion dependent on government, and seemed to contribute to corruption in religious leadership.  The separation of church and state, that “wall”, helped to preserve religious freedom, and it helped to preserve religious integrity by keeping religion independent.  To quote a letter (former) President Madison wrote ten years after the National Day of Prayer, “religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”

So, did the National Day of Prayer, which was delivered by his secretary of State James Monroe, allow a crack to be made in that wall?

Well, Madison was merely executing the will of congress here.   Still, he should have vetoed it if he thought it unconstitutional.  Did preparations for war overturn any concern for the constitution?  I don’t think so. Madison continually warned about how war was used as an instrument to destroy liberty.  ”The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home.”  I don’t think he’d make any constitutional exceptions just because there was a war going on.

The day of Prayer does not prefer any religion above another.  Like Thanksgiving, prayer goes across cultures.  But what about those people who don’t believe in prayer?  Are they excluded by such a day?  Was Madison, or the Congress he was presiding over,  not establishing religion by proclaiming a day of prayer?

Well, I don’t know yet what Madison or his congress was thinking then.  There are all kinds of national days that don’t ‘include’ everybody, some people are too grumpy to be thankful for anything on Thanksgiving for instance.

Still, I can’t help but think perhaps they were a bit like my high school football coaches.  Before a game, one coach used to say “everyone in his own way” and he’d bow on one knee, close his eyes, and perhaps say a silent prayer.  If I remember correctly, those of us who weren’t very religious just stood there, in respectful silence.

Later, another coach had a moment’s mediation in the locker room.  I didn’t think of it as a prayer at the time, but I remember at least one teammate dropping his head and putting his hands together.  Personally, I just used that time to try and see if I could go through the plays in my head.  I also tried to clear my mind a few times, so I could be more focused when the game started.

Since most everyone else seemed to be closing their eyes (and maybe the coach asked us to) I remember doing it as well.

I wonder what anybody who didn’t really pray did during Madison’s proclaimed National Day of Prayer.  Did they go to National Day of Prayer sales and get used vehicles and cheap clothes? Probably not.  Did they decide to give prayer a chance, to pray for their country as it entered a war (or in later national prayer days, as it continued in war)?  It seems that some might have, but these were probably people who had prayed before.

When they were surrounded by others who prayed, a few who didn’t pray could have just tried it for the first time, but did they?   I haven’t found any evidence that this National Day helped to increase religious awareness in America.

I think the day was similar to Thanksgiving is today, as other proclaimed days of prayer had Thanksgiving mentioned alongside prayer.  Those who were inclined to see prayer as a good thing, but perhaps didn’t take the time to do it, now had no excuse.   Those who didn’t see the point continued to chop wood, play the lute, or otherwise treat it as any other day.

Perhaps they just stayed quiet for a few moments, if not in respect to an outside being who they didn’t know, then in respect to those who were praying around them.

Fine, if you gave free webspace to a student, that student might exercise freedom of speech, and express opinions that no one else at the university shares.   A guest columnist might present an opposing point of view.  All that is obvious.

But when the dean of that same university, when the editor of that same publication, when the CEO of a company sent you an email with that same disclaimer, things started to feel a bit silly. Ok, so if the President of an organisation does not speak for that organisation, who does?

Well, recently I noticed something.  Those little disclaimers, they seem to have disappeared.  Okay, so maybe some of them are buried in the “terms of service” when you sign up for a new social media website.   So, if you’re part of the one percent who actually read the terms, and you’ve signed up for a new service, you might not miss the terms.

(Buried in legalese, however, the standard disclaimer is not so obvious.)

But what about all the readers of a message who didn’t tick that box?  (You know, the one your three year old ticked to turn the button blue and sign up to play the game. )  There are publicly available pages, webpages out there that don’t require a person to read that disclaimer.

Hey, I even got a flyer from a political party the other day, in which the party didn’t disown the views of their candidate.

I haven’t seen it as much in email anymore either.

So, where is this going?  Well, when I accept guest writers for this blog, it becomes apparent that not everyone shares my views.  Or, perhaps I don’t share all their views.

If I don’t share these views, should I tell people to get their own blog?  I could, but then, who would I get to write for Ptara.com?  Are there any two people who agree on everything?

So, here it is, my disclaimer.  None of the views expressed here-in, whether made by people living or dead (including the dead people that I quote) represent the views of Ptara or it’s owners.

Well, some do of course, but these views are subject to change as we gain more knowledge, wisdom and experience.  However, the guest bloggers have not been chosen to parrot my viewpoint, but rather because I trust them to write good copy.

So, if my name isn’t at the end of an article, then it’s not me who wrote it.  If you do write for Ptara, you don’t have to agree with the publisher.  And, if you do get published here, that doesn’t mean that the publisher agrees with everything you say.

If you’ve been reading this blog, you probably know that 200 years ago, A British man named Daniel Isaac Eaton was sentenced to prison and the pillory for publishing a “Deist” track by Thomas Paine.

Daniel Isaac Eaton

Neither man got in trouble for being a disbeliever.  Aan is accused of misusing phrases from the Koran, and Eaton was accused of blasphemy against the teachings of the Church of England.

You can read what I had to say about Eaton’s trial and draw your own parallels.  If Alexander Aan receives a prison sentence, the similarities may end.

Technology, and the law, have changed a great deal in the past 200 years, or rather in the past 20 years.

Until recently, it was up to the publisher to review every story that was published.  If a journalist in a newspaper was accused of libel, the newspaper would be sued.

There were practical reasons for this.

1. Location. Controversial writers like Thomas Paine could leave the country, and many from abroad never entered the country in the first place.  It was the publisher who gave the controvertial thinker a platform to share his views.

2. Money.  Thomas Paine, and others like him, died broke.  The aggrieved party could challenge the offender to a duel, but not everyone who was offended or insulted was a fighting man.  It was easier to sue.

Publishers tended to have a little money, at least enough for a printing press.  Anyone who could afford a pen and paper could write a book or draw a cartoon, but it needed a publisher to provide the platform to share it with the world.

As time has gone by, the cost of publishing has gone up.  You may have your own website or domain name, or possibly even your own server, but few people have their own registrar.  It is even more difficult to get published electronically without the help of a third party.

More importantly, the courts have decided on the side of the Internet giants.   Internet publishers have much greater power than print publishers ever had, and much less responsibility.  And it’s increasingly difficult to get your message seen without it being linked to by the big players.

(This seems to have started when Bill Clinton signed an bill into law that made digital signatures legal.  However, the shift would’ve never been possible without legal interpretation.)

Well, these days there are a few large companies willing to provide you with “free” space, in exchange for the free content you provide to sell their advertising.  Social networks, free webspace providers, online video uploaders and others are a cross between ham radio (or public access television) and the old media giants of the television age.

Three big companies censor most of the content that goes on the web according to what they believe should and shouldn’t be shared.

If Daniel Isaac Eaton were alive today, I wonder whether he would be in prison, or if he would be a billionaire.  Would he be an Alexander Aan, a Rupert Murdoch, or some inconsequential blogger?

Perhaps as time goes on, some of my contacts from Indonesia will provide me with more information on Mr. Ann and what he is accused of.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you never heard of Ann and Adoniram Judson.   I hadn’t either, until I looked at old lists of significant dates and events.

To commemorate the anniversary of Judson’s departure, a re-enactment was staged in Salem harbour, Massachusetts.  The associated press ran a small story on it, but most of the media is more concerned with commemorating the wars and battles from the same year.

The Judson’s story was once big news. Adoniram’s son made the front page of New York’s top newspapers by retelling the story.  Ann Judson met with Wilberforce and other important people in Britain and Burma.  She is also credited with helping to mediate a peace treaty between the two countries.

Biographies of Ann Judson have been written by temperance movement and by feminists.

Not surprisingly, most recent books and websites written about Adoniram are aimed at the Christian market.  However, one of the best appears to be a secular story of the man and his achievements.

Adoniram Judson wrote a Burmese dictionary, and translated most of the Bible into Burmese.  He was a pioneer who started a trend, as before Adoniram Judson, his wife, and their friends Americans didn’t go abroad on missions.

It was Adoniram who raised the cash for the mission, who inspired others to join him.  It was his wife, however, who actually did most of the missionary work, speaking with natives, intervening for political prisoners and taking over social duties while Adoniram was writing books in his study.

Adoniram Judson was driven by a stronger than ordinary desire to make a difference, (and no, despite what some sources say, that desire did not come from hearing a deist die in the room next to him.)

This desire came to Adoniram through strong, faithful parents, and through a combination of extraordinary talents and powerful experiences.  It was strengthened by meeting friends who shared similar goals, by reading inspiring stories of German and British missionaries, and finally he was lucky to meet Ann, a charismatic and intelligent woman who knew how to deal with people.

The only book I’ve read so far that I could recommend about Adoniram Judson is “To the Golden Shore“, written in the 1970s by Courtney Anderson.

Anderson’s is a large book, and can be exhausting at times, but its well written and it presents a well rounded and interesting picture of the man.  What it lacks in humor it makes up for in thoroughness and an excellent pace.

Courtney Anderson came to Judson’s story almost by accident.  Anderson was a documentarian, working on a film about Adoniram Judson (I can’t find the title of that film) and became fascinated with him.   The documentarian did exhaustive research, but doesn’t detail every source in an academic manner.

Most other books I’ve read seem to be poor summaries of Anderson’s work (sometimes exaggerating certain events to try and create a teaching point or to promote a political prejudice.)

Anderson examines the relevant the details about Judson and his time, painting a personal portrait of religion in the early American republic.  Judson’s father, Adoniram Judson senior, was a Congregationalist minister involved in disputes between ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ Congregationalism, giving Anderson the opportunity to present an inside view of the way religion affected New England from independence to just before the War of 1812.   Judson’s wife was caught up in a religious revival in her youth, future President Monroe is said to have contributed to the missionary effort, and we see a Jeffersonian mocking Judson’s voyage.  President Adams lived near the Judsons at one time, but he doesn’t appear to have entered the story much, except as a kind of inspirational guide for an ambitious father (Judson senior) who saw one time President as a role model for his son.

However, powerful men are just a side note to an intricately personal story of a couple who overcame adversity and brought with them a desire to make the world a better place.

Whether or not you agree with Judson’s theology, it’s impossible not to root for them as they do the impossible, dealing with friends and foes alike, and keeping stubbornly to their own system of beliefs.

Anderson uses just the right amount of conjecture (and presents it as conjecture).  He also presents a few facts that aren’t exactly flattering to the Judson’s.  This is far from a Hagiography, it’s more of an adventure story.

When Judson’s set out, Americans didn’t do missionary work.  Ok, maybe colonists tried to convert the natives, and there were trips to try and convert the Catholics and the less church going people in the Louisiana territory, but the idea of going across the ocean was seen as more of a British thing.

Judson’s story changed all that, and today the United States sends out about a third of the world’s Christian missionaries, more than any other country.

If anybody has more to add about Judson, I’d love to read it.  We’re planning on adding three stories about him in the near future.  If you can’t wait, I highly recommend The Golden Shore by Courtney Anderson, (although if you can wait, we hope to add a little humour into the stories.)

Website Sources:  Adoniram Judson Biography – Worldwide Missions – Wholesome Words.

In 200-year tradition, most Christian missionaries are American | Reuters.

Book sources.

To the Golden Shore: The Life of Adoniram Judson

John Lawson claims to have the funniest clowns in Britain, and that may be true. Rather than relying on old stock jokes and cheap shots, Kakehole and Popol are masters of comedic timing, storytelling, and involving the audience in the situation.

The only downside of the circus is that it’s so small.

If you’re looking for men running on broken glass or other deadly freak shows, look elsewhere.

Apart from a short knife-throwing skit, there’s no danger for danger’s sake. Instead, the acrobats rely on their strength, skill, and tightly scripted acts to entertain.

The average audience member is probably not as strong as Angelo, a 20-year-old, sixth-generation circus performer who can do all kinds of tricks on the ropes that would make the average Olympian blush.
They probably can’t do all the flips on the trampoline that they see Gabriella or her Deltai troupe perform.

Yet one never gets the feeling that anyone in John Lawson’s circus is showing off.  The cast are there to entertain, and they do it well. Whether in character or when being themselves, each performer plays to the delight of the audience.  (And they seem to enjoy it as much as we do.)

Standard snacks like cotton candy are for sale alongside circus equipment, and you can even get your face painted by Kakehole the clown.

One word of warning, don’t go dressed in your Sunday Best. The clowns get messy in the ring, and seats in a small circus tent are always close to the action.

Audience participation is all part of the fun at John Lawson’s circus.  So be prepared to get wet and have a great time.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”*

Although these probably weren’t James Madison’s exact words, Congressman Madison probably said something similar.

Portrait of James Madison

Note: A quote close to the above can be found in the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 , January 10, 1794, but there’s no “I” as the original article was more of a paraphrase than a quote.  (These “Annals of Congress” were taken from newspaper articles, not congressional records.)

Perhaps more powerfully, Madison’s famous words were preceeded by these:

“Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity.”

Yet the during the Presidency of this same James Madison when Congress would approve of America’s first foreign aid payment. This act of benevolence was not accompanied by a change in the Constitution. So, what changed?

The rejected act of Benevolence.

In 1794, Haiti was undergoing a revolution. The French had toppled their king, there were cries of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, and these resonated with the slave population on the island of “Santo Domingo.”

At first, the slave revolt was loyal to the Republican movement on the French mainland. Many of the free inhabitants joined in the revolt, and there was a degree of acceptance and tolerance of non-combattants by the revolutionaries.

However, many people on the island of San Domingo fled, fearing for their lives (especially French royalists).

As France was also in revolt, and the United States had been an ally of the Ancien Régime that these royalists were loyal to, nearby America seemed the logical place for royalists to take refuge.

The individual States were the refugees landed had trouble paying for the upkeep of these people, many of whom landed with nothing. So, these States asked the US Federal Government for help.  This plea for the Federal government to give financial assistance to the states, in order to deal with the refugee crisis, is what Madison proposed to reject.

I don’t know if the exact words he used were recorded anywhere, but the Annals on Congress, which according to the Libary of Congress were based on Newspaper reports and compiled decades after the event, seem reliable enough.

So why, when Madison refused to give aid to American allies who were within American borders, did he later accept the idea of giving aid to people in a country far away who had little relationship with America?

Venezuela becomes a Republic

The French revolution was said to have been inspired by the American one.  The French Revolution itself inspired other revolts, not only in Haiti but throughout what we now call “Latin” America.

After Spain was occupied by Napoleon, the royalists there were occupied with what British historicans often call “the Peninsular War.”   The Spanish, however, were divided, and some supported a Republic in the Americas, while others supported other forms of independence.

This presented opportunities to the British, who gave aid to the Republican rebels in parts of South America, including Venezuela, hoping to get trading concessions.

The British (who were supposed to be Spain’s “ally”) also tried to seize a few Spanish territories, like Buenos Aires in modern day Argentina, creating division and further fanning the flames of rebellion.

A Republic was born.

Yet on 26th March 1812, an Earthquake brought down the Republic (see “Covered“, a brief story based on historical accounts).

News spread quickly that a devastating earthquake had hit Venezuela.

This earthquake was then debated in the Congress.

The aid was debated on Wednesday, 29th of April, 1812.

Most of the people agreed to the bill in principle, but ever a troublemaker, a little man named Randolf wanted to change the last phrase. The aid was going to Tenerif as well, which was rumored to be troubled by locusts.

Some accused Randolf of partisanship.

Mr. Calhoun “expressed his regret that this proposition to aid the cause of humanity could not be permitted to pass without the intermixture of party feelings.” Calhoun thought that Randolf wanted to use the amendment to kill the bill.

Randolf countered that he knew there was an earthquake in Venezuela, but he wasn’t so sure about the locusts in Tenerife.  All that the House of Representatives had to go on was a newspaper report, and we all know how “reliable” newspapers can be.

The debate went on, and Randolf found some supporters but his ammendment was defeated.

Still, why the change of heart? Was this not one of the “benevolent acts” that the President had found unconstitutional so many years before, when he was in Congress?

Well, I can’t find exactly where attitudes shifted or why. What I can find is a summary of a speech by a Mr. Rhea, who seemed to agree with Randolf.

Rhea saw the aid to Venezuela as being “in the interests of the United States” as it would bring friendship between the US and “the South American provinces.”

The nation that Bolivar eventually won was much larger than present day Venezuela, but at the time it was uncertain what the territory we now call Venezuela’s future would be.  It’s unlikely, in any case, that the Venezuelans would object to receiving life saving supplies of food.

So, in addition to being a humanitarian act of compassion, helping out Venezuela would be good politics.

However, after more debate, Randolf’s point of view won without the amendment.

The first clause of the resolution was passed unanimously, but the second half concerning Tenerife rejected. President Madison was given carte blanche on how much aid he’d give to the earthquake sufferers in South America.

Randolf also asked for an enquiry into the state of Tenerife, and whether aid to there was needed. This was also passed.

“Resolved, that the Committe of Commerce and Manufactures be instructed to report a bill authorizing the President of the United States to cause to be purchased —- barrels of flour, and to have the same exported to some port in Caraccas, for the use of the inhabitants who have suffered by the earthquake; and also authorizing him to cause to be purchased — barrels of flour, and the have the same exported to some port in Teneriffe for the use of the inhabitants who are likely to starve by the ravages of locusts.”

This doesn’t mean that Madison changed his mind about “acts of benevolence.”  Madison, as President, may not have seen it as his place to question an act of Congress.

If Madison and his supporters did change their minds, or if they wanted to break their old rules in favor of helping others, there was the face-saving excuse that this act was in the interest of America’s foreign policy.

However, I’m still looking for what happened to the “dangerous precident” mentality.  Over the past two hundred years, many other acts of benevolence have been funded by taxpayers, after Congress made laws on everything from Social Security to the new Health Care project, currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

I wonders, which Madison will win this time.  The 1794 Madison, or the Madison of 1812.

Sources:
“We learn, by letters from the Brazils, that the efforts of the British cruizers to suppress the Slave trade have.” Times [London, England] 2 July 1812: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 25 Jan. 2012.

Annals of the Houses of Congress, p. 1347-1352; House of Representatives, 12th Congress, 1st Session. (also other Annals of Congress.)

de Sousa, Vasco. “Earthquake Denial and America’s First Foreign aid.” unpublished essay.

US food aid website: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/history.html