I am trying to improve the Google Search results for a specific web site and testing some approaches. One of them involves creating outside links to the site. I realize they have to be quality links and this probably won't qualify as a quality link but there's no harm in trying.
What can we learn from someone's bookshelf? After all, we do make judgments based on people's appearance, speech, education levels, etc... How about trying to understand someone based on the types of books they read? I once came across a successful professional whose desk was covered by piles of books that appeared to have been strategically stacked. The intent was clearly to impress visitors.
Nowadays of course, we would need access to a person's digital bookshelf to get a sense of his or her full collection.
I was looking at the collection I keep on LibraryThing, a collection which is not complete, yet sufficiently representative of my interests. I looked at it from two perspectives: 1) the tag cloud (I'll admit to cleaning up the tags a little before creating the cloud); 2) the book covers for the "Knowledge Management" collection, since "knowledge Management" turns out to be the biggest category.
This tag cloud could tell you a lot of different things about me but some of the tags would require some explaining. For example,"human trafficking" stands out but in my mind, it was a relatively short term interest linked to a specific research and writing project. It does not reflect current interests. I prefer the book cover visual to the tag cloud. From my perspective as the reader of these books, each book cover is a memory trigger for the book's contents and a great way to connect ideas and perspectives taken by various authors.
If you wanted to know more, you might be able to visit my LibraryThing account and dig out some information about how I rated these books and read any reviews (if I provided any).
I'm a fan of PKM (Personal Knowledge Management) and I'm puzzled by the lack of interest within the community of Knowledge Management practitioners in integrating PKM in broader KM strategies. There's a feeling that PKM is too much about the individual and not enough about the team or the organization. That's plain wrong. PKM is about continuously improving one's performance by systematically and purposefully applying KM practices at the individual level in order to be a more effective team member and a more effective member of the broader organization.
It's about being a lifelong learner -- How do I keep learning new things, both by doing and by purposefully seeking out new knowledge? How do I know what I should be focusing on? How can I know what knowledge I'll need five years from today? Do I have a long-term learning plan or should I just pick up new knowledge here and there? This may get closer to existing career management activities. What's my individual learning Plan? Teams can have learning plans too. Organizations certainly have strategies and plans around core competencies and training.
It's about managing information flows -- How do I access and filter information that reaches me? Some of this may be about personal productivity but it's not just about personal productivity. It's also about ensuring that I have access to all the information I need. I seek out the information I need. I'm not just waiting for it to come to me. What's your communication plan? Are you a passive recipient of information or an active producer / author? How do you see your role as an individual within your team or project in terms of information flows? Do you ever find yoursef wondering what information to push forward to others in the team, not wanting to flood emails with less than germane information?
It's also about communication skills -- How do I communicate what I know? how do I share what I know? With whom do I share what I know? I have often felt that I knew much more than what I was able to convey to others. Is there something I could do to bridge that gap?
I'd venture that without PKM, there isn't any KM. If we agree that organization do some KM, have always done some kind of KM -- even if not systematically or effectively why can't we also agree that people have always done PKM, just not systematically or effectively. Without PKM, enlisting employees to be actively engaged in KM activities is like pulling teeths.
KM needs to happen at the individual level (PKM), at the team level, and at higher levels. The types of knowledge that are most relevant at each knowledge is going to be different and the types of processes needed at each level are going to be different. Most KM strategies focus on higher level needs of the organization, most of which are not immediately relevant to the individual or the team.
Start with PKM and you'll be much better able to handle the "what's-in-it-for-me?" questions when you try to talk about team / project KM and broader organizational KM. Connecting PKM to KM initiatives is the missing link in terms of motivation.
I'm wondering if the key to a successful PKM approach isn't to be embedded in existing Human Resources programs. I'd also work it through any ongoing social media intervention.
KM Strategy Development: Smorgasbord vs. Acupuncture
Here are a few slightly random thoughts about a KM smorgasbord, centers of gravity, complex systems, acupuncture and "friendlies." It all started with a little personal brainstorming around KM strategic planning.
You can develop a KM strategy that is very broad based and tries to cover everything KM. Be very inclusive in your processes, listen to everyone, try to please everyone. What you'll probably end up with is a big smorgasbord of KM activities that make it look like you can't possibly have missed anything and everyone should be happy. Why are buffets not as satisfying as they might appear to be? First, you can't possibly try everything on the buffet. Second, if you ask people what was on the buffet afterward, you'll get as many different answers as there were diners. You will not have a coherent understanding of what KM is within the organization. You will not have a common view of benefits either? Perhaps it doesn't matter if everyone finds what they want on the buffet. You may find people to be satisfied with their meal but it's not clear they'll come back for more. In addition, when budget cuts come, you don't have a clue what to cut down on. Do you cut across the board and provide half the previous quantities or do you pick and choose which dishes to remove? Perhaps I am too pessimistic in thinking about budget cuts rather than a budget increase. The same question would emerge with a budget increase. Do you just provide more of the same, more of specific activities or new dishes on the table? You have no clue because you're just trying to do everything at once to please everyone.
You can develop a KM strategy that is focused on making the leadership happy and responds to the needs of the leadership or whatever the leadership thinks the needs of the organization are. You'll get leadership buy-in, perhaps even a good amount of resources to go ahead and implement. What you won't get is any kind of systematic, broad-based impact. You'll get resistance from front-line workers because it's likely you've managed to increase the burden on them without providing any kind of benefits to them.
So, the key is to develop a KM strategy that addresses the needs of front-line workers, leverages whatever opportunities already exist within the organizational environment, and present a convincing strategy to the leadership -- something that brings benefits to front-line workers AND in the process, addresses the needs of the organization and satisfies the leadership's perceived needs. Easier said than done, right!
This is where Centers of Gravity come in. You need to look beyond the concept of "leadership". Centers of Gravity are sources of power. For a KM initiative to be truly successful, you need to leverage Centers of Gravity, get them on board. Who has power within the organization? It's not just a question of individual personalities and positions within the organizational hierarchy. Where are the core nodes of the organization's? If you had a Smorgasbord of KM activities available and you could closely monitor the buffet table to see 1) what's getting the most traction; 2) what impact the activities have on organizational goals, which of the dishes on the menu would become the staples? Of course, we don't have the luxury of trying out the Smorgasbord approach first just to identify what's most useful. In addition, documenting impacts of KM activities on organizational goals is much easier said than done. Still... we need to make educated guesses about what would be most effective.
Think of the human body as a complex system. What are the core elements that make things work? The heart, the brain, the nervous system, muscles? Now think of an organization as a complex system. What are the elements of the systems that make things happen? What are the key functions? Forget about the organizational chart.
In a complex system (the human body or any organization), it may be difficult to pinpoint one or two centers of gravity. As soon as one element breaks down, others are affected. You can't seem to treat one without affecting the other. Now think of acupuncture as a way of reaching out to specific systems of the body and very precisely targeting them. Where are the pressure points within the organization?
When I think of being "strategic", I think of being in a situation where resources are limited and some decisions have to be made about how to proceed. There are alternatives to ponder and "trades" to be made. Do you spread all your resources across a smorgasbord of KM activities? Do you go all out with a broad-based outreach campaign to make sure everyone in the organization knows the types of KM services that are available? Or... do you deal primarily with "friendlies," those who are already sold on the KM idea and who are already on board, hoping there will be some trickle effect and organic spread of KM ideas? Or... do you deal with the "friendlies" AND go after Centers of Gravity.
This falls into the "half-baked" category of blog posts. They're fun to read six months later, once my thinking has evolved into something a little more polished.
In the process of writing Learning Log, I've collected and reorganized a wide range of KM-related resources. Most of them are stored as links in my Diigo archives. They're also part of the updated Learning Log 1.5 website. They're hidden a little too deep in the weeds so I thought I'd highlight them here.
These resources were selected to accompany the storyline of Learning Log. They are not meant to represent a comprehensive collection of resources on Knowledge Management.
This short White Paper highlights a number of approaches for integrating didactic fiction into structured training, whether in an academic setting, a formal professional development context or an informal workshop.
The White Paper illustrates the integration of such didactic fiction with the specific example of Learning Log, a business novel focused on a Knowledge Management theme.
While Learning Log comes with suggested discussion activities, the intent is to inspire instructors and professors to create their own discussion activities and/or assignments for Learning Log as well as other didactic novels that may have a role to play in their course syllabus.
Book titles are important ... They sell the book. Or is it the cover that sells the book? Forget about all the work put into writing something of quality. It's all in the cover and the title (?).
I've been stuck on Learning Log as the title for my book, but I've never been 100% sure that it was the right title. In the process of thinking through what would be an author's introduction to the book, writing a short white paper about how KM instructors might use it in structured training, and thinking about how to "sell" the concept of the book to a publisher, I've had to look at the book from a 50,000 feet perspective.
Talking about the book to people has forced me to explain and to focus on the big picture. That in itself has been very useful.
Now think for a second... aren't these article titles a reflection of how I searched for information on the web? Wouldn't you want your book title to reflect how people might search for topics related to your book?
There are so many people on the web with advice, it's amazing. I feel perfectly justified in adding to the cacophony.
Here is my piece of advice regarding book titles: If you are trying to find a good title for your book, brainstorm first, then read all the advice articles listed above (and more). Reading the advice first might kill your creativity.
I don't usually get that excited about new bills presented to Congress but I figured I had to read this one. The Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009 is out.
I printed all 60+ pages of it (sorry!) and went at it with a pink highlighter. In some sections, I found myself highlighting everything, so I stopped the highlighting procedure.
I was particularly interested in the section below:
(p. 9) "Sec.624B Office for Learning, Evaluation and Analysis in Development. (1) Achieving United States foreign policy objectives requires the consistent and systematic evaluation of the impact of United States foreign assistance programs and analysis on what programs work and why, when, and where they work; (2) the design of assistance programs and projects should include the collection of relevant data required to measure outcomes and impacts; (3) the design of assistance programs and projects should reflect the knowledge gained from evaluation and analysis; (4) a culture and practice of high quality evaluation should be revitalized at agencies managing foreign assistance programs, which requires that the concepts of evaluation and analysis are used to inform policy and programmatic decisions, including the training of aid professionals in evaluation design and implementation; (5) the effective and efficient use of funds cannot be achieved without an understanding of how lessons learned are applied in various environments, and under similar or different conditions; and (6) project evaluations should be used as source of data when running broader analyses of development outcomes and impacts.
None of this is very new, particularly aggressive or revolutionary. It's common sense. The problem I sense is that it fails to acknowledge that M&E as it has been practiced in international development, isn't necessarily going to provide the answers we're all looking for. Evaluation is done when the project is over. That's too late to change anything about how that particular project was run. Something has to be done while the project is being implemented. Something has to be done to ensure that the team implementing the project is fully engaged in learning. Technically, that's what the "M" for monitoring is meant to do.
Instead of putting so much emphasis on the "evaluation" part of the M&E equation, and trying to do "rigorous impact assessments", I would want to focus much more on developing more meaningful monitoring. Meaningful monitoring could use some insights from knowledge management. You don't do knowledge management around projects by waiting till the end of a project to hold an After-Action-Review and collect lessons learned. If you try to do that, you're missing the point. However, if you hold regular reviews and you ask the right kinds of questions, you're more likely to encourage project learning. If you have a project that is engaged in active learning, you are not only more likely to have a successful project but you will increase your chances of being able to gather relevant lessons. Asking the right kinds of questions is critical here. You can limit yourself to questions like "did we meet the target this month?" or you can ask the more interesting "why" and "how" questions.
Traditional monitoring involves setting up a complex set of variables to monitor, overly complex procedures for collecting data.. all of which tends not to be developed in time, and is soon forgotten and dismissed as useless because it is too rigid to adapt to the changing environment within which the project operates. [I may be heavily biased by personal experiences. But then, don't we learn best from personal experience? ]
I know the comparison is a stretch but at NASA, the safety officer assigned to a project is part of an independent unit and doesn't have to feel any pressure from the project management team because he or she doesn't report to project management. If something doesn't look right, she has the authority to stop the work.
If monitoring and evaluation is to be taken seriously within USAID, I suspect that it will require a clearer separation of M&E functions from the project management functions. If the monitoring function is closely linked to project reporting and project reporting is meant to satisfy HQ that everything is rosy, then the monitoring function fails to perform. Worse is when monitoring is turned into a number crunching exercise that doesn't involve any analysis of what is really going on behind the numbers. Third party evaluators need to be truly independent. The only way that is likely to happen is if they are USAID employees reporting to an independent M&E office.
I would also want more emphasis on culture change. As long as the prevailing culture is constantly in search of "success stories," and contractor incentives are what they are, there will be resistance to taking an honest and rigorous look at outcomes and impacts. Without an honest and rigorous look at outcomes and impacts, the agency will continue to find it difficult to learn. If you can't change the prevailing culture fast enough, you need to establish and independent authority to handle the M&E functions or train a new breed of evaluation specialists who don't have to worry about job security.
My first hand experience with USAID-funded impact assessments has led me to question whether those who ask for impact assessments are willing to acknowledge that they may not get the "success story" they are hoping for.
Hmm.... I guess I still have strong opinions about M&E. I tried to get away from it.
I've always thought that M&E was closely related to Knowledge Management, but I also thought it was the result of my own career path and overall framework. (See my core experience concept map on my new website)
Watch out for these M&E and Knowledge Management connections:
(p 12) (6) establish annual evaluation and research agendas and objectives that are responsive to policy and programmatic priorities;
If you're going to do research, why not make it "action research". Keep it close to the ground, make it immediately useful to those involved in implementing projects on the ground . Then you can aggregate the ground-based research findings and figure out what to do at the policy and programmatic levels. Otherwise you'll end up with research that's based on HQ priorities and not sufficiently relevant to the front lines. If you're going to try to capture knowledge that is highly relevant to the organization, make sure you're doing it from the ground up and not the other way around. Knowledge needs to be relevant to the front lines workers, not just to the policy makers.
(p. 12) (11) develop a clearinghouse capacity for the dissemination of knowledge and lessons learned to USAID professionals, implementing partners, the international aid community, and aid recipient governments, and as a repository of knowledge on lessons learned;
I'm glad at least the paragraph doesn't include the word "database". I'm hoping there's room for interpretation. I'd love to be involved in this. Knowledge management has a lot to offer here, but we need to remember that knowledge management (an organizational approach) isn't exactly the same as Knowledge for Development. Knowledge management can be an internal strategy. As indicated in para. (11) above, the dissemination of knowledge and lessons learned needs to go well beyond the walls of the organization itself. That's both a challenge and an opportunity.
(p. 12) (12) distribute evaluation and research reports internally and make this material available online to the public; and
Do project staff really have the time to read evaluation and research reports? Do the people who design projects take the time to read evaluation and research reports? I don't mean to suggest they're at fault. What probably needs to happen, however, is that report findings and key lessons are made more user-friendly, otherwise, they remain "lessons filed" rather than "lessons learned."
In my current job with the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, I've been very fortunate to witness the use of case studies as a very powerful approach to transmitting lessons learned. Case studies often originate from a massive Accident Investigation Report that very few people will ever read from end to end. Case studies extract key lessons from a lengthy report and present them in a more engaging manner. It's also not enough to expect people to access the relevant reports on their own. There has to be some push, some training. The same case studies can be used in training sessions.
These don't feel like well thought out ideas but then, at least they're out of my head and I can get back to them later when something more refined comes to mind. If I waited for a perfect paragraph to emerge, I wouldn't write much at all.
Learning Log Version 1.0 (Web) isn't the full version of the novel but it will give you a taste of what the novel is about and a sample section.
I don't have any way of accepting comments directly in the Novel / wiki at this time. This blog post is the best I can do. Please post comments about Version 1.0 in response to this blog post.
I am looking for a few volunteers to read a business novel focused on Knowledge Management. I am seeking constructive criticism that would enable me to make improvements to the novel before deciding what to do next with it (contact an agent, self-publish, throw away... there are lots of options).
If you are interested, read on....
* Are you a knowledge management practitioner? * Do you teach knowledge management? * Are you familiar with business novels? * Do you have experience reviewing or writing fiction? * Do you know me?
If you've answered "yes" to one or more of the questions above, please check out the materials I have posted on my website that explain what this Knowledge Management novel is about. If you're still interested after doing that, please contact me via email at Barbara.fillip@gmail.com.
There's something very rewarding about writing "THE END." It's all about that moment when you know the piece you're writing is ESSENTIALLY DONE. The story has been put down on paper from beginning to end and it's readable. It may need some polishing and an additional round of revisions but it's essentially done. It's also the point when you have to make decisions about how much more needs to be done so that the work on it is FINISHED. Perhaps a piece of writing is never truly finished but continuous editing and revision is not something I could easily get used to. I need to be able to say something is FINISHED and move on to something else. It doesn't have to be perfect to be FINISHED.
I wrote "THE END" earlier this week when I completed the first round of revisions to the didactic novel I've been writing for the past 6 months. It felt really nice to get to that point. I am now entering unfamiliar territory since this is the first time I manage to complete a first round of revisions and still be interested in the manuscript. I'm looking at all my notes trying to figure out how to prioritize revisions.
What I really need now is to create the right incentives to complete the entire process. I know I'll complete the second round of revisions. I might get a little lazy and find excuses for calling it FINISHED sooner rather than later but I'll get to the point where I can call it FINISHED.
The real question is whether I'll actually ask anyone to read it and what to do with it once it is FINISHED. I don't think the process will really be completed if I just shelve it as a FINISHED project and never get it out for others to read.
This is how this blog is going to help me create the incentives to complete the process: The more I write about it here -- not just the writing process but the novel itself -- the more I build the necessary confidence to do something with it (... have someone read it).
So... here is a piece of information: The manuscript is titled "Learning Log -- A Didactic Novel about Knowledge Management, version 1.0". The "version 1.0" might suggest that I would consider making revisions to turn it into version 1.5 or 2.0. It's a possibility but mostly the "version 1.0" is there to indicate that while it is finished (it's not a beta), I still see the project as an experiment to learn from and not necessarily something that needs to be perfect. {a not so subtle attempt at lowering expectations}
I was trying to come up with my "Top 10" to contribute to Jane Hart "Top 10 Tools for Learning 2009" but I can't get to ten if I sticking to the tools I truly use regularly. So here are my Top 8 tools for learning, the tools that are part of my personal knowledge management system.
* TiddlyWiki (portable wiki) - excellent to develop a searchable notebook and many other things, including writing a novel. * iGoogle - excellent to organize your desktop, quick access to Gmail & quick links. I've created three tabs in iGoogle (home, office and KM). That way, if I'm at the office and my screen shows my iGoogle desktop, anything on that screen is work related. The KM tab is for everything that is related to knowledge management and/or professional development that isn't directly work-related. * Google Reader (organize rss feeds) - the key is to regularly review what's useful and what's not and not be afraid of unsubscribing. Once in a while I also go hunt for new interesting feeds. * CMapTools (concept mapping): I use Inspiration at work because that's what our office uses but I have a strong preference for CMapTools for concept mapping. I've been slightly obsessed with concept mapping and it's become a hammer looking for nails. * Captura (screen capture) - I don't know that it's really a "learning tool" but I use it regularly. * Diigo (social bookmarking) - I love it since I discovered its highlighting and comments capabilities. I was using FURL for a few years, they were bought by Diigo and the transfer of my bookmarks went relatively smoothly. * Blogger - I've added Zemanta to it recently, an easy way to enhance my posts with related links and to automate the process of creating hyperlinks. * iTunes (for podcasts and audiobooks) + iTunes University
If I had to pick the top 2, it would be TiddlyWiki and CMapTools.
That being said, I don't use any of these things when it comes to supporting my youngest daughter's learning. For that task, I rely on a white board, index cards, and the local public library.
Sometimes there's a word or a phrase that catches my attention. Perhaps it's just a few words that appear to perfectly encapsulate a thought or a feeling. "Learning at the speed of change" is one of those. We rejoice about our increased ability to communicate. We can communicate more often, with more people, with more tools. Most of that seems to be about quantity (How many twitter followers do you have?). Are we communicating better or just "more"?
At the same time, we complain about information overload. In fact, just as the quantity of information we have access to doesn't guarantee anything about the decisions we make, the fact that we can and we do communicate more doesn't guarantee that we're communicating better. The overload (of information and communication) might become a distraction if we're not able to increase our ability to focus.
"Learning at the speed of change" is a reference to the fact that change is the only constant and the speed of change is increasing. Information overload is only going to get worse and it would be nice if were collectively able to focus our attention on two things:
1) the quality of our communications; and 2) our ability to extract value from massive amounts of information.
We need to learn faster. We probably need to become better lifelong learners as well. If the pace of change is increasing, our ability to learn continuously and faster is going to be critical. Yes, the vast amounts of information now at our fingertips and the many, many tools we now have at our disposal to communicate and learn from each other are wonderful. They will really provide value if and when we learn to collectively harness their potential.
Pay more attention to meta-learning (learning about learning) Very little attention is paid to the connection between personal learning styles, group learning and organizational learning. The connection between personal learning styles, personal learning strategies (& personal knowledge management) on the one hand, and organizational learning and traditional knowledge management initiatives on the other, is missing.
Treat knowledge as a very dynamic thing If you are going to try to capture and store knowledge, it will need to be in formats that are easy to edit so that it doesn't quickly become outdated. The types of knowledge that you should be focused on will also change rapidly.
Accompany the introduction of new tools Don't just demo new tools to show people how to start using them. Accompany the new users in figuring out how to handle those tools strategically from an information overload perspective. Accompany the users in climbing the learning curve and learn with them.
Keep an eye on the trade-offs between speed and depth of learning You can use Cliff Notes or Spark Notes to make sure you've really understood a difficult piece of literature and to facilitate your learning and preparation for a test or you can use them as a cheat sheet to pretend you've read the book and try to pass a test with minimal time investment on your part.
All of this is assuming that we all need to catch up or keep up with change. Does this also imply that if you want to make change happen, you need to be learning even faster, you need to be the one ahead of the crowd, making all the mistakes that followers will learn from and avoid? Does it mean that in order to lead change rather than react to it, we need to learn FASTER than the speed of change?
The Federal Knowledge Management Working Group launched a Federal Knowledge Management Initiative a while ago. Members of the group are feverishly working within Action Groups to create sections of a Roadmap document. I'm a little skeptical about the overall value and quality of what is going to emerge as the final document but if the primary objective of the initiative is to put knowledge management on the agenda of the Obama Administration and the leadership of federal agencies, then it might achieve that.
I have been participating in two of the Action Groups and in the process, I've learned a few things about "writing by committee", the challenges of writing a coherent piece when the authors come from different perspectives and don't share a common language, using a wiki to work on collaborative writing, how to get group members to volunteer for specific writing or review and editing tasks, and more generally, how to voice disagreement effectively.
The centerpiece of the initiative is the creation of a Federal KM Center. Sometimes, when you are trying to make a point (as in.. there is a need for a Federal KM Center to increase the visibility of KM in Federal Agencies), you end up emphasizing the negative (there are few Chief Knowledge Officers, Federal Agencies employ ad hoc KM practices, etc...) and failing to highlight the real successes. For example, a couple of agencies (esp. Army and NASA) are perceived as good examples to follow and repeatedly mentioned as such while many agencies that have developed relevant and successful "knowledge management" practices are much less visible and never mentioned.
What if the reality is that many more Federal Agencies are implementing Knowledge Management related activities, don't necessarily feel the need for a formal KM program, and achieve great results without one? There is an assumption that if you don't have a formal KM program you're probably not doing enough, not doing much. What if not needing a formal KM program is a sign that you are already ahead of the curve and your KM approach is well integrated in your operations?
What if an agency that is allowing its various offices to develop their own best practices or lessons learned activities is more effective than a centralized KM office? Which should come first? A centralized KM program? The ad hoc emergence of best practices/lessons learned activities within organizational units? If the objective is to generate quick wins, I would suggest that ad hoc activities at the local level, within organizational units is more effective. Once those local level mechanisms are in place, coordination and knowledge sharing across organizational units can help build greater organizational learning at the agency level.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=84aa1e4a-9f6e-478b-8571-97bfacdfc409)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b0431c89-1780-41ea-8aa0-0f5bc6ee27c7)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=890ea37c-0741-4b93-ad55-8b07f0c9af9d)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c8e64978-246c-4bc7-ba1a-992c8c5fb482)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1238ad18-ce76-4985-bed2-2bb365eee40b)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=b8ae3ab2-8974-4dfa-b257-a5a115fcd841)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4179194d-bd46-442a-8d8e-70c5b66d1134)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=1c9b3cb4-6377-44ac-87be-c5e6b6f2bcab)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=553fabbe-355a-46ba-9236-0a626d8bcad9)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=72e3e3ab-0437-4e91-bb6a-da4d693dffe0)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=5159b750-cdf0-428f-bc9f-4ffaae1a4cb6)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=11f0ca0d-dec7-46b2-b6af-a91c615e61a6)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=ae3f4c9e-1e75-4931-a183-7293f1cacb54)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=6ec2acd7-bb01-4bab-a714-0f1ae9663037)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=aa29378e-0f40-4c5a-a2a4-34bf95a61732)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=cfb6d37b-d42b-48c3-897d-2bfb2a092c29)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=df243163-b406-44a9-a7ae-8ba621942c4a)
