Back up and running...

I've been sick the last couple of days; However, Ling has posted a little (or rather big) something...



She'll be posting on here too, soon.

Peace.

Climate Gate, precursor to a slippery slope..?

Over 40% of all tropical forests have been destroyed and another acre is lost each second.

While the U.S. makes up only 5% of the world's population, we produce 72% of all hazardous waste and consume 33% of the world's paper.

Worldwide, thousands of pounds of plutonium are being produced, used and stored under conditions of inadequate security. Using current technology, only two pounds of plutonium is required to make a nuclear device.

The annual catch in 13 of the world's 15 major fishing zones has declined and in four of those - three in the Atlantic and one in the Pacific oceans - the catch has shrunk by a startling 30%.

Taxpayers will lose over one billion dollars over the next decade as the Forest Service spends more money on building logging roads and preparing commercial timber sales than it makes on selling the timber.

In 1992, taxpayers subsidized the clearcutting of our Alaskan forest with an estimated $40 million.

Mining companies are allowed to buy our public lands for less than five dollars an acre - any they pay no royalties on the gold and other minerals they extract. This taxpayer giveaway, combined with the cost of massive environmental damage and cleanup, amounts to a billion dollars every year.

Grazing has led to soil erosion, watershed destruction and ruin of wildlife habitat on millions of acres of our public lands. Taxpayers subsidized grazing fees with $1.8 billion during the years 1985 - 1992.

As many as 70,000 people nationwide may die prematurely from heart and lung disease aggravated by particulate air pollution.

More than 100 million Americans live in urban areas where the air is officially classified by the EPA as unsafe to breathe.

In many urban areas, children are steadily exposed to high levels of pollutants, increasing the risk of chronic lung disease, cell damage and respiratory illness.

Dioxin and other persistent pollutants that are released into the air accumulate in our waterways, wildlife, food supply and human blood-streams. These poisons may cause cancer and reproductive disorders in human beings and other animal species.

Millions of pounds of toxic chemicals, like lead, mercury and pesticides, pour into our waterways each year contaminating wildlife, seafood and drinking water.

One-half of our nation's lakes and one-third of our rivers are too polluted to be completely safe for swimming or fishing.

Raw sewage, poison runoff and other pollution have caused 8,000 beach closures or advisories over the past five years.

We are losing once pristine national treasures - like the Everglades, Lake Superior, and the Columbia River System - to toxic pollution, chemical spills, development, and diversion of freshwater flows.

All but one species of the magnificent ocean-going salmon in the Pacific Northwest face a growing risk of extinction throughout most of their range, due to habitat degradation and over-fishing.

You get the idea...



Peace.

Keep it clean!

An appeal to human decency (which is absurd considering the topic - Shopping)...



Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving/Turkey Day/Day off ;>

Peace.

Feds Wanted Private Data on All Visitors to Liberal News Site (Cont.)

Peace.

Things that make you go hhhmmmm........

From Michael E. Mann (witholding of information / data):

Dear Phil and Gabi,
I’ve attached a cleaned-up and commented version of the matlab code that I wrote for doing the Mann and Jones (2003) composites. I did this knowing that Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future, so best to clean up the code and provide to some of my close colleagues in case they want to test it, etc. Please feel free to use this code for your own internal purposes, but don’t pass it along where it may get into the hands of the wrong people.

From Nick McKay (modifying data):

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

From Tom Wigley (acknowleding the urban effect):

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

From Phil Jones (modification of data to hide unwanted results):

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Kevin Trenberth (failure of computer models):

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

From Michael Mann (truth doesn't matter):

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

The skeptics seem to be building up a head of steam here! ... The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick. Leave it to you to delete as appropriate! Cheers Phil
PS I’m getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data. Don’t any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !

From Michael E. Mann (using a website to control the message, hide dissent):

Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC [RealClimate.org - A supposed neutral climate change website] Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

From Phil Jones (witholding of data):

If FOIA does ever get used by anyone, there is also IPR to consider as well. Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them.

If the emails and documents are a forgery, it would be an extremely large one that would likely have taken months to setup. No doubt much more will be coming out about these emails and their possible authenticity. Stay tuned to the Climate Change Examiner for updates as more information becomes available.

Update, 10:30am – Since the original publication of this article, the story is gaining steam and now the BBC is reporting on it. They report that a spokesman for the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), "We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites.”

Analysis of the emails and documents in the archives continues. We must stress that the authenticity has not been proven however there have been no denials of such by the climate center. Some of the more recent revelations include:

From Phil Jones (destroying of emails / evidence):

Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

From Tom Wigley (data modification):

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”. Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols. The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not) — but not really enough. So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.) This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have. Tom.

From Ben Santer * (witholding data) :

We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues. In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the "derived" model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully. I will be consulting LLNL's Legal Affairs Office in order to determine how the DOE and LLNL should respond to any FOI requests that we receive from McIntyre.

From Tom Wigley (ousting of a skeptic from a professional organization):

Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.

From Phil Jones (forging of dates):

Gene/Caspar, Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn't appear to be in CC's online first, but comes up if you search. You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it hasn't changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006! Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today. Ammann/Wahl - try and change the Received date! Don't give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with.

From a document titled "jones-foiathoughts.doc" (witholding of data):

Options appear to be:
1. Send them the data
2. Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
3. Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

From Mick Kelly (modifying data to hide cooling):

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

Related to the ACTA?

Feds Wanted Private Data on All Visitors to Liberal News Site

By Daniel Tencer, Raw Story. Posted November 11, 2009.

A Justice Department subpoena requesting information on visitors to an independent news site is raising serious privacy concerns.

A Justice Department subpoena requesting all available information on all visitors to an independent news site is raising serious privacy concerns, and questions about how much information the US government is storing about its citizens' news reading habits.

Privacy watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation has released an extensive report on a "bogus" attempt by a US attorney in Indiana to get Indymedia.us, an independent left-leaning news site, to hand over all the data it had about all the users who visited the site on a particular day.

Further adding to civil libertarians' and privacy watchdogs' concerns is the fact that the Justice Department ordered Indymedia to keep silent about the request.

"This overbroad demand for internet records not only violated federal privacy law but also violated [Indymedia's] First Amendment rights, by ordering [it] not to disclose the existence of the subpoena without a US attorney’s permission," the EFF's Kevin Bankston wrote.

And while Indymedia is an unabashedly left-wing news site, advocating causes such as gay rights and anti-globalization, some of the site's defenders in the wake of the subpoena controversy are right-wing pundits who are drawing a parallel between the Indymedia case and the war of words between the White House and Fox News.

Fox News host Glenn Beck sent out a Twitter message on Tuesday drawing attention to the Indymedia story. Though the Tweet was non-committal -- "Interesting times we live in. Can't wait to see what this story is about." -- it did raise the unusual prospect of a prominent right-wing commentator championing the rights of a left-wing news site.

"Beck claims to be a libertarian, so it’s no surprise that his hackles might be raised by this case,"writes Robert Quigley at the Mediaite blog. "But more broadly, it’s understandable why this could alarm the right-wing media and its consumers. They already have a sense that the Obama administration is out for their heads (cf. the Fox News feud with the White House)."

Quigley argued that Indymedia's outspokenness, rather than its political leanings, could have made the news site a target. "You don’t have to be a ‘wingnut’ to be concerned about the government trying to ferret out the entire readership of a publication and then bar anyone from talking about it," he wrote.

According to the EFF, Indymedia received a request (PDF) in January for the IP addresses of everyone who visited the Indymedia site on June 25, 2008. But the request went further than simply asking for the computer addresses of visitors -- the subpoena ordered Indymedia to turn over all identifying information it may have about visitors, including their addresses, email addresses, bank account numbers and social security numbers.

However, as EFF points out, most Web sites don't collect that sort of data from typical visitors. And in the case of Indymedia, their records of visitors' IP addresses are stored only for a short time. So when Indymedia -- now represented by the EFF -- challenged the subpoena, it argued that the news site was unable to provide that sort of information to the federal government.

EFF reports that, when they challenged the subpoena, the Justice Department backed down, and responded with a one-sentence letter (PDF) that rescinded the subpoena. But at the same time, Justice Department officials threatened an Indymedia web administrator with charges of obstruction of justice if she revealed the subpoena's existence. Officials told the administrator, Kristina Clair of Philadelphia, that publicizing the request "may endanger someone's health" and would have a "human cost."

"Under pressure from EFF, the government admitted that the subpoena’s gag order had no legal basis, and ultimately chose not to go to court to try to force Ms. Clair’s silence despite earlier threats to do so," EFF stated.

And, as a report at CBS News notes, the Justice Department may have violated its own rules about making requests from journalists. The guidelines state, among other things, that the US attorney general has to personally authorize a media subpoena.

There is some question as to whose responsibility it would have been to authorize the request. The subpoena was issued on January 30, 2009 -- 10 days after President Barack Obama was sworn in, but days before Holder was sworn in as attorney general. Thus it's not clear if Attorney General Eric Holder authorized the request, but several news blogs are now pointing the finger at the Obama administration.

In an article entitled "White House declared war on Indymedia?", Ed Morrissey writes: "Holder assumed office on February 3rd, which means that the acting AG may have had to sign off on the subpoena instead — or that Holder may have filled that role while filling the role pending confirmation."

Complicating the matter is the fact that the Justice Department has released no information about what case or investigation the Indymedia request is connected to. Further complicating the case is the fact that Indymedia is a news aggregation site, with links to other news sites, so it's not clear what information the Justice Department could have gleaned from Indymedia's records that would have helped them in an investigation.

Indymedia is a left-leaning site that has championed anti-globalization causes for years. The EFF argues that the case raises serious concerns about the extent to which the US monitors citizens' news reading habits.

"How often does the government attempt such illegal fishing expeditions through internet data? How many online service providers have received similarly bogus demands, and handed over how much data, violating how many internet users’ privacy?" EFF asked. "How many of those subpoena recipients have been intimidated into silence by unconstitutional gag orders?"

Peace.

On a lighter note...

I happened to be watching the "Tubes" the other day and caught a vid about the Seoul Metro system by a friend of mine on YouTube, qiranger (www.youtube.com/qiranger - if you are interested in anything Korean, you need to check this channel out!). Beyond making me yearn for travel and adventure once again, it reminded me of all the various modes of transportation my wife and I utilized abroad.

Among one of my favorites was hitchhiking in the countryside of Henan, China -



Peace.

URGENT: Fed Audit Under Attack

TAKE ACTION TODAY

From Jane Hamsher at FireDogLake:

The big banks are making a last-minute play to stop a full audit of the Federal Reserve. Please add your name to our urgent letter to stop this ploy and call for a complete Fed audit.

Click here to sign!

From Campaign For Liberty:

A few weeks ago, we sent out an alert that Representative Mel Watt was attempting to water down H.R. 1207 in the House Financial Services Committee.

The latest reports we have received have informed us that a vote on the Watt amendment could come tomorrow!

There’s still time for us to stop this attack on Audit the Fed! Click here to get a full list of Financial Services Committee members, along with their contact information.

Financial Services leadership seems determined to include Audit the Fed as part of a regulatory reform package instead of passing it as a standalone bill.

While C4L will still do everything in its power to fight for a standalone vote on Audit the Fed on the House floor, it is critical we challenge Watt's amendment in Committee.

It will become much easier for our representatives to claim they still support Audit the Fed on the House floor if the Watt version passes, when, in reality, Representative Watt's amendment puts restrictions on Government Accountability Office audits of the Fed.

For example, Watt's amendment prevents the GAO from auditing or reviewing decisions to authorize, modify, extend, or terminate loans or liquidity facilities.

Congressman Paul will offer an amendment in Committee restoring an audit of the Fed’s entire $2 trillion balance sheet, but we have received word that some of the members may be waffling on their support for his amendment.

Help us turn up the pressure on these members! Below is the list of Democrats on the committee who have cosponsored H.R. 1207. Please call them and urge them to vote "Yes" on Ron Paul's amendment.

1. Rep. John Adler, NJ (202) 225-4765

2. Rep. Travis Childers, MS (202) 225-4306

3. Rep. Steve Driehaus, OH (202) 225-2216

4. Rep. Alan Grayson, FL (202) 225-2176

5. Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX (202) 225-2531

6. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, FL Toll Free: 1-877-956-7627

7. Rep. Dan Maffei, NY (202) 225-3701

8. Rep. Brad Miller, NC (202) 225-3032

9. Rep. Walt Minnick, ID (202) 225-6611

10. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO (202)-225-2645

11. Rep. David Scott, GA (202) 225-2939

12. Rep. Brad Sherman, CA (202) 225-5911

13. Rep. Jackie Speier, CA (202) 225-3531

When contacting these members, remember that up to this point, they have been allies on this issue. A civil yet firm tone should be kept during these calls. They should be thanked for their cosponsorship, told that Mel Watt's changes to the bill are unacceptable, and urged to hold the line and honor their promise to support transparency at the Fed by voting "Yes" on Ron Paul's amendment.

For more information on the Watt amendment, check out this article by The Huffington Post's Ryan Grim.

We are continuing our work to achieve a standalone vote on H.R. 1207 on the House floor, but we must first stop the Watt amendment in the Financial Services Committee.

Make sure the Financial Services Committee members hear from you as soon as their offices open!

A vote could come any time. Call, email, and fax the Financial Services Committee members to vote “Yes” on Congressman Ron Paul’s amendment.

ACTA !?! 3-Strikes and you're Out!?!

Please Read!

Article from Electronic Frontier Foundation -

Leaked ACTA Internet Provisions: Three Strikes and a Global DMCA

Negotiations on the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start in a few hours in Seoul, South Korea. This week's closed negotiations will focus on "enforcement in the digital environment." Negotiators will be discussing the Internet provisions drafted by the US government. No text has been officially released but as Professor Michael Geist and IDG are reporting, leaks have surfaced. The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.

As expected, the Internet provisions will go beyond existing international treaty obligations and follow the language of Article 18.10.30 of the recent U.S. – South Korea Free Trade Agreement. We see three points of concern.

First, according to the leaks, ACTA member countries will be required to provide for third-party (Internet Intermediary) liability. This is not required by any of the major international IP treaties – not by the 1994 Trade Related Aspects of IP agreement, nor the WIPO Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. However, US copyright owners have long sought this. (For instance, see page 19 of the Industry Functional Advisory Committee report on the 2003 US- Singapore Free Trade Agreement noting the need for introducing a system of ISP liability). (Previously available at http://www.ustr.gov/new/fta/Singapore/advisor_reports.htm.)

Second and more importantly, ACTA will include some limitations on Internet Intermediary liability. Many ACTA negotiating countries already have these regimes in place: the US, EU, Australia, Japan, South Korea. To get the benefit of the ACTA safe harbors, Internet intermediaries will need to follow notice and takedown regimes, and put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of allegedly copyright infringing content.

However, contrary to current US law and practice, the US text apparently conditions the safe harbors on Internet intermediaries adopting a Graduated Response or Three Strikes policy. IDG reports that:

"The U.S. wants ACTA to force ISPs to "put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content (for example clauses in customers' contracts allowing a graduated response)," according to the [leaked European] Commission memo."

Let's reflect on what this means: First, the US government appears to be pushing for Three Strikes to be part of the new global IP enforcement regime which ACTA is intended to create – despite the fact that it has been categorically rejected by the European Parliament and by national policymakers in several ACTA negotiating countries, and has never been proposed by US legislators.

Second, US negotiators are seeking policies that will harm the US technology industry and citizens across the globe. Three Strikes/ Graduated Response is the top priority of the entertainment industry. The content industry has sought this since the European office of the Motion Picture Association began touting Three Strikes as ISP "best practice" in 2005. Indeed, the MPAA and the RIAA expressly asked for ACTA to include obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes policies in their 2008 submissions to the USTR. The USTR apparently listened and agreed, disregarding the concerns raised by both the US's major technology and telecom companies and industry associations (who dwarf the US entertainment industry), and public interest groups and libraries.

How does this fit with the oft-repeated statement of the USTR that ACTA will not change US law, which justified the decision to negotiate ACTA as an Executive Agreement outside of regular US Congressional oversight measures? That remains to be seen.

The safe harbors in the US Copyright law require ISPs to adopt and reasonably implement a policy for termination of "repeat infringers" "in appropriate circumstances". US law currently gives ISPs considerable flexibility to determine what are "appropriate circumstances" justifying the termination of a customer's Internet account. If the leak reports are correct, this would no longer be true. Instead, ISPs would be required to automatically terminate a customer upon a rightsholders' repeat allegation of copyright infringement at a particular IP address. Could the USTR be relying on the somewhat specious distinction between a Three Strikes law, and its implementation by a policy adopted by ISPs as part of a gun-to-the-head self regulation regime?

According to IDG, the leaked European Commission memo also states that the US Internet chapter is "sensitive due to the different points of view regarding the internet chapter both within the Administration, with Congress and among stakeholders (content providers on one side, supporters of internet freedom on the other)."

That's hardly surprising, given that the ACTA text appears to leave the door open for major changes to the existing national Internet intermediary liability regimes that have been the global status quo since the mid 1990s, and which have underpinned both tremendous Internet innovation, and citizens' online freedom of expression and the rich world of user generated content that we take for granted today.

European citizens should also be concerned and indignant. As reported, the ACTA Internet provisions would also appear to be inconsistent with the EU eCommerce Directive and existing national law, as Joe McNamee, the European Affairs Coordinator of EDRi notes:

"The Commission appears to be opening up ISPs to third party liability, even though the European Parliament has expressly said this mustn't happen," McNamee said, adding that ACTA looks likely to erode European citizens' civil liberties."

Last, but by no means least. ACTA signatories will be required to adopt both civil and criminal legal sanctions for copyright owners' technological protection measures, in line with the US-Korea (and previous) FTA obligations. They will also be required to include a ban on the act of circumvention of technological protection measures, and a ban on the manufacture, import and distribution of circumvention tools. This will reduce the flexibility otherwise available to countries drafting these sort of laws under the WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. The majority of WIPO's Member States rejected the circumvention device ban sought by the US delegation in the draft Basic Proposal for the 1996 WIPO Copyright Treaty. Because ACTA is intended to create new global international IP enforcement standards, including these provisions will allow US negotiators to achieve what they have not been able to do to date – ensuring that the US's overbroad implementation of the WIPO Internet Treaty TPM obligations becomes the global standard.

This should give all citizens - and the ACTA countries negotiating in their names - pause for thought.



Peace.

Images and Sounds III

Xi'an Zhong Lou (Bell Tower)...



Peace.

A Tragedy within Tragedy...

Yeah,

Fort Hood...



Related News Links:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ihGepAkECGoDagETVBMpPb3w7Y3gD9BPNV6G0

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwXtdoKPsNJg9PPKF7708ZC4N56AD9BPLJ1G1

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/06/nidal-malik-hasan-fort-hood-shooting

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/nadal-malik-hasan-suspected-fort-hood-shooter-psychiatrist/story?id=9010466

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html

55ella2007k (A Borrowed Comment of sorts on suggested related readings)

"Excellent video! And people should remember this, every time they pass by some homeless vet, discarded by the very system, which they seek to uphold. Have you read the book by Tyler Boudreau, Packing Inferno - The Unmaking of a Marine? This book contains more truth + brutal honesty, than ANYTHING coming out of the mainstream media in regards to patriotism or anything else. And it addresses the very issues which you raise in this video."

Peace.

Remember, Remeber..

Evey: Who are you?

V. : Who? Who is but the form following the function of what and what I am is a man in a mask.

Evey: Well I can see that.

V. : Of course you can, I’m not questioning your powers of observation, I’m merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is.

Evey: Oh, right.

V. : But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace soubriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Verily this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it’s my very good honour to meet you and you may call me V.

Evey: Are you like a crazy person?

V. : I’m quite sure they will say so.

Remember remember the fifth of November
Gunpowder, treason and plot.
I know of no reason why gunpowder, treason
Should ever be forgot…



Peace.

Audit the Fed - H.R. 1207

Trillions in taxpayer money, yes trillions, have been spread amongst a group of unidentified banks, how do you feel about that?

H.R. 1207:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1207

House of Reps switchboard - 202-224-3121

Call your representatives now!



Peace.