just another guy with straw for brains …
Segment #1: This week in free energy
Presenter: Sterling Allan, CEO, founder of New Energy Congress
Estimated Time: 20 minutes
Segment #2: Scarecrow’s News Rant – A circular history lesson – 213 years ago today
Presenter: an editorial by SmartScarecrow
Estimated time: 10 minutes
Today we have “The Patriot Act”. 213 years ago, it was called “The Alien and Sedition Act”. History tends to repeat itself. Tonight we examine what Thomas Jefferson and other political thinkers of his day might have thought of our “War against terror” and its resulting abuses of power by the “General Government”.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
November 10th, 1798.
THE House, according to the standing order of the day, resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the state of the commonwealth, Mr. Caldwell in the chair; and after some time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Caldwell reported that the committee had, according to order, had under consideration the Governor’s address, and had come to the following resolutions thereupon, which he delivered in at the clerk’s table, where they were twice read and agreed to by the House.
1. Resolved, That the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each state to itself the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral party, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions, as of the mode and measure of redress.
2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever, and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, “that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people ;” therefore, also, the same act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and entitled, “an act in addition to the act entitled, an act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States;” as also the act passed by them on the 27th day of June, 1798, entitled, “an act to punish frauds committed on the Bank of the United States,” (and all other their acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes other than those enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force, and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and of right appertains, solely and exclusively, to the respective states, each within its own territory.
3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitution, that ” the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people;” and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the states, or to the people ; that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use, should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgment by the United States of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and retained to themselves the right of protecting the same. as this state by a law passed on the general demand of its citizens, had already protected them from all human restraint or interference: and that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another and more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the Constitution, which expressly declares, that ” Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” thereby guarding in the same sentence, and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press, insomuch, that whatever violates either, throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehoods, and defamations, equally with heresy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance of federal tribunals: that therefore the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, entitled, “an act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States,” which does abridge the freedom of the press, is not law, but is altogether void and of no effect.
4. Resolved, That alien-friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled “an act concerning aliens,” which assumes power over alien-friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.
5. Resolved, That in addition to the general principle as well as the express declaration, that powers not delegated are reserved, another and more special provision inserted in the Constitution, from abundant caution, has declared, “that the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808:” that this commonwealth does admit the migration of alien-friends described as the subject of the said act concerning aliens; that a provision against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against all acts equivalent thereto, or it would be nugatory; that to remove them when migrated, is equivalent to a prohibition of their migration, and is therefore contrary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void.
6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under the protection of the laws of this commonwealth, on his failure to obey the simple order of the President, to depart out of the United States, as is undertaken by the said act, entitled “an act concerning aliens,” is contrary to the Constitution, one amendment to which has provided, that “no person shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law,” and that another having provided, “that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favour, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence,” the same act undertaking to authorize the President to remove a person out of the United States, who is under the protection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accusation, without jury, without public trial, without confrontation of the witnesses against him, without having witnesses in his favour, without defence, without counsel, is contrary to these provisions, also, of the Constitution, is therefore not law, but utterly void and of no force.
That transferring the power of judging any person who is under the protection of the laws, from the courts to the President of the United States, as is undertaken by the same act, concerning aliens, is against the article of the Constitution which provides, that “the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices during good behaviour,” and that the said act is void for that reason also; and it is further to be noted, that this transfer of judiciary power is to that magistrate of the General Government, who already possesses all the executive, and a qualified negative in all the legislative powers.
7. Resolved, That the construction applied by the General Government, (as is evinced by sundry of their proceedings,) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegates to Congress a power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States, and to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or any department thereof, goes to the destruction of all the limits prescribed to their power by the Constitution: that words meant by that instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of the limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part so to be taken, as to destroy the whole residue of the instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under colour of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject for revisal and correction at a time of greater tranquillity, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.
8. Resolved, That the preceding resolutions be transmitted to the senators and representatives in Congress from this commonwealth, who are hereby enjoined to present the same to their respective houses, and to use their best endeavours to procure, at the next session of Congress, a repeal of the aforesaid unconstitutional and obnoxious acts.
9. Resolved, lastly, That the Governor of this commonwealth be, and is hereby authorized and requested to communicate the preceding resolutions to the legislatures of the several states, to assure them that this commonwealth considers union for specified national purposes, and particularly for those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly to the peace, happiness, and prosperity of all the states: that, faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation : that it does also believe, that to take from the states all the powers of self-government, and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special obligations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these states: and that therefore, this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-states are, tamely to submit to undelegated and consequently unlimited powers in no man or body of men on earth: that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes, and punish it themselves, whether enumerated or not enumerated by the Constitution, as cognizable by them; that they may transfer its cognizance to the President or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction; that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these states being, by this precedent, reduced as outlaws to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no rampart now remains against the passions and the power of a majority of Congress, to protect from a like exportation or other more grievous punishment the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors, and counsellors of the states, nor their other peaceable inhabitants who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the states and people, or who, for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their elections, or other interests public or personal: that the friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed; for, already has a sedition-act marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested on the threshold, may tend to drive these states into revolution and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against republican governments, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed, that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron: that it would be a dangerous delusion, were a confidence in the men of our choice, to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which and no further our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the alien and sedition-acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits? Let him say what the government is if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have conferred on the President, and the President of our choice has assented to and accepted, over the friendly strangers, to whom the mild spirit of our country and its laws had pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the bare suspicions of the President, than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief, by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does, therefore, call on its co-states for an expression of their sentiments on the acts concerning aliens, and for the punishment of certain crimes herein before specified, plainly declaring whether these acts are or are not authorized by the Federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced, as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, whether general or particular, and that the rights and liberties of their co-states, will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked on a common bottom with their own: That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said acts as so palpably against the Constitution, as to amount to an undisguised declaration, that the compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the general government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these states of all powers whatsoever: That they will view this as seizing the rights of the states, and consolidating them in the hands of the general government with a power assumed to bind the states, (not merely in cases made federal,) but in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: That this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and to live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-states, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring these acts void and of no force and will each unite with this commonwealth, in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress.
EDMUND BULLOCK, S. H. R.
JOHN CAMPBELL, S. S. P. T.
Passed the House of Representatives, Nov. 10th, 1798.
Attest, THOMAS TODD, C. H. R.
In Senate, November 13th, 1798, unanimously concurred in.
Attest, B. THRUSTON, Clk. Sen.
Approved November 16th, 1798. JAMES GARRARD, G. K.
By the Governor. HARRY TOULMIN,
Secretary of State.
As a sidebar, an election update
Rick Perry wounds self mortally and may be out of the running after his really poor performance in the Republican Party debates on 11/9/2011.
CNBC polls America! “Who won the debate?” … duh … poll pulled when it is clear that Ron Paul was runaway victor! Instead of the raw numbers, they have substituted talking heads discussing “until someone addresses Romney”. Bottom line, more of what we have grown to expect.
Yet another sidebar, fog of war forming over Iran
Weapons of Mass Destruction revisited – its deja vu all over again!
Iran: WMDs Redux
by Stephen Lendman
Here we go again. Everything that goes around, comes around. We’ve seen it all before, each time fake. Nothing’s different now.
Previous articles said US intelligence assessments through March 2011 found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons development.
During his December 1, 1997 – November 30, 2009 tenure as IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei concurred. He carefully avoided anti-Iranian rhetoric and baseless charges.
After his departure, agency policy changed. IAEA was established as an intergovernmental scientific and technical cooperation forum. It was also to insure safe, peaceful nuclear technology applications. Initially independent, it now reports to the General Assembly and Security Council.
Current head, Yukiya Amano, politicized IAEA policy for Western interests, mainly Washington’s. Doing so plays with fire, given nuclear technology stakes.
Lies launch all wars, including America’s post-WW II. Israel’s also.
Bogusly accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons refutes known evidence claiming otherwise.
Washington enlisted Yamano to lie. He didn’t disappoint. Ahead of his report’s release, he visited Washington for instructions. Exposing his duplicity is vital.
War must be prevented at all costs. Hopefully world leaders won’t tolerate it.
On November 8, former Pentagon official Michael Maloof told Press TV:
“There are some very serious questions (about Yamano’s) study. It’s obviously a basis for creating an atmosphere for launching an attack on Iran.”
“My sources tell me here in Washington that they monitor Israeli activities, and they see (things happening) unabated. There are preparations for cancellation of civilian leave, not only these tests, but also fueling and arming missiles. It’s building up to a crescendo!”
“I have not seen, and no one has convinced me, that Iran is going beyond just enriching uranium for the purpose of medical and other (nonmilitary) purposes.”
“I’m really concerned that some accident is going to create another hostility.”
He worries most about Israeli recklessness, regardless of whether Washington approves. Whether war winds target Iran isn’t known. Only the fullness of time will tell.
Iraq – the Last Deception
Robert Abele discussed it in his book titled, “Anatomy of a Deception: A Reconstruction and Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq.”
Reconstructing public dialogue, he explained events ahead of bombing, invading and occupying Iraq. No casus belli existed. Inventing one followed. Alleged evidence was fabricated. The cradle of civilization was destroyed.
Abele discussed manipulating public opinion four ways relating to:
Washington’s imperial ambitions;
major media support, cheerleading US wars;
public ignorance, lack of critical thinking, and indifference; and
violations of international law and ethical principles.
All wars follow similar patterns based on lies, misinformation and deception, including World Wars I and II.
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber’s book, titled “Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq” covered similar ground, including how professional PR strategies, euphemisms, and jargon manipulate public thinking.
When evidence doesn’t exist, it’s invented. Later when discovered untrue, it’s too late. People are persuaded to think wars make them safer. They never did and don’t now. Wars beget more of them, benefitting profiteers and duplicitous politicians only.
James Bamford’s book titled, “A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies” discussed destruction, detection and deception in three parts.
Part three covered manipulative Washington and Israeli duplicity used to justify attacking Iraq, oust Saddam, install a pro-US puppet regime, benefit Israel by removing a rival, and change the Middle East map.
September 11, the war on terror, WMDs, mushroom shaped cloud hysteria, manipulated intelligence, the Al Qaeda connection, and more hyped nonexistent threats to generate fear and enlist public support.
Patterns repeat in all wars. Only aggressors, targets, and language change. Aims and tactics are consistent. Death, destruction and human misery follow.
Definition of WMDs
Weapons of mass destructions (WMDs) include chemical, biological and radiological devices capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
Wikipedia defines them as weapons able to “kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general.”
“The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically.”
WMDs – Pretext for Attacking Iraq
Iraq had no nuclear weapons. After Operation Desert Storm, UNSCOM inspectors destroyed its chemical and biological ones. In June 1999, chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter told an interviewer:
“When you ask the question, ‘Does Iraq possess militarily viable biological or chemical weapons?’ the answer is no! It is a resounding NO.”
“Can Iraq produce today chemical weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Can Iraq produce biological weapons on a meaningful scale? No! Ballistic missiles? No! It has ‘no’ access across the board.”
“So from a qualitative standpoint, Iraq has been disarmed. Iraq today possesses no meaningful weapons of mass destruction capability.”
Nonetheless, Bush administration officials, Ahmed Chalabi, other duplicitous Iraqis, fake intelligence sources, paid-to-lie experts, PR manipulators, and media scoundrels like New York Times writer Judith Miller falsely claimed Saddam maintained covert WMD stockpiles.
Britain’s Dodgy Dossier cooked the books to fit Bush administration policy to attack, invade and occupy Iraq without cause, using fake intelligence.
Later evidence confirmed no WMD threat when it was too late to matter. Pre-war claims were false. Mushroom shaped cloud threats were bogus. Mobile biological weapons production was nonexistent.
Documents alleging Saddam bought Niger yellowcake uranium power were forged. He used aluminum tubes for artillery shells, not nuclear weapons. No evidence proved uranium centrifuge designs, development or production.
Nonetheless, lies justified lawless aggression against a nonbelligerent country posing no threat. Neither was Afghanistan, Libya, other post-WW II targets, and Iran.
Iran hasn’t attacked another country in over 200 years. It’s been targeted numerous times. America today covets its oil and gas resources. It wants its current regime replaced by another it controls. Bogusly calling Iran an existential threat, Israel wants a regional rival eliminated.
Whether or not war’s planned isn’t known. Discounting it ignores a threat too serious to ignore. Haaretz military affairs writer Amos Harel believes sanctions, not conflict, is likely, saying:
“The vast majority of the information in (IAEA’s) report has been in the hands of Western intelligence agencies for a relatively long time.”
America’s National Intelligence Estimate refuted claims about an alleged nuclear weapons program and Iranian threat. Stiffer sanctions, not war, may follow Amano’s report, Harel believes. Israel wants them to be “paralyzing, delivering a deadly blow to the Iranian banking system as well as to the country’s oil industry.”
Whether China, Russia and other nations will agree is doubtful. Washington pressure may impose them anyway.
National Journal writer Marc Ambinder headlined, “White House: IAEA Report Doesn’t Change Assessment of Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions,” saying:
An unnamed senior administration official told reporters on a conference call that:
“The IAEA does not assert that Iran has resumed a full scale nuclear weapons program nor does it have a program about how advanced the programs really are.”
IAEA, however, claims Iran carried “out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device” with no evidence proving it.
The Washington Post headlined, “Obama administration readies new Iran sanctions in light of UN report on Tehran’s nuclear aims,” saying:
IAEA’s report wasn’t “a game-changer.” Nonetheless, unilateral sanctions and others with international partners are planned. Efforts to isolate Iran and harm its economy will intensify. War perhaps will follow.
On and off threats persisted for years. Current rhetoric is more shrill than earlier. Whether or not replicating Libya is planned isn’t known. Iran represents a much greater prize.
In 2010, it had the world’s third largest proved oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Canada. Libya has less than a third as much. After Russia, Iran has the second largest gas reserves. Washington covets control to deny enemies and rivals free access.
On Russia Today (RT.com), former CIA officer Philip Giraldi discounted IAEA’s report, saying:
“I would be very skeptical about this report that is coming out of the International Atomic Energy because the IAEA doesn’t really have any intelligence capabilities of its own. It is relying on reports that are coming from other people. I would rather suspect these reports are coming from the US and Israel.”
“You may have a piece of evidence of some kind, but that piece of evidence is subject to your interpretation. When they saw aerial photographs in Iraq showing certain things, they interpreted those photographs to mean something which was not correct.”
Iran Answers Critical Questions
Press TV said Iran’s IAEA envoy Ali-Asghar Soltanieh offered Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) members “critical information about Iran’s nuclear program” to cool current hysteria following Amano’s report.
Attending an extraordinary NAM session, he answered “20 critical questions” and related issues.
Question 1: After 4,000 inspection days, has IAEA detected “even one gram of uranium being diverted for military purposes?”
Question 2: Has IAEA found any nuclear activities and materials used for military activities?
Question 3: “Was Iran ethically obliged to declare Natanz enrichment facility before 2003?”
No, given nothing introduced there until 2003!
Question 4: “Was Iran legally obliged to declare” Arak’s (IR40) heavy water research reactor before 2003?
Question 5: Under the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement to report Arak’s heavy water production before 2003, was Iran obliged to do so for the IAEA?
Question 6: Was Iran legally obliged until 2003 “to declare uranium conversion Facilities (UDF)?”
Question 7: Was Iran legally obliged “to declare uranium mines including Gachin and Saghand….?”
Question 8: Did IAEA inspections detect any nuclear material or activity used as part of a nuclear weapons program?
Question 9: Did IAEA’s Action Plan announce “no other issue in addition to what was listed in 2007?”
Question 10: Was IAEA obliged to submit “Alleged Studies” documents to Iran?
Question 11: Did IAEA fulfill its obligations regarding submitting alleged evidence?
Question 12: Did IAEA confirm its “Alleged Studies” authenticity?
Question 13: What was Iran’s INFOSIRC/711 obligation?
Per Paragraph III, it was to study the document and report its evaluation to IAEA.
Question 14: Was Iran obliged to hold meetings, interviews or allow sampling regarding the “Alleged Studies?”
Question 15: Did Iran implement the Additional Protocol?
Question 16: Did Iran implement the Subsidiary Arrangement of the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement Modified Code 3.1?
Question 17: When and why did Iran halt its voluntary implementation of the Additional Protocol and Modified Code 3.1?
Voluntary implementation stopped after two and a half years because Iran’s technical nuclear case was unfairly referred to the Security Council in 2006.
Question 18: Have all Iranian nuclear materials been measured and remain supervised to assure safe, peaceful operations?
Question 19: Did Iran cooperate with unannounced inspections?
Yes, including on two hours notice!
Question 20: “Why does Iran deem” the Board of Governors and Security Council illegal?
Because its legal nuclear program was politicized. Hostile countries manipulated the IAEA, turning the agency into a US-dominated Security Council watchdog to deprive Iran and other developing countries “of their ‘absolute right’ to use peaceful nuclear energy as stipulated in the IAEA Statute.”
Other relevant questions include why nuclear programs of other countries aren’t as closely scrutinized as Iran’s?
Why aren’t nuclear armed and dangerous nations like America and Israel inspected?
Why haven’t nuclear armed Israel, India and Pakistan been sanctioned for not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Why wasn’t Iran given credit for signing and abiding by its provisions?
Why does IAEA let America, Israel and other Western allies bully Iran unfairly?
Why does IAEA under Amano do it?
Why isn’t Iran’s peaceful nuclear program accepted as fact when no evidence suggests otherwise?
Why are secret US and Israeli nuclear weapons development, production, and testing unmentioned and unmonitored?
Why doesn’t IAEA fulfill its peaceful nuclear energy use mandate unpoliticized?
Under Amano, it’s a Washington controlled tool. As a result, Iran’s unfairly targeted while real nuclear outlaws freely terrorize other nations lawlessly!
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at email@example.com.
Also visit his blog site at http://sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
Segment #3: Feature Presentation – ZeroFossilFuel discusses lessons learned after 9 days without electricity
Presenter: SmartScarecrow & ZeroFossilFuel
Estimated time: 45 minutes
We hope to have ZeroFossilFuel on tonight to discuss with us the lessons learned after spending 9 days without electricity. We hope this works out, but you should be aware that Zero is on call and we could be forced into a last minute change of plans if he gets called away.
Segment #4: Audience Q&A Session
Moderator: SmartScarecrow & ZeroFossilFuel
Estimated time: 10 minutes