Truthseeker?

Thanks for all your comments guys, it is very encouraging to hear that others care about justice and the investigation into rights and wrongs so much. Sorry for the delay in replying, I will, in the next few days, all being well, get back to daily posting again. Today I again have little time and will instead point out a couple of news or blog articles of concern after replying to some of your comments.

In response to the taser incidents, ck said,

It is interesting how just because a guy who got pulled over with his wife for speeding can’t have his hands in his pockets unless he wants to get tasered. I mean, how do cops even walk down the street if they are constantly afraid of people with hands in their pockets. I understand if its a raid or if the person is acting aggressively, but just putting your hands in your pockets should NOT be enough to taser someone.

I completely agree with you, here is another video which shows the use of a taser and the cop had decided to use it even before the driver got out of the car. It is an incredibly sad state of affairs and one which requires people worldwide to strongly condemn either the use of, or the overuse of, tasers. Mike also brings this up.

Mike said,

“What can we do about this? We can’t just sit by and let this become the basis for reasonable taser use. It will only escalate from here. Online pettion of some sort?? any suggestions?”

Mike, agreed, one lady in Canada has had the same feelings and she started a petition, found here.
I will look into this over the next days and see if there any other petitions or the best way to protest this.

Amnesty International may be a good starting point. They released a statement relating to the Canadian taser related deaths, here, which included, “Amnesty International maintains its position that the use of stun guns by law-enforcement officials anywhere should be suspended until a thorough, impartial and independent investigation into the medical and other effects of the weapon.”

People are getting together to speak out against this sort of abuse. Social networking sites are both useful and potentially a “risk” in this regard. An example is the, 1093 people who joined this Facebook group “Protest the use of Excessive force on Robert Dziekanski” (membership required) and whom organised this protest, “Toronto Protest: Protesting the use of Excessive force on Robert Dziekanski” (membership required), again in Canada. Perhaps we need to be taking a leaf our of our Canadian friends books..

Eric said,

“Can one be a Truthseeker on the Oklahoma City bombing?
Seems to me that there was a huge government cover-up on OKC. Whatever happened to the 3rd bomber? The “Arab-looking man.” They quickly dropped that lead and pinned it on McVeigh and Nichols.
Nichols had visited the Southern Philippines 5 times the year before the bombing. It’s a known hide-out for Muslim Extremists.

I’ve read solid evidence that indicated that Iraqi Intelligence may have been behind the bombing in revenge for the First Persian Gulf War.

Why isn’t the media investigating the OKC bombing?

Is it too politically incorrect, because it would prove that Saddam Hussein was indeed behind it? Which would give further justification for our intervention in Iraq?

I fault even Bush here, cause he seems to be covering up for Clinton on this.”

Eric, interesting comment thanks, and I will certainly look into these matters and post here about them. That will take a large amount of research as I am not currently knowledgeable about the details, but I certainly will do so.

I will be glad to research any topics that anyone else suggests or has an interest in.

Once I get the forum setup and open, attached to this site, then it should be a great resource for us to all further share our thoughts and seek some truths out together.

Cheers guys, keep questioning and seeking to consider what we can actually do to prevent our freedoms being worn away.

————–

Another writer that I find interesting reading is J.D. Tucille and his blog titled Disloyal Opposition. Here he writes again briefly on the Utah taser incident and gives the contact details for the Utah Highway Patrol for those who wish to contact them to protest their use of tasers.

A few more article talking about the next gen of tasers.. currently tasers can be used up to 6m away..the new forms can be fired from ordinary shotguns, up to 30m away, and wireless… Will we go from a Police State into a Military State..?

“Tasers: the next generation - Alarmed by recent incidents? Wait’ll you see what the company is planning for 2008”

“Wireless Taser: Whole New Kind of Weapon”

“Taser-Armed ‘Bot Ready to Zap Pathetic Humans”

“Taser Shotgun, Robot Revealed”

……and finally for now….a patent for the creation of an “Energy weapon protection device“

Stumble this!

Well there we have it folks, news just in from the Associated Press, claiming that a verdict has been reached in the investigation into the tasering of Jared Massey by Utah trooper, John Gardner.

The headline about the verdict from the AP, written by Brock Vergakis at Salt Lake City is, “Taser Probe: Trooper Acted Reasonably“

I must admit I do not know if I feel surprised or not. I do feel disappointed and concerned about what this may suggest to other policemen, not only in the US, but around the world, who feel they can use tasers in such a manner.

Obviously I can not verify this report in any way. They did get the first name of trooper Gardner wrong, calling him Ron instead of John.

The report is not unbiased, describing Massey as “stubborn”,

“A Utah trooper who used a Taser to subdue a stubborn motorist who was walking away from him during a traffic stop acted reasonably, state officials said Friday.“

I do not know if those are the words of the officials or of the reporter. If they are the words of the officials then my concerns over their judgement is doubled. If they are the words of the reporter, then the AP writer, who appears to be the first to release this update, is biased or without sound judgement in using such emotive phrasing.

Apparently Trooper John Gardner is on leave, supposedly because of comments posted by some people on youtube “threatening” him. While I do not condone any threats being made in any form, if every angry and frustrated comment posted on the Internet was to result in everyone who was a subject of said “threats” then few people would be working.

I do not understand how they determined that Jared Massey was a threat, as that was going to be the main basis for the use of the taser.

Jared Massey had previously said that he was waiting on the outcome of the investigation before he decided if he would sue the Utah Highway Patrol or not. With the verdict as it is, I wonder if there can be an appeal or what may happen regard a possible lawsuit.

Superintendent Lance Davenport, of the Utah Highway Patrol, is reported to have said that,

“We found that Trooper Gardner’s actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances”.

I imagine more details will be released over the next day or so, however if this initial report is correct, I am concerned that there will be greater use of tasers in situations that never should have them.

Just before posting this article I have now noticed that the Salt Lake Tribune has just ran with this story and they mention that one of their reporters, Jason Bergreen, assisted in it; as such I will accept that the report appears to be accurate and I shall post this.

Trooper John Gardner, did not need to use a taser against Jared Massey in this incident either. It could conceivably be argued, as appears to have been done, that the troopers actions were not illegal and thus lawful. To suggest that his actions were reasonable is another tale all together.

If his actions were deemed reasonable, then I suggest that questions should be asked about the police force’s understanding and awareness of what is reasonable. An external investigation would be appropriate because this decision could potentially be setting a dangerous precedent.

In my opinion, it is a sad “victory” for government and the police, and not a good day for Justice or for the citizens of the USA.

Stumble this!

Ron Paul, US presidential candidate, is often being attacked in the mainstream media. Look up video debates on youtube or read transcripts of interviews with mainstream media interviewers and you should be shocked that not only does he have to contend with the other candidates attempting to ridicule or downplay his words which are at odds with most of those in the”system” because he is all for reducing as much as possible that very “system”; but he also must contend with mainstream media hosts such as Bill O’Rielly and Glen Beck who are only to glad to try and make Paul or his supports look bad. Ron Paul has libertarian views and wants to gain power and freedom for the people, not for himself.

The latest attacks, which are outlined below, only a couple of weeks after CNN’s host, Glen Beck, and guest, David Horowitz, attempted to smear Ron Paul and his supports in a most despicable manner. Paul Joseph Watson writes about this in Prison Planet here titled, “Complaints Flood CNN After Beck Smears Ron Paul Supporters As Terrorists“, an excerpt of which follows:
From www.prisonplanet.com:

“Complaints and demands for a retraction and an apology are flooding CNN today after Neo-Con host Glenn Beck and ex-Marxist David Horowitz smeared Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left as terrorist sympathizers and inferred that the U.S. military should be used to silence them, parroting a talking point that traces back to a September 2006 White House directive.
This is part of an ongoing propaganda assault which has also been mimicked by other anti-American Neo-Con talking heads like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

Beck opened up his show segment by inferring that the U.S. military should be used to silence domestic dissent against the war, claiming that those he would later identify as Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and the anti-war left and link with terrorists, were a “physical threat.”

Now we come to the “news” which is being used by some media outlets to again attempt to smear Ron Paul.

“Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, an underdog Texas congressman with a libertarian streak, has picked up an endorsement from a Nevada brothel owner.Dennis Hof, owner of the Moonlite BunnyRanch near Carson City, said he was so impressed after hearing Paul at a campaign stop in Reno last week that he decided to raise money for him.”I’ll get all the (working girls) together, and we can raise him some money,” Hof told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “I’ll put up a collection box outside the door. They can drop in $1, $5 contributions.”"

This is the start of the article titled “Paul Endorsed by Nevada Brothel Owner“, released 3 days ago, the 27th November 2007 by the Associated Press.

Now read the article that was published 2 days before the AP derivitive, on the 25th November 2007, by the Reno Gazette-Journal, titled “Brothel owner throws support to Republican Paul“.

Already today we can see the results of the AP choice of how they portrayed the story. Here are some headlines and excerpts so far:

“Guess Who’s Supporting Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul” - Creative Marketing and

Supporters of political candidates sometimes employ unusual fundraising methods — but few can rival the efforts by one proponent of Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul.

Carson City, Nevada businessman Dennis Hof says he will place collection boxes at his establishment so that patrons can leave contributions for Paul.

What makes this noteworthy is that Hof runs the Moonlite Bunny Ranch — a world famous brothel.”

“‘BunnyRanch’ Brothel Owner Endorses Underdog GOP Candidate Ron Paul”

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, an underdog Texas congressman with a libertarian streak, has picked up an endorsement from a Nevada brothel owner…..Paul also is a devout Christian who opposes abortion.”

A quick search through Fox News for “Ron Paul” reveals only 12 articles in the last 3 months. Of those 12, 4 are essentially duplicates, several are openly hostile and using words in such a way that are likely to lead the casual reader in a certain direction, against Ron Paul. Not a single one speaks without some form of bias against either Ron Paul or his supporters. This “news” about the brothel owner, has already been mentioned twice in 2 days by Fox and a stream of other media outlets are following suit.

The Houston Chronical declares, “Nevada brothel ‘pimping’ for Ron Paul’s campaign” and I have little doubt that there will be more to follow.

—-

Now, perhaps we can ask some questions and seek some truths?

A starting place would be to read this article, “Tucker Carlson Brings Prostitutes To Meet Ron Paul“, by Gary Benoi, who points out:

“”Picked up,” however, is the wrong phrase, since it implies, incorrectly, that Ron Paul had solicited Hof’s endorsement. In actuality, it was a member of the media, MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson, who had done the soliciting. Carlson not only contacted Hof to ask him to check out Ron Paul while Paul was in Nevada, but he even arrived at Ron Paul’s Reno news conference in the company of Hof and two of Hof’s prostitutes. Hof’s presence, which surprised the Ron Paul campaign, then gave Hof the opportunity to be interviewed by the media.

..how many AP readers will gloss over the point that law-enforcement and moral issues such as prostitution should be addressed at the state and not the federal level? How many AP readers will instead be left with the impression that Ron Paul is the candidate of pimps and prostitutes, simply because he recognizes that regulations concerning moral behavior should not be established at the federal level?

The AP “Paul Endorsed by Nevada Brothel Owner” story is simply the latest in a growing number of mainstream news articles that attack Ron Paul by attacking his supporters. But that, of course, could be viewed as an admission on the part of the anti-Paul media that Ron Paul does not have the skeletons in his closet that so many other politicians do. Otherwise the anti-Paul media would be targeting those skeletons.”

Thanks for writing and seeking out for truths from smears Gary.

It appears that Tucker Carlson, who is apparently an anchorman at MSNBC, is profiling Ron Paul currently, following Paul for an article in the New Republic. It does indeed very much smack of a setup to give some ammunition to certain media sources to use certain words in a certain way to allow readers to paint a certain picture, that is certainly not what Ron Paul would have wished. This is on one hand a sad and despicable form of “journalism”, on the other hand, as Gary points out, is this the best they have to throw at Ron Paul?

I will need to research about Tucker Carlson more before writing with confidence about his possible intentions in arranging this meeting.. We hear that it is not a stunt, but merely friends sharing views and interest in Ron Paul. We also hear that it is a stunt, to smear Paul. Another article has this to hint at:
From www.npr.org:

“Carlson calls Paul the most genuine, unpretentious candidate he has ever covered. Carlson says he’s also the most radical candidate in a long time. “Ron Paul really doesn’t think the government should be in charge of your life in any way,” he says. “He thinks every person ought to be free from government surveillance.”

By extension, the writer continues, that means Paul thinks there should be no “government-sponsored safety net” — a concept almost unimaginable to most voters. “I think if some of them thought that through, they would no longer be on Ron Paul’s side,” Carlson says.”

I wonder if Carlson arranged the meeting to “test” Ron Paul and his supporters..? To make them think as he alludes to above. Perhaps this is an innocent “trick” to play.

Perhaps it is Tucker intentionally creating a story and thus worthy that, “Tucker Carlson receives my ‘Smarmy Award’ for smearing Ron Paul” as writen about in an article by Mary MacElveen at OpEdNews. Mary feels that, “he did this to embarrass Ron Paul and create a controversy to surround him.”

Lastly for now, it it worth pointing out that the reporting of this incident has included someone altering the articles.. which is why I asked you to read the original source in comparison to the AP and Fox pieces. Chadwick Matlin, writing for Slate, in this article titled, “Doctored Paul“, points this out eloquently already so I shall not repeat myself but rather point you to his words, some of which include:
From slate.com:

“In the most curious change, Fox took a sentence from the middle of the AP’s article and stuck it at the end. By concluding the piece with the true statement, “Paul also is a devout Christian who opposes abortion,” it makes Paul sound like a hypocrite for accepting the brothel owner’s endorsement. You don’t get that impression reading the AP’s article, which is more about the oddity that a political candidate isn’t trying to distance himself from Nevada’s brothel industry.”

Some other interesting articles well worth a read, speaking about Ron Paul and the mainstream media’s portrayal of him include:

“Mon Dieu, MSM!” by blogger, FRENCH ROYALIST.

“My God! I never really bought into media bias that much before I supported Ron Paul. They ignore the man, and when they don’t, they ridicule him. They attack him. They give him bad questions.
He mentions cutting the IRS, he’s a kook. Huckster does and the people cheer and he’s a winner. He wants to actually cut taxes by cutting programs, they say he’s an extremist. Everyone else says they want to cut taxes while somehow maintaining the Empire and ignoring the paradox, they report it as possible. They don’t press Hillary on how she’s going to balance the budget while expanding the bureaucracy (I bet it involves making more money).
It’s wrong that a brothel owner supports him, but it’s not wrong that Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary? It’s cool that an old meme and Ric Flair supports him, but they don’t say Val Venis or Kane does? Oh, of course…the only people that support Ron Paul are anarchists, libertarians, white supremacists, terrorists, prostitutes, and all kind of fringe kooks.”

“Ron Paul and the Wing nut supporters” by blogger, KAGGIE.

“Many people don’t support Ron Paul, despite the fact that he believes what many of them believe. Why not? Plenty of reasons. Valid? Maybe. Maybe not.

You don’t have to agree with him. That’s the beauty of his campaign. You see, Ron Paul is not like the other candidates for President. If Ron Paul was elected, we would worry less about candidate’s personal beliefs and more about their public beliefs, in other words, how they will actually lead the nation.

Maybe the reason why Ron Paul isn’t doing better is because he can’t be bought off. Maybe the reason why Rudy Guiliani is doing so well is because he can be bought off by corporations. The reason why Ron Paul is given so little air time and Romney and Guiliani are given so much is the very corporations that own the media, that control the debates, are the ones who benefit from them being elected.

There is a huge difference in how the candidates are treated, and why they are treated the ways they are treated. The reason why Hillary Clinton is doing so well isn’t because she’s wonderful. (I think she’s a witch. If any other candidate had the same history that she had, they’d be ousted already.) It’s because she’s given most of the air time - in the debates, or on tv. It’s pure and simple advertising. The more you see a product, the more you think you want it, no matter how revolting and disgusting it may be. And if you don’t know the other choices exist, then you think you have no choice.

Fox News asked to explain why Ron Paul had brothels donating to his campaign. They displayed “Brothels support Ron Paul” for at least a minute, while asking Ron Paul a question. I thought that was disgusting. How low can you go Fox? I think it’s a smear campaign.”

Have a read at their full articles on their sites. Once again, I am so grateful that there are people such as these guys seeking out truths and being prepared to write to attempt to counteract those mainstream media outlets which are shamefully kidnapping truths and freedoms and presenting a reality that wish most people to see. I am close to daring to believe that Ron Paul may get somewhere in the election. If he were allowed to be elected (no I can’t say that every candidate has an equal and fair chance to do so) it would be a point of hope of potential change for the better, both for the US and for the world.

Stumble this!

In addition to the introduction I made earlier today about Facebook being under pressure to rethink it’s new advertising drive, I have been reading Facebook’s policies. You think some sites have long T&C’s.. look at the various pages that consist of Facebook’s Terms and Conditions etc Where capital letters are used that is the formatting chosen by Facebook itself.
Privacy Policy

Facebook Code of Conduct

Facebook Copyright Policy

Additional Terms Applicable to Facebook Pages

Facebook Terms of Sale

Facebook Developer Terms of Service

Facebook Platform Application Guidelines

Platform Application Terms of Use

Facebook Advertising Guidelines

Because I know that most people won’t read the full pages, I have listed below the points that I feel are of concern and are some of the reasons why I have stopped posting most information to Facebook. I know the following list is long, but trust me that reading the key points below will take you less time than it took me to read the full document of each element. A few points of concern from Facebook’s Terms:

“We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete portions of these Terms of Use at any time without further notice.”

“You understand and agree that the Company may, but is not obligated to, review the Site and may delete or remove (without notice) any Site Content or User Content in its sole discretion, for any reason or no reason”

“When you post User Content to the Site, you authorize and direct us to make such copies thereof as we deem necessary”

“By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.”

“You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time…however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.”

“Third Party Sites and Third Party Applications, Software or Content are not investigated, monitored or checked for accuracy, appropriateness, or completeness by us, and we are not responsible for any Third Party Sites accessed through the Site or any Third Party Applications, Software or Content posted on, available through or installed from the Site, including the content, accuracy, offensiveness, opinions, reliability, privacy practices or other policies of or contained in the Third Party Sites or the Third Party Applications, Software or Content. If you decide to leave the Site and access the Third Party Sites or to use or install any Third Party Applications, Software or Content, you do so at your own risk and you should be aware that our terms and policies no longer govern.”

“ALL USE OF THE FACEBOOK PLATFORM IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND AT YOUR OWN RISK.”

“The Application User Terms are subject to change without prior notice at any time, in the Company’s sole discretion, so you should review these terms each time you install an application and from time to time.”

“while we have undertaken contractual and technical steps to restrict possible misuse of such information by such Platform Developers, we do not screen or approve Developers, and we cannot and do not guarantee that all Platform Developers will abide by such restrictions and agreements.”

“FACEBOOK DOES NOT PRE-SCREEN OR APPROVE FACEBOOK PAGES, AND CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT A FACEBOOK PAGE WAS ACTUALLY CREATED AND IS BEING OPERATED BY THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF A FACEBOOK PAGE. NOR IS FACEBOOK RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT OF ANY FACEBOOK PAGE, OR ANY TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO OR OTHER ACTIONS TAKEN ON OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY FACEBOOK PAGE, INCLUDING HOW THE OWNER OF THE FACEBOOK PAGE COLLECTS, HANDLES, USES AND / OR SHARES ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION IT MAY COLLECT FROM USERS”

“IN NO EVENT WILL COMPANY OR ITS DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANY THIRD PERSON FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING FOR ANY LOST PROFITS OR LOST DATA ARISING FROM YOUR USE OF THE SITE OR THE SERVICE, ANY PLATFORM APPLICATIONS OR ANY OF THE SITE CONTENT OR OTHER MATERIALS ON, ACCESSED THROUGH OR DOWNLOADED FROM THE SITE, EVEN IF THE COMPANY IS AWARE OR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.”

“The Company may terminate your membership, delete your profile and any content or information that you have posted on the Site or through any Platform Application and/or prohibit you from using or accessing the Service or the Site or any Platform Application (or any portion, aspect or feature of the Service or the Site or any Platform Application) for any reason, or no reason, at any time in its sole discretion, with or without notice”

“you hereby consent to, and waive all defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and forum non conveniens with respect to, venue and jurisdiction in the state and federal courts of California.”

“NO ARBITRATION OR CLAIM UNDER THESE TERMS OF USE SHALL BE JOINED TO ANY OTHER ARBITRATION OR CLAIM, INCLUDING ANY ARBITRATION OR CLAIM INVOLVING ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FORMER USER OF THE SERVICE, AND NO CLASS ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE PERMITTED.”

A few points of concern from Facebook’s Privacy Policy:

“You post User Content on the Site at your own risk. Although we allow you to set privacy options that limit access to your pages, please be aware that no security measures are perfect or impenetrable. We cannot control the actions of other Users with whom you may choose to share your pages and information. Therefore, we cannot and do not guarantee that User Content you post on the Site will not be viewed by unauthorized persons. We are not responsible for circumvention of any privacy settings or security measures contained on the Site. You understand and acknowledge that, even after removal, copies of User Content may remain viewable in cached and archived pages or if other Users have copied or stored your User Content.”

“Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (e.g., photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalized experience. By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to and processed in the United States.”

“Facebook may use information in your profile without identifying you as an individual to third parties. We do this for purposes such as aggregating how many people in a network like a band or movie and personalizing advertisements and promotions so that we can provide you Facebook. We believe this benefits you. You can know more about the world around you and, where there are advertisements, they’re more likely to be interesting to you.”

“We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile.”

“We share your information with third parties only in limited circumstances where we believe such sharing is 1) reasonably necessary to offer the service, 2) legally required or, 3) permitted by you.”

“our service providers may have access to your personal information for use for a limited time in connection with these business activities. Where we utilize third parties for the processing of any personal information, we implement reasonable contractual and technical protections limiting the use of that information to the Facebook-specified purposes.”

“Before allowing any Platform Developer to make any Platform Application available to you, Facebook requires the Platform Developer to enter into an agreement which, among other things, requires them to respect your privacy settings and strictly limits their collection, use, and storage of your information. However, while we have undertaken contractual and technical steps to restrict possible misuse of such information by such Platform Developers, we of course cannot and do not guarantee that all Platform Developers will abide by such agreements.”

“We may be required to disclose user information pursuant to lawful requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with applicable laws. We do not reveal information until we have a good faith belief that an information request by law enforcement or private litigants meets applicable legal standards. Additionally, we may share account or other information when we believe it is necessary to comply with law, to protect our interests or property, to prevent fraud or other illegal activity perpetrated through the Facebook service or using the Facebook name, or to prevent imminent bodily harm. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or government agencies.”

“Advertisements that appear on Facebook are sometimes delivered (or “served”) directly to users by third party advertisers. They automatically receive your IP address when this happens. These third party advertisers may also download cookies to your computer, or use other technologies such as JavaScript and “web beacons” (also known as “1×1 gifs”) to measure the effectiveness of their ads and to personalize advertising content. Doing this allows the advertising network to recognize your computer each time they send you an advertisement in order to measure the effectiveness of their ads and to personalize advertising content. In this way, they may compile information about where individuals using your computer or browser saw their advertisements and determine which advertisements are clicked.”

“Removed information may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time but will not be generally available to members of Facebook.
“While we believe users should be able to express themselves and their point of view, certain kinds of speech simply do not belong in a community like Facebook. Therefore, you may not post or share Content that…is derogatory, demeaning.. defamatory, abusive, offensive”

Another interesting article on the same topic is Why I Stopped Using Facebook. Another article by blogger, zephoria, titled “Facebook’s “Privacy Trainwreck”: Exposure, Invasion, and Drama” uses good examples of how users were concerned about the impact upon their privacy when Facebook introduced the News Feed feature last year.
What are your thoughts? Do you also have questions about what the data may be used for? Have a watch of this short presentation asking, “Does what happens in the Facebook stay in the Facebook?”, which opens questions about whether peoples data may be mined and used by government agencies among others.

Stumble this!

I enjoy reading articles from the tech related news, UK based, website, ‘The Register’ or el Reg as it is fondly known to many. They have covered an article about Facebook being under pressure to change it’s insidious privacy policy relating to the new advertising scheme called ‘Beacon’. In my opinion, Facebook’s entire Terms and Conditions are insidious. They are relying on the reality that the majority of people signing up do not read the T&C’s. The other sad reality is that even if people knew what they were agreeing to when signing up for Facebook, likely many or most still would not care sufficiently to not use it.

The Register’s article is titled, “Facebook ‘to drop’ creeptech ad system“. The title from the source article they used, from Business Week, is “Facebook May Revamp Beacon“. “Big deal”, I hear some of you say - I disagree. I am not trying to make a dig at The Register, merely pointing out that everyone makes mistakes and it stands us in good stead to check. Do you implicitly trust your sources of news? Do you not check their sources? I would always urge readers to check the sources of what they are reading. My posts too! Mistakes can and will be made. These can either be innocent or malicious, do you really want to passing on dodgy or incorrect information to others? I am guessing that in the rush to get the article out before other sites, El Reg did not double check the wording of their title. Maybe the writer actually did think Facebook are dropping Beacon, or are assuming they will - unfortunately that is not factual. It is not a big issue in this case, however I just wanted to use it to point out that we all should be checking and cross checking what is written, especially when it comes to important information. That reminds me of the example of a translation mistake, involving George Bush senior and Mikhail Gorbachev, which could have had drastic consequences! This mistake was spotted, and afterwards the translator apologised to the US President..
From tam.proz.com:

“Then he patted me in a friendly fashion on the shoulder and said, ‘But don’t worry, the good news is you didn’t start World War Three’.”

Forceful language. Mistakes are inevitable. They are not usually as serious as that one - and it was spotted, of course.

So it is hard to find evidence of history actually being changed by an interpreter’s slip, but that certainly does not mean their influence is not powerful.

Their performance and style can change the whole mood of a meeting.

So, after checking the sources ;) we find that the reality is Facebook are coming under significant flack about their default privacy settings. To say that they “may” be considering is one thing and I hope they really do, but in my opinion Facebook are chancing their arms. They start with a case by case opt OUT policy..when they clearly should have made it a one off opt IN policy. The attitude of the likes of the Facebook, MySpace and Bebo teams is such that they presume most people are ignoramuses, willing to trade off privacy for “friends”. And they are right, sadly. They assume, rightly, that most people do not read the terms and conditions of what they are signing up for.. A study titled ‘Facebook: Threats to Privacy‘, by Harvey Jones, and Jose Hiram Soltren shows this alarming reality with a survey revealing only 10% of students, surveyed at MIT university in 2005, even read the privacy and terms of use before signing up. The same study showed that 58% of the students had barely or no concern at all about their privacy on Facebook.

Reid Hoffman, founding CEO of LinkedIn networking site, even makes it seem as if those who have privacy concerns are old fuddy duddies:
From www.mediabistro.com:

“The younger generation is completely understanding of the fact that tons and tons of info is out on the Web already,” said Hoffman. “As long as people start getting the benefit of it, they don’t feel the risk of privacy so much [as older people]. If you actually look … chief privacy officers tend to be over 40.”

I have used Facebook and MySpace before myself. I didn’t get into MySpace I must admit. The vaunted personalisation ability of that site is in my view the reason why I didn’t like it. Most users pages were like being hit with lots of white noise. Then Rupert Murdoch bought the site..enough said, account deleted. I was dubious before I signed up with Facebook and read the Terms and Conditions and Privacy information and debated with myself for some time. Eventually I gave in and had a look at what all the fuss was about as my friends were joining up left and right. I liked it. It is a great tool for networking and keeping in touch with people. I quickly came to use it a lot and enjoyed many applications that others had made. My concerns about who was getting access to the info and what could be done with it never quite faded however. Facebook have the right to amend their terms at any time and they did this again recently. I decided that seeing that they have the rights to anything that we post there and they can retain that information for as long as they deem reasonable, that I would delete any info that I did not want to risk being sold or stolen.

My view is that if one wants to be trusted one makes every effort at being transparent. Facebook is not. There is so much information they rightly guess that most people do not read it all. I urge you to consider asking yourself if you are offering up information that you would not wish to. One other article from the Times hints at the advertising drive being key to the search for Facebook to continue its financial profitability - Facebook shrugs off privacy fears with plan for targeted advertising.

Are you concerned about privacy? French government officials I imagine will have words with their kids after this article in the Telegraph was written. Do you care about the advertising that will become part of Facebook? If you have a Facebook account have you read the terms and privacy policies that you have agreed to? I have posted a summary of the concerns that I have about Facebook’s terms and policies here.

Stumble this!

Sadly brutality and abuses of positions of authority are all too common and even moreso that we can become numb or immune to such abuses.

This was seen clearly during the US and UK invasion and killing in Iraq. The co-operation between the mainstream media and the military invented a particular set of glasses with which to have the events seen through. Perhaps you have seen some of the brutal video clips that soldiers have posted online? A running theme is the revelling in the destruction, cheering and hollaring as they call and watch their weapons of mass destruction (WMD) bring a horrific end to other humans lives. Does that thought enter the minds of those screaming and praising their almighty attacks from the heavens, while the other ‘they’ scream in horror and fear of those same attacks?

Perhaps you have seen photographs or video published in the US media, depicting what appears to be Islamic radicals ranting and screaming about death to the infidel Americans, explicitly chosen to fuel the idea that supposedly they are so different from us? I would instead ask the question, what, in these images are showing something similar? The American soldiers revelling in their conquests and death that they bring, and the image of Iraqis (or anyone who looks like a Muslim, in Media outlets that play the propaganda game) protesting those deaths. All individuals, in a terrible group situation that none of them would have wished for, acting in ways most of them would not otherwise. The highlighting of supposed differences only drives an invisible wedge further between us, and between us and our most true selves.

I don’t need to speak at length about the abuses of police forces the world over. Perhaps it is when they are being used as pawns of a corrupt or dictatorial government such as we saw when the Burmese Police brutally attacked Monks protesting the military dictatorship. That was two months ago..do we still follow their plight, do we still hear our politicians cry for “democracy to be granted”. The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown had plenty to say at the time:

“make sure that the Burmese regime directly is aware that any trampling of human rights that takes place will have the whole eyes of the world upon them and will not be acceptable in future”

Plenty of words. What actions?

There are of course also the many actions of Police brutality, not merely as governmental pawns but are, acting on their own flawed sense of authority and power. Either based in a group mentality and culture of being The Law and protecting ones own, such as in the case of the beating of Rodney King, amongst others. Or simply going out on their own and not only demanding, without question, authority over other people, but taking it as well; such as in the incident of Utah Highway Patrol Trooper, John Gardner, tasering driver, Jared Massey. There is a piece about this incident, written by J.D. Tuccille, that I find interesting and I appreciate the questions he is asking. An excerpt follows, read the full post here:
From www.tuccille.com:

“the officer responded with force to a situation that should have been engaged by conversation, or (if the officer has extremely poor control of his temper) by his leaving the speeding ticket with Massey and just driving away.

But a strident minority of voices defend Gardner and insist that Massey had an obligation to tug his forelock and obey every order issued by Gardner, and that his failure to do so justified Gardner’s use of force in the incident.

This is ridiculous.

There’s no obligation on the part of any person to refrain from questioning police officers about their actions.

..police are only members of the public working full time to keep the peace. None of us — with or without a badge — have a right to assault people, even lawbreakers, simply because they vex us with questions or treat us without the respect we believe is our due. “

And in another post by the same writer,
From www.tuccille.com:

“Gardner’s response was that of an overseer — a driver of serfs who will tolerate no challenge to his authority. His attitude seems to be increasingly common among the folks who draw government paychecks, and it has no place in a free society.”

And finally, a part of an anonymous comment in response:

“The officer clearly did not do his duty as a public SERVANT by alerting the PUBLIC to his options under Utah state law before deciding to play Rambo. This prick was on a personal mission to enforce his will on his BOSS, John Q. Public at the expense of civil rights and the rule of law.

I have already written the Governor of Utah demanding the state remove this officer, institute specific police reforms and ban tasers. Officers in the US did fine without tasers for 200 years, why do cops need a new weapon of fear and brutality? Our founding fathers told us our civil liberties would be threatened from within and with the potential that liberties could be threatened under the guise of foreign enemies. “

Last but not least, and in fact the story that prompted me to think about writing tonight, we hear news of the Judge in the US being removed from the bench after an incredibly brutal display of authority. This tale may not have resulted in physical assault as in the other cases above, however the same theme runs through - a sense of ‘them’ and ‘us’, with ‘us’ being the one’s who are, and should be, in charge and don’t you dare question that or expect “liberty” thank you very much.

Yesterday,¹ Judge Robert Restaino, in Niagara Falls, US, was removed from the bench for an incident in March 2005 when he jailed an entire court, of 46 people, possibly all of them entirely innocent, when someone’s mobile phone rang during the case.. No one would own up to who it was so the Judge decides to abuse his authority and said, “Everyone is going to jail” It was later in the day, when the media got wind of this shocking news and began to ask questions, that the Judge then ordered everyone released. He has, thankfully, been since removed from his position. Can you imagine having been a victim of police brutality and having a Judge like that rule in your case..

Did I mention, this same Judge Robert Restaino released, without bail, Gene McCollum who, thanks to Rick Pfeiffer’s reporting for the Niagara Gazette, we know only a couple of weeks ago, on 2nd Nov 2007, was:

From www.niagara-gazette.com:

“collared by cops at 8:15 p.m. Thursday after a Traffic Division officer spotted him running a red light as he made a left hand turn from 24th Street onto Walnut Avenue. The officer said McCollum accelerated as he headed west on Walnut Avenue to 85 mph in the 30 mph zone.

As the traffic officer followed McCollum for four blocks, attempting to pull him over, he swerved through traffic before attempting a 40 mph left-hand turn from Walnut Avenue onto 15th Street.

McCollum lost control of his car, jumped the curb, pancaked a street sign, regained control of the vehicle and drove back on to 15th Street, where he hit a parked car.

After he finally stopped, McCollum told cops he’d had six beers, someone else in the car had played a role in the crash, “My friend was holding the gas pedal down.” He also made no apologies for toking up before he got behind the wheel, telling officers, “So I smoked a little weed. So what?” “

Justice? Injustice? The System? Insanity?

What is lacking in all these cases is..

Humanity. They are us and we are them. When did they become them and not us?

How long and how far have we fallen from a knowledge that we all are humans, all have hopes, fears, dreams, loves and tears.
Your blood, my blood, his blood, her blood, their blood; is the same colour, serves the same purpose and is just as precious and vital to be coursing through veins rather than dripping onto a rubble strewn hole in the ground.

When will the time be to cease looking for and at differences, but instead simply see? ‘Seeing’, is a verb, which implies the present and continuousness of being. In being, we simply are.

Oh for a day when people may simply be, and not be something or not be something. Not to bow down to something or some authority because someone said so. I hope we keep asking questions and seeking truths out. I can guarantee you that we will not always find them, or perhaps even get close, however, it is only through seeking that they can be found.

1. Initally I made a mistake as the report I read implies the indcident took place yesterday, however I have since realised that it did in fact take place 2 years ago and it is only now that he has been judged as a result of the investigation… It really does beg some questions as to why it took so long, as he was practicing the entire time since the event. [↩]

Stumble this!

Here is a short update from an article by Nathan C. Gonzalez of The Salt Lake Tribune, regarding the case of the Utah Highway Patrol trooper, John Gardner, tasering driver, Jared Massey, as I mentioned in this article, “Police in London authorised to use Taser’s without firearm’s training in December“.
From www.sltrib.com:

“”We are doing an internal investigation to see if the trooper’s actions were warranted,” said Trooper Cameron Roden, a UHP spokesman. I can’t speculate to this incident what was going through officer’s mind,” Roden said. “The officer has to weigh a lot of different things.”

Troopers that carry Tasers must take a four-hour certification course outlining how and when to use the devices, according to UHP’s nine-page policy. They are taught to use them in three circumstances:

* When a person is a threat to themselves, an officer or another person.
* In cases where the physical use of force would endanger the person or someone else.
* When other means of lesser or equal force by the officer has been ineffective and a threat still exists.

“There’s a lot that goes into it,” Roden said.
UHP requires an officer file a report any time a Taser is used, noting, among other things, how many warnings the subject was given and where the electric probes hit on a person’s body. “From that it is clear that trooper John Gardner was abusing the use of the taser.

As one of the commentators, pancho villa, of that post pointed out,

“Watch the video again. The cop had his hand on the taser before he finished giving the first order to put your hand behind your back. He knew that he was going to taze massey before he put his book on the bumper of his car.”

Here is the video if you haven’t already seen it.

He is quite right.. the trooper asked Jarad to get out and instantly took his taser out as he asked him to turn around. The trooper was, without any warning or explanation, going to arrest him, simply for not signing the citation, which as we see above from the rules the trooper is to go by, he didn’t even need to sign it.
Obviously the driver reacts with incredulity, amazed that not only was he going to be apparently arrested, but also he was having a taser gun pointed at him! A couple of seconds later, with no warning, trooper John Gardner shoots him.

Later Gardner claims to his colleague who arrived, that he warned the driver that he would tase him if he didnt turn around… that in fact appears to be a lie. Note that this video has been apparently been “edited edited down to 10 minutes from 22″. We can not be sure which parts. Assuming the released video is unedited at this point in the situation, it is clear that he did not warn him at all.

The Desert Morning News also updates us with some info about the case including the fact that Jarad released the video on YouTube because the incident had taken place two months ago and their request for an investigation into the incident had, in his view, been going nowhere fast. Here is an excerpt where Jarad is recalling his thoughts as he got out of his car as requested:
From deseretnews.com:

“”I get out of the car thinking he’s going to actually let me see the signs. That was the impression I had,” Massey said. “I’m walking back pointing at those signs and out of the corner of my eye I see him pointing a gun at me.”

Gardner hadn’t pulled his gun but had pulled his Taser, which he fired into Massey’s back after Massey failed to comply with three additional commands to “turn around.” On the video, Massey responds to the 50,000-volt shock by stiffening up and falling backward, cutting his head open on the highway.

“I’m laying on the ground thinking I’m dying,” Massey said. “I can’t put into words how horrifying that is.”

Gardner gave Massey a second shock with the Taser when he did not immediately turn onto his stomach. He also can be heard on an unedited version of the video, provided to the Deseret Morning News by Massey, making an apparent threat to use the weapon again after Massey makes repeated demands that Gardner read him his Miranda rights.

“Do you want another hit with this,” the trooper asks.

“No. I want you to read me my rights,” Massey replies.

“I want you to follow my instructions and do as you’re told,” Gardner says.”

What is most surprising and concerning, is the huge number of comments by readers who actually support the use of such force by the police trooper.. In my opinion, not only are most of these commenters ignoring the fact that the trooper simply had to leave the ticket with the driver and not tried to arrest him, it sounds like there is an attitude against anyone who questions “authority”. It is this willingness to obey no matter what, that is a grave threat to true freedom.

Here are some other comments by readers of the Desert Morning News, which can be found here, regarding this which I feel are pertinent include:

“This is the problem with tasers. They were intended to be used instead of guns in life-threatening situations. Now, police are using them when, as the officer said, “I’m not going to play that game.” In other words, it was easier to tase the man then deal with the situation.”

” My thought after seeing the video:

The officer was so concerned with forcing the situation to a resolution (as so many of the police are), so concerned with being “obeyed” that he didn’t even tell the man what speed he was going. He searched the car without apparent permission. He was acting like a thug.

I don’t care if Massey was “difficult.” When the cops pull citizens over they should go out of there way to be polite and “communicative”: they are the ones pulling Us over, not the other way around–and as we see here, they are the ones who have the power to hurt us.

To say an act is “legal” is the lowest level of ethical justification. That so many people are taking the cop’s side here is, I think, a sad comment on the authoritarian nature of our society”

“Gardner could have avoided the entire confrontation if he would have calmly and intelligently communicated WITH Massey rather than just giving him mindless commands to obey. Yes, it is our duty as citizens to follow police officer’s commands, but it is their duty as professionals to use SOUND JUDGEMENT, COMMUNICATION and GOOD DECISIONMAKING to prevent excessive use of force.

In this situation, Officer Gardner clearly demonstrated extremely bad judgement and a very poor ability to maintain his composure and think through a situation. This man has no business wearing a badge or carrying a gun.”

“The officer lies. He states to his fellow officer he warned Massey he’d be tasered. It’s clear that was a lie, and that goes to prove malice on the officer’s part.

This isn’t a cop; he’s a sneering, lying thug with a badge. (”He took a ride with the taser”).

Anyone defending him is part of the problem. I respect and admire the police. But if police generally behave this way and it’s considered acceptable, then they are at best neutral with respect to the rest of us and at worst the enemy.

Do we want a situation where (God forbid) a cop is shot in a stop like this, and normal decent citizens shrug and say “the cop probably had it coming”. I sure as heck don’t. The police serve and protect. This officer did neither. He assaulted and lied. If that behavior becomes commonplace and police are unable to see it as wrong, then we will be headed to a dark future indeed.

Much respect for the police. No respect for this thug who belongs in jail.”

“Unquestioning compliance when confronted by authority figures is a dangerous rule to follow. The American Revolution began as a refusal to comply with abusive authority. Child abuse occurs because children are usually taught to obey unquestioningly. I always taught my children to question unfairness politely but firmly.

No one should be arrested, tased (tortured) or otherwise mistreated for asking questions!

While Massey could have been more polite, the officer should have been professional enough to either answer his questions, refer him to an appropriate source for answers, or explain calmly why he wouldn’t answer and what the legal requirements of the situation were.

The officer clearly abused his authority. The fact that so many of the above comments defend that abuse demonstrate why our country’s freedoms are being eroded so rapidly: a preference for comfortable accommodation rather than standing up for what we believe is right.”

In regards to the original speeding claim, it is also worth noting that the sign that the trooper says indicated a 40 zone, was in fact a mobile sign. From the positioning of the police car and the sign and the pulling over of the driver, it does look rather like a “speed trap” rather than using speed restriction signs for what they should be used as - to protect people in zones that are dangerous at higher speeds.

I can not see a justification for this shooting whatsoever. In my opinion it is police mismanaging a situation, domineering and brutality. I will keep an eye out for the judgement of the investigations and post here again at that time.

What are your thoughts and questions here? Should police be issued with Tasers? Should they be in addition to or instead of guns? Do you think it is healthy to simply accept without question, what we are told by those in positions of authority? How would you feel if you are confronted by a police officer who is armed with a taser gun and is acting in a way that you disagree with..?

Stumble this!

News arrived on Wednesday about the only salmon farm in Northern Ireland being wiped out by a very unusual and massive infestation of jellyfish, known as Mauve Stingers, last week. The (original) BBC article will follow with details. What is interesting is that of the online papers running this story in the UK at the moment (morning of 22nd November, not a single one has mentioned even in passing the environmental questions that really should be asked and indeed have a precedent to be asked. I will expand on this after you read one of the articles:

“A jellyfish invasion has wiped out Northern Ireland’s only salmon farm, killing more than 100,000 fish.

A Northern Salmon spokesman said last week’s attack could cost more than £1m.

Billions of small jellyfish, known as Mauve Stingers, flooded into the cages about a mile into the Irish Sea, off Glenarm Bay and Cushendun.

The jellyfish covered an area of up to 10 square miles and a depth of 35 feet. Rescuers tried to reach the cages but the density of fish made it impossible.

Managing director John Russell said he had never seen anything like this in 30 years in the business.

It could take at least two years for the firm to recover
“The sea was red with these jellyfish and there was nothing we could do about, it, absolutely nothing,” he said.

“It’s a disaster for this company - you cannot legislate for something like this.”

He says the firm could take at least two years to recover.

The company has some high-profile clients, with Irish chef Richard Corrigan serving Glenarm salmon to the Queen on her 80th birthday last year as part of the BBC’s Great British Menu programme.

The Department of Agriculture’s fisheries division has carried out a full investigation, and talks with NI Agriculture Minister Michelle Gildernew have taken place to try and rescue the farm and save the jobs of 12 staff. “

What the Independent had to say was even briefer and much the same.

The Belfast Telegraph, the newspaper with Northern Ireland’s largest circulation only had the following to say:
From www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk:

“Thursday, November 22, 2007

A jellyfish invasion has completely wiped out Northern Ireland’s only salmon farm, killing more than 100,000 fish.

Billions of jellyfish known as mauve stingers flooded into the salmon cages around a mile off the Antrim coast last week.

They covered an area of up to 10 square miles and 35 feet deep.

Rescuers tried to reach the cages, but the density of the invasion made that impossible.

A spokesman for Northern Salmon Co said he had never seen anything like it and the attack could cost the company around £1m.”

SkyNews thought to add the following piece of information:
From news.sky.com:

“The fish is sold to some of London’s leading restaurants and the Queen had salmon on her 80th birthday cooked by top Irish chef Richard Corrigan.”

None of the UK papers asked why this may have happened or talked about environmental questions which may point to the answer to why it has happened. It took a Canadian newspaper to write this:
From www.theglobeandmail.com:

“The species of jellyfish responsible, Pelagia nocticula — popularly known as the mauve stinger — is noted for its purplish night-time glow and its propensity for terrorizing bathers in the warmer Mediterranean Sea. Until the past decade, the mauve stinger has rarely been spotted so far north in British or Irish waters, and scientists cite this as evidence of global warming.”

Now, this newspaper mentions that scientists cite this as evidence of global warming, so it is time to find out what the scientific thoughts actually are. Interestingly the Independent actually has in the past talked about the link between the marked increase in jellyfish swarming and global warming, in an article written 27th July 2007 titled, “Europe’s coastal resorts battle a Jellyfish invasion”, of which an excerpt follows (emphasis mine):
From news.independent.co.uk:

” Some scientists and ecological campaigners explain the new prevalence by pointing to a rise in average sea temperature, linked to the warming of the planet. Lack of rain has meant a shortage of cold fresh water entering the sea from rivers, with the end result of a warmer, saltier sea that puts off larger creatures but is well-suited to jellyfish. Human sewage, together with fertilisers from intensive farming along the Mediterranean coast, produces a rich soup of nitrogen and phosphates that jellyfish also like.

Others blame the fact that natural jellyfish predators – such as the bluefin tuna and the turtle – have been driven almost to extinction, a consequence of overfishing and pollution. Still others think that the jellyfish explosion might be connected to the overfishing of other species, such as the anchovy and the sardine, which used to compete for the minute creatures and plankton on which jellyfish voraciously feed.

There also seems to be a connection with a change in the wind and the pattern of the Mediterranean currents, which may themselves be linked to global warming. Jellyfish live deep in the sea during the day but rise to the surface at night to feed. For all their undulating mobility, jellyfish have little control over where they travel, and are mostly swept along by currents and prevailing winds that propel the creatures landwards.

It all signals a deep malaise in the Mediterranean. “Every jellyfish that comes ashore brings us the message that the sea is sick,” says Josep Maria Gigli, scientific coordinator of the Spanish environment ministry’s Medusa Plan.

Apart from the mauve stinger, various other species also thrive in the Mediterranean. One regular visitor is Cortylorhiza tuberculata, known as ” fried egg”, which luxuriates in the warm, salty lagoons near the fashionable Murcian resort of La Manga, lagoons rich in nutrients from the fertilisers drained from the region’s intensive plastic-greenhouse agriculture. The fried egg’s sting is mild, but its sheer numbers transform the water into a milky gloop. Rhizostoma pulpo, or octopus jellyfish, named for its eight long tentacles, is also on the increase.

The deadly Portuguese Man o’ War (Physalia physalis) is increasingly being swept towards Europe’s Atlantic coasts, in “blooms” resembling a sinister sea of plastic bags. But so far, currents have yet to drag this majestic but deadly creature through the Gibraltar Strait into the Mediterranean.

“Jellyfish are a natural part of the marine environment, but the scale of what’s happening now is a warning that something’s going very wrong,” says Dr David Santilo, a marine biologist for the Greenpeace research laboratories at Exeter University.

The French-Canadian biologist Daniel Pauly paints an apocalyptic vision of oceans taken over by jellyfish: “We are moving from a marine ecosystem dominated by big fish to a soup of small organisms. If we carry on like this the only things in the sea will be jellyfish and plankton soup.”

A return to primeval slime? “A lot of pressures are pushing in that direction,” says Dr Santilo. “The mechanisms are there to make that happen. Ecosystems are flexible up to a point, but no one knows when elasticity breaks into a different sort of ecosystem and you get an irreversible shift. This plague of jellyfish is a like hazard warning light. It’s a wake-up call.”

Ecologists do not criticise the Spanish government’s effort to protect holidaymakers from unwelcome tentacular visitors. But they say it is not enough. “It’s like using a fly swat to combat malaria,” says Ricardo Aguilar, a spokesman for the international environmental organisation Oceana. “The sickness remains.”

Gabriel Gorsky is a marine biologist at the Observatoire Océanographique in the town of Villefranche-sur-Mer, between Nice and Monaco. He believes the problem is that jellyfish have never been studied in great scientific depth. They have lived on the planet for 650 million years but have never attracted much attention from mankind.

“It is only now that they are causing a problem that we have started taking an interest in them,” he says. “But even now, the money available for research is limited. The truth is that we really don’t know why they have started to appear in much greater numbers. It could be global warming. It could be a lack of predators and competitors. It could be a change in winds and currents. It could be a combination of all those things. But we really don’t know yet.”

The truth is that there have always been jellyfish in the Mediterranean. Traditionally, they have appeared along the Côte d’Azur every 10 or 12 years and remained for about four years. Then they have retreated to the depths again.

In the last decade, however, the pattern seems to have changed. In the period from 1996 to 1998 there was a much larger infestation than any seen before. The shoals of jellyfish then disappeared, but returned once more, earlier than expected, and in still greater numbers, in about 2003. “

In another article, again by the Independent in August 2006, titled, “Invasion of the jellyfish”, it is written:
From environment.independent.co.uk:

“It appeared one day in huge numbers. No one quite knew why…Tens of thousands of people were attacked as they were paddling on a seaside holiday…Some died…There was something apocalyptic about it. For it seemed that the creatures had been summoned, unwittingly, by human beings who knew not what they were doing.

It sounds like the plot of a disaster movie. But there is currently an explosion of jellyfish worldwide. Holiday destinations in Spain, Italy, France, Croatia and northern Africa are plagued with a creature called Pelagia noctiluca, which glows a dull yellow and packs a painful sting, hence its common name, the mauve stinger. It is burgeoning throughout the Mediterranean and the Adriatic.

…there are fears that we may be seeing something irreversible, thanks to global warming. Normally the bulk of jellyfish medusas remained 40 miles off the coast where sea temperatures are higher than by the beach. But drought has depleted rivers and greatly reduced the volume of cooler river-water flowing into the sea. That means coastal waters are now considerably warmer and less salty than in the past.

Marine biologists say the temperature of the northern Mediterranean has increased by 4C this summer. It means that plankton, the main food of the jellyfish, is blooming. And at the same time the creatures’ natural predators such as swordfish, tuna and turtles are in decline. A delicate eco-system is out of kilter.

One thing is clear, fishermen around the world now haul in 450,000 tons of jellyfish a year, more than twice as much as a decade ago. That fact could have significance beyond demonstrating the foodie need for constant novelty. Breeding jellyfish may be taking over the ocean, and not just because they can thrive in less oxygen-rich water than fish. Research published last month at the University of St Andrews looked at the area off the coast of Namibia which was, thanks to the Benguela current, once one of the most prolific fishing areas in the world but which was plundered by foreign fishing fleets until the 1990s. What they found was that jellyfish have overtaken fish in terms of the biomass they contribute to the ocean.

Over-fishing has transformed what was once one of the world’s most prolific ecosystems, apparently triggering a jellyfish explosion in what researchers fear may be a permanent “regime shift” in which they outnumber real fish by a ratio of four to one. Once jellyfish become established, says the lead researcher at St Andrews, Andrew Brierley, “it may be very difficult to revert to fish domination because jellyfish are predatory on fish eggs and juveniles”.

Jeremy Jackson, a marine ecologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, in the United States, said: “We’re pushing the oceans back to the dawn of evolution, a half-billion years ago when the oceans were ruled by jellyfish and bacteria.”

Perhaps that doom-laden disaster movie is not so far-fetched after all.”

A brief search for articles noting an increase in water temperatures around the world reveals plenty of reports citing evidence from scientific research unequivocally showing water temperature rises and the impacts of such. A couple of examples:

“Rising temperatures throw nature a curve“, by Beth Daley, Boston Globe Staff, November 13, 2007

“Narragansett Bay’s natural timing is out of sync.The bay’s average annual water temperature has increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1960, and in winters it has warmed about 3 degrees. There is growing evidence that the temperature changes are breaking down carefully evolved relationships among species and disrupting the vast food web the bay depends upon.”

The multitude of changes taking place in Narragansett Bay illustrates a critical lesson as the world warms: Large ecological change may come from the smallest break in the food chain.

The bay’s winter warming roughly parallels a 4.4-degree rise in New England’s average winter air temperature since 1970, a trend scientists ascribe, at least in part, to the release of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from power plants, vehicles, and factories. Scientists deduce that the warming of Narragansett Bay is tied to this trend because they know that estuaries and bays are heavily influenced by air temperatures. Other partially enclosed coastal waters, such as Woods Hole and Long Island Sound, have also warmed during the same period, giving researchers confidence the warming in Narragansett Bay is not an anomaly.

The bay is also one of the places where researchers would expect to see the effects of warming first, because it is on the dividing line between southern and northern waters.

“Warmth, wind speeds lower Lake Superior” by Tina Lam and Eric Sharp, November 3rd, 2007, Free Press Staff Writers
From www.freep.com:

“Sharply higher water temperatures and an increase of up to 30% in wind speeds over Lake Superior appear to be co-conspirators in the relatively rapid decline in water levels on the world’s largest freshwater lake, a scientist told a Great Lakes conference Friday.

Water temperatures on Lake Superior, now at near-record low [water] levels, have risen twice as fast as air temperatures in the last 25 years, said Jay Austin, a researcher at the University of Minnesota-Duluth.

The change in lake temperatures tracks the rise in air temperatures that hundreds of scientists around the world have documented in the second half of the 20th Century, accelerating since 1970.

Looking at shoreline temperature data over about 100 years and data from buoys in the middle of Lake Superior since 1980, Austin said sharp increases in air and water temperature began about 25 years ago.

Austin said he believes ice cover on the upper Great Lakes has dropped by half in recent decades.

He said he doesn’t know if his observations are early signs of global warming that will continue.”

“Warmer oceans storing climate change dangers” by David Adam, environment correspondent,The Guardian, November 29 2006:
From www.guardian.co.uk:

“Global warming is creating a climate time bomb by storing enormous amounts of heat in the waters of the north Atlantic, UK scientists have discovered.Marine researchers at Southampton and Plymouth universities have found that the upper 1,500 metres of the ocean from western Europe to the eastern US have warmed by 0.015C in seven years. The capacity of the oceans to store heat means that a water temperature rise of that size is enough to warm the atmosphere above by almost 9C.”

Even as we look back a few years to 2002, we can find reports of the link between the great increase of jellyfish in unusual circumstances and the rise in the water temperature, thus prompting questions and bringing up the question of global warming.