Suppose we were to organize a riot against the state in protest over violations of privacy. We'd be thwarted. Suppose we try to organize over real issues such as global warming, energy shock, systemic economic collapse? We the soon powerless starving majority at home will be the enemy of state.

"Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances."
-- Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies, Department of Defense, April 2013
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-12/html/2013-07802.htm
January 2013 http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C18.txt

"Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response."
-- http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/nsc/nss/2006/sectionX.html 2006

"... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability."
-- Army Modernisation Strategy, Department of Defense, 2008

"DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance."
-- Strategic Studies Institute, 2008

"Climate change would lead to increased risk of ... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to US security could be considerable. ... A severe energy crunch is inevitable [by 2015] without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions."
-- US Joint Forces Command, 2010

"climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked."
-- Quadrennial Defense Review, Department of Defense, 2010

See 17 years in a 40 year context and in the 130 year temperature record.

The same Dr. Pachauri who was the director of the energy and resource institute of India, chancellor and fellow at several the universities in several countries, chairman of the agriculture foundation, chairman of climate board at Colombia University, senior advisor at Yale, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, advisor to several oil companies, manufacturers and banks?

Those are identical directed statements: "how much effort --(to)--> knowledge?" vs "how much knowledge --(from/with)-- effort?"

Or "@@" to repeat the previous macro, in the above case 'q'.

Similarly 'gg' is slightly easier to type and 'G' will take you to the end.

That was the first insightful thing I've read on /. Thanks for making me go 'huh'.