…Patricia Moulton Powden is leaving the department of labor.

Powden’s come up a a few times in the past here, for suggesting that the unemployed should just keep calling when they can’t get through the phone lines (“Think of it as a radio contest“).

But the best part of this is where she’s headed.

Anyone willing to hazard a guess?

Per The Boston Globe (I might have missed it but I didn’t see this in any Vermont paper):

Labor Commissioner Patricia Moulton Powden has announced she is stepping down to become vice president of public affairs at the Vermont Chamber of Commerce.

That somehow just… fits.

Glad to hear that a mere earthquake or hurricane cannot phase VY.

From VPR:

Vermont Yankee spokesperson Larry Smith said operators at the facility definitely felt the earthquake and quickly implemented a series of protocols:

(Smith) “Under that procedure plant operators immediately go walk down all of the safety systems – every part of the plant – to ensure that there’s no damage. There are no effects from this earthquake, no damage to plant equipment whatsoever, no damage to the buildings. The plant is at 100% power.”

I’m not surprised at the outcome of the ‘walkdown’ – after weekly leaks, cracks, pipes, etc… what could go wrong? The thing is falling apart on its own – it doesn’t need any shaking to help it out. I wonder what kind of ‘walkdown’ it would take to get this stuff to stop happening:

From WCAX:

A new problem at Vermont Yankee: The nuclear plant says it had to fix two cracks in a water cooling tower last week, but Entergy never told the state about it.

How would you like it if the mayor of your town wrote a letter to the editor attacking you personally and revealing what he thought he had found about you by searching the voter registration list; something that was intended to discredit you but that was, in fact, not even true? It happened recently to me and I can tell you I’m more than a little annoyed.  If not strictly illegal, I would think this conduct could be considered somewhat less than ethical, and lead one to seriously question the Mayor’s suitability for public office.

It all began in the quiet little City of St. Albans when the Messenger published a story about the fact that the Vermont Natural Resource Council had filed a Notice of Appeal on behalf of the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (of which I am an active member) and Hudak Farm regarding a recent  decision by the Environmental Court to uphold an Act 250 permit to locate the largest Walmart store in Vermont near Exit 20 of I-89 in the Town of St. Albans.

In the article, Mayor Manahan of St. Albans City expressed his consternation with the Appeal. Among his remarks:

They (the VNRC) haven’t received the answer they want…They are trying to represent our downtown, but they’re not trying to represent our downtown

I wrote to the paper immediately in the form of an open letter to Mayor Manahan, reminding him that the City had made the deal with the developer to drop its opposition to the project without consultation with the other interested parties, who actually are represented by the VNRC.  I reminded him that a vote had been taken to ratify the agreement at a poorly warned Special Session of the City Council before we had even been given an opportunity to read and offer an opinion with regard to the agreement.  I also asked if he was aware that the developer, JLD Properties had also filed a notice of appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court.  This means that, whether or not the VNRC chose to appeal, construction of the project would be delayed through the developer’s own decision to appeal. This is significant because the Mayor’s complaint about the VNRC filing an appeal centered on the loss of money that was to be paid to the City (through the terms of the agreement) only if the developer began “significant work” on the project prior to the end of 2011.  



The Mayor struck back almost immediately, on June 8, in his own open letter to me.  The letter began with the following:

First, let me apologize; I missed the section in the Mayors handbook that stated I must run things by Sue Prent.

It continued in that tone, with a series of distortions and sarcastic remarks, but the paragraph that left me dumbstruck was the following (his punctuation, not mine):

Unlike your self-appointment, I was elected to represent the citizens of St. Albans City, in fact just recently for the third time as Mayor.  You request the voters keep this event in mind the next time they vote, why rely on them?  I suggest that you register to vote.  After reviewing the voter checklist we were surprised by the fact that your name does not appear on it.  I would like to inform you that as a citizen of St. Albans City you are eligible to vote, however you must first register with the city clerk.  I find it ironic that you profess to the community what is good for it yet you fail to participate in the purest ingredient of the democracy we live in.

Oookay.

I replied very simply to set the record straight, addressing each of his distortions of fact and concluding with the information that I am an active voter in the City of St. Albans, registered under my maiden name.  I did not share that name in my letter.

I am still waiting for what I think is a well-deserved public apology.  

UPDATE: Margolis reports at vtdigger that the VDP has relented and will allow press at the event after all. -JO

Not for nothing, but this is kind of pathetic.  Per Vermont News Guy:

As of Tuesday evening, though only the 60-to-100 Vermont Democrats who pay their $50 (or more) to attend the event will have the foggiest idea what Frank says Sunday, or what Vermont’s own Rep. Peter Welch says, either.

“We’re not making the event open to the press,” said Robert Dempsey, the party’s executive director.

Why? Because the party is “trying to raise money,” Dempsey said. “It’s not necessarily a matter of policy to make all our events open to the press.”

So… we have a genuine east coast political celebrity on our hands to use for a fundraiser and we’re sequestering him from anything that gives the event attention?

Strategically, I don’t get this other than being worried that if someone says something off-color it will create a media narrative they dislike.  But it’s Barney Frank we’re dealing with here, not Lady GaGa.  Frank is witty, charming and not afraid to say what he thinks, but I’ve seen him speak at Pride events where off-color language is almost expected of speakers, his speech was completely work-safe.

From my POV, this classifies as major FAIL.  Not only do they make the party look paranoid and petty, they reveal a major failure of initiative.  Having someone as well known as Frank come to a fundraiser shouldn’t be sequestered and private.  It should be live streamed and broadcast on youTube.  

We can be better than this.  We should be better than this.

So… to the party: I want to support you and I want to see you succeed.  But if you do something as obviously boneheaded as this, I’m certainly not going to refrain from telling you so.  As Margolis points out, you have a short window in which to change your mind about this.  

Do the right thing.  

Do the smart thing.

Please.  

(Couldn’t find the article posted on line, so I’m quoting from the print edition of the Barre/Montpelier Times Argus of 06/23/10.)

“If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are?” [Judge Martin Feldman] asked. Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy handed, and rather overbearing.”

(Judge strikes down ban on offshore drilling, Barre/Montpelier Times Argus, 06/23/10)

Let us be clear: THEY DO GROUND ENTIRE FLEETS OF AIRCRAFT WHEN A MAJOR PROBLEM HAS BEEN DISCOVERED IN ONE!

Heavy handed? Oh … you mean as in we want to protect our only source of food, water, air and shelter from known defects in offshore drilling equipment? REALLY?

And while you are here … you really, really, really have to visit this link and watch the short video.

From a Shumlin campaign press release:

Today, Treasurer Jeb Spaulding endorsed Peter Shumlin for Governor of Vermont.

“Peter has the track record, capacity and commitment to protect the public purse and the vision, creativity and passion to make Vermont a great place to grow jobs,” said Jeb Spaulding.

A significant endorsement snagged by the Senate President Pro Tem. Though a social liberal (among the first elected officials to openly suggest full marriage equality back in the civil union era), Treasurer Jeb Spaulding is very popular with the moderate-to-conservative set. He is fondly spoken of at Republican-oriented Vermont Tiger, and has even been featured at their events (to the admitted chagrin of many Democrats).

As such, the endorsement is as much a boon to Shumlin as it likely is a blow to Susan Bartlett, who has been courting the more conservative wing of the party in her campaign.

(NOTE: The GMD byline represents collaborative work by multiple – but not necessarily all – site contributors)

A Ruling Is Expected by the Fall on Lawsuit Challenging Federal Constitutionality of Voter-Approved Measure Barring Gay and Lesbian Couples From Marrying, But No Matter Which Way Judge Vaughn Walker Decides, a Final Showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court is All But Inevitable

                                                     

HOW WILL HE DECIDE? — Vaughn Walker, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, is expected in the next few weeks to hand down a ruling on a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a voter-approved amendment to the California Constitution that bars gay and lesbian couples from marrying. Closing arguments in the closely-watched case were made last week. Some supporters of Prop. 8 are making an issue of the fact — revealed by the San Francisco Chronicle in February — that Judge Walker, a conservative appointed to the court in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush, is himself gay. But no matter which way Walker decides, the losing side is certain to appeal, setting the stage for a final showdown in the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo: Mike Linksvayer via Flickr)

(Posted 5:00 a.m. EDT Tuesday, June 22, 2010)

By SKEETER SANDERS

As millions of lesbian women, gay men, bisexuals and transgenders prepare to march in celebratory pride parades all across the United States and around the world this weekend, many will be casting an eye on a federal judge in San Francisco as he prepares to issue a long-awaited ruling in a closely-watched constitutional challenge to California’s voter-approved Proposition 8, which bars gay and lesbian couples from marrying.

Vaughn Walker, the chief judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, heard closing arguments last week in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which many legal experts predict will be a landmark case going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

During the proceedings, Walker repeatedly pressed attorneys on both sides with pointed questions on what interest is served by the state determining who can and cannot marry and on the motivations of the voters in passing the measure.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is named as the defendant in the lawsuit, refused to defend the measure. State Attorney General Jerry Brown, who is the Democratic candidate to succeed the Republican Schwarzenegger in November’s gubernatorial election, also refused to defend Prop. 8. As a result, several religious and conservative groups intervened in the measure’s defense.

Defenders of Prop. 8 — an amendment to the California Constitution — argued that its purpose was to preserve marriage as “an institution intended to promote childbearing.”

Opponents of Prop. 8 — which passed with 54 percent of the vote in  November 2008 — countered with Loving v. Virginia, the landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared marriage to be a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and struck down laws in 16 states that barred interracial marriages.

A ruling is expected by the fall. But no matter which way Judge Walker decides, it will almost certainly be appealed, setting the stage for a final showdown in the Supreme Court.

OLSON: FEARS OF DAMAGE TO OPPOSITE-GENDER MARRIAGES UNFOUNDED

Former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, the lead attorney representing two same-gender couples challenging Prop. 8, argued that claims of marriage being a tradition whose primary purpose is to bear children and that allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry damages the marriages of heterosexual couples are not sufficient grounds to bar them from doing so.

“‘We have always done it that way’ is a corollary to ‘Because I say so,'” Olson told Judge Walker. “It’s not a reason. You can’t have constitutional discrimination in public schools because you have always done it that way,” referring to government-imposed racial segregation in public schools that the Supreme Court outlawed in 1954.

COOPER: HETEROSEXUALS-ONLY MARRIAGE ‘FUNDAMENTAL TO SURVIVAL OF HUMAN RACE’  

Former U.S. Justice Department attorney Charles Cooper, the lead attorney  representing religious and conservative groups that sponsored Prop. 8, countered that the primary purpose of marriage is the raising of children and that definition is “fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race.” He argued that “children do best when they are raised by their own mother and father.”

Cooper denounced as a “slur on the seven million Californians who supported Proposition 8” the plaintiff’s argument that “there is no way to understand why anyone would support Proposition 8, would support the traditional definition of marriage, except through some irrational or dark motivation.”

BOTH SIDES IGNORE CHURCH-STATE IMPLICATIONS OF PROP. 8

Neither side addressed a broader constitutional issue raised by Prop. 8 and other laws that bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying — an issue that The ‘Skeeter Bites Report has raised repeatedly: The separation of church and state.

This column has argued again and again and again that Prop. 8 and all similar laws, including the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, enshrine into state and federal law a religious doctrine that condemns homosexuality as a sin that must be suppressed — a violation of both the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the Constitution.

In the seven years since the Supreme Court fully decriminalized same-gender sexual relations in its 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision that struck down the nation’s last remaining anti-sodomy laws, there has been — and is — no legal justification whatsoever to continue to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying, since their relationships are no longer illegal.

That point was made clear by no less an authority than conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who, in his blistering dissenting opinion in the Lawrence case, wrote, “State laws against . . . same-sex marriage . . . [are] called into question by today’s decision. The Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.”

If Scalia is right — and The ‘Skeeter Bites Report strongly believes that he is in this case — then every argument to bar gay and lesbian couples from marrying is inextricably rooted in religious approbations against homosexuality, which cannot constitutionally be used in court. The supporters of Proposition 8 and similar laws know this all too well, yet they plod on anyway, despite the Lawrence decision having effectively pulled the legal rug out from under their arguments.

CIVIL MARRIAGE AND RELIGIOUS MATRIMONY ARE NOT THE SAME THING

Lest anyone forget, the Yes on 8 campaign was heavily bankrolled by several conservative churches, most notably the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints — better known as the Mormon Church — and the Reverend Rick Warren’s southern California-based Saddleback Church, which made headlines during the 2008 presidential campaign as the venue for a forum on faith and politics in which then-candidates John McCain and Barack Obama participated.

Contrary to the long-held assertions of religious conservatives, the civil institution of marriage is not “a holy gift from God.” They have confused the state institution of civil marriage with the religious sacrament of holy matrimony.

It is the sacrament of holy matrimony, the exclusive province of religion, that is the “holy gift from God,” completely separate from civil marriage, the exclusive province of the state.

Conservative religious institutions that oppose homosexuality have every right under the First Amendment to deny the sacrament of holy matrimony to gay and lesbian couples in accordance with their religious doctrine. But they have no constitutional right to seek to have the state deny civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples. It is clearly not their place to do so.

Nor do all religious institutions condemn homosexuality. To the contrary, many other religious institutions are openly supportive of gay men and lesbians — with some even according the sacrament of “holy union” to gay and lesbian couples.        

JUDGE WALKER A CONSERVATIVE WITH A STRONG INDEPENDENT STREAK

Judge Walker, appointed to the district court in 1989 by President George H.W. Bush and elevated to chief judge of the court in 2004 by President George W. Bush, is widely seen by court observers as a conservative jurist with a strong independent streak.

Originally nominated for the district court in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan, Walker’s nomination was stalled for two years by Senate Democrats who objected to his membership in an all-male private club and to his having been the attorney representing the International Olympic Committee and the U.S. Olympic Committee in its 1982 copyright-infringement lawsuit against the organizers of the first Gay Games in San Francisco, originally dubbed the “Gay Olympics.”

Two dozen House Democrats, led by now-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), whose district includes San Francisco, opposed Walker’s nomination because of his alleged “insensitivity” to gays while representing the IOC and USOC.

(The Olympic committees and the Federation of Gay Games (FoGG) have since made peace with one another and have worked cooperatively together, successfully lobbying to have travel restrictions on HIV-positive athletes waived for the 1994 Gay Games in New York, the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta and the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. The 2010 Gay Games will take place July 31-August 6 in Cologne, Germany; Cleveland will host the 2014 Gay Games).

Judge Walker has demonstrated having a libertarian streak in cases involving individual rights, ruling that the federal government’s controversial post-9/11 warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional. He has also issued rulings in two previous cases on the on the civil and constitutional rights of LGBTs that have been interpreted as being pro-gay.

In one case, Judge Walker ruled that the First Amendment free-speech rights of two city employees in Oakland, California were not violated when when managers removed a bulletin board flier for a religious group that promoted “natural family, marriage and family values.”

In another, Walker dismissed a lawsuit brought by the parents of a California boy against a local school district that claimed their First Amendment religious rights were violated by comments their son’s teacher had made in the classroom supporting LGBT civil rights.

CONSERVATIVES ATTACK JUDGE’S IMPARTIALITY AFTER NEWSPAPER ‘OUTS’ HIM AS GAY

Throughout the trial on the constitutionality of Prop. 8, Judge Walker asked a lot of tough questions to the attorneys on both sides of the issue. And given Walker’s past representation as an attorney of the IOC and USOC in the 1982 copyright case against the Gay Games, no one can realistically call Walker a “pushover” on LGBT-related issues.

Yet when the San Francisco Chronicle revealed in February that Judge Walker is himself gay, conservatives were quick to demand that Walker recuse himself from the case.

Ed Whelan, a columnist for the conservative National Review magazine writing on its online edition that “Walker’s entire course of conduct has only one sensible explanation: that Walker is hellbent to use the case to advance the cause of same-sex marriage. Given his manifest inability to be impartial, Walker should have recused himself from the beginning, and he remains obligated to do so now.”

That prompted the Chronicle to fire back with an editorial asserting that “A judge’s sexual orientation does not inherently shade his ability to read and interpret the U.S. Constitution with clear-eyed wisdom. Assuming this case advances on appeal, no matter how [Judge] Walker rules, there almost certainly will be jurists who will need to set aside their religion’s teachings — and, quite likely, the impact of their ruling on close friends or even a family member — as they do their utmost to uphold the meaning of the Constitution.”

In fairness to the Chronicle, Judge Walker never kept his being gay a secret, so the newspaper cannot be accused of “outing” him against his will. But he’s never boasted about it either, thus the Chronicle’s disclosure did come as a surprise to many.

That the Prop. 8 case will ultimately land in the Supreme Court is beyond doubt — indeed, it’s inevitable. So the fact of Judge Walker being gay really is of no consequence to the final outcome of this case.

# # #

Copyright 2010, Skeeter Sanders. All rights reserved.

On one end of the spectrum, you have the spectacle of Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) apologizing to BP CEO Tony Hayward in his appearence before Congress last week. Barton was only the latest and highest profile Republican who felt that the calls for accountability for the worst environmental disaster in history from the corporation that bears most of the responsibility was just un-American.

The response to Barton? Shock, condemnation, humiliation – resulting in a rapid retraction.

On the other end of the spectrum, Representative Welch was the first member of the House to call for a suspension of BP’s dividend payments, as well as for the creation of an escrow account to fund damages. And he went even went further in suggesting that CEO Hayward should resign for the responsibility he bears personally, as well as that which he bears simply as a function of his position.

The response to Welch? Opposite approaches to BP & Hayward would predictably merit an opposite response from the public and media, no?

As it turns out – no. The media only seems to care in the most perfunctory sense, and the only peeps from the Vermont blogosphere so far are suprisingly consistent, even given the ideological breadth of these particular commenters at Blurt:

“Hayward’s resignation won’t stop the leak.”

“Grandstanding members of Congress like Welch are now spewing meaningless hot air at a rate greater than the oil in the Gulf.”

“Only one thing worse than an oil executive not knowing what they are talking about, and that would be a group of congressman that know even less”

It’s easy to understand cynicism in this political era, where so much of the change we were promised has manifested as fairly tepid at best – but is this reaction so cynical as to add up to political paralysis? Are many of us – left, right, center, and wherever – becoming so jaded, that we are becoming incapable of recognizing positive contributions from any political officeholder with whom we’ve had any disagreement?

Pragmatically speaking, can we expect to make progress if we at the grassroots are all stick and no carrot? Assuming that a nominal degree of cynicism can fuel anger and action, at what point does cynicism work in the service of the very forces hurting society in the first place? Discuss…

( – promoted by JDRyan)

Are you a tax and spend liberal?

I have never met a tax and spend liberal in my life. I have never met one person who thinks that the way to fix a problem is to just throw money at it. Throwing things is generally not a great strategy for solving problems. Money throwing not withstanding, there is no doubt that many of our societal problems are insoluble without financial resources.

The charge of “tax and spend liberal” is a canard used to discredit the idea that the welfare of our neighbors and community is directly connected to our own well-being. The question is how can we invest in the future when we can’t pay today’s bills? Vermont’s answer must be that even with our belts cinched tight we must not fail to make investments that will produce a more prosperous future.

There is an old joke: a man is praying, “Please God, please let me win the lottery!” The hand of God reaches down and taps him on the shoulder and says, “ Schmuck! Buy a ticket.” Investing in Vermont’s future is no lottery ticket. On the contrary, we know these investments are a sure thing. Simply stated, if we do not invest in a prosperous future how can we expect to have one?

Here are a few ideas that seem a basis upon which to build consensus.

• High speed Internet down every dirt road in the state…Now.

• Major increases in energy efficiency. Efficiency Vermont has led the way as a model for electric energy efficiency. In the literal wake of the Gulf oil calamity let us agree that Vermont can lead the way to comprehensive energy efficiency.

• Our educational system must succeed at every level from early childhood education through higher education and technical training.

• Vermont needs a single payer health care system with an emphasis on healthy living and prevention.

• We must conserve and protect our rural way of life and support our agricultural base.

• Let’s agree it is time to stop bad mouthing Vermont about our business environment. Vermont is one of the best places on the planet to live and do business. The message that Vermont is not good for business is for fertilizer on your garden. Vermont is known for making premium products and Vermont itself is a premium place to live. We can attract the businesses of the future by sending the message about our high quality of life. Much of the nation envies that Vermont families live with the natural beauty that surrounds us.

I have not tried to make this a comprehensive list. I want to know what issues you in the GMD community think need to be brought to the table in the State House. Do you agree that “Challenges for Change” has been a disrespectful process to the state workforce? Tell me more. Do you think that with the Gulf disaster on our doorstep that the legislature may come to grips our energy supply problems? How can we communicate that an investment in early childhood education saves people and taxpayer dollars from going into the prison system. How can we convince Vermont and the nation that we must reject short- term solutions and get to work on our long-term problems? What are you fired up about?

My experience in the State House proved my value as an effective Democratic progressive voice. My nature, humor, my ability to be civil to everyone allowed for a liberal viewpoint to be truly heard during my six years of service as State Representative. My passion for human rights and respect for others allowed me to speak and act in the milieu of the legislature that advanced a broadminded agenda. It's an agenda that I believe I share with a majority of voters in Washington County. I fight for causes and people with all my heart and if at times it shows on my sleeves, it’s okay.

 Thank you,

 Donny Osman

donnyosman.com 

I make no guarantee of any kind for any purpose and am not liable for any loss of anything of any kind due to following or attempting to follow these instructions.

The daughter got caught by what one would call scareware or hostageware: it’s an app that pretends to be an anti-virus program.

This app tells you all about any number attacks on your computer, and then it asks you if you want to purchase a license. I have no idea what the end result of this “purchasing” a license is, and I know I have no intention of finding out.

This particular app calls itself “AV” and is quite sneaky. It makes use of official looking warning messages, installs itself in your computers start up list, puts itself in the quick start bar (MS Vista) and uses microsoft look alike icons and even tries to get you to install it as the system firewall.

I finally found the executable in the following directory:

C:\Users\[user_name]\AppData\Local\ktvbpysxb and it is named knxgpottssd.exe

THIS APP INTERFERES WITH THE NORMAL WORKINGS OF AT LEAST Norton Internet Security! I don’t know if it does the same with others.

You will have to do the following to remove it manually:

1) Start computer in ‘safe mode’. Do this by COMPLETELY SHUTTING DOWN and then starting the computer and tapping the <f8> key until you get a screen asking how you want to start Windows. Choose safe mode without networking.

2) Once you are at the safe mode desktop go to ‘Start’ -> ‘Run’ and enter ‘msconfig’ and look for suspicious entries. These entries could have ‘Manufacturer’ listed as ‘unkown’, be in directories that don’t look similar to other entries, etc.

3) Uncheck any suspicious looking entries so they’re not run at start up.

At this point you need to reboot the computer and see if the scareware AV is showing again. If it is forget the amateur manual thing and get some professional help.

BUT

if the above process worked, go back to start -> run -> msconfig (you don’t have to reboot), check on the startup tab and find out where that file exists you unchecked.

as long as you are comfortable with what you are doing REMOVE THE FILE AND DIRECTORY ENTIRELY … DO NOT RELY ON THE STARTUP SETTINGS! Make sure you empty any recycle bins … do not leave copies of this file running around your computer.

If you are not comfortable GET SOME GOOD HELP!

This process did the job for me. WHAT EVER YOU DO DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY ANTI-VIRUS MESSAGES THAT ARE NOT COMING FROM AN APPLICATION YOU INSTALLED ON YOUR COMPUTER YOURSELF! AND BE ABSOLUTELY SURE OF WHATEVER YOU INSTALL “FOR FREE” FROM THE INTERNET!

Also not I make no guarantee of any kind for any purpose and am not liable for any loss of anything of any kind due to following or attempting to follow these instructions.