The Answer Is.... by KimB

When people look at The One Question as posed by Michael Hayden, they are often not quite sure how to answer it. It's seems to most, that there is some inherent flaw in the question and that the answer should be No, You Cannot Do That. They sense that there is something odd about the question and the way it is structured but they cannot always put their finger on exactly what is wrong and even when they know the answer is No, You Cannot Do That, they hesitate.

Some very prominent people have hesitated over this question, so it's not surprising that even if you have a “gut feeling” (the now preferred method of evidence as advocated by some members of the US Supreme Court), that there is something wrong, it's hard to identify exactly what it is.

There are quite a few issues with the question and it needs some unraveling to pinpoint the flaws. It's a very old technique to get people to answer only one way called a Loaded Question.

Loaded Question
A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption.

It uses several assumptions that are based on claims that have no proof.

Assumption
2.The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; a supposition; an unwarrantable claim.

It uses presuppositions, items taken at face value, as a means of reducing options and uses implications of undefined events as a background to the question.

The structure of the question is set up so that it appears that both parties understand the references made but this is not necessarily true and both parties do not necessarily have the same understanding. In this case, The One Question by Michael Hayden, tricks the answerer into accepting the premise proposed but which are actually based only on the answerer's imagination.

Presupposition
A presupposition is an implicit assumption about the world or background belief relating to an utterance whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. Examples of presuppositions include:

• Jane no longer writes fiction. Presupposition: Jane once wrote fiction.
• Have you stopped eating meat? Presupposition: you had once eaten meat.

It uses rhetoric, the art of discourse, as a key for persuasion and even the ancient Greeks recognized its use as a tool to convince others to follow a particular line of reasoning.

Plato defines rhetoric as the persuasion of ignorant masses within the courts and assemblies. Rhetoric, in Plato's opinion, is merely a form of flattery and functions similarly to cookery, which masks the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good.

It is a form of “trick question” designed with multiple presuppositions and once one of the presuppositions is accepted as valid, the answerer allows all the others. If you accept one, you accept them all. The fallacy isn't in the question but in the perception of the question.

It also encompasses multiple issues for which there are multiple answers but the structure of the question is such that only one answer is allowed.

Trick Question
A complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer.

It's in the same category of “when did you stop beating your wife/dog/kids?” No matter how you answer it you will have a problem.


Autopsy of The One Question

If we halt what we are doing and there is another disaster like 9/11 (or even bigger than 9/11) and that disaster could have been stopped had we kept those programs, are you willing take responsibility for all the deaths and all the destruction.

 

Are you willing to put your name on the order that said “stop”?

The first clue is: There is only one answer.

It's the same answer many people have been giving since the time Michael Hayden came up with it. The only answer is (backwards):

The NSA can do anything they like, even if it's counter to the Constitution, Human Rights, and hosts of other legal protections in the USA and they can do anything they like to anyone on the planet regardless of where they live.

Next clues: Follow the Money

Now you can follow the money or logic backwards and begin to see how the question was formatted to get this answer. Filling in the blanks with each technique used in the structure.

• Are you willing to put your name on the order that said “stop”?
• Are you willing to stop beating your dog?

This line falls right into the classic Loaded Question. If you say No, then you admit you are still beating your dog and if you say Yes, then you admit you did beat your dog at one time.

If you say "Yes" to The One Question, you admit that you at one time agreed to with the program and if you say "No" then you agree to continue the program. Either way you admit to agreeing to the program.

• Are you willing take responsibility for all the deaths and all the destruction.
• Are you willing to take responsibility for all the drunk drivers and all the deaths and destruction caused by drunk driving?

It's not hard to see these statements as over reach but they are based on presuppositions: facts/events that are unproven but implied and that the background events are taken for granted. The trick inclusion and accusation included with the word “all” forces the answer into one format. A topic of complexity having many answers is reduced to one. If you allow one point, you allow all of them.

• Are you personally responsible for all drunk drivers?
• Are you personally responsible for all the destruction they cause?
• Are you personally going to be responsible for the drunk drivers everywhere?

If you answer "No", then you absolve yourself of direct involvement but you are still responsible and if you say "Yes", you are still responsible.

The format of the question allows the answerer to believe they have no more involvement based on a belief that there is a mutual understanding but this mutual understanding is only in the imagination of the answerer. Nothing is committed to or acknowledged by the questioner.

• Is the Questioner personally responsible for all drivers?
• Is the Questioner personally responsible for all the destruction they cause?
• Is the Questioner personally going to be responsible for drivers everywhere?

The questioner gives up nothing at all in return for the desired answer and makes no commitments at all, leaving this all to the imagination of the answerer.

• Had we kept those programs
• If X then Y else Z

This part carries backward implications based on false assumption from a conditional statement. Assumptions that the answerer is allowed to believe is true but that have no basis in reality.

• If we keep the program then Y will happen
• If we stop the program then Z will happen

The key words here are "keep" and "stop". The format implies that something would happen to The Program, that it would stop, but there is no indication that anything would happen at all. The Program continues regardless of the conditional option because stopping the program is not at all the answer wanted. The option of stopping the program is dangled like a carrot but quickly pulled away and replaced with desired outcome.

• [If] there is another disaster
• If there is another earthquake
• If there is another plane crash
• If there is another war

The disaster in various formats presumes the ability to stop all disasters. It misleads the answerer into thinking that there is an absolute way to stop “another disaster”.

The question is based not on the fallacy that a disaster will happen, but that the answerer can stop such a disaster by agreeing. The fallacy is the assumption on the part of the answerer, that all disasters will be avoided forever and ever and ever if they agree. The questioner tricks the answerer into accepting The One View that will lead to The One Answer.

• If we halt what we are doing
• If X then A and B

Here the questioner dangles the prospect or offer of change: A for B

• I will pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today
• I will take your freedom as payment for protection
• Your money or your life

It cleverly allows the answerer to insert his own interpretations of A and B and permits the answerer to accept a relationship between A and B that does not necessarily exist.

Does A actually involve B? Is A part of B?

• Does giving Wimpy a hamburger actually determine that he will pay you on Tuesday?
• Does giving your freedom up actually provide protection?
• Does giving a robber your wallet protect you from being shot?

It depends on how you think of the linkage: (A AND B) versus (A OR B)

There are 2 simple truth tables for each of these.

In this version (A OR B) there are 3 options all leading to the same outcome of TRUE.



A OR B

In this version (A AND B) there are three options all leading to the same outcome of FALSE.



A AND B

Of course this question is structured so you will always give The One Answer desired. So the inferences are set up so that you will always agree. The setup focuses on one set of outcomes and equates The Programs (A) as having an direct impact on Disaster (B).

But here's the clever part, they get the answerer to alter the truth table outcome for them. So they focus on only one outcome from the table (line 3). Not only do they want to focus on line 3 which is ((Programs==No) and (Disaster==Yes)), they get the answerer to alter the table options in line 3 for them.



Line 3

So the Table now reads this way:



Line 3 Altered

So, once you see how it's all setup, you can easily dissect the argument.

But you don't need to know all the fancy details because right off the bat, you can tell there is something wrong. It's like knowing when you feel ill, you may not know it was the chicken that was undercooked or that the restaurant used ingredients that you are allergic to, you just know.

There have been many many people taken in by The One Question from Michael Hayden and he gloats often when he asks it because he knows, like other loaded questions, if you answer any other way he will claim that you are “unpatriotic”. People like FISC judges, government officials, lawyers and presidents "got taken for a ride" too.


Here's the latest example:


As part of a book deal/tour former CIA lawyer John Rizzo discussed his involvement in the decision that "torture" was OK in an interview with Spiegel OnLine. Mr. Rizzo had the Thumbs Up/Down on waterboarding and other "enhanced interrogations" which he decided were OK. He agonized briefly over the decision but then agreed with the CIA position.

As he's written a book about his experience and decision and is quite proud of how he came to agree to allow these techniques, we can see how he was manipulated into making the decision he did. He really had no choice at all.

Sadly, it's a classic example of how the Deceived don't recognize when they've been “taken for a ride” or in the view of the Questioner "taken for a fool".

Here are the 3 areas to notice in the interview:

1. The initial “gut feeling” that something is wrong.
2. The worry that he will be labeled “unpatriotic” or “lose his reputation” if he disagrees.
3. The format of the question as he relates it without realizing how his consent was manufactured.

I've highlighted the first 2 points. See if you can help Mr. Rizzo figure out where he went wrong on the last one.

[excerpts from the John Rizzo interview with Spiegel Online.]

Rizzo: Our people from the Counter Terrorism Center. One day they came to my office and listed all the enhanced interrogation techniques for me. I had never heard of waterboarding. Some techniques, such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation …

Rizzo: … seemed harsh, even brutal to me. On the original list of proposed techniques was one which was even more chilling than waterboarding. It was never used.

Rizzo: It wasn't easy. I was the chief lawyer at the CIA. I had built up my reputation and a certain amount of credibility there.

Rizzo: I left my office that day and walked around the CIA headquarters building, smoking a cigar by myself and basically pondered what to do next. I distinctly remember sort of playing out the scenario in my head that I would stop these proposals because they were too brutal. And let's just say there had been a second terrorist attack in the ensuing days and, in the aftermath, Abu Zubaydah were to gleefully tell our interrogators, "Yes, I knew all about them, and you didn't get me to talk." There would be hundreds, perhaps thousands of Americans dead on the streets again. And in the post mortem investigations, it would all come out that the CIA considered these techniques but was too risk averse to carry them out and that I was the guy who stopped them. I couldn't live with the possibility of that someday happening. So that's when I decided to seek definitive legal advice from the US Department of Justice about whether the planned interrogation techniques violated the anti-torture statute. If the Justice Department had come back with the conclusion that these did constitute torture, then we would not have carried them out.

The Usual

In many films that have a camera scene in a bar, often times a leading male character will saunter over to a crowded bar, push his way to a stool and as he sits, says to the bar tender, “the usual”. The busy bar tender invariably places a drink on the counter in front of the actor and proceeds to attend to other patrons.

Every time I see this scene in a movie, I think of Dad.

Mom and Dad loved to take road trips to see new places and visit members of our scattered family in far off states. They often took older grandchildren with them on jaunts to the Arizona desert or to snow country like Big Bear in California. Part of the excitement of traveling with Granddad and Grandma was the frequent stops at road side cafes for pie and coffee.

After everyone would get settled into a booth or seated at a table, a waitress would appear, pad and pencil in hand ready to write down the orders. Dad, being the first one to speak, would say, “the usual”. Nine times out of ten, the waitress would be taken aback for a moment and stutter, ”what?”. Dad's eyes would sparkle and the grandchildren would giggle and Mom pretended she wasn't part of the crowd.

Dad's favorite place to pull 'the usual' was at a diner or truck stop at breakfast time when waitresses were very rushed. The grandchildren always wondered how come the waitresses knew what Dad wanted when he gave his order. When he said, “the usual”, the waitresses would bring him a short stack, his favorite pancake breakfast.



Short Stack

Well, now we know... by KimB

Well, now we know.

If we didn't know before, or pretended we didn't know, there's no way to avoid knowing now.

The tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri shows where the police plan to point that .50 caliber machine gun which they got for free from the Department of Defense (all any police force has to do is ask for the stuff).

Except "plan" is no longer the operating word here, it's not a "plan" anymore. A plan is something yet to happen; a strategy yet to be implemented. The implementation is now active and live. "Follow through" is all that's required. And there are certainly enough eager members of "the force" ready to do the implementation. They just can't wait to play with the toys.

It should not be any surprise though, the NSA labeled all US Citizens, anyone living inside the USA, along with the rest of the world's population, as "adversaries". Adversaries are those "not to be trusted" or "enemies". There is no Constitution here and there's no distinction other than "we are not them".

The only thing left to wonder about is: Did the Ferguson Police jump the starter's bell? Did they show that they aren't any better than the other repressive forces in other countries just a bit too early in the game? Did they delay the rest of the "plan" or affect the "implementation" any?

The same forces that drive "good people" to do "bad things", are still here. They didn't go away. Their actions are easy enough to predict. The experiments are still valid. The lab tests are on us and on the implementers. They think they are "part of the club". In the prophetic words of George Carlin: YOU'RE NOT IN THE CLUB.

They won't know they are not "in the club" though, until the implementation enters the part of the "plan" they didn't know about. Like Diane Feinstein's constant lament:

I believed what they told me! They lied to me!

They will believe even when belief is no longer possible and all they are left with are the "lies".

Armored Vehicle w Gun
Ferguson Mo 08 13 2014 ¹

Line up of Armored Vehicles ¹
Ferguson Mo 08 13 2014

Riot police officer aims his weapon ¹
Ferguson Mo 08 2014

[1: All images taken from the following article:

Images coming from Ferguson, Mo., reveal unfiltered, uncomfortable truths
By Philip Kennicott August 14 at 6:31 PM WashingtonPost.com ]

So How Does YOUR Garden Grow?

KimB

Sweet Potatoes

By now, most will know of my determination to grow potatoes and I've added a new obsession to my potato list: sweet potatoes.

I have always liked the folk lullaby about sweet potatoes and remember recordings of the song and in particular, a lovely version done by Odetta. Perhaps that is what gave me a head start on liking them so much.

Soon as we all cook sweet potato, sweet potato, sweet potato
Soon as we all cook sweet potato, eat 'em right straight up

Soon’s we touch our head to the pillow, to the pillow, to the pillow
Soon’s we touch our head to the pillow, go to sleep right smart

Once, I took my friend from Belarus to a salad bar that had sweet potatoes as part of the buffet. She had never seen had one before, so I explained what it was. She said in astonishment, “How can a potato be SWEET???!!!” and refused to try it. Later on though, she got up the courage to try it; now it's one of her favorite dishes and she eats them regularly.

Of course one of the problems in the US, is we have the names of yams and sweet potatoes backwards. Yams are sweet potatoes and sweet potatoes are yams. It doesn't matter that much when you eat them, as they have similar tastes, but it's confusing all the same.


Sweet Potato vs Yam

I had purchased a number of organic sweet potatoes and put them in the fridge and when foraging for them to cook I missed one. When I re-discovered it again, I found it was sprouting so …

What to do Percy? What to do?

Well... plant it of course!

So I did.

I looked up descriptions on the Internet on how to plant them and found they are quite commonly planted and also make a nice kitchen house plant.

Similar to other larger plants like avocado seeds, the sweet potatoes needed to be suspended in water. Being short of materials needed for recommended “how to”, I devised my own method using rubber bands, some plastic knives and 4 inch plastic kitchen storage containers.

I cut the sprouted potato into two pieces. I wrapped a rubber band around the wide base of each piece. I wrapped a rubber band around the lip of the storage container. Then I slip looped 3 rubber bands under the band on the sweet potato anchoring them. Next I ran the open end under the band on the storage container. I used a plastic knife slipped into the open band to hold it in place. By adjusting the location of the 3 bands I was able to get the potato centered and in just the right amount of water.

Sweet Potato held by Rubber Bands

Sweet Potato held by Rubber Bands

I do think it was rather clever method of suspending the potatoes.



Sweet Potato Slips

One of the interesting aspects about growing them is that the mother potato produces shoots called “slips”. You let these slips grow to 4 or 5 inches and then cut them off and place them in water to grow their own roots. I was surprised at how fast they root, the next day I had visible roots and within 3 days they really needed to be “in the dirt”.

The slips have very interesting leaves and an unusual coloring. I have planted a bunch of slips and had more to giveaway to a friend for their garden. With some luck, I will soon have sweet potatoes and regular potatoes to "eat 'em right straight up"!


The Potato Report – over and out for now.

Planted Sweet Potatoes

The Five W's

I keep six honest serving-men:
(They taught me all I knew)
Their names are What and Where and When
And How and Why and Who.

Just So Stories,
THE ELEPHANT'S CHILD
by Rudyard Kipling

Television reports news 24/7, but do The Five W's still apply? It seems to me that the classic Who, What, When, Where, and Why has been transformed into speculation and biased reporting of events.

Reporting of news used to be factual, without a tone of disagreement or approval, but social media applications allow substantial and pervasive changes to communication. Consequently, biases and the over emphasizing of events has crept into news reportage.

Careers are created by those who are adept at daily harangues for or against something. Their style of announcing news and interviewing persons, either making news, or having knowledge of such, is often argumentative and repetitious if a point of view differs from the questioner.

Studies show that social media is a greater source of news than print. Maybe viewers don't know about the five W's.

And..... just possibly.... they might not care.

The Five W's

1. Who is it about?
2. What happened?
3. When did it take place?
4. Where did it take place?
5. Why did it happen?

Some authors add a sixth question, “how”, to the list, though "how" can also be covered by "what", "where", or "when".

6. How did it happen?

Each question should have a factual answer.

The New Un-Miranda Warning by KimB

In the USA the Miranda Warning was a hallmark of civil liberties in the face of the enormous resources of the State. When an ordinary citizen runs into the State, the rules change and everything from then on goes according to the State. It doesn't matter what jurisdiction or country you live in, the State has enormous say-so about what happens, how it happens, when it happens and all the outcomes. The civilian has nearly no say-so in any of it.

The warning and its variations were the outcome of a landmark US Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona in 1966. The ruling established that a civilian coming into conflict with the State had a right to a lawyer and to consult with the lawyer prior to answering any questions and had the right to not answer any questions at all.

It was a reminder that the Constitution of the USA protects everyone, no matter who they are or what they were accused of. That a citizen's freedom could not be taken away without recourse and without “due process”. It was a reminder that at any time, for any reason, a civilian could invoke their Constitutional rights and remain silent. It recognized the influences of western history and ethics that interferes with common sense leading us confess all in the face of State pressure, even when we did nothing wrong; a situation that is a more common than many think it is.

Not everyone seems to understand: you don't have to say anything at all.

The basic format of a Miranda Warning has the following items, there are variations and additions but these are the basic items covered:

• You have the right to remain silent when questioned.
• Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law.
• You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
• If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning, if you wish.
• If you decide to answer any questions now, without an attorney present, you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney.
• Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Unfortunately, we are “not in Kansas anymore” and the Miranda warning, while it still may be issued, has long since been eviscerated by the actions and activities of the US Government when they allowed “terror-terror-terror” to override common sense and the Constitution.

Tora! Tora! Tora!: The Japanese code-words used to indicate that complete surprise attack had been achieved, has certainly been completed by the US Government and all the security services within their aegis, nationally and internationally and the attack is fast flowing into regional and local police forces.

Local police agencies now have access to military grade weapons, armored vehicles with .50 caliber machine guns mounted on them, water cannons, sonic weapons, drones that can shoot live rounds, tear gas and pepper spray at will and a lot more.

Precisely at whom do local police think they need to point a .50 caliber machine gun? It seems the Indiana police already know where it's going to point:

Indianapolis suburb officers said they needed a mine-resistant vehicle to protect against a possible attack by veterans returning from war.

Sgt. Dan Downing Morgan County Sheriff’s Department Martinsville, Indiana

But not one of these actions includes any Miranda Warning at all. The police and surveillance agencies get to act however they want, when they want and collect whatever they want and the hallmark of civil liberties, the Miranda Warning, gets left behind like a lot of other “rights”.

“Rights” that are now nothing more than “Privileges” as George Carlin clearly explained in messages cloaked with humor but his prophetic words and their meanings becomes clearer every day.

Rights cannot be revoked - ever, but privileges can be revoked at will, especially if you are the State. When the Miranda Warning was lost in the shuffle to provide the surveillance agencies with all the powers of the State against the civilians under their “protection”, the fragile idea of “rights” failed to “protect” the civilians from their own “protectors”.

The State with their enormous powers has declared their many retractions of “civilian rights” as “legal”, especially actions that were “not legal” before are now “legal”. The State with the assistance of the surveillance communities world wide, hide their activities and actions behind this word: “legal”. But their “legal” has the same status as our “rights”; it can change in a heart beat and if anything, they are aware how quickly their “legal” can be “undone”. The very actions they currently engage in as “legal” can be made “illegal” once again. It is this what they fear the most, that their “legal” will be “revoked”.

The 24x7x365 data harvest of the private lives of everyone on the planet is done without any warnings at all. There is no “due process”, there is no “right to remain silent”, there is no “right to legal counsel”, there is no “right to face your accusers” and no “right to hear all the evidence against you”. You have no right to restrict what information is held about you and you have no way to “prove” that any of the information presented is even true. All the rights are gone and there are no privileges left in their place.

One of the least reviewed issues about all this data harvesting is the concept of “chain of custody”. Previously, evidence presented in a court could be corroborated by trustworthy sources and was protected from manipulation and tampering but in the electronic age, all the evidence is based on x101010101010 and the evidence is held by the State or directly under State mandated supervision.

Anyone who has ever interacted with computers, electronic media, email, smartphone apps knows how quickly information can be altered, changed, edited and photo-shopped. Even toddlers can change information and photo-shop selfies and email them to their buddy-list friends automatically. If you have ever done any programming you know you can alter files, change information, and rearrange data at will. We use software products to do this for the most part but on the deeper end of the pool, it can be done right at the x101010101010.

Rest assured, it's being done right now. The flow of electronic data can be changed intentionally by the creator but also by malware/bot-nets and the security services world wide. Anyone who has access to this information stream can change it too.

It's not secure, it's not securable and it's 100% open to tampering by just about anyone who really wants to.

There is no longer any way to “prove” or “disprove” any accusations leveled at any civilian. When a civilian encounters the State, there are the standard “character assassination” comments that appear in the media with mis-information provided by unquestioned sources. The sock-puppets and social network “emotional contagion” forces hit the chat rooms, reddit and Facebook; they flood news media outlets to sway public opinion in advance of any reasoned debate or legal protections for the person involved.

This however, is not exactly the same as altering a date and time of a phone call, or changing a geo-location tag or altering the text in a chat-log. The only sources of these items are in the sole custody of the State Apparatus. The chain of custody is one way, and cannot be proven to be “pristine” or “unaltered”. In fact, most of it is altered and manipulated which is precisely why the entire data set is forbidden to be presented under “legal constraints and restrictions” demanded by the State.

In other words: the data is hacked.

When the data is hacked enough, the State declares victory and the civilian is helpless against the enormous resources the State brings to bear.

The new un-Miranda Warning is as follows:

• You have no right to remain silent.
• Anything you have ever said or done will be used against you.
• You have the no right to consult an attorney,
• If we allow you an attorney it will be a government attorney who will not represent you but represent the State's interests in you.
• You have no right to know why you are being questioned.
• You are required to answer all questions without limits.
• You have no right to stop answering.
• You may only talk to an attorney if the State agrees. We will not agree.
• You have no right to see any evidence or to question the evidence supplied.
• Any part of your life, time-line and activity will be used against you in a court of law and in the public media without limitation including selected alterations, omissions and rearrangements as needed by the State.
• You have no rights. Do you understand?