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?

Gun Control

What trait in our legislators personalities allows them to ignore the anguish of parents who lose their children in senseless, mass shootings?

Politicians share many of the traits needed to win approval from the masses to hold offices of varying degrees of power. The higher the office, higher the power in the hands of the person elected, or appointed.

We allot privileges to those we elect in the belief their promises to care and protect us are possible and well meaning. But, sometimes, something happens on the way to the forum; promises of protection are forgotten. By allowing the manufacture, sale and unlimited ownership of guns and ammunition, our children and innocent persons are always at risk of being killed by someone going berserk with a gun in another mass killing.

How many of these killings have to take place before legislators acknowledge the need to pass laws preventing such wide, wild use of guns? One would think the shooting of American presidents would have initiated a law of some kind. Stop talking of 'shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings', and pass a law that actually protects the public from unauthorized use of firearms.

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
Of cabbages—and kings—
And why the sea is boiling hot—
And whether pigs have wings."

Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There
Lewis Carroll (1871)

Rainbow Flowers

My son brings me lovely bouquets of cut flowers and its such a pleasure when glancing up from reading, knitting or working on the computer to see the beautiful colors of the blossoms. Preservative comes with the flowers and if adding it to the water in the vase, the flowers stay fresh for days. By refreshing the water as needed, the flowers continue looking bright and lovely, extending their vase life for an amazingly long time.


Colored Flowers

Sometimes a strange thing happens to the refreshed water in the vase; it becomes stained the same color as one of the flowers! The first time I had seen this phenomenon, the vase water took on the same intense pink color of the daisies in a bouquet of various flowers of different colors.

Researching the net with DuckDuckGo.com, I found that florists use food dye to enhance flower colors. White carnations or daisies can be changed into other colors as well as roses.

Its also a very easy thing to do at home.

To create a rainbow rose

1. Cut the bottom 2 inches of stem into three segments
2. Stick each segment into a different vase of water colored with food dye.
3. Mix the food dye colors to get additional colors orange, green or blue.

The longer the stem sits in the colored water the more intense the flower color will be.



Rainbow Roses

Current Reading

By the shores of Gitche Gumee
By the shining Big-Sea-Water
Stood the wigwam of Nokomis
Daughter of the Moon, Nokomis

The Song of Hiawatha
Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

One of my birthday presents is a collector's book: The Poetical Works of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, with Translations and Notes, published by Bell & Daldy, 1864 with 250 engravings.

Evangeline, and the Song of Hiawatha, two epics studied in high school, were delights to read again after these many years. I find the beauty of the poems enhanced by my maturity and travel experiences that was lacking in those school years. Reading the notes and explanations of the works is a fascinating read by itself.

Between the 728 pages of poems, songs, and sonnets in Longfellow's book, and the ebooks available for download to my digital reader, I'll have hours of reading pleasure.

Sweet Freedom

... sweet freedom, shine your light on me...

Of the different types of freedom, such as freedom from taxes, there is one freedom people will die to achieve and defend: Political Freedom. You can't see it, wear it or eat it, but you know when you have it.

Being born and living under the banner of political freedom, I always take great joy in celebrating the 4th of July with fireworks and the singing of patriotic songs.

Every year on the 4th of July, the TV broadcasts 'A Capital Forth', a program of patriotic music capped off by the National Symphony Orchestra playing Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture ², enhanced by the live firing of cannons. Bursts of red, white and blue fireworks fill the sky with shooting stars and giant glistening flowers designed to last only a fraction of a moment. For how ever long the fireworks last, its a magic show that holds one spellbound, whether viewing live or on television.

Celebrating the 4th of July reminds us that political freedom came from fighting the American Revolutionary War. It was not a revolution of redistribution of power as in the Russian Revolution, but a revolution to achieve political independence. As a nation, we are very proud and quick to judge if a threat to this independence arises and we put great stock in the Constitution that guarantees the personal freedoms of citizens.

However well intentioned, the zeal to protect and defend has led to practices that infringe on these rights. The collection of metadata by the NSA ¹ has reached the point of absurdity and its time to re-evaluate the value of that practice in the light of Political Freedom.

Anything that chips away parts of our precious independence is a threat that can't be ignored.


[Editor's notes:

1: The National Security Agency (NSA) is one of 17 Security Agencies, along with other law enforcement and regional agencies, in the USA. The initials, NSA, have come to represent all the security services in the US by popular use. The initials can also refer to any security service in the world, although each has their own initials and titles like: GCHQ, BND.

Each of the world's security services, along with regional and local law enforcement agencies, harvests, collects and stores metadata regardless of national boundaries or citizenship of origin. The US NSA just does more of it than the others.

2: The 1812 Overture does not celebrate the American War of 1812, but the eventual victory of the Russians defending their country against the invading French under Napoleon. The Russians lost the battle but the cost to the French was the entire war and eventually their Emperor.]

Victory from the Heels of Defeat
How the invading Grande Armée of Napoleon won the battle but lost the war.

On 7 September 1812, at Borodino, 120 km (75 mi) west of Moscow, Napoleon's forces met those of General Mikhail Kutuzov in the only concerted stand made by Russia against the seemingly invincible French Army. The Battle of Borodino saw casualties estimated as high as 100,000 and resulted in a French tactical victory. It was, however, ultimately a Pyrrhic victory for the French invasion.

With resources depleted and supply lines overextended, Napoleon's weakened forces moved into Moscow, which they occupied with little resistance. Expecting capitulation from the displaced Tsar Alexander I, the French instead found themselves in a barren and desolate city, parts of which the retreating Russian Army had burned to the ground.

Deprived of winter stores, Napoleon had to retreat. Beginning on October 19 and lasting well into December, the French Army faced several overwhelming obstacles on its long retreat: famine, typhus, frigid temperatures, harassing cossacks and Russian forces barring the way out of the country. Abandoned by Napoleon in November, the Grande Armée was reduced to one-tenth of its original size by the time it reached Poland and relative safety.

Michael Hayden and the One Question by KimB

Retired 4 Star United States Air Force General Michael Hayden is one very smart man. Actually he's way beyond smart and probably well into the brilliant category. Anyone viewing a debate or interview that includes General Hayden would be well advised to keep on their toes while listening to him speak.

He's extraordinarily knowledgeable and eloquent in speaking. He had a lot of experience during his many year tenure at the NSA and CIA, and a stint at the DNI, not just in running the organizations but working with politicians from all political views and knows just about everything needed to give a good presentation.

His speaking skills excel far beyond many in the military who's sole answer to any question is a bazooka, but he's no less deadly than the ones who outweigh him physically or can flex more muscles or carry more gear ... the drones depend on him.

He's the ultimate “M” for the modern day USA.

There are loads of conspiracy theories in the world: Secret coalitions, Enemy Outside, Enemy Inside, Enemy Above, Enemy Below and many more categories with variations and permutations. While there are loads of conspiracy theories in the world, and some of them have turned out not to be theories at all but realities.

Historian Bruce Cumings said:

"But if conspiracies exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' History is moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities."

I don't think Bruce Cumings has met General Hayden.

What's most remarkable about General Hayden is that he's almost unremarkable; it's the perfect cover for the USA's top spy master. Someone you can underestimate but who will send a drone to your doorstep as a “thank you gift” with nary a qualm.

He's quick of wit and fast on his feet, unlike many of his successors who simply couldn't think up a good enough line at the time and ended up with testimony like the now infamous exchange between Ron Wyden, United States Senator for Oregon, Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and James Clapper Director of National Intelligence on March 12, 2013, during a United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing,

Senator Wyden:

"Does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?"

James Clapper Director of National Intelligence:

"No, sir."

Senator Wyden:

"It does not?"

James Clapper Director of National Intelligence:

"Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently, perhaps, collect, but not wittingly."

One simply cannot imagine General Hayden landing in that uncomfortable spotlight. After all, his job is to stay out of the spotlight as much as possible while shining the same spotlight into every other aspect of our lives, including everyone on the planet no matter who they are or where they live.

One of General Hayden's greatest assets within the Security Complex of the USA and it's closest allies (and not so close allies), is the ability to re-define any word in the English language to mean whatever he wants it to mean. It's an extraordinary gift.

One of the many short comings of English is that the language is highly flexible. Words change meaning and context all the time. Sometimes a word carries one connotation and then morphs into something completely different like the word: bork.

But General Hayden's ability is far superior to others because he does not have to redefine the words himself. He is highly persuasive at getting others to do it for him. His skill with words is deadly and the victims of his encounters surrendered not only their own freedoms but those of all the people that depended on their independence and their adherence to “norms” of the English language and it's usage, but in the end it was quite easy. A triumph none the less.

• Relevant = everything
• Not Wittingly = without having to think about it, the machines do it
• Inadvertent = we collect it all
• Cell phones = warheads on foreheads
• Metadata = We kill people based on metadata
• iPhone apps = 400,000 attacks

  [General Hayden] and his wife were in an Apple store in Virginia ....
  
  A salesman approached and raved about the iPhone, saying that there were already "400,000 apps" for the device.
  
  Hayden, amused, turned to his wife and quietly asked: "This kid doesn't know who I am, does he? Four-hundred-thousand apps means 400,000 possibilities for attacks."
  
  Der Spiegel On Line September 09, 2013

No matter how hard people might resist to begin with, General Hayden will win. Some like Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, then presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and now a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, lasted 2 visits before capitulating not only her judicial independence but the Constitution and all the freedoms of the American People.

He will always win.

General Hayden wins because he asks the one question that no one will answer any other way. As long as the answer remains the same he will win. His question controls the Congress, the President, the courts and the Supreme Court. It controls world leaders and policy makers everywhere. It controls how the world surveillance is setup and why it works. It controls business and affects everyone on the planet. He asks it whenever anyone questions him about the activities of the security services no matter what the circumstances.

How will you answer General Hayden's 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”?

Whirligigs

I have a small collection of colorful whirligigs in the window boxes and hanging baskets outside my computer room window. They are the simple, wind driven, pinwheel type used as lawn ornaments and in gardens to repel birds. Several are double layered.

Placed to catch the breezes from different directions, they spin at different speeds, some going 90 to nothin' and others slowly revolving when a soft breeze floats by.

I enjoy gazing at them. Its amazing that such simple items can be so amusing. I often wonder how far back in human history the concept was discovered. Dutch windmills are famous, and some type of a sailing ship seems to have always been with us. The other day I went to the web to find out, and read on Wikipedia some interesting facts about whirligigs that had never crossed my mind.

A version called a bamboo-copter, dated 400BC was found in China. In 700BC the Sasanian Empire, (Persian) used windmills to lift water. Sumerians in 1600-1800BC used them as weather-vanes. The first known representation of a European whirligig is a medieval tapestry depicting children playing with a hobby horse at one end of a stick, a 4 blade propeller at the other end.

William Shakespeare used a whirligig as a metaphor, “what goes around, comes around” in Twelfth Night. Museums collect them. Value of early folk art whirligigs vary. In 2000, one of Uncle Sam with Saw, sold for $12,650, another folk art creation sold for $10,025. An oil painting by Hieronymus Bosch, Christ Child with a Walking Frame, contains a clear illustration of a string powered whirligig. A painting by Jan Provost (late 16th century) “Virgin and Child in a Landscape” shows the Christ child holding a whirligig.

The simplest is pinwheel, but configurations vary. Among modern makers, the most famous is Vollis Simpson (1919-May 31, 2013) who was profiled on PBS in a photo essay at Minnesota Museum of Science. One of his stands in front of American Visionary Art Museum in Baltimore, Maryland. He was named the 2012 Arts and Culture winner of Southern Living Heroes of the New South Awards. Some of his creations reached 50 feet in height.

Vollis Simpson whirligigs

Food Crazes

My latest food craze is guacamole sandwiches.

I don't make the guacamole, although its very easy to make. Instead, I buy it from a woman who makes it at a small stand inside the grocery store that I patronize. I have been using it as a dip, and only recently discovered that it is delicious as a sandwich.

Whenever I buy avocados, it reminds me of lunching with a friend in Acapulco, Mexico. It was common for street vendors to enter sidewalk cafes and offer to sell oranges or avocados to the patrons. During our lunch, a vendor selling avocados came to our table. My friend purchased several to take home, remarking that avocados were known as “Mexican butter”.

I never bothered to try them as butter, only using them in salads, until I the other day when I wanted some guacamole, only to find I was out of chips.

What to do, Percy? What to do?

I slathered a couple of slices of whole grain bread with guacamole, slapped them together in a sandwich and discovered 'paradiso!

So that I can indulge myself with my latest food craze, I'll start making my own guacamole to assure a ready supply!

Mantequilla de pobre (Spanish for: poor-man's butter) is a mixture of avocado, tomato, oil, and citrus juice. Despite its name, it predates the arrival of dairy cattle in the Americas, and thus was not originally made as a butter substitute.

Guacamole Butter

Guacamole

The Recipe Box: Boiled Eggs

Boiled Eggs

From the recipe box of MrsB

My brother Charles taught me how to boil eggs this way.

Use a pan that allows only one layer of eggs.

• I cover them with cold tap water, but just enough water to generously cover them.
• If you add too much water, it will throw the timing off.

Set a water timer for the boiling water.

• Wait for the water to boil before starting the egg timer.
• It may depend on the temp of your tap water, but for me it takes about 8-10 minutes for the water to begin boiling.
• I try to see exactly when the water begins to boil, but if I miss it by a few seconds or even a minute, I don't panic.

Set a water timer for the boiling water, 8 min

Turn down the flame and start the egg timer when it boils.

• I turn the flame down but keep the eggs gently simmering, not a hard boil. Its important to time the eggs at this point.
• If you over boil, the white gets rubbery and you get a green coating around the yolk.

For small eggs, 10 mins

large eggs 12 mins

jumbo eggs 14-15 mins

Drain and cool the eggs.

• At this point, quickly drain the hot water and run cold tap water over the eggs because they keep cooking as long as they are hot.

Egg Tips

• If the eggs are at least a week old, it will be easy to peal them as you hold them under a slow stream of cold tap water.
• Do not add salt to the water when you boil them.
• Its best to use eggs that are at least 3 or 4 days old , a week or more is even better.

Custard Tips

You can find many recipes for custard on the net and baking instructions, but this is the way I bake it. It does take a much longer time but I never get watery custard and never get bubbles in the custard from too much heat.

When I make egg custard, I'm very particular about the oven heat. I do not preheat the oven and only turn it on when the custard is ready for the oven.

I use a bit less of the sugar called for in the recipe and I use powdered milk. The vanilla gives it enough flavor that I never miss the whole milk.

• Do not preheat the oven and only turn it on when the custard is ready for the oven.
• Bake the custard in a Bain Marie, which means placing the dish with the custard mixture into a larger pan and add cold tap water so that it comes about inch up the sides of the dish.
• You will know when its done when the center still jiggles a bit.
• Remove the custard from the pan of water and let it cool.
• It will continue to cook enough to get firm.

Options

• use less sugar
• use powdered milk

Boiled Eggs

Large Eggs at least 3-4 days old.

Preparation

1. 1 layer eggs covered in tap cold water.
2. 8 minute water timer for boiling water. Start egg timer when the water actually starts to boil.
3. 12 minute egg timer for large eggs. Reduce heat to slow simmer.
4. Drain and run under cold water.

Hard Boiled Eggs

Tigranes' Messenger by KimB

There are those that will stand and tell the truth. They take the Risk of the Messenger. Edward Snowden is one of those to take the Risk of the Messenger.

While King Tigranes killed the first messenger and many feared to bring news of the battle to him, eventually one did tell him and was recognized for his courage.

The wrath of the US and World leaders against Edward Snowden cannot be denied. But Edward Snowden is not the only messenger, there have been others. Those others gave up lives, careers, freedom and held to their ideals and took the Risk of the Messenger too. Each in turn was slain by Tigranes the Public.

The public is often mislead about the actions and implementations of provisions by governments world wide to control their movements, ideas, knowledge and every aspect of their lives: the new form of electronic serfdom.

But like Tigranes the Great, we can recognize the bravery of those who take the Risk of the Messenger and acknowledge them for their courage. Tigranes the Great did wake up; he transcended many difficulties and outlived the majority of his rivals and those that betrayed him were punished: exiled or imprisoned.

Politics is always fluid but there are indications that Tigranes the Public is waking up to the war around them.

Eventually Mithrobazanes, one of Tigranes generals, told Tigranes of the Roman approach. Tigranes was so impressed by Mithrobazanes' courage that he appointed Mithrobazanes to command an army...

Killing the Messenger

On the evening of Wednesday, May 28, 2014, NBC television aired Brian Williams interview with Edward Snowden who publicized NSA's global surveillance of phone and Internet communications. The National Security Agency of the United States collects this data on the premise that we are being protected from 'terrorism'.

NBC invited watchers of the interview to vote on Twitter whether Snowden is a Patriot or Traitor. The result, after the time allowed for voting ended, was 61% for being a Patriot against 39% being a Traitor.

Snowden Twitter Graph
White = Patriot / Blue = Traitor

Using the Twitter approval graph as a guide, I expected panel discussions on TV about the legality of data collection by NSA, but instead, I heard only criticisms of Snowden as a law breaker.

History has examples of killing messengers; in Plutarch's Lives, Tigranes, Emperor of Armenia, decapitated the messenger bringing news of a surprise attack by Lucullus, a commander of the Roman Republic.

One doesn't have to reach back in history to know messengers live in peril. We have a recent example of how derision and scornful criticism can lead to the death of a messenger.

Gary Stephen Webb, (Aug 31, 1955 – Dec 10, 2004) was an American investigative reporter. He authored the 1996 series of articles called “Dark Alliance” for the San Jose Mercury News. In a 20,000 word, three part series, he documented the CIA's knowledge that Nicaraguan drug traffickers sold and distributed large shipments of crack cocaine in Los Angels during the 1980's and that the profits were used to fund CIA supported Nicaraguan Contras. He charged the Reagan administration with shielding inner-city drug dealers from prosecution in order to raise money for the Contras after Congress passed the Boland Amendment prohibiting direct Contra funding.

“Dark Alliance” gained national attention and was the most talked about journalism in 1996. Immediate denials emerged. Backlash against Webb and his story came from media manipulation by the government thru the largest newspapers, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, The Washington Post, and later, by the papers editors. Further details concerning publication, documentation, retractions and denials can be read on numerous internet sites and on Wikipedia pages.

Because of the controversy, San Jose Mercury News backed away from the story, ending Webb's career as a mainstream media journalist. Continued denunciation and harsh critical attacks resulted in Webb's inability to financially support his family. He committed suicide December 10, 2004.

Webb's story, his work and talent has been vindicated by researchers resulting in retractions by the same newspapers that had criticized him. In recognition of his talent, a movie, “Kill the Messenger”, a Peter Landesman screenplay, based on the “Dark Alliance” series, directed by Michael Cuesta, starring Jeremy Renner, is due to open in October 2014.

Is it possible that we Americans would rather kill a messenger than deal with the content of the information that Snowden brought us?

"The first messenger that gave notice of Lucullus' coming was so far from pleasing Tigranes that he had his head cut off for his pains; and no man daring to bring further information, without any intelligence at all, Tigranes sat while war was already blazing around him, giving ear only to those who flattered him...".

Plutarch's Lives

Propaganda

Propaganda

Noun: Propaganda is the systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

Noun: Material disseminated by the advocates or proponents of a cause or doctrine.

Propaganda is a form of communication used to influence attitudes of a population towards a cause or position. Propaganda appeals to emotion, not intellect. Propaganda is used by governments in public campaigns using the same techniques applied to advertising and public relations to sell a point of view or product.

By using images and words, classical conditioning is achieved by appealing to fear. The impartial message may lie by omission. If the message is outside the bounds of acceptance, the technique of exposing a more extreme position may lead to a moderating of reluctance and partial acceptance of the message, thus, allowing the population to slowly drift into full compliance and acceptance.

The continuance of data collection by the NSA, which violates the privacy of American citizens and is unconstitutional and is explained by the U S government's assertion that we are being protected from 'terrorism'.

How does that equate with the belief that an American citizen's personal privacy is sacrosanct?

"See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

President George W. Bush May 24, 2005

The Internet Part 3 by KimB

Back to the Cake Mix

Like any great recipe, the quality of ingredients, the order in which they are added, the way they are mixed, how it is baked all need to be done exactly the same way every time to get the same cake. Adding extra salt, changing the amount of baking powder, or flavoring, all change the cake and it's not the same cake as before. This is what will happen with the Internet and the NSA's surveillance will fail in it's current format.

For every layer in the cake, a simple change will break the Internet as it is today.

One of the many layers that is changing is described as Internet Balkanization or Splinternet, where various forms of sub-division will be implemented on the Internet. One way to understand how this will work is using the train tracks for analogy. Train tracks come in different widths called Track Gauge, when a train comes to a track using a different gauge, the train stops, the train cars are shifted onto a set of wheels matching the new track width or passengers have to move from one train to another, then everyone proceeds until they come to another track gauge change.

All countries have the ability to turn off the Internet at will. We can see this in the Middle East and other countries in conflict, when governments just turn the spigot off. This is a different method than Balkanization, where the Internet is completely severed. It doesn't last too long because businesses need to do, well, business.

Splinternets may be parallel Internets that would be run as distinct, private, and autonomous universes or have more “stop” in their “stop sign”, like the Great Firewall of China (Golden Shield Project). Some countries have already declared their intention to break off from the current set of “internet track gauge one size fits all” and move to their own. Brazil and Russia are two of the newest declarants of this process.

The common cry is “But... but... but... NOTHING will work!” And that's exactly right. It won't work … the way it is now. It won't be the same. It will be different. And all the NSA surveillance options on this layer of the cake using this ingredient will fail.

There are many more ingredients that will change too. This is only one of them. Each layer has a weakness that is exploited not just by the NSA but all malware developers. The NSA has a lot in common with malware developers and employ some of the best the FBI can arrest. The NSA with their internal cadre of malware developers and independent business malware developers, both will have to develop new techniques to exploit not just each item on the ingredient list and each layer but for each type, style, size and flavor of cake. That will take time and of course a lot more money. Their current investment will yield less and less over time. The echo effect of changes may accelerate changes in other aspects of the current system.

There will be a lot of gnashing of teeth and crying in the wilderness in the process. It won't be “fun”, it won't be “easy”. It will be “messy” and “nasty” and very “inconvenient”. It will take some time but like an avalanche, a small change can make a big heap of snow fall down the mountain. The NSA will try to influence all the changes, they will try to get “back doors” and “encryption keys” on demand. They will try with all their might to hold on to what they have.

Those of us in the USA may be subject to their demands and FISA warrants and secret courts (there are many) and ex parte legal proceedings and “wrong check boxes” being ticked on purpose, renditions and “enhanced interrogation” methods (by any other name known as torture), mourning the disappeared and all the other NSA activities disclosed not just by Edward Snowden but by whistleblowers all over the globe. The NSA maybe able to silence some but not all; not all the time and not forever.

The scope of the changes to the Internet is world wide and is already being implemented. Each change reveals more and more that The Emperor has No Clothes.

And like the story, in the end, The Emperor is Naked.


[Editor's note: This story is Part 3 of 3 and was written by KimB.]




Internet Connectivity Access Layer



Internet Connectivity Distribution Core

The Internet Part 2 by KimB

“The Emperor has No Clothes”.

The NSA and all of the other world's security services, are dependent on a simple requirement: That Nothing Change. A small change and their entire empire of surveillance collapses. So the NSA et al, will attempt to block changes but they control only a small part of the world, a very small part. Once a change is initiated elsewhere, it cascades through the system. Their job is to prevent changes at all costs.

The first change is:

The Internet was build on “trust” but it was never designed to be “secure” and it was never designed to be “securable”.

The great idea that we, the people of the world, could “trust” the Internet to perform our tasks was a laudable vision. I could “trust” that a email I sent to someone would get there auto-magically and without being intercepted and read along the way. I could “trust” that my personal information was secure and that no one without my authorization could see it.

Unfortunately, there were some who did not share in this view, both the NSA (as a catch all phrase for all world government surveillance organizations) and corporations took advantage of my “trust”. Some did ask for permission but hid what they were doing with the information or subtly changed or reworded their requests because they knew that few would willing agree to their ultimate goals, not even for free email.

Once you understand that the basis of Internet Trust cannot be recovered, then you have to look deeper into the technology to see all the places The Emperor has No Clothes. The changes won't be “fun” and they won't be “convenient” but they will happen, they are happening and they've been in progress for sometime because while the average person on the planet may not have been aware of the NSA data trawl, other governments certainly were and those governments are no longer going to Go Along To Get Along. The benefit to any government not on the NSA's “friends list” has expired.

Techie Talk Time
Warning eye-glazing-over information about to appear. Try to prop the eyelids open for a short period.

Everything in the Internet or any Computer System is based on a 7 layer cake called the OSI Model. This 7 layer cake defines exactly how your email gets from your PC to the Destination. It's applied to Big Iron like supercomputers as well as your cellphone or phablet. It's the recipe for how things happen, where and when.

Just like a cake, there's a time for mixing, there's a time for baking, there's a time for frosting. All the items go in order, every time, all the time. When it goes in order, according to the recipe out comes the Internet all nice and tasty, ready to eat, looking like “MORE!” as soon as you see it.

Within each of the 7 layers, are specialties. You may buy Organic Flour at the store, but the flour is milled and packaged by someone else, before that it was planted and harvested. There are many kinds of flours to select from. Each different and unique but all fitting within a particular layer.

The NSA has tinkered in every single layer of the cake recipe. There's no layer they have not compromised, accessed or exploited. Your Organic Flour is not Organic. The flour is not 100% wheat. The wheat did not come from a farm in Kansas as stated on the package but comes from an undisclosed location. There are GMOs in the flour and it has some additives not listed in the ingredients list too. In short, the flour is not at all what you thought it was and you won't be buying that brand again.

The same goes for every layer in the OSI Model. It's all tainted. The reason the NSA et al. were able to taint the layers, is because we “trusted” the Internet and “trusted” that other providers of each ingredient or component would be honest and do the best they could for their area. But clearly we were wrong in our trust.

The NSA made sure “we” didn't know, but many did know. The history of the Internet and the results of the exposés, showed that many did know what was going on but the NSA could easily overwhelm the their concerns with “You know nothing John Snow...” and submerge their true purposes by isolating and limiting the sources of information and using “Trust Me” answers.

[Editor's note: This story is Part 2 of 3 and was written by KimB.]

OSI 7 Layer Model