The NSA’s Own ‘6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon’

If the NSA is  harvesting data 2-3 points from everyone (and yes, they are), they have a map way more intricate that anything we could ever collect on our own. They know everything about everyone who has ever talked to anyone who has ever talked to anyone you have ever talked to. Think about that.

English: Kevin Bacon.

English: Kevin Bacon. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In perspective, 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon  only requires “a link” at  some point in two people’s lives, nothing more substantial than a name in the credits. Yet, the NSA is collecting data 3 people away from everyone for every communication or other ‘link’. Everyone.

Oh, I’m sure that  many  will interpret the phrase  “terrorist suspects” to mean only the  million or so people  on the public  terrorist watchlist, but that doesn’t actually include the other “suspects” such as those who support the Constitution – you know, like every law enforcement officer, military member and duly elected representative in America is sworn to do.

Do you bank at BofA, where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev of the recent Boston Bombings  also banks? That’s a “link.”

Do you use Facebook, where there are literally dozens of Al Qaeda affiliated groups? That’s a “link.”

Have you visited Twitter or Youtube, where the digital terror group (if you accept the FBI’s terminology)  ‘Anonymous’ shares information about their activities? That’s a “link,” too.

Or, admittedly my favorite example, did you vote for President Barack Obama, who has provided weapons to militant terrorists abroad  and personally signed off on the sale of guns used in well over 200 Mexican murders? That’s a “link.”

Oh, did you think you had to have actual contact with these people in order for it to count? Bah. Clearly you’re not familiar with how the law is abused in America today. Each time someone tells me I’m blowing things out of proportion with my pessimistic view of government, I send them the following links:

I read an article yesterday from the NY Daily News that tried so very hard to dispel the theory that the NSA is the American Stasi. His reasoning is perfectly sound, as long as you are willing to bury your head in the ground and believe every lie told to you.

The Stasi only wishes they had the ability to track and record every single movement and communication, along with legal authority to ‘disappear you‘ without judicial oversight. Where the Stasi  failed, our government has not only succeeded, but excelled. Why stop with targeting of those who are actually intending to do ill – heck, even after multiple warnings the Boston Marathon will never be the same. Meanwhile, Shia LeBeouf tells it like it was…OVER FIVE YEARS AGO:

Surely they don’t think the ever-goofy Shia is a terrorist? Must be the hair, right? Are you fed up yet?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Earth Fare’s Boot Challenge

This morning on Facebook I saw a coupon for a chocolate bar exchange, Earth Fare called it, “Take the Boot Challenge.”

They asked, “How much do you know about the food you’re eating and the wellness products you’re using daily? Come back every month for a new Boot Challenge!  Which chocolate bar, based on its ingredients, would you boot.”  Well, I got really excited, until I read the ingredient list…

earth-fare

MYSTERY CHOCOLATE BAR A

Ingredients:Milk Chocolate (Chocolate Liquor, Milk, Unbleached Water-Filtered Beet Sugar, Cocoa Butter, Lactose, Soy Lecithin, Vanilla).

MYSTERY CHOCOLATE BAR B

Ingredients:Sugar, Chocolate, Cocoa Butter, Cocoa Processed with Alkali, Milk Fat, Lactose, Soy Lecithin, PGPR, Vanillin, Artificial Flavor, Milk.

That’s when things got interesting… So, I posted to Earth Fare’s Facebook page:

“I was excited to see your coupon for the candy bar exchange, that is until I saw the ingredient list… Your chocolate bar might be “healthier,” but it still has GMO in it. So, it’s not HEALTHY.”

Earth Fare: Which ingredient are you referring to? These bars contain no known GMOs….

Annette M. Hall: got a link? I can’t find it.

Earth Fare:  You’re referring to the Boot Challenge, correct?
http://www.earthfare.com/EarthFareVersion2/Home/What-You-Eat/TheBootChallenge.aspx

Annette M. Hall: Filtered Beet Sugar – it’s my understanding that most beet sugar is GMO and Soy Lecithin. Neither of these say they used organic materials.

A chocolate bar exhibiting chocolate bloom (li...

A chocolate bar exhibiting chocolate bloom

Earth Fare: Since GMOs are not labeled there is no way to tell for sure if it contains GMOs or not. Unfortunately we can only read what is on the label. On that note, we are all for the labeling of GMOs and encourage all of our customers to contact their local government about the labeling of GMOs. I’ll pass along your concern to our grocery team so they can do some more research.

Annette M. Hall: Thank you!

Amy Scott-Lundy: Is the boot challenge coupon still good?

Annette M. Hall:  Yes, it’s still good but be aware this item does contain GMO.

Genetically modified sugar beets make up 95 percent of the crop in the U.S. Farmers who grow sugar beets say there isn’t enough conventional sugar beet seed around anymore, and they no longer have the field equipment necessary to clear weeds from their fields. — NPR

Earth Fare: You can’t say for sure that it contains GMOs. If we knew for sure it would NOT be on our shelves. Thanks!

Annette M. Hall: I can tell you, it has GMO ingredients.

Earth Fare: Haha – ok Maybe you should come work for us and tell us about all the other non-labeled GMOs in our store!

Annette M. Hall: I’m sorry, either it is organic or NOT and I’ve been doing my homework. I am not going to lie for you or anyone. sugar beets – GMO Soy Lecithin – GMO Sorry. [Non GMO Project – Verified Products]

gmo

Earth Fare: Actually, to call something “organic” it only has to be 95% organic…so technically even some organic items could contain GMOs. That’s why it’s a problem.

Annette M. Hall: While 95% may be the “legal” definition of organic, it certainly isn’t the “moral” definition – and any company who values the organic market would do well to remember that.

This is a problem for me.

Obviously, I’m not going to buy any of Earth Fare’s products, because “You can’t say for sure that it contains GMOs.”

This is the attitude they have, oh well, sorry, “to call something “organic” it only has to be 95% organic.”

That’s NOT good enough!

I actually, stopped every girl scout I saw out selling girl scout cookies.  I told them, I’m sorry, but they have GMO in them.  I can’t eat them, without getting sick. I guess I’m just supposed to go hungry.  I’ll write more about my medical issues tomorrow.  You won’t believe it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Ron Paul’s position on marriage

Esther Horner Roorda has a good defense for the marriage issue:

“While it’s true that RP doesn’t support a constitutional amendment defining marriage, Ron Paul does defend traditional marriage (he defends the Defense of Marriage Act for example) in the same way that he defends a pro-life stance. But as with the abortion issue, it is his approach that is different, not his resolve.

National Organization for Marriage
Image via Wikipedia

His approach is to recognize that the more we empower the federal government to weigh in on this issue, the more likely it is that they will impose a definition of marriage on everybody that we Christians cannot accept. Marriage is defined by God.

The federalists underestimated the nature of power. Patrick Henry and others were correct when they opposed them; and when they predicted this vast federal intrusion on all sorts of issues. Localized power is always a more transformative power, since it has the greater capacity to change the mind of the people.

Local churches and institutions can carry greater influence on local governments. Dr. Paul’s point is similar to his point about life: this is not about allowing states to act as they please, but rather allowing states to reclaim their rights to outlaw abortion and same-sex marriage. Granted that not all states would do so, but a vast majority would in my estimation. A Paul presidency would embolden states like South Carolina to act morally and biblically correct. Never forget that that the mind must be changed, before the law can be changed.

Also, it’s worth noting that seven years ago Ron Paul introduced a Marriage Protection Act that would have greatly reduced the courts power over the marriage issue and possibly spared many states from judicial activism on this issue. But because some people want a constitutional amendment, or nothing, we got nothing. Constitutional amendments are VERY hard to pass and with the current sexually permissive attitudes in the US it is unlikely a constitutional marriage amendment would ever become law.

I personally think it’s better to fight on the fronts where we actually have a chance of winning, which would be at the state level. Personally, I think the National Organization for Marriage organization has slandered Ron Paul. I will charitably hope it was done out of ignorance or misunderstanding rather than malice.”

David A Read adds:

“Government is always a two edged sword. If we give it the power to legislate what is right, it will then have the power to also legislate what is wrong. I fear that a majority of “evangelical Christians” entirely miss this point. They wish to usher in God’s righteousness through the legislature, though they should really be aware that such has NEVER happened in all of history, and is certainly not going to start happening now. A weak central government is the best condition for good to be advanced in the world.”

Enhanced by Zemanta