25 December 2020

The Jesus of Christmas 2020 - Radical or Revolutionary?

My perspective of Jesus' life and the various organized religion denominations collectively referred to as Christianity, differs from that of many.

Although it is possible to understand the well-intended thought process associated with labeling Jesus as a "radical", imho, that label misses the mark by labeling him in the way "the enemy" chose.  Because words have power, I experience it is a semantic difference associated with the connotative and denotative meaning of words in the English language. 

It is difficult to deny that the English word "radical" has earned a reputation of being closely associate with violent anarchy.  For that reason the label of "revolutionary", more precisely "spiritual revolutionary" seems much more fitting as a way to describe the historical Jesus.

As a Jewish friend reminded, Jesus was born and raised in Occupied Palestine, so although he was labeled as a dangerous vocal rabble rouser who threatened the political aspirations of the occupiers, Jesus is not known to have advocated resorting to violence in response to those who feared the success of non-violent spiritual resistance; that hardly seems "radical" and riotously reactionary.

When an understanding of the purpose of Jesus' life moves beyond the obstacle of it being primarily defined in terms of the political environment of place and time in Palestine, which aimed to limit that purpose and the breadth and depth of his work, then the revolutionary concept of collectively overcoming through spiritual transformation at the individual level, seems much more clear.

I suggest it remains a revolutionary concept when first recognized by all who choose to take the path of spiritual transformation in life.  Only dictatorial occupiers would consider those who choose to live their lives in ways that empower spiritual evolution, to be ill-intended reactionary radical "threats".  History repeatedly demonstrates that the political intent at the time backfired, and continued to when it intended to silence recognition and teaching about the concept of spiritual evolution through an organized collusive effort to first victimize an outspoken leader whose life's work was to promote individual and collective spiritual evolution, then targeted later leaders under the banner of Christianity, as martyrs also.

Whatever the combination of fact and mythology about Jesus' life at the basis of each denomination of Christianity, altogether it becomes a collective cultural history of Christianity that, as intended, leads to individuals recognizing the concept of personal and collective spiritual transformation.  Although the unfortunate politicalization of organized religions has popularized the concept within Christian denominations that only the Christian approach to teaching about spiritual evolution is valid, what Jesus taught neither negates nor limits earlier and later effective approaches to understanding and teaching about spiritual evolution.

One does not need to embrace Christian theology, in general, or the religious tenants of any specific Christian denomination to be able to appreciate, love, and respect the work that is attributed to Jesus as an outspoken advocate and leader of spiritual evolution in time and place as his purpose for living.  And that purpose, friends, remains a revolutionary concept of personal discovery, regardless of one's religion or lack thereof.

19 December 2020

What We Still Need To Know About mRNA Vaccines

If anyone else is uncomfortable about the lack of transparency regarding the vaccines, here is a very brief definition  that informs about mRNA, i.e. Messenger RNA, which has been synthetically created to create functional vaccines that genetically engineer the DNA of everyone who is inoculated.  At least that is what can be understood from learning basic elementary information about mRNA and how it is used in vaccines.

Personally, this eases my mind - some, but not enough to continue to stop being very dubious about the end result of the debacle that was 2020 - covid-19 vaccines.  There are still too many questions to feel comfortable about the intense pressure to be vaccinated.

The definition states that mRNA is "one of the types of RNA" . . . and mentions "this particular" type of RNA.

That information, alone, is way too vague and leaves room for too many possible assumptions.  Granted I am not a Biologist, and have never had an interest in biology so am one of the most uninformed people about the subject of biology.  Even so it is very clear to me, as one of the most uninformed, that we are lacking in basic information about mRNA which everyone is capable of understanding if presented.  So, questions arise:

1) So not all RNA is "messenger" RNA, as the statement seems to be saying?

) IF
mRNA it is the ONLY "messenger" RNA, then wouldn't it carry all messages to our DNA?

3) IF mRNA is the ONLY "messenger" RNA, then when mRNA is bioengineered how do we know what effect it has on all the rest of the messages that are carried to DNA, given that everything is interrelated and interdependent?

MOST importantly the definition states: "in general, one gene, the DNA for one gene, can be transcribed into an mRNA molecule that will end up making one specific protein."  And the accompanying article seems to be saying a "synthetic mRNA that codes" for an additional protein is being inserted into a specific gene.  So, again, questions arise.

1) Which gene is being bioengineered, and what else does the gene do - what are its other functions?

2) How do we know what effect that gene has on all the rest of our DNA - especially when it is altered through bioengineering and changes how everything that gene does is interrelated and interdependent in ways that either no one knows, or is not revealing.

3) Next generation does it turn everyone's hair green, or everyone's eyes purple?  In other words has a seemingly healthy child been born whose parents were vaccinated before conception?  This question is not as silly as it may seem.

Inquiring minds need to know - that means more detailed, basic, information should be readily available as part of news reports, provided for all, especially because the vaccine is being pushed so hard and fast - with only minimal descriptive information other than labeling it as an "mRNA" vaccine.  

If the answers are NOT known, then we all deserve to be honestly told.  Scientists probably have a non-disclosure agreement, so pharmaceutical companies need to stop trying to play "God" (so do scientists and so do governments) when it comes to what we do NOT know about what else the additional protein does to our DNA and its long term effects.

Brief definition of mRNA:  Messenger RNA (mRNA)

A little more clarity about how mRNA is used in vaccines:  COVID-19 Vaccination - What Is Messenger RNA?

15 November 2020

The Fourth Estate Is Not What It Once Was

 On a friend's Facebook post, today, I read a comment about the media wanting to convince people that "half the U.S.A. wants socialism/communism/anarchy".  I agree with that comment about the media, but consider it to be only half of what the media is doing.

I agree that the media no longer makes a priority of functioning as the fourth estate to serve we the people and our freedoms.  It is totally bought off by advertisers, primarily in the form of corporate conglomerates who also work diligently to dictate to government in the form of the lobbies they create intended for that purpose.

Where my opinion differs from the comment I read is that the media is also at work trying to convince people that half the country wants lock-step Fascism, all the while fanning the flames of anarchy by glorifying riotous violent behavior due to all the coverage it is given.

I suggest that at least since 2000 there have been very obvious active efforts to force binary political extremism as political choices of we the people, by "bad actors" who want to define  every issue and candidate within those unacceptable parameters.  It seems much more obvious than in decades  past.  Since that time total package dictatorial governments under the auspices of the political  ideologies of Communism and Fascism have frequently been called on symbolically, and openly spoken of boldly as opposite extremes from which we have to choose, with labeling of the right as Fascist by the left,  and the left as Communist by the right.  It is an effort to replace liberal with left and conservative with right; right being  used as "code" for Fascist and left for Communist by those who are attracted to the extremism of one or the other.  

In actuality and symbolically both Communism and Fascism are manifestations of dictatorial political extremism to which people have reacted with riotous violence, which is often perceived as a desire the participants have for anarchy.  The behavior more realistically indicates a desire for autonomy as individuals within a system of government that is not a dictatorship.  It is what can happen when people do not use the rights with which they are empowered to be civically active for the purpose of continuing to maintain their freedoms.  

When people say "freedom ain't free" it is not only about serving in the military or running for office and doing the best job possible if elected.  It also means taking responsibility as a citizen to educate oneself about the issues and speaking up; voting; advising those who are elected and appointed to office, all for the purpose of working to maintain the freedoms with which we are empowered.

The same "forces" to which media is kowtowing ("foreign actors" or not) are hell-bent on trying to redefine our constitutional democratic republic in U.S.A. as a "capitalist political system",  base on  the way they use the term "capitalism".   However, capitalism is not the  political ideology nor the political system of the U.S.A.  It is merely a descriptive word associated with the way in which any nation's economy might function in an overly controlling way, be it completely government managed, free enterprise, or  some sort of hybrid of the two.  

Use of the word capitalism should not be suggesting a political ideology as a complete system of government which is how it if most often used when it is intended to malign the US.A. government.  It should, instead, be suggesting the dangers of monopolies, against which we have laws in U.S.A.  It also should be suggesting  the worse dangers of corporate conglomerates since they too are monopolies which are currently outside of the laws pertaining to monopolies - only because of a difference in how they are defined.  That difference was created solely for the purpose of putting them outside of laws pertaining to monopolies.  That is referred to as corruption because the  corporate conglomerates are doing the damage that laws pertaining to monopolies were intended to prevent, all the while protected from anti-monopoly laws being applied to them.  That danger from monopolies using the label of corporate conglomerates could be described as capitalism - that being  the damage that corporate conglomerates do in their efforts to manage governments and the citizenry of a nation.  

I suggest those same forces who are trying to redefine our system of government as something it is not, are people who are subjected to a system of political ideology, themselves, which is a total dictatorship government as a non-negotiable political system/religion or no religion system/economic system - a complete package deal; a system of government that requires  violence to overthrow it, since those subjected  to it are not empowered to change it in peaceful ways.

That is quite the opposite of a nation which  states the government is based on the consent of the governed, where there is 1) no required political ideology; 2) no required system of religion or nonreligion, and; 3) no required economic system.  Not one of these, not two of these, not all three are part of the system of government or dictated by the system of government in U.S.A.

Fact is when capitalism is used as a descriptor to malign the U.S.A., it is intended to infer a "capitalist political ideology", meaning it is superimposed as a total package government ideology that includes a political system, a religion or no religion system, and an economic system.  However that does not exist in the U.S.A. no matter what word people might want to use to suggest that it does.  Capitalism is nonexistent as a political system in U.S.A., except in the imagination of propagandists who can not see beyond the dictatorial system of government to which they themselves are subjected, or those who are enthralled by those political ideologies without having experienced the damage of their dictatorial governments.

Whether the pushers of dictatorship who want to redefine government in U.S.A. are "foreign actors", immigrants who do not give up trying to superimpose the type of government of the nations they left, or U.S. citizens who think Marxism, Maoism, Nazism as ideological political systems are "cool", the pushers are certainly not representative of collective U.S.A. citizenry.  At best the well known political ideologies of Marxism, Maoism, Nazism could be considered to be "philosophies" - political philosophies that do not function well on behalf of a nation's population when superimposed as dictatorial forms of government.

The dangers of corporate  conglomerates are visible in the glaring harsh ways they dictate to media through advertising, not advertising, and withdrawing advertising as a way to manipulate what is broadcast by media outlets.  Fact is most media outlets are part of corporate conglomerates.  So media will be doing their bidding along with that of whatever businesses they encourage or allow to purchase advertising time on their outlets, whether those businesses are part of their media conglomerate or not. 

The same situation is apparently selectively blinding to many in the ways that corporate conglomerates dictate to government.  They want to have more influence in government than we, the people are empowered to have which, again, is why anti-monopoly laws were originally enacted.  Unfortunately media outlets do not shine a light on that as they increasingly become outlets for relentless propaganda intended to both create public opinion and sway public opinion.  The desired opinion creating and swaying is often the result of what corporate conglomerate's lobbies and government, together, agree to promote as public opinion.

The dangers of monopolies, including in the form of corporate conglomerates, including the individual corporations with their "personhood" that populate the conglomerates of which they are part, must be recognized and remedied so that undue influence is reigned in, so that laws against monopolies also apply to corporate conglomerates; so that neither is any longer allowed to dictate to government and by doing so compete with the rights of we the people, who consent to being self-governing, collectively.  We have never consented to, nor are we required to consent to being governed indirectly through our own government by the lust corporate conglomerates have for increasing their net-worth by any means possible.

25 August 2020

Crazy Because of Choosing Clean Eating? Really? What Next!

"The term orthorexia describes an obsession with “clean eating” that has started to cause significant distress by dominating someone’s daily life. There is growing expert consensus on what orthorexia looks like and the dangerous impact it can have on both adults and kids. Orthorexia is a “form of disordered eating” and parents should take it seriously."

This comment almost lead me to close the tab and not read the rest of the article because of what it infers and does not say.  

So I must first say, lest there be misunderstanding, that I am primarily concerned with clean eating being equated to the use of a new term for a newly designated mental condition of orthoexia that is considered to be part of the food disorder family of mental conditions.  The fact is that the article does go on to present good advice about how to raise children who are not encouraged, allowed, or inadvertently taught to be finicky eaters, including because of the way parents model food choices.  

Of course, I have some thoughts about exactly what is said, and I imagine other folks might have, also.  Granted, and being transparent, it was a link entitled "helping veterans raise kids who are are not afraid eating" which apparently is about adults there is desire to  label as having a newly designated eating disorder: orthorexia, which is equated to "clean eating".  The problem, of course is equating a mental disorder with clean eating.

Who exactly has made that decision?  Inquiring minds need to know because the first problem that jumps out at anyone is that an eating disorder that would be referred to as a mental problem would need to first be diagnosed as an obsession.  And the fact is that the way the comment is made it is being suggested that "clean eating" is an obsession because of creating a mental condition name for it that equates it with an obsessive food disorder.   And as much as I do not want to say it, being a veteran myself, one must wonder if there have been a number of complaints from service members of a spouse  becoming interested in clean eating which the SM finds inconvenient and does not support.  For that reason there needs to be a detailed explanation of just exactly how orthorexia is described so it is NOT mixed up with and equated to people who choose clean eating  - because we all have a right to make healthy choices for ourselves.  

Take away:  Because of equating orthorexia  with "clean eating", the folks who give names to what are newly designated mental disorders, most likely need a block of instruction about what actually constitutes "clean eating" from people who make that choice and deserve better than to be labeled as mental cases because of that choice.

from the VHA

22 June 2020

The American People and the American Police

There is an article at the Mondoweiss website that is long and worth reading. It is not an easy read, but it is a necessary read:  Israelizing the American Police, Palestinianizing the American People, by Jeff Halper*.  The title says it all, actually.  I encourage it as a "must read" article but it will not be easy.  However, understanding the background it provides is vital for understanding what seems to be a collection of insurmountable obstacles plaguing our nation (pun not intended but it fits).

Although it may seem so, this is not an article that is putting all the blame for U.S.A. wrong-doing on Israel.  But U.S.A. could not do what it does without Israel.  Read on, and you will better understand.

As an American I was "Palestinized" in numerous ways many decades ago which is why I have been pushing back against the "Iraelizing" of our government, since. Of course it also woke me up to injustice in general, and my responsibility to understand how to prevent it in my own nation and elsewhere too, especially when our nation is causing it or supporting it. Standing up to injustice . . .  and living - it is NOT a one man or one woman job, for damned sure!

The Israelizing of our nation has been very publicly showing up in the past several years (for those who were not paying attention to the Middle East until after 9/11).  It seems most evident in the criminal behavior of some in our U.S.A. police forces who get themselves and their entire force in trouble. In earlier decades U.S.A. police were shipped to Israel to be trained. In more recent decades the training is done by Israel in U.S.A., also, or instead, sometimes locally, so an entire police force can be trained. Many may be unaware of that.  Also most of the training is financed by U.S.A. military aid to Israel, from the funds promised in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement between U.S.A. and Israel every 10 years, which provides for well over $40 Billion U.S.A. military aid to Israel every time the agreement is renewed. 

We see some of the most obvious results of U.S.A. military aid to Israel showing up in the militarization of our own police forces, nationwide, which as Halper says is part of the process of creating "the American Security State" with Israel as the model.  The MOU demands that a certain amount of those funds to Israel be invested in military related U.S.A. products and services.  Two examples would be the purchasing of aircraft, and providing militarized training to U.S.A. police forces.  The percentage of the MOU not required to be used on American products and services for Israel's military use, can be put to "military use" in Israel.  But "military use" is interpreted differently in a militarized nation because defense forces, occupation forces, law enforcement, and the population, are all dedicated to the security of a militarized nation which Israel is and has been since 1948.  So any use to which "military aid" is put in Israel is considered to be for "security" - which nine times out of 10 ends up harming Palestinian population in the occupied territories or building housing for immigrants to Israel in Palestinian territory which international law makes illegal. Both Israel and U.S.A. are signatory to agreeing to international law, yet Israel violates it and U.S.A. finances the violating.  Something is very wrong with that picture, but it is fact, none the less.

Jeff Halper's long Mondoweiss article needs to be read. For those concerned about police officers who are committing criminal acts, and worse getting away with it, this article is background - the big picture of how that evolved.  More precisely  how that increased and became more wide-spread, as well as becoming  public knowledge, particularly since the turn of the most recent century - which shows U.S.A. on the way to becoming a "security state".  Divide and conquer is always how the game progresses, and "security" is the name of the game from which, together all the turmoil arises.  Beware.

If you are not already familiar with any of the history in the Mondoweiss article then it will not be an easy read. It is not easy even for those who are already familiar with some or most of the aspects of the big picture that is presents.

However, the understanding provided can shine a light on the way forward, but it requires warrior souls, committed to non-violence. The collective well-orchestrated interrelated dilemmas with which we are all confronted - "the obstacle" - is a dangerous weapon that has gone undetected by too many for too long . . . and it is not painless to learn about it, though much less painful than loosing all of our freedoms if we do not choose to educate ourselves and be responsible citizens who use the rights properly with which we are empowered to "persuade" all aspects of government at all levels, to do right by us - the American people.

As the article makes clear, Israel can can not be blamed for U.S.A. wrong-doing. U.S.A. efforts to move towards dictatorship are responsible.  Governments everywhere will try to do so unless the citizens are empowered by law to stop that from happening. And we, the people are responsible too, for not realizing that is something all governments eventually try to do, at first, in ways that are not noticeable.  They only become emboldened when they succeed at the unnoticeable erosion of our legal rights.  Some of the ways we miss what would otherwise be noticeable can be due to crises being magnified (whether manufactured or real) the intent being to redirect our attention away from government sleight-of-hand wrong-doing so that our attention is consumed with whatever crisis is looming that saturates the media 24/7, and in some cases the lives of most.  This is not our first rodeo as a nation in that respect, but you wouldn't know it.  "Fool me once shame on you.  Fool me twice shame on me", pertains.  Be aware of government policies there are efforts to advance or roll-back when the nation is in crisis. 

The way in which our Constitution was crafted informs us of the danger of government trying to move towards dictatorship, because of the protections and rights with which it empowers us.  However, we are empowered IF and ONLY IF we, collectively, use our protections and rights as we are supposed to do to prevent government from becoming dictatorial.  It's known as collective "self-government" and requires a lot more participation then only voting.  We never know how vital self-governing  is and how much responsibility for it belongs to each and every one of us, until there is danger that confronts everyone. That is a reason we want to elect Representatives and Senators who want to advocate for what their constituents need and want, rather than people who kow-tow to the highest bidder which is not always party politics but instead sometimes, illegally, the wishes of a foreign nation, any and all foreign nations, instead of we, the people  People who do that really do not belong in office representing our wishes, which they do not do.  There is a word for people who do that which some may know.

Israel does play a big part in the dilemma's of the U.S.A. because U.S.A. has empowered Israel to do so - a classic "vicious circle" situation.  The U.S.A. empowering Israel's criminality, is returned in kind by Israel supporting U.S.A. efforts to move in the same direction of government control and abuse (by labeling it "security") as the Israeli government started out with in modern times when political zionist terrorist groups orchestrated attacks on Palestinian villages, massacring the Palestinian people who did not leave - then in 1948 declared all the land of the Palestinian people to be the nation of Israel.  Perhaps the easiest way to truly understand the relationship is to consider that  if U.S.A. and Israel were children in elementary school, we would keep them away from one another because they each influence one another to be increasingly naughty - daring one another toward dangerous collusive ends, type of naughty.  Anyone who does not already understand the meaning of "Israelizing the American police" and "Palestinianizing the American people" will understand after reading the recent history presented by Jeff Halper in his  Mondoweiss article which is vital, at this juncture, for all to know and understand.

*About the author.

22 May 2020

Sickle Cell Anemia, Aplastic Crisis, Aplastic Anemia and a Virus

Bone Marrow Diseases (AA&MDSIF designation) Awareness Ribbon
I had a younger cousin who, when we were barely entering teen years, lost a gallant battle with aplastic anemia that had lasted a few very long years.  His father being in the Navy from which he eventually retired, the Navy covered the cost of treatment which included increasingly long hospital stays.  Ronnie was kept aprised and knew as much about his condition and treatment as the team treating him, more in some cases associated with the specific hospital care he required.  He was going to be a physician if he lived.  I still vividly recall the day of our Grandfather's funeral when all of us cousins took a walk to Grandpa's woods and sat around quietly on stumps for a while, in reverie, before returning to the house.  Ronnie broke the silence, calmy and quietly stating that he was going to die - and did approximately nine months later.

After nearly 40 years in which we never spoke of Ronnie, his brother finally talked to me about him.  The illness and loss had caused deep sorrow in the entire extended family.  He told me that the protocol created to treat his brother eventually resulted in the first successful effort to prevent a patient's death from Aplastic Anemia.  He also said Ronnie's medical records are still studied by medical students and fill up an entire room.  Additionally, he said that flexible IV containers were created to replace the bottles, initially, because of the demands of Ronnie's treatment.  Ronnie had needed  numerous and repeated blood transfusions for two years. 

My cousin finally seemed at peace with that part of his life that had been a widely share grief.  And it was an amount of closure for me.  Even though Ronnie did not live to become a physician, that he had more or less been the successful "test case" at the center of and focus of a team which finally created a successful treatment,  means that because of the suffering he endured which caused extensive grief for so many including those who studied the case and treated him, people have since been able to regain their health from a condition patients did not recover from in the past.  Until then I had only known that Ronnie had been treated at a Spokane Hospital (Sacred Heart, where my life had be spared, twice before age 2 1/2), and that the Navy and covered the cost of treatment.  In later years I learned that Walter Reed Army Hospital had become renown for treating Aplastic Anemia.

Additionally, until I read this relative short article a few months ago,"Aplastic Crisis", I was unaware in what ways Aplastic Anemia is connected to and similar to Sickle Cell Anemia, other than both being blood disorders.  It looks like they are very closely connected, even though they are each a result of differing causes.  It looks like Sickle Cell can be exacerbated by a virus, and that a virus could be the cause of Aplastic Anemia which, from what the article, says seems to be a permanent aplastic crisis that does not resolve on its own and then requires much more complex treatment. The article states that what causes an aplastic crisis is usually a virus, commonly Parvovirus B19, but that "other viruses besides parvovirus can cause an aplastic crisis."  The article makes the connection clear - at least clear enough for me have learned more - enough more to have new questions in place of the long-term old questions. 

Apparently a temporary "aplastic crisis" is a HUGE problem for folks with sickle cell anemia.  This article provides insight into the problem of an aplastic crisis.  Given the fact that people without Sickle Cell can also experience an aplastic crisis, and the fact that  a virus can create problems for people with Sickle Cell by causing an aplastic crisis, it seems possible to deduce that a virus can induce an aplastic crisis in anyone, in conditions where the immune system has been weakened, whether or not a person has Sickle Cell.  It may even be possible to extrapolate that long term effects of a virus being present could cause a condition of permanent aplastic crisis in anyone, or something like it perhaps in those with Sickle Cell who would suffer from the problem much sooner than most. 

Labeling of the medical condition as "Aplastic Anemia" suggests, to me at least, that it could be considered a permanent aplastic crisis.  Like Aplastic Anemia a permanent aplastic crisis would require much more complex and extensive treatment efforts to  attempt to undo the damage and restart the normal bodily processes which create healthy red blood cells.  I do not know if the protocol that was a result of my cousin's condition can be and is used, in some revision or another, for extreme cases of Sickle Cell, but it seems reasonable to imagine so, depending on the severity of the Sickle Cell case, that it would be and has been, whether or not there has been an episode of aplastic crisis from which a person with Sickle Cell has recovered.

That this came to my attention in current time and place several months ago, connecting it to current issues seems called for even though "a virus" is ubiquitous terminology.  Even so, it suggest to me that it would be wise for the medical field, for everyone, actually, to be vigilant about the possibility of unexpected "novel corona virus", CoVid-19, side-effects, some of which seem to already be more common in children.  In the "better safe than sorry" category, seems to me it would be advisable to be vigilant about the possibility of aplastic crisis as a later side effect of Covid-19, in some, especially in those who may be more immunocompromised at times - thus more at risk - like people with Sickle Cell Anemia.

15 May 2020

2020 Hindsight and Foresight

Wondering how many other folks are tired of feeling like we are all living as test subjects in a medical school experiment in cahoots with the psychology folks' experiments (emotions causing psychosomatic illnesses) - individuals in both demographics cooperating (in some cases unbeknownst) with government's efforts to try to create dictatorial tyranny in nations where it does not already exist.  That seems the intended outcome of diligently using all forms of media to create confusion for everyone about causes and effects of CoVid-19 which cavalierly has lead to a lot of victims as collateral damage due to ill intended chaos which has spawned unavoidable incompetence. "Victims" because people, rightfully so, are not willing to be self-sacrificial at the altar of obvious corruption. The motives of the efforts?  Apparently they are personal gain, and support of personal gain for all those who enable the incompetence and ill-intent which more or less have been having the effect of feeling like concentrated efforts from many directions to create dictatorship since the start of the year.  How else can the well planned chaotic unpreparedness that has been intent on creating cognitive dissonance in as many people as possible, be interpreted?

That method is an effective way to wear down entire populations of people so that their day to day struggles eclipse, as a  priority, their recognition of what looks like and feels like contradictory and bungling efforts to create tyranny - the corrupt bungling not being as obvious when people are a captive audience focused on survival issues, due to circumstances.  Fact is that many of us had parents and/or grandparents who taught us about these types of corruption as hallmark efforts which resulted in destruction of the economy and lead to WWII.  Perhaps all war (whether one-sided, two-sided, or world-wide) is a result of similar efforts of people in government with dictatorial intent to build empires at cost of entire populations of people - their own and those in other nations they want to occupy and colonize.

Where is this leading?  Well, only partly to wondering if other folks were sent e-mail from census.gov asking covid questions "for statistical purposes"; questions inquiring about emotional states associated with income being interrupted, worry about not being able to pay bills, needed products not being available, food insecurity,  negative feelings of depression, hopelessness etc.   So why has census.gov been tasked to do this - an added task in a census year?  Why not at least wait until the end of 2020?  After all, when we make time to pay attention, timing can be everything!  Is it an effort to try to understand how successful the unreasonable facsimile year of 2020 has been, so far?  An effort to have statistical results ready by the end of June which is only half way through the year?  Are results intended to dictate revisions to the path forward for those who have so egregiously conjoured up the schedules of events for 2020? 

Does it help to know this is not the first rodeo for many of us; to know that we have reasons for well-founded suspicions associated with the intent of obvious corruption - obvious even without the substantiating facts which time will reveal?

28 April 2020


When there are red flags about anything, and in this case plenty of them are associated with the Covid-19 virus, then I am always going to suspect wrong-doing; more precisely suspect that ill-intended research and development people are responsible but also are dependent for their success on cowards willing to lie, cheat, and steal, and do whatever else is demanded of them from those who finance them (in their world those who "own" them) while requiring them to protect wrong-doing.  Very possibly some are cowards because of trying to protect their incomes (the norm), and bottom line their lives (the norm for those with more foresight).  After all, who can forget the original Covid-19 "whistle-blower" ended up dead?

One HUGE red flag, given the collective knowledge of the entire modern medical field supposedly working together on understanding and protecting people from the virus, is that it is being so collectively obtuse.  Clearly it is an effort to try to get a lot of different stories straight, like a competition about the sheet of music that everyone is trying to agree on as "the virus story" that also protects wrong-doing.  (So far that sheet of music is head-banging unharmonious cacophony when we need classic harmonic skilled orchestration.) The medical field, getting their act together in the way it has being doing, creates confusion and fear, and a lack of confidence in those who many may still trust.  Clearly, the confusion being created seems way too "convenient" to be real.  It is too disparate to not be intentional. 

Keep in mind that playing dumb is a ploy used by fairly brilliant people who actually are unethical cowards who have been given permission to criminally violate the law, or worse have been ordered to do so, and have not said "no" to that evil when they should have.  Their gambling "tell"?  When such folks have been working long and hard to convince the world how brilliant they are, which is intended to and supposed to confer our trust in them, then creating asinine confusion about something anyone with common sense and foresight can see through, is actually their downfall.  It's how they are found out. 

Though the problem is obvious the public is expected to get in line and trust "modern medicine" . . .  for its brilliance . . .  and those who practice it when the way it is practiced is based on profit driven regulations; when the "dumb" act is being over-played and it is obvious that neither the public nor decent folks in the field of medicine know who is calling the shots that are driven by profit and control outside of the medical field - other than NOT those who know the real story?

Not asking questions is for the cowardly whose primary fear is income insecurity.  Clearly the jig the public is dancing to, with a lot of help from media, is profit and control driven.  And medical people are provided plenty of profit in exchange for their complicity, even when they never know with what or with whose evil they are complying.  Classic plausible deniability drives the various segments of the industry (yes, the illness industry given that actual healing is NOT an industry but a divine calling that can not be regulated). No one sector really knows what the other sectors are being bought off to promote, and to NOT do to actually heal people, when it does not pay well. 

Do not misunderstand that the frontline forces in the medical field who are there batting Covid-19, heroically saving lives and preserving health, and taking care of patient needs to the very best of their ability, and then going further all the while putting their own health and lives at risk, are those to whom I refer.  They are not.  The culprits are at the administrative level, and those they answer too, like politicized policy makers with profit and control driven agendas that dictate to the research and development people.  Most of the folks in the medical field are very well aware of the limits that are put on their abilities to be the healers their patients need.  Of course people and patients have confidence in the kind well-intended skilled people in the field who actually want to do their jobs - but are only able to do so to the extent they are allowed by their industry's indirect political puppet-masters.  If it were not so egregiously unconscionable and dangerous, it would be ironically humorous.

Do not be offended by the scientist aspect of we who have these concerns.  Prove us wrong.  Prove me wrong about anything and everything I have suggested is reflecting the actuality of the incongruous wealth of research and development problems associated with Covid-19 i.e. the red flags, playing dumb, plausible deniability, created confusion, wrong-doing that is profit and control driven, and criminal in some cases, from outside the medical field.  Just do it.  And I wish you success.

31 March 2020

The Bungling Chaos Effect of Unpreparedness on Crisis Management

This is not about me, but I can not remove “me”, or anyone else from what needs to be said, so I start with me.  I have never been nor have I ever wanted to be an "I told you so" person.  It has seemed primarily associated with egotistically demanding credit, and guilt tripping others about having been  wrong or not competent enough.  So, even though I am still not willing to be that person on a personal level, I have no trepidation about shining a light on government for falling down on the job, primarily because of political party partisanship, when political parties are obviously corrupt and becoming more corrupt as time passes while the corruption remains unaddressed.  That translates into the political parties  doing what they are doing, through neglect,  to facilitate the development of government tyranny - claiming the entire time the potential for tyranny does not exist, and that they are not exacerbating the potential for the tyranny they deny while contributing to it.  Does the term “cognitive dissonance” come to mind? 

Why is this on my mind?  And why a harsh look at a harsh but denied reality?  Because the process of unchecked increasing corruption is being denied.  I would like to be wrong about this, of course.   I truly would.  Please prove me wrong.  That none of the evidence points in that direction does not make that an easy task.  Consider that each tiny hole which goes unnoticed, in every little brick in the wall between corruption and no corruption, weakens the wall, like the unnoticed start of a cavity in a tooth that weakens a tooth.  It is our job to be vigilant about the tiny little warnings of problems instead of neglecting them, so that we can prevent them from developing into huge problems.  An example was reported in the news this morning.  The really great news is that the cleaning of masks with hydrogen peroxide gas has started - thousands at one time in a few hours!  It is not a recently proven effective process.  However, the news is that it has just now received government approval - probably approval for financing to make scaling possible.  So, it has just been implemented.  One of the people who created the process honestly says they had not considered scaling.  But what was the use if government refused to approve the high value and use of the safe and effective procedure?

Since the battle against CoVid-19 became imminent, then peripatetically started, repeated thoughts of the plagues that we know have decimated populations  periodically throughout human history, have come to mind.  So too does the more recent handling of potential pandemics in Africa which did not become worldwide catastrophic disasters also come to mind.  And perhaps the reason these thoughts come to minds is in recognition of the huge extent of acquired knowledge, skills, and technologies since medieval times  -  health oriented, but also communication oriented, and everything else that makes lives easier and often more hygienic at the same time - all of which have evolved to being reality since plagues ravaged entire populations.  Along with and because of the progress there has also been an evolution of universal common sense that  progress has fostered in populations, worldwide.  This  recognition  gives rise to questions.  Why are we not driven to ask why a culture of unpreparedness and ignorant bungling exists regarding the reality of the current battle with the "enemy" identified as such last year while there was still time to decide when to initiate appropriate preparedness plans?  Why?  Can it be attributed to incompetence or ill-intent, or both?  Did we have preparedness plans in place?  And if not why not?

Another stark contrast these questions shine a harsh light on is why our nation is so quick to provide funds for military combat based on flawed, misleading "intelligence" - supposedly accurate information from supposed "trustworthy" nations considered  "friends" of our nation, even in preference to reliable information from our own people.  Evidence demonstrates our nation has  misplaced trust in some nations which have been hard at work for decades proving they are neither trustworthy nor friends.  It has been ongoing since the armistice of World War II.  It continues to be unconscionable that we fund the battles other nations want to fight which never were ours, but also are not worthy battles because they are motivated solely by greed and control that depend on retributive deprivation of those already in control who were not depriving those who want control, or anyone else. 

Asking these questions  actually demonstrates how far down the road of corruption our nation has traveled given that our nation has become a willingly handmaiden in support of such illogical unworthy battles for which it has allowed other nations to  dictated our participation, including demanding that we take responsibility for engaging in combat which harms others and our own people. Of course part of that demand is the financing of our participation which depends on depleting our nation of funds needed to maintain our own infrastructure and domestic needs.  So these questions also demonstrate how much mistrust of government competency and intentions being on the path to corruption has created, rightfully so, as a pervasive attitude in we, the people.  It can only be understood when we recognize it is a matter of corruption steadily creeping in that has been ignored for decades, like tiny holes accumulating in all the brinks in the wall between corruption and non-corruption which, collectively, eventually creates a point of no return leading to the wall crumbling.  

So I suppose thoughts of instances of “the plague” in millennia past come to my mind as a lesson in stark contrast now that we have now gone to battle, in a world war, on a different level and on a different front with a much more elusive enemy we are united, worldwide, in needing to defeat - at least to manage in ways that prevent ongoing catastrophe.  So why the unpreparedness and bungling as a hallmark of crisis management which, because that has been the reality of response, has also created the foundation for catastrophic disaster that could have and should have been mitigated from the start? 

And why were we not prepared as a nation, as individual nations, to realize the culture of unprepared bungling would be predictable?  Why were we not prepared as nations to minimize disaster from the start?  Why were all our national  agencies not coordinated in the past, and not trained through field exercises (yes, like the military) to be prepared to effectively hit the ground running when/if it ever became necessary to do so? Why?

Looking at how catastrophic world wide disasters have been avoided, even as recently as the past decade, because of the comprehensive ways the dangers were managed and mitigated in Africa, would be one place to find guidance.  Looking to common and effective military logistics for organizational preparedness is another place to seek guidance.  Those who have been elected and appointed to represent the quality of life of the constituent needs and wishes, equitably, of we the self-governing people, need to use their time wisely to give up competitive party partisanship for the purpose of asking one another these question and more.

And as importantly we, the people, need to take our responsibility to direct those we elected and who have been appointed to seek functional solutions through preparedness by connecting with people and experienced organizations that have effectively managed and prevented the problems of unpreparedness, and the chaotic bungling unpreparedness it creates when crises threaten to rise up to confront us, rather than after they overwhelm us due to our lack of required preparedness.

Because government is tasked by we the people to do so for the benefit of all, funded by our taxes, it needs to seek direction from people and agencies which can provide effective good leadership and direction about how to transparently implement preparedness, how to train to be ready to implement effective procedures that work, and how to mandate effective functional coordination through needed oversight.   Government just needs to give the coordinating of that responsibility for success the priority it deserves, then to just do it.  It is not necessarily easy. But it really is that simple.

24 March 2020

Air Quality Has Improved in Cities Around the World

"Air quality has improved in cities around the world", as reported in an article about the relationship between less globabl emissions and  air quality, the facts of which  should really be no surprise to anyone:  Coronavirus lockdown causes global emissions to fall

Seems there are lessons to be learned.  Perhaps one of them is that each time the toxicity of our environment threatens the quality of life of our species and our progeny - life on earth, more precisely - we will be confronted with a worldwide pandemic.  (I am not prepared at this time to make an observation about whether such a pandemics are naturally occurring or created.)

Perhaps it is time for the technology we do have to be used in more effective and productive ways which do not require physical presence as much, in some vocations, so that we can actually be more productive personally, and professionally with less frenetic efforts. Spending an 8 hour or more block of time, daily,  dedicated to getting to and from the work place and being there, is not an absolute necessity for the work many do which can as effectively be accomplished online from a home office. 

Working from home, at least part of every week or month, provides opportunity to better schedule demands of work around the normal demands of life instead of everyone struggling to fit what is not associated with work, into before, after, and during work hours. 

Before covid-19 we knew that working from home was already an opportunity extended to a few, when it is actually an opportunity that could be extended to many more employees.  Fact is that changing the mind-set from scheduling work around life, instead of scheduling life around the demands of physical presence at work, does not necessarily change the quality of anyone's work, and it actually improves the quality of everyone's life.

When we have the time and wherewithal to make home a place where we want to be, as a comfortable hub from which to live all aspects of our lives, then why wouldn't productively working from home be advocated and  encouraged as an advantage to both employees and employers?

31 January 2020

The People vs. Political Parties

stop the nonsense
I do not trust the Republican Party.  I do not trust the Democrat Party.  I have no use for either of them because they have both demonstrated that they function more like organized crime than political parties, particularly when either party is a majority in the House and/or the Senate.  I simply have no use for the partisan politics the parties like to create.  And I do not know anyone who does have.  That means I have no use for any political party and have never been inclined to affiliate with any political party.  Do any normal people who have refrained from becoming frenzied by "divide and conquer" created polarity, trust either party or the dedication of the parties to partisan politics instead of their constituents - we, the people?  I doubt it.

Prior to the Iowa primary, I have been flooded with e-mail from the DNC asking for donations for "Unity".  I'm like Really!?  I thought I made it clear that not even minimal trust is possible after the criminality of the DNC processes  associated with its candidate selection in 2016.  It was a charade, imho, which was actually a series of crimes that should have resulted in people being prosecuted. 

I am extremely tolerant, to a fault, and repeatedly give another chance - too far into what is undeserved chance territory.  But when I finally realize there is no change for the better, and never will be, then any possible minimal trust I want to extend can no longer exist, and never will exist again. It is useless for anyone to try.  I have tried.  And since I have the most influence with me, I know that once I have reached the limit of my trust having been betrayed (rarely indicating during the processes of betrayal that it has been betrayed), then  my trust is gone - forever.  Nothing can change that like nothing can change a force of nature. It just is. 
Thus, my inability to trust the agendas, hidden and otherwise, of any political party. I highly doubt that I am atypical in this regard.

So, as usual, I will vote for whom I think will be the least damaging candidate.  I actually think we deserve an ethical  moral president with respectable good manners who knows how to talk to people without creating enmity - a uniter not a divider.  IF the DNC has the integrity, this time, to present an honest candidate for president who is lacking in moral turpitude, then of course I would be inclined to vote for that candidate.  That did not happen last time which is why I continue to say that the DNC voted our current Republican president into office. The DNC needs to own that, because it is a fact.

If the DNC screws up again, this time, then when I vote in the presidential election I will have no choice, and once again will not be able to vote for either the R or D candidate in 2020 like it was not possible to vote, in good conscience, for either the D or R candidate in 2016.  All voters will be in the same boat, no matter how we all vote.

I still think Ralph Nader's suggestion to put "none of the above" on every ballot, bears consideration - especially during times where dishonesty and narcissistic desire for dictatorial power are in play and take center stage, created and exacerbated by filthy party politics.  None of the dirty tricks in play  by political parties have been granted by our Constitution.  In fact our Founders did their best to make it clear filthy politics were neither intended to develop nor to be condoned if they emerged due to competing criminal elements in government.