Say, here’s something that is part math, part pop-worrywarting, and part WoWW (World of Woo-Woo). Comes from a reader, Linette who shares this…
I often get on a obsession about the shape of a dodecahedron. Almost like Van Gogh painting the sunflower over and over the shape plays in my mind. I usually end up surfing the net about the shape, looking at dodecahedron shaped boxes, tattoos, and most importantly how scientist think the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron. Tonight I let my inner brain type the questions to google and whatever popped in my head about the shape I typed to Google: Breaking the dodecahedron code? Me again to Google: dodecahedron genome? Then Google: Dodecahedron adenovirus? Feeling this strongly I lastly typed… Google: Dodecahedron Adenovirus Ebola…. To my surprise I stumbled into a world I didn’t know existed about the dodecahedron shape in genes and viruses… even strange to me is how relevant it is to now..
Apparently this adenovirus that seems to have a dodecahedron type shape can act possible as a anti-virus for cancer etc. possibly Ebola. I only found this because I am up obsessing about the dodecahedron shape at midnight again. If you believe in coincidences this is a big one. I’m not sure I believe in coincidences anymore… I just now hope the right people are looking at this again. Otherwise why did the universe tell just a painter in Kansas to look up dodecahedron genome tonight…
I have no one to share this with so here I am compelled to give it to you to know.
Que sera sera.
A summary of more recent Ebola (and other) research may be found over here. The point is, we wonder if the dodecahedron shape itself (also occurring in Bucky balls a/k/a/ Fullerenes) might be teaching us something.
What IF there are certain geometric shapes in nature that actually have some kind of “powers” imbued in them? And…to carry the thought just a wee bit further, is there a chance that the numbers underlying such topological structures could have significance as well?
Reader Tracy has a fine question..
If the US Gov’t was going to perform a ‘false’ flag pandemic type of event, why broadcast that 2 infected individuals with Ebola were coming home? Isn’t there quality hospital services where they were volunteering? Or is the CDC merely collecting samples from US Citizens? Bye the bye where’s the outrage over this? Then again where’s the outrage over over Obama’s South-West border policy? We really are the sheeple that sleeps, aren’t we?
Last part first: We are NOT the sheeple that sleep. We are the drugged and dumbed-down sheeple and that building over there is a slaughter house.
No doubt (ostensibly) the CDC is doing the treatment here to get current live samples in a controlled environment and strive to come up with a vaccine.
But as to the track record of safety, you need only go back as far as the 1990 Reston Ebola case where a researcher (right here in the Impervious States of America) was accidentally infected while working on crab –eating monkeys who had a form ofs Ebola.
Now, as turns out, that strain of Ebola, RESTON, was not pathogenic to humans. BUT there was an Ebola strain and there was an accident.
Thus, the conspiratorially-minded might suggest that by bringing Ebola here, we may see the outline of plans of “secret, non-elective government” to do away with a huge portion of future tax liabilities by killing off millions of people.
This was written up as a solution to all the (economic PTB) problems in a Peoplenomics report back in October of last year under the heading “The Solution No One Wants to Talk About.” Peoplenomics subscribers will find it here.
It is admittedly a highly speculative look ahead (from 300 days ago) but what’s not theoretical is if you kill off enough people, national debt and future governmental obligations becomes somewhat meaningless.
Sorry to break that bit of news, but such is finance; A proven way to fight compound interest is by compounding death. It’s why wars work. Had to amortize a city over 30-years that’s just been leveled…that kind of reality.
Time for Journalism Disclosure?
With a report out today that a secretive online “cell” of “progressive journalists” has been uncovered, which self-reinforces a hidden media agenda of liberal to lefty ideas, uncovered by MediaTrackers, I’m compelled to argue the case again for a national Journalism Disclosure database.
The reason is fairly simple: Back when “freedom of the press” was being enshrined as an American value cities and populations that read media were small enough that the reputation of the newspaper, publisher, and reporter were widely known.
That’s why in historical times, if an article came along promoting a value like gay rights, the people in the (then small) town would consider the reporter. If the reporter was known to be a tad light in the loafers. the locals would “consider the source.”
But all this has changed in modern media: We are no longer able to consider the source – first because there are too many of them and secondly, because there’s the new-fangled stuff called “advocacy journalism” – which isn’t journalism at all…more like promotion and press releases for this side or that.
You can see it in the Middle East, to cite one example. Thus, it would be useful (to me as a reader) to see a little disclosure up by the reporter name that indicates if a) the reporter is Jewish or Palestinian, b) has relatives or close friends who are on their side, or c) has been involved on EITHER SIDE of the cause.
Any reporter who sends money to any peripheral group or asks to cover something is a partisan.
With that in mind, I’d then make a more informed judgment as to whether to read the story from their angle. At least I’d see who’s selling what.
Another example? (Got plenty of them).
Take the story “Geraldo Rips Drudge over Ebola/Border Coverage.”
What we learn (from Wikipedia) is that Rivera is an attorney and how he became “Geraldo”
After a brief career in law enforcement, wherein he served the New York City Police Department as an investigator, Rivera returned to law and became a lawyer for the National Lawyers Guild. He became a frequent attorney for the Puerto Rican activist group, the Young Lords, which attracted the attention of WABC-TV news director Al Primo when Rivera was interviewed about the group’s occupation of an East Harlem church in 1969. Primo offered Rivera a job as a reporter but was unhappy with the first name “Gerald” (he wanted something more identifiably Latino) so they agreed to go with the pronunciation used by the Puerto Rican side of Rivera’s family: Geraldo.[
Gerald Rivera, from what I’ve read of him, might qualify as an advocate-journalist, depending on what side of a story he sees as “right.”
And that’s how this coven of media outed by MediaTrackers works, as well: They have a “progressive” agenda, which covers the waterfront, and left. The collectively agree on “right.”
But this gets to the heart of the matter: Disclosure.
I started marking a list of things you should know about my take on things,. You know – the kinds of built-in biases I have. I challenge all other commentators to be at least as open:
On borders: My ancestors came in through Ellis Island, learned the language, and took the Oath of Citizenship. I believe that’s what made America strong: One language, many cultures.
Country have borders. One-time nations in a state of collapse do not. Is that too hard to understand? Many are not kids, they are gangbangers. Send them home until they are 18 and then stand in line like our forefathers and foremothers, thank you.
Bet you didn’t know I coached some Vietnamese folks on English after that debacle, did you? They’re all citizens and damn fine people, I’d add.
On LBGT issues: I’m straight, don’t want my ass pinched, or anyone else’s lifestyle shoved down my throat (so to speak). In turn, I’ll reciprocate. I won’t market being straight if others won’t market being something else.
Regrettably, this is turning into a marketing war, and it’s a fine example of where disclosure would work to explain how the public is being led around by its media. I won’t even go into peer pressuring straight kids out of some programs in colleges… I have friends of all kinds…but I can’t stand marketers of any kind. Disclosure, please!
On Equality: Total equality. No making up for past wrongs. Life is like golf, we all play by the one club length rule and we go off the same tees. Racial background, gender preference, whatever, that doesn’t impact golf.
Loyalty: I am a firm Constitutionalist. I don’t believe in administrative law or executive orders that go beyond the narrowest possible meanings expressed will of Congress or local legislatures.
Campaign Finance: I believe no money should be allowed to cross state lines for any elective office. This would end the 1% weasel-dicks from owning America like those Kansas brothers or that George Sorry guy.
Concentration of Media: I believe media should be broken up. Sorry Rupe. No cross-ownership of newspaper, television, and online.
Bust ‘em up. Strict anti-trust because WE CAN’T TRUST MAINSTREAM MEDIA.
Financial Disclosure: My net worth is less than $1-million. No one tells me what to write. I have no assistance and I owe no allegiance to any corporate interests.
I don’t make contributions to politicians. I do send money to the local food bank.
Other Biases: As a longtime liveaboard sailor and current active pilot, no vessel or aircraft boarding without probably cause and a warrant for flights and voyages originating in US ports or air fields.
Acceptable exception: US Coast Guard to enforce safety equipment requirements in federal law and ditto the FAA for ramp checks to ensure my medical is current and I hold a license and my aircraft is in annual inspection. (Yes to all the above.)
No opening a locked trunk without a warrant or PC and denial of a search is NOT Probable Cause.
Where we get our news and views – and who we get it from – is key to making sound decisions. I continue to hold that full journalist disclosure in response to any reasonable question, particularly when it comes to advocacy topics like LBGT and Border issues is worthwhile.
If a reporter is homophobic, then they should say so. Or if they believe in LaRaza, then put it out there. Any contributions to organizations? Report them, too.
That way, I think we’d all have a clearer view of “who we’re letting in our heads to influence us.” And that, I believe could return a bit of common sense that’s gone missing in action.
A follow-up note on renouncing US citizenship and going elsewhere:
You did a good job on that, thanks. Regarding social security, when you do the research, you’ll find that one does not lose it after renunciation of citizenship, if the foreign country that you now have citizenship in has a tax treaty with the U.S. (which most do).
But that leaves me grappling with a questions: If I’m retired in the US and someone who contributed to this country now renounces it (and went off to contribute to some other country) should I be paying my tax dollars to them in perpetuity?
Not sure what my thoughts are there, but it’s an interesting question…
OK, more work – ya’ll come back tomorrow and Write when you break-even…