About this blog

Incoming BYTES
contains highly variable subject matter including commentary on the mundane, the extraordinary and even controversial issues. At Incoming BYTES
we want YOU to think...if you dare...


Thursday, June 23, 2011

And Here I thought the Silence was my Imagination.....

It never fails to surprise me how human instinct can sense differences in the atmosphere, events,  and social happenings  without really knowing why, or what is happening.
My last two posts discussed the strange  "silence" out in the media  that has raised my own curiosity level to the extreme.  I wondered if it was 'official' silence, or just perceived.
 It turns out there is much  more to come about "silence" .  It seems I am not alone.

I'll refer the reader of Incoming Bytes  to a new article in  "Before it's News"  and encourage all of our readers to think for yourselves...and  pay a lot of attention to the article:
"12 Things That the Mainstream Media is Being Strangely Quiet about Right Now". 
http://members.beforeitsnews.com/story/730/999 The "12 things"  are listed short-listed below for your convenience, but the reader really should read the article in its total form.

1)   The crisis at the Fort Calhoun nuclear facility in Nebraska 
2)   Bombing in Yemen and Pakistan and rumors of the US invasion of Libya
3)   Fukushima in Japan: the nuclear crisis is worsening, far worse than Chernobyl
4)   Christian groups are considered to be a threat to National Security
5)   Flooding in China is the worst in 55 years
6)   The Dodd-Frank Act is closing down Forex gold/silver trading by July 15, 2011
7)    Huge cracks in the earth 3km long have appeared in the earth in Peru, and a huge crack has appeared in Michigan
8)    Arizona wildfire is now over half a million acres 
9)    North Korea has tested a "super  EMP weapon"
10    "Active shooter drills"  are being conducted American public schools without notice
11)   " Emergency preparedness" initiatives for NASA employees and their families are being conducted
12    NO-fly zones--40 of them--have been declared by the FAA in the last week.

What is really  going on here?  Clearly our instincts work overtime even  when our media does not, or is ordered not to.  Why are public officials sanctioning  the media  "SILENCE"?  Are all disasters, events, and threats now on the " information based on need to know" principle? Is  "Big Brother" deciding what we shall or shall not be informed about?

Meantime, back in the fog surrounding the  garden, the beans are growing peacefully, cabbage is doing just fine, the corn is growing in leaps and bounds,  and everything else is sprouting in the finest possible fashion, with nary a news flash.
I have to wonder which of these two subjects is more valuable to me as a human being?  Which do I have the most control over?  I ask again, is it better to be uninformed? Big Brother seems to think so.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


  1. I find it interesting to hear on the news last night that Japan had another big earthquake in the last day or so (6.7, if I recall correctly), and the epicenter was very close to the first one. Apparently, this has no affect on the nuclear plant, and according to the news, no one should be worried about any extra radioactivity problems from it. (Yea, wouldn't want to live there, would you?)

    As for Arizona's fire, it spread to New Mexico a couple of weeks ago - guess those flames don't recognize borders. Thankfully, it is over 50% contained now, and firefighters are doing their best to save as many homes and towns as they can.

    Sadly, there are a few more fires in Arizona worth mentioning here - one started in Southern Arizona {by illegal immigrants}. This is significant because it's summer out here in the desert, and the only people who cross it when temps are this high are those trying to get in or out of the country without being noticed. When it was insinuated that John McCain made a blunder for stating the truth - that illegals probably started the fire, and then the media jumped on board with racial profiling commentary etc., I was rather annoyed. When did Americans [Arizonans in this case] lose the right to come first and foremost in their own country? To my knowledge, the concept of freedom, "liberty and justice for all" is part of the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America - not Mexico. I don't know what their pledge says. But I'm about as certain as I can be that if we crossed their borders illegally and started fires in their desserts, there wouldn't be any discussions taking place about our rights to be there to try to make a better life for ourselves. Nor would there be outrage that we were blamed when logically, no one else would be {adventurous} enough to cross the desert during the hottest part of the year to begin with.

    On that note, and without further ado, I only wish I could go pick vegetables in the garden, Raymond. It sounds like a much better idea than stressing about radioactive meltdowns and human smuggling crimes.

  2. just as i was opening my eyes to see if there were any new news--here came the break into the peaceful silence with deafening earthquakes and cracks, bombings and loud hush over nuclear watch. so; should i resume my bug watch and sprout spotting? garden dug and trees planted..wherever i go a garden grows.

    MJ, only an independently wealthy person would want to cross the border into Mexico, with enough to buy some of the magnificent scenery to spend a life of leisure. the case of illegal workers coming to find enough jobs to feed their families is a case by case problem..since the Colorado waters have been kidnapped upstream by several states, Mexico has suffered a food shortage in the North. industry has conspired to use cheap labor, and NAFTA hasn't been the dream for either side..

    desert living is dangerous and adventurous yes, but the original dwellers, indians and spaniards had forged a fine culture around it, their descendants are being blamed for the holes in the economy and the fabric of the current owners.

    frontiers cause much dissent, i often wonder what people would do without walls and competition. not reading the news till i can sort this out..

  3. Nadine, I'm so torn on all of this. On one hand, we have innocent people seeking (and deserving) a better life. On the other, we have smugglers (human and drug lords) terrorizing the very people trying to improve their lives and support their families. I want the innocent people to be successful. I pray for their dignity and respect to be preserved, as they do everything they can to make a better life for themselves.

    But when you see what happens in drop houses, and how women and children get raped and beaten senselessly. When you watch local news reports where husbands and fathers break free from the drop houses, go to the authorities and beg to have their families deported because of the abuse they are suffering, it's impossible not to have a profound and strong reaction against illegal immigration. Not to mention the corruption related to drug trafficking.

    Then you realize the impact this is having on America. I'm an American citizen, and I abide by the laws of this country. As such, I am required to have certain documents readily available for various things I do. I'm always showing my photo i.d. - at the bank, in retail stores, when I register my vehicle or seek medical treatment at a hospital. Why, as a citizen of this country, should I expect to show more i.d. than someone who comes here illegally? We have systems in place for those who want to come here to get visas, green cards and residency. Is it really reasonable to think those of us who want to abide by those systems, are unsympathetic to the plight of those less fortunate?

  4. @ Nadine, I think it's better to understand what drives people to move, even to risk their lives to better themselves--illegally or not, sometimes the status quo cannot be lived with. The effect such moves have on other societies is never really known until long after, is it. Europeans took over North America. Do we even have the right to decide who should "enter here" ? At times I wonder.

    @ MJ --we assume we have ownership of property, state, and country--but do we really? At most, we 'borrow and use it' and hope we don't abuse it. We do abide by a 'system' , but we did NOT abide by the system of the original inhabitants either, did we?
    Are we MORE fortunate than the original inhabitants, who had no means of resisting the invasion of strange and powerful peoples?

    Now we can "resist them" because we are superior militarily and economically--but is that a reasonable license to refuse others entry ? I do wonder.

  5. You know, when I was rinsing the raspberries we bought yesterday, I was very careful to make sure I threw away any that had even the slightest hint of mold on them. Why, you wonder? Because if I didn't take the necessary precautions to preserve the rest of them, the entire batch would have been ruined and we wouldn't have been able to enjoy any of them.

  6. @MJ, trust me, I DO want to understand what you are saying. You may be right, sometimes we all "see what we want to" as we read, and miss points. I know you are sympathetic to good honest people trying to better themselves.

    Nevertheless, I raised an ethical question and a dialogue should take place.

    My question : "is that a reasonable license to refuse others entry" was just that, meant as a rhetorical question of ethics, not intended to label, put a spin on your words or point fingers at anyone, period. I didn't state entry was completely denied, obviously legal immigration is available.

    Territorial "ownership" has been a question since whenever, and the founding of Canada is just as controversial as the founding of the USA. Colonialism all over the world is just as bad, and remains just as controversial. We have First Nations peoples reclaiming their territories. Why would they not do so?

    The question remains, Having invaded a territory themselves, setting up "colonies" and essentially "taking over", does any race of peoples then have the moral and ethical right to dictate to others, who are now also "invading" illegally or not? The question remains unanswered.
    Does the stable society even have the ethical right to determine what is "illegal" immigration? Just a question.

    Have no fear, my friend, I read and saw your discussion as absolutely logical. I'm just asking questions, not criticizing, there's a huge difference.

    Let's face it, "Illegal" immigration en masse is an invasion of a "stable society" the destruction of which is considered a criminal act by that society; and illegal immigration has always been a hot-button issue--ever more so when humanitarians within find that the "illegals" are abused, even by their own criminal element.

    I'm guessing you understand what I mean, MJ. "Questions without prejudice" comes to mind. ":)
    What is the solution?

  7. @MJ, You have conducted a very astute and preemptive strike on the raspberries, a nice parable, by the way, that's called "proactive care of the masses" by totally eliminating the bad up front and preventing the spread of evil mold. Not a bad strategy either.


Comments are always appreciated ! No SPAM allowed.