World Views

[Amigoo]

Been nibblin' on this cheese recently? Are you being played like a fiddle?
It's best to identify who set the trap before enjoying more bites!


Q: Oxford Word of the Year 2025: rage bait
"Online content deliberately designed to elicit anger or outrage by being frustrating, provocative, or offensive."

Considering possible agendas, is this word (or related activity) used by individuals as well as businesses and governments?

(Perplexity) "Yes. The kind of activity described by 'rage bait' is used by individual creators, commercial actors,
and political or governmental actors, although the goals and tactics differ across these groups.

Many individual influencers and ordinary users post anger‑inducing content because it reliably drives comments, shares, and follower growth on engagement‑driven platforms. This can range from 'edge‑lord' humor and deliberately offensive jokes to slow, frustrating videos or inflammatory takes crafted mainly to provoke arguments (more than dialogue) rather than to inform.

Brands, news outlets, and content farms often use outrage‑oriented headlines or framing because anger increases time‑on‑site and ad revenue more than neutral or merely entertaining content. Media critics and therapists describe a broader 'rage economy', where commercial publishers systematically lean into divisive, emotionally charged stories or thumbnails to capture attention in a crowded market.

Political campaigns, parties, and their aligned media ecosystems routinely use outrage‑driven posts and narratives to mobilize supporters,
attack opponents, and keep their base engaged.
​
Scholars and commentators note that engagement‑optimized algorithms amplify morally outraging and polarizing political content, which creates strong incentives for political and, in some contexts, state‑linked actors to craft messaging that functions as rage bait, even if it is not always labeled that way.​"

(P) "Content that explains what rage bait is, why it works, and how to recognize or resist it aims at awareness and critical thinking rather than provocation.​ Even if the topic is unpleasant, the purpose is to give people language and tools to protect themselves, not to get them riled up."


Apparently, rage bait is common human behavior that "crosses the line"
when intent is mischievous or evil with intentional troublemaking.

Rod

[Amigoo]

This headline alone symbolizes (and forecasts) a very troublesome 2026:
"US forces dramatically seize Russian-flagged oil tanker in the Atlantic"

First thought: In this era of greater international power balance,
countries can no longer achieve peace with "Might makes right!"


Rod

[Amigoo]

Humor in the news ...

Re: Austin Statesman (TX newspaper, 1/9/26) "President said he could be sending
$2,000 stimulus checks 'toward the end of the year' using revenue from tariffs."

Hopefully, before December 25 so we'll know who to thank for the gift.


Rod

[Amigoo]

Re: https://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough
"The tragic death of Renee Nicole Good"

A (dark) comedy of errors?

1. Renee's window was down with an officer talking to her and trying to open her door
while Renee was attempting to escape by turning right while driving forward. She had
to be looking to her forward right to anticipate oncoming traffic while being distracted
by the officer at her open window. The shooting officer was to her forward left,
the lesser visible distraction.

2. The shooting officer (forward left) probably perceived the initial movement
of the car intentionally in his direction (and he was close enough not to see
the direction of the car's wheels). This officer had previously been hit and
dragged by a car, thus was hyper-sensitive to this perceived threat.

First thought: It will be difficult to prove the blame of this incident,
but should now cause serious evaluation of "deadly force" policy ...
and supported by this law:

Re: https://revolver.news/2026/01/well-well ... w-in-2020/

Minnesota Law §609.066: Officers can use deadly force if a driver accelerates toward them,
creating immediate life-threatening danger. No need to wait for impact - they can act
based on apparent intent & proximity."


Rod

[Amigoo]

Today's headlines suggest tarrifying days just around the corner:

"Greenland tariff 'blackmail' sparks extraordinary NATO backlash as Macron threatens European response"
"U.S. Moves Amphibious Assault Ships Near CUBA; Issues NOTAMS for Mexico, Central, and South America"
"Massive Military Deployments in-Progress for Iran Strike"

Is a New World Order unfolding with tarrifying leadership?
Or is this just theatrical support for a new vocabulary word?

Rod

[Amigoo]

Re: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFlNGYjOsGw

"Life on Earth Is 'Not a COINCIDENCE'
The Math That Challenges Life’s Natural Origin"

"I protocell = Ig + Is + Id + Ia"

"Life should not exist at all if caused by random chemical reactions.
Therefore, earth's life was probably created by intelligent design.
There may be higher power that shapes our evolution on earth."

Rod

[Amigoo]

NIH aRF! aRF! (not meow)

Re: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/research/topics/cellphones
"Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation" (2018-2019)

"The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with:
- Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
- Some evidence of an association with tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
- Some evidence of an association with tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign,
malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma."

"NTP scientists found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage.
Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in:
- the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice,
- the blood cells of female mice, and
- the hippocampus of male rats."


Conjecture: Because the body attempts to repair damage caused by radio frequency radiation (RF),
successful repair is interpreted by the cell phone industry as evidence that RF doesn't cause damage.
However, studies like these of the NIH suggest otherwise, advising limiting excessive RF exposure.


Q: How does the body attempt to heal from radio frequency radiation?

(Perplexity, selected paragraphs) "Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is non‑ionizing, so it does not break DNA strands the way X‑rays or gamma rays do; the main proven effect at high levels is heating of tissues, and the body responds largely by activating normal heat‑ and stress‑response systems to repair or remove damaged cells. These same cellular repair and immune mechanisms also deal with more subtle RF‑related oxidative or inflammatory changes that have been reported in some experimental studies."

"If damage occurs, the body moves into repair and cleanup modes similar to other mild injuries:

Mildly damaged cells may repair DNA base changes or membrane components using standard DNA repair enzymes and membrane turnover processes, as they would after other metabolic or oxidative stresses. Cells that are too damaged undergo apoptosis (programmed cell death), after which immune cells such as macrophages clear the debris so surrounding tissue can remain functional.​ In tissues with regenerative capacity (skin, many epithelia, some nerve fibers), surviving stem or progenitor cells can proliferate to replace lost cells over time, restoring structure and function."

"While the body’s intrinsic systems do most of the work, general health measures support these repair processes:

Staying within established RF exposure limits and increasing distance/time from strong sources reduces the need for repair in the first place. Good sleep, balanced nutrition (including adequate antioxidants from fruits and vegetables), and avoidance of other stressors (like tobacco) support cellular antioxidant and DNA‑repair systems."


Rod