This blog is dedicated to logical Reasoning, political consciousness, religious dialogue, intelligent thoughts, uncommon wisdom, current events, and humor.
I was looking around Fox News’ website the other day when I noticed an interesting article: Hugo Chavez Mouthpiece Says U.S. Hit Haiti With ‘Earthquake Weapon’ → source
I’m the first to admit Chavez is crazy, but I’ve always felt crazy people view the world from different lenses. And different does not necessarily equate to false. Remember in the movie Men in Black when they checked the ‘hot sheets’ (tabloid)? That kind of ‘different’!
So I looked around. Here’s what I found. You’ll like this.
The Earthquake Machine
In a Department of Defense (DoD) briefing on Monday, April 28, 1997, the then Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen said:
. . . some countries . . . are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.
Yes, earthquakes! Don’t bother looking for that information on DoD’s website. It’s not there. You’ll find it on web archive site → here.
It’s not too far-fetched to think that governments, including our own, are working on top-secret and unthinkable weapons that we, normal people, don’t consider within the realm of possibilities. Don’t assume something is impossible just because you think it is.
The Plan
OK, so what if we possess an earth-quake weapon? Where’s the proof we might have used it? Consider this. One day before the earthquake, US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) in Miami was testing an emergency response system. The scenario? Providing relief to Haiti in the wake of a fictional hurricane. After the earthquake hit on Tuesday, SOUTHCOM decided to go live with the system immediately. How convenient! Check it out for yourself here.
The Reason
So, let’s review. It’s possible that we possess an earthquake machine and it’s also possible that we deployed it in Haiti. The question is why. Well, oil – possibly. Google oil in Haiti, and you’ll find many sources suggesting the possibility.
The Proof
According to bloggers monitoring flightaware.com (a site that records tail number of airplanes landing at most airports), at least one of the planes landing in Port-au-Prince since the earthquake has the following registration: N419AR → source. Who owns this plane? Mar-Don, Inc. What kind of company is that? An oil reclamation service → source
One more thing. Somehow, much of our relief efforts for Haiti has ‘reform’ connotation attached to them. Here’s one example from a CNN headline: “Ex-envoy: Earthquake gives opportunity to reform Haiti”. Why reform? Why now? And that brings us back to oil.
Even Ron Paul said the following about the Haitian relief efforts: “There’s been a coup – have you heard?” 🙂 → source
My heart goes out to those affected by this earthquake – whatever the cause may have been: God, tectonic plate geology, or earthquake machine.
So a few months ago, everyone was talking about secession – OK, maybe just some Republicans in southern US States. All went quiet for a while until just recently.
As I think about secession, I’ve come to believe that it is not necessarily bad for America or that it will negatively impact our country.
Consider this. The old Soviet Union was a super power and the controlling center of many states – willing and otherwise. Soviet Union’s breakup resulted in many independent countries; some prospered and some continue to struggle. Nevertheless, I believe that all those independent states are more content now than they were under the Soviet umbrella.
Think about it. Russia is just as powerful as when it was the Soviet Union. That power may not resemble that of the days of the cold war, but it is unmistakable. Russia is able to derail many UN resolutions by voting against them. It is able to alter the course of international policy purely by projecting (or retracting) its support. How many times in the past few years have we heard that Russia and China formed an alliance to oppose international sanctions or policy proposals?
By the same token, a separated United States could also conceivably remain just as powerful and effective but perhaps in different and, as of yet, undetermined ways.
Here’s more food for thought. Consider a severely contentious issue in American politics. Let’s choose abortion. I’m willing to bet money that if we asked Californians whether Texans should have access to abortion, a majority will say that they don’t really care. The greatest thing that matters to Californians about abortion is preservation of their own right to abortion. On the other hand, I’m betting the same amount of money that if we asked Texans the same question about abortion involving Californians, a majority will say that no one in the US should have access to abortion. In other words, the more Conservative and religious the state, the more likely it will be to impose its views on the entire union.
What does this tell us? Well, remember what this country was based upon: individual liberties for all and a non-dictatorial central government. So, why not permit a State such as Texas to secede from the union if the values of its people are in direct contradiction to those of the rest of the United States? Texas and anyone who cares to join this independent state will be happier and more free. In the process, the balance of power will remain the same for the rest of the union, and the US will continue to exist and prosper over time (once we get past this recession).
Change and opportunity come in one package. Embrace them.
Here’s a new one from the “I know God agrees with me” files.
The Texas School Board recently held a meeting in which board member Barbara Cargill argued for improving Earth Science standard by replacing the phrase “the concept of an expanding universe that originated 14 billion years ago” with wording that “leaves it up to [students and teachers] to discuss how many billions of years“.
This is what happens when we humans futilely pretend to understand the true intention of the scripture, and attempt to awkwardly fit everything we know into what we believe the scripture says. Here are my observations:
Everything we know, everything we observe, the amount of time it takes for the light of Sun to reach Earth, the gravitational models of stars, the orbits of planets, observed behavior of galaxies, carbon dating, etc. are all consistent with a universe that is about 14 billion years old. If you believe the age of the universe is only 6,000 years, then God must be personally sending your phone signals to cell phone towers, because those signals behave differently and have different speeds in a 6,000 year-old universe than ours.
Can science explain everything? Of course not. There are major holes in all theories. Here’s the point. Gravity existed long before Newton worked on his gravitational theory. Similarly, the nature of gravity was unchanged when Einstein modified Newtonian gravity in his 3 dimensional representation of astronomical objects. Theory does not mean untrue.
Contrary to what Ms. Cargill claims, there are not different estimates of the age of the universe. From a scientific perspective, the estimates are 13.7 billion years plus and minus about 200 million years. That’s an uncertainty of 1.5% which, by itself, does not constitute a different estimate. It’s a long way from 13.7 billion down to 6,000.
From the “I know that literal interpretation of the Genesis is right and I’m sticking to it” perspective, the universe was created 1,000 years after the Sumerians invented glue! If Jesus was around, he would reach out and slap you, followed by saying ‘if you’re not going to use the intelligence I’ve given you, then here’s your sign’.
Don’t get me started on the idea of “God created an aged universe”. You’re only fooling yourself, not God. Again, all you’re doing is making a futile attempt at fitting everything within the model of what you think the scripture says. Wow, God sure seems like a very impatient fellow if he had to fast forward the age of the universe. I wonder what remote control model he’s got? I want one.
With respect, love and affection, and mutual understanding
The art of negotiation requires education, information, experience, awareness, and an arsenal of tools. I’m not an expert in this area but, more often than not, I seem to be able to get what I want. And my approach, more often than not, in achieving persuasion is with a soft touch and through reaching mutual trust.
Case in point: Police vs bicyclists without helmets
Here’s positive proof that any well-meaning endeavor and good intention can quickly turn into insincere and downright insulting venture.
Case in point: Global warming as a result of human activity has been debated for decades. We all know and have heard the arguments on both sides. Almost everyone has formed an opinion.
Sir Nicholas Stern advises UK government about the economic threat posed by global warming. According to a recent article in the Guardian, Stern labels climate change deniers as “ridiculous” and akin to “flat-earthers”. → source
In 2007, Ellen Goodman of The Boston Globe wrote an op-ed, stating: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” → source
Seriously? I personally don’t claim to thoroughly understand climate change, and I’m among a minority of people who do not have strong opinions on this issue one way or another. But I’m fairly certain that those who genuinely do not believe in global warming (as a result of human activities) cannot be compared with flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.
Also, notice the clever heading of the articles. It’s all about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’. Everyone knows that earth’s climate has changed by itself due to natural forces for millennia and long before the presence of humans. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say millennia. It can’t be any longer than 6,000 years, of course! That was back when humans saddled dinosaurs and rode them like cowboys. If you believe that, please purchase your Creation Museum tickets here.
The point is that the old ‘global warming’ term always carried the implication that the current situation was a direct result of human activity. The new term ‘climate change’ insinuates natural causes; therefore, skepticism suggests mental disability.
OK guys. Pay very close attention. This is nothing short of a Christmas gift for most of us.
A new study conducted at Heriot Watt University’s Family and Personal Relationships Laboratory in Edinburgh suggests that watching romantic movies may in fact negatively affect your love life. → source
Scientists concluded that romantic movies give unrealistic and unhealthy expectations about real-life relationships. Odds of finding a soul-mate are not that great. One of the researchers, Dr Holmes, said: ‘There’s a notion of destiny and couples in romantic comedies immediately understand each other. If you think that’s how things are, you are setting yourself up to be disappointed.’
Interestingly, my wife and I had a long chat many yeas ago about watching romantic movies. She is keenly aware of the possibility of projectile vomiting as well as uncontrollable eye-rolling movements by me if the story gets too sappy. Let’s just say we understand each other on this issue. We hardly go to the movies anymore. They’re too expensive and a 20 month-old baby makes movie going tough. Instead, we watch DVDs at home. And if romantic stories are involved in any way, I always have a genuine airplane barf bag as well as my fully-charged laptop ready and accessible.
So, guys! If you’re desperate to get out of watching too many romantic comedies (and I know who you are), feel free to use the following open letter to make your point to your significant other.
My Dearest <name>,
We’ve been together longer than I care to recall without a stiff drink <fill in a number> glorious <months / years>. You have been the biggest constant pain a human being should be allowed to experience joy in my life. Your romantic approach to life has been nothing short of a welcome miracle for me. <loud, uncontrollable laughter> My heart is filled with nothing but clogged arteries due to your cooking love and joy for you and our relationship. And that is precisely why I feel compelled to bring up the following topic as a point of conversation. What the hell else am I going to do? You won’t let me watch TV when we’re eating dinner.
A new study suggests that watching too many any romantic movies/comedies may result in uncontrolled projectile vomiting unexpected and unhealthy expectations that could adversely affect our relationship.
At the heart of the matter is the exaggerated expectations of life that such movies portray which you expect to achieve in our relationship. For God’s sake, don’t you know that everday life is just not really that exciting and sparks don’t fly 24/7 without interruption? I’m sure you agree that our daily life together is always exciting and our love gains more strength and momentum with each passing day. No romantic movie can possibly compete with the romance and the ever-present spark that is present in our relationship. I hope this B.S. sticks because I’m laying it on pretty thick.
No movie can live up to our standard of romance. huh! Therefore, I propose to you that watching any romantic comedy is a complete waste of our splendidly fabulous time together.
Just in case you are unaware of this possibility, here’s a news flash. Sex and guns don’t mix!
Imagine that you’re an Ohio man. You’re having sex with your estranged wife, who happens to have a restraining order against you. Hey, we’re talking sex here. Civil protection orders don’t apply to consensual sex, do they? In any event, you spot her gun in bed. You think to yourself: self! This gun in bed represents somewhat of a dangerous situation. I think I’ll move it to the nightstand or put it on the floor or . . . And the gun goes off shooting her in the chest. Bummer man.
If those two did this much banging when they were married, their kids wouldn’t look like the mailman, and they would not be estranged.
What’s the first thing you must do after this tragic but intriguing accident? Call 911, of course.
Is it just me or does this dude look like Joe the plumber?
Jennifer Moss loves the earth – perhaps a little too much. She rides her bike naked (OK, almost naked in a G-string) around the Portland area. Everywhere she rides, 9-1-1 calls from shocked citizens follow.
This is precisely why too much green living makes you nuttier than a one pound jar of Jiff Peanut Butter. In an interview she said:
“Peace begins with ourselves – our minds, spirit, heart and souls, and that our bodies are an integral part of ourselves. And I was created in God’s creation, and no part of me is obscene.”
Well, allow me to cast a descending voice. She’s ugly. She may have a nicer body than the average woman in the US, but I really don’t care to see it without clothes. Those 5 greasy White Castle sliders I just ate are about to commence a reversal of their intake path. It won’t be a pretty site. And I feel as though she would owe me a pain and suffering fee if I saw her naked.
Remember Seinfeld’s naked episode? There’s good naked and bad naked. Moss personifies bad naked.
The new revelation that Bristol Palin, Sarah Palin’s daughter, is pregnant has rekindled an old debate: should families of nominees be off-limits? I have always maintained that families, beliefs and secrets of all policy makers are fair game. Shocked? Don’t be. The alternative would be silly.
We elect policy makers who set the course of our civic lives. In return, we should expect them to propagate initiatives that they, themselves, adhere to and respect. We should not, under any circumstances, accept the idea of do as I say and not as I do.
Bill Clinton’s difficulty in comprehending what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is notwithstanding, his sexual conduct while President was absolutely fair game. Democrats attempted to diffuse the situation by saying that the President’s sexual conduct had nothing to do with (and did not affect) conducting the business of the people. Wrong! Being the leader of the free world, the trust it requires and the responsibilities it carries have EVERYTHING to do with conducting the business of the people. He had sex with someone other than his wife at the Oval Office. I don’t particularly care about the infidelity part. I do, however, care that it happened while he was President, and that he lied about it.
Feel free to not mention to me that President Bush possibly also lied. This post is about family matters. The premise of the Iraq war is irrelevant here.
Vice President Cheney’s lesbian daughter is absolutely fair game. He should not support a constitutional amendment banning gay/lesbian marriage if his own family includes a lesbian.
Accordingly, Sarah Palin’s pregnant daughter is absolutely fair game. Many in her own Republican party would consider this a failure of parenthood, strong family or religion. All efforts by the Palins and the campaign to positively spin this unfortunate occurrence by saying that they are very proud of Bristol’s decision to keep the baby and to marry the young man are meaningless. They have no choice in the matter. Aborting the baby would be considered sinful. Not marrying the father of the baby would make Bristol an unwed, underage, single Mom. Either way, Palin would not have earned a spot on the Republican ticket.
And now for the kicker. Remember when Britney Spears’ younger sister, Jamie Lynn, became pregnant at 16? I remember how Conservative media personalities such as Limbaugh and O’Reilly had a field day with that. O’Reilly said about Jamie Lynn “. . . the blame falls primarily on the parents of the girl, who obviously have little control over her . . .”
Well, that was then, and it was about a God-less liberal entertainer brat. Sarah Palin’s situation is completely different. Right? Reacting to a Cynthia Tucker column in Atlanta Journal-Constitution, O’Reilly explained why Sarah Palin is not to blame:
Now, the latest thing is that people like me don’t condemn Palin’s family but we condemn other people who, uh, gave birth out of wedlock. I’ve never condemned anybody who gave birth out of wedlock. Ever in my life. I don’t make those kinds of determinations. What I do say and, this nut Cynthia Tucker in the Atlanta Journal Constitution makes a deal out of this, I said that Britney Spears and what’s her sister’s name who’s pregnant, their parents were irresponsible – Jamie Lee – because they were running around unsupervised. Yeah, I said that and I believe it. It has nothing to do with the Palin situation, okay? So, I mean, it just, it really, it makes me angry. → source
Oh, but it has everything to do with the Sarah Palin situation, Mr. O’Reilly. On the one hand, Jamie Lynn’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 16 was a strong indication of failed or absent parenthood. On the other hand, Bristol Palin’s out of wedlock pregnancy at 17 is a private family matter for the Palins only. It doesn’t make sense, does it?
I only have one thing to say about that: WE’LL DO IT LIVE!
Watch this video if you don’t know that reference.
And here’s a video of Bill Clinton’s difficulty with the word ‘is’.
Today is April 20.
Posted by jmjorat 
So a few months ago, everyone was talking about secession – OK, maybe just some Republicans in southern US States. All went quiet for a while until just recently.
Sir Nicholas Stern advises UK government about the economic threat posed by global warming. According to a recent article in the Guardian, Stern labels climate change deniers as “ridiculous” and akin to “flat-earthers”. → 
Also, notice the clever heading of the articles. It’s all about ‘climate change’ not ‘global warming’. Everyone knows that earth’s climate has changed by itself due to natural forces for millennia and long before the presence of humans. Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to say millennia. It can’t be any longer than 6,000 years, of course! That was back when humans saddled dinosaurs and rode them like cowboys. If you believe that, please purchase your Creation Museum tickets 
RSS Feed This Blog
Logical Complex Infinitive 