January 2010


This is just a random conversation I had with my brother las June. You know you’re insane when this kind of thing is normal conversation fare in your family. (note: the title is an inside in and of itself. Blew your mind, didn’t I?)
[6/30/2009 9:34:15 PM] Jon : M. Night Shyamalan is making the Avatar movie, hahahaha!
[6/30/2009 9:34:40 PM] Wes : Yep. I will admit that I don’t know who that is, but I had heard that I was doing it.
[6/30/2009 9:34:55 PM] Jon : You’d heard that you were doing it?
[6/30/2009 9:35:01 PM] Jon : That’s rather presumptuous, don’t you think?
[6/30/2009 9:35:04 PM] Wes : Whoops.
[6/30/2009 9:35:15 PM] Jon : LOL
[6/30/2009 9:35:22 PM] Wes : Sorry, I’m writing two different things at once. *He* was doing it, I menat.
[6/30/2009 9:35:28 PM] Wes : meant! MEANT!
[6/30/2009 9:36:50 PM] Jon: M. Night Shyamalan wrote and directed “The Village” and “The Happening.”
[6/30/2009 9:36:55 PM] Jon : among others
[6/30/2009 9:37:10 PM] Wes : Ah. He seems to have a thing for “The” movies.
[6/30/2009 9:37:31 PM] Jon : “The Sixth Sense” is probably his best known film.
[6/30/2009 9:37:55 PM] Wes : Ah, yes, I am sensing the trend.
[6/30/2009 9:38:04 PM] Jon : The one with Bruce Willis and that autistic little brat
[6/30/2009 9:38:11 PM] Jon : “I see dead people”
[6/30/2009 9:38:30 PM] Jon : anywho, I found that very entertaining
[6/30/2009 9:38:49 PM] Wes : Dad says “The kid wasn’t autistic, that was Mercury Rising.”
[6/30/2009 9:39:23 PM] Jon : That kid was freaking autistic…he was SPEAKING to DEAD PEOPLE!
[6/30/2009 9:39:52 PM] Wes : I don’t think that is the definition of autism, jon.
[6/30/2009 9:40:36 PM] Jon : How many autistic people do you know?  Exactly.
[6/30/2009 9:40:53 PM] Wes : Like, a ton. I know this one guy named Jon, for instance…
[6/30/2009 9:41:25 PM] Jon : I hold that speaking to dead people is actually a very major part of the Autistic Brat’s Handbook (patent pending).
[6/30/2009 9:42:00 PM] Jon : And while I may very well be speaking to a dead person now, that’s no excuse to refer to me as “a ton.”
[6/30/2009 9:42:27 PM] Wes : Dad says he knows 5. So I think he wins.
[6/30/2009 9:42:49 PM] Jon : They’re probably all dead people, which means you know 2.

So, it’s been a long time since I’ve written. School and such pretty much keeps me hopping most of the time,  but still there’s no excuse for slacking off. However, today, I found something so deliciously poetic to write about that I had to share it. Pardon the devilish smirk that will be plastered all over my face for this entire blog post, but I’m feeling very, very happy about this particular topic.

As you have undoubtedly heard here and there over the years, the Ice caps are melting. One of the principal examples of this is in the Himalayas, which scientists, environmentalists, and complete idiots Al Gore have been trumpeting about for years. Basically, by 2035, or so they say, the Himalayas will be clear of glaciers because of  Big Bad Global Warming. Now, for a few years now, I’ve been laughing at this, and have been scorned for it. After all, it’s science, right? Global warming is a fact, right? No, but thanks for playing.  As well as being unable to grasp the concept that nothing is secret on the internet, the concept of time also seems to have eluded our dear experts. It has come to light recently that global warming experts have had one particularly large flaw in their Himalayas argument since the beginning: The numbers are wrong.  In the source cited, an article from  “Down to Earth” from the 1990’s(In a round about way, read the article cited at the bottom for the full details). Now, herein lies the problem: That article had its facts wrong. Those facts in turn spread into several other credible scientific reports, all the way to the WFF report in 2007. What facts did they get wrong? Well, the study “Down to Earth” cites actually says that ALL of the worlds glaciers, not just the ones in the Himalayas, are going to melt. The slight problem? It doesn’t claim 2035, but instead 2350 as the meltdown date. My math may be a bit fuzzy, but I’m pretty sure there is a significant difference in those two dates.  For those of you keeping score, this is the second major scandal to hit the Global Warming movement in the past few months.

Does that make anyone else smile? It makes me smile. I’ve been saying this whole business is a farce since “Inconvenient Truth” came out.  How much longer are we going to let them continue this facade? Personally, I say we drop the false pretenses, ditch Global Warming , and focus on the REAL environmental issues. That’s just my two cents though.

Source Citing: http://www.economist.com/sciencetechnology/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15328534

Greetings, and salutations!

If you’re reading this, you probably either know me, or have too much time on your hands. Either way, welcome! As this is my first blog post, I figure I might as well cover something both ridiculous and news-worthy.

So, as you have probably heard at this point, Haiti was hit by a large earthquake. By large, I mean big enough to have aftershocks registering in the 5.0 range. Let me put it another way: The Haiti earthquake was an 8.0 scale earthquake. The earthquake that made the Mississippi run backwards in 1812 was an 8.1. There is widespread devastation, with untold amounts of missing or dead civilians.  It’s a tragedy of the highest matter.  Yet,  some view it as inevitable.

After the Haiti earthquake, Pat Robertson released a video claiming that the earthquake was “God’s judgement” against Haiti for “making a pact with the devil” 200 years ago to free themselves from Napoleon Bonaparte.  Now, no matter your views on rebellion, no matter whether you agree with the Haitian government, I think we can agree that such a statement is both insensitive and hasty. To say that one of the greatest natural disasters of our time on an innocent populace was an act of God brought about by their ancestors 200 years ago is to me a statement you better have an obscene amount of biblical backup for.

Of course, the Obama administration immediately denounced his statements. No surprise there, right? Here’s the kicker though: Pat isn’t the only theorist on Haiti. Remember Danny Glover? Lethal Weapon, 2012, and probably half a dozen other movies I’ve heard of but never seen. Well, according to him, Haiti’s problems were caused by global warming. Go back and read that sentence again, I’ll wait. He goes so far as to say “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?” Now, I’m no expert on the environment, but I’m pretty darn sure that the shifting of the Earth’s tectonic plates has very, very little to do with a rise in carbon dioxide, or angry protesters threatening to take over a meeting. Correct me if I’m wrong on that one, though, as I very well could be.

So, herein lies the problem: Obama hasn’t said anything about Glover as of yet. I’m fine with the administration denouncing extreme opinions, don’t get me wrong. However, I think it should be done to BOTH sides of the field, rather than the one that you’re pretty sure you can ignore because it isn’t voting for you anyway. The facts of the matter are this: Both gents are going off of opinion. They don’t have scientific proof to back up their ideas. So, if you are going to denounce, you better denounce both, or explain why you agree with one and not the other. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite, plain and simple.