Zesko Rolls

Thursday, March 15, 2012

MY POSITION ON SCIENCE

I think I've mentioned before that I was a very curious and very science-oriented child.  Yeah, I taught myself to read and write by the time I was three years old, although I was reading "whole word" style... I couldn't actually spell.

As far as I was concerned, I was writing in glyphs.  I mean, I knew what whole words were, and I could replicate those words in print, but I had no idea of how the words broke down into individual letters or what the individual letters meant.

In other words, I had skipped over grade school literacy and went straight for college-level literacy.  Adults read whole words, you see, but only after slogging through 12 years of mandatory public education, during which time their literacy is more stunted than expanded, in my opinion.

My first book was titled "Skiing Is Not Fun"... I wrote and illustrated it one Saturday morning in 1963 after watching this terrible ski-jump accident on sports television.  The book was only four pages long, heavy on illustration — enough so to dissuade any reasonable person from ever contemplating a go at the slopes.

I was a curiosity to my parents, I think, because my older brothers and sisters weren't nearly so sharp.  They would bring me out to entertain guests, like a 3-year-old ventriloquist's dummy on my father's knee.

"Who shot President Lincoln?" my dad would prompt, and I would take off with a full narrative of the assassination at Ford's Theatre, the manhunt for John Wilkes Booth, the unjust incarceration of Doctor Mudd, Booth's murder at the hand of Boston Corbett in Port Royal, Virginia, and the hanging of Confederate conspirators thereafter.

Our guests, usually relatives, would be awestruck.  Intimidated.  From whence does this font of knowledge proceed? Who taught him all this?

"He reads books," my mom would explain.

True, I read whatever books I could find.  There were encyclopedias in our home, as well as these great tomes of world history, and Revolutionary War book collections, and WWII history books.  I read the newspapers, also.

My mother knew that I was peculiar.

She nurtured that peculiarity in me, I think she was experimenting with my intelligence.  We started making trips to the public Library from time to time — it was a long way to the Library, out into the very heart of the Mexican East Side of Houston, into Denver Harbor.

Denver Harbor is a subdivision of Houston on the near East Side of Downtown, just off the Houston Ship Channel.

The building was a typical 1960s public library: brick, wood, sort've a Frank Lloyd Wright knockoff with plenty of ambient light oozing through the thick, green-tinted vertical windows from floor to ceiling, and skylights with their green-bronze cranking hardware.  It was a very nice reading environment and I liked it.  But it was the LIBRARY that exposed me to Science, and I can tell you which book.



Wow, they really modernized the old library, looks nice and boxy.  Hope they're using it.  The book in question was...  Hold on, I'm looking for an image of it.... Here we go: Observer's Book of Astronomy


The Observer series of books in the early 60s sparked my imagination and my curiosity.  I loved that turquoise skull, right?  Who wouldn't?  

Science was just so totally awesome to me that I wanted to do EVERYTHING, I wanted to become a geologist and a chemist and physicist and a cosmologist and an artist and a herpetologist and a paleontologist.  And an archaeologist.  And a marine biologist.  

And I eventually did.  

Well, not officially, not with academic credentials to back me up; but I studied chemistry and microscopy and geology and biology — and I was doing all that by the time I was 8 years old.  I became a self-taught herpetologist at that age with LOTS of hands-on experience; in fact, when I called the Herman Park Zoo Reptile House in Houston and told them that I was successfully breeding wild turtles in captivity, they admitted that I had accomplished something rare.

Hey, I understand something about reptiles that many scientists don't understand.  

Reptiles are not simple-minded creatures.  I'd say that reptiles are as aware as some highly-evolved mammals, such as cats and dogs.  I'm telling you that I captured a North American freshwater Alligator Snapping Turtle, which is the closest thing to a living dinosaur you're ever going to encounter, and within a year that turtle was following me around the yard like a puppy.

Well... A puppy that could snap a boat oar in-two with one bite.

That animal allowed me to stroke it between the eyes and under the chin, and it would snuggle up to me when I sat down.  No exaggeration.  I hand-fed this voracious carnivore a diet of live crayfish that I captured down in the bayou.  It was an extraordinary relationship, one that lasted several years, until I finally released her back into her natural habitat.

Odd to think that she may still be alive, and may outlive me. 

All told, as a child, I was a foster parent for 38 turtles, terrapins and tortoises of diverse species.  I provided them as natural a habitat as I could, plenty of water and direct sunshine, I allowed the scavengers to scavenge and the predators to predate, and I met their every need.  

But I recognized that those creatures DO have emotions — they're not ruthless.  In fact, I don't hesitate to tell you that those reptiles loved and respected me.  You just have to demonstrate to them that you're not afraid of their sharp beaks and claws, you remove fear from their environment.  Animals understand control.  Animals also sense fear, they smell it, it triggers primal reactions.  

You should never fear animals; but you have to respect them or they'll tear you apart.

Such was their sense of security, my turtles bred in captivity and laid eggs, which I incubated to full term.  The herps at Herman Park Zoo were intrigued.  

As I researched my childhood interests in the Library, I noticed footnotes directing me to certain magazines and journals — magazines and journals that the Library didn't necessarily own.

So I started subscribing.

You may wonder how a little kid could subscribe to anything; and I'll respond that it was easy as hell.  I knew how to make money, mowing yards and cashing in returnable glass bottles, and I knew how to purchase a money order at the pharmacy and drop an envelope in a mailbox.

An income and a permanent mailing address is all you needed to subscribe to Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine and Science News.  I was all over it.  I was Mister Trial Subscription to several scientific journals and laboratory supply catalogues before I was 10 years old.

My parents acknowledged that I was "different," and the Christmas presents in our home starkly reflected that fact — year after year, while the other kids received games and toys and bicycles and various apparel, I was receiving robots and microscopes and chemistry sets and dissecting kits and blackboards.

I knew that this was a stretch for my parents, because we were NOT rich.  They had to save up all year for Christmas gifts; and, even with the advent of these new-fangled "shopping malls" in the late 1960s, it wasn't EASY to find the exact gift you wanted.  Back then, they couldn't begin to imagine the amazing diversity of selection that we enjoy today through the Internet.

But, hey, as a kid I was basically doing what I'm still doing to this day: Buying stuff by mail-order.

I was a damned good consumer in-training.  I bought laboratory equipment from the Edmund Scientific Catalogue, I bought Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, and I bought Sea Monkeys.

Yeah, Sea Monkeys.  Sea Monkeys probably inspired me to go into marketing, because when I realized  that these were just Artemia shrimp in a chemical soup, that they weren't actually "pets" so much as they were an elaborate (and eccentric, and successful) marketing campaign, it was a real awakening for me.



But my primary source of education was definitely NOT the public school system.  I had the same opinion of mandatory education back then that I still have today — that it's a monumental waste of time, more an exercise in political and social indoctrination than in education, designed to blunt our natural curiosity and close the doors to our imaginations.

My primary source of information and education was the Library, as well as the science journals and magazines I received regularly by mail.  When I wanted to learn something, I learned it on my own, immediately, rather than waiting for the public school system to "get around" to teaching it.

I knew things about science and technology in the 1970s that even the science instructors in school didn't know.  When I described a laser tank under development by the Department of Defense, my physical science teacher laughed in my face, told me to stop reading comic books and do my homework.

In point of fact, I almost never did my homework, but I read Science News magazine with a passion, and Science News carried stories (with photos) of the DOD's latest projects.

Fact is, the DOD developed a laser tank back in the early 1970s, a big heavy duty armored vehicle with a turret-mounted laser cannon that could punch a hole in a titanium target at a distance of 10 miles.

So why hasn't the public ever heard about it?  Simple.  It was a failure.  

Yes, the tank was developed.  Yes, the chemically-powered burning laser was entirely functional and accurate and effective.  So why did it fail?

Not enough bang for the bucks.  

In order to power the extraordinary laser cannon, the tank had to tow a chemical power plant the size of a small bus.  The power plant had to be heavily armored, and all of this scientific gear was astronomically expensive.

If this thing was ever deployed in a combat zone, with a 20-year-old kid driving it, it would be a visible and very, VERY sensitive target.  I mean, you can't just ABANDON a rig like this if it takes an RPG hit; the laser tank would have to contain some sort of self-destruct mechanism that would vaporize all the high-tech components, right?

Can't let the enemy get their hands on that tech, right?

Understandably, the laser tank was getting more and more costly as its development progressed.  When a project's budget starts escalating out of control, as developers try to cover all the contingencies, there's a point at which  the Budget Office kills the project, relegating it to the scrap heap.

That's what happened to the laser tank.

It wasn't a complete loss, however.  The chemically-powered laser cannon was adapted to a high-altitude aerial platform — an airplane rather than a tank —which is a lot harder target for enemy fire, and it doesn't require a ton of armor to shield the power plant.

No, the laser plane can't target anything on the ground; instead, it's designed to pick off incoming missiles at extremely high altitude, where the thin atmosphere doesn't scatter the laser beam.  I think the plane can target satellites, as well.

Anyway, while the kids in school were worrying about their pimples and who was dating who and were pumping up for the next football game, I was studying the science and technology that was going to shape their future.  

Remember the 1989 James Cameron movie The Abyss (which should've been a LOT better script, btw)?  I wasn't impressed much by the storyline or the silly computer-generated Sea Monkeys, but the scene with Ed Harris climbing into a breathable liquid suit caught my attention.

I thought, does James Cameron think that's futuristic? 

Because I was reading in science journals about breathable liquids back in the mid-1970s, and I saw photos of test animals actually breathing silicone-based fluids that had been aerated with Oxygen.  Of course, the ultimate objective of breathing liquids is getting that shit OUT of your lungs so that you can continue breathing normally later on, right?

The test subjects never rotated back to breathing air.  Are we clear on this?  None of the test animals survived.  Well, DUH.  You don't fill up an air-breathing creature's lungs with silicone-based fluids and just expect the creature to cough it up and go on its way.  

The damage to the delicate bronchial structures was massive and irreparable.

Problem is that you need a very light fluid that contains enough Oxygen to keep a Human being alive, and that does not inhibit the function of the lungs or unduly stress the diaphragm.  No such fluid exists. Yet.

You know why they want this stuff, right, this breathable liquid stuff?  

It's for suspended animation.  You put people in space for 50 years, you want them asleep most of the time, but you want them MORE than asleep.  You want them comatose.  You want to suspend all their biologic processes without killing them.  

Okay.  You fill their lungs and gastrointestinal tracts with a genetically-engineered amniotic fluid.  I mean, that's where Nature has already gone, right?  Nature knows its shit.

That's what we'll end up doing with deep space travelers in the future.  We won't fill them up with silicone-based Oxygenated fluids that are so toxic that we shouldn't have used them in the first place; rather, we'll sample the space traveler's own DNA, we'll synthesize a genetically compatible amniotic fluid that is entirely breathable, and pump THAT stuff into him.

In this way we can deliver Oxygen to his tissues and carry away the CO2, certainly; but also we can replenish calcium that is lost in microgravity, and provide other nutrition as needed, and whatever else we decide to squirt into him.

Now this is all going to happen, surely, because I know the Scientific Establishment is working on it.  Hell, they were working on it back in the 1970s, so I KNOW that some laboratory, somewhere, out in the rolling hills of Virginia or tucked away in the vastness of Wyoming, has refined the technology.

You see, I've kept abreast of the most astonishing and unlikely scientific oddities all throughout my life, and I know that the Scientific Establishment will pander and suck-up to whatever this fucking Socialist government dictates.

If reality, for you, is defined by Science, I pity you.  Science, as a community, is very CLOSED-MINDED and belligerently dogmatic, and particularly in regard to ANYTHING involving the government — such as the anthropogenic global warming/carbon tax shakedown.

Look here, I love Science.  I love it the way I do it.

As I see it, Science is nothing more than a method of thinking, it's a method of rationalizing this miraculous Universe.  But I also think of Science as a very cruel and zealous religion, with representative clergy and a fucking pope and pea-brained evangelists and all the other ecclesiastic trappings.

Religion and Science have been twisted and transformed into nothing more than tools for The Powers That Be (down there) who gladly whip the hooting and pooting human masses into a frenzy at their whim and for their own unimaginable ends.


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

LOVE RECHARGES LIFE'S BATTERIES

Okay, the "soul" is NOT your personality, so get that out of your head.  Far from it.

Each human being has innumerable personalities; for example, you have a distinct personality you use when taking a shower; you have another personality when sitting on the toilet; another when having sex; you use a different personality for talking to your mother-in-law, distinct from the one you use for talking to your mother or your wife or your husband. You have a VERY distinct SET of personalities for dealing with your children, your pets, your mailman, your minister. Your personality changes when sitting in your car, stuck in traffic, or driving through the countryside. Et cetera, et cetera. 

Humans ADAPT rapidly because we can assemble new personalities to fit a given moment.

That's why we must necessarily relegate "personality" to the material world. Personality is both a product of the material world and a versatile tool you use for dealing with the material world.

Personality, memory, and emotion are ALL corporeal components. That means they are NOT part of your Soul. The SOUL is your event horizon to the DIVINE. It stands apart from all of the cluttered mess of your daily living. It's that part of you that remains calm and indifferent and clear when things are at their very worst.

I know, I know, people are always saying "God is Love," but that's not true.  Or, rather, it's about as true as saying Schrödinger's cat is alive inside the box.  Because, you see, God must to be EVERYTHING to all people and to every creature in this Universe.  If God is Love, God is also the antithesis of Love, as well as all the degrees of Love and Hate.  If God is Good, God must also, necessarily, be Evil.  God is both the Yin and the Yang.  The Creator and Destroyer.

God is your Champion, but God is also your enemy.  God is Satan.  Sure, I can say that, and so can you.  Try it.

But that thing we call The Soul is your Divine core, it's a bubble of the Eleventh Dimension or something that is given access to this Universe at the very moment of your conception.  They say the eyes are the windows to the Soul, but you can take that a step further.

The Soul is the Window to God.

Why do you think Christ said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (that's Matthew 18:20)...?

He was saying that in gathering and looking into the eyes of others, you are communing with God.

It's sort of like the weird department-store folding-mirror effect, okay?  You remember in the old days how the big department stores always had a full-length folding mirror, usually in the ladies' section, so they could ogle themselves wearing clothing right off the rack?  The two folding wings of the mirror allowed the women to view themselves from virtually every angle.

But, if you were a kid, you always wanted to position the folding mirrors facing one another, to reflect the mirror reflecting the mirror reflecting the mirror reflecting the mirror into infinity.  It annoyed my that I could never quite see infinity because my big head was always in the way, no matter how I tried to sneak-peek.

Well, that's the effect Christ was talking about when he said where two or three are gathered.  He was talking about looking into each other's eyes, into Infinity.  That's where Christ, God and the Holy Spirit reside.

Interestingly, Science HATES the notion of Infinity.  They really hate it.  See, Infinity screws up all their majestic mathematical constructs that are dependent on a FINITE Universe.  That's why the atheist astrophysicist Stephen Hawking refuses to hypothesize on what happened BEFORE the Big Bang — because mathematics don't work before the existence of the Space-Time continuum.

Mathematics don't work after the end of the Universe, either.  Same with the interior of so-called Black Holes, where physics shatter to pieces in ways that mathematics can't begin to describe.

So, for the hardboiled astrophysicists such as Stephen Hawking, there's NOTHING before and NOTHING after the Universe.  Physicists just won't go there, because it's pure fantasy.  It's Infinity.  It's Magic and make a wish and "that does not compute" time.

Yeah, too bad old Albert Einstein left so many equations open-ended like that, with a vulgar Infinity symbol at the very last.

But, see, that's where our big heads get in the way, like the kid with the department store mirrors, so we can't sneak a peek nor comprehend Infinity in the least.

But Christ said you CAN comprehend Infinity, when two or three people gather together and look into each other's eyes and REALIZE that they are actually looking through the windows of the Soul and into Infinity, into the Realm of God.

Conversely, the Soul is God's window into our Universe.  And, yes, everything has a Soul, even the most unlikely things.  When you read in Matthew 10:29 "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father," Christ is saying, of course, that even the lowliest and most common creatures are under God's watchful eye.

But he's saying more than that.

He's saying that God knows when even a sparrow dies, because a tiny little window into our Universe is closed.  God sees into our Universe through our Souls, yes?  Well, of course, yes.

That's why God insists that everything be fruitful and multiply, that He might gaze upon His creation with constantly-replenished eyes.

Oh, about the title.... Love Recharges Life's Batteries is just an impish slogan I dreamed up for possible use on T-shirts, coffee cups, crap like that.  I wasn't going sappy on you.


Tuesday, March 6, 2012

GET YOUR FILL OF POLITICAL RHETORIC AT WWW.ZESKOWHIRLIGAN.COM

Well, since I posted the last two blogs, I've received over 1200 views in the last 48 hours.

Which is good, in a sense; however, I never intended this blog to turn into a political torture chamber.  Not that I'm opposed to torture chambers, necessarily, but Zesko Knows is supposed to be several magnitudes more intelligent than any sounding board of political rhetoric.

In fact, I wrote a book a couple of years ago — Toxic Reign: Reclaim Our Future — that lambasted the Central Government Liberal Mainstream Media; and, for my efforts, I was publicly identified as a purveyor of violent speech by the Anti-Defamation League.

Imagine that.

No, I didn't sue the ADL — they've devolved into a mean-spirited organization of politically-correct, anti-American, anti-Constitution trolls who are just as bad as the Anti-Semites and Nazis they pretend to loathe; and that's enough karmic justice, in my opinion.

So, while I'm not going to remove the last two political entries from Zesko Knows, I just want to alert you that I'm not going to make similar politically-inflammatory entries on this particular site in the future.

Rather, I'll be posting purely political commentary on my OTHER blog, www.ZeskoWhirligan.com — otherwise known as Toxic Reign — which is specifically dedicated to political rhetoric; plus, there are links to switch back and forth between the two blogs, so you won't get lost.

Let's be clear, while I don't mind discussing politics in an educational way here at Zesko Knows, I don't want this blog to become a forum for political shit-slinging.  You'll get enough of that at Toxic Reign, I promise you.


THE LIBERAL LEFT'S VULGAR ABUSE OF WOMEN

Here's a premium bit of Liberal hypocrisy, in direct counterpoint to the media-fueled Limbaugh/Fluke controversy.

The angry liberal Bill Maher — who's just another media personality regularly commenting on Washington politics, as does Rush Limbaugh — is known and even CELEBRATED by his Liberal audience for his vulgar and violent insults against women. 

Maher regularly refers to women as boobs, bimbos, cunts, twats and much worse. Indeed, Maher is recognized as, perhaps, the most misogynistic personality in American media. He is famously known for referring to Sarah Palin as a "dumb twat," which brought gales of laughter and applause from his Liberal audience. 

In response to the media firestorm surrounding Rush Limbaugh's insulting comments about Democratic activist Sandra Fluke (comments for which Limbaugh apologized), Kirsten Powers writes about the liberal men who have used misogynistic rhetoric without facing the same outrage. Powers notes that "the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC." She continues:
Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.”  He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. 
Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job.
Although Congressional Democrats are currently URGING Sandra Fluke to sue Rush Limbaugh for slander and libel, there has never been a Congressional recommendation for Sarah Palin to sue Bill Maher. 

Rather, and in spite of Maher's truly offensive language toward women, Barack Obama's re-election campaign has ACCEPTED a MILLION DOLLAR donation from Bill Maher. Apparently, there's no controversy in the Liberal-controlled media AT ALL when one of their OWN misogynists attacks women.

Do you seriously think that Barack Obama is going to wax righteous and REFUSE Maher's donation?  Hell no, he won't.  Because whatever advances Barack Obama's re-election — be it misogyny, racism, socialism, whatever — is FINE with Obama and with his hypocritical, mean-spirited supporters.

This Liberal hypocrisy reminds me in a profound way of the Liberal ACCEPTANCE of Bill Clinton's abuse of women before and during his presidency in the 1990s.

Oh, the Liberals thought Bill Clinton was WONDERFUL, even though he abused and raped women and referred to his female victims as "trailer trash"... Did the National Organization for Women come to the defense of Paula Jones or Gennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinsky (who represent just a FRACTION of Bill Clinton's adulterous sexual conquests)? 

More importantly, did NOW hurry to offer moral support to Clinton's WIFE, Hillary, who looked like a complete and compliant fool? 

Hell no, they didn't. The National Organization for Women was TOTALLY silent throughout Bill Clinton's worst sexual scandals. It was a travesty that permanently tarnished NOW's credibility.

But, again, THAT'S how Liberals work in America. Women and churches and moral compasses be DAMNED, as far as Liberals are concerned.


Monday, March 5, 2012

THE LIBERAL LEFT'S RUSH TO JUDGMENT

As usual, the angry and uninformed Liberal Left rises up on its hind legs in righteous indignation, barking their preposterous and inappropriate opinions upon a subject about which they are utterly ignorant...

Congressional Democrats Urge Sandra Fluke to SUE Rush Limbaugh
The Georgetown Law student whom Rush Limbaugh called a "slut" ought to sue him for libel, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Sunday.
The House’s second-ranking Democrat said Sandra Fluke, who was swept up in a national furor when Limbaugh called her a “slut” and a “prostitute” because of her stance on contraceptives, needs to explore legal options against the radio host, Hoyer said. A Georgetown Law grad himself, Hoyer called Limbaugh's comment "reprehensible."
"I'd like to see her take him to court," Hoyer said, according to a report in the Montgomery Advertiser. “She is not a public figure and, for that reason, she should be able to sue for slander, libel or whatever else might be involved." See also: Rush on air: Apology was heartfelt.
Fluke was thrust into the national spotlight when she wasn’t allowed to testify in front of a congressional hearing on the Obama administration’s contraception rule. She spoke before an informal Democratic hearing late last month about the need for easier access to birth control, prompting Limbaugh’s remarks.
Rush Limbaugh owes NOBODY an apology, least of all a woman who EXPECTS religious institutions to abandon their long-held stances on contraception and FINANCE her choice of (frequent) birth control.

The young, unmarried law student who actually went before Congress to lament her inability to control her sexual urges is typical of the Lefties out there who, in their ignorance, believe THEIR INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIOR should be defended by the government, even at the expense of the Church.

You DO KNOW that this is the CRUX of the matter, right?

Fluke is nothing but the latest hood ornament for the Liberal campaign to FORCE religious institutions (such as the Jesuit school that Miss Fluke attends) to carry student insurance that covers expensive contraception costs. So, instead of respecting the MORAL BASIS of religious institutions, Miss Fluke and her supporters (such as Nancy Pelosi, a self-described Catholic) are demanding that the federal government intercede and FORCE these institutions to supply contraception (and abortion, too, eventually) against their beliefs.

Yes, Miss Fluke, who is a law student AND a feminist activist for government-funded birth control, has an agenda. She's not in need of $3000 per year in birth control pills and other birth control measures. Miss Fluke was CHOSEN by the Liberal Left in Congress to argue against the Church. If there's any doubt that this is a Liberal publicity stunt, consider that Miss Fluke wasn't even going to speak before Congressional hearings on the matter until Nancy Pelosi convened her OWN, SEPARATE HEARING for Miss Fluke's benefit, OUTSIDE of the official hearings on the subject.

Yes, Miss Fluke's little righteously indignant adventure into the limelight is a PUBLICITY STUNT, organized and perpetrated by the Liberal Left in Congress.

This is EXACTLY like the HOAX perpetrated by the National Organization for Women in the early 1970s, USING Norma McCorvey (under the pseudonym of Jane Roe) as a hood ornament for the campaign for legal (and frequent) abortion, protected and financed by the federal government. Norma McCorvey wasn't even pregnant, had no NEED for an abortion, but she and the National Organization for Women perpetrated a LIE — a LIE that she WAS pregnant and had been denied an abortion — all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is how Liberals OPERATE in America, folks. When they can't have their way, they INVENT characters and plaintiffs and issues out of thin air, and FORCE them down America's throat.

The fact is, Miss Fluke doesn't NEED contraceptives, because no man would touch her with a seven-inch pole; and that's because she's a mean-spirited, Liberal Leftist political activist. Which probably means she's a lesbian, as well.

No, I won't apologize for my skilled deduction, and Rush Limbaugh doesn't owe Miss Fluke and her political HACKS in Congress an apology, either.

As for Mr. Limbaugh's sponsors (very few of whom are actually pulling their advertising from his show), I would hasten to remind you that Mr. Limbaugh's SPONSORS didn't make him famous — he did that HIMSELF, because he KNOWS HOW to play these little political games, and he knows what he's doing right now... He's pushing buttons to increase his own visibility. Plain and simple. If there's one thing the Liberal Left should have learned by now, it's that you DON'T go after Rush Limbaugh, because he'll turn it to his own benefit, and he'll be more famous than ever.

Sunday, March 4, 2012

YET ANOTHER DOOMSDAY SCENARIO

Oh, boy, here we go again...

Massive Asteroid Threatens Earth in 2013
NASA's data shows the 60-meter asteroid, spotted by Spanish stargazers in February, will whistle by Earth in 11 months. Its trajectory will bring it within a hair’s breadth of our planet, raising fears of a possible collision. 
The asteroid, known as DA14, will pass by our planet in February 2013 at a distance of under 27,000 km (16,700 miles). This is closer than the geosynchronous orbit of some satellites.
There is a possibility the asteroid will collide with Earth, but further calculation is required to estimate the potential threat and work out how to avert possible disaster,
Look, before you rush to construct an asteroid-proof bunker and stock it with incontinence diapers, please TRY to keep this discovery in perspective.

The 2012 DA14 asteroid is only 60 meters wide (about 180 feet).  An asteroid only 180 feet in its maximum dimension is about 1/3 the size of the Canyon Diablo Meteor (which created Meteor Crater in Winslow, Arizona, about 50,000 years ago).  The Canyon Diablo Meteor is estimated to have been about 500 feet in diameter, and the crater (as it appears today) is only about a mile in diameter.

Yeah, if DA14 strikes Earth next February, it'll release about as much energy as a low-yield thermonuclear weapon, which will be quite noticeable if it impacts any land mass.  However, the Earth's surface is over 70% WATER, which means the asteroid has less than a 30% chance of impacting dry land.

I've got news for you, folks, and NASA can back this up, as can NORAD: The Earth's oceans have received more than a couple of meteors of this size before, and within the last hundred years.  NORAD has to be on constant vigil for these meteoric visitors, so we don't mistake them for actual nuclear detonations and launch a counterstrike on somebody.

Did you get that?  Earth gets hit by these asteroids fairly REGULARLY, and they fizzle into the oceans without much fanfare.  No worldwide apocalypse, no nuclear winter, not even a respectable tsunami results from these impacts.

Now, if a 180-foot meteor managed to impact a populated land mass, it might take out a very small town or do a lot of damage in a major city.  It would be pretty sensational news, but it wouldn't be any worse than the damage caused by an F5 tornado, okay?  Sure, an F5 tornado is pretty frightening to contemplate, but only in a very limited and localized sense, and it would never threaten humanity's existence.

It's when asteroids reach several MILES in size that they cause global disturbances.  And, just for the record, the notion that a 6-mile meteor exterminated the dinosaurs is just a sensational THEORY.  There's no hard evidence that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs but inexplicably didn't exterminate the much more fragile amphibians.  It's a more likely theory that communicable DISEASE killed off the dinosaurs, not some overblown Hollywood horror such as an asteroid.