Fakers, Assholes and Why You Can't Believe Much That's On The Internet

It's been close to a year since my last blog post. I've been busy with, work, writing and life, in general.

Currently, I'm writing my Creator-Owned super-hero, Energyman, which will be published by RocketBlast Comics. There's a possibility for more work from them so I keep my fingers crossed.

If you look back on my blogs you'll see a series I did debunking a conspiracy rant by a supposed "judge", who spent a lot of time uncovering the supposed lies of history.
UPDATE: I went back to the board where I saw the original document and mentioned the mistakes in a comments section. Someone, I can only assume it was the person who posted the original document, admitted there were factual mistakes in the document and started yapping about Jesus as Lord.
So there you have it.
A huge, ridiculously long, conspiracy theory document rife with mistakes essentially aimed at trying to drive people to religion, as if Jesus and/or God is going to appear out of nowhere and makes things "right" with a wave of his hand.
                             

I came across this site on Twitter. It is now one of my favorite sites!

I just recently came upon this news article which prompts me to make a few comments.
1) Why call it The Gospel of Jesus' Wife? Why not The Gospel of Mary? That is the woman in question.
2) "Jesus said to them, 'My wife...'." It also mentions that "she will be able to be my disciple," which led some to question whether women should be allowed to become Catholic priests." We all know that from the beginning of time, it's been a male-dominated society. The Catholic religion looked down upon women as inferior beings who were just put on the earth so men could procreate and make more men. That was the idea, anyway. It was the original He-Man Women-Haters Club and they conspired to keep women out and down and make it male only.
Of course, they didn't take into account that times change. Personally, what does it matter if a priest is male or female? Does the religion comes across any less because a woman is preaching as opposed to a male? Such is the hypocrisy of religion
3) And there will always be doubters. People who are so close-minded that the idea that Jesus was anything but a lone man with followers just upsets the apple cart too much. They've been brainwashed by religion into thinking that Jesus was, literally, an offshoot of God and had magical powers that could make the blind see and cure leprosy and walk on water in an age where if you cut yourself and it became infected, you were a dead man walking.

I think the video below sums up how the concept of "God" just doesn't make sense. Thanks to DarkMatter2525 on youtube for crafting the video.

Super Earths, Gravity and the Possibility of Life On Other Planets

I was happy to come across this article while I was trolling the internet one evening, which states that scientists have found 3 Super Earths orbiting star Gliese 667C in the star's habitable zone. That's the zone where the possibility of liquid water exists and with the possibility of liquid water comes the possibility of life.

Now, the planets orbit closer to the star than we do to ours because the star is cooler. It's a Red Dwarf star estimated to be at least 2 billion years old. The fact that it took twice that for bi-pedal humanoid life to appear on this planet leads me to believe that the possibility of intelligent life on these planets is slim to none BUT there's still the possibility that life of some kind may exist on these planets!

There's also the possibility that these planets, because they orbit so close to the star, are tidally locked. That means that one side of the planet always faces toward the star and the other side away. If this is the case then the probability of any life dips way down but, again, this is all theory and because the Universe is full of impossibilities then without concrete proof (like, actually seeing the planet) we have no idea what's going on there.

I started thinking about the gravity of Super Earths and realized that I didn't really know how to determine the gravity of a planet. Was it just the mass? I came across this helpful article which explained that it wasn't just a planets mass but also its radius which determined the planet's gravity. There's a chart on the page which includes the planet Gliese 667Cc, which is the Super-Earth closest to the star in its habitable zone and it's also the largest. That planet has a gravity of 1.36 compared to Earth's 1 so, yeah, the gravity is slightly heavier there but not crushingly so. I would be more interested in knowing the gravity of Gliese 667Cf, which is smaller than 'c' but sits more firmly in the habitable zone.

Ideally, scientists would like to find a planet around the same type of star as our sun ('G' type), in its habitable zone and roughly around the same age. If it's a Super-Earth then its got to have a mass/radius ratio that puts it as close to 1g as possible. That's as close to comparing apples to apples as you're going to get and just because we haven't found it yet doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

The Universe is chock full of pretty weird stuff. Just look at us!

Wanna Live On Mars? Forever?

No kidding.
Currently there's the Mars One Foundation, who is gearing up to select and train people to leave Earth and live on Mars.
Pretty cool stuff! The catch is that this is obviously a one-way trip. Even though Mars One intends to have an "escape" craft in case something major happens, after a certain point, the human body will become accustomed to Mars' lower gravity thereby making it impossible for them to ever return to Earth.
No matter what happens.
If you click on the link above and tool around the web site, it'll probably answer most, if not all, questions you may have. I'll admit that I'll certainly be glued to my television or computer to witness people walking around Mars, doing things that our current unmanned rovers just can't do!
Now, what kind of people would want to leave Earth and live in an enclosed environment for the rest of their lives? It certainly takes a special breed. You'll never again feel the warm sun on your face or feel a cool natural breeze or lay on the beach or tool around the internet. Whether the mission is a success or a failure, though, you're certain to go down in history as the first person born on Earth to live on Mars.
I would imagine that you would also want people of certain talents to be included in the trip; a Doctor, an Engineer, people that are mechanically inclined. I'm hoping this stuff will be taken into account in the selection process otherwise it may go something like this:
    "I think I broke my arm!"
    "Okay. What do we do?"
    Everyone just looks at each other in total silence.
    "...shit."

This entire idea is certainly a step in the right direction. Having the entire Earth work together to send humans into space, to mine asteroids and to possibly, dare I say, terraform Mars so that it can once again be a living planet is the stuff that drives us to dream big.
For a long time we've been waiting on government to fund these types of ideas. Those days are gone. With the hopeful success of Mars One, private businesses or wealthy individuals are who's going to build a moonbase or a large enough ship to journey to another solar system.
Kudos to Mars One and I look forward to seeing them realize their mission.

Recycle This!

I consider myself a pretty Eco-minded guy. I recycle my household plastics, cans and paper and avoid as much as I can to not contribute to polluting the ground or air. I won't buy anything in a '7' plastic container because reports show that more carcinogens leak into the food product than any other type of plastic. Hey, bottom line is I try to do the right thing and recycle.

Now, you would think that because state and federal governments want people to recycle and not pollute the Earth, that they would somehow promote recycling businesses and make it easier for people to recycle those batteries, cans of paint, old computers, etc.

So I had these old computers that I wanted to recycle. I've seen the reports that computers have mercury and other heavy metals that, if they find their way into a landfill, could contaminate ground water. I read this article about recycling and it gives a bunch of web sites to go to. The first one I go to is Earth911.org. It seemed the Staples not too far from me recycled computers. Great! I gather up the three old computers I had and drive them to Staples. Bring them in and set them up on the counter only to find out that Staples only accepts computers that have Windows Vista or Windows 7 operating systems, the two most recent operating systems at that time. According to the web site, Staples recycled computers period.

I thought about it a little later and realized that Staples wasn't recycling anything. They were refurbishing and reselling computers that were given to them, which is why they wanted the two most recent operating systems.

I let Earth911.org know what I encountered and they said they would check into it. As of right now, the web site shows that only the Staples stores in Southbury, Watertown and Danbury take computers for recycling. I called the Southbury store and they confirmed that they except any computer for recycling. Obviously, something has changed since I brought my old computers to Staples a couple years ago.

At that time, places like Staples and Best Buy also charged you $10 to "recycle" a monitor. My thought was, "Wait a minute. I'm trying to do the right thing by recycling and you want me to pay you for recycling my monitor?? You should be paying me!!" From what I can see today, recycling things at Best Buy is now free, as it should be. Check out this video to find out what happens to your stuff when you bring it to Best Buy!

As for other things like batteries, auto fluids, oil-based paints and such need to be brought to the Household Hazardous Waste facility and they're only open on Saturdays from 9-noon from mid-May until October. Personally, I think they can do a little better in this area. I'm not sure how many people use this facility but having it open year-round would certainly encourage more people to recycle.

And speaking of recycling, I'll end off with this video. Brrrr.

Guns Are The New Black!

Guns are all in the news after the recent shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, CT where 20 children and 6 adults were shot to death by a young man with apparent mental issues. I won't mention the man's name because I won't give him the satisfaction of having been remembered for such a heinous act (do you ever wonder why the word 'heinous' and 'heinie' are so similar? What does a bad act have to do with someone's backside? Or have I just answered my own question? I'm digressing...).

The media has jumped on its horse and shouts out in bold headlines that we need to come up with gun controls so that this never happens again. Everyone in political office from the President of the United States and down to the lowliest Mayor of all cities agree that something needs to be done.

My question is: What? What can be done? What laws can you possibly enact that would 100% prevent anything like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School from ever happening again? I think the answer is: Nothing.

I just shook my head when the media started mentioning that the shooter played violent video games in a dark, bunker-like basement, bringing up the ugly specter that video games were the reason he went on a killing spree. I don't know of a basement anywhere that isn't dark and bunker-like! There are many times when I've played "violent" video games in my dark basement and you don't see me checking myself into the nearest sanitarium or going out to kill masses of people (at least not in real life but within the virtual worlds of Dynasty Warriors and the various Medal of Honor games it's a different story! Digressing again...).

I'm sorry but to play a video game, listen to heavy metal music, read a book or comic book, watch a movie or television show and then go out and kill people there has to be something mentally wrong with you to begin with and all of the sanitizing of entertainment will not change that.

What's also missed is that, from what I've read, none of the guns were the shooter's to begin with. They were his mother's, who enjoyed going to the range and shooting. Legally. So now what, if you have a child that's seeing a psychiatrist you are no longer allowed to own guns or, if you do, must hand them over tout de suite?

New York recently passed a gun control bill. The article I read is here. Gov. Cuomo says, "This is a scourge on society...At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life'?" Guns are a scourge on society? Not the criminals who use the guns to do the actual killing? Without guns, the criminals would use a knife or a bomb or a cannon or whatever else they could turn into a weapon to kill people.
We've always abhorred innocent loss of life and have a half million laws already trying to prevent that. It's a good soundbite for the Governor but if you think about it, it really makes no sense.

My favorite, though, is Sen. Jeffrey Klein who said, "This is not about taking anyone's rights away. It's about a safe society..." You'll notice he doesn't say a 'free' society but a 'safe' society. Contrary to popular belief, the two are different. In a 'safe' society, people have fewer rights than in a 'free' society but many people don't understand that. The one drawback to living in a 'free' society is that things like the shootings in Newtown WILL happen. You can certainly do your best to prevent it but the only true way would be to take all guns from every nook and cranny in this country (all 270,000,000+) and destroy them, leaving the police and armed services with guns and no one else.

It's a pipe dream. Never gonna happen.

Another article here has President Obama working hard to come up with proposals that Congress (Lord help us) can craft into some form of gun control law. President Obama is right when he says, "While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."

By the way, Mr. President, thanks for letting the social security tax to go back up to 6.2% from 4.2% and thanks for giving the middle class people less deductions thereby making our taxes go up, even though you technically stayed true to your word that the tax amount wouldn't go up. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic and I'm digressing again.

At any rate, I have no problem reinstating the assault weapons ban. I have no problem only allowing civilians 7 round clips instead of the 10 round or more. I have no problem that mental health Doctors should report patients who say they are going to kill someone with a gun.
I just don't like it when A) politicians use the Newtown shootings (or any tragedy) to further their own career and/or agenda (which quite a few seem to be doing) and B) when they try to target extraneous stuff (like video games) as the cause when it isn't.

And that's my 2 cents.
By the way, Forbes ranks the best video games of 2012!