The 98th Anniversary of the Government Dust Bowl

98 years ago, tomorrow, one of the largest dust storms in recorded history hit North America.  The cause of it was largely man-made.  More importantly, it was GOVERNMENT made.
In 1914, the government began pursuing a policy of agricultural growth.  Funding was given to educate more farmers and to cultivate millions of acres of previously fallow soil.  By 1930, 300% more farmland was being cultivated. 

By 1932, the topsoil in these areas, once covered and held in place by miles and miles of prairie grass, had been forever changed by constant exposure to the elements.  In one month, between mid-April and mid-May, two large dust storms destroyed crops and farmland in the midwest, much of it the newly cultivated fields.

For days, many cities and small towns sat in dark clouds blown in from the fields.  Chicago and Cleveland were coated with the dust.  The soil filtered into auto engines, rendering them useless.  Houses were covered by dark drifts of soil.  Livestock died from ingesting the dust.  Worst of all were the deaths of those farmers and others who were caught out in the sudden dust storms, unable to find shelter quickly enough to survive.

Finally, the government reacted with more directives... But not before 650 million tons of topsoil were blown away.  The policies did little, if anything, to improve the situation.  When the rains finally began again in 1938, nearly 9 million acres of dust covered an area where once had been rolling plains.  Within a year of regular rain, that number fell to a little over 1 million acres.
What the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 did to the financial sector, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914 had done to the agricultural sector.

It was now time for the government to come in and play savior to a crisis it had, itself, created.

More Tricks

This is rich. Little Tricky Santorum is saying the Obama administration isn't based on the Bible, implying that a Santorum administration would be based on the Bible. Which Bible, Tricky?

Since you are a Catholic, Rick, your Bible has several more books that us protestants don't recognize as Canon. Some Catholics believe that the Pope is the closest thing to God on earth, and that his word is just as powerful as the word of God. I doubt many of your protestant Christian supporters, who may not be aware of your religious persuasion, would be happy if they thought you meant you'd allow the Pope to make policy decisions for the good ole' US of A, would they?

Now, of course, all of this is moot, because, as people who follow the Constitution, we don't believe there should be any religious tests for any office, right, Rick? Of course not. So tone it down, and let your example speak for you. Wait, you can't.

*grin*

Founders no Teetotalers

Stumbled on an item today that's pretty interesting and probably disheartening for those who advocate prohibition. Seems the Founders had a proclivity for the sauce. A bill from September 15, 1787 shows a party for 'the entertainment of George Washington' and 54 guests on the 14th required 164 bottles of various types of alcohol. The list includes claret, porter, beer and madera. That's almost 3 bottles per person. There were also 7 bowls of punch, and a bunch more liquor for the musicians.

I already knew John Hancock was a smuggler of liquor, but these folks could apparently party pretty hard, too.

Happy John Hancock's Birthday!

Everyone knows about the first president under the US Constitution, George Washington, but, other than his gigantic signature, what do you know about John Hancock? Did you know that he was the president of our government when congress signed the Declaration of Independence, making him the first president of our independent nation? Did you know that he owned the Liberty, the ship upon which the first act of defiance against Great Britian occurred before the Revolutionary War?

It's true! No one was killed, but some British agents were roughed up a bit when they tried to illegally search his ship. Liberty was carrying wine, and the Brits suspected Hancock of offloading some of it without paying taxes, making him a controlled substance smuggler.

He also presided over the meeting in Boston that sparked the Boston Tea Party. He didn't participate, having gout at the time, but it's said he told the men to 'do what you will'. He was also one of the men reportedly singled out for arrest the night Revere rode out, letting the nation know that 'the British are coming!'

There's a lot more cool facts about Hancock. Look 'im up.

The First Presidents

Who was the first President? George Washington, of course... right? Not really. Washington was the first President under the Constitution but there were several before him under the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation. Pictured to the left is Peyton Randolph, the first President of the Continental Congress.

The following men served as the President of the First Continental Congress:

Peyton Randolph (September 5, 1774 – October 21, 1774) and
Henry Middleton (October 22, 1774 – October 26, 1774)


The following men served as the President of the Second Continental Congress:

Peyton Randolph (May 10, 1775 – May 23, 1775)
John Hancock (May 24, 1775 – October 31, 1777)
Henry Laurens (November 1, 1777 – December 9, 1778)
John Jay (December 10, 1778 – September 27, 1779)
Samuel Huntington (September 28, 1779 – March 1, 1781*)


The following men served as President of the United States in Congress Assembled:

Samuel Huntington (March 1, 1781* – July 9, 1781)
Thomas McKean (July 10, 1781 – November 4, 1781)
John Hanson (November 5, 1781 – November 3, 1782)
Elias Boudinot (November 4, 1782 – November 2, 1783)
Thomas Mifflin (November 3, 1783 – October 31, 1784)
Richard Henry Lee (November 30, 1784 – November 6, 1785)
John Hancock (November 23, 1785 – May 29, 1786)
Nathaniel Gorham (June 6, 1786 – November 5, 1786)
Arthur St. Clair (February 2, 1787 – November 4, 1787)
Cyrus Griffin (January 22, 1788 – November 2, 1788)

Bet you didn't know John Hancock was a President!

Super Colliders - What's the Big Deal?

All they were talking about on the radio this morning was the new 17 mile super collider built in Europe somewhere. I couldn't help but think about the 54 mile super collider, known as the SSC, partially built in Texas back in the 1980s and early '90s, that was never finished. If it had been finished, it would have been far more powerful than it's European counterpart. 14 miles had already been constructed when Congress cut off the funding for the Reagan-era science project in 1993. Billions had already been spent on the construction. To many, it was seen as a sign that America was losing ground in it's technological and scientific supremacy.

Others, however, saw it's defeat as a victory for taxpayers. If this scientific question needed to be answered, the market would answer it. It didn't cost billions of taxpayer dollars for Edison to develop the light-bulb. Edison invested his own time, money and energy, as the market allowed. Most innovation is done at the private level. Yes, taxpayers funded the space race, but that was a part of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The space race had a sense of national urgency. With the Cold War over, why should government fund an endeavour that bore no immediacy?

Basically, all the collider will do is prove theoretical concepts already accepted by many as fact. The colliders are searching for several particles as yet unseen by man. The most important of these is the 'Higgs' particle. If this "God Particle" is found by Europeans, it will be a matter of pride for them. It probably won't be an Earth-shattering event, but it will be an important step in science. It is also possible that the collider will create a small black hole. Still, these are concepts accepted by most scientists, already. Having a record of their existence will be important, but isn't completely necessary.

Death by Gun Control

Found at www.jpfo.org:



Ask yourself this question: Why must we get a permit for a gun? Do you need a permit to attend church? Do you need a permit to own private property? Do you need a permit to keep soldiers from being quartered in your house? Do you need a permit to have the right to a jury trial? Do you need a permit to exercise any of your other constitutional rights?

Of course you don't. So why are we allowing our government require we obtain a permit to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights? Not only does allowing government require us to obtain a permit for a constitutionally guaranteed right set a dangerous precedent, but it works to make us unable to defend ourselves, should government become corrupt.

I would argue that government is ALREADY corrupt. It's becoming more and more corrupt at an exponential rate. With that in mind, should we be allowing our rights to be diminished? Even if we completely trusted every decision our government makes, we shouldn't allow our rights to be diminished by any degree.

People need to realize what's possible when government corruption and public apathy mix.

SAU...

It's happening. South American nations have now officially formed the South American Union. The SAU (or UNASUR) is modelled after the EU. It has a central bank, trans-continental highways, a central defense organization, and a central government. There are still multiple currencies, but, as Europe showed us, that will change soon.

Union of South American Nations Wiki

SpyCounterspy

It's been 10 years since the Valentine's Day 'outing' of US intelligence agencies by a guy named Lee Adams. A search for 'Lee Adams' today only pulls up the website of some musicians. I don't know what happened to this guy, or even if he really exsisted, but I remember his website from the late '90s. It was a seeming expose' of US government surveillance and espionage techniques. Some already knew these tactics, while, to others, it seemed pretty far-fetched. I was kind of in the middle.

For example, one-time pads, or OTP, are a fairly well-known method of passing private information. Anyone with knowledge of the numbers stations of the cold war recognizes the format. On the other hand, his descripton of techniques used by 'wheel artists' for vehicle surveillance was an eye-opener, and I wondered if our government would really waste that kind of manpower on the average dissenter.

Anyway, it was a cool website to me, back then, as I was younger and the cloak-and-dagger element appealed to me. I have no idea if any of those techniques are employed, anymore, nor do I really care. I don't have any reason to worry about that kind of stuff, right?

Why I Like Ron Paul

Congressman Ron Paul is an admirable man, for many reasons. No matter your opinion of him, you must, in intellectual honesty, admit that he is admirable at least in the fact that he is true to his principles. I admire him FOR his principles, as well as because he is true to them. But there are other factors involved in my admiration of Dr. Paul.

The intellectual reason, as I touched on earlier, is that he is consistent, and true to his beliefs. This is the kind of person you can trust, and rely on to stay the same, no matter what; Like a rock, as the analogy goes. You will have no doubts about him, and no question how he will respond to any situation. You can pretty much read his platform in the Constitution of the USA, of which his interpretations haven't changed since entering politics some 30+ years ago.

For spiritual reasons, I have to favor Dr. Paul, as well. He's the only candidate I've heard speak emotionally about his relationship with Christ. Think what you will about religion, you have to admire someone who is honest enough to say his religion says something that isn't popular. Christianity isn't about being popular, it's about being true to God through Jesus. Even the former Baptist minister, and Governor of Arkansas can't say he's that true to his beliefs.

Dr. Paul says and believes everything I've believed in my life. When you're a kid, you learn what's true: what's right and what's wrong. Then, when you get older, you notice that no one pays attention to what's right; They just do what's popular. Paul doesn't follow trends, he follows a set of rules in his life. He has structure on which you can bank.

For emotional reasons, I feel very drawn to Ron Paul. He reminds me of my grandfather, L.B. 'Grandpa' Morgan. The 'Grandpa' part wasn't what we, his grand kids, called him. We called him Grand-daddy. The 'Grandpa' part was his pen-name. He was known in our town, Selma, as Grandpa Morgan. For years he wrote a column in the Selma Times Journal. Ron Paul's 'Texas Straight Talk' reminds me of that.

Grandpa Morgan, during his working years, was a general store owner. As owner of LB Morgan Mercantile(one location now known as 'Mark's Mart') my grandfather extended credit to everyone, and delivered groceries to everyone. He did this all the way from back in the 1920s until the 1960s, when he retired. As you can imagine, this wasn't a popular position to have in the south at the time. But he did it anyway, because he had the strength of his convictions. I see Ron Paul standing up to the others at debates, and in articles, and I hear my Grand-daddy's voice.

Because my grandfather spoke regularly at religious functions, and visited local churches weekly, no one could garner the nerve to press him too hard on his views. He also had a local television show, "The Layman's Hour", in which he extolled the benefits of a virtuous life. When I hear people attack Dr. Paul, it feels as though they are attacking my Grand-daddy. It fills me with more than a little righteous indignation. They don't hold a candle to Ron Paul. They should be ashamed.

But they aren't ashamed. There is no humility among presidential candidates, or Presidents, anymore, for that matter. Some of them even act like being humble is a BAD thing. I don't understand that. "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall."- Prov. 11:2.

I admire and will vote for Ron Paul. There are thousands and perhaps million of reasons to do so. The above are just a few of the reasons I choose to vote for him. I think if many people of the conservative or liberal persuasions look at him with an open mind and truly listen to him, they will find they no alternative but to vote for him as well.

Red/Blue Flip-Flop

I was looking at Presidential election results from the last 60 years on Wikipedia. Pretty interesting. I noticed they changed the colors for Republican and Democrat after 1980. I also noticed that my state, Alabama, has sent independent voters to the Electoral College quite a bit in the last 60 years... 4 out of 15 elections. At one point, we had sent 4 out of 7! Over half... that's pretty independent. However, after Reagan, we've seemed content to vote for Republicans.

School Daze II

I'm in the school daze, right now. I hate finals. Especially when the instructor incorrectly grades your tests on a consistent basis. I have no idea what my teacher wants from me. I have taken 12 quizzes in this class, and my teacher has marked correct answers as wrong on EVERY TEST! Then, she tells us to use our tests as study guides, when she knows the tests are wrong. It's friggin' retarded. That's what I get for taking transient classes at a junior college.

*sigh*

At least I know I've done well in one of my classes, this semester. I had to take a US History class. I've aced it, so far. I'm taking my final in it tonight.

I also recently found out I have to take 16 hours ON CAMPUS in my last semester to graduate from Concordia in the spring. That means I'll be working my buttocks off this winter.

Prehistoric Mickey

Mickey Mouse comes from an ancient Norse fertility symbol of a Lion. Weird.

Exterminate Me

I don't know if you remember this or not, but right after Katrina, there was a big meeting to allow people to discuss issues relating to people of African heritage in America. Some people, such as Dr. Kamau Kambon, teacher of Africana Studies at NC State, used it as a forum to preach the 'extermination of whites'. I had forgotten about Dr. Kambon until I saw this clip on Youtube recently. This is the kind of slop 'public education' allows to be taught.

Cricket Bats and Baseball

I've been reading up a little bit about the games that evolved to form modern sports, particularly baseball and cricket. I just happened across a link on one of the blogs I read to some old pictures of the early years of baseball, collected by A.G. Spalding (yes, that Spalding). Some of them are interesting.Here, an unidentified early ball player holds what is CLEARLY a cricket bat!


Another curious one...

Click Here

These are all images from 'The A.G. Spalding Baseball Collection'

Cricket: from My Observations

Cricket is an enigma to most Americans. In all honesty, it was enigmatic to me as well, before I became interested in it. It's still kinda sketchy to me at times. I think I have a halfway decent grasp of it, though.

The first thing I noticed was the similarity to baseball. That's not coincidental. Modern Cricket and Baseball come from the same roots. Baseball is more popular, and bears the least similarities to the games from which it likely evolved. Those games were most likely Stoolball and Rounders. With humble beginnings as an overturned milking stool, the strike zone is somewhat the equivalent of the wicket in Baseball. The original goal was to defend the stool from being hit with a ball or object of some sort. I've read that it was originally a type of spin-the-bottle type game dating back to at least the 12th century. If you failed to defend your stool, you'd have to give up a kiss, or something like that.

In cricket, the ball is 'bowled' on an area of ground called the 'pitch' rather than 'pitched'. The pitch is the Cricket equivalent of the infield in Baseball. While the rest of the field is covered in grass, the pitch is typically packed dirt. The bowler, as in baseball, attempts to get the ball into it's equivalent of the strike zone, which is actually physically represented by 3 sticks stuck in the ground, known as 'stumps', with 2 little pieces of wood precariously balanced on top of the stumps known as 'bails'. The bails indicate that the wicket has been struck by falling off. That leaves no question about where the ball went.

The field has similarities to baseball, but is very different in ways, too. Homeplate is called the 'popping crease'. The popping crease is a line that the batter must cross to either score runs, or to be safe. Imagine a line dividing homeplate, with the batter's right leg on one side, and his left leg on the other, and that's what the crease looks like. There are 2 creases on the field, instead of 4 bases, as in baseball, and both of them allow the runners to score. Instead of being a diamond with an outfield, Cricket has an oval field with the pitch (infield) in the center. Fielders stand 360° around the pitch. There are no fouls. Runs can be scored, and outs, or 'wickets' as they're known in Cricket, can occur from every ball thrown.

There are 11 players on a cricket team, as opposed to 9 in baseball. The object of cricket from the batting team's perspective is to score as many runs as possible before either the end of the innings, or all of their players get out. When a batter, or 'batsman', gets out, he will not bat again in that innings. To score runs, the batsman must run between the creases. And here's a funky part: instead of being only ONE runner on the field, there are TWO. It's like there's always someone on 3rd base. Another twist: you BOTH have to cross the crease in order for a run to be scored. The runners do this as many times as they can before the ball gets back to the pitch. If one of the runner's wicket is hit before he crosses the crease, he's out. It's like a force out in baseball. And the fielder doesn't have to be standing by the wicket, either. Fielders can hit it from as far away as they want. If they miss, though, the runners can continue running. Another difference of note would be that, unlike a batter in baseball, a batsman never drops his bat when making runs.

The object of the game from the fielding team's perspective is to get all the batting team's players out, and to keep them from scoring runs. Once 10 of the 11 batsmen are out, the batting team is 'all out'. There are several ways to get outs, or 'wickets.' The first, and most obvious way, is when the batsman fails to defend his wicket. The 'bowler' (pitcher) runs up quickly to the crease opposite the batsman and hurls the ball towards the batsman's wicket. The ball can bounce off the pitch or hit the batsman, as long as the ball was aimed at the wicket. If the ball hits the wicket, the batter is out. If the batsman deflects the ball, or if the 'wicket keeper' (catcher) misses the ball, the batsmen will want to run to the opposite crease, scoring a run. The fielding team will then want to run out the batsman by hitting his wicket before he can get to the crease. If a fielder catches the ball on the fly, the batsman is out, just as in baseball. If the ball rolls over the boundry, an automatic 4 runs are given to the batsman. If the ball flys out of the playing field without hitting the ground, 6 runs are given. These are 'boundries'. The closest thing in Baseball would be a homerun.

So far, the equivalents to baseball I've noticed are as follows:

pitch=infield
bowler=pitcher
wicket=strike zone/out
wicket keeper=catcher
crease=home plate/pitcher's mound
batsman=batter
boundry=homerun
no ball=balk/ball (+1 run awarded)
wide=ball (+1 run awarded)
bye=ball (batsmen can go for runs)

Other than the setup of the field, the main difference between Baseball and Cricket is the organization of the innings. An innings in Cricket is divided into 6 ball 'overs'. An over is when 6 balls have been bowled from one crease. At the end of an over, the ball is bowled from the opposite crease. When the allotted number of overs is complete, the fielding team and batting team swap; the batting team then fields, and the fielding team bats. When both teams have batted, the innings is complete. (innings is the singular in Cricket, as opposed to inning is baseball) Which ever team has the most runs with the least amount of wickets lost wins.

Test Cricket is like a series in Baseball. It is the most widely recognized form of Cricket. The teams play several innings over several days. The team with the most wins at the end of the series wins.

If you read this completely, you are probably bored to tears. Sorry.

'The Mother of all Demos'

This is where it all started... HyperText, video conferencing, the mouse... (HyperText is the ht in http://; hypertext transfer protocol) The date on the video is incorrect. This actually took place in the late '60s. This would've been mind-blowing to people in the pre-WWW era. It would've blown MY mind before the '90s.

God, Bang, Boom

I'm tired of seeing people on TV, and hearing them on the radio, arguing about philosophy, religion, and science. They debate as if one of them will actually win. It irritates me.

There is no way to disprove the existence of a deity. There is no way to disprove evolution. There is no way to prove or disprove ANY idea about ANY concept that isn't both physical and empirical.

So why do theists and evolutionists go at it so hard? Why do people kill each other over something about which they COULD NEVER be certain? In arguments about the origin of our world and universe, no one can prove the other incorrect nor themselves correct.

Over these 30-something years of my life, I've dabbled (very lightly) in philosophy, religion, science and pseudo-science trying to find the answer to the age-old question: Why are we here? It took a while, but I've finally become certain of what I suspected since I was a teenager: Nobody knows.

In the end it boils down to the fact that you will believe what you want to believe. For some, it's what's most convenient. To others, the belief that creates a better environment or civilization seems the best. Whether it be Christianity or Nihilism, both have CHOSEN their position.

Since none of us know, and almost all of us want to know, I don't see how it can really hurt for anyone to make any conjecture they want to make. Therefore, I will subsequently submit my few thoughts on the matter.

We see the world around us. We learn by observing. This is science. We observe that there are always things greater, and things lesser. This is mathematics. There is no KNOWN absolute end to the number line, nor is there a beginning, other than the one we have designated as the origin, or zero. The numbers continue in either direction to infinity.

As we observe, we see varying degrees of sentience in the lifeforms we observe. We place some higher, and some lower than others. We place ourselves at a mark on the high end of this line. However, we've never observed any level of sentience greater than our own. By our own observations, we should logically deduce that there MAY BE, and most likely is, a sentience greater than our own. This may be God.

Hypothetically, there could be a God. This idea is Theism. Hypothetically, this God could be omnipresent. This idea is Pantheism. Hypothetically, this God doesn't exist at all, since there is no evidence, other than the observation of it's absence. This is atheism. Finally, none of the above matters, because WE DON'T KNOW.

I'm glad I don't really put too much thought into this crap. I'll probably read this blog post later, and think about how corny or stupid it is. I guess what I'm saying is that I just don't see any logic behind fighting about it, when the objective of all these ideologies is to find some universal truth that will BETTER mankind. It seems ironic to me.

Museum of Lost Wonder

The Museum of Lost Wonder is a cross between the Rosicrucian Museum in San Jose, and the Schwa/ Scanwave/ Eldritch Corp. website of the late '90s.

Citizen Shane

Due to my interest in protection of civil liberties and prevention of political injustice, I recently stumbled upon the story of Shane Ballard. Shane ran for Sheriff of Lowndes County, MS in 2003. He was less than typical. Other than being an avant garde musician, and collector of odd and creepy things, he was also a personal friend of Charles Manson.

Shane's troubles began about the same time he was born. His father left his mother shortly thereafter. He never really knew his father, although he knew who he was. When Shane was 8 years old, his mother was killed in a very mysterious 'accident'. Being only a child, Shane was forced to live with relatives. As he got older, he learned of the suspicious circumstances surrounding his mother's death. Shane decided to run for Sheriff when he reached the legal age, party becuase of his political beliefs, but also so that he might find out what happened to his mother.

A filmmaker from Chicago, who had moved to Mississippi, decided to chronicle Shane's run for sheriff. Although he expected a lot less, Shane received 333 votes, giving him exactly 6.66% of the vote. The end of the film shows a satisfied Ballard reclining in a comfortable chair, contemplating his political future.

Shane may have shaken things, and some people, up a little too much. Within 2 months of the release of the film, titled Citizen Shane, both Ballard and the documentary filmmaker, Ron Tibbett, were dead. One from an auto accident, the other from 'carbon monoxide poisoning'.

Click Shane's pic at the top to download the film.