[mccookgazette.com] Partly Cloudy ~ 37°F  
High: 40°F ~ Low: 27°F
Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2014

Hitler Analogies are Ignorant and Odds and Ends

Posted Monday, May 28, 2012, at 10:36 AM

I have said it many times over the past few years that the cheapest and by far most moronic political shot is to compare a sitting president to Adolph Hitler, whether that person be a Republican or a Democrat.

There truly is just no comparison and it cheapens political discourse when people do so. The largest and most glaring difference between Hitler and ANY president is that Hitler was NEVER elected. In the one election he ran in he was soundly beaten. The election was not even close. He managed to become appointed as the Chancellor of Germany and that is where he power grab began.

Some governmental systems make look similar but that is their only link. Hitler's governmental system was a dictatorship. There were shades of socialism and capitalism. But more than anything Hitler's Germany was a fascist state. He controlled everything.

The United States has been able to exist with a health mix of socialism and capitalism since the late 1800s when the government first began fighting back against monopolies and reforming the workplace. This system predates Hitler and in fact Hitler used the United States model to shape his Germany in the beginning.

Then, of course, there were the concentration camps that Hitler installed that not only housed people of the Jewish faith, but also anyone that disagreed with what Hitler was doing, and anyone deemed not to be morally right for Hitler Germany (this included gay people, atheists, and people of African descent).

So until we have a sitting president who at the very least comes to office without ever being elected and begins throwing people into camps that the person deems morally inept any comparison to Hitler is unjustified and truly ignorant.

I live by the saying, "Those that forget the past are damned to repeat it," however as I continue my studies of history and witness first hand people who make up their own versions of history and then challenge anyone to prove them wrong I am thinking that the saying needs an update.

Those that pervert and rewrite history for their own personal gain ...

It is a start now I just need to figure out the finish.

*

Odds and ends

For weeks we heard from prominent Republicans and talking heads (primarily on Fox News) that President Obama was solely responsible for cost of gas rising. Now that gas is falling again one would think that these same people would be applauding Obama for making the gas prices fall, yet they have not made a sound. Of course, sane thinking people (and people not continuously trying to score political points) know that one person cannot control gas prices up or down it is just funny to see all these people who were jumping at the bit to criticize Obama in any way now have yet another faux issue collapse under their feet.

Despite the claims that Obama killed NASA and that space exploration in America was dead, this past week SpaceX in conjunction with NASA launched an unmanned space ship bound for the International Space Station (it has already docked). This is the first of what is hoped will be many cooperative space efforts between the government (NASA) and private enterprise (SpaceX).

For months small earthquakes were reporting all over Northern Arkansas and most parts of Oklahoma. There were those who wondered whether a new fault line was about to erupt. There were others who felt that fracking which is the process of injecting high pressure water into the ground in order to drill for natural resources. There was widespread mocking at the idea that fracking could actually cause earthquakes. A funny thing happened. Arkansas asked companies to temporarily stop fracking in Northern Arkansas, which they agreed to do and the earthquakes stopped. Now that the effects of fracking have been studied there have been direct links found between fracking and earthquakes. This has lead Vermont to become the first state to ban fracking.

Though it was iffy at the beginning of the Republican primary I predicted that Mitt Romney would be the nominee. Now that everyone has dropped out of the race (actually Ron Paul has not dropped out he has stopped campaigning and is trying to figure out a way to run around the actually electing of a candidate and just win it on electoral votes) Romney now sits just 107 electoral votes shy of securing the nomination.

There was a bit of a controversy when Secretary of State of Arizona Ken Bennett announced that unless Hawai'i could prove that Obama was indeed born in that state he would be forced to take Obama's name of the election ballot in Arizona. Hawai'i surprised Bennett when they demanded that not only did he need to prove who he was but also he had to provide proof that he had the authority to request the information he was wanting. As the released emails showed he never actually did instead he tried to pull a run around and just provide them links on Arizona election law which did not actually prove that he was authorized to ask for the information. He also stated in the email that he was checking for verification of all presidential candidates. To date he has apparently only checked in Obama's birth status. He has since dropped the witch hunt.

A lot was recently made about Obama performing poorly in Democratic primaries in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas. He is not going to win any of these states in November so it really is a moot point and much to do about nothing. There could be a lot of inferences read into the results; for example the man who ran in Arkansas against Obama was not even a Democrat. All one had to do was listen to one of his robo calls to immediately figure out that it was nothing more than a scam. Plus, Arkansas is an open primary state meaning that a person can vote whichever political side they so choose. Considering that most of the local races around Arkansas were non-competitive it would not be shocking if a large number of Republicans voted in the Democratic primary JUST to vote against Obama.

Like I said though, at the end of the day the three races mean absolutely nothing. Obama still won and still got his delegates.


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Maybe no Hitleresque, but certainly Nixonion.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, May 29, 2013, at 1:04 AM

Hard not to be defensive around here, but yeah, I see that now.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 3:33 PM

It's a joke, you don't have to defend against it.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 2:55 PM

I was referring to Bush, and those who claim he is tyrant. My argument to those you mentioned would be the above.

I assume that once Obama's legal term limit is met, he too will peaceably surrender power. If not, then there will obviously be cause for alarm.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 2:53 PM

"I think that most tyrants in history have not peaceably surrendered all of their power and returned to private citizenship."

So you seem to be suggesting that Obama might be a tyrant, he hasn't yet surrendered power after all.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 2:44 PM

True, and in my opinion they are just as lost as those who think Obama is a tyrant.

I think that most tyrants in history have not peaceably surrendered all of their power and returned to private citizenship.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 2:34 PM

Bush is considered a tyrant by many.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 2:27 PM

Note the phrase:"On that one". It wasn't 'On all matters I trump you'. Pointing out political capitol earned in an election is not tantamount to dictator. If it were, Bush would need to be considered a tyrant.

"I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror." GWB

Bad example, SW.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 1:53 PM

"I won. So I think on that one, I trump you." Barack Obama

Sounds more dictatorial to some.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 12:05 PM

"Advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes." Barack Obama

Doesn't sound very dictatorial to me.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 10:14 AM

Good.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 12:40 PM

Attempts made to get military on board:

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/j...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 1:33 PM

Yawn.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 11:47 AM

Accurate pictures:

http://www.infowars.com/other-tyrants-wh...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 10:22 PM

Hitler analogy!

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/j...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 9:49 PM

No.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 6:50 PM

So in conclusion, we as law-abiding citizens, are safer if we choose to legally own and use firearms to defend our homes, family and property. Research proves this. It is also proven that an a legally armed citizen with a concealed carry permit, and equiped with the training that goes with it, can stop an armed attack at the point of occurance.

Also in conclusion, any attempt to disarm, or hinder their ability to defend themselves, will increase violent crimes. We also conclude that any attempt to disarm or otherwise hinder an American citizen to adequately defend their their home and property is a violation of the 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment of the U. S. Constitution guarantees the citizens the right to own firearms not only for their own personal enjoyment and safety, but also to fully defend the Constitution from a tyrannical government.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 6:22 PM

Property crimes and robbery are relevant as well because gun owners cite protection of property as well as self as the main reason for owning firearms.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 3:55 PM

The actual number is 56%, for violent crime which is pertinent to our discussion. That is a result of NYC Mayor Giuliani getting tough with crime, as is also the case nation wide.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 2:33 PM

FACT: NYC crime is down 88% since 1991.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 1:55 PM

He's your typical new england liberal elitist. He knows exactly how to take care of everyone because we are not of the privilage he came from, we are not as educated as he is, and we don't have the same connections as he does. The real problem is that we now have a majority who admire those qualities.

The real terrorist is new york city mayor bloomberg. He not only has the strictist gun laws to protect the criminals, he not only limited the size of soft drinks to protect us from fullfilling their thirsts, but now has limited the amount of pain medicine a patient can have while in a hospital to stop perscription pain med abuse.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 1:27 PM

I consider him creepy. That speech was downright creepy. He even looks creepy. Liberal creepy. He's even got the wild eye thing like mini.

-- Posted by marriedugly on Sat, Jan 12, 2013, at 2:45 AM

The cultural elites consider Cuomo a 2016 contender.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 8:48 PM

It is because criminals do not like "assault weapons" (still undefined) because they cannot be concealed. The "assault weapon" (still undefined) are mostly in the hands of lawful gun owners. Few are obtained illegally or stolen, both crimes.

I absolutely agree with you that opportunity will reduce crime. That's why I stress to my kids that education and motivation and hard work are the tools of success, financially and emotionally. And shoot well for those who can't, don't, and won't.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 8:41 PM

Prior to the ban there had been 11 mass shooting, and since the gun ban in Australia there have been no mass shootings.

If your premise was correct, we would have expected to see an across the board increase in crime in the US during the 90's with the assault weapons ban. Or, we would have expected crime rates throughout US history to be consistently low since guns have always been legal. Neither is true. In fact, the opposite is true.

And why? Where more guns and crime are concerned correlation is not causation. Most criminologists, economists, etc., will tell you that a good economy and equal access to a quality education are the best predictors of low crime rates. So it is not reasonable to advocate that more people in public have guns because it increases the risk of accidents and does not have any impact on crime.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 8:02 PM

Speaking of Hitler........ did anyone get a load of Cuomo ranting in that speech. The only thing missing was the Nazi Salute. If we elect this nut job we are in serious trouble. He gave me an epic sense of the creeps.

-- Posted by marriedugly on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:30 PM

Just look at the violent crime rates in england and australia sky rocketed after their gun bans. Canada and Japan are seeing their violent crime rates rise.

Yet, POTUS is willing to put America's citizenery in terror over the criminal element. Why?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 7:29 PM

No, I don't. First of all, Hitler was one of the most evil dictators in human history who fought for the domination and supremacy of the German majority. Obama has done nothing of the sort.

Second, lots of leaders in lots of countries (think: England, Australia, Japan, Canada, etc) have banned guns pretty much entirely (or made difficult to get one) and these leaders have not a) murdered millions of people, or b) tried to take over the world.

The fact is, CPB, on three occasions Obama has EXPANDED gun rights. Even if he were to ban assault weapons, he would still be ahead 2-1 in the pro-gun president category.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 6:42 PM

First, it wasn't just bill clinton who banned "assault weapons" (still undefined), he had the full backing of a democrat and a handful of wuss republicans. This of course, led to the Conservative Republican's takeover.

Now to the present. Our VPOTUS occupant says the POTUS has the authority through an executive order, to force gun control on the American citizen. You don't call that hitler-like?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 5:52 PM

Hitler banned all guns, not just assault rifles. Also, many nations have banned all weapons, their leaders didn't murder millions off people and try to take over the world.

Furthermore, you are mixing your arguments, CPB. First you state that assault weapons may be banned (something that is Constitutional), then you state that Obama wishes to "disarm" US citizens. Banning assault weapons, however, does not "leave defenseless law abiding citizens", as shotguns, rifles, and pistols would still be legal and every bit as lethal as assault weapons.

Also, Clinton banned assault weapons, and only a galloping moron would make the comparison between Hitler and Clinton. The same holds true for Obama and Hitler. The bottom line is such comparisons reveal a profound lack of knowledge and intelligence.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 2:15 PM

The hitler analogy is active and visable. Here, the current occupant of the White House is threatening to ban, through an executive order, (and much like stalin, hitler, mao, and every other little dictator), a class of weapon that cannot be accurately defined. What is an assault rifle?

The "assault rifle" ban was never brought up before the Supreme Court. It was always state courts that upheld the ban. So we'll see.

So why would the so called leader of the free world disarm and leave defenseless law abiding citizens?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Jan 11, 2013, at 1:41 AM

No

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 10:53 PM

Nobody threatened to violate the constitution. Banning assault weapons is not an infringement on the 2nd amendment. This was established in the 1990's.

The Hitler analogy is ignorant, lazy and stupid. It is the height of stupid. You are no better than the idiot liberals who made the same comparison between Bush and Hitler. Get real, CPB.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 12:21 PM

Ignorant, not knowing the difference between right and wrong because you've never been taught. Stupid, knowing the difference between right and wrong and willingly choosing to do wrong.

Now that VPOTUS biden threatening to violate the Constitution, Second Amendment, with an executive order, the hitler analogy is clear.

Are we ignorant in not seeing this analogy, or stupid in seeing it and choosing to ignore it?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jan 10, 2013, at 7:42 AM

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jun 20, 2012, at 12:05 PM

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Jun 14, 2012, at 8:39 AM

Don't over-interpret these results to "other key elections". In the exit polls, 18% of Walker voters said they support Obama.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/15737...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Jun 6, 2012, at 11:59 AM

So I guess it is unanimous that Mike needs to acknowledge the water injection and leave frac'ing alone.

At least get your agenda item correct.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Jun 3, 2012, at 6:43 PM

Can't download it Brian.

Took the discussion to your blog.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Jun 3, 2012, at 11:23 AM

Wallis - Perhaps I forget to mention that my bed moved across the tiled bedroom floor during one of over 100 earthquakes associated with the injection well at the RMA.

You should download and read the SPE report (for free even) at http://www.onepetro.org... Search for report 2558-PA The SPE wrote the report and that's a fact.

It's 11 pages, but it describes the drilling conditions encountered, and the seismic activity that followed where none had been before. It also explains the mechanisms that cause injection well earthquakes.

One comment really stands out when considering your argument... "It appears that man-induced earthquakes are not unusual as was once thought."

That statement was made on page 10 of the report where they go on to describe other apparent man caused earthquakes.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Sat, Jun 2, 2012, at 11:48 AM

http://www.abortionno.org/pdf/whyabortio...

Some would dispute your definition of genocide.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Jun 2, 2012, at 10:34 AM

The German courts had rules and laws for the treatment of Jews. The judges at Nuremberg sentenced those judges to death and life in prison. Just because courts view things a certain way doesn't mean others can't call it a crime against humanity at a later date.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Jun 2, 2012, at 10:31 AM

When did your bed move? I have been in many Earthquakes. Water injection didn't cause it. There are 500,000 earthquakes every year. Just because your bed moved doesn't make you special.

The SPE also would not write a peer reviewed paper that said water injection caused an earthquake. They might have glossed over some info for PR purposes (mind control) but it would never be published because water injected below fracture pressure will not initiate a fracture. That is a fact.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sat, Jun 2, 2012, at 10:28 AM

"If you don't believe that the "30% reduction in crime" Hypothesis posited, why link it?"

I didn't say I didn't believe it, simply that correlation is not necessarily causation. I think Levitt makes a reasonable and compelling argument based on what seems like well collected/analyzed data. I doubt that abortion is the only causal factor for the drop in crime, but it is an interesting variable, I think we might agree.

"By a true definition a life is taken."

That is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. I am comfortable with the court's determinations regarding viability, and I think for the most part that appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that women have control over their bodies and well-being.

"If you view Abortion as murder and a trial is held who would be guilty?"

Abortion isn't murder though. So nobody is guilty of anything.

"Genocide thing is very real to a lot of people."

Abortion is not genocide. By definition, it cannot be.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Jun 1, 2012, at 7:02 PM

You know what Wallis, I hadn't planned on making another comment, but you force my fingers... I NEVER mentioned plate tectonics associated with drilling, and I wouldn't. I also NEVER suggested you and your two man crew can cause earthquakes (though in the right circumstances I think it's possible). I could say your industry has brainwashed you to ignore facts and danger signs... like BP and Halliburton have been accused of.

I provided proof from several sources non of which you dispute beyond calling me "mind controlled".

What you imply is that my bed didn't move, and news reports and photos of damage were complete fabrications. That the USGS in the early 70's was corrupt and fabricated their reports. That the SPE is a group of engineers that don't know what they are doing and write reports to confuse the facts, and just because I challenged you with facts that dispute your statement that an injection well has never caused an earthquake, you say my mind is under control.

I will respond one more time since you never dispute my facts except by calling me mind controlled and ignorant while touting to your years of experience in the petroleum fields and that you know everything there is to know about geology and oil drilling and production.

The Society of Petroleum Engineers stated in their report that there is potential danger on THEIR web site. I'm not the one here citing the media, I'm quoting the group of engineers that I would suppose you are even a member of.

Frankly, I was trying to have a respectable and intelligent discussion with you, but I now see your argument as nothing more than a oil and gas news release. You conveniently ignored every fact presented (typical of an industry trying to hide something), so there we are. Sorry sir, but I believe you are the one who is delusional.

Oh, and Elvis is not dead, he just went home. (quote from "Men In Black" added for some humor)

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Fri, Jun 1, 2012, at 6:36 AM

Brian - Your mind is being controlled. Elvis is alive. Obama was born in Kenya. Aliens exist. The Tri-lateral commission controls the World. Bilderberg is a conspiracy, Yale secret societies.

The media and media groups lie all the time to influence people into believing them and stop thinking for themselves.

You are suggesting that I could hire a 2 man crew and drill a well and infringe on plate tectonics. It is as absurd as thinking that throwing a virgin into a volcano can bring in a crop or a ceremonial dance can make it rain.

Ignorant humans have convinced themselves over the last 6000 years that we can somehow control or manipulate the Earth. We can't.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Jun 1, 2012, at 5:00 AM

Well Wallis, you know I don't have an answer for you just like you have no answer for me as to why it is documented that injection wells have caused earthquakes... maybe not the thousands that you want for validation of the events.

You and I have very different experiences with injection wells... in my case, my bed slid across the floor and reports were written as to why it happened, and in your case, nothing bad happened. It has obviously impacted both of us when it comes to our perception of injection wells.

I don't see anybody other than PACs, politicians, and the oil and gas industry (oddly The Society of Petroleum Engineers states there are dangers for some unknown reason) telling us it's safe, and the video reports of burning water from polluted water wells in areas where frac'ing has occurred... makes me wonder just how trustworthy your industry is. The environmental track record isn't pretty for sure.

'Nuff said... Thanks for the discussion Wallis.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 7:09 AM

The final point I will make is this is a faith based argument. 500,000 Earthqakes occur every year. When Earthquakes occur away from a Dam or Coal mine or new injection well they are natural. When they occur near a facility or anyplace else that is convenient Democrats try to blame a mining operation.

I do find it interesting that not even Democrat Geologists claim that man can create Earthquakes at will.

The only people I can name is a farmer in Nebraska and a history student in Arkansas.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 5:36 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fault_(geol...

A primer on faults.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 5:25 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport-Ing...

The Newport Inglewood fault went from 1933-2001 with no activity. There have been a few Earthquakes since 2001. Since this thrust fault has not had a major Earthquake in almost a 100 years a big Earthquake will be expected.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 5:23 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Beach_...

I worked the Long Beach field from 1993-1996. The 4th largest oil reservoir in the US is the Wilmington Field. It is the 2nd largest water flood in the World. That means water is re-injected to increase oil production. The oil Field is along the massive Newport-Inglewood fault with thousands of splinter faults and there is been no seismic activity in many years.

Would you please tell me why?

-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 5:19 AM

Brian - Would you please explain to me why injection wells do not create earthquakes in California or Texas or Louisiana? Oil and Gas is actually trapped by faults and most of the drilling in Louisiana and California occur along fault lines and produced water is re-injected along fault line.

Thanks for your answer.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, May 31, 2012, at 5:14 AM

Well Wallis, I can answer your questions way better than you answer mine.

The RMA well area had no reported fault lines in the area prior to the start of injection. The two largest quakes were 5.0 and 5.1. Looking at a plot of the quakes reveals somewhere around 50 confirmed quakes. The earthquakes subsided after the injection was terminated, and the Society of Petroleum Engineers stated the earthquakes should be a warning about the dangers of injection wells.

Here is yet another report from the USGS about the RMA injection well... http://foodfreedom.files.wordpress.com/2... Sorry, but I'm not going to research about other country injection wells, but I invite you to provide a link that supports your contention that there are no injection well issues worldwide beyond the US of A.

Personally, I don't see how you can say "This is a pure political agenda thing" when "your" Society of Petroleum Engineers report cites the injection well as the cause.

It obviously doesn't happen every time an injection well is brought on line, (you mentioned they have been doing it for over a 100 years but I bet the technology has changed a bit too), but from an earlier statement you made about "only one well" being shut down in Arkansas, you make it sound like it's no big deal by sidestepping the actual fact.

I think that is one of the main reasons many, if not most folks perception of the oil and gas industry is so negative... do whatever to get into production as fast as possible, make the maximum profit, when something goes wrong blame it on some other factor beyond poor business practice, and seek to limit liability at every turn.

My basic point is that injection wells have been shown to cause problems, but the oil and gas industry fails to address valid arguments in my opinion.

You have totally failed to convince me Wallis, but that's OK. I wish you could have provided any citations to support your contentions.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 10:08 PM

What were the magnitudes? Has anyone ever looked for faults? Have previous earthquakes been occurring but never monitored? The data posted appears over a large area with injection wells taking years to have a frontal advance of a football field.

I would ask you why have there been injection wells injecting for almost 100 years in active fault systems and earthquakes never been attributed to them? Why only now in new oil and gas producing states has this phenomenon occurred? Why has this never occurred in other parts of the World?

This is a pure political agenda thing.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 7:03 PM

Brian, anyone, did you draw a line from point to point following the progression of dates?? They would need inject with drunk water to create quaking in that pattern of events. These look more like a ricochet of a bullet in a cavern. a thought.

-- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 2:40 PM

Wallis said... "How can a single injection trigger seismic activity to the extent that we can cause the Earth to have a strain event along a fault line to slip and cause an Earthquake???"

I was reading this... http://marcellusdrilling.com/2012/03/odn...

The evidence seems to be piling up.

Care to comment?

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 11:23 AM

Benevolus,

Hmm.. If you don't believe that the "30% reduction in crime" Hypothesis posited, why link it? This whole line of reasoning reminds me uncomfortably of a horribly racist "joke" that I first heard around the late 90s.

Is this an example of you stirring the pot?

In my opinion this line of reasoning is questionable to say the least. However, I am amused that one of the points raised is that infanticide apparenty is reduced by abortion.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 7:33 AM

http://www.pewforum.org/Abortion/Abortio...

If you will review this Christian countries and Asian countries have the most liberal views on Abortion. Muslim countries have the most stringent.

Therefore, to claim that anti-abortion is a Christian white man deal is not accurate. It is interesting that Right wing wacko Christians and Muslims do agree on this topic. Bi-partisianship can happen between the most extreme groups in specific instances.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 6:40 AM

Benevolus - The question is "Is abortion birth control or is it murder?".

By a true definition a life is taken.

I don't think that it is a white man topic.

I think if you study other religions besides Christianity it is viewed as murder as well. The main reason it is legal in the United States is the separation of Church and State.

In Nazi Germany, the jewish question was dealt with through many legal means. In Nuremberg, during the second wave of trials the Judges and Attorneys were tried ( and found guilty). My question was "If you view Abortion as murder and a trial is held who would be guilty?".

Obviously, the leaders that supported the murders would be. Based on that conclusion, which is valid, all Presidents that have supported abortion since it was legalized have been compared to Hitler. So for Mike to write a blog based on election results is a little daff. The reason people compare the two is because of what they support and again this Genocide thing is very real to a lot of people.

Another point is many women are against abortion.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Wed, May 30, 2012, at 6:35 AM

"do you think we would be found guilty for crimes against humanity?"

Levitt and Dunbar point out an interesting phenomenon in their bestseller, Freakonomics. They point out that an unintended consequence of legalized abortions was a precipitous drop in crime rates 18-20 years after Roe v. Wade. Correlation is of course not causation as we all know, and Levitt and Dunbar do point this out. But their findings are particularly interesting because the states that legalized abortions BEFORE Roe v. Wade experienced precipitous drops in crime rates in accordance with the same timeline....i.e., 18-20 years after abortions were made legal.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/a...

That said (interesting and provocative as it may or may not be), lower crime rates is NOT why abortion should be a part of our society. Any civilized society that is concerned with women's rights should allow abortions. That a group predominantly comprised of white Christian men without medical degrees should sit around deciding what women can and cannot do with their bodies is a practice that is best relegated to the distant past.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, May 29, 2012, at 9:39 PM

Mike I do have a question for you.

If we could go back in and time to 1946 and IFF Americans were put on trial at Nuremburg for abortion and the 53 million deaths that have resulted from Abortion do you think we would be found guilty for crimes against humanity?

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, May 29, 2012, at 6:07 PM

Mike - Cluster Earthquakes are quite common is the New Boston Mountain Area. - It has happened in the past as recently as 15 years ago.

Frac'ing has not stopped in Arkansas. It was the injection that has been stopped in 3-5 wells. I have over 50 injection wells so that number is not significant.

You cannot admit you made a mistake ever can you??????

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, May 29, 2012, at 5:15 PM

Brian - Fault lines are miles and miles long and overburden pressure and density and pounds and pounds of sediment sit on top of injection wells. Not only that but injection wells inject into zones that already have water in them. It can take over a year for water injected underground to travel 660' and that is when we are trying for that to happen. How can a single injection trigger seismic activity to the extent that we can cause the Earth to have a strain event along a fault line to slip and cause an Earthquake???

Considering that waterflooding is done all the time and we have to deal with fluid migrating up or down the fault. This topic pops up from time to time but over time is always debunked as a wives tale.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, May 29, 2012, at 5:11 PM

http://www.christianliferesources.com/ar...

Any President that has supported Abortion since 1973 has been compared to Hitler.

You know the whole Genocide thing.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Tue, May 29, 2012, at 5:04 PM

Wallis - please cite a source that confirms your statement "Injection wells exist in every oil producing State and have never caused earthquakes."

Here is a Society of Petroleum Engineers report about the injection well at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado near Denver that you can read... http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/on...

The article preview seems to dispute your contention by stating... "The seismic activity triggered by injection into the RMA well at Derby, and the earthquakes that continued after injection was stopped should serve as a warning..."

I'll be the first to admit I did not read the entire report. I lived in Denver when the earthquakes hit, and remember well pictures on the front page of the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News of stores in NE Denver with merchandise all over the isles. I also remember that when pressurized injection stopped, the earthquakes subsided.

I've read that the frac'ing process in itself hasn't been shown to be a problem with groundwater contamination, but construction issues or equipment failure at a few sites have caused groundwater contamination. Is this not true?

I realize these are two completely different issues of frac'ing, but folks water from their well is pretty important, and the earthquake issue doesn't seem cut and dried.

Convince me.

-- Posted by Brian Hoag on Tue, May 29, 2012, at 7:36 AM

Michael,

Funny you aren't re-writing anything. You've already re-written your headline once and it still is wrong. Don't they have spell check or anything on the blog page or is it like the comment boxes?

So in order to be a valid comparison to Hitler, a president must come to power without being elected and then throw people in concentration camps. Does that mean that FDR is only half a Hitler?

You also (predictably) forgot about people with disabilities.

I have a couple of suggestions for your new phrase: "Those that pervert and rewrite history for their own personal gain ...

1. Are looking for a book deal

2. Are desperately seeking a tenure track position

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, May 28, 2012, at 6:20 PM

I am not rewriting anything w. All I know is that when the fracking in Arkansas stopped the earthquakes also stopped. This isn't coincidence and it isn't my attempt to rewrite anything.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 28, 2012, at 2:56 PM

Quite common is quite a large claim and you are in the wrong area. The seismic activity you are referring to occurred in the eastern part of Arkansas not in the areas that are now experiencing them. Considering the fault has not had any large scale seismic activity since the 1800s can hardly be considered quite common.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, May 28, 2012, at 2:54 PM

Those that pervert and rewrite history for their own personal gain ...

It is a start now I just need to figure out the finish.

What is your gain by attempting to re-write your story on the Hydraulic fracturing - no it was injection wells? You have been corrected on this error before and now you are incorrect twice on the same topic. Ax to grind?

-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, May 28, 2012, at 2:41 PM

1 well ordered to be shut in. Can you please explain the historic seismic activity that has occurred in this area? It has been quite common. Also as an aside those injection wells had been active for sometime before Earthquakes started.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, May 28, 2012, at 2:38 PM

http://www.desmogblog.com/arkansas-oil-a...

This if from a "proud Liberal" website. Please read more than the headline. If you are going to post things you should not be devoid of facts.

Injection well not frac'ing and the injection wells cannot cause earthquakes either. Injection wells exist in every oil producing State and have never caused earthquakes.

As sort of the punch line to this is only 1 well was shut in.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, May 28, 2012, at 2:35 PM

For months small earthquakes were reporting all over Northern Arkansas and most parts of Oklahoma. There were those who wondered whether a new fault line was about to erupt. There were others who felt that fracking which is the process of injecting high pressure water into the ground in order to drill for natural resources. There was widespread mocking at the idea that fracking could actually cause earthquakes. A funny thing happened. Arkansas asked companies to temporarily stop fracking in Northern Arkansas, which they agreed to do and the earthquakes stopped. Now that the effects of fracking have been studied there have been direct links found between fracking and earthquakes. This has lead Vermont to become the first state to ban fracking.

It was water injection not frac'ing that was "the cause". I have corrected you on this before but I guess the truth is an issue with you.

Don't worry - I will keep reminding you.

I would ask you or any non-geo type to explain to people how water injection or hydraulic fracturing of an oil or gas well can cause faults and the resultant earthquakes. It cannot and "faith based" politicians will continue to ignore science in favor of their "faith" that they are right.

Your outright lying on this is getting old. I posted your links to "injection" and you admitted on a past blog that you man'd up and admitted your error. I guess for whatever reason you need to man up again or I will "cut and Paste" again.

Wallis Marsh

Petroleum Engineer

-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, May 28, 2012, at 2:28 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(6 ~ 8:37 PM, Sep 5)

Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)