Nuggets of Wisdom

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Demotivational Poster: "What If You're Wrong"

"What If You're Wrong?"

Earlier this month, conspiracy theorist Jesse Ventura was interviewed by Piers Morgan on CNN. When asked how he could believe that 9/11 was an inside job, Ventura asked how Morgan could believe that “19 Islamic radicals armed with box cutters taking orders from a guy in a cave in Afghanistan could defeat our multi-billion dollar air defense system?”

World-renowned atheist Richard Dawkins behaved similarly nearly four years ago during a book tour stop at Randolph College to promote his book The God Delusion. When asked by a girl in the audience what would happen if he was wrong about God’s non-existence, Dawkins replied, “what if you’re wrong?”

His response has been popular among the atheist community. The YouTube video of his response, as of this post, has received over two million views and over 19 million likes.

There’s only one problem with his response: he never answered the question!

Like Ventura, Dawkins merely dodged his question with another question, which shows that he, like Ventura, lacks integrity in his own position. He could have easily answered, “I don’t care if I’m wrong, I refuse to believe in your God,” and his answer would have been much more acceptable than his pseudo-intellectual counter question.

But let’s indulge Dawkins by answering his question. What if we’re wrong about God’s existence?

The simple answer: We’re not!

Granted, as with other matters about the supernatural, no one can be absolutely certain of the existence or non-existence of God; but they do have good reason to consider his existence. The universe began within time and space, which is scientifically proven by Big Bang cosmology and the second law of thermodynamics; and since everything that begins within time and space has a cause, the universe, by its very nature, has a cause.

Once again, no one can be absolutely certain that God, especially the Christian God, is the cause of the universe; but they do have good reason to believe that he is. Most accounts in the Bible, unlike other religious texts, have been proven by historical and archeological evidence. Therefore, it is probable to believe that the Christian God is the cause of the universe.

So Dawkins is clearly wrong.

But what if he isn’t? What if we’re wrong and God doesn’t exist?

Then there is nothing for us to fear. If the Christian God doesn’t exist, then neither does the Christian afterlife of heaven and hell; and therefore, there is no consequence, negative or otherwise, in believing in him. The only thing we can expect after death, as can Dawkins, is an eternal dirt nap.

The same cannot be said of Dawkins if he is wrong. If the Christian God does exist, then so does heaven and hell, and therefore, there is a consequence in not believing in him, which is hell. So Dawkins has more reason to fear being wrong about his position than does the God believer.

But don’t expect a straight answer from Dawkins. After all, his denial of God’s existence is just as rational as Ventura’s conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job.

Friday, April 22, 2011


A progressive radio talk show host whose hate and vitriol rivals, if not outmatches, that of conservative counterpart Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who claims that liberals are not violent or uncivil have never heard of Mike Malloy. In his worldview, anyone who holds a different opinion than his doesn’t deserve to live, as he openly wishes death upon those with whom he disagrees.

Opening and closing theme: “Greatest Show Unearthed” by Creature Feature

Video and audio clips from Radio Equalizer

MSNBC FAILS 23 - Maddow Mistakes Satire For News

Rachel Maddow comments on a news article about Sarah Palin from “conservative Christian” website ChristWire, which is actually a satirical website. The next day, Rachel Maddow apologizes, but not without blaming Glenn Beck and Fox News for her mistake.

Video clips from TysonBowersIII:

Music by Kevin MacLeod:

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Me? Defending Maddow? OMG! Pigs Are Flying!

If you follow my blog, especially my video series MSNBC Fails!, you know that I can’t stand Rachel Maddow and the other Moonbats Spewing Nothing But Crap. So I was ecstatic to discover that Fairness And Accuracy In Reporting (“Fairness” as in “Liberal” and “Accuracy” as in “Whatever Supports Our Left-Wing Agenda”) criticized her in a blog post earlier this month.

The title seemed promising enough (“Maddow Wonders Why Libyan Journalists Aren't Being Targeted”), but after reading the article, I found it to be disappointingly misleading:

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow had a discussion last week (3/31/11) about the U.S. role in the Libya War with Col. Jack Jacobs, an MSNBC military consultant. Jacobs described the U.S. military's "ability to jam communications that take place between units or among units of Gadhafi‘s army," then referred to the U.S.'s

ability to jam electronic transmissions that occur when Gadhafi's army, ground forces try to fire at allied planes. The instant that a radar system is turned on on the ground, we can detect it and in very short order, send a precision-guided munition that follows the radar beam all the way down to its source.

After responding to that with "Wow," Maddow asked:

One of the things that people have questioned is if the U.S. has this high level of electronic capability, why is Libyan state TV still on the air? Is that not one of the things they would want to shut down?

Maddow's questions echo similar calls by U.S. journalists during the Iraq invasion for an attack on Iraqi government TV--calls that were heeded when the U.S. destroyed the TV studios with a missile attack on March 25, 2003. As FAIR wrote in a media advisory, "U.S. Media Applaud Bombing of Iraqi TV" (3/27/03):

Prior to the bombing, some even seemed anxious to know why the broadcast facilities hadn't been attacked yet. Fox News Channel's John Gibson wondered (3/24/03): "Should we take Iraqi TV off the air? Should we put one down the stove pipe there?" Fox's Bill O'Reilly (3/24/03) agreed: "I think they should have taken out the television, the Iraqi television.... Why haven't they taken out the Iraqi television towers?" MSNBC correspondent David Shuster offered: "A lot of questions about why state-run television is allowed to continue broadcasting. After all, the coalition forces know where those broadcast towers are located."

There is a good reason, actually, why Iraqi TV should not have been attacked: Journalists are civilians, even those who enthusiastically support their country's military efforts, and therefore targeting them is a war crime. The idea that journalists reporting in a country the U.S. is at war with deserve protection seems to have been rejected by the Pentagon, however. As FAIR wrote in "IS Killing Part of Pentagon Press Policy?" (4/10/03):

In the Kosovo War, the U.S. attacked the offices of state-owned Radio-Television Serbia, in what Amnesty International called a "direct attack on a civilian object" which "therefore constitutes a war crime." On March 25, the U.S. began airstrikes on government-run Iraqi TV, in what the International Federation of Journalists (Reuters, 3/26/03) suggested might also be a Geneva Convention violation, since it the U.S. was "targeting a television network simply because they don't like the message it gives out."

The Committee to Protect Journalists declined to count the Serbian journalists killed by the United States in its annual list of murdered journalists, a move that FAIR warned at the time would contribute to a sense that "enemy" journalists are fair game (Extra!, 9-10/00). Maddow's question suggests that treating reporters as enemy combatants has indeed become the new normal.
FAIR, I am disappoint.

You’d think with a title like “Maddow Wonders Why Libyan Journalists Aren't Being Targeted” that Maddow was asking whether or not it was okay to assassinate journalists with sniper rifles, not interrupt their nightly news broadcasts.

Now it could be argued that jamming transmissions of television stations still counts as targeting civilians, and thus a war crime, but it’s far from comparable to bombing them (as Jon Gibson wanted) or massacring them (as occurred in Serbia).

And this is highly ironic, coming from a watchdog group that constantly complains about “false equivalence.”

And if you think I’m disappointed, just read some of the comments:

  • Misleading Title Says: “Clearly the title is very misleading. This is the first time I am disappointed in Fair. You have just done what you accuse others of doing. Shame on you. Maddow clearly is asking why US army did not try to jam Libyan state TV. She is not asking about targeting journalists. Also I doubt there are any "journalists" working for Libyan state TV.”

  • Adam Cornford Says: “Wait a minute, folks. Maddow wasn't talking about "putting one down the stovepipe." She was clearly asking about electronic jamming--no cruise missiles required. I don't always agree with Maddow, but don't assimilate her to liberal(ish) hawks who are all gung-ho to make bad people go boom because they have never witnessed the actual effects of high explosives or even heavy-caliber bullets on human flesh.”

  • genierae Says: “You are doing Rachel Maddow a real injustice by "presuming" anything at all about her comments. What does "presuming" have to do with the facts. I think that she was genuinely surprised that Libya's state t.v. was still operating, but that doesn't mean she wanted it to be bombed. You add something to her words that just isn't there. You are being un-FAIR, please rethink this.”

  • jimfiddle Says: “For once, I am disappointed with FAIR/Extra! Nothing in this article's quote from Maddow supports the conclusion that Libyan journalists should be targeted. To jam or disable a TV station is one thing. "Targeting journalists," implies, to me, something more life-threatening to individuals. As far as "Wow," she says that all the time in any and every context.”

Of course, I have to wonder: are these people upset that FAIR criticized Maddow unfairly, or that FAIR criticized her period? Because moonbats seems to have a serious problem with people criticizing news networks other than Fox News, which FAIR relentlessly attacks with fervor.

Tuesday, April 19, 2011


I first learned of—which would be better named—after reading the article Scare Words From The Right-Wing (And What They Really Mean). Despite having robbed me of a few brain cells, the article inspired me to write a parody and response: Scare Words From The Left-Wing (And What They Really Mean). After posting it on my blog, I shared the article with the original article’s author, Matthew Desmond, who, without my permission, reposted it on the website—specifically in the Political Humor section. Desmond wrote in the preface that my article was “a perfect example of how distorted the right-wing’s viewpoint is.”

Three words: Pot. Kettle. Black.

I would say that the far-left viewpoint of was more distorted than a  funhouse mirror melting in a nuclear furnace, but that would be an insult—to the funhouse mirror!

So what is

If you read the About Us section, you’d think the website was King Leonidas among his fellow 299 Spartan warriors bravely standing, outnumbered, against the invading Persian army (funded by the devil-spawned Koch Brothers, of course). In reality, it’s another run-of-the-mill moonbat whinefest similar to the Huffington Post—only written by dumber contributors for a dumber audience.

Just check out some of its articles:

  • Is The Republican Party Becoming Fascist? – Little more than a fluffed-up version of the chain-letter e-mail 14 Points Of Fascism, supposedly based on a study written by a fictional law professor. Also calls for violent revolution against Republican leaders (Ironic, considering how the right-wing is routinely accused of instigating violence).

  • What Can You Really Pass To Your Children? – Ironically posted on April Fools Day, this screed claims conservatives depend on the indoctrination of children whereas liberals allow children to think for themselves. (Because moonbats like Ann Pelo, Annie Leonard, and B. Bernice Elementary School clearly want children to think for themselves!)

  • Fox News North Starts Next Month. R.I.P. Canada 1867-2011 – Moonbats must really lack confidence in their own ideology if one right-wing news network poses such a deadly challenge, especially if it could potentially transform left-wing socialist Canada into “a hyper partisan cesspool of Right Wing paranoia and hate.  Just like the United States!”

  • Tax Day Is The New Fourth Of July – I guess moonbats forgot how condescending it was to have their patriotism questioned for criticizing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Because apparently they have no problem questioning the patriotism of those who criticize our tax system. Support our troops? Pay your taxes? Ah, what’s in a command? Blind patriotism, by any other command, is just as incriminating.

  • Ayn Rand And The Sociopathic Society or How I Learned To Stop Loving My Neighbor And Despise Them Instead – Yet another smear piece against Ayn Rand (who hated conservatives, and would have hated the neoconservatives like Glenn Beck who have hijacked her ideology), claiming that her philosophy of objectivism promotes selfishness while ignoring “social conscience.” Remember kids: you can’t care for your own fellow man without the government putting a gun to your head. Wanting to live your own life according to your own standards is selfish, but forcing other to live according to your standards is not.

If you’re looking for a good laugh, if not a reason to cry and lose faith in humanity, I highly suggest visiting this site. Also feel free to leaves comments. I’m sure they’ll be welcome. After all, liberals are open-minded, unlike close-minded conservatives.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

There's Probably No Global Warming

There's No Global Warming by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART

No Global Warming Bump Stick by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART

Over 40 years ago, environmentalists were convinced that the world was heading towards a new ice age with “global cooling.” Now, 40 years later, they believe the exact opposite: that the world is going to shrivel up like a raisin with global warming. They were wrong the first time. Who’s to say they’re not wrong this time?

And don’t give me the whole “there’s a scientific consensus” shtick. That’s argumentum ad populum. Over 500 years again, there was a scientific consensus that the earth was the center of the universe. Does that mean Galileo was wrong because his theory didn’t match the “scientific consensus” of the day? Of course not! Because the surmounting evidence went against heliocentrism, just as the surmounting evidence goes against global warming.

I’d like to provide a plethora of peer-reviewed articles that debunk the global warming myth, but my good friend Kajm on DeviantART already did a magnificent job doing just that. Feel free to read his Climate Change Resource Page for well over 200 articles and resources.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

MSNBC FAILS 21 - Schultz: “Racist” School Vouchers

Talking with guest Rev. Al Sharpton, Ed Schultz calls Gov. Scott Walker’s budget proposal, which includes funding for school vouchers, “Racist,” even though vouchers would allow African-American children to attend private schools and receive a better education.

Wikipedia article on Programme for International Student Assessment, which includes figures from its 2009 study. (The Netherlands ranks 11th in Math and Sciences and 10th in Reading. Sweden ranks 26th in Math, 29th in Sciences, and 19th in Reading. The United States ranks 30th in Math, 23rd in Sciences, and 17th in Reading.)

Hoover Institute’s School Vouchers Raise African American Test Scores article

Chart on education spending and test scores from Cato Institute

Music by Kevin Macleod

Tax The Rich? STFU!

Tax The Rich STFU by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART

Most of us are familiar with “The Goose That Laid The Golden Eggs”: Old couple finds goose. Discover goose can lay one golden egg per day. Become greedy and want more golden eggs. Take hatchet and cut up goose. End up with no eggs, no goose, and a bloody hatchet.

This fairy tale against greed and envy is becoming more realized every day as unemployment rises along with the national deficit and debt—only instead of an old couple, we have disgruntled Americans (specifically economically-illiterate moonbats), and instead of a goose, we have “the rich” (a term moonbats often say with the same disgust as a normal person would say “the Devil” or an anti-Semite would say “the Jews”).

More and more Americans, disillusioned by the recession, are demanding that “the rich” pay their “fair share.” According to one survey, over 60% of Americans want to tax “the rich” in order to reduce the deficit. Still others like moonbat propagandist Michael Moore propose more radical solutions—like eating “the rich.” (Knowing Michael, he’d probably be able to eat the rich in one sitting!)

But if more Americans didn’t allow the current economic crisis to get the best of them, and thus thought more with their heads and less with their emotions, they’d learn that moonbat claims concerning “the rich” are completely bunk.

“The rich” aren’t paying their fair share in taxes? Wrong. The richest 1% pays nearly 40% in total income tax while the richest 10% pays over 70%. Meanwhile, the lowest 20% pay less than 2%.

“The rich” are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer? Not true. While the lowest 20% do have a lower level of shared income, their real income is actually higher, and income of individual households has gradually risen over time.

Soaking “the rich” will solve our economic woes? No it won’t. Even if we confiscated all of their wealth, we would only be able to run the country for one measly year.

Tax cuts to “the rich” caused Wisconsin’s budget shortfall? False. Scott Walker’s tax cuts weren’t even in effect when the shortfall occurred.

In short, moonbat talking points like “the rich are getting richer” and “the rich don’t pay their fair share” are as credible as claims like “9/11 was an inside job” or “Obama was born in Kenya.”

If moonbats truly cared about taxpayers paying their fair share, they would opt for a flat tax system where everyone paid at the same rate regardless of their income. Instead, they continue to advocate for their “progressive” tax system where, the more you earn, the more you pay in taxes, thus unfairly shoving the entire tax burden on the rich.

But then again, moonbats don’t care about paying fair taxes. They only care about class warfare and wealth redistribution. Their only desire is to drain the evil, evil rich of their hard-earned money; and if they get what they want, they’ll end up like the old couple in the fairy tale: with no eggs, no goose, and a bloody hatchet.

Friday, April 8, 2011

VOICES OF INSANITY - Keith Olbermann

The face of the liberal media. Unlike his right-wing counterpart Bill O’Reilly, who welcomes and debates guests with opposing viewpoints, Olbermann voices his left-wing biases unchallenged from within his echo chamber. In his progressive worldview, debate is unnecessary, for anyone who disagrees with him is merely a racist knuckle-dragging Neanderthal who desires to send America back into the Stone Age.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Two-Party Fascism

Two-Party Fascism

Insanity is described as performing the same action over and over again and expecting different results every time. The age old example is hitting one’s thumb with a hammer and not expecting it to become bloodied and bruised with every swing. But perhaps a better example is voting for the same two political parties and expecting different results every election.

After having suffered eight years of Republicans waging unconstitutional war in Iraq, passing unconstitutional measures to combat terrorism, abandoning the free market to bailout mortgage companies, and extending socialized medicine through Medicare reform, Americans in 2008 were quick to vote for the Democrats promising “hope and change”.

But after only two years, Americans saw little “hope and change” as Democrats continued unconstitutional war in Iraq (while starting unconstitutional military action in Libya), extended unconstitutional measures to combat terrorism, ignored the free market to bailout the banks and automobile companies, and extended socialized medicine with healthcare reform.

So, disgruntled and disillusioned, Americans voted in 2010 to return Republicans to power in the House of Representatives, even though their “Pledge to America” revealed that their policies have not changed since their eight years controlling the country.

Like a fool hitting his thumb with a hammer over and over again, hoping it will get better with every swing, Americans have been switching back-and-forth between Democrats and Republicans, hoping things will change for the better with every election.

The stark reality is that neither party offers any significant change, as little difference exists between the two. While they appear to be at odds with one another, they are cooperating, either deliberately or inadvertently, to increase the power of the state while stripping away your rights as a citizen.

Democrats want to tell you what food to eat, what video games to play, what healthcare to buy, and what employees to hire. Republicans want to tell you what to put in your own body, who to sleep with or marry, when to pray, and what to do on Sundays.

Democrats want more of your taxpayer money to fund more entitlement programs that may (or rather, may not) help the poor, needy, and uninsured. Republicans want more of your taxpayer money to fund more wars, surveillance, and security that may (or rather, may not) help protect us from terrorist attacks.

Democrats want to increase the welfare state while Republicans want to increase the police state; and, in return, both demand your silent obedience and blind loyalty, whether through paying your taxes or supporting the troops. Any form of dissent is viewed as “un-American” or “un-patriotic”. Either way, both parties are increasing the power of the state while decreasing your power as a citizen.

Thus we cannot expect change by voting for the other party. Both parties have proven to be incompetent and uncaring. Change will only come if we vote for an independent party that actually cares about our individual liberties, and thus limited government. Voting any other way is insanity.

Monday, April 4, 2011

A Lie Told Long Enough...

A Lie Told Long Enough... by ~BlameThe1st on deviantART

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” - Vladimir Lenin

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels

Whether in the media, on the internet, or in real life, political talking points are regurgitated and recycled on a daily basis. They offer the common man the convenience of engaging in political discourse without the inconvenience of thinking.

Indeed, why should the average Joe waste time contemplating trivial matters (like how to fix the economy or how to reform healthcare) when he can spend that time thinking about more important issues (like who to vote for as the next American Idol or which app to download for his new iPhone)? All he has to do is allow the ruling elite to think for him by reducing political discourse into convenient sound bites, which are then fed to him by corporate pundits and politicians. Then Joe can share these talking points with family and friends, who will share them with other family and friends, and so on and so forth until the entire country becomes “enlightened” by these talking points.

In the end, everyone wins: the general public is freed from having to think for themselves, and the ruling elite is allowed the privilege of ruling over the ignorant masses.

Here are a few “lies” which have been told often enough that they have become truth:

Feel free to leave a political talking point (along with a link debunking it, if you have it) in the comment section below.

Friday, April 1, 2011

VOICES OF INSANITY – Janeane Garofalo

The epitome of the Hollywood liberal who thinks she knows better than the average American simply because she can act. One would think that, having been the lead voice of dissent against former president Bush (whom she called a war criminal just as worse as Hussein), she would be open to dissent against president Obama. Instead, she accuses any form of dissent against him as racist, and anyone who disagrees with her as blind, na├»ve, or (if they’re women or minorities) sufferers of Stockholm’s Syndrome.