Monday, May 22, 2006 

When stupid calls a radio show

While listening to my favorite crackpot radio show, Coast to Coast AM, early this morning, someone called in to voice his opinions about two topics which he declared were unrelated. The first concern of his was the President's administration using an imperialistic, interventionist and preemptive foreign policy. So distrought was this caller that his voice began to squeak with a whimpering helplessness. Apparently, the U.S. Military is killing people somewhere. Shocking, I know.

After gargling out a few more sentences in support of his first reason for calling, he got on to the second one. The caller reminded us that Iran is a serious threat to Israel and Jews everywhere. So, what does he ask the show's guest (a retired Army Colonel) 30 seconds after ending his rant about the U.S. spreading it's empire? "What is the President going to do about Iran?!?" He went on and on about nuclear technology, terrorist financing, Israel being blown up, etc. The bottom line is that he was adamant about the U.S. attacking Iran before something happened, as though Israel were a de facto 52nd state (see: 51 - Puerto Rico).

Callers like him are why I listen to this show. It's a gold mine for illogical thought processes. The caller has no clue that he just contradicted himself with the two parts of his call. Of coure, the host and guest don't either but they're both certifiably insane - a fair excuse, i'd say.

I wonder if this sort of reasoning is prevalent within the majority of individuals. It's clear that much of the U.S. citizenry hold to a view that peoples of certain countries have more value than others. I'd imagine, though I could be wrong, that people have a fairer opinion of the Japanese than they do of the Chinese (due to that whole Communism thing). While this speaks to those of the ruling class and not the subservient individual, it's still a common mistake made in forming an opinion of this sort. So, would Americans be as outraged if China were threatening to sink the isles of Japan every other week? Probably not, but that has more to do with Christianity's religious interests in the Middle East than anything else.

Friday, May 19, 2006 

Pat Robertson sees wet people

Everyone's favorite loathesome old codger is at it again. Apparently God has told Pat Robertson yet another secret, and this is one of those times that he's sharing it with everyone!


VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year.

Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. Wednesday, he added, "there well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

While it's obvious that these are the ramblings of a would-be mental patient, I thought that i'd look into this whole hurricane prediction thing a bit more.'s annual hurricane season forecast has been fairly, uhh. . . 'accurate' - over the years. The 2006 forecast predicts that "six tropical cyclones will make landfall in the U.S. Five of these landfalling storms are likely to be hurricanes, with three being major hurricanes of Category 3 or greater."

Now, i've read up on's, and other meteorological forecasters', methods used to compile the data for these predictions and I failed to see "God's supa-dupa poW3rZ" mentioned anywhere. It's probably a safe bet that Pat is in the same boat as Joe Morgan when it comes to the value of computers, and technology in general.

The timing of Robertson's babbling is rather humorous as well. Most initial hurricane predictions are made right after the season officially ends (end of Novermber) and tend to change little as further data is examined. So, when it's factored in that Pat Robertson is a professional liar, the likelihood that he was fully aware of these forecasts before making his divine inside scoop known.

Monday, May 08, 2006 

Even More Bird Flu Stupidity

Apparently instilling terror in the public is only acceptable if the professionals are the ones administering the terror. A new bird flu movie, which is going to hit the airwaves soon, has some statist pigs all hot and bothered.

"Experts fear bird flu movie may spur panic."

"I am not happy," said Mike Osterholm, a University of Minnesota public health expert who has been warning about and consulting on the threat of an influenza pandemic.

"I worry that this could very well be portrayed by many as ultimate example of sensationalism," Osterholm told reporters in a telephone briefing on Monday.

This idiot is worried about sensationalism? There's no way a movie like this is stopped from being released. The movie makers have essentially done the government officials' jobs for them. What need is there for back-alley deals, to try and pump up the scare factor of bird flu, by drug companies and anyone else who might stand to profit from the panicking masses. If anything, they'll probably donate money for the advertising of the movie.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt has been holding meetings in the 50 states and territories to convince businesses, educators and individuals to prepare for a pandemic that could throw 40 percent of the workforce out of action for weeks on end.

"While the movie does serve to raise awareness about avian and pandemic flu, we hope it will inspire preparation -- not panic," the HHS talking points read.

Loosely translated: We want your money. All of it.


The Flying Elbow of Morality

Argh! I'm fed up with trying to show people that their definitions and general understanding of concepts like God and government are dead wrong. Pointing out that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so flimsy that there is no good reason to think such a person ever lived is getting me no where. The contradictions in the gospels don't seem to even put a hitch in people's undying faith. Democracy is still regarded as the best way for a society to function, no matter what contrary facts I offer. And don't even get me started on what happens when you tell someone why it's immoral to support the troops.

So, what am I to do? Since all of these other tactics are having little-to-no affect, I think it's wise to just completely change the plan of attack. I've been slowly moving towards using the argument from morality in more and more of the discussions I have with people. Perhaps it's time for The Flying Elbow of Morality to be deployed full time! Uhh. . . Well, most of the time, anyway.

Think about it for a second - religionists and statists thrive off of the argument from morality. These two groups twist, distort and fabricate facts of the natural world in order to dictate what is moral. Theists have you in fear of burning in fiery cauldron of orca fat for eternity. Meanwhile, statists have you convinced that if there were no government you'd grind up eldery people for food (SOYLENT GREEN!), marry farm animals and watch corpses pile up on every street corner. It really makes my skin crawl to think what will happen when the government here turns into a full blown theocracy.

Regardless, violence and fear mongering not are acceptable moral standards, but what kills me inside is that no one seems to realize that that is exactly what they've become. So, from now on, it's morality or bust for me. Stefan Molyneux was right about it being the most powerful argument. The rest is becoming mere filler while the AFM proves to be the thriller.

Tuesday, May 02, 2006 

Aha! So that's why Benny Hinn is insane.

Tuesday, April 11, 2006 

I Hate You

Yes, you. Based on polls and surveys taken across the globe, there's an extremely good chance that I don't like anything you stand for. You're most likely holding yourself to some sort of statism or nationalism. And, of course, there is that whole religion thing which instantly turns you into a big bucket of stupid in my eyes. So, yeah, I hate you.

When it comes to sponsoring politics and emitting national "pride", all you're saying is that you enjoy having other people tell you what is right and wrong for yourself. When you go to vote, you're forking over your values to someone else who does not share them. No one else holds your exact set of values but you can't seem to understand that fact. You agree, maybe, with someone on a few issues and then come to the conclusion that this someone should have the power to set the guidelines and boundaries for my way of life. For this, I hate you.

Sending those who volunteer to kill innocent people and destroy private property in an alleged defense of the false-concept that is a nation is right up your alley. To you: "Wars have to be fought, otherwise, who would fight them?". For this, I hate you.

As the numbers would dictate, you're most likely a fan of the supernatural. You enjoy living this life in some downtrodden, miserable fashion in hopes that when you die, you'll be granted entrance into a floating Candyland where everything is made of peppermint and you get to sit in a circle as you stare at a chocolatey throne for eternity. Once there, you think that you'll be meeting a giant first cause inducing, finger-shaking fairy. To help you get there, you resort to a poorly written clusterfuck of stories which you believe holds the answer to any question that may arise during your travails in life. And everytime you turn a papyrus page in one of these tales, you interpret it in a completely different way than the last person did. Then, on the all-too-common occasion when this book makes you look like a moron, you say that you have faith in this dellusion of yours and that justifies everything. For this, I hate you.

But why? Why won't I just be tolerant of your dumbfuckery? Because if I do that, then it means your morally bankrupt world view is as deserving as mine of being heard, spread, taught, etc. Alas, it is not, and you can't come anywhere close to proving that it is. Yet, for some reason, you try to get me to go along with this whole tolerance thing anyway. For this, I hate you.

Save the cries of equal time for someone who is, at best, your equal in stupidity.


Saturday, April 01, 2006 

Property Rights = Terrorism

Do you live in Virginia? If so, you're probably a terrorist; accoring to the state anyway. Some manual to help state employees point out possible terrorists was leaked a few days ago and, well, here's what's in it:

Ok, I can understand the Animal Rights Activists and other Green Party psychos but people in favor of private property? What's next? A watch list for people who don't want to be raped or murdered?

Friday, March 31, 2006 

Prayers can't heal people? Duh.

Apparently the scale of this study on intercessory prayer was the largest of it's kind. Basically, people in certain churches or monastaries around the country prayed for 1,800 individuals right before they went into heart surgery. Curiously, the study showed that people who knew they were being prayed for had more complications resulting from the surgery. Other than that, there were no discernable healing abilities shown from the praying.

That didn't stop religious quacks from trying to rescue the power of prayer. Nope, here's what they said:

"Our study was never intended to address the existence of God or the presence or absence of intelligent design in the universe or to compare the efficacy of one prayer form over another," said the Rev. Dean Marek, director of chaplain services at the Mayo Clinic, one of the authors. "The patients in the study had similar religious profiles with most believing in spiritual healing and almost all also thinking that friends or relatives would be praying for them as well," he said.

And then:

"One caveat is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family, as well as personal prayer, it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer," Manoj Jain of Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, another author of the report.

The authors said one possible limitation to their study was that those doing the special praying had no connection or acquaintance with the subjects of their prayer, which would not usually be the norm.

"Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this belief," the report concluded.

If only they had used the family members of each of these 1,800 patients to conduct this study, then the power of prayer would be known to all! What a joke...

<a href="" target="_blank"><img src="" width="145" height="100" border="0" alt=""></a>
Get Firefox! Get Thunderbird!
Powered by Blogger
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
Listed on BlogShares