Archive for category Spankin' the Crank

Gribbit is back, and he’s bringin’ the ‘tard

Gribbit recently took a hiatus from blogging on his own site because he was tired of being beset by facts and reasons from libtards, and spent a week lending his stupidity to the notably ramshackle locus for seething wingnuts that calls itself “Stop the ACLU” despite being neither willing nor able to accomplish that heroic goal. But Gribbit is back, and here’s how he concluded a recent post consisting mostly of a cut-and-pasted e-mail from his hero, U.S. Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio):

It must really suck for Congressional Democrats to know that the normally compliant main stream media is now turning its ire towards you. This same media which distorted the truth in order to get their guy elected President of the United States. This same media which refuses to leave Sarah Palin alone. This same media which has some Marxist Utopian fantasy about how Democrats view the world is now extremely skeptical of those same Democrats and their agenda.

The road to Utopia does not exists. And if it did, the Democrats aren’t on it. Just ask the common North Korean. – Gribbit

So in other words, the “main stream media” is, like, totally biased, and through chicanery even got Obama elected despite the real will of the majority of American voters. But despite this unwavering bias, the media is now refusing to unconditionally cheerlead Democratric machinations, which has never happened before. I mean, the media completely ignored the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, to the point that I have never even heard of a blue dress or a cigar inserted in some intern’s whatzit. And the media has no interest in what Nancy Pelosi knew about waterboarding during Bush’s first term, which is really fucking strange because I keep seeing talk of this on TV. And poor Sarah Palin, who wants no part of the spotlight and has never wanted anything but to be left alone to do her job (when she has one).

But it’s good to know that the road to Utopia does not exists. This make me happys. Because it’s would be a toll road and all of this moneys would just goes to Democrat to feed medias biases anyways.

Advertisements

3 Comments

A tribute to an inflammatory wackaloon

PZ Myers wrote a post last Sunday about a column by Charlotte Allen, whose column “Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining” recently appeared in the L.A. Times. Allen, in a brilliantly uncreative fashion, singled out PZ as well as the usual cadre of overly vocal atheist authors (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, etc.) for her ham-handed version of ridicule.
The column was difficult to take seriously, obvious foray into pot-stirring that it was. Nevertheless, she makes excellent fodder for my newest time-wasting habit.

5 Comments

“The descendants of slaves are better off today because their ancestors were slaves”

Not only should American blacks not receive reparations, but they should be grateful that their descendants were slaves, because Africa is a hellhole. Seriously.

For the sake of argument we will assume all blacks here are descendants of slaves. That means Barack Obama, a black man, holds the highest job in the land. His brother lives in poverty in Africa and his Aunt is an illegal immigrant from Africa. Would Obama have been better off if his lineage had stayed in Africa? The US would be better off but would Obama?
The same is true for ALL blacks living here. Even the poorest of the poor have it better than the people living in Africa. Those in Africa are in absolute poverty with kids dying of malnutrition, people dying of AIDS and malaria and on top of that they have to worry about fighting among tribes. Where in America does anyone, black or otherwise, have it that bad?

Classic wingnut behavior: Cite what you think is the worst of what a place you’ve never actually seen has to offer, then claim that no one here has it that bad–ergo, a neat moral justification for slavery. That is just some dangerous stupidity. The sad aspect is that Big Dog believes he is being perfectly logical. Stupid people are wont to engage in such chicanery.

11 Comments

Typical

I’m a regular reader of Thinking Meat, a blog titled in honor of a short sci-fi story by Terry Bisson. The blogger who maintains the page has an almost heroic ability to suffer far-right nutbags, fools, hypocrites, and douchenozzles. Every time I think I’m going well out of my way to tear into a moron, I see that meatbrain is doing yeoman work, often taking on a half-dozen whack jobs at once.
One of his favorite targets is “Cao,” who’s never met a lie she doesn’t like. Cao is typical of hypercon, anti-intellectual bloggers in that she insists on a deploying farcical bad-ass mascot, in her case the much more respectable Sarah Connor (old-school version) from the Terminator franchise. This is so common as to be a nutter standard; Gribbit has his mentally challenged bulldog with shades, while “Big Dog” has his, well, dog thing. Then there are the people who insist on reminding visitors in a half-dozen ways that they are, in fact, right-wingers, as if the American flag splash wasn’t a dead giveway, and as if the nonsense gun-freak prose wasn’t an immediate tip-off. One can only assume such types are using literal cartoon characters in order to compensate for lives that aren’t exactly what these bloggers hoped for.
Also, it seems that only winger bloggers are compelled to include disclaimers of any sort–e.g., “If you don’t like this place, kiss my ass.” It’s as if they understand at some dim level not only that they offend people, but that they are not at all clever in so doing and are only using the blunt force of noise to reach their ends. They may even know how utterly stupid they are in some cases, although I suppose that sort of insight is a contradiction.
Anyway, Cao, in her endless (and anonymous) quest to “out” meatbrain, decided she would take a screen shot of a Chimp Refuge post to which meatbrain commented. It’s not difficult to determine that the blogger is in no way identifying himself, or being identifed, as the writer Terry Bisson. Nevertheless, Cao, being a wingnut and therefore unable to tell the truth, insists that meatbrain claimed to be Bisson. meatbrain blogged about this, and the posts he links to on Cao’s site offer an interesting case study in flagrant self-important wingstress dishonesty.
I’m really not sure hy Cao such a difficult time distinguishing between “inspired by” and “is.” Our blog was inspired in part by primatology, but that doesn’t mean my name is actually Joan Bushwell. I’m pretty sure none of my co-bloggers go by that name either. Usually.

4 Comments

When low-wattage ideologues retort

Gribbit hates it when I call him on his lies and errors, which has led him to do everything possible to not even know when I’m doing it. Typical of nutjobs, he’s banned my IP address (not even a small inconvenience) and tried to disallow hotlinking from this domain to his (ditto). But because no one–present sad company excluded–pays him any attention, he can’t resist the urge to call me out when he thinks he has me and the anti-wingnut world on the whole over a barrel, so he’s come up with another bad interpretation of an already slipshod FOX News article about Antarctic ice levels.

I’ve been saying it for years … Undoubtedly that imbecile Kevin the Chimp or Kemibe or whatever he wishes to call himself this week will again leave a message for me on Twitter and the #TCOT

Blogging tip: When you’re Gribbit, don’t use yourself as a source.
Undoubtedly I spend precious little time on Twitter (Facebook is enough of a time sink) and I have no idea what #TCOT is, but Gribbit never lets such considerations stop him. I will, however, write a post about him. In terms of his yen for being punished, the guy is like a starving man chowing down on Ex-Lax, and now he’s not even pretending otherwise.
No kidding he’s been saying the same thing for years. He’s also been relying on “news” and inspiration from WorldNut Daily, Michele Malkin, and Ann Coulter for years. He’s been living off the government teat, sitting at home and blogging about the evils of taxation and socialism, also for years. What Gribbit spews continually is not a mystery.
Of course, when you read the article he links to, you see that it doesn’t express what Gribbit claims it does, biased though it is. Gribbit’s post is a direct result of reading headlines of stories and, at most, one paragraph of those stories, and then letting fly with feral-grunt posts that render him a laughingstock, inasmuch as anyone notices.

The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent’s western coast … ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilization of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month.

Then there are alternatives to FOX News, not that this wild concept resonates in dipshittian circles.

Australian Antarctic Division ice expert Dr Tony Worby says there’s been a very significant decrease in sea ice and a net loss in shelf ice in Antarctica.
Sea ice is different from shelf ice on the continent, and its melting does not affect sea levels.
Fresh research from the British Antarctic Survey says Antarctica’s sea ice surface area – not volume – is increasing, in parts.

From Reuters:

The U.N. Climate Panel says seas could rise by 18-59 cms (7-24 inches) by 2100, without taking account the possible acceleration of a melt of ice sheets in Antarctica or Greenland.
Even a small thaw of Antarctica and Greenland would affect sea levels since together they lock up enough ice to raise sea levels by about 65 meters (215 feet) if they all melted.
Following are responses to questions from Reuters by a leading glaciologist as part of an ad-hoc global series of top climate change scientists, policy makers and academics.
Ian Allison is leader of the Australian Antarctic Division’s Ice, Ocean, Atmosphere and Climate program and a researcher within the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Center.
He has been involved in Antarctic science for over 40 years.
HOW GREAT IS THE THREAT FROM ICE SHEETS MELTING?
“I think it is now unequivocal that warming of the world is occurring and I think the last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusively showed that a major cause of warming is greenhouse gas emissions from mankind.

Teaching point, Grib: This is what people mean when they say climate change. It’s not a cop-out substitute for global warming. I know this is difficult for parochial-minded rage-a-holics to understand, but the temperature of the planet does not have to rise uniformly in every region of the earth in order for net warming to occur. The extent to which human activity has engendered this is an open scientific question. Idiots who have never seen the inside of a college science course slamming the door on the idea merely because they hate Al Gore and Negro presidents is not.
Of note is that Gribbit constantly wails about the bias and untrustworthiness of the International Panel on Climate Change and other scientists who present data opposing his position, yet has no problem accepting at face value claims made by similarly experienced and credentialed scientists that (he thinks) support his preconceived, solid conclusions. This is a cardinal sign of ignorance and ideological commitment, not that Grib hasn’t displayed this in IMAX brilliance a hundred times already.
Wingnuts as a group have no problem maligning scientists the 95 percent of the time science lays waste to their foolish ideas, while quoting the the other 5 percent. Gribbit, like his equally blinkered peers at shitblogs such as Stop the ACLU and elsewhere, is as dishonest as he is stupid, although I really wouldn’t want to have a horse in that race.

5 Comments

Look! Way down there! A tap-dancing lunatic!

In case you haven’t noticed what’s going on in the “recent comments” over there in the sidebar, a fellow named Robert O. Adair, who claims to have been an active academic for over fifty years, recently emerged from an acidic creationist swamp and begun commenting on a 21-month-old post I made that mocked Bill Dembski’s and Sal Cordova’s attempts to paint Jerry Coyne’s and Richard Dawkins’ panning of Michael Behe’s book Edge of Evolution as complaints borne of fear and scientific ignorance.
I’ll offer no further comment, only a link to Mr. Adair’s long-defunct and eye-searing blog, and encourage you to check out the cartwheeling intellectual plane crash that shows no signs of abating (mainly because I keep egging the guy on). I have no idea why Mr. Adair decided to revive the post–he’s not someone who’s posted here in the past–but in any case, I am fairly certain that this blog has never been treated to someone quite like him. We had a perseverating nutcase back when Jim ripped the ROM Machine (“get a complete cardiovascular workout in four minutes”), but even that guy had a sense of humor.

3 Comments

Obama, Oprah, “worm-reptile-monkey people,” and Texas textbooks

There’s a connection, believe me.
As reported last week by the Texas Freedom Network–an organization that truly has a task before it that makes the travails of Job look like a game of mini-golf–Texas State Board of Education chair Don McLeroy (no stranger to this blog) offered a ringing endorsement of a self-published anti-evolution book by Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. No surprise there. You can read excerpts from the book in the TFN post, which in turn links to a full-text online version.
But if you really want to spend a few hours reading some fifth-degree, superconcentrated crazy, check out what Johnson wrote on his blog last summer when agitating against Barack Obama’s ultimately failed campaign for president of the U.S. This is a very long screed, divided into chapters, and every last bit of it is jarring even by creationist standards, perhaps because Johnson has a certain facility with words. I’m going to paste a paragraph chosen completely at random after giving the touch pad of my laptop a flick of the thumb and seeing where the scroll bar parks itself. Okay, here we go:

Read the rest of this entry »

3 Comments

Argument from gut (argumentum ad gastrum)

Good old Gribbit is at it again, railing against the idea of climate change and invoking his obligatory far-less-than-clever insults (e.g., “Church of Global Warming Idiots”).
One thing you notice about these scientifically illiterate, anger-driven ideologues–none of whom have any inherent issue with the idea of global warming, hating it only because they view it as a wholly liberal cause–is that when they’re not referencing pseudoscience or long-debunked myths, they’re arguing from the simple position of “Because I say so.”
I mean this (almost) literally. Check out this post (Gribbit has blocked incoming links from this site because he doesn’t want to know when he’s being lit up again, so you’ll have to right-click, copy, and paste into your address bar rather than click directly). Look how many times Gribbit tries to bolster his case with hollow bluster: He’s got an “All I’ve claimed is that man had very little to do with [global warming],” an “I assert that man’s contribution is insignificant,” and several other statements that reference nothing more than a personal belief system.
As is almost always the case with morons, the article Gribbit links to doesn’t say what Gribbit thinks it does. The researchers who did the study it references are not claiming that anthropogenic climate change is nonexistent; the study is nothing more than an effort to determine natural cycles. Like too many simpletons, Gribbit sees no shades of gray in anything. So he sees climate change as being all-human generated or all-naturally occurring–and hilariously, posits that Al Gore and climate scientists do as well.
Gribbit and others typically mention what a small fraction of the atmosphere actually consists of carbon dioxide by way of “proving” that carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere by human industry can’t possibly make a difference, to wit:

CO2 is a minority greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. THE MOST ABUNDANT GREENHOUSE GAS IN THE EARTH’S ATMOSPHERE IS WATER VAPOR. But I don’t hear Gore or any of his minions suggesting the asinine idea of draining the world’s oceans.

Never mind the fact that it’s added CO2, not the total amount, that is believed to have an impact. My body consists of about 45 kilograms of water, but I bet that if I ingested one one-billionth that amount of botulinum toxin or plutonium, it would disrupt my internal homeostasis more than a couple more kilograms of water would. That’s a less-than-perfect analogy, but hearkens to the fact that not all chemicals–even those labeled “greenhouse gases”–are created equal in terms of their net effect on their environment. Anyway, a genuine debunking of this meme is here.
Then there’s this stubborn canard:

Seeing how the earth has failed to warm since 1997, their statement about the shift occurring about the year 2000 seems to confirm what we’ve been saying.

The whole idea that the planet has been cooling since 1997 (actually, 1998 is the year normally used) is another crock. 1998 was an El Nino year, and is the warmest on record. But the fact remains that the planet as a whole has continued to warm. Of course, you can trust Gribbit’s word over that of New Scientist if you like.
Watching people who have no understanding at all of earth science–and no interest in an honest understanding–try to argue against climate change is really no different than watching a six-year-old jeer at the girls in his kindergarten class because they have “cooties.” In other words, it’s so unsophisticated it is almost quaint. although when adults are the ones doing the jabbering it’s mostly pathetic, and annoying.

12 Comments

More fun with irony

From a random pro-life blog discussing the recent goings-on in Brazil:

There are many details that people do not seem to know or care about.

These wackos really do have a fondness for a conspiratorial blogging style. They’re always prepared to offer information that they’re just certain others haven’t heard about.

The Church recognizes, through the theory of Double Effect, that when the pregnant woman’s life is in danger, the pregnancy can be terminated PROVIDING there is no alternative, and that no direct killing or any other evil is performed on the fetus.
There is no reason why those unborn children could not have been delivered intact, without feticide.

Hmmm…medical opinions on one side, voracious pro-Jesus ravings on the other…I think I’ll go with the idea that the girl could not have carried her twins to term.

In other words, it is acceptable to let nature its course– that is, allow the fetuses to die once delivered– but it is never okay to provoke death.

This sort of moral confusion would seemingly make someone’s head explode, but the blogger was really just warming up:

The abortion proponents wanted the unborn twins dead.
Let me re-state it: they didn’t just want the girl to be free of a pregnancy that might have killed her. They wanted those fetuses dead.

That’s right, because abortion proponents are not merely people who personally enjoy their abortions, but have a frankly murderous bent.

The Church wants as many as possible to live. It’s not always possible– pregnancies are sometimes lethal to the mother, and to save the mother, a termination is necessary. But the pregnancy termination does not have to result in a dead baby.
Abortion always does.

Someone will have to explain how an elective abortion differs materially from a prengancy termination, since that’s, you know, the definition.
I actually do grasp what this idiot is saying–that if you attempt to force a delivery (again, a virtual impossibility in the Brazilian girl) and let the newborns die peacefully on their own, this is morally acceptable, but a formal, outright abortion is not. Again, the mental gymnastics these people engage in can be boggling..

But that’s not what this is about. This is a PR campaign to ge Brazil to legalize abortion. The abortion lobby is intensely pressuring Latin American countries to legalize killing its unborn citizens.

There’s no such thing as an unborn citizen, but at this point who’s keeping track?
This is nice too:

As the publisher of a 13 year old periodical which targets Black gays and lesbians, I have had the opportunity to publicly address thousands, influencing closeted people to ‘come out’ and stand up for them selves, which is particularly difficult in the African-American community.
I’m concerned because people who abandon homosexual behaviour only to go back to it give the faithful bad PR. The liberal press often does not scrutinize their story. We don’t know how much these “ex-ex-gays” prayed; we don’t know their theology; we don’t know anything of their personal life. And so there’s no way to “cross-examine” them on their decision to leave the faith. For all we know, they have been extremely orthodox and observant, but inside their hearts, they still harboured many unseen sins and nurtured evil inclinations that may have had nothing to do with homosexual behaviour, but sparked a rejection of Christ that eventually led to the return to homosexual behaviour. Or they may have had unresolved psychological issues that they led them to reject the faith.

The last sentence is a real winner. Yes, people do reject faith on the grounds of a psychological condition. It’s called “sanity.”
Finally, in a different post:
“[T]he tone of public discourse on the internet is very abrasive and anti-intellectual.”
But….but you just…aw, never mind!

2 Comments

Posting to wingnut blogs: A step-by-step guide for the lazy, the irate, and the dishonest

The process goes like this:
1. Seat pimply ass before computer, brow furrowed in anger and mind jittering in confusion.
2. Load one from among of a trove of bookmarked news sites and blogs: Michelle Malkin, Fox News, and WorldNut Daily are favorites.
3. Scan article to the best of limited reading ability. No more than 30 seconds should be spent on this, and it is vital that all sourced items not be investigated or vetted for accuracy. Period.
4. Using the copy and paste function, transfer a key paragraph or two to own nascent post, inserting additional spelling and grammar errors as desired.
5. Create link to article accompanied by garbled paragraph containing references to the evil Left, and various mistruths, hypocrisies, and distortions. Make sure that claim bears as little relationship to reality as possible.
6. Generate post title that is not merely hyperbole or incendiary wordplay, but an utter lie.
7. Be, at best, dimly aware of own attitude and behavior.
8. Delete all dissenting input and ban dissenters outright if possible.
9. Transmit lies memetically through sizable wingnut community.
10. Repeat several times daily.
Here’s a great example. Gribbit, ever watchful of things to lie about, has generated a post called “Boxer: The UN knows better than you how to raise your child.” You’ll note after a look at the article Gribbit links to that Barbara Boxer, a Democratic U.S. senator from California, has claimed nothing of the sort, so right away Gribbit’s off to a great start.
Reaching ever further into his own ass, Gribbit produces this gem of an opener:

Read the rest of this entry »

5 Comments

The day in stupid

Here.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently had a 15-minute meeting with Pope Benedict XVI.
The meeting was held Wednesday in a small room in the Vatican after Benedict’s weekly public audience. Judie Brown of American Life League tells OneNewsNow the meeting was private, but the Vatican did release a statement, noting the pope challenged Pelosi’s stance on abortion issues.
“But I am very grateful that the Holy Father called her up, if you will, on her horrible position in favor of supporting the abortion of preborn babies,” Brown notes.

No, I won’t. The term you seek, idiot, is called her out. I know, crazy kids, driving around in brand-new pre-owned cars and aborting the preborn.
What’s more, the “news” release admits that what was said between Pelosi and Pope Ratzo is not known. Sure, he probably said some exceptionally stupid shit, but we have no quotes. And is that really the best pic anyone could come up with? Does the Pope ever not look one hundred percent batshit crazy?

The Associated Press reports Benedict urged politicians to value life “at all stages of its development” and to protect the dignity of human life “from conception to natural death.”
“Pelosi is an insult to the Roman Catholic Church,” Brown contends, “and I’m glad that the Vatican recognizes this.”

I too hope to be formally recognized as an insult to the same church. I mean, come on I’ve fornicated, debauched, and deflowered in the extreme, though not nearly to the degree I should have. Why, not five minutes ago I said “Jesus fucking Christ!” out loud. I belong in a high position in anyone’s concept of downtown Hell.

Brown adds that the pope could have simply shaken Pelosi’s hand and had a cordial meeting, but he embraced the opportunity instead to promote life. “He took the opportunity to point out the grave error of her ways — and I think that does send a message to pro-abortion politicians everywhere all over the world,” she concludes. That message? “If they happen to be Catholic, they cannot support killing.”

We’ll remember you said that, moron.
Then again, in a world where people say things like “the spinal cord of a baby forms around 12 days after conception. The presence of a spinal cord equals the ability for the baby to feel PAIN” in complete sincerity, it’s not surprising when people toss out bald-faced lies and sheer hilarity and expect to be taken seriously–because they are.

1 Comment

Big Bang is evidence for…well, you know the rest

I had never heard of “Awaken Generation” before I started getting OneNewsNow.com updates, but I’m rapidly learning that it operates from downtown Nutsville, at the intersection of Ignorant and Paranoid.
This is possibly the worst argument for God’s existence I have ever seen an adult invoking cosmological principles make. I have no idea who Frank Turek is or why Chris Hitchens bothered with him, but he offers a florid version of “start with the certainty of God as creator and invent the necessary evidence.” I would bet that his commission of logical fallacies is as unconscious as it is brazen, and that if you explained to him his various errors he would only smile politely, if a little vacantly, and then utter something vacuous and yet somehow paternal in its irrelevance.
What Turek does is take a number of quotes from astronomers who liken, at some level, the presumed “instantaneous” creation of the universe with the Biblical creation account and use these quotes as evidence for the existence of God.

Read the rest of this entry »

4 Comments

Big Bang is evidence for…well, you know the rest

I had never heard of “Awaken Generation” before I started getting OneNewsNow.com updates, but I’m rapidly learning that it operates from downtown Nutsville, at the intersection of Ignorant and Paranoid.
This is possibly the worst argument for God’s existence I have ever seen an adult invoking cosmological principles make. I have no idea who Frank Turek is or why Chris Hitchens bothered with him, but he offers a florid version of “start with the certainty of God as creator and invent the necessary evidence.” I would bet that his commission of logical fallacies is as unconscious as it is brazen, and that if you explained to him his various errors he would only smile politely, if a little vacantly, and then utter something vacuous and yet somehow paternal in its irrelevance.
What Turek does is take a number of quotes from astronomers who liken, at some level, the presumed “instantaneous” creation of the universe with the Biblical creation account and use these quotes as evidence for the existence of God.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Typical climate-change denialism

By “typical” I don’t mean the sort of programmed distortions or shady and selective treatment of data common to people who speak in scientific language, but the output of right-wing bloggers who are scientifically illiterate. After all, there are a lot more people who don’t understand the pertinent concepts than folks who do. So, although to most Science Blogs readers the debunking of a workaday rant from the sort of clown still beating the OBAMA, HE NO HAVE PROPER BIRTH CERTIFCATE! drum (apparently these guys think that they’re eventually going to uncover something that the GOP and U.S. Congress obviously did not) is a superfluous exercise, it’s perhaps worth a glimpse at how your neighbor chooses to view things.
This Porter Good/William Teach guy writes for Stop the ACLU, so you already know he’s deftly combined the literacy of a fifth-grader with the analytical powers of snot and basted the result with the objectivity of Pat Robertson. He also has how own blog, and on this blog he wrote a post called “AGW Today: Mercury and OMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!” (Although an attempted foray into parody, this hysterical tone is, amusingly, pretty much this writer’s natural, unwavering style.)
I left a comment under his post, and I’ve more or less reproduced it below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Typical climate-change denialism

By “typical” I don’t mean the sort of programmed distortions or shady and selective treatment of data common to people who speak in scientific language, but the output of right-wing bloggers who are scientifically illiterate. After all, there are a lot more people who don’t understand the pertinent concepts than folks who do. So, although to most Science Blogs readers the debunking of a workaday rant from the sort of clown still beating the OBAMA, HE NO HAVE PROPER BIRTH CERTIFCATE! drum (apparently these guys think that they’re eventually going to uncover something that the GOP and U.S. Congress obviously did not) is a superfluous exercise, it’s perhaps worth a glimpse at how your neighbor chooses to view things.
This Porter Good/William Teach guy writes for Stop the ACLU, so you already know he’s deftly combined the literacy of a fifth-grader with the analytical powers of snot and basted the result with the objectivity of Pat Robertson. He also has how own blog, and on this blog he wrote a post called “AGW Today: Mercury and OMG WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!” (Although an attempted foray into parody, this hysterical tone is, amusingly, pretty much this writer’s natural, unwavering style.)
I left a comment under his post, and I’ve more or less reproduced it below.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a comment

Evolution for illiterates, deathmongers, and Elmer Fudd idolizers: First and last in a series

“Big Dog” read this post but chose to respond only in the relative haven of his own faeces-covered kennel, and with all the erudition one would expect. I’ll leave him a trackback and see if he bothers replying with anything intelligible.

“Science to support evolution, upon reflection, certainly just like there is science to support man made global warming.”

Translated into a complete sentence, this means that “Big Dog” admits that he was lying before and that he’s aware that there is science to support evolution. He believes, however, that he’s free to discard it because this science is, just like that underlying climate change, unreliable. Notice that he doesn’t mention a single supposedly debunked or questioned point.

“Both are theories so neither has been proved … There is no scientific consensus and obviously it is not settled or it would not be a theory.”

Hmm, that sounds familiar. Where have I…ah, I know! See comment #19:

No Kemibe the idiot… it is a theory. Definition of a theory is an unproven scientific hypothesis. Evolution is far from proven. Q: Where are the missing links you’ve been searching for for decades? Answer: They don’t exist. Ergo theory.

Of course, these guys are completely wrong:

“Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.”

As for “Big Dog’s” claim that there is “no consensus,” I wonder what his definition of “consensus” is. Must it be something that even a small scattering of nutjobs–people whose “work” has been demolished by their peers and who in some cases have been exposed in court as liars–do not disagree with?
Actually, I’d like to see “Big Dog” offer a single example of a controversy about the factuality of evolution within the scientific community. Just one will do. No recourse to creationist sites, please; we’re looking for evidence of scientific dissent here, not a “Big Dog”-style “I call bullshit!” I hope he chooses carefully; it is all but assured that his fervent Internet search will only yield a specious example of a counterclaim that everyone here is already familiar with. This is what happens when you stake out an untenable position and tell lies to support it.

“I know the arguments, we share DNA with chimps blah, blah. We also share about 90% with rats and look nothing like them (well meathead looks like one).”

No, “Big Dog” clearly doesn’t “know the arguments,” none of which include the words “blah, blah.” Indeed, he’s unaware that his statement about rats–which is, not surprisingly, incorrect, as rats and humans share “only” about 25% of their genes–only puts him further in a hole.
If affirming the common ancestry of all living things relied solely on phenotype (appearance) it would be easy to dismiss the majority of organisms as being unrelated to humans. However, scientists long ago began making predictions about the relative degree of “relatedness” between humans and different animals and groups of animals–apes, monkeys, other mammals, other vertebrates (including reptiles and birds), invertebrates (such as insects), even bacteria.
These predictions have been borne out by not only by gross examination of anatomical structures but by molecular genetics and other modern techniques. “Big Dog” thinks he can just throw out the fact that humans and rats and chimps share a lot of DNA because rats and humans do not, in his judgment, look anything alike–but he’s yet again wrong.

“We have not seen one animal evolve into another…”

Oh, really? Is that the royal “we” you’re using?

“…and if the fittest will survive then why worry about polar bears or others “victims” of so called global warming … Surely we will adapt to what ever happens or we will perish.”

If the fittest will survive then why insist that they be armed? How is protecting ourselves with weapons (i.e., through a change in the environmnent rather than in the organism) any different than protecting other species through mechanical, biological, or chemical means? Consistency isn’t the moron’s strong point, is it? And how does any of this relate to evolution–the real version, that is, not the wingnut’s “SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST=THOSE WHO CAN KILL THE MOST, QED” semi-private and canted definition?

“If evolution is what happens in nature and you guys believe in it then you can’t change what will happen so why worry about the world?”

Yeah, good point. Guns are perfectly natural, but what about other man-made stuff? Why build shelter for ourselves or mass-produce food? Or…hey, am I really arguing with someone who claims that evolution implies that people “can’t change what will happen so why worry”? Must be that kind of Friday.

“Ignorant? Hardly. I just disagree with what you believe which is not the definition of ignorant. Otherwise that would make us both ignorant, would it not.”

Ignorance is believing you can throw out what that element of the world that operates using facts understands because you dislike the implications. Ignorance is pretending that facts and opinions are interchangeable. Expressing violent rhetoric toward those with whom you disagree and especially toward those who actively put you in your place, while not itself ignorance, seems to accompany ignorance with uncanny frequency.
By a similar token, “Big Dog” is not an asshole for disagreeing with me, he is an asshole for a variety of other demonstrable reasons.

“I enjoy when tolerant folks stop by to call me names and be intolerant.”

I, of course, never said I was tolerant of liars and idiots in any meaningful sense, and would hate to be viewed as such.

“I don’t like meathead. If he died tomorrow I would throw a party.”

These are probably by far the truest statements in the entire comment.
The idea here isn’t to convince this guy of anything but to predict how he’ll respond. It’s unlikely that “Big Dog” can be bothered to click on the links I supplied, much less read what’s there; he often doesn’t bother reading much of what he thinks supports his positions, so the idea of him bother with material that exposes his lies and errors is far-fetched. I’m guessing he’ll dismiss the things I posted demolishing his ideas as liberal propaganda (a handy wingnut synonym for “things I can label lies no matter how well established they are) and consciously or unconsciously misconstrue something written here or in one of the linked articles in such a way as to pretend it agrees with things he’s said.
Actually, since he operates this way daily, it takes little prescience to let fly with such a forecast.

11 Comments

A Google AdSense link I actually clicked: “Is Obama the Antichrist”?

Well, it would be kinda nice to know, wouldn’t it?
This site, run by one Mel Sanger, has all classic stigmata of a nutjob enterprise: A layout straight out of 1994; the “Have you secretly wondered so and so and thought people might actually judge you MAD because of it? Well, you’re not alone!” construct; gratuitous caps, extra apostrophes, and other abuses of English (“Blacks, White’s, Hispanics, Young, Middle Aged, Old, Straight, Lesbian, Homosexual; everyone seemed to be impacted by his message of change”); talk of encoded messages and Bible prophecies; profligate use of the word “literally” and bold text; frantic references to Christians and other well-meaning everyday folk being asleep at the wheel of their terribly threatened lives; and, of course, an invitation to buy something, in this case a book.

A Small Preview of the Vast Number of Insights For You To Make Your Own Personal Decision on The Evidence.</strong

  • Your view of the end times will be forever changed by the information in this report. It will seriously challenge your views, political beliefs and will cause discomfort as it reveals a major deception regarding the United States in recent times! (Part 1: Page 29)
  • You will fully understand why Talk Radio Stations all over America are now Facing the threat of Censorship by Obama when he becomes President under the Obama New World Order. (Part 2: Page 21)
  • You will understand the reason why many bible prophecy experts have been muted regarding the election of Barack Obama. What is it that they know but are simply too scared to say regarding the Obama New World Order (Part 1: Page 32)
  • What was the Importance and Significance of Obama’s attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ. (Part 2: Page 9)
  • Birds of a Socialist Marxist Feather do Flock Together and because of the absolute lack of belief by many on this issue, we will provide you the names and political agenda’s of some of Obama’s major advisors. Once you see this list and proof of their covert connection to Obama there will be no hiding place! (Part 2: Page 13)
  • Why is there confusion in the Muslim World regarding their view of Barack Obama? (Part 2: Page 57)
  • Does Obama’s moral and religious views cause fundamental conflict with the Christian Faith which he professes? (Part 2: Page 17)
  • Why Has Google reported over 5 million searches in 2008 for the term “Obama Antichrist” and does he have an apocalyptic role? (Part 3: Page 23)
  • Why is the Destruction of Islam and the removal of the Dome of the Rock from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a significant requirement for those looking to bring about the Masonic New World Order? (Part 3: Page 12)

And Much More………………………….
I think my favorite part of the whole production is the image on the home page showing the book from which the site draws its name. Look closely at the warning in the middle.

5 Comments

If evolution were real, Rush Limbaugh would have been inevitable

Jim marvels at the obnoxiousness of popular commentator Rush Limbaugh’s logically indefensible observation that he wants Obama’s policies and presidency to fail, yet hopes for the U.S. to succeed, which is akin to rooting for football and praying for a hurricane to smash into West Florida on Sunday.
Yes, this is breathtakingly stupid, hypocritical, and cynical, which is why it jibes perfectly with the qualities that have made Limbaugh popular and led a nation of bitter halfwits to believe that this bellowing pile of opioid-soaked triglycerides is not only entertaining, but an oracle.
That an unapologetic, personal-grudge-based rooting for the country to implode from someone with millions of regular listeners does not immediately render its originator a target of bipartisan scorn is exactly why I bother with brain-damaged assholes like Gribbit, the troupe of determined liars at Stop the ACLU, and other hapless and paranoid shitbirds whose chief unifying characteristic–other than lying, gullibility, hypocrisy, Bible-whacking, and inability or unwillingness to acknowledge their own rip-roaring factual errors–is an insistence on using some sort of cartoon bad-ass or other armed and dangerous fictional being as a blog mascot.

Read the rest of this entry »

6 Comments

Time to up the Haldol

A clown in the stop the ACLU troupe complains of something he calls “borderline blasphemous”:

The photograph [below, top] is reminiscent of one of the most famous and iconic depictions of God in western art, the Sistine Chapel painting of God reaching out to Adam [below, bottom]. But, instead of God, we have The Obammessiah reaching across the page as if straining to touch each of us with his healing hand. It’s quite disgusting, really, the way the Old Media has propagandized for Obama by replicating religious imagery or communist propaganda and this over-the-top image is a perfect example.



Dude has a point–in the L.A. Times picture, Obama is extending his left arm, all four fingers and the thumb outstretched, and holding a microphone in his right hand; in the Michelangelo painting, God is extending his right arm, index finger pointing and the other digits relaxed. Frigging uncanny.
For further hilarity, read the comments from which where this undermedicated yammerhead drew his inspiration.

7 Comments

No bite to be found, but whose bark is most feeble?

For me, watching the inauguration carried not so much the air of pomp and celebration but the weight of a stunning reality: America recently elected Barack Obama to the highest office in the land, and he is now not someone waiting in the wings, but the president. I was also struck by the fact that despite the wide variation in people’s individual political leanings, Obama is seemingly impossible to truly dislike as a human being, as a leader. I voted for him in November, but I was also consciously voting against the appalling idea that someone as cerebrospastic as Sarah Palin could play any role at all in a presidential administration. But I was reminded today Obama’s presence and command of himself and his audience is stunning given his relative youth and inexperience.
Of course, it is this presence that has his blind and throaty detractors claiming that Obama is nothing but presence, and that his rhetoric is ominously reminiscent of (natch) Adolf Hitler. I can see their point; both men, after all, gave speeches to large numbers of people.
That brings me to a nod of appreciation toward a couple of terminally addled and agitated bloggers whose reliably inept contributions to the Web’s ignorance quotient today put the cherry on top of ushering out eight years of thumb-sucking pandering to America’s sprawling, noisy Moron Belt and ushering in someone whose intentions are exactly what people–some of them grudgingly–hope to see in a president. Rather than accept the reality of a new and inspired leadership, this pair of mush-mouthed and failed rhetoricians simply sank even deeper into the wingnut shitbog, letting fly with some gloriously incompetent gems.

Read the rest of this entry »

10 Comments