Sharron Angle wants to control the media

Sharron Angle [source: Club for Growth]

Pop quiz, everyone: What are some of the key defining characteristics of a theocratic wingnut? A) Their political platform consists mostly (if not solely) of rotting talking points. B) They engage in censorship of criticism. C) Some of their social values can, at best, be qualified as “archaic” (and at worst, “monstrous”). D) They hate, distrust and try to avoid the mainstream media, to the point where they: E) Appear mostly (if not solely) on select conservative networks – ie. mostly (if not solely) Fox “News”.

No, I’m not talking about Sarah Palin, but fellow sister-in-lunacy, GOP nominee and hardcore teabagger Sharron Angle (R-Nevada). The thing is, however, that when wingnuts get comfortable on channels such as Fox “News”, they start spilling the beans more clearly. Here’s how Angle actually wants the media to approach her and her views:

"We needed to have the press be our friend," Angle said in an interview that aired on Fox over the weekend.

"Wait a minute. Hold on a second. To be your friend?" said a disbelieving Carl Cameron. Before Angle could fully answer, he added: "That sounds naive." Apparently this was too much for even him.

"Well, no," said Angle. "We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported."

You’d think she would at least try not to be so bluntly honest about it. Appearances matter, don’t ya know, and she just revealed herself as the true incarnation of a Wingnut (yes, with a capital ‘W’): Someone who vies to control the way they’re presented in the news so that nothing critical ever gets out to tarnish their image.

I’d list a few well-known historical examples of people who engaged in exactly this sort of behavior, but really, it’s just too easy.

(via Fark)

Tags: Sharron Angle • wingnuts • censorship • propaganda

Which structure is more insulting to Ground Zero?

Damn good point.

“Which structure insults Ground Zero?” | Margulies

(via @todayspolitics)

Tags: Margulies • cartoons • Ground Zero • Ground Zero Mosque • 9-11 health bill

Fail Quote of the Day: Ray Comfort explains why animals and bugs don’t have courts

Morality [source: Mustafa K Anuar’s blog]

Ray Comfort attempts to explain why it is that animals don’t seek retribution whilst humans have such a powerful drive for obtaining justice:

Human beings are not like animals, or birds, insects and fish. Sure, animals, birds, insects and fish all have eyes, a mouth, blood, a stomach, an appetite, and will to live, and we all bed down at night. But there is something absolutely unique about the human race. We are moral beings. Fish don’t have court systems. Neither do animals insects or birds.

If one of their kind transgresses some moral law, they don't seek retribution. They don’t have a judge and jury and punish a guilty one of their kind. But man certainly does. He will go to the ends of the earth and spend billions of dollars to bring the guilty to justice. This is because we are made in the image of God. We have His likeness engraved upon us in that we know right from wrong.

Um … no, Ray. That’s not how it works. The reason we humans have legal systems (and corresponding court and penal systems) when animals and bugs don’t is because we also have the intelligence, wisdom and knowledge to be able to envision those concepts and then bring them to reality. Second, animals don’t have any moral laws to transgress, as such would inherently imply that morality comes from some exterior source, such as some form of higher intelligence. And, given all that we know about the origins and development of morality in humans in contrast to the complete lack of morals and ethics in animals, that’s just silly. Animals don’t seek punishment or revenge because they usually have neither the intelligence, nor the emotional capacity, nor a good enough memory, to hold grudges as humans do. For them, everything is in the now; once the offense has passed, it is quickly forgotten. (If only humans had evolved that way.)

And finally, that someone is obsessed over an offense enough to bankrupt themselves and pursue the alleged offender to the ends of the world for retribution (or “justice”) is probably not something that ought to be claimed in our favor. There is nothing logical or rational about our human and very emotional concept of “justice”, which in 99% of cases is no more than vengeance cloaked in righteousness. Punishing someone because they hurt you, even if his/her offense was terrible and he/she is a cruel and vile individual, simply has no basis in reason. What does hurting someone who hurt you first have to offer? Does it fix the hurt they gave you? Does it change history and prevent it from ever happening? Does punishment inherently lead to the punished regretting their crimes and vowing penance for having harmed you? No. It is vindication and little more. But because revenge is something felt so powerfully by nearly every human alive, it is accepted, even encouraged, over such logical alternatives as compassionate rehabilitation.

(Now, I’m not trying to get on a high horse and declare that anyone who wishes to get vindicated for an offense they suffered is morally wrong. I’m just saying that throwing criminals behind bars, or suing someone who wronged you, or even punching some moron who spoke a bit too freely about your mother, regardless how satisfying it may feel, has no concrete rationale in logic. It’s emotional.)

Tags: Ray Comfort • revenge • vengeance • humans • insects

Intel or no intel? That is the question (that they couldn’t answer)

“Intel Inside” | Matt Davies

“We got so big, we forgot to keep track of stuff.”

(via Political Irony)

Tags: cartoons • intelligence agencies

Tea Party blogger’s insane screed against Muslims

“make the stupid people shut up.” If only they listened [source: Family of Shorts]

Look, I’m no fan of Islam. I despise it even more than than I do Christianity, which at least tries – however poorly – to progress and modernize along with the rest of the world. But even anti-Islamists such as I can only read screeds like this one, from official Tea Party Patriots blogger Annie Hamilton, and both laugh and cringe at the levels of demagogic crazy found within. Here’s what she wrote in response to an idiot who claimed that Six Flags’ “Muslim Family Day” was set on September 12 of this year supposedly to “celebrate” the 9/11 attacks:

Muslim Day at Six Flags is inappropriate for a multitude of reasons and I'm saddened and shocked by the ignorance of the Corporate folks and by the action that now must be taken by the rest of us.

First, Islam is NOT a religion, it is an ideology - the religious portion only encompasses 11 % (the qur'an) the rest is the Sira and Hadith and the closest parallel to Islam is the Ku Klux Klan - if that is Six Flag's idea of 'appropriate' then by all means, hold your day on September 12th but don't plan on expanding any time soon because not only will we ensure that you don't grow, we'll make sure that your parks become a thing of the past.

Islam is dying in America because Americans are learning (finally) what Muslims are about, what their 'faith' is based upon, how they're recruited, how they prey on the weak, their idea of 'rights' how they cannot ever respect our constitution because it's in direct violation with Sharia and how they must abide by a set of laws called dualism, compelling them to lie to others.

It is becoming WELL KNOWN that ISLAM IS DYING IN AMERICA, despite what you might be hearing from CAIR and others - the more it dies, the more frantic they become and the more they put out press releases about how 'fabulous' things are, new mosques, etc...(except they are broke and hitting others up for funds)

STOP placating them - in addition, there is no such thing as a moderate muslim, regardless of what you've heard - from the mouth of the son of a well known Imam. Islam is as Islam does. And Regardless of what you might think, there is no such thing of a 'mild' muslim, even the 'quiet' ones who live on the street corner, drive the BMW and work in the dr's office...they go to mosque, satisfy the pillars, pray, etc...and the money they are giving, that is funding terror.

Benny Hinn and the Jacket of Death

Televangelist Benny Hinn must have hidden some bricks in his coat when he performed at this spectacle^[1].

Knowing that millions of people take this sort of abject clownery seriously is one factor that steadily erodes my faith in humanity.

(via Pharyngula)

^[1] There’s a word with more than one appropriate connotations if I ever saw one.

Tags: Benny Hinn • televangelists • faith healing • Christianity • fundies

Daily Blend: Tuesday, August 03, 2010

Sid Meier’s Civilization V [source: Curse]

• I would’ve liked to tear apart this crank list about “fascist feminists”, aka “femisogynists” _*cringes* by Cassy Fiano at the ever-appropriately-titled Hot Air in a full-length post, but the fact that it’s a pure Gish Gallop kills my enthusiasm. Everyone, time to play List the Fallacies!
  (via Diaphanitas)

• NASA scientists discover what sounds like a Hollywood sequel to earthquakes: “Spacequakes”.
  (via Fark)

• Statistics show that believing in Creationism proves this sign right. Oversimplification, but whatever.
  (via Fark)

• Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley declares September 21 as Sid Meier’s Civilization V Day. Geeks will temporarily be seen exiting their parents’ basements as they move to Maryland.
  (via Fark)

• If there’s anything we’ve learned about wingnut scandals, it’s that they tend to be consistently stupider.

• Glenn Beck sez: American progressives are responsible for eugenics and the Holocaust. Also racism, the fall of the Roman Empire and flatulence. Stinkin’ progressives.

As always, if you have any story suggestions, feel free to send them in.

Tags: fascism • femisogynists • Cassy Fiano • NASA • magnetic field • Earth • spacequakes • intelligence • Maryland • Martin O'Malley • Civ V • Sid Meier's Civilization V Day • scandals • cartoons • This Modern World • Glenn Beck • progressives • eugenics • Holocaust

Inhuman | Chapter 13: The Rescue [old edition]

This entry has been removed from Preliator and can now be found over at Creativitas. (See here for more info.)

But don’t they go hand-in-hand?

This was labeled a Fail, but I don’t really see where the error is:

[source: FAIL Blog]

The way so many religious folks talk and act about their faith, this seems like a pretty accurate description to me.

(via Blag Hag)

Tags: DVDs • fetishes • irony

Guest post: The Bad Guy Mentality and Social statification Issues

This is a guest post by Gene Burmington. (Obligatory disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed in below are the writer’s and do not necessarily reflect my own.)

---

“Bad guy” [source: Peter Roskam]

I say statification instead of stratification as other renowned sociologists are known to do, because stratified hierarchy implies many layers or levels.

This is the opposite, as stratification implies possible advancement and advancement is impossible for "the bad guys". Throughout life, certain elements become the enemies of society through unlawful or unpopular means and are thus cast as the evildoers.

This status doesn't cease when penance is completed, either. Once you go to prison or you're declared an enemy to America's "moral fiber", you are always detested and are never truly part of society. Your life is miserable and pointless, and everyone makes sure to continue to punish you for something you already went to prison for.

You are a bad guy if you use drugs, were an enemy of the United States in a current conflict, or are generally disliked by the majority for who you are.

Basically, you are "bad", and it never stops at rehabilitation or punishment; you are always a bad person no matter how you think you've changed on the inside.

People say different and they think they know different. After all, everyone is a liar, and no one trusts anyone else for what they say about themselves. It's a reprehensible mess and it starts with the demonization of human beings.

As I said before, judgment taken out of context along with assumptions upon wisdom or facts is a perversion of truth and should not be indulged in by people who consider themselves intelligent.

Making assumptions is a symptom of ignorance. Making assumptions is the same thing as the tunnel vision of investigators in a murder case. Just because nine out of ten other cases seem to confirm an assumption, that isn't a guarantee. A guarantee is out of the grasp of human beings until true infallibility can be found.

Ray Comfort gets it half-right on Creation and matter/energy

Hubble composite image of possible ring of dark matter [source: The Internet Encyclopedia of Science]

It’s one of those times when our favorite Creationist isn’t stupendously wrong, but still manages to take a truth and bury it under a coating of rubbish:

After God had created the heavens and the earth, the Bible says, "Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished" (Genesis 2:1).

The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished"—once and for all. That is exactly what the First Law of Thermodynamics says.

This law (often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass) states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle's "Steady-State" (or "Continuous Creation") Theory was discarded.

Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called "irtrons," matter (or energy) was constantly being created. But, the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no "creation" ongoing today.

It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states.

The part that Comfort is correct about is that it’s true that there is no matter or energy that is either appearing from or vanishing into nothingness. (At least, as best as I can recall; my knowledge of physics is pathetic at best.) The bit that he is mistaken about, however, is that this doesn’t mean that the universe is in any way “finished”, in the sense that it was always exactly as it is now and always will be. Matter and energy may not pop into existence out of nowhere, but it can disassemble and reassemble to form one thing or another, from a plant to a rock to a skyscraper to a star. Also, how much matter is present is measured in mass, not volume; basically, density over size. You could compress an entire planet into an area the size of a baseball. Sure, it wouldn’t have the same volume anymore, but it would be just as massive, or would have just as much matter in it, as a solid celestial body tens of thousands of miles across.

The thing about matter is that it is (in theory) infinitely compressible, if only enough amounts of pressure and energy are applied. Just look at black holes, those strange, poorly understood and yet fascinating oddities of the cosmos. They are able to “eat up” any number of stars, asteroids, planets, and basically anything at all that falls within their event horizon (ie. the limit beyond which their gravity is so immense that nothing can escape, even light itself). And yet, their volume is generally only a few kilometers in radius. (And that’s not mentioning the singularity, the absolute center of a black hole, which is simply impossible to calculate how voluminous it may be, at least for now.)

The point is that just because the universe doesn’t gain or lose any amounts of matter or energy (that we currently know of), that doesn’t mean that it cannot expand or shrink. In fact, we are really quite confident that it is, in fact, expanding, continuously and at very great speeds – at increasing speeds, even. Which, logically, means that it used to be a whole lot smaller. So small, in fact, that if you go back some 13.75 billion years, it would be infinitely tiny, smaller than the head of a pin. Then, that little event known as the Big Bang came along.

So, no, Ray. The fact that no matter is being directly created or vanished out of existence is no indication that the Universe has always been the same, or always will be, and that it is in any way “finished”. The universe itself is as dynamic and ever-changing as is anything else in it. Bringing up basic physics doesn’t support your Creation myth, it utterly defeats it.

Tags: Universe • Ray Comfort • matter • black holes

Ellis Washington vs. liberal-socialist-commie-fascist utopians

“The Stupid, It Burns” [source: Bad Astronomy]

Ellis Washington, who perhaps better anyone else represents the sort of loony wingnuttia that is the foundation of the WorldNutDaily where he posts his weekly diatribes, now comes out and lumps just about everyone who disagrees with him into one single bucket and splashes the unholy mess into this single, neuron-apoptosing paragraph:

Regarding American liberalism, pick any utopian socialist - from Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Carter, Obama, to the useful idiots of atheism, feminism, gay rights, civil-rights activists, the labor and teachers' unions - and you will find a person who thinks his knowledge base (politics) is superior to virtue; that the Bible is a collection of myths that isn't to be taken literally; that moral relativism holds that all religions lead to "god" and that no religion is better (or worse) than any other; that separation of church and state is the singular dogma of liberalism; that there are no miracles, God or need for a savior. The State is god, and god is the State. The state under socialism will give everyone heaven (utopia) on earth through cradle-to-grave care. Private property, liberty and independent man are all relics of a bygone era.

I am spared the need to iterate a response of my own by Ed Brayton, who pretty much nails this amalgamation of purest nonsense:

Wow. That may be a new world record for packing the most fallacies into a single paragraph. As usual, the brush with which Washington is painting is as wide as the Grand Canyon. He simply groups everyone he disagrees with into a single category and gives it a label -- "utopian socialist." Actual distinctions between the people in that group? Silly socialist, they don't count.

[…]

And Ellis, if you're looking for someone who believes that their politics is superior to virtue I suggest looking in the mirror. Last week you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you put your political likes and dislikes ahead of virtue and integrity when you posted a fake quote from President Obama and refused to remove it even after having it proven to you that it was a fake quote. I guess that makes you a gnostic too, eh?

Tags: Ellis Washington • wingnuts • liberals • socialism