During the last few years of his life the famous magician, Harry Houdini, dedicated his life to debunking the mysticism and the supernatural. Penn and Teller, the famous Vegas magicians, are now following in his path with a libertarian bent. Penn and Teller's Bullsh*t! is a program that tackles such topics like Walmart, the drug war, obesity, prostitution, the death penalty, etc. It's billed as a documentary series with an entertaining take on the issues. Think South Park with a bit more substance. Sure Penn often retorts against prerecorded interviews and always gets the last word, but if you want a truly scholarly approach, you're probably not watching a show called "Bullsh*t!"
A few caveats before you watch the program or rent the season on my recommendation. Penn and Teller's biggest problem was that their opposition to certain groups or people could be construed as slander. So rather than calling a program a scam or calling a person a con man, they resort to the tried and true "MFer," "a**hole," and of course, "bullsh*t." Apparently calling someone a scam artist is actionable, whereas calling someone a "MFer" is just provocative TV. Another questionable aspect of the program is the near-constant parade of naked women on the show for seemingly no reason. The show airs on Showtime and one gets the feeling that Penn and Teller take full advantage of the ratings system their pay-channel. Still not enough to scare you away? My only other problem with the show is the bashing of religions, the religious and the upholding of issues such as gay marriage. Penn and Teller are confirmed atheists and don't see much use for the church. I disagree with their view but it's one I'm used to dealing with in libertarian circles. Ayn Rand was also an atheist so it's hard to attack Penn and Teller on that considering what ideological camp they reside in.
"Bullsh*t" is not for the faint of heart and probably won't provide knowledgeable libertarians with much more information. However, if you're libertarian-curious or just want to be entertained and are not easily offended, Bullsh*t is a raucous good time.
Bullsh*t airs roughly whenever they feel like it on SHO. Click the link for upcoming episodes.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
First the Mainstream Media, Now Mainstream Science?
This blog, as well as many other conservative sources, has documented the shameful antics of the mainstream media. Focusing only on certain congressional races, demeaning conservatives through personal attacks, only presenting one side of the issues is a fait accompli for many news organizations. Books like Bias by Bernard Goldberg even show insider views and egregious examples from such respected networks as CBS, CNN, etc.
Some liberals describe conservatives as fossils that must sink their head in the sand to avoid the reality as reported by the media. Several books have been written maintaining that conservatives rejection of the media as well as modern science shows that they are doomed to die an ignoble death at the hands of present truths.
The greatest example of this supposed rejection of modern science is conservative's contention that global warming is not man-made and not as significant as advertised. The science is settled and the consensus has been reached, we are told. Anyone who does not believe in global warming is a flat-earther and worse than that, maybe even dangerous. Ellen Goodman stated that global warming deniers are on par with Holocaust deniers. Al Gore maintains fighting global warming is a moral issue.
To mock the media is one thing, polls have shown that people trust the media only marginally more than politicians or lawyers. Many even recognize a leftward tilt. Scientists, however, deal with hard facts; reproducible data that are peer-reviewed and rigorously tested. They do not editorialize, they objectively interpret the data. We recognize the wiggle room in journalism and deny any in science. Certainly this is a positive view of science because this is what true science should be.
Unfortunately, global warming scientists seem to have fallen far short of the gold standard that the American people believed them to adhere to. The UK Telegraph reports on the 61 megabytes of data that were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released by a hacker to the media. Private E-mails between scientists and the full spectrum of data suggests no less than a ideological agenda that was put above all dissenting evidence.
The Telegraph charges that examples of manipulation of evidence, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against warming deniers, attempts to deny the Medieval Warming Period, and squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process are all present. The scientists even privately acknowledged being in a cooling trend while issuing press releases of continuous warming.
Climategate, as this scandal has been dubbed by many news outlets, threatens to relegate science to the same dubious position the media has occupied for the past several decades. This is an absolute shame for anyone who believes in the idea of ascertaining objective truth through the scientific method.
Some liberals describe conservatives as fossils that must sink their head in the sand to avoid the reality as reported by the media. Several books have been written maintaining that conservatives rejection of the media as well as modern science shows that they are doomed to die an ignoble death at the hands of present truths.
The greatest example of this supposed rejection of modern science is conservative's contention that global warming is not man-made and not as significant as advertised. The science is settled and the consensus has been reached, we are told. Anyone who does not believe in global warming is a flat-earther and worse than that, maybe even dangerous. Ellen Goodman stated that global warming deniers are on par with Holocaust deniers. Al Gore maintains fighting global warming is a moral issue.
To mock the media is one thing, polls have shown that people trust the media only marginally more than politicians or lawyers. Many even recognize a leftward tilt. Scientists, however, deal with hard facts; reproducible data that are peer-reviewed and rigorously tested. They do not editorialize, they objectively interpret the data. We recognize the wiggle room in journalism and deny any in science. Certainly this is a positive view of science because this is what true science should be.
Unfortunately, global warming scientists seem to have fallen far short of the gold standard that the American people believed them to adhere to. The UK Telegraph reports on the 61 megabytes of data that were stolen from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released by a hacker to the media. Private E-mails between scientists and the full spectrum of data suggests no less than a ideological agenda that was put above all dissenting evidence.
The Telegraph charges that examples of manipulation of evidence, suppression of evidence, fantasies of violence against warming deniers, attempts to deny the Medieval Warming Period, and squeezing dissenting scientists out of the peer review process are all present. The scientists even privately acknowledged being in a cooling trend while issuing press releases of continuous warming.
Climategate, as this scandal has been dubbed by many news outlets, threatens to relegate science to the same dubious position the media has occupied for the past several decades. This is an absolute shame for anyone who believes in the idea of ascertaining objective truth through the scientific method.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Obama to Troops: You Guys Make A Pretty Good Photo Op
Alot of people feel Obama acts cavalierly towards the troops. Lines like "You guys make a pretty good photo op" DO NOT help.
Friday, November 13, 2009
A Note on Updates
Many blogs have several posts to several dozen posts a day. This blog shoots for 4-5 a month. This is due to several factors. First is due to the fact that this is a personal blog meaning there is only one contributor, me. I was in talks to be a regular contributor to Obamasoundoff.com but decided that their tone and take on the issues were not completely compatible with my own and their scope too narrow. If I do become a contributor to a group blog in the future, a link will be posted. Second, I consider this more than the average blog which might link to a video or a news story with only a line or two of commentary. I prefer to write columns which can pull from multiple sources (news stories, blogs, videos, etc.) to support a point of view on a subject. I still enjoy posting humorous video though and will continue to post those as they become available. Third, due to my unusual working shift (10Pm-6AM) and my continuing education I have limited time to update and almost no chance to do so in real time. I will continue to strive for a more-or-less weekly column with humorous irregular videos mixed in.
Your favorite blogger,
Conservative Ken
Your favorite blogger,
Conservative Ken
Focus on NY 23rd!
I'm vaguely aware of a governor's race in New Jersey and Virginia where a Republican may or may not have won. It's hard to tell since the media has only reported on New York's 23rd District.
As the story goes, a Conservative Party candidate ran the Republican out of the race because she wasn't "far-right" enough and the Democrat won the Congressional seat. The fact that the Democrat won proves that conservatism is dead and liberalism is alive and well. Pelosi went so far as to assert that she had won on election day because a Democrat has not held that seat since the Civil War.
I'll abide by the media blackout and disregard the NJ and VA races. So let's look more closely at the 23rd. The original Republican in the race, called moderate by the mainstream media, has a laundry list of liberal positions. She voted 190 times to raise taxes, she favors card checks to abolish the secret ballot for unionization, she has received the Magaret Sanger award for pro-abortion activism and she was endorsed by the Working Families Party which is an arm of ACORN. Indeed, it is hard to distinguish her from the Democrats excepting only the "R" next to her name. Why would or should Republicans vote for someone who is a Republican in name only? And even then, the original candidate withdrew from the race and was not pushed. Needless to say, when her position on the issues were determined, her polling fell to single digits while the Conservative Party candidate went from single digits to double digits. Even when she withdrew from the race, she endorsed the Democrat!
As for the charge that Republicans are purging anyone who does not agree with their concept of ideological purity, Lieberman was actively abandoned by the Democrat party due solely to his position on the Iraq war. He is still a reliable liberal vote on almost all other issues.
But what does all this mean since the Democrat did win the race? For starters, maybe he didn't. News reports now indicate polling irregularities that have now been uncovered convinced Hoffman, the Conservative, to concede defeat to Owens, the Democrat. Even with Owens sworn into office, the ballots are still being counted and even if Owens wins in the end his lead is significantly less than has been reported.
While the absentee ballots will determine the winner, even if Owens retains his seat, this is a conservative victory. As Michelle Malkin has said, "He overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition. National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name still on the ballot after she dropped out." The contrast is even greater now that the two points is gradually being whittled down. Certainly if Scozzafava's name had not been on the ballot, Hoffman would have won.
Honestly, I hope Democrats don't read this. I want them to continue on and miss the warning signs. My prayers are being answered with the House passing the health care reform bill. It will die an ignoble death in the Senate by most accounts and just drive the Democrat poll numbers down even further. I hope they continue to ignore conservative victories in NJ and VA and tell themselves Hoffman never had a chance because he was "out of the mainstream." Underestimating the Republicans the '09 will lead to their own undoing in '10.
As the story goes, a Conservative Party candidate ran the Republican out of the race because she wasn't "far-right" enough and the Democrat won the Congressional seat. The fact that the Democrat won proves that conservatism is dead and liberalism is alive and well. Pelosi went so far as to assert that she had won on election day because a Democrat has not held that seat since the Civil War.
I'll abide by the media blackout and disregard the NJ and VA races. So let's look more closely at the 23rd. The original Republican in the race, called moderate by the mainstream media, has a laundry list of liberal positions. She voted 190 times to raise taxes, she favors card checks to abolish the secret ballot for unionization, she has received the Magaret Sanger award for pro-abortion activism and she was endorsed by the Working Families Party which is an arm of ACORN. Indeed, it is hard to distinguish her from the Democrats excepting only the "R" next to her name. Why would or should Republicans vote for someone who is a Republican in name only? And even then, the original candidate withdrew from the race and was not pushed. Needless to say, when her position on the issues were determined, her polling fell to single digits while the Conservative Party candidate went from single digits to double digits. Even when she withdrew from the race, she endorsed the Democrat!
As for the charge that Republicans are purging anyone who does not agree with their concept of ideological purity, Lieberman was actively abandoned by the Democrat party due solely to his position on the Iraq war. He is still a reliable liberal vote on almost all other issues.
But what does all this mean since the Democrat did win the race? For starters, maybe he didn't. News reports now indicate polling irregularities that have now been uncovered convinced Hoffman, the Conservative, to concede defeat to Owens, the Democrat. Even with Owens sworn into office, the ballots are still being counted and even if Owens wins in the end his lead is significantly less than has been reported.
While the absentee ballots will determine the winner, even if Owens retains his seat, this is a conservative victory. As Michelle Malkin has said, "He overcame impossible odds (single digits just a month ago) to come within two points of defeating Democrat Bill Owens. Hoffman had zero name recognition. National Republican Party officials dumped nearly $1 million into the race on behalf of radical leftist GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava, who then turned around, endorsed Owens and siphoned off 5 percent of the vote with her name still on the ballot after she dropped out." The contrast is even greater now that the two points is gradually being whittled down. Certainly if Scozzafava's name had not been on the ballot, Hoffman would have won.
Honestly, I hope Democrats don't read this. I want them to continue on and miss the warning signs. My prayers are being answered with the House passing the health care reform bill. It will die an ignoble death in the Senate by most accounts and just drive the Democrat poll numbers down even further. I hope they continue to ignore conservative victories in NJ and VA and tell themselves Hoffman never had a chance because he was "out of the mainstream." Underestimating the Republicans the '09 will lead to their own undoing in '10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
