“How dare you?”
Jennifer sent me this the other day:
The Skepchick site is awesome. I am writing to you to let you know that the same type of jerks who crashed the Bill Maher show also made an appearance at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton. Bill was onstage and let them have it. It was awesome and something I think you might like. We found it on The Fan at Comcast.net but the report was from Fox News in case you are interested in checking it out (if you haven’t already). Keep up the tremendous work!
I got a few other notes about this, but I’m calling out Jennifer’s e-mail because it was unabashedly flattering. Thanks, Jennifer!
I did a little digging and found the moment captured on YouTube. (An aside: is there any moment not captured on YouTube at this point? I haven’t checked, but I’d be willing to bet that if I wanted I could find the opening credits to Small Wonder in three clicks or less. Anyway.)
Embedded below is one clip that avoids linking to Bill O’Reilly. Though I’m saving you from Bill, I’m afraid I have to expose you to the poor man’s Lewis Black, a local newscaster in Minnesota who is allowed a bit too much time in the editing room. Just enjoy Clinton telling one truther to shut up and saying to another one, “How dare you?”
In case you missed the Truthers looking like deluded fools on Bill Maher’s show, click here. Maher also delivers a verbal beatdown here.
If anyone was still wondering whether or not the 9/11 conspiracy theorists are loons, their actions in the past few weeks make it excessively clear that they haven’t got a leg to stand on. Now that every argument they’ve brought up has been shot down with clear and basic facts, they’re left to impotently shout at people with more class, more intelligence, and more media attention than they’ll ever achieve.
On the same topic, this past weekend I was in New York to see John Rennie give a talk for the New York Skeptics. He was entertaining as always, and made time for some Q & A at the end. One man got up to ask John why Scientific American had failed to critically examine the “official story” of 9/11, citing an article by Michael Shermer in which he mentions the conspiracy nuts and Popular Mechanic’s debunking of their empty arguments. John replied that he hadn’t seen any compelling evidence for the Truthers’ theories, but if the man had any to offer he should send it in. John also mentioned something about some aspects of the official story seeming a bit off. I was surprised, as I’d have expected a response more along the lines of “please go away and stop shouting untruths that have been repeatedly debunked.” I’m assuming he didn’t want to start an argument with a possible lunatic. Can’t say I blame him.
(Cross-posted at SGU)
All it took was a search for "small wonder opening credits".
From what I hear, the truthers' next argumentative strategy will be to throw government officials' robot children into their backyard swimming pools. (Thank you for providing the opportunity to make that Small Wonder reference.)
On a more serious note, while it seems to me that certain factions of our government used 9/11 as an excuse to start a war they'd have found some excuse to start anyways, the suggestion that 9/11 was an "inside job" is simply offensive, especially to families and friends of the victims. Using a tragedy to play a conspiracy theory game (i.e. asking 'what if's and then restating those 'what if's as though they were true) is repulsive.
It's doubly idiotic since if there was any evidence that Bush was responsible for 9/11 people like Hilary Clinton would be shouting it from the rooftops.
I have three people on my hockey team that think that 9-11 was a hoax and the government brought down the towers. There is no logic in there argument. Thanks for the clip.
There is an abundance of evidence that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. This starts to describe it:
What is often lacking in the arguments by skeptics is a sound empirical basis to their positions. There are definately questions the Truth Movement hasn't answered, but the work on the empirical evidence is providing more and more prima facea evidence that a more thorough investigation is warranted.
Labeling others idiotic is common, on both sides, most often by those that are young and inexperienced in making a logical, reasonable argument. Name calling is easy, but proves or disproves nothing, other than the name caller hasn't much in the way of debating skills.
Read my article, if you would. Then lets have a reasonable, logical debate.
You must log in to post a comment.