Somehow, through mechanisms unknown to me, I've become a bit of a YouTube hit in the "debunking crackpots" category. In the next 24 hours I'm going to crack 11,000 subscribers on my YouTube channel, so I feel the need to start actually contributing to the content of this website again.
I'll be adding things here that don't warrant a video. Links to referred materials, small side demos I've done. Personal life stuff and other observations that will give you guys a little insight into me, in case you're interested.

This is a piece I did back during the 2012 election. And even though very few people saw it, I'm quite proud of the way it turned out.

I share this every year.
When 2 boys discover that Santa doesn't keep his promises they seek a dark revenge..

A friend of mine posed a question on his Facebook Status. It's a little long but it's a fairly simple question. The responses are fascinating example of the current derangement among conservatives. The instant petty attacks and name calling, the hyperbole, the misinformation. I'm mainly posting this for posterity.
Names have been removed, BTW.

Questioner:
Let me ask my conservative and/or Republican friends a question or two: If there were a Republican President (say Jeb Bush), and the Senate approved a clean budget bill or continuing resolution (CR), would it be acceptable to you if a Democratic Speaker of the House refused to allow a vote on that bill/CR (thereby shutting down the government) unless Republicans agreed to a Democratic demand on some important liberal issue, say, that all ammunition sales be banned or severely limited across the country under the Commerce Clause or all abortions be fully funded by the federal government under the Spending Clause or taxes be raised on the wealthiest and businesses to close the budget shortfall under the Taxation Clause and 16th Amendment, or that spending on the military and military pensions be cut to balance the budget, or all of the above? Would this be an acceptable negotiating tactic? Would threatening a default on our credit be acceptable for the same purpose? Is this a precedent we want to set? If President Jeb Bush refused to negotiate under such threats, would you blame him or would you blame the Democratic Speaker of the House for the shutdown or default? Any of my friends across the isle have answers, thoughts? I'm just wondering what you all think about this precedent. I'm not here to argue the merits of Obamacare or deficit spending, just here to listen to your views on this tactic and its precedent as a means for a minority party to get something it wants even after the issue had already been decided by a democratic process. 

Last weekend I attended a 2-day self-defense workshop. About midday Saturday, we did an exercise that I did surprisingly well at. I actually surprised myself. It's nothing like you might think and it starts with this video:

This is a critical response to the video "Proof that God Exists" by MrMinistryMan

In his video, he touts the Transcendental Proof of the Existence of God as being based in rationality and logic, but reality shows it to be neither.

​I needed to put together a logo for my blog, so I quickly thought up this "cave art" idea. 
Just as quickly I came up with a pretentious quote (inspired by Carl Sagan's "Science as a candle in the darkness") to describe the intent of my sketch.

The beat is an old one by my friend Dark Hater of Haterazzi fame.

I discuss the claim that astrology is supported by science.

​The people at Way of the Master  have developed a highly flawed "Atheist Test."
Using their own logic I show they have no leg to stand on.
Quoted text is taken from their online tract.

​House Resolution 3 would change the funding exemption for abortion services from in the cases of "rape and incest" to "FORCIBLE rape and incest."
I am disgusted.