You're Wrong

NOFX has a great acoustic song called "You're Wrong." Among the things they sing "You're Wrong" for are thinking pride is about nationality, thinking there will be a judgment day and agreeing with Ann Coulter because she's a (well, I can't say that here).

So, in the spirit of NOFX, I present a list of "You're Wrongs."

You're wrong if you think we're fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

First it was weapons of mass destruction. Then it was Saddam's links to Sept. 11 and Osama bin Laden. Sprinkled in between those were "fighting for freedom" and "spreading democracy." Every single rationale we've been told for this war has been, at best, intellectually defunct and at worst outright lies.

Of course, the mainstream media were too scared to do their job then, but they learned their lesson, right?

Nope.

They echo the continued misconception that we are fighting Al-Qaeda in Iraq. First of all, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is not the same Al-Qaeda that is supposed to be responsible for Sept. 11. The one in Iraq is actually known as "Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn." That one is hard to pronounce, let alone explain.

So, what is the size and scope of this group? Well, in 2006, the U.S. State Department estimated they made up less than 1 percent of the insurgency. But they are said to be growing, and, just like the folks in Guantanamo, "the worst of the worst."

In July of 2007, both the National Intelligence Estimate and the Defense Intelligence Agency reports stated the Al-Qaeda in Iraq were responsible for 15 percent of the violence. Trouble is, the independent Congressional Research Service said it was more like 2 percent and that false reporting of this group has gone up since the surge.

Oh, and there was no Al-Qaeda in Iraq before we went in and invaded (Saddam hated anyone who didn't worship him).

You're wrong if you support corn ethanol.

This is the favorite of politicians and big business alike. Rule No. 1 in politics: Everything is done out of self-interest. Be extremely skeptical of anything anyone in power ever says, especially if they use a feel-good marketing approach to convince you.

Ladies and gentlemen, quite frankly, corn ethanol sucks. It sucks resources, tax dollars and most of all, makes no sense. David Pimintel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agricultural sciences, concluded that the production of corn ethanol uses 30 percent more energy than it creates.

The idea that we are moving to energy independence with ethanol is just wrong. BP uses corn in almost all its new green-washing campaigns. It serves as a method for oil companies to continue their stranglehold on us while the same time they get subsidized by our government to "fix the problems" they create (such as global warming).

Oh, and run-off from corn creates all new types of environmental problems. It is massively inefficient, and, furthermore, a subsidized ruse.

Corn ethanol is so big because big agribusiness is built on corn. That is why our Coca-Cola tastes terrible compared to Canada and Mexico's. They use sugar; we use high-fructose corn syrup.

Hemp is at least five times better than corn, and I'm sure there are things five times better than hemp. I just know corn's definitely not it.

You're wrong if you're trying to convince people there is or is not a God.

NOFX opens up the live version of their song "You're Wrong" with "If you believe there is a God, you're wrong." But the Bible says that if you don't believe in God you're wrong. Could it be that both are wrong?

The pious feel self-righteous for "saving people" by converting them to their deity.

The atheists feel self-righteous for "freeing people" from religious manipulation.

And they both won't shut up about it.

I think that those who condemn others for having different beliefs are ignorant at best. I believe that this kind of "holier-than-thou" thinking has directly contributed to the historical subjugation of women, the suppression of progressive intellectual thought and countless wars. That is my main problem with religion in a nutshell: Religion is used as a tool for the wicked to manipulate our very structure of thought.

Yet, when I see atheists such as Christopher Hitchens spew arguments about how stupid and misguided the religious are, it almost always comes across with the same supremacist tone that James Dobson has. Many of the new prominent atheists suffer from the same superiority complex of those they rail against.

I have met many rational atheists. I have met many rational religious people. What they all have in common is that they are looking for answers to complex questions. The kind that has more than a "yes" or "no" answer.

So, whatever you believe, believe it. Just quit trying to tell me how much better that makes you. If Christopher Hitchens looks at his life, this Earth and this universe in all its complexity and beauty and decides to himself, "Nope, nothing special" - fine. But he and Pat Robertson can keep it to themselves. They're both wrong.