Bill O'Reilly Teaches Kids About Science

I don't know if you heard, but Bill O'Reilly recently suggested that the tides are proof of God's existence. First of all, whether or not you believe in God is irrelevant in this case, so this isn't an anti-God type post. But really, saying that because the tide always goes in and always goes out is hardly proof of God, or anything else, really. One day, maybe it was. But just like wind currents, gravity, and countless other things, science figured out why there are indeed tides. And it's the Moon. All Bill had to do was check Wikipedia.

Afterwards, Bill pretty much got his ass handed to him by the media and academia because his argument was one that one might expect a child to make, not someone who gives news and commentary to millions of people every night. So he fired back.

Sure, maybe the tides are caused by the moon, he argued. But where, pray tell did the moon come from, smart asses. Well, I'm sure it was something like that. In list form, here were his arguments:

- Where did the Moon come from?
- Why doesn't Mars have a moon?
- Why doesn't Venus have a moon?

Naturally, the scientific community took this challenge and ran with it. They ran with it like a Kenyan racing against a crying little fat kid. In this case, the fat kid would be Bill, if you aren't following along.

The Moon did not actually come from God. The moon is the result of a random, but ancient event where a planet hit Earth (barely) and the dust that flew into space coalesced and formed what we today lovingly call "The Moon."

And his argument that Mars doesn't have a moon is kind of laughable considering it actually has two. Although, one might argue that technically he is correct, since Mars does not have one moon, it has two, but that's stretching it.

As for arguing that Venus doesn't have a moon, or that there's no life on other planets (that we know of) that's just silly. Considering a moon forming can be the result of a totally random event like ours, doesn't guarantee that there is a God any more than the sky not being purple or raining
gold bars does.

It's one thing to argue that something exists, we just don't know what it is or can't explain it as being proof of God's existence. But to use a planet's lack of life and satellite as proof that Earth has a God and Venus doesn't is moronic. Maybe dark matter is proof of God's existence, or any number of other phenomena that we cannot yet explain.

Finally, I don't think that God is something you can prove or disprove. Likewise, I don't think you can use the lack of understanding as proof of concept in regards to God. There have been many events attributed to God over the years Man has roamed the planet and many (most?) of them have been explained by science. Like the tides, for instance.

Here is a video from cracked which is kind of a combination of two things I love. Snarky kids are hilarious, especially since they're still untainted by the real world. And Bill O'Reilly saying something dumb.

And I feel bad for him. It's unfortunate that he's wrong and adamant about everything. Truth be told, if he wasn't such a pompous asshole to people, I'd probably give him the benefit of the doubt. After all, how many people really know anything about the tides and astronomy? Of course astronomers and astrophysicists do; it's their job. That combined with his incessant assertions that Fox News is the best in news because they are the most watched is really why I think he deserves getting called out. If you are the most watched news organization, you'd better be damned sure you've got your facts straight.

Some People Say...

The trouble with "some people say" is that there are a great many people in this world, and a great many of them say and believe some pretty stupid things.

"Some people say" is a tactic, merely adding a veil of validity to back up a bogus claim you made up. For example: Some people say Tom Cruise is gay. Is he? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? How about Obama is a socialist, fascist, Muslim, et cetera et cetera.

Truth be told, there's nothing wrong with the saying, pending certain caveats. You see, "some people say" is appropriate when expressing an opinion. For example, "Some people say Led Zeppelin is the greatest band to ever produce music." This is a valid sentence, and is correct; I am certain some people believe this. Or, "Some people say Stairway To Heaven is the best song ever recorded." Again, very valid. Do I agree? Probably not; I'm not all that familiar with Led Zeppelin but I'm pretty sure whoever I suggest to be the greatest fill in the blank will find some resistance somewhere. For example, George W. Bush was the greatest president in U.S. history. Is it true? That all depends upon what metrics you use to value success and greatness. So, is President Obama the worst thing to ever happen to the United States as some people might have you believe? Probably not.

Credit card reform is not a very bad thing. Sure it may inconvenience some 18-to-21 year olds but for the vast majority it's a good thing. Student loan reform? Saves bundles of money, makes the government money, and while it may be imperfect the reform is certainly an improvement over how student loans were processed before. The Affordable Care Act sounds nice, right? Truth is, it's a pretty disgusting piece of legislation more commonly known as Obamacare. Why should preventative care be free? That only drives up costs in the long run. Children and infants born, regrettably, with medical conditions shouldnt be eligible for health care like regular, non-sick people. This just makes it cost more for the rest of us, and that's not fair. Why should the bulk of people have to foot the bill for a select few people who, through no fault of their own, need a little help.

In case you can't tell, that last paragraph was a wee bit sarcastic, and I'm sure I will develop upon those thoughts at a later date. I'll maybe talk about things like socialism and things of that ilk, but I digress. As I was saying, there are legitimate uses for "some people say" and none of those legitimate uses belong on the news.

Some people say president Obama was born in Kenya; he wasn't he's an American and was born in Hawaii. Some people say he's muslim; he's not. In fact, a lot of people are unsure of the president's birthplace and religion, but why. This may seem a bit antagonistic, but the blame is probably on Fox News. You see, they pretty much invented the whole concept of "some people say" in the context of news, and they utilize the phrase all the time. So why do Americans think Obama is Muslim? Because for awhile several Fox News hosts would ask people who came on their shows. Now this might sound kind of weird, considering that "Do you think Obama is a Muslim" isn't exactly news, it sounds a bit more like opinion, which it is. But what Fox did was actually quite clever because they can (and will) deny any culpability. They never said he's Muslim, nor suggested it, they merely asked others what they thought. The genius in this plan is that when people hear this question regularly, they will doubt the truth. You hear a question over and over again and even if you are (or were) certain you'll begin to doubt yourself, especially if some of the people who are asked are unsure.

Some people say that more people watch Fox News than any other news show, but I call bullshit. Just because any and all Nielsen ratings put CNN viewers at one-tenth of Fox's viewers doesn't make it factually correct, that's just one groups opinion. I say that CNN is more popular. In fact, I say that 10 million people watch Anderson Cooper keep them honest on a nightly basis. And you know what? They all watch him again at ten o'clock. And some people say I'm right.

FYI: Some people say Obama's recent trip to Asia cost $200 million dollars a day. All of those people were Fox News hosts, correspondents, and a very select few republicans in congress. Oh, and one anonymous person in India. Truth is that's more per day than the entire war costs per day, and was readily debunked by every real journalist and the White House. But Fox News carried on the charade. True Story.

"Happy" Thanksgiving

Hello, and happy Thanksgiving. I hope you are enjoying this Thursday and having a happy holiday. I've never much cared for Thanksgiving. I've actually never been a huge fan of the holidays. Maybe it has something to do with the lead up to holidays and people stressing over them. Maybe it has to do with being surrounded by people, having to travel from place to place where ever a new crowd of people await. While I'm sure there are numerous reasons for a dislike of holidays, I think a more appropriate term is distaste. You see, quite literally, I don't like the taste of holidays. Easter brings ham, Christmas brings ham, and Thanksgiving offers a veritable smörgåsbord of foods that, to me, are basically unpalatable. Turkey I have to slather in barbecue sauce to get down, potatoes (of any sort) are a big no-no, yams, sweet potatoes, and stuffing couldn't be more repulsive. I definitely don't eat corn, green beans, or ham (which maybe some people eat on Thanksgiving?). Want to know a secret though? I like cranberry sauce. It's bizarre, I know. Growing up, cranberry sauce is the one think no one could stand and, for some reason, I liked it. I know know why. Cranberry sauce is sweet but tart, and has a weird smooth texture with it's edges ribbed from the inside of the can. Maybe, just maybe, that's all apart of its charm to me; it's the one thing no one else liked, so I gravitated to it. Then there's the other aspect of cranberry sauce I like. Care to take a guess as to what exactly that is? Give up? You open it up backwards. It's the one canned good (to my knowledge, anyway) that you open from the bottom. It's backwards, like me.

The other bad taste I get in my mouth from holidays is probably due to the massive over-commercialization of them due to our capitalist society. It's right there in the name. Capitalize. Where other cultures have centuries of spiritual traditions celebrated from carnivale-like proportions to the most humble ones, ours seem to be indebted to the other almighty: the green back, and as many of them as possible. Even the circumstances under which these holidays are celebrated have been twisted and mutated to fit the ideals of a capitalist society. Let's take a look, shall we?

Thanksgiving, oh a lovely holiday celebrating the pilgrims who sat down to a lovely, peaceful meal with the native Americans giving thanks for all that they had. Like a giant turkey in the middle of the table. Maybe the "indians" were thankful to the pilgrims for bringing their firearms, which undoubtedly made catching and killing the bird that much easier. Or maybe the Quakers brought their guns because they wanted the natives to know who at the table held all the cards, who was boss; the meal was, after all, to establish an alliance. Naturally, women weren't in attendance. Not exactly what I'd call a happy thanksgiving. So how did Thanksgiving become what it is today? The good old-fashioned way: lobbyists.

According to NPR, magazine editor Sarah Joseph Hale petitioned every level of government lobbying governors, every member of congress, and even the president for a national day where she, and the readers of her magazine, Godey's Lady's Book (I know, right?), could slave over an oven and stove for three days making far more food than necessary to give thanks for such a lovely bounty. Oh, and Lady Hale really liked turkeys. With that, Thanksgiving was born some three hundred (or so?) years after the "original" dinner.

And that, my friends, is how you create a holiday, and capitalize upon it.

Seriously though, enjoy the holiday at least for its most basic meaning: to give thanks, for whatever means something to you.

I leave you with this passage from Fox News host, John Stossel:

Had today's political class been in power in 1623, tomorrow's holiday would have been called "Starvation Day" instead of Thanksgiving. Of course, most of us wouldn't be alive to celebrate it.
Every year around this time, schoolchildren are taught about that wonderful day when Pilgrims and Native Americans shared the fruits of the harvest. But the first Thanksgiving in 1623 almost didn't happen.
Long before the failure of modern socialism, the earliest European settlers gave us a dramatic demonstration of the fatal flaws of collectivism. Unfortunately, few Americans today know it.
The Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share the work and produce equally.
That's why they nearly all starved.

Of course, the truth is a bit different. If there was hardly any food as Mr. Stossel suggests, how and why would the pilgrims have had a three-day-long feast? Truth is, there was plenty of food, and the whole socialism thing? Yeah, not quite, it was more of a co-op which each farmer owning a share of the crops and farms. But to Fox, everything is socialist; and socialism is very, very bad.

The Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear

This will be pretty picture-heavy; be forewarned.

In The Beginning...

This past weekend was Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's Rally To Restore Sanity And/Or Fear. I suppose you could consider it a parody of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally, except with less tea bagging and more unadulterated awesome. Let me begin by saying it was a very long, exhausting day of essentially standing still. We got up around three in the morning to leave at four. The bed was pretty stiff which, combined with the fact that we were a bit sick, basically meant that neither of us slept very well; I think I slept for, at most, a few hours. Four a.m. hits, and it's time to hit the road; two and a half hours later and we arrived at the metro station just outside of D.C Thankfully, there are 3,400 parking spaces and we were able to park and wait for the trains to show up at 7:00. I was excited seeing the people around who were headed to the rally; 'twas refreshing seeing older people going and not just young people looking for a free show.


After settling in, we were greeted by various games and videos on the Jumbotron, which made it less painful to wait for the show to start. All in all. waiting went by fairly quicker than I'd have thought. There were all kinds of people with all sorts of signs all similarly excited for whatever it was that we were all about to witness/ It was exhilarating/

Our Surroundings...

Settled in for a long day, we found a place to stand (and stand, and stand...). We were actually surprisingly close. If I had to guess, I'd say we were maybe one hundred feet away or so. Alas, neither Krissy nor myself are very tall, so without the perfect conditions, seeing stages can be tough. The media pit was in front of us and to the left; one of the comedy central cameras was in front of us; and a tent, which I think was another media tent (for viewing and such) was in front of us and to the right.

Some fellow rally goers in our surrounding area


Unfortunately, to say Krissy's view was obstructed would be an understatement


There was an older lady sitting behind us (this was before the rally, some people had brought chairs so they weren't standing for 8+ hours). Personally, I really liked her sign.


This Sikh gentleman was next to me. He was on camera a lot (probably the turban and beard). He was nice. He was pretty patient with a girl who insisted on everyone surrounding him putting towels on their heads in an effort to get on tv.


This guy was to our right.


This one, too.


This girl was to our left


This was our view. You can see the edge of the media pit to the left (note the stairs), the tent to the right, and the cameraman (and his damned ladder!) basically right in front of us.


Even Jeffrey came along for the trip! Here he is in our free noisemaker/megaphone type thing.

The Media Comes Calling...

Here is one of the anchors giving a report during the rally. I'm not sure who he is but hes older and looked distinguished, ergo I liked him.


Then there's these two (from CNN). The woman was taking notes, asking people questions, etc. She seemed so bored and uninterested, though. Then there's the hotshot in the aviators and leather jacket. He seemed pretty happy with himself hopping about; he seems like a douchebag to me.


A cameraman from NBC News


Before the rally began, one of the cameramen (I think) was carrying his son around on his shoulders. I feel weird taking pictures of kids in public sometimes. Not that I don't want to. I always want to. But I know adults, and I don't need some errant parent going apeshit on me because they take offense, so this is the picture I got.


I liked this photographer. In a sea of telephoto lenses and ultramodern digital cameras here he was taking a photo with a panoramic camera. It looks like his other camera might be a Leica, too, but I can't tell (and, truth be told, have never seen one in person)

Let The Games Begin...

Jon Stewart singing was an interesting experience. The song was exceptionally funny.


Sheryl Crow performing with Kid Rock backed by The Roots (who are actually kind of awesome)


Mick Foley (who is awesome) accepting his award


The O'Jay's performing Love Train


Papier Mache puppet Steven Colbert: The fear monster


John Oliver (dressed as Peter Pan) coming out to help Jon Stewart slay the fear monster


Tony Bennett performing America, The Beautiful, which was awesome/ The picture is a bit low quality though.


The end performance. Mavis Staples, Tony Bennett, Ozzy, Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), Jeff Tweedy, Sheryl Crow, The Roots, The Mythbusters, and many more!


I like John Oliver's expression in this picture


A better picture showing more of the people on stage than the previous pictures


Headed home (tired, achy feet)! At this point we still had a two hour drive back to Delaware. I liked these advertisements set out by Media Matters though. Very nice tie-in to the rally. I'm not sure if they were only in the metro or not, since we didn't explore too much of D.C. but there were banners inside the metro stations, too. Very cool. I approve.

These Are Not End Times

The rally was amazing, and awe-inspiring. It's hard to fathom 250,000 people, but one can't help but feel flooded by all sorts of emotions. I can't express how happy I am that we attended the rally; it was amazing feeling a part of something. The experience was absolutely amazing and I hope that people will learn from it, and that the rhetoric in this country can change.

Thumbs up from Tricky Dick

Take It Down A Notch (Or Three)

A bit of a departure today...

People are needlessly crazy. Perhaps it's a poor choice of words, since name calling tends to just feed the fires of crazy, but crazy is the best way to describe what surrounds us every day.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand. 

I feel that Yeats' Second Coming perfectly describes today. Nowadays we are complacent; we just don't care enough. Or is it simply that we've given up? Unfortunately, in today's media the more controversial, or extreme a person's view, the more attention they get. Really, when's the last time you read an AP or Reuters report and thought, "Wow! That was interesting!" Yeah, it's probably never happened. Take in your surroundings, and think; look at things objectively and think to yourself, "What is this doing for humanity?" What is more important: The real Housewives of [fill in the blank] or the actual housewives everywhere trying to make a go at this thing called life?

I feel like the media has a certain job to do and for the most part, they do a good job. No one wants to pay for their news anymore; once one gets something for free it's hard to justify paying for that same information (sometimes). There are a lot of people who argue that the media is unabashedly liberal, as if it is some giant conspiracy. To these people, Fox News is a breath of fresh air—the lone David struggling against the Goliath that is, well, everything else. But Fox News is also the most popular, and as a result, the most influential news organization as such I feel they have a certain responsibility to the American people. Lately, Fox News' latest crusade is against NPR, that is, National Public Radio, and therein lies the problem. Fox News is conservative; no one denies that (except for the latter half of their Fair and Balanced slogan). Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal and basically everything else in the media, but that's neither here nor there. Republicans don't like NPR; and lately that anger has boiled over and is crackling and steaming on the burner. Every few years, Republicans try and pass some sort of bill killing public financing of NPR, PBS, and the like. It doesn't work though, because people like NPR and PBS; I mean, who wants to kill Big Bird, Elmo, and Oscar the Grouch? (I won't even mention Cookie Monster.) NPR is incredibly important as a news (and entertainment) organization, as is PBS. The problem, for some, is that NPR recently fired Juan Williams for his rather unnecessary remarks about his fear of muslims. which leads me to this quote from Karl Rove:

45 percent of NPR listeners were Saddam Hussein.

I don't even know what that means. It doesn't make sense, neither logically or grammatically. Let's begin by attacking this from a mathematical standpoint. Let's assume Saddam Hussein did listen to NPR  (I know, I know) For the former dictator to make up nearly one-half of NPR's listeners would suggest no one even listens to NPR. Anyway, to suggest that half of the people who listen to NPR are dictators (dictators in training mayhaps?) is completely asinine. To even make a comparison bewilders me. But then again, Fox seems to like comparing everything to dictators.

To be fair, crazy isn't limited to conservatives and Fox News. Who cares that Linda McMahon kicked a guy in the nuts on the WWE, or that Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft as a teenager. Isn't there a maxim about people not throwing stones and glass houses? Yeah, that. Why not instead focus on their platforms (or in their cases the complete lack thereof). Christine O'Donnell wants to bring God and Jesus to public schools, convinced the Constitution makes no mention of the separation of church and state. Or, there's Linda McMahon who has slammed all of Connecticut in ads belittling and attacking Richard Blumenthal. But what are her plans? I've seen an awful lot of her commercials pleading to mothers to vote for her, but why? I've not seen a single ad of hers suggesting why I should give her my vote. So far, I've seen that she can afford nicely produced ads, she can get her friends to say what a wonderful person she is, and that Richard Blumenthal has slipped up a couple times. Oh, and that she has no experience, but Blumenthal has been in government for too long.


[As it happens, I wrote this post before Election Day. I'm glad Richard Blumenthal won Connecticut; truth be told, it's nice to be rid of her ads as well]


I feel like this video from Crossfire sums up the premise of this blog: