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.

On Twilight And The Questions I Have

On Sex:

Edward Cullen is a vampire; he's freezing cold, how does that feel good for a woman?

Vampires are made out of granite or diamonds or something, wouldn't Edward and his glistening, diamond dick rip Bella to shreds?

Vampires have semen?

Vampires don't have blood, right? Then how does Edward get an erection to have a baby with Bella anyway?

On Powers:

If vampires have superhuman strong teeth and jaws, how come they just break the skin, and don't bite right through the arm. I mean, James broke Bella's leg just by pressing on it.

Edward is always driving a car. But he's superfast. Is this to seem normal? Why doesn't he just run. Most of the time it's just because he's pissed off at Jacob when he shows up in a car.

On Food:

Is it really appropriate for vampires to call themselves vegetarians because they eat animals and not humans? That's kind of like vegans and vegetarians who eat fish "because it's not meat"

Any human food vampires eat they must cough up because they cannot digest it. What about liquids? Does Edward have to cough up Bella's spit after they kiss?

Why do the Cullen's have a huge, bad ass kitchen filled with all kinds of kitchen appliances, tools, and cookware if they don't ever need to eat?

Do the Italian police really not notice that tour groups in Volterra regularly disappear?

How do people from Volterra not notice that the Volturi haven't aged over thousands of years?

How do people have claimed to "vanquish" vampires from the city? They never get suspicious that daily, dozens of people die when they go to the Volturi Castle? No one's suspicious.


When werewolves change, their shorts are shredded, but when they change back to humans their shorts are magically repaired. What gives?

On Acting:

Does Kristen Stewart really always need to look like she's going to hurl? It's like she's watching the nude scenes in The Room.

Charlie's mustache does an excellent job acting as a mustache. Brava!

Kristen Stewart doesn't always have to look pained and stammer, you know. Just sayin'

Why don't Edward and Bella ever look at each other? They're always looking off to the side, or down.

On Assimilation:

Carisle is a practicing doctor. One would assume he's licensed, et cetera. Does no one notice he's been paying dues since doctors started needing to pay them?

In the same vein (I think that's right?), the IRS never notices that he's been filing taxes for several hundred years? One would imagine that, at the very least, this would increase his odds of being audited. At some point, one has to assume the IRS would find out about his whole being a vampire thing. Then maybe the Volturi could nail him.

As Americans, all of them should have social security numbers, I'd imagine. If Carlisle claims any of them as dependents for taxes, they'd definitely need social security numbers. Carlisle probably has had one since 1936, when they were first introduced, since he's been working as a doctor since at least before 1920, when he "turned" Edward. Does the Social Security Administration and the IRS never notice this discrepancy?

What about the reuse of social security numbers. It would seem that at some point this would affect the Cullens.


How does Bella marry Edward? This marriage can't possibly be legal. And what of their half-breed child, Renesmee? Is this child registered with the government? So on and so forth.

Why do the Cullen's attend school? They don't have to, it seems like they're trying to go out of their way to show vampires are real. I'd think that living in the public, attending school (except in good weather), and the like only go against the whole vampire code of not letting humans know vampires exist.

How do they even attend school? There is paperwork and stuff necessary for attending school. And when they move, you'd assume they'd request school records. Do the Cullen's just lie and say they're incoming freshman? Considering how old they all look, I'd find it hard that hard to believe. So if they are attending as seventeen-year-olds, wouldn't they need transfer records?

The Cullen's must forge an awful lot of paperwork. Schools, taxes, mortgages, bank info, et cetera.

On Death, and Stuff:

When humans are turned into vampires, then what? By that I mean, what of their human bodies? Are they forever referred to as "missing persons?"

When they assume the name, "Cullen" that's not going to get them very far. I mean, they'd have no documentation whatsoever. I understand in the last book, Bella and Edward go on their Honeymoon off the coast of South America. How does a Vampire get a passport? Edward went to Italy, too.

Do vampires just walk across the ocean, or do they use their super speed to circumvent border security? (Note: I wonder how Fox News feels about this)

Bella becomes a vampire. She must "go missing" or something. Honestly, how do they get away with this? Charlie would never stop looking for her. Are we supposed to believe that her family will just let her go? Does she "die" but they never see a body?


Clicking below and purchasing means a small percentage of the sale goes to me, fyi. They are the single disc editions, at around $10 apiece.

Looking Back: I Am/Was A Snarky Bastard (Old School Papers)

I just discovered a couple of old papers I wrote in college. It's actually kind of fun reading them. It's like looking back and seeing a slice of what I was thinking about at a particular time (even if I was forced to consider thinking it).

And, wow, was I sarcastic. I mean, in high school me and two friends did decide to each come up with five words to make the others use in a paper in Political Science class, after all. (I remember olfactory being one of the words Tim Mierzejewski picked. I also remember I won, because I used all ten of their words.)

Here are some excerpts:

Another fault in Kilbourne’s argument is in declaring that this woman was beaten and given a black eye.  In modern society, where appearance plays an enormous role in how people perceive others, makeup creates an alter ego that can constantly be changed—usually to make a person look prettier, though not always—not a repercussion of a man’s anger and frustration.

This is from a paper I wrote in response to a woman who wrote about how advertisements exploit women and children. I was clearly not amused. And kind of a smart ass. Oh, and I'm pretty certain part of why I was so annoyed in my paper, is because the class was all girls, the professor was a woman, and this was written by a feminist. Someone had to give a differing opinion. That someone was, apparently, me. This is how I began my paper:

Jean Kilbourne is a vehement feminist; that must be said.  Despite her instinctive drive to defend women from the cruelty of everyday life, she poses a clouded argument in “Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt:”

That has a bit of a bit to it, if I may say so. In a way, I think  it is kind of ballsy. Later, I wrote:

Jean Kilbourne contends that advertising is, by her definition, pornographic.  Although advertisers exploit women in their advertisements, Kilbourne’s ardently feministic viewpoint undermines her argument because she presents a one-sidedly biased argument that fails to recognize that women and children are not the only victims of advertising

The point I was making in my paper at the time is that while women may be exploited in advertising (and children, too), advertising as a currency is exploitative. Men are not exempt from this exploitation, and when people choose to be models, they volunteer for said exploitation. Is it actually exploitation if you volunteer? That was my argument. And that the author is a crazy feminist.

Kilbourne then focuses her attention on Victoria’s Secret, a company that constantly undergoes scrutiny for their televised fashion shows by writing that Victoria’s Secret lingerie “will make women irresistible” (42a).  To defend her claim, Kilbourne references a court case in which a woman accused a man of rape but the jury acquitted him.  I am not a criminal justice expert, but I’m sure that the jury’s decision was not based upon the fact that the woman wore Victoria’s Secret underwear.

=)

Ironically, Kilbourne contradicts herself later on in her article when addressing an advertisement in which a woman objectifies a man by saying that he has “nice buns” and that these advertisements are “often funny” (43b).

After this, I mention that a man doing the same to a woman in public could be sued for sexual harassment.

Unfortunately, society functions in this manner; men must always be conscious of the fact that women hold much more power than their delicate forms present—Kilbourne, however, seems to ignore this fact...

And my favorite part:

Clearly, Kilbourne makes many assumptions that cannot be validated; in fact, many are wrong and tendentious.  To defend her claim, Kilbourne writes about the kinds of toys that boys “play with” such as action figures with oversized breasts.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t girls the ones who play with dolls with enormous breasts?  In fact, Barbie now has a whole slew of friends with oversized breasts matching hers.  When I was little, I played with GI-Joe’s, little green army men, wrestling men (and not those silicone-injected female “wrestlers” that wrestle in matches to see who can undress the other first), and a multitude of other masculine, non big-breasted, toys.

Score points for "tendentious," that is one awesome word. And, yes, I totally wrote that whole thing in a paper. Because I am awesome.

I think this is a pretty strong point:

Kilbourne utilizes an eclectic array of advertisements, however, one can’t be sure exactly how old some of these advertisements are and since culture incessantly evolves, an advertisement only a few years old may actually be culturally archaic

Next up is a paper I wrote about violence in video games. I was the only person in my class who thought violence in the media didn't contribute to violence in people. Some of my arguments, in hindsight, weren't the greatest, but my basic thesis and opinions hold. Violent people don't evolve from violent media and entertainment. They are, at their core, disturbed people who, for whatever reasons, take out their aggression on others and don't get help. I use an example from a game developed by the Army and Navy and their statements saying they don't train our military with video games, et cetera. Here are some part I found enjoyable:

But does playing Super Mario make me want to go to Italy?  Perhaps the programmers have found some way to implant subliminal messages into video games, which would explain my sudden urge to become a plumber and to outfit myself in ridiculously bright red overalls while doing so.  Maybe I should start talking like him, too: “It’s a me, Mario!”

 Yup, in a paper. A research paper, if I'm not mistaken. Oh, and for bonus nerd points, I quoted Final Fantasy VII in my paper. Yes, I was (and am) really that big of a nerd.

The mere thought of this is ludicrous because simulating violence neither desensitizes children to violence, not manifests them into a cold-hearted killer.

I think I am wrong there, I think the constant violence surrounding us in the news, video games, television, movies, play, etc does desensitize kids. But, I'm not certain what effect that has on society as a whole, and I believe it still is dependent upon the individual. I've spent my entire life playing violent games, watching violent shows and movies, and I have not once hit anybody or gotten into a fight (despite people trying several times, I might add.) For the record, I don't think I'm desensitized, because I am intelligent, and I can see what violence does to people, to towns. I see how it can tear a community apart and create rifts that turn into wars. Violence begets violence; the real kind, though, not the fantastical kind.

A little fear will control the minds of the common people.  Fear is what I consider the most powerful asset to the government and other people of authority.  Socrates said it best: Question Authority

That's the quote from Final Fantasy VII. The Socrates quote is care of my western civilization teacher, Mr. Steponaitis. I don't remember being so anti-government at the time, but it's kind of true. Fear drives everything. Fear drives the news (on the left and the right, Fox is just far more prominent than any liberal publications). Fear drives politics. We've built many of our beliefs upon this debilitating fear, too. I don't like it.

The sad truth is that the video game industry is being wrongfully pursued, and persecuted by lawmakers; video games do not cause violent behavior—unless of course teenagers run amuck swinging video game controllers at random people—but that would never happen, just as I will never transform into an Italian plumber in red overalls.

A couple really awesome visuals in there, if I do say so myself. Also, look at me bringing the red overalls reference back!

Imagine you are located in unfamiliar, hostile territory; also, you are surrounded by terrorists and have but a small group of allies at your side.  Every polygonal piece of scenery brims with the utmost detail and you are overcome with a feeling of euphoria as you tremble with fear because, for just a moment, you believe you are actually on the front lines in the Middle East.  The name of the game is America’s Army, not as gruesome as Saving Private Ryan, but war is not exactly pretty either.

I approve!

In addition, we routinely made trips to the arcade, where I was able to witness who plays games; astoundingly, children are not the only ones that play games (imagine that).

I sound like kind of an ass with the parentheses there, but sarcasm does means "to tear the flesh."

Oh! And remember that Political Science paper I mentioned earlier? I'm pretty sure another word Tim had on his list for us to use was "Parenthesis" as on, just one parenthesis, not two parentheses. I honestly don't remember how I used that in my paper. I think I used a lot of methaphors.

As I have written, I am a gamer, and have been all my life, so this is a very personal subject to me.  I am not a violent person whatsoever.  When I play a game and win, I do not revel in the thought that I slaughtered hundreds (if not more) of creatures; I revel in the fact that I have won—or if I lost, to have, at the very least, put up a good fight.  In this fashion, gaming is more about the hunt than the result.  Winning the game is all well and nice, but the more cunning one is, the more fun gaming becomes.  If this depiction of millions of triangles can cause such a stir, why then are books not banned?  In my opinion, someone who has to visualize the grotesqueness is in much worse of a state than when the maimed bodies are already presented for you.  What about movies?  Should movies not undergo the same rigorous scrutiny?

I think this sums up my feelings on the subject fairly well.

Studies have shown that Video games cannot be linked to violence, and that keeping children from the human nature of violence and aggression will stump the evolutionary growth of our posterity.  Video games may give people a natural high, or temporarily upset people if they lose, but people get upset when they lose their house keys, that does not mean on Monday when they go to work that they are going to take it out on about a dozen coworkers in the form of a sawed-off shotgun.  What does the game industry have to prove to Joseph Liebermen and the countless other conservative, anti gaming lawmakers?  Is there some sort of middle ground where all can be at peace?  Honestly, I would say the chances are about the same as me developing an Italian accent, grabbing a plunger and strapping on those overalls.

That's how I ended my paper. Yes, with a Mario reference, the way all papers ought to end.

There are a great many papers I wrote that I wish I could go back and read. I'm really glad I was able to find these two to look back on and share some excerpts here. I hope you enjoyed it at least a little.