President Obama To Appear On Mythbusters 795
Muondecay writes "President Obama will be featured in the December 8th MythBusters episode, 'Archimedes Solar Ray,' during which he will challenge Adam and Jamie to revisit an ancient and somewhat controversial myth: Did Greek scientist and polymath Archimedes set fire to an invading Roman fleet using only mirrors and the reflected rays of the sun during the Siege of Syracuse? This is part of a White House effort to highlight the importance of science education."
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:2, Interesting)
Hyperbole is supposed to be ridiculous, FYI.
And the critique goes directly to his credibility as a change agent. It was valid before he was elected as doubt, and is valid now as outright criticism. He was 'Hope', he was 'Change', but what did he really bring to the table?
So I'd grant you 'snarky', but the other two labels are only fitting if you're predisposed to disagree with the criticism.
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:3, Interesting)
I've sarcastically referred to him as a Messiah myself, as an exaggeration of how some others obviously perceived him, but I'm anything but a right-winger. I was making fun of this habit of investing too much expectation in people who, honestly, are in it as much for themselves and their own Inner Circle as they are for any of the rest of us, regardless which Party's flag they happen to be waving. Our criteria for choosing leaders is just FUBAR and has been for millennia.
Science? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:2, Interesting)
She isn't a sitting government official, so why the fark can't she have a TV show?
If she was still the Governor of Alaska and doing a TV show, then people would have a problem with it.
Now the President, yea he is doing to many side media projects.
Proof (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:3, Interesting)
Penn and Teller (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The original idea for the episode... (Score:5, Interesting)
If they could debunk that successfully it would be fantastic. People have been trying for a couple of years now, and still over 25% of this country is convinced he wasn't legally elected.
That's better than Bush Jr's stats, where over 50% was convinced he wasn't legally elected.
Re:Bring your birth certificate! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
No, please! The more time he spends in front of cameras, the less time he has to 'fix' things.
Look at the results of his "fixes", so far. Not exactly positive results, to say the least! I certainly don't want more if the same; it'll take generations to dig ourselves out of this one alone, nevermind his predecessors.
Re:Archimedes, again? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Careful with that tag... (Score:4, Interesting)
Unless, of course, the people who are tagging this science event "politics" are stating that the democrats are pro-science and the republicans are anti-science, which is at least partially true.
Mythbusters does science? (Score:5, Interesting)
"This is part of a White House effort to highlight the importance of science education"
I'm not sure how the two are related. Every time I've seen the show they've gone out of their way to hide any science content from the viewer.
When it's been unavoidable, they've shown placards reading "Warning: Science content"
From my perspective, Mythbusters seems pretty anti-science.
Re:The Greeks (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Archimedes, again? Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
Observations: Health care is not mentioned anywhere. "General welfare" is, but since bills of attainder and confiscation of life, liberty or property without due process of law are prohibited-- and the health care bill causes summary fines to be levied against those who do not wish to buy health insurance-- this vaguely stated power is negated.
Surely passing a law - through the democratically elected Congress and Senate - that clearly spells out the requirement and its rationale is a "due process of law"? Whether or not it is wise is another matter, but I'm not really sure from your argument that it is unconstitutional. It is also worth pointing out that "those who do not wish to buy health insurance" are still in all likelihood going to require healthcare at some point. Very few manage to avoid it completely. The reform is a statue law mandating certain financial arrangements for purchasing a product that is unavoidable because of biological law, which is above the Constitution.
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:5, Interesting)
*hmmm, upon reflection though, I can't really say much about this topic. I hardly know any of my neighbors and meeting people is mostly a sham of acting "normal". But I think most people try to put on a good face when meeting others. I only really relax around my friends, because they've accepted my weirdness and I put up with their shit.
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:3, Interesting)
Amusingly most of the SNL skit stuff that was said were just exaggerations of things she had actually said, no different than when politicians turn generally reasonable statements about a topic into extremes to make an opponent sound bad, like "X sometimes agrees with Obama" into "X is just a rubber stamp for Obama, let me list every time he's agreed with Obama and pretend there are no counterexamples!"
Honestly she turned me off of her in one interview where she couldn't answer the question of what the actual duties of the office she was running for were -- seriously, shouldn't that be the most basic thing you know and can answer on the spot? Especially for the office of vice president, which has an amazingly short list of actual duties?
Inspire, no, he is there to lead (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet, somehow, granted his stay in Congress was short, he had the audacity to believe that a President rules. He came in; this is also the fault of his people; with the idea they could run the show. Somehow they perceived that Bush "ruled" and thereby they could too. How his Administration; I am looking at Rahm; and such could have such an upside down view of the current state of politics is beyond me. He blew it right off the bat by handing off all the big bills to Congress to craft and they crafted bills only committees could craft, hulking messes full of graft and crap. When he gave up his leadership role that early he lost any chance of getting it back. Pelosi and Reid run the show, he is just there to put a face on it and also deflect blame, be the lightning rod, be the one they can claim opponents to their legislative crap are really his opponents and only because of his race.
Carter tried and failed by confronting his party and as such became a single term President because he could do nothing. Reagan succeeded by personality as did Clinton. Bush #1 meandered and was relegated to a single term. Bush #2 stepped up after 9/11, frankly I figured he would be a single term, but he provided leadership when it was needed before falling off nearly completely in 08. Obama best hope he can find a good Republican foil in the House to let him step up, Clinton had Gingrinch but honestly I don't even think a Gingrinch can save Obama. He first needs to rule himself before he can lead the US. He comes off as too quick to castigate, he looks for the bad guy across the isle all the while ignoring the fact his own party minimizes him more, hell he had majorities that were proof against the minority party and he still could not get his party in line.
No, inspire comes after you have shown you can lead, he cannot. He got handed accolades before he tried and apparently that set him back further than even his most ardent foes could have hoped.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Justices to Hear Appeal by Ashcroft Over Detention Suit [nytimes.com]
US justice department argues former detainees have no constitutional rights [guardian.co.uk]
Obama adopts Bush view on the powers of the presidency. [wsj.com]
Ruling Against Bush Wiretaps Also Slaps Down Obama's Executive Overreach [huffingtonpost.com]
Yes, a troll. (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, you see these two parts:
I think it's kind of stupid, but I'm not going to criticize him by saying he shouldn't be on a TV show or anything like that... But, I think that most people think there are different standards for the President versus a private citizen.
And:
Reagan and I think Bush (for instance) always wore formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office, afaik. I'm not saying I care one iota about that, but people have very different ideas of what's expected of the president.
I don't think you raped and murdered a girl in 1990, in fact I don't think you did, and I wouldn't care one itoa if you did. But OTHER people might care and think you shouldn't be hanging around their children.
You see, it's the act of mentioning something by mentioning how you're not mentioning it. It's classic weaselese, and that'll get you a troll point right there.
Secondly:
but the president is supposed to be above partisanship,
AHAHAHAHAaaaah. Yeah, you must have been crying your ass off since, oh, George Washington left office.
And while Regan and Bush (both of them maybe?) somehow get a free-ride for appealing to, ah, wait, not YOU of course, but to YOUR FRIENDS views of the presidency for "always wearing formal clothes (suit jacket) in the oval office", your OTHER friends (see, I've got liberal friends, I'm not partisan as I'm accusing other of being) have had an issue with it.
Let me be clear about this: He could dance naked in whatever room he wants and broadcast it live as long as he doesn't preemptively invade any more nations. And if he can avert a econopocalypse and manage to turn it around, I'll even let him have a smoke break now and then.
But hey, maybe you were just trying to be polite. But inserting your complaints within layers of bullshit doesn't really make it any more polite. It adds a veneer of political correctness, but that in turn just pisses some people off even more. And if you truly, honestly, just don't care about it... then why did you post anything at all?
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, maybe he's bringing along one of our prototype military lasers! There are solid-state 100Kw lasers in test that I'm sure will sink a wooden ship just fine...!
"Kids, remember to study math and science. Because math and science will let you build LASER CANNONS to BLOW #$% UP!"
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:4, Interesting)
In reality, the man is weak, politically inept, arrogant, and unable to see the world outside of his own academic contextualization.
That exactly describes my perception of George W. Bush -- except I would hesitate to use the word "academic". I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
I, for one, did not randomly pick someone off the street. I watched campaign coverage and the debates. I attended rallies. I listened to the plans presented by the candidates and I made an educated selection which I do not regret.
Re:Science? (Score:3, Interesting)
Go ahead and see if your show, Double-Blind Peer-Reviewed Published Studies, does well enough to stay on the air :-)
But to MB's credit, they do retest myths when readers provide new incites into experiments. Also think about the economics: does it make better sense to test 300 different myths once or test 100 myths 3 times each?
On a side note, I'd like to see them re-test the Airplane on a Moving Tarmac myth. It looked 50/50 to me, even on the scale model. That's an odd one. Strange physics. I suspect they only did one trial due to insurance worries. A flipping plane can't be ruled out.
Re:They've already busted that twice now (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a site for geeks. What is the geek's arch nemesis (if we're to stereotype)? Jocks and people perceived to be idiots. We don't talk about it too much, but there's usually at least a latent dislike towards people who perceive themselves as intelligent but are pretty obviously not well educated and seem to not be the sharpest tool in the toolbox.
Not only does Palin have those qualities in spades, she's even quite outspoken about her disdain towards the elite, educated types (us). If there were ever to be a person who would be mocked more on slashdot hypothetically I can't imagine what quality they would need in order to exceed Palin's natural ability to attract our ire.
Re:Bring your birth certificate! (Score:3, Interesting)
A little digging finds that factcheck.org got the original and certified it, but that wasn't widely reported when it happened so without looking it up I wouldn't know that.
A clarification: FactCheck [factcheck.org] didn't actually obtain an original on their own. They were allowed to examine and photograph an original that was provided to them by the Obama campaign.
Further, FactCheck didn't "certify" anything. They don't have that authority. They simply published their opinion about the authenticity of a document that was provided to them.
Re:Archimedes, again? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
The President should have nothing to do with, oh..., let's say leveraging some immensely popular television program and trying to generate interest in math and science. I mean, after all, the U.S. is the worldwide leader in math and science eduction for it's young peop... Oh. Wait...