The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

Before she was elected as Senator of Iowa, Joni Ernst got into an interesting discussion with Charles Pierce from Esquire magazine. After a speech where Ms. Ernst referred to President Obama as "apathetic," the following exchanged between the reporter and newly elected Senator: Pierce asked what she meant about the president being "apathetic" Ernst: "He is just standing back and letting things happen, he is reactive rather than proactive. With Ebola, we see he's very hands-off. He's not leading. He's not leading." Pierce: "What should he have done about Ebola? One person in America has Ebola." Ernst: "OK, you're the press, you're giving me your opinion." Pierce: "But that's not an opinion. It's a fact. Only one person in America has Ebola." Ernst: "But he is the leader. What he can do is make sure that all of those agencies are coordinating together and make sure that he is sharin...

Here's the other recent back-and-forth I engaged myself in via Twitter. After sharing a link from the reputable fact-checking site FactCheck.org  regarding Ted Cruz's multiple lies during his 21-hour talk-a-thon (lie-a-thon more like), a woman, who wrote on her profile that she "fights against stupidity," said fact-checkers can't be trusted. After looking through her profile, it seems that she trusts Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and the like, and this made me laugh quite a bit. Fact-checkers are paid to research the validity of statements, chain emails, etc. Fox News is there to provide its viewers with right-leaning infotainment. Rush Limbaugh is there to spout opinions which anger many, get people talking, and get die-hard conservatives pumped. So, who am I to trust more? People whom get paid to actually research the validity of statements or people whom get paid more for entertainment purposes than accuracy? If this woman truly wants to fight against stupidit...

I've long poked fun at Twitter, because I think the term "tweeting" sounds funny, even perverse in some instances, and because I feel that along with texting, tweeting has significantly contributed to the decline of our writing skills. Even though I still believe this to be the case, however, I decided to rejoin the site for business purposes - to help spread word about my written work. So, I've started "following" many different types of people to help keep me entertained and spread word about my work. Among these persons are a number of "fact"-oriented accounts which allege to post random facts throughout the course of a day. Upon reading these "facts," I'd say I question the validity of roughly one out of every two - which brings me to today's tweet. One such "fact"-oriented account today tweeted that Twitter helps improve people's writing, because it helps us get to the point. Okay, I can understand where thi...

As I've been saying for a long time, cable news is about as reliable as a few older drunk guys at a bar discussing politics. It's based much more on opinion than fact, and even when facts are shared, they are often times overshadowed by controversial, headline-grabbing opinions. A new Pew Research study confirms my long-held suspicions. Of the three major cable news networks, CNN is the best when it comes to factual reporting, as 54% of the network's coverage is factual, whereas 46% of it is simply opinion. Fox News flips those numbers around, as just 45% of it is based on factual reporting (thanks Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace) and 55% of it is opinionated commentary. MSNBC's programming is showcased to only be 15% factual, while 85% of it is opinion. This means that on the three major cable news networks, it's coverage on average is comprised of 62% opinion and 38% fact. This is a growing problem in this country, I feel, for over 3 out of every 5 stories (bi...

I both love and loathe debating politics with people whom don't know what they're talking about. I love it, because there are occasions when I enjoy schooling people with research/facts and logic, in hopes that it'll prompt them to think more critically and research more thoroughly on a regular basis, and also because I am sometimes humored by their elementary responses. I loathe it because after a while, it can get mighty frustrating trying to argue numbers and logic with bumper sticker slogans and talking points, and also because too many facepalms within a short duration of time can lead to quite the headache. There comes a point in every such debate when a person (or persons) needs to accept defeat and walk away. However, it seems that sometimes, regardless of how badly a person got walloped, he/she just won't admit to being wrong, defeated, and walk away with a shred of class and dignity still left in tact. I've run into just this scenario over the past wee...

Setting: Sunday school (9th-12th grade) at the church of Holy Hell! Jesus Rocks! Pastor Malarkey: "When this nation was down, Ronald Reagan flew up to the heavens, and spoke with Jesus. He tried convincing our lord and savior to grant him special powers. After the two talked things over for 79 minutes over some strawberry daiquiris and buffalo wings, Jesus granted the president those special powers. These special powers included being able to: Heal the sick, feed the hungry, talk very well, fly, and all sorts of other things. He was even given  a magical wand, which could transform into a tank, cap gun or clown to destroy or frighten dragons, especially the ones in Florida. This helped him save this great country and in essence, the world. So you see kids, Ronald Reagan was a lot like Jesus. Please tell your parents to vote Republican next Tuesday. The end." Jake: "Wow! That's amazing! That really happened?" Malarkey: "I cross my heart." ...

I'm as much a lover of the arts as just about anybody. I enjoy anything from music to cinema to theatre to literature to painting to comedy (yes, I'd consider this an art, unless you're Dane Cook and then I'd consider it a migraine-in-the-making) and beyond. Like anybody, I have my likes and dislikes in the arts. I'm a big fan of Salvador Dali's painting, of Alfred Hitchcock's film-directing, of Kurt Vonnegut's writing, of George Carlin's comedy, while I'm not so fond of Adam Sandler's acting (and humor), Limp Bizkit and Nickelback's music, Larry the Cable Guy's comedy and Nicholas Sparks' writing. These aren't so much facts as they are my opinions. I may be able to make valid arguments in certain cases to better prove my opinions and more so than the opposing side of the debate. However, grading the arts isn't as black and white as is mathematics. While most critics believe Casablanca to be one of the best films in the ...

I hate to come across as condescending and I honestly hate the thought of needing to explain this to people, but I've reached a point where I feel I must. I feel that approximately 78.43% of people don't know the difference between fact and opinion. That number I provided, for example - what was that? A fact? An opinion? Neither. It was complete and utter bull honky. I pulled it from an area that stinks even when the sun is shining. Let's allow Sir Webster to be our guide on this. First off, Sir Webster, what is an opinion? "o-pin-ion (uh-pin-yuhn) noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment. 4. the format statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case. 5. a favorable estimate; esteem." Now, Sir Webster, what is a fact? "fact (fakt...

When in a discussion about Romney's "47%" comments and providing evidence that the Republican candidate was inaccurate with his numbers and whom they represented, I was told to "stop thinking like a Democrat" and told that the only people who care about that "47%" are Democrats. I then provided proof this wasn't entirely accurate, as many conservative pundits have criticized Romney for his remarks, including: David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, David Frum, former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan, Mark McKinnon, Bill Kristol, etc. Several Republican politicians have distanced themselves from Romney since those remarks were made public. I guess my question is, how does one define "thinking like a Democrat" or on the opposite side, "thinking like a Republican?" My intent with my research and fact-checking was not to come across as partisan. It was not my intent to "think like a Democrat." It was simply my intent to get to ...

Never did I think I'd receive such a lovely e-mail and be defriended due to poll results I posted on my Facebook page. I read about this very poll at the following site - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/fox-news-viewers-less-informed-people-fairleigh-dickinson_n_1106305.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false The full poll results can be read at this site - http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/ What was the headline regarding this very poll? That regular Fox News viewers are less informed due to the network's stories and commentary than if they didn't watch the news at all. The poll focused on three questions. The first pertained to the protests in Egypt which helped bring down the regime there. The question asked if the protests were successful in attaining this very goal. Of twelve prominent sources (NPR, The Daily Show, Sunday Morning Political News Show, National Newspaper, Political Blog/News Website, National News Broadcast, CNN, MSNBC, Talk Ra...

This poem can be found on pages 98-99 of my book, "Seasons Come, People Grow: A Poetic Journey". The objective is subjective, The subjective not objective, Truth being relative, To each and every one of us, The world was once flat, Then discovered to be round, What was once lost, Has now been found, The objective is subjective, Religion coming in bunches, Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, So many slices to the pie, Variation of opinion from minimal to extreme, What makes one right? And another wrong? The objective is subjective, The subjective not objective, Ideas and beliefs ever expanding, Truth and facts ever abating, Truth being relative, To each and every one of us, The subjective not objective, The objective is subjective.