The Kind-Hearted Smart Aleck

I really hate that it's gotten to this point, but sadly, on December 14th of 2016, I feel I must explain the differences between satire and fake news. Sadder yet, renowned satirist Andy Borowitz has now decided to include the words "NOT THE NEWS" front and center on each and every one of his articles, because apparently, we're too stupid to figure that out for ourselves (well, some of us). I bring up Borowitz because, earlier today, a Facebook friend of mine commented on one of his articles, saying, "Fake news should be outlawed!" This prompted me to explain the differences between the two, in a condensed fashion, saying, "It's satire. If we went down that slippery slope, all comedy would be outlawed. There's a stark difference between 'fake news' with the intent of misinforming mass quantities of people to provide aid for a particular political agenda, and 'fake news' with the intent of stimulating thought and laughter by poki...

It's humorous and yet irritating at the same time, isn't it? On one hand, it's funny to see someone not interpret your sarcasm for being exactly that, sarcasm. Sometimes it's fun to play along and see how far you can go until they realize it was a joke from the beginning. Yet if it happens consistently enough, it can get old and it's common to think (especially if you've known the person for an extended period of time), "Doesn't this person know me? Can't they tell by now when I'm being sarcastic and when I'm being serious?" A while back, I was listening to a story about how this guy liked to mix alcohol with foods or sauces: Jack Daniels, Raspberry Vodka, among other liquors to form a certain sauce to place on the meat or to dip the meat into. So, I said, "Yeah, I made some Bloody Mary's the other day and mixed that with these chocolate chip cookies. It was really good." He seemed disgusted and appalled, saying, ...

I've read and heard many people state that those who believe the claims made in "The Da Vinci Code" are extremely gullible. Most of these people are firm believers in Christianity. Let's look at this from a non-biased perspective, shall we? Who's more gullible? One who believes that a male got married to a woman, had children with her and his lineage is still alive and well today or one who believes that a man resided in his mother whom never had intercourse, that this man was perfect every day of his life, that he sacrificed himself for the world's wrong doings and that he rose from the dead three days after his death? Looking at it from a non-biased perspective, how can one possibly say that the former is more gullible than the latter?