Let’s play a game!

Here’s a quick sampling of headlines from six major news sites, which include MSNBC, Fox, MSN, BBC, New York Times, and CNN. Each headline was  the main headline on the front page of the news agency’s website at around 1:30 PM on Monday, March 14th, 2011.

Here’s the game. Read the six headlines and guess which one is Fox News.

Searching for survivors

URGENT: Nuke Meltdown in 3 Reactors

Uranium rods ‘highly likely’ melting at Japanese nuclear plant, official says

Fuel Rod Crisis Fears at 3rd Reactor

Japan Nuclear Plant Hit By Second Blast

Meltdown alert at Japan reactor

I’m not going to give away the answer (especially since every person I’ve asked has easily gotten the answer right), but this game can be played any time of day on any day of the year… and it’s almost always a simple task to pick out the Fox News headline.

When headlines are simply more sensationalist on one news site, I find it amusing. When they’re misleading, I find it disturbing, regardless of the news organization.

Either way, it’s an easy game to play… and it’s almost always easy to spot Fox headlines.

Yeah. She’s my daughter.

Megan was eating a warm, chocolate-chip cookie/brownie thing and had gotten to the center where it was all melty and chocolately.

I said, "Is that my part?"

She says, looking around in the bowl, "No. Your part is… Oh, sorry. I already ate your part."

I’m so proud.

Seriously, Netflix? LOL!

I was browsing Netflix offerings this evening, specifically the streamable movies, and when you add a movie to your queue, Netflix presents a screen with recommendations for other similar movies.

I had added the movie Waiting for Armageddon, a documentary about evangelical Christians who believe the end times are near. The resulting screen led me to add Fall from Grace, a documentary about the Westboro Baptist Church, Fred Phelps’ vehicle for spreading bigotry and hatred.

The resulting recommendation screen can be seen below. I scanned the results, paused, and laughed out loud when I got to the third movie in the second row (click to embiggen).

Netflix Recommendations

Yeah. If I was putting together a list of movies in the "More like Fall from Grace" category, I don’t think Brokeback Mountain would be on it.

I’m fairly certain it’s not a documentary, either.

Sleeping or dead?

Megan and I were out running errands last weekend and, when we pulled into a parking lot at Five Below, we saw an older man sleeping in another car in the lot. As I turned off the engine, I pointed at the man and said to Megan, "So do you think he’s sleeping or do you think he’s dead?"

Now, when I relay that story to friends, almost invariably, the reaction has been one of shock. "Oh my god! You actually asked her that?!"

But Megan, who is nine years old, simply gave me her best eye roll, accompanied by a snicker and a withering What a silly question look, and said, "Sleeping. Why would he be dead?"

As we walked to the store, I said, "He could have had a heart attack or it could have been like on television and someone sneaked up on him and killed him."

Megan simply rolled her eyes.

Walking back to the car, we saw another man sleeping, so I asked again, "Do you think he’s sleeping or dead?"

Another eye roll and a laugh. "Sleeping."

At this point, I was pretty much done with the joke, but as luck would have it, I got a perfect setup for a punchline.

As we were waiting to pull out onto a main road, a funeral procession was stopped at a red light… with the hearse in perfect view.

I pointed at it. "Do you think he’s sleeping or dead?"

*ba-dum ching*

===========

 Note: For the record, we saw both of the sleeping men move, so it’s fairly certain they weren’t dead. As for the hearse, we saw a casket, but obviously couldn’t see a body, so we don’t know if there even was a body, much less if it was sleeping, dead, male or female. I think it’s a pretty safe bet to go with "dead," though.

What if Twitter… came to life?

Twitter: The Criterion Collection

What if Twitter… came to life?

We asked some of our friends to film their favorite tweets. We didn’t care how they did it. They could read it. They could act it. They could do it with puppets. Whatever they wanted. The only rules were it had to be a tweet written by someone else and it had to contain the entire tweet and nothing but the tweet.

This is what they gave us.

We hope you enjoy it.

@poeks & @sween

(via Moltz)

Satire is a beautiful thing

Amazingly enough, there are still people who claim to understand the science behind global warming, yet make the mistake of thinking localized cold temperatures, such as the recent snowstorms in the Eastern United States, are somehow a refutation of global warming. It’s almost as if they don’t understand the meaning of the key word “global.”

Jon Stewart captures it (and mocks it) perfectly in this Daily Show clip.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Unusually Large Snowstorm
www.thedailyshow.com

That bit makes fun of the “local versus global” aspect of global warming denialism and it is amusing, but at its heart is a serious issue… the denialist combination of ignorance and arrogance fueled by political and/or religious ideology. It’s a combination that inspires deniers to manufacture evidence, take evidence out of context, twist and distort evidence, and cherry pick evidence in their attempts to bolster their cause.

What makes it worse is that the denialist propaganda seems to be having its intended effect. Despite overwhelming evidence showing that our planet is warming faster than what natural cycles would indicate and that the warming is strongly affected by human activity, fewer and fewer people accept the science. What makes the denialist position so successful? Is it because their “evidence” is valid? …because their position is somehow warranted? Or is it, perhaps, that climate science is complicated… and therefore boring to a lot of people? Could it be that it takes too much effort to research the basics in order to gain a modicum of understanding of the science? …that real science is hard?

Here’s a hint. It’s not because denialist “evidence” is valid (and yes, the scare quotes are warranted).

Certainly, it’s far, far easier to look out the window at an above-average snowfall and conclude that no warming is occurring… and if that nicely-boxed conclusion is spruced up by your strongly-held ideology or by a level of (perhaps understandable) apathy that makes you susceptible to the loud voices of denialism, then it’s fairly easy to consider the matter closed and ignore any further evidence to the contrary.

That’s the scary result of politics trying to invalidate science… or religion trying to invalidate science. People get bad information and then they get the idea that there’s a controversy (where none should exist), or they start to think that scientists are full of crap, or that a biologist is the same as an astrophysicist (ie… a scientist is a scientist is a scientist), or that politicians have some sort of special “in” when it comes to the truth. People start to think that the scientific process is broken, or that a single mistake invalidates years (or even decades) of research, or that a scientist in a bitchy mood indicates that scientists are corrupt, or that scientists should be automatons who never get cranky when quote-mined by some junk-science-peddling politician.

The denialists’ position against global warming science is political, pure and simple. It can be summarized by the idea that, because the fix would be a hassle (or expensive), they want nothing to do with it. On that foundation is built their structure of misinformation… with twists, distortions, and lies… that only continues to stand because they yell loudly, they yell repeatedly, and they yell authoritatively. They do it with a self-righteous arrogance, implying that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong, but unpatriotic and stupid… perhaps socialist, too. They set up towering straw men to burn to the ground with their trite arguments, paying no mind to whether the argument is scientifically valid.

Despite all the denialists’ blustering, the thing they lack is truth. Perhaps truth isn’t important to them as long as they get their way, but truth is the intended destination of science.

The scientific process is self-correcting. Mistakes are sometimes made, but through the process, those mistakes are found and corrected. Science moves on, leaving behind an understanding of our world that is just a little bit better than before. That’s what science does. It moves. It progresses. It refuses to settle. It refuses to stop.

…and all the denialist blustering in the world won’t keep it from moving ahead.