President Obama On Mythbusters Tonight 416
elrous0 writes "As was previously reported, President Obama mentioned back in October that he would be appearing on an upcoming episode of the popular Discovery Channel series Mythbusters. Well, the episode is finally airing tonight. In the episode, the President helps Jamie and Adam test the 'Archimedes Death Ray' myth for a 3rd time (the myth having been 'busted' the first time, and that bust surviving a challenge from MIT students the second time out). Though the President only appears in a couple of brief scripted segments, the actual test (using 500 schoolkids doubling as mirror-bearing soldiers) is purportedly pretty interesting."
That sounds terrible... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All hail the king! (Score:2, Insightful)
The president will tend to be loved or hated by most, without much middle room, in our culture. It's party of the ability to have a say in the choice - you become "attached". Imagine how much more people would support for their favorite football team (or condemn the opponents) if they could affect the outcome of the game?
There aren't just people who *love* Obama, there are plenty who despise him. Likewise there are many who loved, and many who despised Bush, Clinton, Elder Bush, Reagan, etc.
Also, as far as individuals go, he is the one who holds the most power in the country, and thus is the easiest to talk about. People like things that are simple - it's a lot easier to talk about, blame, criticize, support and extol one person (such as the president), than a group of non-uniform people (such as congress)
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Insightful)
So that's what kids' science education is boiling down to? Standing still and holding a mirror?
Would have been much more awesome, and effective in encouraging science interest, in my opinion, if the kids had a hand in making something go boom.
Unless they have a major reversal of the busting of the myth, a kid would interpret this as "This is stupid. Science doesn't work. Let's go play Xbox."
Transportation Security (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Burn, maybe not... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're gonna rag on them, rag on the fact that the fucking narrator spends a minute explaining what happen, another minute on what they're going to do, another on what could go wrong, replete with puns, three minutes of actually showing Adam and Jamie or Kari, Grant, and Tori doing stuff, then, just as things are progressing, they switch to the other team and their myth and start all over, and THEN follows it up with two minutes of what's going to happen after the commercial break.
Drives me nuts (and away from the TV).
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the "science" that is being taught is that, despite the fact that your research has reached the same conclusion on 2 separate occasions, you need to keep yourself open to the possibility that you might just have been wrong twice. When other people provide evidence you are wrong (I don't recall where it was, but I saw a tv show or webpage in the last few months that demonstrated the death ray does work), you need to examine that evidence, revisit your study, and see if you reach a new conclusion. That's a quality that a lot of people lack these days (they will insist they are correct even when showing them clear and concise evidence they are wrong).
Argh! Give up this stupid myth! (Score:5, Insightful)
One day, some old-timey soldier noticed that he could reflect the sun off his shield if he polished it real good and it made it hard for the enemy to see if he reflected the sun into the eyes of enemy soldiers. Same way we used to reflect the sun off our watches and shine it in people's faces when we were kids. So a few soldiers started doing this when the sun happened to be at the proper angle and, presto, we've got a death ray. 'cause the enemy has to come up with some reason to explain why they got their asses kicked so easily. "It was a death ray, majesty! It burned the eyes of our soldiers and set ships on fire!"
Re:get off my iLawn! (Score:1, Insightful)
I thought they would do some REAL MythBusting.
Maybe challenging the claim that the current administration is going to help save money with Obamacare? (Busted?)
Maybe challenging Obama's claim of a more transparent administration...maybe they really DO have legislation online for us to look at before they vote on it like he promised. (Busted?)
Maybe looking into the myth that Bush and others spent more than he has, yet somehow the national debt is already about doubled what it was for the Bush crew this early in Obama's presidency?
Maybe look at the myth that Obama and Co. were going to stop the wars?
Maybe disprove the myth that Obama isn't US born, and find the missing birth certificate? (Ok tongue in cheek on this one, just too funny for me to leave out).
Maybe investigate the myth that Obama really *is* different than his predecessor(s) and not just a product of the media, and is just as beholden to the corporate entities that fund them as any of the other politicians?
Maybe to investigate the mythic "change"....?
Re:Flamethrowers (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that they're down to bitching about the moisture content of the test boat only shows how impractical this would be in real-world conditions. Complaining that their test conditions were less than ideal is part of the problem with the myth. No military leader in his right mind is going to work with a "weapon" that only works at a certain time of day, on a boat with a certain moisture content, moving slower than X speed, etc.--especially when there are far-superior alternatives available (like flaming arrows, etc.).
Those MIT students sound like sore losers. And like all sore losers, they're full of plenty of excuses. They had their chance and they couldn't deliver.
Re:get off my iLawn! (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never gotten why we call it ObamaCare. It was basically written by conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (how long was it Max Baucus held up the bill in his committee until Republicans in the committee agreed to it?) But the CBO analysis was that it would help save money. And the only way to bring down the debt in the long term is to bring in more health care funding and reduce spending as much as possible. So we can at least say it was a decent attempt. Hopefully we can improve on it in the coming years.
Is the Obama administration more transparent than previous ones? Yes. Is it ultra-see-through transparent? No.
Most legislation is online before they vote on it. And has been for a while. Not that Presidents have any power over that.
Have you ever thought about falling tax receipts because of the recession? Spending could remain constant while receipts fall, sending deficits skyrocketing. This is partly the case - tax receipts have fallen, the government had to pay out more unemployment benefits (never mind the extensions), etc. But yeah. The Bush tax cuts are still in effect. The giant, gaping unfunded hole Bush left in Medicare is still intact. The wars Bush started are still going on. So yes, much of the deficit is still directly attributable to Bush and the Republicans. Now with Obama, we have the stimulus package, which consisted almost entirely of tax cuts and aid to the states, which were spending less money. So really, it was an increase in unfunded government expenditures while total state+federal spending remained flat. And then there's ObamaCare, which is funded. So, yeah, sounds like most of the deficit/debt problems are not Obama's fault.
Anyone who thought Obama was going to pull out all troops on day one was a tool ignorant of international politics.
Corporations have undue influence on government, but they're hardly the masters of poor government puppets. I know it's a popular canard, but it's just not true.
Is Obama different? Nope, he's a thorough moderate. 30 years ago he would have been called a conservative.
Re:Well, I *was* looking forward to watching this. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, it's so annoying to hear Obama-teleprompter jokes. Especially since they're from formerly disinterested morons who never realized that all politicians use them for speeches anyway. "But-but-he stutters and sounds like an idiot without one!" Remember the Presidential debates where he kicked the crap out of McCain 3-0 without one, or the open questions session with the House Republicans [washingtonpost.com] where he made the whole caucus look like buffoons (enough so that they publicly wished they hadn't done it)? After listening to polished PR-approved answers that provide no insight, I at least appreciate a President who tries to answer questions however much I might disagree with him.