So according to Bill O'Reilly TV researchers don't get stuff wrong? Don't they just wikipedia everything and then half remember it like the rest of us?
Looking at the chart provided here, the numbers are pretty troubling.
In 1991 1.9% of 12th graders had used LSD in the last 30 days. By 2013, that number had fallen to just 1.4%.
We all need to be asking ourselves how we can get those scores back up.
Typo alert: this headline has five extraneous words at the end of it.
I worked with Carl Hart when he took over a text book called Drugs, Society & Human Behavior years ago. He is one of the smartest people I've ever had the pleasure of working with. He's also far cooler than most textbook authors.
Why should Bill being factually wrong cause him to change his argument? It's never stopped him in the past.
Geez Bill, what were you smoking?
Frankly, I'm shocked that Bill got it wrong. Usually he's so unbiased.
Yeah. Can't we just report it when he gets a fact correct? This brings the extra perk of never having to read an article about him.
For everyone who's been living on Neptune for the past decade and a half, here's "The O'Reilly Factor" process:
- Come up with a talking point.
- Selectively look for evidence to back up that talking point.
- Invent data to back up talking point.
- Insist that it is correct and that other people are liars when
- If absolutely inescapable, admit being wrong quickly and quietly to
the smallest possible audience.
- Wait one week.
- Go back to reciting invented data.
If if was up to me, I'd never report anything about Bill O'Reilly.
He's a waste of time, energy, and oxygen. His audience is either uneducated, reactionary, very old folks or liberal bloggers, from what I can tell.
We all know he is worshiped by and craves the fawning adoration of his uninformed audience, and that he loves the millions of dollars he makes by irritating liberals.
It's obvious (to me) that he enjoys pushing his opponents' buttons and the less I hear about him, the better. Nothing good ever comes from reporting anything he says. Behave as if he didn't exits.
Fixed in my head!
Bill O'Reilly Gets the Facts Wrong
Hmm. . . okay, now it seems all redundant and unnecessary. Like 'Breaking: Air is transparent' or 'Dirt tastes like dirt'
People are scared of hallucinogens because they show you crazy shit that exists all around us (or just in our heads) and they make you wonder and question everything. People obsessed with image and appearance won't take them because they make it impossible to maintain any sort of facade and destroy ego.
Cocaine, on the other hand, makes people blathering over-confident assholes which is perfect for the modern world.
I think it's more like 50% than half
It's not only that Bill can't get the facts straight as he tries to distort them it's also that he doesn't take the time to learn the bios of the folks he is interviewing.
And, absolutely, kudos to Dr. Hart for smacking both of those misapprehensions down inside of half a minute.
Has there ever been a time that the esteemed Mr. O'Reilly, (who, I might add, is unaware that Newton explained the tides 400 years ago) has gotten a fact right?
I'd wager it's actually far, far lower than that.
LSD essentially doesn't exist on the street anymore. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of those high school kids (the 2013 ones, at least - '91 was a different world) who thought they were taking LSD were actually taking substituted phenethylamines like DOB or DOI.
Bill is an interesting guy, more so than his self-styled persona probably indicates IMHO. I've gotten the impression from him that, for instance, he's pretty friendly to things like gay marriage. And I wouldn't be too surprised if he puffs out. Does he make bucks off of the right wingish demagogue angle? Yeah. I certainly don't respect him. But he is a bit more nuanced than I think many lefties give him credit for, and maybe, maybe can be reasoned with in some circumstances.
Kind of a shame frankly. I certainly know people who got totally fucked from acid. But for me, well, it was a very important part of my development. I never was hardcore into it, but had a handful if intensely important experiences and revelatory experiences in part thanks to it.
I can only judge him on the actions I'm aware of and have reason to trust happened. And even if he spends his free time volunteering at soup kitchens and no-kill shelters, that merely adds to his good pile. It doesn't remove from his bad pile. Which is pretty substantial.
next page →