Posted on 01/13/2018 12:40:18 PM PST by rktman
TV host Mike Rowe is known for his measured, devastating take-downs of people who attack him or his work. He has perfected the art of subtly twisting the knife in the side of critics with calm, cool language.
This skill was on display Thursday when Rowe responded to a woman criticized his politics on Facebook.
Rowe narrates the show How The Universe Works on the Science Channel. The woman, Rebecca Bright, called Rowe an anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative who should be fired.
I love the show How the Universe Works, but Im lost on how the producers and the Science Channel can allow anti-education, science doubting, ultra-right wing conservative Mike Rowe to narrate the show, Bright wrote, according to Rowe. There are countless scientists that should be hired for that, or actors, if you must, that believe in education and science that would sound great narrating the show, example: Morgan Freeman. Cancel this fools contract and get any of your scientists so often on the show to narrate it.
In his response, Rowe started off by exhibiting his knowledge of the subject of the show and killing Rebecca with kindness:
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
NON print version:
Love him. Well done.
Oh crap, that won't end well.
So are we talking murder or what?
Did he set her corpse on fire?
Or maybe she isn't actually destroyed and he won't go to jail?
Really
Probably searching for a blankie and a corner to curl up in. Snowflakery at its best.
Rowe is not an idiot. Wish our country had more like him.
Is her middle name "Notso"?
Brilliant.
On top of all that, Mike Rowe is not ultra right wing. If he appears to be that to his critic, she most be ultra left wing!
The DC doesn’t own the copyright to Rowe’s reply, so here it is in full.
*********
Well hi there, Rebecca. Hows it going?
First of all, Im glad you like the show. How the Universe Works is a terrific documentary series that Ive had the pleasure of narrating for the last six seasons. I thought this weeks premiere was especially good. It was called, Are Black Holes Real? If you didnt see it, spoiler alert .no one knows!!!
Its true. The existence of Black Holes has never been proven. Some cosmologists are now convinced they dont exist at all, and the race to prove their actuality has become pretty intense. Why? Because so much of what we think we know about the cosmos depends upon them. In other words, the most popular explanations as to how the universe actually works, are based upon the existence of a thing that no one has been able to prove.
As Im sure you know, its OK to make assumptions based on theories. In fact, its critical to progress. But its easy these days to confuse theory with fact. Thanks to countless movies and television shows that feature Black Holes as a plot device, and many documentaries that bring them to life with gorgeous CGI effects and dramatic music, a lot of people are under the assumption that Black Holes are every bit as real as the Sun and the Moon. Well, maybe they are, and maybe they arent. We just dont know. Thats why I enjoyed this weeks show so much. It acknowledged the reasons we should question the existence of something that many assume to be settled science. It invited us to doubt.
Oftentimes, on programs like these, Im asked to re-record a passage thats suddenly rendered inaccurate by the advent of new information. Sometimes, over the course of just a few days. Thats how fast the information changes. Last year for instance, on an episode called Galaxies, the original script carefully vetted by the best minds in physics claimed there were approximately one hundred billion galaxies in the known universe. A hundred billion! (Not a typo.) I couldnt believe it when I read it. I mean, the Milky Way alone has something like 400 billion stars! Andromeda has a trillion! How many stars must there be in a universe, with a hundred billion galaxies? Mind-boggling, right?
Well, a few weeks later, the best minds in physics came together again, and determined that the total number of galaxies in the universe was NOT in fact, a hundred billion. They were off. Not by a few thousand, or a few million, or few billion, or even a few hundred billion. The were off by two trillion. Thats right TWO TRILLION!! But heres the point, Rebecca when I narrate this program, it doesnt matter if Im correct or incorrect I always sound the same. And guess what? So do the experts.
Rowe then slowly turned his keyboard to Rebeccas idea that he should be fired because doesnt believe in education and science, and it gets brutal:
When I wrote about this discrepancy, people became upset. They thought I was making fun of science. They thought I was suggesting that because physicists were off by one trillion, nine hundred billion galaxies, all science was suddenly suspect, and no claims could be trusted. In general, people like you accused me of doubting science. Which is a curious accusation, since science without doubt isnt science at all.
This is an important point. If I said I was skeptical that a supernatural being put us here on Earth, youd be justified in calling me a doubter of religion. But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesnt make me a doubter of science. Once upon a time, the best minds in science told us the Sun revolved around the Earth. They also told us the Earth was flat, and that a really bad fever could be cured by blood-letting. Happily, those beliefs were questioned by skeptical minds, and we moved forward. Science is a wonderful thing, and a critical thing. But without doubt, science doesnt advance. Without skepticism, we have no reason to challenge the status quo. Anyway, enough pontificating. Lets consider for a moment, your very best efforts to have me fired.
Youve called me an ultra-right wing conservative, who is both anti-education, and science-doubting. Interestingly, you offer no proof. Odd, for a lover of science. So I challenge you to do so now. Please provide some evidence that I am in fact the person youve described. And by evidence, I dont mean a sentence taken out of context, or a meme that appeared in your newsfeed, or a photo of me standing next to a politician or a talk-show host you dont like. I mean actual proof of what you claim I am.
Also, please bear in mind that questioning the cost of a college degree does not make me anti-education. Questioning the existence of dark-matter does not make me a dark-matter denier. And questioning the wisdom of a universal $15 minimum wage doesnt make me an ultra-right wing conservative. As for Morgan Freeman, I agree. Hes a terrific narrator, and a worthy replacement. But remember, Morgan played God on the big screen. Twice. Moreover, he has publicly claimed to be a believer. (gasp!) Should this disqualify him from narrating a series that contradicts the Bible at every turn? If not, why not?
Anyway, Rebecca, my beef with your post comes down to this if you go to my boss and ask her to fire me because you cant stand the sound of my voice, I get it. Narrators with unpleasant voices should probably look for other work anyway, and if enough people share your view, no hard feelings Ill make room for Morgan. But if youre trying to get me fired simply because you dont like my worldview, well then, Im going to fight back. Partly because I like my job, and partly because youre wrong about your assumptions, but mostly because your tactics typify a toxic blend of laziness and group-think that are all too common today a hot mess of hashtags and intolerance that deepen the chasm currently dividing our country.
Re-read your own post, and think about your actual position. Youve publicly asked a network to fire the narrator of a hit show because you might not share his personal beliefs. Dont you think thats kind of extraordinary? Not only are you unwilling to engage with someone you disagree with you cant even enjoy a show you claim to love if you suspect the narrator might not share your view of the world! Do you know how insular that makes you sound? How fragile?
I just visited your page, and read your own description of you. It was revealing. It says, I stand my ground. I fear no one & nothing. I have & will fight for whats right.
Maybe Im missing something, but I dont think the ground youre standing on is worth defending. If you truly fear no one & nothing, its not because youre brave; its because youre unwilling to expose yourself to ideas that frighten you. And while I can see that you like to fight for what you think is right (in this case, getting people fired that you disagree with,) one could easily say the same thing about any other misguided, garden-variety bully.
In other words, Rebecca, I dont think you give a damn about science. If Im wrong, prove it. Take a step back and be skeptical about your own assumptions. Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself as any good scientist would if youve got your head up a black hole.
Having said all that, I think youre gonna love next weeks episode. Its called Multiple Stars! Check it out, Tuesdays at 10pm, on Science.
Best,
Mike
Yes Oh Reilly. Rowe took the time to put together a very good rebuttal for someone taught in an ubiquitous liberal school.
bmp
“Take a moment to doubt your own words, and ask yourself as any good scientist would if youve got your head up a black hole.”
Classic Mike Rowe.
If she read his reply, I guarantee you she threw a huge temper tantrum then broke down crying! Typical SJW snowflake.
Thing is.....due to 40 years or more of leftist agitprop these people believe anyone who is on the right have no place in the public square. No place at work. No place in the country. They don’t just want to silence the right....they are steps away from wanting people on the right dead.
His answer is BRILLIANT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.