John B. Wells

[HorrorReporter]

...if I can add this.. I think Ian Punnett's comment about 'dad' was a bit humorous. Ian is sarcastic.. .the fact John B played along with it makes me think that they are just biding their time..

I imagine a future: John B Wells full time, Ian on Saturday, Knapp every Sunday... Art Bell calls in with a few stories now and then.

Boy would that be a great future or what...

[Agent : Orange]

The Saturday night transfer of power has been completed.

Oh brother.

[VtaGeezer]

I imagine a future: John B Wells full time, Ian on Saturday, Knapp every Sunday... Art Bell calls in with a few stories now and then.

It's more likely that Punnett and Knapp will be dropped this year altogether so no stark comparison between Noory and either talent or competence remains in the C2C schedule. Wells thus far seems another slightly hipper Noory-style lightweight who loves mirrors.

[Nebraska888]

...if I can add this.. I think Ian Punnett's comment about 'dad' was a bit humorous. Ian is sarcastic.. .the fact John B played along with it makes me think that they are just biding their time..

I imagine a future: John B Wells full time, Ian on Saturday, Knapp every Sunday... Art Bell calls in with a few stories now and then.

Boy would that be a great future or what...

That scenario sounds superb!  I will keep my fingers crossed!

[HorrorReporter]

Wells Saturday: Theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss is going to be on to provide revelatory answers to the most basic philosophical questions: Where did our universe come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Sounds promising. I think it may be decent.

[NefariousBanana]

I may be in a minority here, but I actually like John B. Wells.  I'll forgive his John Birch-esque political views just on the fact that he is what Noory isn't: a good host.  I didn't like AB's political views, either.  Didn't stop me from enjoying the hell out of his program.

[locu64]

Wow Wells is sure making a mess of this interview. Is there a host left on c2c that can have an intellectual conversation anymore?

[gs2offroad]

It's been painful to listen to this mess tonight.  Round and round looking for a purpose in nothing.

[Morgus]

That recurring caller Bill from West Hartford just called in again - this time with host John B. Wells.
As usual Bill introduces himself as an atheist and amateur astronomer.
Tonight's guest must be one of his heroes, a fellow atheist and scientist. 

[Morgus]

uh-oh, the guest was incorrect in his speed of light figure.
Its 186,282 miles per second, but he said it was 186 MILLION miles/second.
He was only off by a factor of 1000...

[WOTR]

Bad host, bad guest, bad interview.

It seems like typical garbage.  Why drag religion into the "debate."  Both sides wearing out the typical lines with Wells representing the "religious" with "one of us is going to feel pretty foolish at the end of this life, and I don't think it will be me."  The guest, on the other hand pulled out the "tea cups orbiting Jupiter" line and had to keep referring to the "fairy tales" and how he is not weak enough to need them.

I don't like having my intelligence insulted (by either party.)  If you are going to interview a scientist, interview him (her) on the science, not how it ties into any religion (unless that is specifically what it is about.)

One of the most telling (and, to me insulting) statements from the guest was that Hitchens was not weak because he maintained his distance from God right to the end.  I love that any utterance of acceptance would be seen by him as weakness.  When somebody automatically decides that the only reason to believe in something is because you take comfort in the fairy tale and are too intellectually weak to question it I feel a little insulted.  I love reading books that disagree with my views, but I seek them out and do it purposely.  Instead, it was brought to me under false pretenses.  The guest really should have informed Wells that he was there to talk about science and not debate the existence of God with a mental midget.

There was no reason to stray so far from what could have been a very interesting learning experience from the origions of the universe, how something came from nothing and where the universe appears to be heading.  The guest seemed damned intelligent and I think he could have explained some theories and ideas that are emerging with clarity.  He probably could have given some insight into some of what has come out of CERN, time and space.  (I loved his little bit about a photograph not capturing everybody at the exact second in time because those nearer the camera would have been a fraction of a second before those in the back row... not rocket science, but not something that I have given any thought to.)  The CBC interviewed a scientist who mentioned those living on the ground floor of a sky scraper would be aging at a different rate than somebody living in the penthouse because of the rotation of the earth and speed.  I love that type of thing.  Instead I was treated to yet another "God exists / God does not exist" talk.  Beyond disappointing.

At least I tuned out right before open lines and Bill from West Hartford.

[valdez]

Dare I suggest it could be worth listening to tonight's main guest (after the scratchy throated guy), as it's physicist and occasional comedian, Dr. Lawrence Krauss.

I may be in a minority here, but I actually like John B. Wells.

Wow Wells is sure making a mess of this interview...

It's been painful to listen to this mess tonight

uh-oh, the guest was incorrect in his speed of light figure...Its 186,282 miles per second, but he said it was 186 MILLION miles/second.

Bad host, bad guest, bad interview...Why drag religion into the "debate."  ...referring to the "fairy tales" and how he is not weak enough to need them...the guest seemed damned intelligent and I think he could have explained some theories and ideas that are emerging with clarity... Beyond disappointing.

     The "scratchy throated guy" was James Chiles on disasters.  I agree that there was no call for Lawrence Krauss' cheap shots at religion, and he did it with an air of superiority that usually just ticks me off, but I managed to enjoy the science, and besides, I think God made him forget what the speed of light was just to put him in his place.  I found myself appreciating Wells a little more tonight.  Whereas we all know exactly what George is gonna ask, and say, over and over, ad nauseam, forever, it seems Wells is trying to avoid the cliches by creating his own language.  Wells said that Ten Years After had some of the "best guitar playing" around.  Maybe, I don't know them much, but I'll nominate Dire Straits.  That Mark Knopfler can make it cry and sing.

[Ben Shockley]

Well, I can see that Krauss has detractors in here, too.  That's fine, but I'm with WOTR above in thinking the pre-show description via the "Coast" website turned out to be false advertising.  Ol' Johnny just can't help wearing those beliefs on his sleeve, and grinding that sleeve into your face ~~

After sending Johnny a (probably unnecessarily snarky) e-mail, I also sent one to Krauss.  For those of you who thought Wells' religionism totally derailed the show, and may like a mild laugh, I enclose the e-mail below:

Subject line: Commiseration on your "Coast to Coast AM" appearance

Dear Dr. Krauss,

As a long-time listener to "Coast to Coast AM,"  I felt compelled to apologize to you for what you endured Saturday night.  I cringed along with you and for you as John B. Wells kept trying to prove what a god-fearing and mentally-impaired man he is.

Since Wells became confident that he was going to get the "big gig" of regular Saturday host, he's let his Conservative Flag fly high, and made a point of telling any and all that he 1) receives complaints about it, but 2) doesn't care and won't change anything, because 3) he's such a Principled Manly Man.   In addition to his in-your-face religionism / creationism etc., he also seems to be a knee-jerk political right-winger -- no surprise, huh?

"Coast" used to be a reliably entertaining, usually spirited, and occasionally even informative program.   I can assure you that the Internet is already abuzz with long-time listeners lamenting how much better Saturday's episode would have been had you been allowed to talk a little more about science and a lot less about "the existence of the Judeo-Christian god."

At least we can all be "thankful" for the small favor of your not going on with the weeknight alleged "host," George Noory.  As much of a doltish religionist spin Wells puts on things, he at least engaged you in something approaching "conversation."  Noory would have done nothing more than read randomly-ordered scripted questions to you until he ran out of them and let you go after one hour; the whole experience leaving you with no doubt that he hadn't heard (let alone understood) a word you said.

Otherwise -- I enjoyed hearing you for what I believe was the first time.  Best wishes to you.

[Nebraska888]

Great email,, Ben.

[stevesh]

Excellent email. I'd be interested in seeing what he has to say in his reply, if any.

It's possible we should go a little easy on Johnny Bravo this week, since God's Own Quarterback pretty much stepped on his dick against the Patriots.

[Agent : Orange]

Damn... now I'm going to have to listen to this. Sounds like a huge mess.

[Harmness]

Add me to the list of those disappointed by last night's show.

[VtaGeezer]

Wells' program last night made Noory look like a genius.  It was as painful as the Broncos 4th quarter.  Get the hook!

[Eddie Coyle]

    In the seemingly impossible quest to find someone to make Noory look good(comparatively) it looks like Premiere has found it's man...

         I heard roughly 20 minutes last night...brutal. Wells is a flake.

[HorrorRetro]

I had a bout of insomnia last night, so I heard the entire show.  It was painful. It was choppy, halting, and embarrassing.  :

Gina

[NefariousBanana]

Remember when I said earlier in this thread that I liked Wells?  After hearing Saturday night's program, disregard that statement completely.

[11angeleyes11]

Remember when I said earlier in this thread that I liked Wells?  After hearing Saturday night's program, disregard that statement completely.

Sorry, after one hour you cannot modify your response. Therefore, you cannot renig on your prior statement.  It still stands.

By the way, Did DAD and J.B. have a talk this week on LA Broadcasting?

[BobGrau]

By the way, Did DAD and J.B. have a talk this week on LA Broadcasting?

He's not DAD. He's some sort of good-for-nothing bum stepdad, making scary noises with (prem)mom late at night.

[Ben Shockley]

Full disclosure up front: the fact that I took time to write this probably says as much about me as I'll be saying about the jerk in question.  And that's an admission you'll never get from Noory or Wells or 90% of NoorCoast guests.
In all the hoo-hah that came up around Wells pulling the ol' bait-and-switch Saturday night, and substituting a session of "browbeat the possibly-Jewish academic" for a discussion of edgy physics and philosophy, I almost forgot this other little tidbit of dumbassery.  In fact, it was probably my hearing this during the "news" segment that had spiked my blood pressure and primed my Ideology Detector.

Wells reported that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that homicide "is no longer" among (i.e., for 2010 was not among) the 15 leading causes of death in the U.S.   Fine; that's (semi-)objective news.   BUT THEN Wells immediately appends "at a time when gun-ownership is at an all-time high" and proceeds to report (only) the giddy reaction of a gun-owner-rights group, who seem to draw from this that gun-ownership is correlated with lower homicide rates.  STOP.
To the statisticians among us: you know where I'm about to go.  People with brains among us:  same deal.  For Rev. Wells and his gun lobby: here goes ~~

AS REPORTED BY WELLS, the CDC did not say that homicide rates have gone down; no assertion that "less people are being killed."   Wells reported only on something synopsized in terms of proportions:  X number of people died; this is how big the slices of the death pie are.   An equally valid interpretation based only on what he reported is that other causes are killing proportionately more people than homicide in the U.S., which would hardly be cause for smugness.

BUT, I checked: the homicide numbers actually are down; again, just objective news there.  But a couple of interpretations:
--Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox said the CDC's findings may have more to do with changing demographics  than with changes in the nation's crime culture.
"With the Baby Boom generation aging and more vulnerable to disease, the population generally is at less risk for homicide," Fox said.
--Carnegie Mellon University criminologist Alfred Blumstein said homicide's decline is more likely due to a shift from the violent drug trade  of the '80s and early '90s to a less volatile illegal prescription drug market.
(those from http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-01-10/homicide-CDC-report/52498390/1)

Notice that 0 out of 2 said anything about "would-be murderers are scared that they might run afoul of a proud gun owner," which was Wells' default personal conclusion in closing out the report.

One might interpret this as just an indication of a total ignorance of how to report statistics.  But the choice of reporting only the (totally overblown and misapprehending) reaction commentary of 1 interested party, plus Wells' own subtle "I told ya so" air --along with what went down later in the show -- shows this small miscarriage of news reportage to be another sure sign of ideology.

[VtaGeezer]

Oh jeez, Ben S....you punched the hornets' nest.

[Ben Shockley]

Oh jeez, Ben S....you punched the hornets' nest.

You might be right, Geezer, so let me add a little bit and then I'll shut up.  I'm allergic to hornets (really).

First: I was probably wrong to phrase my critique as being about "ideology."  My criticism was not actually of Wells' all-too-obvious ideology, which may be that of some folks in here: pro gun-ownership.   I've got no problem with that.   (My handle in here is an Eastwood character from 1976!  Do you think I'd have any big objection to guns??)
My criticism is of the heavy-handed way that Wells agendized that ideology: trying to make damn sure that we  1) know his ideology, and  2) know that his ideology is right.
He reported on what is very sterile CDC data which is ultimately subject to a lot of interpretation.  He could have reported a change in mortality statistics without commentary (which would be real journalism), or even reported that change along with a synopsis of a range of possible competing interpretations (still valid).
But he chose to report the change as, and ONLY as, PROOF of the rightness of 1 ideology; moving immediately from reporting the change to reporting the totally unfounded reactions of a certain gun-rights group who totally-incorrectly interpreted the stats as a vindication of their ideology that more guns in more hands equals less violence.
And even if they're right in that ideology, this CDC report doesn't prove it!  Using things (like facts) in a way that they're not intended is an indicator of "agenda."  Wells "reporting" the story this way shows "agenda;" that's how I should have concluded that critique.

Wells is welcome to have his socio-political ideology -- though I don't particularly care to hear about it, or any other host's.
I just don't dig him using the show in a very heavy-handed way to try to push his agenda, which in this particular case, I interpret to be "proving Johnny is right."  Like, the way he wrapped that "report" with a sense of "well, that proves it!  I've been right all along!"  He didn't "prove" anything in regard to his ideology with that report, and I also don't dig how he thinks that I'm too dumb to know that (i.e., as dumb as him)!

[b_dubb]

jbw is such a crap host.  his hiring is the final nail in the coast coffin.  he's just embarassingly bad.  and his right wing fundamentalist nonsense doesn't come off as genuine.  he seems like he's just pandering.  *** puke ***

[Scully]

Premiere is the pimp.  Noory and Wells are the whores. 

[WOTR]

     I found myself appreciating Wells a little more tonight.  Whereas we all know exactly what George is gonna ask, and say, over and over, ad nauseam, forever, it seems Wells is trying to avoid the cliches by creating his own language.

It's kind of funny because I found myself thinking the same thing overall.  I appreciated that Wells appeared to at least grasp what was being discussed.  I found myself thinking that Noory would have been completely lost and would have drowned a long time before the end of the interview.

My only real complaint was that he just kept steering it back to religion and beating that dead horse until it resembled hamburger.  Particularly when he was saying "So, I believe what you are saying is that you don't object to the idea of God" and other interpretations of what was just said.  It seemed that he was unable to accept that the professor did not need a God for his universe to make sense and felt that if he kept picking at it eventually he would come around.  Even when the guest granted that people could have their own beliefs, was gracious enough to allow that there are some serious scientists who believe in God and did not belittle that belief it seemed that Wells had to whip that poor carcass again.

It was his line of questioning that ruined the interview for me.  If it were Noory conducting the interview it would have been his inability to grasp the most basic of concepts (coupled with him undoubtedly asking "can you imagine if Einstein had a computer?!?)  I don't believe that Art left his beliefs at the door.  The difference was that Art could mention his beliefs and then leave it alone and continue with the interview... something that it would appear that Wells is completely incapable of doing.

[TaoOfLuxLisbon]

"I'm sure you will all love John B Wells and he'll do a great job" - Ian Punnett

No Ian, we won't. I'm already done with John Bleat Wells.

http://caravantomidnight.com/

Fucking huckster. He'll fit right in with Snoor.