moth

my understanding is a photon has frequency as in e=hf

my limited experience with relativity. tells me a photon crossing the the universe travels 0 distance in no time at all due to time dilation and length contraction. if that is the case, how can a photon have frequency? sorry about the thread header i've been drinking

if a photon leaves a star 27 or so billion light years away heading for earth einstien says that photon is coming for you at 1c Hubbel says the photon is moving away from you at 1c who wins?

i just wonder if it's more than playing to our partisanship, they seem to be pushing it on us. when i try to watch fox news every inflection on every word, every glance at the camera with that little smile, just rubs me the wrong way. i'm sure it's the same for a fox news viewer trying to watch the daily show, maybe even network news. it seems designed to push political discussion off the streets and replace it with slogans shouted at each other. maybe lobbyists write so much legislation because they have no competition from the people shouting at each other. that is an impressive group of young people in the video link.

sounds like our politicians just need a little more rope and they'll hang themselves. there was some discussion the other day on the daily show, about having fact checkers on one of the sunday morning news shows. that might not stop people from saying what's convenient instead of what's true but at least people will know the deal.

we have seen this (the end of affordable oil)coming for 30 years and failed to make any progress in that direction. this article says there is only 3 years supply in all the areas opened up i just don't think it will help much, but i remain hopeful for the future of bio-fuels. maybe if we subsidize alternative energy and stop subsidizing big oil we'll be able to "grow our own" fuels and be carbon neutral and opec free. some of my best neighbors are conservatives - even with the polarized atmosphere.

i would have much more appreciation for a politician who would make that argument than one who tries to come up with an even more misleading statement as a counter argument. at least that would be discussing the actual issue. how did you manage to get past this in Australia?

but none of that is evidence for or against global warming. it's just a form of attacking the messenger. and global warming is just one example of pushing fear-mongering over discussion. another example would be the death panel approach to drumming up resistance to health care reform. instead of talking about the actual idea, time is wasted arguing about things not even being considered. i feel the highly polarized society here in the u.s. just benefits mediocre politicians, and i just don't understand why people are so willing to give up the middle ground.

i think a reasonable person would examine that possibility. i don't know, but i seriously doubt al gore will make nearly as much as exxon mobile so we should question their answer to the problem too. i also think whether al gore is sincere or not has no bearing on whether global warming is a problem. maybe demonise is too strong a word. i was on my way out and probably should have waited until later to post. maybe i would have remembered the point i was trying to make about the fear of the right that global warming is the excuse for a global conspiracy to redistribute wealth, and of course those evil scientists were all part of it. by the way i don't remember saying anything about war crimes, and i'm not a member of greenpeace, i do try to use a minimum of oil products but they're everywhere so that's almost impossible.

sorry if i got dead meme on anyone. i heard that rinses right out with a little club soda

1. watch 2. watch 3. vote! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedi've heard "if you have to explain your jokes, they're not funny". this was only half in jest so let me explain. the first short is supposedly not political, but based on an i.r.c. http://www.somethingawful.com/d/icq-pranks/icq-transcript-space.php when i first saw it on tech tv(damn i miss techtv) i thought it was political statement about fear based politics.the campaign ad, which i just found a couple days ago just confirmed that for me. i felt it was relevant because of the way the right wing has been exploiting fear to deamonize their opposition and keep the base motivated. what was the right's response to global warming? better science? no. an honest discussion of the chaos that will be caused when we have to get "off" carbon? no. their response is to attack al gore's motivation and deamonize the scientists actually trying to understand the problem we face. drill baby drill indeed drill these lies into your brain. now it would appear the right wants to protect the "real" americans from the rest of us. bullsh*t!

1 watch vid 2 watch vid 3 vote

how far does this copying go? am "i" a collection of memes the way my physicality is a collection of genes. maybe the brain is a meme replicator and "i" am an illusion like hofstadter strange loopiness.

nixon kissinger secret bombing cambodia laos reagon supplying arms to terrorists to finance secret war in nicaragua bush/cheney/rummsfield trashing the seperation of powers and the constitution where were the teapeople for all of that? cheerleading as far as i can tell. the constitution,seperation of powers,and a free press are what these people can't stand. are the tp standing up for the truth about iraq wmd? what the hell was going on in cheney's office with the cia?, anything? no they just whine about losing an election. better they lose elections than u.s. lose all our protection from corrupt polticians. as much as i would like to ignore these people i think thats how we wound up with gwbush.

sorry for my part in dragging this thread so far off-topic. i'm kinda new to argument. when was the last time a democrat suggested their state should secede from the union like rick perry recently did in texas or the former governer of alaska's husband in a.i.m. i believe the hyperbole on the right is disproportionate. though john stewart uses humor more, and rush limbaugh uses anger more, i think they both use ridicule to do the same job with opposite polarity. as far as i'm concerned the time to talk about revolution is when the status quo is worse than anarchy, because anarchy is what well get afterwards.

are you saying you support the teapeople because people should pay more tax? i think maybe everyone should just watch fritz the cat again to remember after a suitable amount of inflamatory rhetoric things will get out of control.

it seems like more than just being inarticulate, many teapeople seem very mistaken about factual data.

why what?

maybe dems see a difference between getting uppity to try and stop a war that would kill ten's of thousands of innocent people, a war that the public was mis-informed about,(70% of the public at the time believed saddam was involved in 9-11,along with many other lies) and (mis-informed)people getting uppity about their fellow citizens getting access to healthcare.

this would be my guess: http://www.brian-mcdermott.com/ but it is 4/1

i got a laugh out of this: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/

unbreakable necks.

i admitted the interview i linked to was cherry-picked,what struck me was the apparent coordination between the (debunked on snopes) e-mails i've been getting and the grievances of the people being interviewed. as for who raises taxes, wasn't the deficit spending under bush a stealth tax increase? people don't seem to think about the difference between lowering taxes and lowering the tax rate while increasing spending, but borrow and spend costs more in the long run. the same is true of cutting tax rates and borrowing and spending under obama, though obama is not borrowing to start a war but to finish 2 wars, so it seems different. it's like he had less of a choice in the matter.

if they still choose to recieve their "news" by spoon-feeding rather than seeking multiple inputs, then yes.

tea baggers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_s-lvpRj00 no doubt this is cherry picked but it matches up with the crap i've been getting in my e-mail from old (right wing)army buddies. it's already been yanked off youtube once so check it out soon if you can. these are no doubt the same suckers who thought bush was a washington outsider (not a third generation polititian), a successful buisnessman, and a swell guy. okay maybe he's a swell guy(i doubt it)