MS in Creationism

AMuzi wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:

45% is very high for something with absolutely no scientific evidence
behind it, but to put it in perspective, of that 45%, 88% believe in
elves, 75% believe in the Easter Bunny, and 66% believe that Elvis is
working at a 7-11 in Ohio.

Whatever. 53% believe in Hopium, too. Or did on 4 November anyway. (now
not so much)

You really think McCain could beat him today?

Your average USAian believes electricity come from a little stream in
Wisconsin too.

Really?

Which is why many really do believe electric cars pollute
less (!)

They do, but the reasons are a little complex.


Heck, Pelosi said she wanted US to run on no fossil fuels, only
natural gas instead (!).

This is a Limbaugh-ish overstatement of a gaffe last summer. In the
context of electricity production, NG is half the CO2 of coal, with far
fewer other pollutants. It's a practical candidate for cogeneration and
hydrogen production. These technologies will doubtlessly be important
during the transition away from fossil-fuel energy dependence.

Just to quibble, "natural gas" is methane. There are significant
non-fossil sources of methane.


People believe a lot of silly things.
Lotteries or Las Vegas for example...

Or the fairness and wisdom of the free market.

The guys on Wall Street believed in gambling. It worked wonderfully for
them -- for the rest of us, not so good. In the aftermath of the S&L
scandals, ~1,000 people went to jail. This time, probably zero. That's
the beauty of the Friedman/Greenspan economic model. You can't be
charged with breaking a law if there aren't any! Total freedom!

On Mar 25, 8:55*am, Peter Cole wrote:
AMuzi wrote:
Bill Sornson wrote:
45% is very high for something with absolutely no scientific evidence
behind it, but to put it in perspective, of that 45%, 88% believe in
elves, 75% believe in the Easter Bunny, and 66% believe that Elvis is
working at a 7-11 in Ohio.

Whatever. 53% believe in Hopium, too. Or did on 4 November anyway. (now
not so much)

You really think McCain could beat him today?

Your average USAian believes electricity come from a little stream in
Wisconsin too.

Really?

Which is why many really do believe electric cars pollute
less (!)

They do, but the reasons are a little complex.

Exactly--sometimes Andrew makes me scratch my head when he repeats
easily dismissible hard right lies. Current modern power plants
convert fuel more efficiently to power at the wheel than does a
gasoline power plant. Doesn't make hauling around a ton of metal to
pick up some Cheerios any less stupid.

However, there's no panacea--like all things energy related, there
must be a scattergun solution when it comes to transit. Bikes are part
of that solution, as is elemental city planning.



Heck, Pelosi said she wanted US to run on no fossil fuels, only
natural gas instead (!).

This is a Limbaugh-ish overstatement of a gaffe last summer. In the
context of electricity production, NG is half the CO2 of coal, with far
fewer other pollutants. It's a practical candidate for cogeneration and
hydrogen production. These technologies will doubtlessly be important
during the transition away from fossil-fuel energy dependence.

Just to quibble, "natural gas" is methane. There are significant
non-fossil sources of methane.

Again--Andrew surprises me by jumping on the rightist lie brigade. I'm
all for disagreeing on policy, and I'm no cheerleader for Pelosi, but
she's not in the wrong at all. Natural gas is not synonymous with
methane, which can be created in other ways, such as waste digestion.

It's lamentable that rightist media is so chock full of lies that even
Andrew Muzi, whom I respectfully disagree politically with, repeats
them. That's our most critical problem in America currently--an
addiction to bull**** and lies--especially when it comes to casually
lying about basic science to further a political agenda.

landotter wrote:
: Again--Andrew surprises me by jumping on the rightist lie brigade. I'm
: all for disagreeing on policy, and I'm no cheerleader for Pelosi, but
: she's not in the wrong at all. Natural gas is not synonymous with
: methane, which can be created in other ways, such as waste digestion.
:
: It's lamentable that rightist media is so chock full of lies that even
: Andrew Muzi, whom I respectfully disagree politically with, repeats
: them. That's our most critical problem in America currently--an
: addiction to bull**** and lies--especially when it comes to casually
: lying about basic science to further a political agenda.

I think it's because a large part of Rush Limbaugh's audience has not yet
come to grips with the truth that he lies often and with such bombast that
it "seems" like the facts. I caught on to that several years ago. And yet,
dittoheads will repeat Limbaugh's statements as if every one was a truth.
Then, when caught in an obvious lie that even they cannot disregard, they
will say, "Oh, he's just an entertainer!"

Pat in TX

PatTX wrote:
landotter wrote:
: Again--Andrew surprises me by jumping on the rightist lie brigade. I'm
: all for disagreeing on policy, and I'm no cheerleader for Pelosi, but
: she's not in the wrong at all. Natural gas is not synonymous with
: methane, which can be created in other ways, such as waste digestion.
:
: It's lamentable that rightist media is so chock full of lies that even
: Andrew Muzi, whom I respectfully disagree politically with, repeats
: them. That's our most critical problem in America currently--an
: addiction to bull**** and lies--especially when it comes to casually
: lying about basic science to further a political agenda.

I think it's because a large part of Rush Limbaugh's audience has not yet
come to grips with the truth that he lies often and with such bombast that
it "seems" like the facts. I caught on to that several years ago. And yet,
dittoheads will repeat Limbaugh's statements as if every one was a truth.
Then, when caught in an obvious lie that even they cannot disregard, they
will say, "Oh, he's just an entertainer!"

Rather surprised about Muzi as well. I think he's more of a libertarian,
and somehow the Republicans were, for a while, able to convince some
libertarians that they favored fewer regulations, lower taxes, fiscal
responsibility, etc. Reagan and W. showed that they were wrong.

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:06:56 -0500, "PatTX"
wrote:

I think it's because a large part of Rush Limbaugh's audience has not yet
come to grips with the truth that he lies often and with such bombast that
it "seems" like the facts. I caught on to that several years ago. And yet,
dittoheads will repeat Limbaugh's statements as if every one was a truth.
Then, when caught in an obvious lie that even they cannot disregard, they
will say, "Oh, he's just an entertainer!"

That's what the smart dittos do. The dopey ones continue believing,
and denounce other sources of info as all part of a liberal
conspirary.

Still Just Me wrote:

I think "Rush" is actually a left wing liberal, green, elitist
conspiracy to make the Republican masses make fools of them themselves
by parroting his spew.

It's true that many right wing talk show hosts are actually liberal
Democrats. The right-wing neo-con shtick is much more profitable because
there's a ready audience of those uneducated kooks. Rush isn't even the
most loony of the right wing hosts.

SMS wrote:
Still Just Me wrote:

I think "Rush" is actually a left wing liberal, green, elitist
conspiracy to make the Republican masses make fools of them
themselves by parroting his spew.

It's true that many right wing talk show hosts are actually liberal
Democrats. The right-wing neo-con shtick is much more profitable
because there's a ready audience of those uneducated kooks. Rush
isn't even the most loony of the right wing hosts.

Why isn't there an audience for left-wing radio?

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:08:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

SMS wrote:
Still Just Me wrote:

I think "Rush" is actually a left wing liberal, green, elitist
conspiracy to make the Republican masses make fools of them
themselves by parroting his spew.

It's true that many right wing talk show hosts are actually liberal
Democrats. The right-wing neo-con shtick is much more profitable
because there's a ready audience of those uneducated kooks. Rush
isn't even the most loony of the right wing hosts.

Why isn't there an audience for left-wing radio?

"Lett-wing" people are better at reading.

On Mar 26, 4:08*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
SMS wrote:
Still Just Me wrote:

I think "Rush" is actually a left wing liberal, green, elitist
conspiracy to make the Republican masses make fools of them
themselves by parroting his spew.

It's true that many right wing talk show hosts are actually liberal
Democrats. The right-wing neo-con shtick is much more profitable
because there's a ready audience of those uneducated kooks. Rush
isn't even the most loony of the right wing hosts.

Why isn't there an audience for left-wing radio?

Bill Sornson wrote:

SMS wrote:

It's true that many right wing talk show hosts are actually liberal
Democrats. The right-wing neo-con shtick is much more profitable
because there's a ready audience of those uneducated kooks. Rush
isn't even the most loony of the right wing hosts.

Why isn't there an audience for left-wing radio?

There is an audience. Though NPR isn't anything like a committed
leftist network, its programming is as good as it gets for a lot of
the folks in the USA who self-identify as leftists. And NPR's
audience is willing to pay directly to have something better than
commercial radio offers.

The lack of a strong political left in commercial broadcasting isn't
for lack of leftist listeners, it's for lack of leftist advertisers.
Corporate business is right wing in its nature and methods, and
corporate business does the overwhelming majority of advertising.

Most importantly, right wing listeners are far more effective subjects
for advertising than leftists, since they're far more suggestible to
things that can't be defended on their merits.

HTH, Sorni.

Chalo