kimmy

Isn't Herman Cain a business exec? Why would a business exec be any better prepared for this sort of thing than the governor of one of the biggest states in America? Yet, clearly Cain is doing well and Perry simply isn't. I don't think the issue is really intelligence or experience... it's not that Perry was asked a question that was academically difficult or obscure or anything. It wasn't a "gotcha" type question, they asked him to articulate his own views. He just had brain-lock. He panicked, he froze. -k

I'm sure Fred Phelps has never killed anyone, unless it was through laughter. Lou Engle, on the other hand, is among the American evangelicals who are quite proud of themselves for whipping up anti-gay hysteria in Uganda and getting a "death to fags" law put in place. So hypothetically... would you say that only a Republican should be able to point out when a Republican politician takes positions that are contrary to Republican policies? -k

Bad, but in the same league as Perry's. Not even in the same solar system. -k

Jesus would have been appalled by a lot of things done by the church and a lot of attitudes held by the church throughout history. But today? Today mainstream Christianity does embrace the idea of love and outreach rather than righteousness and condemnation. But then you've got some of these other guys... like the guy holding the prayerathon in Detroit this weekend. So he ran around brandishing a whip and flipping over tables... even supposing he never struck anyone, the message is pretty clear, yes? I think Jesus would be more disgusted by Lou Engle or Fred Phelps than he was with the money changers. -k

Well, Palin was never in the situation Perry is in. She was selected; she never had to compete against better candidates for the job. Had she had to go through a year long campaign and endless series of debates to earn the job, it would have been clear that she didn't stack up to other candidates. But she also never laid an egg like that. She said some dumb things and gave some bad responses, but she never stood there like a deer in the headlights while people laughed. -k

Ron Paul will remind him. Funniest part of the video. -k

The New Testament. It seems like a lot of supposed Christians are happier with the Old Testament. Figuratively speaking, of course. He's smack the shit out of them with harsh criticism, not fists. Although, I recall he did use a whip on the money changers in the temple... -k

If Jesus arrived on earth in 2011, I think he'd be completely appalled at what some Christians are doing in his name. I'm not just thinking of the inbred imbeciles who run around with the "God Hates Fags" signs. I'm also thinking of those who hate the sinner as well as the sin. I'm also thinking of mega-churches that would build a hundred-foot-long, 20-foot high salt-water exotic fish aquarium in their foyer. Some of the harshest criticism in the New Testament is reserved for those who make a great public display of their religion, because it's not done to show your devotion to god, it's done to show your peers how righteous you are. In other words, it's for your own glorification, not god's glorification. Whether you're praying in front of 60,000 people because you threw a touchdown, or whether you're telling everyone how righteous you are on national TV so that people will vote for you or send you money, you're doing it wrong. I think that if Jesus could see some of the Christians in the world today, he'd smack the shit out of them and tell them to go read his book. -k

Can you provide a link? That's a fascinating twist to this story... -k

It's inconceivable to me that the student who witnessed the assault happening did nothing to intervene. It's inconceivable to me that school officials who were informed, including Paterno, did not notify the police. All should face legal consequences. The university itself has also apparently broken the law. The Clery Act is a federal law that requires schools to report crimes to police. -k

Still learning guitar and bass... though still not very good. Didn't practice much over the summer. -k

Well, I was right in my assessment that by comparison Rick Perry would end up making George W Bush look like an intellectual. But wrong in thinking that Republicans would vote for him anyway. Over the past few months his stock has fallen in a way not seen since the collapse of Nortel, even prior to this week's comedy performance. He's been so bad that even most of his evangelical supporters have left him-- truly a case of rats leaving a sinking ship. However, if somehow Jesus intervenes and helps Rick secure the nomination, I think it is obvious that he should select Miss South Carolina as his VP candidate. -k

Well... in your mind perhaps all of this is a result of my inability to comprehend the words coming out of your mouth. But in truth, all of this is a result of your inability to comprehend what you're even talking about. Maybe take some evening courses so you can learn high-school physics. Or maybe just stick to whining about taxes. -k

Hey, Gost, you're part of the 99% -k

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, the way you're saying it isn't accurate. States where things are not in equilibrium are entirely possible. Any situation where something is accelerating is an example. F=ma ... if it were impossible for a system to be out of equilibrium, then F would always equal zero and nothing would ever accelerate. I think the idea you're floundering around looking for is this: a system will act to minimize potential energy and maximize kinetic energy. (that statement is my own "original research." I think it's essentially a restatement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in a way that's easier for Kimmy to keep a handle on it.) Your grasp of the concepts we're discussing is easily dismissed when you consider the colossal stupidity of that statement. Of course when you rotate the system 90 degrees the forces acting on the magnet are different. If the magnet is hanging from the ceiling instead of from your fridge door, the magnetic force and gravity are in equilibrium and there's still no work being done. Ok, so you understand that your table is not expending energy to hold a mass against gravity, so you apparently at least understand that holding a mass stationary against the force of gravity does not, in itself generate energy. And you understand that your arm muscles have to spend energy to remain rigid while the table does not. So I guess the missing piece of the puzzle for you is comprehending that a magnet is like a table, not like your arm. Let me help you with that. The magnet is like the table, not like your arm. The table does not spend any energy to generate the Normal Force that is opposing gravity. The magnet hanging from the ceiling does not spend any energy to generate normal force. Your muscles need to spend energy to remain contracted. So with that out of the way, let's get back to the point. You said you had all these problems because there were "anomalies" like infinite sources of energy. But it turns out that what you think is an infinite source of energy is actually just another example of your inept grasp of the subject matter. Has it occurred to you that maybe you're just not the right guy to revolutionize modern physics? So where do we get to the "anomaly" you wanted to talk about? I can't even accuse you of trying to move the goalposts... you can't even find the goalposts anymore. -k

In North Carolina, where the state constitution expressly says atheists may not hold office, atheist Cecil Bothwell was allowed to "solemnly affirm" rather than swear to god when he was elected in 2009. -k

And a lot more atheists than that, although presently just one who'll admit it publicly. -k

I'd appreciate hearing what information that statement is based on. Lately in light of Romney's supposed "Mormon problem", there have been some polls asking "would you vote for a ____?" And atheists are by far the highest "nope" response-- 49% of Americans would not vote for an Atheist, even if nominated by their own party. Muslims aren't listed in that poll, but a similar one from a few years ago showed that more people were resistant to voting for an atheist than voting for a Muslim; only Scientologists were behind atheists. This University of Minnesota study (PDF) shows that in response to the questions "This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society" and "I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group" atheists generated by far the most negative responses, significantly worse than Muslims, who were second-last. -k

A mass is not holding the stick up. The normal force exerted by the ground on the stick is holding it up. It's not mass that opposes the force of gravity. It's another force. If an object is stationary, it's because all the forces acting on that object balance. In the case of a stick leaning against the wall, it is normal force balancing gravity. In the case of a magnet on a fridge, the force opposing gravity is static friction. I'm inserting something that applies normal force. As far as the ball is concerned, there's no difference whether it's being held up by a table or by your hand, so why would you think energy is being generated in one scenario but not the other? The only difference between the table and your hand is that your hand will only provide normal force to hold the ball up until your muscles run out of chemical energy. I do. You can take my word for it, or you can study why for yourself. I can't be bothered to explain concepts that are covered in basic high school physics. yep yep When the magnets are in static position, they have zero kinetic energy and they have potential energy defined as (their distance from each other) times (attractive force between them). Let go of the magnets, and the potential energy converts to kinetic energy. They get closer together so they have less potential energy but they are moving faster so they have more kinetic energy. At the moment they crash together, they have zero potential energy and the kinetic energy at the moment of impact is equal to the potential energy they had when you were holding them apart. After the moment of impact, the potential energy is zero, the kinetic energy is zero, and all of that energy has been converted to sound and vibration and heat. If you're still holding on to the magnets but relax your arms so that the magnets are slowed, then it's the same except that some of the potential energy of the magnets is not converted to kinetic energy and is instead absorb by the muscles in your arms-- lost as heat-- and the collision between the magnets has less energy. I'm having a really hard time figuring out what you're saying, except that as far as I can tell you think that since both observers see the speed of light to be the same, you can conclude that both observers must be stationary relative to each other. Which indicates that you've completely missed the point. -k

Of course. The media talks about "the controversial atheist ads" because they're "controversial! offensive! An attack on people of faith!!!" and because in some instances transit authorities have refused the advertising. Religious advertising doesn't merit media attention because it's commonplace and accepted. And with no frame of reference to judge for yourself, you're left with the impression that atheist groups are the only ones buying advertising, when if you could judge for yourself you'd probably be struck by the double standard of what causes "controversy." (my favorite news item about this "controversy" was that a billboard advertising company put one of the "I can be good without god" ads on a billboard that happens to be on land rented from a church. The church demanded it be removed. The county auditor caught wind of the controversy, noticed that the church was using tax-exempt land for commercial purposes, and sent them a big back-tax notice. While the Christian spin on the story was "Ohio Church Under Attack by Atheists", I think the more accurate headline would be "Ohio church commits tax fraud, gets caught, blames atheists." heehee.) (let the record show that I was not the one who compared Jesus to Santa. ) I don't think it's "revenge" or "payback" at all. If atheists stay quiet then they're letting people like Newt and the Pope and evangelical megachurch pastors and Fox News define them as some kind of bogeyman. Newt would never have made such bigoted statements toward Muslims or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists, but atheists are larger than all of those groups put together. So why not act like it? Why not try to form some kind of a public presence to tell somebody like Newt that you can't say stuff like that without consequences? That's the idea behind the ads. Get atheists to not be afraid to identify themselves to each other and express common interests in the public sphere. I think that the alleged "War On Christmas" is for the most part a fiction invented by Fox News and Christians who want to portray themselves as persecuted victims. I have no objection at all to them identifying themselves as religious. But if they want to go around proclaiming all the great things they're going to do for their religious fans when they're president, they have to accept that it won't necessarily be that big of a hit with non-religious voters. When Michele Bachmann goes around telling people that "separation of church and state is a myth", people have every right to talk about that and saying it's not open for discussion because faith is a private affair doesn't cut it. Yeah. I agree with what you're saying. He's clearly a capable guy. Personally I have a hard time comprehending that any grown-ups could actually believe in the Joseph Smith story, but no more so than I have a hard time comprehending that grown-ups actually believe that magic cookies transform into human flesh when you eat them in church. Clearly there's some things I'll just never figure out, and I have to leave it at that. Does anybody here really think Newt is a fool? He expressed something he believes, something that he knew would be popular with a lot of other Christians, something Christian leaders have been telling their followers for ages. I find the attempt to disentangle that comment from religious bigotry a little disingenuous. I misinterpreted your comment. I thought you were arguing that since a majority of Americans are Christians they should have a say on things like prayer in schools. Clearly religious Americans are allowed to vote for whoever they want. -k

So it was media people who brought Michele Bachmann to churches? They tricked her into telling people that she'll be a president who prays? Newt was somehow coerced into making a movie about fighting secularization? -k

What? I don't know about where you live, but where I live religions advertise on billboards and buses all the time, while the atheist bus ads were somehow stolen from the buses before the buses even left the locked, secured transit yard. Very mysterious, that. Halifax Transit famously refused to run the atheist bus ads, but last week they ran ads for a Halifax church warning they'd better get Jesus before the world ends on October 21. How is it that the same people who decided that "You can be good without god" is a controversial and offensive message, didn't see anything wrong with "The world is ending next week so you better get Jesus right now!" I'll leave you to ponder that. While "they're banning prayer!" is a popular meme among Christians who want to act persecuted, these complaints are almost always in situations where a public school is sanctioning religious activity on school time. While Christians complain that their free speech is being inhibited, I bet they'd see the issue a lot differently if that public school had a Muslim principal who wanted Quran verses recited during assemblies. A say in what? The First Amendment? -k

As Bill suggested, it's almost turning into a Betsy situation, where people stop replying and one party thinks "a ha! I'm asking questions they can't answer!" when the truth is that everybody else has decided he's beyond hope. This is becoming as frustrating as teaching my cat to type, but I hate giving up because I hate leaving him with the impression that he's debunked all of modern physics by asking really dumb questions. No, Gost, that's not correct. See my previous post. -k

The subject matter of the debate doesn't necessarily reflect the subject matter of the candidates' campaigns. Some of these clowns are presenting religion as credentials, and there appears to be a significant number of voters who are dumb enough to agree. It probably wasn't dumb at all. It was probably a smart and calculated thing to say. Any Republicans who were offended were probably planning to support Romney anyway. On the other hand, his statement was probably a big hit with a lot of the voters that he and Bachmann and Perry are fighting for. It wasn't just a Christian bigot saying something dumb. It was a Christian bigot saying something he knew would appeal to a lot of other Christian bigots. Yeah, the so-called "War Against Christmas", and "we're not allowed to make kids pray in public schools anymore." American Christians sure have it rough. -k

No, Pliny... If I'm driving my spaceship at a speed of c/2 and there is an observer directly in front of me... the light from my headlights is approaching him at c and I am approaching him at c/2. From my point of view, the light from my headlights is also moving at the speed of light, and the observer is coming towards me at .5c. You might intuitively think "she's moving at .5c and from her point of view light is moving at c so from the point of view of somebody watching, the net effect should be .5c + c = 1.5c". But you'd be mistaken, because you'd be mixing information from 2 different frames of reference. -k