Wednesday, January 18, 2006

A few comments derived during coffee

This morning I drove through the heart of downtown Billings for the first time in a long time. It only took me three stop lights to go three blocks since they have turned it into two-way streets with no turning lanes. I also saw one driver who started to back out of the asinine angle parking just as someone was driving down his side of the street. No collision, but I wonder how often it does happen. I also wonder, after that mess, just who wants to set up another tax increment district to use money that should be going to schools, streets, superstructure to serve all the people they want to bring in to fill the new jobs? Diversion or subversion?

Another thought: can someone explain to me why a dollar spent for toothpaste is more valuable to the economy than a dollar spent for a new street or a policeman's salary or a new school? The toothpaste money goes out of the community faster than the superstructure dollar I do believe.

Do we now have an idea of the direction the court is going? The new chief justice, who managed to dodge all the tough questions during his nomination hearings by invoking legal privilege, which didn't apply, in my opinion, voted with the idiot Clarence Thomas and the very activist Antonin Scalia on the Oregon case. We probably also have another stealth candidate in Alito, who seems to be using open field running with blocking to evade solid answers. Even lawyers should know that when someone is on trial they have to answer yes or no.

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Reason it is not

The Gazoo had another letter this morning making a "reasonable" plea for intelligent design. What I don't understand is why these people just don't seem to realize that no matter the ID claims, no matter how reasonable they seem, no matter who believes them, ID is not science. Science looks at the world through what it perceives and that knowledge that can be obtained with the five senses: sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. ID does not meet the test of that concept, no matter how it is looked at. What makes people insist that it is a majority issue, when that "majority" they infer pits a number of non-scientists against the vast majority of true scientists. Folks, ID is not science. Period. End of Discussion.

Click Here