New oxymoron sitings

Came across two new interesting oxymoron sitings today.

1. In the December 17th issue of New Scientist (p. 51), "bulletproof fashion".

2. Seen in a spam email message, "genuine replica watches".

More to come.

Intelligent design decision

Unless of course you've been off-planet for the last day or so, you will have heard the decision by a Federal judge that the Dover Area School Board, PA, may not allow a statement concerning Intelligent Decision (ID) to be read at the beginning of the ninth grade biology class.
As a trained scientist, I have to say I agree with the decision, but not the reasoning. To couch the issue as a "separation of church and state" I think unduly complicates the decision. The statement should have been deemed inappropriate because ID isn't science and so should not be part of a science class.
According to Wiki, science "...explains observable events in nature by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural". ID by definition explains biological diversity by applying the supernatural. In addition, a scientific theory has to be in principle falsifiable. Intelligent decision is not falsifiable in it's current state.
If the ID proponents want to make it a true theory, with testable predictions and the possibility for falsifiability, they are free to do so, and to my mind would be doing humanity a service. Only then would it be appropriate to discuss it in science classes.
Time will tell.

Interesting bumper sticker siting...

Talking of bumper stickers and just when you think you understood something, the world sends you a curve ball.
A new bumper sticker sited in Boulder.

My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

This is doubly shocking; a) that is was seen in that left-wing paradise of Boulder Colorado; and b) it told the truth about a "pillar" of the left.
Of course, the sticker refers to Chappaquiddick the automobile accident in which Ted Kennedy's passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne, drowned.
Interesting.

"International Law"

One oxymoron I have become more and more enamored of of late is "International Law".

This particular one is well-loved and used by left-leaning folks, when the US government doesn't do what they want, or are actively doing something they don't like. They of course hope international law will prevent the US from acting unilaterally when the government thinks it ought to.

Currently, the most applied area of use (or misuse) is the discussion surrounding the conflict in Iraq. Apparently, international law states that the action the US and it's allies took was contrary to international law.

Well, there is no such thing as international law, just treaties set up between countries, on various aspects of trade and other areas. There is no world police force, nor world court with powers to try and sentence guilty countries, as much as the left would like there to be.

As an example, Saddam Hussein violated, more than once, the terms of the cease-fire following the 1991 Gulf War. As such, he forfeited the agreement and so laid himself, and his country open to the consequences, a restart of the 1991 Gulf War. If some folks don't like that, that's tough, please feel free to join the rest of us on planet Earth.

Another example is the impunity that Iran is currently showing to the IAEA in regard to it's pursuit of nuclear weapons. If this episode doesn't show the impotency of the international law enforcement edifice, I am not sure what will.

Boulder Colorado

One of my favorite things to rail on is some of the opinions for which Boulder, Colorado is famous. As an example, I submit to you a bumper sticker I saw while driving home from Boulder yesterday.

Subvert the Dominant Paradigm
OK, let's apply some elementary logic to this statement and see where we get shall we?
Questioning and studying everything is the duty of all citizens of a democracy. However, simply railing against the dominant paradigm suggests blindly saying that "whoever is in control" needs to be overthrown. I believe such folks are called anarchists or perhaps nihilists depending upon one's ultimate objective and how political one is.

Of course, as soon as the dominant paradigm is overthrown, they will then have to subvert the new one, if they want to be true to their philosophy.

So in reality, a sticker saying "I'm an Anarchist" or "I'm a Nihilist" would have been both more accurate AND more succinct, a subtlety that may well have been lost on such a person.

Further, what sort of paradigm would such a person be happy with? Naturally, saying what you're against is much easier than saying what you are for.
Stay tuned.

Beginning of the Universe

While science may well, sooner rather than later, determine how the Universe was formed or created, it is my belief that it is outside the perview of science to answer the more important question as to why the Universe was formed or created.
The typical answer most scientists would give, "it just did", is devoid of any content, it seems more probable, or more sensible if you will that the why is answerably by the knowledge that a higher power is the cause of the Universe we see. Nothing in the Universe that we have discovered, or will discover, can dispute that the Universe could have been created.
I believe that logic here is in favor of those who believe that the Universe was created by an intelligence and not by random chance.

Welcome!

To err is human,
To oink is porcine!

Want to see something some more profound articles, please drop me a line...