I found “Kan. Woman Resumes Talking After 20 Years” from David Limbaugh’s blog post entitled “The Mysteries of Life.” He made the same association I would have myself on reading the article, that it is remarkably similar to the findings I mentioned here in which there are some signs that even unresponsive patients are still aware of their surroundings. Just goes to show you once again, that we need to be incredibly wary not to devalue human life at any stage or in any condition, but rather always give God room and time to choose to act.

“Octopus Arms May Point Way to New Robot Designs” talks about using octopus arms as a model for robot arms. It also has some peripherally related tidbits of interesting information. Of particular note, I noted an indication of the design in life on learning that octopi use their arms almost as if they had bones after they have caught their prey. This isn’t proof of design, is not meant to be, after all, it might turn out that is the ideal way to handle the situation, scientists looking at it as a model appear to be betting on that. If on the other hand there are two or more roughly equivalent ways to handle boneless arms, what makes this one the one of choice? Evolution would certainly not cause a critter to loose its bones, and so I assume that scientists would put octopi rather earlier on the branching than the development of bones. Thus this would have to be an example of “convergent evolution,” a case in which design makes a far better explanation: the designer favored certain patterns.

If that isn’t speculative enough for you, I’d like to consider something else. We have computer-organic hybrids (mentioned here), and we have robots potentially mimicking emotions and reproducing (mentioned here). Combine the two, and how do you tell the difference between the artificial and the real? In a rather humorous twist, I can only imagine creating something, loosing a few of it in the ocean, and then some scientist a hundred years from now “discovering” it and speculating about how it evolved. Of course it will be utterly ridiculous to say that this “new species” was created. ;-)

“Test Set on Transmission That Could Save Fuel” (NYTimes, registration nonsense) is an example of the kind of environmental action you like to see. Coming up with solutions that are better for the environment while still being economically sound. Why can’t this sort of thing happen more often? I think it relates to George Weigel’s “Creation groans.” Across the world, people are increasingly confused about Satan. Several news articles in the last 6 months have documented a rise in satanism, and it is common knowledge that increasing numbers of other people no longer believe in Satan as a real, discrete, intelligent, living being. Both are problematic in their own way. This leads us to claim God responsible for things that He did not will, but which are instead the results of rebellion against Him. Along the same lines, from Romanticism on, and now especially in environmentalism, there is this unsound notion that creation, minus man and his influence, is perfect. Utter rubbish, but many people believe it. Thus much of environmentalism is far too extreme to be really practicable, and some of it too extreme to be even desirable. You can see this in Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring, where she mixes sound advice with utter rubbish, and has no problems advocating things that put people at greater risk. For instance, she advocates allowing shrubbery to grow up along the sides of roads when all the research done indicates that fatalities in accidents drop when the roadsides are clear of ditches, trees, shrubs, so on, essentially the 2 or 3 car lengths of short cut grassy filed, possibly with near zero resistance wild flower, that the Department of Transportation has advocated for Highways for years.

“Arizona Revisits the Jury Patriotism Act” looks at some of the issues surrounding jury duty across the country, focusing on an Arizona law (obviously) that has made it hard for chronically ill seniors to demonstrate they cannot serve.

What’s up with “Army Grants Discharge to Black Chaplain“? It says “More than a century later, an Army board has upheld the court-martial but granted Plummer a posthumous honorable discharge,” which raises several questions in my mind. One, what are they looking at a century old case for? Two, how in the world do you uphold the court marshal but change the discharge? Someone who understands these things please explain this seeming illogic to me.

In furtherance of “security,” we have “House OKs Citizenship Check for Licenses,” under which you would have to be a citizen to get a driver’s license. What’s the Federal government doing involved with this? Good question.

Along the same lines, “House to Vote on Immigration Bill” states that a “guestworker” program is still not coming up for a vote. I’m not sure what I think of that one. It isn’t right the way we have people who need work who can’t legally get it, but it also isn’t right to reward them for having broken the law to be here. I’m not sure what the right answer is, the amnesty or deporting them all.

I’ve been asked to look for crime news, and so the following:
“Texas Father Criticized After Baby’s Death” drives home a point I made yesterday that some people are monsters.
“Ill. Man Charged With Second Murder” is similar, at least he seems to be stopped now, hopefully they will lock him up for life.