I have long distrusted the development of the European Union. Phyllis Schlafly seconds and provides reasoning behind my instinctual distrust in “European Union a model for the demise of democracy.” She is hardly unbiased, but then who is? It is a disturbing picture she paints, and with the glimpses into the workings of the European Union that the software patent fight over there have given, even paying as little attention to it as I ended up doing, I am tending to believe she is likely accurate.

Cal Thomas is upset that we are not to torture terrorist suspects or captured terrorists. He says that the “greater good” of saving thousands or perhaps millions of lives justifies it. Apparently he is not aware of the long standing judicial tradition of preferring to let guilty men go free rather than unjustly imprisoning (much less torturing) one innocent man. He is also apparently unaware that the ends do not ever justify the means.

Rich Lowry criticizes” pretty much every aspect of President Bush’s unpassed energy, but I do not entirely agree. Sure, when the gas companies aren’t too thrilled with the idea of drilling somewhere, it makes little sense for President Bush to be pushing it. Along the same lines, perhaps new refineries would not help the recent skyrocketing of gas prices. It is hard to say, I would tend to think that they are likely making a killing off of the higher prices, and are reluctant to have any reason to lower prices again. It could, however be true that upgrades make more sense than new refineries, so I will give Mr. Lowry the benefit of the doubt on that one also.

He then continues to lump all requests for federal funding to aid in development of new fuel technologies as likely dead ends. His logic? If they were not dead ends, they would not need funding. Surely the flaw in that thinking is self evident. They want federal funding because it is available. Not because they need it, the research will happen, is happening, regardless of how much the federal government funds it. Because much of it is bearing fruit, over time. Hybrid and electric cars used to be a joke. They were a toy for the rich tree-hugger, never expected to take off. They were horrid, they did not do as well as combustion engines for city driving, they did not have the battery life for highway driving, and they did not have the torque to handle any serious incline. A few years later, they have worked out many of the bugs in the design, dropped (for now only I expect) the idea of a pure electric car, dropped the (again, perhaps only for now) the ineffective and ugly solar panels, and produced a hybrid car that is not only popular, but (relatively) affordable, and quite usable. This is something that was funded by the government. Did it need to be? Absolutely not. Should it have been? No, it really should not have been federally funded. But it was, because the funds were available for the asking, not because the research was a dead end.

Do people ask for federal funding for dead end research? I am quite sure they do. Quite a bit of corporate research is “lost effort” as well. And perhaps the bureaucratic oversight instead of cost-driven oversight means that a greater percentage of federal research goes down the drain. But the correct lesson to learn from that is not that all requests for federal research are for bogus ideas, but that federal subsidies are simply not an effective way at stimulating effective research. The one exception rather proves the rule. The National Institutes of Health churns out quite a bit. Even though it likely does not compare to John Hopkins, or some of the other research schools, it does good work. It does so however, because the scientists by and large cannot stay. They are all on temporary grants, having to justify their existence in some cases, and unrenewable grants in other cases. So every one of them has a motive to self-police so that they can get a job at a real institution three to five years down the line.

Have I mentioned that I like the movie “The Incredibles”? I do. Quite a bit, and not just for the attack on political correctness that is quite explicit in its plot. Paul D. Gallagher writes about why he likes it, expressing the same ideas I would. We need more movies like this. ☺

“Robots to help out blind shoppers” talks about using a robot with a laser range finder and a RFID reader to help blind shoppers. They will be taking an unusual approach it seems, using RFID to mark regions of the store, rather than specific products. This is much less worrisome to me as someone concerned about privacy from corporations. However, the spurt of robot developments does bring up the timeliness of Having Asimov’s “I, Robot” in theaters so recently. This is particularly on my mind since I just now saw it for the first time, it finally having reached the weekly rental section in Block Busters.

Legal news run down:

• “Texas Lawmakers OK Cheerleading Ban” Of note: one, the common sense approach of “any married adult knows it when they see it,” and two, if you waited to do good things until the “big” issues were all addressed, you would make far less net progress.
• “Foreign Court Gun Conviction Doesn’t Bar U.S. Ownership, Supreme Court Says” “any court” only refers to US courts. This is apparently common sense, because “Congress generally legislates with domestic concerns in mind.” But it is okay to look at other countries when we dislike what a domestic view would lead to.
• “Democrats Sue Over Indiana Voter ID Law” Its too much to prove you aren’t dead, and are who you say you are. Now its debatable that we should have to ID for the polls at all perhaps, but as long as you have to give your name and address, giving a photo with that name is not a legitimate cause for concern.
• “Attorney Who Leaked Secret FBI Tape to Reporter Charged With Contempt, Perjury” this guy obviously does not have the right friends, if he knew the Clintons, then he would not be charged, just like that State department official was not charged.
• “Lawyers Seek Pass From Privacy Law” lawyers do not want to follow a law that is just fine for the rest of us apparently. So much for “equal protection.”

In Gatica news, “Genzyme, Hospitals to Develop Gene Test” is now testing who can be treated for lung cancer.

There is just one thing about “Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth” that I want to comment on. It mentions “a psychologist testifying that the reservist was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read.” A psychologist is testifying on this‽ His area of expertise is what now‽ Reading further, perhaps he is simply testifying to the fact that he has been aware of this diagnosis for years. Either way, it is evidence of the disturbing trend to question the priest but trust the psychologist. I fail to grasp what the material difference is, except, of course, that you have had a chance to know what sort of person the priest is from his homilies, but you know nothing about the psychologist except possibly a recommendation.