Headline Spacewar: “Serious implications” if Iran fails to cooperate with nuke probe: ElBaradei

The head of the UN’s atomic watchdog warned Thursday of “serious implications” if the Iranian government failed to fulfill its promise of cooperation to dispel fears about its nuclear program….

“It is very important for the agency to come to a conclusion. It will have serious implications if they do not cooperate fully with us in the investigations. I hope and I am confident that they will cooperate.”

ElBaradei did not elaborate on what he meant by “serious implications” if the Iranians did not come clean on their nuclear program.

Iran has watched the UN’s conduct with Iraq, so Iran well knows how the UN operates. I’m sure they will treat these threats with the level of respect they deserve.

Headline AP: Time May Be With N. Korea in Nuke Crisis

Pitzer College is a small school in Claremont California. Pitzer’s president, Laura Skandera Trombley has recently come out against the SATs because the test discriminates. Catherine Seipp at the National Review reports that Laura has written:

Here, for example, is an actual SAT question: “Aware of the baleful weather predicted by forecasters, we decided the — would be the best place for our company picnic. (A) roof (B) cafeteria (C) beach (D) park (E) lake”

Now, if I had grown up on the East Coast, my immediate choice would be “cafeteria,” as my assumption would be that “baleful weather” would indicate rain or maybe even snow. But in fact, I lived for many years on the western side of the Pacific Coast Highway, so “baleful weather” could indicate high waves — meaning that my company picnic would be best, and more pleasantly, relocated to a lake.

On the other hand, if I had lived in Iowa (and I did for five years), baleful weather might indicate flooding. Obviously my company picnic would be best held on the roof. What to do? What to choose?

The National Review comes down pretty hard on Laura.

Actually, the SAT question Trombley cites happens to be an example of a perfectly unbiased question, because you don’t need to know the word “baleful” to answer it correctly….

The question’s rather fretful tone, and the information that weather is involved, are all the clues you need to realize that (B) cafeteria is the right answer, because it’s the only choice that’s indoors. You’d realize that even if the question began, “Aware of the zzzyrrk weather prediction by forecasters…”

OK, now. ‘Fess up. How many of you Iowans were on your way up to the roof for the company picnic before you realized your mistake?

Headline AP: Hiking Magazine Apologizes for Mistake

LONDON – Britain’s biggest-selling hiking magazine apologized Wednesday after its latest issue contained a route that would lead climbers off the edge of a cliff on Britain’s tallest peak.

For some unexplainable reason, Republicans in Washington think that if they just govern as if they were Democrats, liberals will suddenly like them and vote for them. And since they are Republicans, the conservatives will have to vote for them, since they don’t have any other choice.

The problem with this is obvious. Take President Bush as an example. The liberals will not give Bush credit for anything. Note how Ted Kennedy reacted to Bush’s prescription drug give away to retired people. Instead of crediting Bush for doing what Teddy wanted, Kennedy is attacking Bush for not doing enough. He did not gain the liberal’s love and support. And in the process, Bush has alienated his conservative base.

In the National Review, Jonah Goldberg lists some of the ways Bush has betrayed conservatives.

A few quick facts. George W. Bush has:

• increased federal spending on education by 60.8 percent;
• increased federal spending on labor by 56 percent;
• increased federal spending on the interior by 23.4 percent;
• increased federal spending on defense by 27.6 percent.

And of course he has:

• created a massive department of homeland security;
• signed a campaign-finance bill he pretty much said he thought was unconstitutional (thereby violating his oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution);
• signed the farm bill, which was a non-kosher piñata filled with enough pork to bend space and time;
• pushed through a Medicare plan which starts with a price tag of $400 billion but will — according to every expert who studies the issue — go up a gazillion-bajillion dollars over the next decade;
• torched Republican — and American — credibility on trade, in both agriculture and steel;
• got more people working for the federal government since the end of the Cold War;
• not vetoed a single spending — or any other bill, and he has no intention of eliminating a single department;
• sold out like a fire sale at Filene’s on Title IX, a subject I know a little about because my wife is the foremost expert in the universe on it;
• pushed to send more Americans to Mars while inviting a lot more illegal immigrants to hang out here in America.

The bottom line: Bush sees government at the answer rather than the problem.

During his first campaign, Bush would say at nearly every event “the hardest job in the world is to be a single mother…” No doubt this is true, or at least defensible. But to make this assertion begs the question, “So what?” If I were to declare that the toughest job in the world is “roadkill taxidermist,” would that necessitate government intervention? But since Bush was running for president, it was clear that he meant to do something about the single moms’ plight. And, considering the very serious social and psychological consequences of single-parent families, one could argue that making their jobs easier — and therefore making single motherhood more attractive — was neither compassionate nor conservative. Regardless, Bush was letting us know that compassionate conservatism was going to be what Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard calls “Big Government Conservatism.”

I’ve heard it said, and I believe it is true: Republicans are taking us to the same place as Democrats, just not as fast. In politics, all roads lead to bigger government, the only question how long it takes to get there.

Headline AP: Rainstorm Delays Rover’s Work on Mars

Update: AP has dramatically changed the article. The title is now: “NASA Loses Communication With Mars Rover”, and the communications problems are no longer blamed on rainfall (in Australia).

Initially, engineers believed bad weather on Earth — a thunderstorm near a Deep Space Network antenna in Australia — had caused the communications glitch. But the weather was later discounted as the source….

Headline Taipei Times: Civet cat coffee ‘good to the last dropping’

Indonesians relish a drink made from coffee beans eaten, digested and then excreted by the picky animals that have been blamed for causing SARS….

The story goes like this: Civets live in the foliage of plantations across Southeast Asia. These fussy foragers pick the best and ripest coffee berries. Enzymes in their digestive system break down the flesh of the fruit before the animals expel the bean.

Workers collect beans from the plantation floor, wash away the dung and roast them to produce a unique drink that devotees might say is good to the last dropping.

So, if you are ever in Indonesia, and your spouse asks for another cup of coffee when they never have seconds at home, you will know why.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has a very disturbing article: Hearts full of hurt: Abortion clinic messages reflect new counseling philosophy. What is so disturbing is that the abortion clinic director in the article, Claire Keyes, clearly understands that what she is doing is infanticide. Yet, rather than admit what she is doing is wrong and repent of it, she has come up with a way to preemptively deal with the guilt women feel in aborting their children.

The clinic has the women write messages to their unborn children on pink hearts. These hearts are then posted on the clinic’s walls for all to see and read. After writing their love letter, the women then kill their baby.

Some sample letters:

“To my little angel. Although I say goodbye today, you will always be with my mind, heart and soul. Please understand that this wasn’t your time because you are better off in the hands of God than mine at this moment.”

“I didn’t let your dad know about you, simply because I’m ashamed. In my heart I will miss you but physically I don’t have the means to take care of you and your older sister. I will never label you a mistake, because God obviously thought you should have been here, even though I beg to differ.”

Keyes says that abortionists used to push abortion as a constitutional right to exercise, like free speech. But mother’s didn’t see it that way. Then, abortionists pushed abortion as simply ridding the mother’s body of an unwanted clump of cells by a minor operation, much like an appendectomy. But, again, mother’s didn’t see it that way. Although women were having abortions, they still felt guilt at the thought that they were killing their babies. In a previous article, we called this phenomena, the yuck factor (or conscience). These women inherently know that what they are choosing to do is wrong.

Keyes tells the Post-Gazette that women have asked her to baptize the remains of the baby after the abortion. They often ask if they will ever be free from the guilt of what they are about to do. Her advice to them is that “from the beginning of time, women have decided which children should be brought forth and which could not be brought forth.” In other words, you can play God, just like the letter above explicitly stated. Obviously, since others have killed their unwanted children in the past, it is acceptable for you to do so also.

The basic notion of this abortion clinic is to acknowledge the guilt, but preemptively deal with it. Just say your sorry beforehand to save feeling guilty afterwards. But in doing so, the clinic is freely admitting the very fact that makes abortion so terrible: the mother, who should love and nurture her baby, is knowingly choosing to kill her unborn child. This clinic looks the mothers right in the face and tells them, this is your baby. We will help you kill your baby. And we will do what we can to help you not feel bad about killing your baby.

That is what is so disturbing about this story.

Isaiah 5:20

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;

Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;

Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Source: Steve S.

To understand the current, violent Islamist, Daniel Pipes argues that you should study history rather than the Koran.

The Koran, he argues, is "profound", "complex and contradictory", "static", and "partial". He does make some good points. I am much more familiar with the Christian Bible, and I can understand some of the points as applied to it. Imagine picking up a Bible and reading it with no prior knowledge of its contents and having no one to help you understand it. As the Ethiopian eunuch said when Philip asked if he understood the scriptures he was reading, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" In the same way, it is difficult for someone to understand the Koran when they read it without any help.

However, I do believe in the perspicuity (clarity or plainness) of scripture. The Bible is complex and there are some parts of it that are extremely difficult to understand. But the basic message of the Bible is clear enough for the simplest person to comprehend. That message is:

• God is holy and can not stand any sin.
• Everyone has disobeyed God and all are guilty of sin which must be punished.
• God has provided a substitute, the God/Man Jesus Christ, to live the perfect life and to pay the price for the sins of all who come to Him in faith.
• We can be right with God by trusting in the substitute He has provided.

However much else might be complex and difficult to understand, you can understand this simple message from reading scripture.

But I disagree with Pipes’ assertion that the Koran itself doesn’t explain militant Islam.

If the Koran causes terrorism, then how does one explain the 1960′s, when militant Islamic violence barely existed? The Koran was the same text then as now. More broadly, over a period of 14 centuries, Muslims have been inspired by the Koran to act in ways aggressive and passive, pious and not, tolerant and not. Logic demands that one look elsewhere than an immutable text to account for such shifts.

True enough, people have interpreted the Koran differently at different times. But the difference in their conduct is because people have been more or less faithful to its basic teachings. At times Muslims have followed it carefully and aggressively tried to advance Islam. At other times, they have spiritualized its teachings and have attempted to peacefully fit in to the broader non-Islamic culture around them. In other words, the difference is: do they really believe what the Koran says, or not. Do they try do what it says, or do they water down what it says by spiritualizing the harsher parts. I contend that the violent Islamists are true to the teachings of the Koran, and those who are the peaceful, tolerant, passive Muslims don’t believe what it says and therefore spiritualize its teachings away. They are willing to compromise the meaning of the Koran in an attempt to live at ease with the culture around them. The tolerant Muslims are the equivalent of the liberal Christians who don’t believe Christ was virgin born or that He rose from the dead, or that God calls us to live lives of obedience to His scriptures.

Pipes appeals to history, and I believe that history shows that a literal interpretation of the Koran leads to violence. Mohammed was a violent man who conquered the cities around him. His immediate followers emulated him and exported Islam across Northern Africa and into Spain at the point of the sword. They believed what the Koran told them, and therefore they conquered the nations around them, forcing them to convert to Islam. From its initial start, Islam was a violent religion that advanced through political and military force. Those today who believe the Koran to be the literal truth are simply following in their founder’s footsteps when they try to advance Islam by the use of violence.

Headline Reuters: Knife Forces Partial Evacuation of Conn. Airport

BOSTON (Reuters) – Authorities evacuated part of Connecticut’s Bradley International Airport on Tuesday after a cleaning crew found a plastic utility knife in a trash bin, officials said.

How was a plastic knife in a garbage can a threat to anyone? We are no more secure for most of what passes for security in airports. Most of it is a show to appear to the public as if they are doing something. But everyone had a great time evacuating part of the airport.