Right Space

Monday, July 18, 2005

Exploring...Options

NASA continues to trouble shoot the faulty sensor that prompted a delay in the launch last week. Judging from this article, it appears that NASA is even willing to bend a few of its rules to get Discovery launched before the launch window closes.

Miranda rights

8400
Want to see the moons of Uranus? Here's how...

Friday, July 15, 2005

Good Point

I usually enjoy the writings of Thomas Friedman, even though I often disagree with him. Here, however, I think he's on the mark.
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden....

The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.

Read the whole article: If It's a Muslim Problem, It Needs a Muslim Solution

Thursday, July 14, 2005

RTF

Discovery in the dark
The Shuttle's return to flight will occur no sooner than 2:40 eastern time on Saturday, July 16. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the launch delayed until September. Hopefully not, though.

UPDATE: NASA is now saying the Shuttle won't fly until Sunday at the earliest...

UPDATE: It's looking unlikely that the Shuttle will by flying Sunday or any time in the immediate future.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Kudos for Karl

The Wall Street Journal does an excellent job of showing how Karl Rove, far from being legitimate fodder for a liberal feeding frenzy, should actually be respected for blowing the deceptive cover of Joe Wilson.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

The real cause of terrorism

The terrorist attacks in London have once again prompted people to ask why terrorism occurrs--what's its root cause. Pundits in the media are constantly tossing around a range of suggestions: the Iraq war, Bush's neocon foreign policy, poverty, a lack of democracy and core democratic values, the perception of historical oppression of Muslim people by Western powers. And while all of these cause some level of anger in many parts of the Islamic world, none of them are the cause of terrorism.

Simply put, terrorists kill others (and themselves) because of their unwavering devotion to Islam. Their religious precepts are grounded in the teachings of the Koran which mandate that the faithful to allah must wage a holy war against the infidels. And the definition of an infidel is not hard to find. The Koran is saturated with references to Jews and Christians and how they incur the wrath of allah--and how this wrath justifies their killing.

The Muslim who killed Theo Van Gogh--the Dutch filmmaker who documented some of the horrors of Islam--has said just as much in court.
"I can assure you that one day, should I be set free, I would do exactly the same, exactly the same," he said, speaking slowly in sometimes halted Dutch.

He said he felt an obligation to Van Gogh's mother Anneke, present in court, to speak, but offered no sympathy.

"I have to admit I do not feel for you, I do not feel your pain, I cannot -- I don't know what it is like to lose a child," he said as Van Gogh's family and friends looked on.

"I cannot feel for you ... because I believe you are an infidel," he added.

"I acted out of conviction -- not because I hated your son."
This article briefly recounts his crime:
Several months before he was killed Van Gogh, a distant relative of 19th-century painter Vincent van Gogh, had directed a short film called "Submission", which linked abuse of women to Islam.

A letter was left on his body that included quotations from the Koran and threats to several Dutch politicians, including Somali-born lawmaker Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script for "Submission".

We would be far shrewder as a nation in fighting terror if we understood, unlike President Bush, that Islam is NOT a religion of peace.

UPDATE: I found this column by Mark Steyn, arguing that Islam does incubate terrorism.

Monday, July 11, 2005

What Bias?

In what comes as a shocking surprise, the broadcast media is biased against Bush.

No, really...it's true.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Tepid approach?

It's amazing to see how far out of their way the Mainstream Media will go to downplay good economic news during Bush's tenure. If this were the Clinton administration, the Washington Post would be gloating.

4:55?

Look for Chief Justice Rehnquist to announce his retirement today...

Don't blame Iraq

Christopher Hitchens displays his sagacity concerning the terrorist attacks in London.

Upcoming

Things continue to go well in Hawaii. We're going to Chinatown for lunch today, the Dole Plantation on the north side of the Island tomorrow, and hopefully a scenic, rugged hike on Sunday. Hopefully it will be a good weekend and I'll be able to post some new pictures.

Sunday, July 03, 2005

Hanauma Bay

DSC00652Today we went snorkeling at Hanauma Bay (pictured above). This was probably the first real snorkeling experience for both of us. It was absolutely beautiful and rich in marine life. Over 420 species of fish can be seen in the area encompassed by this photo. Many of the fish are only found in Hawaii. While I hardly saw 420 different fish, I saw plenty. It was like I was in a National Geographic world--the colors on the fish were brilliant and varied--exactly what you'd expect from a tropical coral reef.

Pearl Harbor

DSC00623
Saturday we went to Pearl Harbor. The above photo was taken just before we disembarked from our transport boat onto the memorial for the USS Arizona. The ship you see is the USS Missouri.

The photo below depicts the USS Missouri on the left and the Memorial to the USS Arizon on the right. This memorial straddles the sunken Arizona. It sags in the middle to symbolize our initial defeat only to rise up at the ends to represent our ultimate victory. Standing inside the memorial, you can see oil resting on the surface of the water that overlays the sunken vessel that took with it over 1,100 people on December 7, 1941. The Arizona sank with over a million gallons of oil encased within it.
DSC00619

Friday, July 01, 2005

Strategery

Opinion Journal offers some of the best editorial content on the web. Yesterday I came across what I've posted in full below. I've wondered for a while why the administration hasn't taken a more aggressive stance both on the ground and in their rhetoric against the foreign fighters causing all the havoc in Iraq. These speculations below might be on to something. Strategically, the last blockquote makes a fair amount of sense.

Here's the copied portion:

Yesterday we asked why President Bush, in his Tuesday speech, had not issued some sort of threat to the seven countries he mentioned whose nationals have been committing terrorist acts in Iraq. Several readers argued that he had done so implicitly. Here's how Miguel Lecuona put it:
I think the omission of a threat and consequences by the President (regarding Saudi Arabia being "with us or with the terrorists") was intentional. It was enough to mention that countries with which we are striving to achieve common cause have some rogue elements, and that the U.S. is taking notice. It will send the right message to Saudi Arabia, and its leadership will hear loud and clear that we are aware of Saudi nationals collaborating with the Iraqi terrorist "insurgency."

I would bet that it has been previously noted in private, and now it is being recognized in public. Condoleezza Rice will have the next move, so I expect to see her boots a-walkin' right on over to the nations in question with evidence, and steadily increasing pressure to rein it in or else.

Reader Chris Bartony offers a slightly different take:
I think the operative statements are the ones along line of "we'll fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here." Bush is in a tight spot and can't really say, "Listen, we're going to continue to allow the foreign fighters into Iraq. Yup, it makes bad headlines and nasty footage, but that's the way it's going to be for a while. We know how strong they are and they aren't strong enough to derail the effort. We're going to keep letting them come to Iraq to stir the pot so that our military can kill them. Don't worry, America, if they get too big or too strong, we'll snap the borders shut."

Isn't that a real possibility? We have to allow them to come to Iraq because we can't go into other countries to kill them. And until they arm up and come after us, it's tough to identify Joe Jihadi. I was all for closing the damned borders over there (and over here for that matter), but I think there's a method to the madness. The guys who make the trek to Iraq to fight us are dangerous (obviously), and in the absence of the US in Iraq, they would not be peacefully selling bric-a-brac in the local bazaar. We're saving them the cost of a very expensive one-way ticket to the U.S. or Europe by setting up shop in their neck of the woods.

And I think we get a double bonus out of this too. (When the time comes to make an issue of this, it's a good reason to drop the hammer on Mr. Assad or the fine mullahs in Iran.

Just a thought. But if it's true, it's just about impossible for the administration to admit it, isn't it? But if you take the theory as an assumption, then the "inability" to secure Iraq's borders and Bush's lack of threatening the regimes in question makes more sense.

Posing

BrittanysunsetThis is Brittany standing in front of the pool area at the hotel we're staying at.