
Only in Korea

The 1985 discovery of the Titanic stemmed from a secret United States Navy investigation of two wrecked nuclear submarines, according to the oceanographer who found the infamous ocean liner.
Pieces of this Cold War tale have been known since the mid-1990s, but more complete details are now coming to light, said Titanic's discoverer, Robert Ballard.
"The Navy is finally discussing it," said Ballard, an oceanographer at the University of Rhode Island in Narragansett and the Mystic Aquarium and Institute for Exploration in Connecticut.
Ballard met with the Navy in 1982 to request funding to develop the robotic submersible technology he needed to find the Titanic.
...
Ronald Thunman, then the deputy chief of naval operations for submarine warfare, told Ballard the military was interested in the technology—but for the purpose of investigating the wreckage of the U.S.S. Thresher and U.S.S. Scorpion.
Since Ballard's technology would be able to reach the sunken subs and take pictures, the oceanographer agreed to help out.
He then asked the Navy if he could search for the Titanic, which was located between the two wrecks.
Once Ballard had completed his mission—if time was left—Thunman said, Ballard could do what he wanted, but never gave him explicit permission to search for the Titanic.
The Thresher and Scorpion had sunk in the North Atlantic Ocean at depths of between 10,000 and 15,000 feet (3,000 and 4,600 meters).
The military wanted to know the fate of the nuclear reactors that powered the ships, Ballard said.
This knowledge was to help determine the environmental safety of disposing of additional nuclear materials in the oceans.
The Navy also wanted to find out if there was any evidence to support the theory that the Scorpion had been shot down by the Soviets.
Ballard's data showed that the nuclear reactors were safe on the ocean bottom and were having no impact on the environment, according to Thunman.
The data also confirmed that Thresher likely had sunk after a piping failure led to a nuclear power collapse, he added. Details surrounding the Scorpion are less certain.
A catastrophic mishap of some sort led to a flooding of the forward end of the submarine, Thunman said. The rear end remained sealed and imploded once the sub sank beneath a certain depth.
"We saw no indication of some sort of external weapon that caused the ship to go down," Thunman said—dismissing the theory that the Russians torpedoed the submarine in retaliation for spying.
...
With just 12 days left over in his mission, Ballard began searching for the Titanic, using this information to track down the ocean liner. He speculated that the ship had broken in half and left a debris trail as it sank.
"That's what saved our butts," Ballard said. "It turned out to be true."
...
"The Cold War is over," Ballard said. "I'm no longer in the Navy."
Julia Neuberger, rabbi and Lib Dem peer asks Christopher Hitchens, journalist, critic and author
Q Why are you so angry about religion? Don't you think your very fervour - and certainty - make you just like the religious extremists you profess to despise. And where's the room for doubt in your analysis?
A Oh Christ, not this one again. Anthony Grayling puts it definitively out of its misery in Against All Gods, reprinted as his contribution to The Portable Atheist (ed. C Hitchens) entitled Can an Atheist be a Fundamentalist?
If I may, I will borrow his conclusion: "Any view of the world which does not premise the existence of something supernatural is a philosophy, or a theory or, at worst, an ideology. If it is either of the first two, at its best it proportions what it accepts to the evidence for accepting it, knows what would refute it, and stands ready to revise itself in the light of new evidence. This is the essence of science. It comes as no surprise that no wars have been fought, pogroms carried out or burnings conducted at the stake over rival theories in biology or astrophysics."
Clear? It's not a matter of "room" for doubt. The whole analytical method of humanist materialism is based on scepticism. We take nothing on faith. Imagine what a fortune could be made by a palaeontologist who unearthed human bones and dinosaur bones in the same layer of sediment. I will bet my house that this discovery will not be made, but my bet is not entirely, or at all, an article of belief. It is, rather, a conviction based on the study of evidence.
As to the manner in which I express myself, it rather depends on the antagonist. I'm normally renowned for my patience and good humour, but I admit to being easily bored and, when I come up against, say, a self-righteous rabbi, can be tempted to succumb to sarcasm. I think that may be where your confusion arises. Oh, and I do not "profess" to despise religious extremists. I really do despise them.

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go on a camping trip. After a good dinner, they retire for the night, and go to sleep.
Some hours later, Holmes wakes up and nudges his faithful friend. "Watson, look up at the sky and tell me what you see."
"I see millions and millions of stars, Holmes" exclaims Watson.
"And what do you deduce from that?"
Watson ponders for a minute.
"Well, astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful, and that we are a small and insignificant part of the universe. What does it tell you, Holmes?"
And Holmes said: “Watson, you idiot, it means that somebody stole our tent.”
This reminds me of the old Herman Cartoon where the restaurant owner tells the cook that it would probably not be best to name his new Salmon dish after his girlfriend Ella.
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
Nikita Khrushchev
The curious thing about this quote is that the politics of which K. speaks was really quite absent when K. reigned.
There's an old saying about those who forget history. I don't remember it, but it's good.
Timeline: The Corrie story
After Sept. 11, 2001: American activist Rachel Corrie (above) becomes involved with peace groups in her hometown of Olympia, Wash.
Early 2003: Travels to Gaza with International Solidarity Movement.
March 16, 2003: Corrie, 23, is killed by an Israeli army bulldozer in Gaza while trying to block the destruction of a Palestinian physician’s home.
April 2005: My Name is Rachel Corrie premieres at the Royal Court Theatre Upstairs in London to enthusiastic reviews. Actor Alan Rickman and Katherine Viner, features editor of The Guardian newspaper in London, put together the one-woman play from the diaries, letters and emails of Corrie.
February 2006: New York Theatre Workshop chooses to “indefinitely postpone” its planned U.S. premiere. The theatre’s artistic director, James C. Nicola, cites concerns expressed about the play by leaders in the local Jewish community. Rickman accuses the Theatre Workshop of “censorship born out of fear.”
April 2006: A private reading of the play is held behind closed doors at the University of Toronto for fear of outside agitation. None occurs.
October 2006: An independent commercial production of the play opens off-Broadway with minimal protest. It runs through December.
November 2006: Martin Bragg, artistic producer of CanStage, announces he will be mounting the play in his next season, calling it “the kind of story we need to be telling in our theatres.”
December 2006: Faced with opposition from Jewish members of his board, Bragg cancels plans to produce the play, claiming he found it “dull” when he finally saw it onstage in Manhattan.
August 2007: Theatre Panik announces plans to stage the play at Tarragon Extra Space beginning May 2008, directed by Kate Lushington.
March 16, 2008: An Arabic-language version of Rachel is performed for the first time in Haifa, Israel, on the fifth anniversary of her death. Corrie’s parents are in the audience.