Three statements I shall make. Not all can be true. Which is the false statement?

1) No human being is perfect. To be human is to be imperfect.

2) Jesus was human.

3) Jesus was perfect.

Prince Harry (of the Royal Family of England) wants to deploy to Iraq and do his part for the war. Good for him? Well, it's better than some options that a person in his position might choose, I guess. Leading the charge out of there might be another way to go, I'm just sayin'.

But, it turns out, "they" don't want him to come.

So now what should he do?

Here's the story:

Iraqi MPs tell Harry to stay away
Senior figures in the Iraqi government have said Prince Harry should not serve in the country.
MPs from across the political spectrum told the BBC that the prince, who is due to go to Iraq in the next few weeks, would be a magnet for terrorism.

Shia figures said the prince would be attacked, while Sunnis feared him becoming a "target prize".

The Ministry of Defence has said his deployment with the Army is under constant review.

'At risk'

Shia MP Falah Shenshel, from political group the Sadr bloc, said: "Prince Harry, with all respect and dignity, must stay in his own country or he may expose himself to risk or any other thing.

"He has to respect the will of the Iraqi people, and the sovereignty and independence of Iraq and not reinforce the occupation."

Allaa Abdulrazzak, of the Sunni Tawafuq bloc, said Prince Harry should not come to the country as it could damage the royal family's future relationship with a new Iraq.

If he stayed away, he would be able to say he did not participate in the Iraqi occupation, he added.

In February, Clarence House and the MoD confirmed the prince would be deployed to Iraq, saying he would take on a "normal troop commander's role" rather than a desk job.

The prince has long stated his wish to be in active service.

But concerns for his safety, and that of his soldiers, grew more intense after 11 UK troops were killed this month, one of the bloodiest since the conflict began.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6604051.stm

Published: 2007/04/28 17:31:46 GMT

© BBC MMVII

A new "Earthlike" planet has been found. Fortunately for it it's a long way away (20 light years). Still, if it had the capacity to be worried I think now would be a good time to start.

Here's the story:


New 'super-Earth' found in space
Astronomers have found the most Earth-like planet outside our Solar System to date, a world which could have water running on its surface.
The planet orbits the faint star Gliese 581, which is 20.5 light-years away in the constellation Libra.

Scientists made the discovery using the Eso 3.6m Telescope in Chile.

They say the benign temperatures on the planet mean any water there could exist in liquid form, and this raises the chances it could also harbour life.

"We have estimated that the mean temperature of this 'super-Earth' lies between 0 and 40 degrees Celsius, and water would thus be liquid," explained Stephane Udry of the Geneva Observatory, lead author of the scientific paper reporting the result.

"Moreover, its radius should be only 1.5 times the Earth's radius, and models predict that the planet should be either rocky - like our Earth - or covered with oceans."
Xavier Delfosse, a member of the team from Grenoble University, added: "Liquid water is critical to life as we know it."

He believes the planet may now become a very important target for future space missions dedicated to the search for extra-terrestrial life.

These missions will put telescopes in space that can discern the tell-tale light "signatures" that might be associated with biological processes.

The observatories would seek to identify trace atmospheric gases such as methane, and even markers for chlorophyll, the pigment in Earth plants that plays a critical role in photosynthesis.

'Indirect' detection

The exoplanet - as astronomers call planets around a star other than the Sun - is the smallest yet found, and completes a full orbit of its parent star in just 13 days.

Indeed, it is 14 times closer to its star than the Earth is to our Sun.

However, given that the host star is smaller and colder than the Sun - and thus less luminous - the planet nevertheless lies in the "habitable zone", the region around a star where water could be liquid.

Gliese 581 was identified at the European Southern Observatory (Eso) facility at La Silla in the Atacama Desert.
To make their discovery, researchers used a very sensitive instrument that can measure tiny changes in the velocity of a star as it experiences the gravitational tug of a nearby planet.

Astronomers are stuck with such indirect methods of detection because current telescope technology struggles to image very distant and faint objects - especially when they orbit close to the glare of a star.

The Gliese 581 system has now yielded three planets: the new super-Earth, a 15 Earth-mass planet orbiting even closer to the parent star, and an eight Earth-mass planet that lies further out.

The latest discovery has created tremendous excitement among scientists.
Of the more than 200 exoplanets so far discovered, a great many are Jupiter-like gas giants that experience blazing temperatures because they orbit close to hot stars.

The Gliese 581 super-Earth is in what scientists call the "Goldilocks Zone" where temperatures "are just right" for life to have a chance to exist.

Commenting on the discovery, Alison Boyle, the curator of astronomy at London's Science Museum, said: "Of all the planets we've found around other stars, this is the one that looks as though it might have the right ingredients for life.

"It's 20 light-years away and so we won't be going there anytime soon, but with new kinds of propulsion technology that could change in the future. And obviously we'll be training some powerful telescopes on it to see what we can see," she told BBC News.

"'Is there life anywhere else?' is a fundamental question we all ask."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6589157.stm

Published: 2007/04/25 01:00:18 GMT

© BBC MMVII

My latest letter to the editor, almost sure to be hacked beyond recognition by their so-called editor in the somewhat unlikely event that it sees print, is:

I feel that I must respond to several of the letters in Sunday's Forum. Two points are iterated in three or four of the letters. The first is that our soldiers in Iraq are somehow protecting us and our "freedom". I'm sorry but they are not. Our freedom isn't in Iraq and neither is any threat to it. Both are right here at home. One grieving parent mentions that his son had a "strong desire to serve his country". He joined the National Guard in an attempt to do so, leaving behind many students whose teacher he had been. If only he could have seen that he was serving his community and his country right here at home he would likely still be alive today.

Also, two letters make the "point" that we were attacked on 9/11 so we are right to be fighting this war. Fewer people than ever still think this way. We were attacked. Somebody has to pay. Well somebody has paid, to the tune of 50,000+ civilians dead, several million displaced and let's not forget more Americans killed in action in Iraq than died on 9/11. Are we even yet?

The sad truth is that the war in Iraq has never had anything to do with 9/11. It's not protecting us from anything, it's not keeping "them" from coming over here, it's not even doing anything good for the Iraqi people. It's just a senseless, awful, ugly situation that continues because this administration knows that it has embedded us in a situation that has no good outcome and is just biding time until someone else inherits it. Thanks Mr. President!

My friend Bill is at this moment lying in a hospital bed in ICU in some sort of induced state of unconsciousness, possibly dying, I'm hoping living.

Many of the people in this (mostly catholic) community have expressed "prayerful" sentiments. "Don't forget to pray for Bill", or "All we can do now is pray". I understand the helplessness that everybody feels right now, I feel that way myself. My question concerns the idea of prayer, especially this kind of prayer for intercession.

Regular readers here know that I'm an atheist so it's no shock to read here that I believe it has zero value. But for the moment let's assume that there is one all-powerful God, creator of the Universe and all life, "Master of Heaven and Earth" and that he hears our prayers. We still might ask if he ever intercedes in affairs of this planet.

One school of thought holds that everything that happens here on Earth is part of a great "master plan", that God has a plan for each and every one of us even. In this scenario prayers for intercession would go unanswered, no? I might want my friend to live and fully recover and live for forty or fifty more years but if that's not the plan then sorry kid but can't help ya.

Other people tell us that while God is all-powerful and all-knowing (even as regards future events), man still has free will. If man has free will then certainly God must so in that case he could intercede anytime he wanted to.

Which of course brings us to another question (doesn't that always happen?): Does God sometimes intercede because of prayers, and if so, what are the criteria? (Yes I know, that's two questions)

The Vessel, in one of his first posts in months, asked us to try to change our perspective and see from the point of view of God and I'm asking you to try it now.

What does it take to get you to intercede on behalf of someone on Earth. (For that matter we should ask if it's really interceding since we don't know (to use the example of my friend) whether life or death is the result if no one prays.)

Thoughts?