Quantcast
Channel: Pax on both houses
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live

2014 On Track To Be Earth's Hottest Year On Record

$
0
0

Hot and Dry
Southern California and The Southwest are toast.
***

Heat records keep getting smashed. "The globe smashed more heat records last month, including Earth's hottest August and summer, federal meteorologists said Thursday. May, June and August all set global heat records this year. Meteorologists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the average world temperature in August was 61.36 degrees Fahrenheit (16.35 degrees Celsius), breaking a record set in 1998. Scientists at NASA, who calculate global temperature a tad differently, also found August as the hottest on record....It was the warmest meteorological summer - June, July and August - on record for the globe, again beating out 1998." Seth Borenstein in the Associated Press.
Charts: 2014 is on track to be the hottest year on record. Andrea Thompson in Climate Central.



Global Investors Managing 20 Trillion Dollars Pressuring Climate Negotiators For Deal

$
0
0

Global investors put pressure on climate negotiators for deal. "Institutional investors managing £15tn of assets have called for an ambitious global climate deal to give them certainty to invest in clean technology....The organisations want governments to put a 'stable, reliable and economically meaningful' price that polluters have to pay for their carbon emissions, which will help scale up investment towards clean power and energy efficiency....The investors are also calling on governments to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels, an estimated £370bn worldwide a year, five times the £60bn paid in renewables subsidies." Press Association


Industrial Strength Solar Plants Are Now Operable


Article 4

$
0
0

Catherine Rampell
 Opinion writer September 18, 2014 

Have America’s public schools gotten worse over time?
Americans seem to think so. Every time I write about why attending college is so crucial for moving up the income ladder — or, these days, for landing any job at all — I’m inundated with e-mails blaming the country’s K-12 system. Today’s workers have to go to college, readers argue, because our increasingly broken public schools have ceded responsibility for educating them.
But it’s not clear that any of this is true, at least at the national level. Data from the annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, a survey about education, reflect similar views. Over the past four decades, respondents have become increasingly likely to say that today’s students receive a “worse education” than they themselves did.
Few consistent tools are available to measure the quality of U.S. education over time; the best we have is probably the National Assessment of Educational Progress test, first administered in 1971. And believe it or not, NAEP scores have been steadily improving, with most national measures now at or around all-time highs. The biggest gains have generally gone to nonwhite students, helping narrow — though not eliminate — the achievement gap. Other metrics, too, suggest that schools are improving.Dropout rates are at record lows, and the share of high school students who take higher-level courses such as calculus has risen.
On some level, parents seem to know this. At least, they appear happy with the schools their own children attend.
In the most recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll, about 67 percent of public school parents said they would give their oldest child’s school a grade of “A” or “B.” But just 17 percent of the respondents would give “public schools nationally” the same score. This grading gap has widened in recent decades.
It’s a bit like “Fenno’s paradox,” named for political scientist Richard Fenno Jr.: Americans hate Congress but like their own congressman; they hate the public school system but like the school they actually interact with.
It’s hard to pinpoint why perceptions of national school quality, and especially changes in school quality, seem to depart from reality.
It could be the heavy media attention paid to the nation’s most troubled schools. Rising expectations might play a role, too, says Dana Goldstein, the author of “The Teacher Wars.” Decades ago, policymakers and education advocates pledged to close the achievement gap, and though it has narrowed, its persistence leads to disappointment.
Schools are also expected to make more students college-ready today than in the past. “The ’30s, ’40s and ’50s are often talked about as a golden age of public schools. Well, only 10 percent of students were going to college back then,” Goldstein says. “If our goal today is that only 10 percent get to college, then we’re doing awesome.”
Misplaced nostalgia may also weigh on public opinion. Just as old fogies like to claim they once walked 15 miles in the snow to school, uphill both ways, perhaps they misremember how rigorous their own educations were.
“Going back to at least 1880, the business community has never said a nice word about public schools. Every generation of graduates is supposedly stupider than the last,” says David C. Berliner, a professor emeritus of education at Arizona State University. “The demonization of youth is a national pastime in the U.S.”
Diane Ravitch, a research professor of education at New York University, argues that the schools themselves are also being demonized, thanks to clear-eyed ideology rather than rose-colored nostalgia. “U.S. public education is the victim of a propaganda campaign to discredit it and promote privatization,” she says. She traces this back to the 1983 “A Nation at Risk” report from President Ronald Reagan’s education commission and argues that business leaders and politicians have increasingly used public schools since then as scapegoats for other societal ills.
I suspect other, less nefarious factors affect perceptions more. With college becoming the norm, the types of workers with no more than a high school diploma are more likely to be in the lower part of the talent distribution today than they were a generation ago. Employers might conflate this shifting composition of high-school-educated workers with a diminishing quality of high school education itself.
The truth is, today’s young people do need more, or at least different, kinds of training and education to succeed in the global marketplace for talent. And plenty of policy changes — like making the most challenging school districts more attractive places to work — could help improve outcomes for our most disadvantaged students. But in the meantime, let’s stop denying the measurable, if modest, progress that U.S. schools have made in the last half-century.

Al Gore Interview On Climate Change Politics And Natural Gas

$
0
0
The inability of most people to understand the probabilistic nature of scientific does not bode well for "the race between education and catastrophe."

Interview: Al Gore on climate-change politics and natural gas. 
Ben Geman in National Journal.


Remember: By definition half of all people have double digit IQs.


The Four Best Cat Videos On The Internet Ever

The US Government Never Understood Afghanistan and Still Doesn't

$
0
0


Alan: Thanks to physician friend Jim K. who sent the following article. Jim's view is seconded by Canadian musician friend, Tommy Graham, who visited Afghanistan c. 1970 on his way home from India where he learned to play sitar and other traditional Indian instruments. To paraphrase Tommy: 'Afghanistan is the warmest, most welcoming country I know.'

I was in Afghanistan in 1970 and again in 1971.
It was a safe, peaceful and honorable country.
Afghans were handsome people, some with light blue eyes, some tall, all proud.
Women wore miniskirts or burkas as they wished.
Foreigners were respected.
The food was simple but good and plentiful.
I felt safe.
Jim

The US Government Never Understood Afghanistan and Still Doesn't

Thursday, 18 September 2014By Anand Gopal, Metropolitan Books | Book Excerpt
    (Photo: Metropolitan Books)(Photo: Metropolitan Books)The chaos, destruction and loss of lives that came after United States intervention in Afghanistan is most often told through a government and media narrative of US military power. In his compellingly intimate portrait of how the Afghan war impacted citizens of that nation, Anand Gopal walks readers through the looking glass lens of US empire into the complex and personal history and impact of the conflict. His narrative gives a far different perspective, revealing catastrophic missteps resulting from Washington hubris and devastating civilian losses, particularly as – over the years - the US alienated more and more Afghans through excessive force and ill-informed tactics.

    Gopal's first chapter offers insight into the period immediately preceding the US invasion of Afghanistan. It is excerpted below:

    The Last Days of Vice and Virtue
    Early in the morning on September 11, 2001, deep amid the jagged heights of the Hindu Kush, something terrible took place. When teenager Noor Ahmed arrived that day in Gayawa to buy firewood, he knew it immediately: there was no call to prayer. Almost every village in Afghanistan has a mosque, and normally you can hear the muezzin's tinny song just before dawn, signaling the start of a new day. But for the first time that he could remember, there was not a sound. The entire place seemed lifeless.

    He walked down a narrow goat trail, toward low houses with enclosures of mud brick, and saw that the gates of many of them had been left open. The smell of burning rubber hung in the air. Near a creek, something brown lying in the yellow grass caught his eye, and he stopped to look at it. It was a disfigured body, caked in dried blood. Noor Ahmed took a few steps back and ran to the mosque, but it was empty. He knocked on the door of a neighboring home. It, too, was empty. He tried another one. Empty. Then he came upon an old mud schoolhouse, its front gate ajar, and stopped to listen. Stepping inside, he walked through a long yard strewn with disassembled auto parts and empty motor oil canisters. Finally, when he pushed his way through the front door, he saw them huddled in the corner: men and women, toddlers and teenagers, more than a dozen in total, clutching each other, crammed into a single room.

    "Everyone else is dead," one said. "If you don't get out of here, they'll kill you, too."
    In wartime Afghanistan, secrets are slippery things. The Taliban had planned a surprise attack on Gayawa, but the villagers had known for days that the raid was coming, and those who could had hired cars or donkeys and moved their families down into the valley. But this had been a hard, dry, unhappy summer. Times were not good and many villagers could not afford to leave, even though they knew what might await them. Of those who stayed, only the few hiding in the schoolhouse, where the Taliban soldiers never thought to look, escaped untouched. The rest met an unknown fate.

    Back then, Gayawa was near the epicenter of a brutal, grinding war between the government of Afghanistan, controlled by the Taliban, and a band of rebel warlords known as the Northern Alliance. In their drive to crush the resistance, government troops waged a Shermanesque campaign, burning down houses and schools, destroying lush grape fields that had for generations yielded raisins renowned throughout South Asia, and setting whole communities in flight. In the region surrounding Gayawa, the Taliban enforced a blockade, allowing neither food nor supplies to enter. Those who attempted to breach the cordon were shot.

    America's war had yet to begin, but on that September 11, Afghans had already been fighting for more than two decades. The troubles dated to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded a largely peaceful country and ushered in a decade-long occupation that left it one of the most war-ravaged nations on Earth. The Russians withdrew in defeat in 1989, and in their wake scores of anti-Soviet resistance groups turned their guns on each other, unleashing a civil war that killed tens of thousands more and reduced to rubble what little infrastructure the country still had. Rival gangs robbed travelers at gunpoint and plucked women and boys off the streets with impunity.

    In 1994, a fanatical band of religious students—the Taliban—emerged to sweep aside these warring factions and put an end to the civil war. On a fierce platform of law and order, they forcibly disarmed and disbanded many of the militias that had been terrorizing the populace and brought nearly 90 percent of the country under their control. For the first time in more than a decade, peace took root in much of the land. Criminality and warlordism vanished, and the streets became safe from rape and abduction.

    In the process, however, the Taliban instituted a regime of draconian purity the likes of which the world had never witnessed. Moral and spiritual decay had dragged the country into civil war, the Taliban believed, and a puritanical version of Islamic law offered the only hope for salvation. All music, film, and photography—which the Taliban regarded as gateway drugs to pornography and licentiousness—were banned. They caged up women in their homes, executed adulterers, and whipped men of flagging faith. They prohibited, with only a few exceptions, all female education and employment. They outlawed the teaching of secular subjects in school. In many cities, roaming packs of religious police under the authority of the Ministry for the Prevention of Vice and Promotion of Virtue saw to it that no one missed the mandatory five-times-a-day prayer. All men were required to wear a fist-length beard and were beaten and jailed unless they complied.

    A land of Old Testament rules, the Taliban's Afghanistan was brutal and vindictive. Relatives of murder victims were invited to gun down the accused; thieves had their hands lopped off; and obscurantist religious clerics, often semiliterate, decided matters of jurisprudence. If it were possible to distill the zeitgeist into a single devastating moment, it would be the Taliban's infamous demolition of two massive fifteen-hundred-year-old Buddha sculptures. Among South Asia's great archaeological treasures, the statues were brought tumbling down in an effort to rid the country of "false idols."

    Yet Taliban rule did not go unchallenged. Remnants of some of the defeated militias fled to the mountains north of Kabul, Afghanistan's capital, where they regrouped in 1996 to form the Northern Alliance. For the next five years, Taliban troops fought a bloody campaign to subdue the north, meting out the greatest punishment to villages along the front line, like Gayawa.

    Years later, I visited Gayawa to try to understand the Afghan world as it had appeared on the eve of 9/11. Some of the Taliban's old, rotting observation posts were still standing, and many houses remained abandoned. Memories of those war years lingered, and the rancor echoed in conversation after conversation. "The Taliban were evil. They were tormentors," Noor Ahmed told me. After finding those survivors in the schoolhouse on the morning of September 11, he had fled the area, returning only months later after a new government had assumed power. "They weren't humans. The laws you and I abide by, they didn't mean anything to them."

    As I met more villagers in the area, I found that many of their stories centered on a particular roving Taliban unit, a feared team of disciplinarians who journeyed from village to village demanding taxes and household firearms. "Their leader was a tall man named Mullah Cable," said Nasir, a local. "We heard his name on the radio. He traveled a lot. He would search your house looking for weapons, and when you swore you didn't have anything, he'd bring out his whip, a cable. That's where his name comes from. He was a clever man—I don't know where he was from, but he was very smart. He was one of the first to use a whip on us like that. After a while, all the Talibs started carrying whips."

    Mullah Cable. The very name spoke of the strange language that Afghans had acquired in decades of war. No one in Gayawa knew quite what had become of him. "When the Americans invaded," Nasir said, "all those Taliban vanished like ghosts."

    –––

    I first saw Mullah Cable on an early winter evening in Kabul, the hour of dueling muezzins, dozens of them crooning from their minarets. It was 2009, and more than one hundred thousand foreign soldiers were on Afghan soil battling an increasingly powerful Taliban insurgency. When I approached him, he was pacing uncomfortably in a park, hands in his pockets, his eyes shifty, a black turban stuffed into his pocket. Tall and lanky, he stood with his shoulders hunched, as if he were carrying some dangerous secret. He wore glasses, unusual for an Afghan. Tattoos flowed down his arms and henna dye covered his fingernails. When he smiled, gold teeth glistened. Only his thick, spongy beard and a missing eye, a battlefield injury, placed him unmistakably among his Taliban comrades. Even without such telltale marks, though, as an Afghan you can never truly hide—a cousin, or an old war buddy, or a tribal chieftain somewhere would know how to find you. So I had tracked him down, and after months of effort I finally convinced him to speak to me.

    "I don't come here often," he said. "Kabul is a strange place. I'm a village guy. I need the open spaces and fields to be able to think." As the typical Kabul evening smog settled in, commuters headed home, many with their faces wrapped in handkerchiefs. Toyota Corolla station wagons and minivan taxis, with arms and heads poking out, rattled by. A Ford Ranger police truck passed us, making Mullah Cable nervous. He had slipped in from the surrounding countryside and was worried about being noticed. We took shelter in a taxi, moving slowly through the darkening streets as we spoke in the back.

    Almost a decade after battling the Northern Alliance, he was still fighting—now against the Americans. Though he didn't mention it, I later learned that the band of guerrillas under his command in the province of Wardak, a few dozen miles southwest of Kabul, had assassinated members of the US-backed Afghan government, kidnapped policemen, and deployed suicide bombers. On numerous occasions, they had attacked American soldiers. He fought, he told me, for "holy jihad," to rid his country of foreigners and to reinstate the Taliban regime.
    This much I had expected, but he also surprised me. He admitted to not having received a single day's worth of religious instruction in his life. He could read only with great difficulty. Maps were a mystery to him, and despite his best efforts he could not locate the United States. In fact, growing up he had only the foggiest notion of America's existence. He cared little for, and understood little of, international politics. He had no opinions about events in the Middle East or the Arab-Israeli conflict. And even though he had been a Taliban commander in the 1990s, after the American-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 he had quit the movement and for a time actually supported the new US-backed government.

    This is what fascinated me most: How did such a person end up declaring war on America? Nor was he alone. It turned out that thousands of Talibs like him had given up the fighter's life after 2001, but something had brought most of them back to the battlefield just a few years later. I wanted to learn his story. At first he was skeptical. "I don't understand why it matters," he said. "My story isn't very special. I think you won't find it interesting." I assured him that I would, and for a year we met regularly in the backs of taxis, in drowsy dark offices in Kabul, or out in the countryside. In his tale I found a history of America's war on terror itself, the first grand global experiment of the twenty-first century, and a glimpse of how he and thousands like him came to define themselves under this new paradigm—how they came to be our enemy.

    –––

    As with so many Afghans, the beginning was hazy. He could not state where exactly he had been born, although he believed it was somewhere on the squalid outskirts of Kabul. Nor did he know when he was born, so he wasn't sure if he was three or five when the Russians invaded in 1979. That war had unfolded mostly in the countryside, and people in Kabul spoke of it the way they spoke of foreign countries, as something far off and vaguely interesting. But the Russian retreat, followed by the outbreak of civil war in 1992, brought the conflict home to the capital, and eventually he enlisted in a local militia. It was an "aimless life," as he put it, until the Taliban swept into power in 1996, inspiring thousands of young men to rally to their cause. He was one of them.

    The Taliban provided a welcome home for unsettled youths like him who were repulsed by the chaos. In their regimented order he found a sense of purpose, a communion with something greater. "You have to understand," he explained, "we felt like we were the most powerful people in the world. Everyone was talking about the Taliban. The whole world knew about the Taliban. We brought good to this country. We brought security. Before we came, even a trip to buy groceries was a gamble. People stole, people raped, and no one could say anything.

    "Under our government, you could sleep with the doors open. You could leave your keys in your car, return after a month, and no one would've touched it."

    On the battlefield against the Northern Alliance rebels, he had risen quickly in the ranks, first leading a few dozen men, then heading a fifty-man unit, and finally establishing himself as one of the top commanders on the front line. By 2001, he was directing a force of a hundred or so fighters tasked with trekking through the mountains near Gayawa, hunting for rebel sympathizers. He was also chief of police for a district north of Kabul, occasional director of military transportation and logistics, and the sole authority responsible for disarming the population in any newly conquered territories. It was in this last duty that he acquired his nom de guerre, one that, in those days at least, he had carried proudly.

    For five years, the fighting between his Taliban forces and the Northern Alliance ground on. For every insurgent hamlet put down, it felt as if another sprang up in its place. Then, on September 9, 2001, in the first suicide strike in Afghan history, a pair of young Arab men posing as journalists assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud, the legendary leader of the Alliance. Rebel forces were thrown into disarray. For the first time, Mullah Cable could sense the prospect of total victory. On September 10, he and other Taliban commanders launched an offensive across the entire front line. By the morning of the eleventh, they had swept into the strategic village of Gayawa.
    "We were on the verge of something great," he recalled, "but everything changed after the planes hit. That was the biggest mistake that ever happened to us."

    –––

    Early on the morning of September 12, 2001, in the cracked, war-eaten office building housing Kabul's Foreign Ministry, a few turbaned Taliban officials sat watching the news on a flickering television—the only sanctioned set in town, as all moving images had been banned. As they stared at replays of the Twin Towers collapsing into an apocalyptic pile of burning ruins, President George W. Bush's warning flashed across the screen: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."

    It was a moment some Taliban officials had long feared. To the most pragmatic among them, Osama bin Laden and his retinue of followers had been nothing but trouble since they had landed in 1996. The Arabs of al-Qaeda spoke a different language, practiced a distinct culture, and even followed a different form of Islam from their Afghan counterparts. Bin Laden was waging international jihad to overthrow US global hegemony, while the Taliban were concerned largely with politics within their country's borders. Bin Laden railed against the West, and his acolytes bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, while the Taliban were seeking Western diplomatic recognition. Quickly, America's bin Laden problem had become the Taliban's as well. The two sides met throughout the late 1990s in an attempt to work out a solution, but cultural and political divides proved insurmountable. The Taliban agreed to place bin Laden on trial, but Washington, not trusting the impartiality of Afghan courts, demanded his extradition to US soil. The Taliban, for their part, doubted the objectivity of the American legal system. They agreed to hand him over only to a neutral Islamic country for trial, which Washington rejected.
    The failed talks fueled Taliban hard-liners, who reminded their colleagues that bin Laden was helping bankroll the war against Alliance rebels. Both sides looked to Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar for direction, but the enigmatic, one-eyed Commander of the Faithful, as he called himself, happened to be one of the most inscrutable and reticent heads of state in history. In his five years in power, he had never appeared on television; outside of a pair of grainy photographs, there is no visual record of his existence. During his reign, he traveled just twice to Kabul from his home in the southern city of Kandahar. He did not give speeches and avoided the radio. Indeed, to some Afghans he seemed a mythical figure conjured up by Taliban propagandists, an emblem of piety and virtue meant to serve as a focal point for Taliban rule.

    The reality, however, was far more mundane. A lowly village preacher and minor figure in the anti-Soviet resistance, Omar had found himself, through an unlikely turn of events, thrust atop a fledgling state. As a mullah, a preacher qualified only to lead Friday sermons, he was at the bottom of the country's informal Islamic hierarchy, beneath a class of theologians who could interpret the scriptures and issue religious rulings called fatwas. Omar was a religious parvenu, a small-time priest giving orders to bishops. Projecting theological credibility to his more lettered colleagues, and by extension to the entire Muslim world, was everything, and the symbolism of surrendering bin Laden to non-Muslims would have been damaging to the very soul of the Taliban project. Their legitimacy as a state, such as it was, rested upon the notion that Islamic law had saved the country. In their view, they had ended the anarchy and bloodshed of the civil war by restoring society to its Islamic roots and submitting everyone—warlords and foot soldiers, landlords and peasants, men and women alike—to God's law. How then could Omar justify extraditing bin Laden and subjecting him to the vagaries of secular Western justice? Bin Laden's presence was a problem that he saw no way to resolve. "Osama is like a chicken bone stuck in my throat," he once admitted. "I can neither spit him out nor swallow him."

    Taliban pragmatists could see all too clearly the dangers that would befall them if the impasse continued. A week after the 9/11 attacks, they visited Omar in his modest Kandahar home. "We pleaded with him for hours" to expel bin Laden, one of them recalled, "but it was as if he covered his ears."

    On September 20, President Bush increased the pressure, declaring: "The Taliban must act, and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate." When Taliban officials again went to see Omar, however, they found him in a defiant mood. "You just care about your posts and your money, your ministries," he said. "But I don't care about mine."

    Behind the scenes, though, he was scrabbling for a face-saving solution. Twice he sent his top deputy to meet covertly in Pakistan with the Central Intelligence Agency's Islamabad station chief, Robert Grenier, in hopes of arranging bin Laden's transfer to a neutral third country—but Washington stood firm on its position of an unconditional handover. Meanwhile, Omar's intransigence was costing his government the few foreign supporters it had to its name, which became painfully clear when Pakistan, its key ally and patron, severed ties and sided openly with the United States.

    Sinking into depression and paranoia, Omar was often on the verge of tears. He spent nights in a bunker underneath his home, a gas mask by his side due to rumors of an impending American chemical weapons attack. He restricted visits to his home to a few close aides and deployed troops to guard important armories and airstrips. Senior Talibs sent their families to Pakistan to wait out the inevitable.

    Then, in late September, two developments gave Omar a glimmer of hope. First, Pakistani intelligence agents showed up at his home—without their government's knowledge. Contravening dictator Pervez Musharraf's stated policy, they pressed him to resist the invasion to the very end and assured him that he would have allies in Pakistan. It was the opening move in a perilous double game that the Pakistanis would play for the next decade. Second, senior Taliban figures, who until then were a threat to defect, decided to toss their lot in with the regime. "I was an original Talib," one said to me later. "I fought against the Russians with these people. We took Kandahar together. We almost died against the Northern Alliance. I realized that we couldn't abandon each other now, even if we disagreed."

    In early October, President Bush warned the Taliban that "time is running out." A thousand troops from the US Tenth Mountain Division landed in Uzbekistan, near the Afghan border, while CIA agents and Special Operations Forces soldiers had already slipped into northern Afghanistan to work covertly with the Northern Alliance. Omar, meanwhile, kept himself and his family hidden in his bunker, passing messages to the outside world through a courier. On October 6, he received word from Pakistani agents that the American attack was imminent. That night, he gathered his senior lieutenants and delivered a last rousing address. "My family, my power, my privileges," he told them, "are all in danger, but still I am insisting on sacrificing myself, and you should do likewise."

    The next evening, a few minutes before nine p.m., residents in Kandahar city saw the night sky flash a blinding white. In his bunker, Mullah Omar felt the house shake violently. The American war had begun. A missile had scored a direct hit on his compound, destroying a section and grievously wounding his ten-year-old son. Desperately clutching the child, he ran outside and, with the rest of his family, squeezed into an old Corolla. They sped to the hospital, where Omar begged the doctor to help his son. "He had very bad abdominal injuries," the doctor recalled, "and a badly fractured femur in his right leg, and we could not save him."

    Distraught and furious, Omar jumped back into the vehicle and shouted to the driver, "Go! Go to Sangesar!" They raced through the narrow streets toward the village, where Omar had extended family, as dozens of townsfolk emerged from their homes to watch. On reaching the outskirts of Sangesar, everyone sprang out and hurried off on foot. Moments later, a missile slammed into the vehicle, blowing it to pieces. The Taliban leader and his relatives disappeared into the village. He would never be seen in public again.

    –––

    In Gayawa that night, Mullah Cable saw the darkened sky light up without warning in flickers of hot white and orange. He found it, in an odd kind of way, beautiful. He could tell that the bombs were off in the distance—in Kabul, probably, where the Taliban had many military installations. He glimpsed his men watching the sky, their silent faces briefly exposed with each strike. No one knew what they would do should the bombs reach their camp, except retreat to their bunkers and pray.

    But not a single bomb fell anywhere near Gayawa that night, or the night following, or any other night that week. Mullah Cable began to consider the possibility that he had put too much stock in the Americans' technological prowess. In serious wars, there was no substitute for living and fighting in the mountains, for planning ambushes, coordinating artillery, and storming the enemy by sight and sound and gut alone. The Americans, on the other hand, hid behind the clouds, as if they knew all too well the fate of those who'd preceded them. By the fourth week of October, it was looking as if they would leave just as mysteriously as they came. "I thought the war would be over quickly, and then we could get on with things," he recalled.

    Even when the strikes eventually hit the hills nearby during the first days of November, Mullah Cable remained unworried. His camp was too small, too insignificant to be picked out from above. Every night the planes would fly overhead without incident and disappear into the jagged country to the north, and the earth would tremble and the mountain peaks would light up, and his men would watch and talk about the pilots and wonder at their motives. It was only after one bomb struck close to their camp, in a neighboring valley, that they decided to go see for themselves what destruction the planes could bring. A group of the fighters assembled to investigate, but Mullah Cable opted to stay behind because his last pair of shoes had worn down to soggy rags. "Can you imagine?" he asked me later. "We were out there fighting for our country and God, and I didn't even have shoes." For days, his footwear problem had been all he could think about.

    From his mountain perch, he watched his fighters drive their pickup trucks down the bluff away from the camp, then turn a corner and disappear. Over the radio, he heard them exchange greetings with another group of Taliban soldiers.
    At that moment, a jet shrieked past, turned sharply, and dropped a series of bombs just where they had gone. The explosions were massive and deafening. "My teeth shook, my bones shook, everything inside me shook," he recalled. An enormous cloud of smoke rose above the mountains. All he could do was stand and watch.
    The walkie-talkie had fallen silent. He waited for hours for some word. Finally, he decided that he had no choice but to go see for himself.
    He drove into the basin and turned the corner and then stepped out of the vehicle. Oh my God, he thought. There were severed limbs everywhere. He inched closer. There were headless torsos and torso-less arms, cooked slivers of scalp and flayed skin. The stones were crimson, the sand ocher from all the blood. Coal-black lumps of melted steel and plastic marked the remains of his friends' vehicles.
    Closing his eyes, he steadied himself. In five years of fighting he had seen his share of death, but never lives disposed of so easily, so completely, so mercilessly, in mere seconds.
    "There's one still alive!"
    He looked to see a villager coming toward him from a clutch of nearby houses. Inside one, he found his good friend Khoday Noor. Mullah Cable took his hand. "Khoday Noor! Khoday Noor! Can you hear me?" Noor stared back blankly. His right side was paralyzed and blood was draining from a wound in his back. They loaded him onto a vehicle, but he died en route to the nearest town. "He was just a young guy, a conscript," Mullah Cable recalled. "He had no reason to die."
    Back at the camp, Mullah Cable washed his clothes and washed them again, but the smell would not go away. Those were men he'd known for five years down there in the valley—five years of mountain living, of meals and prayers shared. He sat there counting up the children they'd left behind.
    The remaining men in the camp gathered for a dinner of naan and tea and offered theories about how the Americans spotted the convoy. Some said that they had advanced airplanes that could roam high above the clouds for days without refueling, picking out targets as they pleased; or that they could see every Talib in the country with a special type of flying camera, which beamed images back to commanders in the United States. Night washed over the mountains, the camp fell quiet, and Mullah Cable retreated to his bunker to try to catch some sleep. As he lay there considering the day's events, he experienced something he'd never felt before about the Taliban: doubt.
    Later that night, news came in over the radio: after a day's bombardment, 880 fighters were missing across the front lines. Eight hundred and eighty, he thought to himself—what kind of unimaginable power was this? Outside, his men stayed up, chatting anxiously until just before dawn, when villagers arrived with more grim news. They had found the body of the local Taliban governor—a powerful, feared man—cut clean in half.
    In just two days, they had suffered more losses than he'd witnessed in the previous three years. He needed to calm down and think clearly. The trouble was, he hadn't slept since the bombing. That afternoon he retreated to his bunker for a short nap, but still sleep would not come. Instead, he stared at the ceiling for hours. A few of his fighters entered with rumors that whole Taliban units had defected up north. He said nothing.

    In the evening, a message from supreme leader Mullah Omar, still in hiding, came by radio: "The people are suffering, but this is a test we shall pass, God willing." The test was from God himself, Omar said, and the goal, he explained, was "martyrdom."
    Mullah Cable simply couldn't believe it. To defend his country he would take deadly risks, suffer cold mountain nights, go for months without his family—he would do it all, gladly, but martyrdom? Talk of martyrdom from a man in hiding? For reasons he did not fully grasp, the Americans were trying to kill him and everyone around him. The Northern Alliance was still trying to kill him. And now, he realized, his own leaders were encouraging his death.

    Then and there, he decided not to die in the service of hopeless causes. A thousand armies at Mullah Omar's command could not stop a power like the Americans, not with the sort of jet he had watched eviscerate his comrades. If his leaders were planning to abandon him to such machines, then he would abandon them first.

    He went over to see his men, who were busy checking provisions and talking among themselves. He knew that the scent of cowardice in his decision was unmistakable. He wasn't the type to run or shirk responsibility. But it would be criminal to ask his fighters to sacrifice themselves for Mullah Omar, a man they'd never even seen. He gathered them together. Jets were shrieking overhead and the mountains echoed with booms like some otherworldly storm, and a few of his men were already in tears. "Go home," he said. "Get yourselves away from here. Don't contact each other." Not a soul protested.
    By morning, messages from other commanders were flooding in over his walkie-talkie, proclaiming battle plans and announcing this or that new mission. In communiqués broadcast on the national radio, the same words were on every fighter's lips: martyrdom, jihad, infidels. They formed the quintessential elements of their argot, forged from years fighting the Russians and the Northern Alliance warlords. Yet it was only talk, aired for their superiors and perhaps for each other. Mullah Cable figured that in reality, Talibs everywhere were probably defecting. After all, hundreds of commanders up and down the front lines don't just spontaneously announce missions at the same time, not without prior coordination. He was sure that only the Arabs of al-Qaeda and their foreign allies would fight to the death because they had nowhere else to go. Retreating to their home countries was simply not an option. As Afghan natives, however, the Taliban could hold out hope that they'd be allowed to return to their home villages in peace and, when the chaos ended, start afresh. This was how things had gone for decades. His countrymen had learned to switch sides when necessary or give up the fighter's life entirely—anything to survive.

    As Mullah Cable stood shoeless atop his mountain base, he considered his fate. If he somehow could make it out alive, he promised himself that he would abandon politics forever. He'd get a job with his in-laws, who owned a shop in Kabul, where his wife and children lived. But getting there would not be easy. Chaos reigned: rumors were pouring in of fighters across the front lines throwing their weapons in ditches and fleeing. They were bribing locals for shelter, or heading off to their home villages—and often dying in the effort. The Taliban's crumbling forces were up against a thousand or so highly motivated Northern Alliance rebels, a seemingly endless stream of American warplanes, and CIA agents and Special Operations soldiers directing the whole effort. The enemy was barreling toward Kabul—at this pace, Mullah Cable figured they might reach it any day—and he knew that he had to get there first to have any hope of making it into the city.

    The fifty-mile journey along serpentine dirt roads through the mountains was hazardous and unpredictable. Capture by the Northern Alliance would mean detention and possibly death, a logic he understood all too well given how the Taliban had treated their own captives. And if his own superiors caught him fleeing, he would fare no better. Worst of all, with fighters switching sides in droves, he could trust no one. It was every man for himself, a world with no comrades, only enemies.

    He walked over to the few fighters still in the camp. He hugged each in turn, boarded a Toyota HiLux pickup truck, and drove off alone.

    –––

    It was November 6, 2001, and the war was about a month old. The first winter winds were gusting through the valleys and avalanches were tumbling majestically down the distant peaks of the Hindu Kush. But driving through small mud villages, past fields of wheat and corn, Mullah Cable kept his eyes fixed on the road. The trip proved humiliating. Whenever locals glimpsed his HiLux, a signature Taliban vehicle, gunshots soon followed. In one village, he saw even housewives firing out from their windows. From then on he opted for the spine-jarring back roads, and eventually he made it to Parwan, the next province.

    He crossed a bridge and noticed that there was not a car or pedestrian or goat in sight. He glanced up, but the sky was empty. Groves of fruit trees stood in rows, Soviet war ruins lying here and there between them. He drove on, the road sloping down into a broad plain. He passed clusters of abandoned mud houses and neglected fields and then, up ahead, he saw vehicles approaching. They soon pulled up before him, blocking his path. Men in white turbans jumped out and pointed their Kalashnikovs and shouted. There was little he could say or do. Before he knew it, he was assailed by fists and rifle butts and shoved unceremoniously into the back of a vehicle. Someone shouted that he was a coward for forsaking his country. In the front seat, a Taliban commander turned to him and said, "We kill people like you."

    From their turbans and their accents, he knew that this was no ordinary Taliban force. This was the Palace Guard—"crazy Kandaharis," as he used to call them: elite special forces from the Taliban heartland provinces of Helmand and Kandahar. They were taking him back to the front lines.

    Later that afternoon he was pressed back into service. For three days, he and other captives were ordered to fire on various Northern Alliance outposts and to guard weapons caches. At nightfall, he was shackled and tossed into an improvised prison.
    By the third day, their food supplies were dwindling. Men were melting snow to drink. A fellow captive begged Mullah Cable to shoot him and end his misery. He began to wonder if he should have held out longer in the mountains and kept his unit together.
    It had been foolish to assume that the Taliban would simply fall over, not with these brutish Palace Guards keeping everyone in the fight. Maybe the Taliban were stronger than he'd suspected. Maybe this war would take months or even years.

    But how did any of that matter? It was no life, sleeping in the mountains, hiding from killer machines that he could barely see, watching friends erased in a flash. Even if the Taliban stood for a hundred years, he decided, he would never go back. But he couldn't stay here, either.

    He had certainly gotten out of worse before. Two years earlier, during a routine inspection near his mountain camp, he had come across a shepherd boy guarding his animals with particular zeal. Something didn't seem right. Mullah Cable had questioned the boy, and, when he clammed up, he ordered his men to inspect the flock. Pulling back the wool on one sheep, a Talib found a gun firmly tied to its belly. They searched the others. Every single one bore a weapon. Mullah Cable headed back to the camp and found his weapons cache nearly empty. It was only then that the boy spilled the truth: Northern Alliance rebels had been bribing villagers to steal from the Taliban's weapons stock, in the process bulking up their own supplies. Mullah Cable's unit was now nearly defenseless.

    It would take much too long for backup to arrive. That evening, as the sky dimmed, panic had spread among the unarmed fighters. As the Talibs prepared to flee, the first fusillade of gunfire rang out not far away. From the sound of it, the rebels would be reaching the camp's front entrance in minutes. Mullah Cable scanned the darkness for an escape route.

    In one direction was a road heading straight downhill, right into the enemy's clutches. In the other, a small knoll. According to his spotters, rebels were circling around and about to close in on that, too. Then he looked at his truck, idling nearby, and inspiration struck. Calling over a Talib, he ordered him to drive up the knoll with headlights off, then turn around and drive back down, headlights on—and repeat, again and again. From the rebels' vantage point, it would appear as if vehicle after vehicle of reinforcements was flooding into the camp. He then got on the radio—which he knew the rebels monitored—and let slip that thousands in backup were on their way. Soon enough, the firing died down. His sentries breathlessly called in with news that the rebels had broken ranks in retreat. The unit was saved.

    That had been back before the whole business with the Americans, when he was the confident commander of hundreds. Now a prisoner of his own side, he stood there silently as the Kandaharis hurled obscenities at him. Without food, however, he and the other detainees could hardly lift their Kalashnikovs, let alone march through the mountains. It was only then, the end of his third day in captivity, that the Palace Guards finally agreed to head to the nearest town to collect supplies. The captives assembled in a row for inspection, and when the guard saw Mullah Cable and another man in a shoeless state, he selected them both to take along.

    They were brought to a small bazaar where men and boys were crowding around a few stalls and vendors were calling out their prices. The Kandaharis fanned out in every direction, and Mullah Cable and his fellow captive were dispatched to collect bread. When he neared a pyramid of tomatoes, he glanced back at the Kandaharis, who were busy looking over vegetables and talking among themselves. Slipping behind the tomatoes, he whispered to the other captive, "Follow me!" They broke into a sprint and just kept running.

    It was long dark when they arrived at a level plain stretching south to the horizon, an open country of old mud huts and mud streams known as Bagram. Mullah Cable stopped in a field to examine his feet, now bruised a dark purple. All around him were the remains of a major Soviet military base, the fields littered with the detritus of that now-ancient occupation: rusting tanks, orphaned turrets, decaying mountains of wheelless jeeps, and, a short walk away, a gigantic, corroding warehouse made of corrugated iron—the perfect place to spend the night.

    As he worked to pry open the door, a pair of headlights appeared in the distance. He moved faster as they careened toward him. Before he knew it, a jeep drove right up and armed men jumped out. Another Palace Guard patrol. He and the other captive were kneed and slapped and ridiculed and thrown into the back of a jeep. During the ride, Mullah Cable cried out from the pain of men sitting atop him and the broken road beneath him. When he tried to speak he was hit with something hard.

    The Taliban camp, when they pulled in, was already a frenzy of activity. News over the radio told that Alliance rebels were pulling close, and a guard handed him a Kalashnikov with the words, "Don't be a coward." Not long after, the night erupted in gunfire. Men were shouting orders in the darkness. It was being said that the rebels had reached the front gate, but he could not see anything in that direction save the hills, dark against the sky. He fired wildly and then thought better of it, tossed his weapon aside, and broke for the rear exit. He was nearly out of the gate when something stopped him in his tracks: a pair of makeshift sandals that had been carved out of old army boots. Fortune was finally on his side. Strapping them on, he headed down the main road into the black night.

    Some hours later he came upon another fleeing captive who reported that the camp had fallen and the surrounding fields were teeming with Palace Guards trying to find their way home. They, too, were not eager for martyrdom.

    A twelve-hour walk to Kabul lay ahead. The road was lifeless, no sound anywhere but for his sandals on the gravel. He neared some darkened mud houses and slowed to see if anyone might be home but then changed his mind and kept walking. Some hours passed and fatigue set in. He came upon another row of houses that stood in perfect silence. Suddenly a flashlight blinked on and a voice yelled, "Stop!" Men in turbans were gathered ahead, and his heart sank.

    A Taliban officer stepped forward. "Where are you going? he asked, sounding nervous. "Who are you?"

    Mullah Cable had to think quickly. "I was up in Bagram visiting family. I'm on my way back to Kabul."

    The officer studied him. "What kind of shoes are those? You don't look like an ordinary person." Mullah Cable responded with more lies, whatever came to mind, none of which made much sense. It turned out he had stumbled into Qale Nasro, a garrison town still in Taliban hands. The soldiers conferred, not knowing quite what to do. In the end, they decided to keep him at their guard post for the night.

    When he awoke at dawn, the soldiers were already deep in discussion. They looked tense, clutching their walkie-talkies and listening to reports on the advance of Alliance rebels. It would be thirty minutes, or an hour at most, before the rebels reached Qale Nasro. The soldiers no longer seemed to have the slightest interest in him. Without hesitating, Mullah Cable slipped away and returned to the main road heading to Kabul.

    He walked for hours as the sun climbed steadily overhead. When a minivan taxi appeared, he ran to catch it and it rolled to a stop, but the driver took one look at him, with his Taliban-style black turban and strange sandals, and refused to unlock the door. The two men negotiated through the open window. Mullah Cable pressed his case, repeating that he was a civilian visiting family up north, and the driver continued to look him up and down and kept the door locked. Finally, Mullah Cable unclasped his gold Swiss watch. A gift from his beloved brother, eight years deceased, it was the most valued thing he owned, the only item of luxury he'd allowed himself in the mountains. The driver took it and let him in.

    They drove south. Mullah Cable wondered if the shame of what he had just done would ever leave him. What would his brother have said? It was all happening too fast. Just weeks before, he would have been driven anywhere he wished, by taxi or passing civilian alike, for free.

    The van continued on. Had Mullah Cable looked at the country passing him by, he would have seen rows of ruined grape trees standing bare against the sky. He would have seen flame-blackened one-room shops, and mud houses with missing doors and windows and outer walls. It had all been done by his people, by the movement he had sworn his life to, but he saw none of it. Instead, he stared blankly ahead, wondering about the days to come, the friends he'd lost, and the end of life as he knew it.

    –––

    Late on November 12, 2001, Mullah Cable entered Kabul. He found a hollow city. The roads were cratered, just as they had been when he'd left for the mountains all those years before. Shops and restaurants stood shuttered, and there was almost no one about.

    Crossing the Kabul River, he stared at the stinking mixture of mud and trash and goat droppings. He walked through neighborhoods he hadn't seen in years, where refuse sluiced down hillside drains into street gutters. The stench of sulfur and human waste was smothering. Up in the mountains, he'd forgotten how little governing the Taliban had done outside their drive for security and order. Everywhere he looked, there was nothing but spectacular neglect.

    Near the city center, he arrived at a small house and for the first time in months saw his wife and daughter and the panoply of cousins and uncles who shared his roof. As they hugged, his relief was profound. He wanted nothing more than to stay in their company and live quietly and honorably. Peacefully. He hoisted up his sore feet and told them everything, and they listened with great concern and admiration. They said they didn't know what they would have done had he not returned to them. It was not long before they left to prepare dinner and he drifted off to sleep.

    That evening, he awoke to visitors. Two cousins from the outskirts of town had heard that Northern Alliance rebels would be entering Kabul in the next day or two. As he ate his meal, Mullah Cable considered the news. He understood what everyone in town had long known: the civil war had compartmentalized Afghanistan's nearly forty ethnic groups into political blocs. The Taliban drew their recruits almost entirely from ethnic Pashtuns, who made up about 40 percent of the country, while the Northern Alliance typically gathered support from ethnic Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek minority communities. Now most Pashtuns, even those who disliked the Taliban, felt anxious about the prospect of Northern Alliance rule.

    When Kabul fell, he knew, not a single Talib would be left alive. It would be madness to stay. But where could he go? No province seemed safe, and the possibilities of retribution—at the hands of Alliance rebels, the Americans, or even civilians—bloomed in his imagination.

    Only one option remained, and he could not deny it. The next morning Mullah Cable sold everything he owned to the neighbors, raising about $1,000. He, his wife, his daughter, and two other relatives squeezed into a minivan taxi. They passed the southern gates of Kabul, then the hills circling the city's edge, and finally Bala Hisar, a set of mud-walled castle ruins that the Taliban used for storage. Mullah Cable watched as men climbed out of the castle windows, weapons in hand. Looters. Government vehicles were being stolen. He knew then that Kabul was falling, and that it would be lost forever.

    The taxi emerged onto a broad, vacant escarpment, and the road curved southeast. It was empty in both directions. Dark brown mountains lay in the far distance; beyond them, Pakistan. On the radio, the BBC was reporting scenes of jubilation in the city they had left behind. He sat deep in thought. The ignominy of his flight fit no narrative he knew. You worked hard, were clever and careful, and through patronage or charisma you became someone who mattered. You were brave in battle and loyal in life, and it paid off—but not for him. He was escaping like a common thief, turning his back on the movement that had made him who he was. "That was the beginning, I can tell you that," he recalled years later. "That was the start of my depression. I was thinking, What will happen to me? I pressed my face against the glass. I was crying, but I didn't want anyone to see. It felt like the sky was falling."

    –––

    Two mornings later, Mullah Cable and his family arrived at a small way station at the foot of the dark brown mountains. They waited through the day until a smuggler appeared, and Mullah Cable spoke with him briefly. Just ahead was a stand of pine trees, and the group left their taxi behind and headed toward it on foot. Soon they found themselves making their way through a thick forest. A few miles ahead lay the tribal badlands of Waziristan, a region of Pakistan home to "murderers, backbiters, and thieves," as he explained to his wife. It was terra incognita for him, but he had heard enough tales of travelers being robbed and knifed there, or kidnapped and never seen again. Worse yet, Pakistan's official policy was to arrest any Talib they found.
    With the smuggler as their guide, they headed off the path, hacking their way through the bracken, clearing their way as they went. Every so often, they were directed by the smuggler to lie motionless on the ground. Mullah Cable looked at his wife, suffering these hardships in silence, picking her way through the trees in her burqa. Guilt welled up in him, guilt for her ordeal and for having ever gotten mixed up in politics. He told himself that she shouldn't have to pay for his sins. The smuggler had given him a hunting rifle, and Mullah Cable decided that if someone came for his family he would fight to the death. "If I tell you to run," he told her, "just do it. Don't ask me, and don't wait for me."

    After many hours they emerged into a clearing. A smooth, paved highway, a sight he'd never seen anywhere in Afghanistan, stretched out before them. Some time later, a truck rolled to a stop and picked them up, as arranged. Once they were on their way, he noticed the driver staring at him. "I've been doing this for a long time," the driver said. "But I've never seen anyone as anxious as you."

    They drove on as the highway curved through forests of pine and holly. Every so often a Pakistani military vehicle trundled by and Mullah Cable ducked his head out of view. He knew that if he were caught he'd be turned over to the Americans or banished to a Pakistani prison, and the thought filled him with anger. What had it all been for? A mad village preacher throwing away the country for nothing?

    The forest thinned into a broad clearing. Up ahead, straddling the highway, stood a military checkpoint. They drove up and the driver waved and the Pakistani soldier nodded and they continued on. They drove through a second and third checkpoint, and Mullah Cable was not even questioned. He could not make sense of it.
    They crossed a dried riverbed and came upon street after street of low mud-brick houses. The driver announced that they had reached the town of Miram Shah. For the first time in three days, Mullah Cable and his family sat down to eat. The next morning they set out again, heading for the anonymous streets of the port metropolis of Karachi.

    –––

    Back in Afghanistan the bombing continued, but the Taliban's end was near. Thousands of their soldiers were fleeing, and while some made it back to their home villages, the less fortunate among them ended up in Northern Alliance hands. Many of these were executed, including hundreds who were locked inside giant containers and suffocated to death. Though he didn't realize it, Mullah Cable had only narrowly escaped a similar fate.

    Shortly after he left the Taliban garrison town of Qale Nasro, rebels overran the outpost and seized whomever they could find. A New York Times reporter traveling with them learned that a Taliban soldier hiding in an irrigation ditch had been dragged out, stripped of his belongings, and shot. For good measure, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher was then driven into the corpse's head.

    When his family reached Karachi, relief washed over Mullah Cable. If he could keep out of sight of Pakistani authorities, he could begin to piece together a Taliban-free future. He had a new world to look forward to, a new set of possibilities. A life at peace.


    The Self-Certainty Of Abrahamic Religions And The Mysticism Of "Not Knowing"

    $
    0
    0

    Dear Fred,

    Thanks for your email.

    Among the oriental gurus with whom I familiarized myself as a young man, the one whose teaching appealed most was Korean Zen master Seung Sahn. His path to realization emphasized "Don't know mind." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seungsahn  (Although drawn to Seung Sahn's focus on "the unknown and the unknowable," I also acknowledge the man's personal shortcomings.)

    Later, when I discovered the Christian "tradition" of Magnum Mysterium I came to prefer "not knowing" at the highest and deepest level(s) of religion and spirituality. 

    My view does not deny the role of faith. 

    But as Unamuno taught, it is a poor faith that is not cross-fertilized by doubt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Unamuno 

    If you do not know Unamuno, here is a revelatory anecdote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_de_Unamuno#Confrontation_with_Mill.C3.A1n-Astray)

    "Not knowing" in face of The Whole (which is always greater than the sum of its parts) is intrinsically awe-ful and reverential.

    When we get beyond "the knowable,""not knowing" (supported by the many working hypotheses of faith... praestat fides supplementum...) seems the only honest approach.

    As a tool for advancement on any path where "things" can be known, love is key. 

    Augustine astutely noted: "We know to the extent we love." Epistemology worthy of the name!

    On the other hand, I contemplate the three Abrahamic religions and see that all of them are determined (overtly, covertly, explicitly, implicitly) to exterminate their fellows because "they and only they" are RIGHT.

    In their absolutism they must see others as absolutely wrong and therefore deserving annihilation because wrongness makes them satanic idolaters in an inter-related complex of religions where Monotheism Rules. (At least in theory The Trinity offers "escape" from ruthless monotheism since, as Chesterton pointed out, "three persons in one God" recognizes an interpersonal society within Godhead "itself.") 

    Of course "Abrahamics" do not use the word "annihilation."

    They much prefer "purgation." (Keep things clean and neat!)

    I suspect Semitic obsession with dietary (and other forms of ritual) purity makes infidels "unclean in the sight of God" and thus "true believers" -- fill in "the believing blank" as you see fit -- are obliged to rescue God from The Shithole of Sacrilege by destroying any who befoul Him. 

    I know you have already read Emo Philips' shtick on sectarianism but it bears repetition:

    "I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!""Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!""Like what?""Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?""Christian.""Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant.""Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?""Baptist""Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?""Baptist Church of God!""Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?""Reformed Baptist Church of God!""Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.   

    Pax tecum

    Alan

    PS An anonymous monastic work from the late Middle Ages, "The Cloud of Unknowing," is reminiscent of Seung Sahn's "Don't know mind." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing

    On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:

    The US Government Never Understood Afghanistan and Still Doesn't  

    By that standard, I should avoid any contact with women. 


    --
    Fred Owens
    cell: 360-739-0214

    My gardening blog is  Fred Owens
    My writing blog is Frog Hospital

    send mail to:

    Fred Owens
    35 West Main St Suite B #391
    Ventura CA 93001

    Weird Enuf Fer Ya? News From Barbaria #150

    $
    0
    0

    Saudi billionaire, Prince Alwaleed Ibn Talal, is the House of Saud frontman.
    Wikipedia characterizes Ibn Talal as "the most influential Arab in the world"
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Waleed_bin_Talal

    Deepak Chopra: Richard Dawkins is a bad scientist and his arrogance pisses me off

    Jerry Seinfeld questions Maher: ‘What do you care’ if Hillary Clinton’s running or not?

    Bill Maher levels GOP Rep. Kline: He embodies D.C’s ‘easily-swayed whores and sellouts’

    West Virginia cop caught threatening woman filming rough arrest of terminally ill man

    The fight isn’t over: Voting rights may be headed back to the Supreme Court  


    NFL running back Adrian Peterson indicted for allegedly abusing 4-year-old boy

    ‘F*ck off, you fat *ss!’: Enraged minivan mom caught on camera berating motorist

    US denies threatening Foley family over raising ransom

    No evidence whistleblower Edward Snowden raised concerns internally: NSA

    Police in three states hunt for gunman after trooper shot dead at Pennsylvania barracks

    Federal judge rules that Arizona gay widower is entitled to federal spousal benefits

    Keith Olbermann and Michael Moore follow Maher’s comedy double-header


    Details emerge in Adrian Peterson child abuse case: ‘I’m all tearing that butt up when needed’

    This is the first map of Rosetta’s comet 67P/ Churyumov-Gerasimenk

    ISIS's latest strategy: Recruit female jihadis from America's heartland 

    Tucker Carlson suspects school indoctrination plot because children are ‘just learning too much’

    ‘Django Unchained’ actress detained by cops because they assumed she was a hooker

    Deepak Chopra: Richard Dawkins is a bad scientist and his arrogance pisses me off

    The story of a civilization can be found in the materials used to build it

    Texas high school chemistry teacher arrested with date rape drug ‘recipes’ in her backpack

    Golfing great Greg Norman almost severs hand with chainsaw 

    HIV-positive Texas school teacher accused of having sex multiple times with teen 

    Illinois man arrested for murder of ex-girlfriend, body found in backseat of car




    Preserving And Expanding Forests: The Most Buildable Bridge To Future Carbon Caps

    $
    0
    0
     "In 50 years, we will look back at this moment and compare our dysfunctional congressional leaders to those church theologians who convicted Galileo of heresy for insisting that the Earth was not the center of the universe."
     September 19 at 8:00 PM
    Joseph J. Ellis is a Pulitzer Prize winning historian currently teaching at Williams College. Peter Ellis, his son, is a forest ecologist.
    Tw o contradictory facts reign supreme with regard to climate change. The first is that the atmosphere and oceans of our planet are heating up . The catastrophic consequences of this reality are already baked into the environment, and most of New Orleans will be underwater 100 years from now. If Occupy Wall Street persists as a political movement till then, it will have to hoist its banners from kayaks .
    The second is that the current Congress is incapable of leadership or legislation that reduces the flow of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In 50 years, we will look back at this moment and compare our dysfunctional congressional leaders to those church theologians who convicted Galileo of heresy for insisting that the Earth was not the center of the universe. But, for now, the United States is politically gridlocked.
    Our domestic paralysis also has an international equivalent that has stymied global reform ever since the U.N. climate conference at Kyoto in 1997. All attempts to reduce carbon emissions through binding international agreements have floundered because the world’s developing countries — chiefly China and India — are understandably reluctant to deny their populations a higher standard of living in response to requests from the West, which already achieved that higher standard by burning fossil fuels with impunity.
    We are, then, in an awkward historical moment, waiting for the looming environmental catastrophe to get worse — goodbye polar bears and Greenland glaciers — and change the political chemistry for the better. For the foreseeable future, it seems clear that hurricanes, droughts and floods will intensify, and the political will to address the problem will lag behind the crises that occur.
    In this stymied situation, the obvious question is: What can we do?
    The three-word answer is an environmental version of the Hippocratic Oath: Do no harm. The one-word answer is forests. If the bridge fuel from coal and oil to renewables is natural gas, the bridge technology between today and the emissions reductions we need is nature’s most efficient carbon container: the tree.
    At the upcoming U.N. summits on climate change in Lima (in December)and Paris (in 2015), we propose setting forest conservation as the global goal that most maximizes benefits and minimizes sacrifices. Conversations laying the groundwork for these negotiations will begin at the U.N. climate summit on Tuesday in New York.
    Here are the numbers. We inherited a planet with 6 billion hectares of forest. About 4 billion remain. If we continue at our current rate of forest loss, (19 million hectares a year, an area the size of Washington state), we will have destroyed more than half of the Earth’s forests within a century.This destruction has a big impact. Every year, between 10 percent and 15 percent of the carbon released into the atmosphere (5 billion tons of carbon dioxide) comes from deforestation, about the same amount of pollution produced by automobiles, trains, ships and airplanes combined.
    But here is the good news. When a tree is cut down, it releases carbon into the atmosphere; when it is allowed to grow, however, it continues to absorb carbon. The environmental impact of forest conservation is double-barreled. The more we cut, the more we compound our problem, but conversely, the more that forests regrow, the stronger our potential for recovery. If we stopped deforestation tomorrow, the total power of forests would offset a third of our human-caused carbon emissions. Until we are prepared to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, forests are a stopgap that allow us to minimize the damage and save us from ourselves.
    The tropical forests of Asia and the Amazon and Congo basins are by far the most efficient carbon absorbers on Earth, and they are also the hot spots of forest loss. They constitute the planet’s best chance to avert environmental suicide. Preserving them should be high on the agenda at the Lima summit, and the United States and other rich countries should offer to foot the bill.
    What we propose is not a solution to the global challenge posed by climate change. Rather, it is a feasible strategy to limit the damage until we are politically prepared to take more aggressive action, using the planet’s built-in defense mechanism to fullest advantage. It buys time and provides a decent interval for our children and grandchildren to devise a more adequate response to the climate crisis.
    If we live up to the full meaning of the term “conservationists,” and save the forests, especially in the tropics, we will be able to say that we passed the baton in a race that was not already lost. That limited goal is currently the best legacy we can still leave.

    If Obama Is A Socialist, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt Was A Trotskyite

    $
    0
    0

    Leon Trotsky
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotsky

    ***

    Teddy Roosevelt: "Malefactors Of Great Wealth Are Curses To The Country"
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/09/teddy-roosevelt-malefactors-of-great.html

    ***

    Dear Byron,

    Here is the Teddy Roosevelt passage I mentioned last night. 

    Compare Teddy's criticism of "The 1%" with the "critique" of the Rockefeller Republican currently in office and the tectonic shift in American politics comes clear. 

    Follow the money.

    Paz contigo,

    Alan

    Bill Moyers And Republican Operative Mike Lofgren's "Must Read": “The Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight”


    ***

    "Politics and Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"


    "Teddy Roosevelt: The Making Of A Progressive Reformer"



    The People’s Climate March: An Interview with Bill McKibben

    $
    0
    0
    "The Christian Paradox: How A Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong"
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/06/bill-mckibben-christian-paradox-how.html
    ***
    "The People's Climate March: An Interview With Bill McKibben"
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-peoples-climate-march-interview.html

    ***

    "Lots Of Good News About Global Warming Abatement"
    http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/09/lots-of-good-news-about-global-warming.html

    ***
    On Sunday, tens of thousands of demonstrators are expected to join the People’s Climate March through midtown Manhattan; its Web site describes it as the “largest climate march in history.” In May, Bill McKibben wrote an article in Rolling Stone, “A Call to Arms: An Invitation to Demand Action on Climate Change,” which laid some of the groundwork for this weekend’s events. We spoke about the march with McKibben, one of its lead organizers, and a former New Yorker staff writer.
    According to the Los Angeles Times, anywhere between a hundred thousand and four hundred thousand people are expected to come to New York City for the People’s Climate March. Can you tell us about how you, and others, came up with the idea for a large demonstration and how you turned it into what it is now? 

    Everyone in this movement who heard Ban Ki-moon’s call for world leaders to come to New York City had the same thought: These guys are going to come and do the same thing they always do—offer a few fine speeches and head home having accomplished nothing. We figured we would invite ourselves to come along and try to press them harder than they’ve been pressed before. We don’t expect this will have immediate results here in New York, but we think building a big movement is the only way to get them off the dime.
    You were once a journalist—in the nineteen-eighties, in fact, you were a staff writer for this magazine—and an author of books. You now call yourself an activist. Can you tell us a little bit about the moment you made that transition? 
    I still write books, of course, but in 1989 I wrote a book titled “The End of Nature.” At the time, I thought, like most writers, that people would read my book and they would change. People did read it, but that turns out not to be how change works. It took me a long time to realize that the scientists had won the argument but were going to lose the fight, because it isn’t about data and science, it’s about power. The most powerful industry is fossil fuel, because it is the richest. At a certain point, it became clear that our only hope of matching that money was with the currencies of movement: passion, spirit, creativity—and warm bodies.
    When exactly did you realize that it would take more than writing to change the discussion about climate change?
    Eight years ago this month, I organized, without any idea how to do it, a march across Vermont. We walked for five days, and when we ended up in Burlington there were a thousand people with us. The papers the next day called it the biggest climate-change demonstration to have taken place in the United States. When I read that, I said, No wonder we’re getting our butts kicked. We have the superstructure of a movement—scientists and lobbyists and policymakers. The only thing we’ve forgotten is the movement. There’re no people there.
    That’s when we started 350.org, named after the most important number in the world, which nobody knew about until 2008, when James Hansen and his team at NASA said that three hundred and fifty parts per million (p.p.m.) was the maximum amount of CO2 you could have in the atmosphere. We’re already at four hundred and going up three p.p.m. each year—that’s why the Arctic is melting, why the ocean is turning acidic, why we’re seeing weather events nearly every week around the world. We took that number as our name because, among other things, we wanted to be global, and numbers got around the language problem. We’ve arranged something like twenty thousand rallies, in every country except North Korea.
    The march planning has been led by New Yorkers in the communities most affected by fossil fuels and those hit by Sandy. We’re happy to see how many people are streaming into the city. This is going to be not just the biggest climate-change demonstration but one of the biggest political gatherings about anything in America in recent years
    It’s true that most of these sorts of calls to action don’t lead to much. What did you do to insure that there would be a significant turnout? 
    This is all a warm-up for a big negotiating session in Paris in 2015. To the extent that we can build a large movement, we can help push these countries some.
    The real point of building a movement is to provide a countervailing power to the fossil-fuel industry. Right now, leaders are afraid of them, but we need them to be afraid of people as well.


    In your article for Rolling Stone, which laid some of the groundwork for this weekend’s events, you wrote, “In a rational world, policymakers would have heeded scientists when they first sounded the alarm 25 years ago. But in this world, reason, having won the argument, has so far lost the fight.” Why has this happened?
    There’s too much money on the other side. Here’s the frustrating part for me: we know that we could change. Germany proves that we could change. It’s not a lack of engineering or natural resources—we just don’t have enough political will. This march and things like it are an attempt to gin up some of that political will.
    Climate change is still an abstract issue to some people. Do you see that changing? 
    Most people have a good sense that something bad is happening, but they feel very, very small in comparison to the size of these global forces, and that feeling of smallness leads to a feeling of powerlessness—“What can I do?”
    As individuals, there’s not much we can do. We can change our light bulbs—and we should—but doing so won’t change global warming. It’s a structural, systemic problem that needs to be addressed structurally and systemically. The most important rule for an individual in this fight is to figure out how not to remain an individual, how to join a movement big enough to change the politics. There’s no guarantee that we’re going to win, because it’s a timed test. In this case, if we don’t win pretty soon, it’s going to be a moot point.
    There have been wide-scale environmental mobilizations before. Earth Day or the nuclear disarmament, for example. What distinguishes the People’s Climate March from these earlier attempts? 
    Historians think that the first Earth Day had twenty million Americans out in the streets—roughly one-tenth of the U.S. population. A mobilization of that size was extremely persuasive. Over the next ten years, Richard Nixon signed pretty much every law that we use today to protect the environment. It would be nice to build as fast as we can to that kind of size.
    Why were organizers successful back then, as opposed to now, when we have so much more data and evidence?
    I think it was easier for people to imagine solving a problem they faced back then. You could see pipes pouring black gunk into rivers and it would be easy to see that you could stop it. Now we have a crisis that requires us to rejigger our entire economy, so it seems daunting to people.
    I think that’s changing, because the economy itself is changing and everyone can see it. The price of a solar panel is dropping like a rock—you can go to Home Depot and buy a set of solar panels for not that much. So people are becoming more optimistic, and as Mother Nature continues to educate us about the follies of our ways with demonstrations like the California drought, we’ll be making more progress.
    Do you think that the events of the past few years—Hurricane Sandy, the shrinking Arctic ice cap, and drought in the American West—have awoken people to the looming problems of climate change? 
    I look at the places I know, and those kinds of events cause real change. In Vermont, where I come from, Hurricane Irene, in 2011, changed not only the physical landscape but the political landscape. The governor now talks incessantly about climate change—within a few hours, a rhetorical problem turned into a real one.
    It’s not only a local thing. Metropolitan Manila was just shut down with hideous flooding. In Pakistan and Kashmir, too, they’re recovering from flooding. The people there know that this is an issue. The question is how to put enough pressure on the system. What we’re trying to do is add pressure into the system so that our leaders will feel the need to relieve it somehow, by doing some of the things that economists and scientists have been telling them to do.
    You talk a lot about poor people, especially those in communities of color. I think the popular perception of the climate-change movement is that it’s mostly helmed by upper-middle-class white people. What sort of outreach should be done? 
    The people who are arranging this march are straight out of the environmental-justice movement. These are not John Denver environmentalists. This is a very different kind of thing.
    That stereotype—that this is a movement for hippies—was true once, to some degree. But it’s not true anymore. I think what happened was people understood just how severely impacted their communities were.


    These summits and international actions seem to lag behind climate change. You seem to share this view. Is there still time to catch up? What will it take?
    I know how much carbon we can have in the atmosphere, but I don’t know the exact number we need in the streets. It strikes me that the more we have, the better our chances.

    Jay Caspian Kang is the science and technology editor for newyorker.com



    "Wretched, Disgusting Commie Leftists" And The Fight Against Gun Nuts In A Red State

    $
    0
    0

    “Wretched, disgusting commie leftists”: My nightmare fighting gun nuts in a red state

    Want to understand why it's so hard to win the most basic gun safety reform? Here's how the debate so often goes

    I volunteer for Nebraskans Against Gun Violence, a grass-roots organization seeking to reduce gun casualties by calling for an increase in the “responsible” part of “responsible gun ownership.” In May, NAGV called the head of public relations at Texas Roadhouse, a popular steakhouse, to inform him that a Nebraska “open carry” group was planning a meet-up at one of their locations. The open carry group had chosen a location just outside of Omaha in order to avoid Omaha’s supposedly oppressive permitting requirement that people carrying loaded guns in public undergo eight whole hours of training (elsewhere in the state, no training is required for open carry).
    The corporate office forced the local store to cancel the event, and the open carry group contacted the press about this tyranny. One sympathetic media personality was Chris Baker, an AM shock jock in Omaha who was fired from a job a few years ago for saying liberal protesters should be mowed down with machine guns — and who now makes a living selling gold bullion by stretching minor news and puddle-deep political insights into four hours of hate spew every weekday afternoon.
    Baker invited NAGV on his show. On behalf of the organization I declined by email, explaining that given his track record I didn’t think we’d get a fair chance to present our views. Baker mocked me on air, deeming me a “moon bat.” Case closed, I thought.
    But the next day he started up again, and I mentioned it on my personal Facebook page, garnering the interest of Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, who writes on gun policy for Esquire. Bateman called in, and Baker deemed him a “fake” and a “liar” who was not even in the military but who was also “disgracing the United States armed services” (difficult to do when one is not even in the military, it would seem). He said Bateman was “belligerent” and had “bullied” him, and he encouraged listeners to weigh in on Bateman’s credentials.  He called my organization “wretched, disgusting commie leftists.” This went on for an hour … about an Army combat vet. Finally, he concluded that Nebraskans Against Gun Violence — a group of professionals and parents, some of whom are gun owners — smoked pot and conspired to get someone to call in pretending to be an Army officer to hijack his show.

    Baker has mastered the art of the conspiracy theory, the agile evasion of cognitive dissonance that has become the modus operandi of right-wing media at both national and local levels. For people like me, volunteers hoping to put a dent in one of our country’s most difficult problems, the biggest obstacle we face is not any particular policy point, but the refusal of a portion of our population to enter a debate in good faith. When a fact doesn’t fit, they simply deny it, or better yet, conclude it is part of a sinister plot by communists, Muslims or the UN. National media figures such as Glenn Beck and Alex Jones are famous for these maneuvers, but they’ve trickled down to local media and to conversation-level micro-denials as well, and they have poisoned the public sphere.
    In the last month I’ve read conspiracies claiming that Common Core has dropped cursive in an effort to make our founding documents illegible to us so that the Muslim takeover can begin, and that the UN is preparing to attack America from their staging ground in Alabama. Gun violence-prevention activists see Sandy Hook truthers who claim the slaughter there was orchestrated by Obama, gun extremists who say that the outrageous open carry crowd who brandish assault weapons in family restaurants are actually liberal operatives paid to make gun owners look bad, and that the murdered children of women I know never even existed. The goal is not to believe what is true or even humane, but what is easy and what makes you feel superior in a world that has not offered you the successes you expected. There are verifiable collusions that promote violence in the United States — the financial ties between gun manufacturers and the NRA; the gun lobby’s role in dismantling state and local gun laws — but those are of no concern to denialists and conspiraphiles. Only fantastical tales of socialist/atheist/Islamofascist gun-grabbers, who start by disarming the populace and end by locking you in a FEMA camp, need be entertained.
    In this context of deliberate misinformation and disbelief, we can’t even get to a debate about effective policy points because we’ve first got to overcome denialism about basic facts. NAGV recently posted a photo of a sign on an Omaha street advertising a lost AR-15 rifle. The photo was picked up by a national gun reform group, and commenters insisted it was a fake, even as Omaha residents confirmed they had seen it. Presumably some people think it’s preposterous that in a state where almost anyone can own an AR-15 there might be bad apples among those who own one. But if there aren’t really bad guys with guns out there, why do so many people need to arm themselves against them?
    Baker’s denialism was disconcertingly agile. As soon as he was confronted with something that didn’t fit — an unexpected call from a veteran who doesn’t want to see 100,000 of his fellow citizens hurt or killed by guns every year — he was able to devise a conspiracy theory. Gun reformists regularly face micro-denials like this — for instance, when I recently told a friend that the negligent gun deaths of children are often not prosecuted, he simply didn’t believe me. “No, I just don’t believe that, sorry,” he said. “Those cases have got to be rare.” This despite a rash of such cases, including 4-year-old Zoie Dougan, shot in the head by a family friend who was target shooting, or 9-year-old Shayla Schonneker, killed when her mother’s boyfriend played quick-draw with his gun. Like many other negligent child-killers, neither adult was charged with a crime.
    More troubling to me than these denials was a joke Baker made when a liberal caller phoned in to argue with him. Baker dubbed him a “borderline school shooter,” reducing the horror of gun violence against America’s children to a cheap political joke.  School shooters are all liberals, the absurd urban legend says, and so anyone who rails against Baker is the problem. No need to entertain life-saving policy changes; the problem isn’t gun accessibility, the listener can think, it’s those liberals.
    Gun violence prevention activists in Oklahoma had a similar run-in with willful misinformation in right-wing media a few months ago. Volunteers from Moms Demand Action as well as unaffiliated gun reformists had gone to a farmer’s market in Tulsa to get people to pledge to be gun-sense voters. A group of open carry activists came to the farmer’s market armed to confront the volunteers.  When it began to rain the volunteers left for Chipotle, which they had advertised on Facebook, and arrived there to find open carriers already awaiting them. When a volunteer asked if Chipotle had a policy prohibiting weapons — the company had recently announced one — the manager said she had seen a memo about it but was unaware of any official policy on the matter. The open carriers continued the “conversation” about gun rights, and eventually the volunteers left with no further interaction with the management.
    This didn’t stop one of the open carriers from writing a fact-scant propaganda piece for the website Freedom Outpost, whose recent headlines include “Obama to Force Militant Homosexual Agenda on Entire World” and “What More Can Barack Obama Do to Destroy America Before He Leaves Office?” In the piece, the author admits to taking a group of armed men to Chipotle to confront the unarmed volunteers. He acknowledges that Chipotle doesn’t want open carry in its stores and says they expected they would be asked to leave. Yet he claims that the gun reformists — whom they had forced into an armed encounter at a restaurant with a no open carry policy — were kicked out for “rude behavior.” Chipotle refuses to comment on the incident, but the agreed upon facts — that openly armed men followed unarmed volunteers to a place that tries to prohibit open carry — make the idea that the gun extremists were somehow the victims prima facie absurd.
    No matter. The story was picked up by gun-pushing hack sites wanting to embellish the story: The Truth About Guns called the gun reformists “bullies” and Guns ‘N’ Freedom said they were “harassing” the men with guns. And so the denialist digestion is complete, with a tense situation wholly caused by armed aggressors transformed into comforting reassurance of their righteous victimhood.
    Amanda Gailey teaches English at the University of Nebraska and volunteers for Nebraskans Against Gun Violence.

    Lots Of Good News About Global Warming Abatement

    $
    0
    0
    List Of Solar Thermal Power Stations
    Wikipedia

    ***
    Dear Maria,

    I hope your Manhattan trip is going well.

    Check out this interview with Bill McKibben on the occasion of "The People's Climate March."

    McKibben recalls how "The Structure Of American Law Necessitates Degradation Of The Biosphere." http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-structure-of-american-law.html

    There is also lots of good news!


    "U.S. Solar And Wind Start To Outshine Natural Gas"


    Paul Krugman: "The Economics Of Global Warming Abatement Better Than Ever"


    "Global Investors Managing 20 Trillion Dollars Pressuring Climate Negotiators For Deal"


    Keep up the good work girl!

    Love 

    Daddy man





    Why I’m Joining The Manhattan March Against Climate Change

    $
    0
    0

    I say: rock that boat. It's a lifeboat; maybe the people in it will wake up and start rowing.


    ***

    "The People's Climate March: An Interview With Bill McKibben"

    ***

    | Sep. 19, 2014

    This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.
    There have undoubtedly been stable periods in human history, but you and your parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents never lived through one, and neither will any children or grandchildren you may have or come to have. Everything has been changing continuously, profoundly—from the role of women to the nature of agriculture. For the past couple of hundred years, change has been accelerating in both magnificent and nightmarish ways.
    Yet when we argue for change, notably changing our ways in response to climate change, we're arguing against people who claim we're disrupting a stable system. They insist that we're rocking the boat unnecessarily.
    I say: rock that boat. It's a lifeboat; maybe the people in it will wake up and start rowing. Those who think they're hanging onto a stable order are actually clinging to the wreckage of the old order, a ship already sinking, that we need to leave behind.
    As you probably know, the actual oceans are rising—almost eight inches since 1880, and that's only going to accelerate. They're also acidifying, because they're absorbing significant amounts of the carbon we continue to pump into the atmosphere at record levels. The ice that covers the polar seas is shrinking, while the ice shields that cover Antarctica andGreenland are melting. The water locked up in all the polar ice, as it's unlocked by heat, is going to raise sea levels staggeringly, possibly by as much as 200 feet at some point in the future, how distant we do not know. In the temperate latitudes, warming seas breed fiercer hurricanes.
    The oceans are changing fast, and for the worse. Fish stocks are dying off, as are shellfish. In many acidified oceanic regions, their shells are actually dissolving or failing to form, which is one of the scariest, most nightmarish things I've ever heard. So don't tell me that we're rocking a stable boat on calm seas. The glorious 10,000-year period of stable climate in which humanity flourished and then exploded to overrun the Earth and all its ecosystems is over.
    But responding to these current cataclysmic changes means taking on people who believe, or at least assert, that those of us who want to react and act are gratuitously disrupting a stable system that's working fine. It isn't stable. It isworking fine—in the short term and the most limited sense—for oil companies and the people who profit from them and for some of us in the particularly cushy parts of the world who haven't been impacted yet by weather events like, say, the recent torrential floods in Japan or southern Nevada and Arizona, or the monsoon versionsof the same that have devastated parts of India and Pakistan, or the drought that has mummified my beloved California, or the wildfires of Australia.
    The problem, of course, is that the people who most benefit from the current arrangements have effectively purchased a lot of politicians, and that a great many of the rest of them are either hopelessly dim or amazingly timid. Most of the Democrats recognize the reality of climate change but not the urgency of doing something about it. Many of the Republicans used to—John McCain has done an amazing about-face from being a sane voice on climate to a shrill denier—and they present a horrific obstacle to any international treaties.
    Put it this way: in one country, one party holding 45 out of 100 seats in one legislative house, while serving a minority of the very rich, can basically block what quite a lot of the other seven billion people on Earth want and need, because a two-thirds majority in the Senate must consent to any international treaty the US signs. Which is not to say much for the president, whose drill-baby-drill administration only looks good compared to the petroleum servants he faces, when he bothers to face them and isn't just one of them. History will despise them all and much of the world does now, but as my mother would have said, they know which side their bread is buttered on.
    As it happens, the butter is melting and the bread is getting more expensive. Global grain production is already down several percent thanks to climate change, says a terrifying new United Nations report. Declining crops cause food shortages and rising food prices, creating hunger and even famine for the poorest on Earth, and also sometimes cause massive unrest. Rising bread prices were one factor that helpedspark the Arab Spring in 2011. Anyone who argues that doing something about global warming will be too expensive is dodging just how expensive unmitigated climate change is already proving to be.
    It's only a question of whether the very wealthy or the very poor will pay. Putting it that way, however, devalues all the nonmonetary things at stake, from the survival of myriad species to our confidence in the future. And yeah, climate change is here, now. We've already lost a lot and we're going to lose more, but there's a difference between terrible and apocalyptic. We still have some control over how extreme it gets. That's not a great choice, but it's the choice we have. There's still a window open for action, but it's closing. As the Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Society, Michel Jarraud, bluntly put it recently, "We are running out of time."
    New and Renewable Energies
    The future is not yet written. Look at the world we're in at this very moment. The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline was supposed to be built years ago, but activistscatalyzed by the rural and indigenous communities across whose land it would go have stopped it so far, and made what was supposed to be a done deal a contentious issue. Activists changed the outcome.
    Fracking has been challenged on the state level, and banned in townships and counties from upstate New York to central California. (It has also been banned intwo Canadian provincesFrance, and Bulgaria.) The fossil-fuel divestment movementhas achieved a number of remarkable victories in its few bare years of existence and more are on the way. The actual divestments and commitments to divest fossil fuel stocks by various institutions ranging from the city of Seattle to the British Medical Association are striking. But the real power of the movement lies in the way it has called into question the wisdom of investing in fossil fuel corporations. Even mainstream voices like the British Parliament's Environmental Audit Committee and publications like Forbes are now beginning to question whether they are safe places to put money. That's a sea change.
    Renewable energy has become more efficient, technologically sophisticated, and cheaper—the price of solar power in relation to the energy it generates hasplummeted astonishingly over the past three decades and wind technology keepsgetting better. While Americans overall are not yet curtailing their fossil-fuel habits, many individuals and communities are choosing other options, and those options are becoming increasingly viable. A Stanford University scientist has proposed a plan to allow each of the 50 states to run on 100% renewable energy by 2050.
    Since, according to the latest report of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, fossil fuel reserves still in the ground are "at least four times larger than could safely be burned if global warming is to be kept to a tolerable level," it couldn't be more important to reach global agreements to do things differently on a planetary scale. Notably, most of those carbon reserves must be left untapped and the modest steps already taken locally and ad hoc show that such changes are indeed possible and that an encouraging number of us want to pursue them.
    We can do it. And we is the key word here. The world is not going to be saved by individual acts of virtue; it's going to be saved, if it is to be saved, by collective acts of social and political change. That's why I'm marching this Sunday with tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of others in New York City—to pressure the United Nations as it meets to address climate change. That's why people who care about the future state of our planet will also be marching and demonstrating in New Delhi, Rio de Janeiro, Paris, Berlin, Melbourne, Kathmandu, Dublin, Manila, Seoul, Mumbai, Istanbul, and so many smaller places.
    Mass movements work. Unarmed citizens have changed the course of history countless times in the modern era. When we come together as civil society, we have the capacity to transform policies, change old ways of doing things, and sometimes even topple regimes. And it is about governments. Like it or not, the global treaties, compacts, and agreements we need can only be made by governments, and governments will make those agreements when the pressure to do so is greater than the pressure not to. We can and must be that pressure.
    The Long View from One Window
    I lived in the same apartment for 25 years, moving into a poor but thriving black community in 1981 and out of the far more affluent, paler, and less neighborly place it had become in 2006. A lot of people moved in and out in that period, many of them staying only a year or two. Those transients always seemed to believe that the neighborhood they were passing through was a stable one. You had to be slower than change and stick around to see it. I saw it and it helped me learn how to take a historical view of things.
    It's crazy that anyone speaks as if our world is not undergoing rapid change, when the view from the window called history shows nothing but transformation, both incremental and dramatic. Exactly 25 years ago this month, Eastern Europe was astir. Remember that back then there was still a Soviet bloc, and a Soviet Union, and an Iron Curtain, and a Berlin Wall, and a Cold War. Most people thought those were permanent fixtures, but in the summer of 1989, Hungary decided to let East Germans (who were permitted to travel freely to that communist country) stream over to the West.
    Thousands of people, tired of life in the totalitarian east, fled. Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, as well as East Germany, were already electrified by a resurgent civil society and activist communities that had dared to organize in the face of repression. At the time, politicians and pundits in the West were making careers out of explaining, among so many other things, why German reunification wasn't going to happen in anyone's lifetime. And they probably would have been proven right if people had stayed home and done nothing, if they hadn't begun to hope and acted on that hope.
    The bureaucrats on both sides of the Berlin Wall were still talking about the possibility of demilitarizing it when citizens showed up en masse and the guards began abandoning their posts. On that epochal night of November 9, 1989, the people made whole what had been broken. The lesson: showing up is half the battle.
    British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had been so unnerved by developments in the Soviet Union's Eastern European holdings that she went to Moscow, two months before the fall of the wall, to implore Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to prevent any such thing. That was early September 1989. "No dramatic change in the situation in Czechoslovakia can be expected," predicted a Czech official two months before a glorious popular uprising, remembered as the Velvet Revolution, erupted and abolished the government in which he was an official.
    There are three things to note about those changes in 1989. First, most people in power dismissed the possibility that such extraordinary change could happen or deplored what it might bring. They were comfortable enough with things as they were, even though the status quo was several kinds of scary and awful. In other words, the status quo likes the status quo and dislikes change. Second, everything changed despite them, thanks to grassroots organizing and civil society, forces that—we are now regularly assured—are pointless and irrelevant. Third, the world that existed then has been largely swept away: the Soviet Union, the global alignments of that time, the idea of a binary world of communism and capitalism, and the policies that had kept us on the brink of nuclear annihilation for decades. We live in a very different world now (though nuclear weapons are still a terrible problem). Things do change.
    Maybe, in fact, there's a fourth point to note as well. That, important as they were, the front-page stories about the liberation of Eastern Europe weren't what mattered most all those years ago. After all, hidden away deep inside the New York Times that autumn, you can find a dozen or so articles about global warming, as the newly recognized phenomenon was then called. And small as they were, anyone reading them now can see that so long ago the essential problem and peril to our world was already clear.
    The thought of what might have been accomplished, had a people's movement arisen then to face global warming, could break your heart. That, after all, was still a time when the Earth's atmosphere held just above 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide, the maximum safe level for a sustainable survivable planet, not the 400 parts per million of the present moment ("142% of the pre-industrial era" level of carbon, the World Meteorological Organization notes). In other words, we've been steadily filling the atmosphere with greenhouse gases and so imperiling the planet and humanity since we knew what we were doing.
    The Great Smog and the Big Wind
    In that fall a quarter of a century ago, the world changed profoundly right before our eyes. Then we settled back into the short-term, ahistorical view that things are really pretty stable, that ordinary people have no power, and that the world can't be changed. With that in mind, it's worth looking at Germany today. Maybe because Germans know better than us that things can change for the worse or the better fast, that the world is not a stable and settled place, and that we do shape it, they have been willing to change.
    At one point last spring, cold, cloudy Germany managed to get almost 75% of its electricity from renewable sources. Scotland—cold, gray, oil-rich Scotland!—is on track to achieve 100% renewable electrical generation by 2020 and has already hitthe 40% mark. Spain now generates about half its electricity through clean and renewable sources. Other European countries have similar accomplishments. In fact, many of the changes that we in the United States will be marching for this Sunday have already begun happening, sometimes on a significant scale, elsewhere.
    To remember how radical this new Europe is, recall that most of these places were burning coal not just in power plants or factories but in homes, too, not so many decades ago. Everyone deplores the horrific air of Beijing and other Chinese cities now, but few remember that many European cities were similarly foul with smoke and smog from the industrial revolution into the postwar era. In December 1952, for instance, the "Great Smog" of London reduced daytime visibility to a few yards and killed about 4,000 people in three days.
    A decade before that, in response to the war Germany started, North Americans radically reduced their use of private vehicles and gasoline and planted more than 20 million victory gardens, producing vast quantities of food by non-industrial means. We have done that; we could (and must) do it again.
    At least, we don't burn coal in our homes any more, and in the US we've retired 178 coal-fired power plants, phasing out many more, and prevented many new ones from being built. The renewable energy sources that were, people insisted, too minor or unreliable or expensive or new are now beginning to work well, and the price to produce energy in such a fashion is dropping rapidly. UBS, the European investment giant, recently counseled that power plants and centralized power generation are no longer good investments, since decentralized renewables are likely to replace them.
    Of course, Germany and Britain are still burning coal, and Poland remains a giant coal mine. Europe is not a perfect renewable energy paradise, just a part of the world that demonstrates the viability of changing how we produce and consume energy. We are already changing, even if not fast enough, not by a long shot, at least not yet. The same goes for divesting from fossil-fuel investments, even though dozens of universities, cities, religious institutions, and foundations have already committed to doing so, and some have by now actually purged their portfolios. The excuse that change is impossible is no longer available, because many places and entities have already changed.
    Last Glimmers
    If you want to know how potentially powerful you are, ask your enemies. The misogynists who attack feminism and try to intimidate feminists into silence only demonstrate in a roundabout way that feminism really is changing the world; they are the furious backlash and so the proof that something meaningful is at stake. The climate movement is similarly upsetting a lot of powerful people and institutions; to grasp that, you just have to look at the tsunamis of money spent opposing specific measures and misinforming the public. The carbon barons are demonstrating that we could change the world and that they don't want us to.
    We are powerful and need to become more so in the next year as a major conference in Paris approaches in December 2015 where the climate agreements we need could be hammered out. Or not. This is, after all, a sequel to the Copenhagen conference of 2009, where representatives of many smaller and more vulnerable nations, as well as citizens' groups, were eager for a treaty that took on climate change in significant ways, only to have their hopes crushed by the recalcitrant governments of the United States and China.
    Right now, we are in a churning sea of change, of climate change, of subtle changes in everyday life, of powerful efforts by elites to serve themselves and damn the rest of us, and of increasingly powerful activist and social-movement campaigns to make a world that benefits more beings, human and otherwise, in the longer term. Every choice you make aligns you with one set of these forces or another. That includes doing nothing, which means aligning yourself with the worst of the status quo dragging us down in that ocean of carbon and consumption.
    To make personal changes is to do too little. Only great movements, only collective action can save us now. Only is a scary word, but when the ship is sinking, it can be an encouraging one as well. It can hold out hope. The world has changed again and again in ways that, until they happened, would have been considered improbable by just about everyone on the planet. It is changing now and the direction is up to us.
    There will be another story to be told about what we did a quarter century after civil society toppled the East Bloc regimes, what we did in the pivotal years of 2014 and 2015. All we know now is that it is not yet written, and that we who live at this very moment have the power to write it with our lives and acts.
    TomDispatch regular, Rebecca Solnit has 16 books out, the latest of which is theindie bestseller Men Explain Things to Me. To stay on top of important articles like these, sign up to receive the latest updates from TomDispatch.com here.

    "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam," Frog Hospital Sings God's Praises

    $
    0
    0


    Dear Fred,

    Thanks for Frog Hospital.

    I enjoyed your examination of hoarding and attachment.

    The Spanish word for "detachment" -- "desprendimiento" -- means "un-seizing." 

    Other meanings of "desprendimiento" are "generosity, open-handedness, largesse."

    Although the sort of "seizure" at the heart of "desprendimiento" is not "the medical kind," the word still suggests that "attachment" is a kind of seizure. (The Spanish root word, "prender," means both to "seize" and to "arrest." Secondarily it means "to fasten" or "to set fire.")

    ***

    Just seeing the words "Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam" buoys me - as if harmony is, in fact, fundamental and "the world" is unfolding as it should.

    Deferring to "the greater glory of God" is a declaration of detachment from the need for personal glory. 

    As Chesterton points out, the work of Incarnation is everything; we are conduits.

    "The work of heaven alone is material; the making of a material world. 
    The work of hell is entirely spiritual." 
    G.K. Chesterton
    (Chesterton's original phrasing: "The work of heaven alone was material...")

    ***
    I wonder... 

    Do all Catholic high schools refer to detention as "jug?" 

    We did at Aquinas Institute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquinas_Institute

    Pax tecum

    Alan


    On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:

    FROG HOSPITAL – Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam


    Sept. 20, 2014

    By Fred Owens

    We’ll get to the Latin part in a minute, but first the news.
    Independence for Scotland and other places.
    Mexico is independent from the US -- for all the good it does them. They're stuck with us, and we are stuck with them, forever.
    Wisely, the Scots realized they shared in island with Britain and there's no changing that.

    Hoarding. 

    People have too much stuff or they are too attached to the stuff they have. You see, it’s not really the amount of stuff you have, it’s how you manage it. Here are some guidelines for judging your own pile of stuff.

    --- 1. Do you know what you have?
    --- 2. Do you know where it is?
    --- 3. Can you retrieve this object without tearing the whole pile apart?

    If you can honestly answer yes to all three questions, then you do not have too much stuff. It’s not the amount, it’s the management that counts. You could be running a complete home museum and be doing all right, because you’re in charge.

    Attachment is another topic. It doesn’t matter how much or how little you have, but it does matter how fiercely you clutch at it with your greedy fingers. Can you let it go? If you can let it go, then you can keep it. But if you can’t let it go, it will eventually harm you.

    Fight the Virus!

    Social media rewards impulsive, infantile behavior. Going viral is a medical metaphor -- an indication of disease and infection. It describes rampant & reckless behavior -- I would be appalled if anything I posted went viral....... I pause, consider, and think before I hit the post button on Facebook. I try to write something that might be interesting to other people. I do a little bragging about my personal accomplishments. I might respond to your political comment with a contrary view...... Fight the virus!

    I finished reading David Copperfield.

    Seriously, I never thought much of Dora, his “Little Blossom,” his child-wife, but after a while I began to realize that it didn’t matter what I thought, but it did matter how David felt. He loved her most completely  -- amend that – David loved Dora almost 99 percent completely, but the missing parts were easy to discover – the lack of a mutual interest, the lack of a common purpose.

    No, I didn’t care for Dora too much at first, but I began coming around to an increasing affection for her because of her candor. She knew what she was like. She admitted her shortcomings -- that she was childish emotionally and incapable of domestic management. She never fooled David or lied to him. She was, in her way, a most reliable companion.

    And she died. Well, it’s a novel. People die. We knew it was going to be Agnes all along. Agnes and David would spend their lives together and raise a happy family in the end. 

    Everyone being disposed of, Uriah Heep in prison, Micawbr finding that pecuniary bliss that eluded him for more than 800 pages, and Mr. Peggoty rescuing his niece Emily from a shameful life, the book did end quite happily.

    The Periodic Table of Elements.

    For a chemist, this image is a work of great beauty and harmony. It sings. It’s who we are. It is the tide and the moon and the sun. It is the garden. It is the attraction of one thing to another – what we call bonding.
    There are patterns, there are tendencies, there are potentialities, and there are certainties that are not quite divine.

    I might need to take a course in chemistry  -- I have really over-done it in “learn-by-yourself.”  The limitation of being self-taught is you are left un-credentialed and idiosyncratic. I might take one of those free Internet courses offered by major universities. Then I might find some practical application of this knowledge.

    High School

    I could not attend the 50th reunion of my high school class at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois. My daughter was married two weeks ago and the choice was clear – weddings matter much more than reunions.
    So I sent them this – very short – reminiscence.

    Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

    Carl Pendola sat behind me in 1-A freshman year. It was alphabetical.

    Fr. McPartlin taught us religion. He was going to prove the existence of God. I hardly thought that was necessary, but I was amused by the way he flourished Latin phrases of irrefutable logic.

    Alan Marn was teased and mocked for his effeminate posture. He reacted with supreme disdain.

    A year later, we had Mr. Rogan and Mr. Lamont. I had hoped to be friends with them.

    Mr. Roach taught us chemistry, he was slightly absent and rumpled. I enjoyed his class quite a bit.

    Father Clifford taught us Latin senior year. He recited Virgil with dramatic intensity. I enjoyed it so much that I took two more years of Latin at college.

    I became a good friend of Mrs. Serwich, because I liked her joyful smile and I because I was sent there so often for disciplinary infractions.

    I may have set a school record for consecutive days in Jug my senior year. What happened is that I refused to memorize the poem. Correct recital of the poem merited dismissal from Jug. I refused. I sat there day after day, and week after week. They didn't care. I could have sat there until hell froze over. I would still be sitting there fifty years later, but I finally realized that I had lost and the Jesuits had won again. I meekly recited the poem and I was dismissed. They were kind enough not to rub it in.

    I see that Frederick Thulin will attend the reunion. I remember that he was accepted at Michigan State with the intention to study Arabic. He said that Arabic was the most useless subject that he might learn. Will you please ask him how that worked out?

    My regards and best wishes to everyone.

    I live in Santa Barbara and count each day a blessing.

    Your classmate,

    Fred Owens

    All My Energy

    I wrote this little memoir, summing up all my energy into making it an agreeable message to my classmates. In truth, high school was a four-year-long nightmare, boring and brutal. I have not set foot on that campus in 50 years -- except for a short visit 30 years ago when I inquired at the front desk if Fr. Beall might come and talk with me. He was the Ass't Principal and Disciplinarian during my tenure. I liked him. In a pathetic search for friendship and approval, I actually broke rules at school in order that I might be sent to his office..... But when I came to visit years later, he was busy doing something -- so the receptionist said, or gone for the day, or whatever.....

    Well, that’s enough for now.


    -- 

    Fred Owens
    cell: 360-739-0214

    My gardening blog is  Fred Owens
    My writing blog is Frog Hospital

    send mail to:

    Fred Owens
    35 West Main St Suite B #391
    Ventura CA 93001


    New Yorker Cartoon: Every Text Without A Context Is A Pretext

    $
    0
    0
    All of our plastic utensils are manufactured locally.



    New Yorker Cartoon: Cat Videos

    New Yorker Cartoon: Takes A Moment. Then Lasts Forever

    New Yorker Cartoon: The Truth Of The Republican Party

    $
    0
    0
    "It's sad. But it's not laugh-out-loud sad."

    ***

    The Hard, Central Truth Of Contemporary Conservatism

    The hard, central "fact" of contemporary "conservatism" is its insistence on a socio-economic threshold above which people deserve government assistance, and below which people deserve to die. 

    The sooner the better. 

    Unless conservatives are showing n'er-do-wells The Door of Doom, they just don't "feel right." 

    To allay this chthonic anxiety, they resort to Human Sacrifice,  hoping that spilled blood will placate "the angry gods," including the one they've made of themselves. http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/harvard-study-45000-americans-die.html 

    Having poked their eyes out, they fail to see  that self-generated wrath creates "the gods" who hold them thrall.

    Almost "to a man," contemporary "conservatives" have apotheosized themselves and now -- sitting on God's usurped throne -- are rabid to pass Final Judgment

    Self-proclaimed Christians, eager to thrust "the undeserving" through The Gates of Hell, are the very people most likely to cross its threshold. 

    Remarkably, none of them are tempted to believe this. 




    Is There Proof John Boehner Does Anything More Than Piss, Moan, Bitch, Whine?

    $
    0
    0
    U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) playfully pumps his fist in response to a reporter's question as he arrives at the U.S. Capitol in Washington September 28, 2013. The U.S. government edged closer to a shutdown Saturday as Republicans in the House of
    attribution: REUTERS
    Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)

    Boehner: Jobless Americans would 'just rather sit around'

    House Speaker John Boehner had some harsh words for jobless Americans Thursday. In response to a question at the end of a speech to a conservative audience:
    Boehner then lamented "this idea that has been born, maybe out of the economy over the last couple years, that you know, I really don't have to work. I don't really want to do this. I think I'd rather just sit around. This is a very sick idea for our country."
    Ahem:
    Less than two weeks after the House returned from its "August recess," which stretched well into September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced Thursday that the lower chamber would be leaving town once again. Not for a week, as originally planned. But for almost two months, so members can go home and campaign before Election Day.
    ANYWAY. The "very sick idea" is that unemployed people would just rather sit around. The jobs economy is improving, slowly, but this is still an economy where there are 2.1 job seekers for every available job.
    Put another way: Job seekers so outnumbered job openings that just over half of the unemployed were not going to find a job in July no matter what they did.
    And yet, despite those odds, people are out there applying for every job in sight, sending out application after application, waiting for the phone to ring ... and, all too often, hearing nothing. And there's a lot Boehner could have done about that, like—just for instance—pushing a transportation bill that would have created thousands of badly needed construction jobs while making the country's bridges safer and connecting more people to public transit. But no. Boehner won't act to create jobs; he'd rather sit around sneering at and blaming the people who don't have them.
    Viewing all 30150 articles
    Browse latest View live