http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106968683&sc=emaf
by Allison Aubrey , July 27, 2009
Tomatoes are certainly nutritious — a good source of the antioxidants lycopene and beta-carotene. But consider this: if you eat a tomato without adding a little fat — say a drizzle of olive oil — your body is unlikely to absorb all these nutrients.
Scientists at Iowa State University figured this out a while ago. They recruited graduate students to eat bowls of salad greens with tomatoes and various types of salad dressings — from fat-free to regular Italian. "Basically once a month for several months we'd show up first thing in the morning," recalls participant Gregory Brown, now a professor of exercise science at the University of Nebraska. Researchers put IV lines into the participants' veins and drew blood samples before and after they'd eaten the salads in order to get precise measurements of the absorption of nutrients.
"The salads all tasted the same to me," says Brown. But when researchers went back and analyzed the blood samples they realized that people who had eaten fat-free or low-fat dressings didn't absorb the beneficial carotenoids from the salad. Only when they had eaten the oil-based dressing did they get the nutrients.
Carotenoids are the pigments responsible for red-, yellow- and orange-colored fruits and vegetables. And carotenoids are also found in dark green vegetables such as spinach. The compounds convert to Vitamin A in the body, and studies have found that carotenoids have anti-oxidant activity which may help protect cells from damage caused by free radicals. Human studies have linked high consumption of fruits and vegetables to reduced risk of cancer.
Beta-carotene researchers were not particularly surprised by the findings of the fat-free vs. regular Italian salad dressing study. "We already knew that carotenoids were fat soluble," explains Wendy White, a professor of Human Nutrition at Iowa State University. The results helped reinforce the idea that a little fat is healthy.
Chop And Chew
There are other ways to help maximize the absorption of carotenoid nutrients. Chopping or grating breaks down the plant material. "The finer the particle size ... the better the absorption of beta-carotene," explains White.
The findings of nutrition research often go against the grain of trendy food ideas. For instance, many people have heard that raw vegetables are best. But if you're eating carrots, it may be helpful to cook them gently. The heat can soften the food allowing more nutrients to be released.
A recent study in the Journal of Food Science suggests that some cooking methods may be better than others. Researchers at the University of Murcia in Spain cooked 20 different kinds of vegetables six different ways. Then they analyzed how well the foods retained antioxidants. They found that microwaving helped maintain the antioxidants, whereas boiling and pressure cooking led to the greatest losses.
Green beans, beets and garlic all did well with heat — maintaining beneficial phytonutrients after most kinds of cooking. The antioxidant value in carrots actually increased after cooking.
Experts explain that boiling may allow nutrients to leach into the pan water that people end up tossing out, especially with water-soluble nutrients such as Vitamin C and the B Vitamins.
Eat Plenty Of Colors
As testing methods have become more sensitive, scientists have the ability to peer into our foods and tally up all the phytonutrients that may be beneficial. But experts say the ways in which our bodies may use and absorb these compounds are complicated. Therefore, many experts say it's best not to fixate too much on how food is prepared. Instead, focus on eating more plant foods — of all colors.
Jeffrey Blumberg, an antioxidant expert at Tufts University, says "What's important is that you find a way to cook that's palatable to you so you're getting lots of plant foods."
59 Is the New 30
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=1
By Thomas L. Friedman, Published: July 28, 2009
Last April I took a break to caddy for the former U.S. Open champion Andy North when he teamed up with Tom Watson to defend their title in the two-man Liberty Mutual Legends of Golf tournament in Savannah, Ga. So it was with more than a casual spectator’s interest that I watched in awe on Armed Forces television from Afghanistan as Watson made his amazing run at winning the British Open at age 59. Watson likes to talk about foreign affairs more than golf. So to let him know just how many people wanted him to win, I e-mailed him before the final round: “Even the Taliban are rooting for you.”
Indeed, I have been struck at how many golfers and non-golfers got caught up in Watson’s historic performance — tying for the lead after four rounds at Turnberry, but losing in a playoff to the 36-year-old Stewart Cink. I was not alone in being devastated that Watson was not able to par the last hole and clinch the win. Like millions of others, I shouted at the TV as his ball ran across the 18th green — heading for trouble — “STOP! STOP! STOP!” as if I personally had something at stake. Why was that?
Many reasons. For starters, Watson’s run was freaky unusual — a 59-year-old man who had played his opening two rounds in this tournament with a 16-year-old Italian amateur — was able to best the greatest golfers in the world at least a decade after anyone would have dreamt it possible. Watching this happen actually widened our sense of what any of us is capable of. That is, when Kobe Bryant scores 70 points, we are in awe. When Tiger Woods wins by 15 strokes, we are in awe. But when a man our own age and size whips the world’s best — who are half his age — we identify.
Of course, Watson has unique golfing skills, but if you are a baby boomer you could not help but look at him and say something you would never say about Tiger or Kobe: “He’s my age; he’s my build; he’s my height; and he even had his hip replaced like me. If he can do that, maybe I can do something like that, too.”
Neil Oxman, Watson’s caddy, who is a top Democratic political consultant in his real life, told me: “After Thursday’s round with Tom, when we left the scoring tent I said to him, ‘You know, this is a thing.’ He understood what I meant. On Sunday morning, the two of us were in the corner of the locker room without another human being around, sitting in these two easy chairs facing each other behind a partition. We were chatting about stuff, and I said to him, ‘For a lot of people, what you’re doing is life-affirming.’ I took it from a story about when Betty Comden and Adolph Green — the writers of “Singin’ in the Rain” — showed Leonard Bernstein the famous scene of Gene Kelly. Bernstein said to them, ‘That scene is an affirmation of life.’ What Tom did last week was an affirmation of life.”
Also, as Watson himself appreciates, the way he lost the tournament underscored why golf is the sport most like life. He hit two perfect shots on the 18th hole in the final round, and the second one bounced just a little too hard and ran through the green, leaving him a difficult chip back, which he was unable to get up and down. Had his ball stopped a foot shorter, he would have had an easy two-putt and a win.
That’s the point. Baseball, basketball and football are played on flat surfaces designed to give true bounces. Golf is played on an uneven terrain designed to surprise. Good and bad bounces are built into the essence of the game. And the reason golf is so much like life is that the game — like life — is all about how you react to those good and bad bounces. Do you blame your caddy? Do you cheat? Do you throw your clubs? Or do you accept it all with dignity and grace and move on, as Watson always has. Hence the saying: Play one round of golf with someone and you will learn everything you need to know about his character.
Golf is all about individual character. The ball is fixed. No one throws it to you. You initiate the swing, and you alone have to live with the results. There are no teammates to blame or commiserate with. Also, pro golfers, unlike baseball, football or basketball players, have no fixed salaries. They eat what they kill. If they score well, they make money. If they don’t, they don’t make money. I wonder what the average N.B.A. player’s free-throw shooting percentage would be if he had to make free throws to get paid the way golfers have to make three-foot putts?
This wonderful but cruel game never stops testing or teaching you. “The only comment I can make,” Watson told me after, “is one that the immortal Bobby Jones related: ‘One learns from defeat, not from victory.’ I may never have the chance again to beat the kids, but I took one thing from the last hole: hitting both the tee shot and the approach shots exactly the way I meant to wasn’t good enough. ... I had to finish.”
So Tom Watson got a brutal lesson in golf that he’ll never forget, but he gave us all an incredible lesson in possibilities — one we’ll never forget.
By Thomas L. Friedman, Published: July 28, 2009
Last April I took a break to caddy for the former U.S. Open champion Andy North when he teamed up with Tom Watson to defend their title in the two-man Liberty Mutual Legends of Golf tournament in Savannah, Ga. So it was with more than a casual spectator’s interest that I watched in awe on Armed Forces television from Afghanistan as Watson made his amazing run at winning the British Open at age 59. Watson likes to talk about foreign affairs more than golf. So to let him know just how many people wanted him to win, I e-mailed him before the final round: “Even the Taliban are rooting for you.”
Indeed, I have been struck at how many golfers and non-golfers got caught up in Watson’s historic performance — tying for the lead after four rounds at Turnberry, but losing in a playoff to the 36-year-old Stewart Cink. I was not alone in being devastated that Watson was not able to par the last hole and clinch the win. Like millions of others, I shouted at the TV as his ball ran across the 18th green — heading for trouble — “STOP! STOP! STOP!” as if I personally had something at stake. Why was that?
Many reasons. For starters, Watson’s run was freaky unusual — a 59-year-old man who had played his opening two rounds in this tournament with a 16-year-old Italian amateur — was able to best the greatest golfers in the world at least a decade after anyone would have dreamt it possible. Watching this happen actually widened our sense of what any of us is capable of. That is, when Kobe Bryant scores 70 points, we are in awe. When Tiger Woods wins by 15 strokes, we are in awe. But when a man our own age and size whips the world’s best — who are half his age — we identify.
Of course, Watson has unique golfing skills, but if you are a baby boomer you could not help but look at him and say something you would never say about Tiger or Kobe: “He’s my age; he’s my build; he’s my height; and he even had his hip replaced like me. If he can do that, maybe I can do something like that, too.”
Neil Oxman, Watson’s caddy, who is a top Democratic political consultant in his real life, told me: “After Thursday’s round with Tom, when we left the scoring tent I said to him, ‘You know, this is a thing.’ He understood what I meant. On Sunday morning, the two of us were in the corner of the locker room without another human being around, sitting in these two easy chairs facing each other behind a partition. We were chatting about stuff, and I said to him, ‘For a lot of people, what you’re doing is life-affirming.’ I took it from a story about when Betty Comden and Adolph Green — the writers of “Singin’ in the Rain” — showed Leonard Bernstein the famous scene of Gene Kelly. Bernstein said to them, ‘That scene is an affirmation of life.’ What Tom did last week was an affirmation of life.”
Also, as Watson himself appreciates, the way he lost the tournament underscored why golf is the sport most like life. He hit two perfect shots on the 18th hole in the final round, and the second one bounced just a little too hard and ran through the green, leaving him a difficult chip back, which he was unable to get up and down. Had his ball stopped a foot shorter, he would have had an easy two-putt and a win.
That’s the point. Baseball, basketball and football are played on flat surfaces designed to give true bounces. Golf is played on an uneven terrain designed to surprise. Good and bad bounces are built into the essence of the game. And the reason golf is so much like life is that the game — like life — is all about how you react to those good and bad bounces. Do you blame your caddy? Do you cheat? Do you throw your clubs? Or do you accept it all with dignity and grace and move on, as Watson always has. Hence the saying: Play one round of golf with someone and you will learn everything you need to know about his character.
Golf is all about individual character. The ball is fixed. No one throws it to you. You initiate the swing, and you alone have to live with the results. There are no teammates to blame or commiserate with. Also, pro golfers, unlike baseball, football or basketball players, have no fixed salaries. They eat what they kill. If they score well, they make money. If they don’t, they don’t make money. I wonder what the average N.B.A. player’s free-throw shooting percentage would be if he had to make free throws to get paid the way golfers have to make three-foot putts?
This wonderful but cruel game never stops testing or teaching you. “The only comment I can make,” Watson told me after, “is one that the immortal Bobby Jones related: ‘One learns from defeat, not from victory.’ I may never have the chance again to beat the kids, but I took one thing from the last hole: hitting both the tee shot and the approach shots exactly the way I meant to wasn’t good enough. ... I had to finish.”
So Tom Watson got a brutal lesson in golf that he’ll never forget, but he gave us all an incredible lesson in possibilities — one we’ll never forget.
박광정 선배.보고싶다...
그 사세 쫑파티가 있던 날..
낮에 컴퓨터 앞에 앉아 노희경 작가님과의 인터뷰 내용 정리하고 있을 때.. 선배의 부고소식을 문자메세지로 받았어
아...
바로 이틀전 대학로에서 한지승 감독님께 선배가 위독하다는 말씀을 듣고.. 방송만 끝나면 찾아 뵈야겠다 그렇게 생각 했더랬어..
3년쯤 됐나..모르겠다..확실치 않어 안면도에서 '두번째 프로로즈'찍을 때 봤었지
'여어..오랜만이다..'잘지내지?" "네....형도..아니 선배님도 잘 지내..시죠?'(어색) 그때도 참 오랜만에 보는 거였는데 참 밍숭맹숭하게 인사하고 말았지.. 드문드문 근황묻고..연극얘기 좀 하고..
원래도 말 수가 많지 않은 사람이라...술자리에서도 변함없이 조용하기만 했던 모습으로 기억돼
'마술가게'가 그러니까 98년이었지형이 연우무대로 찾아와 내게 마술가게 대본을 주면서..
조금 미안해하며 출연 섭외를 했었어
마네킹..옷가게에 진열되어있는..
공연 의 대부분을 무대뒤에 꼼짝없이 서있기만 하고.. 중간중간 '극중 극'의형태로남자 배우들의 상대역을 했었지.. 난 참 재밌다고 생각했었고.. 실제로도..참 재밌었어 역시..꼼짝 않고 서있는게 젤루 힘들더만..
지금 떠오르는 기억은 몇 안돼..
연습실.. 이리 저리 배우들이 스스로 움직여보고 판을 짜는 걸 가만히 지켜보다, 살짝 정리만 해주던, 참을성 많은 연출이었던거... 아주 간혹 흘리듯 칭찬 해주던 거.. 연극 4년 하는 동안 가장 적은 대사가 주어진 역이었는데 이연극 덕분에 난 '처녀들의 저녁식사'에 캐스팅이 되었지....
함께 즐거워해주던 선배... 떴다고 연극 안하는 거 아니냐고 했었는데.. 난 형 말대로 영화 데뷔이후 고작 두편의 연극밖에 하질 못했어. 연극하는 게 젤 재밌다고 하면서도, 돈때문이든, 커리어때문이든
늘..연극은 방송이나 영화보다 다음 순위로 미뤄뒀었지. 광정선배는 참...끈기와 열정을 가지고 연극을 지속해왔잖어. 연기 뿐아니라 연출로...정말 돈 안되는 건데.. 방송과 영화로 번 돈..아니 그이상을 연극을 제작하고, 극단을 만드는데.. 쏟아부었지..
비언소, 마술가게, 매직타임, 날보러와요....
선배의 연극은 참 달라..음..형같애..웃긴 듯 슬프고, 뭔가 우당탕탕 빠르게 진행되는데도 여백이 있고, 직설적인데 가르치려드는 것 같진 않고..거친듯 새련된...물론 많은 실패가 있엇지...그래도 .형은 계속했지..형이 생각하는 연극을..
형 참 많이 고마워나 영화데뷔도 시켜주고, 생전처음 해외여행 도 시켜주고(마술가게가 밴쿠버에서 공연했었잖어..그게 내 첫 해외여행이었어) 그 오랜 세월 대학로에서 수많은 흥행 참패와, 이제 그만하라는 충고와, 어려운 현실에도 불구하고거기, 그렇게, 형의 연극을 지속해줘서...고맙다고만 할께...
미안하단 말은 빼고..
형 덕분에 참 오랜만에 다른 선배들과 만나 길게 술마시고, 울고, 웃었어..(응..웃기도 많이 웃었어..그러다 또 울고..) 형 목소리가 들리는 듯해.. "여진이....슬슬..무대 서야지...." 응 그럴께..형...약속해.. 훌씬 더 자주 무대에 설께 (캐스팅 될라나 모르겠다..)
형은거기서.또 열심히 연출하고, 극단도 만들고, 연기도하고 그럴거지? 그게 제일 재밌을테니까...쉬라고해도 쉴 사람도 아니니까..즐겁게, 행복하게 ...잘 지내 형 ..
김명민을 보고 잠들지 못한 밤..
mbc의'김명민은 거기 없었다'를 보고..밤새 뒤척이다 새벽에 일어났다.지금 함께 일하고 있는 배우..나는 의사로 그는 루게릭환자로 연기하고 있다
그는 정말 많이 말랐다얼마전 찍은 응급실 씬에서 그는 정말 환자 같았다.온몸에 핏기라곤 하나도 없었고 추위를 탔다나도 모르게 몇번이나 '괜찮으세요?'라고 진심으로 묻게 되었다..
참 좋은 배우라고 생각해 왔지만..
그래 ..고백하지 않을 수 없다. 나는 그가 나보다 '운'이 좋다고 생각했을 지도 모르겠다
이순신, 장준혁, 강마에...배우라면 누구든 도전해 보고 싶은 배역들을 맡아왔다라고...
나는 늘...연기를 하면서 내 에너지가 남아도는 기분이었다.
전속력으로 1000m는 거든히 뛸 수 있는 데 100m 만 뛰고 마는 기분...
연기를 하면서 힘들다고 생각한 적이 없다 어렵다고 느껴 본 적도 별로 없다
준비하는 과정부터 연기하는 순간까지 ..늘 즐겁고 좋기만 하다그리고 늘 아쉽다 ..
좀 더..보여지고 싶어서..
연기란..
참 멋진 일이다.
그..완벽한 몰입의 시간..
몰입...
그 어떤 것도 끼어 들지 않는 ..
어떤 욕심도, 이기심도, 경쟁심도 사라져버리는..
그 인물에 대한 몰입..강렬한 사랑같은...
다른 무엇도 필요 없는..
그가 어떤 시간을 보내왔는지...
얼마나 치열하게 몰입하는지..
외모에서, 태크닉에서, 내면까지얼마나 철저하게 연구하고 준비하고, 젖어있는 지
감동으로, 숙연함으로 다가왔다
밤새 뒤척이며
아....
나도..그렇게 연기하고 싶다....
에서...
그렇게 하면 된다로..생각을 바꾸어냈다.
배역의 크기와 상관없이단 한 씬의 연기라도 늘 그렇게 하면 된다....
내게도 늘 ,기회가 온다.
내가 만족하지 않을 뿐이다
난 과연 그 배역을...충분히 만족시켰던가...
내 아름다운 동료에게 배운 것 하나..
헌신...
어떤 이익을 생각하기에 앞서 먼저 나를 오롯이 바칠 때 얻게되는충만감..
우리를 감동시키는 힘...
The Gates Case: A Legal Look At Opening Your Trap
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106988261&sc=emaf
by Emma Coleman Jordan, July 24, 2009
The arrest of professor Henry Louis Gates outside his house in Cambridge, Mass., is hotly disputed in part because it brought about a murky interaction of three competing legal principles.
1) The fact that the arrest took place on the porch of Gates' home invokes a well-established American legal tradition of recognizing that the home is the castle of its owner with certain legal protections that are not available in any other space.
2) We depend upon police officers for our safety, so our legal rules necessarily give police officers on duty protections above and beyond normal citizens. Even so, heated verbal exchanges with police officers do not constitute a crime.
3) Vaguely worded statutes (such as the one Gates was arrested under) that criminalize assertive, even aggressive speech as "disorderly conduct" after "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior" are vulnerable to constitutional attack for their vagueness.
To begin with the first pivotal element: Gates was in and around his home during the entire incident. Our legal system gives a homeowner a lot of protection to act in defense of the sanctity of the family home. For example, in both criminal and civil law we allow the occupants of a residence to stand their ground against an intruder and defend the home up to and including the use of deadly force. These rules are an acknowledgment that the home is the center of privacy and identity. In our home we locate our deepest aspirations and emotions. For African-Americans, who have experienced residential discrimination, the ownership of a home and the defense of that achievement are of singular importance. But one need not incorporate race as a factor to recognize that any person might become agitated when challenged about his right to be in his own home.
Officer Crowley ordered Gates to "step outside," and Gates followed Crowley onto the porch. Once he was on the porch Gates lost some of the protected legal status of a homeowner, because his behavior could be heard and observed in public.
How far can you go in conveying frustration and anger to a policeman? The answer to this question has a legal limit, and a common-sense limit — but they aren't the same.
According to the police report, Gates accused the investigating officer of being racist and told him he had "no idea who he was messing with." It may come as a surprise to many that the First Amendment protects heated, even abusive speech to a police officer. These constitutional developments come from the fractious 1960s when Vietnam War protests brought a wave of civil disobedience from young people who stretched the bounds of the First Amendment.
At one extreme, the Supreme Court extended First Amendment protection to the words of a man who physically resisted arrest during an anti-war protest at a draft induction center. When the officers sought to arrest the defendant he told them, "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you. You son of a bitch, I'll choke you to death. You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I'll cut you all to pieces." Wilson v. State, 223 Ga. 531 (1967) overturned in Gooding 405 U.S. 518 (1972). While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction for resisting arrest, the part of Wilson's sentence for disorderly conduct was stricken because the vague statute reached both protected and not protected speech and as a result could not legally be upheld.
Gates' words, all agree, fell well short of threatening death. So today, Gates' comments seem mild by comparison and would clearly be protected.
In the end the Middlesex County district attorney dropped the charges. My guess is that the fact that this incident occurred in and around Gates' home dramatically decreased the likelihood of a conviction. Juries understand the special place of the home in our culture and legal system. And more important, challenging a policeman's racial good faith is not a crime. In fact, as the First Amendment cases from the '60s make clear, a lot worse things have been said to officers without losing the protection of that first among amendments.
Talking back to a man with a gun, however, is always a risky proposition. So, I end this essay with the wisdom of a mother who knows that sometimes it's wiser to cooperate, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.
But then again, I also remind my daughters that neither Martin Luther King Jr. nor Gandhi were particularly cooperative with legal authority.
by Emma Coleman Jordan, July 24, 2009
The arrest of professor Henry Louis Gates outside his house in Cambridge, Mass., is hotly disputed in part because it brought about a murky interaction of three competing legal principles.
1) The fact that the arrest took place on the porch of Gates' home invokes a well-established American legal tradition of recognizing that the home is the castle of its owner with certain legal protections that are not available in any other space.
2) We depend upon police officers for our safety, so our legal rules necessarily give police officers on duty protections above and beyond normal citizens. Even so, heated verbal exchanges with police officers do not constitute a crime.
3) Vaguely worded statutes (such as the one Gates was arrested under) that criminalize assertive, even aggressive speech as "disorderly conduct" after "exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior" are vulnerable to constitutional attack for their vagueness.
To begin with the first pivotal element: Gates was in and around his home during the entire incident. Our legal system gives a homeowner a lot of protection to act in defense of the sanctity of the family home. For example, in both criminal and civil law we allow the occupants of a residence to stand their ground against an intruder and defend the home up to and including the use of deadly force. These rules are an acknowledgment that the home is the center of privacy and identity. In our home we locate our deepest aspirations and emotions. For African-Americans, who have experienced residential discrimination, the ownership of a home and the defense of that achievement are of singular importance. But one need not incorporate race as a factor to recognize that any person might become agitated when challenged about his right to be in his own home.
Officer Crowley ordered Gates to "step outside," and Gates followed Crowley onto the porch. Once he was on the porch Gates lost some of the protected legal status of a homeowner, because his behavior could be heard and observed in public.
How far can you go in conveying frustration and anger to a policeman? The answer to this question has a legal limit, and a common-sense limit — but they aren't the same.
According to the police report, Gates accused the investigating officer of being racist and told him he had "no idea who he was messing with." It may come as a surprise to many that the First Amendment protects heated, even abusive speech to a police officer. These constitutional developments come from the fractious 1960s when Vietnam War protests brought a wave of civil disobedience from young people who stretched the bounds of the First Amendment.
At one extreme, the Supreme Court extended First Amendment protection to the words of a man who physically resisted arrest during an anti-war protest at a draft induction center. When the officers sought to arrest the defendant he told them, "White son of a bitch, I'll kill you. You son of a bitch, I'll choke you to death. You son of a bitch, if you ever put your hands on me again, I'll cut you all to pieces." Wilson v. State, 223 Ga. 531 (1967) overturned in Gooding 405 U.S. 518 (1972). While the Supreme Court upheld the conviction for resisting arrest, the part of Wilson's sentence for disorderly conduct was stricken because the vague statute reached both protected and not protected speech and as a result could not legally be upheld.
Gates' words, all agree, fell well short of threatening death. So today, Gates' comments seem mild by comparison and would clearly be protected.
In the end the Middlesex County district attorney dropped the charges. My guess is that the fact that this incident occurred in and around Gates' home dramatically decreased the likelihood of a conviction. Juries understand the special place of the home in our culture and legal system. And more important, challenging a policeman's racial good faith is not a crime. In fact, as the First Amendment cases from the '60s make clear, a lot worse things have been said to officers without losing the protection of that first among amendments.
Talking back to a man with a gun, however, is always a risky proposition. So, I end this essay with the wisdom of a mother who knows that sometimes it's wiser to cooperate, regardless of who is right and who is wrong.
But then again, I also remind my daughters that neither Martin Luther King Jr. nor Gandhi were particularly cooperative with legal authority.
The Losers Hang On
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/opinion/26friedman.html?_r=1
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN , Published: July 25, 2009 , Jalozai Camp, Pakistan
After spending a week traveling the frontline of the “war on terrorism” — from the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Ronald Reagan in the seas off Iran, to northern Iraq, to Afghanistan and into northwest Pakistan — I can comfortably report the following: The bad guys are losing.
Yes, the dominos you see falling in the Muslim world today are the extremist Islamist groups and governments. They have failed to persuade people by either their arguments or their performances in power that their puritanical versions of Islam are the answer. Having lost the argument, though, the radicals still hang on thanks to gun barrels and oil barrels — and they can for a while.
Because, while the radicals have failed miserably, our allies — the pro-Americans, the Muslim modernists, the Arab moderates — have not really filled the void with reform and good government of their own. They are winning by default. More on that later.
For now, though, it is obvious that everywhere they have won or seized power, the Islamists — in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria, Lebanon or Gaza — have overplayed their hands, dragged their societies into useless wars or engaged in nihilistic violence that today is producing a broad backlash from mainstream Muslims.
Think of this: In the late-1970s, two leaders made historic trips — President Anwar Sadat flew from Egypt to Israel and Ayatollah Khomeini flew from Paris to Tehran. For the last 30 years, politics in the Middle East and the Muslim world has, in many ways, been a struggle between their competing visions.
Sadat argued that the future should bury the past and that Arabs and Muslims should build their future based on peace with Israel, integration with the West and embracing modernity. Khomeini argued that the past should bury the future and that Persians and Muslims should build their future on hostility to Israel, isolation from the West and subordinating modernity to a puritanical Islam.
In 2009, the struggle between those two trends tipped toward the Sadatists. The fact that Iran’s ruling theocrats had to steal their election to stay in power and forcibly suppress dissent by millions of Iranians — according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Iran has surpassed China as the world’s leading jailer of journalists, with 41 now behind bars — is the most visible sign of this. The Taliban’s burning down of secular schools that compete with its mosques, and its peddling of heroin to raise cash, are also not exactly signs of intellectual triumph.
The same day that President Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo University, Osama bin Laden released a long statement on Islamic Web sites and on Al Jazeera. As the Egyptian Middle East expert Mamoun Fandy noted: “Obama beat Osama hands down. Ask anyone about the content of Obama’s speech and they will tell you. Ask them what Osama said and most people will say, ‘Did he give a speech?’ ”
In Iraq’s elections last January, nationalist and moderate Muslim parties defeated the sectarian, radical religious parties, while in Lebanon, a pro-Western coalition defeated one led by Hezbollah.
Here in Pakistan, the backlash against the Taliban has been building among the rising middle class. It started in March when a mobile-phone video of a teenage girl being held down and beaten outside her home by a Taliban commander in Pakistan’s Swat Valley spread virally across this country. In May, the Pakistani Army began an offensive against Taliban militants who had taken control of key towns in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), and appeared to be moving toward the capital, Islamabad.
I followed Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he visited a vast, choking-hot and dust-covered refugee tent camp in Jalozai, where some 116,000 refugees have fled the NWFP, as the Pakistani Army moved into their hometowns to smash the Taliban in a popular operation.
“People are totally against them, but the Taliban don’t care,” a Pakistani teacher, Abdul Jalil, 41, told me while taking a break from teaching the Urdu alphabet to young boys in a sweltering tent. “They are very cruel. They chopped people’s heads off.”
To the extent that the radical Islamists have any energy today, it comes not from the power of their ideas or examples of good governance, but by stoking sectarian feuds. In Afghanistan, the Taliban play on Pashtun nationalist grievances, and in Iraq, the Sunni jihadists draw energy from killing Shiites.
The only way to really dry up their support, though, is for the Arab and Muslim modernists to actually implement better ideas by producing less corrupt and more consensual governance, with better schools, more economic opportunities and a vision of Islam that is perceived as authentic yet embracing of modernity. That is where “our” allies in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have so consistently failed. Until that happens, the Islamist radicals will be bankrupt, but not out of business.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN , Published: July 25, 2009 , Jalozai Camp, Pakistan
After spending a week traveling the frontline of the “war on terrorism” — from the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Ronald Reagan in the seas off Iran, to northern Iraq, to Afghanistan and into northwest Pakistan — I can comfortably report the following: The bad guys are losing.
Yes, the dominos you see falling in the Muslim world today are the extremist Islamist groups and governments. They have failed to persuade people by either their arguments or their performances in power that their puritanical versions of Islam are the answer. Having lost the argument, though, the radicals still hang on thanks to gun barrels and oil barrels — and they can for a while.
Because, while the radicals have failed miserably, our allies — the pro-Americans, the Muslim modernists, the Arab moderates — have not really filled the void with reform and good government of their own. They are winning by default. More on that later.
For now, though, it is obvious that everywhere they have won or seized power, the Islamists — in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Algeria, Lebanon or Gaza — have overplayed their hands, dragged their societies into useless wars or engaged in nihilistic violence that today is producing a broad backlash from mainstream Muslims.
Think of this: In the late-1970s, two leaders made historic trips — President Anwar Sadat flew from Egypt to Israel and Ayatollah Khomeini flew from Paris to Tehran. For the last 30 years, politics in the Middle East and the Muslim world has, in many ways, been a struggle between their competing visions.
Sadat argued that the future should bury the past and that Arabs and Muslims should build their future based on peace with Israel, integration with the West and embracing modernity. Khomeini argued that the past should bury the future and that Persians and Muslims should build their future on hostility to Israel, isolation from the West and subordinating modernity to a puritanical Islam.
In 2009, the struggle between those two trends tipped toward the Sadatists. The fact that Iran’s ruling theocrats had to steal their election to stay in power and forcibly suppress dissent by millions of Iranians — according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Iran has surpassed China as the world’s leading jailer of journalists, with 41 now behind bars — is the most visible sign of this. The Taliban’s burning down of secular schools that compete with its mosques, and its peddling of heroin to raise cash, are also not exactly signs of intellectual triumph.
The same day that President Obama spoke to the Muslim world from Cairo University, Osama bin Laden released a long statement on Islamic Web sites and on Al Jazeera. As the Egyptian Middle East expert Mamoun Fandy noted: “Obama beat Osama hands down. Ask anyone about the content of Obama’s speech and they will tell you. Ask them what Osama said and most people will say, ‘Did he give a speech?’ ”
In Iraq’s elections last January, nationalist and moderate Muslim parties defeated the sectarian, radical religious parties, while in Lebanon, a pro-Western coalition defeated one led by Hezbollah.
Here in Pakistan, the backlash against the Taliban has been building among the rising middle class. It started in March when a mobile-phone video of a teenage girl being held down and beaten outside her home by a Taliban commander in Pakistan’s Swat Valley spread virally across this country. In May, the Pakistani Army began an offensive against Taliban militants who had taken control of key towns in the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP), and appeared to be moving toward the capital, Islamabad.
I followed Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when he visited a vast, choking-hot and dust-covered refugee tent camp in Jalozai, where some 116,000 refugees have fled the NWFP, as the Pakistani Army moved into their hometowns to smash the Taliban in a popular operation.
“People are totally against them, but the Taliban don’t care,” a Pakistani teacher, Abdul Jalil, 41, told me while taking a break from teaching the Urdu alphabet to young boys in a sweltering tent. “They are very cruel. They chopped people’s heads off.”
To the extent that the radical Islamists have any energy today, it comes not from the power of their ideas or examples of good governance, but by stoking sectarian feuds. In Afghanistan, the Taliban play on Pashtun nationalist grievances, and in Iraq, the Sunni jihadists draw energy from killing Shiites.
The only way to really dry up their support, though, is for the Arab and Muslim modernists to actually implement better ideas by producing less corrupt and more consensual governance, with better schools, more economic opportunities and a vision of Islam that is perceived as authentic yet embracing of modernity. That is where “our” allies in Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan have so consistently failed. Until that happens, the Islamist radicals will be bankrupt, but not out of business.
Costs and Compassion
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/opinion/24krugman.html?_r=1
Op-Ed Columnist, Costs and Compassion, By PAUL KRUGMAN, Published: July 23, 2009
The talking heads on cable TV panned President Obama’s Wednesday press conference. You see, he didn’t offer a lot of folksy anecdotes.
Shame on them. The health care system is in crisis. The fate of America’s middle class hangs in the balance. And there on our TVs was a president with an impressive command of the issues, who truly understands the stakes.
Mr. Obama was especially good when he talked about controlling medical costs. And there’s a crucial lesson there — namely, that when it comes to reforming health care, compassion and cost-effectiveness go hand in hand.
To see what I mean, compare what Mr. Obama has said and done about health care with the statements and actions of his predecessor.
President Bush, you may remember, was notably unconcerned with the plight of the uninsured.
I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he once remarked. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush claimed to be against excessive government expenditure. So what did he do to rein in the cost of Medicare, the biggest single item driving federal spending?
Nothing. In fact, the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act drove costs up both by preventing bargaining over drug prices and by locking in subsidies to insurance companies.
Now President Obama is trying to provide every American with access to health insurance — and he’s also doing more to control health care costs than any previous president.
I don’t know how many people understand the significance of Mr. Obama’s proposal to give MedPAC, the expert advisory board to Medicare, real power. But it’s a major step toward reducing the useless spending — the proliferation of procedures with no medical benefits — that bloats American health care costs.
And both the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have also been emphasizing the importance of “comparative effectiveness research” — seeing which medical procedures actually work.
So the Obama administration’s commitment to health care for all goes along with an unprecedented willingness to get serious about spending health care dollars wisely. And that’s part of a broader pattern.
Many health care experts believe that one main reason we spend far more on health than any other advanced nation, without better health outcomes, is the fee-for-service system in which hospitals and doctors are paid for procedures, not results. As the president said Wednesday, this creates an incentive for health providers to do more tests, more operations, and so on, whether or not these procedures actually help patients.
So where in America is there serious consideration of moving away from fee-for-service to a more comprehensive, integrated approach to health care? The answer is: Massachusetts — which introduced a health-care plan three years ago that was, in some respects, a dress rehearsal for national health reform, and is now looking for ways to help control costs.
Why does meaningful action on medical costs go along with compassion? One answer is that compassion means not closing your eyes to the human consequences of rising costs. When health insurance premiums doubled during the Bush years, our health care system “controlled costs” by dropping coverage for many workers — but as far as the Bush administration was concerned, that wasn’t a problem. If you believe in universal coverage, on the other hand, it is a problem, and demands a solution.
Beyond that, I’d suggest that would-be health reformers won’t have the moral authority to confront our system’s inefficiency unless they’re also prepared to end its cruelty. If President Bush had tried to rein in Medicare spending, he would have been accused, with considerable justice, of cutting benefits so that he could give the wealthy even more tax cuts. President Obama, by contrast, can link Medicare reform with the goal of protecting less fortunate Americans and making the middle class more secure.
As a practical, political matter, then, controlling health care costs and expanding health care access aren’t opposing alternatives — you have to do both, or neither.
At one point in his remarks Mr. Obama talked about a red pill and a blue pill. I suspect, though I’m not sure, that he was alluding to the scene in the movie “The Matrix” in which one pill brings ignorance and the other knowledge.
Well, in the case of health care, one pill means continuing on our current path — a path along which health care premiums will continue to soar, the number of uninsured Americans will skyrocket and Medicare costs will break the federal budget. The other pill means reforming our system, guaranteeing health care for all Americans at the same time we make medicine more cost-effective.
Which pill would you choose?
Op-Ed Columnist, Costs and Compassion, By PAUL KRUGMAN, Published: July 23, 2009
The talking heads on cable TV panned President Obama’s Wednesday press conference. You see, he didn’t offer a lot of folksy anecdotes.
Shame on them. The health care system is in crisis. The fate of America’s middle class hangs in the balance. And there on our TVs was a president with an impressive command of the issues, who truly understands the stakes.
Mr. Obama was especially good when he talked about controlling medical costs. And there’s a crucial lesson there — namely, that when it comes to reforming health care, compassion and cost-effectiveness go hand in hand.
To see what I mean, compare what Mr. Obama has said and done about health care with the statements and actions of his predecessor.
President Bush, you may remember, was notably unconcerned with the plight of the uninsured.
I mean, people have access to health care in America,” he once remarked. “After all, you just go to an emergency room.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Bush claimed to be against excessive government expenditure. So what did he do to rein in the cost of Medicare, the biggest single item driving federal spending?
Nothing. In fact, the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act drove costs up both by preventing bargaining over drug prices and by locking in subsidies to insurance companies.
Now President Obama is trying to provide every American with access to health insurance — and he’s also doing more to control health care costs than any previous president.
I don’t know how many people understand the significance of Mr. Obama’s proposal to give MedPAC, the expert advisory board to Medicare, real power. But it’s a major step toward reducing the useless spending — the proliferation of procedures with no medical benefits — that bloats American health care costs.
And both the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have also been emphasizing the importance of “comparative effectiveness research” — seeing which medical procedures actually work.
So the Obama administration’s commitment to health care for all goes along with an unprecedented willingness to get serious about spending health care dollars wisely. And that’s part of a broader pattern.
Many health care experts believe that one main reason we spend far more on health than any other advanced nation, without better health outcomes, is the fee-for-service system in which hospitals and doctors are paid for procedures, not results. As the president said Wednesday, this creates an incentive for health providers to do more tests, more operations, and so on, whether or not these procedures actually help patients.
So where in America is there serious consideration of moving away from fee-for-service to a more comprehensive, integrated approach to health care? The answer is: Massachusetts — which introduced a health-care plan three years ago that was, in some respects, a dress rehearsal for national health reform, and is now looking for ways to help control costs.
Why does meaningful action on medical costs go along with compassion? One answer is that compassion means not closing your eyes to the human consequences of rising costs. When health insurance premiums doubled during the Bush years, our health care system “controlled costs” by dropping coverage for many workers — but as far as the Bush administration was concerned, that wasn’t a problem. If you believe in universal coverage, on the other hand, it is a problem, and demands a solution.
Beyond that, I’d suggest that would-be health reformers won’t have the moral authority to confront our system’s inefficiency unless they’re also prepared to end its cruelty. If President Bush had tried to rein in Medicare spending, he would have been accused, with considerable justice, of cutting benefits so that he could give the wealthy even more tax cuts. President Obama, by contrast, can link Medicare reform with the goal of protecting less fortunate Americans and making the middle class more secure.
As a practical, political matter, then, controlling health care costs and expanding health care access aren’t opposing alternatives — you have to do both, or neither.
At one point in his remarks Mr. Obama talked about a red pill and a blue pill. I suspect, though I’m not sure, that he was alluding to the scene in the movie “The Matrix” in which one pill brings ignorance and the other knowledge.
Well, in the case of health care, one pill means continuing on our current path — a path along which health care premiums will continue to soar, the number of uninsured Americans will skyrocket and Medicare costs will break the federal budget. The other pill means reforming our system, guaranteeing health care for all Americans at the same time we make medicine more cost-effective.
Which pill would you choose?
E.P.A. Allows CA Emissions Rules
E.P.A. Allows California Emissions Rules
June 30, 2009, By Kate Galbraith
http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/epa-allows-california-emissions-rules/
The Environmental Protection Agency has granted California’s long-sought request to tighten tailpipe emission regulations, a key step in the Obama administration’s plan to make cars across the nation more fuel-efficient.
Tuesday’s announcement did not come as a surprise, since the president announced last month that he would craft tough new rules for automobile emissions, and would do so by adopting the strict standards that California has wanted.
Since 2005, California has been seeking a waiver from the E.P.A. to impose stricter tailpipe emissions standards than those in effect nationally. The Bush administration denied the waiver request in December 2007.
December 21, 2007, Denial of State Emissions Plan Was Foreshadowed
By JOHN M. BRODER and MICHELINE MAYNARD
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/21/washington/21emissions.html
Stephen L. Johnson, the environmental administrator, announced the decision on Wednesday, the day President Bush signed the first major change in vehicle mileage standards passed by Congress in 32 years.
Mr. Johnson said the new law made the proposed California standards unnecessary.
California developed rules in 2004 to reduce tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants that scientists say contribute to global warming. The state applied to Washington in December 2005 for a waiver from the Clean Air Act to let it apply the tougher standards. Eventually, 16 states joined the application for the exception.
Since 1970, such waivers have been routinely granted more than 50 times involving tailpipe pollutants that foul the air in some states more than in others. But none faced the political atmosphere surrounding the California proposal, which dealt with a gas that affects the world climate, not that of a particular state.
Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have also announced plans to adopt the California standards; the Clean Air Act gives them a choice between following the standards of California or those of the rest of the nation.
An auto industry group declared itself satisfied with the process, which will end up ensuring that the nation as a whole has a single emissions standard starting in 2012, when the national standard takes effect. Automakers had been concerned about the possibility of making cars to meet two different standards.
There will be a slight lag, however, between California’s implementation of its program and the national program, Mr. Hwang, , the transportation policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. California’s standards start with the 2009 model year (essentially moot because it is almost over) — three years earlier than the national standard.
By 2016, Mr. Hwang said, the national fuel economy standard will be about 35.5 miles a gallon on average under the new rules — a level that will be reached essentially four years faster than Congress had mandated, he said.
Top Ecofriendly Energy Bars
Energy bars have come a long way. When introduced more than two decades ago, they sacrificed taste for function and were "enjoyed" almost solely by hard-core athletes and hikers. Today, thanks to a boom in competing brands, some are actually worth savoring--while others are still harder to swallow than compressed wood shavings.
To determine the best and worst, 15 Sierra Club staffers blind-tasted and scored bars from 25 companies that work to preserve the environment.
Our eaters didn't sugarcoat their opinions: Some bars garnered comments like "looks and tastes like bear scat," "I'd rather have a root canal," "should not be sold to the public," "like sticking your tongue in a mousetrap," and "kitty litter." But other brands pack as much flavor as t hey do nutrients.
Here are Sierra's top five in order of how they ranked.
1. LUNAWhite Chocolate Macadamia$1.39 lunabar.com
Fans called it "simply delicious," "natural tasting," and "not too dense" and noted its "nice crunch" and "tempting" appearance. They detected vanilla, cinnamon, brown sugar, and a "sweet and salty combo," which inspired comparisons to Rice Krispies Treats and popcorn Jelly Bellies. But not everyone loved this bar. "Weird aftertaste," one complained. "A bit commercial," said another.Luna bars, marketed to women by the makers of Clif Bars, are 70 percent organic. A portion of the company's proceeds goes toward eliminating environmental causes of breast cancer.
2. OLYMPIC GRANOLAAlmond Chocolate Trail Bar$2.99 olympicgranola.com
Raves included "I'd get this for a hike, no doubt," "one of the best," and "I'd eat these every day." Our panel appreciated the "hearty, well-balanced mixture of nuts, oats, seeds, and chocolate"; the "chewy," "light and airy" texture; and that it "looks like food." One naysayer commented that there's "too much going on."Olympic Granola's corn-syrup-free bars are made of non-genetically-modified ingredients that are grown without chemical sprays.
3. ONE LUCKY DUCKChewy Almond Crunch Bar$6.50 oneluckyduck.com
Despite being chided as an ugly duckling--one taster said it looked "terrible," and another found its green seeds "off-putting"--One Lucky Duck's taste soared. The "hearty" bar is "well executed" and has "a nice collection of nuts, seeds, honey, and oats accented with raisins," with "just the right amount of moisture, chewiness, and sweetness." "This could be served as a dessert at a nice restaurant," one taster opined. Handmade in small batches, this pricey bar is from a company that sells only raw, vegan, organic products.
4. CLIF BARCool Mint Chocolate$1.39 clifbar.com
"The icing pulls you in and the minty flavor finishes you off," summarized one taster. The bar was called "refreshing," "chewy but not too dense," and "like a Thin Mint." "Caffeine?" someone surmised. (Yes, actually--one of the ingredients is green tea.) Though a few found it "weird" and "too potent," most were "surprised to like this one so much."Clif Bars are 70 percent organic, and the company engages in many sustainable actions, including diverting most of its waste and using biodiesel for its fleet.
5. HONEY STINGER Peanut Butter 'n Honey$1.49 honeystinger.com
This "crumbly," "simple-looking bar" was divisive. Those who gave it a thumbs-up said it "tastes almost like candy" with an "excellent flavor," "melt-in-your-mouth peanut butter," and a "nice crunch." But those who didn't like it commented on a "terrible chemical flavor." One taster wondered, "Will the chocolate base melt in the heat?"Honey Stinger is 100 percent wind powered, and employees get time-off credit for carpooling, bicycling, or walking to work. The company recycles all paper, glass, and metal and maintains a community vegetable garden outside of its building.
Click through the jump to see how the rest placed.
6. BORA BORA BARS Cinnamon Oatmeal wellements.com/boraborabars.asp
7. PRANA BARSApricot Pumpkinpranabars.com
8. CAVEWOMAN BARSPB&J (818) 321-1703
9. CLIF BARCranberry Orange Nut Bread clifbar.com
10. BOBO'S OAT BARSStrawberry bobosoatbars.com
11. EDDIE'S ENERGY BARSAlmond Double Chocolate Chip eddiesenergy.com
12. PALEY BARFruity Nut Evolution paleybar.com
13. EVERLASTDark Chocolate Nut everlast.com
14. PUREApple Cinnamon thepurebar.com
15. ELEMENT BARSOaty and M&Ms elementbars.com
16. LUNA BARLemon Zest lunabar.com
17. SHAKTI BARGoldenberry Goji No Web site
18. GO MACROGranola Delight gomacro.com
19. NATURE'S PATHBanana, Nut, Matcha & Flax naturespath.com
20. NUGODouble Dark Chocolate nugonutrition.com
21. NRGChocolate Chip Coconut nrg-bar.com
22. VEGABerry Flavor sequelnaturals.com/vega
23. MACROLIFEMacro Greens Apple Lemon Ginger macrolifenaturals.com
24. 3 BARTropical Tri tri3bar.com
25. AMAZING GRASSChocolate Whole Food Energy amazinggrass.com
26. YOU BARCustomized Flavor youbars.com
27. GOODONYA BARPeanut Butter Chocolate thegoodonyabar.com
28. PRO BARSuperfood Slam theprobar.com
--Avital Binshtock & Michael Fox
Int'l climate talks in L'Aquila, Italy, 2009
Climate Talks End With Meager Promises by Richard Harris
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106425707
Obama Joins Global Warming Deal by Richard Harris
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106397667
Morning Edition, July 10, 2009 · International climate talks held in Italy this week ended with little progress. The rich industrial nations wouldn't promise to cut back their emissions in the near term. And China, India and the rest of the developing world wouldn't commit to cutting their emissions, ever.
All nations of the world need to act to reduce the risk of a climate catastrophe. But so far, there's much more posturing than action.
China argues that the United States and other rich nations put most of the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so they need to act first and most aggressively. They demand that those nations slash their carbon dioxide emissions by a staggering 40 percent — in just 10 years.
Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, who was once a diplomat, regards this demand as little more than an over-the-top bargaining tactic.
China is still struggling to pull hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. There is no way at this point they can credibly commit to actually bring down their total carbon emissions.
The industrialized world, on the other hand, has acknowledged that the world needs to take dramatic action and has set ambitious long-range goals. But they haven't agreed to near-term action plans.
And action from the developed world doesn't mean just cutting their own emissions. Just as important, rich countries need to spread clean energy technology — and money — around the world.
The Obama adminsitration is starting to work with China directly to help push forward clean technologies. But that makes some in Congress nervous — after all, we're helping a major economic competitor.
A climate that can't tolerate much more carbon dioxide before the world gets dangerously hot, rich countries offering more rhetoric than action, and developing nations that say raising living standards is more important than cutting back on fossil fuels.
All Things Considered, July 8, 2009
Targeting global warming, President Barack Obama and other leaders of the world's richest industrial countries pledged Wednesday to seek dramatic cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to slow dangerous climate change. Setting a marker for success, they agreed for the first time that worldwide temperatures must not rise more than a few degrees.
However, their goals are nonbinding, and it's far from clear they will be met. The wealthy nations failed to persuade the leaders of big developing countries to promise to cut their own fast-spreading pollution, unable to overcome arguments that the well-established industrial giants aren't doing enough in the short term.
Obama and his counterparts from the other wealthy Group of Eight nations agreed that global temperatures should be kept from rising by more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, in the fight against weather changes caused by humans.
Environmentalists welcomed the shift in U.S. policy but criticized the G-8's failure to agree on more immediate goals for the industrial countries. The long-term ambition "is too far off to matter — poor people are being hit today," said Antonio Hill, of the nonprofit Oxfam International.
The G-8 leaders also addressed the global recession and agreed economic conditions are still too shaky to begin rolling back massive fiscal stimulus plans.
The abrupt return home from Italy of Chinese President Hu Jintao after ethnic tensions soared in China's western Xingjiang territory could weaken trust-building discussions on making further progress on climate change. He did leave a national delegation behind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)