Sabtu, 05 Juli 2008

Top British judge backs Shari`ah

Britain's most senior judge has suggested that Islamic Shari`ah could play a role in the British legal system.

CAIRO - Britain's most senior judge has suggested that Islamic Shari`ah could play a role in the British legal system, echoing a similar stance by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, reported the Guardian on Friday.

"There is no reason why principles of Shari`ah law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution," Lord Chief Justice Lord Nicholas Phillips said in a speech to the London Islamic Council.

"It must be recognized however that any sanctions for a failure to comply with the agreed terms of the mediation would be drawn from the laws of England and Wales." Phillips, the most senior judge in England and Wales, said parties to a dispute are free to agree to accept Shari`ah principles or other religious precepts if they decide to seek mediation.

"So far as the law is concerned, those who live in this country are governed by English and Welsh law and subject to the jurisdiction of English and Welsh courts." Under British law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party, such as Shari`ah courts and the Jewish Beth Din, as long as both sides agree to the process.

The rulings of Shari`ah courts, however, are not recognized by the law and thus Muslims, estimated at nearly 2 million, would have to seek settling their disputes through civil courts.

Misunderstood
The Lord Chief Justice said that the Islamic Shari`ah has been widely misunderstood.
"Part of the misconception about Shari`ah law is the belief that Shari`ah is only about mandating sanctions such as flogging, stoning, the cutting off of hands or death for those fail to comply with the law.

"In some countries the courts interpret Shari`ah law as calling for severe physical punishment. There can be no question of such courts sitting in this country, or such sanctions being applied here." Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams recently recommended that British law should recognize some aspects of Shari`ah to resolve Muslim civil matters.
His remarks ignited an extraordinary political and religious storm that still rages on, with politicians united in denouncing the proposal.Leading newspapers and tabloids launched vitriolic campaigns against the spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, some even calling for his esignation.

The Lord Chief Justice defended Williams' Shari`ah law comments.
"It was not very radical to advocate embracing Shari`ah law in the context of family disputes, for example, and our system already goes a long way towards accommodating the archbishop's suggestion. "It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law."
"So a Muslim woman who divorced according to Shari`ah principles would be free to marry again, but not if she only went to a civil court.
"But as far as aspects of matrimonial law are concerned, there is a limited precedent for English law to recognize aspects of religious laws, although when it comes to divorce this can only be effected in accordance with the civil law of this country."

The Lord Chief Justice's comments drew applause from Muslim leaders.
"Phillips is talking about provisions that are already out there for mediation and conflict resolution," said Usama Hasan, imam at Al-Tawhid Mosque, Leyton, and an adviser to the Islamic Shari`ah Council. "Muslim couples would prefer to have their personal disputes to be settled by a Shari`ah scholar because such a ruling would affect their status.
"Aspects of Jewish divorce law have long been part of English law and it seems reasonable for Muslims to have the same treatment, but it can't lead to inequality or a splintering of British society."

Source: IslamOnline

Save the planet and save money at the time

High-tech working not only prevents costly commutes but protects the world from big carbon footprints

By : Nick Rodrigues and Melanie Clayton

Being green doesn’t have to cost the earth. In fact, according to our employer survey, companies are reaping the financial benefits of their environmental endeavours. Building firm Carillion is a case in point. Last year staff spent 34,144 hours talking to people through video, web and teleconferencing, avoiding the costs, time and stress of travelling.

Skanska UK, another construction firm, also recently trialled a video conferencing unit at a remote site in Cumbria and found that the money saved on travelling covered the £10,000 cost within six months. As a result, the company invested in 29 video conferencing units. “Being green isn’t necessarily going to cost you anything. Actually in most cases you end up saving money,” says Jennifer Clark, head of sustainability for civil engineering at Skanska. “As far as video conferencing goes, in the long run it paid for itself when you take into account the cost of petrol, potential hotel prices and work time wasted driving.”

The National Magazine Company has also benefited from going green. The introduction of more efficient boilers saves £21,500 a year, with £30,000 more coming from replacing paper towels with hand dryers.
Ken Smith, director of environmental management for consultants Bureau Veritas, agrees the green innovations shown by many firms making our 50 Best Green Companies list often have a financial dividend too.

“It’s a dual win for many organisations,” says Smith. “With the rise in energy prices, companies are seeing a 60% increase in their basic operating costs. So, they can save considerable sums by reducing their use of these resources.”

Advertising company Clear Channel Outdoor UK saves £100,000 on fuel and £30,000 on vehicle lease every year, thanks to its “green” company cars. Most of its fleet runs on liquefied petroleum gas or electricity. Average annual mileage has been cut from 20,000 to 16,500 through careful route planning, reducing Clear Channel’s carbon emissions by 74 tons a year.
“Saving money, saving resources and an increased understanding by organisations of the wider carbon footprint issue are the key findings from this survey,” says Smith. “And companies know that all three are inter-related.”

Can city dwellers be more self-sufficient?

By : Anna Shepard

We may dream of quitting the rat race and moving to the countryside, but the reality is that we are overwhelmingly an urban population. In the UK more than 80 per cent of us live in urban areas. Globally, it's the same story, with the UN estimating that, by the end of this year, more than half the world's population will be living in towns and cities.

The question of how we will feed these growing cities is an urgent one. According to Sustain, the food and farming alliance, the greatest challenge of modern agriculture is how to produce affordable food for everyone. “Growing Food for London”, a one-day conference that takes place on Monday at City Hall, focuses on urban food production in the capital. By drawing on efforts to develop agriculture within cities - from roof gardens in New York to community gardens in Havana - it is hoping to change the way that urban land is perceived.

“There's a lot of space in our towns and cities that is just green desert. It's there to look at,” says Ben Reynolds, one of the author's of Sustain's recent report, Edible Cities. “There are multiple benefits from making our cities more self-sufficient. The obvious one is security. The nearer food is, the easier it is to get at in times of crisis.”
We can also combat climate change by reducing how far food has to travel to get to consumers. When the WWF calculated an average personal carbon footprint in Britain, it found that food production and its transport accounted for our greatest use of carbon - 23 per cent of each person's total, ahead of personal transport and home energy.

There are already signs that we would like to become more self-sufficient. Half a million families - 2 per cent of households in the UK - keep hens, waiting lists for allotments have never been longer and, for the first time since the Second World War, vegetable seeds are outselling flower seeds.

But just how self-sufficient can our towns and cities ever be? Jeanette Longfield, a co-ordinator at Sustain, says: “They will never rival rural areas in terms of production - there never will be wheat fields and large-scale livestock production - but we could produce a lot more fruit and vegetables.”

At present 80 per cent of London's food comes from abroad. The rest arrives from other parts of the UK with only a fraction being produced within the city. Jenny Jones, a Green Party London Assembly member, says that the capital could produce as much as 25 per cent of its food, an ambitious target until you hear that there is 24 times the size of Richmond Park in flat roofs, ready to be turned green.

If all this sounds familiar, it's because we've done it before. At the height of the Dig for Victory campaign in 1943, 1,400,000 allotments around the UK produced 1.3million tonnes of food, half the nation's fruit and vegetables needs.

Today, as the examples below show, we're doing it again. What stands out about each project is how it has captured people's imagination, demonstrating that urban communities can respond to a food crisis and eke out productivity from unlikely places.
www.sustainweb.org

On the roof
On his lunch hour, Dave Richards leaves his desk, walks up to the roof of his office and grazes in a 200sqm garden. Once he's picked a few garlic chives or salad leaves to add to his sandwich, he finds a quiet spot and settles down.

Perched above the centre of Reading, he describes the urban oasis as “a beautiful space that you can eat”. It contains 180 varieties of plants, most of which are edible. “We eat the garden from the first nettles and wild garlic of early spring to the medlars, a spicy fruit, in October,” he says. It provides food for the cafĂ© in the building below, as well as for staff and volunteers. “My daughters (aged 7 and 10) seem to eat most of it,” he says. “They come and strip it bare.”
It all started six years ago with a leaky roof. It was going to have to be redone, so Richards and other staff working for RISC (Reading International Solidarity Centre), the development education charity, decided they might as well ask for funding and do something different.
To prevent tree roots doing structural damage, a waterproofing and root-proofing layer was laid on top of the flat roof. Then a drainage layer, followed by thick fleece and, finally, a foot of soil. With a £50,000 grant from the Big Lottery Fund, they also put up a wind turbine and solar panels to provide electricity to pump the water collected from surrounding roofs and held in a vast 2,000-litre tank.

The emphasis was not so much on providing food for the town, but on showing how you can produce diverse crops in a low-maintenance way in the middle of a city. It is based on the forest garden concept, a productive and self-maintaining approach to gardening, founded by Robert Hart in the late Sixties. Fruit trees offer shade to crops that require it; other plants, such as strawberries, are planted strategically to suppress weeds, and the whole garden takes only a few hours a week to maintain.

Richards points out that rooftop gardens are also an essential part of “sustainable urban drainage” as they act as a sponge for rainwater. He believes that all new-build offices and public buildings should have a roof garden. “The best thing is that it's an extra room, an edible boardroom,” he says. “In a crowded environment it provides more space, so instead of everyone bundling into parks on a sunny day, they can go up and find a peaceful bit of green.”
www.risc.org.uk

Vertical farms
Imagine a high-rise building in the heart of a city with floor after floor of vegetables and grains. There might be poultry and fish too, maybe even a shrimp farm, providing every food that a city dweller might want. This is the idea behind vertical farms, sometimes called farmscrapers, and several cities have confirmed their ambitions to make them a reality, including the eco-city planned for Abu Dhabi and Incheon, in South Korea.

You grow in a controlled, small-scale way on a vertical farm, so need less fossil fuel than the fertiliser and farm machinery-dependent methods of modern agriculture. Plus, as its creator, Professor Dickson Despommier, of Columbia University, New York, points out, it's a way of getting around the farmer's number one enemy: the weather. According to Despommier's plans, one vertical farm, rising up to 30 storeys, could provide enough food for 10,000 people.
Plants could be grown hydroponically with their roots submerged in water. This reduces the weight on the building's floors as the volume of water needed is less than the volume of soil. Chickens could be reared organically, although they would never be free-range.
If it all sounds too much like factory farming, city-style, remember, says Despommier, that producing food in urban areas enables us to give land back to nature. “Instead of farms taking up our open spaces, we can go back to having forests soaking up CO2 and reverse deforestation.”
The building's carbon footprint would be kept down with LED low-energy lighting, an irrigation system that recycles grey water, and lots of daylight, maximised by it being made entirely of glass. Renewable resources would be used for energy, depending on what is available: it might be solar in a sunny city, geothermal elsewhere.

“You'd have to be clever about the design, putting plants that tolerate shade in the building's internal space and those that need more light on the outside,” Despommier says. “The first one might not be perfect, but we'd improve things each time.”

Neglected urban space
For inner-city productivity, nothing beats the fruits of a project called Vacant Lot, pioneered by two architects keen to promote the use of neglected urban space. On a run-down square of concrete, hidden between several housing estates in East London, there is now a thriving patchwork of vegetables, salads, fruits and flowers.

All this growing takes place in 70 half-tonne building bags filled with soil and compost. Made from drainage-friendly fibres, they make ideal, if unlikely, planting containers, with plenty of room for root development. Each is tended by a local resident, except for a few that are planted by Ulrike Steven and Gareth Morris, the project's founders.

It is one of several schemes established by What If, their organisation funded by the Arts Council and Shoreditch Trust, to highlight how many city spaces could be used for growing. Steven says that she has found 27 other “vacant lots”, in this corner of East London. She admits there is also a need for affordable housing, but green space is needed to accompany it.

When the organisers sent flyers about Vacant Lot around the nearby tower blocks, take-up was slow. A year on, there are barbecues and parties on the plot in the summer. There is also a waiting list, and the only trouble has been from a couple of teenagers frustrated that their bag was given to someone else after they moved away.

A diverse mix of people, some English, others immigrants from Poland, Turkey and Ghana, have become involved, growing everything from maize and sprouting broccoli to strawberries and spinach. “People from different countries use different planting methods,” Steven says. She points to a bag containing a haphazard tumble of flowers and vegetables that belongs to Grace, 60, from Ghana. By contrast, a neighbouring bag, owned by an English man, is ordered, with wellbehaved rows of beetroot and salad leaves.
www.what-if.info

City parks
You'd expect to see geraniums and dahlias growing in a city park, but courgettes and cabbages? Last year, in Middlesbrough, parkland was identified as an ideal location for growing vegetables. As part of a council-run urban farming project, ornamental flowers were replaced by lettuces, tomatoes, strawberries and sprouts in two of the city's green spaces, Stewart Park and Albert Park.

It may have been the first time that park space has been treated like an allotment in the UK, but it has been going on since 2005 in Chicago's Grant Park. A similar project replaced a formal bedding area with more than 150 varieties of vegetables, herbs and edible flowers, which were distributed to community projects and soup kitchens.

Back in Middlesbrough, ploughing up parks is only one aspect of its attempt to create fertile growing zones. Grass verges and community centre gardens also have been turned over, along with school playing fields and residential backyards; in total, 264 growing sites across the city involving 1,000 people.

“One concern was vandalism, but we only had two episodes of that, one of which involved vegetables being pulled up and replaced with cannabis plants,” says Ian Collingwood, a regeneration consultant at Middlesbrough council.

The produce was used last year for a series of local meals, which culminated in a town meal. The outdoor event attracted 8,500 people, 2,500 of whom were fed. “One of the best things was seeing how people were encouraged to experiment with cooking the produce, to find what goes with what.” With double the numbers involved this year and even more growing space being annexed, the future for the city's ornamental plants looks uncertain.
www.dott07.com/go/food/urban-farming

How to be self-sufficient at home
A paved garden can still be productive if you lay out a couple of growbags in a sunny spot. Instead of lugging them home, get a delivery from crocus.co.uk (£7.99). Don't like the way plastic growbags look? Then buy a grow box from this recycling project (recyclingwood.org.uk (from £40). It comes with a frame so is ideal for plants that need support, such as tomatoes and beans.
You can still produce home-grown bounty, even if you haven't got a garden. Try a mushroom growing kit, which will yield edible fungi at any time of year (gardeningexpress.co.uk ; £12.95), or a window box of salads and vegetables (rocketgardens.co.uk ; £24.99). Fancy fresh eggs for breakfast? An eglu hen house keeps up to four chickens safe (omlet.co.uk ; £395, includes two chickens, plus feed). Autumn is the right time to plant fruit trees. Gooseberry bushes are low in maintenance and will give you a constant supply of fruit for crumbles and fools (organiccatalog.com ; £10.40 for one bush).

Selasa, 01 Juli 2008

1988-2008: Climate Then and Now

By Andrew C. Revkin

Global warming has felt like breaking news a few times in recent years. But the first big pulse of coverage and public attention came in 1988, when the Amazon rain forest and Yellowstone were ablaze, a searing drought had farmers kicking dusty fields in frustration, and global temperatures had seen enough of a rise that a NASA climate expert, James Hansen, asserted before a Senate panel that statistics showed “the greenhouse effect has been detected and is changing our climate now.”

I thought it might be worth inviting you all to read and “annotate” (as we’ve done with a couple of climate speeches and a polar bear decision recently) my cover story for Discover Magazine, reported through that hot year and published in the October 1988 edition. I asked the current management there if they’d post the original article. They liked the idea, but the article was so old that it wasn’t even available in electronic form, so they had to type it up. Here’s the story, “Endless Summer: Living With the Greenhouse Effect.” (It is not just about adapting to climate change, despite the headline; always remember, writers don’t control headlines.) Melissa Lafsky of the magazine also did a brief e-mail interview with me, which is on their Reality Base blog.
I’ll start by posting some relevant sections below and offering some reflections on how the story has stood the test of time. I’d enjoy seeing your reactions, pro or con.

I was not at the Senate Energy Committee hearing when Dr. Hansen testified. But I had been focused on climate and humans since 1984, when I began reporting what would end up being a long cover story for Science Digest magazine assessing nuclear winter, kind of the inverse potential human impact on climate (global cooling from a pall of smoke rising from incinerated cities). I went to Toronto one week after Dr. Hansen’s testimony to report from the first international “Conference on the Changing Atmosphere” — one of the seminal meetings building momentum toward the first report of the newborn Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Nuclear winter, as I wrote in 1985, was more nuanced than the initial dramatic concept, morphing from a Page One post-apocalyptic apocalypse into a more subtle phenomenon, labeled “nuclear autumn” by Stephen H. Schneider. What is distinct about global warming is that the basics of 100-year-old theory have stood the test of time (more CO2 = warming world = less ice + higher seas and lots of climate change). Let’s dive into my old story to see what has, and has not, changed.

After an opening section leading off with Dr. Hansen’s testimony:
Until this year, despite dire warnings from climatologists, the greenhouse effect has seemed somehow academic and far off. The idea behind it is simple: gases accumulating in the atmosphere as by-products of human industry and agriculture — carbon dioxide, mostly, but also methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbon — let in the sun’s warming rays but don’t let excess heat escape. As a result, mean global temperature has probably been rising for decades. But the rise has been so gradual that it has been masked by the much greater, and ordinary, year-to-year swings in world temperature.

In my YouTube interview with Dr. Hansen, he discusses how the public remains attuned mainly to anomalies on short time scales — cold or warm — and misses the point that it is the long-term trend that he and other experts say will transform the planet, but at a pace invisible day to day.
Not anymore, said Hansen. The 1980s have already seen the four hottest years on record, and 1988 is almost certain to be hotter still. Moreover, the seasonal, regional, and atmospheric patterns of rising temperatures — greater warming in winters than summers, greater warming at high latitudes than near the equator, and a cooling in the stratosphere while the lower atmosphere is warmer — jibe with what computer models predict should happen with greenhouse heating. And the warming comes at a time when, by rights, Earth should actually be cooler than normal. The sun’s radiance has dropped slightly since the 1970s, and dust thrown up by recent volcanic eruptions, especially that of Mexico’s El Chichon in 1982, should be keeping some sunlight from reaching the planet.

What’s important here, and remains important, scientists say, is how the patterns of atmospheric and climatic change reveal the most about the involvement of greenhouse gases, not simply the change in global temperature.

Even though most climatologists think Hansen’s claims are premature, they agree that warming is on the way. Carbon dioxide levels are 25 percent higher now than they were in 1860, and the atmosphere’s burden of greenhouse gases is expected to keep growing. By the middle of the next century the resulting warming could boost global mean temperatures from three to nine degrees Fahrenheit. That doesn’t sound like much, but it equals the temperature rise since the end of the last ice age, and the consequences could be devastating. Weather patterns could shift, bringing drought to once fertile areas and heavy rains to fragile deserts that cannot handle them. As runoff from melting glaciers increases and warming seawater expands, sea level could rise as much as six feet, inundating low-lying coastal areas and islands. There would be dramatic disruptions of agriculture, water resources, fisheries, coastal activity, and energy use.

The range of possible warming from a particular rise in greenhouse gas concentrations is only a little narrower than it was back then. Again, this remains a risk-management challenge. As Dr. Hansen says in the video interview, climate is not something that we will “fix.”

“Average climate will certainly get warmer,” says Roger Revelle, an oceanographer and climatologist at the University of California at San Diego. “But what’s more serious is how many more hurricanes we’ll have, how many more droughts we’ll have, how many days above one hundred degrees.” By Hansen’s reckoning, where Washington now averages one day a year over 100 degrees, it will average 12 such scorchers annually by the middle of the next century.

At the time, the basic notion that warmer seawater would fuel hurricanes was young and untested. Most scientists projecting many more, and stronger storms, including Kerry Emanuel (quoted farther down in my 1988 story), have since shifted to more nuanced projections. Enough time has passed that Dr. Emanuel and some other researchers say intensification has already been seen. But the hurricane-climate connection remains an idea its formative stages.

Comparable climate shifts have happened before, but over tens of centuries, not tens of years. The unprecedented rapid change could accelerate the already high rate of species extinction as plants and animals fail to adapt quickly enough. For the first time in history humans are affecting the ecological balance of not just a region but the entire world, all at once. “We’re altering the environment far faster than we can possibly predict the consequences,” says Stephen Schneider, a climate modeler at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. “This is bound to lead to some surprises.”

The situation then remains similar today in that the worst-case outcomes from a greenhouse-warmed world are clearly possible, but with the probability hard to nail down. This is one reason the policy debate, essentially over how much to invest in a climate insurance policy, remains turbulent.

A few themes that are central to climate discussions now were not part of the global warming story in 1988 — most notably the concept of thresholds and nonlinear “tipping points.” The evidence that climate can shift abruptly had not yet emerged from ice cores in Greenland. All the curves looking forward were smooth.

The rising role of developing countries was also described in the story, along with the looming challenge posed by the rise of China as an economic, and climatic, force:
In the end, the greatest obstacle facing those who are trying to slow the output of greenhouse gases is the fundamental and pervasive nature of the human activities that are causing the problem: deforestation, industrialization, energy production. As populations boom, productivity must keep up. And even as the developed nations of the world cut back on fossil fuel use, there will be no justifiable way to prevent the Third World from expanding its use of coal and oil. How can the developed countries expect that China, for example, which has plans to double its coal production in the next 15 years in order to spur development, will be willing or even able to change course?

Overall, the story captured the same situation that scientists are still trying to describe now: a world poised for momentous changes that would be hard to reverse; the need for adaptation to inevitable changes and changes in energy choices to cut the chances of utter calamity; and the need to act in the face of uncertainty.

The piece culminated with a quote from Michael McElroy, a climate expert at Harvard, speaking at the Toronto climate conference. It could still be delivered today.

Michael McElroy concluded, “If we choose to take on this challenge, it appears that we can slow the rate of change substantially, giving us time to develop mechanisms so that the cost to society and the damage to ecosystems can be minimized. We could alternatively close our eyes, hope for the best, and pay the cost when the bill comes due.”

Again, I’d love to hear your thoughts on particular sections of the story. Point them out in your comment and I’ll post the relevant paragraph and link to your contribution.

The Wife’s at Work, So ... ( part 2 )

By :By ANDY NEWMAN

Leon Falk, a film producer and professor, and at 56 the elder statesman of the group, described it as “a way to honor fatherhood in the moment that we’re all engaged in our kids starting out in life together, and to blow off some steam doing it.”

The collective has actually proved artistically fruitful for several members. Mr. Greenfeld is writing a novel based on the breakfast-club characters; one chapter, soon to appear in The Paris Review, swirls outward from a parenting debate, at “a steakhouse recently taken to serving breakfast,” over how to deal with a child molester.

Mr. Katz has a play coming to the Public Theater in the fall, “Philip Roth in Khartoum,” that opens with a coffee-shop scene in which the dads bemoan the wives’ refusal to address their needs. “If my having an orgasm saved a whale or stopped global warming, then I’d have a decent shot,” goes one of the few printable lines.

Mr. Katz stressed that the play was fictional. But he conceded that the tone of the dialogue was “about par for the course.” This was certainly the case on Thursday, much of which Mr. Katz spent inviting his coffee-mates to his son’s bris and defending his decision to circumcise.
Across the table, John Fortenberry, a film and television director, flinched at the thought. “If there’s any screaming,” he said, “I’m out the door.” The fashion-photographer dad, Guy Aroch, wondered if it might be better to leave the boy intact. “That decision can be reversed,” he said. “The other decision can’t.”

“You don’t think that with our technology you won’t be able to get a better foreskin?” Mr. Katz asked. Mr. Greenfeld elaborated. “It would be softer and more sensitive than the natural one, and cleaner. Have you seen the technology they have for supple leather gloves?”

Eventually, food arrived — piles of eggs scrambled with salmon and onions, a rasher of bacon. No one ordered the diet plate. Conversation turned briefly to summer plans — houses upstate or on the East End, children off for Europe. Manly headlines were read from The Wall Street Journal: the Supreme Court’s scuttling of the Exxon Valdez settlement. The topic of foreskin resurfaced. “Sorry Table 7!” Mr. Katz called in the direction of two suited women working on their egg-white omelets.

Notwithstanding the potential poignancy of the moment, the last breakfast was devoid of sentiment, perhaps in homage to last year’s disastrous season finale, an attempt at a guys’ night out. After a steak dinner, the group repaired to the office of one of its members, who proceeded to whip out an acoustic guitar and offer up an achingly sincere rendition of “Wish You Were Here,” the Pink Floyd ballad of loss and age and the cost of compromise.

“I’ve never seen so many people so uncomfortable in my life,” Mr. Katz said.
This year, the P.S. 234 men’s breakfast club simply dissolved for the summer, one molecule at a time. Mr. Aroch had a photo shoot in New Jersey. Mr. Katz excused himself to buy liquor and numbing cream for little Maccabee’s bris. “I gotta go,” he said. “Julie’s gonna kill me.”
As the men departed, they shook hands; they did not hug.

The conversation dwindled. Mr. Dunn put down the newspaper. “Chrysler next year is going to put wireless Internet in its pickup trucks,” he announced.

“Wow,” Mr. Fortenberry said. And he, too, got up to go.

The Wife’s at Work, So ... ( part 1 )

By ANDY NEWMAN

THURSDAY morning they filed toward P.S. 234 on Greenwich Street one last time, the precious progeny of TriBeCa and their escorts: dads in suits with Deloitte bags over their shoulders, meticulously untucked dads, smartly tailored moms.
At 8:37, the school bell tolled three times. The children, clutching bouquets for teacher and cameras to capture the giddy-wistful faces of friends, disappeared behind the wrought-iron fence with little sailboats on it.

Most of the parents scattered. But one scruffy cluster of 40ish men appeared to be calling roll: the screenwriter, the photographer, the sculptor, the journalist-novelist, all present.
In no time they had corralled a table at their hangout of the moment, City Hall, a cavernously clubby steakhouse on Duane Street. As they settled into their seats, the screenwriter, David Bar Katz, mimed pulling down his shorts and said, “O.K., guys, now for the traditional last-day-of-school nude coffee.”

The lot of the caregiver dad is often depicted as difficult and lonely — shut out by cliquish moms and nannies on the playground, financially emasculated by his breadwinner wife, generally cut off from the forces that sustain a man.

The dads of the nameless P.S. 234 breakfast club are different. To be sure, they differ from the average stay-at-home dad in many ways. Their homemaking burdens are lightened by nannies and cleaning ladies. They work, though not in offices like their high-powered wives, who are executives and editors in chief and museum directors.

BUT the main way they seem different is that they have one another. For the last four years, since the day the fashion-consultant dad asked the lawyer-who-wants-to-be-a-writer dad out to a diner, they have been making the rounds of TriBeCa’s better breakfast spots, a rotating lineup of seven or eight guys, whiling away the morning hours with hash browns and wide-ranging banter that somehow seldom strays far from the locker room.

“It’s like ‘Sex and the City’ with coffee instead of cosmos,” Mr. Katz said.
The group’s self-proclaimed founder, Roark Dunn, a consultant in the fashion industry, said he was inspired by the moms he saw pairing up after morning drop-off. “I was envious,” he said, “so I said to Josh, ‘Why don’t you and I go out?’ Then Josh started bringing David and David started bringing Chris.”

Some guys were slow to grasp the concept. “Josh used to ask me if I wanted to get coffee, and I was like, ‘Not really,’ ” said Karl Taro Greenfeld, the journalist-novelist. “I didn’t know he was inviting me to a ‘Thing.’ ”

At first, Mr. Katz said, the wives tended toward jealousy and suspicion. “There was a lot of ‘I wish I had time to have coffee with my friends for two hours,’ ” he said. “They were like: ‘What do you guys talk about? Do you talk about us? Do you talk about sex?’ ”

But the dads have no compunction about taking a leisurely break from diapering and spending some of the family’s hard-earned money in the process. “All these fathers are actually really good fathers,” said Mr. Katz, who recently oversaw the birth of his fourth son (and made it to breakfast with the guys 14 hours later). “We do more parenting than our type-A wives and feel we’re justified.”

And so the wives seem to have mostly come around. “It’s very nice — it feeds Josh’s soul,” said Amy Katz, no relation to Mr. Katz but married to Joshua Leitner, the lawyer and aspiring writer. Still, she added, “If it makes him less productive, that makes me resentful, and it has the potential to veer in that direction.”

The get-togethers seem to feed the men’s souls in different ways. For Mr. Katz, they fill a void that often opens up for men after they start families. “This wouldn’t exist with us if there wasn’t this need that in a sense is repressed,” he said. “People are conditioned to feel that it’s sophomoric: now that you’re a grown-up, you’re supposed to spend time with your family, not your friends.”

‘Oh Happy Day’

By BOB HERBERT
Published: July 1, 2008

It’s getting harder and harder to remain deluded. With each day comes new facts to drag our heads out of the sand.
Two weeks ago, The Times reported that four Western oil giants were on the verge of signing no-bid contracts that would return them to Iraq, the third-most bountiful petroleum playground on the planet. The deals, expected to be finalized in the next 30 days, were the kind of news that big oil lives for.

Giddy executives singing “Oh Happy Day” could be heard in the corporate offices of Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP, which had been shut out of Iraq for three and a half decades.
We also learned this week that a group of American advisers, led by a team from the State Department, played a key role in drawing up the contracts between the companies and the Iraqi government. Chevron and several smaller oil companies are also on the verge of signing contracts.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney, both former oil-company executives, have long tried to tell us this war was about terrorism, about weapons of mass destruction, about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, about anything but oil.
Said Mr. Bush: “We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

He didn’t wait. It didn’t matter that Saddam Hussein posed no imminent threat to the U.S. Or that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The troops were sent into battle in early 2003 and there is still, after more than five years and more than 4,000 American deaths, no end to the war in sight.

One of the starkest examples of U.S. priorities came during the eruption of looting that followed the fall of Baghdad. With violence and chaos all about, American troops were ordered to protect one particularly treasured target — the Iraqi Oil Ministry. As David Rieff wrote in The Times Magazine in November 2003:

“This decision to protect only the Oil Ministry — not the National Museum, not the National Library, not the Health Ministry — probably did more than anything else to convince Iraqis uneasy with the occupation that the United States was in Iraq only for the oil.”
How convenient that the peculiar perspective of the oil-obsessed Bush administration can now be put to use advising the Iraqi government on its contracts with big oil.

The contracts themselves are not huge. They are like the keys on a coveted ring that will begin opening the doors to Iraq’s vast oil reserves. As The Times reported Monday, “At a time of spiraling oil prices, the no-bid contracts, in a country with some of the world’s largest untapped fields and potential for vast profits, are a rare prize to the industry.”

A prize, yes. But at what cost?
In addition to the terrible toll of Americans and Iraqis killed and wounded, the war in Iraq has diverted attention and resources from critical problems here in the U.S., where the housing market has been crippled, the stock market has tanked, gasoline has soared past $4 per gallon, unemployment is increasing and an extraordinary number of debt-ridden working families are staring into a financial abyss.

Even as oil companies are enjoying staggering profits, many Americans — in July! — are already worried sick about the potentially ruinous cost of heating their homes next winter.
And then there’s the so-called war on terror.

The latest news is that Al Qaeda, the terror network that actually did attack the U.S., has successfully regrouped in the tribal areas of Pakistan and has reconstituted its ability to institute terror attacks from the region.
For an administration joined at the hip to the oil industry, the lure of Iraq’s enormous reserves was stronger even than the impulse to conquer an enemy that murdered more than 2,700 civilians on Sept. 11, a toll greater than the number of Americans killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

Referring to Al Qaeda members who regrouped in Pakistan, The Times reported on Monday:
“Current and former military and intelligence officials said that the war in Iraq consistently diverted resources and high-level attention from the tribal areas. When American military and intelligence officials requested additional Predator drones to survey the tribal areas, they were told no drones were available because they had been sent to Iraq.”

Who knows how long it will be before the U.S. disengages in any significant way from Iraq. What you can take to the bank is that this country will not make any major advances in energy policy, in health coverage, in rebuilding its infrastructure, in improving its public schools or in curtailing runaway public and private debt until our open-ended commitment to this catastrophic multitrillion-dollar war comes to an end.

How long will it take before that finally sinks in?