The Coming Fuel Crunch

These evacuations are equivalent to 72.40% of 819 manned platforms and 47.76% of 134 rigs currently operating in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM).

Today’s shut-in oil production is 1,511,715 BOPD. This shut-in oil production is equivalent to 100% of the daily oil production in the GOM, which is currently approximately 1.5 million BOPD.

Today’s shut-in gas production is 8.027 BCFPD. This shut-in gas production is equivalent to 80.27% of the daily gas production in the GOM, which is currently approximately 10 BCFPD.

The cumulative shut-in oil production for the period 8/26/05-9/28/05 is 37,881,777 bbls, which is equivalent to 6.919 % of the yearly production of oil in the GOM (approximately 547.5 million barrels).

The cumulative shut-in gas production 8/26/05-9/28/05 is 180.560 BCF, which is equivalent to 4.947% of the yearly production of gas in the GOM (approximately 3.65 TCF).

From the Minerals Management Service

The last sentence from the Minerals Management Service should send shivers up anyone’s spine.  The total shut-in oil production is almost 7% of yearly totals.

For the last 6 months or so, the oil market has rallied whenever there was news of a refinery problem.  US refineries are operating near 100% capacity, and have been for about the last 6 months.  As a result, the oil refiners cannot simply shift production to a plant that has extra producing capacity because that plant does not exist.

And the problem won’t go away soon, as Reuter’s reports:

Oil prices jumped more than $1 on Wednesday after the U.S. government said up to 15 percent of the nation’s storm-battered refining capacity could stay shut for weeks, rekindling fears of fuel shortages.

Strikes in France, a leading U.S. gasoline supplier, could worsen the problem by hurting Europe’s ability to send shipments across the Atlantic, with the biggest French refinery already shut down by a work stoppage.

“The longer these refineries remain shut down, the more serious the situation becomes, particularly with the heart of the winter season just a few months away,” the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in a report about the storm-struck U.S. petroleum infrastructure.

As a result of lost production, a winter heating spike is now in the cards.  The only question is if the projections of a 30-70% increase were too low.

 

Disgraced, Incompetent Republican Traitors

Hi everyone!  Isn’t that neat!  I’m just trying out some of Newt’s dirty tricks to apply to one’s political enemies as revealed in the above The Nation article.

For only a half a million dollars in campaign contributions, you too can be put in charge of partisan dirty tricks working for a political action committee!

Just ask the new vice-chairperson of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Cheryl Halpern! She can tell you all about using dirty tricks:  during her tenure at GOPAC, ole Newty’s political action committee, she was in charge of getting the magical bag of tricks into candidates hands!  Money = access in the GOP!  

The positive words were hardly surprising; they included “caring,” “freedom,” “liberty,” “moral,” prosperity,” and “strength. But the “contrasting words” — which GOPAC said should be applied to Democrats and their proposals — were rather hard-edged: “betray,” “bizarre,” “cheat,” “corrupt,” “destroy,” “disgrace,” “greedy,” “incompetent,” “intolerant,” “radical,” “shallow,” “sick,” and “traitors.”

This is to say that Gay Hart Gaines, the number two on the CPB’s board as of this week, was a leading official of an outfit that advised Republican candidates to brand Democrats “traitors.” She now is in a position to search for bias in public radio and public television programming.

“She now is in a position to search for bias in public radio and public television programming.”

Awww… how cute!  Don’t you love the smell of cronyism in America.  It’s that sweet mixture of shit, decaying bodies, and George W’s breath after a night of doing cocaine, that “shallow,” “sick” man.  

You try it!  It’s fun!

BuyBlue CA Special Election Analysis

(Cross-posted everywhere)The California Special Election slated for November 2005 is the most audacious, gargantuan display of corporate wealth deployed to win an “election” the state has ever seen; it is arguably the worst behemoth of greed and glut that any state has ever seen. The shameless spending by corporations that will benefit from the public’s approval of their ballot measures makes Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger look like Jabba the Hut.

Californians, whose votes are supposed to legitimize Big Drug’s takeover of the treasury of the state, and Big GOP’s takeover of the treasury of the state, appear by now to recognize the con game being presented. It’s a copy of the playbook in which outfits like Halliburton and MBNA supported Bush’s candidacy, and in return got the keys to the US Treasury in lucrative Iraq contracts and a bankruptcy bill designed to tilt the law further toward MBNA and away from citizens. Much more below the fold…
In California, the corporations contributing to the Governor’s campaign have not appeared to recognize any limits on attempts to peddle influence. The definition of corruption involves a quid pro quo of money for political favors. Asking the voters to help you turn the state into a marketocracy is to whip off, like a stripper’s G string, the last pretense of honesty.

Some of the companies that are spending big on this campaign are Albertson’s, Blue Cross of California, Cingular Wireless, Citigroup, Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Enterprise rent-A-Car, Long’s Drug Stores, Outback Steakhouse, Safeway, Sears, Sun, Toyota, Verizon, Walgreens, and Williams Sonoma Corporation.

We’ve taken a lot of time to analyze each of the propositions, list the supporters and opposition and the donations each side has thrown into the effort.

We feel that we have the best information on the web about these propositions and we wanted to share it as broadly as possible. For many google search terms we come out as the #1 result ahead of every newspaper in the country and the official sites. For other searches we are in the top 5.

I don’t want to re-post everything verbatim but I would like to provide links and a quick summary of each.

Proposition 73 – TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY: This constitutional amendment probably violates minor women’s right to privacy, as the courts have ruled on past measures. A 1987 state law required minors to have their parents’ consent before getting an abortion, but in 1997, the state Supreme Court tossed the law out, as it violated a minor’s right to privacy.

Groups such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union have vowed to fight Prop 73. And in fact, lawsuits have been filed.

Proposition 74 – PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS; DISMISSAL, INITIATIVE LAWSUIT: The Prop 74 logic of blaming teachers for the failure of California students is like a corporate officer reducing the sales division’s budget and then threatening to fire the salespeople for not making enough sales. It doesn’t address the central issue, which is that California public education needs vastly more funding.

Proposition 75 – PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. REQUIRED EMPLOYEE CONSENT FOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS: Proposition 75 is aimed at weakening the political clout of public employee unions. In a now familiar ploy, the measure’s right-wing financial backers did their best to remain unknown to the public during the signature gathering campaign to qualify for the ballot. The dirtiness in this game is twofold: 1) the outfits backing Prop 75 are run by Governor Schwarzenegger’s political advisors and paid political consultants. And 2) businesses that will profit from gutting the political power of public employees are using the initiative process to get their measure before the public. But the initiative process is intended to allow the voters, not industry shills, to put measures before the public, without having to rely on a potentially captured legislature.

Proposition 76 – State Spending and School Funding Limits: In this measure we see the elementary argument about which path our society should take: the conservative direction that government should provide services only minimally, if at all; or the progressive direction, that our society understands the necessity of public funding of societal values, such as world-class public education.

Proposition 77 – REDISTRICTING: If you think Governor Schwarzenegger wants to redistrict California out of a nonpartisan sense of good public policy then stand right here while someone goes to buy your dope for you. While you’re waiting for the man to come back with your grass, think about this simple arithmetic problem.

The point of Prop 77 is to give Congress a veto-proof Republican majority. Any more words about it would just be blowing smoke.

Detailed Comparison of Propositions 78 & 79 – DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: These two competing propositions are compound, complex, and messy. We have a table which shows the major differences and similarities between the two measures.

We’ll have information on proposition 80 coming soon. Check it out and please comment here or there, this election is extremely important for Californians.

Bennett: Abort Black Babies to Reduce Crime

Bill Bennett — Reagan’s former Secretary of Education — declared on his satellite radio show today that “you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”


Bennett was discussing the decline in the crime rate — apparently inspired by “the claim that legalized abortion has reduced crime rates, which was posited in the book Freakonomics (William Morrow, May 2005) by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner.” (Media Matters)

Addressing a caller’s suggestion that the “lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30 years” would be enough to preserve Social Security’s solvency, radio host and former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett dismissed such “far-reaching, extensive extrapolations.”


[Bennett instead declared] that if “you wanted to reduce crime … if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.” Bennett conceded that aborting all African-American babies “would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do,” then added again, “but the crime rate would go down.”


Listen to the actual audio — at the risk of your own sanity. MM also has a transcript.


Media Matters reports that “Bill Bennett’s Morning in America airs on approximately 115 radio stations with an estimated weekly audience of 1.25 million listeners.” (Thanks to Keith Olbermann for first alerting me to this story, and to Media Matters for its usual, impeccable work in fact-checking the news.)


Bennett’s show is run through Salem Radio Network (SRN): “SRN is a full-service satellite radio network based in Irving, Texas. We serve Christian-formatted and general market news/talk stations through affiliate partnerships.” SRN’s phone number is 972-831-1920. Ask for Charles Mefferd, Operations Manager. The new/existing sales numbers are 972-402-8800 and Fax:972-402-8200. And, use the network’s online contact form to send them a message.


So this is the programming of Christians? I wonder what Jesus would listen to in today’s radio markets.


Update [2005-9-29 11:13:5 by susanhu]:
Civil Rights Lawyer Constance Motley Baker Dies at 84


Reports Amy Goodman on this morning’s Democracy Now!:


The first African American woman to serve as a federal judge has passed away. Famed civil rights lawyer Constance Baker Motley died Wednesday in New York. She was 84.

As a young lawyer, Motley represented Martin Luther King Jr. After a brief political career, she began a distinguished four-decade span as a judge in 1966, becoming the first black woman appointed to the federal bench. Motley earned her degree in economics in 1943 from New York University, and three years later, she obtained her law degree from Columbia Law School. In 1945, she became a law clerk to Thurgood Marshall, who was then chief counsel of the NAACP’s Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

In the late 1950s, Motley took an interest in politics and by 1964 had left the NAACP and become the first black woman to serve in the New York State Senate. In 1965, she became the first woman to serve as president of the borough of Manhattan, where she worked to promote integration in public schools.

In her career, she worked on some of the nation’s most famous civil rights cases, including preparing the draft complaint in 1950 for what would become Brown v. Board of Education. From 1961 to 1964, Motley won nine of 10 civil rights cases she argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Stop Defending Ronnie Earle!

From It Affects You

I’ve read many great defenses of prosecutor Ronnie Earle here and elsewhere.  As they point out, he’s got a decidely nonpartisan record, having prosecuted four times as many Democrats as Republicans.  But as good and as accurate as these defenses are, many play into DeLay’s frame.

The evidence is clear enough and presented well enough that we will convince any reasonable person that Earle’s motivations are not partisan. But the mere mention of the argument in these terms forces people to answer the question “Is Earle (Are Democrats) targeting DeLay for partisan reasons?”  The frame is of angry Democrats out on a witch hunt for Republican blood, and so it allows DeLay to change the subject.  When responding, we need to reframe it so people are instead asking themselves, “Are DeLay and his supporters smearing an honest public servant so they can avoid accountability?”  The frame now is of unethical Conservatives looking to get away with bad behavior by blaming others.  The focus stays on conservative corruption, and we become the aggressors rather than the defenders.  

It should not be difficult to do.  After all, wouldn’t you expect someone with a history of unethical behavior to defend himself using unethical methods?  It plays right into our frame.  So when we’re facing accusations of Earle being on a partisan witch hunt, we should not respond with, “Earle is not playing politics because…”  Instead we should respond with, “As he’s always done, Tom DeLay is using dishonest and unethical methods to achieve his goals.  Now that he’s been indicted for some of those tactics, rather than face the consequences, he and his supporters are attempting to smear those who stand against his unethical behavior…”

And then, thanks to the great work of Think Progress and others, we have plenty of evidence to go on the attack to show that DeLay and his apologists are sliming a dedicated and honest public servant.

This is not a time to be on the defensive, it’s a time to attack.  

From It Affects You

Democratic Saboteurs

As many of you know, I have lived in Arizona for the vast majority of my life.  My family roots are embedded in the tierra with eight generations of blood, sweat and tears.  My ancestors provided the grunt work for the roadways, the copper mines and the blacksmithing that kept tent cities alive in the 1800s when the rush West was consuming the United States.  

Yet today, September 28, 2005, I have absolutely no voice in the United States Senate as a Democrat.  Despite John McCain’s “maverick” status, I rarely agree with any of his votes.  That’s why I am joining other progressive activists in this state to defeat arch-wingnut Jon Kyl and get Jim Pederson elected to give voice to my values–my Arizonan values, my American values.

A glimpse of hope and a shot of outrage below the fold…
This morning I received two emails that brought big smiles to my face.  The first was from John Kerry, who still has my admiration despite his horrible candidacy last year:

Jim Pederson is running against Republican incumbent Senator Jon Kyl. Senator Kyl has been Example A of a strict conservative who continues to put partisan politics ahead of Arizona families. As you know, the Arizona tradition is one of independence, of putting the well-being of people ahead of party, ahead of ideology, ahead of big campaign money, and Jim Pederson will make sure that he brings this tradition with him to Washington.

Make a contribution

As one of the leading Senate challengers in the country, Jim is running a strong campaign built around common sense solutions to immigration reform, increased national security, and greater access to quality education and health care. Your help now can give Jim’s campaign a boost at a critical moment in the campaign.

I thought to myself, “Alright!  Some of the big-guns are helping out with Jim’s campaign!”

I got even happier when I checked my email later on today and saw this from Barack Obama, who garners a lot of my respect for his populist messaging:

Democrats nationally are excited about this race for new leadership in Arizona. With your support we can win this race. Please support Jim Pederson by contributing online before the September 30th Federal Elections Commission (FEC) deadline.

The Arizona tradition is one of independence, of putting the well-being of people ahead of party, ahead of ideology, ahead of big campaign money, and Jim will make sure that he brings this tradition with him to Washington. As one of the leading Senate challengers in the country, Jim is running a strong campaign built around common sense solutions to immigration reform, increased national security, and greater access to quality education and health care.

Contribute

It felt good to see two high-profile Democrats supporting Jim’s candidacy.  It gave me a flicker of hope that perhaps we had a shot at deposing the scourge; until I read this:

A list of Democrats supporting the reelection of Republican U.S. Senator Jon Kyl will continue to grow as the 2006 election grows closer, says a spokesman for the Kyl campaign.

On Sept. 14, Jamie Molera, former superintendent of public instruction and a consultant to the Kyl camp, released a list of nearly 50 elected Democrat officials, most of them from rural areas, who say they support Mr. Kyl in his bid for a third term.

[snip]

“It never mattered to me that I was a Democrat. Jon Kyl reached out to work with me,” Ms. Chase said. Mr. Pederson “has no experience and is out of the mainstream of Arizona. His support for Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Howard Dean shows that he is part of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.”  (emphasis mine)

That final quote was from State Rep. Cheryl Chase, Az District 23.  She is on a list of 50 Democrats who are trying to sabotage Jim Pederson’s Senate race.  I know Ms. Chase’s area very well; she hails from a town that is 30 minutes away from the gravesite of my great, great, great, great grandmother.  My family still lives nearby.  How dare she undercut the hardworking, labor-supporting citizens in her area by spewing forth Republican talking-points?

I am disgusted with people in our party who insist on cutting the throat of those who are fighting for our values.  Unless we make it clear to them that we are sick and tired of their attempts to dilute our message, we will forever be the party that stands for nothing.  

“Big Tent” has many connotations.  To this Democrat, it means that we will stand up for the equality of all Americans regardless of gender, race, sexuality, etc.; anything that diminishes a person’s right to a full life in this country should be fought against–hard and relentless.  I believe Jim Pederson will carry on that fight.

Why people like Cheryl Chase can’t see the harm they are inflicting, I will never know…but I do know that she deserves a barrage of hate mail for her efforts.

Cheryl Chase (DINO-Az District 23)

Email:  cchase@azleg.state.az.us
Phone Number: (602) 926-5030
Fax Number: (602) 417-3123
Address:   1700 W. Washington, Room 128, Phoenix, AZ  85007

Have at it, please, on behalf of my family and the rest of the progressive community in Arizona who are searching for a voice in our government.  We’ve worked too hard to be silenced in the Senate for another six years.

Energy Enigma; Bush Consumption Advocate, Encourages Conservation ©

Each and every week, the Bush administration offers inconsistencies. This week a contradiction seems so strikingly absurd, I cannot ignore it.  I feel compelled to comment on the recent change in the Bush energy policy.

In September 2002, the President of the United States spoke emphatically of energy concerns.  He spoke of consumption and the importance of this.  At the time Baby Bush said, “Congress also must understand they’ve got to pass an energy bill. You see, an energy bill will be good for jobs. An energy bill will be good for national security. We need an energy bill that encourages consumption [sic].”

Now, he advocates the contrary, or so it seems.
In recent days, the President has been out on the stump.  He is encouraging Americans to use mass transit.  The King told citizenry to get out of their cars, their Sports Utility Vehicles, their light trucks, and Hummers.  Junior asked the public to take the bus, the subway, or possibly, car pool.  He even suggested staying at home.  The Bush Boy is pleading with an anxious public; please do not travel. Imagine that.  

Under Bush, one was able to buy a Hummer and deduct the cost from their tax returns.  Now, the same man that proposed giving tax cuts to those that buy the greatest of gas-guzzlers is asking very same consumers to leave their vehicles behind.  

Leave the idyllic image of consumerism?  Was it not Bush that preached buy, buy, buy, even after the 9/11 catastrophe?  It was.  He and his subordinate, or is it his superior, had said, in the United States consumption for the sake of consumption is the only palatable way of life!

Years earlier, in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney expressed his belief, “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it cannot be the basis of a sound energy policy.”  The President agreed wholeheartedly.

In that same year, former White House Press Secretary Air Fleisher was asked of the President’s perspective on energy.  The press wanted to know was reducing energy consumption the plan.  They asked and Fleisher, replied, “That’s a big no.  The president believes that it’s [consuming is] an American way of life.”  Yet, now it is not?  Why not?

I will leave that question stand.  Feel free to cogitate aloud and in writing.  Please share your thoughts.  Mine may be too cynical to express.  

Might I just offer these thoughts for your consideration? Petroleum has long been the source of Bush prosperity.  The family fortune was found in oil. One might wonder would the Baby truly want its use to decline.

The Bush/Cheney energy policy, from the first, exploited the American desire to consume.  Fulfilling whims advances profits for each of these [former] business moguls.  Their friends benefit as well.  Are these magnets really ready, willing, or able to curb their greed?  I think not.

The axiom states, “Necessity is the mother of invention.”  Perhaps, we are witnessing that need is the parent of re-invention?  

The President seems to be re-formulating his policy when he asks us not to use fuel.  However, he is not.  Mr. Bush actually postulates that a lack of power is only a temporary setback.  He portends Katrina and Rita caused for the current crisis; however, once the effects of these storms pass, all will be well.  Yet, I wonder.  Did the Bush energy policy contribute to global warming, and thus create Katrina and Rita.  Might there be a truer calamity coming?

Possibly, for Bush and the Band, power is not the problem; it is the solution. They will feel fulfilled when they have it; therefore, they seek it.  Gas gauges may not be a consideration at all; polls numbers may be the authentic indicator.  When we reflect upon the President’s use of fuel, and the reason for it, we know this to be true.  

I wish to share an incongruity to this recent paradox.  While Bush is bolstering conservation, he is expending ample energy.  He is devoting his time and the nation’s fuel to his own personal cause.  King George II is using an enormous amount of petroleum as he promotes his numbers in the polls.  Reuters Alternet writes on this, Bush burns up fuel when he travels.

For your entertainment, I offer these references.

Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

Banned Books Week

Image hosted by Photobucket.com

click for larger image

The American Library Association’s Banned Books Week celebrates the Freedom to Read. Observed during the last week of September each year since 1982, the annual event reminds Americans not to take this precious democratic freedom for granted.

At the ALA Banned Books Week web page where you can order buttons, posters, bookmarks, and T-shirts to let everyone know where you stand on censorship.

Below the fold is their list of the 25 most challenged books.  It’s been a great day of bad news for the corrupt GOP leadership.  Why not read a banned book to celebrate 🙂

crossposted at My Left Wing
Tip of the hat to Red State Rabble for reminding me of this.

Here’s the ALA’s list of the 25 most often challenged books (you can read the whole 100 on the ALA Banned Books website):

Scary Stories (Series) by Alvin Schwartz

Daddy’s Roommate by Michael Willhoite

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou

The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

Harry Potter (Series) by J.K. Rowling

Forever by Judy Blume

Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson

Alice (Series) by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor

Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman

My Brother Sam is Dead by James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger

The Giver by Lois Lowry

It’s Perfectly Normal by Robie Harris

Goosebumps (Series) by R.L. Stine

A Day No Pigs Would Die by Robert Newton Peck

The Color Purple by Alice Walker

Sex by Madonna

Earth’s Children (Series) by Jean M. Auel

The Great Gilly Hopkins by Katherine Paterson

A Wrinkle in Time by Madeleine L’Engle

Go Ask Alice by Anonymous

Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers

In the Night Kitchen by Maurice Sendak

Happy reading MLWers.  Proud to be fighting alongside you.

Insurgent Cleansees: A True Story of Katrina Survivors and Surprise

Never mind their names, never mind how they escaped, let’s call it a covert operation, they know what they escaped, they know what they saw, what they lived. The television screen that a few weeks ago, told the world of their plight, today says it never happened. Just hysteria. The mother watches, her face expressionless, instinctively she reaches for them, her children who will never again be children.
How far they have come in these few weeks, not just in miles, but in years, ages, pain and horror.

They were supposed to die. They know that, they know that by refusing to do so, they have defied America, they have become insurgent cleansees, survivors of what they are now told did not happen. The children’s cheeks, and eyes, are less hollow now, less haunted, the youngest one has even began to protest his father’s arms. This is a good sign, and his father lets him down to run about. His sister, who had ceased to speak, has broken her silence somewhat, but she still will not talk about It. Counseling, maybe, suggests a friend. We’ll see, says her mother, braiding her hair. It is a complicated braid, a French braid, the girl calls it. A small smile from mother. A French braid is also counseling, for now.

They are not registered with, or receiving aid from any organization. Every so often they call some of the telephone numbers. They have never reached a human being, or been called back.

Yet they are lucky. Somehow, in another covert operation, funds have been raised sufficient to purchase a year of rent for them in a low end little cookie cutter town home. It will be cramped, the kids will have to share one of the two bedrooms, but at least they will have their own bathroom (and they will do their own cleaning of it, says mother) and it will be better than the four of them sharing a room in the house of a stranger, even though the stranger has now become family.

They have no possessions to speak of, to move in, but shadowy sleeper cells, in yet another covert operation, cause furniture to become present. Used, but usable. Here, says a plump terrorist matron, I never use these dishes, I will tell you a secret, my husband’s best friend gave them to us years ago, and I never really liked them. Place setting for 4. The mugs and dessert plates are decorated with colorful roosters. The little boy’s jaw drops. “WOW!” he breathes. His mother watches him, hugs the lady. I think they are beautiful, she whispers.

She does not cry, she has not shed one tear.

There is a scene in the movie, “In My Country,” where after hearing hours of testimonies of atrocity victims before the South Africa Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Juliette Binoche, through her sobs, asks Menzi Ngubane, “Why aren’t THEY crying?” to which he answers, “They are not surprised.”

The halfhouse itself is a dull putty color. Mother and Father exchange a look. At the home improvement store, mother gently removes a satin rosette from a pocket in her purse. It is all that is left of their previous life. From our wedding, she says. Father holds it out for the paint technician to see. Do not touch it with those hands, just match it. By sunset, the little dwelling has a facade of palest apricot.

The sleeper cell conspires. The children, they decide, need more special attention than the local public school can provide. But there is no money. An operative goes undercover to make inquiries. The Enemy Within. The “progressive alternative” school is willing, but has no transportation, and it is far away. The Catholic School says no. The Mosque School says yes, and we have a bus. An old man in a turban arrives. We are Catholics, says the mother. Yes, I know, says the turbanned man. He nods to the little boy, soon you will be a Catholic who can read. The girl opens her mouth as if to speak, then closes it. The man smiles at her, reading her mind. Not required, just modest dress.

A knock on the open door, an elegant lady with snow white hair graciously whisks mother and daughter off to shop, courtesy of a previously unknown group of elegant ladies of interest.

Outside, a man so old and brown he could have been present for the founding of New Orleans is incredibly, planting pansies, masses of them, periwinkle blue, they sulk at the indignity of transplant against the apricot-kissed stucco. He says they will perk up. They will recover before you will, says the elegant lady, returned from shopping, the ancient man, it seems, is hers. Tea, she orders her driver, who is alleged to be her great grandson, and the terrorists who have been busy hanging curtains and inciting the aapplication to the innocent walls of art from every continent, having seen that the kitchen is now stocked with a similarly diverse selection of global edibles, plop down to enjoy a fashion show (It turns out that mother and the turbanned man are quite in agreement on what constitutes modest dress for school girls, but a few sequinned “tank tops” for weekend fun somehow slip into the mix).

A fearsome street gang of young men from Mexico and Central America arrive in a burst of shouts, tattoos and alarming automotive sounds. They demand beer and rides home, they are leaving what they claim is an automobile they have made for father to use to go to his new job at a printing company. Proudly, they concede that it may be the most hideous and noisy vehicle in three counties, but they give their word that it will go both forward and backward. “De puras partes, lo hicimos!” they exclaim.

The mother looks around at her new neighbors, her new family, some in soft white cotton robes of Ethiopia, some in saris, salwar kameez, jeans and tshirts, baggy pants worn low to reveal waistbands of underwear, the teenaged street gang to the antique couple, and all ages in between, and goes quickly to the kitchen, I don’t think we have any beer, she wants to say, she opens the refigerator, to find beer from Lebanon, from Belgium, from India, from Mexico and Palestine, and she leans against the open door, unable to stop the tears. Now she is surprised.