Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Progress Seen on Warming, With a Caveat” (front page, Sept. 28):

With the world’s countries heading kicking and screaming into a climate meeting in Paris in December, and China announcing a woefully complex cap-and-trade scheme, we should be talking about carbon fees, which are as painless as they are effective.

A national carbon fee, if returned in its entirety as an equal dividend to consumers, would actually bring economic benefits. With one fair, transparent and comprehensive market correction, you reduce emissions, drive the transition to renewables, create jobs and stimulate consumer spending.

Even Big Oil has begun lobbying for a carbon fee. These companies reason that the world will soon do something about global warming, and out of the available options only a carbon fee provides a predictable framework for their future development (presumably into green energy). The majority of Americans and economists also support a carbon fee.

Solving global warming will not be easy. We will need to address population growth and rethink our economic systems. But the first, best step toward a solution—a simple, honest carbon fee—would be entirely painless.

PETER KALMUS

Altadena, Calif.

The writer is a researcher in atmospheric science.

Note from KBJ: This man is perpetrating a hoax. The hoaxers are motivated not only by self-interest (there is big money at stake) but by political considerations (they hope to advance the progressive agenda and impose their vision of society on everyone else). Anyone who thinks that scientists are disinterested pursuers of truth is naive to the point of delusion. It's funny to hear progressives say that conservatives are "anti-science." No. We're anti-politicized-science. We want science to return to its roots in describing and explaining the world and to stop trying to change the world. We want a wall of separation between science and state.

The regular season is drawing to a close. All 30 Major League teams end play on Sunday afternoon. My adoptive team, the Texas Rangers, is in first place in the five-team American League West Division. I'm surprised (but extremely pleased) by this, because I expected 2015 to be a rebuilding year after the Rangers finished in fifth place in 2014, a staggering 31 games behind Los Angeles of Anaheim. Tomorrow night, Katherine, Luki, and I go to the Ballpark in Arlington to watch the Rangers play the Angels. Here are the standings in the A.L. West:

• Texas Rangers: 86-72 (four games remaining)
• Houston Astros: 84-75 (three games remaining)
• Los Angeles of Anaheim: 83-75 (four games remaining)

The Rangers host the Angels this evening. Naturally, I'm wondering whether we'll see a celebration tomorrow night when we attend the game. By my calculation, we have a chance to see a celebration. Here are the alternatives:

1. If the Rangers win tonight, they will clinch a playoff spot and at least a one-game playoff (against Houston) for the divisional title. If they win tomorrow night as well, when we are in attendance, they will clinch the divisional title, in which case we will see an on-the-field celebration. (Houston's game will be under way when the Ranger game ends, barring extra innings.)
2. If the Rangers lose tonight, they will clinch nothing. If, having lost tonight, they win tomorrow night, when we are in attendance, they will clinch a playoff spot and at least a one-game playoff (against Houston) for the divisional title, in which case (presumably) we will see an on-the-field celebration.

If the Rangers lose both tonight and tomorrow night, then obviously we won't be seeing a celebration. Go Rangers!

Addendum: It just occurred to me (to my horror) that we may not see a celebration tomorrow night. Here's why (and how). Suppose the Rangers lose tonight and win tomorrow night while we're in attendance. Will they celebrate? Probably not, because the Astros will still be playing in Arizona. The Rangers will likely go into the clubhouse after the game ends and wait for the result from Arizona. Should Houston lose its game, the Rangers will win the divisional title and will, therefore, celebrate, perhaps going out onto the field to do so. The question then becomes: Will Katherine, Luki, and I wait around for up to an hour and a half? I can't believe we would, but you never know! (Also, will club officials allow fans to remain in the Ballpark for that long?)

Addendum 2: Katherine just informed me that tomorrow night is fireworks night, which means that many fans will be waiting around after the game anyway. Maybe the club will put the Astros-Diamondbacks game on the scoreboard while we watch the fireworks. The garlic fries are going to be especially tasty tomorrow night! (Please don't tell me that garlic fries are high in calories. Of course they are. I ride my bike at least 101.4 miles per week, every week of the year, for precisely this reason.)

Addendum 3: The Rangers won, 5-3. Hooray! Tomorrow night, with any luck, we'll see an on-the-field celebration.

This blog had 4,871 visits during September, which is an average of 162.3 visits per day. A year ago, the average was 208.9.

The bodies of the Oregon shooting victims aren't even cold yet, and Barack Obama is trying to get political mileage out of it. "Take people's guns away!" The idiot doesn't realize that what we need is more guns (in the hands of law-abiding citizens), not fewer. The shooter knew that he would be shooting fish in a barrel, and that's exactly what he did. This president of ours is shameless in his political opportunism. Never let a crisis go to waste.

Addendum: Barack Obama just spent many minutes emoting. Nothing he said was grounded in reality or rooted in fact, and some of the analogies he drew actually undercut his position. We don't ban automobiles merely because people die in automobile accidents. Why would we ban guns merely because some people (the evil ones) misuse them? He is truly an imbecile. I am ashamed to have him as my president.

We need a nickname for Jeb Bush, who can't stop shaking his head from side to side. I propose "Bobblehead Bush." What say you?

Tokyo Dome Live in Concert (2015).

Here.

Here.

To the Editor:

Re “Russia Surprises U.S. With Accord on Battling ISIS” (front page, Sept. 28):

First, Russia deploys warplanes and tanks to Syria to prop up its closest ally in the Middle East, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria. Now, Russia is coordinating a new coalition with Syria, Iraq and Iran to fight the Islamic State, or ISIS, in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere.

But why should any of this come as a surprise? Russia is simply taking advantage of a leadership vacuum in the Middle East, provided by President Obama’s strategy of reducing and limiting American power in the region. Six years ago, this strategy seemed like a prudent response to the Bush administration’s destructive overreach. Today, with ISIS on the march, a refugee calamity extending into Europe, and America’s global and regional adversaries emboldened, it seems dangerously out of touch.

It is high time for the Obama administration to acknowledge that its minimalist approach to the Middle East has failed, and to begin devising new American-led efforts to address the chaos that has engulfed the region on its watch.

STUART GOTTLIEB

New York

The writer teaches American foreign policy and international security at Columbia University.