Only fair.

http://www.tv.com/shows/wiseguy/date-with-an-angel-47881/

tv.com

Wiseguy Season 1 Episode 22

Date With An Angel

Aired Mar 28, 1988 on CBS

AIRED: 3/28/88










http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/oct/07/paul-turner-goodbye-spokane-and-thanks/

The Spokesman-Review

NEWS > SPOKANE

Paul Turner: Goodbye, and thanks – it’s been a great ride.

Sun., Oct. 7, 2018

1 / 7

In November 2000, Paul Turner came forward to reveal himself to Spokesman-Review readers as the man behind The Slice column. (Dan Pelle / The Spokesman-Review)

By Paul Turner

Can’t say I wasn’t warned.

When I moved to Spokane early in 1988, several people I encountered must have sized me up as someone who didn’t plan on living here long. Because they told me there’s something about this city. It gets its hooks into you and doesn’t let go.

One sage used the expression “velvet coffin.”

I silently urged them to mind their own business. My first impressions of Spokane were mostly favorable. I was happy to be here. But my parents lived in Vermont. My wife-to-be’s family was in Tennessee. That created a seemingly untenable geographic triangle.

Spokane could be no long-term solution for us.

And to tell the truth, that had been my career pattern anyway. The duration of my newspaper stints in different cities after college in Arizona had gone like this: Two years in one place, nine months in the next, six months somewhere else, two years farther down the road, six years in another place and then hello Lilac City.

My future wife was not scared off by this. Not at all. I had grown up in a well-traveled Air Force family. We moved a lot. She had not experienced that and sort of looked forward to living in different parts of the country.

More than 30 years later, she’s still waiting for that part of our marriage to kick in.

I don’t really think she wants to move anywhere. Neither do I.

So when I go down to the Review Tower to sign my retirement papers later this week, I won’t do so with some vision of packing up and moving on.

Spokane is our home.

No, this city isn’t perfect. But as it happens, neither am I. So it works.

My job, on the other hand, has been almost too good to be true.

To a perhaps alarming degree, I got to do what I wanted while pretty much being left alone. My daily interactions with readers helped inform my understanding of Spokane in a way I will always treasure.

I got to spout off about one thing after another and get paid for it.

Not everyone has enjoyed or even tolerated everything I wrote. (One of my regrets is that I did not save recordings of my most blistering phone messages. Some of them would have had my friends doubled over at a party.) But I liked telling people I hoped readers viewed me as an occasionally annoying brother-in-law who, every now and then, redeemed himself.

To those who continued to give me second chances, I owe sincere thanks.

On those occasions when I have written about personal loss, readers have been so kind, so supportive. When I was seriously ill in 2015, the extent of readers’ well-wishes knocked some of the cynicism out of me forever.

Some things you don’t forget.

My pact with contributors to my column was, every day, a living, breathing reality. People trusting you with their cherished stories is no small thing.

I loved going to work in our handsome building and was almost always the first person in the newsroom. Sometimes a reader’s email or phone message would make me laugh out loud when the only other sound in the newsroom was the police scanner over by the city desk.

I couldn’t wait to share those stories of cats, kids and the Inland Northwest version of the human condition with the newspaper’s subscribers.

And I got to work with some of the best people you would ever hope to meet – smart, tenacious, talented and wicked funny. I was proud to be in their ranks.

(Which isn’t to say we didn’t have our share of, uh, characters in the three decades I watched ’em come and go. More about that some other time.)

In an industry roiled by loss and cutthroat retrenchment, I have been unbelievably fortunate. Blessed, you could say.

I started work before I finished college and have not been without a job at a daily newspaper one day since. Until now.

So why retire?

I used to answer people asking me about layoffs and the 21st century turmoil at newspapers by likening my own situation to being in the eye of a hurricane. It was calm where I was, even as all sorts of chaos whirled around me.

But here’s the thing about hurricanes: They move.

I’m 63, closing in on 64. My luck might not last forever.

So when my company offered a buyout package recently, I decided to take it. Who knows if a similar opportunity will come again.

I’ll still write a couple of columns each week for the Northwest section and do something once a month for the Today section, my old home.

I’m grateful for the chance to stay connected to my paper and to readers. But I know it won’t be the same.

I will miss rolling into downtown on my bike before dawn. I will miss snapping on the lights in the newsroom, wondering what the new day will bring.

I’ll miss my colleagues. But I’ve had practice at that. Of the many reporters, photographers, artists and editors who worked at the S-R when I started on March 28, 1988, only a few remain.

Now I am one of those who have left the building. Right now, it’s a disorienting feeling.

When I called The Spokesman-Review “my” paper the word choice was intentional.

I suppose I’ll get used to writing from home, perhaps in my pajamas. But I wonder. Will my old teammates at the corner of Riverside and Monroe hear me rooting for them?










http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/oct/08/100-years-ago-in-spokane-spanish-influenza-rears-i/

The Spokesman-Review

NEWS > SPOKANE

100 years ago in Spokane: Spanish influenza rears its ugly head

Mon., Oct. 8, 2018

By Jim Kershner

The Spanish flu finally arrived in the Inland Northwest, and it was already causing fear, death and disruption.

The Whitman County Fair in Colfax was canceled because three cases of the deadly flu had been reported in that city. In fact, all schools, theaters, churches and public places in Colfax were ordered closed.

In Walla Walla, the East Washington-North Idaho Baptist Convention was canceled and authorities banned all other public gatherings in that city.

Meanwhile, the Red Cross was requesting a complete list of all of Spokane’s nurses and nurse’s aides for the purpose of fighting the epidemic.

Public meetings were not yet banned in Spokane, but the Spokane Daily Chronicle ran a story advising everyone to avoid “people who cough and sneeze,” and to avoid all kinds of big crowds.

A U.S. Navy seaman from Cheney had already died of the flu in Seattle and a Spokane soldier in training died at Fort Riley, Kansas.










https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2018-10-08-ipcc-report-2018-global-warming-climate-change

The Weather Channel

CLIMATE AND WEATHER

New IPCC Report: Unprecedented Global Effort Needed to Limit Potentially Devastating Impacts of Climate Change

By Bob Henson 4 hours ago [ retrieved 6:00 AM Pacific Time USA Monday 08 October 2018 ]

At a Glance

A new report finds global warming can still be kept to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Many consequences of climate change can still be avoided.

Carbon dioxide emissions would need to be slashed by 2030 to meet the threshold.

A major new study from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) finds that it is still possible to keep global temperature from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial values and limit the devastating impacts of climate change. However, this would require a vast, unprecedented global effort.

Greenhouse gas emissions from human activity, which come mainly from burning fossil fuels, would need to be cut roughly in half by 2030 and virtually eliminated by 2050 in order to keep from "overshooting" the 1.5°C target, said the report.

Otherwise, carbon dioxide will need to be drawn out of the atmosphere on an increasingly massive scale. Not hitting this goal would result in up to six feet of sea level rise, critical crop loss and the near eradication of the world's coral reefs, among ther serious impacts, the report finds.

"Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030," said the study, which was released on Monday after study members made final revisions at an IPCC meeting in Incheon, South Korea.

Staying within the 1.5°C threshold also will require large cutbacks in emissions of methane, black carbon, and nitrous oxide, the report noted.

“Limiting warming to 1.5ºC is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics, but doing so would require unprecedented changes,” said Jim Skea, co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, which focuses on reducing (mitigating) climate change.

A Stretch Goal Like No Other

Since the late 1800s, the global average temperature has risen about 1°C (1.8°F), bringing the planet about two-thirds of the way to the 1.5°C threshold.

Increased use of fossil fuels has pushed atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide above 405 parts per million, or more than 30% above preindustrial values. Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent of the human-produced greenhouse gases that warm the climate.

Emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use were virtually flat from 2014 through 2016, even as the global economy grew.

However, emissions increased by 1.4 percent in 2017, according to the International Energy Agency. The agency attributed the rise to increased demand for energy and reduced steps toward energy efficiency.

The Paris Agreement of 2015 called for the world's nations to keep global warming well below 2°C, with efforts to stay within 1.5°C. Every nation on Earth joined the Paris Agreement, although the United States announced its intention in 2017 to withdraw from the accord.

National pledges submitted to date through the agreement are not nearly enough to avoid more than 1.5°C of warming, noted the IPCC.

An Array of High-Confidence Findings

The IPCC report rated its conclusions in terms of confidence, with many conclusions at either "medium" or "high" confidence levels. Among the high-confidence findings:

– If warming enters the 1.5 - 2.0°C range, it may trigger instabilities in the ice sheet atop Antarctica and/or irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet. The result could be sea level rise of more than six feet over hundreds to thousands of years.

– From 70 to 90 percent of coral reefs would perish with 1.5°C of warming, but more than 99 percent of reefs would be lost with 2°C.

– The frequency of an ice-free Arctic ocean in summer would rise from about once per century with 1.5°C of warming to about once per decade with 2°C of warming.

– Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would reduce the net loss of cereal-crop yields and help stem the loss of nutritional quality of rice and wheat, impacts that are all expected to emerge and intensify as temperatures rise.

What Would Need to Happen?

According to the new report, technologies are in hand to keep global warming limited to 1.5°C, such as renewable forms of energy. The main challenge is in putting these to work quickly and massively, which in turn hinges on the desires of policymakers and the public.

"These systems transitions are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed," said the report.

The emission cuts needed to stay within 1.5°C of warming would require keeping large amounts of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground.

Most of the approaches considered by the panel included at least some use of carbon capture and storage (keeping carbon from fossil fuel or biofuel burning from entering the air) and afforestation (planting new forests, which pull carbon dioxide from the air through photosynthesis).

Carbon capture and storage would become increasingly important if the 1.5° target is overshot and large amounts of carbon must be removed from the air, the panel said.

Meeting the 1.5°C target could achieve goals beyond reducing climate change, the study found. For example, reducing the amount of tiny particles put into the air through fossil fuel burning would result in major health benefits.

The lessened impact from 1.5°C of warming compared to 2.0°C would help societies to adapt to climate change while meeting other goals to improve human well-being and sustain the environment, said the report.



- posted by Kerry Burgess 06:21 AM Pacific Time Spokane Valley Washington USA Monday 08 October 2018