February 5, 2005


  • Appellate Court Backs Companies in Tobacco Case


    By MICHAEL JANOFSKY





    WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 - A federal appeals court delivered a major victory to the nation's leading tobacco companies on Friday, ruling that the government cannot force them to turn over $280 billion in profits if a trial court finds that the companies engaged in a conspiracy of fraud and deceit to promote smoking.


    The 2-to-1 decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia strikes at the heart of the government's biggest legal effort ever to punish cigarette makers.


    It reverses a ruling by Judge Gladys Kessler of Federal District Court, who agreed with the government that the giving up of profits, or disgorgement, was a suitable remedy under federal civil racketeering law. Testimony in the trial continued while an appeal of that ruling was heard.


    In writing the majority opinion for the appeals court, Judge David B. Sentelle found that the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, the law under which the Justice Department sued, does not allow the government to recover illegal profits as a way to prevent and restrain future violations.


    The law, Judge Sentelle wrote, only provides remedies intended to prevent future violations, like an injunction that blocks certain behavior or the dissolution of a corporation. Forcing the tobacco industry to give up profits, he continued, "is a quintessentially backward-looking remedy focused on remedying the effects of past conduct to restore the status quo."


    The requirement that companies give up profits might be acceptable under the criminal section of the RICO act, which has far higher burdens for proving culpability, Judge Sentelle wrote, but not under the civil section, which the government used in the lawsuit.


    He was joined by Judge Stephen F. Williams; both judges were appointed by President Ronald Reagan.


    In a dissenting opinion, Judge David S. Tatel, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, said Judge Kessler had properly ruled the companies could be forced to give up their profits. He said that evidence in the case had shown that forcing the companies to relinquish profits would, in fact, "prevent and restrain" them from committing future violations because they would know to expect severe penalties for repeating such conduct.


    The majority decision has no immediate effect on the trial, which is expected to last well into spring. Should Judge Kessler, who is deciding the case without a jury, ultimately rule for the government on the merits, she could still hold the companies accountable by requiring them to finance stop-smoking and education programs or to change advertising and marketing strategies, rulings that could still cost the companies many millions of dollars.


    But the appeals court ruling, for now, eliminates the government's biggest potential financial threat to the tobacco industry from the case. That is the government's calculation of $280 billion in profits it estimates that the industry garnered from cigarettes smoked from 1971 to 2000. Lawyers for the tobacco companies had contended that being forced to disgorge so great a sum could have driven some companies into bankruptcy.


    The stocks of tobacco companies surged after the ruling. Shares in the Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris USA, jumped $3.26, or 5.1 percent, to $67. Shares in Reynolds American rose $3.69, or 4.5 percent, to $85.60, while British American Tobacco added 75 cents, or 2.1 percent, to $36.15.


    It is unclear what the government intends to do next. It can request a review of the decision by the entire appeals court or an appeal to the Supreme Court. Justice Department officials said that any decision would be made by the new attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, who was confirmed by the Senate on Thursday.


    Kimberly Smith, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said government lawyers were reviewing the ruling and would have no immediate comment.


    Lawyers for Philip Morris USA, the biggest company in the case, declined to comment beyond acknowledging the court decision.


    David M. Bernick, a lawyer for Brown & Williamson, now part of Reynolds, the second-largest tobacco company, said : "Obviously, we're pleased with the decision. What's happened is that an enormous piece of noise that never should have been there has been eliminated, and the case can now properly focus on whether or not we are doing something we shouldn't be doing."


    "The threat of a Draconian monetary award was something we could not ignore," Mr. Bernick added. "But it was an improper threat."


    The sum the government sought from the tobacco companies made this the biggest lawsuit they had ever faced, surpassing even the series of actions filed by the states' attorneys general that led to a combined settlement of $246 billion in 1998. Those were essentially product-liability cases in which states were seeking to recoup medical costs from treating patients who suffered from the adverse effects of smoking.


    The conspiracy case was a novel approach for the government, which had first sued to recover federal health-care costs. When that approach was rejected, the government turned to racketeering laws, trying to prove that the companies worked in partnership for more than 50 years to sell their products by denying the health consequences of smoking, manipulating the level of nicotine to maintain addiction and marketing products to children.


    Government lawyers have tried to show that the companies are still acting in bad faith despite their assertions that they have altered their behavior by measures like admitting that smoking causes health problems and eliminating marketing efforts to children.


    The case was filed in 1999 during the Clinton administration, and it was pursued through President Bush's first term, at a cost of $135 million before opening arguments last September. Since then, scores of witnesses have testified, and the government still has, perhaps, another month of witnesses before the companies begin their defense.


    Through the weeks of trial testimony, the issue of disgorgement hung over the proceedings. Now that it has been removed - for the time being, anyway - government lawyers may have to shift their focus to convince Judge Kessler that there are other ways to punish the companies if she rules for the government.


    William V. Corr, executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a nonprofit group that has fought cigarette companies for years, expressed disappointment over the appellate ruling but said in a statement that the options open to Judge Kessler still "hold the greatest potential for reducing the death and disease caused by tobacco use."


    Mr. Corr also urged the Justice Department to resist any request by the companies to settle the case, a possibility that company lawyers said they would consider if disgorgement was no longer a factor in the case.


    "Today's ruling," Mr. Corr said, "should not be an excuse to let the tobacco industry off the hook for the wrongful practices that are the basis of the lawsuit."


    Dean Richard A. Daynard of the Northeastern University Law School in Boston, a longtime industry critic, said tobacco opponents were initially skeptical of the Bush administration's commitment to the suit. But Dean Daynard said he believed that the administration would appeal the ruling and continue to press the case.




    ------------------------------------------


    ------------------------------------------


     

February 4, 2005


  • OP-ED COLUMNIST


    Our Battered Constitution


    By BOB HERBERT





    The Constitution? Forget about it.


    Only about half of America's high school students think newspapers should be allowed to publish freely, without government approval of their stories. And a third say the free speech guarantees of the First Amendment go "too far."


    This has thrown a lot of noses out of joint. Hodding Carter III, president of the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, which financed a two-year study of high school attitudes about First Amendment freedoms, said, "These results are not only disturbing - they are dangerous."


    But maybe we shouldn't be so hard on the youngsters. After all, they've been set a terrible example by a presidential administration that has left no doubt about its contempt for a number of our supposedly most cherished constitutional guarantees.


    In an important decision on Monday, a federal judge in Washington ruled that the Bush administration cannot be allowed to defy the Constitution and an order of the Supreme Court in its treatment of the hundreds of prisoners it is holding at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The judge, Joyce Hens Green, said the administration must permit the detainees it is holding as "enemy combatants" to challenge their detention in federal courts.


    The administration has tried mightily to establish its right to treat anyone who it determines is an "enemy combatant" any way it chooses. It has argued that it can hold such detainees for a lifetime - without charging them, without giving them access to lawyers, without showing them the evidence against them and without allowing them to challenge their detention.


    Administration officials are adamant on this matter, and yesterday they were granted a stay of Judge Green's decision, pending an appeal.


    The Supreme Court ruled last June that the administration was acting illegally in depriving the detainees of their liberty without allowing them to challenge the cases against them. The administration responded bizarrely. Its lawyers argued, with "Alice in Wonderland" logic, that, yes, in accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, the detainees can challenge their detention. But since (in the administration's view) they don't actually possess any rights to support the challenges, the courts must necessarily reject the challenges.


    The administration is fighting for nothing less than the death of due process for anyone it rounds up, no matter how arbitrarily, in its enemy combatant sweeps. Such tyrannical powers should offend anyone who cares about such old-fashioned notions as the rule of law, checks and balances, and constitutional guarantees.


    Under the procedures set up by the administration for dealing with the detainees, we have no way of distinguishing between a terrorist committed to mass murder and someone who is completely innocent.


    In her decision, Judge Green wrote, "Although this nation unquestionably must take strong action under the leadership of the commander in chief to protect itself against enormous and unprecedented threats, that necessity cannot negate the existence of the most basic fundamental rights for which the people of this country have fought and died for well over 200 years."


    The fundamental right in the case of the Guantánamo detainees is the right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law. A government with the power to spirit people away and declare that's the end of the matter is exactly the kind of government the United States has always claimed to oppose, and has sometimes fought. For the United States itself to become that kind of government is spectacularly scary.


    In seeking the stay of Judge Green's ruling, the administration showed yesterday that it is committed to being that kind of government.


    Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has filed legal challenges on behalf of many detainees, said the administration believes it has "carte blanche" when it comes to fighting terror: "It's pretty alarming."


    In one hearing that led up to Monday's decision, Judge Green attempted to see how broadly the government viewed its power to hold detainees. Administration lawyers told her, in response to a hypothetical question, that they believed the president would even have the right to lock up "a little old lady from Switzerland" for the duration of the war on terror if she had written checks to a charity that she believed helped orphans, but that actually was a front for Al Qaeda.



    E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com


     


    --------------------------------------------------------


    --------------------------------------------------------


     



    Free speech: Use it -- or you risk losing it

    MANY KIDS ARE APATHETIC, THOUGH IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT

    Mercury News Editorial


    The First Amendment is a muscle that must be used, or it will become flabby. A survey of high school students by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation reveals a frail Constitution: Kids are weak in knowledge of their rights.


    • 73 percent said they didn't know how they felt about the First Amendment or took freedom of speech and the press for granted.


    • More than a third (35 percent) thought that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting rights.


    • One in six students indicated that people shouldn't be allowed to express unpopular opinions.


    • Only half said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories.


    The apathy is alarming. Those who don't understand the First Amendment are certainly less inclined to exercise it, and they'll be less skeptical and more easily conned by government officials who want to twist and limit it.


    Ignorance is not kids' fault. Unawareness starts at home. Parents' understanding of the First Amendment isn't much better. Even in the best of times, three out of 10 adults believe that the First Amendment goes too far. That belief jumped to half in the months after Sept. 11. Talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh make good money assailing the credibility of mainstream journalists and of anybody who disagrees with him.


    In school, First Amendment-rich electives are getting left behind in the race to raise test scores in math and English. California requires three courses in social studies, including a semester course in American government and civics. But often, the focus is on specific information found on state history and social studies tests, not on broad concepts. Schools need to convene more discussions of controversial issues and to promote civic involvement outside of class.


    The Knight survey of 100,000 students in 544 high schools found a clear correlation between knowledge of the First Amendment and participation in a school radio station or newspaper. One-quarter of schools no longer publish papers, and many of those that have dropped them are in poor communities.


    James Lick High in East San Jose is representative. The media magnet for East Side Union, the school has dropped many of its media programs to make way for remediation courses in math and English.


    The exhilaration that Iraqis felt in voting for the first time should remind Americans of rights they often don't appreciate. An atrophying First Amendment is harmful to the nation's civic health.



    -------------------------------------------


    -------------------------------------------


     


     

February 3, 2005


  • The State Of George W. Bush



    By David Corn, The Nation
    Posted on February 3, 2005, Printed on February 3, 2005
    http://www.alternet.org/story/21167/

    George W. Bush knows what to do with a bully pulpit. From the days of Thomas Jefferson to those of William Taft, the State of the Union was a written message delivered by presidents to Congress. Woodrow Wilson turned it into a speech. Subsequent presidents used the State of the Union as a high-profile opportunity to promote their political agendas.


    Bush went beyond that this evening. He produced grand and effective political theater. In the middle of the address, he transformed the war in Iraq — which even after the historic election there arguably remains his largest liability — into a single, powerfully poignant moment. Exploiting the tradition of inviting symbolically significant guests to sit with the First Lady, Bush introduced the mother of a U.S. Marine killed in Fallujah and an Iraqi human rights advocate whose father had been assassinated by Saddam Hussein and who had voted in Sunday's election. With the House chamber awash with emotion, the two women hugged. Bush was near tears. Members of Congress — perhaps including those legislators who had dyed their index fingers purple for the event — were crying. In a nutshell, here was Bush's story of sacrifice, liberty and freedom. Sentiment — sincere sentiment — was in full synch with spin. The not-too-hidden partisan message: Match that, you naysayers. This was a triumph of political communication. And it was a reminder that despite the apparent difficulties Bush faces in his top-priority effort to partially privatize Social Security, he should hardly be counted out. This man does what it takes.


    Bush's approval ratings have been low, but in the aftermath of the Iraqi elections, he approached this speech as a conquering hero — a vindicated hero. There was, of course, no mention of Iraq's (nonexistent) weapons of mass destruction. No recognition that America's standing in the world has fallen to an all-time low. No acknowledgment that the administration had failed to plan adequately for the post-invasion period. Bush has not a bashful bone. For him, the Iraqi election was a signal (from God?): full steam ahead. He did not shy away from the freedom-is-our-mission rhetoric of his inaugural speech, which was widely criticized for being cynically unrealistic. Bush declared, "America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." And he named names, calling upon Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two autocracies long supported by Washington, to move toward democracy. Certainly, he — or Condoleezza Rice — might be on the phone tomorrow to Cairo and Riyadh, explaining that Bush does not expect immediate action. Nevertheless, such words probably will provide encouragement to democracy activists in those countries and in others. These people, though, should keep in mind that Bush's father — who clearly is no role model for his son — egged on the Shiites in Iraq at the end of the Gulf War and then did not come to their rescue when they were slaughtered.


    Bush also showed he has not lost his appetite for regime change and muscle-flexing. He warned Iran to abandon any pursuit of nuclear weapons, vowing that America will stand with Iranians who seek liberty. He placed Syria in the crosshairs. There was no reference to the "axis of evil," but Bush did move Syria ahead of North Korea in the you-better-worry-next category.


    This president does not back down. Perhaps that's why he won in November. He repeated his assertion that Iraq "is a vital front in the war on terror, which is why the terrorists have chosen to make a stand there. Our men and women in uniform are fighting terrorists in Iraq, so we do not have to face them here at home." U.S. forces in Iraq, according to the U.S. military, are mostly fighting Baathists who had no intention of attacking the United States "at home" prior to the invasion. But Bush sticks to his talking points. And he again pledged to stay in Iraq for as long as necessary, while maintaining "we will increasingly focus our efforts on helping prepare more capable Iraqi security forces." Without referring directly to his critics, he dismissed calls for establishing any exit plan with language that was noble: "We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq, because that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out. We are in Iraq to achieve a result: A country that is democratic, representative of all its people, at peace with its neighbors, and able to defend itself. And when that result is achieved, our men and women serving in Iraq will return home with the honor they have earned."


    Bush did not denounce his opponents; he cut back on the references to God. But he invoked FDR and the power of the American dream, comparing his project in Iraq to the abolition of slavery, the liberation of Europe and the defeat of imperial communism. He was riding high on the high road.


    On domestic matters, the speech was mostly predictable. He praised his tax cuts and his record on job creation. (The United States has added 2.3 million new jobs in the past year, he said, without disclosing that the economy needs to create about 2 million jobs a year to keep up with population growth.) He claimed his forthcoming budget would lead to cutting the deficit in half by 2009 — even though budget analysts have said he is relying upon phony numbers and false assumptions. He said he would increase the size of Pell grants for college students. (He promised to do so last year and did not.) He assailed "junk lawsuits" and asserted that the nation's economic performance was being "held back" by asbestos lawsuits. (Asbestos lawsuits? Who knew that was the problem?) When he made a vague reference to medical savings accounts, Republicans in the chambers applauded more loudly than when he called for a community health center in every poor county. Bush vowed to revive his defeated energy program and called for tax reform — without stating what changes he'd like to see in the tax code.


    There were surprises. Throwing red meat to the red-staters, he made a rather big deal of gay marriage, noting he supports a constitutional amendment "to protect the institution of marriage" (note that he didn't say "to ban gay marriage") for "the good of ... children." This was a political correction, for Bush had recently peeved social conservatives by saying there was no need to push the anti-gay amendment since there were not enough votes for the measure in the Senate. And while Bush referred to the "culture of life" and decried activist judges, he said nothing directly about abortion. Can we then presume then he believes gay marriage is a more urgent matter than a practice his supporters compare to mass murder? Bush also addressed the issue of capital punishment: not by calling for more executions but by advocating more extensive use of DNA evidence to prevent wrongful convictions and proposing more funding to train defense attorneys who handle capital cases. (Too bad he didn't do that when he was governor of Texas.) He said that Laura Bush would head an initiative to keep young men out of gangs. There was no mention of the mission to Mars that Bush announced in his last State of the Union speech.


    No doubt, the most anticipated part of his speech was his pitch for messing with Social Security. Bush has dramatically improved his rhetorical case for change. He made it appear he was open to many ideas, and he slyly referred to previous proposals for reform that had come from Democrats. He noted that using current payroll taxes for private retirement accounts for younger workers was not a fix for Social Security but an effort to give those under the age of 55 "a better deal." He did not use the word "crisis," but he did deploy his melodramatic and misleading argument for reform. This created the most interesting political moment of the night. As Bush remarked, "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt," Democratic legislators shouted, "No, no ... ." (The Congressional Budget Office has said that come 2052 the Social Security system will only be able to pay about three-quarters of the scheduled benefits. This is a problem; it is not bankruptcy.) As Bush continued in this vein, the Democrats kept up the protest: "No, no, no ... ." It was reminiscent of question time in the British Parliament.


    Bush, as could be expected, skated past the difficult questions: how he would pay $2 trillion to cover the shift to private accounts and how much benefits would be cut for workers under the age of 55. He cannot paper over the harsh realities of such a plan. But Democrats ought to be worried. Polling numbers and media coverage of the Social Security fight have given them reason to hope that Bush cannot pull this off. (The day before the speech, CNN's Lou Dobbs exclaimed, "How in the world do you rationalize private accounts, a $2 trillion addition in the ten-year projection across the federal government? None of it makes a lick of sense right now, let's just be honest. There's no crisis, there is no way in the world that this government responsibly could undertake $2 trillion in further debt, and seniors don't want anyone messing with their Social Security.") But Bush demonstrated he is still improving his Social Security shtick.


    Bush's speech was a success — for him, that is, not the Union. After all, the State of Bush is just fine. He clearly loves being a crusader for freedom. He has learned how to project passion and what might actually be conviction. (If he doesn't read the newspapers, maybe he doesn't know his Social Security numbers are off.) Sure, close to half of the voters out there are not going to be charmed or persuaded by Bush, however he performs. And much of his rhetoric can be punctured by facts. But he displayed few, if any, political vulnerabilities. Last Election Day offered plenty of reasons for Democrats to worry. This speech provides additional cause for them to fret.


    Which brings us to the Democratic response. It was middling at best, perhaps awful. Sen. Harry Reid, the minority leader, tried mighty hard to adopt the language of values. He took the folksy route, reminding viewers he had grown up in a small town in Nevada among hard-rock miners. He referred to a 10-year-old boy who recently told Reid that when he grows up he wants to be a senator. This, Reid noted, was evidence that no one has to tell the children of America to dream big dreams. Reid covered all the bases, critiquing Bush's economic policies and pointing out the flaws and dangers of partially privatizing Social Security. But he was not much of a match for a president riding the wave of self-proclaimed victory in Iraq.


    Still, Reid fared better than House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. She proved that she can read a TelePrompTer without blinking or changing her facial expression. Reid went for the down-home approach. Pelosi was a Stepford Democrat. She expressed no emotion. She did not modulate her speech. She looked like she was reading words written by someone else, not sharing convictions that burn in her soul. Handling the national security portion of the Democratic response, she served up all the usual — and correct — criticisms of Bush. But she scored no points. In this arena, delivery counts as much as — no, make that more than — substance. On Iraq, she repeated the Kerry plan: accelerate training of Iraqi security forces, rev up the reconstruction, and intensify regional diplomacy. The goal, she said, is a "much smaller American presence" by the next election, which is scheduled for the end of the year. But it was hard to imagine her swaying anyone who wasn't already a Bush-basher. Pelosi looked like she had to be there. Bush looked like he was relishing the moment. Such a difference matters much.


    Hours before Bush spoke, I received an e-mail for the House Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative members of the House of Representatives. The headline: "House Conservatives React to State of the Union Address." Before Bush had uttered a single word, the conservatives were already praising his speech. "I was encouraged by the president's remarks regarding our need to decrease dependence on foreign sources of oil," declared Rep. Joe Barton of Texas. "As President Bush made clear tonight, freedom is a priceless right," Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida exclaimed. "Whether it is in the form of joyous new voters in Afghanistan and Iraq or in the form of financial freedom here at home through responsible Social Security reform and tax reform, freedom must be promoted and defended." Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia also had a boffo review of Bush's address: "President Bush really made the case for bipartisan support on a lot of these issues." Good thing these Republicans are independent thinkers. The e-mail was embargoed until 9:01 p.m. EST, a minute after Bush was scheduled to start speaking.


     


    ----------------------------------------------------


    ----------------------------------------------------


     

  •  




















    WEEK IN REVIEW DESK


    Ideas & Trends: True Believers; More Religion, but Not the Old-Time Kind

    By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
    Published: January 9, 2005

    ALMOST anywhere you look around the world, with the glaring exception of Western Europe, religion is now a rising force. Former Communist countries are humming with mosque builders, Christian missionaries and freelance spiritual entrepreneurs of every possible persuasion. In China, underground ''house churches'' are proliferating so quickly that neither the authorities nor Christian leaders can keep reliable count. In much of South and Central America, exuberant Pentecostal churches, where worshipers catch the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, continue to spread, challenging the Roman Catholic tradition. And in the United States, religious conservatives, triumphant over their role in the re-election of President Bush, are increasingly asserting their power in politics, the media and culture.


    The tsunami in Asia could spur religious revival as well, as victims and onlookers turn to mosques, temples and churches both to help them fathom the catastrophe and to provide humanitarian assistance.


    What does all this rising religiosity add up to? It is easy to assume that a more religious world means a more fractious world, where violent conflict is fueled by violent fundamentalist movements.

    But some religion experts say that while it is clear that religiosity is on the rise, it is not at all clear that fundamentalism is. Indeed, there may be a rising backlash against violent fundamentalism of any faith.

    The world's fastest growing religion is not any type of fundamentalism, but the Pentecostal wing of Christianity. While Christian fundamentalists are focused on doctrine and the inerrancy of Scripture, , what is most important for Pentecostals is what they call ''spirit-filled'' worship, including speaking in tongues and miracle healing. Brazil, where American missionaries planted Pentecostalism in the early 20th century, now has a congregation with its owns TV station, soccer team and political party.

    Most scholars of Christianity believe that the world's largest church is a Pentecostal one -- the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, South Korea, which was founded in 1958 by a converted Buddhist who held a prayer meeting in a tent he set up in a slum. More than 250,000 people show up for worship on a typical Sunday.

    ''If I were to buy stock in global Christianity, I would buy it in Pentecostalism,'' said Martin E. Marty, professor emeritus of the history of Christianity at the University of Chicago Divinity School and a coauthor of a study of fundamentalist movements. ''I would not buy it in fundamentalism.''

    After the American presidential election in November, some liberal commentators warned that the nation was on the verge of a takeover by Christian ''fundamentalists.''

    But in the United States today, most of the Protestants who make up what some call the Christian right are not fundamentalists, who are more prone to create separatist enclaves, but evangelicals, who engage the culture and share their faith. Professor Marty defines fundamentalism as essentially a backlash against secularism and modernity.

    For example, at the fundamentalist Bob Jones University, in Greenville, S.C., students are not allowed to listen to contemporary music of any kind, even Christian rock or rap. But at Wheaton College in Illinois, a leading evangelical school, contemporary Christian music is regular fare for many students.

    Christian fundamentalism emerged in the United States in the 1920's, but was already in decline by the 1960's. By then, it had been superceded by evangelicalism, with its Billy Graham-style revival meetings, radio stations and seminaries.

    The word ''fundamentalist'' itself has fallen out of favor among conservative Christians in the United States, not least because it has come to be associated with extremism and violence overseas.

    Fundamentalism in non-Christian faiths became a phenomenon in the rest of the world in the 1970's with ''the failure and the bankruptcy of secular, nationalistic liberal creeds around the world,'' said Philip Jenkins, a professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University. Among the ''creeds cracking up'' were nationalism, Marxism, socialism, pan-Arabism and pan-Africanism.

    ''From the 1970's on, you get the growth of not just more conservative religion, but religion with a political bent,'' said Professor Jenkins, the author of ''The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity.''

    Now, the future of fundamentalism is murky, with several contradictory trends at work simultaneously.

    There is little doubt that one fundamentalism can feed another, spurring recruitment and escalating into a sort of religious arms race. In Nigeria's central Plateau State, Muslim and Christian gangs have razed one another's villages in the last few years, leaving tens of thousands of dead and displaced. In rioting in India in 2002, more than 1,000 people, most of them Muslims, were killed by Hindus in Gujarat state -- retaliation for a Muslim attack a day earlier on a train full of Hindus, which killed 59.

    Husain Haqqani, a Pakistani political commentator and visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said that insurgents in Falluja, Iraq, recruited fighters with the false rumor that Christian crusaders with the Rev. Franklin Graham's aid organization, Samaritan's Purse, were on the way over to convert Muslims. (Mr. Graham is known throughout the Muslim world for his statement that Islam is a ''very evil and wicked religion.'') Fundamentalism does not necessarily lead to intolerance, said Professor Jenkins of Pennsylvania State. ''People with very convinced, traditional views can get along together for a very long time,'' he said. ''But sometimes we get into cycles where they can't, and we seem to be in one of those cycles right now.''

    Analysts are also seeing signs of a backlash as religious believers grow disenchanted with movements that have produced little but bloodshed, economic stagnation and social repression.

    In last year's elections in India, voters repudiated the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, a Hindu nationalist group whose cadres had helped stir up violence in some Indian states against Muslims and others.

    And in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, mainstream Islamic groups in September helped elect as president a secular general who had been relatively outspoken about the threat posed by the radical group Jemaah Islamiyah, which is responsible for several acts of terrorism, including the bombing in Bali in 2002.

    Fundamentalist movements also stumble because they plan for the overthrow, but not for the governing. Half the Muslim world is illiterate, Mr. Haqqani said, but the Taliban didn't make a dent in improving literacy when it ruled in Afghanistan. If Iran had a free and fair plebiscite today, Professor Marty said, ''the ayatollahs would be dumped.''

    For reasons like this, said R. Scott Appleby, a history professor at the University of Notre Dame and director of the Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, ''it would be misleading to say fundamentalism is on the rise now.'' He added: ''I would say we're just more aware of it because these people are better organized, more mobile and more vocal than ever before.''

    In 2003, Professor Appleby and two other scholars, Gabriel A. Almond and Emmanuel Sivan, published ''Strong Religion,'' a book based on research done with Professor Marty for the Fundamentalism Project. The book's subtitle was the ''The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World.''

    NOW, Mr. Appleby said, ''There is some evidence, some literature that says fundamentalism is on the decline, that it has peaked or is peaking precisely because it has a tendency toward violence and intolerance, and those ultimately don't work. They lead to bloodshed, loss of life, and no recognizable economic upturn, and there is an exhaustion with it.''

    That is not to say that he does not foresee more bitter, sometimes violent religious clashes. By their very nature, fundamentalists endure because they are motivated by transcendant ideas like salvation or, in some places, martyrdom. Mr. Appleby said he did not expect to see growth, but a persistence of ''deadly pockets of would-be revolutionaries who are empowered to a greater degree than ever by a little technological savvy and organizational ability.''

    The American government is poorly prepared to make the necessary distinctions between what is merely religious fervor and what is potentially dangerous fundamentalism, said Thomas F. Farr, who left his post as director of the office of international religious freedom in the State Department about a year ago.

    ''Most of my foreign service friends would rather have root canal than talk to a Muslim imam about religion,'' said Mr. Farr, who now works with the Institute for Global Engagement, a Washington-based group working on international religious freedom.

    What they need to ask, he said, is: ''Do these religions have within them exclusivist tendencies in an absolutist sense, or can they be open to other human beings outside their circle? These are inevitably theological questions.''



    Photos (Collage by Kandy Littrell; photographs from Associated Press, Getty Images, Reuters, Paulo Fridman/Getty Images for The New York Times, Nikolai Khalip for The New York Times, Rina Castelnuovo, and the Collection of Francesco Bigazzi. (pg. 1); (Photo by Jacob Silberberg/Getty Images); (Photo by Punit Paranjpe/Reuters); (Photo by Dita Alangkara/Associated Press); (Photo by Paulo Fridman/Getty Images for The New York Times)(pg. 4)

    Charts

    NIGERIA -- Christians, left, pray together at the City of David Church in the affluent Victoria Island section of Lagos.

    Followers of largest religions, 2005
    (Pentecostals are found in most Christian traditions)

    Avg. yearly growth of selected faiths, 1990-2000

    CHRISTIAN: 61.4 million total

    All Nigerian Christians: 3% growth
    Protestant (33.4% of Nigerian Christians*): 4.7
    Roman Catholic (30.5): 4.3
    Anglican (31.8): 3.5
    Independent (43.2): 2.3

    MUSLIM -- 54.7 million: 2.7
    ANIMIST -- 13.6 million: 2.9

    *Percentages add up to more than 100 because many people affiliate with more than one religion.

    INDIA -- Indian Hindus perform an immersion ritual with a statue of Ganesh, one of their most revered deities.

    HINDU -- 810.4 million: 1.7% growth
    MUSLIM -- 134.1 million: 2.0

    CHRISTIAN -- 68.2 million
    All Indian Christians: 2.4
    Independent (53.8% of Indian Christians): 3.1
    Protestant (28.6): 2.6
    Roman Catholic (26.7): 2.5

    ANIMIST -- 41.9 million: 2.4

    INDONESIA -- In Jakarta, a celebration of Id al-Fitr marks the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

    MUSLIM -- 121.6 million: 1.4% growth

    NEW RELIGION -- 50.0 million: 1.5
    Hindu or Buddhist offshoots or combinations of Christianity with Eastern religions.

    CHRISTIAN -- 30.5 million
    All Indonesian Christians: 1.8
    Roman Catholic (23.0% of Indonesian Christians): 2.5
    Protestant (46.6): 2.3

    BRAZIL -- Mass celebration at Igreja Brasil para Cristo, a Pentecostal church in So Paulo.

    CHRISTIAN -- 166.8 million
    All Brazillian Christians: 1.3% growth
    Protestant (18.2% of Brazillian Christians): 2.0
    Roman Catholic (93.5): 1.3

    SPIRITIST -- 8.9 million: 2.4
    Sects combining African, Amerindian and animistic traditions with Catholicism

    (Source by Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)(pg. 4)


     


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------


     



    NATIONAL DESK



    THE INAUGURATION -- THE CEREMONY: RELIGION; References to Pluralism Try to Establish an Umbrella for a Spectrum of Faiths


    By LAURIE GOODSTEIN


    Published: January 21, 2005

    The president who swept to victory by mobilizing his conservative Christian base used his inauguration yesterday to signal that his administration was well aware that when it came to religion, the United States was diverse and divided.


    The tone was set in the opening invocation by the Rev. Luis Leon, an Episcopalian whose church, the landmark St. John's Episcopal Church on Lafayette Square, across the avenue from the White House, favors blessing same-sex unions. Father Leon, a Cuban-American, thanked God for fashioning one nation out of ''a multitude of peoples of many ethnic, religious and language backgrounds.''


    In his speech, President Bush, a Methodist, made a reference to religious pluralism when he said the nation was sustained ''by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people.'' The phrase encompasses Jews, Christians and Muslims by alluding to the Ten Commandments, the preaching of Jesus and Islamic scripture.

    The Rev. Max L. Stackhouse, professor of theology and public life at Princeton Theological Seminary, said of Mr. Bush's speech, ''It's a little echo of the remark by President Eisenhower when he said, 'Our nation is founded on faith, and I don't care which faith it is.'''

    Mr. Bush's first inauguration in 2001 sparked accusations of religious sectarianism when the two clergymen who blessed the event prayed in the name of Jesus. This time, the president chose Father Leon to replace one of those clergymen, the Rev. Franklin Graham, who was filling in for his father, the Rev. Billy Graham, who was ill in 2001.

    The other clergyman from the first inaugural appeared once more, the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, an African-American pastor in Houston and pastor of what is said to be the nation's largest United Methodist church, Windsor Village. He is a friend and spiritual adviser to the president from his days as governor of Texas and an early supporter of his initiative to give religious groups more of a role in the delivery of social services.

    Mr. Caldwell closed his benediction yesterday by saying, ''Respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.''

    Edith L. Blumhofer, a professor of history and the director of the Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals at Wheaton College in Wheaton, Ill., an evangelical institution, said it was the second time she had heard Mr. Caldwell precede a prayer with a reference to his respect for people of all faiths, and added, ''I think that's probably an attempt to address the objections.''

    In his choice of pastors, Mr. Bush chose an African-American and a Latino, constituencies that the Republican Party is courting. Father Leon arrived in Miami in 1961 at age 11 in a ''Peter Pan flight'' that brought Cuban children to the United States and left their parents behind. Mr. Bush attends services at his church.

    Father Leon said in an interview this week that he wanted to ''offer a broad prayer as inclusive as I can make it.'' He called the inauguration a celebration of the American character, adding that part of that American character is the breadth of ''our understanding of religious freedom, so it's probably a good time to honor that.''

    The choice of clergy members in Mr. Bush's inaugurations has been less inclusive than even in inaugurations more than 40 years ago, Professor Blumhofer said. The Nixon and Eisenhower inaugurations featured a ''parade of faiths,'' she said, with prayers from Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Jewish clergy members and a performance by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

    Mr. Bush's innovation has been including Islam, Professor Blumhofer said. Even in his first inaugural speech, he included mosques in a list of religious organizations that serve the poor.


     


    ---------------------------------------------------


    ---------------------------------------------------


     


     


     

February 1, 2005


  • Science


    February 1, 2005


    Evolution Takes a Back Seat in U.S. Classes


    By CORNELIA DEAN





    Dr. John Frandsen, a retired zoologist, was at a dinner for teachers in Birmingham, Ala., recently when he met a young woman who had just begun work as a biology teacher in a small school district in the state. Their conversation turned to evolution.


    "She confided that she simply ignored evolution because she knew she'd get in trouble with the principal if word got about that she was teaching it," he recalled. "She told me other teachers were doing the same thing."


    Though the teaching of evolution makes the news when officials propose, as they did in Georgia, that evolution disclaimers be affixed to science textbooks, or that creationism be taught along with evolution in biology classes, stories like the one Dr. Frandsen tells are more common.


    In districts around the country, even when evolution is in the curriculum it may not be in the classroom, according to researchers who follow the issue.


    Teaching guides and textbooks may meet the approval of biologists, but superintendents or principals discourage teachers from discussing it. Or teachers themselves avoid the topic, fearing protests from fundamentalists in their communities.


    "The most common remark I've heard from teachers was that the chapter on evolution was assigned as reading but that virtually no discussion in class was taken," said Dr. John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, an evangelical Christian and a member of Alabama's curriculum review board who advocates the teaching of evolution. Teachers are afraid to raise the issue, he said in an e-mail message, and they are afraid to discuss the issue in public.


    Dr. Frandsen, former chairman of the committee on science and public policy of the Alabama Academy of Science, said in an interview that this fear made it impossible to say precisely how many teachers avoid the topic.


    "You're not going to hear about it," he said. "And for political reasons nobody will do a survey among randomly selected public school children and parents to ask just what is being taught in science classes."


    But he said he believed the practice of avoiding the topic was widespread, particularly in districts where many people adhere to fundamentalist faiths.


    "You can imagine how difficult it would be to teach evolution as the standards prescribe in ever so many little towns, not only in Alabama but in the rest of the South, the Midwest - all over," Dr. Frandsen said.


    Dr. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, said she heard "all the time" from teachers who did not teach evolution "because it's just too much trouble."


    "Or their principals tell them, 'We just don't have time to teach everything so let's leave out the things that will cause us problems,' " she said.


    Sometimes, Dr. Scott said, parents will ask that their children be allowed to "opt out" of any discussion of evolution and principals lean on teachers to agree.


    Even where evolution is taught, teachers may be hesitant to give it full weight. Ron Bier, a biology teacher at Oberlin High School in Oberlin, Ohio, said that evolution underlies many of the central ideas of biology and that it is crucial for students to understand it. But he avoids controversy, he said, by teaching it not as "a unit," but by introducing the concept here and there throughout the year. "I put out my little bits and pieces wherever I can," he said.


    He noted that his high school, in a college town, has many students whose parents are professors who have no problem with the teaching of evolution. But many other students come from families that may not accept the idea, he said, "and that holds me back to some extent."


    "I don't force things," Mr. Bier added. "I don't argue with students about it."


    In this, he is typical of many science teachers, according to a report by the Fordham Foundation, which studies educational issues and backs programs like charter schools and vouchers.


    Some teachers avoid the subject altogether, Dr. Lawrence S. Lerner, a physicist and historian of science, wrote in the report. Others give it very short shrift or discuss it without using "the E word," relying instead on what Dr. Lerner characterized as incorrect or misleading phrases, like "change over time."


    Dr. Gerald Wheeler, a physicist who heads the National Science Teachers Association, said many members of his organization "fly under the radar" of fundamentalists by introducing evolution as controversial, which scientifically it is not, or by noting that many people do not accept it, caveats not normally offered for other parts of the science curriculum.


    Dr. Wheeler said the science teachers' organization hears "constantly" from science teachers who want the organization's backing. "What they are asking for is 'Can you support me?' " he said, and the help they seek "is more political; it's not pedagogical."


    There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that all living things evolved from common ancestors, that evolution on earth has been going on for billions of years and that evolution can be and has been tested and confirmed by the methods of science. But in a 2001 survey, the National Science Foundation found that only 53 percent of Americans agreed with the statement "human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals."


    And this was good news to the foundation. It was the first time one of its regular surveys showed a majority of Americans had accepted the idea. According to the foundation report, polls consistently show that a plurality of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form about 10,000 years ago, and about two-thirds believe that this belief should be taught along with evolution in public schools.


    These findings set the United States apart from all other industrialized nations, said Dr. Jon Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University, who has studied public attitudes toward science. Americans, he said, have been evenly divided for years on the question of evolution, with about 45 percent accepting it, 45 percent rejecting it and the rest undecided.


    In other industrialized countries, Dr. Miller said, 80 percent or more typically accept evolution, most of the others say they are not sure and very few people reject the idea outright.


    "In Japan, something like 96 percent accept evolution," he said. Even in socially conservative, predominantly Catholic countries like Poland, perhaps 75 percent of people surveyed accept evolution, he said. "It has not been a Catholic issue or an Asian issue," he said.


    Indeed, two popes, Pius XII in 1950 and John Paul II in 1996, have endorsed the idea that evolution and religion can coexist. "I have yet to meet a Catholic school teacher who skips evolution," Dr. Scott said.


    Dr. Gerald D. Skoog, a former dean of the College of Education at Texas Tech University and a former president of the science teachers' organization, said that in some classrooms, the teaching of evolution was hampered by the beliefs of the teachers themselves, who are creationists or supporters of the teaching of creationism.


    "Data from various studies in various states over an extended period of time indicate that about one-third of biology teachers support the teaching of creationism or 'intelligent design,' " Dr. Skoog said.


    Advocates for the teaching of evolution provide teachers or school officials who are challenged on it with information to help them make the case that evolution is completely accepted as a bedrock idea of science. Organizations like the science teachers' association, the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science provide position papers and other information on the subject. The National Association of Biology Teachers devoted a two-day meeting to the subject last summer, Dr. Skoog said.


    Other advocates of teaching evolution are making the case that a person can believe both in God and the scientific method. "People have been told by some evangelical Christians and by some scientists, that you have to choose." Dr. Scott said. "That is just wrong."


    While plenty of scientists reject religion - the eminent evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins famously likens it to a disease - many others do not. In fact, when a researcher from the University of Georgia surveyed scientists' attitudes toward religion several years ago, he found their positions virtually unchanged from an identical survey in the early years of the 20th century. About 40 percent of scientists said not just that they believed in God, but in a God who communicates with people and to whom one may pray "in expectation of receiving an answer."


    Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said he thought the great variety of religious groups in the United States led to competition for congregants. This marketplace environment, he said, contributes to the politicization of issues like evolution among religious groups.


    He said the teaching of evolution was portrayed not as scientific instruction but as "an assault of the secular elite on the values of God-fearing people." As a result, he said, politicians don't want to touch it. "Everybody discovers the wisdom of federalism here very quickly," he said. "Leave it at the state or the local level."


    But several experts say scientists are feeling increasing pressure to make their case, in part, Dr. Miller said, because scriptural literalists are moving beyond evolution to challenge the teaching of geology and physics on issues like the age of the earth and the origin of the universe.


    "They have now decided the Big Bang has to be wrong," he said. "There are now a lot of people who are insisting that that be called only a theory without evidence and so on, and now the physicists are getting mad about this."


     


    ------------------------------------------------


    ------------------------------------------------


     

  • The Star Tribune


    Bill Moyers: There is no tomorrow









    Bill Moyers
    Published January 30, 2005

    One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal. It has come in from the fringe, to sit in the seat of power in the Oval Office and in Congress. For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.


    Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality. When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.


    Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."


    Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true -- one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.


    That's right -- the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.


    Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.


    As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.


    I'm not making this up. Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed -- an essential conflagration on the road to redemption. The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 -- just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.


    So what does this mean for public policy and the environment? Go to Grist to read a remarkable work of reporting by the journalist Glenn Scherer -- "The Road to Environmental Apocalypse." Read it and you will see how millions of Christian fundamentalists may believe that environmental destruction is not only to be disregarded but actually welcomed -- even hastened -- as a sign of the coming apocalypse.


    As Grist makes clear, we're not talking about a handful of fringe lawmakers who hold or are beholden to these beliefs. Nearly half the U.S. Congress before the recent election -- 231 legislators in total and more since the election -- are backed by the religious right.


    Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the three most influential Christian right advocacy groups. They include Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Assistant Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Conference Chair Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, Policy Chair Jon Kyl of Arizona, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Majority Whip Roy Blunt. The only Democrat to score 100 percent with the Christian coalition was Sen. Zell Miller of Georgia, who recently quoted from the biblical book of Amos on the Senate floor: "The days will come, sayeth the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land." He seemed to be relishing the thought.


    And why not? There's a constituency for it. A 2002 Time-CNN poll found that 59 percent of Americans believe that the prophecies found in the book of Revelations are going to come true. Nearly one-quarter think the Bible predicted the 9/11 attacks. Drive across the country with your radio tuned to the more than 1,600 Christian radio stations, or in the motel turn on some of the 250 Christian TV stations, and you can hear some of this end-time gospel. And you will come to understand why people under the spell of such potent prophecies cannot be expected, as Grist puts it, "to worry about the environment. Why care about the earth, when the droughts, floods, famine and pestilence brought by ecological collapse are signs of the apocalypse foretold in the Bible? Why care about global climate change when you and yours will be rescued in the rapture? And why care about converting from oil to solar when the same God who performed the miracle of the loaves and fishes can whip up a few billion barrels of light crude with a word?"


    Because these people believe that until Christ does return, the Lord will provide. One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie ... that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth ... while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."


    No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.


    It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility. So let me put it on a personal level. I myself don't know how to be in this world without expecting a confident future and getting up every morning to do what I can to bring it about. So I have always been an optimist. Now, however, I think of my friend on Wall Street whom I once asked: "What do you think of the market?"I'm optimistic," he answered. "Then why do you look so worried?" And he answered: "Because I am not sure my optimism is justified."


    I'm not, either. Once upon a time I agreed with Eric Chivian and the Center for Health and the Global Environment that people will protect the natural environment when they realize its importance to their health and to the health and lives of their children. Now I am not so sure. It's not that I don't want to believe that -- it's just that I read the news and connect the dots.


    I read that the administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has declared the election a mandate for President Bush on the environment. This for an administration:


    • That wants to rewrite the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act protecting rare plant and animal species and their habitats, as well as the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires the government to judge beforehand whether actions might damage natural resources.


    • That wants to relax pollution limits for ozone; eliminate vehicle tailpipe inspections, and ease pollution standards for cars, sport-utility vehicles and diesel-powered big trucks and heavy equipment.


    • That wants a new international audit law to allow corporations to keep certain information about environmental problems secret from the public.


    • That wants to drop all its new-source review suits against polluting, coal-fired power plants and weaken consent decrees reached earlier with coal companies.


    • That wants to open the Arctic [National] Wildlife Refuge to drilling and increase drilling in Padre Island National Seashore, the longest stretch of undeveloped barrier island in the world and the last great coastal wild land in America.


    I read the news just this week and learned how the Environmental Protection Agency had planned to spend $9 million -- $2 million of it from the administration's friends at the American Chemistry Council -- to pay poor families to continue to use pesticides in their homes. These pesticides have been linked to neurological damage in children, but instead of ordering an end to their use, the government and the industry were going to offer the families $970 each, as well as a camcorder and children's clothing, to serve as guinea pigs for the study.


    I read all this in the news.


    I read the news just last night and learned that the administration's friends at the International Policy Network, which is supported by Exxon Mobil and others of like mind, have issued a new report that climate change is "a myth, sea levels are not rising" [and] scientists who believe catastrophe is possible are "an embarrassment."


    I not only read the news but the fine print of the recent appropriations bill passed by Congress, with the obscure (and obscene) riders attached to it: a clause removing all endangered species protections from pesticides; language prohibiting judicial review for a forest in Oregon; a waiver of environmental review for grazing permits on public lands; a rider pressed by developers to weaken protection for crucial habitats in California.


    I read all this and look up at the pictures on my desk, next to the computer -- pictures of my grandchildren. I see the future looking back at me from those photographs and I say, "Father, forgive us, for we know not what we do." And then I am stopped short by the thought: "That's not right. We do know what we are doing. We are stealing their future. Betraying their trust. Despoiling their world."


    And I ask myself: Why? Is it because we don't care? Because we are greedy? Because we have lost our capacity for outrage, our ability to sustain indignation at injustice?


    What has happened to our moral imagination?


    On the heath Lear asks Gloucester: "How do you see the world?" And Gloucester, who is blind, answers: "I see it feelingly.'"


    I see it feelingly.


    The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free -- not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma -- the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.


    Believe me, it does.


    Bill Moyers was host until recently of the weekly public affairs series "NOW with Bill Moyers" on PBS. This article is adapted from AlterNet, where it first appeared. The text is taken from Moyers' remarks upon receiving the Global Environmental Citizen Award from the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.


     


    ---------------------------------------------------------


    ---------------------------------------------------------


     


    The Story of the Ghost
        By William Rivers Pitt
        t r u t h o u t | Perspective


        Monday 31 January 2005

    "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting. According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam."

    - Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, 'U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote,' September 4, 1967.



















    January 30, 2005 | A mortar attack at a polling station in the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad killed at least three people.
    (Photo: AP)
        In all the media hoopla over Sunday's "election" in Iraq, a few details got missed.

        The powerful and influential Association of Muslim Scholars is not buying the idea that there was some great democratic breakthrough with this vote. AMS spokesman Muhammad al-Kubaysi responded to the election by saying, "The elections are not a solution to the Iraqi problem, because this problem is not an internal dispute to be resolved through accords and elections. It lies in the presence of a foreign power that occupies this country and refuses even the mere scheduling of the withdrawal of its forces from Iraq."

        "We have consistently argued," continued al-Kubaysi, "that elections can only occur in a democracy that enjoys sovereignty. Our sovereignty is incomplete. Our sovereignty is usurped by foreign forces that have occupied our land and hurt our dignity. These elections... are a means of establishing the foreign forces in Iraq and keeping Iraq under the yoke of occupation. They should have been postponed."

        Al-Kubaysi likewise raised grave concerns about low turnout in Sunni areas such as Baghdad, Baquba and Samarra, and stated flatly that the deep secrecy that shrouded the candidates themselves invalidated the process. "The voter goes to the polling stations not knowing who he is voting for in the first place," he said. "There are more than 7,700 candidates, and I challenge any Iraqi voter to name more than half a dozen. Their names have not been announced but have been kept secret. Elections should never have been held under these present circumstances."

        The American media is painting these newly-minted Iraqi voters as flush with the thrill of casting a ballot. In truth, however, some other more pressing motivations lay behind their rush to the polling places. Dahr Jamail, writing for Inter Press Service, reported that "Many Iraqis had expressed fears before the election that their monthly food rations would be cut if they did not vote. They said they had to sign voter registration forms in order to pick up their food supplies. Just days before the election, 52 year-old Amin Hajar, who owns an auto garage in central Baghdad, had said, 'I'll vote because I can't afford to have my food ration cut. If that happened, me and my family would starve to death.'"

        'Will Vote For Food' is not a spectacular billboard for the export of democracy.

        "Where there was a large turnout," continued Jamail, "the motivation behind the voting and the processes both appeared questionable. The Kurds up north were voting for autonomy, if not independence. In the south and elsewhere Shias were competing with Kurds for a bigger say in the 275-member national assembly. In some places like Mosul the turnout was heavier than expected. But many of the voters came from outside, and identity checks on voters appeared lax. Others spoke of vote-buying bids. More than 30 Iraqis, a U.S. soldier, and at least 10 British troops died Sunday. Hundreds of Iraqis were also wounded in attacks across Baghdad, in Baquba 50km northeast of the capital as well as in the northern cities Mosul and Kirkuk."

        Perhaps the most glaring indication that this "election" did little to settle the bloody reality in Iraq came three days before the ballots were cast. In a letter to congress dated January 28, the neoconservative think-tank/power broker known as The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) essentially called for a draft without actually using the 'D' word.

        Project Censored, the organization that tracks important yet wildly under-reported stories, declared the existence, motivations and influence of PNAC to be the #1 censored media story for 2002-2003. Most t r u t h o u t readers are familiar with PNAC, but for those who missed this story, a quick refresher is required.

        The first vital fact about PNAC has to do with its membership roll call: Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, former CEO of Halliburton; Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense; Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Elliot Abrams, National Security Council; John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security; I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top National Security assistant. This list goes on.

        These people didn't enjoy those fancy titles in 2000, when the PNAC manifesto 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' was first published. Before 2000, these men were just a bunch of power players who got shoved out of government in 1993. In the time that passed between Clinton and those hanging chads, these people got together in PNAC and laid out a blueprint. 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' was the ultimate result. 2000 became 2001, and the PNAC boys suddenly had the fancy titles and a chance to swing some weight.

        'Rebuilding America's Defenses' became the roadmap for foreign policy decisions made in the White House and the Pentagon; PNAC had the Vice President's office in one building, and the Defense Secretary's office in the other. Attacking Iraq was central to that roadmap from the beginning. When former Counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration of focusing on Iraq to the detriment of addressing legitimate threats, he was essentially denouncing them for using the attacks of September 11 as an excuse to execute the PNAC blueprint.

        The goals codified in 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' the manifesto, can be boiled down to a few sentences: The invasion and occupation of Iraq, for reasons that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. The building of several permanent military bases in Iraq, the purpose of which are to telegraph force throughout the region. The takeover by Western petroleum corporations of Iraq's nationalized oil industry. The ultimate destabilization and overthrow of a variety of regimes in the Middle East, friend and foe alike, by military or economic means, or both.

        "Indeed," it is written on page 14 of 'Rebuilding America's Defenses,' "the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

        In the last three years, PNAC has gotten every single thing it placed on its wish list back in 2000. This is why their letter to congress last week is so disturbing. The letter reads in part:

    The United States military is too small for the responsibilities we are asking it to assume. Those responsibilities are real and important. They are not going away. The United States will not and should not become less engaged in the world in the years to come. But our national security, global peace and stability, and the defense and promotion of freedom in the post-9/11 world require a larger military force than we have today. The administration has unfortunately resisted increasing our ground forces to the size needed to meet today's (and tomorrow's) missions and challenges.

    So we write to ask you and your colleagues in the legislative branch to take the steps necessary to increase substantially the size of the active duty Army and Marine Corps. While estimates vary about just how large an increase is required, and Congress will make its own determination as to size and structure, it is our judgment that we should aim for an increase in the active duty Army and Marine Corps, together, of at least 25,000 troops each year over the next several years.

    Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution places the power and the duty to raise and support the military forces of the United States in the hands of the Congress. That is why we, the undersigned, a bipartisan group with diverse policy views, have come together to call upon you to act. You will be serving your country well if you insist on providing the military manpower we need to meet America's obligations, and to help ensure success in carrying out our foreign policy objectives in a dangerous, but also hopeful, world.


        Brush aside the patriotic language, and you have the ideological architects of this disastrous Iraq invasion stating flatly that the American military is being bled dry, and that the ranks must be replenished before that military can be used to push into Iran, Syria and the other targeted nations. The 'D' word is not in this letter, but it screams out from between the lines. All the lip service paid to the Iraq elections by these people does not contrast well with their cry for more warm bodies to feed into the meat grinder.

        Lyndon Johnson was excited about voter turnout in Vietnam in September 1967. Eight years, three Presidents and millions of dead people later, that excitement proved to have been wretchedly illusory. There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, to believe that the Iraq election we witnessed this weekend will bring anything other than death and violence to the people of that nation and our soldiers who move among them. History repeats itself only when we are stupid enough to miss the lessons learned in past failures. The wheel is coming around again.

        Author's Note | The fascinating New York Times article on the Vietnam election in 1967 was first located and published by patachon on the DailyKos blog forum.


     


    -------------------------------------------


    -------------------------------------------


     

January 31, 2005


  • Gender isn't in the science equation

    BEWARE OF `STEREOTYPE THREAT' -- EXPECTATIONS PLAY ROLE IN ACHIEVEMENT BY WOMEN




    ``Economists,'' according to one of the best, John Kenneth Galbraith, ``when they seek to be profound, often succeed only in being wrong.'' And when they are wrong, according to another famed economist, John Maynard Keynes, they are more powerful than is commonly understood.


    The wisdom of these two economic behemoths was evident in the recent statements made by fellow economist and Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers. His suggestion that biological differences between the sexes may be one explanation for why fewer women succeed in science and math careers brought a storm of editorial and other responses.


    As a biologist, university professor, former campus chancellor and now University of California provost, I understand something of the power of Summers' comments. And both the research and our experience at the University of California, where four of our 10 campuses are led by women (including an engineer, a chemist and an astrophysicist), clearly suggest that Summers is wrong.


    First, there is at least one clear reason women are still under-represented in math and science that has nothing to do with quaint old notions of innate differences. That is a legacy of under-representation of women in higher education itself until the mid-20th century. It was only 35 years ago, after all, that Harvard began admitting women.


    Then there is the research. There is ample evidence, based on decades of path-breaking research on learning, showing that socialization and expectations are prime influencers on what everyone -- including academic women themselves -- expects of women. Summers' point that fewer girls than boys have top scores on science and math tests in late high school years may be true. But the research provides fair warning of ``stereotype threat'' -- if society, institutions, teachers and leaders like Summers expect overtly or subconsciously that girls and women will not perform as well as boys and men, there is a good chance that many will not perform as well.


    The rewards gap


    In addition, there is well-documented evidence that women's achievements are not valued, recognized and rewarded to the same extent as are those of their male counterparts.


    On the other hand, there is scant evidence of genetic differences between the sexes in the ability to learn science and math, and there are enough well-qualified female scientists and engineers coming through major research universities' Ph.D. programs, such as those at the University of California, to fill some of the openings at Harvard and other top universities.


    Brilliant women -- such as Linda Buck, this year's Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology -- are actively contributing to a multitude of difficult global problems.


    This is why the University of California has been able to make such solid gains in closing its own gender-equity gap. To achieve these results, UC studied the issue of gender equity, prodded and encouraged by state Sen. Jackie Speier. We, unlike Harvard, concluded that the competitiveness of UC in the next decade depends upon our ability to identify and cultivate these talented women to become our faculty.


    Even a cursory examination of the national Ph.D. production shows clearly that the most rapidly growing pool of highly qualified candidates with first-rate credentials is female. The university must attract these candidates if for no other reason than to maintain the high quality of our faculty.


    In addition, as many studies have shown, there is still much to do in cultivating young girls and women for work in the sciences and mathematics. If girls abandon science and math because we perceive them as performing less well than boys in those fields, then we are failing these young people, and we are risking a huge loss for our society.


    Don't waste brainpower


    It is, in short, a matter of economic competitiveness. As our country falls behind in science and technology innovation, we simply cannot afford to waste the intellectual resources of more than half of our population. Recognizing and facing the crisis, the University of California has this year introduced a Math and Science Initiative to improve education in these fields across the spectrum of K-12 through higher education.


    We need help from the state, the nation, and all concerned citizens to continue to fill the gaps in the science and math career progress of women and girls. First, rather than blaming the shortfall on the girls themselves, it is far more productive to learn more about the theories and the data, and embark on improving the situation.


    President Summers did conclude that the whole issue of the absence of women from high-powered jobs in science is too important to sentimentalize. With that, I wholeheartedly agree.


     


    M.R.C. GREENWOOD, a biologist and former chancellor of UC-Santa Cruz, now serves as provost and senior vice president of the University of California -- the first woman to hold the post. She wrote this article for the Mercury News.



    -----------------------------------------


    -----------------------------------------


     


     

January 30, 2005


  • At Forum, Leaders Confront Annual Enigma of China


    By MARK LANDLER





    DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan. 29 - In almost every panel discussion at the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum here, there comes a moment when somebody mentions China.


    A hush typically ensues, as panelists draw their breath, gather their thoughts and struggle to put the bewildering vastness of the topic into a few words.


    "China is going to be the change agent for the next 20 years," said Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, when asked about the country's future by the television interview host Charlie Rose.


    China's staggering potential, coupled with the steep language barrier and cultural discomfort of many Chinese who come to this conference, has made it Davos's annual enigma.


    After three days of outsiders' dissecting its motives and prospects, China finally took the stage on Saturday, with a speech by its executive vice prime minister, Huang Ju.


    "China's development will by no means pose a threat to other countries," Mr. Huang declared cheerfully, as if to soothe people here who spent the week fretting about China's lengthening shadow.


    Mr. Huang, however, said little on the two issues of overriding importance to the investors and business people here: whether China would allow its currency to rise against the dollar, and whether the Chinese would crack down on the rampant theft of intellectual property.


    "We have to maintain the exchange rate at a reasonable level," said Mr. Huang, who directs China's finance policy and was billed by the organizers as Beijing's chief operating officer.


    Some here interpreted that comment as a signal that China would not allow its currency, the yuan, to rise against the dollar this year, as some Europeans and Americans have demanded. But Michael S. Dell, the chairman of Dell Inc., who had breakfast with Mr. Huang, said he did not draw any conclusions.


    Mr. Huang also did little to ease investors' concerns about China's regard for intellectual property rights, saying only that through new laws and tougher enforcement, China was trying to achieve in a dozen years what it had taken the Western world a century to do.


    At a dinner with the theme of investing in China, several foreign executives said they discerned little progress on the issue. The only way to avoid having their proprietary technology pilfered by Chinese competitors, they said, was to keep most research and development activities at home, and to use China for simple manufacturing.


    For the Chinese who trek to this Alpine ski resort, the problem is less one of legal tradition than cultural disconnect. Except for a handful of fluent English speakers with long experience with foreigners, most keep to themselves - shying away from the high-octane networking that is the fuel of Davos.


    "Davos's history is as a European and American conference," said Chen Feng, the chairman of Hainan Airlines Company. "People come here to relax and ski. China's culture is not about skiing."


    Mr. Chen, an irrepressible entrepreneur who worked the hallways like a Davos regular, is one of only four chief executives of major Chinese companies at this year's conference. He said more of his peers had come to previous meetings, but had found the experience uncomfortable.


    Zhao Jianfei, an editor at The Observer, a Shanghai-based magazine, said, "In China, the basic idea is to watch Davos, not take part in it." People have other theories for why the Chinese do not turn out in droves. "China is not exactly soliciting investment," said Stephan F. Newhouse, the president of Morgan Stanley. "They're turning it away."


    Mr. Huang dramatized China's potential with forecasts. Its economic output will grow to $4 trillion by 2020, from $1.6 trillion today, he said, and its output per capita - a more accurate measure of wealth - will triple to $3,000 per person.


    For its part, the World Economic Forum says the Chinese turnout this year has been noteworthy, mostly because of the attendance of Mr. Huang, a member of the Politburo's powerful standing committee. The deputy governor of the People's Bank of China also came.


    The conference organizers have gone to considerable lengths to make this a congenial place for China. There are no sessions on Taiwan - a topic sure to drive away Chinese officials. Mr. Huang did not take questions from the audience.


    "It's understood that some things about China don't come up in polite conversation at Davos," said Orville Schell, the dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley.


    Politesse did break down occasionally. At a lunch held by Mr. Schell, several non-Chinese participants confronted the handful of Chinese guests about how Beijing could justify not allowing the Taiwanese people to vote on whether they wanted to be an independent nation.


    After an awkward silence, a few Chinese spoke about the passionate feelings in China regarding Taiwan's status. Yuan Ming, the director of the Institute of American Studies at Beijing University, alluded to the frustration that outsiders might have in seeking to understand China.


    "The world needs China to play some roles," Ms. Yuan said in a polite yet weary tone. "But it's too early to rank ourselves among world nations. We do need some time to develop ourselves."


     


    ---------------------------------------------------


    ---------------------------------------------------


     



    One More 'Moral Value': Fighting Poverty


    By JOHN LELAND





    During the inaugural festivities in Washington this month, three evangelical Christian groups sponsored a black-tie "Values Victory Dinner," where they celebrated the electoral strength of "moral values" as a factor in the campaign. In the shorthand of postelection polls and analysis, that meant opposition to abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research.


    But many religious leaders, including some evangelicals, think the current focus on moral values has created a platform to talk about other issues, especially poverty, as both political and moral concerns. "The good news about the bad news was that the spin doctors, whether they got it right or wrong, have said that values are so important to our political system," said Robert Edgar, general secretary of the National Council of Churches, an association of liberal denominations that represents more than 100,000 congregations. "They've given an opportunity for us to say, 'We're people of faith, too, and we're going to talk about what the Bible says about poverty.' When nine million children are living in poverty, that's a moral value."


    Mr. Edgar and other religious leaders across the theological spectrum are trying to shift the debate. Last week, Mr. Edgar announced an ecumenical summit meeting, sponsored or supported by more than 30 religious groups, to promote world peace and the elimination of global poverty.


    Evangelical organizations, whose views were often stereotyped after the election, are also seeking a broader definition of moral values. "We've let not evangelicals, but the right wing determine what moral values are," said David J. Frenchak, president of the Seminary Consortium for Urban Pastoral Education, a nondenominational group that helps develop urban ministry programs at 12 seminaries or divinity schools around the country.


    In Chicago last weekend, Dr. Frenchak joined a gathering of 20 Christians, mostly evangelicals, to produce a book defining moral values to include a focus on poverty. At the meeting, one man held up a Bible from which he had cut every verse that addressed poverty. "There was hardly anything left," Dr. Frenchak said. "He said, 'I challenge anyone in the room to take their Bible and cut out every verse about abortion or gay marriage, and we'll compare Bibles.' "


    Dr. Frenchak said he had been involved in more conversations about moral values in the past two months than ever before. "We meet to discuss how poverty got left out of the discussion of moral values. The question is, 'How do we talk about what we do as a moral value, rather than as an assumed good?' I don't think a day goes by that I don't get some communication about rethinking an understanding of moral values."


    In postelection analyses, "values voters" were often equated with evangelical Christians, just as "values" were equated with opposition to abortion and gay marriage. But evangelical churches and seminaries have become increasingly mobilized around poverty both in the United States and abroad.


    "This is the great secret story," said Jim Wallis, a progressive evangelical who runs Sojourners magazine and Call to Renewal, a network of religious groups committed to combating poverty.


    "The perception of evangelicals is that all they care about is abortion and gay marriage, but it isn't true," he said. "It hasn't been for years."


    Mr. Wallis has long tried to assemble a coalition of progressive or moderate evangelicals and Roman Catholics with mainline Protestant organizations on moral issues like poverty. Though his voice has sometimes been a lonely one, his new book, "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," enters the New York Times best-seller list this week at No. 11. Mr. Wallis, Dr. Edgar and other religious leaders, including Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, met with Democratic members of Congress to advise them on how Democrats could inject their faith and moral values into discussions of their policies, including those intended to help the poor.


    "There's serious new common ground to explore on poverty, across theological and political lines," Mr. Wallis said. "Poverty is front and center, and not just among mainline Protestants, but at Fuller and Wheaton," he added, naming two of the nation's largest evangelical schools.


    Glen E. Stassen, a professor of Christian ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., said his students, who were largely conservative, agreed that poverty should be part of the moral values discussion.


    "A lot of Christians who are worried about abortion see poverty as a pro-life issue, because if you undermine the safety net for poor mothers, you'll increase the abortion rate and infant mortality rate," Dr. Stassen said. "We've seen that happen since welfare reform, just as the Catholic bishops predicted."


    Dr. Stassen, who describes himself as "pro-life," added that many evangelicals, including his students, want to change the current moral values rhetoric because they think it drives people from, rather than to, the church. "They're both offended and worried that it will persuade people concerned about justice that they should not be Christians," he said.


    At Union Theological Seminary in New York City, a liberal school, students this year developed a nine-day course called the Poverty Immersion Experience to provide a practical grounding for the moral values discussion.


    "How do you preach on poverty?" said Amy Gopp, one of the students who developed the course. "People rely on theological apathy - 'The poor will always be with us' - things that don't demand that we do anything."


    On a blustery January morning, Ms. Gopp and 10 classmates piled into a rented van to meet with a group of formerly homeless people in northeast Philadelphia who had organized to protest their condition.


    The intent of the course is to get students to think "beyond the soup kitchen" or charity work and consider how religious institutions can address the underlying structure of poverty, said Willie Baptist, who is a scholar-in-residence at the seminary. A community activist and organizer, Mr. Baptist had been homeless in this Philadelphia neighborhood. "We're not just crying crocodile tears about poverty or singing 'Kumbaya,' " he said. "We're making contact with an organized section of the poor that's doing something about poverty."


    The students visited neighborhoods where drugs are sold on street corners. They met a woman who described her experiences living in a tent city, including bathing her children in water from a hydrant. The woman is now on the staff at the Kensington Welfare Rights Union, an organization started by poor people in the neighborhood to call attention to their plight.


    For some of the students, it was their first close look at urban poverty. "I've done academic work on poverty, but here is a chance to meet poor people firsthand," said Paul Gremier, 23, who said he might use his education to become a minister, a social worker or a professor.


    On the ride back to New York, Ted Pardoe, a former Wall Street executive, said the trip had given him ideas about ways to work with the poor through not-for-profit agencies. "Yesterday I was skeptical about reality tours," Mr. Pardoe said. "Now I'm not skeptical at all. Each person we met was more impressive than the one before."


    There was little discussion of God or church on the trip, but lots of talk about values and responsibility. Andrea Metcalfe, who is studying to become a Lutheran minister, said she was frustrated that the issue of poverty had received so little attention in all the recent talk about values and voting. Ms. Metcalfe blamed a reticence among liberals to connect their faith publicly with their actions.


    "There's this tendency for liberals to say, 'We don't want anything to do with mixing church and politics,' " Ms. Metcalfe said. As a result, she said, liberal Christians and their concerns have not entered the values debate.


    Elizabeth Theoharis, a doctoral student and community activist who was leading the class with Mr. Baptist, challenged the students: "How do we move from the idea of poor people being sinners to poverty being a sin?"


    That, she said, was a moral value, and the students agreed.


     


    -------------------------------------------------


    -------------------------------------------------


     



    January 30, 2005

    OP-ED COLUMNIST


    Torture Chicks Gone Wild


    By MAUREEN DOWD





    WASHINGTON


    By the time House Republicans were finished with him, Bill Clinton must have thought of a thong as a torture device.


    For the Bush administration, it actually is.


    A former American Army sergeant who worked as an Arabic interpreter at Gitmo has written a book pulling back the veil on the astounding ways female interrogators used a toxic combination of sex and religion to try to break Muslim detainees at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba. It's not merely disgusting. It's beyond belief.


    The Bush administration never worries about anything. But these missionaries and zealous protectors of values should be worried about the American soul. The president never mentions Osama, but he continues to use 9/11 as an excuse for American policies that bend the rules and play to our worst instincts.


    "I have really struggled with this because the detainees, their families and much of the world will think this is a religious war based on some of the techniques used, even though it is not the case," the former sergeant, Erik R. Saar, 29, told The Associated Press. The A.P. got a manuscript of his book, deemed classified pending a Pentagon review.


    What good is it for President Bush to speak respectfully of Islam and claim Iraq is not a religious war if the Pentagon denigrates Islamic law - allowing its female interrogators to try to make Muslim men talk in late-night sessions featuring sexual touching, displays of fake menstrual blood, and parading in miniskirt, tight T-shirt, bra and thong underwear?


    It's like a bad porn movie, "The Geneva Monologues." All S and no M.


    The A.P. noted that "some Guantánamo prisoners who have been released say they were tormented by 'prostitutes.' "


    Mr. Saar writes about what he calls "disturbing" practices during his time in Gitmo from December 2002 to June 2003, including this anecdote related by Paisley Dodds, an A.P. reporter:


    A female military interrogator who wanted to turn up the heat on a 21-year-old Saudi detainee who allegedly had taken flying lessons in Arizona before 9/11 removed her uniform top to expose a snug T-shirt. She began belittling the prisoner - who was praying with his eyes closed - as she touched her breasts, rubbed them against the Saudi's back and commented on his apparent erection.


    After the prisoner spat in her face, she left the room to ask a Muslim linguist how she could break the prisoner's reliance on God. The linguist suggested she tell the prisoner that she was menstruating, touch him, and then shut off the water in his cell so he couldn't wash.


    "The concept was to make the detainee feel that after talking to her he was unclean and was unable to go before his God in prayer and gain strength," Mr. Saar recounted, adding: "She then started to place her hands in her pants as she walked behind the detainee. As she circled around him he could see that she was taking her hand out of her pants. When it became visible the detainee saw what appeared to be red blood on her hand. She said, 'Who sent you to Arizona?' He then glared at her with a piercing look of hatred. She then wiped the red ink on his face. He shouted at the top of his lungs, spat at her and lunged forward," breaking out of an ankle shackle.


    "He began to cry like a baby," the author wrote, adding that the interrogator's parting shot was: "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."


    A female civilian contractor kept her "uniform" - a thong and miniskirt - on the back of the door of an interrogation room, the author says.


    Who are these women? Who allows this to happen? Why don't the officers who allow it get into trouble? Why do Rummy and Paul Wolfowitz still have their jobs?


    The military did not deny the specifics, but said the prisoners were treated "humanely" and in a way consistent "with legal obligations prohibiting torture." However the Bush White House is redefining torture these days, the point is this: Such behavior degrades the women who are doing it, the men they are doing it to, and the country they are doing it for.


    There's nothing wrong with trying to squeeze information out of detainees. But isn't it simply more effective to throw them in isolation and try to build some sort of relationship?


    I doubt that the thong tease works as well on inmates at Gitmo as it did on Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.




    --------------------------------------------------------


    --------------------------------------------------------


     


     


     

January 25, 2005


  • OP-ED COLUMNIST


    The Greenspan Succession


    By PAUL KRUGMAN





    Alan Greenspan is expected to retire next year. The Bush administration, because of its nature, will have a hard time finding a successor.


    One Fed chairman famously described his job as being to "take away the punch bowl just when the party gets going." Bond and currency markets want monetary policy in the hands of someone who will say no to politicians. When a country's central banker is suspected of having insufficient spine, the result is higher interest rates and a weaker currency.


    Today it's even more crucial than usual that the Fed chairman have the markets' trust. The United States is running record budget and trade deficits, and the foreigners we depend on to cover those deficits are losing faith. According to yesterday's Financial Times, central banks around the world have already started shifting into euros. If Mr. Greenspan is replaced with someone who looks like a partisan hack, capital will rush to the exits, the dollar will plunge, and interest rates will soar.


    Yet President Bush, as you may have noticed, only appoints yes-men (or yes-women). This is most obvious on the national security front, but it's equally true with regard to economic policy. The current Treasury secretary has no obvious qualifications other than loyalty. The new head of the National Economic Council apparently got the job because he is a Bush classmate and fund-raiser.


    Of course, Mr. Greenspan himself has become a Bush yes-man. The chairman acted as a stern father figure, demanding fiscal rectitude, when Democrats held the White House. But he turned into an indulgent uncle when Mr. Bush took office. First, he urged Congress to cut taxes in order, he said, to prevent an excessively large budget surplus. Then, when surpluses were replaced by huge deficits, he supported a highly irresponsible second round of tax cuts.


    Nonetheless, Mr. Greenspan retains considerable credibility with the markets. Who else can satisfy both Mr. Bush and foreign investors?


    For a while, the presumed front-runner to succeed Mr. Greenspan was Martin Feldstein of Harvard. Mr. Feldstein, like Mr. Greenspan, has a reputation built over a long, distinguished career. Also like Mr. Greenspan, he is a former crusader for fiscal responsibility who became an apologist for budget deficits once Mr. Bush took office.


    I've known Mr. Feldstein a long time, and worked for him at Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers. He used to be a deficit hawk; now, out of what may be sincere conviction but looks from the outside like an effort to demonstrate political loyalty, he endorses tax cuts in the face of large budget gaps and gigantic borrowing to privatize Social Security.


    But it's reportedly not enough, because right-wingers have never forgiven Mr. Feldstein for his finest hour - the time when, as a member of the Reagan administration, he spoke out against deficits. It's not just vindictiveness on their part: a man who once took a stand on principle while holding office might do so again once ensconced at the Fed.


    Glenn Hubbard of Columbia, who served in the administrations of both Bushes, is also frequently mentioned. He's a smart economist, but everything in his policy career suggests that when the party really got going, he would say: "More punch? Yes, sir, whatever you want."


    The last name one often hears is Ben Bernanke, currently a member of the Fed's Board of Governors. (Before going to the Fed, Mr. Bernanke was chairman of the Princeton economics department, where I'm on the faculty.) If Mr. Bernanke were appointed directly from his current Fed position to the chairmanship, there would be general acclaim. But he may soon move to the Council of Economic Advisers. Why?


    Surely it's not because this administration, with its disdain for technical expertise in all fields, wants his advice. I hope I'm wrong, but my guess is that what's intended for Mr. Bernanke is a form of hazing: he will be expected to prove his loyalty by defending the indefensible and saying things he knows aren't true.


    That might seem a tolerable price to pay for the Fed chairmanship - but a year of it might well make Mr. Bernanke damaged goods from the point of view of the markets.


    It's a dilemma. I don't have any sympathy for the administration's perplexity. But I do wish Mr. Bernanke the best of luck, and hope he knows what he's doing.


     


    -------------------------------------------------------


    -------------------------------------------------------


     



    Backers of Gay Marriage Ban Use Social Security as Cudgel


    By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG





    WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - A coalition of major conservative Christian groups is threatening to withhold support for President Bush's plans to remake Social Security unless Mr. Bush vigorously champions a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.


    The move came as Senate Republicans vowed on Monday to reintroduce the proposed amendment, which failed in the Senate last year by a substantial margin. Party leaders, who left it off their list of priorities for the legislative year, said they had no immediate plans to bring it to the floor because they still lacked the votes for passage.


    But the coalition that wrote the letter, known as the Arlington Group, is increasingly impatient.


    In a confidential letter to Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's top political adviser, the group said it was disappointed with the White House's decision to put Social Security and other economic issues ahead of its paramount interest: opposition to same-sex marriage.


    The letter, dated Jan. 18, pointed out that many social conservatives who voted for Mr. Bush because of his stance on social issues lack equivalent enthusiasm for changing the retirement system or other tax issues. And to pass to pass any sweeping changes, members of the group argue, Mr. Bush will need the support of every element of his coalition.


    "We couldn't help but notice the contrast between how the president is approaching the difficult issue of Social Security privatization where the public is deeply divided and the marriage issue where public opinion is overwhelmingly on his side," the letter said. "Is he prepared to spend significant political capital on privatization but reluctant to devote the same energy to preserving traditional marriage? If so it would create outrage with countless voters who stood with him just a few weeks ago, including an unprecedented number of African-Americans, Latinos and Catholics who broke with tradition and supported the president solely because of this issue."


    The letter continued, "When the administration adopts a defeatist attitude on an issue that is at the top of our agenda, it becomes impossible for us to unite our movement on an issue such as Social Security privatization where there are already deep misgivings."


    The letter also expressed alarm at recent comments President Bush made to The Washington Post, including his statement that "nothing will happen" on the marriage amendment for now because many senators did not see the need for it.


    "We trust that you can imagine our deep disappointment at the defeatist position President Bush demonstrated" in the interview, the group wrote. "He even declined to answer a simple question about whether he would use his bully pulpit to overcome this Senate foot-dragging."


    The letter also noted that in an interview before the election Mr. Bush "appeared to endorse civil unions" for same-sex couples.


    The group asked Mr. Rove to designate "a top level" official to coordinate opposition to same-sex marriage, as a show of commitment.


    Trent Duffy, a spokesman for the White House, said on Monday that "the president was simply talking about a situation that exists in the Senate, not about his personal commitment or his willingness to continue to push this issue." Mr. Duffy said the "president remains very committed to a marriage amendment" and added, "We always welcome suggestions from our friends."


    Some Senate Republican leaders were not optimistic on Monday about the amendment's prospects this year.


    "I think if we had the vote right now we'd come up short," said Senator Rick Santorum, the Pennsylvania Republican who is a member of the leadership and one of the amendment's most vocal backers in Congress. "We'd like to bring it up when we have the best possible chance of getting it passed."


    The members of the coalition that wrote the letter are some of Mr. Bush's most influential conservative Christian supporters, and include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the Southern Baptist Convention, the American Family Association, Jerry Falwell and Paul Weyrich.


    Several members of the group said that not long ago, many of their supporters were working or middle class, members of families that felt more allegiance to the Democratic Party because of programs like Social Security before gravitating to the Republican Party as it took up more cultural conservative issues over the last 20 years.


    Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, declined to talk about the letter, but said, "The enthusiasm to get behind his proposals is going to require that he get behind the issues that really motivated social conservative voters."


    Asked to estimate the level of discontent with the White House among the group on a scale from one to 10, Mr. Perkins put it at 8.



    --------------------------------------------------


    --------------------------------------------------


     



    U.S. Faces More Tensions Abroad as Dollar Slides


    By DAVID E. SANGER





    This article was reported by David E. Sanger, Mark Landler and Keith Bradsher and written by Mr. Sanger.


    WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 - After a first term in which terrorism and war dominated President Bush's foreign policy agenda, his allies in Europe and Asia suspect that his next confrontation with the world could take on a very different cast: a potential currency crisis, in which a steep plunge in the value of the dollar touches off economic waves around the world.


    Already, the tensions over the dollar are becoming a recurring source of friction, a conflict that does not reverberate as loudly as the differences over Iraq but may be as deeply felt. At a meeting in Paris on Monday, the finance ministers of Germany and France complained that Europe had unjustly borne the brunt of the dollar's decline, and called for coordinated action to stop it.


    "Europe has until now paid too big a share in this readjustment," Hervé Gaymard, the French finance minister, said. His German counterpart, Hans Eichel, said the United States needed to reduce its deficits, adding "each one has to play its role."


    Two months ago, similar sentiments came from China's prime minister, Wen Jiabao, whose nation is at the center of a struggle with Washington over currency policy. He complained about the fall of the dollar, asking, "Shouldn't the relevant authorities be doing something about this?"


    In an interview just before President Bush's inauguration, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow played down the tensions. "We understand that deficits matter," he said, insisting that the tight budget Mr. Bush is expected to send to Congress next month should give foreigners and the financial markets the solace they seek.


    But should the dollar continue to fall - if, for example, global investors determined that Mr. Bush did not have the will to hold spending down - it would not only add to tensions, analysts said. It might also force up interest rates at home to keep foreigners interested in financing America's need to borrow more than $600 billion a year to cover its gap in the current account. The current account is the broadest measure of the trade and financial flows into and out of the country.


    To be sure, the dollar's fall may never reach crisis levels, and in the last few weeks, after a more or less steady fall of almost 35 percent against the euro and 24 percent against the Japanese yen over the last three years, the dollar has stabilized a bit. Many experts argue that a further decline, if relatively modest and gradual, is entirely manageable.


    Administration officials, along with a number of like-minded economists, contend that the nation's record trade and current account deficits are not particularly worrisome, a reflection more of strong foreign interest in investing in the American economy than any sign of global weakness.


    But across Asia and Europe, a wide range of officials and analysts worry that Mr. Bush's economic team may not be up to the challenge of grappling with the issue. They contend that Washington has retreated from efforts to marshal the biggest economies of the world into a mutual effort at more robust and balanced growth.


    Many European politicians and exporters cannot shake the suspicion that the Bush administration, despite its statements supporting a strong currency, has been perfectly happy to watch from the sidelines while the dollar heads down.


    At a moment of surging American trade deficits that have reached a record share of economic output, a falling dollar makes American exports more competitive and puts imports from Europe at a particular disadvantage.


    "It's hard to tell an entrepreneur to wait two years for a policy to change when he says, 'I've got to deliver my goods tomorrow,' " said Anton Boerner, the president of BGA, the Berlin-based association of wholesalers and exporters.


    Mr. Snow, for his part, paints a vastly different picture of the international economic landscape. He described the current situation as one of America's remaining the economic envy of the world, where yawning deficits are being addressed and where there is little risk that foreigners will rethink the wisdom of lending the United States hundreds of billions of dollars a year to finance the trade gap and to cover the vast borrowing needs of the federal government.


    Mr. Snow suggested some in Europe are seeking a convenient scapegoat, particularly after the tensions over Iraq, to blame for the Continent's own inability to generate stronger growth.


    "The current deficit levels are too large," Mr. Snow said, describing himself as a deficit hawk who sees a chance to cut spending because the American economy is growing again. "They have to come down, and they will come down."


    But deficits aside, he argued, "overwhelmingly the United States is looked at as the model for success." After years of stagnation in money flowing into the government, "revenues look good," and the turning point will come in a couple of weeks, he said, when Mr. Bush sends a budget to Congress in which "you will see a number of programs that not only don't grow at the rate of inflation, but that decline."


    While the budget is a domestic document, assessments of whether it will realistically grapple with the underlying problems and whether Mr. Bush has the political will to push tough measures through Congress may determine whether investors around the world stick with the American economy or head for the exits.


    'At a Critical Juncture'


    No one knows for sure if the doubts that have already contributed to the dollar's decline will intensify. Some worry that the markets may conclude that Mr. Bush will put the financing of the Iraq war, military transformation and the costs of revamping Social Security ahead of deficit reduction.


    Others fret about the risk that a large, highly leveraged hedge fund or a big bank could be caught betting the wrong way in the markets, touching off a sudden currency sell-off that could have implications for the rest of Mr. Bush's term.


    "We're at a critical juncture," said C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics, and a persistent critic of how Mr. Bush's team has handled its global economic role. "The imbalances get worse and worse," he said, rivaling Japan's in the mid-1990's.


    "The projection is that they keep rising," he added, noting that the current account deficit is running over 6 percent of the country's gross domestic product. "And it is a trajectory that is bound to crack: people will stop buying dollars, and domestic politics will make the soaring trade deficit with China just unsustainable."


    For all those fears, foreign investors are still buying American. While much of that lending last year came from central banks abroad, private investors have shown renewed confidence lately. In November, the last month for which there are reliable numbers, foreigners made net purchases of $81 billion, enough to easily pay for the amount by which American imports exceeded exports.


    "Our growth rates are still higher, over the long term, than Europe's and Japan's," said Daniel J. Ikenson, a trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute. Given that, for foreign investors, "there is no reason to think they will sell."


    But the argument around the world is as much about leadership as about the long-term strength of the economy. Unlike the debate over war in Iraq, in this case the complaint is not about American unilateralism, but American retreat.


    To America's allies, the era in which the world's largest economy also seeks to be the world's economic leader has simply halted. Under both James A. Baker III, a Republican, and Robert E. Rubin, a Democrat, the Treasury Department was viewed as one of Washington's most powerful institutions. It flexed its muscles to trim the market's extremes and stem crises, from an excessively strong dollar in the 1980's to the currency collapses of the 1990's that stretched from Latin America to Asia to Russia.


    There has not been an economic crisis of significant magnitude since Mr. Bush came to office. John B. Taylor, the Treasury under secretary for international affairs, said that was partly a result of preventive maintenance. "My first days on the job we had a crisis in Turkey and one coming in Argentina and Brazil," he said. "Both were contained."


    Today the Treasury is regarded as a vastly diminished institution, with comparatively little influence in the White House. Mr. Bush is seen, rightly or wrongly, as far less comfortable dealing with global economic management than he is sitting in the Situation Room, buried in the details of the Iraqi insurgency or Iran's nuclear threat.


    As a result, the weakening dollar, to the minds of many from Hong Kong to Berlin, is a metaphor for a presidency so distracted by national security issues that American economic influence has ebbed.


    China Stands Its Ground


    Washington's lack of success so far in pressuring China to finally allow its currency to float, or at least appreciate significantly to reflect its vastly stronger economy, is cited as the most striking evidence of Washington's diminished economic influence. Beijing has used other issues, chiefly the Bush administration's dependence on China to help prevent North Korea's development of nuclear weapons from touching off a wider conflagration, to keep currency demands on the back burner.


    That has contributed to a Chinese export surge that has soared to levels almost no one predicted when the United States, Europe and China reached agreement on the accord that brought Beijing into the World Trade Organization at the end of the Clinton administration.


    The Chinese, like the Japanese in their heyday, have begun to question American economic policy. American officials say that the Chinese could solve a lot of problems by not linking their currency to the dollar, a step toward solving a trade surplus that looks set to hit a record of nearly $200 billion for 2004. It is a subject of enormous political sensitivity in Beijing, because of its effect on the breakneck pace of China's economic growth.


    But Mr. Taylor, the Treasury official, notes that teams of officials have visited China to offer advice about how to manage a floating currency and the Chinese last year hired the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to help it develop a market in currency futures.


    "You don't do that," Mr. Snow said, "if you are planning to keep the currency pegged to the dollar."


    Seeking U.S. Leadership


    China is only one piece of the global economic puzzle. The lack of interest by Mr. Bush and Mr. Snow to put together a global accord on currency, akin to the Plaza Accord that Mr. Baker organized in 1985, is viewed as evidence that Washington is content with a downward drift of the dollar. And there is no one to replace the American role.


    "It will be a world of chaos without a center," said Hideo Kumano, a senior economist at the Dai-Ichi Life Research Institute in Tokyo. Japan itself, after a decade of downward spiral that only now seems to be ending, has lost all pretense of assuming the mantle of leadership. Bush administration officials have a deep skepticism bordering on an outright ideological objection to intervening in the markets.


    Certainly China, while growing in leaps and bounds, has neither the capacity nor the interest. "China has a big population and big economic growth, but it is not a mature economic system yet," Mr. Kumano noted. "I cannot imagine it replacing Europe or Japan in terms of influence in the world economy. In such a condition, everyone must cope with a world economy where you cannot rely on America."


    For all the worries abroad, the Bush administration sees few signs of stress. "You don't have any major economy now in recession, and volatility is low," Mr. Taylor said. "Even inflation is contained in the emerging markets."


    But the lesson of the 1990's is that currency crises, like the terror strikes of more recent years, are nearly impossible to predict.


    "Financing of the U.S. current account deficit has gone more smoothly than many economists were predicting just a few years ago," wrote Roger M. Kubarych, a former chief economist at the New York Stock Exchange who is now a scholar at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan research group.


    "But that does not mean that market stability can be taken for granted forever."



    David E. Sanger reportedfrom Washington for this article, Mark Landler from Frankfurt and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.




    -------------------------------------------------------------


    -------------------------------------------------------------


     


     

January 24, 2005






  • Johnny Carson, Low-Key King of Late-Night TV, Dies at 79


    By RICHARD SEVERO and BILL CARTER





    Johnny Carson, the droll, puckish, near-effortless comedian who dominated late-night television for 30 years, tucking millions of Americans into bed as the host of the "Tonight" show, died yesterday in Los Angeles. He was 79.


    The cause was the effects of emphysema, family members said.


    Mr. Carson took over the "Tonight" show from Jack Paar on Oct. 1, 1962, and, preferring to retire at the top of his game, voluntarily surrendered it to Jay Leno on May 22, 1992. During those three decades, he became the biggest, most popular star American television has known. Virtually every American with a television set saw and heard a Carson monologue at some point in those years. At his height, between 10 million and 15 million Americans slept better weeknights because of him.


    Mr. Carson was often called "the king of late night," and he wielded an almost regal power. Beyond his enormous impact on popular culture, Mr. Carson more than any other individual shifted the nexus of power in television from New York to Los Angeles, with his decision in 1972 to move his show from its base in Rockefeller Center in New York to NBC's West Coast studios in Burbank, Calif. That same move was critical in the changeover of much of television from live to taped performances.


    In his monologue and in his time, Mr. Carson impaled the foibles of seven presidents and their aides as well as the doings of assorted nabobs and stuffed shirts from the private sector: corporate footpads and secret polluters, tax evaders, preening lawyers, idiosyncratic doctors, oily accountants, defendants who got off too easily and celebrities who talked too much.


    All these oddments were sliced and diced so neatly, so politely, so unmaliciously, with so much alacrity, that even the stuffiest conservative Republicans found themselves almost smiling at Mr. Carson's Nixon-Agnew jokes and uptight doctrinaire liberal Democrats savored his pokes at Lyndon B. Johnson and the Kennedys. Members of the public couldn't say whether they were on Johnny Carson's side or he was on theirs. All they knew was that they liked him and felt they knew him - a claim most of those who were close to him in his life, including his wives, family and "Tonight" staff members, would not make with much confidence. They knew Mr. Carson was intensely private, a self-described loner who shunned the spotlight when off camera.


    Still, Mr. Carson's scrubbed Midwestern presence was so appealing that he succeeded in unifying a fractious nation.


    "Anyone looking at the show 100 years from now," said Tom Shales, the Washington Post television critic, at the time of Mr. Carson's retirement from "Tonight" in 1992, "will probably have no trouble understanding what made Carson so widely popular and permitted him such longevity. He was affable, accessible, charming and amusing, not just a very funny comedian but the kind of guy you would gladly welcome into your home."


    During his reign, Mr. Carson was the most powerful single performer on television. He discovered or promoted new talent like Barbra Streisand and David Letterman; provided a consistent spotlight for show business warhorses like Don Rickles and Buddy Hackett; advanced the careers of emerging stars like Woody Allen, Steve Martin and, of course, his successor, Jay Leno; and helped keep older performers like Jimmy Stewart and William Demarest in the public eye.


    All the while he earned millions of dollars for himself and for his network, the National Broadcasting Company. In his heyday he generated approximately 17 percent of the network's total profit and was, by any reasonable assessment, its most lustrous star since Toscanini. He held an overwhelming majority of late-night viewers in the palm of his hand, and his show was the biggest single money-maker in television history.


    For a generation every performer of any consequence eventually made a visit to Mr. Carson's famous couch. An appearance there often signaled a performer's official acceptance as a star. Generally these performers paid homage to Mr. Carson's position of influence in show business. He was a generous host, as long as he did not feel crossed. Those on the outs with Mr. Carson frequently saw their careers damaged - most memorably the comedian Joan Rivers, who went from being his most regular guest host to a pariah for daring to mount a late-night show to challenge his without first informing him.


    In a celebrated New Yorker profile, Kenneth Tynan said of Mr. Carson that he practiced "the art of the expected." Americans were reassured when Doc Severinsen, the show's bandleader, would start up the show's bouncy theme song (written by Paul Anka and Mr. Carson himself), Ed McMahon, the jovial announcer, would intone "Heeeeere's Johnny" and prepare to guffaw at every joke Mr. Carson told, and the dapper host - he also set a fashion standard for men of the World War II generation - would appear to deliver his nightly monologue, a tour de force that the critic Les Brown called "America's bedtime story."


    Mr. Carson often turned his agile wit on himself: on his numerous unsuccessful marriages and pricey divorces; on his powerlessness at the hands of Con Edison workers who made noise under his apartment window on Manhattan's East Side when he tried to sleep (he claimed they were carting New York away, piece by piece, to New Jersey); and on his vulnerability to the people who employed him.



    Monologues With Muscle



    Mr. Carson guarded his political views as carefully as he did his private life, insisting that the only message of his show was entertainment. But his credibility with the American public was such that his monologues were carefully monitored by politicians mindful that no one who became a frequent target of Johnny Carson could long survive in public life. It didn't help Richard Nixon when Mr. Carson's monologue produced some of the funniest Watergate jokes around. Nor did it help when Mr. Carson trained his sights on former Senator Gary Hart, a Democrat from Colorado who found allure both in the presidency and in women he didn't happen to be married to. Mr. Carson's jokes about Mr. Hart's extramarital activities were surely not the only reason his political fortunes evaporated in 1988, but they were repeated often enough to have played some part.


    "You get the feeling that Dan Quayle's golf bag doesn't have a full set of irons," Mr. Carson said of another favorite target. He also joked that Jerry Brown, the Democratic former governor of California who ran for president in 1992, admitted that he had smoked marijuana in the 60's "but didn't exhale." When President Bush's father was in the White House (and Mr. Quayle was his vice president), Mr. Carson told as many anti-Bush jokes as time would allow, among them "Read my lips: no new promises."


    Each monologue contained between 16 and 22 jokes, the work of a talented stable of writers and Mr. Carson himself.


    As well turned as the jokes were, it was Mr. Carson's style and timing that put them over, seemingly without effort. He was also a master at milking laughs out of bad jokes and bad audiences, using either a facial reaction or a prepared line about how badly he was bombing that night.


    When he finished his monologue he would pantomime a golf swing and go to his desk, where he would usually perform a second comedy bit. His nervous habits and tics became familiar to the late-night nation: a heavy smoker, he would drum his cigarette (he later substituted a pencil) while his guests performed.


    His biggest single audience tuned in on Dec. 17, 1969, to watch Tiny Tim, the falsetto singer, marry Vicki Budinger, a 17-year-old fan the singer called Miss Vicki. (The couple later divorced.) An estimated 58 million viewers watched the event, an enormous audience by any standard and, in terms of percentage of the overall population, the equivalent of about 80 million today.


    Another memorable moment occurred in 1963, when one of Mr. Carson's guests was Ed Ames, an actor-singer who played an Indian on the television series "Daniel Boone." Mr. Ames was there to teach Mr. Carson how to throw a tomahawk, and he brought along a cardboard image of a sheriff as a target. In his demonstration, Mr. Ames threw the tomahawk across the stage, and it imbedded itself deeply in the sheriff's crotch. The audience was in an uproar; people were literally falling out of their seats with laughter.


    When Mr. Ames went to remove the tomahawk, Mr. Carson held his arm and the uncontrolled laughter commenced anew. As the laughter subsided, Mr. Carson looked at Mr. Ames and said, "I didn't know you were Jewish."



    A One-Man Cast of Characters



    Mr. Carson also portrayed a variety of characters, among them Art Fern, an untrustworthy salesman; Floyd R. Turbo, an opinionated bumpkin; Carnac the Magnificent, an all-knowing seer; and Aunt Blabby, a gossipy old woman. The foils to which Mr. Carson returned time and time again included his doctor, Al Bendova; his accountants, H&R Goniff; and his lawyer, Bombastic Bushkin. (For a while he actually had a lawyer named Henry Bushkin, with whom he later fell out bitterly.)


    Many of Mr. Carson's best moments from his early years in the show will never be seen again because of a colossal error by an unknown NBC technician who, looking for space to record new material, taped over hundreds of hours of old "Tonight" shows. The loss of so much of his work appalled Mr. Carson, who made moves later in his career to ensure that he and he alone would control his work.


    Over the course of his career, Mr. Carson also played host to a string of marsupials, spiders, serpents, felines (some rather large, playful and unpredictable), creative canines, canny birds and at least one elephant. He also wrestled Antonino Rocca, played baseball with Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris, became a human canvas for the painter Walter Gaudnek and, on one occasion, parachuted from an airplane, doing a 10,000-foot free fall before he pulled the ripcord - all to get a laugh and thrill his viewers. He did not tell NBC beforehand.


    Throughout his career, Mr. Carson was instrumental in changing some of the bedrock ways television operated. His move to Burbank meant a realignment of American pop culture from East Coast to West Coast, from Broadway to Hollywood. And once the "Tonight" show ceased to be televised live from 11:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. and began being taped in the early evening, it lost some of the spontaneity and sense of danger that live performance brings (and also, eventually, a half-four of its running time). The practice of taping is now the norm, and virtually all live entertainment programming on national television has become a thing of the past.


    Mr. Carson was secure enough in his power that he never appeared to curry favor with sponsors, television executives or politicians, and audiences seemed to appreciate him for asserting such independence. But NBC occasionally tried, to its regret, to rein him in.


    In 1979 the network's president, Fred Silverman, under the gun as ratings and profits were in free fall, began to complain publicly that Mr. Carson took too much time off and that he should rely less on repeats of past shows.


    Just as publicly, Mr. Carson announced his intention to quit the show as soon as his contract expired. A frightened network then capitulated abjectly, conceding more to Mr. Carson than any star before had ever dreamed of attaining. He not only won the biggest salary in television, $5 million a year, but also wrung from the network a series of commitments for other shows for his production company. The total deal was worth more than $50 million, an unheard-of amount in that era of television.


    Perhaps more important, Mr. Carson gained full ownership of his show from the network. He would realize all future profits on resale of his "Tonight" material, a deal that generated many more millions as videocassettes of his classic performances were sold to the public. In addition, and perhaps most significant, he forced NBC to cut his show from 90 minutes a night to one hour.


    That decision ushered in a new late-night time period, which was occupied first by David Letterman and then Conan O'Brien. This second late-night front eventually generated hundreds of millions of dollars for NBC.


    At the time, however, NBC had been humbled by its signature star. Asked if his new deal suggested that NBC was in trouble, Mr. Carson replied, "That's like saying the Titanic had a small leak."



    Enter the Great Carsoni



    John William Carson was born Oct. 23, 1925, in Corning, Iowa, one of three children of Homer L. Carson (known as Kit but no relation to the western hero), a manager for Iowa and Nebraska Light and Power, and Ruth Hook Carson, an extroverted homemaker who had a flair for theatrics, although she never worked in show business professionally. Johnny had a younger brother, Richard, who became a television director and directed the "Tonight" show for a time, and an older sister, Catherine.


    In 1933, the family moved to Norfolk, Neb., where Johnny grew up unremarkably. A somewhat better-than-average student, he noticed, when he was in the fifth grade, that he could call attention to himself by telling amusing stories.


    When he was 12 years old, he read "Hoffmann's Book of Magic" and liked it so much that he sent away for a mail-order magic kit. All his energies immediately went to mastering card tricks and other feats of prestidigitation. Intrigued by the stories he had read about the great magician Harry Houdini, he decided he would be known as "the Great Carsoni," and his mother embroidered that name on a black cloth that he draped on a magician's work table she gave him when he turned 13. He used it when he made his professional debut, at 14, before the Norfolk Rotary Club, a performance for which he earned $3.


    Magic was not his only interest. On Sunday evenings he would lie on the floor in front of the family radio and listen to Jack Benny. Mr. Carson's original style and timing were derived from Benny, which he always acknowledged. As a boy, he would commit Benny's best gags to memory and recite them the next day in the schoolyard.


    He also wrote a humor column for his high school newspaper and, as his interest in things theatrical grew, he became a part-time usher in the local Granada movie house. When he graduated in 1943, his friend Larry Sanford signed his yearbook, "John, if you don't get killed in the war you'll be a hell of an entertainer some day."


    Soon after graduation he joined the Navy, was sent to midshipmen's school at Columbia University, and spent what remained of World War II as an ensign aboard the U.S.S. Pennsylvania, serving in the Pacific.


    After the war he entered the University of Nebraska, where he was active in student theatrical productions. He played Cleopatra in a college farce entitled "She Was Only a Pharaoh's Daughter but She Never Became a Mummy." He also appeared on an early experimental television broadcast, which was seen by almost no one.


    He persuaded the university to let him write his senior thesis on comedy writing. It consisted of a tape containing material used by the leading comics of the day with Mr. Carson's explanation of why what they said was funny.


    While still in college, Mr. Carson worked part time for the radio station KFAB in Lincoln, Neb., for which he created a comic western. After earning his bachelor's degree in 1949 (after three years) he got another radio job, at WOW in Omaha, for which he was supposed to do interviews.


    In those days, national celebrities made tapes available to local radio stations in which the celebrity's writers would prepare questions for local interviewers, with the prerecorded answers given by the celebrities. But when Mr. Carson was assigned to "interview" the singer Patti Page, he changed the questions considerably. He was supposed to ask her when she started singing but instead asked, "I understand you're hitting the bottle pretty good, Patti - when did you start?" To which Miss Page's prerecorded voice replied, "When I was 6, I used to get up at church socials and do it."



    Up From 'Carson's Cellar'



    In 1951 he moved to Los Angeles, where he got a job as a staff announcer at KNXT-TV. Most of the work was routine, but he persuaded the station to give him a Sunday afternoon comedy show, "Carson's Cellar." In those days, few people bothered to watch television in the afternoon. During one telecast, a furtive figure ran by in the background. Mr. Carson advised his viewers to pay it no mind; it was only Red Skelton, and there just wasn't time that day to have Mr. Skelton perform.


    As it happened, Mr. Skelton was home that day, watching Mr. Carson in action and thoroughly enjoying what he saw. The next week he showed up unannounced and demanded to be seen and heard. Soon, Groucho Marx and Jack Benny turned up to participate in a show they thought was funny even though it did not have the budget to pay them a fee. "Carson's Cellar" was not kept by KNXT, but Mr. Skelton thought so highly of Mr. Carson's work that he hired him as a writer of his own CBS television show.


    One day in 1954, Mr. Skelton injured himself doing one of the strenuous stunts for which he was noted two hours before air time. Producers were hard pressed to find a substitute and gave Mr. Carson a chance, and he did so well that CBS offered him his own show. Mr. Carson's talent was apparent, but "The Johnny Carson Show" had trouble exploiting it. The show went through seven writers and eight directors before it folded, replaced by a dance show, "The Arthur Murray Party."


    Mr. Carson then moved to New York and spent months making guest performances on various shows. One of the shows was "Tonight," then starring Jack Paar. In 1957 he was hired as the host of "Who Do You Trust?," an ABC game show that featured interaction between host and guests. It also featured Ed McMahon as its announcer.


    In March 1962, the emotional, excitable Jack Paar decided to leave the "Tonight" show, which he had inherited from the comedian Steve Allen, after five years. Mr. Carson was offered the job and accepted, but he could not start work for six months because ABC would not release him from his contract.


    By 1969, Mr. Carson was making about $20,000 a week. But he did not get to keep all that money. His divorces were expensive. Joanna Holland, a former model who was Mrs. Johnny Carson from 1972 to 1982, got more than $20 million in cash and some property. Joanne Copeland, Ms. Holland's immediate predecessor, got $200,000 cash and a yearly "salary" of $100,000. His first wife was Jody Wolcott, his college sweetheart, who complained that she did not get enough. He is survived by his fourth wife, Alexis Maas; two sons, Curt and Corey; his brother, Richard; and his sister, Catherine. Another son, Ricky, died in a car accident in 1991.


    Asked how he became a star, Mr. Carson once replied, "I started in a gaseous state and then I cooled." Pressed further to analyze his own success, he said he worked hard on his own timing. "I have an affinity for editing and pacing," he said.


    There were times over the 30 years of Mr. Carson's stewardship when the "Tonight" show seemed to lose ground and risk appearing passé. But he would keep working the material, and the ratings would always rise again. Many talented performers tried to best him in the same time slot, including, at one time or another, Joey Bishop, Merv Griffin, Dick Cavett, Joan Rivers and Arsenio Hall. He beat them all.


    NBC was purchased by General Electric toward the end of Mr. Carson's tenure, and he showed his new bosses no more mercy than he had the old ones.


    At Christmas time in 1991, he announced in his monologue that General Electric had sent him a holiday card which announced that "in lieu of a gift, a G.E. employee has been laid off in your name."



    Familiar but Mysterious



    Although Mr. Carson was called the last man America saw before it went to sleep, he zealously guarded his private life, remaining something of a mystery man. Betty Rollin once wrote that off camera he was "testy, defensive, preoccupied, withdrawn and wonderfully inept and uncomfortable with people." Kenneth Tynan concluded that talking to him privately was like "addressing an elaborately wired security system."


    Mr. Carson rarely talked to his guests after his show. He hated parties. Although he was impeccably polite, he tried to confine his off-camera sightings to the tennis courts at Wimbledon. "My bugging point is low," he once said. "I'm not gregarious. I'm a loner. I've always been that way."


    Except for periodic appearances in Las Vegas, and some memorable assignments as host of the Oscars, Mr. Carson made few appearances outside his own show.



    He consistently refused to appear in situation comedies, which he called "death."


    His retirement in 1992 was another national event, though the show that preceded his finale on the air, which featured Bette Midler and Robin Williams as guests, was the one most of his fans remembered more than the finale itself. Ms. Midler's version of "One for My Baby (and One More for the Road)" left the audience, and the host, in tears.


    After his retirement from "Tonight," Mr. Carson was expected to appear occasionally on NBC programs. He never did. (He made one brief appearance on CBS with his old protégé Mr. Letterman.) He preferred to leave his legacy as it stood, 30 years of last-minute laughs before bedtime.


    Someone once asked Mr. Carson what he would like his epitaph to be.


    He thought for a moment and reached for the traditional line of a talk-show host:


    "I'll be right back."


     


    ----------------------------------------------------


    ----------------------------------------------------