January 8, 2007

  • January 8, 2007

    Monday, January 08, 2007

    Giants Loose To Eagles


    Doug Mills/The New York Times

    Giants quarterback Eli Manning threw two touchdowns and one interception in the Giants' 23-20 playoff loss to Philadelphia.

     

    Paul Hawthorne for The New York Times

    The Eagles' David Akers kicked the game-winning field goal as time expired. He was perfect on three attempts in the game. More Photos >

    January 8, 2007
    Eagles 23, Giants 20

    Giants Put Up Fight, but End Up Losing in Familiar Fashion

    PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 7 — The ultimate downfall was swift and agonizing for the Giants, which made it a perfectly appropriate way to end the season.

    A football sailed between the southern uprights of Lincoln Financial Field on Sunday as the last second ticked away, and the Philadelphia Eagles had a 23-20 first-round playoff victory. It ignited fireworks and a lasting cheer.

    The Giants sulked their way to the locker room, losers for the seventh time in their final nine games. The team president and co-owner John Mara sat silently in the third row of the press box.

    The loss knocked the Giants out of the playoffs and into a stage of uncertainty. The Giants were expected to be in the midst of a championship run this January. Now they have a general manager to hire and perhaps a head coach, if Mara and the team's other owners decide to dismiss Tom Coughlin.

    Minutes later, in the bowels of the stadium, Mara; Coughlin; the retiring general manager, Ernie Accorsi; and the personnel director, Jerry Reese, talked quietly.

    Coughlin had spoken to his team as if he expected to be back, players said, but did not address his job status with them or with reporters. Mara declined to answer questions.

    "Not right now," he said. "I'll have something to say in the middle of the week."

    Everyone, it seemed, was still focused on the game, not its long-ranging repercussions. It was a result that will be viewed as a fitting capper to an 8-8 regular season: filled with possibility, dissolving into a puddle of disappointment.

    The Giants had taken the game's first lead, as they did 13 times in the regular season. Predictably, they fell into old habits, squandering enviable scoring chances and letting the opponent nudge momentum the other way until the Giants were left scrambling to recover.

    Gamely, they did, showing typical fight until the end. But it proved to be only the latest tease, as the entire production — the game and the season — drifted into nothing but a memory of blown opportunities and broken hopes, carried off on a 38-yard kick by David Akers.

    The Giants tried to ride the legs of the retiring running back Tiki Barber, and he gained 137 yards on 26 carries in his final game. Sprinkled with a handful of completions from quarterback Eli Manning to receiver Plaxico Burress, including two for touchdowns, the Giants erased a 10-point deficit and found the score tied, 20-20, with 5 minutes 4 seconds remaining.

    Manning did not touch the ball again. He finished 16 of 27 passing for 161 yards, 2 touchdowns and an interception.

    The Eagles' offense slid through the Giants' defense in the final minutes, simultaneously milking the clock and moving the chains. The Giants used their remaining timeout, but they were helpless to do anything more, having used their other two on the previous drive.

    Running back Brian Westbrook, Philadelphia's versatile facsimile of Barber, carried four times for 34 yards before the Eagles squatted a few times to exhaust the Giants' season to its final three seconds.

    Those details will evaporate quickly to make room for the big picture. The Giants were 6-2 and playing the Chicago Bears for top position in the conference Nov. 12. But they lost six of their final eight regular-season games, winning the last one to slip into the playoffs.

    After Sunday's game, Coughlin hammered a theme of team unity. He is not popular with players, who tire of his militaristic ways, but the Giants never quit playing hard. It may be the key argument for keeping his job.

    "I told our team I was proud of them," Coughlin said. "I think they demonstrated a great concept of team this year. Through the bad, they hung together. There was never any quit. It wasn't always pretty. There were some ups and downs, but I was very proud that they hung together as a team."

    Coughlin has one year remaining on a four-year contract he signed in January 2004. He led the Giants to an 11-5 record and a division championship in 2005, but the Giants lost at home to the Carolina Panthers, 23-0, in the first round of the playoffs.

    The Giants have never fired a coach whose last team made the playoffs, and few coaches in N.F.L. history have been dismissed after a postseason game — and fewer still after back-to-back playoff appearances.

    "Whatever happens, it's not our decision," the rookie defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka said. "But I feel like we have a good thing going."

    By contrast, the Eagles (10-6) arrived with a five-game winning streak and a division championship gleaned from the wreckage of collapsing seasons by the Giants and Dallas Cowboys. The Giants and the Eagles, with a rivalry linked by about 100 miles of the New Jersey Turnpike, split their two regular-season games in 2006. Each team won close games on the road.

    The Giants were in position to do it again. They trailed by 17-10 at halftime and by 20-10 late in the third quarter before a 47-yard pass interference penalty against Eagles cornerback Sheldon Brown, who was trying to cover Burress on an underthrown ball, put the Giants at Philadelphia's 14.

    The Giants moved 8 more yards and were inside the 10 for the second time in the game. But, for the second time, they were forced to kick a field goal, this one 10 seconds into the fourth quarter as the sky spit a slight drizzle.

    The Giants got the ball back, and Manning coolly led them on an 80-yard drive that needed to go 100 yards because of three consecutive penalties.

    The Giants drove to the Eagles' 23 with 7:04 remaining in the game. Then tackle David Diehl was called for a false start. Guard Chris Snee was called for another. And a long gain on a screen pass to Barber was wiped out by a holding penalty on Snee. The Giants had first and 30 at the 43.

    After an incompletion, Manning lobbed an 18-yard pass to Burress, then hit him again with a quick strike to the left for a first down. Seemingly granted a pardon from season's end, the Giants tied the score, 20-20, on an 11-yard touchdown pass to Burress over the middle with 5:04 remaining.

    As much as the ending stung, the Giants might look at their inefficiencies earlier in the game as the precursors to the loss.

    The Giants were inside Eagles territory on six drives in the first three quarters, including two forays inside the 10-yard line, but the chances were converted into a touchdown and two short field goals.

    Outside the locker room, Barber received hugs and congratulations from friends and family, then gave Coughlin an endorsement, saying he had "done great things in his three years here."

    His now-former teammates filed past him quietly, not sure what the future holds, certain only that the season was gone.


    1:58 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

    Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency

    January 2, 2007    

    Gary Kemper/Associated Press


    Amazing Race Ben Johnson, right, outruns Carl Lewis, middle, to 100-meter gold in Seoul in 1988. Pound had to defend Johnson after he tested positive for a steroid because Pound was the only lawyer in the Canadian delegation. The gold medal was eventually awarded to Lewis.

    Jennifer Karady for The New York Times
     

    Dick Pound, chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency and global evangelist for the cause of pure sport, is not, technically, a law-enforcement man, but he thinks like one. He is part romantic, part hard-boiled realist. He hopes for the best from people but is not surprised when he doesn't get it. He believes deeply in the grandeur of sport, less so in the goodness of athletes.

    Pound has been WADA's leader since the International Olympic Committee created it in 1999 to "harmonize" efforts to clean up the murky underworld of performance enhancement. In theory, he could have limited his concerns to the various Olympic sports, but instead he has also sparred with what he likes to call the "North American pro leagues," including Major League Baseball, whose anti-doping policies he has long characterized as "a joke." His style is all confrontation, all the time, and the bigger the target — Carl Lewis, Lance Armstrong, the entire U.S. Olympic establishment — the better.

    As it happened, the news that the cyclist Floyd Landis had failed a drug test at the Tour de France broke in July, in the midst of a series of interviews I had with Pound in Montreal, where he runs WADA and also holds down more big jobs and positions than would seem humanly possible: partner at a top law firm, chancellor of McGill University, member of the I.O.C. and editor of something called Pound's Tax Case Notes. He belongs, as well, to that bizarre subset of people who write long books as a hobby, eight of them so far. (One that I picked up in an anteroom of his office, a history of his law firm, ran to a door-stopping 559 pages.)

    On this particular day, Pound, who is 64, looked tired. His broad face was drawn, his complexion pasty. He had just returned from China, and his back hurt. Thinking about Landis seemed to enliven him. He spoke of the cyclist as if he were some sleazy perp just collared by the vice squad. "He was 11 minutes behind or something, and all of the sudden there's this Herculean effort, where he's going up mountains like he's on a goddamn Harley," he said. In the 2006 tour, Landis raced in pain while awaiting a hip replacement, went out to an early lead, lost it, then seemed to miraculously regain it. "It's a great story," Pound said. "Wonderful. But if it seems too good to be true, it probably is."

    Pound took something like a schoolboy's delight in talking about Landis's lab result, which supposedly showed his testosterone level to be grotesquely above what is typical for most men. Landis has denied taking a prohibited substance and is fighting what could be a two-year ban from cycling. "I mean, it was 11 to 1!" Pound said, referring to Landis's reported testosterone-to-epitestosterone ratio, a measure used to identify doping. "You'd think he'd be violating every virgin within 100 miles. How does he even get on his bicycle?"

    With an annual budget of $22 million, WADA oversees the testing done by the world's sports federations. The agency finances research, credentials a global network of drug-testing laboratories, conducts some of its own drug-testing of athletes and regularly updates its list of banned substances. It puts out a number of publications, among them a magazine called Play True. Its most important accomplishment has been to persuade 191 nations, including the United States, to sign on to its Anti-Doping Code — which prohibits most of the world's top athletes from taking anything on WADA's list of banned substances and, in the event of violations, generally blocks them from appealing to the legal systems in their home countries. (Appeals are heard by the Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport.)

    WADA's targets — drug-taking athletes and their coaches, handlers and chemists — have plenty of money and science on their side. They invent new compounds or new methods of masking old drugs, and all Pound and his allies can do is try to anticipate their moves and try to catch them. The drugs work remarkably well — see East German women's track-and-field athletes, circa 1980s, or big-league baseball players, 1990s — and in ways that often surprise anti-doping authorities.

    Performance enhancement is like any other kind of underground activity: the participants are the only ones who know for sure what they're up to. Anabolic steroids were for weight lifters, home-run hitters and sprinters and would never help an athlete in an endurance event like the Tour de France, right? Yet that's what Landis tested positive for. How that might have helped him climb mountains is unknown — except, if he took them, by Landis and any enablers. Everybody thought pitchers never used steroids because they value flexibility more than strength. Then baseball started checking for steroids, and about half the positive tests came from pitchers. In university laboratories across the world, and in places like the United States Department of Defense, scientists are dreaming up yet new ways to enhance human beings — steps that may very well be taken by elite athletes before they are perfected or even considered safe.

    Battling the known and the unknown, and probably outspent and outgunned, Pound has seized the prerogative of the underdog: fight with whatever you've got. Fight fair. Or unfair. His best weapon is his brilliance as a formulator of quotes, his ability to make headlines and call attention to his cause. (He takes great pride in this; one of his books is titled "High Impact Quotations.") Pound is not a stereotypical Canadian, if you think of Canadians as reticent, nor is he very lawyerly: he assembles whatever facts he can gather, but when they're not attainable, sometimes just makes them up.

    Take the ruckus he caused when he charged that one-third of players in the National Hockey League, or about seven per team, were using illegal performance enhancers. Sitting in his office, I asked him how he came up with that estimate. He leaned back in his chair and chuckled, completely unabashed to admit that he had just invented it. "It was pick a number," he said. "So it's 20 percent. Twenty-five percent. Call me a liar."

    Pound certainly understands that he can be abrasive. What he cannot grasp is how anyone could not comprehend the rightness, the essentiality, of his mission. "How is the sport real if the athletes are not real?" he asks. He has heard himself compared to a sheriff in the Wild West, as if that's a bad thing. "I don't get that. Weren't the sheriffs the good guys?"

    Pound grew up, as he likes to say, in a succession of "smelly mill towns" in Canada, wherever his father, an engineer, happened to be working. The last of them, Ocean Falls, 36 hours north of Vancouver, reachable only by boat, had a smaller-than-regulation-size indoor pool and a gifted coach who birthed a succession of great swimmers, the best of them Pound, who by the time he reached McGill University was known as Dick Pound the Swimmer, a man on his way to a sixth-place finish in the 100-meter freestyle at the 1960 Summer Games in Rome and a place of prominence in Montreal and, beyond that, greater Canada.

    Pound will mention his athletic exploits, but usually with a hint of self-deprecation. "If you want a pointless statistic," he said to me at one point, "I am the last Canadian to reach the final of the 100 freestyle."

    He passed up a chance at the 1964 Olympics and set out on his career. He is a tax lawyer by trade. His position as chancellor at McGill is largely ceremonial, although it takes up hundreds of hours a year. He was previously president of McGill's alumni association and of its board of governors.

    Kip Cobbett, the managing partner at Stikeman Elliott, Pound's law firm, describes his colleague as almost frighteningly efficient: "You ask him for a memo on some complicated topic, it's on your desk 15 minutes later, and it's perfect." It helps that Pound can so quickly access his opinions. "He is willing to draw conclusions before other people are willing to draw conclusions," Cobbett says. "That's not a common thing anymore, whether because of caution or political correctness."

    Pound was first elected to the I.O.C. in 1978, and his quarter-century tenure has been marked by several anomalies — the most intriguing one his defense, in 1988, of Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter who won the 100-meter dash at the Summer Games in Seoul but then tested positive for the steroid stanozolol. Still a decade away from his incarnation as a crusader against performance-enhancing drugs, Pound represented Johnson before the I.O.C.'s medical commission after Johnson's positive test — a job Pound says was foisted upon him because there was no other lawyer with the Canadian delegation.

    After Johnson assured Pound he was clean, Pound asked him, Could someone have spiked his post-race beer? No, he got his own beer. Anything unusual in the collection of his urine sample? No, nothing. "Give me some bullets," Pound remembers thinking. "I've got nothing to say." But there wasn't much of a defense to offer. Johnson was stripped of his medal, and it was awarded to the second-place finisher, the American Carl Lewis.

    On my first visit to see Pound in Montreal, I asked him about Lewis, arguably the greatest athlete the United States has ever produced. A long jumper and a sprinter, Lewis won nine gold medals in four Summer Games between 1984 and 1996. "Carl and I are fairly cheery," Pound said. "I've never gone after him, other than to say, 'Here are some things that did happen.' "

    Pound has argued that Lewis should not have been allowed to run in Seoul should have never been in that 100 final with Ben Johnson because Lewis tested positive for a banned substance at the U.S. Track and Field Trials earlier that summer, a result that American officials disregarded. "USA Track and Field was, of course, the gold medalist at doing that," Pound told me. What Lewis tested positive for, Pound said, "was a steroid of some sort. A steroid."

    Pound is at his most ferocious, and sometimes most reckless — a one-man truth squad — when looking toward the past. But athletes live in the here and now. They don't like anyone digging into old files and certainly not into old blood or urine samples.

    In 2003, the U.S. Olympic Committee's former director of drug control turned over documents to Sports Illustrated and The Orange County Register that showed Lewis had tested positive in 1988 for banned stimulants found in cold medicine — not anabolic steroids. Many would consider that a distinction without a difference: testing positive, for whatever banned substance, often brings harsh disciplinary action. But while ephedrine and two other cold-medicine ingredients found in Lewis's system might improve performance at high-enough doses, the U.S.O.C. accepted his explanation that he took them to fight a cold.

    In a telephone interview, Lewis summed up the situation for me: "The only thing they have on me is Sudafed. A cold medicine. ... If he had any more, it would be provided."

    At one point, Pound claimed he had documents relating to Lewis's failed tests. "I have them somewhere," he said. "I wouldn't throw them away." But when I asked him before my second visit if he could dig them out, he said he couldn't find them. It didn't seem to bother him any more than acknowledging that his estimate on the percentage of chemically enhanced N.H.L. players was pretty much a wild guess. Pound's words are sort of like darts: he lets them go, accumulates points, then throws some more.

    Pound has also kept up a running battle with another American sports icon, Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France winner who has fought a seemingly endless series of allegations that he used erythropoietin, or EPO, which increases red-blood-cell production and enhances the flow of oxygen to muscles. Pound has piled on by pointing out what he calls certain "problematic statistics" — including the fact that the next three men who finished behind Armstrong in the 2005 tour, his crowning victory, were all investigated for suspected EPO use and banned from last year's tour.

    Pound leaves it at that. But the implication is clear: Armstrong was riding with a bad crowd, so how could he be clean and win? Pound told me he likes Armstrong, or at least he likes the mythic Lance: "I like the idea of sports heroes. Nothing I like better."

    They even talked on the telephone about two years ago, according to Pound, when Armstrong called to defend cycling. Pound recounted their conversation: " 'Hello, it's Lance Armstrong. I just want to tell you I love my sport.' And I said, 'That's great, Lance, but sometimes there's gotta be tough love.' It was fairly inconsequential, and we left it just short of the Hollywood producer thing — we'll do lunch."

    On matters involving Armstrong, Pound adopts a tone of insinuation often mixed with sarcasm. When I asked if he thought Armstrong cheated, Pound replied: "You've got to be kidding. Why would I get into a lawsuit with Lance? Let him deal with the problems he's created."

    Armstrong told me he telephoned Pound twice to confront him over his public comments. He also wrote the I.O.C. demanding that Pound — whom he referred to as "the quotemeister" and "a showboat" when we spoke — resign or be removed. Armstrong says he believes Pound and WADA have run roughshod over his and other athletes' rights, and he is not alone in that criticism. An investigative article by The Los Angeles Times in December concluded that the agency is "a closed, quasi-judicial system without American-style checks and balances."

    It is not always clear whether critics are objecting to WADA or Pound. The organization's Anti-Doping Code, with its limits on athletes' appeals, can certainly be construed as heavy-handed. But without it, WADA might well be tied up in an array of legal systems, from federal courts in the United States to regional courts in China to, conceivably, courts in small towns in Mongolia or Uzbekistan or wherever some athlete happened to fail a drug test.

    Pound's tendency to go off like a loose cannon is less defensible. Athletes and their representatives are beginning to challenge the legitimacy of WADA itself, rather than just the particulars of the charges against them, and Pound may be fueling that reaction. John Hoberman, a professor of Germanic languages at the University of Texas who writes extensively on issues of athletic doping, credits Pound for aggressively raising the profile of his cause but says that he has been "fast and loose with historical fact, and with what you can and cannot say with regard to the verifiable level of drug use among elite athletes."

    Because Pound engages big targets — and the biggest ones are in the United States — he has repeatedly had to fend off charges that he is somehow anti-American. "How could I be?" he responded when I asked him about this. He pointed out that his wife is from Chicago and that three of their five children attended college in the U.S.

    Then, typically, he fired off another salvo. "There aren't too many people who are prepared to point the finger at America and say: 'Hey, take off the [expletive] halo. You're just like everybody else.' That's a problem in America. America has a singular ability to delude itself."

    Pound's biggest role in sport, before joining WADA, is one that can be seen as having helped create the very thing he is now fighting. Pound was the I.O.C. money man. He recognized that Olympic organizers were undervaluing their product and, as chairman of the I.O.C.'s television and marketing committee from 1983 to 2001, he dragged the games into the big-money era by negotiating richer deals with multinationals like Visa, McDonald's, Kodak and Coca-Cola. In 1980, the I.O.C. got about $100 million for its TV rights; for the Beijing Games in 2008, the total will be nearly $2 billion.

    Pound was, as well, a trusted adviser to and protégé of Juan Antonio Samaranch, the former I.O.C. president who personally chose him for the WADA post. Samaranch, a minor official in the Fascist regime of the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco and a canny politician within the Olympic movement, appointed Pound in 1999 to lead an internal investigation into bribe-taking and the awarding of the 2002 Winter Games to Salt Lake City. That task almost certainly ended any realistic chance Pound had of succeeding his mentor as president; Pound finished third in the election for the post in 2001.

    Andrew Jennings, a British investigative journalist who has written three books on the International Olympic Committee, told me he believes Pound so valued his place within the I.O.C.'s inner circle that he abided the group's questionable ways of doing business until Samaranch cast him in the role of reformer. "He's not corrupt," Jennings says. "He's not seedy. He's too classy for that. But Dick sat very happily with this ragbag of European princes and second-rate royalty."

    Jennings says Pound "did very well at giving sports away to commercial interests" and, by making the games vastly bigger and the money available to athletes more plentiful, thereby increased temptation and cheating. "The sponsor money brought the doping," he claims, adding that it also financed the lavish travels and perks of I.O.C. members. Craig Masback, C.E.O. of USA Track and Field and a frequent target of Pound's, says that "it seems logical that with more money, there is more temptation to make the tragic decision to cheat." But he adds that it may be too pat to equate the money and drugs. "There was plenty of doping before there was a big financial incentive," Masback says.

    Pound, not surprisingly, disputes that more money begat more doping. He argues that increased revenues made sport more inclusive by enabling the I.O.C. to make grants to athletic federations in poorer nations. And if the I.O.C. is a jet-setting social club, underwritten by sponsorship money, Pound, by his own and other accounts, has never been a big part of it. While other I.O.C. members hobnobbed at Olympic venues, he says he spent "18 hours a day in a tent, baby-sitting sponsors."

    For all his quotability, Pound is not particularly gregarious and can even be socially awkward. "He's warm," says Cobbett, his law partner. "He's pleasant. He's not aloof. But he's not going to work a room."

    Pound says that by leading the Salt Lake City probe, he "saved" Samaranch and, by extension, preserved the Olympic brand. "The reason the sponsors didn't bail is because I said we would fix the problem."

    WADA, of course, is also very much about preserving the Olympic brand. Sponsors want to associate with an idealized, "Chariots of Fire" view of sport, not the doped version. Even when Olympic athletes test positive, Pound says, "it oddly enough adds to the luster of the Olympic brand. Even though we don't always get it right" — by this he means the fight for drug-free sport — "people understand and respect that we are trying, and that's what separates us from the N.F.L. and N.B.A. and others."

    WADA is a bureaucratic dynamo — an organization that in a very short time has extended its tentacles across the globe, spawned regional anti-doping organizations, created the anti-doping code and, mainly through Pound himself, broadcast a strong message that doping is risky. Violators do stand a chance of being discovered and disciplined. The Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative steroids case, which led to the suspension of the elite sprinters Tim Montgomery and Kelli White — and cast further suspicion on the slugger Barry Bonds — was first cracked open at a WADA-accredited lab in Los Angeles.

    In the previous era of doping, until the fall of the Berlin Wall, cheating tended to be sponsored by governments and inspired by nationalism — most notably in the systemic doping of the East Germans. Current doping is driven more by economics and organized on the Balco model: a loose confederation of athletes and coaches, sometimes representing various nations and sports. Anti-doping officials, Pound among them, assume there are other Balcos out there, hidden from view.

    What constitutes unfair enhancement for the purpose of athletic achievement — as opposed to, say, the latest kinds of training — is clearer to Pound than it is to some others. He says he can discern (if not always exactly define) what violates "the spirit of sport." He told me at one point: "It's like they used to say about pornography. You know it when you see it." He says "artificial" methods should not be introduced into training, and he expresses a deep concern for health: no one, he says, should have to be "a chemical stockpile" in order to compete.

    The specificity of WADA's list of banned substances — hundreds of steroids, stimulants, beta blockers, masking agents and other compounds — tends to make the whole anti-doping endeavor look tidier than it really is. Weight and endurance training, strictly speaking, enhance performance, yet nearly everyone would agree that they fall within the spirit of sport. But what about scientific approaches to nutrition? And all those vitamins and nutritional supplements that athletes gobble by the handful — believing (or hoping) that they are performance enhancers?

    Or to consider an example that WADA has recently struggled with — what about simulated high-altitude training that boosts the production of red blood cells? Some athletes are lucky enough to live at altitude; for years, others with the means to do so have traveled to train at altitude; and lately, a small number have taken to living and sleeping in hermetically sealed tents or rooms that simulate high-altitude conditions, what WADA calls "artificially induced hypoxic chambers." Pound has been troubled by them, considering them, at best, "tacky." The WADA executive board declined for now to bar them at its most recent meeting last fall, deciding instead to circulate a letter warning of possible health hazards associated with the chambers.

    Pound, though, only rarely gets bogged down in the loftier questions. He's a man who identifies a challenge and puts his head down and works. There's a tax code. There can be a drug code.

    "Who is not braced for the first renegade human clone?" Joel Garreau asks in his book "Radical Evolution." Garreau argues that the next frontier of technology will be aimed inward, toward human enhancement. This is Pound's real challenge: The future. Pound's wife, Julie Keith, a well-regarded short-story writer, says that her husband likes to "fix things" — but you can't fix what is not yet clearly in view, least of all with bluster and high-impact quotes.

    Garreau's book sounds like really far-out science fiction, but lots of cutting-edge medicine — from cochlear implants that allow the deaf to hear to retinal implants that allow the blind to see to nervous-system hookups that allow people to directly control their artificial limbs — would have seemed just as far-fetched a few decades ago. Given such advances, a current Defense Department research project to build "the metabolically dominant soldier," a warrior who can "run at Olympic sprint speeds for 15 minutes on one breath of air," hardly seems preposterous. The same goes for a "pain vaccine" that will block pain and inflammation for 30 days or drugs that will allow soldiers to fight for a week without sleep and still make good decisions.

    Much of the research Garreau uncovered is from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a longtime incubator of innovation, including a precursor of the Internet. One Darpa researcher refers to himself as a "combat zoologist." Another, the leader of the metabolically enhanced soldier project, told Garreau, "My measure of success for this is that the I.O.C. bans everything that we do."

    The references to athletics and the I.O.C. are telling. The ultimate in physical enhancement is to go beyond known current limits. Elite athletes are acutely aware of those limits, because they bump up against them daily. At some point no amount of training makes them stronger, faster or better able to endure long distances.

    The most advanced medical research, including gene therapy, exists to help severely compromised people, those with Parkinson's, diabetes, various muscle-wasting diseases; but the physical elites, those trying to push beyond the upper limits, often seem as desperate for them. Still, it's hard to disagree with Ramez Naam, who argues in "More Than Human" that researchers should not put brakes on their work because some might misuse it. "Scientists cannot draw a clear line between healing and enhancing," Naam writes.

    About four years ago, Pound became aware that a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, H. Lee Sweeney, was changing the genetic structure of mice to create supermice with greatly enhanced musculature, which is not lost as they age. The research is intended to help those with muscular dystrophy, but Sweeney has received e-mail messages and calls from weight lifters, bodybuilders and other athletes and coaches — in one case, from the coach of a high-school wrestling team — wanting to know how to adapt the technology for performance enhancement.

    When Sweeney and other scientists told Pound it was possible — although not demonstrably safe — for an enterprising chemist to appropriate the published research for athletic purposes, Pound challenged the researchers to create a test that would detect this particular form of gene doping. I heard Pound, in a speech at Princeton last fall, tell an audience that such a test was "close." Sweeney, who consults for WADA's gene-doping panel, agrees that progress is being made but says that Pound may be overstating matters.

    "They're giving out grants, and those doing the work are making progress on showing what kind of changes would occur," Sweeney explains. "But none of this convinced me that these changes are not what you would see with training. All of the tests have been done on sedentary animals. That's not the right study. You need an animal that is in training."

    The scientists Pound expects to devise tests for any new enhancements are, generally, the same ones doing the research on them — for purposes of curing the sick. They're pretty busy. Pound is never going to have more than a small part of their attention.

    And even as WADA tries to figure out how to detect whether athletes are using the latest methods of performance enhancement, ever newer research is coming on line — not off-in-the-future stuff from Darpa, but knowledge and techniques that can be applied now. For example, Sweeney says he is currently experimenting with a myostatin inhibitor in dogs; because myostatin puts the brakes on IGF-1, a protein that promotes muscle growth, when you inhibit or turn off the myostatin, the IGF-1 continues to do its work, and dogs get bigger.

    Sweeney says he hopes this science might one day help those with muscle-wasting diseases, but it is not close to being considered safe for human use. Still, it could probably be adapted for athletic enhancement even more easily than the experiments that created the supermice. And the research has all been published. "I don't think WADA considers that anyone could be doing this yet, but they sell the scientific community short if they assume that," Sweeney told me. "There are serious heart risks associated with this, but athletes, as far as I can tell, don't care."

    Sport everywhere is broken down into divisions: you play in the big leagues or Triple A. With Manchester United in the English Premier League or three rungs down with Notts County. John Hoberman, the University of Texas professor and the author of "Testosterone Dreams," is among a growing number of thinkers who envision, at some point, another way of dividing up sport: the doped and the undoped. He's not looking forward to it; he just says it's inevitable.

    "The whole reality of elite sport is that it's vulnerable to doping," Hoberman says. "The N.F.L. is a ticking time bomb. That's been a Pound topic. He's been a scold to Selig," meaning Bud Selig, Major League Baseball's commissioner. "Good for him. We need that. But I would say to him: the people who you want to idealize are not cooperating in very large numbers. And you know what? When you look at the historical record, they were never terribly interested in the first place."

    What Hoberman, who calls himself a doping historian, means is that athletes have always looked for any edge — going back to the ancient Greeks, who ate mushrooms and dried figs to gain a perceived energy boost before competition. Cyclists, as recently as a half-century ago, were using strychnine, which is a stimulant as well as a poison. Victor Conte, the Balco mastermind, has said that the sprinter Tim Montgomery told him that if he could win an Olympic gold medal, "it wouldn't matter if I died right on the other side of the finish line."

    Pound knows that some people believe he is naïvely engaged in an unwinnable fight; he's just not sure what they expect him to do. "What do you say?" he responds. "It's too complicated, too big, so let's just give up?" To simply permit unfettered doping, he says, is not a solution. "You could look at them as just gladiators, these big cartoon characters, but that's somebody's kid out there. What if your kid had to do that just to play high-school ball?"

    Pound told a freshman seminar at Princeton that WADA was "created under Swiss law." I don't think the students cared too much about that, but it is the sort of thing that's important to Pound: rules, and a structure that encodes them. Maybe what Pound has put in place — WADA, the anti-doping code, the long list of banned substances — will hold for only another decade or two. But he is determined to keep up the fight for as long as possible.

    "Here's the deal," he says. "The shot-put weighs this much. The race is so many laps long. You can't hollow out your shot-put and make it 12 pounds instead of 16. You don't start before the gun. Run 11 laps instead of 12. And part of the deal is don't use these drugs. It's kind of an affirmation when you show up at the starting line. You are making an affirmation that you are playing the game the way it is supposed to be played."

    Michael Sokolove, a contributing writer for the magazine, is working on a book about women's sports after Title IX and the high rate of injuries among young female athletes.

     

    Snowbound Neverland in Colorado

    Kevin Maloney for The New York Times

    A skier slides a rail at Echo Mountain Park in Colorado.

    January 5, 2007
    Ski Report

    Snowbound Neverland in Colorado

    SAM BUCKMELTER, who is 10 years old and lives in Denver, has spent most of his waking life studying the vainglorious snowboard acrobatics of the Great Ones — riders like Danny Kass, Jeremy Jones and Andreas Wiig— whose names and sponsors' logos are etched in the margins of his fifth-grade notebooks.

    Sam aspires to ride with the goggle-tanned gods who throw slow-motion 900s off flesh-eating cliffs and drop out of helicopters to outride thundering avalanches. Given his dream, the path was clear. Sam convinced his parents to buy him a season pass to the new Neverland of freestyle stunt pilots, Echo Mountain Park, near Evergreen, Colo.

    Perched at 10,500 feet with wraparound views of the frosted Rockies, Echo is the nation's first winter resort devoted exclusively to the contagious urge to "go huge" and "get your switch-front boardslides dialed." There are no gently groomed slopes, no wide cruiser runs, not even a single mogul field. Echo is 100 percent terrain park — 50 acres of jumps, rails, boxes, picnic tables, stairs, mailboxes and pipe. With a good-times agenda, Echo aims to be the X Games proving ground for the young and indestructible.

    Echo, 35 miles west of Denver, bodaciously bills itself as "the most exciting place to be with snow pants on." So on opening weekend in late November Sam Buckmelter came to guinea-pig the claim.

    He and an army of bandana-masked snow desperadoes — freestyle skiers and snowboarders jacked up on SoBe Full Throttle — got their shred on until 9 p.m. under lights that blazed like a Swedish solstice. They pinwheeled across monster gaps and surfed curvaceous dragon rails in "steezy" hood ornament poses while Echo's jukebox rocked the freestyle world with their favorite thrasher tunes.

    Few parents could be found on the Echo slopes — the energy, aesthetics, acoustics and entire ethos of the place is aimed at kids. Echo's owner, Jerry Petitt, said he hadn't built the park to please everyone. He has carved out a narrow, vigorous niche within the ski and snowboard market and is raising his newborn resort with a lot of parenting advice from the very 12- to 29-year-olds he hopes to serve. "It's nothing against places like Aspen, but the young people we consulted early on told us they can't afford to pay $75 for a lift ticket or $14 for a buffalo burger," Mr. Petitt said. "What kept coming back to us was: 'Keep it inexpensive. Make it for us.' "

    The lift tickets at Echo are priced for teenagers on a lawn-mowing budget, and the cuisine is spartan even by cafeteria standards: energy bars and nuke-able burritos from vending machines.

    Mr. Petitt bought the Echo property in 2003 for a mere $700,000. It was just a small defunct ski hill in the midst of a wooded 240-acre lot then. "I called my wife and said, 'We've just bought a ski area!' which went over really well," he said.

    Still a passionate skier at 61, Mr. Petitt invested $5 million to develop the first 50 acres into a terrain park, hiring Planet Snow Design, the company that built the superpipe for the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Games, to finesse the flow on each slope. They mixed boxes, stairs and rail sequences on one run, a medley of jumps and rocketing "kickers" on another. For rookies laying the foundations for their melon grabs and switch noseslides, they installed a "progression center."

    "We've got to let our riders create us," said Eric Petitt, 30, Jerry's son and the architect of Echo's guerrilla marketing campaign, which focuses on an interactive Web site with a "rant" page where kids weigh in on what they want Echo to be. He hopes to make Echo a year-round park, implementing the ideas generated in Echo's chat rooms — rock climbing, mountain biking, all-terrain skateboarding, even zip-lining.

    "We're not going to build any million-dollar homes or stone-and-timber lodges strewn with bearskin rugs," said Doug Donovan, 34, the general manager, surveying his singularly young clientele swigging Red Bull while recharging by the Xbox at the base lodge. "It's going to have a rock concert feel to it every day."

    Echo's architecture makes creative use of pre-fab industrial design, with corrugated steel and glass jutting out at crisp angles. Underground snowboarding and freestyle ski brands like 4frnt, Unity and Capita are stickered liberally on chair backs, tables and garbage cans. The walls are hung with artwork by Denver area rider-artists — a Japanese woodblock print of Mount Fuji with a snowboarder flying through the air, psychedelic abstracts painted on skateboards.

    "We looked at the industry and realized it's impossible to build a new Vail," Mr. Donovan said. "Their model is a giant real estate play more than anything. But if you're looking to make money on the slopes, you build a skateboard park on snow, close to a metropolitan area."

    All the growth over the last five years, Mr. Donovan argued, has come from snowboarders, freestyle skiers and the terrain parks that reel them in. Conglomerates like Intrawest, Vail Corporation and American Skiing Company have gobbled up full-service winter resorts where affluent baby boomers spend as much time shopping at Ralph Lauren and dining on corn-fed elk as they do out on the blue and green groomer runs. That has opened the door for smaller, easy-to-get-to day slopes to attract young, underserved locals with more chutzpah and less cash.

    BEFORE starting Echo, Mr. Donovan and Jerry Petitt looked at a trio of resorts in California — Bear Mountain, Boreal and Mountain High — that converted their beginner and intermediate slopes into terrain parks and halfpipes over the last several years, tripling their number of visitors per acre. Other small-scale ski slopes like Mountain Creek Resort in Vernon, N.J., followed suit, and megaresorts from Killington to Mammoth dialed up the wattage on their trickster terrain. But Echo is the only resort to be built expressly for baby boomers' kids — "echo boomers" like Sam Buckmelter.

    Figuring prominently in Sam Buckmelter's's personal pantheon of slope stylists are Pat Milbery and Chad Otterstrom. Both are professional shredders who came to Echo on Thanksgiving weekend to impart nuggets of launching and looping wisdom at a Pro Series Camp. "There was nothing like Echo when I was a kid," lamented Mr. Milbery, 22. "I learned how to ride by building jumps on the hill behind our house. This place is an incubator for the future of the sport — it's going to spawn bazillions of talented young riders who'll invent moves we've never dreamed of!"

    "Yeah, if I'm still in one piece by the time I'm as old as you, Milbery!" Sam Buckmelter said as he hiked up the hill. "Right now I'm learning to pop off of jumps with steeze" — style — "but one day, I'm going to throw something big off of that."

    That is a 1961 Tucker Sno-Cat. Back in the day, it groomed this former mom-and-pop one-rope-tow hill. Echo's staff painted it an electric slime green and recycled it as the platform for a house rail, a trapezoid of logs with steel rails embedded in the tops. While the campers were working on their shred cred, Echo was christening the Sno-Cat rail by holding a jibbing contest (jibbing being the term for riding gantlets of obstacles embedded in the slopes) sponsored by Rome, a low-profile snowboard and apparel company with the advertising mantra "Corrosion of the Corporate."

    Ten brothers of the board were swarming around the Sno-Cat, taking turns shredcasting the contest with a handheld mike.

    "Next rider steppin' up is Lance Machado out of Breckenridge, Co-lo-ra-do," one brother drawled with snow gangsta elocution. "This jibber is comin' in fast, firin' it up, takin' it air ... borne! Pullin' a corked three outta the hat." (Read: helicoptering 360 degrees on a tipped axis.) "That, my friends, is Lance-the-Ripper!"

    Mr. Machado, the stringy 19-year-old who won the contest, favors a sartorial style borrowed from pioneer punk rockers like Iggy Pop and the Ramones — skinny jeans and tight striped T-shirts — placing him in a sectarian group within the soul-patched, hip-hop-influenced snowboard tribe: the sub-subculture sometimes derogatively labeled Emos. "I always hear, 'Are those pants painted on or something?' from what I call the 'food court gangstas,' " Mr. Machado said.

    The politics of shred fashion are murky. But there is a shared ethic behind Mr. Machado's punk-chic and the standard saggy pants and XXL parkas: Both are anti-brand and, if possible, label averse. It's a culture of irreverent individualism to which the Echo design team is acutely sensitive.

    Loud banners advertising overexposed corporate brands (Burton, Salomon, Oakley) are shunned here. Only the Echo insignia is stamped on the park's centerpiece, a 23-foot-high structure shaped like a Stomp Rocket called Knuckles that riders and skiers slide up, flip off and soar over.

    "Without a doubt, there'll be some carnage off of it," said Marc Vitelli, who helped design Knuckles. "For those who dare ride up it, it's game on — anything can happen!" he shouted as a twin-tip skier popped off the hip, arcing backward, arms outspread, a snowboarding Greg Louganis tracing the sky with his fingertips. Seconds later, the rider lawn-chaired (collapsed) on impact.

    "Insufficient rotation" was Mr. Vitelli's critique, though he whooped approvingly. The only way to learn how to stomp tricks, he said, is by going huge and embracing the occasional yard sale (a total wipeout that litters gear all over the slope).

    Alas, there are no heated pools at Echo to soak battered body parts at the end of the day, and in fact no overnight facilities at this stage. "Unless you want to crash on my couch," offered Mr. Vitelli, who lives in Evergreen. Eventually, Echo may add a youth hostel-style bunkhouse to spare its customers multiple laps driving up and down the steep, sometimes treacherous 12-mile road between Evergreen and the resort.

    But Echo has its advantages. Set in the front range of the Rockies, it typically gets late snows that can last until May. And unlike most Colorado resorts, it isn't on Forest Service land, so there's no regulated close date. Most riders won't complain about the drive back and forth from Denver, since they'll completely bypass the I-70 parking lot of weekend skier traffic, and pay less than half the price of tickets at the ski-tropolises on the other side of the conga line.

    Still, Echo isn't likely to spark a flood of émigrés from stodgy megaresorts. But for the Sam Buckmelters who are coming up at a time when freestyle skiing and boarding are gaining legitimacy, Echo could be the fuse that lights the next revolution in snow sliding.

    "I'm stoked," Sam said.

    VISITOR INFORMATION

    ECHO MOUNTAIN PARK (303-325-7347; www.echomountainpark.com), 35 miles from Denver, is open daily from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. Lift tickets are $25 on weekdays, $35 on weekends (less if you buy in "six-packs" or "three-packs") and $20 after 4 p.m.

    Boards, boots and twin-tip skis can be rented from Echo's Garage, the park's retail and rental shop, for $25 a day.

    Events are held every weekend, like the Shut Up and Snowskate competition on Jan. 6 and the Armashreddin' Colorado versus Colorado State battle on Jan. 20. The Sports Monster League on Wednesday nights is billed as the first social snow-sports league in Colorado.


     

    Mr. Rock ’n’ Roll Goes to Congress

    January 7, 2007    
    Keith Bedford for The New York Times

    John Hall before an appearance on "The Colbert Report."

    Mr. Hall, center, with Orleans.

    January 7, 2007

    Mr. Rock 'n' Roll Goes to Congress

    AT the peak of their popularity, the 1970s band Orleans was touring 10 months a year, performing their big hits "Still the One" and "Dance With Me." But John Hall, the band's guitarist, wasn't content to stick to the bouncy tunes and lyrics about sweet romance. He also used the stage to lecture audiences about the dangers of plutonium production.

    "He would take the liberty of getting on the soapbox at a lot of concerts and go on a bit about nuclear power," said Larry Hoppen, the bass guitarist for Orleans. "But you have to understand it in the context of the '70s, with the Nixon thing and the nuke thing.

    "In retrospect, it was uncomfortable sometimes, but it was never so bad that a manager said, 'Hey, you've got to cut this stuff out.' "

    Mr. Hall's rock friends became used to the policy wonk within. Jackson Browne remembers him talking politics backstage while packing up his guitar.

    Mr. Hall was one of many political activists from that era. But when he was sworn in as a congressman on Thursday, he became the first bona fide rock 'n' roll musician in the House of Representatives. (Sonny Bono did not play an instrument.)

    The ratty T-shirts and the long hair are gone, and the bare-chested album covers have given way to dark suits, conservative ties and wingtip shoes. When Mr. Hall, 58, unfolds his lanky frame out of his Subaru Outback, he looks corporate, and when he speaks, the words spew in paragraphs on topics like the importance of renewable energy and raising the minimum wage.

    But then there is that moment he plays air guitar to illustrate how facile he is with his left hand. And there are the first name references to Bonnie, Jackson and Pete (Raitt, Browne and Seeger).

    "John somehow managed to keep the idealism that so many people had in the '60s and '70s, while at the same time mastering a kind of pragmatism," said Mr. Browne, who collaborated with Mr. Hall in the studio and in an antinuclear movement in the 1970s.

    Mr. Hall, a Democrat, defeated Sue W. Kelly, the Republican who had held the seat for six terms, to represent the 19th Congressional District of New York, which stretches from the Connecticut line, through the Hudson Valley, across the Catskills and to the Pennsylvania border.

    His inauguration ceremony was attended by his daughter, parents, brother and other supporters; afterward his New York delegation colleagues Nita Lowey and Elliot Engel stopped by. That day, he also helped elect Nancy Pelosi as the first female speaker of the House and tackled ethics rules and legislation.

    Other entertainers have been elected to office — Ronald Reagan, Arnold Schwarzenegger — but most have been Republicans. Mr. Hall is as liberal as the "Bring Them Home" ribbon decal on his car suggests, campaigning not only for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq but also for universal health care and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

    Even in a Congress elected to bring change, his positions are a step to the left of many representatives, and he is a relative novice to politics, his previous electoral experience limited to winning a seat on a local school board and in the Ulster County Legislature. There, he helped defeat a proposal for a trash-burning facility in Saugerties, near Woodstock — a victory that some say hardly merits election to Congress.

    "John was in a band and helped fight a dump, but there's a big difference between stopping a landfill and fighting issues like terrorism," said Robert T. Aiello, a Republican Ulster County legislator. "I wish him the best, but he absolutely has his work cut out for him."

    Ms. Raitt, who organized Musicians for Safe Energy (MUSE) with Mr. Hall in the 1970s, said that early on, the group relied on his ability to think and speak on his feet.

    "John was the brains in the outfit," she said. "While we were all educated and informed and motivated, in terms of explaining the nuts and bolts, John was always very intellectually astute and articulate, as well as being incredibly facile on the guitar and very plugged into that creative muse."

    And even as he was writing tunes with stick-in-the-head melodies and sappy lyrics, Mr. Hall was turning out songs about the environment — "Power" — and the economy — "Plastic Money."

    "His big hits are very sweet, but he's also really written songs about what he believes in," Mr. Browne said. "It will be interesting to see what creative power he'll be able to bring to the political business."

    Mr. Hall was advised to play down his past in the campaign. He rarely appeared in anything less formal than a suit. His statements were deliberate and careful.

    Which makes it hard to explain how he ended up singing a duet of "Dance With Me" with Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central. In the segment, which ran a few weeks before the election, Mr. Colbert teased Mr. Hall about how pleased he must have been that President George W. Bush had used "Still the One" as a theme song for his 2004 reelection campaign. Mr. Hall said that he had a lawyer draft a formal complaint.

    Mr. Colbert persisted, saying what a fitting song it was for the president because, "we're still having fun and he's still the one." A few minutes later, Mr. Colbert asked his guest to harmonize. Mr. Hall demurred, saying that his advisers had told him to stick to political issues. But when Mr. Colbert chided him, "I say go with what you know," Mr. Hall was soon singing. The clip, widely circulated on YouTube, helped make the long-shot race competitive.

    Mr. Hall, who won a crowded primary for the Democratic nomination, began with a campaign fund of $57,000 to Mrs. Kelly's $900,000. But having famous friends didn't hurt.

    "I didn't have Exxon or Mobil, but I had Jackson and Bonnie and Pete," Mr. Hall said. Their concerts in the Hudson Valley area not only raised money — Mr. Browne's netted $100,000 in two days — but also generated publicity.

    Mr. Hall, who is usually serious and low-key, became emotional when talking about the relationship between music and politics.

    "Jackson sang a song, 'Waiting Here for Every Man,' " Mr. Hall said, his voice catching as he referred to Mr. Browne's "For Everyman," "which I remember from his first album, a song that struck me as being about the lethargy and apathy and fatalism of most Americans while they wait for someone to please sort out this mess."

    The campaign was intense. At one point, an unsigned flier circulated with the message: "John Hall, wrong for America." It featured Mr. Hall from his rock days, long-haired and bare-chested.

    The day before the election, voters were swamped with automated calls featuring President Bush, who urged them to re-elect Mrs. Kelly.

    "I was going to say thank you," Mr. Hall said of the phone campaign. "Of all the campaign blunders, it was the most significant."

    Mrs. Kelly did not reply to messages seeking a response.

    Now Mr. Hall has gone to Washington. A few days after his election, he attended new-member orientation, with lectures on everything from staffing district offices to finding housing. The new members picked up tips like: If you find a pair of comfortable shoes, buy one pair for Washington and one for home.

    On a bus ride to one event, Mr. Hall compared notes about being well known with his fellow freshman Heath Shuler, a former professional football player.

    A few representatives asked him to sing with them, including Paul W. Hodes of New Hampshire, a fellow guitar player. He joked that the two could form a duo, Hall & Hodes — sounds like Hall & Oates, another popular '70s singing group with whom Mr. Hall is often confused.

    Mr. Hall also spent a week at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, attending sessions that he described as "sobering."

    In Washington, he has been assigned to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

    In some ways, the transition will be easier for him than for other new members. Mr. Hall is used to being a public figure and to traveling. He also has family in the Washington area, including his daughter, Sofi, who is studying for a Master of Fine Arts degree at the University of Maryland, and a brother, Jerry, a Jesuit priest who teaches at Catholic University. His parents live outside of Baltimore.

    Mr. Hall lives in Dover Plains with his wife, Pamela, a lawyer who, according to Mr. Browne, also plays a mean guitar.

    Between orientation sessions and apartment shopping, he has been back in his district, on "listening tours." At a recent holiday fair in Putnam County, he segued from discussing post-traumatic stress syndrome with a police officer who had been at the World Trade Center to wetlands management with a woman from a conservation group, and stopped to buy a T-shirt with the message "The One with the Most Guitars Wins " for his wife.

    Mr. Hoppen said that people might underestimate his former partner.

    "People may figure he's just a rock star and he lucked out because of the general tide, and they're wrong," Mr. Hoppen said.

    Ms. Raitt said she sees him in the mold of Bill Bradley, the former New Jersey senator. "Of all the musicians I know that have been activists," she said, "the best suited for the job of actually going to Congress is John."

    Mr. Browne's take: "A guitar player for Congress, it makes all the sense in the world to me. Musicians organize the world in certain ways. John's idealism comes from the same place his music does. It comes from joy."

    Still, the night before his election, Mr. Hall said, he and his wife rented the movie "The Candidate," starring Robert Redford. "When he wins, he says, 'What do we do now?' " Mr. Hall said.

    "You get the feeling, the look, the personality, the few catchphrases, the buzzwords, the talking points. But then you have to get down to the complexity of actually having to govern."


    Today's Papers

    Benchmark Flashback
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Monday, Jan. 8, 2007, at 5:33 AM E.T.

    The New York Times leads with word that, once again, the White House is talking "benchmarks" when it comes to Iraq. The new strategy that President Bush will propose will allegedly include "a series of goals" the Iraqi government will have to meet by a specified time. The Washington Post leads with Iraqi Health Ministry data that reveals 22,950 Iraqi civilians and police officers died violently last year. The Post emphasizes the huge difference between the first half of the year, when 5,640 Iraqi civilians and police officers were killed, and the second, which saw 17,310 violent deaths. The Wall Street Journal tops its worldwide newsbox with the Democratic lawmakers who went to the Sunday talk shows to discuss their views on Iraq and President Bush's expected plan to ask for more troops. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi characterized Iraq as "complete chaos" and warned that if the president wants to add troops to the mission "he's going to have to justify it."

    USA Today leads with a look into how states are expanding their health-care coverage in order to try to reduce the number of uninsured. The federal government is now preoccupied with other matters, so states are starting to take the issue into their own hands. This all amounts to the biggest experiment with health policy since the 1980s, according to one expert. The Los Angeles Times leads locally with news that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will propose a $465 million cut in California's welfare budget. Democrats vowed to fight the plan, which risks eliminating aid to "tens of thousands" of children.

    It should come as no surprise if talk of "benchmarks" and a "timetable" feels like déjà vu. After all, as the NYT is quick to point out, the Bush administration and the Iraqi government have agreed on timelines before, but nothing has come of them. The paper points out toward the end of the story that several of the benchmarks in the current plan were merely copied and pasted from an October list. Regardless, these benchmarks might be necessary to satisfy lawmakers from both parties who have made clear they want any escalation in troops to include specific goals for the Iraqi government. But what happens if the Iraqi government doesn't meet the benchmarks? Administration officials wouldn't discuss specific penalties. More to the point, if the United States really wanted to impose some sort of punishment (a big if), what kind of penalties are even possible? Short of threatening to abandon Iraq (something everyone would treat as a mere bluff at this point), what else is there?

    The Post got the data through an anonymous Health Ministry official, who was not authorized to release the information. The official also emphasized the figures are incomplete, which means the final toll could be higher. A spokesman for the Health Ministry denied the existence of these numbers, and some officials said the number is too big. At the beginning of the year, a figure released by the ministries of defense, health, and interior said the total number of violent deaths last year was 13,896. A U.N. report released in November said 28,000 civilians died violently in the first 10 months of 2006.

    Everybody mentions five more U.S. service members were killed in Iraq in recent days.

    Pelosi said Congress would not cut off funding for troops, but she did emphasize the White House will no longer have a "blank check." Meanwhile, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who confirmed he will be seeking the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, put a damper on hopes that Democrats could affect Iraq policy. Biden said it would be unconstitutional for Congress to "micromanage the war" after it had authorized the use of force. "As a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop.' " So, wait, according to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there's nothing Congress can do about Iraq? If true, it definitely makes Pelosi's threats sound emptier than they normally would. But is he right? Some views from experts might have helped to figure out the validity of his statements.

    Regardless of Biden's feelings on constitutionality, he is planning on going forward with his extraordinarily original plan to solve the Iraq problem. Apparently, starting Tuesday, his committee will ask "experts from every perspective" what options remain in Iraq.

    All the papers mention a meeting reporters had with Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, who is the new American operational commander in Iraq and is in charge of day-to-day activities. Odierno didn't reveal much information about Bush's new plan, but he did emphasize that any new strategy that is designed to take control of Baghdad must involve coalition troops targeting both Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods. Odierno said up until now efforts have been too concentrated on Sunni areas. As the NYT emphasizes, Odierno also said it might take another "two or three years" before American and Iraqi troops gain control.

    The Post fronts a look at how most immigrants fighting deportation orders often do so without a lawyer. Although they have to present themselves to an immigration court, the government provides no legal counsel for the poor. In a related article, the Post goes inside with complaints that new anti-terrorism laws are being used to reject asylum applicants. Those who give "material support" to terrorist groups are being barred from seeking asylum, even if the "support" was given at gunpoint.

    If the story sounds familiar, that's because on Dec. 22 the LAT fronted a very similar story. Besides having the same topic, both stories mention how "advocates for refugees" gave as examples a Colombian nurse who was forced to treat a guerrilla fighter and a woman in Liberia was forced to cook for rebels who killed her father, raped her, and occupied her home. If it's such a widespread problem, there should be more compelling stories, no? The Post does have two other examples the LAT didn't mention, but it does quote two of the same experts mentioned in the Times last month.

    The LAT and WP front results of a new study that seems to show some stem cells in human amniotic fluid have many of the same qualities as embryonic stem cells. These cells can be easily retrieved from a pregnant woman during routine checkups and would not involve using destroyed human embryos, which is a factor that has led some to oppose stem-cell research.

    Wesley K. Clark writes an op-ed in the Post in which he criticizes the plan to increase troop levels by 20,000 in Iraq. Clark emphasizes "we've never had enough troops in Iraq" and says that in Kosovo the United States had 40,000 troops for a population of 2 million. Using the same ratio, it would mean at least 500,000 troops should be in Iraq. Regardless, Clark insists the United States should focus on diplomacy in order to find a solution to the crisis. "The underlying problems are political, not military," writes Clark.

    Shocking! … According to a new study by the Congressional Budget Office mentioned in the NYT, the ones who benefited most from Bush's tax cuts were, wait for it, the very rich.

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

     

    Saturday, January 06, 2007

    The Lover Who Always Stays

    Rupert Pole | b. 1919

    The Lover Who Always Stays

    Jill Krementz, (c) 2006. All rights reserved.

    Pole was persistent, which led to Nin's double life.

    December 31, 2006
    Rupert Pole | b. 1919
     
    By SARA CORBETT

    If you believe, as the writer Anaïs Nin did, that life should be full of rich drama and inspired sex, then naturally you would be thrilled to board an elevator in a Manhattan apartment building in 1947 and encounter a staggeringly handsome young man. The fact that he is wearing a flamboyant, full-length coat of white leather and still sports a bashful smile only adds to his allure. And when you realize, upon introducing yourself, that the two of you are headed to the same cocktail party, it could seem that your fate is set. You are, after all, always looking for another lover.

    You spend the next hours perched beside him on a small sofa at the party, as Nin's biographer Deirdre Bair would later recount, talking and talking and never once mentioning the fact that you are 44 years old and married. He is 28, regally tall and wears his dark hair in a low pompadour. "Danger!" you will write in your diary that night. "He is probably homosexual."

    He is not homosexual. You learn this rather strenuously two days later, having invited him to dinner at the apartment you normally share with your husband. Your husband, a middle-aged banker named Hugo, is in Havana on business. The name of your new lover is Rupert Pole. He has the impression that you are divorced, and certainly there is no need to correct this. He himself is freshly divorced, a failed actor with pillowy lips and clear blue eyes, who until recently made his living singing and dancing on cruise ships. He plays the viola and studies astrology and is soon to go West, back to California, where he was born. He is good enough sexually to cause you to cancel your other assignations — there can be five in a week — to focus on him alone. You will later say he is the most potent man you've ever known.

    And so. When he goes West, you go, too, climbing into his 1941 Ford roadster dressed all in purple. Rupert wears a Tyrolean hat and a wool scarf. He smokes a pipe as he drives. What you have told your husband — a man you feel warmly toward but who does not satisfy you in bed — is that you are road-tripping with a dear female friend.

    It would be wrong to say that Rupert Pole is never angry, never jealous, that he sits passively in the roadster while you pop into the Denver post office to pick up general-delivery mail sent by the lovers and friends you left behind. You fight a little, especially after he is forced to wait as you write back. But there is something in Rupert, some glimmer of tolerance, some unquestioning abidance with how things are, that you are beginning to appreciate. When you reach the golden desert of the West, you make love outside on a sunbaked boulder.

    From now on, your life goes more or less like this: Six weeks with one man, followed by six weeks with the other. On the East Coast, Hugo is wealthy enough to pay for your manicures and trips to your analyst, and together you take long vacations in Acapulco. But you tell Hugo that you yearn for the seclusion of the West, specifically for a small cabin in the scrubby mountains outside Pasadena, where you go to do your writing. He may presume that you are alone, but of course you are not: Rupert is now a forest ranger, and the cabin — a spartan affair owned by the Forest Service — is his station. Rupert ruins your manicures by making you scrub floors, haul water and mend socks, but you love him, at least in six-week stretches.

    He believes you when you say you must return to New York for meetings with editors. He believes you when you invent magazine assignments — when, indeed, you invent whole magazines — that keep you on the East Coast. And when you tell him that you are unreachable, staying with a friend who has no phone, he believes that too. You go back and forth and back again. Up in the mountains, people start calling you "Mrs. Anaïs Pole."

    He begs you to marry him, but you put him off. Every day you are at Rupert's house, you send a letter to Hugo, describing the loneliness of the writing life. When in New York, you write Rupert long missives complaining about how hard you are working as a journalist. You pen those letters from bed, as Hugo's maid delivers breakfast on a tray. You have told so many lies now that you have to keep them written down in a notebook. You have two men who won't stop believing you, and somehow that has made it impossible to leave either one.

    Why won't Rupert give up? You assume that his strapping body and pretty face will attract some younger woman who'll stay full time. But Rupert seems to want only you. His life is a happy feedback loop: he works his job, spends the evenings reading Time magazine, waits for you to come home. His faith wears you down.

    And so. In a dusty little town in the Arizona desert in 1955, as quietly as you can, you marry Rupert Pole. For the next 11 years you are the wife of two men, on two coasts. You liken yourself to a trapeze artist, swinging from one husband to the other. The lies have multiplied to the point that you now keep them in a file you refer to as "the lie box." It has two sections: one labeled New York, one Los Angeles.

    Rupert leaves forestry to teach middle school in Los Angeles. Hoping that you'll stop traveling so much, he builds a house for you, with a stone fireplace, an outdoor writing table and a pool where you both swim naked. He grows a beer belly but remains ruthlessly good-looking and hungry — not just for sex but for sex with you.

    Eventually, you tell him everything. Your body is weak from all the flights; the weight of the lies is making you old. Also, you are becoming famous as a writer, and you've got two men claiming your royalties on their tax returns. You unload the full truth on Rupert rather than Hugo, knowing that if Rupert hasn't left you yet, he probably won't now. You annul your marriage to Rupert and remain married to Hugo. After all these years, you owe Hugo something — a warped form of loyalty, perhaps, or at least access to your new wealth.

    Rupert takes it all in without wavering, perhaps understanding that in losing the marriage, he has won something bigger. When slowly you start to die of cancer, you finally resolve to live full time in California because you are too weak, really, to do otherwise. On days you wish to speak to Hugo, Rupert picks up the phone and dials the number for you, allowing you to preserve the myth of your marriage. He gives you injections, takes you to the doctor, and when you crave release, he gently carries you into the glittering pool behind the house so that you may swim.

    When you die, The Los Angeles Times obituary will remember you as the wife of Rupert Pole; The New York Times lists your widower as Hugh Guiler. But it is Rupert you've named as your literary executor, the guardian of 35,000 pages of your diaries, your fullest version of the truth. And it is Rupert who rents a small plane to fly over the coast near Santa Monica, finding a sparkling cove over which he sets your ashes adrift. When Hugo dies in 1985, eight years after you, Rupert honors his last wishes by scattering his ashes over the same waters. And now that Rupert is gone as well, having stayed on quietly in the house he built for you, having honored you by publishing new, less censored versions of your diaries — you would hope the same for him. You would hope that somebody flies what's left of Rupert Pole up over that sparkling cove, over those billions of mingling sea molecules, and finds exactly the right moment to let him go.


     

    Wendy Wasserstein | b. 1950 d.2006

    Wendy Wasserstein | b. 1950

    Everybody's Wendy

    Jill Krementz, (c) 2006. All rights reserved.

    Wendy Wasserstein at home in 1997.

    December 31, 2006
    Wendy Wasserstein | b. 1950

    Everybody's Wendy

    Along with their own grief, what those who knew and loved Wendy Wasserstein close up couldn't get over was how so many strangers knew and loved her from afar. There was no big-time playwright, perhaps no celebrity, more approachable than Wendy. She was incapable of turning away from the fan who stopped her on the street. She would show up for any obligatory cause, cultural event or party, if only someone asked. She was everybody's Wendy. Everybody who met her, everyone who was touched by her writing, thought they knew her intimately. This is not something that would be said about David Mamet or Edward Albee.

    -->feedroom code starts here //-->
    As news spread of her death, the strangers who had felt so proprietary about Wendy buttonholed her friends and family in person and by phone, letter and e-mail with their own outpourings of loss and vivid memories of chance encounters. André Bishop, the producer whose career and life had intertwined with Wendy's since their early days in the theater, was almost overwhelmed by the size of the crowd that turned up for the memorial he staged in March at Lincoln Center's Vivian Beaumont Theater. (The overflow had to settle for a satellite broadcast at Juilliard.) The program included some of Wendy's favorite actors performing scenes from her plays and some of her closest friends and artistic collaborators recalling her infectious humor and countless acts of generosity. Among Wendy's many selfless works was the creation of a mentoring program that opened up New York's theaters to public-high-school students who would otherwise be shut out.

    Yet what lingers most from the memorial these months later is the montage of home movies and photos at its end: Wendy hamming it up for the camera during her ostensibly cheerful middle-class childhood. Wendy, an uncommon woman among the Playwrights Horizons gang of men, preparing to conquer the New York theater from way West 42nd Street. Wendy, middle-aged, successful, a fixture of the establishment, yet still with that wide-open smile and ragamuffin's wardrobe. And finally, Wendy in late-in-life parenthood, the single mother of Lucy Jane. The dramatic arc of the Wendy chronicles was a shapely three acts plus an epilogue, marred only by the abrupt fall of that tragic final curtain.

    And yet what haunts all these months later is this: There was something missing in those pictures, something that had fallen through the cracks. As Wendy knew better than anyone, the most revealing, and heartbreaking, drama can often be found in what is not said.

    The Wendy Wasserstein who was always there for everybody (including me) at every crisis and celebration, the Wendy with that uproarious (yet musical) laugh and funny (yet never bitchy) dialogue for every fraught situation, the Wendy the whole world knew and adored was also an intensely private person who left many mysteries behind. Though she had countless circles of friends, the circles didn't always overlap: her life was more compartmentalized than she let on. Though she had written a memorable memoir for The New Yorker about her personal and physiological journey to childbirth, the subject of her child's paternity was strictly off-limits. Though it was apparent that she was ill for several years before her death, she hid the specifics and terminal gravity of her illness (lymphoma) until the endgame gave her away. By then she was out of reach of intimates who might have wanted to have a cognizant goodbye.

    After her death, her closest friends were left to compare notes and clues about what had gone unsaid. But we had no answers. Roy Harris, the devoted stage manager for many of Wendy's plays, including her last, "Third," spoke for many of us when he published a tender reminiscence that also acknowledged his anger "that she hadn't allowed any of her friends to be a part of her final months."

    As Roy wrote, dying was entirely Wendy's "own business." She was entitled to her decisions and her secrets. But the fact that she so successfully took so many of those secrets to the grave was a major revelation in itself. How could the most public artist in New York keep so much locked up? I don't think I was the only friend who felt I had somehow failed to see Wendy whole. And who wondered if I had let her down in some profound way. I grieve as much for the Wendy I didn't know as the Wendy I did.

    That Wendy I miss badly enough. We met just as her career as a playwright and mine as a drama critic were starting in earnest. Because of that journalistic conflict, I excused myself from reviewing her plays. But she was my loyal companion to other writers' plays as I made my reviewing rounds in the 1980s. She'd say yes to all my invitations, no matter how suspect the title of that night's production ("Moose Murders" included). She was not without her own closeted talent for unsparing drama criticism. At one long-forgotten fiasco, we returned from intermission to discover a "real" swimming pool displayed on stage, with an invalid perched in a wheelchair at its edge. Wendy turned to me with a conspiratorial grin. "Honey," she said in that husky tone that signaled a punch line was on the way, "by the end of this play that woman in the wheelchair will be in that pool." (We were not to be disappointed.)

    If I had reviewed Wendy's plays, I imagine I would have said what her many critical admirers did: She was a voice for the boomer generation whose wit could not disguise the seriousness of her often frankly political passions. Even the plays that didn't succeed had their indelible scenes of sharp, articulate outrage as her heroines took stock of a world that promised women many more choices, in love as well as in life, than it actually delivered.

    In retrospect, Wendy's public image, that of a cuddly, always-merry Wendy doll, undersold just how tough her writing was and just how tough she was. She wasn't from a family overstuffed with high-achieving business executives for nothing. A woman of her generation didn't have her career in the theater, especially the commercial theater, without fighting for it.

    The plays may well look different with the passing of time and without the author herself on hand to mediate between them and the audience. Like so many who loved her, whether up close or from a seat in the balcony, I keep replaying the monologue she wrote for her iconic heroine, the star art historian Heidi Holland. On the verge of becoming a single parent, Heidi is contemplating the unfulfilled ideal of sisterhood among women of her generation. "It's just that I feel stranded," she says. "And I thought the whole point was that we wouldn't feel stranded. I thought the point was we were all in this together."

    But of course that was never the point, and Wendy understood that before many of us did. Everybody's Wendy, that garrulous character adored by so many, was an act of artifice. "The Heidi Chronicles" was the truth. Perhaps only now that Wendy is gone can we begin to appreciate the full force of what she worked so hard to say.


December 9, 2006

  • The Iraq Report: Where Do We Go From Here? (9 Letters)

    To the Editor:

    Re “Panel Urges Basic Shift in U.S. Policy in Iraq” (front page, Dec. 7):

    Reading the 79 recommendations from the Iraq Study Group, I can’t imagine President Bush admitting his failures; bringing in controversial experts to help him carry out its suggestions when he surrounds himself only with yes people; and allowing diplomatic talks to take place with Iran and Syria.

    The report shows the utter chaos in our interagency communications; the frustration of the military generals; our abject failure of privatizing reconstruction; the wasted money on building permanent bases; and the complete lack of knowledge of the history in the Middle East.

    And those are just a few of the problems!

    What a rebuke to the Decider. All I can say is what a mess, and good luck. Jacqueline Jones

    Portland, Ore., Dec. 7, 2006

    To the Editor:

    Reading your article about the Iraq Study Group’s report, I could only wonder: Does it occur to anyone else how sad it is that there had to be a study on the war in Iraq at all?

    A competent president with advisers both military and civilian would have had a grip on the situation, the mood of the country and the political ramifications of our policy (or lack thereof) in Iraq and acted accordingly.

    The president waited until after the election to bend ever so slightly away from “staying the course,” and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s memo admitting failure was secret until after his resignation.

    Meanwhile, the committee investigating the Iraq war was taking care of business while the president waited in the wings for guidance and answers.

    The public saw the results of the study coming for a year or more; there is nothing revealing or new in the report that hasn’t been in the news or on the lips of advisers for months.

    We now have to wait and see if in the president’s skewed view, this report is more credible than all the professional input he has received over the last three years.

    What a waste of time, money and, sadly, more lives in Iraq.

    Laure Dunne

    Darien, Conn., Dec. 7, 2006

    To the Editor:

    While our country spends money and loses face by hiring an elite panel of advisers to help us out of Iraq, let’s also remember a different group of advisers: the “focus group” of millions of Americans (and millions worldwide) who took to the streets in 2002 and 2003 to protest invading in the first place.

    Many of them, with none of this panel’s expertise, had the common sense to expect the very situation we’re in now. David Dartley

    New York, Dec. 7, 2006

    To the Editor:

    Your front-page article says that rather than embracing President Bush’s goal of “victory in Iraq” or “the White House’s early aspiration that Iraq might be transformed into a democracy in the near future ... the panel chose instead the formulation that Mr. Bush has adopted most recently: to establish a country that can sustain itself, govern itself and defend itself.”

    Wasn’t that precisely the situation that existed in Iraq before our invasion? Warren Nadel

    New York, Dec. 7, 2006

    To the Editor:

    Re “Welcome Political Cover” (editorial, Dec. 7):

    Before The Times and the American people embrace the findings of the Iraq Study Group, the following should be seriously considered:

    ¶The conclusions do not reflect the results of the Nov. 7 election, which clearly gave our elected officials a mandate to get out of Iraq post-haste, nor do they honor the wishes of the American people reflected in the polls, which sent the same message.

    ¶The conclusions do not honor the wishes of the Iraqi people, who overwhelmingly support the end of the ill-conceived occupation of their country.

    ¶The conclusions do not reflect the views of much of the leadership of the Democratic Party, elected to the majority of both houses of Congress, which called for a phased redeployment of American troops outside of Iraq within six months.

    While the media insist that the Iraq Study Group is nonpartisan (only to the extent that it is composed of five Republicans and five Democrats), the group did not pick up the mood of the country at all, nor did it adequately represent us in a supposedly representative democracy. Dennis Dalrymple

    New York, Dec. 7, 2006

    To the Editor:

    Your Dec. 7 editorial concerning the Iraq Study Group’s report is helpfully but sadly put in perspective by your front-page news analysis the same day, “Will It Work in the White House?”

    For it to work in the White House, President Bush must be able to admit, at least to himself, that his policy in Iraq, if it can be called that, has not worked and that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating. He must also be able to accept the criticisms implicit in the report.

    Nothing in his six years in office has shown him capable of such honest introspection. The fact that the report does offer Mr. Bush a chance to gather a bipartisan consensus for change is a compliment to the report.

    But Mr. Bush, since being anointed president in 2000 by the Supreme Court and very narrowly winning an election in 2004, has acted like an emperor with a mandate to do as he sees fit.

    To Mr. Bush, bipartisan means having the support of his friend Tony Blair.

    Under the circumstances, the Iraq Study Group has delivered a decent and bipartisan report. One fears that Mr. Bush is too far out of touch with reality to use it to get the country out of the hole he has dug.

    Theodore S. Voelker

    Copake, N.Y., Dec. 7, 2006

    To the Editor:

    Your Dec. 7 front-page news analysis of the Iraq Study Group report describes the report’s nuanced “shaping” of the president’s thinking. You quote James A. Baker III, the group’s co-chairman, as saying President Bush is “conflicted” about Iraq, and you write that Republicans are waiting for clues about what Mr. Bush will do.

    On the day the report was released, 10 more American troops were killed in Iraq. The results of the November election left no doubt that the American people want to end the deployment and deaths of our troops in Iraq.

    Yet despite this clear message, our misguided foreign adventure continues to hang on the vicissitudes of an overwhelmingly unpopular president.

    The government was given a mandate to act. Whatever euphemisms it chooses to use, we need a short-term timetable for removing our combat troops from Iraq.

    Wendy Geringer

    Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.

    Dec. 7, 2006

    To the Editor:

    The Iraq Study Group’s call for diplomatic engagement of Iran and Syria is a prudent recommendation that, if carried out by the Bush administration, will probably contribute to Iraq’s stability, as Iran is equally concerned about the spiraling sectarian-insurgency conflict, which may spill over into the country.

    In turn, such a dialogue may contribute to the resolution of the nuclear standoff with Iran, by improving the climate between the two countries, all the more reason for the Security Council to avoid hasty sanctions that could torpedo the proposed United States-Iranian dialogue on security in Iraq and the region.

    Kaveh Afrasiabi

    Cambridge, Mass., Dec. 7, 2006

    The writer is a former adviser to Iran’s nuclear negotiation team.

    To the Editor:

    Re “Bush Urges Shiite Leader to Support Premier” (news article, Dec. 5):

    The attitude of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a powerful Shiite leader in Iraq, toward the policies of President Bush portends benefits for the Shiites in Iraq that may well be harmful to our interests in the long run.

    Our military is engaged in hostilities daily in Iraq with Shiites and Sunnis. But most of our efforts are directed against the Sunnis. Attacks by Shiite militiamen and our military activity are draining the power of the Sunnis, and in effect we are taking sides and ensuring an eventual Shiite victory in a civil war. Negotiations with Saudi Arabia on this matter are imperative. Connell J. Maguire

    Riviera Beach, Fla., Dec. 5, 2006

    The writer is a retired Navy captain.

  • Healthy Babies, Turning point on Iraq Panel, Art in Aftermath of 9/11

    Saturday, December 09, 2006

    We’re Not in Keds Anymore

    Robert Spencer for The New York Times

    Joel Meyerowitz at his studio in Provincetown, Mass.

    December 10, 2006
    Possessed

    We're Not in Keds Anymore

    OVER the centuries, doctors, holy men, philosophers, psychologists have argued about where to locate the sanctum sanctorum of human consciousness. Is it in the heart, the head, the liver, the stomach ... points farther south?

    Despite the best efforts of the pharmaceutical industry, it is still anyone's game. One might imagine, for example, a photographer restating the famous Descartes dictum to reflect a different view: "I see, therefore I am."

    Certainly Joel Meyerowitz has relied on an eagle eye to create a celebrated array of work, from the raw and wrenching panoramas of the World Trade Center destruction (collected in a new book, "Aftermath," from Phaidon) to lively New York streetscapes and atmospheric Cape Cod landscapes. But he has come to locate his own spirit farther south than even the viscera.

    "Going to get a new pair of Keds for the baseball season was something I really looked forward to when I was a kid," Mr. Meyerowitz said. "I could see myself in them streaking down the base paths, covering the territory as if I had put on winged shoes. Especially after a long winter of heavy leather shoes, those new Keds were really liberating."

    While Mr. Meyerowitz may wish that almost 50 years had not passed before rediscovering that his heart was really in his feet, he is thrilled to have had the fact brought home in style. In 1998, for his 60th birthday, his wife, Maggie Barrett, gave him a pair of shoes like no other. He had to travel down to E. Vogel, the 127-year-old custom cobbler in Lower Manhattan, to have his feet measured so the shoes could be made.

    "I don't have a fetish about shoes," he said. "I wear Birkenstocks all summer, to my wife's great chagrin." Which explains, perhaps, why he would never have paid Fogel's price — about $1,000 for an initial pair, including a custom-made last for future pairs — and why his wife would.

    At any rate, he is very, very glad she did. "They are like a throwback to those winged Keds of youth," he said. The style he chose even suggests that lightness: simply elegant black oxfords, the uppers made from one piece of French calfskin. They reminded him of Fred Astaire, he said. "I wore them out of the store, right onto Broadway. I found myself looking down at my feet every so often to see how they looked."

    And they have been worn plenty since. "Whenever I go to a party where I know there's going to be dancing, I always wear them," he said. He also wears them when he makes appearances as a special cultural ambassador for the State Department, giving presentations of his work on 9/11 to foreign dignitaries.

    "Those shoes were always the ones I took," he said. "You feel like you stand tall in the world because the shoes are appropriate. Anything that gives you comfort in a difficult situation is important."

    And now he understands why transformative footwear figures in so many fairy tales and folk myths. "There's some degree of fantasy that comes with shoes," he said. "Something about running and flying and escaping that shoes are part of."

    He is smitten enough that this month he returned the favor and bought his wife a pair of Vogel shoes for her 60th birthday. Insert sole-mate joke here.


     

    A Turning Point for a Panel: 4 Harrowing Days in Iraq

    Gerald Herbert/Associated Press

    Few issues divided panel members, including from left, Leon E. Panetta, William J. Perry, Edwin Meese III, Charles S. Robb and Sandra Day O'Connor, far right. Christopher A. Kojm, an aide to co-chairman Lee H. Hamilton, second from right, helped draft the final report.

    December 8, 2006

    A Turning Point for a Panel: 4 Harrowing Days in Iraq

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 — For some members of the Iraq Study Group, the turning point came during four days in Baghdad in September. They found the trip so harrowing, they said, that they wondered if they could afford to wait to speak out about the disaster in Iraq.

    Like other visitors, they arrived on a C-130 transport plane that performed a plunging corkscrew maneuver to avoid insurgent fire while landing at Baghdad's airport. Then they were bundled into flak jackets and helmets and rushed onto attack helicopters for the five-minute flight to the Green Zone, the military-controlled neighborhood that is sealed off from the city.

    There, they were placed in fleet of armored Humvees, each with a medic seated in the back to offer first aid in the event of a rocket attack. The roar of the Humvees' engines could not mask the sound of explosions from car bombs outside the Green Zone. The security measures had been routine for most of the American occupation, but they were still jarring to these first-time visitors to the war zone.

    "You understand this is real — this is a state of siege," said Edward P. Djerejian, the former American ambassador to Israel and Syria who helped draft the Iraq Study Group's report, released Wednesday, which called for an overhaul of American policy in Iraq. "The trip to Baghdad really solidified that perception for all of us."

    Whatever their early differences over the American venture in Iraq, some of those serving on the 10-member bipartisan panel and its staff say the trip to Baghdad brought them to a common understanding of the catastrophic situation in Iraq and how much had gone wrong in American planning for the occupation.

    They said the situation in Baghdad was so bleak — and in many ways, so much worse than they expected — that the four Democrats and three Republicans on the trip debated releasing an interim report as soon as they returned home. They worried that a final report released after the November elections, as planned, would be too late to have any hope of salvaging the situation.

    One Democrat on the trip, Leon E. Panetta, White House chief of staff under the former president Bill Clinton, said the idea of an interim report was scrapped out of a concern that "if we put out something before the election, we'd be chewed up" in a political fight.

    But he said the group's anxiety about waiting too long was justified — and bipartisan — and helped explain why surprisingly few issues divided the members when it came to writing a final report.

    Members of the study group said the most significant showdown between the panel's Democrats and Republicans took place during final negotiations late last month and involved an explicit timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. But they said that even that dispute never seriously threatened to derail the report, with the members so unified on most of the big issues.

    The Democratic case for a timetable for troop withdrawal was pressed most aggressively by William J. Perry, defense secretary in the Clinton administration, who said that almost all combat troops should be out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008. Republicans felt the recommendation would box in President Bush, who has rejected calls for a deadline for withdrawal.

    Mr. Perry said in an interview Wednesday on National Public Radio that the issue was resolved in two hours of private talks between him and James A. Baker III, the study group's Republican co-chairman and a former secretary of state. The compromise language replaced a recommendation that the United States "would" withdraw troops from Iraq under a timetable with a finding that the United States "could" withdraw the troops by early 2008. "I was willing to give up the language but not the substance," Mr. Perry said.

    The study group was created by Congress at the urging of Representative Frank R. Wolf, a Virginia Republican active in foreign-policy issues who grew alarmed by what he saw in Iraq during a visit last year.

    He pressed Congressional leaders to approve $1 million for the project through the Washington-based United States Institute of Peace, which oversaw logistical and scholarly support for the project and helped recruit Mr. Baker and his Democratic co-chairman, Lee H. Hamilton, a former chairman of the House International Relations Committee. Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton selected the commission's other members — four Republicans and four Democrats, all of them retired or close to it. The average age of the panel members: 74.

    "These were not people looking for their next big job," said Daniel P. Serwer, the study group's executive director and a vice president of the Institute of Peace. "They called this group bipartisan. But really, they were nonpartisan. You couldn't tell who was a Democrat and who was a Republican. All of these people believed that if there were vital U.S. interests at stake, then there shouldn't be any real problem in getting Democrats and Republicans to agree."

    Mr. Djerejian, founding director of the James Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, signed on at Mr. Baker's request to help organize the inquiry. He said that Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton agreed early on that the study group's final report had to be unanimous — or that there should be no report at all. Anything other than a unanimous report "would have been counterproductive, because that would just show that the debate over Iraq is unresolvable," he said.

    He said he was struck by how quickly the study group agreed on what might have seemed a contentious recommendation: its call for the Bush administration to reverse course and engage in direct talks with Iran and Syria about the future of neighboring Iraq.

    "I think everybody in the group, from the right to the left, realized the merits of talking with your adversaries," Mr. Djerejian said. He recalled how one of the Republicans on the panel, the former attorney general Edwin Meese III, pointed out to the study group that his close friend Ronald Reagan had negotiated arms deals with the Soviet Union even as he described it as an "evil empire."

    The Institute of Peace joined with the Baker Institute and two other research agencies to set up panels of experts, including foreign policy and military analysts, to provide guidance to the study group. Eventually 44 experts were recruited to work for the panel; they produced dozens of research papers.

    The task of drafting the final report was largely left to Mr. Djerejian; John B. Williams, a colleague of Mr. Baker's from his Houston law firm; and two longtime aides to Mr. Hamilton, Christopher A. Kojm and Benjamin J. Rhodes.

    Mr. Djerejian said the draft reports were heavily edited by the 10 members of the study group. Sandra Day O'Connor, a former Supreme Court justice, was an exacting editor and insisted that the report be written and organized so that it could be readily understood by people without foreign policy expertise.

    "She'd say, 'We're writing this for the American people, not for people like you,' " Mr. Djerejian said, chuckling. "We are all terrified of her. But she was right. Sometimes we policy wonks get lost in our own verbiage."


     

    Healthy Babies Need Irony

    Elizabeth Lippman for The New York Times

    At the Web magazine's office in SoHo are, from left, Ada Calhoun, editor in chief (with her son, Oliver); Rufus Griscom, a publisher (with his son, Declan); and Alisa Volkman, a publisher and Mr. Griscom's wife.

    December 10, 2006

    Healthy Babies Need Irony

    THAT Babble, a new online magazine for parents, should be introduced by the slinky literary sex site Nerve.com seems at once ludicrous and altogether logical.

    Sure, it stands to reason that after nine years of being sexually titillated and encouraged by the editors of Nerve, its readers have produced results. Yet in an era in which babies are overprotected and practically dipped in Purell, it's hard to imagine people seeking insight into sleep training from a Web company that publishes personal essays by former teenage prostitutes.

    "From an editorial perspective, launching Babble is extremely natural and very exciting," said Rufus Griscom, 39, founder of Nerve Media and a new father himself. "But clearly there's an element of irony to it."

    Babble.com, set to begin on Tuesday, aspires to appeal to educated, culturally engaged urban hipsters who are knee-deep in baby gear and seeking not just advice but the humor in it all.

    "We've found that there are a lot of taboos around parenting, as much as we felt there were around sex when we launched Nerve," Mr. Griscom said. "There are a lot of things you can't say, like, 'We wanted a girl, but we got a boy.' Or, 'We're pregnant with a third, but we don't know if we want it.' "

    Babble, he says, will say it, and with wit and style. Or at least with irreverence.

    The site, which will be updated almost daily and feature interactive community-building features like video sharing and message boards, will attempt to cater to its prospective audience's sensibility by mixing low-brow and high — archly observed commentaries on Kelly Ripa's children or the latest wacky gadget for harried moms and literary satire with contributions by A-list writers, such as the novelist Walter Kirn and the screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson.

    And the indie band Mates of State has been invited to chronicle the experience of taking the toddler daughter of its keyboardist and its drummer on tour.

    But if Babble is to succeed, the site must do more than overcome its association with its naughty sister. Store shelves and library archives are filled with current and departed parenting magazines, and today the Web is full of mommy and daddy blogs, message boards like UrbanBaby and social networking sites like Maya's Mom and MothersClick.

    Some numbers are in Babble's favor. Seventy-eight percent of women ages 30 to 44 are mothers, according to Census data from 2004. It's clear that men — a big target readership of both Nerve and Babble — are more attentive to their children than previous generations. A study by the University of Maryland released in October, "Changing Rhythms of American Family Life," found that married fathers spent 6.5 hours a week on child care in 2000, up from 2.6 hours in 1965.

    This is also a generation that sees raising children a bit differently from the way it is portrayed in most parenting magazines. Many have a knee-jerk skepticism toward mainstream corporate parenting culture and a determined reluctance to give up the vestiges of their own youths.

    "This is a new generation of parents who are interested in taking their existing lifestyle, sense of self and priorities into parenting, as opposed to checking them at the parenthood door," said Julia Beck, founder of 40 Weeks, a consultancy serving the expectant- and new-parent market. "They're looking for ways to infuse their personality and aesthetic into this new phase of life, and all this new lifestyle parenting media reflects that."

    Ada Calhoun, 30, a mother to 3½-month-old Oliver and Babble's editor in chief, intends to avoid the fear and didacticism she sees as endemic to the parenting magazine category. Rather than issue a dictum on whether to circumcise, for example, the site will post a range of opinions by a variety of experts, and a brief "Babble" take on the issue, encouraging readers to decide for themselves.

    Not everyone believes that what Babble is setting out to do is all that radical. "It's not as if this is a new idea," said Stephanie Wilkinson, a founder and an editor of Brain, Child, a magazine that reaches 36,000 readers, three-quarters of them paid subscribers. "The whole ironic absurdity of parenting, absence of dewy-eyed-sentimentalism thing is what the mother-lit movement — starting with Mothers Who Think on Salon and the 'momoir' genre — has been doing for the past 10 years."

    Still, Ms. Wilkinson says, "If Babble can get men to read it in anything close to the numbers women do, that will be a real feat."

    Greg Allen, 39, whose blog for new dads, DaddyTypes, attracts up to 300,000 visits a month, thinks the audience is there. "A lot of dads want to get involved in all aspects of raising their kids, but feel they're ignored by the people who make baby products and by the parenting media," he said. He will soon be a columnist for Babble.

    But magazines for dads have a tarnished pedigree. Three that started since 2001 — Dads, Offspring and Real Dad — closed after just a few issues.

    Mr. Griscom said that Babble is not aiming for elitism. "We do not intend for this to be a little literary magazine," he said. "We intend for it to be wildly commercially successful." To do so, Babble's executives said, they need an audience of two million to three million readers a month.

    Mr. Griscom said that Nerve is profitable, with a projected profit margin of 20 percent on more than $3 million in revenue this year. But half its revenue stems from personal ads and subscriptions, neither to be offered on Babble.

    This leaves the magazine dependent on advertising, and a much smaller percentage of revenue is expected to come from licensing and publishing deals.

    According to Denise Fedewa, vice president and planning director for Leo Burnett USA, Babble has the right idea, at least in terms of the target reader. "It's a very valuable psychographic in that the urban hipster lifestyle is something that a lot of people aspire to, even if they don't technically live it," she said. "These are the kind of consumers advertisers want to reach in order to get a trend started that will then filter out to a broader audience."

    So far, smaller design brands have signed up as advertisers.

    Whether the big spenders like Target and Johnson & Johnson, companies that Babble is keen to reach, will advertise may depend on whether they are comfortable with the site's affiliation with Nerve, say experts. Ms. Volkman, Mr. Griscom's wife, insisted that "there will be no crossbreeding between Nerve and Babble," with no visible Internet links between the sites.

    Alan Schanzer, managing partner at Mediaedge: cia, a media buying and planning agency, said it helps that the new magazine is confined to the Web. "In general, advertisers are a lot braver with the online space than with other media, so I think the majority will be open-minded," he said.

    At least some parents seem tantalized by the possibility of a reading alternative. Deva Dalporto, a 32-year-old actress and children's clothing designer in the San Francisco Bay area, said the traditional parenting publications are "a bit too kitchen-country-gingham" for her taste.

    "The smart, edgy magazine doesn't exist for women, and it certainly doesn't exist for parents," she said. "It would be great to have a magazine with more wit and a sense of humor. After all, there's so much that's hilarious about this whole process, from childbirth to raising a child."


  • Ferrari Testing,Coast Guard Stumbles,Kirkpatrick Dies,Today's Papers,Havana Medical Study,36 Hours i

    Saturday, December 09, 2006

    Reconstructing a Menswear Classic

    The long and the short of it at MaxMara.
    The long and the short of it at MaxMara.
    Shirt Tales
    Reconstructing a Menswear Classic

    December 7, 2006 – Spring found the white shirt transformed in myriad ways. Balenciaga's Nicolas Ghesquière, Karl Lagerfeld, and Ralph Lauren customized that summer staple, the shirtdress, into novel shapes. Designing duos Dan and Dean Caten and Rolf Snoeren and Viktor Horsting, meanwhile, went even further, toying with perception by showing tailored shirt/jacket hybrids. Pairing their starchy toppers with lace-trimmed tap pants, the Dsquared brothers were intent on exploring ideas of masculinity and femininity. Likewise, on the Paris runway of St. Petersburg-based designer Alena Akhmadullina, some of the models sported butch wigs and one wore a shirt printed with a professor-ish vest.

    Marc Jacobs went in for a "white collar" look too, opening his New York show with a crinkly shirt and chinos, and ingeniously morphing oxfords into side-buttoning skirts at Louis Vuitton.



    see all the looks >

     

    36 Hours in Berlin

    Oliver Hartung for The New York Times

    Roses, a lounge that stays open till 5 a.m.

    Multimedia

    36 Hours in BerlinSlide Show

    36 Hours in Berlin

    Berlin, GermanyMap

    Berlin, Germany

    December 10, 2006
    36 Hours

    Berlin

    BERLIN is like New York City in the 1980s. Rents are cheap, graffiti is everywhere and the air crackles with a creativity that comes only from a city in transition. And few cities are changing as profoundly. Nearly two decades after the Berlin Wall tumbled down, the city's two sides are still locked in a kind of cultural dialectic, as the center of gravity shifts to the once desolate boroughs of the East. Bullet-scarred buildings are metamorphosing from squatters' homes, to artists' studios, and then to retail showrooms. Gray Communist alleys are laboratories for trendy bars, restaurants and galleries. And, like the city itself, Berliners continue to reinvent themselves as cultural vanguards, pushing the boundaries of art, fashion and design. With so much to explore and create, the city never sleeps.

    Friday

    3 p.m.
    1) REICHSTAG AIRLIFT

    Berlin is a big city, about eight times the area of Paris, so get your bearings. Follow the tourists to the Television Tower, the Sputnik-like needle in Alexanderplatz (www.berlinerfernsehturm.de; 8 euro admission, about $11 at $1.36 to the euro). Or, for more intimate views, head to the Reichstag. Skip the hourlong line by making reservations for afternoon tea at the Dachgartenrestaurant, or roof garden restaurant (49-30-22-62-99-0; www.feinkost-kaefer.de). Afterward, you're free to loop around the glass igloo.

    5:30 p.m.
    2) TRANS-EURO EXPRESS

    Sightseeing mainstays like the triumphant Brandenburg Gate, the crystalline Potsdamer Platz (www.potsdamer-platz.net) and the sobering Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe (www.holocaust-mahnmal.de) are within an easy stroll. But don't miss the Hauptbahnhof (www.hbf-berlin.de). Opened in May, the glass-and-steel spaceship is the Grand Central Terminal of Europe, a great place to watch daily life unfold.

    9 p.m.
    3) NOTHING WURST

    Forget Bratwurst. For lighter versions of Teutonic cuisine, try Schneeweiss, a nouvelle German restaurant in the Friedrichshain district, Berlin's equivalent of the Lower East Side (Simplonstrasse 16, 49-30-290-497-04; www.schneeweiss-berlin.de). Dishes like grilled trout in a red wine sauce and pork ragout in a red berry coulis are served in a sparse, candlelit room that draws young couples and trend-conscious diners. Entrees rarely exceed 12 euros.

    11 p.m.
    4) NIGHT OUT AT SPROCKETS

    Stay in Friedrichshain. The smoke-filled cafes around Simon-Dach-Strasse are full of young Berliners priced out of the central Mitte district; beers are usually under 2.50 euros. Later, cross the Spree River into the borough of Kreuzberg, the former punk quarter and Turkish enclave that is experiencing a Williamsburg-style revival. The bars and clubs along Oranienstrasse offer something for everyone. For rollicking music, strut to S036 and hear live bands like Napalm Death (No. 190; 49-30-414-013-06; www.so36.de). Or, for drag queens and plastic Virgin Marys, sashay a few doors down to Roses, a kitschy lounge that sparkles until 5 a.m. (No. 187; 49-30-615-65-70). The night is still young, so pick up a copy of Zitty (www.zitty.de), a biweekly arts magazine, or Exberliner (www.exberliner.com), an English-language monthly, for the club of the moment.

     

    Noon
    5) MITTE ART MILE

    O.K., you're still asleep. But when you do wake up, you'll need some fuel before hitting the much-hyped art scene in the Mitte district. Do both at Monsieur Vuong (Alte Schönhauser Strasse 46; 49-30-3087-2643; www.monsieurvuong.de), a Vietnamese restaurant that serves as a kind of high school cafeteria for the neighborhood's galleries. A spicy bowl of glass noodles with chicken is 6.40 euros. Then hop over to Auguststrasse, Mitte's Art Mile, where the buzz originated at places like Galerie Eigen+Art (No. 26; 49-30-280-66-05; www.eigen-art.com) and Kunst-Werke Berlin, the city's answer to New York's P.S. 1. (No. 69; 49-30-243-45-90; www.kw-berlin.de). Like SoHo in its pre-mall days, the galleries can afford to be refreshingly uneven and irreverent. And new ones open every month. Goff+Rosenthal (Brunnenstrasse 3; 49-30- 4373-50-83; www.goffandrosenthal.com), an offshoot of a Chelsea gallery in New York, opened three months ago and showcases emerging artists from Berlin and elsewhere. For a handy gallery map, pick up the free Index (www.indexberlin.de ).

    3 p.m.
    6) POSTMODERN SHOPPING SPREE

    I shop, therefore I am. While global brands like American Apparel and Diesel have recently colonized Mitte, low rents mean that concept stores, micro-boutiques and street-wear designers are still around, blurring the line between gallery and galleria. Comme des Garçons opened one of its clandestine temporary stores in a hard-to-find alley (Brunnenstrasse 152; 49-30-280-45-338; www.guerrilla-store.com). Über is a retail chameleon, so it might sell handbags one month and garden crows the next (Auguststrasse 26A; 49-30-6677-90-95; www.ueber-store.de). And the Apartment looks like an empty white box, until you descend into the dark cellar crammed with fashion labels like Bernhard Willhelm and Caviar Gauche (Memhardstrasse 8; 49-30-2804-2253; www.apartmentberlin.de). How does anyone in this underemployed city afford 300-euro shirts?

    7 p.m.
    7) SAND, SUDS AND SAUNA

    Ponder that question at one of the groovy beach bars that have washed up along the Spree. There's the U.F.O.-themed Space Bar in Friedrichshain, behind the longest extant section of the Berlin Wall (Mühlenstrasse 63; 49-30-4606-84-91; www.space-beach.de). The BundesPresseStrand has two pools and a glass pavilion near the Reichstag (Kapelleufer 1; www.bundespressestrand.de). But the favorite of the skinny jeans and fauxhawk set is Badeschiff, just east of gritty Kreuzberg (Eichenstrasse 4; 49-030-533-20-30; www.badeschiff.de). During the winter, its swimming pool, on a barge, is cocooned under a bubble tent and turned into a floating sauna.

    9 p.m.
    8) WHAT'S BISTRO IN DEUTSCH?

    In another sign of Berlin's ascension, the city now boasts 10 Michelin-starred restaurants, 4 of them in the former German Democratic Republic. But as in Paris and Hong Kong, good food is not confined to white-tablecloth establishments. Take Altes Europa, a smoky tavern in Mitte (Gipsstrasse 11; 49-30-2809-38-40; www.alteseuropa.com). For around 15 euros, you get Old World ambience, a smart-looking crowd and bistro-quality fare like plump green salads, velvety soups and tender steaks. A neighborhood gem, to be sure, and one that isn't rare.

    11 p.m.
    9) NEO-WEIMAR

    Few streets have mutated as much as Oranienburger Strasse, the spine of Mitte. A squatters' row as recently as the late 1990s, the street is now littered with bars and tourist traps that recall Bleecker Street on amateur nights. For a glimpse of Berlin's quickly fading underbelly, grab a beer at the Tacheles art house (No. 54-56A; 49-30-282-61-85; www.tacheles.de), the ruins of a former department store that feels like the inside of CBGB's legendary bathroom. Then flee to White Trash, a cabaret and tat- too parlor that resurrects the Weimar Republic inside a gaudy Chinese-Irish restaurant (Schönhauser Allee 6-7; www.whitetrashfastfood.com). Packed with out-of-work artists, punks rockers and assorted freaks, it's fringe Berlin at its finest.

    3:30 a.m.
    10) 'BEST CLUB IN THE WORLD'

    Maybe it's the hypnotic techno, hedonistic frisson or illicit party favors, but globe-trotting clubbers rave about Berghain, a huge disco in a weedy stretch behind the Ostbahnhof station in Friedrichshain (www.berghain.de; admission 12 euros). How else to explain the 45-minute wait at this ungodly hour? According to its detailed Wikipedia citation, "Berghain is best-known for its decadent, bacchanalian, sexually uninhibited parties which often continue into the following afternoon" And some stay even longer.

    Sunday
    1 p.m.
    11) BIRDS AND BEERS

    Need a break from the über-hipsters and existential banter? The huge and green Tiergarten — Berlin's central park — is an urban oasis popular with joggers, bird-watchers and nude sunbathers alike. To shake off last night, take a long stroll through this swampy former hunting ground. Drop in on the pandas and penguins at the Zoological Garden and Aquarium (Hardenbergplatz 8; 49-30-254-010; www.zoo-berlin.de). Or grab an outdoor seat at Cafe Am Neuen See, a calming beer garden and restaurant that sits on the edge of a lake (Lichtensteinallee; 49-30-2544-93-00). It is your quiet time in Berlin.

    3 p.m.
    12) TRADE YOUR EUROS

    Despite the lousy exchange rate, you'll be surprised by how many euros you have left. Use them along Strasse des 17. Juni, the park's main transverse, which turns into Berlin's oldest (and priciest) flea market on weekends. Forage for early-20th-century antiques, used books and a jumble of odds and ends. Alternately, for some East Village flair, make a beeline for the Sunday flea market at Boxhagener Platz. It's crammed with funky T-shirts, vintage Kraftwerk vinyl, plastic housewares and plenty of genuine junk. Don't forget your camera: the crowd trends toward purple-dyed punks, nose-pierced vamps, dreadlocked crusties and, everyone's favorite, aging hippies. In other words, it's the 80s all over again, but with even more kitsch.

    The Basics

    Continental Airlines flies nonstop to Berlin from Newark, and Delta flies nonstop from Kennedy. Flights start at about $400 this month and take about eight hours on the outbound leg. Berlin's tiny Tegel airport is five miles from the city center. The 20-minute taxi ride costs about 20 euros ($27 at $1.36 to the euro).

    Sleep in grand style at the Hotel de Rome, the latest from the luxury hotelier Rocco Forte (Behrenstrasse 37;49-30-460-60-90; www.hotelderome.com). Opened in October, it occupies a former bank in Mitte, just off Unter den Linden. The 146 rooms are spacious, furnished in Art-Deco and neo-Classic styles, and start at 380 euros a night.

    For modern style at a moderate price, check into Lux 11 (Rosa-Luxemburg-Strasse 9-13; 49-30-936-2800; www.lux11.com). With rooms starting at 99 euros, the boutique hotel keeps costs down by eschewing daily maid service and 24-hour attention, and focusing on what matters to its fashionable guests: sleek design.

    If that's outside your budget, try the nearby Circus Hostel (Weinbergsweg 1A; 49-30-2839-14-33; www.circus-berlin.de). Clean, friendly and efficient, the hostel has private rooms with baths starting at 62 euros for a double; dormitory-style bunks start at 17 euros.


     

    Hippocrates Meets Fidel, and Even U.S. Students Enroll

    Jose Goitia for The New York Times

    Nancy Gonzáles, center, using a cadaver to teach anatomy to Jamar Williams, left, of Brooklyn and others

    December 8, 2006    
    Jose Goitia for The New York Times


    Students from many countries at the Latin American School of Medical Sciences, founded by Fidel Castro, on a campus just outside Havana.

    December 8, 2006
    Havana Journal

    Hippocrates Meets Fidel, and Even U.S. Students Enroll

    HAVANA, Dec. 7 — Anatomy is a part of medical education everywhere. Biochemistry, too. But a course in Cuban history?

    The Latin American School of Medical Sciences, on a sprawling former naval base on the outskirts of this capital, teaches its students medicine Cuban style. That means poking at cadavers, peering into aging microscopes and discussing the revolution that brought Fidel Castro to power 48 years ago.

    Cuban-trained doctors must be able not only to diagnose an ulcer and treat hypertension but also to expound on the principles put forward by "el comandante."

    It was President Castro himself who in the late 1990s came up with the idea for this place, which gives potential doctors from throughout the Americas and Africa not just the A B C's of medicine but also the basic philosophy behind offering good health care to the struggling masses.

    The Cuban government offers full scholarships to poor students from abroad, and many, including 90 or so Americans, have jumped at the chance of a free medical education, even with a bit of Communist theory thrown in.

    "They are completing the dreams of our comandante," said the dean, Dr. Juan D. Carrizo Estévez. "As he said, they are true missionaries, true apostles of health."

    It is a strong personal desire to practice medicine that drives the students here more than any affinity for Mr. Castro. Those from the United States in particular insist that they want to become doctors, not politicians. They recoil at the notion that they are propaganda tools for Cuba, as critics suggest.

    "They ask no one to be political — it's your choice," said Jamar Williams, 27, of Brooklyn, a graduate of the State University of New York at Albany. "Many students decide to be political. They go to rallies and read political books. But you can lie low."

    Still, the Cuban authorities are eager to show off this school as a sign of the country's compassion and its standing in the world. And some students cannot help responding to the sympathetic portrayal of Mr. Castro, whom the United States government tars as a dictator who suppresses his people.

    "In my country many see Fidel Castro as a bad leader," said Rolando Bonilla, 23, a Panamanian who is in his second year of the six-year program. "My view has changed. I now know what he represents for this country. I identify with him."

    Fátima Flores, 20, of Mexico sympathized with Mr. Castro's government even before she was accepted for the program. "When we become doctors we can spread his influence," she said. "Medicine is not just something scientific. It's a way of serving the public. Look at Che."

    Che Guevara was an Argentine medical doctor before he became a revolutionary who fought alongside Mr. Castro in the rugged reaches of eastern Cuba and then lost his life in Bolivia while further spreading the cause.

    Tahirah Benyard, 27, a first-year student from Newark, said it was Cuba's offer to send doctors to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, which was rejected by the Bush administration, that prompted her to take a look at medical education in Cuba.

    "I saw my people dying," she said. "There was no one willing to help. The government was saying everything is going to be fine."

    She said she had been rejected by several American medical schools but could not have afforded their high costs anyway. Like other students from the United States, she was screened for the Cuba program by Pastors for Peace, a New York organization opposed to Washington's trade embargo against the island.

    Ms. Benyard hopes that one day she will be able to practice in poor neighborhoods back home. Whether her education, which is decidedly low tech, is up to American standards remains to be seen, although Cedric Edwards, the first American student to graduate, last year, passed his medical boards in the United States.

    If she makes it, Ms. Benyard will become one of a small pool of African-American doctors. Only about 6 percent of practicing physicians are members of minority groups, says the Association of American Medical Colleges, which recently began its own program to increase the number of minority medical students.

    Even before they were accepted into Cuba's program, most of the Americans here said they had misgivings about the health care system in their own country. There is too much of a focus on the bottom line, they said, and not enough compassion for the poor.

    "Democracy is a great principle," said Mr. Williams, who wears long dreadlocks pulled back behind his head. "The idea that people can speak for themselves and govern themselves is a great concept. But people must be educated, and in order to be educated, people need health."

    The education the students are receiving here extends outside the classroom.

    "I've learned to become a minimalist," Mr. Williams said. "I don't necessarily need my iPod, all my gadgets and gizmos, to survive."

    There are also fewer food options. The menu can be described as rice and beans and more rice and beans. Living conditions are more rugged in other respects as well. The electricity goes out frequently. Internet access is limited. Toilet paper and soap are rationed. Sometimes the water taps are dry.

    Then there is the issue of personal space.

    "Being in a room with 18 girls, it teaches you patience," said Ms. Benyard, who was used to her one-bedroom apartment back home and described her current living conditions as like a military barracks.

    Other students cited the American government's embargo as their biggest frustration. The blockade, which is what the Cuban government and many of the American students call it, means no care packages, no visits from Mom and Dad, and the threat that their government might penalize them for coming here.

    Last year Washington ordered the students home, but the decision was reversed after protests from the Congressional Black Caucus, which supports the program.

    One topic that does not come up in classes is the specific ailment that put Mr. Castro in the hospital, forced him to cede power to his brother Raúl and has kept him out of the public eye since late July. His diagnosis, like so much else in Cuba, is a state secret.


    Today's Papers

    Looking the Other Way
    By Joshua Kucera
    Posted Saturday, Dec. 9, 2006, at 4:27 AM E.T.

    The Washington Post leads with results of a House panel investigating the Mark Foley page scandal; it found that no laws were broken but that House leaders probably knew about Foley's inappropriate behavior yet did nothing to stop it. The New York Times leads with news from Iraq that government officials are close to reaching a deal on a law regulating how oil revenues will be shared. The Los Angeles Times leads with Congress approving a deal to provide India with nuclear technology. The Wall Street Journal worldwide newsbox leads with a last-day-of-Congress roundup.

    The House ethics panel recommended no action against any House leaders in the wake of the Foley scandal. Unsurprisingly, House leaders of both parties said the decision was just. The Post got in touch with two of the pages whom Foley e-mailed and neither was happy. "I'm surprised they aren't doing anything, but it's not shocking, given the lack of real accountability we've seen in Congress in general," said one.

    It was just one of many doings on the last day of the Congressional session, the end of a 12-year run of Republican dominance. The vote on the India bill was too late for any of the East coast newspapers. The vote wasn't close in either chamber—unanimous in the Senate—but the LAT gives heavy play to skeptics of the deal, who worry that it will damage worldwide nonproliferation efforts. "Such a policy unravels years of successful U.S. diplomatic efforts to convince countries that the benefits of surrendering the right to develop nuclear weapons outweighed the risk of staying outside the treaty and pursuing a nuclear weapons option," one analyst told the paper.

    And only the Journal and LAT closed late enough to note a postmidnight vote on a tax cut bill; the Journal says it amounted to $45 billion, the LAT $38 billion.

    The dispute over oil revenue is a key ingredient in Iraq's sectarian conflict, and resolving it could be a huge step in building confidence between the three major groups in Iraq. But, given the massive violence on the ground, it may be too late. "Officials cautioned that this was only a draft agreement, and that it could still be undermined by the ethnic and sectarian squabbling that has jeopardized other political talks. The Iraqi Constitution, for example, was stalled for weeks over small wording conflicts, and its measures are often meaningless in the chaos and violence in Iraq today," the NYT says.

    The Post off-leads with news that the White House is looking at three options for a dramatic strategy shift in Iraq, which it plans to unveil before Christmas. Call them "Go Slightly Bigger," "Go Ignore the Insurgency," and "Go Shiite." This is the must-read story of the day. The three options bear little resemblance to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. They are: a short-term increase of 15,000 to 30,000 U.S. troops, shifting U.S. forces away from "internal strife" and focusing them on fighting al-Qaida, and backing Shiites and Kurds against the Sunnis. Vice President Dick Cheney is apparently in favor of the last option. "A source familiar with the discussions said Cheney argued this week that the United States could not again be seen to abandon the Shiites, Iraq's largest population group, after calling in 1991 for them to rise up against then-President Saddam Hussein and then failing to support them when they did. Thousands were killed in a huge crackdown," the Post says. Guilty conscience? Cheney was secretary of defense then.

    The LAT fronts a similar story, but its sources are apparently not quite as good, as it only mentions the "Go Slightly Bigger" option. The NYT has even less.

    The Post and NYT front the death of Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the United Nations. The NYT has a rarity—a scoop in an obituary. George W. Bush asked Kirkpatrick to go to Geneva for him in 2003, according to a former aide, Alan Gerson. "The secret mission, previously undisclosed, was to head off a diplomatic uprising against the imminent war against Iraq. Arab ministers wanted to condemn it as an act of aggression. 'The marching orders we received were to argue that pre-emptive war is legitimate,' Mr. Gerson said. 'She said: "No one will buy it. If that's the position, count me out." ' "

    The Journal fronts a good, heavily reported analysis piece on a growing alliance between leftists and Islamists, in particular Hezbollah. What do they have in common? They both hate America.

    Exiled Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky seems to have some role in the polonium poisoning of a spy in London last month, the Post reports on the front page. However, that connection is not made explicit—the bulk of the article is devoted to Berezovsky's feud with Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom both Berezovsky and the poisonee, Alexander Litvinenko, blamed for the killing. But other than noting that "Kremlin supporters" (hardly impartial sources) say that Berezovsky wanted to "smear Russia's reputation by engineering a spectacular murder," the paper offers no evidence of a connection. Does the Post know something they can't tell us yet?

    The NYT stuffs its own update on polonium-gate, a profile of a colorful Italian character who shared the famous sushi with Litvinenko. But—the papers really can't get enough of this story —investigators now believe Litvinenko was poisoned not at the sushi restaurant but at a hotel bar, the LAT notes.

    The Taliban are gaining ground in Afghanistan and government control is now "tenuous" over 20 percent of Afghan territory, the LAT reports on the front page. The paper says the next three to six months will be decisive.

    Poaching is on the rise in the west, according to a front-page NYT story, fueled by an underground big-game scene. "It's big antlers and big egos," says one Montana wildlife official.

    High schools in the South are starting to install luxury boxes in their football stadiums, the WSJ reports. Rental costs up to $4,000 a year.

    Turn the other cheek? No, thanks. Hundreds of Iraqis are applying for the job of Saddam Hussein's hangman, the NYT reports on the front page. "They have sent messages through cabinet officials and their assistants, and by way of government guards and clerical workers," the Times reports. "One of the hardest tasks will be to determine who gets to be the hangman because so many people want revenge for the loss of their loved ones," one government official told the paper.

    Joshua Kucera is a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C.

    4:41 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

     

    Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan’s Forceful Envoy, Dies

    December 8, 2006    
    Kirkpatrick, U.N. Envoy Under Reagan, Dies
    Joel Landau/Associated Press

    Jeane J. Kirkpatrick representing the U.S. at the United Nations Security Council in 1984.
    December 9, 2006

    Jeane Kirkpatrick, Reagan's Forceful Envoy, Dies

    Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, the Reagan administration's first United Nations ambassador and a beacon of neoconservative thought who helped guide American military, diplomatic and covert action from 1981 to 1985, died Thursday at her home in Bethesda, Md. She was 80.

    Her death was announced yesterday by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where she was a senior fellow. The cause was congestive heart failure, said her personal assistant, Tammy Jagyur.

    Ms. Kirkpatrick was the first American woman to serve as United Nations ambassador. She was the only woman, and the only Democrat, in President Ronald Reagan's National Security Council. No woman had ever been so close to the center of presidential power without actually residing in the White House.

    "When she put her feet under the desk of the Oval Office, the president listened," said William P. Clark Jr., Mr. Reagan's national security adviser during 1982 and 1983. "And he usually agreed with her."

    President Reagan brought her into his innermost foreign policy circle, the National Security Planning Group. There she weighed the risks and rewards of clandestine warfare in Central America, covert operations against Libya, the disastrous deployment of American marines in Lebanon, the invasion of Grenada and support for rebel forces in Afghanistan.

    Her public diplomacy made her a national political figure. She was a star performer at the 1984 Republican national convention, deriding the Democrats as the "blame America first" party.

    She changed her political affiliation after leaving the Reagan administration and thought hard about seeking the Republican nomination for president.

    "So many people talked to me about it so much that they finally persuaded me to consider it," she said in October 1987. But she decided against it, fearing she would split the conservative vote and help elect Vice President George H. W. Bush. Though he won, she thought him too moderate to inherit the Reagan legacy.

    Fifteen years later, in March 2003, President Bush recalled Ambassador Kirkpatrick to active duty and sent her to Geneva, said Alan Gerson, who had served as her general counsel at the United Nations. The secret mission, previously undisclosed, was to head off a diplomatic uprising against the imminent war against Iraq. Arab ministers wanted to condemn it as an act of aggression.

    "The marching orders we received were to argue that pre-emptive war is legitimate," Mr. Gerson said. "She said: 'No one will buy it. If that's the position, count me out.' "

    Instead, she argued that the attack was justified by Saddam Hussein's violations of United Nations resolutions dating from the 1991 war against Iraq. The foreign ministers found her position convincing and their resolve against the war faded, Mr. Gerson said.

    Ms. Kirkpatrick was a political science professor with no diplomatic experience when she arrived at the United Nations in February 1981. Her mission was to wage rhetorical warfare against Moscow and its allies. She sought to restore the international standing of the United States after its defeat in Vietnam and the captivity of Americans in Iran.

    Her high-profile performance at the United Nations made her President Reagan's favorite envoy. "You're taking off that big sign that we used to wear that said, 'Kick Me,' " the president told her. He admired her strong diplomatic stands and her undiplomatic language. In a letter to 40 third world ambassadors in October 1981, for example, she accused them of spreading "base lies" and making "malicious attacks upon the good name of the United States."

    When nations opposed American foreign policy, she sent their voting records to Congress. The threat was tacit but clear: to stand against the United States meant to risk losing its foreign aid. Her deputy at the United Nations, Kenneth L. Adelman, said she enjoyed such close combat.

    "We were like Davy Crockett at the Alamo," he said.

    Said She Hated U.N. Job

    She professed to detest the United Nations. She compared it to "death and taxes." But she endured it for four years.

    At the United Nations, she defended Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the American invasion of Grenada in 1983. She argued for El Salvador's right-wing junta and against Nicaragua's left-wing ruling council, the Sandinistas.

    In private, she supported American efforts to sustain the contras, the rebel group that tried to overthrow the Sandinistas with help from the Central Intelligence Agency. She was a crucial participant in a March 1981 National Security Planning Group meeting that produced a $19 million covert action plan to make the contras a fighting force.

    She was part of a national security team that was often at war with itself. Her relationship with Mr. Reagan's first secretary of state, the four-star general Alexander M. Haig Jr., "started off bad and got worse over time," Mr. Adelman said in an oral history of the Reagan years. She had something Mr. Haig found that he lacked: the president's ear.

    Ms. Kirkpatrick first entered Mr. Reagan's inner circle on the strength of a 10,000-word article she published in the neoconservative magazine Commentary in November 1979. The article, "Dictatorships and Double Standards," drew a bright line between right-wing pro-American governments and left-wing anti-American ones.

    "Traditional authoritarian governments," she argued, "are less repressive than revolutionary autocracies." She said it was an historic mistake for the United States to have shied away from dictators like the Somozas in Nicaragua and the Shah of Iran. If they served American interests, she asserted, they were defensible.

    Mr. Reagan read the article closely. Richard V. Allen, who later became the first of his six national security advisers, introduced him to Ms. Kirkpatrick. They met at a February 1980 dinner party given by George F. Will, the syndicated columnist.

    She recalled that she wondered aloud how she, a Democrat all her life, could join his team. Mr. Reagan confided, "I was a Democrat once, you know." He won her over. After his election a year later, Ms. Kirkpatrick became the United Nations ambassador and "Dictatorships and Double Standards" became an important part of the foreign policy of the United States.

    At the United Nations, Ms. Kirkpatrick was the target of barbs and backstabbing. Sometimes she was aware of the source, sometimes not.

    She knew she was "a kind of special target for the Soviets — disinformation target," she said at a 2003 foreign policy roundtable convened by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. In 1982, the K.G.B. forged a letter to discredit her and fobbed it off on the Washington correspondent for The New Statesman, a leftist British weekly, which reprinted it. The phony letter was a note of "best regards and gratitude" from the intelligence chief of the apartheid South African government.

    "But I felt there was as much disinformation aimed at me from inside our own government, frankly, as from the Soviet Union," Ms. Kirkpatrick said. "That's a shocking thing to say, but it is no exaggeration."

    Role as Adviser Blocked

    In 1983, Ms. Kirkpatrick was a strong candidate to become President Reagan's third national security adviser. She had support from the director of central intelligence, William J. Casey, and Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger. But her new boss, Secretary of State George P. Shultz, opposed her.

    "I respected her intelligence, but she was not well suited to the job," Mr. Shultz wrote. "Her strength was in her capacity for passionate advocacy," and the post, he added, demanded a "dispassionate broker."

    Ms. Kirkpatrick was at the June 1984 National Security Planning Group meeting that began the secret initiative that later became known as the Iran-contra affair. Congress had cut off funds for the contras. Mr. Casey wanted to obtain money from foreign countries in defiance of the ban.

    Ms. Kirkpatrick was in favor. "We should make the maximum effort to find the money," she said. Mr. Shultz was opposed. "It is an impeachable offense," he said. President Reagan warned that if the story leaked, "we'll all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the White House."

    Secret Arms Sales Exposed

    Over the next two years, millions skimmed from secret arms sales to Iran went to the contras. The story did leak, as Mr. Reagan feared, and his administration was shaken by Congressional investigations and criminal charges. Robert C. McFarlane, who had won the national security slot over Ms. Kirkpatrick, pleaded guilty to misinforming Congress.

    Mr. McFarlane said he should have stood up against the secret initiative to support the contras. But "if I'd done that," he said, "Bill Casey, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Cap Weinberger would have said I was some kind of commie."

    By then Ms. Kirkpatrick had left the government. She stuck to a vow to leave the United Nations at the end of Mr. Reagan's first term and resigned in April 1985. She was succeeded by Vernon A. Walters, a former deputy director of central intelligence. The next year, as the Iran-contra story began unfolding, Mr. Casey urged the president to make her secretary of state, but Mr. Reagan rejected the idea.

    Ms. Kirkpatrick spent the rest of her career commenting on policy instead of making it. She remained among the most highly regarded members of the Republican establishment, and her voice remained one of the strongest echoes of the Reagan era.

    Jeane Duane Jordan was born on Nov. 19, 1926, in Duncan, Okla., about 160 miles northwest of Dallas, the daughter of Welcher F. and Leona Jordan. Her father was an oil wildcatter who moved from town to town searching for a gusher that he never hit.

    She attended Stephens College in Missouri for two years, then moved to New York, where she earned a bachelor's degree from Barnard College in 1948 and a master's degree from Columbia University in 1950. She went to Washington as a research analyst at the Intelligence and Research Bureau of the State Department, where she met her future husband, Evron Kirkpatrick. Fifteen years her senior, he was a veteran of the wartime Office of Strategic Services, and he soon became the head of the American Political Science Association. They married in 1955 and had three sons — Douglas Jordan, John Evron and Stuart Alan. Douglas died earlier this year. The other sons and five grandchildren survive her. Mr. Kirkpatrick died in 1995.

    In 1967, before completing her doctoral dissertation, she was appointed associate professor at Georgetown University. The next year, she earned a doctorate in political science at Columbia University. Georgetown made her a full professor in 1973 and gave her the endowed Leavey Chair five years later.

    Ms. Kirkpatrick supported Jimmy Carter in 1976 and came close to being chosen for an ambassadorship in his administration. But she had become deeply disenchanted with her party.

    Swept In With 50 Others

    She joined the vanguard of the neoconservative movement, the Committee on the Present Danger, which warned throughout the late 1970s of a disastrous downturn in every aspect of American strength, from nuclear warheads to national image. When Mr. Reagan came to office in 1981, 51 of the committee's members won positions of significant power in his administration.

    Power, Ms. Kirkpatrick said in a 1996 interview, is based not merely on guns or money but on the strength of personal conviction.

    "We were concerned about the weakening of Western will," she said. "We advocated rebuilding Western strength, and we did that with Ronald Reagan, if I may say so."


     

    Billions Later, Plan to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles

    Nicole LaCour Young for The New York Times

    NATIONAL SECURITY CUTTER The first ship was christened in November. Despite the ship's high cost, it may be prone to premature hull cracking.

    Overall Documents
    123 Ship
    123-Foot Patrol Boat
    Fast Response Cutter
    The Fast Response Cutter
    National Security Cutter
    The National Security Cutter
    Vincent Laforet for The New York Times

    PATROL BOATS Converted at a cost of $12 million each, these boats, which have been taken out of service, sustained hull breaches and shaft alignment problems that the Coast Guard tried to repair in Key West, Fla.

    December 9, 2006
    Failure to Navigate

    Billions Later, Plan to Remake the Coast Guard Fleet Stumbles

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 8 — Four years after the Coast Guard began an effort to replace nearly its entire fleet of ships, planes and helicopters, the modernization program heralded as a model of government innovation is foundering.

    The initial venture — converting rusting 110-foot patrol boats, the workhorses of the Coast Guard, into more versatile 123-foot cutters — has been canceled after hull cracks and engine failures made the first eight boats unseaworthy.

    Plans to build a new class of 147-foot ships with an innovative hull have been halted after the design was found to be flawed.

    And the first completed new ship — a $564 million behemoth christened last month — has structural weaknesses that some Coast Guard engineers believe may threaten its safety and limit its life span, unless costly repairs are made.

    The problems have helped swell the costs of the fleet-building program to a projected $24 billion, from $17 billion, and delayed the arrival of any new ships or aircraft.

    That has compromised the Coast Guard's ability to fulfill its mission, which greatly expanded after the 2001 attacks to include guarding the nation's shores against terrorists. The service has been forced to cut back on patrols and, at times, ignore tips from other federal agencies about drug smugglers. The difficulties will only grow more acute in the next few years as old boats fail and replacements are not ready.

    Adm. Thad W. Allen, who took over as Coast Guard commandant in May, acknowledged that the program had been troubled and said that he had begun to address the problems. "You will see changes shortly in the Coast Guard in our acquisition organization," Admiral Allen said. "It will be significantly different than we have done in the past."

    The modernization effort was a bold experiment, called Deepwater, to build the equivalent of a modest navy — 91 new ships, 124 small boats, 195 new or rebuilt helicopters and planes and 49 unmanned aerial vehicles.

    Instead of doing it piecemeal, the Coast Guard decided to package everything, in hopes that the fleet would be better integrated and its multibillion price would command attention from a Congress and White House traditionally more focused on other military branches. And instead of managing the project itself, the Coast Guard hired Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, two of the nation's largest military contractors, to plan, supervise and deliver the new vessels and helicopters.

    Many retired Coast Guard officials, former company executives and government auditors fault that privatization model, saying it allowed the contractors at times to put their interests ahead of the Guard's.

    "This is the fleecing of America," said Anthony D'Armiento, a systems engineer who has worked for Northrop and the Coast Guard on the project. "It is the worst contract arrangement I've seen in all my 20 plus years in naval engineering."

    Insufficient oversight by the Coast Guard resulted in the service buying some equipment it did not want and ignoring repeated warnings from its own engineers that the boats and ships were poorly designed and perhaps unsafe, the agency acknowledged. The Deepwater program's few Congressional skeptics were outmatched by lawmakers who became enthusiastic supporters, mobilized by an aggressive lobbying campaign financed by Lockheed and Northrop.

    And the contractors failed to fulfill their obligation to make sure the government got the best price, frequently steering work to their subsidiaries or business partners instead of competitors, according to government auditors and people affiliated with the program.

    Even some of the smaller Deepwater projects raise questions about management. The radios placed in small, open boats were not waterproof and immediately shorted out, for example. Electronics equipment costing millions of dollars is still being installed in the new cutter, even though it will be ripped out because the Coast Guard does not want it. An order of eight small, inflatable boats cost an extra half-million dollars because the purchase passed through four layers of contractors.

    For the Department of Homeland Security, which took over responsibility for the Coast Guard in 2003, Deepwater joins its already long list of troubled programs, including its airport checkpoint measures, its biodefense efforts and its widely condemned handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina.

    The Homeland Security Department's inspector general has warned that the department cannot repeat this experience as it begins a $7 billion plan to tighten the border. The department is taking a similar management approach with that plan, relying on the Boeing Corporation to develop, supervise and execute the strategy.

    Spokesmen for Northrop and Lockheed, and the partnership they formed to run Deepwater, declined repeated requests for interviews, saying they would leave it to the Coast Guard to discuss the project. The companies also declined to respond to written questions.

    Admiral Allen said the Coast Guard engineers and procurement staff team would now play a much larger role in overseeing the project in an effort to rein in its private sector partners, adding that the mistakes made were unacceptable.

    "Our people are demoralized by it, they don't deserve it, and it really impedes our ability to execute our mission," he said.

    Early Warnings

    On a clear, calm morning in Key West, Fla., one day last month — perfect weather for running drugs and migrants — six of the eight converted Coast Guard patrol boats were broken down or out of service. Their crews had little to do but shine the ships' already gleaming bells and clean its guns.

    The Deepwater plan called for transforming the 110-foot boats into larger, more versatile cutters with rebuilt hulls, new communications and surveillance gear and a 13-foot extension to make room for a small boat launch ramp.

    Even before the refurbishing began in 2003, though, Coast Guard engineers expressed doubts that the boats could bear the extra weight the changes would impose. "You could have buckling of the structure of the ship," Chris Cleary, of the Engineering Logistics Center at the Coast Guard, said he recalls pointing out. But Bollinger Shipyards, a business partner of Northrop and Lockheed, insisted the conversion would succeed.

    As the work got under way, the Coast Guard provided only limited oversight. It did not fill dozens of its seats on joint management teams set up for the project. And the Coast Guard assigned seven inspectors to monitor the work, compared with 20 on a similar-size job.

    "In theory, we were going drive a 110-foot cutter up to the pier, drop it off and come back in 34 weeks to pick up a 123-foot cutter," said Lt. Benjamin Fleming, the Coast Guard's representative at the shipyard in Lockport, La. "We were putting a lot of trust and faith in our partners."

    Michael De Kort, a former Lockheed project manager, said the results quickly became apparent.

    The VHF radio on the small launch would be exposed to the elements but was not waterproof, Mr. De Kort said. The classified communications equipment had not been properly shielded to protect messages from eavesdropping. Cameras intended to provide 360-degree surveillance had two large blind spots.

    Mr. De Kort said he had repeatedly warned his Lockheed supervisors of the problems, but was rebuffed. "We have an approved design and we aren't going to change it," Mr. De Kort said he was told. He was later laid off from the company. Lockheed officials declined to comment.

    In September 2004, more serious flaws in the boat conversion program became obvious after the first one, the Matagorda, was launched. As it traveled in relatively heavy seas from Key West to Miami, large cracks appeared in the hull and deck.

    Giant steel straps that looked like Band-Aids were affixed to the side of the boats, and the vessels were barred from venturing out in rough water. But cracks and bulges continued to scar the Matagorda and other converted ships, followed by a series of mechanical problems.

    Bollinger, it turned out, had overestimated how much stress the modified boats could handle, a miscalculation it cannot fully explain. "The computer broke for some reason," said T. R. Hamlin, a senior Bollinger manager. "Whether it was a power surge or something, who knows?" The cursory oversight by the Coast Guard meant the mistake was not caught in time.

    After spending about $100 million on the first eight boats, the Coast Guard suspended the conversion plan. Last week, Admiral Allen ordered the boats taken out of service, citing concerns about crew safety.

    Facing a shortage of patrol boats, the contractors and the Coast Guard decided to speed development of a larger ship, the Fast Response Cutter. The hull was to be built from glass-reinforced plastic, known as a composite, something never tried on a large American military ship.

    While acknowledging that it might cost much more to build the 58 planned cutters with composite hulls instead of steel, Northrop and Lockheed claimed the boats would last longer and require less maintenance, saving money over the long run.

    Coast Guard engineers again were doubtful that Northrop's design would work, citing concerns about weight, hull shape and fuel consumption. The Coast Guard also found inconsistencies in the cost data Northrop used to justify the new hull.

    One former Northrop executive said the company was pushing the plan not because it was in the best interest of the Coast Guard, but because Northrop had just spent $64 million to turn its shipyard in Gulfport, Miss., into the country's first large-scale composite hull manufacturing plant for military ships.

    "It was a pure business decision," said the former executive, who disagreed with the plan and would speak only anonymously for fear of retribution. "And it was the wrong one."

    That became clear when a scale model of the Fast Response Cutter was placed in a tank of water — and flunked the test. After three years and $38 million, Northrop Grumman's plan was suspended.

    Financial Aid

    The Coast Guard recognized from the start that it might need help financing a project as big as Deepwater, and that was part of the reason it turned to Lockheed and Northrop.

    "They have armies of lobbyists, they can help get dollars to get the job done," explained Jim McEntire, a retired captain who had served as a senior Coast Guard budget official. "The White House and Congress listen to big industrial concerns."

    That assistance would prove valuable. Just months after the contract was awarded in June 2002 through a competitive bidding process, the Coast Guard began to study whether the $17 billion Deepwater budget would be inadequate, given additional costs for antiterrorism equipment. In 2005, the service informed Congress that the program would cost $24 billion over 20 years and that the annual allocation would need to double, to $1 billion.

    By then, though, the patrol boat conversion had been halted. Deepwater's costs were ballooning, but the Coast Guard was having a hard time explaining exactly how it would spend more money. Government auditors were starting to churn out reports warning of serious management weaknesses.

    That record disturbed some members of Congress. In May 2005, the House Appropriations Committee slashed the program's annual budget request nearly in half to register its frustration.

    At a hearing two months later, Representative Harold Rogers, a Kentucky Republican who oversees the Homeland Security budget, instructed the Coast Guard to fix its problems and restrain costs. "You simply took the most expensive, all-inclusive Cadillac Seville and we're going to have to, with our limited funds, fit you into something a bit more appropriate," Mr. Rogers said. "I hope it's more than a Chevrolet."

    To fight back, the Coast Guard and contractors relied on Congressional allies, led by Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, Representative Frank A. LoBiondo, Republican of New Jersey, and Representative Gene Taylor, Democrat of Mississippi.

    Mr. Taylor and Mr. LoBiondo had formed a group called the Congressional Coast Guard Caucus. It began in the late 1990s with 4 members and today has more than 75.

    The enthusiasm of the three leaders for the Deepwater project was not simply about meeting the Coast Guard's needs. Maine is home to Bath Iron Works, a major ship builder that Ms. Snowe said might benefit from increased Deepwater spending. While that was a factor, she said it was not her primary motivation.

    Ms. Snowe and Mr. LoBiondo, the leaders of the Senate and House panels that oversee the Coast Guard, said they pushed for more spending only after the service's leaders reassured them during hearings that they were addressing the program's problems. They both also said they were convinced that the Coast Guard desperately needed Deepwater because its helicopter engines were routinely breaking down and the hulls of old ships were failing.

    "We don't want to waste money; we don't want ineffective programs," Ms. Snowe said in an interview. "At the same time, we can't allow the Coast Guard to languish."

    Mr. Taylor's district is home to Northrop Grumman's shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., which is building the Coast Guard's largest ship, and Northrop and its employees are one of his biggest sources of campaign contributions. He worked along with two key Republicans in Mississippi — Senator Trent Lott, whose father was once a pipe fitter at the Pascagoula shipyard, and Senator Thad Cochran, the chairman of the Senate appropriations committee — to win more money.

    Mr. LoBiondo's district is home to the Coast Guard's national training center, and Lockheed Martin built its Deepwater equipment testing center just outside his district. He is also one of the top Congressional recipients of Lockheed contributions.

    The contractors ran advertisements aimed at lawmakers in Washington publications, delivering ominous messages about the need to stop terrorists before they reach American shores. The Navy League, a nonprofit group partly financed by Lockheed and Northrop, orchestrated telephone calls, letters and visits to lawmakers, reminding them that hundreds of contractors across the country were already working as suppliers on the project.

    And the Coast Guard got an important boost when it was widely praised for its helicopter rescues after Hurricane Katrina.

    The lobbying effort paid off. In September 2005, Congress agreed to increase the annual financing for Deepwater to nearly $1 billion.

    Late Scramble

    If there was a single ship that could prove to skeptics that the Coast Guard and its contractors could get the job done right, it would be the National Security Cutter, a ship unlike anything the Coast Guard had ever built. Bigger than any existing cutter, it was more like a warship, designed to patrol with Navy vessels.

    It would carry sophisticated weapons systems, surveillance equipment, a helicopter and two unmanned aerial vehicles, all vital in its effort to intercept boats suspected of carrying terrorists, drug dealers or illegal immigrants. It was designed to monitor 56,000 square miles a day, an area four times as large as that covered by any other Coast Guard ship.

    Because the ship was so expensive — each was expected to cost about $300 million — the Coast Guard decided to build only 8 to replace its fleet of 12 large cutters.

    There was just one catch. Even before the cutter began taking form at the Pascagoula shipyard on the Gulf of Mexico, familiar problems cropped up.

    The Coast Guard's engineers believed the design proposed by Northrop and Lockheed had serious structural flaws that could result in the hull collapsing or premature cracking of the hull and deck, according to Mr. Cleary and his boss, Rubin Sheinberg, chief of the Coast Guard's naval architecture branch.

    When they alerted the contractors and Coast Guard officials, they were largely brushed off, the men said. In March 2004, their supervisor protested, saying the Coast Guard should delay construction.

    "Significant problems persist with the structural design," Rear Adm. Erroll M. Brown wrote to the Deepwater project director. "Several of these problems compromise the safety and the viability of the hull, possibly resulting in structural failure and unacceptable hull vibration."

    The Coast Guard decided to move ahead anyway, figuring it would be less disruptive to fix any problems later. As the shipbuilding progressed, other Coast Guard officials began to openly complain that some decisions by the contractors appeared to be motivated by a drive to increase profits, not to best serve the Coast Guard.

    Lockheed, for example, ordered computerized consoles for the ship that it had developed for a Navy aircraft carrier. But they were too big for the cutter, said Jay A. Creech, a retired Coast Guard captain working as a contractor on Deepwater.

    A consultant hired by the Coast Guard to review Northrop and Lockheed's purchasing decisions found that of $210 million worth of contracts awarded in 2004, just 30 percent involved a formal competitive process. Northrop in particular was faulted for failing to aggressively seek bids to ensure the best price.

    Northrop and Lockheed "lack the independence needed to make objective decisions in the best interests of the Coast Guard," an August 2006 report by the Homeland Security inspector general said.

    Others say that giving the contractors so much authority was a mistake from the start. "A contractor with a profit motive is never a trusted agent," said Joe Ryan, a Coast Guard consultant who has helped with the Deepwater project. "They are the vendor, and they are selling you something."

    Problems began to accumulate elsewhere. In Texas, a prototype of the unmanned aerial vehicle that was to be placed on the ship's deck crashed this year. After the crash, the project, by Bell Helicopter, also faced a money crunch and was put on hold, pushing delivery back to at least 2013, six years after the first national security cutter is scheduled for active duty. Without the two aerial vehicles, the cutter's surveillance range is reduced by more than half.

    By the time the ship was christened last month, its price had grown to $564 million, nearly twice its original cost. (The average price for the eight ships is expected to be $431 million.) And by then, Coast Guard officials had conceded that the ship had structural flaws. Navy experts had evaluated the ship and confirmed many of the earlier warnings.

    Admiral Allen said he had been given assurances that the ship was not at risk of a catastrophic hull failure and would not pose a safety threat to its crew. But the Coast Guard has decided to make structural modifications to the vessel and require design changes for the third cutter. Work is too far along to change course on the second cutter.

    Four years into the Deepwater project, the Coast Guard, according to its original plan, was supposed to have 26 new or rebuilt ships, 12 new planes and 8 unmanned vehicles, but none are available. Now, officials are scrambling to find an off-the-shelf design for a new cutter and make modest repairs to keep their aging patrol boats operable.

    "We don't have the ships we need, and we don't have a way to get them anytime soon," said Representative David R. Obey, Democrat of Wisconsin, who will take over the House Appropriations Committee next month. "It's inexcusable."

    The Coast Guard, which would not disclose the management fees it has paid Northrop and Lockheed, is renegotiating the contract to ensure that the companies honor a commitment to open the work to competition and deliver what they promise.

    And Admiral Allen and other Coast Guard officials say the Coast Guard's engineers are being given more power to supervise the work. Admiral Allen is also creating a division to oversee the procurement and maintenance of its ships and airplanes. "That is the main gap that needs to be closed," he said.

    The Deepwater experiment, one contracting expert said, underscores the need for the Coast Guard to be a smart buyer, even if it has hired high-priced advice.

    "The government still needs to be in there so they know what decisions are being made and if the decisions are in their best interest," said Michele Mackin, an assistant director at the Government Accountability Office. "It is still their money. And they are going to be flying the planes and running the ships."


     

    Wednesday, December 06, 2006

    Ferrari leads on day one at Jerez

    Close window
    Felipe Massa
    F1 > Barcelona November testing, 2006-11-28 (Circuit de Catalunya): Day 1

    Ferrari leads on day one at Jerez

    Racing series  F1
    Date 2006-12-06

    By Nikki Reynolds - Motorsport.com

    --> -->Winter testing resumed on December 6th at the Spanish circuit of Jerez and 17 drivers from nine teams at work. Ferrari led the way, Felipe Massa's best of 1:19.448 two and a half tenths up on team test driver Luca Badoer. They focused on a technical programme of endurance testing, new components and set up.

    See large picture
    Felipe Massa. Photo by xpb.cc.

    Best of the rest behind the Ferraris was McLaren's Lewis Hamilton in third, half a second off Badoer. Team tester Pedro de la Rosa was seventh and in the early damp conditions they worked on wets tyres and continued on dries when the track improved. Hamilton also evaluated suspension and de la Rosa front and rear wings.

    Honda test driver Christian Klien was fourth overall and the team's second tester James Rossiter was eighth. They mainly concentrated on tyres, wets being the initial work until the conditions got better. Then Klien worked on balance while Rossiter focused on set up. Jenson Button is expected to sit out this test due to cracked ribs but Rubens Barrichello is scheduled to join tomorrow.

    Toyota had a new test line up on duty, 2007 official third driver Franck Montagny making an early appearance and Young Driver Programme pilot Kohei Hirate having his first F1 test. Montagny, fifth, continued to familiarize himself with his new team while Hirate, 15th, had some cockpit adjustments and the team reported his performance improved steadily.

    "Kohei had a very good first day I would say, he made no mistakes and he set quite a good lap time which we are quite pleased with," said chief race and test engineer Dieter Gass. "Frank was back in the car for the first time since September and as expected he did a solid job and set a competitive lap time in the afternoon."

    Anthony Davidson was the sole Super Aguri driver present and was a notable sixth on the time sheet, a second off the pace of Massa. The team continued with the tyre programme started at Barcelona last week and commented that "Anthony has continued to integrate well with the team and provide valuable feedback."

    Heikki Kovalainen was the lead Renault in ninth and teammate Giancarlo Fisichella was 14th. Kovalainen worked on chassis set up, with a focus on comparing tyre characteristics from last week's Barcelona test with data from this circuit. It was Fisichella's first day of winter work and he began getting used to the Bridgestone tyres.

    "We lost a lot of running time this morning because it took a long time for the track to dry out properly, and we didn't see any point in running when the track wasn't ready," said Kovalainen. "In spite of that, we did some important tests that help us better understand our conclusions from Barcelona, and that is a good step."

    Williams was represented by Nico Rosberg and the German racer was 10th fastest. Red Bull had Mark Webber and tester Michael Ammermuller on duty and they were 11th and 13th respectively. Sister team Toro Rosso had one car on track, Tonio Liuzzi 16th. No information was available from those teams at the time of writing.

    BMW fielded Robert Kubica and tester Sebastian Vettel. They too tested wet tyres early on and Kubica, 12th fastest, ran the new SSG gearbox, while Vettel, rounding off the times in 17th, used the standard transmission. The team reported a productive day, although Kubica had a minor off in the morning due to an oil leak. Nick Heidfeld is due on track tomorrow.

    Discuss this article in the Motorsport.com Forums channel: F1

     

    Searchers find missing dad's body

    Searchers find missing dad's body

    (12-06) 14:25 PST GRANTS PASS, ORE. -- The body of missing San Francisco resident James Kim was found in the southern Oregon mountains today, 11 days after his family's car became stuck on a side road in the snow and four days after he ventured off to look for help.

    A helicopter crew located Kim, 35, in a steep canyon known as the Big Windy Creek drainage, within a half a mile of where the creek meets the Rogue River. Searchers had been focusing their efforts in the five-mile canyon for the past several days after following Kim's tracks there.

    Josephine County Undersheriff Brian Anderson choked up as he announced the news around 12:30 p.m. at search-and-rescue headquarters in Grants Pass. Anderson spoke again an hour and a half later but offered few details of the recovery, saying authorities were waiting for rescue teams to return.

    Earlier in the day, authorities said Kim had been leaving clothing and bits of maps in the canyon, apparently as a trail for searchers to track. Searchers had been looking in the canyon since Monday and crews tried to reach him by raft, air and with dogs, but were hampered by foggy weather and rough terrain, Anderson said.

    "He was motivated -- I mean, we were having difficulty in there," Anderson said. "That was what has so frustrating; we couldn't seem to get in front of him."

    He said an autopsy would determine when Kim died.

    The discovery marked the end of a saga that was closely watched in San Francisco, where Kim worked at the tech news site Cnet, and around the nation.

    Kim left his wife and two daughters Saturday morning to look for help, a week after the family became stranded off Bear Camp Road in the mountains between Grants Pass and Gold Beach. His wife, Kati, 30, and daughters Penelope, 4, and 7-month-old Sabine remained with their car and were rescued Monday.

    During this afternoon's statements, authorities stressed that the family's efforts -- from renting helicopters to paying for care packages to be dropped in the area -- had been key to the search. Anderson called the support "invaluable."

    "We want the Kim family to know that we appreciate all of their support -- they have been true champions throughout this whole ordeal,'' said Oregon State Police Lt. Gregg Hastings. "We just want them to know that our thoughts and our prayers have been with them from day one."

    Hastings said that "the commitment by those involved in the search for Kati, for the kids and for James has gone nonstop around the clock. This is obviously extremely tough on those who have had an emotional commitment over the last several days here.''

    The canyon where James Kim's body was found was several miles from where the family's 2005 Saab station wagon became stuck. Authorities had remained upbeat about his prospects for survival, despite temperatures that dipped into the 20s.

    Rescue crews had dropped 18 care packages in the area earlier today, each including clothing, a wool blanket, gloves, waterproof overalls, flares, a flashlight, a hand-warmer and rations. Each package also had a letter from Kim's family, authorities said. The packages were paid for by Kim's father, Spencer Kim, whom Hastings called "a devoted, driven man."

    The Kim family left San Francisco on Nov. 18 for a combined vacation and work trip for James Kim. They spent Thanksgiving in Seattle with family, then went to Portland, where they had brunch with a friend Nov. 25.

    The Kims then left on their way to a stopover in Gold Beach. At 8:30 that night, the family ate dinner in the central Oregon town of Roseburg, where authorities say they intended to take state Highway 42 over to the coast.

    However, they missed the turnoff, consulted a map and decided to drive the 55 miles down Interstate 5 to Grants Pass. There they turned onto Bear Camp Road, which is lightly traveled even in the summer and often is closed in the winter.

    It was stormy, and around the 3,000-foot elevation, about 50 miles from their intended destination, James Kim turned off onto a gravel road. He drove about 3 miles and got stuck.

    The Kims ran the engine of their station wagon to power its heater, and when the gas was gone, they burned the tires. They ate what little food they had, and Kati Kim breastfed her two daughters.

    Kati Kim was spotted Monday afternoon by a helicopter the family had hired, waving an umbrella to which she had affixed reflective tape.

    E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.

December 3, 2006

  • Sunday In December, 2006

    Lose to Dallas in Heartbreaking Fashion

    December 3, 2006    
    Suzy Allman for The New York Times


    The Giants stop Dallas Cowboys' Marion Barber during Sunday's game.

    December 3, 2006    
    Robert Caplin for The New York TImes

    Martin Gramatica celebrated after kicking a 46-yard field goal that gave the Cowboys a 23-20 victory over the Giants.

    December 3, 2006
    Cowboys 23, Giants 20

    Giants Lose to Dallas in Heartbreaking Fashion

    EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J., Dec. 3 — The Giants, in finding more heartbreaking ways to lose games and their grip on their playoff hopes, outdid themselves against the Dallas Cowboys today, losing on a 46-yard field goal by Martin Gramatica, who was signed by the Cowboys last week.

    The kick, with 1 second remaining, gave the Cowboys a 23-20 victory and sent the Giants to their fourth-straight loss. Now 6-6, the one-time championship contender is faced with at least one more week of uncomfortable speculation and scrutiny.

    The game of the season for the Giants became a match between the quarterbacks. And the one who spent more than three seasons on the bench, not in the spotlight, won.

    Tony Romo, the league's hottest quarterback, led the Cowboys on a 12-play, 66-yard touchdown drive late in the fourth quarter. Given a chance to respond, Giants quarterback Eli Manning, the first overall choice of the 2004 draft who has been ice-cold in recent weeks, led his team to the tying score, a 5-yard pass to Plaxico Burress, with 66 seconds left.

    That was plenty of time for Romo and the Cowboys. Romo lobbed a deep pass to tight end Jason Witten, who found a soft spot between linebacker Antonio Pierce and safety Will Demps for a 42-yard completion.

    Four plays later, the Cowboys (8-4) were running around the field in ecstasy and the Giants were in their familiar stun mode.

    The Giants, who had blown a 21-point fourth-quarter lead a week ago, had a difficult week of attempted recovery. Today, they continued their bungling ways, at least in spots. They assembled and displayed, at critical junctures, all the requisite parts of their three-game meltdown — unseemly personal fouls, questionable play calling, squandered drives and mysterious gaffes.

    A victory would have washed away the chaos of the prior three weeks, when the Giants lost three times and bickered with anyone who frequents Giants Stadium — coaches, other players and reporters included.

    Instead, the Giants take their reality show back on the road, against another struggling playoff contender, the Carolina Panthers, next Sunday.

    In the parity rife N.F.L., and particularly in the sagging National Football Conference, four consecutive losses in November and December do not end a team's playoff hopes. The Giants fell two games behind the Cowboys in the N.F.C. East. They likely need to win at least three of their final four games to make the postseason, probably as a wild-card team.

    A week ago, the Giants fell to the Tennessee Titans, 24-21. Star players continued a habit of making sharp critiques in the media — this time, injured defensive end Michael Strahan questioned the will of receiver Plaxico Burress.

    But the Giants vowed to rally around the growing legions of doubters who had witnessed a championship team seeming to implode in slow motion over the course of several weeks. And they appeared to get a boost from return of several defensive players, back from injuries: defensive end Osi Umenyiora, cornerback Sam Madison and linebacker Brandon Short.

    It helped create a competitive game, between teams that looked far more evenly matched than their recent performances predicted. Still, the Giants fought two opponents — the Cowboys, and themselves.

    The Giants eschewed a 41-yard field-goal attempt in the first half and, needed inches for a first down, lost 3 yards. They intercepted a pass, only to fumble it right back to the Cowboys, who marched on to score. They were penalized for a late hit and for head butting. They drove impressively to the Dallas 4-yard line twice in the second half, only to settle for the bitter taste of short field goals.

    The Giants' three-game losing streak had coincided with Manning's worst three games of the season — though the relationship is more than coincidental. He threw two touchdowns and six interceptions during losses to Chicago, Jacksonville and Tennessee.

    Against the Cowboys, the Giants put a governor on their passing plays, trying to get Manning into a mistake-free rhythm with a mix heavy on short passes and screens, often with the quarterback rolling out to avoid the pass rush.

    That lifted his sagging completion percentage and allowed the Giants to sustain drives, even as the Cowboys slowed Barber and the Giants' rushing attack.

    And when the team first needed a big play today, something more improvised and a little less restrained, Manning provided it with a 17-yard touchdown pass to tight end Jeremy Shockey in the first quarter. Manning dropped back, then slipped left to avoid the rush of linebacker Bradie James and flung the ball to Shockey in the left corner of the end zone.

    But Manning struggled to do anything out of the ordinary after that.

    The defense played well, and intercepted Romo twice in the first half. They did not convert either break into points. But the Cowboys did.

    The Cowboys earned their first touchdown on a drive — two, officially — that could only happen against the Giants, and to their rookie defensive end, Mathias Kiwanuka. The Cowboys were driving until Kiwanuka intercepted a deflected pass.

    But Kiwanuka, bitten by bad fortune for the second week in a row, fumbled the ball on the return without being nudged by anyone, as if stripped by a phantom. The Cowboys recovered to start a new drive, and scored three plays later, helped by a 26-yard pass interference penalty on middle linebacker Antonio Pierce.

    It signaled a return of the bumbling Giants. Fullback Jim Finn dropped a pass from Manning. After a false-start penalty, Manning threw a ball away. A third-down pass bounced off the chest of tight end Jeremy Shockey.

    On the next drive, the Giants drove across midfield, but were stopped after receiver Plaxico Burress drew an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty by taking a running start and blocking safety Keith Davis — long after Tiki Barber, the player with the ball, had been tackled.

    The Giants spoiled a long drive late in the second quarter with a pair of debatable decisions. On third-and-20, receiver David Tyree slid and caught a 19-yard pass from Manning. Had Tyree realized that no one had touched him, he could have rolled over before a defender touched him, and the Giants would have had a first down.

    On fourth-and-1 from the Dallas 24, with 1 minute 30 seconds left in the half, the Giants eschewed a 41-yard field-goal attempt. They handed the ball to linebacker-sized running back Brandon Jacobs, who tried to gain the yard around the left end. He was caught and dragged down for a 3-yard loss by linebacker DeMarcus Ware.

    The Cowboys took possession and, using eight plays and three timeouts, moved downfield for a 41-yard field goal by Martin Gramatica.


    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

     

    5:54 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove

    U.C.L.A. Brings Down U.S.C., and Opens Door to Title Game

    Stephen Dunn/Getty Images

    U.S.C.'s Dwayne Jarrett being tackled by U.C.L.A.'s Dennis Keyes. Jarrett had four catches for 66 yards, but the Trojans' offense never really got moving. More Photos >

    December 3, 2006
    U.C.L.A. 13, No. 2 U.S.C. 9

    U.C.L.A. Brings Down U.S.C., and Opens Door to Title Game

    PASADENA, Calif., Dec. 2 — As U.C.L.A. cornerback Alterraun Verner summed up the scene in the locker room after the Bruins' stunning 13-9 victory against No. 2 Southern California, he managed a fitting description for what the victory did to college football.

    "Chaos," he said, grinning. "Absolute chaos."

    U.C.L.A.'s improbable victory Saturday at the Rose Bowl led to a night of uncertainty in college football, as the Trojans' loss cleared a spot in the national championship game opposite top-ranked Ohio State for either No. 3 Michigan or No. 4 Florida. It also brought into sharp focus the Bowl Championship Series standings, the complicated system college football uses to determine who will play for its national title.

    Florida, which defeated No. 8 Arkansas, 38-28, in the Southeastern Conference title game Saturday, is expected to lead Michigan in the six computer rankings, which account for a third of the formula used by the Bowl Championship Series. The other two-thirds are polls, in which Michigan held an edge over Florida, but some votes are expected to flop the Gators' way after their impressive win against a highly ranked opponent.

    The only certainty heading into the announcement at 8 p.m. Eastern time Sunday is uncertainty.

    "You can't rule anything out at this point," Jerry Palm, the independent B.C.S. analyst, said in a telephone interview Saturday night. "I really don't know."

    One of the few sure things Saturday was that a mediocre U.C.L.A. team tilted the axis of the college football world. It did so by winning a defensive struggle that gave the Bruins their first victory against their crosstown rivals since 1998.

    "I really don't believe that anyone outside of this football program believed that we were going to win this game," Bruins tailback Chris Markey said. "I think some people's parents were skeptical."

    But U.C.L.A. (7-5, 5-4 Pacific-10) removed any doubt when Eric McNeal, a senior linebacker, intercepted U.S.C. quarterback John David Booty with 1 minute 10 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter and the Trojans driving toward a game-winning touchdown. McNeal tipped a third-down pass intended for Steve Smith, then caught the ball and fell to the ground at the Bruins' 20, sealing the biggest victory in Karl Dorrell's four seasons as the coach.

    And like U.S.C.'s loss to Texas here in January in the national championship game, this loss was costly for the Trojans. U.S.C. (10-2, 7-2) has won 55 of its past 59 games, and two of the losses have come at the Rose Bowl within the past year.

    Both derailed the Trojans' chances for a national title. They had been everything but anointed to play Ohio State until their offense got stuck in neutral Saturday, converting just 6 of 17 third downs.

    U.S.C.'s consolation prize will be a return trip to the Rose Bowl, where it is expected to play either Michigan (if Florida makes it to the title game) or Louisiana State.

    "Obviously, it's extremely disappointing to us," U.S.C. Coach Pete Carroll said.

    "We had a great opportunity here that we let get away."

    U.S.C. never established a running game, finishing with 55 yards and an average of 1.9 yards a carry. It also never put together a coherent passing game, as Booty finished 23 for 39 with no touchdowns, two sacks and the interception that sealed the game.

    Booty's play was mediocre and he did not receive much help from his offensive line, which allowed the Bruins to get consistent pressure and was flagged for four false-start penalties. U.C.L.A. defensive ends Bruce Davis and Justin Hickman seemingly spent the day in the Trojan backfield.

    The U.S.C. offensive line coach, Pat Ruel, searched for the right words after the game, and his analysis ranged from "out of synch" to "maybe a little tentative."

    The offensive line's struggles led to a poor day by Dwayne Jarrett, U.S.C.'s star receiver, who finished with just four catches for 68 yards.

    "They just did a great job in their defensive scheme of not giving Booty enough time to read down the field and look at the receivers," Jarrett said. "It was definitely the most pressure we've faced; there was no time at all."

    Fittingly, the Bruins defense provided one of the game's defining momentum shifts on the first play of the fourth quarter. Leading by 10-9, the Bruins stuffed the Trojans on a fourth-and-2. Verner met C. J. Gable in the backfield and flipped him to the ground for a 4-yard loss.

    U.C.L.A. took over on the its own 40, and quarterback Patrick Cowan led a drive that ended with Justin Medlock's second field goal of the half, this one from 31 yards.

    From there, U.C.L.A. held on, with the game not officially ending until a Booty heave to near midfield landed harmlessly on the turf.

    The Bruins won despite just 235 yards of total offense and they did not complete a pass of more than 21 yard.

    "I'm not going to sleep tonight," Markey said, smiling. "I'm not going to sleep for days."

    Much like folks in Ann Arbor, Mich., and Gainesville, Fla., but for very different reasons.


     

     

    Giants 20 - Cowboys 23

    What can I say? It hurts but the Cowboys played a great game and the Giants shot themselves in the foot far too many times to overcome. On the bright side Eli Manning rebounded and looked fantastic. I truly believe the Giants would have won had it gone to overtime but Tom Coughlin's poor coaching abilities shined through. How can he leave the Cowboys 1:06 on the clock and not expect them to drive and score? That's the way the cookie crumbles I suppose but the Cowboys have far to good of an offense overlook like that.

    R.W. McQuarters played a fantastic game but the play that will stand out is when he let up on a potential sack allowing the Cowboys to get a first down which eventually led to a score. I don't understand what it is about these Giants having brain lapses. Whatever the case, they now they fall to .500 and will struggle mightily to make the playoffs.

    It was clear how much better the Giants played with their defensive starters back though. It's like night and day. Hopefully Michael Strahan can return next week and the Giants go on a run ending at 10-6 or at least 9-7. Anything less and the season is over.
    By the way, I realize my thoughts are random right now and I apologize for that. I am just extremely frustrated because this is the game the Giants could have and should have won. Far too many penalties and mistakes cost them first place.

    How many ways in English can you say "I hate Will Demps?" He must lead the NFL in missed tackles and blown coverage's. Why is this guy on the team? How did the Ravens defense perform so well when he was there? It's a mystery.

    Continuing with that same theme, how many ways in English can you say "I love Brandon Jacobs?" I am a huge Tiki Barber fan but I look forward to Jacobs carrying the load for the Giants. He makes everyone in his path look like chumps. He's truly a beast who has a bright future in this league.

    Cowboys win 23-20.

     

    Eye Black Used to Cut Glare, or Turn Up Spotlight

    Nick Laham/Getty Images

    Giants tight end Jeremy Shockey in eye black. Its use was documented in a 1942 photograph of the Washington Redskins'

    December 3, 2006

    Eye Black Used to Cut Glare, or Turn Up Spotlight

    UPPER DARBY, Pa., Dec. 1 — As Upper Darby High played its annual Thanksgiving Day football game, a northeaster raked the Philadelphia suburbs, turning the field into a muddy pudding. The last thing any player needed was protection from the sun's glare. And because the game began in late morning, no one bothered turning on the stadium lights.

    Still, the dreariness did not keep many Upper Darby players from spreading eye black on their cheeks. Some dabbed a line of grease under the eyes. Some wore adhesive antiglare patches that resembled Morse code for the face. Others smeared the stuff like shaving cream.

    "It's just the look," Brandon Murray, an Upper Darby halfback, said after his team had been upset, 20-8, by its archrival, Haverford High. "Most kids think it's intimidating or it looks good. No one uses it to block out the light."

    That is not necessarily the case in the National Football League. Jerricho Cotchery described a scene in the Jets' locker room before a game last Sunday, when he and his fellow receiver Laveranues Coles applied eye black as if they were showgirls applying false eyelashes.

    They were carrying out a decades-old tradition. A Yale University study found evidence of eye black use dating at least to a 1942 photograph of a Washington Redskins player named Andy Farkas. The eye black origins in baseball are more obscure, the study said.

    Coles said that playing without eye-black grease was like "playing with no shoulder pads or no helmet." Although he grew up in sunny Florida, Coles said he never used eye black until he reached the N.F.L. and struggled with glare.

    "I don't know if it was one of those placebo effects, but it was one of those things that stuck with me," he said.

    But many athletes do not seem to care much about the intended use of eye black. Instead, those smudges and patches and decals have become popular fashion accessories, miniature billboards for personal messages and war-paint slatherings aimed at gaining a psychological advantage more than a visual edge.

    "I think it kind of lost its purpose," said Nick Ciccone, a safety at Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania. "It's a fashion thing now. A lot of guys say, if you look good, you feel good, and if you feel good, you play good."

    Reggie Bush, the 2005 Heisman Trophy winner who is now a running back for the New Orleans Saints, inscribed the 619 area code for his hometown in San Diego County on his antiglare stickers while at the University of Southern California. Seizing the moment, Bush had plans to unveil a 619 cologne.

    Rutgers running back Ray Rice wears stickers that run cheek to cheek, across his nose. He writes a weekly eulogy to a deceased cousin: RIP 914 SUPE.

    Sometimes eye stickers are used for more frivolous purposes. In a game against Arkansas on Nov. 24, running back Keiland Williams of Louisiana State University wore an LSU patch under one eye only, looking like a kind of decal pirate.

    Rory Jones, a receiver at South Plaquemines High in Port Sulphur, La., said he had no idea what the eye-black stickers were intended for. "I use them for showboating," he said.

    Tim Heagy, a defensive end at Lycoming College in Pennsylvania, said he thought the smeared-cheek look might give him a slight edge over a larger opponent. "If he's a little bigger, maybe he thinks you're crazy because you have eye black on," Heagy said.

    Researchers wondered, too. In the past few years, they have begun to examine the accepted truth that eye black does indeed decrease glare reflecting off the skin.

    Recent studies have shown that eye black reduces glare somewhat, while improving contrast sensitivity. Yet it remains debatable among experts whether glare is diminished sufficiently to increase a kick returner's ability to field a ball out of the stadium lights or a shortstop's ability to pluck a pop fly out of the sun.

    Through the years, players have fashioned eye black from burnt cork and shoe polish. Today's commercially produced eye-black grease is made from such items as beeswax, paraffin and charcoal powder, while antiglare stickers are made of patented fabric with a dull, matte finish.

    The Yale study placed 46 students in the sun and tested their reactions using a sensitivity contrast chart. Some participants wore eye-black grease, while others wore adhesive stickers. A third group wore smudges of petroleum jelly as a placebo.

    The study found a small, but statistically significant, improvement in contrast sensitivity and glare reduction for participants who wore the eye grease, but not for those who wore antiglare stickers. The results were published in 2003 in Archives of Ophthalmology.

    "I thought we would find it to be like war paint and a psychological advantage more than anything else," Dr. Brian M. DeBroff, the lead author of the Yale study, said in a telephone interview. "We were surprised to find a benefit from the grease."

    Asked if the benefits were significant enough to enhance athletic performance, Dr. DeBroff said, "Certainly in football and baseball, where tracking a ball at high speed is an important aspect, any competitive advantage could be beneficial."

    He added: "Does it translate in terms of being able to pick up the ball if looking back into the sun? Possibly. Certainly, it would be interesting to do further study to determine the exact benefit."

    A study of eye-black grease at the University of New Hampshire also found a small improvement in contrast sensitivity. The findings, published last year in an undergraduate research journal, were considered preliminary, said Dr. Kenneth Fuld, chairman of the university's psychology department and the study's sponsor.

    Even so, Dr. Fuld, a former New Hampshire assistant baseball coach, said he was skeptical that the grease enhanced a player's performance.

    "I would be highly doubtful that it would have much of an effect, if any," Dr. Fuld said, noting that tennis players performed at high levels without eye black while constantly dealing with the sun's glare.

    Placing a brand name on adhesive strips in white letters, writing messages on stickers and adorning them with initials and logos appeared to defeat the antiglare purpose of the patches, Dr. Fuld said.

    Among the findings of the New Hampshire study were: Eye-black grease did not work as effectively with blue-eyed participants, who have less iris pigment to screen out unwanted light. And women had better results than men, although that might be explained by the smaller sample size of male participants (18) than female participants (28).

    While it may seem counterintuitive that all skin tones benefit from eye black, oiliness of the skin and sweating, not simply skin color, affect how much light is reflected into the eyes, said another researcher, Mike Maloney, president of Bjorksten Research Laboratories in Wisconsin.

    His company has done testing for Mueller Sports Medicine, a Wisconsin manufacturer of antiglare patches, which were judged ineffective in the Yale study. Brett Mueller, president of the company, said that Yale researchers tested "couch potatoes" rather than attempting to replicate on-field distractions an athlete encounters in his peripheral vision.

    The research commissioned by Mueller used a mannequin with a photo diode attached to the right eye. The findings indicated that antiglare stickers reduced the amount of light that entered the periphery of the eye to a greater extent than eye-black grease did.

    "But what I can't tell you is the amount of difference that will make in athletic performance," Mr. Maloney said.

    For elite athletes, the chance that eye black might provide even the slightest advantage can be convincing, said Jeremy Bloom, a kick returner and two-time Olympian who was formerly the world's top-ranked moguls skier.

    "It's very symbolic of football, whether science proves it works or not," said Bloom, who is on injured reserve with the Philadelphia Eagles. "If it works just a little, that's helpful. It can't hurt."

    On the high school level, though, the ostentatious use of eye black and facial decals has led to a backlash by some coaches. Brian Sipe, a former All-Pro quarterback now coaching Santa Fe Christian School near San Diego, said he limited his players to a thin smudge no wider than the eye.

    "It really serves no purpose other than adornment," Sipe said.

    In suburban Philadelphia, Haverford High prevailed over Upper Darby on Thanksgiving without any players wearing eye black. Coach Joe Gallagher had banned its use.

    "That's just frills," he said. "They were too concerned about how they looked."

    Karen Crouse contributed reporting from New York.


     

    For the Giants, One Victory Can Undo the Damage

    Barton Silverman/The New York Times

    Quarterback Eli Manning's worst three games of the season have been his past three, all losses for the Giants.

    December 3, 2006

    For the Giants, One Victory Can Undo the Damage

    EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J., Dec. 1 — During their 81-year history, the Giants have tried to build a reputation on integrity and decency, on consistency and the occasional championship. They hired Tom Coughlin as the coach less than three years ago to ensure that those traits were continued or, in some cases, restored.

    Then came the past three weeks. The Giants became a team bumbling toward buffoonery, on and off the field.

    A three-game losing streak was lowlighted by players carping at coaches, coaches carping at players, players carping at players and the news media filling the roles of diarist and villain.

    By recent accounts, some from the Giants, the franchise quarterback rattles, the leading receiver quits, the star defensive end rants, the top running back criticizes and the coach scrambles to hold the parts together.

    But the N.F.L. is not a complicated place. The Giants (6-5) are not Humpty Dumpty. There is a quick fix.

    A victory.

    "Last week never matters," center Shaun O'Hara said of life in the N.F.L.

    The Giants hope so, because last week was brutal. Sunday brought a blown lead of 21 points in the fourth quarter, the worst reversal of fortune in franchise history.

    The second worst might have been Wednesday, when Coughlin said that his mission was "to pull everybody together and encourage." Within an hour, defensive end Michael Strahan, his eyes bulging and his mouth filled with the final bites of a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, railed against reporters for asking about his criticism of his teammate Plaxico Burress.

    The conversion was complete. The roster, which had seemed an embarrassment of riches, was instead richly embarrassing. The past week has been filled with endless clips of Sunday's collapse to the Tennessee Titans and Strahan's finger-pointing diatribe.

    Coughlin has been unable to instill the discipline he demands. His team has been undone by silly penalties, goofy plays, odd decisions and questionable effort. Off the field, like an exasperated Whac-a-Mole player, Coughlin has been one step behind his attention-grabbing players, unable to knock back their egos and personalities.

    But in a redemptive twist — or a twist of cruelty, depending on how it plays out — the Giants can reverse weeks of bungling with a winning three-hour performance Sunday against the visiting Dallas Cowboys (7-4), who lead the National Football Conference East.

    "We control our own destiny," linebacker Antonio Pierce said. "And I don't think everybody around here understands that."

    For the Giants, it will be their biggest regular-season game in years. A victory or a loss — but not a tie, which would seem oddly fitting in these head-shaking days — could be viewed as monumental and potentially franchise shifting.

    A loss would continue the team's spectacular free fall and would fuel more damning speculation about the future of Coughlin as the coach and the direction of the team in general. A victory against the Cowboys and Bill Parcells, the Giants' former coach — against whose legacy Coughlin and every other Giants head coach is measured — would repair the damage, at least for a week.

    A victory, as absurd as that possibility may seem, would lift the Giants back into first place in the division. They would hold the tie-breaking advantage against the Cowboys.

    "We know behind all of this, behind all of the rhetoric and talk and the commentaries and the columns, there is a huge opportunity for us, sitting at 6-5, one game behind the Cowboys, to jump right into the lead in our division and third place in the N.F.C.," running back Tiki Barber said. "And that is what is most important. I think that is what we shall be focusing on."

    The biggest mystery — other than determining the last time a professional football player used shall in a sentence — is exactly how things went so wrong, so quickly.

    The Giants had been humming along with a victory, then another, then three more. They were gaining credibility and being viewed as a potential Super Bowl contender.

    That credibility can be restored in one day. Turnarounds are a weekly event in the parity-rich N.F.L., where no team is out of the postseason picture until the mathematicians deem it so. The Atlanta Falcons, the Minnesota Vikings and the St. Louis Rams have had losing streaks of four games or more this season, and each remains in the playoff hunt. The Carolina Panthers have lost back-to-back games twice, and are tied with the Giants for a wild-card spot.

    For further inspiration, the Giants can look at the Cowboys. When the Giants beat them, 36-22, in Dallas on Oct. 23, the Cowboys were 3-3. They had benched the starting quarterback Drew Bledsoe at halftime, and the backup Tony Romo threw three interceptions. Receiver Terrell Owens was a one-man soap opera. Parcells looked weary on the sideline, like a man wondering why he was there.

    But Romo has been the hottest quarterback in the N.F.L. since. Owens has been quiet off the field and splendid on it. Parcells has begun kissing players in joy. And the Cowboys have won four of five games, passing the Giants.

    "As you've seen in the last month, a team's fortunes can change very quickly in this league," Parcells said in a conference call.

    That is a source of optimism for the Giants. This week, they compared themselves with the 2005 Pittsburgh Steelers — not the version that won the Super Bowl, but the one that was 7-5 in early December and the loser of three in a row.

    Those Steelers won their final four games, then swept through three road playoff games and won Super Bowl XL against the Seattle Seahawks.

    The analogy, linebacker Brandon Short said, "is dead on."

    There are some differences, of course. The Steelers did not have a quarterback struggling as mightily as Eli Manning.

    The Steelers did not have a Barber criticizing the play-calling, saying it is "not rocket science," after the Giants lost to the Jacksonville Jaguars and their losing streak reached two.

    Pittsburgh did not have a Coughlin telling reporters that the players are not to criticize the coaches or their teammates in the news media. They did not have a Strahan ignoring such a directive by suggesting on the radio Monday that Burress quit on his team on several recent plays. They did not have a Burress acknowledging that Strahan's words hurt, but suggesting that his occasional laissez-faire approach would not change. (Actually, the Steelers had him from 2000-4, and tired of his attitude.)

    But the Steelers began their surge a week after the biggest blown lead in the fourth quarter in franchise history, as the Giants want to do.

    The Titans were only the third team in N.F.L. history to win after trailing by 21 points with 10 or fewer minutes remaining. It was a loss, Coughlin said, that would be remembered "forever."

    Selective amnesia is possible. The N.F.L. is no place for teams with long memories. Last week never matters, but only if the Giants turn themselves inside out, again.

    EXTRA POINTS

    The Giants signed the veteran punter Sean Landeta because Jeff Feagles has a sore knee. Landeta was the Giants' punter from 1985-93, and last played in 2005 for the Philadelphia Eagles. He is second in league history, behind Feagles, in punts and punting yards. To make room on the roster, the Giants waived defensive tackle Lance Legree.


     

    Fasion
    Current mood: busy

     
    Book Photograph by Tony Cenicola/The New York
     
    December 3, 2006

    Fasion

    Vogue is to our era what the idea of God was, in Voltaire's famous parlance, to his: if it didn't exist, we would have to invent it. Revered for its editorial excellence and its visual panache, the magazine has long functioned as a bible for anyone worshiping at the altar of luxury, celebrity and style. And while we perhaps take for granted the extent to which this trinity dominates consumer culture today, Vogue's role in catalyzing its rise to pre-eminence cannot be underestimated. To both celebrants and critics of the cult of modern fashion, Norberto Angeletti and Alberto Oliva's IN VOGUE: The Illustrated History of the World's Most Famous Fashion Magazine (Rizzoli, $75) is indispensable reading. As substantive as it is sumptuous, the incisively written, meticulously researched and gorgeously illustrated "In Vogue" chronicles how Vogue became the world's most influential fashion magazine.

    Founded in 1892 to chronicle the doings of New York's social elite, Vogue soon developed into an "active participant in the culture of fashion." Under the successive leadership of seven formidable editors in chief — all women — Vogue has pioneered a host of aesthetic, technological and commercial advances, virtually all of which inform the fashion media and industry as they exist today.

    Appropriately enough, for a publication that insistently juxtaposes surface with substance, many of these advances have been evident on its cover. In July 1932, Vogue became one of the first magazines to publish a cover with a color photograph. Besides innovating the look of Vogue (and, eventually, of magazines everywhere), this move had far-reaching financial implications, as it allowed for a more detailed presentation of a model's clothing. Now receiving fuller credit for their work, designers returned the favor by placing more advertisements in Vogue, whose revenues increased accordingly. The powerful symbiosis between journalism and advertising was born.

    In the latter decades of the 20th century, still more revolutions played themselves out on Vogue's covers. During the "youthquake" of the 1960s, Diana Vreeland replaced the curvaceous models of the previous decade with lanky, androgynous teenagers whose "undernourished" looks quickly "became the new standard." In 1974, Vreeland's successor, Grace Mirabella, published the first cover featuring an African-American model. And when Anna Wintour succeeded Mirabella in 1988, she too reshaped the era's stylistic ideals. Her inaugural cover, a three-quarter-length photograph of a model wearing a bejeweled Lacroix jacket and a pair of jeans, abandoned Vogue's by-then tired convention of representing a woman's face alone and assigned greater importance to both her clothing and her body. This image also promoted a new form of chic by combining jeans with haute couture. Wintour's debut cover brokered a class-mass rapprochement that informs modern fashion to this day.

    Yet the Vogue editors' ingenuity has always "extended to the inside of the magazine" as well — notably to its first-rate photography. Edward Steichen, Lee Miller, Cecil Beaton, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Helmut Newton, Annie Leibovitz and Herb Ritts are just a few of the heavyweights whose work has appeared in Vogue. From Avedon's 1967 portrait of Twiggy (an adolescent waif in flower-child face paint) to Leibovitz's 2006 depiction of a pregnant Melania Trump (posed on the steps of a private jet in a skimpy gold bikini), Vogue's pictures — love them or loathe them — express the values of the culture from which they emerge. And they offer an exhaustive visual record of America's past, with its seismic shifts, its improbable whims, its insatiable aspirations.

    Indeed, like the religion of Voltaire's day, the Vogue of our era thrives on aspiration — on the hope that a better life lies just around the corner, in the arch of an eyebrow or the rustle of a new silk dress. Cynics might note that, with its inexorable cycles of planned obsolescence, fashion journalism exists purely to exploit this hope. There remains, however, something undeniably and viscerally appealing about a publication that honors our craving for fantasy, glamour and change. For more than a century, Vogue has met that need.


     

    Jets’ Playoff Hopes Brighten With Rout of Packers

    December 3, 2006    
    Jonathan Ferrey/Getty Images

    The Jets' Chris Baker catches a touchdown pass in the second quarter against the Packers' Nick Barnett.
    December 3, 2006
    Jets 38, Packers 10

    Jets' Playoff Hopes Brighten With Rout of Packers

    GREEN BAY, Wis., Dec. 3 — By the time Chad Pennington threw his first interception of the day, the Jets had such a huge lead — and Pennington had done so much to make it that way — that the turnover hardly mattered.

    With Pennington throwing for 241 of his 263 yards in the first half, the Jets scored 31 points on their first five possessions and went on to rout the Green Bay Packers, 38-10, at frigid Lambeau Field today. The victory brightened the 7-5 Jets' American Football Conference playoff hopes and essentially eliminated the Packers, who are 4-8 with three consecutive losses, from the National Football Conference race.

    Cedric Houston ran for two touchdowns, both in the first half. For the day, Pennington finished 25 of 35 for 263 yards, two touchdowns and two interceptions, and wideout Jerricho Cotchery had nine catches for 99 yards and a score. Green Bay's Ahman Green ran for 102 yards, but quarterback Brett Favre was mostly ineffective, completing 24 of 47 passes for 214 yards, a touchdown and two interceptions.

    The Jets played a near-perfect first half while grabbing a 31-0 lead, outgaining the Packers, 340 yards to 100, forcing two turnovers and committing only one penalty, five yards for illegal motion. It was the most first-half points by the Jets since another 31-point effort against San Diego on Nov. 3, 2002, an eventual 44-13 victory.

    The game began in biting cold — 19 degrees with 2-degree wind chill, and light swirling snow. Though the elements suggested running the ball, the Jets peppered the Packers' shaky defense with short passes in building the big lead.

    Pennington completed six passes to six receivers in eight attempts on the opening drive for 58 yards. The Jets took a 24-yard field goal from Mike Nugent after Cotchery couldn't pull down a high pass in the back right corner of the end zone. It was the only drive in the half where the Jets had to settle for three.

    After the Jets forced a turnover — right end Bryan Thomas stripped the ball from Favre, and tackle Dewayne Robertson recovered — Pennington moved the Jets 51 yards in less than two and a half minutes. Cotchery ran away from safety Nick Collins over the middle for the 12-yard touchdown catch.

    Packer fans were already booing late in the first quarter as Pennington drove the Jets again, this time 83 yards in nine plays, the last Houston's three-yard run for the score with 12:40 left in the half. At that point Pennington was already 13 for 19 for 166 yards, and the Jets had outgained the Packers, 202-26.

    A 35-yard run by Ahman Green brought the Packers to the Jets' 26, but the drive stalled and Dave Rayner missed a 40-yard field goal. The Jets then mixed runs with passes, including wideout Brad Smith's 32-yard run down the right sideline on a reverse (the longest run by any Jet this season), in taking a 24-0 lead. Linebacker Nick Barnett interfered with Laveranues Coles in the end zone — Coles had screamed for interference on cornerback Al Harris on the play before — and it took Houston two tries to bull over from the one.

    Cornerback Andre Dyson intercepted Favre on a deep sideline for Donald Driver with five minutes left in the half, and the Jets used up all but nine seconds of the remaining time to move 77 yards for another touchdown. With no timeouts left, Pennington found tight end Chris Baker wide open in the end zone on a play-action pass. The Packers were resoundingly booed as the left the field.

    For the half, Pennington was 22-of-29 for 241 yards and two touchdowns.

    Rayner kicked a 34-yard field goal early in the third quarter for the Packers' first points, then made an even bigger play on the kickoff, preventing a touchdown by wrestling down Justin Miller after a 45-yard runback. Charles Woodson intercepted Pennington as the Packers stopped the Jets for the first time all day.

    Favre hit Driver for a 20-yard touchdown to make it 31-10, and Green Bay recovered an onside kick after a replay challenge, but then failed to gain any yardage on three plays and punted.


    As Trucking Rules Are Eased, a Debate on Safety

     

    Dilip Vishwanat for The New York Times

    Interstate 70 in Kingdom City, Mo., where Dorris Edwards, 62, was killed in 2004 when an 18-wheeler hit her Jeep Cherokee

    December 3, 2006

    As Trucking Rules Are Eased, a Debate on Safety

    WASHINGTON, Dec. 2 — As Dorris Edwards slowed for traffic near Kingdom City, Mo., on her way home from a Thanksgiving trip in 2004, an 18-wheeler slammed into her Jeep Cherokee.

    The truck crushed the sport-utility vehicle and shoved it down an embankment off Interstate 70. Ms. Edwards, 62, was killed.

    The truck driver accepted blame for the accident, and Ms. Edwards's family filed a lawsuit against the driver and the trucking company.

    In the course of pursuing its case, the family broached a larger issue: whether the Bush administration's decision to reject tighter industry regulation and instead reduce what officials viewed as cumbersome rules permitted a poorly trained trucker to stay behind the wheel, alone, instead of resting after a long day of driving.

    After intense lobbying by the politically powerful trucking industry, regulators a year earlier had rejected proposals to tighten drivers' hours and instead did the opposite, relaxing the rules on how long truckers could be on the road. That allowed the driver who hit Ms. Edwards to work in the cab nearly 12 hours, 8 of them driving nonstop, which he later acknowledged had tired him.

    Government officials had also turned down repeated requests from insurers and safety groups for more rigorous training for new drivers. The driver in the fatal accident was a rookie on his first cross-country trip; his instructor, a 22-year-old with just a year of trucking experience, had been sleeping in a berth behind the cab much of the way.

    Federal officials, while declining to comment about the Edwards accident, have dismissed the assertion that deregulation has reduced safety and have maintained that in fact it has helped, though the Edwards family and many other victims of accidents have come to the opposite conclusion.

    In loosening the standards, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration was fulfilling President Bush's broader pledge to free industry of what it considered cumbersome rules. In the last six years, the White House has embarked on the boldest strategy of deregulation in more than a generation. Largely unchecked by the Republican-led Congress, federal agencies, often led by former industry officials, have methodically reduced what they see as inefficient, outdated regulations and have delayed enforcement of others. The Bush administration says those efforts have produced huge savings for businesses and consumers.

    Those actions, though, have provoked fierce debate about their benefits and risks. The federal government's oversight of the trucking industry is a case study of deregulation, as well as the difficulty of determining an exact calculus of its consequences. Though Ms. Edwards's family and the industry disagree on whether the motor carrier agency's actions contributed to her death, her accident illuminates crucial issues in regulating America's most treacherous industry, as measured by overall deaths and injuries from truck accidents.

    The loosened standards, supporters say, have made it faster and cheaper to move goods across the country. They also say the changes promote safety; without longer work hours, the industry would be forced to put more drivers with little experience behind the wheel. Regulators and industry officials point out that the death toll of truck-related accidents — about 5,000 annually — has not increased, while the fatality rate, the number of deaths per miles traveled, has continued a long decline. The number of annual injuries has also been dropping slowly, falling to 114,000 last year.

    "This administration has done a good job, and the agency has done a good job, in advancing safety issues in a manner that takes into account all the important factors of our industry," said the top lobbyist for the American Trucking Associations, Timothy P. Lynch.

    But advocates of tighter rules say the administration's record of loosening standards endangers motorists. The fatality rate for truck-related accidents remains nearly double that involving only cars, safety and insurance groups say. They note that weakening the rules has reversed a course set by the Clinton administration and has resulted in the federal government repeatedly missing its own targets for reducing the death rate.

    "It is a frustrating disappointment that has led to a tragic era," said David F. Snyder, an assistant general counsel at the American Insurance Association who follows the trucking industry closely. "The losses continue to pile up at a high rate. There has been a huge missed opportunity."

    An Industry's Influence

    In decisions that had the support of the White House, the motor carrier agency has eased the rules on truckers' work hours, rejected proposals for electronic monitoring to combat widespread cheating on drivers' logs and resisted calls for more rigorous driver training.

    While applauded by the industry, those decisions have been subject to withering criticism by federal appeals court panels in Washington who say they ignore government safety studies and put the industry's economic interests ahead of public safety.

    To advance its agenda, the Bush administration has installed industry officials in influential posts.

    Before Mr. Bush entered the White House, he selected Duane W. Acklie, a leading political fund-raiser and chairman of the American Trucking Associations, and Walter B. McCormick Jr., the group's president, to serve on the Bush-Cheney transition team on transportation matters.

    Mr. Bush then appointed Michael P. Jackson, a former top official at the trucking associations, as deputy secretary of the Department of Transportation. To lead the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the president picked Joseph M. Clapp, the former chairman of Roadway, a trucking company, and the leader of an industry foundation that sponsored research claiming fatigue was not a factor in truck accidents, a conclusion at odds with government and academic studies.

    And David S. Addington, a former trucking industry official who led an earlier fight against tougher driving limits, became legal counsel and later chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, an advocate of easing government regulations.

    In addition to supplying prominent administration officials, the trucking industry has provided some of the Republican party's most important fund-raisers. From 2000 to 2006, the industry directed more than $14 million in campaign contributions to Republicans. Its donations and lobbying fees — about $37 million from 2000 to 2005 — led to rules that have saved what industry officials estimate are billions of dollars in expenses linked to tougher regulations.

    But to the families of accident victims, the motor carrier agency has failed to fulfill a promise to significantly reduce fatalities, exacting a tragic personal price.

    "They are not getting much done in Washington," said Daphne Izer of Maine, who founded Parents Against Tired Truckers in 1994 after a Wal-Mart driver fell asleep at the wheel of his rig, killing her son and three other teenagers in the car with him. "As a result, more people will continue to die."

    Federal regulators disagree with that assessment of their performance. "We have made significant progress, yet much work remains to achieve our vision," said David H. Hugel, the new deputy administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. "Our challenges also are increasing because our nation maintains the most extensive and complex transportation system in the world, and that system and number of people who use it continues to grow."

    The federal government began overseeing the trucking industry in the 1930s, setting rates, limiting competition and regulating safety practices. From the start, companies won important concessions from Washington, including exemptions from minimum wage and other labor laws. The industry also resisted efforts to impose tougher safety standards, saying it could police itself.

    In 1937, the first driving hour limits were set. Truckers were allowed drive up to 10 continuous hours but were required to rest for a minimum of 8 hours. The remaining six hours could be used for other work activities, like loading, or for breaks or meals. Truckers could drive up to 60 hours over 7 consecutive days, or 70 hours over 8 days. To enforce those rules, the government required drivers to keep logs.

    Repeated efforts over the years to tighten the rules were blocked, often as a result of vigorous industry lobbying.

    Trucking companies have long argued that tougher standards are not necessary to promote safety, and that they would cause devastating economic pressures. Profit margins in the industry are thin, particularly after economic deregulation in 1980 prompted competition. Long hours and low pay for drivers have led to high turnover, and carriers struggle to find replacements. Those conditions, safety experts say, have contributed to widespread safety problems.

    The practice of falsifying driver hours is an open secret in the industry; truckers routinely refer to their logs as "comic books." Fines are small. The federal motor carrier agency does not have the staff to monitor closely 700,000 businesses and almost eight million trucks.

    Timothy L. Unrine, a 41-year-old driver from Virginia, said in a recent interview that he was taught to conceal excessive driving hours during training last January by his former employer, Boyd Brothers Transportation of Birmingham, Ala. Mr. Unrine said his orientation instructor told his class that government inspectors were allowed to examine a monthly logbook if it was bound. But if the staples were removed, the log was considered "loose leaf" and inspectors could require an examination of only those pages from the most recent seven days, Mr. Unrine said the drivers were told.

    Company officials advised drivers to use fuel credit cards that recorded only the date, not the time, of the fuel stop, he said.

    Mr. Unrine added that the company pushed him to work longer hours than permitted, and that his logbooks were "adjusted" many times to make it appear he was within the limits. Several times, when he told a dispatcher he was too tired to make another trip, he said, he was ordered to do so after just a few hours' sleep.

    "I never felt safe driving under these conditions," said Mr. Unrine, who left Boyd last June because of a legal dispute over medical bills from a fall. "I talked to many drivers on the fuel islands, truck stops and rest areas. Logbooks are so fake; it scares me that there aren't more accidents on the road."

    Richard Bailey, the chief operating officer at Boyd Brothers, and Wayne Fiquett, the company's vice president for safety, disputed Mr. Unrine's claims. They said that drivers might have been instructed to keep only seven days of log entries, but denied that they were encouraged to violate the rules.

    "Nobody here will tell someone to do something unsafe," Mr. Fiquett said. "If a driver is tired or over his hours, the system will not allow that driver to continue driving."

    In 1995, Congress directed regulators to study truck driver fatigue and its safety consequences and to consider new rules. But the agency then charged with truck safety, the Federal Highway Administration, never did so. Two years later, the Clinton administration vowed to cut the annual death toll of truck-related accidents in half within a decade. In 1999, Congress created the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration in response to what lawmakers considered ineffectual regulation and high casualties.

    A year later, the agency proposed tighter service hour rules. They would allow long-haul drivers to work a maximum of 12 hours a day, and require them to take 10-hour breaks between shifts. They also required installation of electronic devices to replace driver logs.

    Advocates of tighter standards said the rules did not go far enough, while the industry said cutting driver hours could raise costs by $19 billion over a decade, five times more than government estimates. Action stalled when trucking lobbyists inserted language into a spending bill that forced the motor carrier agency to delay action until after the presidential election that November.

    Rewriting the Rules

    Industry leaders overwhelmingly supported the candidacy of George W. Bush, confident that his administration would be friendlier than one led by his opponent, Al Gore. On the campaign trail, Mr. Bush accused his Democratic rival of wanting to expand government, while Mr. Bush repeatedly expressed his desire to reduce federal regulations.

    During the 2000 election cycle, trucking executives and political action committees gave more than $4.3 million in donations to the Republicans and less than $1 million to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research organization.

    In the months before and after the election, a leading industry figure in the campaign against tighter driving rules was Mr. Acklie, who became chairman of the American Trucking Associations in the fall of 2000. A longtime Bush family friend and Republican fund-raiser, he led one of nation's largest trucking companies, Crete Carrier, based in Nebraska. Mr. Acklie, who stepped down from the post about a year after his appointment, did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

    Another important advocate was Mr. Addington, then general counsel to the Trucking Associations. In August 2000, when two top transportation officials complained in a press release about the industry's "raw use of political power," he demanded that they be investigated for possibly violating a federal law that prohibits officials from lobbying and issuing propaganda. In January 2001, he joined Mr. Cheney's office, where he is now chief of staff. Lea Anne McBride, the vice president's spokeswoman, said Mr. Addington had not been involved in issues related to his trucking activities.

    Other industry officials also joined the administration. Mr. Jackson, a former colleague of Mr. Acklie and Mr. Addington at the trucking group, became the No. 2 official at the Transportation Department, which oversees the industry. Mr. Clapp, the former head of Roadway trucking, took over the motor carrier agency and soon became involved in rewriting the rules.

    The insurance industry and safety groups provided studies showing a high percentage of accidents were caused by tired truck drivers. But after the Trucking Associations produced a study concluding that only 2 percent of accidents were caused by fatigued truckers, while more than 80 percent were caused by passenger cars, the agency decided to loosen the hourly restrictions.

    In April 2003, the agency issued rules that increased the maximum driving hours to 77 from 60 over 7 consecutive days and to 88 hours from 70 over 8 consecutive days. It capped daily work hours at 14, which included driving as well as waiting for loading and unloading. The agency also decided not to require truck companies to install electronic monitoring devices.

    The agency said the new rules would modestly decrease the number of fatalities by increasing the required time off for drivers, to 10 hours from 8. A year later, the agency set training standards for new drivers: 10 hours of training, none of it on the road.

    Congress has provided little scrutiny of the trucking standards.

    "There has not been the kind of in-depth examination of these issues that should have occurred," said Representative James L. Oberstar of Minnesota, the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Oberstar and others blamed the failure on the political muscle of the industry. From 2000 to 2004, the American Trucking Associations donated $2 million to lawmakers, mostly to Republicans who served on committees with jurisdiction over trucking issues.

    The courts have played a more significant role. In July 2004, a three-judge panel from the federal appeals court in Washington issued a harsh opinion in a lawsuit brought by several safety organizations over the trucking work rules.

    Judge David B. Sentelle, a conservative Republican appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote the opinion, faulting the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for "ignoring its own evidence that fatigue causes many truck accidents."

    The opinion continued, "The agency admits that studies show that crash risk increases, in the agency's words, 'geometrically' after the eighth hour on duty." The judges said they could not understand why the agency had not estimated the benefits of electronic monitoring, saying the agency's "passive regulatory approach" probably did not comply with the law. The panel struck down the hour and service rules.

    But a year later, in August 2005, the agency issued virtually identical rules, which the safety groups and the Teamsters union are again challenging in court. Oral arguments are set for Monday before another three-judge federal appeals panel here. The agency had a similar legal setback on driver training. A three-member appeals court panel called the regulation "baffling" and criticized the agency for ignoring its own studies on the need for more comprehensive training.

    The agency has not responded to the court's decision by issuing any new rules.

    Meanwhile, the agency has failed, by growing margins, to meet its annual targets for lowering the death rate for truck-related accidents.

    Mr. Hugel, the agency's deputy administrator, blames increasing traffic for the agency's inability to meet its goals. "More trucks, combined with even more passenger vehicles," he said, "leads to more roadway congestion, increased risk and a larger number of fatalities."

    In a budget submission to Congress last February, though, the Transportation Department noted its repeated failure to cut the death rate and conceded that the agency "has difficulty demonstrating how its regulatory activities contribute to reaching its safety goal."

    Safety experts, for their part, say the numbers reflect the agency's failings.

    "The fatalities speak to the agency's lackluster performance," said Jacqueline S. Gillan, vice president of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, an alliance of consumer, health and insurance organizations. "These truck crashes happen one at a time in communities across the country and get little attention," Ms. Gillan said. "Can you imagine what the outcry would be at the F.A.A. if we had 25 major airplane crashes a year, which is the equivalent of what is happening with trucks?"

    A Family's Lawsuit

    After Ms. Edwards's death, her only son, Steve, a professional musician in Chicago, sued the trucking company, Werner Enterprises of Omaha, and the driver involved in the accident, John L. McNeal, 36. Mr. McNeal was dismissed shortly after the accident.

    Mr. McNeal said in a sworn deposition that he had been tired from driving all day from Tennessee without a break. He had been in the cab for about 12 hours, including about 8 hours at the wheel. Because he had been driving trucks professionally for only a month, he was assigned a trainer, who had slept much of the trip.

    After Mr. McNeal acknowledged he was at fault, Werner Enterprises settled the lawsuit for $2.4 million. Werner's general counsel, Richard S. Reiser, said that the company had a strong safety record and that its training program far exceeded the federal requirements. Mr. Reiser said that Mr. McNeal was in compliance with both the old and new work hour rules but acknowledged he was unfamiliar with the proposals by safety groups that would have prevented the driver from working as long as he did that day. He also said that any driver who was tired should stop, regardless of how long he had been on the road.

    "The driver should be the one who says, 'If I'm tired, I should pull over,' " Mr. Reiser said.

    Mr. Edwards, though, thinks responsibility for safety goes beyond individual drivers, and links his mother's death to the Bush administration's decisions against imposing tighter driving limits. "These drivers are working hard every day on the road to make a living," he said. "They are overtired and underpaid."

    Mr. Edwards said his mother, who had worked at a Procter & Gamble Company factory before her weakened knees forced her to retire, had been looking forward to traveling, gardening and playing with her grandchildren.

    "If there is any silver lining, it is that he hit her so hard she never saw it coming," Mr. Edwards said of the accident. "She probably was happy that she was going to be home soon."

    Ron Nixon contributed reporting.


     

    Russian Ex-Spy Lived in a World of Deceptions

    Sergei Kaptilkin/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

    Alexander V. Litvinenko was jailed after he criticized Russia's spy agency publicly in 1998. A fellow dissident officer opted to conceal his face.

    December 3, 2006

    Russian Ex-Spy Lived in a World of Deceptions

    LONDON, Dec. 2 — The tangled tale of Alexander V. Litvinenko, the maverick Russian K.G.B. agent turned dissident who died of radiation poisoning last week, has seized the headlines recently, but its roots can be traced to a late spring evening in Moscow in 1994.

    At just after 5 p.m. on June 7, Boris A. Berezovsky, one of Russia's most powerful oligarchs, was leaving the offices of his car dealership in a chauffeured Mercedes 600. According to Russian news accounts at the time, he and his bodyguard were sitting in the rear seat behind the driver. As the car drove by a parked vehicle, a remote-controlled bomb detonated, decapitating the driver but somehow leaving Mr. Berezovsky unscathed.

    As a high-ranking officer in the organized crime unit of the F.S.B., the successor to the K.G.B., Mr. Litvinenko "was the investigating officer of the assassination attempt," said Alex Goldfarb, a Berezovsky associate and a spokesman for the Litvinenko family, in an interview conducted, fittingly, in the rear seat of a parked Mercedes in central London with a heavyset driver at the wheel. "They became friends."

    It was a friendship that was to shape Mr. Litvinenko's career, which began in the roller-coaster politics and self-enrichment of post-Soviet Russia, spanned his desperate flight from Russia through Turkey and then on to Britain to seek asylum. It ended spectacularly and mysteriously, with the British police saying the only thing they knew for sure was that he was dead, poisoned after ingesting an obscure radioactive isotope called polonium 210.

    After Mr. Litvinenko's death, sketchy facts and abundant speculation unfolded like some lost chapter of the cold war. But unlike those days of East-West division and the half-light of shadowy, underground conflicts, this saga played out in the bright glare of newspaper headlines and 24-hour news channels.

    Although the precise circumstances of his death remain hidden, Mr. Litvinenko lived the last years of his life as a public critic of President Vladimir V. Putin and the Russian government. Assigned to investigate the assassination attempt on Mr. Berezovsky, he ended up accusing the F.S.B. of involvement in a later conspiracy, a charge that severed his ties with the agency. Once in exile in London, his contacts with Mr. Berezovsky and a circle of other Russian émigrés and former agents flourished, even as his criticism of Mr. Putin grew more vigorous. In the weeks before his death, he had begun looking into the shooting death in Moscow of the journalist Anna Politkovskaya, a fierce critic of Mr. Putin and his policies in Chechnya.

    Mr. Litvinenko began his lingering decline on Nov. 1, when he met an Italian academic, Mario Scaramella, in a sushi bar and linked up with former K.G.B. colleagues in a five-star hotel. Then he fell ill, wasting away over 22 excruciating days from a muscular, almost boyish figure to a gaunt shadow. Investigators followed a radioactive trail around London and, through British Airways planes found to have traces of radiation, to Moscow. British Airways said 221 flights, carrying 33,000 people, might have been affected. In a bizarre sideshow, a former Russian prime minister, Yegor Gaidar, a quiet critic of the Kremlin, fell ill with symptoms of poisoning.

    The episode left Britain's relations with Russia strained: no matter how much Mr. Putin denied it, British officials faced a barrage of newspaper speculation that a supposedly friendly power, or its disaffected agents, had reached onto the streets of London for nefarious purposes.

    From his deathbed, Mr. Litvinenko accused Mr. Putin of responsibility for his plight, but that conclusion was far from certain. One thing, though, was abundantly clear: Mr. Litvinenko's death matched his life in a world of conspiracy and betrayal as a former spy.

    Links to a Tycoon

    Mr. Litvinenko's role in the investigation of the assassination attempt against Mr. Berezovsky, who fled into exile in London in 2000, is not widely chronicled, although it was alluded to in an Associated Press report in 1998, which said the case was never solved.

    Nonetheless, it appears to have provided the starting point for an association between Mr. Berezovsky, then one of Russia's richest men and most influential power brokers, and Mr. Litvinenko, who was rapidly acquiring a reputation at the Russian spy agency as a rebel and whistleblower.

    Mr. Berezovsky declined to be interviewed for this article, saying through a spokesman that he was not prepared to offer further comment until after the police investigation of Mr. Litvinenko's death. But, in a statement five days after his friend died, Mr. Berzovsky said, "I credit him with saving my life, and he remained a close friend and ally ever since. I will remember him for his bravery, his determination and his honor." He was referring to another episode that would lead both men to flee Russia for asylum in Britain.

    In a book he published in 2004, "Lubyanka Criminal Group," Mr. Litvinenko referred to a turning point in his life as an agent. In December 1997, he said his superior in the F.S.B. called him into his office with staggering orders: "You, Litvinenko, you know Berezovsky? You have to liquidate him," he said his superior told him.

    That claim resurfaced sensationally in the public eye in November 1998, after Mr. Berezovsky accused the F.S.B. of plotting to assassinate him. Mr. Litvinenko and other disaffected agents called a news conference to confirm Mr. Berezovsky's allegations. It was a bizarre spectacle, even by the conspiratorial standards of the time: one dissident F.S.B. officer appeared in a ski mask, another in dark glasses. Mr. Litvinenko did not conceal his identity.

    Mr. Putin, who led the agency at the time, reacted angrily, threatening to dismiss Mr. Litvinenko and the other officers who had spoken out.

    According to a transcript published by the Kremlin International News Broadcast, Mr. Litvinenko began with a forthright attack on corruption within the agency. He said some of its units "have been used by certain officials not for constitutional purposes of state and personal security but for their own private political and material purposes, to settle accounts with undesirable persons, to carry out private political and criminal orders for a fee and sometimes simply as an instrument to earn money."

    The remarks led to Mr. Litvinenko's suspension from the F.S.B. and a series of criminal court cases on five counts of abuse of power and other charges. In 1999, he spent eight months in pretrial detention in Lefortovo Prison in Moscow. When charges were dropped in November 1999 for lack of evidence, he was rearrested the instant the acquittal was read out, according to an account in Izvestia in 2001. He was released again in December 1999 and ordered not to leave town.

    But the weeks and months went by with no indication that the investigations against him would be dropped.

    Mr. Litvinenko, his wife, Marina, and son, Anatoly, fled Moscow in October 2000. According to accounts by Mr. Litvinenko at the time, and by others including Mr. Goldfarb and Viktor Suvorov, a former Soviet military intelligence officer and defector, his trail led from Russia to the town of Antalya in southern Turkey, possibly via Ukraine.

    But once in Turkey, no one, it seemed, wanted to deal with a renegade Russian agent.

    "I brought him to the U.S. Embassy at the end of October in Ankara," said Mr. Goldfarb, by his own account an American citizen who fled the Soviet Union 31 years ago and spent many years in exile working for, among others, the financier George Soros. "We just walked in and said here's the F.S.B. colonel, and they are not interested."

    Finally, Mr. Litvinenko left Turkey using a ticket allowing him to transit, but not stay, in London. In November 2000, he arrived at Heathrow airport, surrendered to the British police and claimed asylum, according to accounts by Mr. Litvinenko and in the British press. But he was still not treated as a high-level defector.

    Mr. Suvorov, an agent from Russian military intelligence, G.R.U., who defected in 1978, said: "I raised the question, 'Look, there's a man who has lots of information about organized crime' — no one else had so much information — but no one questioned him about it, British, French, Americans. He had incredible knowledge." Neither Turkish nor American officials confirmed this account.

    But, to judge from what happened later, Mr. Litvinenko was determined to put his knowledge of Russia's intelligence networks to use.

    Émigrés in London

    From the minute he landed in Britain, Mr. Litvinenko resumed his association with Mr. Berezovsky, who had arrived some months earlier also seeking asylum. From a modest row house in white-collar Muswell Hill in north London, he appears to have moved easily in security and former espionage circles, frequently visiting Mr. Berezovsky's offices in Mayfair — one of London's most upscale districts.

    He was part, too, of a population of an estimated 300,000 Russians in London, including political émigrés, old-time defectors and wealthy tycoons who spend their time in nightclubs and boutiques and buying up real estate and soccer clubs. He was granted British citizenship earlier this year.

    But he also maintained contact with his former F.S.B. colleagues, like Mikhail Trepashkin, who was jailed in October 2003 for betraying state secrets while investigating apartment bombings in Moscow and elsewhere in 1999 that killed scores of people. Those bombings formed the basis of a book published in English the same year by Mr. Litvinenko accusing Russia's security services of staging the bombings as a pretext for the second Chechen war.

    In a letter released Friday and dated Nov. 23, Mr. Trepashkin said in a reference to the F.S.B., "Back in 2002, I warned Alexander Litvinenko that they set up a special team to kill him."

    But Mr. Litvinenko also registered increasing concerns about his safety. "A secret service is designed to fight another secret service," he told The New York Times in a telephone interview in 2004 during the inquiry into the poisoning of Viktor A. Yushchenko, then a Ukrainian presidential candidate. "When a secret service goes after an individual, they have no chance."

    Mr. Litvinenko said his supporters arranged for him to address British legislators, whom he told that members of the Russian secret services were "getting more aggressive, threatening my relatives." He said he knew of 32 Russian spies working in England. "They follow us and prepare provocations and our liquidation," he said.

    In September 2004, two weeks after his appeal to Parliament, Mr. Litvinenko said in the interview, bottles containing burning liquid were thrown at his apartment at 1 a.m.

    Some of his associates bridled at the idea that he was Mr. Berezovsky's personal agent or go-between. "He was not just someone who came from Russia and said to Berezovsky: give me some money," said Mr. Suvorov, the former G.R.U. agent.

    But Mr. Litvinenko nonetheless displayed a knack for confidential business. According to a report in The Times of London in November, he traveled to Israel weeks before he died to hand over a dossier on the Yukos oil affair — in which the company's former chairman, Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, has been imprisoned for tax evasion — to Leonid Nevzlin, an exiled oil tycoon. Mr. Nevzlin was quoted as confirming the article. On the fateful day when he first took ill, the radiation trail of his movement led to the offices of Erinys, an international security company in Mayfair.

    It was in that upscale district on Nov. 1 that he met his former Russian security service colleagues, Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitri Kovtun, in the Millennium Mayfair hotel, and Mr. Scaramella, the Italian consultant and academic, in the sushi bar on nearby Piccadilly. All three men have denied poisoning him.

    A Mystery Deepens

    But the saga was not over. One week after the police reported that Mr. Litvinenko had been poisoned, Mr. Scaramella himself was hospitalized when concentrations of the isotope were found in his body. Traces were also found on a member of Mr. Litvinenko's family.

    The mystery seemed as deep as ever: the police had traced Mr. Litvinenko's movements and his contacts on Nov. 1. Detectives had spent 20 hours interviewing him in the hospital, according to associates. Yet the trail to Moscow seemed elusive and was impossible to confirm. Speculation swirled inconclusively about Kremlin plots and counterplots and efforts by rogue operatives to pursue their own feuds or discredit President Putin. But no one could say where the poison came from or how it entered Mr. Litvinenko's body.

    Indeed, Mr. Lugovoi, the former K.G.B. agent, said in a Russian newspaper interview published on Saturday that Mr. Litvinenko might have, in fact, ingested the poison weeks earlier than anyone realized. If true, that would upend some of the most basic assumptions of the investigation — at least as far as it has been made public — and explain why radiation was found on a British Airways plane that flew between Moscow and London on Oct. 25.

    "Alexander Litvinenko, my business partner Dmitri Kovtun and I were in London on Oct. 17 at a meeting in the office of Erinys," the private security company, Mr. Lugovoi told the Russian newspaper Kommersant. "Traces of radiation could have been left there after this visit."

    Some of Mr. Litvinenko's associates said his position might have been made more precarious when he began to gather information about the death of Ms. Politkovskaya, the Russian investigative reporter shot to death in Moscow in October. "He was a very good investigator himself," said Mr. Suvorov, the former G.R.U. agent. "That made him very dangerous and vulnerable: if anyone called him and said, 'I know who killed Politkovskaya,' he just arranged a meeting. So, definitely, he was very vulnerable."

    Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington, and Steven Lee Myers and Viktor Klimenko from Moscow.


     

    Rumsfeld Called for Change in War Plan

    In his memo, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested withdrawing some troops to pressure Iraq's government. In his memo, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested withdrawing some troops to pressure Iraq's government.

    Photo Credit: By David Hume Kennerly -- Associated Press
    Related Article: Rumsfeld Called for Change in War Plan, page A01

    Rumsfeld Called for Change in War Plan
    Before Resignation, He Privately Sought 'Major Adjustment'

    By Ann Scott Tyson
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Sunday, December 3, 2006; A01

    Two days before he resigned from the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld sent to the White House a classified memo recommending "a major adjustment" in Iraq strategy and acknowledging slow progress there.

    "Clearly, what U.S. forces are currently doing in Iraq is not working well enough or fast enough," Rumsfeld wrote in the Nov. 6 memo.

    Rumsfeld has made similar comments in public about insufficient progress in Iraq, both before and immediately after his resignation on Nov. 8.

    But the defense secretary's unusually expansive memo also laid out a series of 21 possible courses of action regarding Iraq strategy, including many that would transform the U.S. occupation.

    Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the revelation of the memo would undercut any attempt by President Bush to defend anything resembling a "stay the course" policy in Iraq.

    "When you have the outgoing secretary of defense, the main architect of Bush's policy, saying it's failing, that puts a lot more pressure on Bush," he said.

    The memo makes clear that Rumsfeld understood acutely the political implications of changing strategy.

    "Announce that whatever new approach the U.S. decides on, the U.S. is doing so on a trial basis," he wrote in one of the bulleted options. "This will give us the ability to readjust and move to another course, if necessary, and therefore not 'lose.' "

    He next advised: "Recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) -- go minimalist."

    Similarly, Rumsfeld advocated announcing "a set of benchmarks" for the Iraqi government -- "to get them moving," he added parenthetically, as well as to "reassure" the U.S. public that progress can be made.

    The existence of the memo was first reported last night by the New York Times, which posted it on its Web site. The Pentagon confirmed the memo's authenticity.

    Asked about the memo, White House spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said: "The president has said he's been dissatisfied with the progress in Iraq, so the right thing to do is reevaluate our tactics. There are a number of reviews underway, and the president is open to listening to a wide array of options."

    Rumsfeld's ideas did not depart radically from the alternative strategies emerging so far from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group or from other military and governmental Iraq policy reviews initiated in recent weeks.

    For example, Rumsfeld called for significantly increasing the number of U.S. military trainers embedded with Iraqi forces, and, in a twist, for "a reverse embeds program" that would place Iraqi soldiers with American squads, partly to boost the Arabic-language skills of U.S. troops.

    Several options Rumsfeld raised involve withdrawing or pulling back the 140,000 U.S. troops in Iraq as a way to pressure the Iraqi government to take greater responsibility for its own security. This idea, favored by many Democrats in Congress, has not been publicly embraced by Rumsfeld to such a degree. Still, Rumsfeld wrote that he opposed setting a firm withdrawal date.

    "Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start 'taking our hand off the bicycle seat'), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up, and take responsibility for their country," Rumsfeld wrote.

    Rumsfeld suggested using the security provided by U.S. troops in a carrot-and-stick approach, providing security only for provinces and cities that fully cooperate with U.S. forces. Similarly, reconstruction aid should go only to "those parts of Iraq that are behaving," he wrote, adding: "No more reconstruction assistance in areas where there is violence."

    Options the defense secretary characterized as "less attractive" involved U.S. troop increases, such as a surge in U.S. forces into Baghdad or substantially increasing the number of American combat brigades in Iraq. The only place he recommended a U.S. troop increase was along Iraq's borders with Syria and Iran.

    Rumsfeld's well-known frustration with other branches of the U.S. government comes through repeatedly in the memo and is far blunter than the secretary has been in public. He called for reaching out to U.S. military retirees and reservists to "aggressively beef up" Iraqi ministries, adding, "i.e. give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it."

    Similarly, he called for a "massive program for unemployed youth" but said it would have to be run by U.S. forces, "since no other organization could do it."

    Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, now a professor of international relations at Boston University, said his impression of the memo is that it is a "laundry list" of current ideas entirely lacking in analysis.

    "The memo is a tacit admission of desperation and of impending failure," said Bacevich, who has been critical of the conduct of the war.

    People in Washington familiar with the workings of the Pentagon and the media were suspicious of the motives behind the leak of the memo.

    Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, an Iraq veteran who has been critical of Rumsfeld, said he was bothered by both the timing and the substance of the memo.

    "For Mr. Rumsfeld to write this leaked memo, saying things aren't going well, is disingenuous and self-serving," said Eaton.

    But he added that he did not think it would affect the morale of troops or officers serving in Iraq, saying he thought they would dismiss it as irrelevant "high-level politics."

    Staff writers Thomas E. Ricks and Michael Abramowitz contributed to this report.


     

     

    Ten Best Books of 2006

    November 28, 2006    
    Ji Lee, Illustration / Daniel Root, Photography / Richard Hackett, Book Binding

    ABSURDISTAN
    By Gary Shteyngart. Random House, $24.95.
    Shteyngart's scruffy, exuberant second novel, equal parts Gogol and Borat, is immodest on every level - it's long, crude, manic and has cheap vodka on its breath. It also happens to be smart, funny and, in the end, extraordinarily rich and moving. "Absurdistan" introduces Misha Vainberg, the rap-music-obsessed, grossly overweight son of the 1,238th richest man in Russia. After attending college in the United States, he is now stuck in St. Petersburg, scrambling for an American visa that may never arrive. Caught between worlds, and mired in his own prejudices and thwarted desires, Vainberg just may be an antihero for our times.

    THE COLLECTED STORIES OF AMY HEMPEL
    Scribner, $27.50.
    A quietly powerful presence in American fiction during the past two decades, Hempel has demonstrated unusual discipline in assembling her urbane, pointillistic and wickedly funny short stories. Since the publication of her first collection, "Reasons to Live," in 1985, only three more slim volumes have appeared - a total of some 15,000 sentences, and nearly every one of them has a crisp, distinctive bite. These collected stories show the true scale of Hempel's achievement. Her compact fictions, populated by smart, neurotic, somewhat damaged narrators, speak grandly to the longings and insecurities in all of us, and in a voice that is bracingly direct and sneakily profound.

    THE EMPEROR'S CHILDREN
    By Claire Messud. Alfred A. Knopf, $25.
    This superbly intelligent, keenly observed comedy of manners, set amid the glitter of cultural Manhattan in 2001, also looks unsparingly, though sympathetically, at a privileged class unwittingly poised, in its insularity, for the catastrophe of 9/11. Messud gracefully intertwines the stories of three friends, attractive, entitled 30-ish Brown graduates "torn between Big Ideas and a party" but falling behind in the contest for public rewards and losing the struggle for personal contentment. The vibrant supporting cast includes a deliciously drawn literary seducer ("without question, a great man") and two ambitious interlopers, teeming with malign energy, whose arrival on the scene propels the action forward.

    THE LAY OF THE LAND
    By Richard Ford. Alfred A. Knopf, $26.95.
    The third installment, following "The Sportswriter" (1986) and "Independence Day" (1995), in the serial epic of Frank Bascombe - flawed husband, fuddled dad, writer turned real estate agent and voluble first-person narrator. Once again the action revolves around a holiday. This time it's Thanksgiving 2000: the Florida recount grinds toward its predictable outcome, and Bascombe, now 55, battles prostate cancer and copes with a strange turn in his second marriage. The story, which unfolds over three days, is filled with incidents, some of them violent, but as ever the drama is rooted in the interior world of its authentically life-size hero, as he logs long hours on the highways and back roads of New Jersey, taking expansive stock of middle-age defeats and registering the erosions of a brilliantly evoked landscape of suburbs, strip malls and ocean towns.

    SPECIAL TOPICS IN CALAMITY PHYSICS
    By Marisha Pessl. Viking, $25.95.
    The antic ghost of Nabokov hovers over this buoyantly literate first novel, a murder mystery narrated by a teenager enamored of her own precocity but also in thrall to her father, an enigmatic itinerant professor, and to the charismatic female teacher whose death is announced on the first page. Each of the 36 chapters is titled for a classic (by authors ranging from Shakespeare to Carlo Emilio Gadda), and the plot snakes ingeniously toward a revelation capped by a clever "final exam." All this is beguiling, but the most solid pleasures of this book originate in the freshness of Pessl's voice and in the purity of her storytelling gift.

    NONFICTION

    FALLING THROUGH THE EARTH
    A Memoir.

    By Danielle Trussoni. Henry Holt & Company, $23.
    This intense, at times searing memoir revisits the author's rough-and-tumble Wisconsin girlhood, spent on the wrong side of the tracks in the company of her father, a Vietnam vet who began his tour as "a cocksure country boy" but returned "wild and haunted," unfit for family life and driven to extremes of philandering, alcoholism and violence. Trussoni mixes these memories with spellbinding versions of the war stories her father reluctantly dredged up and with reflections on her own journey to Vietnam, undertaken in an attempt to recapture, and come to terms with, her father's experiences as a "tunnel rat" who volunteered for the harrowing duty of scouring underground labyrinths in search of an elusive and deadly enemy.

    THE LOOMING TOWER
    Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11.

    By Lawrence Wright. Alfred A. Knopf, $27.95.
    In the fullest account yet of the events that led to the fateful day, Wright unmasks the secret world of Osama bin Laden and his collaborators and also chronicles the efforts of a handful of American intelligence officers alert to the approaching danger but frustrated, time and again, in their efforts to stop it. Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker, builds his heart-stopping narrative through the patient and meticulous accumulation of details and through vivid portraits of Al Qaeda's leaders. Most memorably, he tells the story of John O'Neill, the tormented F.B.I. agent who worked frantically to prevent the impending terrorist attack, only to die in the World Trade Center.

    MAYFLOWER
    A Story of Courage, Community, and War.

    By Nathaniel Philbrick. Viking, $29.95.
    This absorbing history of the Plymouth Colony is a model of revisionism. Philbrick impressively recreates the pilgrims' dismal 1620 voyage, bringing to life passengers and crew, and then relates the events of the settlement and its first contacts with the native inhabitants of Massachusetts. Most striking are the parallels he subtly draws with the present, particularly in his account of how Plymouth's leaders, including Miles Standish, rejected diplomatic overtures toward the Indians, successful though they'd been, and instead pursued a "dehumanizing" policy of violent aggression that led to the needless bloodshed of King Philip's War.

    THE OMNIVORE'S DILEMMA
    A Natural History of Four Meals.

    By Michael Pollan. The Penguin Press, $26.95.
    "When you can eat just about anything nature has to offer, deciding what you should eat will inevitably stir anxiety," Pollan writes in this supple and probing book. He gracefully navigates within these anxieties as he traces the origins of four meals - from a fast-food dinner to a "hunter-gatherer" feast - and makes us see, with remarkable clarity, exactly how what we eat affects both our bodies and the planet. Pollan is the perfect tour guide: his prose is incisive and alive, and pointed without being tendentious. In an uncommonly good year for American food writing, this is a book that stands out.

    THE PLACES IN BETWEEN
    By Rory Stewart. Harvest/Harcourt, Paper, $14.
    "You are the first tourist in Afghanistan," Stewart, a young Scotsman, was warned by an Afghan official before commencing the journey recounted in this splendid book. "It is mid-winter - there are three meters of snow on the high passes, there are wolves, and this is a war. You will die, I can guarantee." Stewart, thankfully, did not die, and his report on his adventures - walking across Afghanistan in January of 2002, shortly after the fall of the Taliban - belongs with the masterpieces of the travel genre. Stewart may be foolhardy, but on the page he is a terrific companion: smart, compassionate and human. His book cracks open a fascinating, blasted world miles away from the newspaper headlines.

     

    Today's Papers

    Rummy's Parting Shot
    By Jesse Stanchak
    Posted Sunday, Dec. 3, 2006, at 6:51 AM E.T.

    Everyone's top non-local story is a classified memo from outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, written just two days before his resignation, in which he admits that U.S. strategy in Iraq is in need of a "major adjustment." Rumsfeld lays out a number of possible plans to turn things around, including decreasing troop levels, setting benchmarks for progress with the Iraqi government, limiting aid to violent parts of the country and putting Iraqi political and religious leaders on the U.S. government payroll to win their loyalty.

    The New York Times originally obtained the memo, posting the text on its site. The NYT points out that Rumsfeld is not endorsing any particular alternative, and he stresses that some of his suggestions are less desirable or "below the line." The NYT also notes that Rumsfeld's ideas are not particularly new, and many of them have been floated by White House critics for some time. The Los Angeles Times calls the memo "rambling" and characterizes the memo as "an admission of failure." The Washington Post questions the timing and significance of the memo's leak, given that it's just a list of options, devoid of real analysis— and given that Rumsfeld is now on his way out and his opinions are of greatly diminished importance. Which asks a bigger question: why is this front page news? Is it a window into how the White House is thinking now? Is it just a sign of how much the political tide has shifted? Is it a victory dance of sorts— the satisfaction of seeing a man known for his inflexibility admitting there may be better courses of action? Or maybe it's just the irony of Rumsfeld admitting that something had to change, just two days before that something turned out to be him.

    Everyone mentions UCLA's 13-9 Rose Bowl upset of USC, (the LAT off-leading, the NYT teasing, the WP going over the masthead with the score) putting USC out of the running for the national championship.

    The NYT looks into whether deregulating the trucking industry has affected driver safety, as some would claim. At issue are rules governing how long a trucker can stay behind the wheel, which critics say are routinely flaunted. Meanwhile, the agency in charge of enforcing these regulations is led by former trucking industry heads who are none-too-keen on cracking down.

    The WP, building on yesterday's top story, reports that tensions are continuing to mount in Beirut, as Hezbollah-linked protestors call for the collapse of the Lebanon's western-backed government.

    The NYT tries to unravel the past of Alexander V. Litvinenko, the former Russian spy who died last week of radiation poisoning. The paper doesn't exactly get to the bottom of the story, but does come up with a few plausible reasons why the Kremlin would want their former agent dead.

    In a local story of national interest, the LAT explains how a new state campaign finance law allows Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to keep raising money. He can't use it for campaigning of course, since he's term-limited out. But he can use it to fund a lavish inaugural celebration for himself and to keep the former movie star traveling and working in the style to which he is accustomed.

    Under the fold, the WP delves into the curious history of medical dissection.

    From the prognostication department: inside, the WP takes a stab at guessing how history will judge President George W. Bush. The paper lets five historians have their say. TP will save you the trouble and just say that while there's a range of opinions expressed here, none of them are terribly generous.

    Under the fold, the WP looks at the controversial decision to continue to fund Gulf War Syndrome research, despite a dearth of scientific research acknowledging the condition's existence. The research bill is currently at $316 million, with another $75 million in the pipeline.

    The LAT reports inside that gay hate crimes legislation has an improved prognosis in the 110th Congress.

    The WP teases Castro's failure to show up for his own birthday parade, fueling speculation that the Cuban leader is on his way off the mortal coil. Inside, the NYT braces foe Castro's death. Understatement of the day: "Mr. Castro's Cuba is very much a work in progress."

    Inside, the LAT reports that the gender pay gap is finally shrinking. The bad news: women aren't earning more, men are simply earning less than they used to.

    Columbia University is investigating whether or not at least one student may have cheated on his or her ethics final, as Radaronline reported Friday. The WP's take on the story is nothing if not optimistic, arguing that being at the center of this kind of story can't help but teach this year's graduating class something about navigating an ethical crisis.

    Jesse Stanchak is an assistant documents editor at Congressional Quarterly. He covers elections in Oregon and Idaho for CQpolitics.com.

     

    Friday, December 01, 2006

    Today's Papers

    June Dreams
    By Daniel Politi
    Posted Friday, Dec. 1, 2006, at 5:04 AM E.T.

    The Washington Post leads with more leaks from the Iraq Study Group's report. Sources tell the paper the commission will recommend the withdrawal of all U.S. combat units from Iraq by early 2008. The New York Times leads, and the Wall Street Journal tops its worldwide newsbox, with President Bush denying there will be any sort of quick pullout of troops from Iraq. His statements came at a news conference after he had a breakfast meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said his country's forces will be able to take over much of the work in June.

    The Los Angeles Times leads with news that the Lebanese government has doubled the size of its security forces in recent months, mostly with Sunni and Christian troops. These troops, who were given weapons donated by the United Arab Emirates (a Sunni state), are meant to counter the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah. USA Today leads with the federal government's plan to begin the first airport screening system that takes X-ray photographs of passengers, which the ACLU calls a "virtual strip search." This new system, designed to make it easier to detect weapons and bombs, will be tested in Phoenix and another still-unnamed airport.

    The proposed pullout date does not necessarily mean yesterday's reports, which said the commission would not include a "firm timetable," were wrong, because 2008 seems to be more of a goal than a set deadline. The final report will allegedly include lots of disclaimers emphasizing that U.S. commanders should have the final say on any withdrawal dates after taking into account the situation on the ground. Regardless, the withdrawal of U.S. troops would not mean the end of American presence in Iraq. There would still be plenty of advisers, trainers, and U.S. troops embedded with Iraqi units. The Post says it got these latest leaks from "sources familiar with the proposal," but, unfortunately, doesn't specify how many.

    "This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it whatsoever," Bush carefully noted at the news conference. Bush insisted American troops would stay in Iraq, unless the Iraqi government asks them to leave. "I can tell you that by next June our forces will be ready," Maliki said in a statement most analysts and lawmakers described as highly unrealistic. Probably as an attempt to diffuse the effects of a leaked memo that called into question Maliki's ability to govern Iraq, Bush said the Iraqi prime minister is "the right guy for Iraq, and we're going to help him." In an analysis piece inside, the NYT says, "the idea of a rapid American troop withdrawal is fast receding as a viable option."

    The donation of weapons by the United Arab Emirates illustrates the broad regional implications of a possible power struggle in Lebanon. News of the increase in Lebanese security forces comes on the same day as Hezbollah has planned for a mass demonstration in Beirut. Hezbollah has urged its supporters to go to the Lebanese capital today and remain on the streets until the government collapses. In preparation for the protests, the Lebanese government has mobilized 8,000 troops into Beirut.

    Calling for a protest among supporters "marks the sharpest escalation yet in a month-long crisis that may decide the direction of Lebanese politics for years ahead," says the WP. Despite the possible broad implications of today's protests, the LAT is alone in giving it Page One play.

    The WP off-leads with word that administration officials are taking a hard look at whether they want to give up on the goal of forming a unified Iraqi government by stopping its outreach to alienated Sunnis and instead put its support behind Shiites and Kurds. This proposal was designed by the State Department as part of the White House effort to review the situation in Iraq. Although there are plenty of people who have spoken up against the plan within the administration, some in the State Department say the United States meddling in Iraqi politics is doing more harm than good. Of course, a big problem with this plan is that America's closest allies in the region have Sunni governments. (Slate's Fred Kaplan writes that choosing sides is "a terrible idea.")

    Despite increasing pressure for the administration to go into talks with Iran and Syria to discuss Iraq, the White House and State Department continue to be against the idea. Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice hinted that the United States would continue to push for sanctions against Iran, even if it can't get Russia to go along with the plan.

    The Post is alone in fronting a draft report issued by a federal agency that says electronic voting machines "cannot be made secure" if they don't leave a paper trail. The National Institute of Standards and Technology's report said election officials should be able to recount the ballots by hand without the aid of a machine in order to ensure the accuracy of electronic votes. If the Election Assistance Commission adopts any of NIST's recommendations, there would still be no practical changes to voting machines until after the 2008 election. Regardless, those who have often spoken up against electronic voting felt vindicated by the report.

    The WP fronts, and everyone else mentions, British officials announcing they have found traces of radiation in 12 locations around London so far. Among the sites are two hospitals, a hotel, and a car that was found in north London. The autopsy of former spy Alexander Litvinenko will be performed today and investigators hope it will help shed more light on the death. But as USAT notes, this will be no ordinary autopsy. Those performing it will have to take special precautions, because they have to start off from the assumption that all of the former spy's bodily fluids are contaminated.

    Meanwhile, Irish authorities began an investigation yesterday into the sudden illness of former Russian Prime Minister Yegor T. Gaidar. Many suspect he was poisoned, although there is still no definitive proof.

    Everybody mentions Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack became the first official candidate for president in 2008 when he launched his campaign yesterday.

    On World AIDS Day, the WP publishes an op-ed by three advocates who say that even though many more in Africa have been receiving life-saving treatments, there are still too many people dying due to a lack of doctors, nurses, and pharmacists who can administer the drugs. In addition to providing medicine, donor countries need to make a commitment to "empower and mobilize an army of health workers" to aid in all aspects of AIDS treatment, particularly in rural areas.

    Ripped from the (future) headlines … According to USAT, producers of CSI approached health physicist Andrew Karam a few years ago to ask him questions regarding a possible polonium-poisoning scenario. He told them it was too far-fetched.

    Daniel Politi writes "Today's Papers" for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.

     

    Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn’t Clear

    Jim Wilson/The New York Times

    A boy, 5, left, who identifies as a girl, plays with a friend in Northern California. He began emulating girls shortly after turning

    December 2, 2006    
    Jim Wilson/The New York Times

    Dr. Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, encourages children to be content with their gender.

    December 2, 2006

    Supporting Boys or Girls When the Line Isn't Clear

    OAKLAND, Calif., Dec. 1 — Until recently, many children who did not conform to gender norms in their clothing or behavior and identified intensely with the opposite sex were steered to psychoanalysis or behavior modification.

    But as advocates gain ground for what they call gender-identity rights, evidenced most recently by New York City's decision to let people alter the sex listed on their birth certificates, a major change is taking place among schools and families. Children as young as 5 who display predispositions to dress like the opposite sex are being supported by a growing number of young parents, educators and mental health professionals.

    Doctors, some of them from the top pediatric hospitals, have begun to advise families to let these children be "who they are" to foster a sense of security and self-esteem. They are motivated, in part, by the high incidence of depression, suicidal feelings and self-mutilation that has been common in past generations of transgender children. Legal trends suggest that schools are now required to respect parents' decisions.

    "First we became sensitive to two mommies and two daddies," said Reynaldo Almeida, the director of the Aurora School, a progressive private school in Oakland. "Now it's kids who come to school who aren't gender typical."

    The supportive attitudes are far easier to find in traditionally tolerant areas of the country like San Francisco than in other parts, but even in those places there is fierce debate over how best to handle the children.

    Cassandra Reese, a first-grade teacher outside Boston, recalled that fellow teachers were unnerved when a young boy showed up in a skirt. "They said, 'This is not normal,' and, 'It's the parents' fault,' " Ms. Reese said. "They didn't see children as sophisticated enough to verbalize their feelings."

    As their children head into adolescence, some parents are choosing to block puberty medically to buy time for them to figure out who they are — raising a host of ethical questions.

    While these children are still relatively rare, doctors say the number of referrals is rising across the nation. Massachusetts, Minnesota, California, New Jersey and the District of Columbia have laws protecting the rights of transgender students, and some schools are engaged in a steep learning curve to dismantle gender stereotypes.

    At the Park Day School in Oakland, teachers are taught a gender-neutral vocabulary and are urged to line up students by sneaker color rather than by gender. "We are careful not to create a situation where students are being boxed in," said Tom Little, the school's director. "We allow them to move back and forth until something feels right."

    For families, it can be a long, emotional adjustment. Shortly after her son's third birthday, Pam B. and her husband, Joel, began a parental journey for which there was no map. It started when their son, J., began wearing oversized T-shirts and wrapping a towel around his head to emulate long, flowing hair. Then came his mothers' silky undershirts. Half a year into preschool, J. started becoming agitated when asked to wear boys' clothing.

    En route to a mall with her son, Ms. B. had an epiphany: "It just clicked in me. I said, 'You really want to wear a dress, don't you?' "

    Thus began what the B.'s, who asked their full names not be used to protect their son's privacy, call "the reluctant path," a behind-closed-doors struggle to come to terms with a gender-variant child — a spirited 5-year-old boy who, at least for now, strongly identifies as a girl, requests to be called "she" and asks to wear pigtails and pink jumpers to school.

    Ms. B., 41, a lawyer, accepted the way her son defined himself after she and her husband consulted with a psychologist and observed his newfound comfort with his choice. But she feels the precarious nature of the day-to-day reality. "It's hard to convey the relentlessness of it, she said, "every social encounter, every time you go out to eat, every day feeling like a balance between your kid's self-esteem and protecting him from the hostile outside world."

    The prospect of cross-dressing kindergartners has sparked a deep philosophical divide among professionals over how best to counsel families. Is it healthier for families to follow the child's lead, or to spare children potential humiliation and isolation by steering them toward accepting their biological gender until they are older?

    Both sides in the debate underscore their concern for the profound vulnerability of such youngsters, symbolized by occurrences like the murder in 2002 of Gwen Araujo, a transgender teenager born as Eddie, southeast of Oakland.

    "Parents now are looking for advice on how to make life reasonable for their kids — whether to allow cross-dressing in public, and how to protect them from the savagery of other children," said Dr. Herbert Schreier, a psychiatrist with Children's Hospital and Research Center in Oakland.

    Dr. Schreier is one of a growing number of professionals who have begun to think of gender variance as a naturally occurring phenomenon rather than a disorder. "These kids are becoming more aware of how it is to be themselves," he said.

    In past generations, so-called sissy boys and tomboy girls were made to conform, based on the belief that their behaviors were largely products of dysfunctional homes.

    Among the revisionists is Dr. Edgardo Menvielle, a child-adolescent psychiatrist at the Children's National Medical Center in Washington who started a national outreach group for parents of gender-variant children in 1998 that now has more than 200 participants. "We know that sexually marginalized children have a higher rate of depression and suicide attempts," Dr. Menvielle said. "The goal is for the child to be well adjusted, healthy and have good self-esteem. What's not important is molding their gender."

    The literature on adults who are transgender was hardly consoling to one parent, a 42-year-old software consultant in Massachusetts and the father of a gender-variant third grader. "You're trudging through this tragic, horrible stuff and realizing not a single person was accepted and understood as a child," he said. "You read it and think, O.K., best to avoid that. But as a parent you're in this complete terra incognita."

    The biological underpinnings of gender identity, much like sexual orientation, remain something of a mystery, though many researchers suspect it is linked with hormone exposure in the developing fetus.

    Studies suggest that most boys with gender variance early in childhood grow up to be gay, and about a quarter heterosexual, Dr. Menvielle said. Only a small fraction grow up to identify as transgender.

    Girls with gender-variant behavior, who have been studied less, voice extreme unhappiness about being a girl and talk about wanting to have male anatomy. But research has thus far suggested that most wind up as heterosexual women.

    Although many children role-play involving gender, Dr. Menvielle said, "the key question is how intense and persistent the behavior is," especially if they show extreme distress.

    Dr. Robin Dea, the director of regional mental health for Kaiser Permanente in Northern California, said: "Our gender identity is something we feel in our soul. But it is also a continuum, and it evolves."

    Dr. Dea works with four or five children under the age of 15 who are essentially living as the opposite sex. "They are much happier, and their grades are up," she said. "I'm waiting for the study that says supporting these children is negative."

    But Dr. Kenneth Zucker, a psychologist and head of the gender-identity service at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto, disagrees with the "free to be" approach with young children and cross-dressing in public. Over the past 30 years, Dr. Zucker has treated about 500 preadolescent gender-variant children. In his studies, 80 percent grow out of the behavior, but 15 percent to 20 percent continue to be distressed about their gender and may ultimately change their sex.

    Dr. Zucker tries to "help these kids be more content in their biological gender" until they are older and can determine their sexual identity — accomplished, he said, by encouraging same-sex friendships and activities like board games that move beyond strict gender roles.

    Though she has not encountered such a situation, Jennifer Schwartz, assistant principal of Chatham Elementary School outside Springfield, Ill., said that allowing a child to express gender differences "would be very difficult to pull off" there.

    Ms. Schwartz added: "I'm not sure it's worth the damage it could cause the child, with all the prejudices and parents possibly protesting. I'm not sure a child that age is ready to make that kind of decision."

    The B.'s thought long and hard about what they had observed in their son. They have carefully choreographed his life, monitoring new playmates, selecting a compatible school, finding sympathetic parents in a babysitting co-op. Nevertheless, Ms. B. said, "there is still the stomach-clenching fear for your kid."

    It is indeed heartbreaking to hear a child say, as J. did recently, "It feels like a nightmare I'm a boy."

    The adjustment has been gradual for Mr. B., a 43-year-old public school administrator who is trying to stop calling J. "our little man." He thinks of his son as a positive, resilient person, and his love and admiration show. "The truth is, is any parent going to choose this for their kid?" he said. "It's who your kid is."

    Families are caught in the undertow of conflicting approaches. One suburban Chicago mother, who did not want to be identified, said in a telephone interview that she was drawing the line on dress and trying to provide "boy opportunities" for her 6-year-old son. "But we can't make everything a power struggle," she said. "It gets exhausting."

    She worries about him becoming a social outcast. "Why does your brother like girl things?" friends of her 10-year-old ask. The answer is always, "I don't know."

    Nila Marrone, a retired linguistics professor at the University of Connecticut who consults with parents and schools, recalled an incident last year at a Bronx elementary school in which an 8-year-old boy perceived as effeminate was thrown into a large trash bin by a group of boys. The principal, she said, "suggested to the mother that she was to blame, for not having taught her son how to be tough enough."

    But the tide is turning.

    The Los Angeles Unified School District, for instance, requires that students be addressed with "a name and pronoun that corresponds to the gender identity." It also asks schools to provide a locker room or changing area that corresponds to a student's chosen gender.

    One of the most controversial issues concerns the use of "blockers," hormones used to delay the onset of puberty in cases where it could be psychologically devastating (for instance, a girl who identifies as a boy might slice her wrists when she gets her period). Some doctors disapprove of blockers, arguing that only at puberty does an individual fully appreciate their gender identity.

    Catherine Tuerk, a nurse-psychotherapist at the children's hospital in Washington and the mother of a gender-variant child in the 1970s, says parents are still left to find their own way. She recalls how therapists urged her to steer her son into psychoanalysis and "hypermasculine activities" like karate. She said she and her husband became "gender cops."

    "It was always, 'You're not kicking the ball hard enough,' " she said.

    Ms. Tuerk's son, now 30, is gay and a father, and her own thinking has evolved since she was a young parent. "People are beginning to understand this seems to be something that happens," she said. "But there was a whole lifetime of feeling we could never leave him alone."

    Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

     

    Thursday, November 30, 2006

    Long After We Withdraw

    November 21, 2006    
    Darko Bandic/Associated Press
    November 26, 2006
    The Way We Live Now

    Long After We Withdraw

    As the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate and as policy makers debate how to extricate the United States honorably from what increasingly appears a war without end, it is worth remembering that all wars do end eventually, and that postwar relationships between the bitterest of enemies can turn out surprisingly well. President Bush's recent trip to Vietnam, where he attended the annual meeting of APEC — the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation organization — illustrates this reality and even offers a measure of hope at a time when battlefront reports are almost unrelievedly bad and when America's foreign policy seems to lurch from crisis to crisis.

    It often seems as if the U.S. presence in Iraq has created so many new enemies in the Muslim world that the clash of civilizations described by Prof. Samuel Huntington has gone from being the hypothesis of a Harvard political scientist to a historical inevitability. Even many of those who resist the notion that Islam and the West are on a collision course still worry that the harm that has been done in Iraq to relations between the U.S. and the Islamic world will be almost impossible to undo.

    And yet the example of Vietnam suggests otherwise. If anything, the trauma of the Vietnam War on the American psyche was and for some still is far deeper than anything the Iraq war has yet produced. These days we speak — probably too glibly — of an America almost evenly divided between so-called red and blue states. But for anyone who remembers what this country was like during the Vietnam era and in its immediate aftermath, these contemporary divisions seem rather shallow. Vietnam truly split the country and brought millions of people into the streets against their own government. People died protesting the Vietnam War on campuses like Kent State. On the battlefield, there was also tremendous savagery. Think of the C.I.A.-run Phoenix program of targeted assassination or the systematic torture of American prisoners of war by the North Vietnamese.

    Nevertheless, 30 years after the end of a war that left Vietnam in ruins and America in turmoil and confusion, the issues left over — accounting for the missing in action, reuniting families and even paying compensation for Agent Orange-induced maladies — are far less central to U.S.-Vietnamese relations than issues of trade and investment. America is now Vietnam's leading trading partner, and Intel has just announced the expansion of its factory near Ho Chi Minh City. While Congress dealt a temporary setback to President Bush's efforts to promote trade with Vietnam, few doubt that such efforts will succeed. As Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, has put it, Vietnam is "reforming" and "booming." (Of course, he might have added that it is hardly a paragon of human rights.)

    Remarkably, President Bush's cordial reception to Prime Minister Phan Van Khai in 2005 was accepted with little protest except from small groups of Vietnamese-Americans. On the Vietnamese side, the dour commissars who fought the French and then the Americans, at the cost of more than a million of their own dead — "born in the North, die in the South" was a well-known saying in the North Vietnamese Army at the time — have given way to proud capitalists who, despite their Communist affiliations, are far more interested in deepening trade relations with America and in warding off their historic rival China than in pulling the scabs off old wounds.

    Is there a lesson here for Iraq? The answer is that, in fact, there are many. The first, and perhaps the most important, is that history is not predictable and even the most deep-seated enmities can evaporate over time when the conditions are right. As President Bush himself said when he was in Hanoi last week: "History has a long march to it. Societies change, and relationships can constantly be altered to the good." There is no iron law of history that says that the bad relations between America and the Islamic world, and even between the United States and radical Shiite groups like the one led by the militant cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, are fated to continue this way indefinitely and immutably. Nor is there any reason to believe that an American withdrawal from Iraq will harm these relations any more than the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam permanently damaged U.S.-Vietnamese relations.

    After the searing experience of Iraq, few among us believe that outsiders can impose democracy at the point of a gun. Nations and peoples simply have to find their own way. Of course, it is crucial not to romanticize this process. For the Vietnamese, the first decade after the fall of Saigon in 1975 was an appalling one — an era of mass repression and mass hunger. It is entirely possible, likely even, that in Iraq the situation will get considerably worse after a U.S. withdrawal, as it did in Vietnam. To put it starkly, however, the effort to foster democracy in Iraq has failed, and with that failure, short-term suffering may have to be the price of long-term coexistence. Is this perspective harsh to the point of cruelty? Perhaps. But it may be a necessary and sober one as well.

    No one in his right mind should imagine a rosy future for Iraq — regardless of whether American commanders choose to preserve the status quo, start withdrawing or even add more troops to try a "final push" this spring. But again, all wars do end eventually. And in their aftermath, in the peace that follows, possibilities arise that seem almost unimaginable as people lie bleeding. It is conceivable that 30 years from now, one of President Bush's successors will travel to Baghdad not for crisis meetings in the Green Zone or to serve Thanksgiving turkey to the troops but to talk about peacetime matters like trade, tourism and the environment. Yet given America's inability to guarantee the security of ordinary Iraqis after an occupation that has lasted almost as long as our participation in World War II, it is possible to speculate that the sooner American forces leave Iraq, the sooner such a trip is likely to happen.

    David Rieff is a contributing writer for the magazine.


November 23, 2006

  • Disk Injuries,Art Collection,Marines in Training,Jeves and Dubya,Iran Attack?

    Study Questions Need to Operate on Disk Injuries

    Ethan Kaplan for The New York Times

    Dr. Eugene J. Carragee of Stanford called the risk of waiting with sciatica “if not extraordinarily small, at least off the radar screen

    November 22, 2006
     

    People with ruptured disks in their lower backs usually recover whether or not they have surgery, researchers are reporting today. The study, a large trial, found that surgery appeared to relieve pain more quickly but that most people recovered eventually and that there was no harm in waiting.

    And that, surgeons said, is likely to change medical practice.

    The study, published in The Journal of the American Medical Association, is the only large and well-designed trial to compare surgery for sciatica with waiting.

    The study was controversial from the start, with many surgeons saying they knew that the operation worked and that it would be unethical for their patients to participate in such a study.

    In the end, though, neither waiting nor surgery was a clear winner, and most patients could safely decide what to do based on personal preference and level of pain. Although many patients did not stay with their assigned treatment, most fared well with whatever treatment they had.

    Patients who had surgery often reported immediate relief. But by three to six months, patients in both groups reported marked improvement.

    After two years, about 70 percent of the patients in the two groups said they had a “major improvement” in their symptoms. No one who waited had serious consequences, and no one who had surgery had a disastrous result.

    Many surgeons had long feared that waiting would cause severe harm, but those fears were proved unfounded.

    “I think this will have an impact,” said Dr. Steven R. Garfin, chairman of the department of orthopedic surgery at the University of California, San Diego. “It says you don’t have to rush in for surgery. Time is usually your ally, not your enemy,” Dr. Garfin added.

    As many as a million Americans suffer from sciatica, said Dr. James Weinstein, a professor of orthopedic surgery at Dartmouth who led the study. The condition is characterized by an often agonizing pain in the buttocks or leg or weakness in a leg.

    It is caused when a ruptured disk impinges on the root of the sciatic nerve, which runs down the back of the leg. And an estimated 300,000 Americans a year have surgery to relieve the symptoms, Dr. Weinstein said.

    Patients are often told that if they delay surgery they may risk permanent nerve damage, perhaps a weakened leg or even losing bowel or bladder control. But nothing like that occurred in the two-year study comparing surgery with waiting in nearly 2,000 patients.

    The study did not include people who had just lower back pain, which can have a variety of causes. Nor did it include people with conditions that would require immediate surgery like losing bowel or bladder control.

    Instead, they were typical of a vast majority of people with sciatica who are made miserable by searing pain. For such patients, fear that delaying an operation could be dangerous “was the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” said Dr. Eugene J. Carragee, professor of orthopedic surgery at Stanford.

    Dr. Carragee said that he had never believed it himself, but that the concern was widespread among patients and doctors.

    “The worry was not knowing,” he added. “If someone had a big herniated disk, can you just say, ‘Well, if it’s not bothering you that much, you can wait?’ It’s kind of like walking on eggshells. What if something terrible did happen?”

    With the new results, it is clear that the risk of waiting “is, if not extraordinarily small, at least off the radar screen,” Dr. Carragee said.

    The study involved 13 spine clinics in 11 states. All the participants had pain from herniated disks and leg pain. The patients were asked whether they would allow the researchers to decide their treatment at random. Those who did not have surgery generally received physical therapy, counseling and anti-inflammatory drugs.

    In the end, the study could not provide definitive results on the best course of treatment because so many patients chose not to have the treatment that they had been randomly assigned.

    About 40 percent of those assigned to surgery decided not to have it, often because their conditions improved while they awaited the operations. A third of patients assigned to wait decided to have operations, often because their pain was so bad that they could not endure it any longer.

    Others asked not to be assigned at random and were followed to see what treatment they chose and how they fared.

    The researchers are also conducting a separate analysis on the cost effectiveness of surgery compared with waiting. Although that analysis has not been published, Dr. Anna N. A. Tosteson of Dartmouth, an author of the study, said that Medicare paid a total of $5,425 for the operation and that private insurers might pay three to four times that.

    Although the results answered one question, about the safety of waiting, they were also, in a sense, disappointing, said Dr. David R. Flum, a contributing editor at The Journal of the American Medical Association and an associate professor of surgery at the University of Washington.

    “Everyone was hoping the study would show which was better,” Dr. Flum said.

    “And everyone was surprised by the tremendous number of crossovers in both directions,” he added, referring to the large number of participants who changed from surgery to waiting and vice versa.

    That muddied the data.

    Sciatica tends to run in families and occurs when the soft gel-like material inside a spinal disk protrudes through the outer lining of the disk like a bubble on a bicycle tire. That compresses and inflames a nerve root that forms the sciatic nerve.

    The resulting pain can feel like a burning fork in the buttocks, Dr. Weinstein said. Or it can be a searing pain down the back of a leg. The pain can be so intense that some people cannot walk. Some cannot sit. Some, Dr. Weinstein said, “can barely crawl.”

    The operation is quick and generally effective, Dr. Garfin said. It involves gently pushing the compressed nerve root away from the herniated disk. Then the surgeon makes an incision in the disk and deflates it. The nerve returns to its normal position, the inflammation goes away, and the pain often disappears.

    The Journal of the American Medical Association published two papers on the study, one reporting on the randomized trial and the other on the patients who chose not to be randomized. It also published editorials by Dr. Carragee and Dr. Flum.

    The reason for all the attention, Dr. Flum explained, was that the study was large and well designed, that its authors had no conflicts of interest, and, “We can learn a lot.”

    The message, in the end, Dr. Weinstein said, was that no matter which treatment a patient received, “nobody got worse.”

    He added, “We never knew that until we did the study.”


    Collections of Invaluable Art Etc.

     

    A Few Bad Men

    November 19, 2006

    Lives
    By GABE HUDSON

    I've gone to some pretty O.K. schools, but the one I'm most proud to have graduated from is the Marine Corps School of Infantry at Camp Pendleton, Calif. My Military Occupational Specialty was 0311 (rifleman), so after making it through boot camp and combat training, I went to the school of infantry, also known as S.O.I. They say that S.O.I. graduates (grunts or ground-pounders) have one of the youngest mortality rates of any school in history because thousands of alumni have gone on to die in armed conflict before the age of 25. And some young marines die at the school itself (including one while I was there — R.I.P.). Other marines commit suicide, get shot or go crazy and are discharged. The logic went that it was better for these marines to fall apart at S.O.I. than on the battlefield. At the time, this seemed like a brilliant pedagogical approach. I loved S.O.I., the intensity of it.

    The only thing I didn't love about S.O.I. were these two guys in my platoon whose nicknames were too offensive to mention here; I'll call them Meat and Potatoes. Meat was a black belt in karate, and Potatoes was some kind of college wrestling star who had failed out. They were very mean, very tough and probably evil. They fancied themselves a sort of demented comic duo. Meat and Potatoes would stroll up to some marines and with pure deadpan tell the sickest, nastiest jokes you ever heard. Meat told the straight line, and then Potatoes chimed in with the punch line. No one in my platoon ever laughed, but no one ever told Meat and Potatoes to shut up. This is because a couple of marines once told Meat and Potatoes to shut up, and Meat and Potatoes jumped them and beat them to a pulp. Back then, I was a 6-foot-4, 204-pound marine, and I hated Meat and Potatoes's guts. I was just waiting for the reason to tangle with them.

    One night when we were out in the field, we woke up to the sounds of marines shouting: "Formation! Formation! Double time!" We hustled out in front of our hooches, while other marines ran around with flashlights. This felt serious. Turned out one of the marines in my hooch — a nice guy named Jones — well, his M-16 had disappeared. Jones woke up, found his M-16 missing and immediately reported it to our platoon leader. Our platoon leader woke up our S.O.I. instructor, and our S.O.I. instructor woke up all the other instructors, until the entire company was standing at attention in front of their hooches. I'm not sure I can convey how incredibly screwed up it is to lose your M-16. For a marine, it's the moral equivalent of having sex with your mother. After a couple hours of searching, Meat and Potatoes finally admitted they had stolen Jones's M-16 while he was asleep. They had hidden the M-16 out in the woods, with a note that said: "THE ENEMY COULD KILL US WITH THIS." Meat and Potatoes wanted to teach Jones a lesson. He had left his M-16 outside his sleeping bag.

    Our S.O.I. instructors chewed our butts out, bent us and sent us back to rack out. I wanted to kill Meat and Potatoes. I had lost two of the three hours of sleep I was going to get that night, and it seemed as if two bullies had picked on the nice guy. I had seen the tears in Jones's eyes, and his pain only fueled my rage. So I waited in my sleeping bag for Meat and Potatoes to return to our hooch, where I planned on jumping them both. Back then, I used to say that I could beat down three guys at the same time, and on a couple of liberty weekends, I had gone out of my way to prove it. I knew Meat and Potatoes were tough, but I was going to put them in a world of hurt. I rehearsed my opening line in my mind, "Hey, guys, have I got a joke for you." And then I was going to smash my elbow into Potatoes's face.

    When Meat and Potatoes came through the door, I tensed, about to stand up. But to my surprise, I didn't do anything. On some base level I knew they were right. When you're a rifleman in the Marine Corps, your M-16 is your most cherished possession. You break your M-16 down and clean it every day. You sleep with it; you take it to the head; you never let it leave your person. I wrapped my own M-16's sling around my leg at night. We were training for combat. I mean, I didn't want to go to war with a marine who would hand his weapon over to the enemy so they could shoot me in my sleep.

    The next morning on the rifle range, Meat and Potatoes came over to a group of us with their M-16s slung over their shoulders. They started in with their normal comedy routine. As if nothing had happened. Meat told the straight line. Then Potatoes delivered the punch line. This was the sickest joke they had told yet — if you heard it, you might faint — but this time when Potatoes delivered the punch line, I started laughing like a lunatic. Not at the joke, but because I realized I had learned a valuable lesson about war. The guy you hate the most could be the one who saves your life.

    Gabe Hudson is the author of "Dear Mr. President," a collection of short stories about the first Persian Gulf war.






     
    JEEVES AND W.
    by CHRISTOPHER BUCKLEY
    Issue of 2006-11-27
    Posted 2006-11-20

    I was lying in bed after a rather depressing night, listening to the birds twitter in the trees, when Jeeves shimmered into the room.

    “What ho, Jeeves.”

    “Good morning, sir.”

    “What’s all this I hear about your heading up some Iraq Study Group? Have you been talking to my father again?”

    “Might I suggest the blue suit today? Something about this November suggests blue.”

    Sometimes Jeeves can be evasive, which is when I apply the old iron hand that we W.s are known for.

    “Now, see here, Jeeves, I can handle this Iraq business myself.”

    “Yes, sir. But, if I may, there does seem to be something of a clamor for an exit strategy.”

    “Dash it, Jeeves, the only exit strategy is victory.”

    “Yes, sir. So Dr. Kissinger keeps insisting. And yet, as the Bard would suggest, ripeness is all.”

    “What are you talking about?”

    “ ‘King Lear,’ sir. A play by the late Mr. Shakespeare.”

    “Just spit it out.”

    “As you may recall, sir, I had suggested replacing Mr. Rumsfeld before the election, rather than after.”

    “Deuced good idea, Jeeves. See to it immediately. Walk him up the scaffold, and no blindfold. That’ll get us a few votes.”

    We W.s are slow to anger, but, when the feeling comes, the ground around us trembles.

    “If I may, sir?”

    “What is it, Jeeves?”

    “The election is over.”

    “Oh. Dash it all, Jeeves, you might have told me.”

    “I believe there was some mention of it in the newspapers.”

    “Well, don’t be so mysterious. How’d we do? Another unqualified triumph?”

    “Not as satisfactorily as one might have hoped, sir. One might even be tempted to say that we took rather a thumping.”

    “Hmm. Wondered why there’ve been so many Democrats lurking about. Every time I look up from my desk, they’re tiptoeing about with tape measures. It’s deuced annoying, Jeeves. How’s a President supposed to concentrate?”

    “I have spoken with the Secret Service about it, sir. I have asked them to limit Democratic visitors to no more than two per day.”

    “That Pelosi woman. Sat there like a cobra. Froze my blood, Jeeves. Could hardly get up out of my chair.”

    “I keenly regret it, sir. I shall ask the Secret Service to be on the lookout especially for her. Meanwhile, perhaps if you appealed to her maternal side? I believe the lady is a mother of five and a grandmother. Perhaps a tasteful arrangement of seasonal flowers, accompanied by an appropriate sentiment? ‘Every hyacinth the garden wears / dropped in her lap from some once lovely head.’ ”

    “What are you going on about now?”

    “A poem, sir, by a Mr. Khayyam. A Persian person.”

    “Well, stop it. You’re making my head spin. And that Reid fellow who was with her—good Lord, he could give the Grim Reaper a run for his money. Where do the Democrats find these people, Jeeves? In a funeral parlor?”

    “I believe the gentleman is from the state of Nevada, sir. The ‘Battle Born’ state, as the state flag has it. Admitted to the Union during the Civil War.”

    “I tried to jolly him up by giving him one of my nicknames. You know how I like to crack the old ice by giving people nicknames.”

    “I am acquainted with your tendency toward the spontaneous assignment of the fraternal sobriquet. Might I inquire just what you called him?”

    “Cactus Butt.”

    “Doubtless a reference to the flora of his natal environs. And was the future Senate Majority Leader amused, sir, by your jeu d’esprit?”

    “He just stared at me. Deuced uncomfortable, let me tell you.”

    “Perhaps the gentleman is not inclined to persiflage. But, if I may, sir, with respect to Iraq?”

    “All right, then. Give it to me straight up.”

    “Might I suggest, sir, a regional conference?”

    “Dash it, Jeeves, we’re at war. You can’t go conferencing with bullets flying all over the place.”

    “Indeed, sir. And yet if we were to invite, say, Iran and Syria and some of the other affected countries to sit down for what is, I believe, referred to as ‘networking,’ it might take some of the pressure off yourself?”

    “You mean the sort of how-d’ye-do where everyone sits at one of those huge U-shaped tables and makes endless orations all day?”

    “That would be the general notion, yes, sir.”

    “Now, steady on, Jeeves. You know I hate those things. You sit there with an earphone, listening to interpreters jibber-jabber about how it’s all your fault. I’d rather take my chances playing Blinky with Cobra Woman and Cactus Butt.”

    “You wouldn’t actually have to attend personally, sir. Indeed, I could represent you, if that would be agreeable.”

    “I say, would you, Jeeves?”

    “Certainly, sir. Indeed, sir, it is my impression that you have been working much too hard as it is. Might I suggest that you winter at the ranch in Crawford? I believe the climate there this time of year is thought to be salubrious.”

    “But what if the Vice-President wants to come down and go quail-hunting?”

    “I have taken the liberty of speaking with the Secret Service, sir, and have asked that they replace Mr. Cheney’s shotgun cartridges with blanks.”

    “Jeeves, you’re a genius. Pack my things. We leave immediately.”

    “Thank you, sir. I endeavor to give satisfaction.”


     

    Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?

     





    THE NEXT ACT
    by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
    Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack Iran, or more?
    Issue of 2006-11-27
    Posted 2006-11-20

    A month before the November elections, Vice-President Dick Cheney was sitting in on a national-security discussion at the Executive Office Building. The talk took a political turn: what if the Democrats won both the Senate and the House? How would that affect policy toward Iran, which is believed to be on the verge of becoming a nuclear power? At that point, according to someone familiar with the discussion, Cheney began reminiscing about his job as a lineman, in the early nineteen-sixties, for a power company in Wyoming. Copper wire was expensive, and the linemen were instructed to return all unused pieces three feet or longer. No one wanted to deal with the paperwork that resulted, Cheney said, so he and his colleagues found a solution: putting "shorteners" on the wire—that is, cutting it into short pieces and tossing the leftovers at the end of the workday. If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from getting in its way.

    The White House's concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. "They're afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war," a former senior intelligence official told me.

    In late 1982, Edward P. Boland, a Democratic representative, introduced the first in a series of "Boland amendments," which limited the Reagan Administration's ability to support the Contras, who were working to overthrow Nicaragua's left-wing Sandinista government. The Boland restrictions led White House officials to orchestrate illegal fund-raising activities for the Contras, including the sale of American weapons, via Israel, to Iran. The result was the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-eighties. Cheney's story, according to the source, was his way of saying that, whatever a Democratic Congress might do next year to limit the President's authority, the Administration would find a way to work around it. (In response to a request for comment, the Vice-President's office said that it had no record of the discussion.)

    In interviews, current and former Administration officials returned to one question: whether Cheney would be as influential in the last two years of George W. Bush's Presidency as he was in its first six. Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, "I know what the President thinks," about Iraq. "I know what I think. And we're not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking for victory." He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. "The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime," he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. "And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

    On November 8th, the day after the Republicans lost both the House and the Senate, Bush announced the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and the nomination of his successor, Robert Gates, a former director of Central Intelligence. The move was widely seen as an acknowledgment that the Administration was paying a political price for the debacle in Iraq. Gates was a member of the Iraq Study Group—headed by former Secretary of State James Baker and Lee Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman—which has been charged with examining new approaches to Iraq, and he has publicly urged for more than a year that the U.S. begin direct talks with Iran. President Bush's decision to turn to Gates was a sign of the White House's "desperation," a former high-level C.I.A. official, who worked with the White House after September 11th, told me. Cheney's relationship with Rumsfeld was among the closest inside the Administration, and Gates's nomination was seen by some Republicans as a clear signal that the Vice-President's influence in the White House could be challenged. The only reason Gates would take the job, after turning down an earlier offer to serve as the new Director of National Intelligence, the former high-level C.I.A. official said, was that "the President's father, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker"—former aides of the first President Bush—"piled on, and the President finally had to accept adult supervision."

    Critical decisions will be made in the next few months, the former C.I.A. official said. "Bush has followed Cheney's advice for six years, and the story line will be: 'Will he continue to choose Cheney over his father?' We'll know soon." (The White House and the Pentagon declined to respond to detailed requests for comment about this article, other than to say that there were unspecified inaccuracies.)

    A retired four-star general who worked closely with the first Bush Administration told me that the Gates nomination means that Scowcroft, Baker, the elder Bush, and his son "are saying that winning the election in 2008 is more important than the individual. The issue for them is how to preserve the Republican agenda. The Old Guard wants to isolate Cheney and give their girl, Condoleezza Rice"—the Secretary of State—"a chance to perform." The combination of Scowcroft, Baker, and the senior Bush working together is, the general added, "tough enough to take on Cheney. One guy can't do it."

    Richard Armitage, the Deputy Secretary of State in Bush's first term, told me that he believed the Democratic election victory, followed by Rumsfeld's dismissal, meant that the Administration "has backed off," in terms of the pace of its planning for a military campaign against Iran. Gates and other decision-makers would now have more time to push for a diplomatic solution in Iran and deal with other, arguably more immediate issues. "Iraq is as bad as it looks, and Afghanistan is worse than it looks," Armitage said. "A year ago, the Taliban were fighting us in units of eight to twelve, and now they're sometimes in company-size, and even larger." Bombing Iran and expecting the Iranian public "to rise up" and overthrow the government, as some in the White House believe, Armitage added, "is a fool's errand."

    "Iraq is the disaster we have to get rid of, and Iran is the disaster we have to avoid," Joseph Cirincione, the vice-president for national security at the liberal Center for American Progress, said. "Gates will be in favor of talking to Iran and listening to the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the neoconservatives are still there"—in the White House—"and still believe that chaos would be a small price for getting rid of the threat. The danger is that Gates could be the new Colin Powell—the one who opposes the policy but ends up briefing the Congress and publicly supporting it."

    Other sources close to the Bush family said that the machinations behind Rumsfeld's resignation and the Gates nomination were complex, and the seeming triumph of the Old Guard may be illusory. The former senior intelligence official, who once worked closely with Gates and with the President's father, said that Bush and his immediate advisers in the White House understood by mid-October that Rumsfeld would have to resign if the result of the midterm election was a resounding defeat. Rumsfeld was involved in conversations about the timing of his departure with Cheney, Gates, and the President before the election, the former senior intelligence official said. Critics who asked why Rumsfeld wasn't fired earlier, a move that might have given the Republicans a boost, were missing the point. "A week before the election, the Republicans were saying that a Democratic victory was the seed of American retreat, and now Bush and Cheney are going to change their national-security policies?" the former senior intelligence official said. "Cheney knew this was coming. Dropping Rummy after the election looked like a conciliatory move—'You're right, Democrats. We got a new guy and we're looking at all the options. Nothing is ruled out.' " But the conciliatory gesture would not be accompanied by a significant change in policy; instead, the White House saw Gates as someone who would have the credibility to help it stay the course on Iran and Iraq. Gates would also be an asset before Congress. If the Administration needed to make the case that Iran's weapons program posed an imminent threat, Gates would be a better advocate than someone who had been associated with the flawed intelligence about Iraq. The former official said, "He's not the guy who told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and he'll be taken seriously by Congress."

    Once Gates is installed at the Pentagon, he will have to contend with Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Rumsfeld legacy—and Dick Cheney. A former senior Bush Administration official, who has also worked with Gates, told me that Gates was well aware of the difficulties of his new job. He added that Gates would not simply endorse the Administration's policies and say, "with a flag waving, 'Go, go' "—especially at the cost of his own reputation. "He does not want to see thirty-five years of government service go out the window," the former official said. However, on the question of whether Gates would actively stand up to Cheney, the former official said, after a pause, "I don't know."


    Another critical issue for Gates will be the Pentagon's expanding effort to conduct clandestine and covert intelligence missions overseas. Such activity has traditionally been the C.I.A.'s responsibility, but, as the result of a systematic push by Rumsfeld, military covert actions have been substantially increased. In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as "part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran." (The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime's authority in northern and southeastern Iran.) The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group "equipment and training." The group has also been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S." (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)

    Such activities, if they are considered military rather than intelligence operations, do not require congressional briefings. For a similar C.I.A. operation, the President would, by law, have to issue a formal finding that the mission was necessary, and the Administration would have to brief the senior leadership of the House and the Senate. The lack of such consultation annoyed some Democrats in Congress. This fall, I was told, Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations subcommittee that finances classified military activity, pointedly asked, during a closed meeting of House and Senate members, whether "anyone has been briefing on the Administration's plan for military activity in Iran." The answer was no. (A spokesman for Obey confirmed this account.)

    The Democratic victories this month led to a surge of calls for the Administration to begin direct talks with Iran, in part to get its help in settling the conflict in Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony Blair broke ranks with President Bush after the election and declared that Iran should be offered "a clear strategic choice" that could include a "new partnership" with the West. But many in the White House and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way to salvage Iraq. "It's a classic case of 'failure forward,'" a Pentagon consultant said. "They believe that by tipping over Iran they would recover their losses in Iraq—like doubling your bet. It would be an attempt to revive the concept of spreading democracy in the Middle East by creating one new model state."

    The view that there is a nexus between Iran and Iraq has been endorsed by Condoleezza Rice, who said last month that Iran "does need to understand that it is not going to improve its own situation by stirring instability in Iraq," and by the President, who said, in August, that "Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold" in Iraq. The government consultant told me, "More and more people see the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq."

    The consultant added that, for some advocates of military action, "the goal in Iran is not regime change but a strike that will send a signal that America still can accomplish its goals. Even if it does not destroy Iran's nuclear network, there are many who think that thirty-six hours of bombing is the only way to remind the Iranians of the very high cost of going forward with the bomb—and of supporting Moqtada al-Sadr and his pro-Iran element in Iraq." (Sadr, who commands a Shiite militia, has religious ties to Iran.)

    In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."

    The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President's staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser "believes that, so far, there's been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq," the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney's office "want to end the regime," the consultant said. "They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran."


    The Administration's planning for a military attack on Iran was made far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House's assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency. (The C.I.A. declined to comment on this story.)

    The C.I.A.'s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.

    A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to it. The White House's dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official said. "They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official added, referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning. "They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need to accomplish the mission." The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency also challenged the C.I.A.'s analysis. "The D.I.A. is fighting the agency's conclusions, and disputing its approach," the former senior intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear capabilities, "but they can't stop the agency from putting it out for comment inside the intelligence community." The C.I.A. assessment warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But some in the White House, including in Cheney's office, had made just such an assumption—that "the lack of evidence means they must have it," the former official said.

    Iran is a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, under which it is entitled to conduct nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Despite the offer of trade agreements and the prospect of military action, it defied a demand by the I.A.E.A. and the Security Council, earlier this year, that it stop enriching uranium—a process that can produce material for nuclear power plants as well as for weapons—and it has been unable, or unwilling, to account for traces of plutonium and highly enriched uranium that have been detected during I.A.E.A. inspections. The I.A.E.A. has complained about a lack of "transparency," although, like the C.I.A., it has not found unambiguous evidence of a secret weapons program.

    Last week, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, announced that Iran had made further progress in its enrichment research program, and said, "We know that some countries may not be pleased." He insisted that Iran was abiding by international agreements, but said, "Time is now completely on the side of the Iranian people." A diplomat in Vienna, where the I.A.E.A. has its headquarters, told me that the agency was skeptical of the claim, for technical reasons. But Ahmadinejad's defiant tone did nothing to diminish suspicions about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    "There is no evidence of a large-scale covert enrichment program inside Iran," one involved European diplomat said. "But the Iranians would not have launched themselves into a very dangerous confrontation with the West on the basis of a weapons program that they no longer pursue. Their enrichment program makes sense only in terms of wanting nuclear weapons. It would be inconceivable if they weren't cheating to some degree. You don't need a covert program to be concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions. We have enough information to be concerned without one. It's not a slam dunk, but it's close to it."

    There are, however, other possible reasons for Iran's obstinacy. The nuclear program—peaceful or not—is a source of great national pride, and President Ahmadinejad's support for it has helped to propel him to enormous popularity. (Saddam Hussein created confusion for years, inside and outside his country, about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, in part to project an image of strength.) According to the former senior intelligence official, the C.I.A.'s assessment suggested that Iran might even see some benefits in a limited military strike—especially one that did not succeed in fully destroying its nuclear program—in that an attack might enhance its position in the Islamic world. "They learned that in the Iraqi experience, and relearned it in southern Lebanon," the former senior official said. In both cases, a more powerful military force had trouble achieving its military or political goals; in Lebanon, Israel's war against Hezbollah did not destroy the group's entire arsenal of rockets, and increased the popularity of its leader, Hassan Nasrallah.

    The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised the possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying point to unite Sunni and Shiite populations. "An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we'll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us—and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It's an analyst's worst nightmare—for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East." (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over six hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)

    According to the Pentagon consultant, "The C.I.A.'s view is that, without more intelligence, a large-scale bombing attack would not stop Iran's nuclear program. And a low-end campaign of subversion and sabotage would play into Iran's hands—bolstering support for the religious leadership and deepening anti-American Muslim rage."

    The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But he added that the Bush Administration's options for dealing with that threat are diminished, because of a lack of good intelligence and also because "we've cried wolf" before.


    As the C.I.A.'s assessment was making its way through the government, late this summer, current and former military officers and consultants told me, a new element suddenly emerged: intelligence from Israeli spies operating inside Iran claimed that Iran has developed and tested a trigger device for a nuclear bomb. The provenance and significance of the human intelligence, or HUMINT, are controversial. "The problem is that no one can verify it," the former senior intelligence official told me. "We don't know who the Israeli source is. The briefing says the Iranians are testing trigger mechanisms"—simulating a zero-yield nuclear explosion without any weapons-grade materials—"but there are no diagrams, no significant facts. Where is the test site? How often have they done it? How big is the warhead—a breadbox or a refrigerator? They don't have that." And yet, he said, the report was being used by White House hawks within the Administration to "prove the White House's theory that the Iranians are on track. And tests leave no radioactive track, which is why we can't find it." Still, he said, "The agency is standing its ground."

    The Pentagon consultant, however, told me that he and other intelligence professionals believe that the Israeli intelligence should be taken more seriously. "We live in an era when national technical intelligence"—data from satellites and on-the-ground sensors—"will not get us what we need. HUMINT may not be hard evidence by that standard, but very often it's the best intelligence we can get." He added, with obvious exasperation, that within the intelligence community "we're going to be fighting over the quality of the information for the next year." One reason for the dispute, he said, was that the White House had asked to see the "raw"—the original, unanalyzed and unvetted—Israeli intelligence. Such "stovepiping" of intelligence had led to faulty conclusions about nonexistent weapons of mass destruction during the buildup to the 2003 Iraq war. "Many Presidents in the past have done the same thing," the consultant said, "but intelligence professionals are always aghast when Presidents ask for stuff in the raw. They see it as asking a second grader to read 'Ulysses.' "

    HUMINT can be difficult to assess. Some of the most politically significant—and most inaccurate—intelligence about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction came from an operative, known as Curveball, who was initially supplied to the C.I.A. by German intelligence. But the Pentagon consultant insisted that, in this case, "the Israeli intelligence is apparently very strong." He said that the information about the trigger device had been buttressed by another form of highly classified data, known as MASINT, for "measuring and signature" intelligence. The Defense Intelligence Agency is the central processing and dissemination point for such intelligence, which includes radar, radio, nuclear, and electro-optical data. The consultant said that the MASINT indicated activities that "are not consistent with the programs" Iran has declared to the I.A.E.A. "The intelligence suggests far greater sophistication and more advanced development," the consultant said. "The indications don't make sense, unless they're farther along in some aspects of their nuclear-weapons program than we know."

    In early 2004, John Bolton, who was then the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control (he is now the United Nations Ambassador), privately conveyed to the I.A.E.A. suspicions that Iran was conducting research into the intricately timed detonation of conventional explosives needed to trigger a nuclear warhead at Parchin, a sensitive facility twenty miles southeast of Tehran that serves as the center of Iran's Defense Industries Organization. A wide array of chemical munitions and fuels, as well as advanced antitank and ground-to-air missiles, are manufactured there, and satellite imagery appeared to show a bunker suitable for testing very large explosions.

    A senior diplomat in Vienna told me that, in response to the allegations, I.A.E.A. inspectors went to Parchin in November of 2005, after months of negotiation. An inspection team was allowed to single out a specific site at the base, and then was granted access to a few buildings there. "We found no evidence of nuclear materials," the diplomat said. The inspectors looked hard at an underground explosive-testing pit that, he said, "resembled what South Africa had when it developed its nuclear weapons," three decades ago. The pit could have been used for the kind of kinetic research needed to test a nuclear trigger. But, like so many military facilities with dual-use potential, "it also could be used for other things," such as testing fuel for rockets, which routinely takes place at Parchin. "The Iranians have demonstrated that they can enrich uranium," the diplomat added, "and trigger tests without nuclear yield can be done. But it's a very sophisticated process—it's also known as hydrodynamic testing—and only countries with suitably advanced nuclear testing facilities as well as the necessary scientific expertise can do it. I'd be very skeptical that Iran could do it."

    Earlier this month, the allegations about Parchin reëmerged when Yediot Ahronot, Israel's largest newspaper, reported that recent satellite imagery showed new "massive construction" at Parchin, suggesting an expansion of underground tunnels and chambers. The newspaper sharply criticized the I.A.E.A.'s inspection process and its director, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, for his insistence on "using very neutral wording for his findings and his conclusions."

    Patrick Clawson, an expert on Iran who is the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a conservative think tank, told me that the "biggest moment" of tension has yet to arrive: "How does the United States keep an Israeli decision point—one that may come sooner than we want—from being reached?" Clawson noted that there is evidence that Iran has been slowed by technical problems in the construction and operation of two small centrifuge cascades, which are essential for the pilot production of enriched uranium. Both are now under I.A.E.A. supervision. "Why were they so slow in getting the second cascade up and running?" Clawson asked. "And why haven't they run the first one as much as they said they would? Do we have more time?

    "Why talk about war?" he said. "We're not talking about going to war with North Korea or Venezuela. It's not necessarily the case that Iran has started a weapons program, and it's conceivable—just conceivable—that Iran does not have a nuclear-weapons program yet. We can slow them down—force them to reinvent the wheel—without bombing, especially if the international conditions get better."

    Clawson added that Secretary of State Rice has "staked her reputation on diplomacy, and she will not risk her career without evidence. Her team is saying, 'What's the rush?' The President wants to solve the Iranian issue before leaving office, but he may have to say, 'Darn, I wish I could have solved it.' "


    Earlier this year, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert created a task force to coördinate all the available intelligence on Iran. The task force, which is led by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force, reports directly to the Prime Minister. In late October, Olmert appointed Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Party member of the Knesset, to serve as Deputy Defense Minister. Sneh, who served previously in that position under Ehud Barak, has for years insisted that action be taken to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. In an interview this month with the Jerusalem Post, Sneh expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of diplomacy or international sanctions in curbing Iran:

    The danger isn't as much Ahmadinejad's deciding to launch an attack but Israel's living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction. . . . Most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with families, and Israelis who can live abroad will . . . I am afraid Ahmadinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.

    A similar message was delivered by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader, in a speech in Los Angeles last week. "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs," he said, adding that there was "still time" to stop the Iranians.

    The Pentagon consultant told me that, while there may be pressure from the Israelis, "they won't do anything on their own without our green light." That assurance, he said, "comes from the Cheney shop. It's Cheney himself who is saying, 'We're not going to leave you high and dry, but don't go without us.' " A senior European diplomat agreed: "For Israel, it is a question of life or death. The United States does not want to go into Iran, but, if Israel feels more and more cornered, there may be no other choice."

    A nuclear-armed Iran would not only threaten Israel. It could trigger a strategic-arms race throughout the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt—all led by Sunni governments—would be compelled to take steps to defend themselves. The Bush Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned that Iran cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that—as Clinton said earlier this year—"we cannot take any option off the table." Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has also endorsed this view. Last May, Olmert was given a rousing reception when he addressed a joint session of Congress and declared, "A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die—the mass destruction of innocent human life. This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail."

    Despite such rhetoric, Leslie Gelb, a former State Department official who is a president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, said he believes that, "when push comes to shove, the Israelis will have a hard time selling the idea that an Iranian nuclear capability is imminent. The military and the State Department will be flat against a preëmptive bombing campaign." Gelb said he hoped that Gates's appointment would add weight to America's most pressing issue—"to get some level of Iranian restraint inside Iraq. In the next year or two, we're much more likely to be negotiating with Iran than bombing it."


    The Bush Administration remains publicly committed to a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear impasse, and has been working with China, Russia, France, Germany, and Britain to get negotiations under way. So far, that effort has foundered; the most recent round of talks broke up early in November, amid growing disagreements with Russia and China about the necessity of imposing harsh United Nations sanctions on the Iranian regime. President Bush is adamant that Iran must stop all of its enrichment programs before any direct talks involving the United States can begin.

    The senior European diplomat told me that the French President, Jacques Chirac, and President Bush met in New York on September 19th, as the new U.N. session was beginning, and agreed on what the French called the "Big Bang" approach to breaking the deadlock with Iran. A scenario was presented to Ali Larijani, the chief Iranian negotiator on nuclear issues. The Western delegation would sit down at a negotiating table with Iran. The diplomat told me, "We would say, 'We're beginning the negotiations without preconditions,' and the Iranians would respond, 'We will suspend.' Our side would register great satisfaction, and the Iranians would agree to accept I.A.E.A. inspection of their enrichment facilities. And then the West would announce, in return, that they would suspend any U.N. sanctions." The United States would not be at the table when the talks began but would join later. Larijani took the offer to Tehran; the answer, as relayed by Larijani, was no, the diplomat said. "We were trying to compromise, for all sides, but Ahmadinejad did not want to save face," the diplomat said. "The beautiful scenario has gone nowhere."

    Last week, there was a heightened expectation that the Iraq Study Group would produce a set of recommendations that could win bipartisan approval and guide America out of the quagmire in Iraq. Sources with direct knowledge of the panel's proceedings have told me that the group, as of mid-November, had ruled out calling for an immediate and complete American withdrawal but would recommend focussing on the improved training of Iraqi forces and on redeploying American troops. In the most significant recommendation, Baker and Hamilton were expected to urge President Bush to do what he has thus far refused to do—bring Syria and Iran into a regional conference to help stabilize Iraq.

    It is not clear whether the Administration will be receptive. In August, according to the former senior intelligence official, Rumsfeld asked the Joint Chiefs to quietly devise alternative plans for Iraq, to preëmpt new proposals, whether they come from the new Democratic majority or from the Iraq Study Group. "The option of last resort is to move American forces out of the cities and relocate them along the Syrian and Iranian border," the former official said. "Civilians would be hired to train the Iraqi police, with the eventual goal of separating the local police from the Iraqi military. The White House believes that if American troops stay in Iraq long enough—with enough troops—the bad guys will end up killing each other, and Iraqi citizens, fed up with internal strife, will come up with a solution. It'll take a long time to move the troops and train the police. It's a time line to infinity."

    In a subsequent interview, the former senior Bush Administration official said that he had also been told that the Pentagon has been at work on a plan in Iraq that called for a military withdrawal from the major urban areas to a series of fortified bases near the borders. The working assumption was that, with the American troops gone from the most heavily populated places, the sectarian violence would "burn out." "The White House is saying it's going to stabilize," the former senior Administration official said, "but it may stabilize the wrong way."

    One problem with the proposal that the Administration enlist Iran in reaching a settlement of the conflict in Iraq is that it's not clear that Iran would be interested, especially if the goal is to help the Bush Administration extricate itself from a bad situation.

    "Iran is emerging as a dominant power in the Middle East," I was told by a Middle East expert and former senior Administration official. "With a nuclear program, and an ability to interfere throughout the region, it's basically calling the shots. Why should they coöperate with us over Iraq?" He recounted a recent meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who challenged Bush's right to tell Iran that it could not enrich uranium. "Why doesn't America stop enriching uranium?" the Iranian President asked. He laughed, and added, "We'll enrich it for you and sell it to you at a fifty-per-cent discount."

November 22, 2006

  • My Week with Wilma

    My Week with Wilma
    Or, Nature's Leaf Blower in the State of Denial

    by Ralph T. Castle

    In the dim yellow glow from a Wal-Mart oil lamp, I sit at my kitchen table, cursing the State of Florida while I struggle to enter a few more keystrokes on a water-damaged laptop with a dying battery. My cat, Eddie, is having a fine time, prowling around outside in the total darkness of a landscape where all street lights are dead within a radius of 75 miles. I would join him for a stroll under the stars, except that the county police are liable to throw me in jail for violating the 7:30 curfew.

    According to news estimates I am one of 3.5 million people in South Florida currently deprived of electricity. When Hurricane Wilma blew through a couple of days ago, she ravaged the landscape and scattered power lines like a petulant kid kicking over sand castles on a beach. This of course is what hurricanes normally do, but Wilma's range has astonished even seasoned veterans of the so-called Sunshine State. The power outage extends all the way from Miami, in the south, to Fort Pierce, on the way to Orlando. By my calculation the affected area encompasses 30,000 square miles.

    My neighbors speak with first-name familiarity about bygone hurricanes, in the same way that they might chat about legendary bad guests who broke porcelain ornaments or left coffee stains on the carpet. When they talk of Wilma, though, their voices drop to a tone of subdued respect. No one has seen this scale of damage before, and behind each conversation lies an ominous subtext. The public servants of Florida are not known for their ability to think outside the box--or inside it, for that matter. My neighbors are starting to wonder exactly how our elected representatives will bootstrap us out of this mess.

    Lack of electricity for me personally is not such a big deal. In my all-electric home I have no hot water, I can't cook anything, I have no refrigeration, no air conditioning, and of course no lights, but I do have my oil lamp, a low-wattage LED flashlight, and three weeks' supply of food. I am not worried about myself. What concerns me is everyone else. Something tells me that in my low-rent neighborhood, a typical Floridian's idea of hurricane preparedness is to buy half-a-dozen candles, a few big bags of potato chips, and a case of Bud Light.

    Some canned food is available from a few grocery stores that have reopened using emergency generators, but already their shelves are half empty, and in any case their customers are running out of money. Since almost all workplaces are closed, employees are not receiving paychecks--and even if they did, all the banks and ATMs have shut down, while credit cards are worthless, because they cannot be authorized.

    I have a couple-thousand dollars in cash, but when I mentioned this before the storm, people looked at me as if I were crazy. Florida, after all, has become notorious for generous bailouts of its "disaster victims," as the reckless optimists who choose to live on this precarious sandbar choose to describe themselves. Since federally funded handouts have become a happy fact of life, who needs extra cash?

    Indeed, some food distribution centers have started giving away military rations, but these centers are widely scattered, and my neighbors may run out of gasoline to visit them, because people have been cruising around, admiring the hurricane damage as if they're on vacation. When their cars run dry, they will be unable to refuel, because the pumps in gas stations cannot function without electricity. Nor will anyone be able to ride the buses, since the buses have stopped running and are not expected to resume for the indefinite future.

    Add it all up, and I see some folks getting hungry a couple of days from now. They may not deal with this in a very mature manner. Floridians tend to assume that in their feelgood semitropical paradise, they are exempt from adversity. In the words of "Frankli Speeking," who wrote a letter on this topic to the online edition of the Palm Beach Post: ". . . after being warned for days on end, people don't have the sense to stock up on a few days worth of food . . . and old people who opt to live in high rise condos love to complain nonstop that FEMA didn't come in limos to personally rescue and escort them out of their buildings and they must eat MREs instead of being served more succulent fare, like steak, lobster, shrimp!"

    I have indeed noticed a widespread sense of entitlement, here, as Floridians expect someone to take care of them, such as the local police, or the Social Security Administration, or their insurance company, or the National Guard, or George Bush's brother, or--well, someone! This time, however, they may be out of luck.

    Emergency generators that sustain hospitals, fire departments, and sewage pumping stations will need more fuel in the very near future. Likewise, emergency vehicles. This brings us to the real sticking point: The broken supply chain. Port Everglades, where giant ocean-going tankers normally unload fuel into equally giant storage tanks, is paralyzed because it, too, lacks electricity. Nor can fuel come in via railroad, because crossing gates and flashing lights are out of action, allowing those who are absent-minded or generally out to lunch (a sizable fraction of the population) to stray upon the tracks without customary warnings from bells, barriers, and beacons. This risk is perceived as being so severe, trains will not run until all the protective systems at every railroad crossing have been brought back online.

    Of course the highways are open from the north, but since the power outage is so extensive, I'm thinking that truckers may be unwilling to drive very far into our area in case they will be unable to refuel to get back out again.

    As I sit here with my stash of kerosene, batteries, bottled water, and food bars, I am already making contingency plans. First I will park my car close to an obstacle such as a concrete wall, to prevent opportunists from siphoning fuel from the gas tank. Then I may double-bag some reserve stocks of food and bury them in my back yard. This sounds melodramatic, but in a society of deluded whiners waiting for Santa Claus to deliver the supplies which they feel they deserve, a self-sufficient person with a stockpile of resources is not necessarily in a strong position. On the contrary: He becomes a target.


    One Week Earlier
    The first time I saw hurricane Wilma on the National Weather Service web site, she was making an impromptu visit to Cancun, scouring sand from beaches and punching windows out of high-rise hotels. This of course was just a playful dalliance, a brief rehearsal for the main event.

    As I studied Wilma's predicted trajectory I saw that it would bring her across the Gulf of Mexico and over the Florida peninsular from the west to the east, exiting the east coast at a point about 10 miles below Lake Okeechobee--in other words, precisely where I have been living since I accepted a full-time job here, just over a year ago. Forecasters predicted that Wilma would lose some energy along the way, but I didn't believe that. Something about Wilma convinced me that she was going to be aggressive, mean, and nasty.

    As the days passed, Wilma's schedule slipped a few hours but my neighborhood remained on the center line of her probable path. On Sunday night, in anticipation of her predicted arrival around 9 AM the next morning, I made final preparations. I refilled my car and my pickup truck at a local gas station, and was surprised to find no one waiting in line. Maybe my neighbors had already topped off their tanks, or--more likely--they weren't taking Wilma as seriously as I was.

    I drove back to my house, stepped out into the driveway, and looked up to see a few puffs of cloud drifting lazily across a night sky softly backlit from streetlights below. As palm fronds stirred in a light breeze, it seemed inconceivable that Wilma was at that very moment inflicting random acts of mindless destruction on the opposite coast, 200 miles away.

    I walked into the house that I rent, which was built around 1930, entirely from wood, and is located about four feet above sea level, 500 feet from the Intracoastal Waterway. Last year I lived in a modern, hurricane-safe apartment complex; the main reason I moved to my present location was so that my cat could have back yards to roam in. I was beginning to regret that decision.

    I started loading possessions into big plastic tubs and sealing the lids with cling-wrap. My friend Mathew, who works with me and also rents a room in the house, started packing up his computer equipment, his stereo, and his oversize inflatable bed. (For reasons which I have never understood, Mathew always sleeps on an inflatable bed. He doesn't own a normal bed.) We loaded everything into the back of my pickup truck and drove to the research lab where we work. I conjectured that this would be a safer location, since it is constructed from concrete. Better still, in keeping with the notorious hyperbole of Florida real estate developers, it is located on "Skyline Drive," so named because it is situated a dozen additional feet above sea level. Mathew set up his bed in an empty office on the ground floor while I hauled my plastic containers to the second floor and placed them beneath some desks, where I thought they should be safe from flooding and somewhat protected if the roof collapsed or was ripped away.

    Then I went back to my house and placed my less essential possessions in more plastic tubs, which I stacked on the dining table, again in the hope that this would safeguard them from flood waters. I took my cat, Eddie, back to the lab and test-started our 5500-watt generator, which would be sufficient to power a freezer and two refrigerators. The refrigerators were loaded with cold turkey, orange juice, bread, cheese, and yogurt, in addition to various expensive chemical compounds connected with our lab work.

    Mathew shut himself in his office, where he inflated his bed. I camped out on the upper floor with my cat, and plugged in my laptop to recharge it. I figured we were prepared, more or less.


    Monday
    After sleeping fitfully I woke around 7 AM and heard the steel roof creaking gently as air howled around the building. One thing should be understood about hurricanes: They are boring. When you look out of the window, the landscape is a dim, dark gray, and it stays that way for a long time. Trees thrash their branches, rain races past almost horizontally, and nothing else happens for many hours.

    Around 8 AM the power went out. Since most of our 8,000-square-feet facility is windowless, I grabbed my flashlight, found my way downstairs, and started the generator in our large warehouse area. In addition to the refrigerators, the generator was hooked up to a powerful extractor fan which I hoped would keep carbon monoxide to a tolerable level. Then I went to the front lobby and sat on the couch (which we maintain for visitors) while I watched the wind blowing across the parking lot. The metal roof made ominous banging and scraping sounds, probably as debris was hurled upon it. My cat stared at the weather without much enthusiasm, and went to sleep.

    After a while I stepped outside. The fine rain was driven with such force, my face felt as if it were being sandblasted. I came back inside and suggested to Mathew that we should go for a drive. "Okay," he said, so we got into my pickup truck and cruised into the storm.

    We were totally alone. I saw no other vehicles anywhere. Dark clouds were racing low overhead, power lines and phone wires were writhing, branches were being torn loose from trees, and flurries of leaves were piling up like snow drifts. My little S-10 pickup truck rocked in the gusts. I was careful to keep a good distance away from any tall objects that might fall and crush the vehicle like a bug.

    After we returned to the office, the wind quietened and the light brightened slightly as the eye of the storm moved over us, around 1 PM. An hour later, as the back side of the hurricane spiral moved in, the wind reversed direction. This was bad news since it was now blasting directly against the large windows of our modern building. When I placed my palm against a window I could feel it flexing in and out at least an inch each way, and the motion was taking its toll on the rubber gasket between the glass and the aluminum frame. Bit by bit, I saw the glass nudging the rubber out of its channel at the top of the window. Finally the rubber came completely free and one entire edge of the glass was unsupported, leaving a quarter-inch gap where the wind came howling in, spewing dirt and dead leaves across our nice new carpet.

    Wilma's malevolent intention was now obvious: To get rid of the rubber gasket around the remaining three edges of the window and hurl the entire sheet of glass, measuring about four feet by ten, into the front lobby. I was determined that this should not happen, because if the wind penetrated the building it would wreak havoc, tossing the ceiling tiles up from their aluminum grid, spraying water everywhere, and stirring pens, papers, pencils, and paperclips until everything would look as if it had passed through a blender.

    I ran into the workshop at the back and found a cordless hand-held circular saw. I grabbed it, and some lumber, and ran back to the lobby. Already the left gasket was half way out, and the unsupported top corner of the big window was bending inward to a horrifying extent. I had never realized glass could bend so much without breaking. The deflection at the corner was as much as three inches. I hesitated before approaching it--but big ground-floor windows are made from toughened glass that shatters harmlessly into popcorn, right?

    I pushed against the window with all my strength, and managed to return it to its frame. Of course, it didn't want to stay there. I wedged a two-by-four between the glass and an opposite wall, and the window flexed and knocked the wood out of place. Meanwhile of course everything was still a monotonous dark gray outside, and the wind was still howling and trees were still thrashing their branches. Leaves, old newspapers, aluminum cans, cardboard boxes, and a detached stop sign went hurtling across the parking lot.

    I managed to wedge the wood temporarily, while Mathew watched uneasily from the hallway. "I don't think this is a good idea," he said. Probably he was right, but I had fallen into that dangerously obsessive mental state in which the purpose of a task becomes obscured by the drama of the task itself. I was like Wile E. Coyote in pursuit of the Road Runner.

    The glass was now flexing ominously around the point where the wood pressed against it. I ran back to the warehouse, found a good piece of plywood measuring about two feet by eight, and went back to the lobby. Trying to keep calm, I sawed the end of a two-by-four to make it exactly the right length. The saw kept jamming. It had barely enough battery power to complete the cut, and I knew that if I judged it wrong, I wouldn't have a second chance. I forced the plywood against the glass, then pushed the two-by-four between the plywood and the opposite wall. Good; it was a precise fit.

    The influx of wind-driven debris was now impeded, but I wasn't sure my two-by-four would remain in place, so I ran back to the warehouse yet again, grabbed a cordless electric screwdriver and some three-inch wood screws, and returned to the lobby, where I screwed the wood to the wall and added some additional triangular braces.



    Finally the lobby seemed secure. "You know," Mathew said to me, "my mother used to work in a glass factory. She once told me that they would ship out defective toughened glass along with the good stuff. So, it doesn't always shatter into popcorn."

    Maybe he should have told me that earlier. Oh well. I went to check upstairs, and found that the windows there were starting to lose their own rubber seals along their top edges. Still, the wind was slackening slightly, and I judged that the windows were safe for the time being at least, and maybe for the rest of the storm.

    The vinyl floor tiles were covered in water. I went downstairs, found a plastic dustpan and a mop bucket, and returned to the upper floor, where I started scooping water into the dustpan and dumping it in the bucket. I probably picked up about six or seven gallons this way (it was a giant, industrial-size mop bucket).

    An hour or so later, as the wind diminished further, the water stopped coming in, and I decided to take a break. I was concerned that if I waited too long the local police would want to take control of the streets for the usual dubious reasons--to preserve order, direct traffic, protect us from ourselves, and so forth. If I wanted free access to interesting areas of devastation I should move as quickly as possible. Once again, I set out with Mathew in the pickup truck.

    The back side of the hurricane had been far more ferocious than the front side. A massive pile of tree branches now blocked the road, but it was a divided highway, and the other side was clear, so I bumped over the median and proceeded the wrong way for a block till I came to an intersection. The traffic signals had fallen from their suspending cables and were smashed on the asphalt. Wires dangled, snaking lazily to and fro. I detoured around them, although the chance that they might still carry electricity seemed negligible.



    I drove toward the ocean, reached Highway 1, and saw an amazing spectacle: Sturdy wooden poles that had supported high-voltage power lines were literally snapped in half. The power lines were now lying in people's front yards. Some residents from a nearby trailer park were standing and staring at the mess. I stopped and took some pictures.

    "Hey man," said a skinny black guy who seemed slightly hostile, "what you doing taking pictures? These people just lost their homes."

    Indeed, people who live in mobile homes in Florida should expect to lose them during a hurricane. Still, I sensed it might be unwise to express my feelings on this topic. "I just want to document this terrible disaster," I said.

    He considered that. "It is terrible," he said. "You got any gasoline in your truck?"

    "Only water. Two gallons of water." I took a step backward.

    "No gasoline at all, huh?"

    "Only water," I repeated. I opened the door of the truck, and we drove away.

    I continued north on Highway 1 until I reached the street where I live. I was pleased to find no flooding; evidently the hurricane had passed through so quickly, little rainfall had accumulated. Two large trees in my neighbor's front yard had been thrown down across my front yard, but neither of them had hit my house. Palm fronds were scattered everywhere, and I found miscellaneous debris: Asphalt shingles that seemed to have come all the way from a house at the other end of the block, a detached lightweight aluminum porch that I had never seen before, and (lying near my front door) an under-ripe coconut.



    The house itself was amazingly unscathed. The roof showed no sign of damage. No water had penetrated any of the rooms. This really pissed me off; I could have saved myself the trouble of packing and moving my possessions to the lab.

    I drove back to the lab with Mathew, and at the rear of the building I saw something that surprised me more than anything else I had seen. A large dumpster, with a capacity of about eight cubic yards, had been thrown onto its side. That, to me, was impressive: A wind strong enough to knock over a dumpster.

    In front of the building, the parking lot and the landscaped areas had been swept clean as if a giant leaf blower had come along. Wilma had taken all the loose stuff lying around, such as candy-bar wrappers, twigs, plastic soda bottles, and old newspapers, and had swept the detritus into big neat piles.

    While Mathew went out for a longer sight-seeing trip in his own car, I scooped more water from the upstairs floor. When he returned, we ate some of our supplies and reviewed our options. "How much gasoline do we have?" Mathew asked.

    "Enough to keep the generator running for several days," I said.

    "Are you sure?" he asked.

    I went to check, and was stunned to discover that two of our six five-gallon gas cans were empty. How had that happened? I tried to reconstruct the sequence of hurricane preparations, and failed. Maybe our office manager, Kelly, had used the gas in her car--but that seemed vanishingly unlikely. I had to face the fact that somehow, I had screwed up. I had been overconfident because hurricane Ivan, a year ago, had knocked out the power for just one day. Having sampled Wilma's work, I was sure, now, that our current outage would last much longer.

    "We're going to have to find more gas," I said.

    "Where?" Mathew asked.

    "Well, if I drive far enough tomorrow, I should be able to go beyond the hurricane zone and find a functioning gas station."

    After some more discussion, we agreed that Mathew would continue living in the office, mainly because if he deflated his inflatable bed, he wouldn't have any power, back at the house, to reinflate it. Also, at the lab, he would have access to our stash of food in the refrigerator. The only snag was that he didn't like the generator being located inside the warehouse area; he was afraid of carbon monoxide seeping into the office areas of the building and killing him in his sleep. All right, I agreed to move the generator outside--but how could we prevent it from being stolen? I remembered my oversize New York City bicycle chain, back at the house, so I drove off to get it.

    By this time it was quite dark. All the streetlights were out, of course, and none of the traffic signals was working. Only a few cars were on the street. As I drove across the I-95 overpass, I saw a police cruiser pulling someone over ahead of me--and another, stopping a car on the other side of the street. Then I saw a large electric sign: MANDATORY CURFEW 7:30 - 5:00. When I checked my watch, I was dismayed to find that the time was almost 8:30.

    I managed to reach my street without being hassled by the police, and went to one of my neighbors. When he came to the door, I asked him if the curfew was serious.

    "It was on the TV news," he said, looking at me as if I was an idiot.

    Well, I never watch local TV news, because I think it's stupid and irritating. I don't even own a TV capable of picking up over-the-air broadcasts. I get all my news online or from CNN--under normal circumstances.

    "You're sure the curfew is for real?" I asked my neighbor.

    "They've been throwing people in jail," he told me.

    Evidently I should not attempt to drive back to the office to secure the generator. I paused outside a moment, surveying the neighborhood. Some windows were dimly lit with the faint glow from candles, flashlights, and oil lamps. There was no other source of light. Because of the curfew, no traffic was passing the intersection at the end of the street. No trains were moving down the railroad just beyond. My residential neighborhood was as dark and dead as a one-horse western town.

    I retreated into my house, lit my oil lamp, ate a can of beans--and discovered that rainwater had run into the keyboard of my Windows xp laptop, because I had left it unprotected while it was recharging on the upper floor at the lab. Damn! When I switched it on, it beeped incessantly and did nothing. Eventually I managed to get it started by hammering its keyboard with my fist while it went through its boot sequence. Then I plugged in a USB Mac keyboard, which it somehow recognized, although it still didn't respond to the backspace key.

    As I made notes--without backspacing--and pondered my situation, I realized I was feeling nonspecifically anxious. Normally I like to think of myself as being self-sufficient. Many times I have been totally alone in the Northern Arizona wilderness, and have enjoyed being disconnected from civilization. Similarly I have always enjoyed reading disaster novels by authors such as J. G. Ballard (The Drowned World) or John Christopher (The Day of the Triffids). I've been seduced by the vision of an isolated survivor wandering through a wasteland. So, what was bothering me now?

    The answer was obvious. I was not an isolated survivor. I was surrounded by millions of people who seemed civilized yet possessed the destructive potential that has been endemic in large crowds throughout history. I imagined the entire southern end of Florida sliding into a state of anarchy, like a giant version of the New Orleans Superdome. I didn't think this would happen, necessarily, but I had a visceral sense that it _could_ happen, if Florida was mismanaged as badly as Mississippi--which seemed entirely plausible.


    Tuesday
    Since I had gone to sleep early, I found myself wide awake at 6 AM. Well, the curfew was over, so I grabbed the chain to secure the generator, and drove over to the lab.

    At the rear of the building I found that Mathew had wedged the generator into a corner, using one of our vehicles to pin it against the wall, to prevent theft. This was ingenious but unwise. The generator was in such a tight space, it was now inhaling its own fumes. I went into the facility to tell Mathew that I had to reconfigure his setup. Along the way I found an extension cord from the generator, leading under the door of the office in which he had established his inflatable bed. I heard a fan whirring inside the office, which was unsurprising, because Mathew can never sleep unless he hears the sound of a fan running.

    Hm, best not to waken him. I turned around, tripped over the extension cord, and heard the fan come crashing down inside his room.

    "Who is it?" I heard him shout through the closed door. "I have a gun!"

    Hastily, I identified myself.

    "That was very dangerous," he told me a few minutes later, after he unlocked his door.

    "It was only dangerous because you were acting like a paranoid wacko," I told him.

    "I'm not paranoid. That generator, outside, is like an advertisement telling people we have something to steal."

    Perhaps he was right. There was no way of knowing. The whole situation was so freakishly unprecedented, no one could say what was likely, what was far-fetched, what was sane, or what was crazy. Were the cops over-reacting, enforcing a 7:30 curfew? Was Mathew over-reacting, brandishing a handgun? I didn't have enough information or experience to answer these questions.

    After I repositioned the generator in a way that allowed it to breathe, Mathew showed me what he had done during the previous evening. He had moved the couch from the entrance lobby into the chem lab, where he had set up a TV and a lamp, wired with more extension cords to the generator. It was like the scene in the shopping mall in Dawn of the Dead, where the survivors establish a refuge in an area upstairs from the zombies.

    "Details like this make life worth living," Mathew said.

    Personally it gave me the creeps, but I had to admit, his attitude was more positive than mine. "So what did you learn from the TV? Has power been restored at Port Everglades?"

    "They didn't say anything about that."

    I felt myself becoming irritated. "Of course not! They never tell you anything useful. They just show you pictures of annihilated mobile homes and obese losers pissing and moaning about FEMA. It's so terrible, a strong wind ruined their lives, and no one is doing anything about it. What a bunch of ingrates."

    "So what are _you_ going to do?" Mathew asked.

    "I'll have to do some driving, I guess." I wondered how I could discover the real extent of the area affected by the hurricane. Would the local police know? Would anyone know? Two days ago I had been able to sit down at a keyboard and learn almost any fact about anything, just by clicking icons on a screen. Now I felt as info-deprived as a third-world peasant. I should have bought a short-wave radio, I realized. Still, there was no point in playing the shoulda-coulda-woulda game.

    "I'll stay here and do some work around the facility," Mathew said.

    "What kind of work?"

    "Well, there's a lot of cleaning to do, and things should be put away on shelves--"

    He was right, of course: We might as well take advantage of the time in a useful and productive manner. On the other hand I felt as if he was planning to start scrubbing the deck of the Titanic just after it had hit the iceberg.

    At 9 AM Kelly, our office manager, arrived with a battery-powered radio. Against my better judgment we listened to a local station. The coverage was abysmal. The anchorman had no news; he urged listeners to call and tell _him_ some news. "If you have a gas station that's up and running in your neighborhood, be sure to let us know!" he said in that hearty, barrel-chested voice shared by news anchors everywhere in America.

    The radio did supply phone numbers for local disaster assistance, and for FEMA, and my cell phone was still working, probably because many cell towers are powered by propane-fuelled generators, which I hoped would last for a couple of weeks at least. I called a shelter, and the number was busy. I called FEMA and got through fairly quickly to someone who appeared to be out-of-state. "I want to know which areas of Florida still have electricity," I said.

    "We don't have that information," the woman told me, and hung up.

    I called directory assistance and asked for the number of any Home Depot in the Orlando area. When I got through to the store, someone told me they had no gas cans, and no generators either. "You'd have to go north of Jacksonville to find any," the man said.

    After that, I got the number of a Texaco station in Orlando, and called them. "We only do repairs, we don't sell gas," said the person who answered the phone. "But the convenience store next door has a lot of gas."

    Well, that was encouraging. "All right," I said to Kelly, "let's go for a drive."

    We emptied the remaining cans into the generator and into the tank of my truck. I used a ratchet strap to secure the cans near the tailgate of the truck, and we started north on Skyline Drive. Local firefighters were out, winching fallen branches off the asphalt, but I didn't see any attempt, yet, at electrical repair.

    We passed a house with a sheriff's pickup truck outside. I parked and knocked on the door of the house, and a guy in uniform, looking around 25, opened up. I asked him if we should go north or south in our quest for gas stations which were still supplied with electricity.

    "Miami seems to have been hit pretty bad," he said, although he didn't cite a source for this information.

    "What about further north?"

    "I drove in from the northern county line, at Port Lucie. Everything was dead."

    "That's about twenty miles, right? Maybe we have to go further."

    He shrugged. "Good luck."

    There was a sense of unreality about the whole thing. Aside from some fallen tree branches and piles of debris, nothing looked much different, yet here we were, in one of the most inaccessible locations in America, lacking the two most essential forms of energy, with no clue about how or when they would be restored, and no clear idea of what might happen if they weren't.

    We drove to my house and I grabbed some food bars and water. My pickup truck has 185,000 miles on it, and I didn't necessarily trust it to bring us back, even if we did find gasoline. During the years when I lived in the Northern Arizona wilderness I had learned never to set out without a couple gallons of water and some emergency food.

    Next I stopped at the local Town Hall. The access road to the police department was partially blocked with fallen branches. Inside the darkened building, a young dispatcher seemed authoritatively sure that Miami was a disaster area. I decided to believe him. We would go north.

    By this time a lot of traffic was on the streets. People had no jobs to go to, and they were just cruising around, enjoying themselves. I imagined the conversations inside the cars: "Wow, look what happened to that K-Mart sign! Hey, look at the palm tree that blew over on top of that guy's car! Ha ha, I bet he wishes he hadn't left it there! You think he had insurance?"

    We decided to head west to the Florida Turnpike, which has gas stations at intervals along its entire length. I would simply continue driving till we reached a station that was open for business.

    Getting to the turnpike, though, was a problem. We found ourselves in a major traffic jam, and I wondered if everyone else was pursuing the same goal as ourselves. I found this hard to believe, because it seemed contrary to the manana mentality which prevails in Florida. The locals were still in a festive mood; they wouldn't start getting seriously worried for at least another day or two.

    Sure enough we discovered that the traffic backup had been created by simple human indecision. Where traffic signals were dead, post-hurricane ettiquette dictated that each intersection should be treated as a four-way stop, but Florida drivers have never caught on to the rule about yielding to the person on your right. They were hesitating, waiting for each other to go. This was the entire cause of the problem.

    After a while we reached the turnpike, where I was relieved to find that the traffic was very light. We cruised at a steady 75. The sunlight was golden, and the air was uncharacteristically cool and dry. We saw a man in a large mowing machine, trimming grass beside the turnpike. Further along, we saw construction crews doing highway maintenance. Crisis? What crisis? So long as these public employees had diesel in their tanks, they would continue performing their assigned tasks as zealously as the Energizer Bunny. But what would they do when the diesel ran dry? That was the big question.

    For many miles we saw trees stripped bare of leaves, and skeletal wooden structures that had supported billboards. All highway signs were damaged, either bent or totally flattened. I remembered seeing bent highway signs a year ago, in the previous hurricane season. Evidently the bent signs had been replaced with new signs that had been no stronger than the old ones. Why was there no learning process, here? Maybe the state actually benefited from the federal aid that it received to replace bent signs on an annual basis.

    After about fifty miles, the traffic started to bunch up. There was a turnpike service island a mile or so ahead--and here was the tail end of the line of cars waiting for gas. As traffic slowed to a crawl, I saw a state trooper on the shoulder of the highway. I rolled down my window. "How far do we have to go to find electricity?" I shouted.

    The trooper was a woman, sitting on the trunk of her car, sipping iced tea from a big transparent plastic mug. She eyed me with contempt. This was nothing personal; I sensed that she viewed the entire world with contempt.

    "This is a gas line, sir," she said. The "sir" was spoken almost sarcastically.

    "I understand that. I want to know how far I go to find a town with electricity."

    "I can't tell you that." She made it sound like classified information. She looked away, refusing to deal with me any further.

    "Protect and serve," I muttered, as we pulled out and went past the line of cars.

    The line stretched for about three-quarters of a mile. I imagined waiting in it for most of the day. Would we be allowed to fill all six of our five-gallon cans? I imagined backlash from others who wanted their share. Something about an emergency situation automatically seemed to deactivate the normal consensual principles of commerce. In a market economy, each business may set its prices freely in response to supply and demand--right? But what would happen now, if a gas station followed that principle? Outraged consumers would accuse it of "price gouging." I wondered what that really meant. Maybe the reflex to ration a scarce commodity is part of an evolutionary pattern. When a species feels threatened, it moves instinctively to share resources. Something like that.

    "You know, we have to make a decision fairly soon." I told Kelly. "This truck can go maybe 200 miles on a full tank. When we get to 100 miles, we have to decide whether to turn back--or whether to take a chance on finding fuel farther on."

    "We turn back," she said firmly.

    I wasn't so sure about that, but I said nothing.

    After a while, we took an exit--and found two gas stations near the highway open for business. This was encouraging: The power was on, here. Still, the lines of cars were impossibly long.

    We continued farther north and took the next exit, signed to Fort Pierce. We were now 75 miles north of our lab in Delray Beach. At this exit I found half-a-dozen gas stations, and more lines of cars, but the lines were shorter. I added myself to a line at a Mobil station, and we waited for fifteen minutes or so. The line moved impossibly slowly, and I realized that even in a situation like this, Floridians were incapable of proceeding with all due haste. Grumpy retirees were squinting at the gas pumps, putting their credit cards in the wrong way around, and getting agitated in cases where a car's filler pipe was on the opposite side to the pump. Some people were taking additional time to go inside, pay cash, come back outside, pump fuel, and then go back inside for their change.

    "I can't deal with this," I told Kelly, as I pulled out of the line.

    "No, you're crazy!" she said.

    I've never had much patience for waiting in lines. Also I felt sure that if we drove farther we'd have a better chance. Sure enough, a couple miles down the road we found a little four-pump gas station on a back street with only half-a-dozen people waiting. After ten minutes we were able to fill all six of our cans.

    This created a strong feeling of relief. "Next stop, Wal-Mart," I said. We had passed one on our way to the gas station, and when I went back to it, I found that it was open for business. The bright lights and the noise of cash registers were a breath of life, wiping away the awful deadness that had surrounded us farther south. I'd never realized how much I love electricity.

    I bought an inverter, so that I could recharge my defective laptop from the outlet in my truck. I also picked up two loaves of bread and two pounds of cold turkey, since our generator would be sustaining our refrigerators for at least a few more days with the fuel that I had obtained.

    We went back to I-95 and headed for home. Every four or five miles we passed cars that had been abandoned on the shoulder, apparently because they had run out of fuel. Each of them had been left at an angle, pointing away from the highway, like fallen arrows.

    Back at the lab we found Mathew looking very pleased with himself. "I washed the entire warehouse floor," he said.

    "I'm going to take my radio, now," Kelly said. It was almost 5 PM; quitting time.

    "Did you get any useful information by listening to the radio?" I asked Mathew.

    "Well--" He hesitated. "You know, they have a lot of people calling in who are, let's say, not very smart. Like, there was this lady who was worried because she had heard that she should boil water before drinking it. The man on the radio said, surely she must have some bottled water. She said, yes, she had two weeks' supply of bottled water. But she was worried because she didn't have any way to boil it."

    I wondered what it is about the state of Florida that seems to attract people like that.

    I drove home, well ahead of the 7:30 curfew. I still didn't quite believe that the cops were throwing people in jail for being out late, but this was a theory that I had little interest in verifying personally. In my dark kitchen I ate another can of beans, some nuts, and some raisins, and then stepped outside into my back yard. Some of my neighbors were running generators, presumably to keep their kids pacified with DVDs and satellite TV. The night was noisy with the droning of small gasoline engines, and I wondered how long that would last. Then I looked up at the sky and saw something I had never seen in Florida before: Bright stars scattered against total blackness. The absence of street lights, in such a vast area of the state, had taken away the soft backlighting that I had seen on the night before Wilma moved in.

    I looked to the south, and then to the north. The sky was utterly dark in both directions. If I had been in an airplane above the peninsular, it would have looked as featureless as the ocean around it.


    Wednesday
    The next morning, at the lab, Mathew told me what he had gleaned from another evening of watching broadcast TV. "A few gas stations around here have opened. They're using generators to power the pumps. But you can only buy $20 worth of gas."

    Once again I noted the spontaneous reflex to ration a scarce resource. In this case it almost made sense, since the gas stations were just using up the remaining fuel in their underground tanks, and trying to distribute it as widely as possible. But what about the supply chain? "Anything about Port Everglades?" I asked. This was still the key to the whole situation.

    "I don't think so."

    I went to refuel our generator. None of our neighbors, in our industrial park, had generators; their businesses were still closed on this third day after the storm.

    The generator had consumed more than five gallons of the gas that I had trucked back here from Fort Pierce. I decided to take an empty can and see if I could refill it locally. This would provide an opportunity to assess the mood of my fellow citizens. If their don't-worry-be-happy Florida mindset had begun to go sour, I wanted to know about it.

    I was keeping my car in reserve, fully fuelled and ready to make a run north if things turned ugly. Moreover I had moved the car from my home to the lab and had parked it inside our warehouse. Just to be really, _really_ safe, I had placed my Dr. Hook lock on the steering wheel and an additional lock around the brake pedal.

    Mathew said he was thinking of painting the warehouse floor, since he had washed it yesterday. This was too much for me to contemplate, so I took my truck in search of fuel.

    When I reached Highway 1, near the broken power poles, I found a line of cars parked at the curb, with people sitting in them. Could this possibly be a gas line? The nearest gas station was a mile up the road. I continued driving, and counted the cars as I passed them. By the time I reached the gas station, I had counted 161 cars. This truly boggled my mind. Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that an average Floridian would require 3 minutes to pump and pay for $20 worth of gas (a highly optimistic estimate, in my opinion). If I joined the line, I'd be waiting for six hours. I could drive to Fort Pierce and back, twice, in that amount of time.

    But then I realized: The people in this gas line couldn't do what I had done. They had already used so much of their gas, they were now trapped in the disaster area, and--better still--the $20 refuelling limit guaranteed that they would remain here. This knowledge made me happy. If I did decide to make a run north, the highways should be relatively empty.

    At the gas station, two police cruisers had blocked all but one entrance, and the cops were standing around with their thumbs tucked in the belts, making sure no one tried to jump the line. Only one pump was serving cars, under the control of an attendant, presumably to enforce the $20 limit. A second attendant was working another pump, supplying people who had walked to the station carrying cans by hand.

    I parked my truck up the street, grabbed my own gas can, and walked back, trying to count the number of people who had come there on foot. Around sixty were standing in line, and I noticed them eyeing me carefully as I approached. Already I could see some basic social codes emerging in this new era of scarcity. If you walked briskly, carrying empty cans toward a gas station, while seeming to ignore the line of people waiting, this was a highly provocative act. Conversely, if your body language indicated that your gas cans were full, you would attract meditative, envious stares. As for the cans themselves, they had become as valuable as cigarette packs inside a jail. In fact the whole situation reminded me of a jail, with the cops metering out resources and everyone waiting to do what they were told, before they were locked into their homes by the 7:30 curfew.

    Since I live in a small white enclave on the edge of a large low-income neighborhood, most of the people in the line were black. They didn't seem to share any of my somber thoughts, and it occurred to me that many of them had been waiting in lines of one kind or another and following instructions from state and county employees for most of their lives. By contrast the white people in the line were irritable and humorless. A tall man who looked like a stockbroker or a lawyer started timing the gas-dispensing ritual at the station. He figured that people on foot were being served faster than people in cars, but it still took two-and-a-half minutes to complete each sale. I counted gas cans in the line ahead of me, more carefully this time, and found more than 100.

    "Attention!" It was a cop shouting through a bullhorn. "This station will close one hour from now. Repeat, one hour before this station closes. Anyone still in line at that time will not be served."

    I tried to imagine how this scene would play out. Someone would be the last person to get gas, and the person behind him would find that he had waited two or three hours for nothing. That seemed like a recipe for trouble. Wouldn't it be smarter for the cops to establish an arbitrary break point in the line right now, so that everyone beyond that point could quit wasting their time and go home? Maybe so, but either way, it wasn't my concern, because there was no way I could reach the front of the line within the next hour. I went back to my truck and drove away, back toward the lab.

    Along the road I passed another lengthy line of cars, and realized they were waiting for free handouts from a disaster center. A sign outside the center said, ICE AND WATER. Here was another thing to boggle my mind. Only three days into the post-hurricane period, and people were running out of water. Even more mysterious, they were so desperate for ice, they were willing to wait for it for hours on end. What were they going to use it for? Were they trying to preserve hamburger meat and TV dinners, or did they just want cold beer?

    I often feel baffled by everyday aspects of life that other people take for granted, but this situation was especially mysterious. Why ice? And why was it being given away for free? The people who were waiting would normally pay for water to be supplied through pipes to their homes. They would own a refrigerator to make ice, and they would pay for electricity to run it. Why should they stop paying now? It didn't make sense to me.

    Well, I still had my own gasoline problem to deal with, since our generator was turning out to be such a thirsty beast. I used my cell phone to call some random numbers in the area around Fort Pierce. "I'm sorry to bother you, I live in Delray Beach, and we still don't have much gasoline here. Is there a shortage where you live?"

    People sounded wary, and said that the lines of cars had started getting longer outside gas stations, probably because people like me were coming up there to refuel. Still, it wasn't a major problem--yet.

    Tomorrow, I would make another trip. I felt stupid for owning only six cans, instead of twelve or maybe twenty. I was self-sufficient compared with many of my neighbors, but by my own standards, I was hopelessly unprepared. Once again I told myself not to get into the shoulda-woulda-coulda game.

    On my way back home, I stopped at my closest neighbor's house and told him I would be going on a gas run tomorrow. I asked if there was anything he needed.

    "Ice," he said.

    I really wanted to know what he would use it for; but somehow I didn't feel it would be polite for me to ask.


    Thursday
    I walked out of the house around 8 AM and found that a new line of cars had already formed along the highway at the end of my street, waiting for the gas station to open. I went for a short walk around the block, noticed a newspaper vending machine outside a restaurant, and saw that the paper had today's date on it. Maybe the Palm Beach Post would be more content-rich than local radio and TV.

    The front page was full of the usual human-interest stories. No doubt about it, tragic misfortune was a sure-fire way to sell newspapers. Below the fold I found a picture of a man who complained that raw sewage was bubbling up in his back yard. Apparently the emergency generators that powered the sewage pumps were beginning to break down and/or run out of fuel. A county official was quoted as saying, defensively, there was no way they could possibly have enough generators to run all the pumps at once. They were moving the generators around from one pump to the next.

    I turned to the inner pages--and finally found something useful. Port Everglades had reopened. Trucks were loading gasoline for delivery to gas stations. Only one snag: Three trucks which Palm Beach County had paid to go for diesel fuel had taken it away to Miami, instead of bringing it back to Palm Beach.

    The trucking company denied this. A spokesperson said that the story was bizarre and ridiculous--which seemed right to me, except that Florida is perpetually afflicted by events that seem bizarre and ridiculous. Anyway, the County was vowing to send a police escort with the next three trucks, to make sure they didn't abscond. One way or another, the generators that were running the sewage pumps would be refuelled.

    This was reassuring. Now, if electricity could be restored to the gas stations--and perhaps some grocery stores, banks, and ATMs--the worst would be over.

    I checked another news story, in which a spokesperson from Florida Power and Light predicted a reconnection time ranging from one to four weeks. I wondered again about my neighbors' stocks of food. Could they last for another week or two? It still seemed an open question.

    I dumped the newspaper and drove over to the lab, where Mathew said he wanted to join me, this time, in my quest for fuel. He had already bagged his dirty laundry in case we had time to visit a working laundromat.

    "Can't you just wear dirty clothes?" I asked him.

    "Clean clothes are the kind of thing that makes life worth living," he said.

    "And why are we stacking ice chests on the truck?"

    "I plan to bring back a lot of perishable food. Hamburger meat, for instance."

    I didn't understand why he couldn't eat canned beans, nuts, raisins, and food bars for the indefinite future, perhaps with a few vitamin pills to prevent scurvy. It certainly wouldn't bother me. What _would_ bother me was the prospect of sitting in the truck, waiting for him to go shopping. Still, in an emergency, we have to be tolerant of each person's quirks. Or at least, we have to pretend to be tolerant.

    Before we left I toured the facility. I noticed that more extension cords had proliferated during the night. "You do realize, the more power you draw, the more fuel we use," I said.

    "Well, sure, but bright lights--"

    "--Are the kind of thing that make life worth living. Okay, but what's this?" I followed an extension cord into the utility room that contained our large electric water heater. Stuffed between the heater and the wall I found six heating pads, of the type you might use to ease a muscle pain. "You know," I said, as I dragged out the heating pads, "I don't think this is going to make the water hot."

    "It could warm it slightly," Mathew said.

    "Have you noticed any warming trend?"

    "Well, not yet."

    Trying to be tactful about it, I disconnected the heating pads. We emptied our remaining gas cans into the generator, Mathew's car, and my pickup truck. As we backed the truck out into the parking lot, I was amazed to see a UPS van stopping outside.

    I stopped and signed for a package from the driver. "You guys have your own stash of fuel, I suppose," I said to him.

    "Not for much longer," he said, without smiling.

    I realized something that had never been clear to me from all the disaster novels I had read. When society starts to fall apart, there's a lag time. During that period of latency, before the disaster bites hard, natural human inertia causes most patterns to persist unchanged. Just like the crews trimming grass and doing highway repairs along the turnpike, the UPS driver was going to continue his routines so long as he had enough fuel to do so. I recalled that even in New Orleans, a whole week had passed before things started getting dangerous.

    We cruised north, through the same hurricane-ravaged landscape that I remembered from two days ago. This time when we exited at Fort Pierce, the gas lines were much longer. We continued another ten miles, to Vero Beach. Human habitation here was relatively sparse along the coast, and of course development is prohibited inland, to preserve the wetlands in the Everglades. I wasn't sure how many gas stations I would find.

    As it turned out, a cluster beside the Interstate at the Vero Beach exit were open for business. I pulled into line outside a truck stop and asked Mathew to check what was happening by the pumps. He came back with the news that a $140 limit was being enforced. Why $140? What sort of arbitrary number was that? Well, it didn't matter; we could fill all six cans for about $100 at everyday prices, and prices still were at an everyday level, to avoid the deadly accusation of "gouging."

    What sort of a world is it, I wondered, where swamps are renamed as "wetlands" to make them more socially acceptable, yet the honorable economic practice of seeking to maximize a profit is renamed "gouging," so that it sounds like a despicable act of personal violence? Who is in control of these language mutations, anyway? Special-interest groups in conjunction with the media, no doubt. As a former journalist myself, I am well aware that journalism really is primarily written by knee-jerk Democrats--and not especially smart ones, at that. Of course it would be even less tolerable if it were written by knee-jerk Republicans, but that's a separate issue.

    Our wait for gas lasted far longer than I could have believed possible, because we had unwittingly chosen perhaps the last gas station in America with pumps that didn't accept credit cards. When we reached the front of the line I had to go inside and wait in the convenience store behind people buying candy, cigarettes, beer, and sodas. A large bearded man who looked like a Vietnam vet was behind the counter, taking his time. "I dunno why they say there's a gas shortage. Ain't no gas shortage here," he said. Meanwhile a very fat black woman was working beside him, restocking a display of Marlboros, one pack at a time.

    I gave him my credit card and asked for $100 of regular unleaded. He took my card and kept it beside his register. Five minutes later, all our cans were filled, and I had to go back inside the store and wait all over again, to sign the credit card charge slip. The large woman behind the counter was now chatting in a cheerful, mindless way with a man buying a 20-ounce bottle of Sprite for $1.15. I was able to remember these details, because I had so much time in which to observe them.

    When the formalities were over I was more than ready to head for home. I had to get back before the curfew, and I had to feed my cat. I was concerned that heavy traffic could slow us down, or my aging truck could malfunction, leaving us stranded. Mathew, however, seemed totally carefree. "Let's get a hot meal," he said.

    We ate a bad lunch in an Appleby's where a local woman at the next table described her own power outage the previous year, when Vero Beach had been hit by one hurricane or another. She said she had been without power for four weeks and without water for two months. Still, she continued to live here. I wondered what it would take to get her to move. A year without power? A tsunami? A total embargo on federal disaster aid?

    After lunch, Mathew seemed in much better spirits, while I of course was feeling much worse, since I despise the ritual of wasting time in a bad restaurant. Only one thing is worse, and that, of course, is wasting time shopping.

    Wearily, I drove to Sam's Club. I parked under a tree in the far corner of the lot, while Mathew went and did what he had to do. I lay down on the asphalt with my head on the curb, and tried to zone out. I told myself not to think about the truck breaking down or my cat being locked out of the house and possibly starving to death. Everything would be all right. Yet the social dislocation had undermined my usual equilibrium. I was still questioning everything, because I was still in a situation without precedents. I felt the presence of millions of people as potential adversaries or competitors for resources.

    Finally my cell phone rang, and Mathew said he was outside the store, waiting for me to pick him up. When I got there I found him with a barbecue grill and a propane tank, "For my hamburger meat," he explained, as he dumped four pounds of dead cow into one of the ice chests, along with copious quantities of ice. Glumly, I tied the propane tank onto the bed of my pickup truck with a nylon ratchet strap. Propane and gasoline: What a great combination! I reflected that I should drive as fast as possible on the way home, to reduce the risk of someone rear-ending us and consuming us in a fireball. On the other hand, fast driving would increase the risk of a tire blowing out, since we were now carrying a lot more than the truck's rated capacity.

    Mathew added a new TV (supposedly, smaller and less of a power drain than the one already at the office), many bags of junk food, and a lot more stuff that I don't even remember. I kept thinking about Dawn of the Dead, one of my all-time favorite movies, and the acquisitive impulses of the refugees in the shopping mall. Maybe, I thought, buying things is a kind of survival reflex.

    Finally we headed for home. As the sun set on this fourth day after the hurricane, I looked ahead to my darkened home without much enthusiasm. "I wish I could get the hell out of here," I remarked to Mathew.

    "Why don't you?" he said. "I don't mind taking care of the lab, now that I have the stuff I need."

    I thought about that. "Is my impatience bothering you?"

    "I think you should take a good long break," he said, sounding as if he was trying to be tactful.

    We made it back to the lab without any truck problems, and unloaded all his goodies. I drove home and decided to take Mathew's advice. I called a couple of airlines, and was able to book a flight out of Palm Beach International, a folsky little airport with absurd delusions of importance. Still, Air Tran would allow me to bring my cat without having to get a health certificate--which was fortunate, since all the veterinary offices would still be closed. The repair crews had restored electricity to many railroad crossings, but almost all homes and businesses were still without power.

    Now that I knew I would be escaping from South Florida, I indulged myself by turning up the wick of my oil lamp. No longer did I have to meter my supply of kerosene.


    Friday
    I drove to the airport, where the long-term parking lot turned out to be closed, for no apparent reason. Perhaps the machines issuing time-stamped tickets were still not working. With great difficulty I followed cryptic signs to a remote area which was being used for parking. Here I found other people who seemed just as eager to get the hell out of Florida as I was.

    Three hours later, I was walking off the plane and into Terminal 3 at Newark. I found myself transplanted abruptly into one of the largest concentrations of people in the world. Florida barely seemed to exist anymore. The New York-New Jersey metropolitan area was humming with activity, embedded in its immensely complex network of supply lines and communications links, all enabled by the miraculous cooperative enterprise known as commerce.

    The system looked robust to me, because a natural disaster is vanishingly unlikely in this part of the world. Still, I had lost some of my confidence. I saw more vividly, now, that any concentration of human beings is just one week away from social breakdown if vital resources are totally withdrawn and help does not arrive. In retrospect, I believe such a breakdown almost happened in some areas of South Florida. I have always understood this type of danger intellectually, but now I felt it viscerally. The learning process had not been pleasant, but the education was valuable.


    Much Later
    I stayed in New York for three days before returning to Florida. Power was restored to my home nine days after the hurricane, and to our research lab two days after that. Our DSL, of course, required electricity in addition to a phone line, but once the power was back, our Internet access restored itself. We shut down our 5500-watt generator, which had run for almost two weeks without interruption. The incessant hammering noise of its poorly silenced engine had been driving us mad, but the generator did its job. None of our refrigerated supplies was lost.

    Three weeks after Wilma, some of the traffic signals are still dead. Broken power poles have been tilted back upright with makeshift splints that look as if a child had engineered them, but one way or another, almost everyone's electricity has been reconnected.

    A phone repair man came to the house today, to restore a line that had been blown down. I chatted with him for a while, and asked how Bell South could possibly pay for the repair of all the damage. Would the rates go up?

    "No, we're not allowed to raise rates," he said. "The FCC won't let us."

    "So, who pays?"

    He shrugged. "The company pays."

    Of course this explanation was hopelessly incomplete. If a company can't increase its local rates to repair damage in a high-risk location, presumably it must petition the FCC to raise all rates equally. This means that those who have endangered themselves by their decision to live in a hazardous area will be subsidized by others. The prudent will pay for the imprudent, whether they like it or not. By this logic, if I wanted to live on the Moon, I should expect my fellow citizens to pay for my supply of oxygen.

    I don't want to hammer this topic to the point of tedium, but the absence of economic sense is incomprehensible to me. Our entire system depends on capitalist economics, yet when people experience the slightest breath of misfortune, they clamor to be excepted from capitalism. Worse still, every journalist and legislator participates in this charade. No one dares to suggest that individuals should pay their own way.

    I see only one possible answer to the Florida entitlement syndrome. Sooner or later we may expect rising ocean temperatures to initiate something a little more extreme than Wilma. I'm imagining a category 5 hurricane that comes up from Cuba, gaining momentum as it crosses the Keys and starts eating into the culturally unevolved eyesore known as Miami. From here it proceeds directly north, along a line exactly parallel with the coast, cutting a swathe like a giant Weed-Eater. All the boring, overpriced, tile-roofed, beige-walled suburban enclaves will be dismantled and dumped into their adjacent ornamental lakes. Pastel-pink and aquamarin

November 15, 2006

  • Dozens Abducted in Brazen Raid on Iraq Ministry,Pilot of Plane in Trouble Finds Safe Place to Land i

    Wrinkle Rivals Go to War

    November 8, 2006    
    Illustration by Chang Park for The New York Times
    Dave Weaver for The New York Times

    FACE TO FACE Dr. Joel Schlessinger holds the contenders. He took part in the Juvéderm giveaway.

    , 2006

    Wrinkle Rivals Go to War

    COKE or Pepsi?

    Mac or PC?

    Restylane or Juvéderm?

    The last two products, cosmetic injections used to fill out facial creases and hollows, are hardly household names. But when the makers of Juvéderm began giving away their product free to users of Restylane last month, they set off a marketing battle, which some see as the $12-billion-a-year cosmetic medical industry's budding version of the cola wars.

    With an estimated one million Americans using injections to smooth wrinkles and plump up skin, the makers of Juvéderm have invited doctors to enroll up to 10,000 patients in a giveaway program for their product.

    Robert Grant, the president of Allergan Medical, which makes Juvéderm, said the free trial program — offered only to patients who have used Restylane, the leading facial filler — will provide the company with feedback about the new product, which was approved in June by the Food and Drug Administration.

    He said the giveaway is also part of a plan to make Juvéderm a household name on a par with the company's blockbuster cosmetic injection, Botox.

    But Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, which owns the American rights to Restylane, has denounced the giveaway, calling it biased, risky to patients and "a commercial platform under the guise of science."

    To some doctors and industry analysts, the free Juvéderm injections represent the opening salvo in a battle for dominance in the rapidly growing market for cosmetic facial injections, a competition expected to intensify as the F.D.A. approves other products.

    Pharmaceutical company sales from fillers last year were estimated to be $250 million, which is up from about $100 million in 2003, said David Steinberg, an equity researcher in specialty pharmaceuticals at Deutsche Bank in San Francisco.

    That does not include 2005 sales figures for the cosmetic use of Botox, a toxin injected into the skin, which performs a different function: relaxing the muscles underneath wrinkles. The sales of Botox for cosmetic use were estimated to be around $360 million, he said.

    Over all, there are no reliable statistics on how many filler treatments are administered because each patient requires different amounts. But Mr. Grant of Allergan said there are 27 million potential American customers for all injections.

    Critics said the marketing of these products is an attempt by manufacturers to make cosmetic medical treatments seem less clinical, turning them into consumer brand names like those at department store beauty counters. Dr. Lawrence S. Reed, a plastic surgeon in Manhattan, likened the Juvéderm giveaway to the Pepsi Challenge.

    "This is a foolish promotion that is going to start a war of injectables between Restylane and Juvéderm, which, like Coke and Pepsi, are essentially made out of the same ingredients, using slightly different formulas," Dr. Reed said.

    In a youth-dominated, celebrity-obsessed culture, aggressive marketing for medical products that can temporarily or even permanently augment the skin is hardly a surprise.

    But with an increasing range of cosmetic medical procedures that promise to unfurrow wrinkles, spackle creases, fatten up lips and plump cheeks and other bits of flesh that abate with age, consumers are likely to have more of a challenge distinguishing the safest and most effective brand of treatment.

    At the moment the injectable substances approved by the F.D.A. to fill out facial folds are collagen; several brands of hyaluronic acid; and ArteFill, tiny permanent beads suspended in a collagen solution. Other substances pending approval for cosmetic use include a more viscous hyaluronic acid called Perlane, and Radiesse, a paste containing calcium particles.

    "We are in the age of fillers," said Dr. Paul J. Frank, a dermatologist in Manhattan, who participated in the giveaway program, calling it "an excellent marketing ploy." Dr. Frank added, "We are going to see much more market competition."

    Both Restylane and Juvéderm are transparent gels made of hyaluronic acid, a complex chain of sugar molecules, which is related to the same substance the human body produces to give structure to the skin. Unlike Botox, which works by temporarily paralyzing the muscles underlying wrinkles, injections of hyaluronic acid temporarily fill out depleted areas, adding volume to the skin.

    "Hyaluronic acid is like the Jell-O molds you made as a kid that magically suspended pieces of fruit," said Dr. Richard G. Glogau, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Glogau has been paid to conduct research for Allergan and Medicis. "You are basically injecting more Jell-O soup into your skin."

    The cosmetic effects of such injections usually last up to six months or more, he said. Side effects have included swelling, bruising and lumpiness.

    Restylane, approved in 2003 by the Food and Drug Administration to fill out facial wrinkles and folds, is also used by doctors to increase volume in the lips. Restylane represents about half the American filler market, said Mr. Steinberg of Deutsche Bank.

    Medicis estimates that Americans had about 750,000 Restylane treatments last year. Patients pay about $350 to $800 for each syringe, depending on the doctor, and several syringes may be used, depending on the size of the treatment area.

    Juvéderm, which will not be widely available to doctors until January, uses a different formula, which makes its texture less thick. Doctors will pay $242 for a syringe of Juvéderm that is 20 percent smaller than a $240 syringe of Restylane.

    Introduced last month, the giveaway program, called the Juvéderm Experience Trial, invited doctors to select six patients who used Restylane within the last year for free Juvéderm injections in their smile lines.

    Allergan declined to discuss specifics, but, according to protocols sent to participating doctors, up to 10,000 patients were to be enrolled by the end of last week and doctors must follow up the results for nine months. Mr. Grant of Allergan described the program as a way for doctors and patients to familiarize themselves with the new product and for the company to gauge its ease of use and longevity. But the giveaway is also an attempt to unseat Restylane as America's most popular facial filler.

    "We are confident that patients who have had Restylane in the past are going to switch to Juvéderm," Mr. Grant said.

    Some patients who received the free treatments were enthusiastic.

    "It's awesome to get it free," said Nancy Komar, a receptionist at a urology practice in Indian Creek, Neb. She received free Juvéderm injections last month from Dr. Joel Schlessinger, a dermatologist in Omaha. "That's at least $1,000 worth of free treatment."

    But Medicis, the distributor of Restylane, sent out a warning letter last month to thousands of doctors, contending that the giveaway program is risky and that any data it collected would be biased and unscientific.

    "There is no evidence that injecting their product on top of ours is safe," said Mitchell S. Wortzman, the executive vice president of Medicis. "And when you get a free treatment, you tend to favor the free treatment over the one you paid for."

    Mr. Grant of Allergan said there is no safety issue because doctors in Europe who use the fillers sequentially have not seen complications.

    Dr. Schlessinger said one benefit of the increasing filler market could be more head-to-head research by manufacturers.

    "Finally some competition that should bring up the level of science, if the companies are bold enough to do a real comparative study," said Dr. Schlessinger, who has been a paid consultant and researcher for Allergan and Medicis and owns stock in both companies.

    But Dr. Mark G. Rubin, a dermatologist in Beverly Hills, Calif., cautioned that the marketing hype over fillers might make patients overlook the fact that these injections are medical procedures with potential risk.

    "It's an intriguing way of getting a new product out into the marketplace very early and convincing physicians and patients to try it," said Dr. Rubin, who has conducted research for Medicis and is on its advisory board and who participated in the Juvéderm giveaway.

    "But only time will tell whether this weird, not very scientific way of doing things becomes standard marketing practice, or whether other companies will shy away from it because it makes doctors uncomfortable."


     

    You Paid How Much for That Bike?

    Ruby Washington/The New York Times

    NO GREASE IN SIGHT At Signature Cycles in Manhattan, above, Grant Salter, a bike fitter, at right in photo, assists Michael Mann. Clients can sip espresso as they shop.

    November 9, 2006

    You Paid How Much for That Bike?

    IN April, two months before turning 39, Stacy Jargowsky decided to learn to ride a bicycle. So she spent $9,000 for a brushed-silver custom-made bike called a Guru. "If I can only have one, I feel like it should be the best," she said. It was made of titanium, which — gearhead chatter about high performance, ultralight strength and lifetime durability notwithstanding — is as incredibly cool as it sounds. (Try saying "I'm taking my titanium Guru out for a spin today." Don't you feel better?)

    A few months later, Ms. Jargowsky, who works for Flybar, a pogo-stick manufacturer, spent $10,000 for another custom-made cycle. "They kind of become like pets," she said. "Once you have one, you want to get another." This time she bought a Cervelo, made of carbon fiber. It's black. Carbon, according to many in the gearhead community, is even cooler than titanium.

    That Ms. Jargowsky spent the equivalent of a few years' tuition at a perfectly respectable state university to buy two bikes when she barely knew how to ride may strike some people as — let's be honest here — floridly insane. Then again, people who raise their eyebrows at titanium Gurus and the men and women who love them like pets, it is safe to say, have not been paying attention to what's been happening at the upper end of the cycling market in Manhattan.

    "You go to Central Park and there are all these expensive custom-made bikes, and they're not just for the bike geeks anymore," said Noah Budnick, a deputy director at Transportation Alternatives, a nonprofit group that lobbies for bicycle-friendly laws in New York City. "You have these corporate guys now. I like to say that bicycling is the new golf."

    Nationwide, demand for specially made bikes is higher than ever. "Custom bike sales are on the rise, and we're nowhere near the saturation point yet," said Megan Tompkins, the editor of Bicycle Retailer and Industry News, a trade magazine.

    Lance Armstrong's seven Tour de France victories provide one explanation why the road bike has seized back ground it had lost to mountain bikes in the '80s and '90s.

    Another reason: aging baby boomers with worn-out knees have embraced cycling as a low-impact, aerobically demanding alternative to cartilage-grinding sports like basketball and tennis. The explosive growth of triathlons, whose participants need bicycles that will perform at long distances, has created tens of thousands more buyers since 2000. Finally — and not to be underestimated, especially in Manhattan — rich people like to buy cool things.

    It's no secret to anyone who has ever endured an encounter with a grease-stained, eye-rolling, heavily sighing bicycle shop employee that customer service in the industry has historically ranged from sullen to supercilious to overtly hateful. ("It's one of the few retail industries where a condition for employment seems to be utter contempt for the customer," said one industry executive.)

    Perhaps that's why many local sellers of custom bikes are newcomers to the market and eager to cater to a discriminating clientele. In January, JackRabbit, based in Brooklyn, opened a store at 42 West 14th Street, near Union Square. It traffics almost exclusively in custom bicycles, mostly carbon and titanium. So does two-year-old SBR MultiSports, at 203 West 58th Street, where Ms. Jargowsky bought her bikes. Signature Cycles opened its appointment-only store at 80 West End Avenue in February.

    Although Altheus Cycling and Endurance Center, based in Rye, N.Y., closed its Union Square branch this week, Tom Crawford, the store's president, said the company plans to open at least one Manhattan outpost in 2007. In mid-April, another store that specializes in custom bicycles, Cadence Cycling and Multisport Centers in Philadelphia, will open an 11,000-square-foot store at 174 Hudson Street.

    Customers who buy bikes at any of these shops first undergo an interrogation that bears more similarity to an adoption proceeding than to a bicycle purchase. What are their hopes for their new bicycle? What are their dreams? After the discussion comes the hallmark feature of the custom bike experience: the fitting. An assessment can last one to five hours, and — depending on the store — may involve computerized pedaling analysis, range-of-motion tests and individually designed insoles for cycling shoes (all for $200 to $375).

    The cheapest bike at any of the stores costs about $1,600 (a single-speed aluminum road bike), and the most expensive, $23,000 (a carbon time-trial bike sold at Signature Cycles that comes with handmade German wheels at $5,500 a set).

    If traditional bicycle shops are to SBR, Altheus and JackRabbit as coach is to first class, then Signature Cycles is a Gulfstream jet. "Very, very boutique," David Jordan, a cycling coach and former professional racer, said of Signature Cycles. He said that Paul Levine, Signature's owner, will "offer you a glass of Courvoisier while you discuss your cycling habits."

    At Signature Cycles' Manhattan store (there is also a branch in Central Valley, N.Y.), there is a massage table for range-of-motion analysis. There is an espresso machine. There is, at the bar, Penfolds Shiraz and Maker's Mark. Courvoisier, too. There is a shower, because the fitting can be strenuous, and, as Grant Salter, an employee, said, "Our clients are Wall Street guys, and they don't want to go back to the office after a visit here and close a $5 million deal all sweaty and smelly."

    To cyclists for whom the phrase "close a $5 million deal" has approximately the same relevance as "Why not take a weekend jaunt to the third moon of Jupiter," bicycles like the ones sold at Signature may represent nothing so much as the glittery and degraded signs of a gilded age's inevitable decline. Don't tell that to custom bike owners, though.

    A year ago, when Manny Vidal came to Signature Cycles, he was 42 and hadn't been on a road bike for 20 years, and, at 5 feet 11 inches, weighed 260 pounds. He would go to the gym once or twice a week. He felt tired often.

    Since buying his $10,000 gray titanium-and-carbon Serotta, Mr. Vidal, the chief executive of Vidal Partnership, which specializes in advertising in the Hispanic market, has lost more than 40 pounds. He rides at least 5 days a week for 90 minutes.

    Mr. Vidal admits that his Serotta is sometimes more than just something he pedals. "Oh, it's definitely an accessory," he said. "People stop you and comment on the bike. They'll want to talk about it, ask you about it. They're the same kinds of looks I used to get when I drove a Porsche."

    Ms. Jargowsky, who rides 60 to 70 miles a week, also confesses to a special bond with her bikes.

    "The first time I had to check my triathlon bike for my race, I really noticed it missing in my home," said Mr. Jargowsky, who finished three triathlons this summer. "I would look out in the hallway and it wasn't there. It was kind of sad."

    An accessory? Sad? Are these the sentiments of serious cyclists or well-heeled fanatics? Is there a difference? Dr. David Levine, an orthopedic surgeon at the Hospital for Special Surgery in Manhattan, took up cycling three years ago. Now 39, he rides three or four laps around Central Park every weekday morning, with a group of other doctors from the hospital. They average about 16 minutes for a 6-mile lap, or 22.5 miles an hour. Dr. Levine (no relation to Paul, the Signature Cycles owner) rides a carbon Colnago, which he got from an Italian anesthesiologist who, he said, "has a nice connection to a bike shop in Como."

    Yes, he said, riders of high-end bikes notice other high-end bikes. Is there wheel envy? "I'm not sure I'd call it that," he said, adding that it's more a matter of proud owners comparing the advantages of their bikes' technology.

    Dr. Levine bristled slightly when it was suggested that people like him may be a little, um, obsessed with what is, after all, just a bicycle.

    "You do feel a connection with it," he said. "But I don't think anyone in our group takes it to a psychotic, unreasonable extent."

    He paused. "But my wife might disagree with that."


     

    Pilot of Plane in Trouble Finds Safe Place to Land in a Brooklyn Park

    Jeremy M. Lange for The New York Times

    A Cessna 172 that needed to land in Calvert Vaux Park, near the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge, was examined Tuesday. The pilot, Paul P. Dudley, right, was not injured.

    November 15, 2006

    Pilot of Plane in Trouble Finds Safe Place to Land in a Brooklyn Park

    The builders of the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge probably saved someone's life yesterday. They needed a place to dump all the displaced dirt from its construction, and ended up creating a new hunk of land that jutted out of Brooklyn into Coney Island Creek like a hitchhiker's thumb.

    In 1962, that land became part of a city park. Yesterday, it became an impromptu runway for Paul P. Dudley, a pilot, by being in the right place — under him — at the right time when his plane's engine quit.

    "There was no engine," said John Lloyd, one of three fishermen who saw the small Cessna 172 coming in. "The plane was off."

    Mr. Dudley made an emergency landing in Calvert Vaux Park shortly after 10:30 a.m., touching down in an empty field and taxiing about 100 yards before crossing a small berm and coming to a stop, man and machine undamaged. The cause of the engine trouble is under investigation.

    Mr. Dudley was traveling to Linden Airport in New Jersey from Westhampton Beach Airport on southeastern Long Island, about a 100-mile trip that he said takes 35 to 40 minutes in a Cessna. He works as a manager at the airport in Linden, in Union County. He said he has been flying this route for about 20 years.

    "It's akin to getting a blowout with your car on the highway," he said last night. "This was a nonevent."

    Mr. Dudley, 51, who said he lived in homes on both Staten Island and Long Island, said that the plane's problem was mechanical. He added that workers found about eight gallons of fuel in the Cessna's tank after the landing, so despite speculation by some people at the scene, being out of gas was not the cause.

    The tracks of the Cessna left creases in the taller-than-average grass where people from Coney Island, Gravesend and Brighton Beach in Brooklyn can sometimes be found playing a pickup game of football.

    "I detected something wrong with the airplane, and rather than risk going across the water and maybe or maybe not making it, this was the closest available field," Mr. Dudley told reporters in the park, near 27th Avenue and Shore Parkway in Brooklyn. "You're trained to look for places to land. That's all there is to it."

    Later, he added: "If you have a good spot and an empty spot, you take it. You don't take the chance of kids playing ball in the next field."

    The three friends from Coney Island were fishing for striped bass nearby in the creek when they witnessed the landing. They said they could tell he was in trouble because the wings were tipping back and forth. What was worse, they added, was that the plane was producing no sound.

    "He needed to buy $10 of gas," said Ernell Gomez, one of the fisherman.

    Mr. Lloyd, who was fishing with Mr. Gomez, said that he believed that the pilot was going to try a water landing. "Then he saw that soccer field and said, 'Hey, I'm going to try this,' " Mr. Lloyd said.

    One of the fishermen called 911 with a cellphone. It turned out they saw more than just the landing. They believed so strongly that they had seen the airplane strike a crane's boom that they were certain the pilot was badly injured.

    "How bad was he hurt? Is he pretty bad?" Mr. Lloyd asked a reporter. "Seems like the front of it would be pretty bad. You figure the pilot's face hit the windshield, like a car."

    The men were surprised to hear that the pilot was fine.

    "He's definitely lucky," Mr. Lloyd said.

    Investigators from the Federal Aviation Administration said they planned to interview Mr. Dudley on Friday. The National Transportation Safety Board is not looking into the landing because it does not qualify as an accident.

    A group of men spent more than four hours yesterday taking the wings off the Cessna so it could be loaded on a flatbed truck and carted to New Jersey. But the airplane's wheels were stuck in the mud, and as darkness approached, Mr. Dudley hurried off to a nearby Home Depot for wooden planks.

    A handful of nearby residents, attracted by the police helicopters, came by the park for a look. "Any landing is a good landing," said Joe Barone, 62, himself a pilot.

    Calvert Vaux Park, named in 1998 for the architect and one of the designers of Central Park, Prospect Park, Morningside Park and Fort Greene Park in the 1800s, is a little larger than 73 acres. Much of it was created from landfill from the bridge, according to the Parks Department. It was formerly known as the Dreier-Offerman Park, named for a home for unwed mothers and children that once stood on part of the property.

    "Over here, they don't do much," said Ed Henry, who lives nearby. "I guess he picked a good place to land a plane. When I was a kid, this was all water. They took tons and tons of dump trucks full of dirt and dumped it here."

    Asked about the experience of landing in such a place, Mr. Dudley said, "Walk in the park."

    Ann Farmer and Patrick McGeehan contributed reporting.


     

    Dozens Abducted in Brazen Raid on Iraq Ministry

    Wathiq Khuzaie/Getty Images

    Iraqis gathered Tuesday at the Ministry of Higher Education compound after dozens were kidnapped.

    November 15, 2006

    Dozens Abducted in Brazen Raid on Iraq Ministry

    BAGHDAD, Wednesday, Nov. 15 — Gunmen dressed in Iraqi police commando uniforms and driving vehicles with Interior Ministry markings rounded up dozens of people inside a government building in the heart of Baghdad on Tuesday and drove off with them in one of the most brazen mass kidnappings since a wave of sectarian abductions and killings became a feature of the war.

    Although some Iraqi officials said as many as 150 people had been taken, the American military command put the total at 55.

    Witnesses said as many as 50 gunmen arrived at the Ministry of Higher Education compound at midmorning, forced their way past a handful of guards and stormed through a four-story building, herding office workers, visitors and even a delivery boy outside at rifle point. After women were separated, the men were loaded aboard a fleet of more than 30 pickup trucks and two larger trucks, then driven away through heavy traffic toward mainly Shiite neighborhoods on the city's eastern edge, officials and witnesses said.

    Late in the evening there were conflicting reports that some or most of those taken had been freed. Iraqiya state television reported that most of those seized had been freed in security operations, but a Shiite station, Al Furat, said 25 people were still missing, according to Reuters. None of the reports could be confirmed.

    A spokesman for the Interior Ministry, which is responsible for the police, announced on state television several hours after the abductions that orders had been issued for the arrest of several police commanders from the Karada area in eastern Baghdad, site of the Higher Education Ministry.

    The announcement combined with other details, including accounts by one of a group of about a dozen people released by the kidnappers later on Tuesday, to suggest that the abductions may have been the latest in a series of mass kidnappings carried out by Shiite gangs and death squads operating from inside the Interior Ministry, or with access to its uniforms and vehicles. If the abductions are traced to groups operating under Interior Ministry cover, they seem certain to add a new level of crisis to the political tensions in Baghdad.

    On Wednesday, an Interior Ministry spokesman said a brigade of the police searching in eastern Baghdad had found and freed 30 kidnap victims. He said the brigade was continuing its search and expected to free the remaining victims before the end of the day.

    Recent events in the United States, including the Democrats' midterm election gains last week and the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have intensified American pressure on Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki and the alliance of Shiite religious groups he leads to act decisively to improve his government's performance — in effect, to show that America has trustworthy partner, and help to head off the momentum in Washington for a withdrawal of American troops.

    Action against sectarian militias and death squads, particularly those associated with the governing Shiite parties, tops the American priorities that have been urged on the Iraqi leader, most recently in a meeting in Baghdad Monday with the top American military commander in the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid.

    Late on Tuesday, Mr. Maliki, appearing on state-run television, seemed eager to establish that he had responded swiftly to the abductions, saying that he had ordered the Defense and Interior Ministries to mount an intensive search for those seized.

    During a meeting with the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, Mr. Maliki appeared to suggest that the kidnappers came from the Mahdi Army, an unruly militia headed by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, a mainstay of the ruling Shiite alliance. "What is happening is not terrorism, but the result of disagreements and conflict between militias belonging to this side or that," he said.

    The 56-year-old prime minister said security sweeps had been responsible for the dozen people released earlier in the day, though that did not immediately tally with the account given by a Shiite ministry official who was among those set free. The official said he and others in his group were separated from the main body of those seized by their kidnappers after the gunmen quizzed all their captives about their identities and occupations. After being driven blindfolded to a rural area in northern Baghdad, the official said, they were abandoned and left to make their own way to safety.

    The government's swift response in ordering the arrest of the police commanders broke with a pattern of inaction in several earlier mass kidnappings that appeared to have been linked to Shiite death squads.

    While concern to show a new resolve to restive critics of the war in Washington was likely to have been a major spur, another was the sheer scale and audacity of the attack. By seizing such a large number of people from a government building, in the center of the capital, in broad daylight, the kidnappers appeared to be sending a message that they could pounce anywhere with impunity.

    The precise number abducted remained uncertain. In an angry, anguished address delivered on live television, Abed Thiab al-Ajili, the higher education minister and a member of the country's largest Sunni political bloc, told Parliament that 100 to 150 people had been taken; ministry officials said they included Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Christians. A similar figure was given by the Shiite ministry official who was released. His figure, though, appeared to be based on a rough count of the people working in the building and visitors, rather than an accurate head count of those abducted.

    The American military command, which sent troops to the site of the kidnappings, said its investigation showed that the number of men taken was about 55. It also said there were indications that the kidnapping victims had been taken to the Baladiyat district in eastern Baghdad, a predominantly Shiite neighborhood on the southern fringe of Sadr City about three miles from the building where they were seized.

    The fact that the kidnappers took captives from a wide cross-section of Iraq's cultural and religious groups created some confusion about their motives, though many previous kidnappings have followed a similar pattern.

    In his speech to Parliament, Mr. Ajili, the higher education minister, skirted the question of whether the kidnapping was motivated by sectarian hatred. But he suggested that the Maliki government was incompetent, if not complicit in the abductions. He said he had repeatedly asked the government for additional security to protect the ministry and members of the university community, who have been favorite targets for assassination since the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

    According to a tally by The Associated Press, more than 150 educators have been killed, and thousands of others have fled the country. "I told the M.O.I. and M.O.D. if you can't protect the universities, give me 800 recruits and I will do this mission," Mr. Ajili said, referring to the Ministries of Interior and Defense. "But they rejected the idea."

    Shiite leaders have often said that kidnappers who have been linked to the Interior Ministry have in fact been criminal thugs, or even Sunni insurgents, who have acquired the military-style uniforms used in the attack from street markets where they are widely available. Basil al-Khateed, a spokesman for the Higher Education Ministry, counseled against hasty conclusions. "It's not clear if this kidnapping was sectarian or not," he said.

    Witnesses said the gunmen arrived at the ministry about 9:30 a.m. in a long line of vehicles that appeared to be on police business. "I saw around 30 Interior Ministry vehicles which did not have license plates close the road, and then the commandos stepped out of their vehicles," said one man who worked in a government agency nearby but asked not to be identified. Mr. Khateed, the ministry spokesman, said the gunmen told ministry guards and onlookers that the American ambassador was arriving.

    The ministry official who was later released said he was in his office inside the building. The gunmen, in the blue camouflage uniforms worn by police commandos, flooded into the building, the official said, and told him they were from the government's integrity commission, an agency that investigates corruption.

    Suddenly, however, the gunmen cocked their weapons and yelled for everyone to stay where they were, the official said. They gathered the women in one room, before eventually letting them go, Mr. Ajili, the minister, said, but not before taking their cellphones and sorting through them for newer models, which they stole, leaving older models behind. He said the men taken captive had their hands bound behind them and their eyes blindfolded before being taken out to the pickup trucks.

    Iraqi police and army units in the area did nothing to stop the abductions, witnesses and officials said, either because they believed the gunmen were legitimate commandos, or, some suggested, because they were part of a preset plan. "We are astonished by this," said Saleem Abdulla, a lawmaker from the Iraqi Consensus Front, the main Sunni bloc in Parliament. "It just seems so odd. How can people kidnap about 100 people like that, in daylight?"

    He added: "And what about the vehicles? What about the checkpoints? Aren't we in a state of emergency? And no one can trace these people? No one can follow them to find out who they are? It is very odd. We think there has to be some link between these gangs and powerful men in the M.O.I."

    The released Shiite official, who spoke later on Iraqi television but did not give his name, said the gunmen yelled at motorists to clear the road as they headed east through the traffic from the ministry building.

    The official said the gunmen had taken their captives into a large hall with a concrete floor, then began to quiz each of them, demanding their names, often an indicator of their sect, as well as identity cards. "They split us into two groups," he said. "The first group, they said, 'We will release you.' The second group, 'We will keep you for additional investigation.' They put me in the group that would be released. When they said that, I thought, no, they will kill me. I was sure they would kill me. They were shouting, 'We will kill everyone who doesn't listen to us.' "

    But the gunmen put him and the others in his group back onto the pickup trucks, and drove them elsewhere, the official said. There, he said, they were told to sit on the ground and not move, and warned that anyone removing a blindfold would be killed.

    But after 10 minutes of silence, he said, one of the men in the group mustered the courage to clear his eyes, and told the others they were safe. "We don't know why they took us, and why they released us," the official said. "It's a terrorist operation with a big criminal ring that planned this."

    Elsewhere, a car bomb exploded near a busy market in the capital, killing 10 people and wounding 25 others, an Interior Ministry official said. Late Monday and into Tuesday, clashes erupted between members of the Mahdi Army militia and American troops, leaving six civilians dead and 13 wounded, an Interior Ministry official said. The police found 25 bodies dumped across the city on Tuesday, the official said.

    <NYT_AUTHOR_ID>

    Reporting was contributed by Ali Adeeb, Khalid al-Ansary, Qais Mizher, Omar al-Neami, Kirk Semple and Sabrina Tavernise.


  • Velázquez

    Velazquez

    November 10, 2006

    Art Review

    Velázquez, Without Bells or Whistles

     

    LONDON — She reclines on her side, naked, back turned, glancing into a mirror. Pearly flesh sinks luxuriantly into a gray satin bedsheet; it had been a deep mauve, before the color faded, which accounts for the pinkish reflections still cast on her inner thigh, ankle and buttock.

    Her expression is ambiguous, the features half cast in shadow, catching our eye but blurred by a dim light, by the old mirror and by all the soft, veiled edges in the picture. It's the stripper principle: show less, leave more to the imagination. There isn't a sexier image in art. Perfect beauty, Velázquez implies, eludes strict definition.

    The "Rokeby Venus," as it is called, has been joined at the National Gallery here by 45 other paintings — nearly half his work — for what is being advertised as the first major Velázquez retrospective in Britain. Who cares? Velázquez is the last artist to need hype.

    The Metropolitan Museum's Velázquez show some years ago, like this one, was said to be the best that could be managed, absent works like "Las Meninas" and "The Spinners," which don't travel from Madrid. Youthful struggles with perspective and a few stilted, sullen portraits from the artist's middle years pad an affair here that, at its worst, comforts us in the knowledge that even Velázquez had his bad days.

    There are a dozen or more masterpieces on a par with the "Venus" — head-shaking, stupefying paintings in that cool, effortless, ruthless way that Velázquez is great. I'm thinking of the portrait of the Infante Felipe Próspero, stuffed into a pinafore and a dress with bells; of the Infanta Margarita, an even more divine child; "Aesop," baggy-eyed, a sage; and the "Riding School." Like Zorro, with a few flicks of the brush Velázquez materializes perfect little portraits of the king and queen on a distant balcony. The writer Ortega y Gasset got it right. Velázquez's work, he said, "isn't art; it is life perpetuated."

    If these pictures don't enthrall you, and make you weigh a trans-Atlantic lark, then no art will. The other day I scoured part of the show with David Hockney, who ventured that Velázquez must have used optical aids like a camera obscura. I nodded and smiled. Looking at Velázquez, lesser artists (which means everyone else, no offense to Mr. Hockney) may naturally want to ascribe the vast gulf between them and him to smoke and mirrors.

    There is, in fact, something almost paranormal and unnerving about how his art implicates us, the way Venus does, with her eyes half-meeting ours as if in the very instant that we notice her. She seems suddenly to come alive. This has to do with Velázquez's uncanny grasp of not just what we see but how we see. A full-length portrait of Philip IV, pale, impassive and luminous, minus the notorious Hapsburg jaw and homely features, wraps the king in a sleeveless jacket and knee-length breeches embroidered in silver.

    It's not the greatest portrait. But notice how the silver makes floral patterns glint against plush, purplish velvet. From a few feet away, the effect bedazzles. Then, close up, the patterns dissolve into seemingly random slashes, dots and swirls. They make an abstraction of swift, loose paint whose eloquence can't be held in the mind's eye simultaneously with the floral decoration.

    Step up, step back. The illusion comes and goes. An assistant in Velázquez's studio painted a similar silvered fabric in a different portrait. The show's catalog reproduces an enlarged detail of that picture; its dogged precision results not in sharper focus but in crushing boredom. Somehow Velázquez decoded the mystery of how forms coalesce at a distance, then register in our consciousness as pure brushwork when seen nearer in.

    The brushwork is never virtuosic for virtuosity's sake, by the way. It's never superfluous, always economical, in service to lucid description, releasing endorphins by reiterating the basic conjuring trick of painting. You might even say that Modern art, fixated on abstraction and issues of perception, largely rests on this single aspect of Velázquez's achievement.

    The retrospective is without bells or whistles. Pictures are accompanied only by title and date. A palm-sized pamphlet, handed to visitors, contains descriptions of each painting, letting people read what and where they choose. No scrums of craning necks grappling before distracting wall texts. The idea should be universally copied.

    And there's natural light: in lieu of the cramped basement in the modern Sainsbury Wing, built for special exhibitions, the show partly displaces the National Gallery's permanent collection by taking over a suite of handsome, skylighted rooms in the old building. Velázquez painted in natural light. His art hums in it. The gallery will have a hard time justifying Sainsbury for another large old master painting exhibition after this.

    The show tracks the arc from Seville, where Diego Rodriguez de Silva Velázquez was born in 1599 and apprenticed with the painter Francisco Pacheco. Clearly prodigious, he soon moved to Philip's court in Madrid, where Rubens recommended a trip to Italy in 1629, for an immersion in Titian and Veronese, the turning point in Velázquez's life.

    As a tyro he was desperate to impress, jury-rigging spatial and lighting effects before mastering a mood that was at once urbane and insolent. Wooden figures gave way to increasingly grave and human ones, like the old woman cooking eggs. Glorying in the bravado of depicting egg whites poaching in boiled water and sunshine glinting differently off ceramic bowl, pestle, mortar and flesh, this picture rises above its self-satisfaction by virtue of the woman's expression, somber and sacramental. As completely as any painter, Velázquez captured body language: how people point, tilt their heads, signal emotion — and he learned how to convey these signals minimally, coolly, without affectation. Every fool and beggar suddenly becomes a king in his art.

    Cool, effortless and ruthless. You see it in the bandy-legged dwarf Francisco Lezcano, playmate to the child prince Baltasar Carlos. Sprawled, at what looks like the mouth of a cave, before a sunny landscape, Lezcano stares down at us, mouth slack, his face unfocused. (Velázquez manages this effect by painting one side of the face nearly asleep, the other alert.) Shuffling a pack of cards, Lezcano is thuggish, watchful. He's clearly nobody's fool.

    In "Mars," a black comedy, the god of war, middle-aged and stringy, in a loincloth, slumps, with head on fist. Wearing a handlebar mustache and a helmet that's way too big, he's a '70s porn star on a break between scenes.

    As Ortega y Gasset said, it's life perpetuated — but truth to life is not the same as reality. About "Venus," the painter Lucian Freud once pointed out how, anatomically speaking, her crooked right arm makes no sense, her torso stretches like Silly Putty, and her reflection is out of proportion in the mirror. "It's completely wrong, it bypasses reason, yet it works as art," he said, iterating a basic tenet of illusion. Painterly artifice, he added, depends on "an artist's ability to convey feelings that aren't necessarily ones the artist has himself; otherwise, the most remarkable artists would also be the most virtuous and extraordinary people."

    Sadly, true. We know that Velázquez endlessly maneuvered for status, emulating Rubens's social stardom by painting less and less, and instead cultivated his roles as royal decorator, housekeeper, curator and courtier. As such, he died a great success, in 1660, the king having visited at his bedside. Genius and humanity in art, Velázquez reminds us, may have nothing necessarily to do with elevated character, which I suppose might be some consolation at a time when the art world is so drunk with money and shallow values.

    If only somebody today painted half as magnificently as Velázquez.

    "Velázquez" continues through Jan. 21 at the National Gallery in London;

    nationalgallery.org.uk

      
    ImageImage
    Image

    The "Rokeby Venus" (1647-51) is one of 46 paintings by Velázquez, almost half his total output, currently on view at the National Gallery in London.

    Portrait of a prince: Velázquez's "Baltasar Carlos on Horseback" (1634-35).

     

    Image

    Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

    Image
    "Infante Felipe Prûspero" (1659)


     

    Image

    "The Waterseller of Seville" (circa 1617-1623)  The Wellington Collection, Apsley House London

    Image 

    "An Old Woman Cooking Eggs" by Velazquez (1618)


    The National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh

     

    Image
    Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid

    "Apollo at the Forge of Vulcan" (1630)

    Image

    Infanta Marìa Teresa" (circa 1652-1653)


    Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

November 13, 2006

  • Modern Love

     

    David Chelsea
    November 12, 2006

    Beneath the Modest Alter Ego, I See My Superhero

    I WAS just 17, a typical college freshman concerned primarily with exploring my newfound freedom, my drinking skills and the boys in the dorm next-door, when one day I came home from sociology class with swollen ankles.

    "Oh, my God," my roommate said. "You're pregnant!"

    "That's not it," I assured her.

    When I called my mother, she scolded me: "It's because you're drinking too much."

    But when she told my father, who is a physician, about my condition, he grabbed the phone and said, "Come home."

    He took me to the hospital, where specialists examined me and explained that I had a kidney disease called glomerulonephritis and would have to start dialysis — a three-hour, three-days-a-week treatment to clean the waste out of my blood.

    Sitting up in my paper-thin hospital gown, I said, "You know, this is really not a good time."

    I tried to stick it out for the rest of the semester, undergoing dialysis while trying to maintain the life of an average Loyola College freshman. But the treatments exhausted me, and eventually I had to drop out. I moved back home to Pennsylvania, where I sat in my childhood bedroom for the rest of the school year contemplating what the doctors said could be an alternative to dialysis: a kidney transplant.

    Luckily, I had an older brother who was sweet, selfless and, most important, healthy.

    "The surgery is usually harder on the donor," the surgeon told him. "Because of the way we need to remove the kidney, the surgery will likely be more painful for you, and your recuperation may be longer. You won't be able to drive or work or do much of anything for weeks. And, of course, there is the risk of infection."

    "I'm not worried," my brother said.

    It was not a surprise that his genes matched mine, but it was lucky that the surgery was easy, without any complications. He recovered more quickly than expected, and the transplant appeared to be a success.

    Within months, I was back at school and on track to graduate on schedule. And it was during this time, at a college lawn party, that I met Christopher. Sitting in a T-shirt wearing a pair of gold Elvis sunglasses, he looked my direction and said, "Are you lonesome tonight, little lady?" As cheesy as his line was, I have to admit that I was hooked. One night, as we sat in a crowded bar, I warned him about my kidney disease. I put every oddity and ailment of mine out there.

    "I have three kidneys," I said.

    "So what? I have a Spock ear."

    "I take like nine medications every morning," I confessed.

    "I get sunburned through skylights."

    "High blood pressure," I said.

    "Osgood-Schlatter," he replied, referring to a type of knee pain suffered by adolescents.

    "I have a big nasty scar that goes from the side of my belly all the way down to below my bikini line."

    "I have ... to see it," he said, leaning across the table and then giving me a wink.

    My frank admissions didn't cause him to get up and leave, as often happened with other boys. He stayed and ordered another drink. And he continued to stay, through years of medication changes, doctor appointments and lab tests. He stayed as we sorted through all those life-changing decisions: Where are we going to move to next? What will we do for work? And he stayed even when, years later, I began to reject my brother's kidney.

    Christopher watched as my young body quickly turned into that of an old woman, first with the reappearance of swollen ankles, then with nausea and back pains and finally with a limp in my step from the gout. I went back on dialysis, convinced that my luck had run out. I would need another new kidney, but from whom?

    Christopher committed to the transplant before we knew he was a viable donor. He came into our kitchen and said, "I'll give you mine." The best part? I didn't even have to ask. But he had a few tough stipulations.

    "You have got to watch your diet."

    I nodded enthusiastically.

    "If we decide to do this, we both cut out the bacon, the Cheetos and watch your salt intake. We keep an eye on your blood pressure."

    "Whatever you say." Under the table, my legs were shaking.

    "No more drinking. I'm talking like a glass of wine at dinner, maybe. And no more smoking your 'occasional' cigarettes."

    "O.K.," I said.

    "And lots of exercise. You have to promise. I'm talking three days a week, half an hour of cardio. No more sitting on the couch. If I give you my kidney, you've got to keep it, be good to it."

    I UNDERSTOOD his concern. My record up to that point had not been the cleanest. When I went back to school after receiving my brother's kidney, I wanted to pick up where I had left off. Trying to feel normal again among my peers, I partied to excess, stayed out too late and exhausted myself on the weekends. I didn't think about what a life like that would eventually do to my already compromised state of health.

    "I promise," I said. But at that point, I would have agreed to anything. We shook on our deal before he dipped me, Astaire-style, and planted his warm lips on mine.

    For weeks, the transplant team poked and prodded Christopher with blood tests, X-rays and M.R.I.'s, assessing his viability. But I knew he would be a match. I knew it from the way we finished each other's sentences and said the punch lines to each other's jokes. I knew it from the way he steadied me on hikes as I wobbled awkwardly on precarious boulders.

    And I was right. "Well, he's good enough," said the nurse when we met to hear the result. I watched her lips move as she gave us the details of the operation, but all I could think about was how love had saved me.

    When the transplant was over, my kidney function was restored and I felt healthier than I had in a long time. But Christopher did not escape as cleanly. A few days after, his incision became infected. He began to feel weak and lost his appetite. The doctors put him on bed rest for six weeks to allow the wound to heal. Though I finally felt better again, it was painful to watch this normally active guy stuck in bed staring at the wall day after day, and to know that he was there because of me.

    When my mother tells people at supermarkets about Christopher and me, they begin to cry. When he and I go out to dinner with other couples, I make them swoon with our love story.

    "He saved my life," I tell them.

    "No, I didn't," Christopher says, smirking with annoyance.

    But it was true, despite his modesty.

    Then, one weekend in November, just three months after the transplant, I woke up with a blinding headache that would not go away. Later, it spread into severe back pain and an astronomical fever.

    This is not happening, I thought, as they wheeled me from the emergency room to the ward, where I would end up staying for three weeks as doctors examined my condition and watched my kidney function fluctuate.

    Every night, as I prayed in my hospital bed that I would not lose this kidney, Christopher sat nearby, reading a book or looking out for soccer scores on the wall-mounted TV. What would it mean if I were to reject his kidney, I wondered. What if he can't rescue me after all?

    In the end, my symptoms turned out to be a result of an infection, not of outright rejection. And while there was no major damage to the kidney, the illness did serious damage to the one thing that up until then I had been sure of: that love would save me.

    As someone who has been sick for the last 15 years, I am always looking for the cure. I hope for the deus ex machina. I wait for the hero to swoop in and save the girl. The more romantic, in my mind, the better.

    Christopher's version of our fairy tale has always been a bit different from mine, a little more pragmatic. When I say: "Marriage? What do we need marriage for? The fact that you gave me your kidney should show the world that we're destined to be together," he says, "Well, maybe we should get married so my health benefits can pay for your lab tests and maintenance drugs."

    When I say, "What if I lose this kidney?" he says, his voice calm and cool, "Then I'll drive you to dialysis until you get a new one."

    CHANCES are, that is the position we will find ourselves in one day, and he seems to know it. He knows that even if I watch my salt, am tender with his kidney and try in earnest to keep it with me, someday my body will discover that his kidney is foreign and strange and will try to get rid of it.

    With each new trip to the emergency room, I realize there likely is no single person out there capable of rescuing me — no white knight, no superhero. Christopher is my match in terms of blood and tissue, along with being my match in almost every other conceivable way, and yet, in the end, even this may not be enough to deliver me from the pain and effects of my affliction. He may not be able to save my life, but in so many ways, he already has.

    Angela Balcita, an editor at Imagine magazine, a Johns Hopkins University publication, lives in Baltimore.