First steps toward ethics reform in Congress

from the December 15, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1215/p03s02-uspo.html

Incoming speaker Pelosi unveils a reform agenda - even as corruption probes of two Democrats proceed.

By Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON

Even as Democrats vowed this week to tackle ethics reform head on when they take up the gavels on Capitol Hill in January, they are already wary of land mines that could shatter their bid to rebuild Congress's image.

Citing the mandate from voters in the midterm elections to clean up a culture of corruption, incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi promised a sweeping reform agenda Thursday, including a first-ever "outside enforcement mechanism" for congressional ethics.

"The ethics process over the last few years has lost the confidence of the American people," she said in a briefing with reporters, where she predicted the "most honest and open Congress in history."

Other elements unveiled this week include a ban on "earmarks" or member projects for fiscal year 2007, a five-day congressional workweek to better process "the people's business," and a new oversight panel on intelligence along the lines proposed by the 9/11 Commission back in 2004.

But even as House Democrats try to burnish their image on ethics, they are being forced to work around the legal woes of their own members, including two in key positions.

The reelection of Rep. William Jefferson (D) of Louisiana in a runoff, despite the $90,000 in possible payoffs that federal investigators found stashed in his home freezer, stunned many of his colleagues, who had expected the eight-term lawmaker to lose the contest. To defuse criticism, Ms. Pelosi and the Democratic Steering Committee denied Mr. Jefferson his request to keep a seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, pending the outcome of a federal investigation.

Rep. Alan Mollohan (D) of West Virginia is facing a federal investigation over earmarks he sponsored and profitable real estate deals. He is in line to chair the subcommittee that oversees the budget of the agency that is investigating him - a decision now pending in the House Appropriations Committee. Some members of the Congressional Black Caucus say that Democrats are holding Mr. Jefferson, who is black, to a higher standard than they are Mr. Mollohan. Republicans say both cases signal that Democrats face their own culture-of-corruption issues.

Other potential pitfalls for ethics reform are the unfinished spending bills, including the thousands of earmarks attached to them.

Democrats could have just slogged through the bills, as Republicans did with leftover spending legislation when the GOP took back control of the Senate in 2003. Instead, Democrats last week opted to pass a joint resolution that is expected to keep spending for FY 2007 at the level of FY 2006 - with some adjustments - and put a hold on earmarks until FY 2008.

"It is not a perfect solution, but it is the best available given the fiscal mess the 109th Congress has left behind," said Pelosi and incoming Senate majority leader Harry Reid in a joint statement.

Fiscal watchdog groups praised the decision to eliminate earmarks for this fiscal year, but say Democrats will need to be more explicit about reforms than they have been to date if they are to clean up the corruption and appearance of wrongdoing associated with the earmark process.

"There is a serious intent to make some dramatic changes in how Congress operates, but whether here is the political will to enact proposals that will actually do that remains to be seen," says Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, a new coalition to promote transparency and accountability in government.

Others are waiting to see the details. "Democrats need to do more than disclose the sponsor and recipient of an earmark. They must also limit the number and amount that can be spent on earmarks, prohibit earmarks not subject to a committee hearing...," says Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. Only two Democrats voted last week to require the Pentagon to evaluate the effectiveness of earmarks, he adds.

In the Senate, meanwhile, Democrats are still working on a comprehensive ethics package. "Ethics, lobby, and earmark reform will be the first bill we'll do," says Democratic leadership spokesman Jim Manley.

But this week, they are also concerned about whether they will lose control of the chamber. Sen. Tim Johnson (D) of South Dakota was rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery Wednesday. If he is unable to serve, the Republican governor of South Dakota, Mike Rounds, would appoint his replacement. Should he choose a member of his own party, the new Senate, which is divided 51-49, would become 50-50. Because Vice President Dick Cheney would cast any tying vote, the Senate would revert to Republican control. In the past, however, senators have served despite being incapacitated.

"No one has ever been removed from the Senate on the grounds of physical or mental incapacity. It's only been on the grounds of treason," says Senate historian Richard Baker. The Senate expelled 14 senators for treason during the Civil War - the last time a senator has been removed. Over the years, senators have been absent for months at a time when coping with disability. "The Constitution is specific on qualifications to be a senator, and one of them is not robust good health," Mr. Baker adds.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Reforms are helping Africa's diamonds sparkle again

from the December 11, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p09s02-coop.html

A coalition of governments, businesses, and NGOs has built a self-policing regimen that is cutting off the conflict-diamond pipeline.

By Marcus Noland and J. Brooks Spector
BELLAGIO, ITALY; AND JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA

The depiction of diamonds and disaster in the new film "Blood Diamond," is the latest horrific tale about Africa. The cinematic history lesson about the now-ended civil war in Sierra Leone may be compelling - but don't start boycotting diamonds. Today's mundane reality is that a worldwide coalition of governments, businesses, and NGOs has built a self-policing regimen that is cutting off the "conflict-diamond" pipeline.

How diamonds are mined matters. Primary, "deep-shaft" diamonds are expensive to mine. Multinational firms, employing highly unionized workforces dominate production. African nations tax these mines for society's benefit. Southern Africa accounts for more than 40 percent of world output by value, virtually all produced under these conditions.

Secondary or alluvial diamonds can be extracted from riverbeds with just a shovel and sieve. During political conflict, these easily lootable stones have helped finance civil wars in countries such as Sierra Leone and Angola. Anticipatory concern centers on the uneasy peace in Ivory Coast. Conflict diamonds have also been linked to Al Qaeda's financial activities.

With these challenges in mind, South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia initiated talks in 2000 with major importing countries and representatives from NGOs and the diamond industry. Together, they created The Kimberley Process, an international certification system. Since it began, conflict diamonds have fallen from 15 percent to less than 1 percent of the trade.

Is there more to be done? You bet: The US Government Accountability Office has recommended improvements in America's domestic diamond surveillance system, enhanced capacity for tracking the activities of US certified licensees abroad, and expanded diamond-related assistance for the most heavily affected countries in west Africa. The latter has begun via the Diamond Development Initiative, a global effort to improve the grim lives of artisanal miners who legally dig the alluvial stones.

Consumers can do their part by buying gems from reputable retailers. They should ask where the stones were imported from and where they were mined, and insist that they meet Kimberley criteria.

But boycotting them for fear of supporting conflict in Africa would be counterproductive. Take Botswana. It's a thriving democracy that has the world's second-highest HIV infection rate. Diamonds generate half of its government's revenue. The national producer, Debswana, plays a vital role in Botswana's medical care, including the free provision of antiretroviral drugs. The implications of a major contraction from a boycott in the diamond industry would be dire.

• Marcus Noland, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics, and J. Brooks Spector, a visiting senior lecturer at University of the Witwatersrand, are the authors of "The Stuff of Legends: Diamonds and Development in southern Africa."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

The sordid history behind Africa's conflict diamonds

from the December 11, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p09s01-coop.html

'Blood Diamond' shows how industry leaders turned a blind eye to the atrocities funded by their policies.

By Greg Campbell
FORT COLLINS, COLO.

If "Blood Diamond" is not causing alarm among jewelers, as the World Diamond Council (WDC) insists, it should be. The new movie, which depicts atrocities fueled by illicit sales of African "conflict diamonds," could - and should - lead to public outrage.

Set in Sierra Leone, a small west African country rich in diamonds, it will leave an indelible impression of how leaders of the romance industry turned a blind eye to the way their policies funded some of the worst atrocities in modern warfare. In the 1990s, Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels mined diamonds from Sierra Leone at gunpoint, using forced labor and prisoners of war. They abducted children as young as 8 and used cocaine and heroin to engender in them loyalty and ruthlessness.

Using axes and machetes, the RUF chopped off the arms of some 20,000 civilians. Selling diamonds to willing buyers in neighboring Liberia and Guinea - and later, in London and Antwerp, Belgium - was the rebellion's only purpose.

WDC chairman Eli Izhakoff says the industry knew nothing of the conflict-diamond trade until 1999-2000, at which point titan De Beers stopped buying diamonds on the open market and industry leaders began exploring ways of ending the trade for good. But the ignorance excuse is preposterous. When the UN slapped sanctions on Sierra Leone's diamonds, the export of diamonds from neighboring countries quickly exceeded nature's limits. Even countries without any diamond mines at all, such as The Gambia, suddenly became important points of export to Belgium. Everyone knew where these diamonds came from.

The movie underlines this point to devastating effect. But as if facing conflict-diamonds' harsh reality weren't bad enough for the diamond industry, the film also needlessly exaggerates some points for effect. For example, it asserts a direct connection between a Sierra Leonean refugee and a highly placed diamond-industry villain working for the film's fictional version of De Beers.

In truth, the stones were laundered through multiple countries and hands before they hit the cutting wheel, a circuitous chain of "don't ask, don't tell" transactions that gave the industry plausible deniability. Yes, the industry's leaders knew where some of their diamonds originated - and the death and suffering they had caused - but the film's blatant link implies more guilt than may be warranted.

How well the industry can counteract this impression remains to be seen. But without question, the story of Sierra Leone, and its destruction on behalf of the world's symbols of peace and love, is one that deserves the broad audience that Hollywood can deliver.

• Greg Campbell is the author of "Blood Diamonds: Tracing the Deadly Path of the World's Most Precious Stones." The book was used as a primary resource for the filmmakers, but he was not involved in production.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

The de-carboning of American lifestyles

from the December 12, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1212/p08s02-comv.html

The Monitor's View

In the '60s and '70s, America woke up to widespread pollution and took serious steps to curb it. Again, the nation is rubbing its eyes - this time over the specific issues of climate change and dependence on fossil fuels. But will it hit the snooze alarm, or jump out of bed?

For the past year or so, awareness in the US of global warming has been going mainstream. It's the same with a renewed concern about foreign oil. It's not just the liberal, close-knit environmental community that's on the alert, but many businesses and investors, mayors and governors, Republicans and evangelicals.

Though their solutions differ, there's at least uniformity in their growing concern - and an opportunity for US innovation and leadership in these related issues.

Hurricane Katrina sounded a coast-to-coast alarm last year, even though no one can prove a link between the hurricane and Earth's warming trend. High energy prices have also driven public awareness. And now it looks as if Al Gore may become the Rachel Carson of global warming. His movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," is the third highest-grossing documentary ever.

According to a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology poll, nearly half of Americans now consider global warming the nation's top environmental problem - up from 20 percent in 2003.

But the challenge is in converting widespread concern into widespread action. US hybrid vehicle sales doubled last year, but Americans still preferred SUVs by a ratio of 23 to 1 and highway speeding is up.

One has to admire the can-do spirit of more than 300 mayors, including big-city ones, who have pledged to reduce greenhouse gases. But they're succeeding on a very small scale. Last year, 70 cities reported total reductions in carbon-dioxide emissions of 23 million tons - yet the US would have to cut such emissions by more than 1.6 billion tons if it were to meet Kyoto treaty targets, which it never ratified.

Some governors, too, are paying attention, and they can magnify the efforts of mayors.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has mandated carbon reductions in California. And in Texas, GOP Gov. Rick Perry is working with utilities to create a 7,000-megawatt wind farm - equal to about a dozen coal-fired power plants.

Most encouraging is that some businesses sense a moneymaking, profile-raising opportunity in going green. Venture capital is beginning to flow into alternative energy. Big-foot Wal-Mart aims to reduce its carbon footprint by 20 percent in seven years. In 2004, Home Depot rolled out its "Eco Options" label to identify 2,000 lower enviro-impact items - a recognition that consumers will respond to "sustainable" products if they're available.

Whether this activity will influence Washington is an open question. Some argue that its hands-off energy and global-warming stance has been beneficial, spurring the states and the private sector. Others say that no large-scale change can occur without Washington. Democrat Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, is sure to rekindle this debate with her plan to eliminate tax breaks for Big Oil.

The debate will help determine the degree to which America has truly awakened to these twin issues.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Suit by Iraqis and Afghans claims Rumsfeld ordered torture

from the December 08, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1208/p02s01-usju.html

The Justice Department has asked the judge to throw out the ACLU-supported case against the former defense secretary.

By Warren Richey Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON

As Donald Rumsfeld prepares to leave his job as secretary of Defense, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is seeking to hold him responsible for what it says was widespread torture carried out at his direction. [Editor's Note: The original version was changed because the American Civil Liberties Union says its civil suit is not intended to prove a war crime.]

Lawyers representing Mr. Rumsfeld and three US Army commanders are set to appear in federal court here Friday in response to a lawsuit charging that the Defense secretary authorized torture and other illegal abuse of military detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq - including at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison.

The case is important because it represents an attempt to hold US officials accountable for alleged illegal abuse of Iraqi and Afghan civilians who were never detained as enemy combatants or charged with any crime. But some legal analysts say the suit may be aimed more at shaping public opinion than winning in court because such cases are difficult to pursue.

The Justice Department lawyers representing Rumsfeld have not responded directly to the torture charges. Instead, they are asking Chief US District Court Judge Thomas Hogan to throw the suit out because Rumsfeld is entitled to immunity from lawsuits challenging his official actions as Defense secretary. Chief Judge Hogan has scheduled two hours of argument on the dismissal request.

The five Iraqi citizens and four Afghan citizens identified in the suit claim that they were subject to beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation, confinement in a wooden box, sleep deprivation, mock executions, and stress positions, the suit says.

"The secretary of Defense personally issued orders and authorized illegal interrogation techniques and caused torture," says ACLU lawyer Lucas Guttentag. "[Rumsfeld] was directly and personally involved."

Mr. Guttentag says that Rumsfeld also "failed to take the required actions to stop abuse in the face of overwhelming uncontroverted evidence that he received and was aware of."

The Defense secretary had been notified of the abuses via Red Cross reports, human rights organization reports, military internal reports, and FBI reports, according to documents obtained by the ACLU under the Freedom of Information Act, Guttentag says.

In addition to Rumsfeld, the suit names Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, commander of coalition forces in Iraq in 2003 and 2004, Col. Janis Karpinski, commander of the military unit that ran detention facilities in Iraq, and Col. Thomas Pappas, commander of the military unit that gathered intelligence in Iraq.

The civil suit was filed by lawyers with the ACLU and Human Rights First. It says Rumsfeld and the officers violated constitutional protections, international law, and the Geneva Conventions.
The suit seeks compensatory damages and a judicial declaration that the legal rights of the detainees were violated under the Constitution, the Geneva accords, and other international law.

Government lawyers counter that Iraqi and Afghan citizens do not enjoy rights under the US Constitution or the Geneva Conventions to sue senior US officials for official actions taken overseas.

"I think it is a very uphill battle for the litigants here. I don't think this case is going to go very far," says Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

"When you are dealing with the secretary of Defense what you have got to do is show that he was so far outside the scope of his duties as to be culpable," Professor Silliman says. "That is a hard standard to meet."

What makes it a particularly hard standard, Silliman and other legal analysts say, is that Rumsfeld was authorizing new interrogation techniques at the same time Justice Department lawyers were issuing legal memos justifying harsh, coercive interrogation tactics.

To prevail, ACLU lawyers must show that Rumsfeld knew what the law required and intentionally ignored those clearly established requirements. Short of that, Rumsfeld is entitled to immunity, says Richard Samp, a national security and constitutional law expert at the Washington Legal Foundation. "I've seen no document that says 'I hereby command you to inflict the following torture on individuals.' "

Others say immunity is not warranted in Rumsfeld's case. "Accountability, not immunity, for the conduct of military personnel within defendants' command is fundamental to military law, discipline and the law of war," writes Sidney Rosdeitcher in a friend-of-the-court brief filed on behalf of a group of military law experts.

Although allegations in the suit are the equivalent of war crimes, it is a civil case, not a criminal one. Only the US government is empowered to prosecute war crimes in criminal court or before a military court. Various commissions identified command-level problems as contributing to interrogation abuses, but government prosecution has focused on punishing "rogue individuals."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

How you can deduct now, give later

from the December 11, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p13s01-wmgn.html

Want to share the wealth, but don't know where? Financial experts point to donor-advised funds as a good choice.

By G. Jeffrey MacDonald Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

Establishing an endowment for charitable distributions is no longer the exclusive province of the wealthy, thanks in large measure to intensifying competition in the financial services industry.

In October, the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund cut the minimum amount required to open a donor-advised fund in half. Donors may now establish a fund, which is an investment account earmarked for charitable distribution, with as little as $5,000.

The move marks the latest volley in what's becoming a quest to manage the hundreds of millions that Americans collectively set aside each year to donate. On July 1, Fidelity dropped its fees from 1 percent per annum to 0.6 percent on all accounts valued under $500,000. That same day, Schwab Charitable matched Fidelity's new fee structure on accounts in that same size range.

All this jockeying is good news in terms of tax-saving opportunities and convenience for folks who don't have money to burn, according to financial planners and advisers who focus on charitable giving. In the process, systems are taking shape to make charitable giving a way of life in households where it hasn't always been.

"What we're seeing is further democratization of charitable giving in this country," says Doug Bauer, senior vice president of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, a nonprofit consultancy in New York City. "This really makes organized philanthropy a part of people's lives."

For tax purposes, donor-advised funds function as a charity in their own right. Once the donor has made the contribution, the full amount is tax-deductible in that tax year. (It's also nonrefundable.) Donors can then wait months or years, while the investment presumably grows in value, before "recommending" a disbursement to a particular organization. Recommendations are pro forma. The organization holding the fund promptly cuts a check and sends it to any organization that meets IRS criteria as a legitimate charity.

Experts say these vehicles make especially good sense for people who have incurred substantial capital gains during the year, perhaps from the sale of appreciated stock or real estate. That's because donors can take a hefty write-off in the year when they need it and postpone the details of figuring out who gets what.

"They may want the tax deduction, but they may not know where they want the money to go," says Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund spokeswoman Jennifer Engle. The instrument, she says, gives donors time to think and money time to grow.

In recent years, donor-advised funds have become one of the biggest growth areas of philanthropy, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Assets held at the four largest commercial funds soared 50 percent, from $3.26 billion in fiscal 2003 to $4.9 billion in fiscal 2005, according to Giving USA, an annual report on philanthropy in America. One reason: financial planners are promoting the funds as effective instruments for reducing tax liabilities, such as those incurred during the days of big gains in residential real estate. Donor-advised funds have also become easier to use as donors flock to manage their giving online. A few clicks of the mouse at 2 a.m. are enough to get checks delivered to a dozen organizations within a few days.

But setting up a charitable endowment may not make sense for everyone. People who can't afford to part with at least $5,000 in one whack, for instance, would not qualify. Small givers also might not like the rules: Fidelity won't cut a check to a charity for less than $100 (before October, the minimum was $250). And these programs simply don't work for individuals keen to avoid money management fees altogether. "I'm not sure it's a viable alternative" for a household earning $50,000 per year, Mr. Bauer says. [ Editor's note: The original version misstated the minimum amount Fidelity Investments will distribute to charity from its Charitable Gift Fund.]

Yet for others, the concept can make a lot of sense. Say, for example, a would-be donor has seen a stock position appreciate from $10,000 to $30,000 over the past 10 years. A sale would trigger a $3,000 tax on the $20,000 capital gain. But if the giver turns over the stock to a donor-advised fund, he or she receives a $30,000 write-off instead. If reinvested at 5 percent, the principal would remain intact and generate a $1,500-per-year income stream for a series of yet-to-be-named charities.

A generation ago, those who created charitable endowments often did so through private foundations. While that is still an option, foundations cost more to manage than donor-advised funds because they require administration on a small scale. They also come with a raft of restrictions, such as no anonymous giving and limits on where the funds can be invested. Unless a person is endowing more than $1 million, the better bet is usually a donor-advised fund, says Penny Marlin, a financial planner in Delray Beach, Fla.

Choosing the best place to house the fund, once again, depends on the donor's needs and goals. Universities increasingly offer donor-advised funds, but they tend to limit a donor's options. The University of Nebraska, for instance, insists that at least half of the assets be donated eventually to the institution. Beyond that, donors may steer the funds wherever they please.

Across the country, more than 700 local community foundations serve as custodians for donor-advised funds. These generally charge higher fees than commercial funds do, according to a 2006 Chronicle of Philanthropy report, largely because they operate on a small scale and must contract with commercial firms to provide investing services. "You've got to work at it if you're going to open up an account at a community foundation," Bauer says, because distributing funds involves coordinating among multiple entities. Still, these systems may get more efficient and somewhat cheaper, Bauer notes, as community foundations increasingly partner with brokerages such as Merrill Lynch to compete with the likes of Fidelity and Schwab.

Meanwhile, the higher fees at community foundations may be cost-effective for donors who want knowledgeable advice from foundation officers on how to remedy local problems. That's according to Bruce Bigelow, founding partner of Charitable Development Consulting in Frederick, Md., who says community foundations also provide cachet that commercial funds headquartered far away can't touch.

"The people I see doing this are people who ... want to see their name in the annual report of the community foundation as a community philanthropic leader," Mr. Bigelow says. "You're being a community leader and you're supporting the Y, or the shelter, or whatever you want to do."
Still, commercial funds are aggressively working to make theirs the most desirable destination for charity-earmarked assets. Having seen Fidelity drop its minimum threshold to $5,000, Schwab is weighing the possibility of doing the same.

"We're looking at it," says Kim Wright-Violich, president of Schwab Charitable. Schwab founder Charles Schwab "is putting pressure on me to do that because he wants to make philanthropy accessible."

That's the primary reason for cutting fees, too, she says, although she admits "Schwab may make money and probably does" by using these funds to expand its customer base.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

At swearing in, congressman wants to carry Koran. Outrage ensues.

from the December 07, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p01s03-uspo.html

By Jane Lampman Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Keith Ellison hasn't even started his new job, and he's already under fire.

When America's first Muslim congressman, a Democrat from Minnesota, let it be known he will carry a Koran to his swearing-in ceremony on Jan. 4, conservative pundit Dennis Prager called it "an act of hubris ... that undermines American civilization."

In a web column, the talk-show host said, "Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress."

The column has sparked a brouhaha on talk radio, in the blogosphere, and in newspapers across the country. The congressman's office has been inundated with angry e-mails.

The US Constitution says nothing about swearing on the Bible. But some commentators insist the US is a Christian nation, and the proposed act goes against its values and tradition. To others, the uproar shows an ignorance of the Constitution and the principle of religious freedom.
Some people worry that it reflects growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the country.Constitution is clear

To legal experts, no room for confusion exists. "A congressman having to swear an oath on a scripture that he doesn't believe in was unconstitutional from the very moment the Constitution was signed," says Kevin Hasson, head of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. "It would be beyond irony to violate the Constitution in the very act of requiring a congressman to swear his loyalty to uphold the Constitution."

In Congress, newly elected representatives do not put their left hands on any book. They raise their right hands, and are sworn in together as the speaker of the House administers the oath of office. Some do carry a book, according to House historians, and some choose to photograph a private swearing-in afterward with their hand on the Bible. One senator is known to have carried an expanded Bible that included the Book of Mormon.

The Constitution says: "The senators and representatives ... shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Some confusion may come from the long-standing tradition of presidents taking the oath with a hand on the Bible. But this is a choice and matter of custom, as is the phrase, "so help me God." President John Quincy Adams took the oath on a law book including the Constitution. President Theodore Roosevelt didn't use a book.

"The United States is not a Christian state or even a generically religious state," says Derek Davis, a church-state expert at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor in Belton, Texas. "We've worked hard for 200 years plus to uphold a principle of religious freedom for all citizens."

In allowing for an affirmation in place of an oath, the Constitution also makes room for atheists or agnostics.

Prager, who is Jewish, has come under fire from fellow Jews. The Anti-Defamation League issued a statement calling his argument "intolerant, misinformed, and downright un-American." Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, says the text used should be that which "is most sacred to the individual taking the oath. To ask ... otherwise is not only disrespectful to the person and to an entire religious tradition, but is asking the public official to be hypocritical."

The Council for American-Islamic Relations has called for Prager to be dropped from his recent presidential appointment to the Holocaust Memorial Council. "He is trying to marginalize Muslims by making it seem as though any practice of American Muslims is different or 'other' than what America stands for," says Arsalan Iftikhar, CAIR's legal counsel.

What the courts have decided

US courts have dealt with the issue in various ways. In a 1997 federal terrorism case, a Washington, D.C., judge permitted witnesses to swear to Allah. In North Carolina in 2005, a woman was not allowed to take the oath on the Koran when testifying. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued, and the case is in appeal.

At least 17 state constitutions explicitly prohibit discrimination against witnesses or jurors on religious grounds. Some allow people to swear or affirm "under the pains and penalties of perjury," omitting "so help me God." Judges generally have jurisdiction over how oaths are administered in their courts. Mr. Iftikhar says that some judges have allowed the use of the Koran.

The purpose of the court "is not to promote Christianity or Judaism or Islam or any other religion," Dr. Davis emphasizes. "It's to elicit truth from witnesses."

Mr. Ellison's office did not provide the Monitor with a statement, but his incoming chief of staff, Kari Moe, has said the issue is straightforward. "Religious freedom is a tradition in our country," she told the Associated Press.

For his part, Prager has posted a new column on the townhall.com website in response to the criticism. In a phone interview, he says he agrees that religious freedom does allow Ellison to use whatever book he likes.

"But I'm afraid we are becoming a diverse, secular society without any roots, and this is symbolically an example of that," he says. "The Bible is the repository of our values, not the Constitution ... and I'm asking him to honor that and include the Bible along with the Koran."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Election controversy hits Florida, again

from the December 08, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1208/p03s03-uspo.html

Sarasota recount is complicated by electronic voting systems. One solution: Bring back paper.

By Amy Green and Ben Arnoldy
SARASOTA, FLA.; AND BOSTON

The Sunshine State is once again the scene of a messy election controversy, and residents of Sarasota, an affluent beachside community, aren't the least bit amused.

More than a month after polls closed, the certified loser for the congressional seat is refusing to concede, given an extraordinary wave of ballots with no vote cast in that race and a margin of victory as skimpy as a bikini.

But determining just what went wrong, if anything, has proved difficult given the voting machines involved: touch-screen computers with no printout for voters to confirm. The problems roiling Florida's 13th Congressional District may be one reason that a federal advisory board on Tuesday recommended that the next generation of electronic voting machines be "software independent." In essence, that means creating an independent auditing trail.

Thus, six years after a messy presidential election forced Florida and many states to spend millions of dollars to bring in electronic voting systems, an influential elections panel is urging better-designed systems that may bring back an element of paper. The recommendations will inform new guidelines drawn up in 2007 by the Elections Assistance Commission, of which the panel is a part. Nearly 40 states require that their voting systems meet those guidelines.

"What needs to be figured out [now] is what can we cobble together for a medium-term solution that is not too expensive," says Steven Hertzberg of the Election Science Institute, an election research group based in San Francisco. Then, "we need to innovate in this industry."

So far in Florida's 13th District, there's no evidence that the machines malfunctioned. Sarasota County has already done a machine and a manual recount. Neither significantly budged Republican Vern Buchanan's 369-vote lead over Democrat Christine Jennings. The Sarasota Herald-Tribune has also reviewed every ballot cast.

But suspicions remain because 18,000 ballots, or 13 percent of the votes cast, recorded no votes in the congressional race.

"It's a huge embarrassment," says Ron Basescu, a local resident who had trouble voting. After filling out his ballot on the county's touch-screen machines, which were installed in 2002, a review screen showed that he had either skipped the congressional race or his vote was not recorded. He went back and filled it in. The same thing happened to his wife. Now, he's not sure if their votes really counted.

"If 18,000 people don't cast a [complete] ballot, there must be something wrong," he says. "There should be a revote."

In the manual recount, officials printed out the records of each vote cast, says county elections supervisor Kathy Dent. Undervotes were found in all county precincts, she adds.

But the paper trail is suspect because it's not independent of the software. So if the computer system malfunctioned, this paper trail might have an error, and the voter is no longer there to catch it.

The state has tested for any problems 10 computers, five of which were used in the election. Officials are also testing the software to make sure it is identical to the program certified by the state. Once these tests are finished, the state should be able to say with certainty if the computers malfunctioned, Ms. Dent says.

But some election experts disagree. A comprehensive testing regime would be too complicated to be done quickly, says Mr. Hertzberg, and even then, testers may never know.

"The entire result is 100 percent reliant on the software itself, and there's no way to validate the vote total," he says. The bottom line: "You can't trust the result."

Last week, the National Institute of Standards and Technology came to the same conclusion about all electronic voting machines that do not have an independent voter-verified audit trail. Officials ultimately must trust that the software has remained error-free. "Verifying that this is the case is so complex as to be infeasible; current testing methods could not guarantee this," the report said.

Ken Fields, a spokesman for Election Systems & Software, the company that makes the machines used in Sarasota, says computer malfunctions can be ruled out through testing. The machines "have been proven time and time again to accurately record votes," he says.

The equipment has safeguards, including two different digital records of the votes that can be compared. Voters are also given a chance on-screen to verify their selections.

However, Mr. Fields says, "the security and accuracy of an election depend not only on the equipment, but on the processes used" by the jurisdictions.

In its review, the Sarasota Herald-Tribune reported Tuesday that it found only one significant pattern in the undervotes: A disproportionate number came from straight-ticket voters in both parties. The report surmises that such voters were probably moving quickly through the ballot and, because of poor ballot design, missed the House race. The newspaper notes that the undervote distributions suggest no computer problems, but "machine error can't be completely ruled out."

Some voters will probably use the same touch-screen machines in 2008 and beyond. Election officials are wary of current paper-trail systems on the market because printers have been known to jam, printed records can be difficult to interpret, and few voters actually look at the printouts, says Doug Lewis, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors.

Voters in Sarasota, however, decided last month to replace their touch screens with optical scanners, an electronic system that counts paper ballots.

But there's still this year's House race to sort out. The losing candidate, Ms. Jennings, is contesting the election in the hopes of getting a judge to order another. The case is scheduled for Dec. 15. Jennings could also appeal to the House for a new election.

Some residents feel that Jennings's efforts are just prolonging a bitter race. "It was a very nasty campaign," says Ruth Bellaire, a retiree. "I think a lot of people didn't want to vote, to tell the truth."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

A new chief at the Pentagon

from the December 08, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1208/p01s01-usmi.html

As secretary of Defense, Robert Gates may be able to shape a bipartisan approach on Iraq and the war on terror.

By Peter Grier Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON

After Secretary of Defense-designate Robert Gates assumes his new post later this month, he may find it hard to alter US military weapons programs or the structure of US forces. In essence, the Pentagon is a huge ship that changes direction slowly - and the Bush administration has only two years left to run.

Nor will US options in Iraq change magically when he is sworn in 10 days from now. Dr. Gates brings with him no secret ideas that the Iraq Study Group or other strategic reviews may have missed.

Yet the moment Gates steps into his expansive new office in the Pentagon's outer "E" ring, he could have a profound effect on Washington. The reason: He's not Donald Rumsfeld. As a low-key figure whose nomination met with approval among both Democrats and Republicans, Gates might find it easier than his predecessor would have to shape a more bipartisan approach to Iraq and the overall war on terrorism.

"Is there anybody who doesn't think he's a good choice?" says James Jay Carafano, a senior fellow in national security at the Heritage Foundation. "It's an enormous opportunity to get the politics out of this."

What may change immediately after Gates takes up his post is the atmosphere in the Pentagon's top echelons.

Rumsfeld famously challenged the military bureaucracy, issuing memos, requests for information, and other internal documents with a blizzardlike intensity. By way of contrast, cannonades of paperwork don't appear to be part of Gates's bureaucratic style.

Throughout his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Gates emphasized that he would have a lot of listening to do in the early stages of his new job. He'd have to consult with military commanders, he said, before deciding what should be done in Iraq.

But with his clipped answer of "no" to a question as to whether the US is winning in Iraq, Gates made it clear that he agreed with the Iraq Study Group that the current approach is not working.

"I do think he feels that Iraq is a catastrophe, and he is there to try and do something about that," says Gary Sick, executive director of the Gulf 2000 project at Columbia University, who worked with Gates in the Ford and Carter administrations. "I think he's getting ready to really do battle."

Gates is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, says his former colleague. That was clear when the incoming secretary of Defense indicated during his hearing that any US military action against Syria or Iran would be highly unlikely, says Mr. Sick. "To me, that's a different brand of political action" than that espoused by the neoconservatives who urged the invasion of Iraq, he says.

In calling for a unified approach to Iraq policy, Gates struck the right note, says Dr. Carafano.
Also important were Gates's insistence on the need for continued big defense budgets, and his support for missile defense, Carafano adds.

But when it comes to actually allocating money to priorities, Gates won't have much time to make changes. There are only two budget cycles left to prepare before the next administration takes office. Furthermore, next year's budget has largely been drawn up. The last budget in an administration is often a slapdash exercise, due to political concerns.

"Practically, is there much that Gates can really do differently?", says Carafano. "No, not really."
But if nothing else, Gates has managed the rare feat of becoming less controversial over time, at least in terms of Senate confirmation struggles.

• In 1987, Gates was nominated to head the Central Intelligence Agency by President Ronald Reagan, but withdrew from consideration after it became clear that the Senate would reject him due to controversy over his role in aspects of the Iran-contra affair, a clandestine arrangement in the 1980s that gave money to Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits gained through selling weapons to Iran.

• In 1991, Gates was again tapped to head the CIA, this time by President George H.W. Bush. He won Senate approval after months of hearings. Thirty-one Democrats voted against him.

• In 2006, Gates's nomination to head the Pentagon was subjected to one day of hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The panel Tuesday approved the posting unanimously. On Wednesday, the full Senate slid Gates through, confirming him by the lopsided vote of 95 to 2.

Some Democrats who voted against Gates in 1991 voted for him this time - notably, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. The senators who voted against him were Republicans normally supportive of the administration - Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who lost his reelection bid last month, and Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky.

"Mr. Gates has repeatedly criticized our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan without providing any viable solutions to the problems our troops currently face," said Senator Bunning, explaining his "no" vote.

According to the White House, Gates will not be sworn in until Dec. 18 due to commitments in his current job as president of Texas A&M University.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

US lawmakers exit with a last nod to oil drilling

from the December 11, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p02s02-uspo.html
By Brad Knickerbocker Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

As one of its final acts, the 109th Congress Friday approved opening to oil and gas development 8.3 million previously protected acres off the Gulf Coast - a last bid to influence energy and environmental policy before the Democrats assume control.

Industry officials are pleased; environmentalists much less so.

"Let's hope this is Congress's one last fling with Big Oil and that we can make a fresh start to achieving true energy security with ... the new Congress," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club executive director, in a statement.

But John Engler, National Association of Manufacturers president, says exploring the outer continental shelf is "critical to the US economy." Just how critical depends on the cost of development and on whether other sources of gas and oil are sought and found as well.

For example, the Bush administration is considering lifting a ban on drilling in Bristol Bay, Alaska, imposed by Congress after the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound. But congressional resistance to such energy-extraction efforts - including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - is likely to mount after Democrats take control of the House and Senate.

Democrats, for their part, say they'll close what they see as loopholes in a program requiring companies to pay royalties on oil pumped on US property. Critics - including the Government Accountability Office and the US Interior Department's inspector general - say officials have not enforced the collection of royalty payments amounting to tens of billions of dollars.

Interior's IG recently found that the number of departmental audits and auditors had declined markedly since 2000. As a result, the investigation found, just 20 percent of firms involved in oil and gas development and 9 percent of properties had been examined in the past three years.
Interior often relies on oil companies to report the amount of resources extracted on federal land, which forms the basis for royalty payments.

Testifying before Congress in September, Interior's Inspector General Earl Devaney said the agency operates in a culture that "sustains managerial irresponsibility and a lack of accountability." In defense of their record, Interior officials note that audits in fiscal year 2006 covered 73 percent of revenues, up from 46 percent in 2003.

Still, the IG report led R.M. "Johnnie" Burton, director of Interior's Minerals Management Service, to pledge to strengthen procedures, improve administrative controls, and enhance tracking systems.

Under the Gulf Coast drilling bill passed Friday, 37.5 percent of royalties will go to Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama; 12.5 percent to land and water conservation programs; and 50 percent to the US treasury. To win over Florida lawmakers, the bill disallowed drilling within 125 miles of the Florida coast.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

At session's end, Congress cuts taxes

from the December 11, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1211/p02s01-uspo.html

The 11th-hour output also included controversial provisions for Gulf Coast drilling and a trade deal with Haiti.

By Gail Russell Chaddock Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

In a final, late-night surge of legislating, the 109th Congress passed $45 billion in tax cuts and a trade package affecting at least 150 developing nations, as well as a range of smaller bills on issues from healthcare to energy. But they left most of the current fiscal year's spending decisions to the next Congress.

It was the last gasp of a lame-duck Congress caught between two majorities - and ready to go home. With Democrats poised to take control of both the House and Senate next month, Republicans used their final hours in charge of Congress to make good on promises to many of Washington's most powerful interests as well as to American families they hope to woo back in 2008.

The 11th-hour output includes popular tax extenders, such as the research and development tax credit for businesses and the tax break for college tuition. It also includes more controversial provisions, such as opening some 8.3 million acres along the Gulf Coast to oil and gas drilling, and a trade deal with Haiti that could hurt US textile interests.

Meanwhile, Democrats say the outgoing "do nothing" Republican Congress met rarely and accomplished little. On Friday, House majority leader-elect Steny Hoyer (D) of Maryland announced there would be more five-day work weeks in the next Congress "to address the critical issues facing our nation and fulfill our responsibility to oversee the executive branch." (Under GOP control, the Washington work week was about 2.5 days.)

In the final days, Republicans faced their greatest opposition from within their own ranks. "This is an embarrassing situation to be chairman of [the] Budget Committee in a Republican Congress and to have a bill brought to the floor that does such damage to the budget," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R) of New Hampshire in a floor speech directed mainly to his GOP colleagues Friday night.

As late as Friday, eight senators from textile states were threatening to block the omnibus trade and tax bill unless a proposal to lift tariffs on clothing manufactured in Haiti was removed. They said it would open US markets even further to unfair competition from China, but they fell short of the votes needed to prevail.

"It's stunning that the House leadership and Senate as its last act before it adjourns is going to ramrod a job-destroying trade bill past the Congress," said Auggie Tantillo, executive director of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition, before Friday's vote.

In response, backers said the trade package, including permanent normal trade relations with Vietnam, will lower costs for US manufacturers and consumers.

"This legislation will help to create stronger trading partners for the future, while also recognizing our responsibility as having one of the world's strongest economies to help developing countries grow," said House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R) of California in a statement after the 212-to-184 House vote.

The 109th Congress also voted to postpone completing nine of 11 FY 2007 spending bills until Feb. 15, forcing Democrats to take up divisive spending issues as they are ramping up in the next Congress.

"It's real act of defiance by the lame-duck Congress and a conscious attempt to set up a political problem for the next Congress," says Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian at the Boston University.

"It's more than just leaving a budgetary mess. It's creating a huge problem in how Democrats will solve the tension within their party between fiscal conservatives and those who want to start new spending initiatives and how Democrats will deal with corruption and whole pork-barrel issues," he adds.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Greener, cleaner ... and competitive?

from the December 04, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1204/p03s03-usec.html

Renewables could supply one-quarter of US energy by 2025, with no harm to economy, a study says.

By Mark Clayton Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

The last time renewable-energy entrepreneurs were this gung-ho, in the early 1980s, subsidies - not sales - buoyed their business plans. This time may be different. For example:

• So many utility customers signed up for the "GreenChoice" program in Austin, Texas, that the city organized a raffle to decide who would get the last 1,400 slots. The reason: The program's wind-powered electricity was actually cheaper to generate than traditional power.

• Midwestern ethanol plants this summer were producing renewable fuel at a cost of $1.27 a gallon or less, making it competitive with gasoline even without tax subsidies, notes Vernon Eidman, a University of Minnesota professor of agricultural economics.

• A recent study by the RAND Corp. shows the nation's economy would be likely to benefit, rather than be slowed, if the nation achieved the goal of supplying 25 percent of its energy needs from renewable sources by 2025.

While most renewable fuels can't yet compete with their traditional counterparts, their costs of production are falling steadily. If the trend continues, America's energy mix by 2025 could be far greener and cleaner - without damaging the economy - than most analysts could have antici-pated a few years ago.

That development would not only reduce the nation's dependence on oil, it would mean a substantial start on capping its greenhouse-gas emissions, which most scientists link to global warming. And such a move, if the RAND analysis proves correct, would come at little or no cost to the economy.

"At this point, the lines haven't crossed yet where renewables are cheaper than coal power," says Jonathan Naimon, managing director of Light Green Advisors, an institutional money manager focused on environmental investing. "But we do see a lot of opportunity as this process of renewable power getting steadily cheaper continues.... There have been reports over the years saying the long-term costs of renewables are cheaper than fossil simply because you don't pay for fuel."New findings, new hope for renewables

The RAND Corp. report - issued in November - estimated that if the cost to produce renewable energy continued to fall at its current rate, renewables could provide 25 percent of the nation's power by 2025 at no additional cost to the economy and perhaps even save money.

If current trends continue, for example, renewable energy will be 20 percent less expensive to produce in 20 years. But the study, which examined 1,500 scenarios, goes further. If renewable costs fell at a faster rate, the nation could save $30 billion in energy costs by 2025, the report found. Even if renewable-energy costs grew slightly and oil prices fell further than expected, any negative economic drag on the economy would be slight, the study concluded.

Beyond the economics, such a shift would have a big impact on US emissions of greenhouse gases, eliminating 1 billion tons of carbon emissions - about one-seventh of total US emissions - by 2025. The US "can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions without significant effects on energy expenditures," the study found.

Such studies are part of a growing body of research that indicates the cost of renewables may not be an economic drag after all.

"There is an emerging consensus that we need to enter a rapid transition to clean energy technology," Reid Detchon, executive director of the Energy Future Coalition, a nonprofit energy advocacy group that requested the RAND study. "For years there has been this myth of an expensive and painful transition. This report helps knock that down."

President Bush rejected the Kyoto climate accords because of projected high costs to the economy from capping carbon emissions and tapping alternative energy. Some US studies a few years ago estimated Kyoto's potential cost at $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2010.

Building consensus in the business world

Business is also warming to renewables.

"We've reached the same conclusion as this study and so have the capital markets," says energy expert Amory Lovins, who cites $63 billion in global investment in renewables this year.

"Anybody who's paying attention to the cost performance of renewables will find many that compete quite nicely now."

For example, renewable power can play a key role in stabilizing energy prices.

Having substantial wind power in a portfolio moderates rates during price swings in natural gas and coal, says Shimon Awerbuch, a British energy economist at the University of Sussex who has studied the moderating impact of wind power on electric rates.

Others agree. "No matter which way costs go as the shift to renewable energy occurs, we're not talking about a gigantic change in the energy bill for the country," says Michael Toman, director of environment, energy, and economic development program at RAND. "There's no reason to look at it as if the economy is going to grind to a screeching halt."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Americans try to shift into 'carbon neutral'

from the December 06, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1206/p13s01-sten.html

To combat global warming, many try to remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they add to it.

By Gregory M. Lamb Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Are you living "carbon neutral" - or better yet, "carbon negative"? Have you gone on a "carbon diet"? Are you shrinking your "carbon footprint" on the earth or aiming for a "net zero" lifestyle?

If so, you've got lots of company, including celebrities, sports teams, airlines, moviemakers, tour operators, and at least one college. They're all trying to make sure that they're removing at least as much carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide, or CO2) from the atmosphere as they add from heating their homes or businesses or traveling by car or airplane.

Americans have been shutting off lights, stuffing insulation into attics, and carpooling to save gas at least since President Jimmy Carter pulled on his cardigan and talked to the nation about saving energy nearly three decades ago.

In the 21st century, though, the conservation message has changed: While fossil fuels such as oil and coal continue to dwindle and become more expensive, burning them now has an almost certain link to the warming of the planet's atmosphere, creating a rapidly changing climate that could wreak havoc.

People are eager to help, and going "carbon neutral" has become a popular answer. The New Oxford American Dictionary recently proclaimed "carbon neutral" as its Word of the Year for 2006. "The increasing use of the word 'carbon neutral' reflects not just the greening of our culture, but the greening of our language," says editor in chief Erin McKean. "When you see first-graders trying to make their classrooms 'carbon neutral,' you know the word has become mainstream."

Polls back up the editors' choice. Americans now say climate change is the country's most pressing environmental problem, according to a recent survey from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Just three years ago, it ranked only sixth on a list of 10 environmental concerns.

Becoming "carbon neutral" involves two steps, environmentalists point out. The first is to reduce carbon emissions through familiar conservation measures: replacing incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs, using public transit, and so forth. Many online "carbon calculators" help individuals or businesses assess how much carbon they are emitting.

But that only reduces their carbon emissions. To get to zero, they'll need to buy "carbon offsets" by sending money to projects that replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind-power generators, or to projects that remove carbon dioxide from the air, such as tree farms.

For example, a new business-class airline, Silverjet, plans to add a levy of about $26 to its transatlantic fares that will be sent to carbon-reducing projects to offset the carbon burned during the flight.

But some environmentalists worry that the idea of going "carbon neutral" could be detrimental if it leads to people only buying offsets and not changing their lifestyles.

"The concept of carbon neutrality is great. But it's one thing for people to do things to reduce their carbon emissions in their own lives; it's another thing for people to buy credits or offsets counting on someone else to clean up their act," says Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming project. "It would be bad if it has the impact of creating sort of 'papal indulgences' that people feel that they're allowed to buy a gas-guzzling SUV or otherwise pollute in ways that they could avoid because they can pay someone else to plant some trees in Guatemala."

Offsets alone aren't going to achieve the greenhouse-gas reductions that are needed, adds Charles Miller, a spokesman for the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. "We've got to learn to use energy more efficiently, and we've got to reduce our consumption of energy."

It's a dangerous way to "let people off the hook," agrees Mary Rosenblum, an author who writes science-based novels set in the near future. In her forthcoming book, "Water Rights," the US is faced with desertification from a vastly changed climate. "It's what our future will probably look like if we don't do anything about it," says Ms. Rosenblum, who lives near Portland, Ore.

"If you can drive three SUVs and charge up a couple of hundred bucks [of carbon offsets] on your Visa and then think, 'OK, I've done my share,' we're not going to change anything," she says.

Other environmentalists say influencing what China and India do about their growing carbon emissions will be much more significant than the feel-good efforts of Americans to become carbon neutral.

But some argue that even though the offset programs may be of dubious value, little more than paying lip service to cutting carbon, they still serve a valuable function in educating the public.

It's true that Americans can pay for their "carbon sins" with a relatively small amount of money, says Michele Bowman, a futurist and managing director of Global Foresight Associates in Waltham, Mass. But more important, they'll start to realize exactly what goes into creating carbon emissions and how they're offset, she says. "And that in turn is going to start to change behavior."

Ms. Bowman arranged to have the Pop!Tech conference in Camden, Maine, a gathering of thought leaders interested in how science and technology are shaping the future, go "carbon negative," offsetting its carbon emissions by twice the amount used by the 530 participants (about 800 tons of carbon) while at the October conference and in their travel to and from it.
Pop!Tech invested in solar generators that will power villages in the African country of Benin through a group called the Solar Electric Light Fund (www.self.org)

On a grander scale, the Kyoto Protocol has committed countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It has also stimulated a growing worldwide market for carbon-emission permits that are bought and sold between businesses. As a result, some observers say, awareness of the need to cut carbon emissions is higher in participating countries such as Canada and Britain than in the US, which has not signed onto the deal.

But Americans are beginning to catch up, say those involved in the carbon-reduction movement. One big influence has been the "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary that examines former Vice President Al Gore's crusade against global warming. The film was released in theaters earlier this year and on DVD last month.

"The past year has been tremendous," says Billy Connelly, part owner and marketing director of Native Energy of Charlotte, Vt., which sells carbon offsets. The level of public understanding about carbon emissions is much greater now than two to four years ago when the majority native American-owned company was just starting out.

"It's due in no small part to Mr. Gore's film," he says.

Native Energy invests in solar, wind, and biomass energy-generating projects that aim to "push coal-fired and gas-fired energy off the [electric] grid," Mr. Connelly says. In one native village in Alaska, he says, a wind turbine is replacing expensive diesel fuel that had to be flown in to make electricity.

The villagers have seen firsthand the results of global warming, he says. "The permafrost is literally melting beneath them."

Individuals who have bought carbon offsets from Native Energy include the Middlebury (Vt.) College ski team, Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Clif Bar energy bars, and the Canadian alternative rock band Barenaked Ladies. The Dave Matthews Band has bought enough offsets, Connelly says, to make up for the carbon the group has emitted during its entire 15 years of touring.
Meanwhile, the College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, Maine, is proclaiming itself to be the first such institution pledged to be carbon neutral. The college plans to offset all student and faculty commuting to campus and any other carbon emissions "caused by our existence," says college president David Hales.

The school's fleet of boats, for example, has been converted to burn only renewable biofuels.
Students are heavily involved on committees now researching how to determine the size of the college's "carbon footprint" and how to best buy carbon offsets. Whatever offsets are purchased must show that the projects they support have "quantifiable, verifiable" results in reducing carbon emissions, Mr. Hales says.

Trustees, alumni, parents, and donors back the carbon-neutral initiative, he adds. The school's pledge follows other environmental moves at the college. It already buys all of its electricity from a wind- powered source and held a "zero-waste" graduation ceremony last year.

Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai, who won a 2004 Nobel Peace Prize, recently urged what might be the grandest plan yet to offset carbon emissions at last month's international meeting on climate change in Nairobi, Kenya. Ms. Maathai proposed that the world's citizens commit to planting 1 billion trees, which would absorb about 250 million tons of the carbon dioxide now warming the atmosphere.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

After 93 years, L.A. gives its water back

from the December 06, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1206/p01s03-ussc.html

In what some call the most ambitious US river restoration ever, water will once again flow into the Lower Owens River.

By Daniel B. Wood Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
LOS ANGELES

At a dusty desert ceremony 235 miles north of the city Wednesday, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will close a century-long chapter on what may be the biggest water grab in the history of the American West.

Mr. Villaraigosa will push a button to send water flowing down a 62-mile stretch of rocky culverts and scrubland once known as the Lower Owens River. The move effectively turns the clock back to 1913, before city fathers diverted the water that flowed down from the Sierra-Nevada Mountains, and channeled it to Los Angeles. That diversion, orchestrated after years of backroom deals (chronicled in the 1974 classic, "Chinatown"), helped give rise to America's second-largest city. But it turned the mountain-ringed valley into a desert.

Now, several officials call the current effort the most ambitious river restoration ever attempted in the US.

It will create a flowing river through what is now dry land dotted only with tiny pools of runoff. The project comes after decades of animosity between northern and southern California that led to a 1970 court case and a 1997 promise by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to return the water by 2003.

After further stalls and fines, a mayoral administration wishing to turn over a new leaf acquiesced to the project.

"The significance of this cannot be overstated," says H. David Nahai, president of the Los Angeles Board of Water and Power Commissioners. "Inyo County gets 62 miles of desert reborn with fish, birds, wildlife, plants, and wetlands, and Los Angeles sees the end of decades of acrimony by doing the right, environmentally responsible thing."

Mr. Nahai says that because four new pumps will then return the redirected water to the L.A. aqueduct after its 62-mile journey, the project will barely affect L.A.'s water supply.

But the new agreement will mean Los Angeles customers will have to find about 9,000 acre feet of water - roughly the needs of 9,000 homes for one year - from other sources, such as the Colorado River, or through better reclamation, reuse, and conservation. But Nahai and other officials say the city has been successful with conservation efforts as a result of public education campaigns, tested during intermittent droughts since the 1980s. Though Los Angeles has added more than 750,000 residents since 1986, it uses the same amount of water today as then.

For Inyo County, however, the change is considered to be dramatic.

"This is definitely an historic turning point for Inyo County that residents have been waiting for for a long time," says Denise Racine of the California Department of Fish and Game. Besides the aesthetic beauty of a flowing river that attracts anglers, boaters, and swimmers, the river is expected to generate an explosion of plant life that includes banks of new trees.

That, in turn, helps to spur the return of more birds and wildlife, including elk, deer, and wild mink.

"In 10 years this place will be magnificent," says Kathleen New, president of the Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce and a lifelong resident. "This is a very, very big deal for us to know that people will want to come here, spend time and enjoy the beauty."

Some residents, including Ms. New, say the original 1913 land and water grab by LADWP had one positive result: The area was never developed. The county's 18,000 residents live on 1.7 percent of the land. The rest is owned by the state, the federal Bureau of Land Management, or the LADWP. In the early 1900s, city agents posed as farmers and ranchers to buy land and water rights. Later, Los Angeles built pumps and dams to divert the water from local springs and wetlands to Los Angeles.

Local opposition to LADWP water diversions is not limited to the Owens River saga. Beginning in 1939, the LADWP built a tunnel beneath Mono Lake, another pristine, environmental treasure 90 miles north, and began draining it for use in Los Angeles. After 50 years of litigation, the water depletion was halted about a decade ago, and water levels are now close to pre-1939 levels.

"If it weren't for LADWP, we would probably look like Palmdale and other developed cities in the California desert, so I am thankful for that," says New. "But it would be nice to have water."

The water's return will mean beauty and more tourism, the region's primary source of income, she says. But significant new development is not a concern because available land is in short supply.

She and others say the river's return will cause confusion and concern for ranchers in the first few years, as the flowing water finds its old river route - now scoured away by wind, rain, and cattle erosion. A number of fish kills is expected in the smallish pools where fish now thrive, as incoming water brings surface sediment.

"The old channel is just dirt, and we are expecting that it will take awhile for the water to find its way," says Doug Daniels, Inyo County program manager for administrative services. Some desert shrubs will die off because of too much water in the groundwater table. But once water is flowing again, officials say, bass, bluegill, and catfish will begin multiplying.

The water is expected to flow at an annual average rate of 40 cubic feet of water per second, with seasonal rushes of up to 200 cubic feet per second. Three weeks ago the LADWP announced a plan to spend $105 million on berms intended to mitigate dust storms in an area that used to hold the Owens Lake - now a dusty lake bed.

Retired rancher Stan Matlick has complained that it has taken court orders for LADWP to move forward, despite its claims of newfound environmental sensitivity. "It's a good thing, but I'm a bit dubious of how the LADWP will stick to this," says Mr. Matlick.

But most observers say the agreement is a win-win that will serve as a model for other river restoration projects in the West.

"I would call this a long-overdue milestone," says Rita Schmidt Sudman of the Water Education Foundation, a nonprofit in Sacramento, Calif.

"It is very significant for the benefits it is giving both parties here in California, but also in setting the tone for reconciliation among others across the West to not just continue to fight their battles out in court."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Roadless areas get protection - for now

from the December 07, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p03s03-uspo.html

A federal judge has blocked the Bush administration from allowing development on 50 million acres of backcountry.

By Brad Knickerbocker Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
ASHLAND, ORE.

Six years after the Bush administration came to office seeking to reverse Bill Clinton's order for protecting roadless areas on federal lands, the issue continues to smolder.

A federal judge has blocked the administration from lifting protections on nearly 50 million acres of backcountry. Several governors are suing Uncle Sam over the issue. And other governors are pushing ahead with their own plans to balance environmental protection with mining, logging, oil and gas development, and other commercial uses.

At stake are vast areas of federal land, most of it forested tracts across the Ameri-can West where the sound of road-building bulldozers has never been heard. Environmentalists say such areas are valuable for wildlife habitat, preserving water and air quality, and providing a wildernesslike experience. Many hunters and fishermen want them kept pristine as well.

But many areas also are potential sources of timber, minerals, gas, and oil. Developing such natural resources can be done in a way that protects the environment, administration and industry officials assert.

Like many environmental issues, sorting out this one has involved lengthy lawsuits.

In September, US Magistrate Elizabeth Laporte in San Francisco ruled that the Bush administration's repeal of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, as the Clinton order is called, violates both the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

In another opinion last week, Judge Laporte blocked plans to extract natural resources in roadless areas, including some 300 controversial oil and gas leases in seven western states the US Forest Service issued in recent years.

Administration officials made "a clear error of judgment" in attempting to open up roadless areas without the proper environmental assessments, Laporte ruled.

The administration had sought to require governors to petition Washington if they wanted to protect federal roadless land in their states. Laporte ruled that illegal as well. But not before governors in Virginia, North and South Carolina, New Mexico, and California had petitioned the federal government for full protection of roadless areas in their states.

Meanwhile, governors in other states - Idaho, Colorado, and Utah among them - want to lift or ease some of the restrictions imposed by the Clinton rule.

The lawsuit, which resulted in the recent ruling, was brought by the attorneys general of Oregon, Washington, California, and New Mexico, plus 20 conservation groups.

For its part, the administration argues that the recent court ruling should not be made retroactive. "Neither the [US Forest Service] nor the forest resource users, who have relied on decisions made by the agency for the past six years should be faulted for acting under the law and regulations in place at the time they acted," US Justice Department lawyers said in their court filing.

Administration officials have not said whether they will appeal the ruling.

Critics say former President Clinton rushed the roadless rule into effect just before he left office in 2001. But supporters of the rule point out that it was adopted only after three years of official study, 600 public hearings, and some 2.5 million public comments in favor of the rule.

"I realize that no rule can perfectly satisfy everyone, but the Clinton roadless rule struck a chord with Americans," says Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D) of New Mexico, incoming chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. In Oregon, more than 90 percent of the 79,000 people who submitted comments favored leaving areas roadless.

The need now, says Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) is to "focus on more critical forest priorities - like addressing declining forest health, catastrophic wildfires, and creating sustainable and predictable harvest levels."

The legal and political debate preceding the recent court ruling did not prevent some development in roadless areas from taking place. In August, loggers began cutting down trees in the Siskiyou National Forest's Kalmiopsis Roadless Area in southern Oregon.

While such commercial development of natural resources can benefit local economies, government and private studies have shown that logging in national forests often costs the federal treasury more than it earns. Subsidized road-building in national forests is one of the main reasons.

The original roadless protection rule covered some 59 million acres around the country, nearly a third of all national forestland, most of it from the Rocky Mountains westward. Laporte's order covers all but about 9 million acres in Alaska's Tongass National Forest.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Revolt over new federal mercury law

from the December 07, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1207/p02s01-uspo.html

The state-led push could weaken the EPA's emissions-trading system, which is popular with industry.

By Mark Clayton Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Facing a mandate to slash toxic mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, 23 states are thumbing their noses at a federal cleanup plan and are instead developing their own far tougher plans to deal with mercury.

But doing so has caused many of them to miss a federal Nov. 17 deadline to submit their plans to the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, the EPA is ratcheting up the pressure. This week, the agency is expected to publish names of more than 20 states that could have the federal plan imposed on them if they don't submit tougher plans by next spring.

What it all adds up to is a major state-led rebellion over mercury emissions that dwarfs, for example, an 11-state push to create regional greenhouse-gas reduction programs without federal support. If successful, the revolt could weaken a key element of the federal mercury rules: an emissions-trading system popular with the utility industry and already in place for air pollutants like nitrogen oxides.

"What we're seeing is a critical mass of states restricting trading in such a way that it really imposes a significant impact on EPA's national trading program," says S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, a Washington trade group representing state and local air-quality agencies. "States are sending a strong message that mercury emissions trading is not, and should not be, a centerpiece of any federal mercury- control program."

EPA officials say they're not worried.

"Based on everything we know, we are confident there will be a robust and workable cap-and-trade system, given the number of states we believe are going to participate," says William Wehrum, acting assistant administrator of the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.

The state plans include one or more fixes in three key areas. At least 20 states are proposing far larger cuts in mercury emissions than the EPA's new Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR) requires, according to a survey by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies. At the same time, 17 states are planning to require mercury reductions more rapidly than the federal government requires. At least 16 plan to opt out of, or severely restrict, emissions trading.

"We just felt that we could and should do more than EPA was asking on mercury," says Dean Van Orden, chief of the air information division of Pennsylvania's air-quality bureau. "We think it's significant so many other states are doing the same thing, including coal-producing states."

Pennsylvania's plan would cut mercury emissions 80 percent by 2010 in a first phase and 90 percent by 2015. By contrast, CAMR cuts 21 percent of mercury nationwide by 2010 and 70 percent by 2018. With costs of mercury-control technology falling sharply, tougher regulations were the right thing to do, some state officials say.

Pennsylvania and others are also not participating in emissions trading. While "cap and trade" systems worked for sulfur dioxide and other pollutants, many states argue that mercury is different because it is a toxin rather than a mere pollutant. Already, more than 3,200 health advisories warning of mercury contamination in fish from streams and lakes have been issued in 48 states.

And because mercury particles can begin dropping out of the air just a few miles from where they're emitted, state officials worry the trading system might create new mercury "hot spots" within their borders.

Illinois is another state taking a pass on CAMR, even though it's a major coal- producing state. "We are not doing CAMR or mercury trading - no trading," says Jim Ross, manager of the Illinois EPA's division of air-pollution control. "We have proposed our own mercury rule that requires greater reduction and is much faster than the federal rule."

US EPA officials say that states opting out of CAMR is no surprise.

"We always knew many states would want to do something different and that's fine," says Mr. Wehrum. "We also knew many would choose CAMR as a smart way to regulate that's economically efficient and easy to administrate."

Under the federal Clean Air Act, states can adopt clean-air plans that are stricter than a federal plan. But EPA has resisted state plans that try to limit mercury trading, going so far as threatening legal action in at least one instance, state officials say.

Montana and Michigan are among states still working on their own mercury plans. Both have felt EPA pressure to participate in trading mercury, even though they preferred restrictions on it.

"We did want some participation in CAMR trading, but not unlimited," says Charles Homer, supervisor of technical support for the Air Resources Management Bureau of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. "But EPA told us any tampering with their trading system was not acceptable. We were either in, or out."

In the end, Montana ended up adopting EPA's trading program because coal development might have been compromised otherwise. But Mr. Homer isn't happy about it. "We were forced to participate," he says. Montana still plans deeper mercury emissions cuts than CAMR requires.
Michigan wants to trade mercury among utilities in the state, but not with utilities in the rest of the country.

"We have been in touch with the EPA and they've indicated verbally that if we prohibit interstate trading or do not submit a rule they find approvable they may take legal action," says Vinson Hellwig, chief of the air-quality division of the state's Department of Environmental Quality. "It was not a very friendly position."

Wehrum doesn't deny EPA has tried to be persuasive. But "I haven't threatened to sue anybody," he says. "That's silly."

At least 24 states - including West Virginia, Alabama, and Wyoming - are likely to embrace part or all of CAMR and its trading system. But Texas and others will do so because their state laws require it.

"The EPA could have made this a much better, tougher rule to begin with, making it less of a patchwork quilt for industry," Mr. Becker says. "They just thought states would blindly follow - and underestimated how many states would take action on their own to fill the gaps."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Global warming: a few skeptics still ask why it's happening

from the December 08, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1208/p01s03-usgn.html

Scientists who seek alternative to fossil-fuel theory got a hearing.

By Peter N. Spotts Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

With alarms bells over global warming ringing ever louder and more insistent, is it possible - or credible - for an active scientist working on climate questions to be skeptical of the cause or future severity?

Amid mounting evidence that temperatures are rising on planet Earth, the "skeptics" and "agnostics" are a smaller band than they used to be. Yet those who do still harbor doubts about a looming global-warming crisis are quietly continuing to test alternative ideas about how climate works and what, if not the burning of fossil fuels, might be causing the temperature creep.

This week some of the doubters testified at a Senate hearing on global warming, perhaps their last chance to take the bully pulpit for at least two years, now that Congress is shifting to Democratic control. At a hearing chaired by Sen. James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, who has dismissed warnings of a global-warming crisis as a hoax, they expressed misgivings about the reliability of climate forecasts and questioned whether the current warming even is unusual, among other things.

These objections are not new, and many environmentalists and scientists say research has already passed them by. Moreover, they distract from the urgent need to get on with curbing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

Yet even critics acknowledge that science is a discipline that needs its maverick thinkers - and that the global-warming skeptics and their research provide a kind of reality check on the climatology field. They acknowledge, too, that scientific training, temperament, and field of specialty factor into the motivations of researchers who retain reservations about human-induced climate change.

"To imply that any scientist who has questions about global warming is somehow part of an orchestrated campaign" by industry or interest groups greatly oversimplifies the spectrum of motivations among those outside the consensus view, says Annie Petsonk, a lawyer with Environmental Defense. "It is much more complicated than that."

History shows that science is a field in which it can be difficult to achieve consensus - even when the question at hand has no public-policy implications. When the question gets tangled up with politics, economics, and lifestyles, the ranks of the unconvinced can thin far more grudgingly.

"Science moves slowly," says John Wallace, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington who used to be skeptical about human-induced warming. He cites the controversy over smoking and health as an example of skepticism's durability when public policy is involved.
Even after accounting for the influence of the tobacco lobby, "there were scientifically very conservative people who maintained ... doubt until very late in the game - much to the detriment of a lot of smokers," he says. They insisted, he says, on absolute certainty on the link between smoking and health.

Not all remaining skeptics fit neatly into one pigeonhole. They do agree that the climate has warmed and that humans have pumped more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. But some hold that the climate is too complex to reliably forecast its future trends. Other suggest that natural fluctuations in climate remain the main drivers of warming. Still others say that, on balance, warming will be good for humanity.

Within those broad groups, there's overlap and even ambivalence.

"There are days when I am involved in research and I would look to anyone like: This guy's completely on board," says Robert Balling Jr., an atmospheric scientist at Arizona State University who is often is identified as a a skeptic. "Other days, I might be involved in a project that could be seen on the skeptical side. I don't understand how someone working in this field for 15 years can publish nothing" but work supporting the consensus view "and not be a little skeptical."

Some who look at the climate issue through the lens of geological time hold that warming's impact on society pales in comparison with the sudden, natural swings in climate that can occur.
The triggers are unknown, and society is woefully unprepared for them, says Australian researcher Robert Carter, one of the testifiers before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on Wednesday. The global-warming debate, he argued, is a distraction that keeps people from focusing on what he sees as this greater threat.

The University of Oklahoma's David Deming went further, arguing for a form of geo-engineering to forestall the next ice age. In a phone interview, Dr. Deming said too little is known about how the climate system works to overhaul economies in an effort to affect it. He cites the mechanisms that cause ice ages as an example. And he points to work by Richard Muller, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who has suggested an unusual cosmic source for cooling cycles that occur roughly every 100,000 years.

But in an interview, Dr. Muller chuckles and notes that measurements he hoped would bolster his case for periodic swings through a patch of cosmic dust as the culprit so far failed to turn up evidence of dust.

He does have misgivings about computer modeling as a forecast tool and about uncertainties in climate-change science. But given the current state of the science, "we can't rule out that a substantial portion of the warming is due to human influence," he says. "And we have a plausible mechanism that can account for the changes. If we extrapolate those forward, the effects would be bad for the US," even if Canada and Russia might like a warmer climate.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

Backstory: The not-so-fine print on those discount fares

from the December 01, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1201/p20s01-algn.html

A fictional $99 fare to Paris comes with some, ahem, unexpected restrictions.

By Chuck Cohen

Great $99 roundtrip airfares from Chicago to Paris! (Some restrictions apply.)

* All seats are shared.

** Travel must begin on a Tuesday and end on a Wednesday, unless it is a nonleap year, in which case it must begin on the flight captain's birthday and end on his wedding anniversary, unless the captain is not married, in which case travel must wait until a full moon or Pamela Anderson starts dating Bill Moyers ... again.

*** Fare will be paid in drachmas obtained at the current rate of conversion or the rate determined by a panel of economists chosen by the airline who are familiar with the Greek monetary system, and who are resentful of Bill Moyers dating Pamela Anderson and have vowed to take it out on any passenger flying from Chicago to Paris for $99.

**** One free bathroom visit per flight.

***** Supplemental bathroom visits to be arranged in-flight and voted on by full fare- paying passengers.

****** The losing player in the hourly French pronoun contest will pay a supplemental fee of $300 per incorrectly pronounced word.

******* Fare must be bought in person at a participating 7-11 store along with purchase of two bags of ice. (A list of participating stores is available at www.99dollarfare.chump. Try to click on the moving logo three times and/or wish upon a star.)

******** Luggage will be checked via Vietnam.

********* All lost luggage will be considered lost.

********** Fare is conditional upon delivery of handwritten note from mother of passenger detailing number of visits to said mother in past year. If less than 112 visits, the offending passenger will be required to apologize to all mothers on the flight by opening their minibags of peanuts for them without biting into the bag.

*********** Food may be brought on plane so long as it contains no formerly living or growing ingredient. For a list of approved foodstuffs go to www.99dollarfare.chump and click on the Twinkie icon.

************ All fares are conditional upon airline adding 12 rows of nonreclining seats with breakaway tables.

************* Fares are totally refundable subject to said passenger having a legitimate reason for being unable to fly. Legitimate reasons are: 1. Extreme hair loss on day of flight. 2. Appearance before congressional committee to justify Father's Day gift of small Caribbean island, sans natives, to congressman. 3. Appearance in federal court to justify Father's Day gift of small Caribbean island, with natives, to congressman. 4. Inability to eat warm croissant without crumbs falling on lap.

• Chuck Cohen is an advertising writer in Mill Valley, Calif.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links