Glencoe Social Studies

CURRENTEVENTS UPDATE

FALL 2001

INCLUDES A SPECIAL

REPORT ON GLOBAL WARMING

Glencoe Partners With TIME!

To the Teacher:

In an ongoing effort to keep you and your students up to date on the complex and far-reaching events that are unfolding around the globe, Glencoe/McGraw-Hill provides this current events update twice a year.

Produced through a co-publishing relationship between Glencoe/McGraw-Hill and Time School Publishing, the Time/Glencoe CurrentEvents Update Fall 2001 brings the latest information about importanthappenings, issues and trends to your students in the vivid and compellingstyle for which Time is renowned. On the following pages, you’ll find newsreports, feature stories, chronologies, maps, graphs, charts and poll datataken exclusively from recent issues of Time. Accompanying these articlesare questions and worksheets to help students analyze and investigate thetopics about which they have been reading. We hope the Time/GlencoeCurrent Events Update Fall 2001 will lead your students to a deeper understanding of the latest developments in the United States and abroad.

Please visit Glencoe’s website at www.glencoe.com/sec/socialstudies

to access this update online. Additional resources for teaching currentevents are available on a weekly basis from the Time Classroom website,located at www.timeclassroom.com.

Best wishes,

Marty Nordquist Bennett SingerEditorial Director, Social Studies Executive EditorGlencoe/McGraw-Hill Time Classroom

1

Current Events UpdateA One-Man Earthquake..............................................................2

✍ WORKSHEET: The Jeffords Defection: Bold Move or Betrayal?.................5

Stupid Tax Tricks...........................................................................6

The Secretary of Missile Defense................................................8

Ghosts of the South.....................................................................10

Power Struggle..............................................................................11

Nuclear Summer...........................................................................14

✍ WORKSHEET: Nuclear Power in America: A Class Debate.....................16

Yahoo Lowers the Net...............................................................17

A Climate of Despair..................................................................19

✍ WORKSHEET: Global Warming: Policies and Consequences..................23

A Tour Without a Trip................................................................24

Safe Landing................................................................................26

Blair’s Next Move........................................................................28

Last Dance, Last Chance?..........................................................30

✍ WORKSHEET:Current Events In Review............................................32

Answers.........................................................Inside Back Cover

congress

defense

society

business

special report:

global warming

europe

china

britain

middle east

G L E N C O E S O C I A L S T U D I E S

N A T I O N

W O R L D

Copyright © 2001 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Permission is granted to repro-duce the material contained herein on thecondition that such material be repro-duced only for classroom use; be providedto students, teachers and families withoutcharge; and be used solely in conjunctionwith Glencoe products or time Classroom.

Any other reproduction, for use or sale, isprohibited without prior written permis-sion of the publisher.

Articles in this edition of time reports

originally appeared in time. Some selec-tions have been edited or condensed forinclusion in this collection. time and theRed Border Design are protected through

trademark registration in the UnitedStates and in the foreign countries wheretime Magazine circulates.

Send all inquiries regarding Glencoeproducts to:Glencoe/McGraw-Hill8787 Orion PlaceColumbus, OH 43240

For information on time Classroom,please call: 1-800-882-0852.

ISBN 0-07-826295-X

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 066 02 01 00

Printed in the United States of America

2 time, june 4, 2001

By KAREN TUMULTY/WASHINGTON

When senator jim jeffords bolted

from the Republican Party on May 24,throwing control of the Senate to theDemocrats and reprogramming theCapitol power grid, it took almost no

time for the first signs of the new order to appear.There was White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalezcooling his heels outside the Senate chamber untilDemocrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont, now the pre-sumptive chairman of the Judiciary Committee,could spare a moment to meet with him. There wasthe business lobbying group known as Arctic Power,quietly canceling a 10-state, $500,000 radio adblitz designed to sell Memorial Day motorists onPresident Bush’s plan to drill for oil in the Arctic Na-tional Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. There were the twodozen tripods set up a full hour before South Dako-ta Democrat Tom Daschle made his first marchdown the Capitol steps as Senate majority leader—

a striking change from the single c-span camerathat used to cover his news conferences. And finally,there was Senator Don Nickles (r-ok) gazing at thesign saying assistant majority leader that will nolonger greet him when he enters his office each day.“I like that sign,” he said ruefully.

A Senator’s decision to leave his party is a smalltectonic shift, but in the fragile geology of anevenly divided Senate, Jeffords’ decision shook theground, rattled the windows, wrecked the wallsand tossed the furniture. What made the shiftworse was that it happened in the middle of whatwas supposed to have been George W. Bush’smost triumphant week since the Inauguration.His signature tax cut was set to clear Congress,and his other big agenda item, education reform,passed the House. Republicans expected to gohome to their Memorial Day parades basking inthe first great accomplishments of the Bush era.

Then the ground buckled. Was it a one-manearthquake or an electoral aftershock? Having lost

A One-Man Earthquake Jim Jeffords’ defection from the g.o.p. turned Washington upside down. A guide to the brave new world Bush must now master

C O N G R E S S

WELCOME TOTHE NEW WASHINGTONBy MITCH FRANK

For months JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ)has been the Democrats’ favoriteco-sponsor on everything from apatient’s bill of rights to gun control.TED KENNEDY (D-MA) and JOHNEDWARDS (D-NC) like him somuch that they have been urging

the maverick to switch sides.Though McCain has declined, hethought about it long enough toprompt a dinner invitation from thePresident last week. The shift inpower only enhances his stature.“This move makes John McCain thede facto Republican leader in theSenate,” says a top Republican.

While McCain has reachedacross the aisle, some Republicansgrouse that TRENT LOTT (R-MS)can’t reach across his own party.Lott responded last Friday by givinga new leadership post to moderateARLEN SPECTER (R-PA) but mayface a fight to keep his job next year.

Bush political guru KARL ROVEmay need to rethink the WhiteHouse’s hardball tactics. His reac-

tion to Jeffords’ switch, portrayinghim as selfish and power hungry,shows the lesson hasn’t sunk in yet.

For TOM DASCHLE (D-SD), thenew challenge is to show he canlead with a slim margin. Daschleand majority whip HARRY REID (D-NV) must keep their fractiouscaucus together, especially the pow-erful Democrats who will take overas committee chairmen as a resultof the power shift (see box at right).The leaders may already face trou-ble as JOE BIDEN (D-DE) considerspushing for his old job running theJudiciary Committee rather thanForeign Relations. That could set offa chain reaction, forcing severalother Democratic chairmen toswitch jobs.

time, june 4, 2001 3

the popular vote and pulled the closest of victoriesfrom the rubble of Florida, Bush built his high-risepresidency dangerously close to the fault line. Hegoverned as though he had a mandate, muscled hisagenda through Congress by picking off a few con-servative Democrats and ignoring the rest, andpunished those who defied him.He could get away with it be-cause all the lawmaking horse-power was in Republican con-trol, and it seemed to be workingfor him—until Jeffords tore hishigh-rise down. Now, Daschletold Time, the balance of poweris “probably more in keeping with what the Amer-ican people intended.”

A new Time/cnn poll suggests he may be right:45% of those polled believe the country will bebetter off with the Senate in Democratic hands,while 36% prefer Republican control, and 19%aren’t sure. But this balancing act may also be aformula for gridlock, with each side able to blockthe other but neither able to push its priorities. Ifno one budges, “we’re all losers,” Daschle said.

How did this happen? Bush was determinednot to make his father’s fatal mistake of neglectingthe conservative Republican base. Instead, he mayhave repeated the near fatal one Bill Clinton madein his first two years in office. Having run as a

centrist who could forge a new bipartisan middle,Bush—like Clinton—started governing in a waythat seemed rather to cater to his party’s extreme.Where Clinton had gays in the military andHillarycare, Bush had Arctic drilling, global warm-ing, a Vice President who scoffs at conservation and

a hard-right Attorney General,John Ashcroft. As Jeffords an-nounced his decision to becomean independent, the Senator whotraces his family’s Republicanroots back to the days of Lincolnsaid, “Looking ahead, I see moreand more instances where I will

disagree with the President on very fundamental issues—the issues of choice, the direction of the judiciary, tax and spending decisions, missile defense, energy and the environment and a host ofother issues, large and small.”

What forced Clinton back to the center, ofcourse, was the landslide 1994 election that turnedboth houses of Congress over to the Republicansfor the first time in 40 years. He resculpted hispresidency in the image of his campaign, workingbudget deals with the Republicans, passing wel-fare reform with them, leaving his party behindwhen it wouldn’t come along.

Now that Bush has suffered a one-man versionof 1994, some moderate politicians are hoping he

C O N G R E S S

HEALTH, EDUCATION,LABOR & PENSIONS

WHO’S IN... EDWARD M. KENNEDY

Massachusetts WHO’S OUT... JAMES M. JEFFORDSVermont AND THE IMPACT ON...

π The Patient’s Bill of RightsMcCain, Kennedy and Edwards’bill will be the Dems’ first majorfight. Bush supports a weakerversion, but with Teddy runningthings, there’s little doubt whichwill reach the Senate floor first. π Minimum-Wage IncreaseKennedy may get it sooner now.Republicans will accept an increase if there’s tax relief forbusinesses.

ENVIRONMENT &PUBLIC WORKS

WHO’S IN... JAMES M. JEFFORDS

Vermont WHO’S OUT... BOB SMITHNew Hampshire

AND THE IMPACT ON... π Carbon Dioxide Emissions Jef-fords has already introduced a billto clean up power plants and limitCO2 emissions, a campaignpromise Bush dropped this year. π Fighting the Bush Energy Plan Jeffords will combat anyWhite House efforts to loosen environmental regulations toallow more oil and gas drilling.He supports increased nuclearenergy, however.

ARMED SERVICES

WHO’S IN... CARL LEVIN

Michigan WHO’S OUT... JOHN W. WARNER Virginia

AND THE IMPACT ON... π Missile Defense The WhiteHouse has been trying to limitSenate oversight of a missile defense system. Levin, a big NMDskeptic, could reduce researchfunding or order more testing before the system is built. π Pentagon Overhaul Don Rums-feld may face tough questions onhis strategic military review, butLevin will be more receptive thanWarner to trimming waste.

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

WHO’S IN... JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN

Connecticut WHO’S OUT... FRED THOMPSONTennessee AND THE IMPACT ON...

π Electoral Reform Liebermanand Thompson are already working on a bill to help statesupdate voting technology, anissue that’s been stalled. π Government OversightLieberman is no scandalmonger,so don’t expect multiple investi-gations. He’ll tackle governmentefficiency issues, and the biggermicrophone will certainly help in2004.

IND

≤I SEE MORE AND MOREINSTANCES WHERE

I WILL DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT.≥SENATOR JIM JEFFORDS

4 time, june 4, 2001

will make a similar mid-course correction. Butthe White House rejects the comparison and argues that no changes are necessary. This wasno national referendum, Administration officialssay, just one wobbly liberal who decided to walk offthe end of the pier—perhaps, they suggest, to sal-vage a chairmanship he was slated to lose in 18months under Senate rules. “This is a guy who saidhe found it impossible to support an agenda thatthe President has spent two years talking about,”says Bush strategist Karl Rove. And it is true thaton the issue that Jeffords cares most about—edu-cation—Bush has moved to the left, cutting dealswith Ted Kennedy and abandoning school vouch-ers. White House communications director KarenHughes says Jeffords “was quite comfortable remaining in the Republican Party when the lead-ers talked about abolishing the Department ofEducation, but he’s not comfortable with a Presi-dent committed to education.”

Those arguments ignore the fact that many ofBush’s most conservative agenda items were hiddenaway in the campaign’s fine print and coveredover by his big messages about moderation andhelping the little guy. His compassionate rhetoricmasked his conservatism, but five months of deci-sion-making have pulled off the mask.

If all that has just dawned on Jeffords, he hasplenty of company. The Time/cnn poll showspublic disapproval of the job Bush is doing hasclimbed 14 points since early February, to 38%;nearly half of those polled say they are somewhator very unlikely to vote for him next time.

Rove and others insist there will be no change ofplan. Some Republicans even claim that this was nobig deal, that they could still pick off the Democratsthey needed and would now have someone toblame when they couldn’t. But plans are already inplace to soften Bush’s image on energy and theenvironment, largely through the sort of publicevents that worked so well during the campaign.White House strategists are also planning somesymbolic overtures to g.o.p. moderates to tampdown any rebellion Jeffords might have inspired.

As for Tom Daschle, his new job will be thesecond hardest in Washington. “It’s still the same100 people. You still have the close division ofparties and philosophies, so I don’t think anythingbecomes easier,” he told Time. “The only thingthat radically changes is who sets the agenda.”

If Daschle cannot dictate how the Senate willwork, he and his committee chairmen will havethe power to decide which bills reach the floor. Hecan force the debate to happen on his terms, atleast in his half of the Capitol.

Though all it took was one Senator to fracture thelandscape in the capital, it will take everyone to putit back together. On Wednesday, Daschle calledBush, and the two spoke for the first time sinceMarch. Thanks to a quiet man named Jeffords,Bush may finally have the opportunity to create thekind of Washington he promised last fall. π

Questions

1. Why did Jim Jeffords switch political parties?2. What impact did Jeffords’ decision have on theSenate and the President?

C O N G R E S S

Reactions to the Jeffords Defectionπ Would the country be better off if Republicans or Democrats controlled the U.S. Senate?Better off with Republicans..............................36% Better off with Democrats...............................45%

π Do you approve or disapprove of Vermont SenatorJames Jeffords’ decision to switch from the RepublicanParty to independent status?Approve................41% | Disapprove................51%

π Do you approve or disapprove of the way PresidentBush is handling his job?

FEB. MAYApprove 52% Approve 52%

Disapprove 24% Disapprove 38%

π Is Bush a leader you can trust, or do you have doubtsand reservations?Trust................45% | Have doubts................53%

π Do you favor or oppose Bush’s plan to deal with thecountry’s current energy problems?Favor..................38% | Oppose..................42%

π Do you favor or oppose the tax-cut plan before Congress?Favor..................49% | Oppose..................37%

From a telephone poll of 1,031 adult Americans taken for TIME/CNN on May 23–24by Harris Interactive. Sampling error is +-3.1%. “Not sures” omitted.

T I M E / C N N P O L L

Worksheet Prepared by Time School Publishing 5

Name Date ✍WORKSHEET

The Jeffords Defection: Bold Move or Betrayal?Senator Jim Jeffords’ decision to switch from the Republican Party to the Independent Party provoked a wide range of reactions. Was Jeffords’ “declaration of independence” an act of courage or of selfishness?Did it demonstrate the Senator’s vision or his pettiness?

As you read “A One-Man Earthquake” on page 2, underline statements that are affirming of Jeffords’ decision. Circle statements that are hostile toward Jeffords. After reading, look over the highlighted passages and select the two statements—one affirming and one hostile—that make the most convincing argument. Then complete two copies of this worksheet, using one page for each point of view.

AFFIRMING HOSTILE

1. Select a statement from the article that isaffirming or hostile, check the correspondingcircle above, and write the quote here.

2. Paraphrase the statement in your own words.

3. Extend the point. Add your own commen-tary or observations to strengthen the argument made in the selected statement.

4. Offer counterpoint to the argument. Provide a statement or observation to question, refute or critique the point made in the selected statement.

5. Share your ideas. Exchange worksheetswith a partner and read your partner’s quote,point and counterpoint. Respond to his or herthoughts and arguments in the space below.

6. State your own views. On the back of thispage, explain whether you support or opposeJim Jeffords’ decision to become an Indepen-dent. Be sure to cite specific reasons for yourposition.

6 time, june 11, 2001

By DANIEL KADLEC

At first there was clarity and disci-

pline behind the shaping of the nation’slargest tax cut in 20 years. Lobbyists werekept at bay. Businesses were told to waittheir turn because other cuts would be

coming. This one, the Republicans promised,would focus on individual taxpayers and makegood sense. It would simplify the filing processwhile promoting long-term economic growththrough tax savings of some $1,600 a year for theaverage household.

Then it all went bad. Late in May, during threedays of chaotic, last-minute, closed-door negoti-ations between House and Senate leaders, Wash-ington demonstrated its immense talent for muck-ing things up. A tax package was rushed throughCongress just in time for lawmakers to make theMemorial Day barbecues back home, and whatshould have been a taxpayer feast looks insteadlike a botched grilling. Most households will seeless than $600 of savings this year, and as for

simpler tax returns, well, that’s just a laugh. Amore confusing tax bill is hard to imagine.

The mess that the President signed this week isloaded with targeted tax breaks and maddeningphase-ins and phase-outs—tax reductions thatcome and go like a spring afternoon. It containssome last-minute special-interest morsels, includ-ing one that may be a precursor to school vouchers.Most of the relief comes at the tail end of the 10-year plan—and the year after that, the whole thingdisappears, restoring in 2011 the very same taxlaws that were in force last April 15.

Is Bush to blame? Perhaps. But not alone. Hemay have turned on the Washington meat grinder,but both parties fed it foul flesh. And both sideswere so hungry for a bill that neither paid close attention to what the bill was. “Nobody was downthere on the Senate floor combing through thedetails,” says a Democratic Senator’s chief of staff.Most Senators and House members were cluelessabout the bill’s fine print right up to the vote.

On the House side, only the ranking Ways andMeans members—Republican Representative Bill

Stupid Tax Tricks Dumb stunts make the tax cut seem affordable—before it disappears

C O N G R E S S

That Dog Just Won’t HuntThese tax tricks are cute, and they hidealmost $5 trillion in long-term costs

π SUNSET CLAUSETHE TRICK Budget rules require a “sunset” provision—an expiration date for all cuts. But this bill pulls a fast one. It sunsets in late 2010, a year after the cuts fully take effect.THE COST The 11-year plan was too costly, so Congressdid a 10-year, $1.35 trillion plan. If renewed, its seconddecade will cost $4 trillion.

π ESTATE TAXTHE TRICK Bush’s plan repealed the “death tax” in 2009,reducing it and gradually exempting more estates. The finalbill doesn’t repeal it until early 2010.

THE COST The sunset eliminates the cut 12 months later,creating a short window for tax-free inheritance. One Democrat called it “the death bubble year of 2010.”

π MARRIAGE PENALTYTHE TRICK The Bush plan started phasing in marriage-penalty relief right away, eliminating the penalty by 2006. In the final bill, couples see no relief before 2005, get full relief in 2009, then lose it all in late 2010.THE COST Keeps costs down, but so much for thepromise of speedy relief. Will voters mind?

π AMT RELIEFTHE TRICK The alternative minimum tax (AMT) keepswealthy taxpayers from deducting too much. But inflation isforcing more of the middle class to pay. The bill gives relief,then axes it after 2004.THE COST Extending relief to 2011 would add almost$250 trillion to the final cost.

time, june 11, 2001 7

Thomas and Democrat Charles Rangel—were involved in late-hour haggling. Among the Senators,the conferees included Republicans Charles Grass-ley, Trent Lott and Don Nickles and DemocratsMax Baucus, Tom Daschle, Jay Rockefeller andJohn Breaux. But for most of the final 48-hourmarathon to complete the bill before MemorialDay, only Grassley, Thomas, Breaux and Baucuswere actually in the room.

Rangel, who at one point during negotiationswas asked to leave the room because the Repub-licans wanted to negotiate among themselves outof earshot of a Democrat, calls the bill “a fraud onthe American people.” He and others charge thatthe bill underestimates the true cost of the taxcuts by half a trillion dollars and that it is aimedsquarely at the richest Americans.

Republicans, of course, take offense at the char-acterization. “That demagoguery and class-warfarerhetoric is pure nonsense,” says Republican whipNickles. “Low-income taxpayers get immediate relief retroactively. Some people are just throwingarrows and playing class warfare because they doit out of habit, not out of knowledge of the bill.”

Yet the sponsors of the bill—those who know itbest—are hard-pressed to explain it. Topping the listof odd features is the “sunset” provision that repealsthe entire bill at the end of 2010. Budget rules require Congress to include a sunset clause in allmajor tax legislation, but this sunset arrives a yearearly—after 10 years instead of the 11 years coveredby the current budget resolution. That year was

shaved off to keep the total cost of the bill under$1.35 trillion. By repealing the legislation in the 10thyear, Congress saved billions of dollars. Without therepeal and a few other tricks, the cost of the full 11-year plan would balloon to more than $1.8 trillionby the end of 2011, far exceeding anything the Democrats would vote for. And the cost in the sec-ond decade would reach as much as $4 trillion.After both parties agreed to a smaller tax cut, theconference committee pulled a fast one.

These bigger numbers remain relevant becauseno future Congress wants to commit political sui-cide by allowing this tax cut to expire. Simply stat-ed, all of Washington knows many of these provi-sions are in effect permanently. The Big Lie is thatit costs only $1.35 trillion. Since the real cost ismuch greater, future Administrations—and Con-gresses—will have to deal with a political nightmare:the real possibility of deficit spending a decadefrom now as baby boomers begin to retire en masseand sap the Social Security and Medicare systems.

The machinery is in place to begin mailing arebate check of $300 to $600 to nearly every tax-payer by the end of September. All told, the rebateswill inject $40 billion into the economy. Manyeconomists believe that may be enough to holdoff a recession. π

Questions

1. What are the major provisions of the tax-cutlegislation that President Bush signed into law? 2. Why does the writer view the tax cut as “a mess”?

C O N G R E S S

INCOME HOUSEHOLD CURRENT LAW NEW TAX LAW SAVINGS

$25,000 single, no children $2,633 $2,283 $350

$25,000 married, 2 children $1,500 credit $3,702 credit $2,202

$75,000 single, no children $11,422 $10,283 $1,139

$75,000 married, 2 children $5,698 $3,998 $1,700

$150,000 single, no children $31,102 $27,767 $3,336

$150,000 married, 2 children $24,619 $21,866 $2,753

$400,000 single, no children $110,036 $95,979 $14,056

$400,000 married, 2 children $104,878 $90,888 $13,989

$1,000,000 married, 2 children $306,838 $259,281 $47,557

TAX-CUT SCORECARDCongress passed, andPresident Bush signed,a 10-year, $1.35 trillionplan that offers savingsto every taxpayer. Thistable shows the effectin 2010, when it is fullyphased in.

Source: Deloitte & Touche

8 time, may 14, 2001

By MARK THOMPSON/WASHINGTON

No one is as familiar with the frustra-

tions of building missile defenses as Sec-retary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Backin 1975, when Rumsfeld was Gerald Ford’sDefense Secretary—he’s the only person to

have held the job twice—he inherited the Penta-gon’s first attempt at a missile-defense shield, the$25 billion Safeguard system, designed to protect150 Minuteman missiles dotting North Dakota.

But cost and technology woes plagued Safe-guard. Rumsfeld, a onetime g.o.p. Congressmanfrom Illinois, knew it. Even worse, the Sovietswere rendering Safeguard useless by putting mul-tiple warheads atop each of their missiles. Afterthree months as Defense Secretary, under ordersfrom Congress, Rumsfeld shut it down.

So, last week, when Rumsfeld, three monthsinto his second tour of duty as Defense chief,launched an offensive to build another missiledefense, it was a surprising new chapter. Andwhen President Bush stepped to the microphoneat the National Defense University and declaredhis unswerving commitment to the costly andcontroversial project, “Rummy,” as old friendscall him, stood by proudly. As head of a 1998panel weighing the ballistic-missile threat faced bythe U.S., Rumsfeld had helped build politicalpressure for just the kind of shield that Bush wasproposing. In the quarter-century since he had putSafeguard out of its misery, Rumsfeld had be-come convinced that national missile defensewas not only technologically possible but also es-sential to America’s national security.

But the reality is that there is no shield at theready. Simply pouring billions into such programswon’t ensure success anytime soon. Building amissile shield is a challenge on a par with buildingthe atom bomb and putting a man on the moon.

Democrats, however, are balking. Even the cia’s lat-est threat analysis says the most likely threats are notincoming missiles but rather such portable weaponsof mass destruction as truck and suitcase bombs.

So what’s Don Rumsfeld to do? Given the con-straints imposed by physics, fiscal reality and foreignpolicy, the man who served as co-chair of BobDole’s failed 1996 campaign will have to use BillClinton’s system as his base. Pentagon officials sayBush’s system will have to begin with Clinton’sground-based system—a handful of missiles deployed as early as 2004—followed by more re-search into ship- and plane-based interceptors.

While Rumsfeld’s shop faces the challenge ofbuilding the shield, it is the nation’s diplomatsspreading out over the world who face the equal-ly arduous task of selling it overseas. Washington’sallies and its foes have grown accustomed to deal-ing with a world filled with nuclear weapons.During the cold war, the Anti-ballistic MissileTreaty of 1972 ensured that the U.S. and the SovietUnion would remain naked to the other’s atomicwrath. While the logic of such mutual assureddestruction was ghoulish, it did have one thinggoing for it: it worked.

Not surprisingly, China reacted most vehementlyto the Bush-Rumsfeld speech, saying the U.S. “hasviolated the abm Treaty, will destroy the balance ofinternational security forces and could cause anew arms race.” Beijing knows even the initiallymodest system proposed by Clinton could renderobsolete their 20 single-warhead, long-range mis-siles, which can reach the West Coast of America.Once that system is in place, Beijing’s leveragewith the U.S.—especially on the touchy topic ofTaiwan—could be crippled. π

Questions

1. What is the purpose of a missile-defense system?2. Why is Rumsfeld’s proposal controversial?

The Secretary of Missile DefenseWhen it comes to the new “space shield,” Donald Rumsfeld is both architect and evangelist. Will his costly idea fly?

D E F E N S E

SPACE- BASEDLASER

INTERCEPTOR MISSILE

NAVAL INTERCEPTOR MISSILE

AIRBORNE LASER

EARLY- WARNINGSATELLITE

HIGH-RESOLUTION RADAR

COMMAND AND CONTROL

Additional facilities and equipment would be needed to support these systems

KILL VEHICLE

ENEMYMISSILELAUNCH

BOOST PHASEDECOYS

WARHEAD

A multilayered system—high-tech satellites, ships, planes and “kill vehicles”—offers the best chance of destroying incoming missiles. But the latticework of national missile defense poses daunting technological challenges. Experts say even the cheapest layered system will start at $100 billion and that systems deploying space-based lasers could cost double that. OAnd, not surprisingly, Oeach branch of the military wants in on Othe action. Here’s how the different layers would work: OO

HOW IT WORKS

UPSIDE

DOWNSIDE

The crown jewel for any missile-defense system, advocates say, is a constellation of satellites armed with lasers. They would scour the skies on their own—no need for mere humans—detecting and blasting enemy rockets during the “boost phase,” shortly after launch.

Based aboard existing warships, this layer would be built by the Navy using improved versions of its Aegis radar and Standard missile. A fleet could protect wide sections of the globe.

The Air Force is also developing another boost-phase system, designed to shoot down missiles as they climb into space. In order to shoot down, say, an Iraqi or a North Korean missile, the Pentagon would probably base the planes as close to those countries as possible.

This has been the Pentagon’s missile defense of choice for the past decade, which is why it is the most ready to be built. Current plans call for about 200 missiles based in Alaska and North Dakota.

BIG-BUCKS @BLUEPRINT

Space-based heat detectors would spy a launch and cue the lasers to track and destroy enemy missiles early in flight. Each satellite could down as many as 100 enemy missiles up to 2,500 miles away without refueling.

These extremely complex Air Force satellites must be small enough to be launched into orbit. Packing such a punch into a small package won’t be easy.

Protection for all, from all. The Pentagon predicts that 12 satellites could destroy 94% of incoming missiles, while a 24-satellite system could eliminate virtually all threats.

Linked to space and ground radar, shipboard missiles would be fired at enemy missiles in midflight. Navy planners believe a modified Aegis radar system, originally designed to shoot down enemy airplanes and cruise missiles, could also detect and destroy long-range ballistic missiles.

A sea-based system has mobility that a land-based system lacks, and is capable of quickly moving to troubled areas.

The Antiballistic Missile Treaty bars sea-based systems. There’s also concern inside the Pentagon that the planned nonexplosive kill vehicle—which weighs less than 40 lbs.—will be too small to destroy the enemy’s warheads.

Beyond the amazing technology involved, a fleet of laser-wielding 747s would be costly—and a tempting and vulnerable target.

Destroying missiles early in flight—before they have disgorged their warheads and decoys—dramatically simplifies the defender’s task.

A sophisticated oxygen-iodine laser is crammed into the nose of a 747. Targeting a laser through many miles of air is challenging, so 324 quarter-inch pistons, each pulsating up to 1,000 times per sec., control the laser's focus and allow it to kill the enemy missile.

Because the 120-lb. interceptor carries no explosives—it destroys a missile simply by colliding with it—it must be extremely accurate. What’s more, it must discriminate between warheads and decoys, which is no easy feat. And say goodbye to Europe and Japan. Only the U.S. and Canada would be protected.

Even though it has failed two of its three tests, this is the Pentagon’s ripest option.

1 2 3 4SPACE BASED SEA BASED AIR BASED GROUND BASEDAVAILABLE: 2020, if then COST: $50 billion-$100 billion, for starters

AVAILABLE: 2010 COST: $15 billion on top of $50 billion already spent on Aegis ships

AVAILABLE: 2006 COST: $6.4 billion for a seven-plane laser fleet

AVAILABLE: By 2004, a small number of interceptors could be standing guard

The interceptors, cued by satellites and long-range radar, would destroy enemy warheads as they streaked toward targets in the U.S.

TIME Graphic by Joe Lertola

United States

United States tim

e,

may 1

4,

20

01

9

10 time, april 30, 2001

Ghosts ofthe SouthMississippi votes to keep the Confederate emblem on its state flag,sparking both furor and celebration

By STEVE LOPEZ

Old ideas die hard in the rural south.

And progress has made loyalists moremilitant about holding onto their idea ofDixie: its history and heritage, its familyand sovereignty, its thumb in the eye of

Northern culture and, for some, its codes of racialsuperiority and subjugation.

Last week Mississippians voted 2 to 1 to retaina state flag dominated by the Confederate em-blem—the last one in the South,since Georgia redesigned its flagJan. 30. A coalition of businessand civil rights leaders spent closeto $700,000 arguing that the oldflag insults African Americans andrepels investment, but only 18 ofMississippi’s 82 counties voted tochange it.

South Carolina last year re-moved the Confederate flag fromatop the state capitol, but then.a.a.c.p. still boycotts the statebecause the flag now flies elsewhere on the capi-tol grounds. Last month in Virginia, when Gov-ernor Jim Gilmore replaced the old, pro-rebelstate proclamation of Confederate History Monthwith a new one honoring “all Virginians whoserved in the Civil War,” the Sons of ConfederateVeterans condemned him for “honoring peoplewho . . . murdered, raped and pillaged.” In Selma,Ala., a battleground in the 1960s civil rights move-ment, whites are militant in defense of a newstatue of Confederate hero Nathan Bedford For-

rest, even though he was the first Grand Wizardof the Ku Klux Klan.

A longtime member of the Sons of ConfederateVeterans and headmaster of a private Mississippischool, William Earl Faggert helped gather 212,000signatures in favor of the successful effort to leavethe rebel symbol on the state flag. The flag hasflown since 1894. (In other Southern states, flagsbearing the Confederate symbol weren’t raiseduntil after federal antisegregation legislation was en-acted in the 1960s, a fact that routs the “history-and-heritage” argument the way Grant routed Lee.)Faggert contends that anyone who understandshistory respects the flag and rejects the notion thatit is a sign of slavery or hatred. It was under that flagthat his ancestors defended home and familyagainst an invading army. “The whole issue of raceis being used by our opponents to inflame emotion.”

Dolphus Weary, executive director of a religiousgroup called Mission Mississippi, and Lee Paris, aneighbor of Weary’s who runs a real estate business,were both on the committee that recommended theremoval of the Confederate symbol. When Weary

was growing up, that flag meanthe wouldn’t ride the new bus tothe better school. It meant hewouldn’t live on the right side ofthe tracks. It meant his relativescould cook and clean for whitepeople but couldn’t sit at the sametable. “And I was taught that thereason we seceded from theNorth was to maintain that sys-tem,” he says.

Paris says that although he willalways love the state flag, the Ku

Klux Klan stole it from him and made it a symbolof hate. Because of his friendship with Weary andother African Americans, and because “as a Chris-tian man I cannot do that which harms my broth-er,” Paris voted to bring the flag down. π

Questions

1. What was the outcome of the initiative to removethe Confederate emblem from the Mississippi flag?2. What arguments are cited for and against main-taining the rebel flag in Mississippi?

S O C I E T Y

The proposed Mississippistate flag, pictured here, was rejected by voters in

64 of the state’s 82 counties.

time, may 21, 2001 11

By DANIEL KADLEC

Jim schupp is looking on the bright side.

With gas at the pump now topping $2 a gal. inhis neighborhood and seemingly headed high-er, he figures it’s payback for all those insufferable, phony-rich, new-economy

yuppies in their view-blocking, death-dealing,friend-of-opec suvs. “Gas will probably go to $3,and I applaud it,” says the retired computer-com-pany executive as he fills the tankof his light pickup truck at a sta-tion in Los Angeles. “I’d like tosee all gas guzzlers off the road.”

Well, that’s one view of a press-ing energy crisis suddenly muchlarger than the state of Califor-nia. Pedal-to-the-metal increas-es—not just in gasoline but in heating oil, natural gasand electricity—are a state of mind across the land,and most folks aren’t appeased by Schupp’s silver-lining view. Gasoline at the self-serve pump, for ex-ample, sells at a national average of more than$1.70 a gal.—up 5% in the past two weeks. That’s anall-time high, although when adjusted for infla-tion the price is still lower than 1981’s by about$1. But it follows a winter in which many home-owners saw heating costs soar more than 50%.

The creeping fear of unaffordable power hasPresident George W. Bush looking for a backuppolicy generator as he prepares to unveil an energy program that is very fossil-fuel friendly—and simpatico with his and Vice President DickCheney’s long ties to Big Oil. Bush says his poli-cy, which stresses greater production over con-servation, is a long-term solution.

Cheney, the former oil-service-company exec-utive who is driving Bush’s energy bus, has blunt-

ly warned that there will be no magic bullet todeal with high gasoline prices or electricity short-ages. And late last week, the President scoffed at theidea of intervening in the marketplace. “There’s nosuch thing as immediate supply,” he said.

But by Friday the White House had gone intoreverse, even suggesting that the federal gas tax,which Bush vowed to protect, might be rolledback temporarily. The President then used theoccasion to sell his tax cut. “If the Congress is

interested in helping consumerspay for higher gas prices, theyshould pass the tax cut as quick-ly as possible,” he said.

Essentially that would trans-fer money from the governmentto oil companies, via consumers—not exactly a populist move. Bush

could suffer if he fails to relate to the immediateneeds of people like Walter Melendez, who pullsover to top off his tank whenever his gas gaugedrops below three-quarters of a tank. “I’m afraid it’sgoing to be $4 next time,” says Melendez, a com-puter technician in L.A., where radio waves are fullof energy talk.

The pain at the pump has put Big Oil in theprofiteering spotlight again, albeit with an Internettwist. At least one widely distributed chain e-mailencourages readers to boycott stations operatedby ExxonMobil, the largest gasoline retailer in theU.S. Exxon’s profits roared 44% higher in the firstquarter, to $5 billion, on fattened profit margins.The 27 largest energy firms in the U.S. earned$14.1 billion in the fourth quarter of 2000—morethan double their profits in the same period a yearearlier, according to the Energy InformationAgency. Of course, there were no complaints whileExxon’s profits were falling 33% between 1997

B U S I N E S S

Power StruggleBush takes the heat for an energy policy that’s warm to oil and cool to conservation

≤PEOPLE ARE ASKING US,‘WHAT ARE YOU GUYS

GOING TO DO ABOUT THESEHIGH ENERGY PRICES?’≥

REP. J.C. WATTS JR. (R-OK)

12 time, may 21, 2001

and 1999. But markets are often more rationalthan people.

Consumers’ energy quandaries aren’t just at thepumps, as Californians know well. Last week theWest Coast was hit again with sporadic powerblackouts, further testimony to a botched deregu-lation effort that failed to encourage adding ca-pacity in that state. Sizzling temperatures last Mon-day saw rolling blackouts for 103,000 customers. OnTuesday blackouts affected 300,000 more. Movietheaters went dark. Restaurants closed. Trafficlights went kaput. State officials predict 34 moresuch days before the fall. And in a frightening report, consultants at McKinsey & Co. say therecould be a blackout somewhere in California onevery single weekday over the summer.

That’s just California, right? Most now agreethat the Northeast too is vulnerable as folks flick onthe ac. Some believe problems lurk even in the lessdensely populated Southwest and Midwest.

Of course, the whole scare may be a fake-out.For every expert with a panicky prediction, there’sanother with a view that things are under control.Eugene McGrath, chairman of Consolidated Edi-son in the New York City region, says his compa-ny has plenty of juice, and that electricity ratesought to be about the same as last summer—agood thing, given that rates spiked a year agoand stayed there. He’s not predicting any powershortages in his area.

As for gasoline, Bill Veno, director of the Glob-al Oil Practice of Cambridge Energy ResearchAssociates, says changing market conditions can’tsustain gas at $2 a gal., never mind the $3 thatalarmists are bandying about. “We believe gaso-line prices may well have peaked, and could comedown,” he says, noting that refineries are run-ning flat out and inventories have begun to build.

That rosier scenario would provide some tem-porary political relief for the White House; but itwon’t change the President’s approach. The Bush-Cheney plan is certain to focus on increasing energyproduction. After all, you won’t find any tree hug-gers in the White House: just a proud Texan whosank a few wells in the oil patch and his deputy, Ch-eney, a Texas transplant who made millions as ceo

of Halliburton. Those ties give critics plenty tolatch onto as the President and the Veep call foropening a pristine Alaskan preserve for oil drillingand for putting a new power plant online everyweek for the next 20 years.

“I’m totally unimpressed with the Bush Administration’s energy policy,” says Gary Locke,Washington State’s Democratic Governor. “Weneed to generate more energy, and we need to beself-sufficient, but we can’t just rely on natural gasand oil exploration. We shouldn’t try to dig, drill,burn and pollute our way to energy security.”

Locke argues that it will take half a decade toget new energy to market. He is one of many

B U S I N E S S

Bush’s Energy Plan. . . Supply, supply, supply. The WhiteHouse’s top priority is raising supply—especially fossil fuels—to match demand. The goal: 1,300new power plants by 2020.

COAL Ease environmentalrules on coal-burning powerplants while spending $2billion to research cleanerways to burn it

PRO Plentiful, cheap coal provides morethan half of U.S. electricity

CON Worst of fossil fuels for CO2 emissions.Price has been declining for so long thatsome mines cannot find workers

OIL/GAS Use tax incentives toencourage new drilling, includ-ing on federal lands

PRO Reduces dependence onforeign oil. Natural gas is cleanest fossil fuel

CON Bush faces a fight in Congress to openANWR. One spill in Alaska could forever tarthe Administration.

POWER PLANTS/REFINER-IES Bush will streamline theregulatory process for build-ing plants and refineries. Hehas even courted labor unionswith the promise of the construc-tion projects

PRO Blackouts? What blackouts?

CON Can deregulated utilities really afford to build more plants?

NUCLEAR The country hasnot built a new plant in almost30 years. Bush would make iteasier, and he would fund research on nuclear-waste storage

PRO Emits no greenhouse gases; newertechnologies have made modern plantsmuch safer

CON The stigma—who wants a new ThreeMile Island in his suburb?

CONSERVATION With environ-mentalists attacking his plan, Bushis playing up its greener parts—taxcredits for hybrid electric/gas carsand research into alternative fuels

PRO Something is better than nothing

CON His budget cuts federal research dol-lars, leaving the work to the private sector

time, may 21, 2001 13

Bush Administration critics who prefer a policythat says, “Conservation equals generation.” In-deed, a report by leading scientists, three years inthe making, finds that a government-led programof conservation could reduce demand anywherefrom 20% to 47%. Bush’s people play down thefindings, arguing that they are just theoretical.

Cheney’s proposal reflects the Administration’sdeep belief that the free market is best equippedto sort out short-term issues. “It’s pretty astonish-ing,” says a Democratic Senate staff memberbriefed on the general outlines of the report. “Theyhave a fundamental belief that if you leave theseenergy markets alone, they’ll right themselves.”

Even Republican Congressmen, who face voterwrath more frequently than Senators, are gettingantsy. “People are asking us, ‘What are you guysgoing to do about these high energy prices?’” saysOklahoma Representative J.C. Watts Jr. “High gasprices didn’t happen overnight, but explainingthat to voters is tough.” g.o.p. Congressmen don’twant to return to angry town meetings in their dis-tricts with an energy plan that lacks concrete stepsto deal with high gas prices and energy brownouts.“We’ve got members of Congress who are freakedout over this,” says a senior House g.o.p. aide.

The Bushies complain that enviros and mostDemocrats haven’t bothered to wait for the re-lease of the new proposal before dismissing it as a

sop to Big Oil. They criticize the Clinton Adminis-tration for neglecting the nation’s long-term ener-gy needs. And they scoff at critics who suggests thatthe White House is too close to the energy sector.

Yet the protests of the Administration, say crit-ics, ring as hollow as an empty oil drum. It con-sulted heavily with energy-industry lobbyists butspent little time talking to environmentalists. TheAdministration’s last-minute rush to portray itsplan as “balanced” between promoting increaseddomestic production and encouraging conserva-tion may come across as a public relations gesture.Even some insiders concede that conservationmeasures were tacked on to the plan recently in re-sponse to what one calls “arsenic and co2,” refer-ring to the beating Bush took for his stand on sev-eral environmental issues this spring.

On drilling in Alaska, Energy Secretary SpencerAbraham does not argue that the public and Con-gress are ready to support the idea. But, he asks,“do we think we should take 2,000 acres of a 19million-acre refuge that can in fact be environ-mentally, sensitively produced and try to buildmore energy independence in the U.S.? I think it’sa fair debate to have.” π

Questions

1. What are the key points of Bush’s energy plan?2. How do critics view the Bush plan?

B U S I N E S S

. . . and an alternativeDick Cheney calls conservation apersonal virtue. But advocates saynew technology has made it a viable alternative to simply drillingfor more oil and gas. Some options:

HOME APPLIANCES Advances in efficiency forrefrigerators, clothes washers and other appli-ances can cut consumption. When Bushtoned down Clinton’s rules for air condi-tioners, which had some industry support,he created a need for 37 new power plants

PRO The technology is already here

CON More regulations are not a Republicanfavorite

AT HOME Bush will not encour-age us to change our lifestyles,but some utilities are. One Wash-

ington utility gives out coupons formore efficient light bulbs. A Los Angelesutility offers customers $10,000 to switchtheir homes to solar energy

PRO Conservation starts at home. It’s painless

CON Utilities won’t pay if supply increases

NATURAL GAS The clean-est fossil fuel, natural gas, hasrisen in use dramatically in

the past decade. If Bush reversed himselfand imposed limits on CO2 emissions, gaswould be even more attractive to utilitiesthat will need to comply

PRO Cleaner than coal and oil

CON Price spikes have stung consumers in thepast few years. Would still mean more drilling

RENEWABLE FUELS Solar, windand geothermal energy are grow-ing. Some states have set renew-able portfolio standards, forcingutilities to get some of their powerfrom these eco-friendly sources.

PRO More power, cleanly

CON Bush spent a good part of his campaignmocking Al Gore’s kooky solar-energy ideas

FUEL EFFICIENCY With Fordand GM arguing overwho is greener, it maybe time to raise fuel-efficiency rules. Closingthe light-truck loophole that holds SUVs toa lower standard could save almost a billionbarrels of oil a year

PRO Less pollution, fewer fill-ups

CON People like having biggest car on block

By DANIEL EISENBERG

Three mile island. chernobyl. and don’t

forget The China Syndrome. With theirlong, notorious track records of burningmoney and spewing toxic waste, it’s hard toimagine that nuclear power plants could

ever again be hot properties. But in Vernon, Vt.,some of the nation’s largest energy companies arebattling to gobble one up. The Vermont Yankeeplant, a 28-year-old nuclear war-horse, has be-come the target of a bidding war.

With the price of oil and nat-ural gas escalating, concernsabout global warming rising andelectricity markets deregulating,these onetime white elephantsare starting to look more like cashcows. The Vermont battle, in fact,is just the latest stop on an industrywide shoppingspree that is fueling a nuclear resurgence. By theend of the decade, new nuclear power plants couldbe sprouting up right here at home: the NuclearRegulatory Commission (nrc) has already ap-proved the next generation of supposedly cheaper,safer plant designs.

While California braces for a summer of rollingblackouts and New York City prays that the lightsstay on, Washington is helping ignite a fire undernuclear power. As part of the hotly debated nationalenergy plan that he unveiled last week, PresidentGeorge Bush called nuclear energy “a major com-ponent” of any solution. Critics, not surprisingly, saythe comeback of the $43 billion-a-year industry isa step in the wrong direction that will threatenthe environment as well as public health and safe-ty. Nor did the Administration’s unexpected rec-ommendation to take another look at reprocessingspent nuclear fuel get a particularly warm reaction.

Over the past few years, the nuclear industry’stop players, led by Entergy and Exelon (formed bythe merger of Philadelphia-based peco Energyand Chicago native Unicom), have shelled outnearly $4 billion to purchase 15 of the nation’s 103operating plants—including such unlikely prizesas the surviving sister unit of Pennsylvania’s infamous Three Mile Island No. 2 reactor.

These new nuclear powers, which also includeDuke Energy, Southern Co., Dominion Resourcesand Constellation Energy, have reversed years

of mismanagement and costoverruns to turn the plants intothe reliable, profitable atomicengines they were meant to be.

Their secret? They’re betteroperators than the former own-ers, publicly owned utilities, andthey can use economies of scale

to their advantage. Despite the fact that no newplants have been ordered in almost a quarter-cen-tury, the nuclear power sector still accounts for20% of the nation’s electricity supply. During thepast decade, output has increased 25%, equiva-lent to building 23 new 1,000-megawatt plants.And the beat will go on: the initial 40-year licens-es of a small but growing number of units arebeing renewed for an additional two decades.

As for new plants, Exelon is already workingon the next generation, exemplified by a helium-cooled, pebble-bed test reactor it is helping buildin South Africa that, theoretically at least, wouldn’tever need to be shut down for refueling and ispractically meltdown-proof. Of course, the com-pany would still have to find a place in the U.S. toput it. Many homeowners would sooner burn coalin their own fireplace than live next to a reactor. Sorather than try to find converts, the industry hopesto construct new facilities on existing sites, in com-

14 time, may 28, 2001

Nuclear Summer Bush’s new energy plan is hoping to light a fire under the least loved power source. But a revamped industry is way ahead of him

B U S I N E S S

BUSH CALLS NUCLEAR ENERGY A “MAJOR

COMPONENT” OF ANY ENERGY SOLUTION.

munities that already depend on plants for jobs. Not surprisingly, the no-nukes crowd, once ra-

diated, is more than twice shy. Nuclear powerplants may not, as the Bush Administration haspointed out countless times, emit greenhousegases, but they carry with them their own, very realenvironmental risks. Most important, there is thematter of where to put all that spent fuel—40,000metric tons, at last count—that has to be stored forthousands of years. For the moment, most of it isbeing kept in on-site storage pools, a costly and—according to many observers—risky proposition.

“[Radioactive waste] is still the Achilles’ heel ofthe industry,” says Edward Smeloff, director of thePace University Law School Energy Project. InCalifornia, for instance, a new nuclear plant can’teven be licensed until the feds come up with apermanent solution. The Energy Department isscheduled to decide later this year whether togo ahead with the controversial proposal to burythe waste deep within Yucca Mountain in Neva-da. But with the state’s congressional delegationfiercely opposing the idea, the fight could easilydrag on for years. If the site could be built, itwould still be necessary to find a safe way to

move all the fuel there without unduly imperilingthe nation’s crucial freight rails.

The Administration’s proposal to reexaminenuclear recycling makes watchdogs even morenervous. Such reprocessing aims to reduce wasteby separating plutonium from spent uranium fueland reusing it as a power source. But this practicehasn’t been done in the U.S. since the 1970s, andopponents say it could help put bomb-grade plu-tonium in the wrong hands.

Even the improvements that the industry nevertires of trumpeting—more efficient, longer-run-ning plants—do little to comfort antinuclear ac-tivists. “They’re running these reactors hotter andlonger,” says Paul Gunter of the Nuclear Informa-tion and Resource Service. Last year the IndianPoint 2 plant, part of a trio of upstate New York re-actors Entergy recently bought for around $1 bil-lion, was temporarily closed down after radioactivewater leaked from a ruptured steam tube. π

Questions

1. Where does Bush stand on nuclear power?2. Why do critics oppose nuclear power?

time, may 28, 2001 15

B U S I N E S S

Sources: Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Nuclear Energy Institute; EIA; Eskom; PBMR

0200400600800

Nuclear power in billionsof kilowatt hoursper year

’00’95’90’85’801975

U.S. nuclear power plants

103 nuclear reactors are producing electricity at 65 locations in 31 states. Even though a new reactor hasn’t been orderd since 1978, the existing ones keep generating more power. 2000 was a record year, representing an increase of over 300% since 1975

NUCLEAR’S POWER HAS INCREASED . . .

The new pebble-bed modular reactor is small and uses hundreds of thousands of tennis-ball-size spheres that contain radioactive uranium cores to heat helium to extreme temperatures. Traditional pressurized water reactors use radioactive rods to heat water, creating steam

. . . AND A NEW REACTOR DESIGN@HAS UTILITIES THINKING BUILD

PEBBLE-BED MODULAR REACTOR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR

Uraniumdioxide

Carbonbuffer

Pyrolyticcarbon

Graphite shell

Siliconcarbite

Pebble shown at actual size:2.4-in. (60-mm) diameter

Core contains radioactive rods that heat water and create steam. Steam turns turbines, generating power. Uranium rods are dangerous and difficult to dispose of

Core consists of radioactive pebbles that heat helium. Helium turns turbines, generating power. Pebbles confine radioactivity; helium is inert

Reactor vessel Reactor vessel

Helium900°C

1650°F

40°C1000°F

30°C86°F

Turbine

Water

Recuperator Condenser

Watercooler

Steamgenerator

Rods

CoreCore

Watercoolant

Generator

TurbineSteam

Generator

TIME Graphic by Ed Gabel

16 Worksheet Prepared by Time School Publishing

Name Date ✍WORKSHEET

Nuclear Power in America: A Class DebateAs Daniel Eisenberg reports in “Nuclear Summer” on page 14, President George Bush has argued that nuclearenergy should be “a major component” of any solution to U.S. energy needs. Critics charge that nuclear plantsthreaten the environment as well as public health and safety. What do you think? We invite you, as a class, to engage in this debate, using the format below to structure your discussion.

THE DEBATE TOPIC

Resolved: That nuclear power should supply a major portion of energy needs in the U.S.

1. Affirmative and Negative Sides Choose two teams of four to six people each. The side support-ing the resolution is the affirmative side; the side opposing it is the negative. Members of eachteam then collaborate on writing a five-minute constructive case that explains their positionand is supported by evidence (use the facts presented in “Nuclear Summer” as a starting point,along with additional evidence obtained through library or Internet research). Students in the class who are not members of either team will contribute quotes and evidence to either the affirmative side or the negative side during this preparation period.

2. Constructive Speeches The debate begins. The affirmative side opens with its five-minutespeech. While one side is speaking, the other side should be taking notes for the cross-examination and rebuttal periods. Next, the negative side presents its constructive speech,while members of the affirmative team take notes.

3. Cross Examination The affirmative side cross-examines the negative side for two minutes. Thenegative side then cross-examines the affirmative for two minutes. During this period, cross-examiners ask questions only; they do not offer any criticism of the other side’s argument. Thepurpose of the questions is to clarify and to attack the weak points in the other side’s argument.

4. Rebuttal Beginning again with the affirmative side, each team gets a three-minute rebuttalperiod in which it attempts to rebuild its case and offer counter-arguments to the pointsbrought up during the cross-examination round.

5. Scoring The whole class votes to determine which team won. Your instructor may establish a point system for criteria such as strength of argument, use of evidence, logic, delivery andteamwork.

6. Summary Reflections When the debate is over, take time to write freely in the space below for10 to 15 minutes about your views on nuclear power. Respond, from your own perspective, tosome of the best arguments presented by each side during the debate.

time, march 19, 2001 17

By CHRIS TAYLOR/SAN FRANCISCO

Not so long ago, the name of the com-

pany that Tim Koogle stepfathered frominfancy to manhood deserved its excla-mation point. It was a full-throated bar-baric howl, the one profitable rebel yell of

the Internet that really drove fear deep into thehearts of the old-media infantry. By last Wednes-day, when the Robert E. Lee of this rebel forcereached his Appomattox, the yell sounded morelike an ironic groan. First-quarter sales set to be40% off last year’s estimate? Ya-hoo. Stock down92% from its peak, with no end to the freefall insight? Ya-hooey.

To be fair, Yahoo’s news was just one act in thecarnival of carnage that was high tech last week.Cisco and Intel predicted big revenue drops andjob cuts, a combination that set the nasdaq up fora 5.3% fall on Friday. The index is off 59% from itspeak, reached a year earlier. Even the good newshurt—unemployment was sta-ble but wages grew, under-mining the Street’s expecta-tion that the Federal Reservewill deliver a big interest-ratecut later this month.

What’s different for Yahoo isthat since its birth in 1995, thecompany has known nothingbut the occasional hiccup onthe way to world domination,and it certainly has never hadto cope without its one trueceo, known within the com-pany as T.K. The moment hestepped aside last week, thecompany shut itself up moresecurely than a city-state under

siege, leaving observers jostling to deliver the mostironic epigram. “There were rumors not so long agoof Yahoo buying Disney,” offered Jupiter senioranalyst Aram Sinnreich. “Now they’d be lucky ifDisney buys them.” The company, once worth$134 billion, is now valued at under $10 billion.

How did we get from there to here? On the sur-face, it’s all about the business cycle, one the techrevolution was supposed to eliminate. Yahoo getsnearly all its cash from online advertising, and thisworked very well in the breakneck economy of thepast five years. With its 160 million visitors world-wide, everyone wanted a piece of Yahoo’s eyeballuniverse. But in a downturn, advertising becomesmore expendable. Web ads are no exception.

If the apocalypse really had that kind of highschool simplicity, however, why didn’t Koogle headit off sooner? After all, here is a genius hailed by e-business author Peter Cohan as “one of the fewadults in Silicon Valley,” a man who saw the Web’spotential years ahead of most. “My hair is graying

because I’ve seen so manybusiness cycles,” Koogle jokedto Time last October. But healso displayed alarming signs oftrue believerism about Webadvertising. Disappearing dot-coms made no difference tohis bottom line, he said, sincetraditional companies wouldpick up the slack. And “the ma-jority of ad spending will beconcentrated on the big play-ers”—meaning Yahoo and aol.(aol and Time are part of aol

Time Warner.) What Koogle didn’t see, or

didn’t admit to seeing, wasmounting evidence that on-

B U S I N E S S

Yahoo Lowers the NetThe Internet icon’s shortfall on sales sends the market spiraling to a new low. Wanted: a new adult supervisor

Quarterly revenues,in millions

Sources: SEC filings; Yahoo estimate*First-quarter estimate1998 1999 2000 ’01

0

100

200

300

$400$170-180million*

$11.55MARCH 31, 1998Ya-Who? Pre-bubble. (Monthly close)

$17.00MARCH 9, 2001

Ow-hoo! Plunging back to earth on bad news

Yahoo stock’swild ride, 1998 to2001

$216.34 DEC. 30, 1999Wow-who! Tulip time

at the NASDAQ

18 time, march 19, 2001

line ads just don’t work as well as their offlinecounterparts. Few people are clicking on thoseflashy top-of-the-page banners—0.01% of viewersin recent studies, comparedwith 0.06% a couple of yearsago. Heck, even junk mail getsa 1%-to-2% response rate.

This banner-ad Alamo bringsYahoo’s entire business modelinto question. Unlike aol, Yahoohas no Plan B to drive sales. aol,a service provider as well as acontent provider, collects asteady $21.95 a head per month,while Yahooligans get their In-ternet access elsewhere and areaccustomed to paying squat forcontent. When Koogle gingerlytried to extract even a nominalfee from users of Yahoo’s auc-tion service, 90% of them dis-appeared in disgust. No won-der he felt like joining them.

The really depressing thingabout Koogle’s admitting he’snot up to the task of turningYahoo around is that it suggeststhe job needs someone witheven more business acumen.Short of cloning Bill Gates orunearthing the dna of HenryFord, that’s going to be onetough search. So envy not JimCitrin, managing director of ex-ecutive-search firm SpencerStuart, whose job it is to seek areplacement. “We’re looking fora great leader, a motivator,” Cit-rin says. “Less someone with aparticular industry background,and more of an athlete.”

Athlete is right. The winningcandidate will have to be usedto slogging long distances withlittle reward; he or she mayneed to be an Olympic-levelego stroker. Because it grew so

big so fast with so many of the same people incharge, Yahoo has become notorious for its insularus-and-them culture. Only one executive—Sue

Decker, the cfo—has arrivedfrom the outside and walkedinto a corner office.

Otherwise, the loosely de-fined inner circle consists of fouror five highly talented friends,including Jerry Yang and DavidFilo, whose brainchild grew toworld importance in six years.Think of trying to manage theBeatles, circa 1970. “You can’tcome in and start slashing andcutting,” says a senior new-media analyst. “You have to re-spect the Yahoo culture.”

A new corporate owner mightnot feel that way, so it’s hardlysurprising that the proud Yahooculture is fending off potentialtakeovers with a two-year $500million stock buyback plan. Thatwill still leave $1.5 billion in thebank, effectively buying timefor the company to figure outhow to make more money onits own. Certainly Silicon Val-ley is rooting for Yahoo to stayindependent in a world in-creasingly dominated by theaol-Microsoft rivalry. “They dohave a certain cachet, being thelast Switzerland standing,” saysSinnreich. Not that cachet alonepleases Wall Street anymore. IfYahoo is going to be Swiss, ithad better find some goodcheese and chocolate to sell. π

Questions

1. Why did Yahoo’s stock priceplummet?2. According to the diagram atleft, in what areas does the U.S.economy remain strong?

B U S I N E S S

*Provisional data

Existing-home sales have held fairly steady; construction is also strong

For all the talk of recession, the U.S. economy has several areas of strength

’00 ’01

INFLATION

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

F M A M J J A S O N D’00 ’01

J

M A M J J A S O N D J* F*

’00 ’01M A M J J A S O N D J F

JOB GROWTH

Despite layoffs, unemployment is low (4.2%), and new jobs are being created

SHOCK ABSORBERS

131.0131.5132.0132.5133.0

INTEREST RATES

Rates are falling, putting more money in people’s pockets

There’s little risk that inflation is going to have a resurgence

Total jobs, in thousands,in nonfarm-payroll industries

Seasonally adjusted indexes

Federal funds

5.0%

5.5%

6.0%

6.5%

7.0%

Source: Federal Reserve

132.2

175.7

5.49%

’00Source: National Association of Realtors

’01MF A M J J A S O N D J

HOUSING SALESIn millions, seasonally adjusted 5.1

4.04.55.05.56.0

170172174176178180

time, april 9, 2001 19

By JEFFREY KLUGER

The ambassadors from the 15-nation

European Union got more than they bar-gained for when they invited National Se-curity Adviser Condoleezza Rice to lunchtwo weeks ago. The gathering, a regular

ritual in Washington, was held at the Swedishambassador’s residence, and as often happens, arepresentative of the White House was invited.This time Rice agreed to attend—good news forthe Europeans, who had something they wantedto discuss.

With the U.S. still skeptical about the 1997Kyoto Protocol to cut carbon dioxide emissionsand curb global warming and the 83 other sig-natory nations still wrestling over the details, theE.U. was growing concerned that the pact mightfall apart. In February, Environmental Protec-tion Agency Director Christine Todd Whitman re-assured E.U. leaders that global warming re-mained high on the new Administration’s worrylist. But in March, President George W. Bush an-nounced he was abandoning his campaign pledgeto curb co2 emissions from power plants, hav-ing concluded that the gas shouldn’t be regulatedas a pollutant, particularly during a burgeoningenergy crisis. If the President also backed awayfrom Kyoto, as he threatened to do during thecampaign, the accord could die.

“We wanted to pass on the message that wetake this issue seriously,” one of the officials toldRice over lunch.

The nsa chief responded directly. “Kyoto,” shesaid, “is not acceptable to the Administration orCongress.”

Did the White House agree that global warm-ing was a looming crisis, the ambassadors want-ed to know. Yes, Rice answered. But, she ex-

plained, “we will have to find new ways to dealwith the problem. Kyoto is dead.”

The reaction to Rice’s private message at theambassador’s house was subdued, but when Whit-man publicly confirmed that position, the globalreaction was swift and furious. Governments con-demned the President’s stance as uninformedand even reckless, noting with outrage that theU.S. is home to 4% of the world’s population butproduces 25% of its greenhouse gases. FrenchPresident Jacques Chirac called on all countries to

S P E C I A L R E P O R T G L O B A L W A R M I N G

A Climate of DespairBush’s hard line has stunned environmentalists, but with concerted action—and new technologies—it’s not too late to cool the greenhouse

We want action—unless the price is too high

π Is global warming a very serious problem, a fairly serious problem, not a very serious problem or not at all serious?

π Would you personally be willing to support tough government actions to help reduce global warming even if each of the following happened as a result?

YES NOYour utility bills went up 47% 49%Unemployment increased 38% 55%A mild increase in inflation 54% 39%

π When it comes to protecting the environment, does thegovernment give in to business interests too often?YES................................................69%NO...................................................26%

π Should President Bush develop a plan to reduce theemission of gases that may contribute to global warming?YES................................................67%NO...................................................26%

From a telephone poll of 1,025 adult Americans taken for TIME/CNN on March 21–22 by Yankelovich Partners Inc./Harris. Sampling error is +-3.1%. “Not sures” omitted.

Not Very Serious

Very Serious

T I M E / C N N P O L L

43%

14%

32%

7%

Fairly Serious

Not at all Serious

20 time, april 9, 2001

implement Kyoto—never mind Washington.China’s Foreign Ministry called U.S. actions “irresponsible.”

Even the E.U., which is just starting to feel outits relationship with the President, hit Bush hard,firing off a letter to the White House warning thatnew talks were “urgently needed.” E.U. Environ-ment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom went fur-ther, rattling the sword of global sanctions. “I don’tthink this is the time to threaten,” she said, “but wemust be clear about the political implications.”

Bush got another earful from German Chan-cellor Gerhard Schröder at the White House lastThursday. But the President stood firm. “Oureconomy has slowed down,” he said. “We alsohave an energy crisis, and the idea of placingcaps on co2 does not make economic sense.”

Schröder and other critics who seem shocked bythe President’s moves either are easily surprised orsimply weren’t listening. Bush’s decision on co2

caps was indeed a reversal of campaign promises,but he was always a foe of Kyoto. What’s more,since the stock market started to stumble andCalifornia and possibly other states began facingpower shortages, the Administration has been re-

luctant to do anythingthat would raise the

price of fossil

fuels and discourage their use. “I was straightfor-ward with the European ambassadors in the waythat the President has been straightforward onthe Kyoto Protocol,” Rice told Time. “The notionthat everybody was taken aback or surprised tookus as a little odd.”

If Bush gauged the heat he’d take from therest of the world wrong, he read the Americanpeople more or less right. A new Time/cnn pollshowed that 75% of those surveyed consider glob-al warming a “very serious” or “fairly serious”problem, and 67% said the President should de-velop a program to address it. But only 48% saidthey would be willing to pay 25 cents more for agallon of gasoline. And while they are concernedabout climate change, they are more fearful of see-ing their electric bills soar or of losing their jobs.

Members of both major parties realize thatglobal warming is a long-term problem that carrieslittle short-term political risk. By the time their in-action causes big trouble—maybe decades fromnow—they’ll be long gone. But if they foul up theeconomy, they’ll be sent home next Election Day.

When it comes to the environment in general,the President must answer charges that his cam-paign sales pitch was little more than bait andswitch. Almost immediately upon taking office,the soothing candidate who made it a point to

sound so many green themes on the stumpbegan to govern much more like the oil-patch

President conservatives hoped hewould be. The Administration an-

nounced it was suspend-

S P E C I A L R E P O R T G L O B A L W A R M I N G

Australia

7.6

Mexico

7.8

South Africa

8.5

Kazakhstan

10.1

Poland

14.4Canada

14.9

India

15.5

Ukraine

21.7

Japan

31.2

China

57.6

Russia

68.4

EuropeanUnion

127.8

U.S.

186.1

Trinidad and Tobago

Kuwait

UnitedArab Emirates Singapore

Source: World Resources 2000-2001 Time Graphic by Joe Lertola

Total CO2

emissions since

1950 inbillionsof tons

time, april 9, 2001 21

ing rules to reduce arsenic in drinking water, re-considering Bill Clinton’s decision to protect 58million acres of federal land from logging, andpursuing oil drilling in the Arctic National WildlifeRefuge (though Bush downplayed that last weekin the face of opposition).

With the U.S. essentially sidelining itself in theglobal-warming fight, it is possible that the battlemay never be effectively engaged. What’s causingthe most distress among environmentalists is thatall this comes at a time when many other pieces ofthe global-warming solutionseemed to be falling into place.In the U.S., state and local gov-ernments have been increasinglyactive in implementing green-house programs of their own,clamping down on emissionswithin their borders, stepping upmass-transit initiatives and en-forcing conservation laws. Corporations in suchsooty industries as oil and autos have been climb-ing on board too, imposing on themselves thevery restrictions Washington won’t.

What was needed to complete the picture was avigorously engaged U.S. to control its own titanicgreenhouse output and help get Kyoto enacted.The developments of the past few weeks cast doubton whether that will happen, and for now, other na-tions may have to go it alone. “The science is somuch more solid that humans are not going to sitby and foul their own nests,” says Fred Krupp, ex-ecutive director of the advocacy group Environ-mental Defense. “We have to do something now.”

For all the storm Kyoto has caused, its originalprovisions seem modest: a 5% reduction in emis-sions below 1990 levels for most industrialized na-tions, with the U.S.—as the world’s worst co2 of-fender—getting slapped with an incrementallytougher 7% cut. Developing countries that signedthe treaty would get a pass for a while.

Simple atmospheric arithmetic suggests thatthis kind of sliding scale for emissions makessense, but a closer look explains the Administra-tion’s objections. The category of developingcountries, for the purposes of the accord, includ-ed China and India, major powers by almost any

measure. Giving two such heavyweights a co2

waiver while the U.S. had to carry its share strucka lot of people as galling. “A protocol that exceptsChina and India and . . . penalizes American in-dustry . . . wouldn’t be ratifiable,” says Rice.

What’s more, the cuts the protocol requiresare deeper than they seem. The Kyoto terms weredrafted four years ago, but they would not gointo effect until 2008. The co2-reduction goalswould not have to be met until 2012. U.S. green-house emissions are projected to grow more than

20% by then, which means thatgetting 7% below 1990 levelscould actually require a 30% cutin output. Even then, the differ-ence might not be enough tohave any real impact. BritishPrime Minister Tony Blair, aKyoto booster, believes that inorder to put the brakes on warm-

ing, a reduction of 60% may be needed. So sober-ing are these numbers that even nations that stillsupport the pact have had trouble apportioningthe burden, and the most recent talks, at theHague last November, collapsed. The next meet-ing is scheduled for July in Bonn.

No matter how the talks turn out, the kind ofbitter medicine the protocol prescribes, with theU.S. taking the biggest slug, did not go down wellin Washington even before Bush arrived. In 1997the Senate, which must ratify treaties, voted 95 to0 that no global-warming pact that came before itwould be okayed unless it treated developed anddeveloping countries equally. Such a repudiationis one more argument the Administration is usingto pull the plug on Kyoto—though it was morethan mere conscience that was probably drivingthe Senate. One of the resolution’s sponsors wasDemocratic Senator Robert Byrd, from the coal-producing state of West Virginia.

But even as recently as January, with the Bush-Cheney team in and the Clinton-Gore team out,there was reason for environmentalists to hope.Whitman, who had built a respectable environ-mental record as New Jersey Governor, was apleasant surprise as epa chief, and Bush hadsometimes belied expectations, besting the bright

S P E C I A L R E P O R T G L O B A L W A R M I N G

U.S. GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS ARE

PROJECTED TO GROWMORE THAN 20%

BY 2012.

22 time, april 9, 2001

green Al Gore during the campaign with his callfor mandatory caps on power-plant emissions.What’s more, Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill—for-mer Alcoa chairman—turned out to be a Kyotobacker, drafting a memo for the new President arguing that the only problem with the pact wasthat it didn’t go far enough.

On March 6, after her February meeting withEuropean leaders, Whitman too wrote Bush amemo in which she argued that the U.S. had acredibility problem when it came to climatechange. “The world com-munity . . . are all convincedof the seriousness of thisissue,” she wrote. “It is alsoan issue that is resonatinghere, at home. We need toappear engaged.”

Other interests—notablythe oil and coal industries,both heavy contributors toBush’s campaign—also hadthe President’s ear. Only aweek after Bush receivedWhitman’s memo, he wrotea letter of his own to fourindustry-friendly Republican Senators, an-nouncing the reversal of his co2 pledge and de-claring his opposition to Kyoto. Whitman wasforced to explain Bush’s position and defend hercredibility. “My job,” she said, “is to provide thePresident with my best take. He needs to make adecision based on all the factors. I am fully com-fortable with his decision.”

Not everyone in Congress—including some Re-publicans—feels the same way. Three RepublicanRepresentatives had been planning to join withDemocrats to introduce a bill in the House man-dating precisely the co2 power-plant caps Bushno longer wants. The gesture, however, is mostlysymbolic. Even if the bill should pass the House, itcould be torn apart in the ferociously partisan Sen-ate. Whatever scraps of it that reached the Presi-dent’s desk would face a near certain veto.

Outside the E.U., other countries are unex-pectedly taking a leadership role in curbing glob-al warming. Mexico, which for decades has been

choking on its own exhaust, is planning to doubleits output of geothermal power—energy generat-ed by natural underground heating. President Vicente Fox is also promising a bill that wouldopen the national power grid to electricity pro-duced by all manner of alternative sources.

China, with 11% of the world’s co2 output—second to the U.S.—has cracked down on emissionsand reduced its greenhouse output 17% between1997 and 1999, eliminating more than the entireco2 production of Southeast Asia. Beijing’s goal was

less to curb global warmingthan to clean the air andprotect the health of its pop-ulation. But whatever itsmotivations, the policy ispaying environmental divi-dends. “When China takesaction,” says climate expertKevin Baumert of WorldResources Institute, a Wash-ington-based think tank, “ithas global implications.”

It was only a dozen yearsago that the first PresidentBush was sitting where his

son is now, promising to battle the greenhouse ef-fect with what he called the “White House effect.”At that time, the science of global warming was ablack art, and strategies to combat it seemed morevisionary than practical. But the passage of morethan half a generation has done a lot to change allthat. Science appears to have cracked much of thegreenhouse riddle, and both government and busi-ness are learning to use that hard-won informationin ways that could eventually put the brakes onwarming. If Washington wants a role in that effort,the climate-change crisis stands a greater chance ofbeing averted. If not, a far warmer world may oneday want to know why. π

Questions

1. How have world leaders responded to the threatof global warming? Where do the majority of Amer-icans stand on this issue?2. What is the Kyoto Protocol? What is the BushAdministration’s position on this protocol?

≤The German government . . . is decidedly in favor of not just

signing this protocol but also . . .ratifying the protocol.≥

GERMAN CHANCELLOR SCHRÖDER

≤We will work together, but it’s going to be what’s in

the interest of our country, firstand foremost . . .≥

PRESIDENT BUSH

S P E C I A L R E P O R T G L O B A L W A R M I N G

Worksheet Prepared by Time School Publishing 23

Name Date WORKSHEET

ENVIRONMENTAL

ECONOMIC

POLITICAL (Domestic)

POLITICAL (World)

TECHNOLOGICAL (Including development of

alternative energy sources)

IF U.S. SIGNS KYOTO PROTOCOL IF U.S. DOES NOT SIGNCONSEQUENCES

Global Warming:Policies and ConsequencesScientists around the world have reached a consensus: greenhouse gases, emitted as a result of burning fossil fuels, have started to warm the planet. Many leaders believe that the KyotoProtocol of 1997 offers the best approach to reducing emissions and slowing potentially disastrous climate changes. But the Bush Administration disagrees. What do you think? Shouldthe U.S. pledge to sign the Kyoto Protocol and bring its emissions below 1990 levels? Read theSpecial Report that appears on pages 19 through 22, then think through the consequences andcosts of this decision by completing the chart below.

✍

24 time, june 25, 2001

By MICHAEL ELLIOTT

This just in: last week george w. bush

was the most popular political leader inEurope. That, at least, is one interpretationof the demonstrations in the Swedish townof Goteborg. On the day of Bush’s visit

for a summit meeting with the leaders of the 15nations in the European Union, the most signif-icant street protest was a massmooning of the President. Butonce Bush had left for Warsaw,and then for a meeting in Ljub-ljana, Slovenia, with RussianPresident Vladimir Putin, themood turned ugly. The now fa-miliar demonstrators againstglobalization tossed cobble-stones at police, burned cars andsmashed windows. Unable tomove freely through the streets, the Europeanleaders were forced to hold their customary din-ner in the cordoned-off conference center ratherthan a classy restaurant. And police opened firewith live rounds, wounding three protesters, oneof them seriously.

So much for the values gap. In the runup toBush’s trip, commentators had enjoyed viewing asupposed chasm between the sensibilities of mod-ern Europe and those of the U.S. To believe some,one side of the Atlantic opposed the death penal-ty, was committed to arms control and wanted tosave the planet; the other executed people forfun, was looking forward to a new arms race andthought global warming a minor inconveniencecompared with doing without suvs. Strange, then,that the first live bullets used in the wave of recentprotests against global capitalism should havebeen fired not in Seattle or Washington but in

peace-loving, tree-hugging, social-democraticScandinavia. Americans, it turns out, do not havea monopoly on mindless violence, nor Europeansone on the Cartesian application of enlightenedreason to the great issues of the day.

Even before the riots, Bush’s staff had drawnthe appropriate conclusions. “I don’t think thereis a values gap,” said a senior Administration of-ficial who was on the trip. “The shared values

between Americans and Euro-peans vastly and dramaticallyoutweigh any differences. Thereare anti-death penalty Ameri-cans; there are people in theU.S. who think [the Kyoto pro-tocol on global warming] was agreat thing.” Antony Blinken, astaff member on Bill Clinton’sNational Security Council,points out that it wasn’t that long

ago that Europeans and Americans had seriousdisagreements over basic matters—like the mod-ernization of nuclear arsenals in Europe. After thecold war and the triumph of global capitalism, hesays, we live in a period marked by the “narcissismof small differences.”

But Blinken was talking about Washington’sold allies in Western Europe. The surprise of thetrip was the apparent warmth between Bush andPutin. Sure, both sides wanted their first summitto be a success and so played down their old dis-agreements on missile defense and on Bush’s de-termination to extend nato membership to theBaltic states—and hence to Russia’s border. But thepost-meeting atmosphere was cozier than manyhad expected. Bush said he found Putin to be“very straightforward and trustworthy.” “Every-body tries to read the body language,” said thePresident. “Mark me down as very pleased.” Putin,

A Tour Without a TripGeorge Bush’s visit to Europe exceeded expectations, but the United States still faces a variety of tough issues there

E U R O P E

THE BIG SURPRISE OF THE TRIP WAS THE APPARENT WARMTH

BETWEEN GEORGE BUSH AND RUSSIAN PRESIDENT

VLADIMIR PUTIN.

time, june 25, 2001 25

for his part, said that “the differences in the po-sitions of our countries are not of a fundamentalnature” and that he was delighted that Bushspoke of Russia as a partner and potential ally.

In such a world, where disputes are betweenfriends, old or new, Bush would have had to dosomething dramatically awful for his trip to bemarked a failure. He didn’t. Indeed, so low werethe expectations of him among parts of the Eu-ropean media that merely by showing up andspeaking English—never mind the basic Span-ish that he used when visiting Prime MinisterJosé María Aznar in Madrid—he would have beenjudged a resounding success. He sailed over thatlow bar.

The discussions in Sweden, at the semiannualsummit between the European Union and theU.S., were bound to be trickier—and were. Ontheir own territory—Bush was the first sittingU.S. President ever to visit Sweden—the Euro-peans set the agenda, which consisted mainly ofbeating up on Bush for his decision to junk theKyoto accord. Climate change dominated boththe formal meeting and the dinner that evening inGoteborg’s town hall. Bush, said an Administrationofficial, found the dinner a “long two hours.”

He had better get used to it; with Europeanleaders under electoral pressure to show greenhearts, global warming will feature at summits foryears to come. And so, for all the grips and grinsin Ljubljana, will missile defense. Bush has askedSecretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary ofDefense Donald Rumsfeld to work with theirRussian counterparts on a “new security frame-work.” Those talks won’t be easy; Washingtonmay have changed the dismissive, almost con-temptuous tone in which it discussed Moscowearlier in the year, but Putin has deeply held po-sitions on missile defense and nato enlarge-ment—and powerful constituencies who will seethat he sticks to them. π

Questions

1. What were the expectations for PresidentBush’s first trip to Europe? What was the basis forthese predictions?2. How did Bush fare on the trip? With whom didhe meet, and what did the leaders discuss?3. What issue dominated Bush’s stop in Sweden?How has the White House addressed Europeanleaders’ concerns about this issue?

E U R O P E

BUSH ABROAD“Dubya” didn’t do much sightseeingon his first visit to Europe. He facedangry leaders—and serious risks forthe inexperienced statesman

1. SPAINWhat was on the table: Bush’s first stopwas Madrid, to see his Dad’s friend

King Juan Carlos and Queen Sophia in a largely cere-monial visit. Bush relaxed and spoke a little of his favorite foreign language.

2. BELGIUMWhat was on the table: Meeting in Brussels with fellow NATO leaders,

including Secretary-General George Robertson, Bushpushed the need for a missile defense system. The Administration announced that it plans to implement a limited system by 2004.

3. SWEDENWhat was on the table: Bush and European Union leaders conferred in

Goteborg. Most were upset over Bush’s dropping theKyoto climate treaty and his plan to impose tariffs onsteel imports. The White House is developing Kyoto alternatives to show that Bush takes global warming seriously.

4. POLANDWhat was on the table: Stealing a playfrom his dad, Bush gave a speech in

Warsaw celebrating 10 years of Polish democracy, andalso met with President Aleksander Kwasniewski.

5. SLOVENIAWhat was on the table: Bush sat down with Russian President Vladimir

Putin for two hours. Bush hopes the Kremlin will dropobjections to missile defense if he involves Russia inbuilding the shield. But Putin is playing hard to get. And he’s not thrilled at the idea of the Baltic republicsjoining an expanded NATO.

26 time, april 23, 2001

By JOHANNA MCGEARY

It was not the kind of good morning that

Laura Bush is used to. At 5:40 a.m. lastWednesday, the phone rang in the presiden-tial bedroom. National Security Adviser Con-doleezza Rice was on the line. Chinese diplo-

mats had finally accepted a U.S. letter of regretabout the South China Sea air crash that hadlocked the two countries in 11 days of tense con-frontation. The standoff was safely over, the Amer-ican air crew heading home. The President, stillin bed, rolled over to his wife and dryly deliveredthe news. “Looks like the matter is going to be re-solved,” he said, according to aides.

“I’ll be in in a little bit,” Bush told Rice. “I’ll meet you there,” Rice replied. By 6:15, as he strolled into the Oval Office, Bush

was concentrating on the logistics of getting thecrew home. The difficult diplo-macy of selling the Chinese on anartfully limited U.S. apology was,thankfully, behind him. He couldbegin chewing over simplerproblems. How long would ittake to refuel the pickup plane inChina? What would be the flightpath? How long would the plane be on the ground?“He was very aware that we had to be careful inwhat we said while the crew was still on theground,” says senior aide Dan Bartlett.

Care and caution were the Administrationwatchwords as it navigated through its first foreignpolicy challenge. “Let’s avoid making this a crisis,”Bush said all week long. “Let’s not let this turn intosomething bigger than it has to be.” To keep theposture relaxed, Bush and his team kept his sched-ule filled with non-China events. Regular orderwas the rule.

And control. While the Administration workedto construct a diplomatic solution, it was alsocareful to stage-manage how it all looked from theoutside, how it would play in the big daily papersand on the evening news. The projected image:Bush at the helm but smartly hands-off, setting thetone but letting his team of professionals do theirjob. ceo-style corporate diplomacy—smooth, un-hurried, competent, straight down from the top.And no leaks about big decisions by anyone butthe boss. Thursday Bush was eating his regularlunch with Vice President Dick Cheney—the Veepeating salad, Bush a taco—when the crew landedon American soil. “Good news,” Bush said, as thelanding was broadcast on a television the twowere watching. “Welcome home.”

The true welcome, when it came on Saturday,was loud, sweet and a great relief to everyone. AtWhidbey Island in Washington State, home base for

the squadron, thousands gath-ered on a crisp spring afternoonto welcome the crew. It was oneof those unblemished momentsof American patriotism. Navybands let loose. Under a buddingtree, three little girls beddeddown for a nap beneath an un-

furled American flag. Lieut. Shane Osborn, thepilot who brought the crippled plane safely down,touched a tear from his eye as he walked off theplane and into a heroic cacophony of cheers andmusic. But he was all smiles as he wrapped hisarms around his girlfriend Roxanne Faustino andspun her around in a gesture as old as combat itself.

Getting to the safe arrival was anything buteasy. After some initial uncertainty—tough talkat first, then a quick step back to a softer tone—theAdministration settled on a plan that relied onconsistency. Led by Secretary of State Colin Pow-

Safe Landing A carefully engineered game plan helped Bush bring the U.S. flight crew home. An inside look

C H I N A

≤BEING A SUPERPOWERMEANS KNOWING WHEN,

AND EXACTLY HOW, TO SAY YOU’RE SORRY.≥

time, april 23, 2001 27

ell, the diplomats took charge. In an early missiveto Chinese Vice Premier Qian Qichen, the secretcontents of which were shown to Time by Administration officials, Powell proffered gentleregret and deferential suggestions for ways toend the crisis. “I want to take this opportunity tolet you know that President Bush is very con-cerned about your missing pilot,” Powell wrote, ata stage when the Chinese were still hunting forWang. “His thoughts and prayers are with thepilot’s family members and loved ones, as aremine and all Americans’.”

But Powell turned tough early last week whenthe Chinese tried to get the U.S. to say it had in-vaded China’s airspace. “We’re not going to takethat change to the President, and we’re not goingto accept it,” Powell instructed his lead negotiator,Beijing ambassador Joseph Prueher, to tell theChinese. The U.S., however, in an upgrade of re-gret, did move from saying it was “sorry” for theairspace incursion to saying it was “very sorry.” Inthe end Beijing complied with every aspect ofPowell’s initial agenda, except the last of sevenbullet points—return of the plane.

That last item may be difficult to achieve. “Weprobably will get the plane back,” a senior Penta-gon official says, “but only after the Chinese havewrung every drop of intelligence out of it.” U.S.and Chinese officials will meet this week to tradedemands for new rules in the reconnaissancegame the U.S. has no intention of giving up.

At home, the Administration seemed ready to

celebrate a job well done. Skeptics—even Demo-crats—gave Bush good grades on his first foreignpolicy test. After the ragged, overly brusque be-ginning, he had—personally, aides insisted—or-chestrated the kind of cool, calm diplomacy thatbrings results. He eschewed Clinton-style public-ity-seeking, made no personal calls to China andkept his public role low-key.

The new policymakers adhered to the chain ofcommand. Powell laid down and enforced thePresident’s guidelines, then let State Departmentofficials, notably the able ex-Navy Admiral Prueher,do the haggling. It probably quieted the Pentagonthat all the key talkers were former military men.Rice kept discipline and information flowing upand down the line. But the President also heededthe advice of experienced elders. Henry Kissinger,Brent Scowcroft and Bush Sr. all weighed in.

In the end the old hands helped Bush under-stand that a way out required accommodatingboth sides’ sensitivities. So a few carefully chosenwords ended a potentially explosive standoff. Thedenouement was crafted to exact concessionsfrom both sides but leave each able to claim vic-tory. China yielded on its demand that Washing-ton take full blame and didn’t force the U.S. to endits airborne surveillance. The Bush Administrationused language of regret that earned charges of“national humiliation” from the Republicans’conservative ranks.

While it ended this impasse, the delicate agree-ment won’t bring permanent calm to the volatile re-

lationship between the world’s most powerfulnation and its most populous one. Indeed, thewhole incident has given potent ammunition tothose on both sides who prefer hard-edged con-frontation to hard-argued cooperation. But beinga superpower means knowing when, and exactlyhow, to say you’re sorry—and when to say you’revery sorry. π

Questions

1. What caused the clash between China andthe U.S. that is described in this article? What is-sues were at stake?2. How was this conflict between China and theU.S. resolved?

C H I N A

28 time, june 11, 2001

By J.F.O. MCALLISTER LONDON

Just a few kilometers from central lon-

don, home to the new Tate Modern andmillion-dollar apartments that reflect theprosperous, optimistic side of Tony Blair’sBritain, Paddy Brunton spent his final days

in a rather different country. Brunton, 80, a formerbbc electrician, developed blood clots in his heartand lungs in February. After an eight-hour wait fora bed, he was admitted to a 20-patient ward at theWhittington Hospital in north London, one ofthe top 40 in Britain.

Four nurses were supposed tobe on duty, but because of staffshortages, there were often onlytwo. Several times visitors foundBrunton lying in his own excre-ment. He got bedsores. For twodays in March, when outside tem-peratures were just above freez-ing, the heating in the Victorianpile was turned off for repairs andhis temperature plummeted alarmingly. Bruntonwas wrapped in an insulating blanket to get warmeron his own, which he did. After six weeks in suchconditions, Brunton died. The doctors and nurseswho looked after him “worked heroically,” says hisson Paul. “But the system was broken.”

Blair and the Labour Party certainly gave himreason to expect better when, in 1997, they sweptaway a Conservative Party exhausted after 18 yearsin power. Labour’s promise to fix such things as theNational Health Service was enough to win a hugeparliamentary majority. Now, as Blair asks votersto give him another term in No. 10 Downing St. inthis week’s general election, his campaign un-easily straddles two Britains. One is the sunny,upbeat land shown in Labour’s emotive tv broad-

casts: unemployment, inflation and interest ratesall at 25-year lows; real incomes and primary-school test scores rising; crime falling. But there isanother Britain, of shabby hospitals, underpaidteachers, overcrowded schools and 7 million adultswho are functionally illiterate.

Strangely, it is on the stony ground of unful-filled hopes that Labour has made its stand—likea builder who tells you six months into the job thatrenovating your house will take twice as long aspromised. “We have a long, long way to go,” Blairsays repeatedly. Voters are buying it, even if it

makes them grimace. Not only dovoters consider Blair more capablethan Tory leader William Hague(50% to 16%) but they also rejectthe Tories’ key domestic pledge,an American-inspired plan to cuttaxes at least $12 billion a year.

So what are the problems withBritain that the next Prime Minis-ter must tackle? Despite a sus-tained boom that has boosted real

incomes 9% since Blair came to power, the coun-try’s infrastructure is creaking from decades ofmalnutrition. On health, Britain spends a smallershare of its gdp than any other major industrializedcountry. The result: in Cardiff some patients wait sixyears for hip operations; in Cumbria it takes twoyears to see a psychologist. On transport, prob-lems are obvious to any Eurostar passenger assoon as the 300 km/h train from Paris to the Chan-nel Tunnel stutters the rest of the way to London.The train network’s managers have just announceda need for an additional $4 billion to repair crackedrails brought to light by a fatal crash last year.Highways are in worse shape than at any timesince 1977. One adult in five can’t read well enoughto find a plumber in the Yellow Pages.

Blair’s Next Move Heading for a second term, the British Prime Minister must cope with a nation that’s only half transformed

B R I T A I N

Despite a sustained boom that has boostedreal incomes 9% since

Blair came to power, the country’s infrastructure

is creaking from decadesof malnutrition.

time, june 11, 2001 29

Perhaps an awareness of how much remains tobe done is responsible for Labour’s surprisinglyjoyless campaign. The American-style machinethat seemed so fearsome in 1997 is now trying toohard—even naming the three buses traveling withBlair “Strong Economy,” “Strong Leadership” and“Strong Britain.” Labour is overcompensating for itsdirty little secret: an average government spendingincrease so far, despite all its can-do rhetoric, of ameasly 1.3% a year, part of its obsession with reas-suring the middle class that it wouldn’t be profli-gate. Big money started to flow this year, but the laghas allowed Liberal Democratic leader CharlesKennedy to attack Blair from the left, advocating anincome tax increase to pay for better services. TheTories’ record in power undercuts their freedom tocall Blair too cheap. Hague has thus been forced toplay to his base, focusing on such right-wing pop-ulist issues as detaining all asylum seekers and,especially, keeping Britain out of Europe’s singlecurrency. Two-thirds of voters back him on that, butit ranks 11th on a list of issues they consider mostimportant.

Blair’s cool charisma, however, does still res-onate. He has mastered all the weird demands ofmodern electioneering, from small talk with ner-vous students to command of arcane detail undertv cross-examination. Blair likes his job, though ithas clearly aged him. Unlike his friend Bill Clinton,“he never shouts at people; he’s a motivator for hisstaff—even in a crisis he cracks jokes,” says an ad-viser. He goes to movies, plays tough tennis, lovesThe Simpsons. He can even be seen pushing babyLeo’s pram by himself in St. James’s Park on aSunday. But beyond the benign family man andthe carefully primped “Strong Leader” campaignpersona, there is always an edge of impatience.

That tension lies behind his most consistentmistake in office: an impulse to be a “controlfreak”—as when he devolved power to the Welshassembly and the London mayor but then tried torig things so his cronies would be in charge. Inboth cases the locals rebelled, and Blair lookedboth sinister and silly. His ambitions to remake thecountry are so big that it may be hard for thecontrol freak to resist grabbing even more leversof power.

Yet there are two reasons to think that may nothappen. First, faced with swelling resentmentfrom doctors and teachers over a blizzard of de-tailed performance targets spewing from London,he is planning to give them more money and autonomy. That means a less centralized visionfor reform. And, say several people close to him,Blair is changing. “He’s more confident,” says one.“There’s a serenity that’s new.” In this case, willthe personal become the political? If, as Blair says,the success of his reforms depends on decentral-izing power, the fate of the two Britains may de-pend to a surprising degree on what is happeninginside the mind of the one man at the top.

Meanwhile, outside the ward where PaddyBrunton died, work has begun on a new hospitalwing. It is due to open in 2004—two years beforethe next general election must be called. π

Questions

1. What evidence does the writer cite that points tothe existence of “two Britains”?2. What campaign promises did Tony Blair make?

B R I T A I N

TONY BLAIR ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL

“I’m proud that Britain is no longer marginalizedand isolated in Europe. But we are not yet the leading nation in Europe that our weight, prosperity and history demand.

“As New Labour, we seek a mandate not just forcontinuity but for change, for a Britain, strong,modern and fair.

“We seek a mandate to make all the reforms necessary to strengthen, modernize and revitalizeour schools and hospitals.

“We seek a mandate for investment. Investment to extend opportunities. Ending years of cutbacksthat denied young people the chance to get on. . . .

“We seek a mandate to make Britain stronger—stronger because we are engaged with Europe and the wider world, showing our leadership, not in retreat.”

—from a speech delivered May 8, 2001

30 time, june 11, 2001

By MATT REES/JERUSALEM

If the peace process was supposed to rep-

resent hope for a new generation of young Israelis, its meltdown came last week in theform of a suicide bomber who targeted thosevery teenagers. Just before midnight on Friday,

June 1, an Islamic Jihad bomberslipped in among Israeli club-bers at a beachfront night spot inTel Aviv and detonated his belt ofexplosives, blasting ball bearings,nails and screws through thecrowd. Of the 18 Israelis whodied, eight were age 16 or under.Only one was over 21. An addi-tional 115 were injured, stretch-ered into hospitals in their sequined dance duds. It was theworst terrorist attack in five years.

The attack on a nightclub in Tel Aviv’s Dolphi-narium, a former aquarium turned entertainmentcomplex, sparked a frenzy of diplomatic actionand angry demonstrations. Under international pressure to curb thekillers, Palestinian leader Yasser Arafatpromised to do all he could to securean “immediate and unconditionalcease-fire.” Israel’s Cabinet didn’t buyit. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon declared his own cease-fire two weeksago and watched the toll continue tomount. But as observers waited forSharon’s tactical decision on whether tohit back, Sharon was, in fact, rethink-ing his strategy. His emergency Cabi-net meeting Saturday clearly held thePalestinian leader responsible for all attacks and took a significant step

toward designating him and his Palestinian Authority as enemies. “Arafat has proved he’s not apartner for peace,” Cabinet minister Dan Navehtold Time. “The bottom line is that Arafat is givinga green light to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”

Sharon gave Arafat a last chance. The Cabinetsaid it would watch for Arafat’s promised cease-

fire to show on the ground. ButIsraeli patience is thin. After thebombing, Israel closed all cross-ings from the Gaza Strip and theWest Bank and barred Arafatfrom using the Gaza airport.Across the beachfront prome-nade from the Dolphinarium,Israeli rioters besieged the Has-san Bek mosque even as theCabinet met. Rioters wearingswimsuits crossed from the

beach to the mosque to hurl stones at a few dozenworshippers and to charge police, who brought upwater cannon and horses. Even many of the left-wingers who support the peace process are on

Last Dance, Last Chance? After the worst terrorist attack in five years, Israel’s leadership, under Ariel Sharon, is poised to escalate its clash with Yasser Arafat

M I D D L E E A S T

With almost 600 people dead in the eight-month Aqsa intifadeh, no one expects the youngsters

at the Dolphinarium to be the last to pay the price

for peace’s ever worsening failure.

time, june 11, 2001 31

board with Sharon’s tough line. When U.S. envoyWilliam Burns met with top Israeli politicianslast Monday, Sharon stepped aside and let arch-dove Shimon Peres make the government’s anti-Arafat pitch.

Arafat is in a tough position. His promise of acease-fire raises expectations that he will rein in hisown gunmen and jail Islamic terrorists. But themood among Palestinians is unforgiving, andArafat will find it hard to justify arrests when mostPalestinians favor more attacks against Israelis.Sharon promises to defend Israeli citizens, andhis Cabinet ministers talk darkly of “removingthe immunity” of senior Palestinian Authority officials. With almost 600 people dead in the eight-month Aqsa intifadeh, no one expects the young-sters at the Dolphinarium to be the last to paythe price for peace’s ever worsening failure. π

Questions

1. What happened at the Dolphinarium nightclubon June 1, 2001?2. How did Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharonrespond to the attack?3. According to the writer, why is Yasser Arafat ina “tough position”?

M I D D L E E A S T

TURKEY

CYPRUS

EGYPT

JORDAN

ISRAEL

LEBANON

ARMENIA

AZERBAIJAN

KUWAIT

SYRIA

IRAQ

SAUDI ARABIA

IRAN

PersianGulf

M e d i t e r r a n e a n S e a

Amman

Nicosia

Yerevan

Baghdad

Kuwait

Ankara

Cairo

Tel Aviv

Beirut

Damascus

ROOTS OF THE INTIFADEHt’s hard to understand the fury of the intifadehuntil you spend a few hours on the Palestinian sideof the lines. Mornings tend to be calm. But asschools let out or after the tumultuous funeral

cortege of yesterday’s dead protester, the gangs ofyoung men and little boys stream toward the front, psyched for a new attack on “the Jews.” Filled withanger and bravado, they fight their war into the night,some felled by the bullets of the enemy.

Ariel Sharon’s showy tour of the Haram al-Sharif,or Temple Mount, one of Islam’s holiest places, home ofthe al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock, is whatsparked off the intifadeh late in September of 2000. Anew intifadeh looked like a good bet to Arafat. The1987–93 uprising he directed against Israel from Tuniswas a watershed in Palestinian history. It made Israelstart dealing with the P.L.O. “If you are reaching a historicagreement, you need a big shock first,” notes an Arafataide who was with him at Camp David. Says adviser Bassam Abu Sharif: “If he knows he will achieve a po-litical point that will get him closer to independence andif that will cost him 10,000 killed, he wouldn’t mind.”

32

Name Date

Test your knowledge of stories covered in the Current Events Update by answering the followingmultiple-choice questions.

____ 1.President Bush reversed a campaign promiseto set limits on emissions of:a. chlorine gas c. carbon dioxideb. hydrochloride d. dioxin

____ 2. The state whose voters chose by a wide margin to retain a state flag dominated by a Confederate emblem was:a. Arkansas c. Louisianab. Mississippi d. North Carolina

____ 3. The Senator who made headlines by defect-ing from the Republican Party to the IndependentParty is:a. John McCain c. Trent Lottb. Joseph Lieberman d. Jim Jeffords

____ 4. Donald Rumsfeld has held which of the following posts in two presidential Administrations?a. Secretary of State c. Secretary of Energyb. Secretary of the Treasury d. Secretary of Defense

____ 5. The Internet company whose stock plum-meted 92% from its peak is:a. Amazon.com c. aol-Time Warnerb. Yahoo d. Napster

____ 6. The state that experienced an energy emergency early in the year, leading to rollingblackouts, was:a. Arizona c. New Yorkb. California d. Oregon

____ 7. Under new legislation signed by PresidentBush, most taxpayers will receive a refund of:a. between $300 and $600 b. between $500 and $900c. between $1500 and $2000d. between $3000 and $5000

____ 8. Which of the following is a key part of Presi-dent Bush’s energy policy?a. a major emphasis on conservationb. development of solar-powered carsc. increased use of nuclear powerd. a ban on production of new suvs

____ 9. President Bush favors oil exploration in:a. the Colorado Rocky Mountains b. Arctic National Wildlife Refuge c. the continental shelf off Mained. the New York Adirondacks

____ 10. Following the shift to Democratic control,the new Senate majority leader is:a. Joseph Lieberman c. John Breauxb. Tom Daschle d. Arlen Specter

Match each of the locationsbelow with the descriptionat right. Write the letter ofthe correct country in thespace provided. (Note: Notall answers will be used.)

A. BritainB. ChinaC. IndiaD. IsraelE. JapanF. MexicoG. RussiaH. RwandaI. SpainJ. SwedenK. SyriaL. Taiwan

____ 11. A plane crash here resulted in an 11-day diplomatic standoff.

____ 12. Nation whose infrastructure is crumbling from decades of neglect.

____ 13. During his trip to Europe in June, President Bush spoke his favorite foreign language with the king and queen of this country.

____ 14. A 1997 treaty on emissions of greenhouse gases was developed here.

____ 15. Development of a missile shield in the U.S. could cripple China’sleverage with the U.S. on the touchy topic of this country.

____ 16. Nation that plans to double its output of geothermal power.

____ 17. The classification of this Asian nation as a “developing country”under the Kyoto protocol angered political leaders in the U.S.

____ 18. Country in which 18 young people were killed as a result of an explosion detonated by a suicide bomber.

____ 19. Following a summit meeting, George Bush described the leader ofthis nation as “very straightforward and trustworthy.”

____ 20. Country where George Bush met with 15 European Union leaders.

✍WORKSHEET

Current Events In Review

Answer KeyA One-Man Earthquake

(pages 2-4)1. Jeffords said he decided toswitch from the RepublicanParty to the IndependentParty because he disagreedwith President Bush on several “very fundamental issues,” including tax decisions, missile defense,energy and the environment.2. Jeffords’ decision causedcontrol of the Senate to shiftfrom the Republicans to theDemocrats. Though Bush adviser Karl Rove reacted toJeffords’ switch by calling theSenator selfish and powerhungry, other observers hopethat Bush will move fartherto the center, in order to ap-peal to moderates in bothparties.

The Jeffords Defection: Bold

Move or Betrayal? (page 5)Answers will vary dependingon statements selected foranalysis.

Stupid Tax Tricks

(pages 6 and 7)1. Bush signed a 10-year,$1.35 trillion plan that offerssavings to every taxpayer. Keyprovisions include repeal ofthe “death tax” in 2010 andrelief for those who pay the“marriage penalty” and thealternative minimum tax.2. The writer charges thatlawmakers rushed the tax-package through Congress,resulting in a confusing andchaotic piece of legislation.Most of the tax relief isphased in at the end of the10-year plan; then, in 2011,the entire plan is slated todisappear under the “sunsetclause” that will restore thetax laws that were in effectprior to passage of this law.

The Secretary of Missile

Defense (pages 8 and 9)1. Missile-defense shields areintended to protect the U.S.from incoming missiles.2. Rumsfeld’s proposal is con-troversial because it is costly,because the technology need-

ed to construct it does not yetexist, and because some ex-perts believe even if built theshield will not be effective.

Ghosts of the South

(page 10) 1. Of the state’s 82 counties, 18 voted to remove the Confederate emblem, while64 voted to keep it. As a result,the flag was not changed.2. Backers of the Confederateemblem claim it is a part ofthe state’s history and her-itage. Opponents say the rebelemblem symbolizes slavery,segregation and second-classcitizenship for African-Ameri-can citizens of the state.

Power Struggle

(pages 11-13) 1. Bush’s policy stressesgreater production over conservation. It calls for 1,300new power plants by 2020,additional nuclear plants, lessrestrictive regulations on coal,and tax incentives for newdrilling of oil and gas.2. Critics call the Bush planshortsighted and argue thatconservation should be thecornerstone of a forward-thinking national energy program.

Nuclear Summer

(pages 14 and 15) 1. Bush believes that nuclearpower should be a “majorcomponent” of energy pro-duction in the U.S. and favorsconstruction of new plants.2. Critics charge that an energy plan that focuses onnuclear power is misguided,because it will threaten theenvironment and public safety.

Nuclear Power in America: A

Class Debate (page 16) Answers will vary dependingon students’ views on nuclearpower and on points coveredin the class debate.

Yahoo Lowers the Net

(pages 17 and 18) 1. Yahoo’s stock price plum-meted because online adver-tisers stopped purchasingbanner ads on Yahoo’s site.

This drop in ad spending ledto vastly reduced sales andrevenues for the company.2. The “shock absorbers”graphic indicates that housing sales have remainedsteady, job growth is upslightly, interest rates havecome down slightly, and inflation rates have risen onlyincrementally.

A Climate of Despair

(pages 19-22) 1. Many nations have takensignificant steps to reducethe threat of global warming.For example, China has re-duced its greenhouse emis-sions 17%, while Mexico isplanning to double its outputof geothermal power.2. World leaders met inKyoto, Japan, in 1997 to comeup with a unified response to global warming. While 83 nations signed the Kyoto accord, which calls for reductions in greenhouseemissions below 1990 levels,the U.S. considers the protocol fatally flawed andrefuses to participate in itsimplementation.

Global Warming: Policies and

Consequences (page 23) Answers will vary.

A Tour Without a Trip

(pages 24 and 25)1. Expectations among theEuropean media were lowfor Bush, because he is an inexperienced statesman and this was his first trip toEurope.2. Bush exceeded expecta-tions. He was greeted bydemonstrators on some stopsand met with leaders ofSpain, Belgium, Sweden,Poland and Russia to discussglobal warming, missile defense, and nato.3. In Sweden, where Bushmet with 15 leaders of theEuropean Union, discussioncentered on Bush’s decisionto reject the Kyoto treaty onglobal warming. To show thatBush takes the issue of globalwarming seriously, the WhiteHouse is developing alterna-tives to the Kyoto accord.

Safe Landing

(page 26)1. The clash occurred follow-ing the crash of a Chineseplane and a U.S. plane in theSouth China Sea. A Chinesepilot was killed in the crash,and China accused the U.S.of invading its airspace. For11 days after the collision,China detained the U.S. crew,causing a standoff betweenthe two nations. 2. China demanded an apolo-gy from the U.S.; the U.S. responded by issuing an art-fully worded letter of regret.China eventually acceptedthe apology and released thecrew, but initially refused toreturn the plane to the U.S.

Blair’s Next Move

(pages 28 and 29)1. The writer makes a casethat there are “two Britains”by pointing to shabby hospi-tals where patients receivepoor treatment, to overcrowd-ed schools and to high rates ofilliteracy. These contrast withupbeat images of a strongeconomy, reduced crime andrising test scores.2. On the campaign trail, Blair promised to reform andrevitalize schools and hospi-tals; he also spoke in favor of a “mandate for investment.”

Last Dance, Last Chance?

(pages 30 and 31)1. An Islamic Jihad suicidebomber detonated an explo-sive at a Tel Aviv nightclub,killing 18 Israeli young peopleand injuring 115.2. Ariel Sharon held Palestin-ian leader Yasser Arafat responsible for the bombingand gave Arafat one lastchance to make good on apromised cease-fire.3. Although Arafat has agreedto a cease-fire, most Pales-tinians appear to favor moreattacks. Therefore Arafatfaces a strategic dilemma.

Current Events in Review

(page 32)1.c 2.b 3.d 4.d 5.b 6.b 7.a 8.c 9.b 10.b 11.B 12.A 13.I14.E 15.L 16.F 17.C 18.D19.G 20.J

Check Out What’sNew from Glencoe!

Time Classroom is proud to partner with Glencoe/McGraw-Hill to create this Social Studies Current Events Update. For more information on bringing current news to your classroom through student subscriptionsto Time, please call Time Classroom at 1-800-882-0852.

Check Out What’sNew from Glencoe!ππ� Geography: The World and Its People ©2002

ππ� U.S. Government: Democracy in Action ©2002

ππ� The American Journey ©2002

ππ� Civics: Responsibilities and Citizenship ©2002

ππ� American Odyssey ©2002

ππ� American Issues ©2002

ISBN 007-826295-X