Archive for October, 2005

Washington Secrets

October 29, 2005

Washington Secrets Not What they Seem

Christoph Bangert/Polaris for The New York Times

Reporting on the Iraq war often means touching on classified material.

October 23, 2005
Correspondence

The Washington Secret Often Isn’t

WASHINGTON — There are still lots of real secrets in Washington. But the most secretive White House in modern history has learned the hard way – even while its spokesman reflexively utter the caution, "We don’t talk about intelligence," or, "Sorry, that’s classified" – that it must reveal a pretty steady stream of secrets all the time.

That is one reason journalists and some government officials are so wary of what might happen next in the C.I.A. leak case, which could conclude with indictments within a week. What began as a narrow case on a specific leak, many fear, has morphed into a broader threat to the way business is done here, a system that often benefits both sides.

The investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a then covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, might end with a broadly defined charge that boils down to divulging secret information, a category that covers not only real secrets, but the daily give and take between officials and journalists.

Reporters worry about a chilling effect, one that would make it even harder to explain what the government is doing. Some government officials say they fear the impact because they know that it is often difficult these days to try to justify a national security decision, or warn of an impending threat, or even complain about some kinds of budget cuts without slipping into classified territory.

In short, the law does not distinguish terribly well between real secrets and sort-of secrets, especially in an age when the instinct to stamp "classified" runs rampant.

Few question that the name of a covert C.I.A. officer qualifies as an important secret: Disclosure can get people killed. But that case is the exception, rather than the rule. In five years of covering national security issues at the Bush White House, I’ve seen classified information leaked or suddenly declared "declassified" for many reasons, most often to explain a new policy and sometimes to back up a presidential statement.

Just consider the past couple of weeks of White House reporting, which were pretty typical.

My colleague James Risen unearthed a story about a firefight between American and Syrian forces along the Iraq border. Together, we began to explore its larger meaning: An internal White House debate over whether President Bush should formally allow the war to spill over the Syrian border, so that insurgents massing there could be stopped before attacking American troops in Iraq.

The president’s top foreign policy aides met to discuss this subject on Oct. 1, though officially the White House would not acknowledge that the meeting took place.

But once they understood we were writing the article anyway, they felt compelled to talk, so that they would not appear to be stumbling into an expansion of the war. It was almost impossible to discuss the policy without wandering into events that were never made public and the debate over whether the president should issue a classified "finding" allowing action in Syria.

Our more creative sources found a way to talk carefully, using coded phrases like "if such a meeting happened …" or "if the President decided to. …"

Much the same happens when I press officials to explain the administration’s options for beginning a withdrawal in Iraq next year. This means cutting past the president’s oft-repeated statement that "as the Iraqis stand up, we can stand down." Similarly, you cannot intelligently discuss the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran, or China’s missile buildup, without trafficking in facts marked classified.

So it is not uncommon for such facts to slip out, sometimes from officials seeking to wake up the administration or Congress to what they consider an under-appreciated threat. Plenty of strategic leaking goes on in the administration – especially if officials think they can conceal the sources of the information and make it public without putting someone’s life in danger.

Misjudgments happen. As soon as news organizations around the world reported several years ago that the United States was listening to Osama bin Laden’s satellite phone conversations, he stopped making the calls, intelligence officials say. But such a clear-cut case is usually the exception.

If there ever was a day in which classified material was kept in one well-locked drawer, completely separate from policy arguments and "open source material," it went out with the Pentagon Papers.

There are moments when what is classified in the morning becomes public record in the afternoon. Two weeks ago, President Bush gave a speech defending his record fighting terrorism, saying the United States and its allies had stopped 10 terror plots, including three in the United States. He described none of them, and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, declined to provide details.

BUT by late afternoon – after heated conversations between reporters and the White House, and then the White House and intelligence agencies – the White House e-mailed reporters a list of plots. It was a mix of cases that were well known and a few never before made public. A senior official who talked about them that night joked that a few hours earlier he might have been jailed for discussing the subject.

"Now we’ve posted it on the White House Web site," he said.

He might have said the same of a letter, apparently written by Ayman al-Zawahiri, a senior Qaeda leader, that was seized by American intelligence earlier this year. A few months ago, its existence was closely held. But the administration released it earlier this month to back up Mr. Bush’s argument that Islamic extremists are seeking to create a caliphate from Spain to Indonesia.

The administration declassified all kinds of intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction program so that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell could discuss it publicly in his famous Feb. 5, 2003, presentation to the United Nations. Unfortunately for him, almost every example he cited turned out to be wrong.

Later in 2003, the White House resisted for weeks calls to declassify parts of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that formed the basis for Mr. Powell’s arguments, and those of Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Those estimates were once considered the crown jewels of the intelligence world. Eventually, the White House was forced to relent after the drip, drip, drip of accusations that the president had cherry-picked intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion. Once it became public, the estimate became Exhibit A in what had gone wrong inside the American intelligence community.

The issue of secrecy won’t go away. This week, a prosecutor may send a shot across Washington’s bow: any indictment is bound to change the unspoken rules of authorized and unauthorized leaks, even if just for a while. But the week after, government officials will have to explain to allies, other nations and reporters why they are so worried that Iran may be building a bomb, and why they believe North Korea must permit inspections of every nook, cranny and cave in the country. And to do so, they may feel compelled to reach into their bag of secrets.

Erosion In Opportunity

October 29, 2005

A Dream In Decline

October 23, 2005

For Blacks, a Dream in Decline

By LOUIS UCHITELLE

THE Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. set forth the goal. Civil rights and union membership were to be intertwined. The labor movement, Dr. King wrote in 1958, “must concentrate its powerful forces on bringing economic emancipation to white and Negro by organizing them together in social equality.”

That happened in the 1960’s and 1970’s. But then unions lost bargaining power and members. And while labor leaders called attention to the overall decline, few took notice that blacks were losing much more ground than whites.

In the last five years, that trend accelerated. Despite a growing economy, the number of African-Americans in unions has fallen by 14.4 percent since 2000, while white membership is down 5.4 percent.

For a while in the 1980’s, one out of every four black workers was a union member; now it is closer to one in seven. This loss of better-paying jobs helps to explain why blacks are doing worse than any other group in the current recovery. Labor leaders have acknowledged the disproportionate damage to African-Americans, but they decline to make special efforts to organize blacks and offset the decrease, saying that all groups need help. That lack of priority angers one prominent black scholar.

“The future of black workers is very bleak indeed if they lose their place in the union movement,” said William Julius Wilson, a professor of sociology and social policy at Harvard. “I would hope there would be an effort on the part of union leaders, white and black, to address this very important issue. They haven’t done so as yet.”

The decline was particularly sharp last year. Overall union membership fell by 304,000, and blacks accounted for 55 percent of that drop, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, even though whites outnumber blacks six to one in unions (12.4 million to 2.1 million). The trend seems likely to continue and perhaps accelerate as General Motors and its principal parts supplier, Delphi, cut costs in their struggle to be profitable.

“We have lost 20,000 members since the end of 2000 in Detroit and its suburbs alone,” said Linda Ewing, director of research for the United Auto Workers, “and a large number of the workers in the auto and parts plants in this area are black.”

Unions, like other institutions in the post-World War II economy, were slow to admit African-Americans to the club, and there is still resistance today in some of the higher-paying skilled trades. Yet blacks came to rely on unions even more than working class whites did to gain entry into the middle class, through jobs that gave them annual wage increases and company-paid health insurance and pensions. Even now, the percentage of black workers who are in unions is slightly greater than the percentage of unionized white workers: 15.1 versus 12.2. “Every survey shows that blacks are the group that most wants to be unionized,” said Richard Freeman, a Harvard labor economist.

Immigration, retirement, automation, the shifting of work overseas, low seniority and privatization have all played a role in the lopsided decline of unionized jobs held by African-Americans. That decline is especially noticeable in manufacturing and the federal government, two strongholds of black employment that have gone through cutbacks in union workers in recent years.

The cutbacks are particularly severe in the auto industry. In addition to the latest problems at G.M., Ford Motor said Thursday that it would soon announce “significant plant closings.”

The impact on blacks has gradually drawn the attention of labor leaders, including John J. Sweeney, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. “The percentage of black workers who have been knocked out of union jobs is one of the little-known tragedies of the last five years,” he said.

Despite this damage, the federation is not making a special effort to sign up more African-Americans in other industries, Mr. Sweeney said. “We are going to be organizing more blacks,” he explained, “but we are also going to be organizing more Latinos and more women.”

Mr. Sweeney’s reluctance to single out blacks has its counterpart in the breakaway union movement, Change to Win, which promises more aggressive organizing. Rather than focus on any particular group of workers, said Edgar Romney, secretary-treasurer of the new coalition, “we are targeting industries and communities in our organizing effort.”

Blue-collar workers earn high pay in manufacturing jobs, and the sharp decline in black union membership in that sector has helped to pull down the median weekly wage of all black workers, union and nonunion alike. Thus far this year, the median weekly wage earned by blacks fell by 5 percent, to $523, adjusted for inflation, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Whites as a group are also experiencing a drop in their median weekly wage, but for them the decline this year is less than 1 percent, to $677, adjusted for inflation.

Some labor economists bridle at such comparisons. Robert Topel of the University of Chicago argues that for many years the wage gap between whites and blacks either shrank or remained stable, after adjusting for differences in education, experience and other factors. This occurred even as union power declined, he said.

“If you ask me for a list of things that would be more important in understanding racial disparities and economic success, unionism would not be high on the list,” Mr. Topel said. “Education, development of skills and family environment all play much bigger roles than collective bargaining power.”

The decline in black union membership is not simply the result of the erosion of employment in manufacturing. The Service Employees International Union, for example, represented for years large numbers of African-Americans employed in food service, janitorial work and nursing home care. Many were women. As they retired, Hispanics and Asians replaced them, in the jobs and as union members, said Patricia Ford, a former executive vice president of the S.E.I.U.

“You can see the change from what was traditionally African-American to Hispanic,” Ms. Ford said. “That is the most striking.”

Union membership among Hispanics, in fact, has risen gradually in this decade, to 1.7 million last year. That is partly a result of special efforts to organize Hispanics in service industries, Mr. Romney said.

On another front, privatization and outsourcing have eaten away at federal employment of black workers represented by the American Federation of Government Employees, which says that nearly 25 percent of its 211,000 members are black.

African-Americans make up an even higher percentage of the union’s members at the operations that the Bush administration is turning over to private contractors. These include laundries at veterans’ hospitals, ground maintenance and food service at government installations and security guards at numerous federal buildings – much of it work that paid only $15,000 to $20,000 a year, but that came with pensions and health insurance.

The union’s leaders resist viewing what is happening in racial terms. “We see it as a class issue rather than a race issue,” said Sharon Pinnock, the A.F.G.E.’s director for membership and organization. “It is impacting all workers, black and white.”

Automation at the Postal Service, mainly in the form of sorting machines that require many fewer workers, has cut into the ranks of the National Association of Letter Carriers and the American Postal Workers Union, both with high percentages of blacks among their members.

And then there is the tendency of many corporations to move operations to suburbs from downtown locations. In the process, unionized African-American workers are often replaced by nonunion workers, in many cases white.

The Communications Workers of America makes that complaint, citing customer service call center operations as one example. “They gradually move to the suburbs, eliminating African-American union members in the city,” said George Kohl, the union’s senior director of collective bargaining.

Mr. Sweeney said such stories anger him. “We have learned a lot from the civil rights movement; it is important that we highlight the most egregious offenses,” he said. “But we have to focus on all the workers who are getting hurt.”

The Vice President

October 29, 2005

The Vice President

Jason Reed/Reuters
Vice President Dick Cheney, left, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., far right, after a White House meeting in July.

October 30, 2005
The Vice President

In Indictment’s Wake, a Focus on Cheney’s Powerful Role

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 – Vice President Dick Cheney makes only three brief appearances in the 22-page federal indictment that charges his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., with lying to investigators and misleading a grand jury in the C.I.A. leak case. But in its clear, cold language, it lifts a veil on how aggressively Mr. Cheney’s office drove the rationale against Saddam Hussein and then fought to discredit the Iraq war’s critics.

The document now raises a central question: how much collateral damage has Mr. Cheney sustained?

Many Republicans say that Mr. Cheney, already politically weakened because of his role in preparing the case for war, could be further damaged if he is forced to testify about the infighting over intelligence that turned out to be false. At the least, they say, his office will be temporarily off balance with the resignation of Mr. Libby, who controlled both foreign and domestic affairs in a vice presidential office that has served as a major policy arm for the West Wing.

“Cheney has had a tight, effective team, and they have been an incredible support system for the presidency,” said Rich Bond, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. “To the degree that that support system is weakened, it’s a bad day at the office. But no person is indispensable.” For now, David Addington, the vice president’s counsel, is the leading candidate to replace Mr. Libby.

Mr. Cheney’s allies noted that there was no suggestion in the indictment that the most powerful vice president in American history, with enormous influence into all important corners of administration policy, had done anything wrong. They also said that Mr. Libby, whose role had been diminished in the past year as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice became more powerful and the leak investigation took its toll, could be quickly replaced from the vice president’s large Rolodex of support.

“His reach within both the party mechanism and the policy structures of the government is so deep that I believe that it is possible to find somebody who would provide the technical and intellectual support that Libby did, even if he doesn’t have the same personal relationship that he had with Libby,” said Tom Rath, a New Hampshire Republican with White House ties. “That’s very hard to duplicate.”

The indictment against Mr. Libby, known as Scooter, alleges that the vice president’s office was the hub of a concerted effort to gather information about key critics of the Bush Iraq policy. [Page 26.]

The larger question, Republicans said, was Mr. Cheney’s standing with the public – and what his staff has often called the vice president’s constituency of one, Mr. Bush.

Christie Whitman, the president’s former E.P.A. administrator and a longtime Bush family friend who was critical of the White House and the Republican right wing in a recent book, said that she did not expect the president’s personal relationship with Mr. Cheney to change. Nonetheless, Ms. Whitman said she believed that if more information about Mr. Cheney’s involvement in the leak case became public, “and if it keeps hanging around and getting close to the vice president, he might step aside – but that’s an extreme case.”

For now, she said, “Scooter has fallen on his sword, and the focus is on him.”

Paul Light, a vice presidential scholar at New York University’s Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, agreed that Mr. Cheney’s relationship with Mr. Bush would probably remain solid, but the taint of the scandal could hurt the vice president outside the White House.

“Cheney becomes a bit of an albatross except with the base, where he’s a real rock star,” Mr. Light said. “It’ll be less possible for him to make campaign trips because this issue will dog him.”

A number of influential Republicans agreed, although they did not want to speak for attribution for fear of harming their relationships with Mr. Cheney.

“Cheney doesn’t have a legal problem, but he has a political problem,” said one Republican close to the White House who did not want to be named to avoid public quarrels with the White House. “As the driving force on foreign policy and the Iraq war, his leadership is now nowhere near as credible. Bush has got to approach the stuff coming from the vice president’s office with raised eyebrows.”

Others said that Mr. Cheney was far too central at the White House to be diminished by the scandal. “He’s a survivor of all time,” said Alan Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming and a longtime friend of the vice president. “I never saw him bow his head or go into a cocoon or suck his thumb or anything like that. He’s an unflappable man.”

Warren B. Rudman, a former Republican senator from New Hampshire, agreed with that assessment. “Look, Dick Cheney is not running for anything, he’s obviously an incredibly important person in the administration, and I don’t think that will change inside the White House,” Mr. Rudman said. “If he were a normal vice president looking to run in ’08, then it would be a totally different situation.”

Most Republicans said that they had not taken seriously recent talk, advanced by conservatives, that Mr. Cheney should be the next Republican presidential candidate. In any case, they said, his history of heart problems, the faulty prewar intelligence and now Mr. Libby’s indictment effectively ruled out a political future beyond Mr. Bush’s second term. “He’s too controversial,” Ms. Whitman said.

Although Mr. Cheney makes only three appearances in the indictment, the episodes tell a story of a vice president directly involved in an effort to learn about Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who emerged in 2003 as a critic of the way the administration used prewar intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. The episodes do not shed light on the action that set off the special prosecutor nearly two years ago: who first leaked the name of Mr. Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson, an undercover officer at the C.I.A., as an attempt to denigrate Mr. Wilson’s trip as a nepotistic junket arranged by his spouse.

Mr. Cheney’s most interesting appearance in the indictment is on Page 5, where he is described as telling Mr. Libby, on June 12, 2003, that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at the C.I.A. in the counterproliferation division. “Libby understood that the vice president had learned this information from the C.I.A.,” the indictment states.

Mr. Cheney also appears on Page 8, when he flew with Mr. Libby and others on Air Force Two on July 12, 2003, to Norfolk, Va. On the return trip, the indictment states, Mr. Libby “discussed with other officials aboard the plane” what he should say to reporters in response to “certain pending media inquiries,” including questions from Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

The indictment does not say who the “other officials” are or the nature of the media inquiries, but it does say that on that same day Mr. Libby spoke to Mr. Cooper, and that he confirmed that he had heard that Mr. Wilson’s wife was involved in sending him on the trip.

The indictment comes as other parts of the wall that was built around Mr. Cheney’s defense of the war have come tumbling down. Earlier this month, Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Colin L. Powell while he was secretary of state, complained in a speech of a “cabal” between Mr. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld when it came to Iraq and of a “real dysfunctionality” in the administration’s foreign policy team.

The indictment also serves as fresh evidence to those Republicans who have known Mr. Cheney for decades and say he has changed, and that he reacted to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, by becoming consumed with threats against the nation and his longtime desire to rid Iraq of Mr. Hussein. Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to the first President Bush, said as much in The New Yorker’s current issue.

“I consider Cheney a good friend – I’ve known him for 30 years,” Mr. Scowcroft told Jeffrey Goldberg. “But Dick Cheney I don’t know anymore.”

Some Republicans say that Mr. Cheney’s relationship with Mr. Bush has already changed, and that he has become less of a mentor to the president after Mr. Bush’s nearly five years in office. Still, Mr. Cheney’s allies insist that, with or without Mr. Libby, Mr. Cheney will be at the president’s side.

“I don’t think it’s ever been about Cheney’s staff,” said Victoria Clarke, a former Pentagon spokeswoman and aide to the first President Bush. “It’s about him. Cheney’s influence has always been his own.”

Trump

October 29, 2005

Donald Trump

October 23, 2005

What’s He Really Worth?

By TIMOTHY L. O’BRIEN

For decades, Donald Trump, America’s most effervescent rich guy, has made his wealth a matter of public discourse. But sometimes his riches are hard to find. This article was adapted from "TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald," by Timothy L. O’Brien, a reporter for The New York Times. The book, to be published on Wednesday by Warner Books, looks inside Mr. Trump’s wallet.

BY 1993, with his casinos in hock, most of his real estate holdings either forfeited or stagnant and his father slipping into the fog of Alzheimer’s disease, Donald Trump, at the age of 47, had run out of money. There were no funds left to keep him aloft, and as the bare-bones operation he maintained in Manhattan started to grind to a halt, he ordered Nick Ribis, the Trump Organization’s president, to call his siblings and ask for a handout from their trusts. Donald needed about $10 million for his living and office expenses, but he had no collateral to provide his brother and sisters, all three of whom wanted a guarantee that he would repay them.

The Trump children’s anticipated share of their father’s fortune amounted to about $35 million each, and Donald’s siblings demanded that he sign a promissory note pledging future distributions from his trust fund against the $10 million he wanted to borrow.

Donald got his loan, but about a year later he was almost broke again. When he went to the trough the second time, he asked his siblings for $20 million more. His brother Robert Trump, who briefly oversaw Donald’s casinos before fleeing the pressure of working for him to take over their father’s real estate operation, balked. Desperate to scrape some money together, Donald tasked Alan Marcus, one of his advisers, to contact his brother-in-law John Barry and see if he could intervene with Robert and his other siblings.

"John and I spoke about it a few times," Mr. Marcus told me. "In fact, we spoke about it in the conference room in Trump Tower. John then went around and addressed it with the family."

Mr. Marcus said that Mr. Barry successfully lobbied other members of the Trump clan and that another handout was arranged, with Donald agreeing again that whatever he failed to pay back would be taken out of his share of their father’s estate.

"We would have literally closed down," said another former member of the Trump Organization familiar with Donald’s efforts to keep the company afloat. "The key would have been in the door and there would have been no more Donald Trump. The family saved him."

Donald disagreed with this version of events. "I had zero borrowings from the estate," he told me. "I give you my word." Donald’s brother, Robert, did not respond to repeated interview requests. Mr. Barry is deceased. His widow, Maryanne Trump Barry, a federal judge, said that she could not recollect any efforts to offer her brother financial help. Donald’s other sister, Elizabeth, was unavailable for comment.

But Mr. Marcus and two other executives who worked closely with Donald all said the family’s financial lifeline gave the developer the support he needed to get through the rough waters separating his early years of overblown, overhyped acquisitions and the later years of small, sedate deals preceding his resurrection on "The Apprentice." Both of Donald’s parents died during that time, he parried with Ivana Trump in a bitter divorce battle that hinged on properly valuing his dwindling assets, he remarried and divorced again, and then he did what anyone else in his situation would do when confronted with limited options: he ran for president of the United States.

Before Donald could get to Phase 2 of his career, he had to muscle his way through the dismantling of his business empire and a thorny financial restructuring with his bankers and bond holders that left him on the precipice of personal and corporate bankruptcy. As bankers who once fell over one another to throw money at him now lined up for their share of what was left over, Donald scrambled to hang on to whatever he could while maintaining his facade as America’s most savvy entrepreneur. And in terms of maintaining his popular mojo, Donald proved remarkably resilient.

"When I was in trouble in the early 90’s, I went around and – you know, a lot of people couldn’t believe I did this because they think I have an ego – I went around and openly told people I was worth minus $900 million," Donald recalled. "And then I was able to make a deal with the banks."

To survive a process as tortuous and unpredictable as a debt workout, however, requires a large dose of gumption. Donald had gumption in spades.

"You’re out there alone. I mean, it’s not fun," he advised me. "I went from being a boy wonder, boy genius, to this [expletive] guy who has nothing but problems."

Although Donald’s brush with bankruptcy separated him from some of his showiest assets and from the banks whose loans had first puffed him up, his penchant for claiming billionairedom remains. To this day, he closely monitors his ranking on Forbes magazine’s annual list of America’s wealthiest individuals, the Forbes 400, and his ability to float above the wreckage of his financial miscues and to magically add zeroes to his bank account has ensured that he remains an object of fascination. But how much is Donald Trump really worth?

IN September 1982, with Trump Tower a year away from completion, Forbes published the Forbes 400 for the first time. (In 1918, Forbes produced a list of America’s 30 richest people, but that was a one-time event.) Chock-full of anecdotes about how the rich became rich and what they did with their richly deserved riches, the Forbes 400 was financial pornography of the most voyeuristic and delicious sort.

While there was a refreshing inclusiveness about the list (Mafia treasurer Meyer Lansky made the inaugural tally, for example), some on the roster held rank upon the loosest of foundations. For those whose wealth was based on a stake in a publicly traded company, calculating their Forbes worthiness was relatively straightforward: put a value on their stock. But for those with privately held money who weren’t a Rockefeller, Mellon, du Pont or Kennedy, the process of ascertaining fortunes was trickier. Forbes relied on those people to willingly fork over an honest and somewhat exact self-appraisal of their wealth.

It also turned out that some big buckaroos, understandably averse to receiving an avalanche of phone calls from charities or scamsters that would follow such publicity, loathed being on the list. Nonetheless, the Forbes 400 drew scads of attention from the moment it was published. The list became capitalism’s Rosetta stone, a decoding device for divining the American Way. Even prominent economists parsed it for social truths.

"At a trivial level, it is almost impossible not to be interested in Forbes magazine’s annual list of the 400 wealthiest individuals, minimum net worth $150 million, and 82 wealthiest families, minimum net worth $200 million," wrote Lester Thurow, an M.I.T. economist, in 1984. "Subconsciously, we read their biographies hoping to find the elixir that will add us to the list. While the elixir – a rich father – is to be found (all of the 82 families and 241 of the 400 wealthiest individuals inherited all or a major part of their fortunes), it doesn’t help most of us to point this out to our fathers."

Professor Thurow added: "Great wealth is accumulated to acquire economic power. Wealth makes you an economic mover and shaker. Projects will happen, or not happen, depending upon your decisions. It allows you to influence the political process – elect yourself or others – and remold society in accordance with your views. It makes you an important person, courted by people inside and outside your family. Perhaps this explains why some people try to persuade Forbes that they are wealthy enough to merit inclusion."

This, then, was the dividing line: Those who were secure enough not to reveal their wealth abhorred the Forbes 400, or at least tried to avoid it; those who were less secure, needed to keep score and had their identities wrapped up in the concept of billionairedom turned the list into a white-collar fetish. For the latter group, to be off the Forbes 400 represented emotional and social exile.

Donald, paradoxically, was a loner who did not want to live in exile. He was obsessed with the Forbes list. And his propensity for inflation, matched with Forbes’s aversion to hiring the sizable staff it might need to assess accurately the wealth of each of its designated 400, got Donald on the magazine’s inaugural list in 1982. Forbes gave him an undefined share of a family fortune that the magazine estimated at $200 million – at a time when all Donald owned personally was a half-interest in the Grand Hyatt hotel and a share of the yet-to-be-completed Trump Tower.

Donald and the Forbes 400 were mutually reinforcing. The more Donald’s verbal fortune rose, the more often he received prominent mentions in Forbes. The more often Forbes mentioned him, the more credible Donald’s claim to vast wealth became. The more credible his claim to vast wealth became, the easier it was for him to get on the Forbes 400 – which became the standard that others in the news media, and apparently some of the country’s biggest banks, used when judging Donald’s riches.

IN some years, Donald insisted on impossibly high figures for his net worth and then, in a faux fit of complaining, settled for an estimate that Forbes convinced itself was conservative – even though it was often wildly high anyway. The one gap in this mating dance was 1990 to 1995, when Donald didn’t appear on the list at all. Forbes was apparently so chastened by the $2.6 billion difference in its estimate of Donald’s wealth between 1989 and 1990 that the magazine needed a six-year hiatus before it had the confidence to begin helping him inflate his verbal fortune again.

Forbes’s odes to Donald and his father, Fred Trump, went like this over the years:

1982 Wealth: Share of Fred’s estimated $200 million fortune. Forbes explains: "Consummate self-promoter. Building Trump Tower next to Tiffany’s. Angling for Atlantic City casino." Forbes quotes Donald: " ‘Man is the most vicious of animals and life is a series of battles ending in victory or defeat.’ " While Forbes estimates that the family’s fortune was over $200 million, it says that "Donald claims $500 million."

1983 Wealth: Share of Fred’s estimated $400 million fortune. (Author note: Observe that although 1982 to 1983 was a particularly brutal recession year, the Trump family’s real estate fortune doubles.)

1984 Wealth: Fred has $200 million; Donald has $400 million.

1985 Rank: 51; Wealth: $600 million. (Donald becomes a solo Forbes 400 act; Fred disappears from the list.)

1986 Rank: 50; $700 million.

1987 Rank: 63; $850 million.

1988 Rank: 44; $1 billion.

1989 Rank: 26; $1.7 billion. (Observe that Donald’s wealth has grown by $1.1 billion during a four-year period when he was borrowing huge sums to buy money-losing properties.)

1990 Dropped from the list! Forbes explains: "In 1990 the rich have been getting poorer. Trump is the most noteworthy loser. Once a billionaire, Trump’s net worth may actually have dropped to zero." (That makes things clearer. Was he ever a billionaire? Maybe his net worth just stayed the same? Maybe it always had been zero?)

1991 AWOL.

1992 AWOL.

1993 AWOL. (These are the times that try men’s souls. Hang in there, Donald.)

1994 AWOL.

1995 AWOL.

1996 He’s back. Rank: 373; $450 million. Forbes explains: "Trump, polite but unhappy, phoning from his plane: ‘You’re putting me on at $450 million? I’ve got that much in stock market assets alone. There’s 100 percent of Trump Tower, 100 percent of the new Nike store – they’re paying $10 million a year in rent!’ Add it all up, said Trump, and his net worth is ‘in the $2 billion range, probably over $2 billion.’ " (Don’t worry, Donald. One year from now Forbes will help you find another easy $1 billion.)

1997 Rank: 105; $1.4 billion. Forbes explains: "Net worth was negative $900 million in 1990, but the Donald now claims to have $500 million in cash alone. Disputes our estimate. ‘The real number,’ he insists, ‘is $3.7 billion.’ "

1998 Rank: 121; $1.5 billion. Forbes explains: "Unstoppable salesman, master of hyperbole. Net worth was negative $900 million in 1990, now claims our estimate is low by a factor of three: ‘The number is closer to $5 billion.’ "

1999 Rank: 145; $1.6 billion. Forbes explains: "We love Donald. He returns our calls. He usually pays for lunch. He even estimates his own net worth ($4.5 billion). But no matter how hard we try, we just can’t prove it."

2000 Rank: 167; $1.7 billion. Forbes explains: "In the Donald’s world, worth more than $5 billion. Back on earth, worth considerably less."

2001 Rank: 110; $1.8 billion.

2002 Rank: 92; $1.9 billion.

2003 Rank: 71; $2.5 billion.

2004 Rank: 189; $2.6 billion. Forbes explains: "America’s love affair with the Donald reaching impossibly new highs; his reality show, ‘The Apprentice,’ was prime-time television’s highest-rated series last year … After nearly defaulting on its debt obligations, Trump’s gaming properties to reorganize … No matter. For Donald, real estate is where his real wealth lies. Over 18 million square feet of prime Manhattan space."

Forbes, if not entirely skeptical of Donald, had, of course, grown accustomed to his intense lobbying. "There are a couple of guys who call and say you’re low on other guys," said Peter Newcomb, a veteran editor of Forbes’s rich list, "but Trump is one of the most glaring examples of someone who constantly calls about himself and says we’re not only low, but low by a multiple." Mr. Newcomb said that Forbes works hard to ensure the accuracy of its data but that it also relies on information provided by those whom it surveys.

The Forbes 400, of course, has always loomed large in Donald’s imagination.

"When you think of it, I’ve been on that list for a long time. I think they work very hard at the list," he told me. "It seems to be that they’re the barometer of individual wealth. It doesn’t really matter. It matters much less to me today than it mattered in the past. In the past, it probably mattered more."

Donald’s verbal billions were always a topic of conversation whenever we visited. In my first conversation with him, in 1996, he brought up his billions. When Donald and I spent time together one weekend in Palm Beach, Fla., earlier this year, the subject inevitably came up. Donald had gamely and openly fielded a diverse range of questions all day, so I was curious to see where he would go when we got to money. When I popped the wealth question, he paused momentarily and scrunched his eyebrows. We had reached a crossroads. Out it came. He pursed his lips a little bit. Out it came. He blinked. Out it came, rising up from deep within him.

"I would say six [billion]. Five to six. Five to six," he said.

Hmm. The previous August he told me that his net worth was $4 billion to $5 billion. Then, later that same day that August, he said his casino holdings represented 2 percent of his wealth, which at the time gave him a net worth of about $1.7 billion. In the same day, Donald’s own estimates of his wealth differed by as much as $3.3 billion. How could that happen? Was Donald living in his own private zone of wildly escalating daily inflation, a Trump Bolivia? And his $1.7 billion figure in August was well below the $2.6 billion that Forbes would credit him when it published its rich list just a couple of months later.

Now Donald was saying he was worth $5 billion to $6 billion.

"Five to six. Five to six."

And on the nightstand in my bedroom at Donald’s Palm Beach club, Mar-a-Lago, was a glossy brochure that said he was worth $9.5 billion.

WHEN I sat down in a Trump Tower conference room one afternoon earlier this year with Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s chief financial officer, he claimed that Donald was worth about $6 billion. But the list of assets that Mr. Weisselberg quoted, all of which were valued in very inflated and optimistic terms and some of which Donald didn’t own, totaled only about $5 billion. Where might the rest have been? "I’m going to go to my office and find that other billion," Mr. Weisselberg assured me.

Did he ever return? No, he never returned. His assessment of Donald’s wealth is outlined in the accompanying chart.

But Mr. Weisselberg’s analysis left me confused. So I asked around for guidance.

Three people with direct knowledge of Donald’s finances, people who had worked closely with him for years, told me that they thought his net worth was somewhere between $150 million and $250 million. (Donald’s casino holdings have recently rebounded in value, perhaps adding as much as $135 million to these estimates.) By anyone’s standards, this still qualified Donald as comfortably wealthy, but none of these people thought that he was remotely close to being a billionaire.

Donald dismissed this as naysaying.

"You can go ahead and speak to guys who have 400-pound wives at home who are jealous of me, but the guys who really know me know I’m a great builder," he told me.

However illusory, it was Donald’s fixation on billionaire bragging rights and real estate prowess – in addition to the financial lifeline his siblings tossed to him – that kept his mojo rising during his brush with financial extinction in the early to mid-1990’s. But the Donald who emerged on the other side of his business meltdown was a financial shadow of his earlier, acquisitive, debt-laden self, and would remain so right up to the debut of "The Apprentice."

Financial turmoil, of course, didn’t stop Donald from spouting. The all-time howler award for a publication taking his verbal billions at face value belonged to Playboy. In early 1990, just a month before the Taj Mahal opened in Atlantic City and began a financial slide that would take Donald’s empire down with it, the magazine profiled the developer and said he had amassed "a fortune his father never dreamed possible," including "a cash hoard of $900 million" and a "geyser of $50 million a week from his hotel-casinos."

In the real world, New Jersey casino auditors estimated in public reports that as of September 1990, Donald was worth about $206 million – almost all of which was tied up in hotels, an airline, casinos and other properties that were devaluing rapidly or about to be taken away from him. Donald’s cash on hand was only $17 million, and that was dissolving quickly as well.

Regulators projected Donald’s 1991 income from trusts and rentals at $1.7 million, offset by $9.7 million in debt payments, $6 million in personal business expenses and $4.5 million to maintain his Trump Tower triplex and estates in Greenwich, Conn., and Palm Beach for the year – meaning that he would be about $18.5 million in the hole at the end of 1991. Regulators projected Donald’s income for 1992 to sink to $748,000 and his 1993 income to drop even further, to $296,000 – with all of his debt payments and personal expenses continuing to pile up. At the end of 1993, his personal cash shortfall would amount to about $39 million and there would still be $900 million in personally guaranteed loans hanging over his head.

In the midst of all of this, Donald reached a property settlement with Ivana Trump after their divorce. According to a 1991 New Jersey regulatory report, the settlement called for Ms. Trump to get a $10 million payment, the couple’s Greenwich estate, $350,000 in annual alimony, $300,000 in annual child support, a $4 million housing allowance, use of some Trump properties and a $350,000 salary for running the Plaza Hotel. Donald didn’t have the $10 million to pay his ex-wife; he ended up using part of the $65 million that banks had loaned his business the prior year to pay her, according to regulators who said in their report that the payment to Ms. Trump "depleted most of Mr. Trump’s personal cash."

Throughout early 1991 and into the summer, Donald helped his banks begin to dismantle his holdings so he could pay off $3.4 billion in business debt and release himself from the $900 million in personal arrears attached to that pile. Absent an overhaul, Donald would be wiped out.

The little ray of sunshine in all of this for Donald was that the real estate collapse sweeping the country in the early 1990’s left banks with wads of bad loans in their coffers. They could choose to put their borrowers out of business and be left owning companies they didn’t want to run, or force debtors into messy bankruptcy proceedings that would involve paying whopping legal fees and suffering through years of delays. Neither alternative appealed to the banks.

"That was sort of the bottom of the heap. Deep trouble. They could have really done a big number. There was a personal guarantee on the loan," Donald told me. "My father was a pro. My father knew, like I knew, you don’t personally guarantee. So I wrote a book called ‘The Art of the Deal,’ which as you know is the biggest of all time. In the book, I say, ‘Never personally guarantee.’ "

But, Donald added, "I’ve told people I didn’t follow my own advice."

Donald’s enthusiasm for the Forbes 400 also waned during his flirtation with bankruptcy. In his sequel to "The Art of the Deal," a book called "Trump: Surviving at the Top," he offered a new take on his view of a rich list to which he no longer belonged.

"It always amazed me that people pay so much attention to Forbes magazine," wrote Donald, who always paid a lot of attention to Forbes magazine. "Every year the Forbes 400 comes out, and people talk about it as if it were a rigorously researched compilation of America’s wealthiest people, instead of what it really is: a sloppy, highly arbitrary estimate of certain people’s net worth."

DONALD managed to weather the slings and arrows of doubters during these lean years and hunkered down with his bankers and with his debts. As the negotiations progressed, Donald’s bankers looked for every alternative they could find to bankruptcy, because none of the banks wanted to contend with the mess that would ensue if the talks collapsed. And the Trumpster kept singing a happy tune. "He was always upbeat," recalled Harvey Miller, a lawyer representing Citibank. "One thing I’ll say about Donald, he was never depressed."

Unbeknownst to his creditors, Donald was just as worried about a bankruptcy as they were. He later told me that he wanted to avoid bankruptcy at all costs because he felt that it would permanently taint him as a failure or a quitter.

Sanford Morhouse, a lawyer representing Chase Manhattan bank in the Trump negotiations, said: "I did a lot of workouts in those days on behalf of Chase, with a lot of real estate developers who had similar problems, and big ones. Almost all of them, at one point or another in that era, filed for bankruptcy protection. And Donald, to his credit, did not."

Donald whittled down his mammoth personal debts by forfeiting most of what he owned. Chase Manhattan, which lent Donald the money he needed to buy the West Side yards, his biggest Manhattan parcel, forced a sale of the prized tract to Asian developers. Though Donald would claim after the yards were sold that he remained a principal owner of the site, property records did not list him as such.

According to former members of the Trump Organization, Donald did not retain any ownership of the site’s real estate – the owners merely promised to give him about 30 percent of the profits once the site was completely developed or sold. Until that time, the owners kept Donald on to do what he did best: build. They gave him a modest construction fee and a management fee to oversee the development. They also allowed him to slap his name on the buildings that eventually rose on the yards because his well-known moniker allowed them to charge a premium for their condos.

Retained for his building expertise and his marquee value, Donald was a glorified landlord on the site; he no longer controlled it. (Earlier this year, the owners negotiated to sell the site without consulting Donald; terms of the prospective sale are in dispute.)

EVEN as the national real estate bubble was bursting, fresh funds began rushing onto Wall Street, fueling a historic run-up in both the stock market and initial public offerings of often barely viable companies. If you had a good story and a prominent name, it suddenly became quite easy to sell stock. And it turned out, against all odds, that investors were willing to gamble on Donald’s name – even though they were getting a chief executive whose sense of his responsibilities as the steward of a publicly traded company and the guardian of other people’s money was somewhat ill defined.

"Something gnawed at me, and I knew what it was – the whole head-of-a-public-company routine," Donald wrote in "Surviving," relating his previous experience as a manager of Resorts International. "Although I certainly agreed with the theory of stockholder-owned corporations and was absolutely committed to fulfilling my fiduciary duties, I personally didn’t like answering to a board of directors."

In a tribute to the sucker-born-every-minute theorem, Donald managed to take two of the Trump casinos public in 1995 and 1996, at a time when he was unable to make his bank payments and was heading toward personal bankruptcy. The stock sales allowed Donald to buy the casinos back from the banks and to unload huge amounts of debt. The offering also yanked Donald out of the financial graveyard and left him with a 25 percent stake in a company he once owned entirely. Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts traded at $14 a share initially and, along with a fresh bond offering, the new company raised about $295 million.

Exactly what investors thought they might get for their Trump Hotels investment wasn’t entirely clear. Donald had already demonstrated that casinos weren’t his forte, and investors were buying stock in a company that was immediately larded with debts that made it difficult, if not impossible, to upgrade the operations. Even so, Trump Hotels’ shares rose to about $36 in 1996, giving Donald a stake worth about $290 million. With little real estate left to speak of in Manhattan, Donald’s wealth was centered on his casinos.

But in subsequent years Trump Hotels’ stock price tanked. Had Donald tried to pare down some $1.8 billion in debt smothering the casino company and spruced up the operation, he might have ridden a reignited gambling boom and grown his newly seeded fortune. Instead, Trump Hotels, which never earned a profit in any year between 1995 and 2005, became Donald’s private stockpile of ready cash. In 1996 alone, Trump Hotels’ shares fell to $12 from $35.50. About a decade later, the New York Stock Exchange delisted the shares entirely and any kid with a quarter could buy the stock. (Trump Hotels recently reorganized as Trump Entertainment Resorts; it now carries $1.2 billion in debt, and Donald’s stake in the company is worth about $135 million.)

When I interviewed Donald in 1996, he was effusive about his casinos and somehow seemed to forget that he owned relatively little Manhattan property at the time.

"Donald Trump is in two businesses," he told me. "I have this huge company that’s real estate. I also have this huge company that’s gambling. So I have two huge companies."

Donald continued to carve out a niche for himself in New York real estate as the manager of other people’s properties. In 1994, General Electric was looking for someone to refurbish the old Gulf & Western building on Columbus Circle in Manhattan, and retained Donald. Presto, the renovated skyscraper was christened Trump International Hotel and Tower. Even though Donald didn’t own the building, it later flashed across the opening credits of "The Apprentice" as if he did.

And Donald did scramble back to gain control of some other Manhattan buildings, including 40 Wall Street, which he spent about $35 million to buy and refurbish in 1996. The building has about $145 million in debt attached to it, and New York City tax assessors currently value the property at about $90 million. Donald values it at $400 million.

Donald’s recent golf course ventures have produced some sterling new properties, but the values he assigns those deals appear to be hyper-inflated. Donald’s Palm Beach course, for example, has about 285 members who paid $250,000 for memberships, for a total of $71.25 million. Donald borrowed about $47 million to build the course and a new clubhouse. So he banked about $24 million on the deal, before other costs. He leases the land beneath the course from Palm Beach County; he doesn’t own it. But Donald carries the course on his books as an asset worth $200 million.

Forbes, in bestowing a $2.6 billion fortune on Donald in its 2004 rich list, credited him with owning 18 million square feet of Manhattan property, which certainly is an impossibility. On one occasion, Donald told me that the West Side yards, which he doesn’t own, would have 10 million square feet of salable space when the site, now known as Riverside South, was completed. (Mr. Weisselberg told me, alternatively, that the site would have about five million square feet of salable space.) However measured, the yards were by far the biggest property in Donald’s former Manhattan real estate portfolio – but he no longer owned the tract.

Between 2000 and 2004, Forbes allowed Donald’s verbal billions to grow by $1 billion. The jump came during a period when the stock market bubble burst, Donald’s stake in his casinos – one of his most valuable assets until "The Apprentice" came along – had fallen in value to $7 million and, despite Manhattan’s red-hot real estate market, he owned much less real estate there than he let on.

Donald said his casinos’ myriad problems – no profits, suffocating debt, disappearing cash – did not mean that he had failed in Atlantic City. Instead, he described his management of the casinos as an "entrepreneurial" success, defining "entrepreneurial" as his ability to take cash out of the casino company and use it for other things.

"Entrepreneurially, not as a person who drives up stock, but as a private person, it’s been a very good deal," he told me. "If I would have worked Atlantic City the way I worked real estate, I would probably be the biggest casino company in the world rather than just a nice company, et cetera, et cetera."

Two weeks ago, Forbes published its 2005 list of America’s wealthiest people. Donald held 83rd place with what Forbes described as a $2.7 billion fortune. "My net worth has tripled," Donald told the magazine.

 

Rolling Stones

October 12, 2005

Stones

^ Back to michaelpwhelan’s Photos
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
7:55:34 PM
Viewed 2 times
Rolling Stones

By Matt Lauer
Dateline NBC

They call their concert tour, a “Bigger Bang,” and for the Rolling Stones, it is more than a catchy name, it’s a promise to their fans.

But what the fans don’t see is the work that goes into it. The Stones may say, “It’s only rock ‘n roll,” but everything ran more like a corporation. When you peek behind the curtain, you see it practically takes a village to pull off a show of this magnitude.

We met up with the Stones at Boston’s Fenway Park while they were rehearsing, and again in Hartford, Connecticut, their second stop. I toured backstage and talked to the band, as we counted down to their show:

5:15 p.m.
Less than four hours until show time, we take the walk down to the mammoth six-story, 400-ton steel set, the same route the Stones will soon take to get to the stage and perform for some 40,000 fans.

It takes 160 people to load up and take down the stage. From the moment the trucks arrive, it takes 16 hours until the set is complete.

Jagger is in high spirits. The reviews for the Boston opening night concert were uniformly positive, and The New York Times marveled that the Stones are “defying age.”

And watching Mick Jagger, you can see why. At 62-years-old, the Stones’ leading man still has the swagger and strut that made him an icon. Jagger trains like an athlete—working out before every show.

Matt Lauer: You use every inch of the stage.Mick Jagger: This is pretty narrow actually. Lauer: [Right now,] it’s like 50 years or 60 yards.Jagger: Fenway was over 300 feet. This is much narrower.Lauer: So what do you put in — a couple of miles during the show?Jagger: I don’t know what it is. Up and back. Like any sport, you got to pace yourself. You don’t run the whole time.Lauer: So how tightly-choreographed is the show? In other words, how many times during the show do you have to be in a specific spot?Jagger: I don’t have to be anywhere. The lighting people kind of prefer to know when I’m gonna do something because otherwise they lose me. But, you know, it’s pretty loose, it’s a rock show, it’s not a ballet. In this point after two shows, it’s very loose.Lauer: You’re still ad-libbing.Jagger: Very ad lib to me. Lauer: I saw some of the Fenway tape. And by the end of the show, you were still going back and forth and out in the crowd. And it seemed to me, and correct me if I’m wrong, — when it was over, when the encore was over, you were so juiced up, it almost looked like you didn’t want to leave the stage.Jagger: Right. You know, you get excited. And it was the first couple of shows. You get like, after show 61, you’re a bit more used to it all…
5:30 p.m.
Drummer Charlie Watts arrives on stage. The 64-year-old is happy to be there, after surviving throat cancer just this past year.

Lauer: How are you feeling?Charlie Watts: I’m all right—I’ve had a terrible year.Lauer: I know, it’s unbelievable.Watts: I’m actually very well, and very lucky to be here I think.Lauer: How do you work, after the health issues you’ve had? How do you get your stamina up to start a tour like this?Watts: When they say you’ve got cancer, I thought, well, I knew I wouldn’t die that night, but I knew it was like a year to go, and I’d really look awful at the end. And I did. Six months later, I did look pretty rotten. I wasn’t as bad as a lot of people I saw. Lauer: So going through something like that, does it make the start of a tour like this a different experience?Watts: In Boston, I think. You know, you know, I’m so lucky to be here.
Soon, Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood are also on stage. It’s time for the Stones to go over the set list for tonight’s show.

6:15 p.m.
It’s two and a half hours before show time, and anywhere the Stones play, this is the time where they get together on stage for the sound check. They go over the technical aspects of the show and it would be the best ticket in town.

7:00 p.m.
Two hours before show time, I met up with Keith Richards as he’s hurriedly transported by golf cart from the stage to his dressing room.

Lauer: What’s the vibe like being back on tour?Keith Richards: Well, as you can see, it pretty much is like what you see. And it’s pretty good man. You know, the first two shows were incredible. I’ve never known many shows to go that well. I’ve never known Mick to be so confident.Lauer: But when somebody comes to see show, they don’t want to watch you make it look hard, they want to see you make it look easy. But what’s amazing when you come here behind the scenes is how many moving parts there are and how many little details have to come together on stage.Richards: The first few shows on any tour, you kind of look at what you’ve built. You’ve got the sound system, you’ve got the lights, you’ve got the stage, you’ve got the band — and you say you hope it clicks at once, you know?
It’s already clicking as far as ticket sales. About 98 percent of the shows are sold out and there are still more concerts yet to be scheduled in Europe, Australia and Asia.

Lauer: Do you ever get tired of the view [from the stage] when the seats are full?Jagger: That’s a good view. I can hardly see it, though, when I’m up here, to be honest.Lauer: You don’t see faces you just see a sea—Jagger: Well, you see faces at the front, but this is all dark, you know, and it has a completely magic, different look at night then it does in the day.Lauer: Do you ever forget where you are in terms of what city?Jagger: No, I always know where I am.Lauer: You’ve never done—Jagger: “Where are we now anyway?”Lauer: "Hello—we love you Hartford," and the guy screams out to you to correct you, "Providence—"Jagger: I’ve never done it. No, never done it. It’s one of my nightmares.Lauer: I can imagine.

Later, all the fans who have been waiting all afternoon are let inside.

And soon, it’s crunch time. Just about an hour until the show, but Keith Richards still has a few moments to reflect on what it’s like to be part of one of rock n’ roll’s most enduring partnerships.

Lauer: I read a quote and I loved it. It was in Newsweek, and it said “Richards is there to remind Jagger that he’s a musician, and Jagger is there to remind Richards that he is a star.”Richards: That’s an interesting one.. yeah.. I really always think that Mick underestimated himself, and he’s underestimated as a musician per se.Lauer: So what about the other side of that. Are you underestimated as a star? Do you underestimate yourself as a star?Richards: I don’t know, because I mean, I’ve sort of been once since I was 19. And I really don’t think about it. I maybe I forget I am one… and that’s where I screw up sometimes… (laughs). Whatever we do, one of us complements the other on what the other one doesn’t have. Somehow, for some reason… it’s a chemistry thing.
Close to 8 o’clock, show time
Inside Ron Wood’s dressing room, it’s an oasis of calm.

Lauer: We’re looking at hour and a half before show time right now. You seem as relaxed and calm as a guy can get. Is that a little misleading? Is there something else going on inside?Ron Wood: No, I really feel comfortable. Like Keith and I have this same “Can’t wait to get on stage for a bit of peace and quiet.”Lauer: Yeah, right.Wood: Because we’re all always doing things, always being dragged here, there, and everywhere. And like when we get on stage we can go– now it’s just me and my guitar and the gang. You know? And we interact with each other and feel comfortable. I mean, the shows in Boston… I’ve never felt more comfortable. It’s still work, loads of chords going through my head, all the changes, all the cues that you have to remember. And—you know—“don’t go here, there, and do this now…”Lauer: Yeah, there’s a lot more choreography than people realize.Wood: Oh yeah. But it keeps getting better and better. Nowadays we’re striving for one day we might get it right.
Finally, it’s show time, another chance to get it right. The Stones take the walk they’ve taken countless times over the past 40 years.

A packed stadium waits for the group known as the world’s greatest rock n’ roll band to make “A Bigger Bang,” just as promised.

And in case you were wondering, yes, Mick Jagger did remember where they were.

The band took time off from its worldwide tour Saturday night to help the victims of Katrina. You may have caught them and some other stars on the telethon sponsored by MTV and VH1. The Stones’ next stop: New York City.

©© 2005 MSNBC.com

Halloween

October 12, 2005

Halloween

The Lore Of Halloween
by Cate Cavanagh

The origins of Halloween is among the most interesting as it finds its origin in the old Celtic belief system adapted into Wicca which was founded in the l950’s.
Halloween falls on the Wiccan New Year called Samhaim (called Sow-en) which in essence is "New Year’s Eve" and observes the end of harvest and oncoming winter as integral to life regeneration in the spring. Since the old Celtic religions, like other earth based belief systems, focused on nature and its cycles for survival, Samhaim is both an ending and beginning, similar to death and rebirth(resurrection)as most Christian religions believe.

As a celebration of nature’s never ending renewal of the life that feeds and supports people and the earth, Samhaim celebrated impending darkness after the light and harvest of fall after which life would re-emerge again in the spring. With this in mind, Samhaim was a religious time of fasting, reflection, meditation and prayer as well as a time for casting spells to end hardship, pain, illness and hunger. It was believed the worlds of the living and the dead merged on this day and it was in order to maintain peace between the two worlds that most of our Halloween traditions evolved such as trick or treat.

Fear of the roaming dead brought about many Halloween practices but first note this interesting fact. The early Christian Church changed All Saints Day, which was in May to October 31(All Hallow’s Eve) in order to appease a still pagan oriented congregation. It is purported that the Halloween customs we follow today is a result of the massive Irish famine immigration.

Many of our traditions stem from Irish or other Celtic countries. Take the Jack o’ Lantern. In Ireland, it was said "Jack" was a mean drunkard who used to beat his wife. He played too many tricks on the devil to save his soul. Well, when Jack died, he was too bad to get into Heaven and the devil was too annoyed at him to let him into Hell either. The devil gave Jack a burning coal which Jack placed inside a partially eaten turnip, called a bogie. From that day forward, Jack wanders the earth with this lantern looking for a place to rest his soul. Since ancient times, the pumpkin has replaced the turnip.

Costumes and masks were used for protection against spirits and despite conversion to Christianity, people remained afraid of All Hallows Eve, the one day it was believed spirits were allowed to freely walk the earth. In order to not be recognized by these spirits, people would leave their homes at night incognito in masks and misleading regalia.

In ancient Ireland the Druid priests of Muck Olla would go to farms begging for food and money for their houses of worship. If farmers did not pay, barns would be burned or animals would disappear. These incidents were believed to have been caused by the god, "Muck" from which the word muck has come to mean trouble and chaos. Acts such as these evolved into the threat of ‘tricks’ (or pranks) if treats were not given. Spain also had its tradition. On All Hallows Eve, people would place cakes and nuts on graves to bribe the devil. In Belgium children begged for money to buy cakes to eat. Each eaten cake was believed to relieve the suffering of a soul. In Ireland, food were specially prepared for the dead. Often a large amount of food was set aside not to be touched by anyone until the ritual period was over. In Wales, the wealthy in a community would put together a communal feast while the poor, representing the community’s dead, would ask for food in the name of dead ancestors.

Favorite fall foods that begin with October 31 include apples and nuts. In ancient times, apples were considered a symbol of love and fertility. The Norse ate them for youth and what we call bobbing for apples was originally called ‘snapping for apples". If a man got an apple then it mean the woman he loved, loved him back. In Scotland, nuts were used to determine whether lovers would be happy together. They would take two nuts and name them after each other. They would then toss them into a fire. If the nuts burned to ashes, they would enjoy a happy life. If they popped apart or crackled, their lives would have hardship and quarrel.

Are you going or throwing a Halloween party? Did you ever think of how far back this celebration goes or why you give treats to avoid a trick, or how wearing masks and costumes got started? Enjoy your party and festivities safely and remember no party should go without a cake magic recipe.

Make any kind of cake. Put a ring, thimble, a very tiny figurine and a coin inside the cooked cake in different locations. Some people will get one of these items in their slice.

The ring means they will be married within a year, the thimble means you will never marry. The doll means lots of children and the coin means prosperity.

While you are at it, you might want to try this popular ‘spell’ for money that is best done around Halloween. You need a gold coin and a pair of old shoes. Holding up the coin in daylight and say "what I see, may it increase, so I may have financial peace." Place the gold coin in the old left shoe, then put both shoes on. Walk clockwise in a circle three times. Take the shoes off and place them in a T shape where they can’t be disturbed. Do the same thing for three more days. On the third day take out the gold coin from the left shoe and tape the coin in the most worn part of the shoes. Do not spend the coin as it will bring you luck!! ONLY DO THIS SPELL IF MONEY IS NEEDED NOT OUT OF GREED!

If you are single, put a glass of water by your bed. It said the person you dream of on All Hallow’s Eve is the person you will marry. Warning: since the dead roam this night, you might want to consider sleeping with a mask on!

NOTE: Samhaim, the most solemn day of the year

Whereas the lore of Halloween is interesting and fun, it must be noted that, as a spiritual sabbat, Samhaim is a time for serius reflection and honoring one’s beloved dead or ancestors. For those of this path, a place is set for visiting loved ones that have passed with pictures and candles to commemorate the life of these beloveds.

I spend a week in quiet reflection. I ponder my own spiritual growth, make my own ‘private confession’ to my deities and consider how I may have contributed to any problems I encountered in order to take responsibility for my part which is essential to both avoiding the same misjudgement and spiritual growth.

Regardless of what the year has brought, I spend a lot of time literally counting my blessings and giving thanks. In order to honor the loved ones no longer with me, I make a list and give time to reflect on how my life was enriched by knowing all of them. If I have unresolved grief, I allow myself to grieve. I prepare meals, often they have been very humble, for the spirits as an expression of my gratitude and light candles to Creator and my deities for all of their guidance, strength and protection in the previous year.

This year will be difficult, my mother passed away this last September 11. I will devote this Samhaim to her memory. She was the most courageous person I have ever known or ever will. She is and forever will be the Queen of my heart, my life and my soul.
.
Cate Cavanagh is the Author of "Gifts Of The Spirit", a poet columnist and witch. http://cate_cavanagh.tripod.com

Submitted To GrannyMoon’s Morning Feast Archives

—————————————

I hope that while so many people are out smelling the flowers, someone is taking the time to plant some. ~Herbert Rappaport

Networking on Line

October 10, 2005

Monday, October 10, 2005
James Williamson

October 5, 2005
Darknets: Virtual Parties With a Select Group of Invitees
By TIM GNATEK

DESPITE all the openness of the Internet, there are still places you cannot saunter into on the Web. You must be invited.

These are "darknets": exclusive peer-to-peer networks in which membership is based on circles of trust, whose activities are veiled from the general public. And though people who are adept at configuring servers and comfortable with File Transfer Protocol have used such systems for years, a spate of new online services aimed at everyday users is sure to draw new attention to under-the-radar file sharing.

Darknets, like their peer-to-peer predecessors Napster, Kazaa and Gnutella, allow users to browse and download digital files like movies and music from other people’s computers. But while Napster and its ilk have allowed unrestricted access to files on any of the millions of connected computers, darknets are more discriminating. In a darknet, users get access only through established relationships – and only when they have been invited to join. This selectivity promises greater privacy, regardless of whether the networks are used for sharing personal or pirated media.

File sharers may be enthusiastic about the possibilities such services provide, but there are questions as to whether any new service facilitating file swapping can avoid the legal scrutiny that has hampered open-access file-sharing systems.

Grouper, among the largest of the new services, hosts more than 100,000 private groups. Users can build their own darknets or request admission to thousands of publicly listed clubs whose members can browse through group folders, download files and communicate by instant messaging or group blogs.

A Bible group on Grouper, Deepthings, shares e-books and audio tapes. Needles and Pins offers sewing patterns; Skater Paradise posts skateboarding videos.

Grouper is currently a free service, and contextual ads in its group directory help generate revenue; soon the company will include video ads and the option to buy photo prints or CD’s. The people behind Grouper say they hope to eventually offer a premium service stripped of ads and the ability to control a PC from afar.

Although unauthorized versions of copyrighted material do sometimes drift across the network, the company says it makes great effort to distance itself from illegal activity.

"Our intent is not to circumvent the copyright world," said Josh Felser, a co-founder of Grouper. "This is about personally generated content."

Mr. Felser and other advocates of commercial darknets think they are fulfilling consumer demand for what might best be called personal distribution, a medium whose potential content expands with every video-equipped cellphone and pocket-size digital camera bought.

"The big play for us is personal video," Mr. Felser said last month, as he toyed with a moviemaking digital camera in his office in Mill Valley, Calif. "Personal video is everywhere, and people are wanting to share video that they create."

To prevent piracy, Grouper limits the file-sharing capacities on its network. Instead of letting members download music, for example, users are allowed to listen only to others’ MP3’s in real time through FM-quality streams. Grouper also limits groups to 50 people, and adds a whistleblower feature so members can call out illegal activity.

But their methods are not foolproof; conspiring group members can change music file extensions or compress album folders to allow downloading, as does the group Only Zipped Music, and there is no means to block pirated software and crack codes, which are circulated in groups like Krakk’d, Warez and Xbox Gamez.

Mr. Felser and his partner, Dave Samuel, say they feel that their self-regulating efforts allow them to continue courting the media industry. "We want a company that gives us the ability to partner with other media companies, and eventually, an exit strategy," said Mr. Felser, who sold their previous enterprise, an Internet radio broadcaster called Spinner.com, to America Online for $320 million.

Qnext, another private peer-to-peer network, also tries to distance itself from illegal users in the hope of building a successful business without setting off legal battles. The company packages its service as an all-in-one communications tool with instant messaging, video conferencing and Internet telephone service, as well as file sharing and an application that operates a PC remotely.

The Qnext software does not assist the development of groups of strangers, however, making it more difficult to disseminate copyrighted entertainment widely. A company spokesman, Simon Plashkes, said this limitation rendered Qnext useless as a piracy tool. "If someone was sharing a movie, it would be hard to send that to more than five people," Mr. Plashkes said. "The technical design is not the best piracy platform." Even in more public forums, like virtual communities, users increasingly want to share files as well as photos; administrators have responded by developing safeguards against misuse.

Imeem, a social networking group that connects users with common interests, encourages members to share files like videos and recordings among friends. But the company’s owners say that by publishing the relationships among members and listing the membership of its groups, they are creating a deterrent to illegal trading.

"If you’re letting people into your trust network, you’re implicating them as well," said Dalton Caldwell, one of the service’s co-founders. "It recreates in the digital world the kind of pressure that exists in the real world."

It remains unclear whether these efforts will be enough to ward off a litigious entertainment industry.

"The protections are good, but unfortunately, that kind of argument is no longer as strong as it was prior to the Grokster case," said Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford University law professor, referring to a recent United States Supreme Court ruling that allows companies to sue peer-to-peer networks for copyright infringement if they are shown to encourage illegal downloading.

"If I were an investor, I’d think strongly about whether to invest in a company that could facilitate this sharing," he said.

Copyright owners make it clear that they are prepared to defend their turf. "We don’t take issue with the technology," said Kori Bernards, a spokeswoman for the Motion Picture Association of America. "It’s when it’s for illegal uses. When they promote or facilitate this, they should be aware that they are accountable."

Ms. Bernards said that in the wake of the Grokster decision, the association had been approached by some file-sharing companies that wanted to learn if their operations were likely to attract copyright-infringement lawsuits.

Nor is Professor Lessig alone in suggesting that the entertainment industry’s vested interests may lead to efforts that will stifle technological innovation.

"The more Hollywood clamps down, the further underground the activity is driven, and the more difficult it’s going to be to find out what’s going on," said J. D. Lasica, author of "Darknet: Hollywood’s War Against the Digital Generation."

Signs that file-sharing networks are becoming more stealthy already exist.

Ian Clarke, founder of Freenet, a peer-to-peer network meant to circumvent government efforts to censor material on the Internet, says he will soon unveil a version of his program that will coordinate private groups. Mr. Clarke said he viewed the spread of pared-down commercial darknets as a setback, that they gave up too much ground to copyright holders and limit what could otherwise be powerful software.

"These guys are deliberately holding back, and that’s what happens when lawyers dictate software development," Mr. Clarke said. "Software people enable people. Lawyers disable people."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top

Suzuka Japanese Grand Prix 2005

October 10, 2005

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Giancarlo Fisichella

Giancarlo Fisichella
F1 > Japanese GP, 2005-10-07 (Suzuka): Friday practice 1
Image by LAT Photographic

By Nikki Reynolds – Motorsport.com

Giancarlo Fisichella paddled though the two Saturday morning practices for the Japanese Grand Prix to come out on top with a last minute 1:50.136 for Renault. It was wet and slippery at Suzuka and Jordan’s Narain Karthikeyan was second fastest, followed by the Toyota of Ralf Schumacher in third.

Toyota’s Jarno Trulli led out for the installation laps on a track that was declared wet for the first session. Minardi’s Robert Doornbos followed on, along with Ralf and Juan Pablo Montoya’s McLaren. The Minardi of Christijan Albers also made an appearance but it was a slow start.

Kimi Raikkonen, who will lose 10 places on the grid due to an engine failure on Friday, came out for an installation lap in the McLaren but didn’t hang around. Michael Schumacher’s Ferrari and Takuma Sato’s BAR did likewise, followed by the Jordan of Tiago Monteiro, and Michael was the first to put a time up.

The German clocked 1:46.543 but then spun into the barrier as the rain got harder, causing a brief yellow flag period. The Ferrari sustained damage to the front but Michael was unharmed. David Coulthard’s Red Bull was next to test the waters, as it were, and posted a time eight seconds off Michael.

Karthikeyan and Felipe Massa ventured out for an installation lap in the Jordan and Sauber respectively, and Albers made it all of three on the time sheet, over seven seconds off Michael’s time. He then had another go and moved ahead of Coulthard for second, six seconds off, and a couple of other cars took to the track.

Karthikeyan’s Jordan clocked third and Monteiro fifth, followed by the Williams of Antonio Pizzonia into sixth but then Raikkonen took the place off him. Karthikeyan moved up to second but was rapidly demoted by Pizzonia and then Montoya in quick succession. Raikkonen then took the place, over two seconds off Michael.

Christian Klien’s Red Bull made it nine on the time sheet, then Mark Webber’s Williams and the BAR of Takuma Sato also joined in at the end. Rubens Barrichello put his Ferrari seventh and Jenson Button’s BAR paddled into eighth and that was pretty much it. Michael remained fastest with Raikkonen and Montoya second and third.

Doornbos was the first to try his hand in the second session but spun off in the last sector before even setting a time. Obviously a complete lack of grip in the wet, the rain still heavy. Pizzonia had an installation lap but didn’t linger and headed straight back to the pits. Alonso tried a flier and clocked 1:55.798.

He then lowered it to 1:53.289 on his next couple of laps and Villeneuve and Klien slotted into second and third respectively. Fisichella took the third spot then Villeneuve and Klien in quick succession posted second. Barrichello appeared in fourth, behind Klien and Alonso. Jenson Button joined the party in second, followed by Trulli into third.

Ralf was seventh and Coulthard eighth, the times rapidly changing, Doornbos and Sato in the mix. Ralf improved to fourth and Coulthardto second, two tenths off Truli who has shot to the top with a 1:51.824. Ralf climbed again to third and Alonso made sixth in the pouring rain.

Webber was next to the top, 1:51.274, followed by Albers into second, four tenths down. Fisichella took over with a 1:50.818 but was swiftly demoted by Ralf’s 1:50.369, half a second up. In the closing seconds Karthikeyan belted out a 1:50.150 for the top but was ousted by Fisichella’s 1:50.136.

And that was it. There’s nothing to read into these times; the rain makes everything unpredictable. As if it wasn’t anyway. Final top eight classification: Fisichella, Karthikeyan, R. Schumacher, Button. Albers, Monteiro, Webber, Trulli.

 

Japanese GP: Ferrari Saturday qualifying notes

Rubens Barrichello
F1 > Japanese GP, 2005-10-08 (Suzuka): Saturday qualifying
Image by Ferrari Media Center

Japanese GP: Ferrari Saturday qualifying notes
Racing series F1
Date 2005-10-08

Japanese GP – Qualifying session

Jean Todt:

"We are very disappointed with the outcome of qualifying. After this morning’s free practice, we thought we would be fighting for places on the front two rows, but unfortunately, we find ourselves with one driver in ninth place and the other in fourteenth."

"Rubens did not manage to get the most out of his car, which was not perfectly balanced for the conditions prevailing when he made his run. Michael, who was very quick this morning before his accident, saw his qualifying ruined by the fact his turn to go out coincided with the moment when the rain intensified. The mechanics did a good job in repairing the car for this afternoon."

"The forecast is for a dry track tomorrow and so, looking at the grid, it is risky to make any predictions. All we can say is that, as usual, we will try and do the best we can."

Rubens Barrichello:

"There are two ways of looking at my qualifying. On the positive side, I was probably one of the last guys to make my run when the track was a little bit better with not too much rain. However, on the negative side, it meant that we were out on track in conditions where our package does not perform as well as it did in the past. On normal wets, the balance of the car felt a lot worse than it did in the morning when we ran with extreme wets."

Michael Schumacher:

"The rain arrived just as I had to start my run, which meant it was too late to fit the extreme wet tyres, so basically, all I could do was swim for home! In fact, in the first sector the rain was not so heavy that it would have justified the extreme rain tyres, although it certainly was on the rest of the lap. I think it is fair for to claim I was hit with bad luck today."

"This morning, we were very competitive, so in my mind, I was aiming for pole position. My accident in the morning was caused by a combination of riding the kerbs and aquaplaning. With a grid like this, it should be an interesting race tomorrow. I am happy for Ralf, who did a great job to take pole."

Ross Brawn:

"I don’t know what we could have done today in these conditions. It was just a lottery in which we did not pull out any winning tickets. It’s very frustrating. That was particularly the case with Michael, as the rain really got stronger just as he went out of the pits, which was very frustrating as this morning on extreme wets, before his accident he was very quick."

"It will be an interesting race tomorrow with the top four guys in the world championship starting at the back of the grid. It could be interesting or it could spoil the race. That is the problem with the current qualifying system when the weather changes like this."

Rubens Barrichello: 9th
1:48.248, 3 laps
Chassis: 248

Michael Schumacher: 14th
1:52.676, 3 laps
Chassis: 249

-ferrari-

F1 > Japanese GP, 2005-10-08 (Suzuka): Saturday qualifying

 

FIA press conference: pole winner Ralf Schumacher with Jenson Button and Giancarlo Fisichella
F1 > Japanese GP, 2005-10-08 (Suzuka): Saturday qualifying
Image by LAT Photographic

Japanese GP: Saturday press conference
Racing series
Date 2005-10-08

Japanese Grand Prix FIA Saturday press conference transcript with

1. Ralf Schumcaher (Toyota), 1m46.106s
2. Jenson Button (BAR), 1m46.141s
3. Giancarlo Fisichella (Renault), 1m46.276s

Q: Ralf, difficult conditions but you got pole.

Ralf Schumacher: It was a difficult lap for all of us, I think. It was very slippery out there, you it saw with Jarno. He had a bit of bad luck and a lot of the other drivers did as well. He was just on the limit of what we could do and we were lucky with the weather. Especially, it was clear, you saw that with Giancarlo already that he could have gone faster but luckily the rain came in. It was actually down to our predictions, that was perfect, so thanks to the weather guy!

Q: You like Suzuka, you have always said that in the past, and looking at the grid now it is going to be an amazing race tomorrow because you have got a good chance of winning.

Ralf Schumacher: It is incredible. I have always loved Suzuka, I have been racing here since 1995. This is the first time for a Japanese team being on pole (here) which is obviously great. The team did a great job and I think we have a good chance tomorrow as well since some of the really strong cars are further back so we could have a really strong race tomorrow.

Q: And you are driving the new T104B Toyota, presumably for preparations next year. Could you talk a bit about the improvements compared to the standard car?

Ralf Schumacher: Yeah, thanks really to the pushing in Cologne, they brought the B-car to the last test and we decided it was a better car, more consistent, better front-end: It is basically an evolution to define directions for next year and it worked out.

Q: Jenson, you were out just after Ralf, was the weather maybe a little bit worse then?

Jenson Button: Not at all, it wasn’t raining when I was out so I think I was the last of the people in just greasy conditions. We were very lucky, both of us, but it was lucky more for me because I had a very difficult car to drive, a lot of understeer in the car. It’s great to be second on the grid and it’s Honda’s home Grand Prix, so it should be a very exciting race tomorrow.

Q: You did some running in the morning. How much were you plunging into the dark in the qualifying lap, you said the handling was not good, how do you live with that problem in the lap?

Jenson Button: Well, it’s the first time we ran this tyre because we ran a different tyre this morning. It was very difficult. On the out lap I knew I had some big issues, I had massive understeer, I couldn’t get my front tyres to work, I don’t know if it was temperature or just not enough wing in the car, but it just felt like a very, very slow lap, so to be P2 I am reasonably happy. I am sure all of us have set the car up for tomorrow in the race but for us we are very positive and think we can have a very good home race for the team.

Q: And what are your thoughts for the race in terms of your potential for winning tomorrow, bearing in mind the shape of the grid?

Jenson Button: It is never going to be easy even if the McLarens are so far back, we also have got Giancarlo here at the front with us. It is going to be an exciting race and I think we have a better car here in race trim than we have had at the last couple of races, we have solved a few of the problems we have had so we think it will be a strong race for us.

Q: Giancarlo, the rain was falling when you were out there, very difficult conditions, talk us through that.

Giancarlo Fisichella: It is true I have been lucky but unlucky because when I was out for my qualifying lap it started raining quite heavily in the last part of the circuit. I was really confident because his morning after the second free practice I was the quickest and the car balance was really good, so I was confident to do well. Considering the last part of the circuit was a bit too wet for the intermediate tyres I am really happy for today and looking forward to tomorrow.

Q: And of course, the last qualifying with similar conditions was Australia and it worked very well for you there. What are your thoughts on tomorrow?

Giancarlo Fisichella: I am obviously looking forward to it. We have the two McLarens on the back of the grid which is good for us and for the Constructors’ Championship and for the race tomorrow and it is going to be an interesting race.

Q: Ralf, do you remember the last pole?

Ralf Schumacher: No, when was it? I have no clue. Last year in Canada?

Q: In a way this is Toyota’s first real pole because they did admit to running light at Indianapolis. What are your feelings on that, I guess you weren’t running light this time?

Ralf Schumacher: I guess so, we will find out tomorrow, won’t we! No, certainly not. But at the same time we have been lucky as well. I think we had particularly difficult circumstances but we saw there was not so much between DC and us, although he was out there first, but I was certainly lucky because Giancarlo would have gone a lot faster anyway. We could see that. But it feels great, I mean, being in Japan, on a circuit I like, with Toyota, the first time here on pole and it is a great result for the team.

Q: You mentioned you got the forecast right, did you know it was going to ease up for the first little batch of rain?

Ralf Schumacher: Well, actually, usually it never works to my advantage so that is why we were laughing amongst the mechanics and I said ‘okay, once Jarno is done it is fine but then it is going to start as usual!’ But just the prediction was simply great, I don’t know how it happened but it did happen.

Q: You got the right strategy for pole position?

Ralf Schumacher: I would almost guess that, I think we have known now since this year that we always have good strategies and I am sure it will work out tomorrow.

Q: Is there a difference between the strategy you might have used for say midfield?

Ralf Schumacher: No, no, no. After the morning and after yesterday we were fairly aggressive because we thought that even in dry conditions we might be slightly strong so we have no reason not to go and try to win the race. That could always happen with a bit of luck, the right car and the right tyres, so we are very aggressive in our strategies, so why not?

Q: Are you expecting it to be dry tomorrow?

Ralf Schumacher: That is what we expect, yeah. I think that is very common along the pit lane.

Q: Jenson, you must be pleased to be on the front row after the events of the past couple of weeks.

Jenson Button: It is fantastic and it is always nice to be on the front row, but especially at Honda’s home circuit. Again, as it was for Ralf, it was a little bit lucky, because it did start raining for Giancarlo just after my run. So, yeah, it’s a bit lucky but sometimes you get bad luck, sometimes you get good luck and it’s nice to get some luck this time.

Q: Did you get the forecast right?

Jenson Button: Yep, pretty much. I think we are correct with our forecast for tomorrow as well. As Ralf said, I think it’s going to be dry for the race.

Q: You were very quick in the second two sectors but not particularly quick in the first. What happened there?

Jenson Button: I just had very low front grip. I thought some of it was to do with the warm-up of the tyre but it wasn’t because I had massive understeer throughout the whole lap and I was very surprised to be second quickest, I really was.

Q: Giancarlo, the conditions very much changed during your lap. Did you realise that you were going to have to get as much as you could out of the first sector and just hope for the rest?

Giancarlo Fisichella: Um, unfortunately it was raining when I left the pit lane and the circuit was getting wetter and wetter, but especially in the middle sector and in the last sector it was a bit too wet for the intermediate tyres. But apart from that, I did a very good lap. I was already confident because this morning I was quickest, even with the full wet tyres. It is okay. I have been lucky but unlucky, I am looking forward to tomorrow. I am confident. We have both McLarens at the back of the grid and that is good for the Constructors’ Championship and for the race, so I’m confident.

Q: For the race itself, you have had the second quickest car in the dry, in theory you have a very good chance tomorrow.

Giancarlo Fisichella: We have a very good chance. We feel quite confident and we think we have a good strategy for tomorrow.

Q: Ralf, which part of the track do you feel is the most difficult to drive?

Ralf Schumacher: Well, for me it was almost every part because the car was very oversteery. I think you saw that during the lap. I went wide quite a few times, a snappy rear end, and due to the slippery conditions – it was particularly wet — to keep the car on the road and still be able to push (was difficult) and like Jenson, I was surprised. I just didn’t expect to do a 1m 46.1s.

Q: Ralf, how different is the new car to the previous version?

Ralf Schumacher: In detail, you have to ask Mike (Gascoyne) but it’s clearly a step forward in the way we use the front end of the car, more grip, which works a bit in my favour. I don’t know whether it was so helpful in today’s conditions but in dry conditions that’s really a step forward and that’s really to confirm and define the direction for next year. That’s why we brought it as early as possible, to learn more about it.

Q: Jenson, you often say McLaren is too good but now they are well behind you. Do you think you can beat them tomorrow?

Jenson Button: We will do everything we possibly can to do the best race we can but we have seen before when Kimi has started at the back or Juan Pablo, they have been very strong, especially in a circuit like this where aero is very important. I think we will see them coming through the field very quickly. But we will do everything we possibly can. We can’t go into this race feeling defeated already. We have to stay positive and look for the win, definitely.

Q: Is this the new order we can get used to, seeing Honda and Toyota drivers at the front of the grid?

Ralf Schumacher: Let’s hope you are right.

Jenson Button: We are hoping, but you never know. So much can happen during the winter. I am sure that both teams will be moving forwards very much. We are hoping we will move forward more, likewise for Ralf I am sure. I am sure in the future we will be very competitive and we will see both teams challenging for wins in the future.

Ralf Schumacher: As he (Jenson) said, basically. When both teams started, obviously Honda has been amongst us longer than Toyota. It’s obvious that it needs some time. Now, after four years this year, you would expect us to be further up the grid next year. That is what we all expect and that should be the case anyway. But it’s going to be a hard fight. McLaren is quite a bit down the road. Even Renault — we always forget about Renault – so there’s tough work to be done next year.

Q: When you qualify in conditions like that, but expect a dry race, are you running a full dry set-up, or pretty much that way?

Jenson Button: Yeah, you’ve got to. The race is 54 laps long and you have to concentrate on that. One lap in qualifying is important but nothing like the race, and especially the way the system is now, with the tyres and also the fuel load in qualifying, you have to think about the race.

Q: Giancarlo, the weight of the Constructors’ title is now very much on you. How do you feel?

Giancarlo Fisichella: I feel confident, I feel right. It is very important to get to the end of the race and do the best I can. Obviously it would be nice to win the race. We have a good chance, also because the McLarens are in the back of the grid so it is going to be difficult for them to score points – maybe not to score points, it’s going to be easy but maybe to get on the podium.

-fia-

Formula 1 Grand Prix Japan 2005

October 10, 2005

Monday, October 10, 2005

Raikkonen wins thrilling Japanese GP

Fernando Alonso
F1 > Japanese GP, 2005-10-07 (Suzuka): Friday practice 1

Giancarlo Fisichella
F1 > Japanese GP, 2005-10-07 (Suzuka): Friday practice 1

Raikkonen wins thrilling Japanese GP
Racing series F1
Date 2005-10-09

By Nikki Reynolds – Motorsport.com

McLaren’s Kimi Raikkonen made a superb drive to victory from near the back of the grid at the Japanese Grand Prix, overtaking the Renault of Giancarlo Fisichella for the lead on the last lap from the chequered flag. Fisichella came home second and his teammate Fernando Alonso also drove an amazing race to cross the line in third.

After the last few days of poor weather, race day at Suzuka was fine and sunny with a track temperature of around 36 degrees. Toyota’s Jarno Trulli opted to start from the pit lane, as he was at the back anyway, and his teammate and pole-sitter Ralf Schumacher led a rather slow formation lap. The leaders got away at the start but BAR’s Takuma Sato and the Ferrari of Rubens Barrichello both had a trip through the gravel at the first corner.

David Coulthard’s Red Bull had a good start, up to fourth, and Alonso, who was another at the back of the grid, was up to 10th by the end of the first lap. Barrichello had a puncture from his little off track excursion and had to pit, as did Sato, while Juan Pablo Montoya’s McLaren had a big shunt at the Triangle.

Forced wide by the Sauber of Jacques Villeneuve, Montoya’s car impacted with the tyre barrier quite heavily but the Colombian was fine. "Villeneuve came in front of me real slow," Montoya said. "He just pushed me off, he went wide and I just ran out of road."

The safety car was deployed while the McLaren was recovered and it took six laps before the race went green. Michael Schumacher’s Ferrari made short work of the Red Bull of Christian Klien, who dropped from fourth down to sixth. The points order was then Ralf leading Fisichella from the BAR of Jenson Button, Coulthard, Mark Webber’s Williams, Michael, Klien and Alonso up to eighth.

Raikkonen had worked his way up to 12th and Alonso got past Klein but cut the chicane so had to cede. He then dispatched the Red Bull again and homed in on Michael, while Raikkonen had disposed of Antonio Pizzonia’s Williams and Felipe Massa’s Sauber for 10th. Pizzonia then spun into the gravel at the Degner to end his race.

Alonso was compromised by a bit of nonsense from the FIA — stewards told Renault that Fernando had to let Klien past (again) due to yellow flags, then they changed their minds! Too late by then, Alonso had already ceded to Klien then had to pass him all over again. Trulli came to grief with Sato at the final chicane, it was all madness.

"I think we have a dangerous person on track and he has been for years," said a clearly disgruntled Trulli about Sato. "I think the FIA needs to take action."

Ralf was the first to pit, on lap 13, so had evidently been running light in qualifying, not to detract from him gaining pole, and Fisichella inherited the lead. Raikkonen was harassing Klien for seventh, while the Sauber duo of Massa and Villeneuve were having a little battle of their own in 10th and 11th. Raikkonen cleared Klien and homed in on Alonso, who was all over Michael’s Ferrari.

The Spaniard tried at turn one but Michael held him off, then Alonso just flew past the Ferrari round the outside of the 130R. The outside! Impressive stuff — Fernando and Kimi were in a league of their own at Suzuka. Raikkonen was then closing on Michael but couldn’t find a way past.

Alonso and Button pitted together, and Klien, and Button had a fuel rig problem that lost him a couple of places. Coulthard was then leading from Webber but the pair hadn’t stopped yet and Raikkonen was still harassing Michael. The Ferrari and the McLaren dived into the pits together and Michael came out ahead.

Raikkonen finally got past Michael at turn one, leaving Alonso to once again home in on the Ferrari. Michael was defending like mad but Fernando was on a mission. Down the pit straight the Renault howled past — off the title fight leash, Alonso is every inch as scary as Raikkonen in full flight.

Anyway, I digress. Pour a bucket of cold water on me, why don’t you. Christijan Albers’ Minardi went up in flames in the pit lane, a fuel rig gremlin causing the fiery affair. The mechanics were quick to put it out and Albers managed to return to the track without too many scorch marks. At the front Fisichella had a healthy lead, while Button, Webber, Raikkonen and Alonso were all nose to tail from second onwards.

Alonso was the first to duck into the pits for the second time and rejoined in eighth. Fisichella did likewise and returned behind Raikkonen, who was yet to pit, leaving Button in the lead. Jenson and Webber then took their second stops and Mark got the advantage to rejoin in front of the BAR. Fisichella went back into the lead after Raikkonen pitted but Kimi rejoined second, homing in on the Renault while Alonso did likewise to Webber’s Williams.

Alonso dispatched the Williams down the pit straight, even taking a bit of grass while he did so — there was no stopping him. And so I’m not playing favourites, Raikkonen was equally amazing, even more so seeing as he actually won the race. Fisichella was hampered by a backmarker and Raikkonen swarmed all over the Renault. With three laps to go Kimi was harassing Fisichella like mad.

The Finn went side by side with the Italian and stormed past round the outside at turn one for the lead on the final lap. Great driving by Kimi, who was on even more of a mission than Alonso. Raikkonen duly led home from Fisichella and Alonso, followed by Webber, Button, Coulthard, Michael and Ralf. I don’t know about you but I’m completely worn out with tension! The best race of the year by far.

"Just before my last pit stop I was able to go fast and I pulled out a bit of a gap and I was not too far behind any more when I came out so I thought maybe I would have a chance to catch him (Fisichella) up and try to overtake and just into the last lap I was able to get him on the main straight and then I started to hit the rev limiter again but I just went as quickly as I could outside on the first corner and luckily I made it through, so it was very good," said Raikkonen.

Fisichella was happy enough: "I was pushing 100 percent but he (Raikkonen) was much quicker than me and in the end, in the last three laps he was behind me and in the main straight he was much, much quicker than me, maybe because I was a bit slower at the exit of the chicane. Anyway, I did my best, second for me is good anyway, and we are higher again in the Constructors’ Championship and it is good."

Alonso was mildly disappointed. "I think the strategy this time did not work too well for us," he said. "We had an extremely competitive car, I felt quicker than Kimi today for the first time in the last part of the championship but unfortunately I was not able to beat him because before my first stop I was in front of him by a long way and because of the stops and the traffic I was third at the end. But it’s okay, starting 16th, it is good for the Constructors’"

The result puts Renault back in front of McLaren in the constructors’ standings by two points, so it’s still a frantic battle to come at Shanghai. Toyota could equal Ferrari for third if they score a one-two in China… not going to happen, is it? Ralf’s sole point in eight was pretty poor for a pole-sitter but Toyota just doesn’t have the grunt of the front runners.

Webber did a stellar job for Williams in fourth, although Button’s BAR just didn’t have the stamina in the race, coming home fifth. Coulthard did well to wrestle the Red Bull to sixth and the Schumacher brothers came home seventh and eighth, Michael leading Ralf.

Raikkonen started 17th and won — five years ago Barrichello won in Germany from 18th on the grid and back in 1983 John Watson won the US GP at Long Beach from 22nd. If you want more stats, Bill Vukovich won the 1954 Indy 500 from 19th — but I’m digressing again.

Klien and Massa made up the top ten but Suzuka was all about Raikkonen and Alonso. Kimi was just amazing to win and Fernando was not far behind in the lunatic stakes. F1 was everything it should be in Japan — typical, it gets exciting when there’s only one race left! Final top eight classification: Raikkonen, Fisichella, Alonso, Webber, Button, Coulthard, M. Schumacher, R. Schumacher

Japanese GP: Winners’ press conference
Racing series F1
Date 2005-10-09

Japanese Grand Prix FIA winners’ press conference trancript with

1. Kimi Raikkonen (McLaren), 1h29m02.212s
2. Giancarlo Fisichella (Renault), 1h29m03.845s
3. Fernando Alonos (Renault), 1h29m19.668s

Q: Kimi, a sensational win from you from 17th on the grid, first of all talk us through the first lap, I think a bit of contact with your team-mate Juan Pablo Montoya.

Kimi Raikkonen: Yeah, there was quite a lot happening in the first and second corner so I was turning into the second corner and Montoya touched me on the rear wheel a little bit and got sideways and he got past me but luckily enough we didn’t damage our cars, so it was alright. The first lap was quite exciting but I ran wide in the chicane and then unfortunately for him he something happened to him and he went off but otherwise it was a good race.

Q: Then some sensational competition and Fernando Alonso and Michael Schumacher.

Kimi Raikkonen: Yeah, I was behind them but unfortunately we had a slight problem with the gearing and seventh gear was a little bit too short and every now and then when I got really close I started to hit the rev limiter so it was very difficult to get past people but in the end the car started to get better and better all the time and we were able to catch up in the later part of the race.

Q: Well it looked like a phenomenal move at the end there on Giancarlo, talk us through that.

Kimi Raikkonen: Yeah, just before my last pit stop I was able to go fast and I pulled out a bit of a gap and I was not too far behind any more when I came out so I thought maybe I would have a chance to catch him up and try to overtake and just into the last lap I was able to get him on the main straight and then I started to hit the rev limiter again but I just went as quickly as I could outside on the first corner and luckily I made it through, so it was very good.

Q: Obviously it was a disappointment not securing the Drivers’ Championship but how does this race rank in your mind in terms of enjoyment and achievement?

Kimi Raikkonen: Of course, it was much more difficult than any other of my wins but in one way it is much nicer when you have to fight for it. So it is one of the best ones. It was great, you know, with all the problems in practice with the engine, then the ten-place penalty and all the problems in qualifying with the weather. We were still able to win and now we have a perfect place for qualifying in the last race.

Q: Giancarlo, a great result for Renault, taking the lead of the Constructors’ Championship again by two points. Talk us through the day; it looked like the win was there for you.

Giancarlo Fisichella: Yeah, it was a tough race. I mean, not tough but I knew Kimi was quick and was catching up with me and honestly I was pushing 100 percent but he was much quicker than me and in the end, in the last three laps he was behind me and in the main straight he was much, much quicker than me, maybe because I was a bit slower at the exit of the chicane. Anyway, I did my best, second for me is good anyway, and we are higher again in the Constructors’ Championship and it is good.

Q: Ralf Schumacher took an early lead. Did you realise much earlier on that he was on a much lighter fuel load?

Giancarlo Fisichella: Yeah, the rumour was Toyota on three stops, so I was quite convinced to overtake him after the pit stop and it was just important to overtake Jenson on the start. I did that, I overtook Jenson at the start and then I was pushing and doing my race.

Q: Fernando, after Brazil you promised to be more a bit more aggressive here in Japan and that certainly proved to be the case, 16th to eighth when the safety car came out on lap one and then in traffic all day, brilliant to watch.

Fernando Alonso: Yeah, it was okay. The first lap at the start was more similar to last year’s start, obviously the championship is not on the mind any more and no need to take care about anything, so I really went for it and it was good. But then I was quicker than the people in front of me, I overtook them, Michael and these guys, and then I pitted and unfortunately they overtook me again in the extra laps, so I had to fight again with traffic to overtake them again, pit, and overtake them again after the second pit stop. So I think the strategy this time did not work too well for us. We had an extremely competitive car, I felt quicker than Kimi today for the first time in the last part of the championship but unfortunately I was not able to beat him because before my first stop I was in front of him by a long way and because of the stops and the traffic I was third at the end. But it’s okay, starting 16th, it is good for the Constructors’ (Championship).

Q: A small hiccup with Christian Klien at the chicane there, and presumably you had to let him pass you again.

Fernando Alonso: I didn’t understand because I overtook him missing the chicane so I slowed down and he overtook me again. Then I overtook him again on the main straight after I had let him past and after three laps I had seven seconds to him and the team and the FIA told me to slow down to let him past again. So I nearly stopped in the race, waited seven seconds, let Klien go ahead, and I was a bit surprised about that but there was nothing to do.

Q: And what about those great passes, first on Michael Schumacher going into 130R?

Fernando Alonso: Yeah, it was very nice. In the whole championship I did like two or three overtaking moves and in this race I think I did 14, and it was good. Especially that one, I was much quicker on the straight, he closed the door on the inside going into 130R, I was on the inside, flat-out, and it was really risky but as I said before, there was nothing to lose today.

Q: Kimi, what are your thoughts going into China. With the Constructor’ Championship as close as it is, it is going to be a tense finale to the season.

Kimi Raikkonen: Yeah, it is going to be a nice race for both teams I think. Last year our car was pretty quick there and I quite like the circuit, so for sure we will try to win the race and hopefully we can win the championship too for the team. We just need to do the best we can and we will see at the end of the race what happens.

Q: Kimi, how does that win rate for you?

Kimi Raikkonen: I think it is one of the best for sure, maybe the best one, because I really had to fight for it and after all the problems we had this weekend, it was very nice.

Q: It certainly looked fantastic from outside, what was it like inside?

Kimi Raikkonen: Yeah, there was quite a lot happening during the race all the time. There was traffic and I was not really able to run at my own speed, in the clean air, only at the end. It was exciting with some nice overtaking and it is always nice when you can fight like this.

Q: You and Fernando had fantastic opening laps, were you a little bit more held up than Fernando?

Kimi Raikkonen: Actually I went a little bit straight in the last chicane, I tried to overtake in some places and then the safety car came out. Montoya touched me a bit at the rear tyre, so I got sideways and lost a place from him but apart from that it was pretty okay.

Q: And behind Michael as well.

Kimi Raikkonen: Yeah, after the pit stop I was able to get past him. He made a little mistake and I was quicker than him on the main straight but I had a little bit too short seventh gear, so I was hitting the limiter.

Q: And then the vital later second stop got you past Webber and Button.

Kimi Raikkonen: Yeah, I was quicker than them but I was just closing up and I was not able to get a good run on them and I knew they were going to stop before me, so I had two laps to really push and try to gain time. I was able to pull a little bit away from them and then after the last pit stop I saw that he was not so far away and there were seven laps to go, so I went as quickly as I could and luckily I caught him on the last lap and got past him.

Q: Giancarlo, you must be very disappointed.

Giancarlo Fisichella: Yeah, I was the leader of the race until the last lap and losing the first place is not great. Kimi was flying, he was much quicker than me, and he was especially much quicker than me on the straight, maybe even because he had much better traction out of the hairpin and the chicane. I am a little bit disappointed but I did my best, I was pushing all through the race and in a way, it is a good day for us because we are back on top of the Constructors’ Championship.

Q: You built up a lead of 19 seconds after the middle stint and to have lost that must have been devastating, but did you have any major problems?

Giancarlo Fisichella: I was struggling a little bit with the rear end in the slow speed corners and with traction. The car balance in the high speed corners wasn’t too bad. He was just quicker than us, as usual, in the last (few races), after the first part of the season, it has been like that. What can I do?

Q: Fernando, a fantastic first lap, and you had to overtake Michael Schumacher twice.

Fernando Alonso: Yeah, all the traffic I had in front of me I overtook twice, once on the track and then because I stopped they overtook me again. So I probably lost the race there, in the traffic. My car was really good today; for the first time in a long time I felt quicker than the McLarens today but we didn’t have the opportunity to beat them. But it’s OK; starting 16th I think all the plans we had was to get into the points, top six, top seven, so to be on the podium again is a nice surprise. It’s my 14th podium of the season, so I hope to do the 15th in China and if I can win, even better.

Q: It looked as though it was very very close with Mark Webber.

Fernando Alonso: It was very close. I think I tried to overtake him twice but I wasn’t really much faster than him, so I needed a little mistake from him if I had the opportunity. He made a little mistake at the chicane, so I went for it. I think it was impossible to overtake at the outside because I tried two or three times with Michael. I learned the lesson, so I really went for the inside but there was only a little grass, there was nothing left of the asphalt, so it was a great move. That one and the other one, on Michael, around the outside of 130R were the nicest moments of the race.

Q: Kimi, what do you think about, when you’re roaring down the straight, inches apart, entering that final lap?

Kimi Raikkonen: Well, I wanted to get past him. I was thinking which way I should go. Of course at the inside it is easier to overtake, but Fisichella went on the inside, so I didn’t have much choice but to go around the outside and try to go around him and luckily enough I made it, so I was very happy.

Q: Same question to Giancarlo, what did you think?

Giancarlo Fisichella: He was just quicker than me in the straight. I had already seen him catching me in the middle of the straight and going on the left side. I could already see the possibility of losing the first position. I did my best but unfortunately I always try to keep my position but I could see there was the possibility of a collision.

Q: Fernando and Kimi, how do you explain that all of a sudden it was possible to overtake so many cars, especially on a circuit like Suzuka where people say it’s impossible?

Kimi Raikkonen: I think the nature of the circuit seems to somehow suit this year better than other years. There was quite a big speed difference with some cars on the straight and I think the quick left hander is now easier so you can follow (another car) through, going flat behind people and it makes it easier to try and overtake into the chicane and onto the main straight. I think that change to the circuit has definitely made it easier to overtake here.

Fernando Alonso: Yeah, I don’t know why this year was a little bit easier also to follow people in the first sector where it’s usually really difficult. And 130R is easily flat, even if you follow a car that is just in front of you, so in the chicane it is a good opportunity.

Q: Kimi, have you ever been as happy as you are now after a race and how long do you think you’re able to maintain the feeling?

Kimi Raikkonen: I don’t know how long, this evening for sure. I am very happy, of course, for the win. Maybe it makes me happier than normal because I really needed to fight for it so maybe the feeling is stronger now because when you achieve something, when you really fight for it, it’s nicer than driving a whole race on your own in front.

Q: Giancarlo, could you tell us what the people on the pit wall told you during the last few laps, and don’t you feel that during the first part of the race you were maybe too conservative?

Giancarlo Fisichella: I was talking with the team and the first part I was doing my pace. Then they told me to push a little bit more and I was doing that. I did my best, I told you I was always pushing, but after the middle of the race I lost rear grip and it was a bit slow in the slow chicanes and the low speed corners and even under traction.

Q: Giancarlo, do you think that the six laps behind the safety car affected the result of the race?

Giancarlo Fisichella: Yes, that’s another reason for sure. It’s another reason because there was a possibility to go away a bit more compared with all the people struggling behind other slow cars, but anyway, that is racing.

-fia

New Orleans

October 10, 2005

Sunday, October 09, 2005

Wading Toward Home

October 9, 2005
Wading Toward Home
By MICHAEL LEWIS
I. Kings and Queens (and Squires) in Old, Old New Orleans

There’s a fine line between stability and stagnation, and by the time I was born, New Orleans had already crossed it. The difference between growing up in New Orleans, starting in 1960, and growing up most other places in America was how easy it was to believe, in New Orleans, that nothing meaningful occurred outside it. No one of importance ever seemed to move in, just as no one of importance ever moved away. The absence of any sort of movement into or out of the upper and upper-middle classes was obviously bad for business, but it was great for what are now called family values. Until I went away to college, I had no idea how scattered and disjointed most American families were. By the time I was 9, I could ride my bike to the houses of both sets of grandparents. My mother’s parents lived six blocks away; my father’s parents, the far-flung ones, lived about a mile away. I didn’t think it was at all odd that so much of my family was so near at hand: one friend of mine had all four of her grandparents next door, two on one side, two on the other. At the time, this struck me as normal.

Every Christmas, my mother’s side of the family gathered for a party that confirmed for me that just about all white New Orleanians, even the horrible ones, were somehow blood relations. Before I could do long division, I knew the difference between a third cousin and a first cousin twice removed. Wherever I went, I was defined by family, living and dead.

My mother’s family, the Monroes, were the arrivistes: they had been in New Orleans since only the 1850’s. Nevertheless, my great-grandfather J. Blanc Monroe, descended from James Polk on one side and James Monroe on the other, became the spearhead of the New Orleans aristocracy. In "Rising Tide," John Barry’s history of the 1927 flood, Papa Blanc, as he was known, is cast as one of the villains who pressed the government to dynamite the levees below New Orleans and flood the outlying parishes in order to spare the city; he then stiffed the victims, on behalf of the city, when they came for reparations. My father’s side, the Lewises, were the old New Orleanians. They came down from Virginia in 1803, when Thomas Jefferson sent my father’s great-great-grandfather Joshua Lewis to be a judge for the territory of Orleans after the Louisiana Purchase. Eventually he joined the Louisiana Supreme Court, wrote the state’s first legal opinion, gave the celebratory toast at the banquet given to honor Andrew Jackson in 1815 after the Battle of New Orleans and, as the Protestant candidate, narrowly lost the governor’s race to his Catholic opponent, Jacques Philippe Roi de Villere, whose descendant Sandy lived across the street from my parents until last year. Joshua’s son John Lewis was elected mayor of New Orleans and was wounded at the Battle of Mansfield.

As a boy, I had no idea when the Lewises arrived in Louisiana, or that Thomas Jefferson himself had sent them. I just knew that everyone around me had been there forever, mostly in the same houses. I took it as the normal state of affairs, the done thing, that when the old carnival organizations went looking for royalty, they came to my Uptown neighborhood. There was, for instance, a Mardi Gras krewe for adolescents called Squires, which mimicked exactly the masked balls of the adults. When I was 16, I was dubbed its king: a group of five young men in suits, led by the departing king, turned up in our living room to tap my shoulders. After school for the next several weeks, I went straight from baseball practice to a school for royals in a cottage just off St. Charles Avenue, where a woman experienced in the ways of European royalty had taken up residence – presumably because we had the one growth market in the world for kings and queens. The tone of her sessions was serious, bordering on solemn. In that little cottage, I spent hours practicing to be king, a crown on my head, an ermine cape on my shoulders and a glittering scepter in my left hand that I waved over imaginary subjects, unaware that there was anything the slightest bit unusual about any of it.

Perhaps because their position in it was so fixed, my parents were never all that interested in New Orleans society – my father once said to me, "My idea of hell is a cocktail party." On the other hand, they have always been deeply engaged in civic life; they are, I suppose, what’s left of that useful but unfashionable attitude of noblesse oblige. Without making any sort of show of it at all, my mother has run just about every major charitable organization in the city: as camouflage in the public-housing projects, where she spends a lot of her time, she has always insisted on driving the world’s oldest and least desirable automobiles. (And, yes, she has many black friends.) My father is a different sort, less keen on getting his hands dirty. For 40 years, from the comfort of his private library, he has, every other Saturday, watched my mother push a lawn mower back and forth across the front lawn without so much as a passing thought that he might lend a hand. He was fond of citing the Lewis family motto:

Do as little as possible
And that unwillingly
For it is better to incur a slight reprimand
Than to perform an arduous task.

Like my mother, he seldom mentioned what he did away from home. Yet at one point in my childhood, he was president of so many civic and business enterprises that I didn’t understand why they didn’t just get it over with and make him president of the United States, too. He is still president of an unelected board of city elders, the Board of Liquidation, an artifact of Reconstruction that has, incredibly, the powers to issue bonds on behalf of New Orleans and to levy taxes to pay off those bonds.

But my parents have lived their entire adult lives fighting an unwinnable war. In their lifetimes, New Orleans has gone from the leading city of the South to a theme park for low-rollers and sinners. All the unpleasant facts about a city that can be measured – crime, poverty and illiteracy rates, the strange forms of governmental malfunction – have remained high. The public schools are a hopeless problem, and the public housing is a source of endless misery. A disturbing number of my parents’ white neighbors have fled to white towns on the far side of Lake Pontchartrain. My parents would never put it this way, but they are fatalists; they have come to view change as unfortunate and inevitable. That’s one difference between stability and stagnation. A stable society has the ability to reject or adapt to change. A stagnant one has change imposed on it, unpleasantly. The only question is from what direction it will come.

On the night of Sunday, Aug. 28, it came from the south. That’s when my mother reached me in California to let me know that she and my father, along with my sister (a former, reluctant Mardi Gras queen) and her husband and their children, were stuck in a traffic jam heading for central Alabama. "We had to evacuate for the hurricane," she said. HURR-i-cun. New Orleanians generate many peculiar accents but nothing like a conventional Southern one. Anyone in New Orleans with a Southern accent is either faking it or from somewhere else. My mother often changes the standard pronunciation of words by stressing a first syllable. (Umbrella is UM-brella.)

"What HURR-i-cun?" I asked.

We had never left New Orleans to escape a hurricane. Betsy, in 1965, and Camille, in 1969, the meteorological stars of my youth, were wildly entertaining. Each in turn wiped out the weekend house built by Papa Blanc on the Mississippi Gulf Coast – Camille left behind nothing but the foundation slab – but that’s what Mississippi was for: to get wiped out by hurricanes. A hurricane in Mississippi was not a natural disaster but an excuse for a real-estate boom.

In this unchanging world, something else was about to change. . .but what? My father believes in knocking on wood, and also that bad things come in threes. Having endured this past summer both a nasty heart operation and the death of his closest friend, he was happy to see that the third bad thing was merely another hurricane. He, like I, assumed they would drive to their friend’s place in central Alabama, wait a day or two and then return to the same New Orleans they had fled. That was Sunday. The storm hit Monday morning, and the levees that protected the city from the lake broke. Then, of course, all hell broke loose. The mayor started saying that 10,000 people might be dead and that the living wouldn’t be allowed to return for months. My parents left Alabama for a house in Highlands, N.C., that Papa Blanc bought in 1913. When the water is rising, it’s nice to own a house in the highest incorporated town east of the Rocky Mountains – even if it is an old, chilly house without modern conveniences and a big sign inside that reads, "Yee Cannot Expect to Be Both Grand and Comfortable."

It’s even nicer when you have immediate family accounted for. But on Sunday evening, my little brother, in hot pursuit of one of those Darwin Awards that are bestowed upon the unintentionally suicidal, looked at the traffic jam heading north out of New Orleans and decided instead to go south, toward Katrina, where the roads were clear and he could drive fast.

II. Rumors, Rumors Everywhere – and Haywood Hillyer

Three days after Katrina made landfall, I flew to Dallas and then, the next morning, squeezed between two FEMA workers on a flight into Baton Rouge. My father, even more risk-averse than usual, had phoned me and insisted that I shouldn’t go home. When I wouldn’t listen, he became testy with me for the first time in my adult life. "After what we’ve been through the past few months, you want to go and do this . . .," he started, though when he realized he wasn’t going to change my mind, he changed his tune. "In that case," he said, "grab me a couple of tropical-weight suits and a pair of decent shoes. And just a handful of bow ties."

On my way into the city, at a gas station, I ran into two young men leaving in a pickup truck. They had just been stopped by the police in New Orleans and related the following exchange:

Cops: "Are you armed?"

Young men: "Heavily."

Cops: "Good. Shoot to kill."

The first surprise was that a city supposedly blockaded wasn’t actually all that hard to get into. The TV reports insisted that the National Guard had arrived – there were pictures of soldiers showing up, so how could it not be true? – but from the Friday morning of my arrival through the weekend after Katrina hit, there was no trace of the Guard, or any other authority, on high ground. New Orleans at that moment was experiencing the fantasy of the neutron bomb: people obliterated, buildings intact. No city was ever more silent. No barks, shouts, honks or wails: there weren’t even cockroaches scurrying between cracks in the sidewalks. At night, I soon learned, the sound of the place was different. At night, the air would be filled with helicopters reprising the soundtrack from "Apocalypse Now." But on that bright blue summer Friday, the city could not have been more tranquil. It was as if New Orleans had a "pause" button, and the finger that reached in to press it also inadvertently uprooted giant magnolias and snapped telephone poles in two.

The next surprise was that a city supposedly inundated had so much dry land. When the levees broke, Lake Pontchartrain stole back the wetlands long ago reclaimed for housing. Between the new lake shore and the Mississippi River of my youth is dry land with the houses of about 185,000 people. The city government in exile has categorized the high-ground population as 55 percent black, 42 percent white and 3 percent Hispanic. The flood did not discriminate by race or class. It took out a lot of poor people’s homes, but it took out a lot of rich people’s homes too. It did discriminate historically: it took out everything but the old city. If you asked an architecture critic, or a preservationist, to design a flood of this size in New Orleans, he would have given you something like this one.

This wasn’t supposed to be. After the levees broke, Mayor Ray Nagin, who grew up in New Orleans, predicted that even Uptown would be under 15 to 20 feet of water. But most of Uptown was dry. Chris O’ Connor, vice president of the Ochsner Clinic, the one hospital still open, would tell me: "As the water rose, everyone was quoting different elevation levels. One doctor said Ochsner was 2.6 feet above sea level. Someone else said Ochsner was 12 feet above sea level. No one knew where the water would stop." But it stopped a far way from Ochsner. There’s a long history to this sort of confusion: as a child I was told many times that the highest point in New Orleans was "Monkey Hill." Monkey Hill was a pile of dirt near the Audubon Zoo, Uptown, used chiefly as a bike ramp by 10-year-old boys. The rest of the city was "below sea level." That the whole city was below sea level, along with the fact that we buried people in tombs above ground because we couldn’t dig into the soil without hitting water, was what every New Orleans child learned from seemingly knowledgeable grown-ups about the ground he walked on. If there was ever a serious flood, the only place that would be above water was Monkey Hill – which caused a lot of us to wonder what the grown-ups were thinking when they brought in earth-moving machinery and flattened it. Now we didn’t even have Monkey Hill to stand on.

Apart from a few engineers, no one in New Orleans knew the most important fact about the ground he stood on: its elevation. It took some weaving to get a car to my family’s house, but water wasn’t the obstacle. There was no water here; the damage from the wind, on the other hand, was sensational, like nothing I had ever seen. Telephone poles lay like broken masts in the middle of the street. Wires and cables hung low over the streets like strings of popcorn on a Christmas tree. But the houses, the gorgeous old New Orleans houses, were pristine, untouched.

Beyond Uptown, here is what I knew, or thought I knew: Orleans Parish prison had been seized by the inmates, who also controlled the armory. Prisoners in their orange uniforms had been spotted outside, roaming around the tilapia ponds – there’s a fish farm next to the prison – and whatever that meant, it sounded ominous: I mean, if they were getting into the tilapias, who knew what else they might do? Gangs of young black men were raging through the Garden District, moving toward my parents’ house, shooting white people. Armed young black men, on Wednesday, had taken over Uptown Children’s Hospital, just six blocks away, and shot patients and doctors. Others had stolen a forklift and carted out the entire contents of a Rite Aid and then removed the whole front of an Ace Hardware store farther uptown, on Oak Street. Most shocking of all, because of its incongruity, was the news that looters had broken into Perlis, the Uptown New Orleans clothing store, and picked the place clean of alligator belts, polo shirts with little crawfish on them and tuxedos most often rented by white kids for debutante parties and the Squires’ Ball.

I also knew, or thought I knew, that right up to Thursday night, there had been just two houses in Uptown New Orleans with people inside them. In one, a couple of old coots had barricaded themselves behind plywood signs that said things like "Looters Will Be Shot" and "Enter and Die." The other, a fortlike house equipped with a massive power generator, was owned by Jim Huger – who happened to grow up in the house next door to my parents. (When I heard that he had the only air-conditioning in town and I called to ask if I could borrow a bed, he said, "I’m that little kid you used to beat on with a Wiffle Ball bat, and I gotta save your ass now?") In Jim Huger’s house, until the night before, several other young men had holed up, collecting weapons and stories. Most of these stories entered the house by way of a reserve officer in the New Orleans Police Department, a friend of Jim’s, who had gone out in full uniform each day and come back with news directly from other cops. From Tuesday until Thursday, the stories had grown increasingly terrifying. On Thursday, a police sergeant told him: "If I were you, I’d get the hell out of here. Tonight they gonna waste white guys, and they don’t care which ones." This reserve cop had looked around and seen an amazing sight, full-time New Orleans police officers, en masse, fleeing New Orleans. "All these cops were going to Baton Rouge to sleep because they thought it wasn’t safe to sleep in New Orleans," he told me. He had heard that by the time it was dark "there wouldn’t be a single cop in the city."

On Thursday night, Fort Huger was abandoned. Forming a six-car, heavily armed convoy, the last of Uptown New Orleans, apart from the two old coots, set off into the darkness and agreed not to stop, or even slow down, until they were out of town. They also agreed that they would try to come back in the morning, when it was light.

With one exception: one of the men who had taken his meals inside Fort Huger declined to leave New Orleans. Haywood Hillyer was his name. He had been two years behind me in school. We weren’t good friends, just pieces of furniture in each other’s lives. He had grown up four blocks away from me and now lived two blocks down the street, in the smallest house in the neighborhood. Any panel of judges would have taken one look at Haywood’s house and voted it Least Likely to Be Looted. Haywood nevertheless insisted on risking his life to protect it. Outwardly conformist – clean-shaven, bright smile, well-combed dark wavy hair, neatly pressed polo shirts, gentle and seemingly indecisive manner – Haywood was capable all the same of generating a great deal of original behavior. This he did in the usual New Orleans way, by thinking things through at least halfway for himself before leaping into action. This quality in Haywood, the instinct to improvise, is also in the city; it’s why New Orleans is so hospitable to jazz musicians, chefs and poker players.

The others couldn’t decide whether to pity or admire Haywood, but in the end they gave him all their extra guns and ammo. By the time the convoy left the city Thursday night, Haywood had himself a .357 magnum, a .38 Special, a 9-millimeter Beretta and a sleek, black military-grade semiautomatic rifle, along with a sack holding 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Like most of the men in Uptown New Orleans, Haywood knew how to shoot a duck. But he had never fired any of these weapons or weapons remotely like them. He didn’t even know what the sleek black rifle was; he just called it an "AK Whatever It Is." But that Thursday night, he took the three pistols and the AK Whatever It Was and boarded himself up inside his house.

Immediately he had a problem: a small generator that powered one tiny window air-conditioning unit. It cooled just one small room, his office. But the thing made such a racket that, as he put it, "they could have busted down the front door and be storming inside and I wouldn’t have heard them. There could have been 20 natives outside screaming, ‘I’m gonna burn your house down,’ and I’d a never heard it." Fearing he might nod off and be taken in his sleep, he jammed a rack filled with insurance-industry magazines against the door. (Haywood sells life insurance.) In his little office, he sat all night – as far as he knew, the last white person left in New Orleans. He tried to sleep, he said, but "I kept dreaming all night long someone was coming through the door." He didn’t leave his air-conditioned office until first light, when he crept out and squinted through his mail slot. In that moment, he was what Uptown New Orleans had become, even before the storm: a white man, alone, peering out through a slot in search of what might kill him. All he needed was the answer.

But that moment passed, and when the sun rose, he did, too, and went back to Fort Huger for food and clean water and a bath, in the form of a dip in the swimming pool. An hour later, in his underpants, and with a pistol in his hand, he discovered that he had accidentally locked the door to Fort Huger behind him, leaving all his keys and clothes and guns, save the one pistol, inside the fort. He couldn’t think of what to do – he certainly didn’t want to do anything so rash as break one of Jim Huger’s cut-glass windows – so he plopped down on the porch in his soggy boxer shorts with the gun in his lap, and waited, hoping that the good guys would reach him before the bad guys did.

III. The Ex-Israeli Commandos and Their Russian Flying Machines

That’s when I arrived – on the heels of the young men who fled town the night before. Unaware of Haywood’s plight, I pulled up across the street from my parents’ house, into the only spot clear of debris, in front of old Ms. Dottie Perrier’s place. For many years now, the easiest way to determine if she was home had been to pull your car right up in front: if she was in, she would throw open her upstairs shutter and ask, sweetly, that you park someplace else. Now, along with going the wrong way down one-way streets, running stop signs and crossing the Audubon Park on the grass, parking right in front of Ms. Perrier’s house was one of the new pleasures of driving around a city without any people in it.

The moment I cut the engine, her shutters sprang open. Out the front door she flew, with her white hair nicely coiffed and her big blue eyes blinking behind the oversize spectacles perched on her nose without earpieces. She had the air of an owl who has mistaken day for night. After spending the last five days inside her house, she was intensely curious.

"Where is everybody?" she asked.

"There’s been a hurricane," I said. "The city has been evacuated. Everybody’s gone."

"Really! So they’ve all left, et cetera?"

Her surprise was as genuine as her tone was pleasant. Two days before, it turned out, one of the men inside Fort Huger passed by and noticed outgoing mail in her slot. One letter was her electric bill – four days after the entire city lost power. He knocked on her door, told her she really should get out of town and then tried to explain to her that the postman wasn’t coming, perhaps for months. Whereupon Ms. Perrier put her hands on her hips and said, "Well, no one informed me!"

Just then a car turned the corner, rolled up to a house in the next block and stopped. Its appearance was as shocking as the arrival of a spaceship filled with aliens – apart from Ms. Perrier, I hadn’t seen a soul, or a car, for miles. Four men with black pistols leapt out of it. Two of them looked as if they belonged in the neighborhood – polo shirts, sound orthodontia, a certain diffidence in their step. But the other two, with their bad teeth and battle gear, marched around as if they had only just captured the place. Leaving Ms. Perrier, I wandered down and met my first former Israeli commandos, along with their Uptown New Orleans employers, who had come to liberate their homes.

They had just landed Russian assault helicopters in Audubon Park. Not one, but two groups of Uptown New Orleanians had rented these old Soviet choppers, along with four-to-six-man Israeli commando units (platoons? squads?), and swooped down onto the soccer field beside the Audubon Zoo. Down, down, down they had come, then jumped out to, as they put it, "secure the perimeter." Guns aimed, eyes darting, no point on the compass uncovered. As a young man in this new militia later told me: "Hell, yes, I was scared. We didn’t know what to expect. We thought Zulu nation might be coming out of the woods." But the only resistance they met was a zookeeper, who came out with his hands up.

All of this happened just moments before. Right here, in my hometown. All four men were still a little hopped up. The commandos went inside to "clear the house." A nice little yellow house just one block from my childhood home. Not a human being – apart from Ms. Perrier and me – for a mile in each direction. And yet they raised their guns, opened the door, entered and rattled around. A few minutes later they emerged, looking grim.

"You got some mold on the upstairs ceiling," one commando said gravely.

IV. Fears, From High Ground to Troubled Waters

Pretty quickly, it became clear that there were more than a few people left in the city and that they fell broadly into two categories: extremely well armed white men prepared to do battle and a ragtag collection of irregulars, black and white, who had no idea that there was anyone to do battle with. A great many of the irregulars were old people, like Ms. Perrier, who had no family outside New Orleans and so could not imagine where else they would go. But there were also plenty of people who, like the portly, topless, middle-aged gay couple in short shorts walking their dogs down St. Charles Avenue every day, seemed not to sense the slightest danger.

The city on high ground organized itself around the few houses turned into forts. By Saturday morning, Fort Huger was again alive with half a dozen young men who spent their day checking on houses and rescuing the two groups of living creatures most in need of help: old people and pets. Two doors down from my sister’s house on Audubon Park was Fort Ryan, under the command of Bill Ryan, who lost an eye to a mortar in Vietnam, was hit by a hand grenade and was shot through the arm and then returned home with a well-earned chestful of ribbons and medals. Him you could understand. He had passed the nights sitting on his porch with his son at his side and a rifle on his lap. "The funny thing is," he told me, "is that before now my son never asked me what happened in Vietnam. Now he wants to know."

The biggest fort of all was Fort Ramelli, a mansion on St. Charles Avenue. At Fort Ryan, they joked, lovingly, about Fort Ramelli. "We used to say that if a nuclear bomb went off in New Orleans, the only thing left would be the cockroaches and Bobby Ramelli," said Nick Ryan, Bill’s son. "Now we’re not so sure about the cockroaches." Bobby Ramelli and his son spent the first five days of the flood in his flat boat, pulling, they guessed, about 300 people from the water.

The police had said that gangs of young black men were looting and killing their way across the city, and the news had reached the men inside the forts. These men also had another informational disadvantage: working TV sets. Over and over and over again, they replayed the same few horrifying scenes from the Superdome, the convention center and a shop in downtown New Orleans. If the images were to be reduced to a sentence in the minds of Uptown New Orleans, that sentence would be: Crazy black people with automatic weapons are out hunting white people, and there’s no bag limit! "The perspective you are getting from me," one of Fort Huger’s foot soldiers said, as he walked around the living room with an M-16, "is the perspective of the guy who is getting disinformation and reacting accordingly." He spoke, for those few days, for much of the city, including the mayor and the police chief.

No emotion is as absurd as fear when it is proved to be unjustified. I was aware of this; I was also aware that it is better to be absurdly alive than absurdly dead. I broke into the family duck-hunting closet, loaded a shotgun with birdshot and headed out into the city. Running around with a 12-gauge filled with birdshot was, in the eyes of the local militia, little better than running around with a slingshot – or one of those guns that, when you shoot them, spit out a tiny flag. Over the next few days, I checked hundreds of houses and found that none had been broken into. The story about the Children’s Hospital turned out to be just that, a story. The glass door to the Rite Aid on St. Charles near Broadway – where my paternal grandfather collapsed and died in 1979 – was shattered, but the only section disturbed was the shelf stocking the Wild Turkey. The Ace Hardware store on Oak Street was supposed to have had its front wall pulled off by a forklift, but it appeared to be, like most stores and all houses, perfectly intact. Of all the stores in town, none looked so well preserved as the bookshops. No one loots literature.

Oddly, the only rumor that contained even a grain of truth was the looting of Perlis. The window of the Uptown clothing store was shattered. But the alligator belts hung from their carousel, and the shirts with miniature crawfish emblazoned on their breasts lay stacked as neatly as they had been before Katrina churned up the gulf. On the floor was a ripped brown paper sack with two pairs of jeans inside: the thief lacked both ambition and conviction.

The old houses were also safe. There wasn’t a house in the Garden District, or Uptown, that could not have been easily entered; there wasn’t a house in either area that didn’t have food and water to keep a family of five alive for a week; and there was hardly a house in either place that had been violated in any way. And the grocery stores! I spent some time inside a Whole Foods choosing from the selection of PowerBars. The door was open, the shelves groaned with untouched bottles of water and food. Downtown, 25,000 people spent the previous four days without food and water when a few miles away – and it’s a lovely stroll – entire grocery stores, doors ajar, were untouched. From the moment the crisis downtown began, there had been a clear path, requiring maybe an hour’s walk, to food, water and shelter. And no one, not a single person, it seemed, took it.

Here, in the most familial city in America, the people turned out to know even less of one another than they did of the ground on which they stood. Downtown, into which the people too poor to get themselves out of town had been shamefully herded by local authorities, I found the mirror image of the hysteria uptown. Inside the Superdome and the convention center, rumors started that the police chief, the mayor and the national media passed along: of 200 people murdered, of countless rapes, of hundreds of armed black gang members on the loose. (Weeks later, The Times Picayune wrote that just two people were found killed and there had been no reports of rape. The murder rate in the city the week after Katrina hit was unchanged.) There, two poor people told me that the flood wasn’t caused by nature but by man: the government was trying to kill poor people. (Another reason it may never have occurred to the poor to make their way into the homes and grocery stores of the rich is that they assumed the whole point of this event was for the rich to get a clean shot at the poor.) In their view, the whole thing, beginning with the levee break and ending with the cramming of thousands of innocent people into what they were sure were death chambers with murderers and rapists, was a setup.

My great-grandfather J. Blanc Monroe is dead and gone, but he didn’t take with him the climate of suspicion between rich and poor that he apparently helped foster. On St. Claude Avenue, just below the French Quarter, there was a scene of indigents, old people and gay men employed in the arts fleeing what they took to be bombs being dropped on them by Army helicopters. What were being dropped were, in fact, ready-to-eat meals and water in plastic jugs. But falling from the sky, these missiles looked unfriendly, and when the jugs hit concrete, they exploded and threw up shrapnel. The people in the area had heard from the police that George W. Bush intended to visit the city that day, and they could not imagine he meant them any good – but this attack, as they took it, came as a shock. "Run! Run!" screamed a man among the hordes trying to outrun the chopper. "It’s the president!"

V. Securing Things, Including Dottie Perrier

Four days after I arrived, I walked down St. Charles Avenue and watched the most eclectic convoy of official vehicles ever assembled. It included (I couldn’t write fast enough to list them all): the New York City Police Department, the Alameda County Fire Department, the Aspen Fire Department, the S.P.C.A. from somewhere in Kentucky, emergency-rescue trucks from Illinois and Arizona, the Austin Fire Department, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Consulate of Iceland and several pickup trucks marked, mysteriously, FPS: Federal Protection Services. The next day, the police chief said that New Orleans was "probably the safest city in America right now," and the mayor, removed to Dallas, announced that the city would be forcibly evacuated. The old social logic of New Orleans was now turned on its head: the only people welcome inside were those who had never before been there.

Overnight, the city went from being a place that you couldn’t get out of to a place you had to be a conniver to stay in. In the few people who still needed to be saved there was a striking lack of urgency. When Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu, rescuing people in a boat, spotted three young men on a roof and tried to ferry them out, they told him to leave them be and said, "We want to be helicoptered out." After my host, Jim Huger, took a pirogue to help an old man surrounded by flood waters, he passed an old woman sitting on her porch and offered to rescue her too. "Are you the official Coast Guard?" she asked. He said he wasn’t. "I’m waiting for the official Coast Guard," she said and sat back down.

I had a half-dozen equally perplexing encounters. For instance, on one occasion I ran into a lady of a certain age, wearing a broad straw hat, pedaling a decrepit bicycle down the middle of St. Charles Avenue. She rode not in a straight line but a series of interlinked S’s; it was as close as bike riding gets to wandering. I pulled up beside her in my car, rolled down the window and saw, in her lap, a dog more odd than she. "It has two purebred pedigrees," she said. "One is Chihuahua and the other is poodle."

"Are you all right?" I asked.

"I’m fine!" she said. "It’s a beautiful day."

"Do you want to evacuate?" I asked, because I couldn’t think of what else to say.

"I have $80," she said, still smiling. "I’d like to go to New York, but you tell me how far you can go in New York with $80."

In the back of my car, I now had about 60 gallons of water, picked up from beside Uptown houses, with the intention of redistributing them to the needy. "Do you need anything?" I asked her. "Water? Food?"

"No," she said, still pedaling. "I have a lot of water and even more food."

As I pulled away toward the water, she shouted, "But I could use some ice!"

Until now it had been possible to get around without credentials. But with the National Guard banging on doors, telling people they had to leave the city, out came the most outlandish fake ID’s I had laid eyes on since high school. One fellow got around on a Marriott Hotel security badge, another dummied up a laminated picture of himself that said he was a doctor. On Louisiana Avenue, one of the world’s leading dealers of African sculpture, Charlie Davis, answered his door to National Guardsmen. He told them he was employed by newspapers as a photographer, but when he turned to get his (fake) press pass, he told me, "the guns went up." When asked how much force he would use to remove people from their homes, Police Chief Eddie Compass said that he couldn’t be precise because "if you are somebody who is 350 pounds, it will obviously take more force to move you than if you are 150 pounds." (Compass has since resigned.) Even the people who had come back home in Russian assault helicopters made a hasty exit, invariably leaving behind them, flying from a porch, the American flag. It was a symbol not of liberty but of personal defiance, a tribute to underdog-dom. It was aimed at the enemy and said, Take that! The Confederate flag had become unnecessary.

I drove over to give Ms. Perrier the news. Ms. Perrier weighs far less than 150 pounds. It would take almost no force, and little time, for the soldiers to cart her away. Wouldn’t it be better if I drove her quietly out to the one hospital still open, the Ochsner Clinic, where she could be cared for?

"I’d rather go to Touro," she said. Touro is another New Orleans hospital, not as distinguished as Ochsner, but closer to her house.

"Touro’s closed," I said. "Ochsner’s the only hospital open in the city."

"Really! Why?"

We agreed that she would be packed and ready to go in the morning – and she was. She came out wearing a bright dress and a brave smile, carrying an ancient silver suitcase.

"When’s the hurricane coming?" she asked.

"It already hit," I said, then realized it must seem callous to her to relate this shocking news in such a dull tone.

"You’re kidding!" she said. "Well, I’m glad the worst is over."

It went like this all the way to the Ochsner E.R. I left her at check-in, with an understanding that she would be evaluated and, I assumed, admitted. She sat down at the bank-teller-like window and produced her wallet with various ID cards. The lady in the window assured me that Ms. Perrier would be taken care of.

VI. Afloat and Adrift

From there I set out into the water with a purpose. My brother had been found unjustifiably alive in Lafayette, La., studying satellite photographs on the Internet to determine just how many miles he would need to swim to get to his house. He alone of my immediate family had set up home beyond Uptown, but even so he had bought an old house. For some time now, he has had this thing about his little shotgun cottage – it isn’t just an ordinary affection; it’s true love – and so the last few days he had been contemplating total loss. It’s all gone!

I reached the flood water a mile or so from the river. A mile farther, the street signs vanished below the surface, and the upper branches on old oak trees rose up from the water like the fingers of drowning men. But the water didn’t simply get deeper the closer you got to the lake. There were local highs and lows, so that it was actually very hard to get around in anything but a pirogue or an airboat without scraping the bottom. I picked up Charlie Davis, the African sculpture dealer masquerading as a photojournalist, and we drove down the Esplanade Ridge through a foot or so of water until we were as close as we assumed we could get to my brother’s place. I had no idea that there was such a thing as the Esplanade Ridge – a strip of high ground that runs from the (high) river to the (low) lake – but in retrospect I should have. It is the one strip of land, apart from old Crescent City decorated with lovely old homes. (It’s where Degas lived during his year in New Orleans.) People built here originally because it was dry.

Before plunging off the side of the ridge, we shimmied into duck-hunting waders, surgical masks and rubber gloves. The water was black and viscous and smelled only of petroleum, but the doctors at the Ochsner Clinic had said they were finding chemical burns on people who had been in it. Waist deep, we gently ascended to the back of my brother’s house – which was high and dry. The leaves in his yard crunched underfoot like fresh cornflakes. He had made his home on what amounted to a peninsula off one side of the Esplanade Ridge, saved by his preference for old New Orleans architecture.

On the way out, we were able to loop around to the car without getting wet. That’s when we first heard the gunshots.

Pop!

Pop!

Pop!

They were coming from a house just across the street, maybe 30 yards away.

"That’s a .22," Charlie said. The last time Charlie was amid gunfire was when he went to Liberia to buy African sculpture and wound up hiding in an elevator shaft during a coup. He knows his gunshots.

Several things happened all at once. A hissing sound (Psst! Psst!) that, it occurred to me only later, and a bit hopefully, must have been bullets whizzing past us. (After the fact, more danger is always better than less.) Overhead, two sheriffs’ helicopters swooped down. Coming toward us by land was the 82nd Airborne in their jaunty red berets. We ran.

The trouble was, there was nowhere to go. We reached the end of the Esplanade Ridge and found that the only way out was back the way we came. Retracing our path, we passed the house of the man with the gun, now surrounded by the 82nd Airborne. "He’s not actually shooting at anybody," the soldier in charge said wearily. "He was just trying to get someone to bring him some water."

Three hours after I dropped her off, I returned to visit Ms. Perrier, who, I assumed, would be propped up in the geriatric ward, sipping warm milk, maybe watching a game show. The lady behind the desk looked down at a sheet. "She’s been discharged," she said.

"How? She doesn’t even have a car."

"She’d have been bused out," she said.

It was that word, "bused," that chilled the spine. The buses were controlled by the authorities. New Orleans now had a new word for what happens to people unlucky enough to fall into the hands of the authorities purporting to save them: domed. As in "I just got domed," or "If the police knock on your door, don’t answer, ’cause you might get domed." To be domed is to be herded into a domed sports building – the Superdome, the Astrodome, the Maravich basketball arena at Louisiana State University – for your own safety. Ms. Perrier hadn’t really wanted to leave her house in the first place. She had entrusted herself to me. Now she had been domed.

VII. Two Very New Orleanian Reasons for Staying in New Orleans

New Orleanians often are slow to get to the point: in my youth it was not unusual for someone to call my mother, keep her on the phone for 20 minutes, hang up, then call back because she never got around to what the call was about in the first place. The point is never really the point. Conversation in New Orleans is not a tool but a pastime. New Orleans stories are given perhaps too much room to breathe; they go on and on so entertainingly that only later do you realize that there were things in them that made no sense.

At some moment, I realized that Haywood Hillyer’s story made no sense. Why, really, had he stayed? The first time I asked him, he replied: "These other guys had children, so they felt it wasn’t worth the risk. I didn’t have children." This may have been true as far as it went, but it didn’t really answer the question: childlessness is not a reason to risk your life. Just three months earlier, he married a lovely young woman who was reason enough to live. He wasn’t by nature defiant, or belligerent. He was just different, in some hard-to-see but meaningful way.

The fourth time (in four days) that I put the same question to him – Yeah, but why did you stay? – Haywood stood and, with the air of a man ready to make his final statement, said: "O.K., I’ll tell you why I stayed. But this it totally off the record."

"Fine, it’s off the record."

"Totally off the record."

"O.K., totally off the record."

"There were these feral kittens under my house," he began, and off he went, explaining how these little kittens had come to depend upon him, how three of them now live with him but two still refuse to let him near them, even though he feeds them. There’s a long story that he swore was interesting about how these cats got under his house in the first place, but the point was this: If he left, there would be no one in New Orleans to feed the cats.

Haywood Hillyer stayed and, for all anyone knew then, risked being skinned alive or worse to feed cats. And the cats didn’t even like him.

Two days later, as he was pulling out of town, I explained to Haywood that he just had to let me put his story on the record. "It’ll make me look like a wuss," he said. I convinced him that in view of the fact that his bravery exceeded that of the entire Police Department and possibly the Armed Forces of the United States, the last thing he would look like is a wuss.

"All right," he finally said, "but then you got to get the story exactly straight. There was one other reason I stayed. It wasn’t as important as the cats. But it wouldn’t be a true story unless you mentioned the other reason."

"What’s the other reason?"

"The traffic."

"What?"

"It took my wife 12 hours to drive from New Orleans to Jackson on Sunday," he said. "She left Sunday at 1 p.m. and arrived in Jackson at 1 a.m."

"So?"

"That’s usually a two-and-a-half-hour drive."

"Right. So what?"

"You don’t understand: I hate traffic."

VIII. A City of Storytelling – and a Little Hope

There’s a reason that New Orleanians often turn out to be as distinctive as their homes. The city doesn’t so much celebrate individualism as assume it. It has a social reflex unlike any other I’ve encountered: people’s first reaction to other people is to be amused by them – unless of course they’ve been told by the police that they are about to be killed by them.

If the behavior of the people was peculiar once the flooding started, it was peculiar in the way New Orleanians are peculiar. At the outset people were shockingly slow-footed. But then New Orleanians are always shockingly slow-footed. Even the most urgent news, the levee break, took 20 hours to officially reach the people in harm’s way, long after the water itself did. But news isn’t what New Orleanians tell; stories are. And the long days after the waters leveled off were a perfect storytelling environment – no reliable information, a great many wild rumors, the most outlandish fictions suddenly plausible – and the people used it to do what they do best. But so far as I can tell – and I covered much of the city, along with every inch of the high ground – very few of the many terrible things that people are reported to have done to one another ever happened. With the brutal exception of the violent young men forcibly detained in the Superdome and the convention center with 25,000 or so potential victims, civilians actually treated one another extremely well. (There’s a different story to tell about government officials.) So far as I can tell, no one supposedly defending his property actually fired a shot at anyone else – though there have been a couple of stories, unconfirmed, of warning shots being fired. Yet even as the water flowed back out of the city, my father called to say that a friend in exile had just informed him that "they had to shoot about 500 looters." The only looter admitted to Ochsner, the city’s one functioning hospital, was a white guy who was beaten, not shot – though badly enough that a surgeon had to remove his spleen.

Driving out of New Orleans to search for Ms. Perrier, I had a delicious sensation I associate with home, of feeling something that I ought not to feel and of being allowed to feel it. I had come to New Orleans because I felt obliged: I had skipped too many funerals already and didn’t think I should miss the last big one. But the flood did not drown the past; it forced it to the surface, like one of those tightly sealed plastic coffins that, when the water comes in over the graveyard, shoot through the dirt and into broad daylight. (Yes, it turns out that we buried some of our dead in the ground too, and that the ground was perfectly capable of receiving them.) The levees were breached, but something else cracked, too, inside the people behind them. The old facade; the pretense that New Orleans was either the Big Easy or it was nothing; that no great change was ever possible. A lot of New Orleanians, from the mayor on down, obviously did not feel so easy. They harbored a deep distrust of their own city and their fellow citizens – which is why they were so quick to believe the most hysterical rumors about one another. The waters came to expose those fears and to mock them. The ghosts have been flushed out of their hiding places; now there’s a chance to chase them away, or at least holler at them a bit.

The late great novelist Walker Percy, a lifelong New Orleanian, was attracted to the psychological state of the ex-suicide. The ex-suicide is the man who has tried to kill himself and failed. Before his suicide attempt, he had nothing to live for. Now, expecting to be dead and discovering himself alive, something inside him awakens: so long as he’s alive, he might as well give living a shot. The whole of New Orleans is in this psychological state. The waters did their worst but still left the old city intact. They did to the public schools and the public-housing projects what the government should have done long ago. They called forth tens of billions of dollars in aid, and the attention of energetic people, to a city long starved of capital and energy. For the first time in my life, outsiders are pouring into the city to do something other than drink. For the first time in my life, the city is alive with possibilities. For the first time in my life, it doesn’t matter one bit who is born to be a king. Whatever else New Orleans is right now, it isn’t stagnant. As I left, I thought about what an oddly characteristic thing it would be if it was a flood that saved New Orleans.

There was to be no finding Ms. Perrier in the flesh, only the spot where her trail went cold. After a frantic search, a woman at Ochsner found that Dorothy Perrier of State Street had been bused with other refugees to the Maravich arena in Baton Rouge. From there, no one could say what had become of her. "This isn’t going to take five minutes," a woman working in Missing Persons at the basketball arena said. "We have no records for most of the people who came through here." But it took exactly five minutes for her to return with the news that there were no records for Ms. Perrier. Anywhere. "Even if she did go through here, we wouldn’t necessarily have a record," she said. Most likely, she added, she was bused to a shelter in Alexandria or Lake Charles. To me that sounded like wishful thinking: there wasn’t room in the state for but a relative handful of the one million New Orleanians who evacuated in the past week. But on my way out, she handed me a piece of paper with phone numbers for the Red Cross. "You might try them," she said. "Sometimes they can find lost people."

I don’t know why it never occurred to me to call the Red Cross. I suppose I always thought of them as something to give money to, not ask help from. But from my gate at the airport, I phoned the Red Cross, and in what seemed like an instant, a man told me, "Here she is – in Battle Creek."

"Battle Creek, La.?" I asked, hopefully.

"Battle Creek, Mich.," he said. He gave me another number, and in a minute or so Ms. Perrier herself was on the other end of the line. She couldn’t have been more pleasant, even as she remained bewildered by what had just happened to her. It all took place so fast, she said, that she didn’t even remember how she got from her house on State Street all the way to Michigan. (And thank God for that.) "Everyone up here is so nice, et cetera," she said. "But I really just want to go home."

Michael Lewis is a contributing writer for the magazine.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Site Map Back to Top