CINCINNATI, OHIO
D. 185,301 SUN. 273,360

JUN 9 1977

Controversies In Economics
Spotlighted In Mount's Institute

The College of Mt. St. Joseph will be putting on its "first full program on economics" in its Institute on Futurology, Sister Margaret Thomas Hyland, S.C., said, when the sixth annual institute convenes later this month.

"What is happening to every other institution is very much determined by economics," Sister Margaret Thomas said. "President Carter is very much concerned with what is happening to the family. But what happens to the family is very much determined by what happens in the economy."

THE SISTER IS head of the college's sociology department and director of the institute.

Among the speakers at the June 26 to 29 study of the future are to be Hazel Henderson, co-director of the Princeton Center for Alternative Futures Inc.; William Baroody, executive vice president of the American Enterprise Institute, and Herbert Stein, former chairman of President Nixon's Council of Economic Advisers.

Also, Julian Bond, Georgia state senator; Irving R. Levine, economic affairs correspondent for the National Broadcasting Co., and Robert F. Froehlke, president of the Health Insurance Association of America.

"I cannot see why people remove themselves so far from discussion of anything economic," Sister Margaret Thomas said in an interview.

"Perhaps it is because people feel they cannot do anything about inflation and the economy."

"BUT PERHAPS WE can develop greater understanding of the facts of the economy. It might produce some good."

Sister Margaret Thomas said mankind has been running for a long time "to keep up with technology."

"We're up to the point where we have to sit down to develop values, norms... I think man is going to have more consciously to shape his social institutions."

As a result of such concerns, the Institute of Futurology this year will have workshops on inflation, unemployment, compulsory retirement, government regulation, tax levies and municipal services, health-care costs, housing costs and energy costs.

THE COLLEGE OFFERS meals and rooms for participants who want to use the institute for a "minivacation," a college spokeswoman said, noting that speakers have often been available for informal discussions "afterhours."

Sister Margaret Thomas said, with puzzle-
ment, that it has been a hard program to rouse
interest in

"This idea of getting everyone together—
business, professional groups, teachers—is very
broadening," she said.

Almost all the workshops this year are being
directed by businessmen.

But a labor union official, Jim Wolfe of the
International Molders and Allied Workers Union,
will lead the workshop on unemployment. Cyn-
thia Wood, economist of the Federal Reserve

Herbert Stein

William Baroody

Bank of Cleveland, will direct the workshop on inflation.

"WE'RE OUT of the industrial era," Sister Margaret Thomas said. "We're into the communications era. Business and industry are going to have to communicate better.

"People have to be reasonable in their demands, but, on the other hand, business has to communicate. Business has created a lot of its own problems.

"It is to everyone's benefit to have a better understanding.

"What would be a decent standard of living in terms of the cost of living? Or the conditions under which people work: Are they satisfactory? How much can business be expected to do?"

Military and Political

7/8/77

# Charges Nixon May Have Known of Korean Payoffs

By JOSEPH VOLZ

Washington (News Bureau)—Rep. Bruce Caputo (R-Westchester) charged yesterday that President Nixon may have known about the Korean payoff scandal shortly after the bribery plot was formed. Caputo demanded that the House Ethics Committee listen to White House tapes to find out what Nixon knew.

Rep. Bruce Caputo
Wants review of the tapes

Caputo, a member of the panel, which has not met in five weeks, said in a telephone interview that the committee should review the famous Oval Office tapes recorded in the mid-1970 to determine whether former Secretary of State Kissinger ever discussed the bribery scandal with Nixon.

The tapes now are in the custody of the General Services Administration, the government housekeeping agency, and are available to congressional committees.

Caputo said that it was "increasingly clear," however, that both Kissinger and Nixon knew about the bribery attempts "but for a variety of reasons did not choose to act on that knowledge." He said he based his belief on public statements made by former Defense

Secretary Melvin Laird and Philip Habib, fomerr ambassador to Korea.

Laird has contended that he warned the State Department in 1970 about a South Korean lobbying operation which should have been investigated by the Justice Department.

Habib, now undersecretary of state for political affairs, has said that he protested "in the strongest possible terms" in 1974 when South Korean officials offered a $10,000 bribe to a visiting White House official, John Nidecker, who turned the cash over to the embassy.

Although no evidence has been gathered directly showing that Nixon was aware of the campaign to buy off congressmen, The News has learned that several State Department and Agency for International Development officials have testified that high State Department and White House officials were told of the plan.

The link to Kissinger, and, presumably to Nixon, as early as 1970, has been traced to a CIA disclosure. The CIA has said that it learned of a 1970 conversation in the presidential, man-

sion in Seoul when President Park Chung Hee described a plan to corrupt U.S. congressmen with Korean mystery millionaire Tongsum Park. Subsequent intelligence date on the subject were regularly transmitted by the National Security Agency to the National Security Council, which included Kissinger, sources said.

Kissinger was Nixon's chief national security adviser and his key aides have testified that they repeatedly told him of at the plot. Kissinger was not available for comment yesterday.

Previous reports have said that Kissinger did not receive information about the bribery allegations until 1975 and referred them to the Justice Department. It was not until 1975 that the Justice Department began an intensive investigation.

But prior to that both Defense and State Department officials had warned the Koreans to stop the high pressure tactics.

The full extent of the Korean programs to prevent U.S. troop withdrawals is not yet known. But so far it has been revealed that South Koreans diplomats and Korean intelligence agents passed on cash to willing congressmen, as did Tongsum Park, ostensibly a wealthy rice broker, but also backed by the Korean intelligence service, according to former director of that agency.

## INDEX TO FEATURES

<table><tr><td>Almanac</td><td>67</td><td>Dr. G. T. Johnson</td><td>38</td><td>Liz Smith</td><td>6</td><td>TV Listings</td><td>65</td></tr><tr><td>Jack Anderson</td><td>32</td><td>Jumble</td><td>38</td><td>Sports</td><td>54</td><td>TV/Radio</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>Business</td><td>36</td><td>Moon Mullins</td><td>39</td><td>Suzy</td><td>12</td><td>James Wieghart</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Crossword</td><td>39</td><td>Obituaries</td><td>38</td><td colspan="4">© 1977 New York News Inc.</td></tr><tr><td>Doonesbury</td><td>39</td><td>News Briefs</td><td>15</td><td colspan="4">The Daily News is published every day by New York News Inc., 220 East 42nd St., New York, N.Y. 10017.</td></tr><tr><td>Editorial Page</td><td>33</td><td>Phil Pepe</td><td>55</td><td colspan="4">Second class postage said at New York, N.Y., 10017.</td></tr><tr><td>Pete Hamill</td><td>4</td><td>William Reel</td><td>32</td><td colspan="4"></td></tr></table>

DIPLOMACY

Danger: Eurocommunism

Henry Kissinger last week came back into public view with guns blazing. His target: Eurocommunism.

The Communist Party of Italy, which gained 34% of the vote in national elections a year ago, now holds a virtual veto over government programs in parliament. In France, another Communist party and its strong Socialist ally could well win a majority in next March's parliamentary elections. In Portugal and Spain, the Communists are fighting to increase their influence. There is a growing view among intellectuals, journalists and some politicians on both sides of the Atlantic that: 1) the U.S. cannot do anything to stop these trends and should not try; 2) the trends are not necessarily bad because Eurocommunists are different, representing a needed and probably democratic opposition to worn-out governments; and 3) nothing much would change if a few Communists join Western European Cabinets.

Kissinger blasted all these assumptions as delusions, in one of the most eloquent and closely reasoned speeches of his career. Speaking at a conference on Italy and Eurocommunism at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, he issued a powerful warning—intended as much for the Carter Administration and European leaders as for his audience of businessmen and scholars. “The accession of executive power [by these Communist parties]” would 1) be a massive change in European politics; 2) have basic consequences for the structure of the postwar world and for the Western alliance; and 3) alter “the prospects for security and progress for all free nations.”

The former Secretary of State questioned the conventional wisdom that the Eurocommunist parties are independent of Moscow. Not so, he implied, except on nonessential matters. Moreover, he suggested that the degree of independence from Moscow is less important than the basic nature of Communism. Said Kissinger: “We are entitled to certain skepticism about the sincerity of declarations of independence which coincide so precisely with electoral self-interest. One need not be a cynic to wonder at the decision of the French Communists, traditionally perhaps the most Stalinist party in Europe, to renounce the Soviet concept of dictatorship of the proletariat without a single dissenting vote among 1,700 delegates, as they did at their party congress in February 1976, when all previous party congresses had endorsed the same dictatorship of the proletariat by a similar unanimous vote of 1,700 to nothing.”

Communist parties have always had as their guiding principle the right of a minority to seize power as “the vanguard of the working class” and impose its will on the rest of the population. How then, Kissinger asked, can one take at face value the recent declarations of the French, Spanish and Italian Communist parties that they intend to work within a framework of political pluralism? After all, he pointed out, French Party Boss George Marchais has listed Bulgaria, Poland and East Germany as countries having a “pluralistic” party system. In a devastating passage, Kissinger cited a series of quotes to the same effect from East European Communist leaders, uttered during the late ’40s. Hungarian Communist Leader Erno Gero, for example, observed in 1944 that “the Communist Party does not approve of the idea of a one-party system. Let the other parties operate and organize as well.” In 1945 the East German Communist Party promised “a parliamentary democratic republic with full democratic rights and liberties.” Marchais speaks of “socialism in the colors of France,” but in 1938, Kissinger noted, George Orwell described French Communist strategy as “marching behind the Tricolor.”

Once in power, Kissinger asked in effect, could the Communists ever allow “the democratic process to reverse” the situation? True, Communists got out of the French and Italian governments after World War II. But that was when their parties were very much weaker and the democratic forces very much stronger. And the stern Leninist principle of “democratic centralism” guides the internal structure of all Communist parties. “Only in Western Europe and the United States are there still illusions about the nature of Communist parties. In Eastern Europe, boredom, intellec-

tual emptiness, inefficiency and stultifying bureaucracy have been obvious for decades.”

The U.S. Government deals with Communist regimes in the Soviet Union, China and Eastern Europe. Why then can it not learn to deal with Communist parties in Western Europe? Kissinger's answer: "There is a crucial difference between managing conflict with adversaries and maintaining an alliance among friends." The character of that alliance—which has a moral base in a heritage of shared convictions about principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law—would become "confused to the American people" if some NATO members had Communist governments. "The moral and political basis for our present troop deployment in Europe" would be undermined. Inevitably there would be "significant divergences on foreign policy between Europe and the U.S." Although the Communists pay lip service to NATO, their participation in Western European governments would weaken NATO's military strength, force a change in its security practices, turn it by default into a largely German-American alliance, threaten the balance of power between East and West and undermine European unity.

Powerfully, Kissinger explored some of the deeper reasons for Communism's present gains. "In the end," he said, "the Communist parties find their opportunities less in their inherent strength than in the demoralization, division or disorganization of their opponents; they succeed only when the democratic system seems unable to solve the social problems of the day, when the center does not hold and societies become polarized." Violence, such as that currently tormenting Italy, drives many to support Communism in desperation. Ticking off some of the basic causes of Communist gains, Kissinger noted: "A relativist age debunks authority and puts nothing in its place as an organizing principle of society. Massive impersonal bureaucracy disillusion the citizen with the responsiveness of his government. Intellectuals condemn society for materialism when it is prosperous and for injustice when it fails to ensure prosperity."

What should the U.S. do? Kissinger conceded that whether or not the Communist parties enter government is a matter for the voters of Europe to decide. But he also argued that America can encourage democratic forces in the West by recognizing the problems if Communists come to power and by not giving the impression, "through ostentatious association or consultation with Communist leaders," that "we consider Communist success a foregone conclusion." This is not the case, he said, although "United States hesitation and ambiguity can contribute to the impression" that it is and feed "the myth of [the Communists'] inevitability." He argued strongly against the position that an active U.S. policy of discouraging Europeans from voting Communist would be counterproductive. "I believe the opposite to be true," he said. "I consider it important that Europe know of America's interest and concern. If the United States has a responsibility to encourage political freedom throughout the world, we surely have a duty to leave no doubt about our convictions on an issue that is so central to the future of the Western alliance and therefore to the future of democracy."

TEAM

RALLY OF ITALIAN COMMUNISTS; KISSINGER (INSET)

PAUL CONKLIN

TIME, JUNE 20, 1977

49

SPECIAL REPORT

# Damn the Doctors—and Washington

Oregon State Senator Ken Jernstedt insists that the contest involves a treasured principle: "We want to maintain our freedom of choice." Florida State Representative Robert McKnight sums up the issue bluntly: "Stay the hell out of my business." With victory, argues California State Senator William Campbell, "our society will be a little bit freer."

These legislators are in the front ranks of a coast-to-coast uprising that has welded together an unusual alliance of right-wing civil libertarians and left-wing civil rightists, nut-nibbling food faddists and humanitarians groping for a way to relieve suffering. The crusade is the dark side of the mounting anti-Washington tide, a movement against Government interference in citizens' lives that involves states' rights, freedom of the individual and the fundamental subject of people's health. The question: Should state legislatures make an end run around federal bureaucrats and legalize the use of drugs that the Food and Drug Administration has banned or not yet approved? They are Laetrile, an unproved anticancer nostrum, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), Gerovital and saccharin.

**Federal Disapproval.** So far, seven states—Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Nevada, Texas and Washington—have legalized Laetrile; Delaware, New Hampshire and Oklahoma will join them as soon as their Governors sign authorizing bills or let them become law without their signatures. Similar legislation is pending in twelve states and will probably be revived in seven others when their legislatures reconvene. In addition, Nevada has approved

the manufacture and sale of Gerovital. Oregon has legalized DMSO and soon may approve saccharin, which has already been okayed by Indiana. (Apparently heeding FDA warnings that saccharin may cause cancer, legislators in Arizona and Nevada rejected bills to legalize the sweetener.)

The rush to approve the drugs has overwhelmed objections by the FDA, which, since the 1962 thalidomide scare, has been required by law to license only substances that are scientifically proved to be effective as well as safe. But the FDA can control only drugs that cross state lines; the states are free to license those that are manufactured and used within their boundaries in spite of federal disapproval. In fighting against the drugs, federal health officials have suffered from their loss of some public respect following the false swine-flu scare and the FDA's proposed restrictions on the sale of saccharin. The agency acted after the laboratory rats which were fed huge quantities of the substance then developed cancer.

The state-by-state movement to legalize drugs of questionable value has chiefly involved Laetrile, which is already being used illicitly by tens of thousands of American cancer sufferers. The substance is smuggled into the U.S., mainly from Mexico. No reputable studies have found evidence to support claims that the drug cures or prevents cancer (TIME, May 23). Its use is opposed by the American Medical Association, and Dr. Frank Rauscher, American Cancer Society senior vice president for research, insists: "We know doggone well that Laetrile doesn't

work." But backers put their faith in tales of miracle apricot-pit cures and refuse to be dissuaded. Many are impatient with the pace of cancer research and suspect that doctors and the drug industry are more interested in profits than cures. The median cost of conventional cancer treatment, including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, is about $19,000 per patient; Laetrile goes for $1 a capsule and about $10 a shot.

Although some urban liberals are working to legalize Laetrile, the campaign is led by the Committee for Freedom of Choice in Cancer Therapy, based in Los Altos, Calif., which is dominated by right-wingers, including members of the John Birch Society. Well-financed and well-organized, the group claims to have 25,000 members, including a few Communists, meeting in 450 local committees across the country.

**Bumper Stickers.** To whip up enthusiasm for the bills, supporters have packed committee hearings and state house galleries with vocal supporters, many of whom are elderly. In Wichita, Kans., Virginia Wilson held a Laetrile taste-in at her home, featuring fresh fruits, lima beans, beets and carrots, which proponents claim are rich in the substance. She also showed a 45-minute pro-Laetrile film called *World Without Cancer*. At the Illinois state house, some 300 Laetrile backers passed out blue-and-white bumper stickers that read: **LAETRILE WORKS! YOU BET YOUR LIFE.** In Massachusetts, supporters delivered to the legislature 40 shopping bags stuffed with more than 12,000 pleas for legalization of the drug.

Many of the bills' sponsors are can-

Washington Whispers®

Political Office for Anita Bryant? . . . Why Kissinger Worries About Andy Young . . . Brezhnev's One Ambition

Whatever else it accomplishes, the Internal Revenue Service is hoping that its decision to audit President Carter's 1975 tax return will help restore Americans' confidence in the tax-collecting system and lead to greater voluntary compliance.

Anita Bryant's political future is the subject of considerable speculation. Despite her disclaimers, many politicians feel she can ride her victory in Miami's homosexual-rights referendum into elected office in Florida.

Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is telling friends privately that he fears that U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young is fueling a race war in southern Africa by giving encouragement to black extremists in the Rhodesian conflict.

Democratic leaders in Congress have suddenly stopped predicting that they can easily override expected Carter vetoes of appropriations bills far exceeding his proposals. The reason: Lawmakers are getting the word from voters back home that the President's antispending talk has caught on.

You rarely see his name in the news, but Charles Kirbo, Atlanta lawyer and close friend of Carter's, retains as much influence with the President as anyone. The two are on the phone frequently, and Kirbo is often an unpublicized White House guest.

It is Moscow's refusal to accept what the White House considers a reasonable arms-control agreement that is prompting Carter to reconsider his campaign opposition to continuing production of the B-1 bomber. Barring a change in Soviet attitude, the odds are that the Administration will give the go-ahead on the controversial war-

plane—but not the full fleet of 244 sought by the Air Force.

Close associates say that Russian boss Leonid Brezhnev has one unfulfilled ambition: Bring back into the Soviet fold the "rebel" Communist nations—China, Yugoslavia and Albania.

It will be 1981 at the earliest before any national health-insurance plan goes into operation. As Administration officials see it, Carter's program won't pass till late 1978 or 1979, then will take three years to get into gear.

Secretary Joseph Califano's Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which has seethed with feuds for decades, is at it again. Anonymous tips about a coming shake-up are being mailed to gossip columnists. High officials claim that the rumors are being floated to embarrass them.

Look for this surprising testimony to emerge from congressional investigations into the dangers of radiation: Occupants of skyscrapers in some U.S. cities get more radiation from TV transmitter towers than people in the U.S. Embassy in Moscow received from Soviet electronic devices.

Business groups still suspicious of Carter are now accusing him of embarking on "creeping wage and price controls." Cited are his proposals for regulations on hospital costs, reins on oil and natural-gas prices and increased funds for the watchdog Council on Wage and Price Stability.

Backers of the equal-rights amendment are trying to recruit organized labor's active help for the measure with this argument: If anti-ERA forces succeed, they will next mount a full-scale drive

in support of "right to work" laws that labor is trying to repeal.

State police say that federal bureaucrats are copping out on enforcement of the 55-mile-an-hour speed limit. Lawmen claim the Department of Transportation talks tough but gives States no financial or other help.

From U.S. officials comes advice to take with a grain of salt reports that Saudi Arabia will raise its oil price by a set amount. They note that the Saudis regularly float trial balloons before making final decisions.

White House advisers are operating on the assumption that California Governor Jerry Brown will make a serious bid against Carter for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1980.

A State Department official's comment on the release by Vietnam of names of 20 more American soldiers missing in action: "They have a vault full of bodies and will produce them, not all at once, but as circumstances suggest."

Latest on women's equality in Russia: A new breakdown of the Soviet elite shows that none of the 14 Politburo posts or any of the 107 jobs of ministerial status is held by a woman.

So quickly do new nations spring up or achieve independence these days that the Central Intelligence Agency now prints its world maps by computer, allowing revisions in a twinkling.

The Carter Presidency is turning out to be a mixed blessing for Georgia's peanut-commodity commission, which is running out of money filling requests for recipes using peanuts.

8

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, June 20, 1977

# Why Ray Bates uses a Pitney Bowes Postage Meter to mail just 7 letters a day.

How fitting, you think as you admire the tidy Vermont colonial, that museums, societies and collectors around the world should seek out the talents of the master clockmaker in such a spot. For this is the family home and workshop of Scotsman Ray Bates. For 13 years, Ray has repaired and restored fine clocks here, under the banner of "The British Clockmaker."

Ray corresponds with customers from San Francisco to Singapore. A task considerably lightened by the convenience of the Pitney Bowes desk model postage meter and scale.

The scale eliminates guess-work and excess postage. Even with Ray's modest volume that adds up to important savings. The postage meter, says Ray, "makes mailings anywhere a breeze. Just set the amount and you have the correct postage at your fingertips."

As sales agent for several antique clock companies in England, Ray also appreciates the versatility of our meter. "When we put out a special mailing, I have my kids stick the labels on; then they can run the envelopes through the machine—nothing to it!"

How about record-keeping? "Having a record is great. At the end of the month, you can check and see immediately how much postage you spent. For tax purposes you've got it all there.

"The people at our small post office have to cancel and postmark by hand. With the Pitney Bowes postage meter, my mail is already dated, cancelled and postmarked—

so they love the machine! And my mail goes out faster.

"For me, as somebody who appreciates fine machinery, it has a lot of integrity. Does the job it's designed to do. Also it reflects our image as a substantial, professional business. And it's only $8.25 *a month. What more can you say?"

Just this: you don't have to be a master clockmaker to realize it might be time you metered your mail. For more information, including postal savings tips, write us: Pitney Bowes, 7993 Pacific Street, Stamford, Conn. 06904, or call toll free any time 800-243-5676. (In Conn. 1-800-882-5577.)

Master Clockmaker Ray Bates of Newfane, Vermont with some of his prized instruments, including our Pitney Bowes desk model postage meter and scale.

*Including required service. Price subject to change.

Over 400 sales or service points throughout the U.S. and Canada. Postage Meters, Mailing Systems, Copiers, Counters and Imprinters, Collators and Finishing Systems, Addresserprinters, Labeling and Marking Systems.

Pitney Bowes

Because business travels
at the speed of paper.

# KISSINGER: Victim of Liberal "Witch Hunt" at Columbia?

BY FRED W. FRIENDLY, PROFESSOR AT THE COLUMBIA GRADUATE SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM

USN & WR

When it was learned that former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger was being considered for a post as a professor at Columbia University's School of International Affairs, a bitter controversy developed on the campus. Students held rallies, and both students and faculty members signed petitions of protest. Their objections were based chiefly on Kissinger's role in the Vietnam War. The following comments by Friendly are reprinted by permission of the *Baltimore Sun* from the Perspective section of its May 29, 1977, issue.

I grew up in the shadow of Columbia University, and in 61 years of love and frustration involving that institution, I know of only two moments that give a flush of shame. The two moments are separated by 45 years, and simply prove that liberals—like conservatives—sometimes forget the history they are employed to teach. In 1932, McCarthyism stalked Morningside Heights, long before the Senator came out of Wisconsin. And it was alive and frightening at the 1977 commencement last week.

Reed Harris, who wanted to graduate in 1932, and Henry A. Kissinger, who may wish to teach at Columbia in 1977, are the two victims of a strange virus that is often carried by those who have the most reason to fear its malignancy.

Mr. Harris was an editor of the Columbia *Spectator* during the depths of the Great Depression. He also wrote a radical book about the attitudes of students and faculty. Entitled "King Football," Mr. Harris's book espoused the right of professors to teach anything—including that marriage "should be cast off our civilization as an antiquated and stupid religious phenomenon."

"King Football" was a flop even in the Columbia bookstore, but it proved to have a half life of 20 years. In 1952, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy exploited it to poison Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris, by then a civil servant in the State Department, was directing U.S. Information broadcasts to Israel. Senator McCarthy accused him of curtailing certain anti-Communist broadcasts to Israel. The charge had no basis, but Senator McCarthy used Mr. Harris's 1932 book and his suspension from Columbia to humiliate him before a congressional hearing, and then drive him from office....

The filmed sequence was part of the documentation of Edward R. Murrow's 1954 broadcast about Senator McCarthy. Every year I have run the sequence for my students at Columbia, and every year members of the class are riveted in their seats. This year, however, the witch hunt being portrayed inside seminar room 207 was being matched by one taking place in faculty offices and at the sundial on College Walk.

I've never met Henry A. Kissinger. In five different elections, I voted against his President, Richard M. Nixon. But I am offended because Dr. Kissinger is being witchhunted by 140 faculty members and researchers and a reported 1,000 students seeking to blackball the former Secretary of State and former Harvard professor of international affairs from being considered for a chair at Columbia's School of International Affairs.

It was all as simple as it had been in Reed Harris's day. Mr.

Harris had expressed unorthodox views about marriage, hence he was not fit to serve his Government. A former Secretary of State, once acclaimed as a man of the year and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, was being held not entitled to a faculty post because, his detractors said, he had "caused the extension of the most brutal, aggressive war the United States had ever fought."

His Columbia opponents protest that their crusade against Dr. Kissinger "does not infringe on academic freedom," but is motivated by his "immoral actions" in the bombing of Vietnam and Cambodia.

I gather that my fellow liberals at Columbia truly believe that their definition of morality, and even their version of right and wrong, is cast in the granite of history—a granite that permits them to be the arbiters of who shall or shall not be entitled to academic freedom.

One recalls the post-Hiroshima attacks on J. Robert Oppenheimer and Enrico Fermi. Under the new revisionism of the liberals, both the Institute of Advanced Study at Princeton and the University of Chicago acted immorally in according them academic posts.

Norman Thomas, the beloved pacifist, was wrong about World War II. Presumably, then, the New School acted immorally in giving him a teaching assignment because he had associated with America Firsters.

John F. Kennedy was wrong both about the Bay of Pigs and later in sending the first Americans into Vietnam. Had he lived, one can draw the assumption that there would have been an uproar had Harvard or Columbia offered him a teaching post following his Presidency.

According to the new liberal doctrine, the University of Georgia did an evil thing by opening its arms to former Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

This is not to say that there is no useful debate in the academic community about a potential Kissinger chair at Columbia. It is a nice question whether an endowed chair should be created by rich benefactors for a preordained luminary. That argument, as it pertains to Dr. Kissinger, can and should continue.

Stripping away the McCarthyist oratory reduces the argument to the central point as to whether Dr. Kissinger has a useful teaching role to offer, and whether he is prepared to instruct and not to reign. Two experienced negotiators like President William McGill and Dr. Kissinger should be able to settle that.

The pertinent issue is Dr. Kissinger the teacher....

What alarms me most is the misguided arrogance of those who so arbitrarily reject Dr. Kissinger's possible appointment. Can they be so shortsighted to the lessons of the last half century that they do not recognize their own vulnerability? Causes like those of Reed Harris and Henry A. Kissinger, and all the others that have come in between, are demonstrably mercurial and deceptive. Of all people, those in universities should always be aware that today's scattered minority can easily become tomorrow's ruthless majority.

What makes Columbia, and all the other great academic institutions, worth preserving is the very academic freedom that these protesters would forfeit to destroy today's "villain," Henry Kissinger. What a travesty!

U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, June 13, 1977

33

# What's Wrong—and Right—With Congress
## As Seen by Five Freshmen

Ask Americans what's wrong with Congress and you hear a familiar litany. Senators and House members are faulted for moving at a leaden pace, for being too quick to pile taxpayer-paid benefits on themselves and for scrambling day and night to boost their re-election prospects instead of solving the country's problems.

Ask the same question of freshman members of Congress and the answers you get aren't all that different. The impressions of newcomers to Congress, after five months on the job, echo popularly held views in many ways. But they also contain insights that only an insider could give.

U.S. News & World Report asked freshman legislators to size up Congress.

### SENATE IS TOO "SELF-SERVING"

**Senator Edward Zorinsky**
(Dem.), of Nebraska: The Senate just isn't fast enough in responding to the complex issues facing the nation today. For example, I spent hours on the Senate floor during the winter energy crisis while Senator after Senator rose to express sympathy for the people back home. Well, the people back home know you're sympathetic to people going cold. Why not spend the time formulating a long-range plan to preclude any future crisis?

But Senators make self-serving speeches to get into

the Congressional Record so that somebody back home may read them. Everything here is geared to the re-election of the members.

It seems the traditions of the Senate overshadow its responsiveness to the electorate. Emblematic of this is the Senate pin. Recently, a staff member gave me a gift-wrapped box and wanted me to sign for it. He said: "It's your U.S. Senate pin and it's got a diamond in it." I told him to keep it. I don't think the taxpayers want me to go around wearing a diamond pin that says I'm a U.S. Senator. That would be like saying to the public: "I'm a member of this exclusive club and no longer a member of your group."

Another gross misuse of tax dollars is patronage. I was offered a patronage job in the Senate post office—paying a 17-year-old kid $9,400 a year to work four hours a day. I turned it down, and it was decided by a draw of lots by the other freshman Senators who rushed in to claim it.

I don't like the vote trading that goes on. I was taken aside and asked to vote for the pay increase [for Senators and House members]. The logic was that since I was beginning a six-year term, I could vote "Yes" and not have to face the electorate. I refused.

I think in some areas the Senate has been given a bum rap. There are strengths in the system. The hearings are most

beneficial, not only in expressing diverse views but as an educational process.

But there are several things we could do. Adopting electronic voting, ending committee-scheduling conflicts and providing live television coverage of Senate floor proceedings would do a lot to restore faith in Government.

### SOME MEMBERS COULDN'T PASS "THIRD-GRADE TEST" ON ISSUES

**Representative David A. Stockman** (Rep.), of Michigan: This institution is even more profoundly undemocratic than I thought. It's designed to minimize broad member participation at all levels. Two things that do it are proxy voting and the rule allowing a committee or subcommittee to draft legislation with only one third of its members present.

With the one-third quorum, it's very easy for a subcommittee chairman to say, "I'll take care of your interest; just give me your proxy." Members are always under

pressure to meet with their constituents, so this relieves them of a burden. But it drastically reduces member participation and leads to interest-group brokering by the subcommittee chairmen.

Also, the old-fashioned committee hearing is absolutely obsolete, with members scrambling back and forth between three or four subcommittees. You come into the committee room just in time for your round of questions. You don't know what the other members asked, but you have your five minutes and you had better use it. As a result, there is no sustained questioning, no logical line of probing. Having 187 subcommittees [in the House] is irrational. But the interest groups like it because they can carve out their turf. And the subcommittee chairmen like it because it gives them exclusive domain.

Also, we need something to make [House] floor action meaningful. If you could go to the floor and suddenly freeze everything and give a little third-grade test on the issues, you'd be appalled by how much people don't know about what they're voting on.

Just to give you an example: I went to the floor recently to vote on an amendment and had to come in on the Democratic side. I asked a number of Democrats what the issue was, and they said, "This is an amendment to cut off funds for women and children." So I went to the Republican side and asked, and someone told me it was "an amendment to stop the giveaway to foreign devils." That's about the level of discourse that goes on, because most members are not there to debate.

On the strengths of Congress, I don't know. As a freshman, I tend to take a negative perspective. One good thing: Despite these defects, the decisions that come out are somehow, miraculously, not as bad as they could be.

34

LIVING

# The Sherpas of the Subclause

Many a road to megabucks is paved with performance clauses, franchising agreements, copyrights, dramatic rights, first serial rights and other fine-print potholes. Thus prudent travelers have for years sought the guidance of an agent. Today the fast-talking cigar chomper of popular cliché has been replaced by a more sophisticated pathfinder, a Sherpa of the subclause who is a combination salesman, packager, legal scholar, investment counselor and spiritual adviser. The archetype is, of course, the legendary Irving ("Swifty") Lazar, still going strong at age 70, whose clients have ranged from Truman Capote to ex-President Richard Nixon.

A trio of the most successful agents and full-service alchemists following the trail Swifty blazed:

**MARVIN JOSEPHSON**, 50, appears to be the antithesis of the popular image of an agent, but, unlike many of the modern breed who prefer euphemisms for their trade, he readily admits he is one. Soft-voiced, genial, unhurried and conservatively dapper, he launched International Creative Management in 1955 with $100 in capital and two clients, Robert Keeshan (Captain Kangaroo) and Newscaster Charles Collingwood. Since then, Josephson has built I.C.M. into a $30 million-year multinational company, embracing agents, a concertbooking bureau and a TV station. His 2,250 clients include Actor Laurence Olivier, Playwright Tennessee Williams, Musician Isaac Stern and Dancer Michael Baryshnikov. Josephson's empire has grown so vast that he now spends most of his time delegating and supervising, although he stitches together immensely complicated deals (current project: a sequel to *Gone With the Wind*). "His astuteness is with procedure, and he has an accounting machine in his head," says Producer Robert Evans. A few clients still receive personal treatment, including Steve McQueen, who had left Creative Management Associates before it was acquired by I.C.M. Josephson lured him to I.C.M., suggesting the possibility of his playing a latter-day Rhett Butler. Though Josephson is often seen watering his clients at the Beverly Hills Hotel Polo Lounge, he shuns Hollywood glitter and lives quietly in a Manhattan penthouse with his second wife. He strenuously avoids personal publicity, preferring to maintain the I.C.M. image of dignity and professionalism. Says longtime client Harry Reasoner of ABC: "He's concerned about your progress, but he knows when to tell you to shut up."

**SUE MENGERS**, 39, is vice president and resident Hollywood flesh peddler for I.C.M., but she might as well work for Ma Bell. In her Beverly Hills pa-

lazzo, the silken-haired, avocado-shaped agent has 14 phones and a WATS line on which she curses and cajoles (in her soft little-girl voice) at least 80 people a day. After her 1973 marriage to Screenwriter Jean-Claude Tramont, Mengers reports, she spent most of their honeymoon in telephone booths on various Greek islands. "I'm a hustler," she admits, but she does not like to be called a "packager." She considers herself instead a "liaison between the motion picture community and the artist." Mengers' well-pruned roster of artists, includes Candice Bergen, Peter Bogdanovich, Gene Hackman, Ali MacGraw, Ryan O'Neal, Burt Reynolds and Barbara Streisand, whose Mengers-arranged role in *A Star Is Born* last year earned the Brillo-headed diva about $10 million, minus the agency's 10%. (The story goes that when a frightened Streisand wanted to leave Hollywood after the murder of Sharon Tate, Mengers calmed her down. Stars were not being murdered, Mengers reassured her, only "featured players.") Mengers slyly arranged for Director Mike Nichols to "discover" Client Ann-Margret by inviting them both to one of her frequent dinner parties. "If a person comes to my house for dinner, he has to return my call the next day," she says. A former $135-a-week secretary for the William Morris Agency in New York, Mengers now makes more than $300,000 a year, wields a $40,000 expense account, and has just about everything else she wants. Except George C. Scott as a client, and a body like Candice Bergen's.

**MARK MCCORMACK**, 46, has a special gift: he turns muscle into gold off the playing field, for which he takes a hefty 15% to 40% of his client's earnings. His Cleveland-based International Management Group represents 250 golfers (Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player), tennis stars (Rod Laver, Bjorn Borg) and

ABOVE RIGHT: MARVIN JOSEPHSON
RIGHT: WOODY ALLEN & SUE MENGERS
BELOW: MARK MCCORMACK

TERRY SMITH

RON GALELLA

other athletes, has some 300 employees and last year grossed $35 million. Arnold Palmer, one of McCormack's first clients and closest friends, now earns about $350,000 a year, only some 5% of it from golfing. McCormack can even make financial champions out of novices —like Laura Baugh, a photogenic amateur golfer whom he sent off to Japan at age 17; that year she won no matches but earned nearly $100,000 from endorsements, product tie-ins and television appearances. Still, he is not a man of infinite patience and readily shucks clients who are uncooperative or past their prime. A former college golfer turned lawyer and the father of three, McCormack, almost singlehanded, persuaded the networks to televise professional tennis by lining up sponsors himself, and he is the promotional genius behind such TV sweat derbies as Celebrity Superstars and the N.F.L. Arm-Wrestling Championship—all of which are well-stocked with I.M.G. clients. "I'm not an agent," says McCormack. "I'm an engineer of careers."

TIME, JUNE 13, 1977

79

LIVING

degrees in law, business administration and economics. But Uncle Al, the Kids' Pal, as he thinks of himself, is not just living out a childhood fantasy. The owner of Oakland's U.S. Chewing Gum Manufacturing Co. since 1974, he pumps gum like Fuller pumped brushes. "We'll do about $6 million this year," he says happily. "About 1.5 billion gumballs." Early in 1976 Uncle Al became a millionaire. He has jawbreaking novelties such as a nonmelting ice cream cone in 28 flavors, the solid-chicle Pterodactyl Egg ("You sit on it for 800 days nonstop"), Purple Poppers, Puckeroos, Powies and, most recently, Fu Man Chews, which are chewable Chinese checkers. Bachelor Silverstone says, "My life

Byers' secret has been to specialize in selling fellow veterans relatively inexpensive homes with VA-guaranteed loans. Says he: "We sell an average of 100 houses a month in the $60,000-and-below market. We make money on volume, not high-priced individual units. We're kind of like McDonald's."

And how are the newly rich different—from their previous selves, from their visions of opulence, from their once and future friends? Not a great deal.

Despite her $1 million-a-year contract with ABC-TV, Barbara Walters still lives in the midtown Manhattan apartment that she has occupied for 15 years. "You'd think she'd buy a house in the country," says one close friend. "But no, she barely has time for weekends."

Or consider Henry Kissinger. Undersandably, Citizen K's style has changed perceptibly from that of the shuttle diplomat. To be sure, he jets by choice these days to Mexico rather than the Middle East, and has trimmed the *embonpoint*. Nonetheless, says an old Washington pal, "Henry's still doing the same things—it's just that he's paying for most of them now."

He can afford to: Author K's revues from his memoirs are expected to reach the $5 million mark, to which his five-year contract with NBC may add another $1.5 million. Indeed, Henry the K seems to be holding down half the top jobs in the country. He has joined Chase Manhattan's board of international consultants, is booked for several "substantially paid" speaking engagements later this year, and will take a one-year appointment as professor of diplomacy at Georgetown University.

For others megamoola can be, literally, an *embarras de richesse*. Novelist Stephen King, 29, who in three years and three books (*Carrie*, *Salem's Lot* and his latest, *The Shining*) has deposited $2 million in advances, says plaintively: "Somebody ought to give a correspondence course on what to do with sudden wealth." King wants to take tennis lessons, but is "afraid of looking *nouveau riche*."

Other megabuckers have not had breathing space to adjust to the reality of wealth. Laments Harriet Selwyn, 46, who built her California fashion firm Fragments into a million-a-year enterprise last year (*TIME*, Feb. 21): "One really needs two lives. One to get to the top. The other to enjoy it all."

For Farrah Fawcett-Majors, fame and fortune at 30 means that she and Husband Lee Majors (*Six Million Dollar Man*) can hardly poke their heads out of their big Bel Air home without being mobbed. Says the Texas-born *prima inter pares* star of TV's *Charlie's Angels*: "The spontaneity is gone. We used to be able to fly to Las Vegas for a night. Now if we want to go away we have to rent a place on a desert island as Mr. and Mrs. Doe." Los Angeles Author Nicholas Meyer, also 30 and a new mil-

lionaire, finds that his loot has made little difference to his life. Despite the immense success of his two Sherlock Holmesian pastiches, *The Seven-Per Cent Solution* (he also scripted the film) and *The West End Horror*, Meyer observes: "Everyone has this one fantasy about success and money, that it will solve all his problems. Money will do this in the short term: it will pay the bills. But it throws the real problems into sharp relief. Like, why can't one sustain a relationship?"

The harvest of *Roots* has yet to make Author Alex Haley feel relaxed. Though he will garner at least $5 million from his book, Haley's comet is sputtering. He is dead tired. He has been out on the lecture circuit or visiting Gambia or receiving honorary degrees almost every day of the month. As for his megabucks, Haley says that so far they have enabled him only to get out of debt—a feat that might in itself rank as the differentiating factor between the rich and the merely upwardly mobile.

Whether or not they are happy, it seems almost an axiom that the rapidly rich fritter few hours frivolously. They mostly abhor time-consuming activities like heading Kiwanis drives, playing golf, drinking till dawn, and being sick in bed. Though they often complain about their limited playtime, almost all the *nouveaux* share a drive to accumulate assets beyond any expectation of liquidating the lucre.

In some cases, the compilation of cash can only be understood as an intellectual challenge. Take rich Rich Dennis, 28, who is unmarried, lives with his parents in a modest Southside Chicago bungalow and is one of the world's smartest commodity traders. He has made close to $10 million. If you want to get rich, he advises, "you can't have the usual attitude toward money. If you think of every dollar you lose on the commodities market as a bucket of coal you'll have to shovel some day, then you're bound to be a bad trader." A one-time philosophy student at De Paul University, Dennis has observed: "People in my business have a tendency to self-destruct. I think it's far more important to know what Freud thinks about death wishes than what Milton Friedman thinks about deficit spending."

Few of the rapid self-enrichers seem to be motivated by greed. It seems more likely that they recognize "money, *pur et simple*," in Bagehot's phrase, as the shortest, speediest route to public recognition, self-esteem and power—or, simply, security in a threatening world.

The dominant personality trait is the willingness to gamble. Ballerina Assolluta Natalia Makarova, who now makes about $300,000 a year from her dancing, took a great risk in defecting from the Kirov Ballet to perform in the alien world of Western ballet. But then Natalasha, 36, has always been supremely confident of her talent. Recalling an old Russian proverb, she observes: "It is bad

FRANK BURFORD TESTING HIS SLOPES

From red ink to black gold.

hasn't changed very much, but I'm enjoying it more all the time."

**Vietnamization.** Rick Byers, 28, is a supersalesman who stumbled into real estate. He makes it all sound simple: "All there is to real estate is running your mouth a bit, knocking on doors and asking people if they want to sell their house. I could take any wino off Fifth and Main and make him a millionaire salesman." By running, knocking, asking and recruiting, Byers has acquired more than $5 million worth of property in Southern California's Orange County, which boasts some of the nation's highest-priced real estate.

A Viet Nam veteran who employs 30 Vietvets as salesmen, Byers in the past four years has sold more houses than any other real estate agent in the county. A bachelor, he inhabits some fancy real estate of his own in Newport Beach and several days a month jets off to wherever sun or snow may beckon.

80

TIME, JUNE 13, 1977

SOMEHOW, SCOTCH
BOTTLED ELSEWHERE
ISN'T QUITE THE SAME.

Contrary to popular belief, many more brands of Scotch
are bottled in America than in Scotland. They are bulk-
shipped and bottled here, often using municipal water.

The makers of Cutty Sark, however, remain adamant
on the subject of Scottish Scotch.

To this day, Cutty Sark is distilled, blended, and
bottled in Scotland, using the water of Loch Katrine.
This results in a Scots Whisky of uncommon smoothness
which is worth every penny you pay for it.

To distinguish genuine Scots Whisky from the rest,
you need look no further than the very top of the label
on a bottle of Cutty Sark.

It spells out exactly what you're getting right there
in black and yellow.

Distilled and Bottled in Scotland
under British Government Supervision

CUTTY SARK

CUTTY SARK. "CUTTY." THE CUTTY SARK LABEL AND THE CLIPPER SHIP DESIGN ARE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS OF BERRY BROS. & BUDD LTD. LONDON. ENGLAND
86 PROOF BLENDED SCOTCH WHISKY DISTILLED AND BOTTLED IN SCOTLAND-IMPORTED BY THE BUCKINGHAM CORPORATION. NEW YORK. N.Y.

LIVING

soldier who does not expect to be
general."

Avers Real Estate Tycoon Byers: "I could lose my millions tomorrow and I wouldn't care, because I could make it all back in six months. I do just what failures are afraid to do." Coal King Burford puts the probability theory another way: "Failure does not count. If you accept this, you'll be successful. It's what

I call the Ty Cobb theory of success. In the same year that Cobb set the record for the number of bases stolen, he also had a lot of failures. There were ten or twelve men who had better percentages of success. What causes most people to fail is that after one failure they just stop trying."

Kipling, Samuel Smiles, Horatio Al-
ger, Dr. Pangloss, J. Paul Getty, John

D. Rockefeller, the Carnegies (Andrew and Dale) and countless other evang lists of true grit have all in their time pro moted the same if-at-first-you-don't- succeed philosophy for nearly a century. From the evidence, there was probably never a time or place in which their les sons were more applicable or more richly rewarded than they are in the U.S. today. Heigh ho!

TIME ESSAY

The Big Puzzle: Who Makes What and Why

Why on earth should Muhammad Ali get $5 million for one night's performance when college professors average only $24,400 a year? Or why should a Johnny Carson be paid a fortune ($3 million-plus a year) while only peanuts, comparatively, go to the workers who happen to keep the TV industry operating? Such questions from typical Americans are familiar. The tone is usually perplexed and often indignant. And no wonder: the pattern of personal income in the U.S. is riddled with wide and often bewildering disparities.

These become joltingly clear in any random sampling of typical wages and salaries across the country (see box next page). They are likely to turn up in any payroll. Persisting differences in wage scales can be catalogued by race, by sex, by age; striking gaps from region to region are commonplace. It is not hard to understand varying pay for different occupations, but within each trade and profession occur radical differences in earnings that baffle even scholarly experts. Moreover, beyond and above all such helter-skelter inequalities, the nation's overall distribution of income, it seems to many economists, is conspicuously out of whack.

Today's income distribu-
tion, though lopsided, is not
substantially different from
what it was at the turn of
the century. Every class of
Americans is generally better
off, but the actual apportion-
ing of the bigger pie has

changed little. Today slightly smaller slices go to the bot-
tom and top fifths of the population, while those in the mid-
dle get a slightly larger portion. This means, by the latest
complete Census Bureau survey of the nation's 56.2 million
families, that in 1975 the best-paid fifth (earning $20,487
and up) received 43.4% of all income, while the lowest fifth
(earning less than $5,018) got 4.3% of the total.

Such is the Big Picture. The main criticism of it is a fa-
miliar old blues song: the system favors the well-off and
rich while leaving the poor irremediably poor. Arthur Okun,
a member of the TIME Board of Economists, considers the
distribution of income and wealth, with its bias against the
poor, "invidious and inhumane." Economist Robert Heil-
broner of New York City's New School for Social Research

protests for the same reason, but also thinks inequalities in
the system are so sharp, glaring and pervasive that it is a
"perennial puzzle" that a democratic society puts up with it.

It is not puzzling that Americans accept inequality as
such. Capitalism, after all, requires a hierarchy of unequal
rewards as an essential source of the incentives that keep
Adam Smith's "invisible hand"—and the economic apparatus
—working. Although the nation preaches the ideal of equal
opportunity and increasingly tries to practice it, inequality
of achievement and reward is embedded in the American

scheme and seldom ques-
tioned by the public. Says
Economics Professor Robert
J. Lampman of the Univer-
sity of Wisconsin: "Ameri-
cans don't really seek any
particular degree of income
equality." And the public,
Lampman adds, is not so
much interested in the Big
Picture as in "particular
differences."

The most spectacular of
these, when viewed person-
ally and from below, can in-
spire wonderment and envy.
Who could not feel under-
paid when contemplating the
$1.662 million that Harry J.
Gray made last year as chief
executive of United Technol-
ogies? In the face of such
sums, ordinary Americans
may ward off envy by re-
membering that they are also
rewarded with "psychic in-
come" (community regard,
the feeling of being useful).
Yet given the news that Mar-
lon Brando is getting $2.25
million for 12 days of play-
acting—well, which of the

vast hand-to-mouth crowd will not wonder whether psychic
income is really preferable to a tax problem?

Many Americans are displeased by what certain dis-
parities seem to disclose about social values. To these, prev-
alent pay differentials, taken as an index of the social soul,
seem to prove, for example, that the nation cherishes pro-
fessional teachers far less than professional athletes. Or,
more broadly, that society generally values members who
do its most serious work not nearly as much as the actors,
clowns and jocks whose task is merely to distract and amuse.
But this handy method of social soul searching is not re-
liable. Far more directly, income differences reflect the op-
erations of the marketplace.

The pattern actually takes its shape out of several mar-

DRAWING BY HAMILTON © 1974, THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC.

"Let's face it, Tom. A society that's paying its Frank Sinatras and Johnny Carsons more than its yours and mes is out of whack."

TIME, JUNE 13, 1977

ESSAY

A Random Sample of Pay

Herewith a random sampling of salaries or other earnings received during 1976 (not including bonuses and other special compensation):

<table><tr><td>Trial lawyer; Washington, D.C.</td><td>$500,000</td></tr><tr><td>Chairman, Dow Chemical Co.</td><td>$453,000</td></tr><tr><td>Basketball star; New York City</td><td>$325,000</td></tr><tr><td>Publisher, Boston Globe</td><td>$147,200</td></tr><tr><td>Senior vice president, Anheuser-Busch, Inc.</td><td>$115,000</td></tr><tr><td>Disc jockey; Detroit</td><td>$100,000</td></tr><tr><td>Flight captain, Boeing 747</td><td>$80,000</td></tr><tr><td>Anesthesiologist; New York City</td><td>$70,000</td></tr><tr><td>Charter fishing-boat skipper; Miami</td><td>$60,000</td></tr><tr><td>U.S. Senator</td><td>$57,500</td></tr><tr><td>President, United Auto Workers</td><td>$43,550</td></tr><tr><td>Civilian astronaut</td><td>$33,800</td></tr><tr><td>Long-haul truck driver</td><td>$30,000</td></tr><tr><td>History professor, University of Virginia</td><td>$30,000</td></tr><tr><td>Violinist, Boston Symphony Orchestra</td><td>$24,800</td></tr><tr><td>Junior high school teacher; Evanston, Ill.</td><td>$19,500</td></tr><tr><td>Garbage collector; New York City</td><td>$16,350</td></tr><tr><td>Assembly-line worker, General Motors</td><td>$14,860</td></tr><tr><td>Assistant professor, Yale University</td><td>$14,750</td></tr><tr><td>Bus driver; Atlanta</td><td>$13,500</td></tr><tr><td>Brick mason; Charlottesville, Va.</td><td>$12,000</td></tr><tr><td>Minister, United Church of Christ; Chicago</td><td>$10,500</td></tr><tr><td>Textile weaver; Roanoke Rapids, N.C.</td><td>$9,980</td></tr><tr><td>Sewing-machine operator; New York City</td><td>$6,720</td></tr><tr><td>Bartender; Seattle</td><td>$2,500</td></tr></table>

ketplaces because, in reality, the nations' wages, salaries and other rewards are established not by one system but an arrangement of several. There are different systems for business and industry, for independent professions, for government, for show biz. Each system expresses different values and sets rewards by different standards.

Consider, say, the big gap between the pay of Jimmy Carter, the Chief Executive of the U.S. ($200,000 plus housing), and Thomas Aquinas Murphy, the chief executive of General Motors ($950,000 including bonus and stock options). Does it mean that society feels that what is good enough for the nation is not nearly good enough for GM? Hardly. The disparity can be tracked not to some hidden spectrum of social values but to two distinct systems of compensation. In business, pay levels are established by clear criteria toward the equally clear purpose of increasing production and profit; by and large, the system rewards most those most crucial to fulfilling that purpose. On the other hand, in government, which serves perennially disputed purposes—with results beyond measure—the salary scale reflects nothing more precise than the politicians' best guess at the maximum the public will tolerate.

The system embracing professionals (independent doctors, lawyers, dentists, engineers) is something else again. Their earnings, though broadly determined by the general marketplace, are also subject to the influences of an intimate psychological marketplace, one in which intangibles of repute

and character are bought and sold along with knowledge and service. Some professionals also manipulate their market by limiting their own numbers—in the way that physicians do through their control of professional education and licensing.

No system seems as bizarre as that of show biz. Sums paid the big stars appear surreal when compared with other salaries. But the trouble is, such comparisons are specious. For in reimbursing a star, whether of stage, screen or playing field, the entertainment industry is not really paying an employee so much as making a capital appropriation. It is not by chance that in show biz a popular figure is called a hot "property." The star actually is the product to be sold. That the price of such properties has soared is not surprising in a personality-craving society in which the big stars fulfill a public symbolic role once reserved to royalty. The cost of offering the star to the public can be fairly compared only with sums spent by a manufacturer for the development of new merchandise for sale.

Each system is marked by its own peculiar inequalities. Those associated with race, sex and age can be counted simply as signs of persisting discrimination. Most regional differences are hangovers from historical divergencies in regional economies. Some disparities, however, simply defy rationalization. M.I.T. Economist Lester Thurow in his book *Generating Inequality* points to extreme variations in income among auto mechanics of roughly equal training and age —along with similarly extreme variations in the earnings of comparable physicians. Why such differences? Nobody has figured it out.

The biggest executive salaries, say compensation experts, tend to go to business leaders who, in addition to being crucial to the turning of profit, also demonstrate the capacity to take risks (this even though students of corporate gamesmanship say that those at the top often survive by not risking too much along the climb). Certainly the biggest blue-collar pay goes to workers who have most effectively improved their competitive position by organization—and recently blue collars have won ascendancy over poorly organized white collars in average salary. In all systems, the factor of supply and demand is at work as an influence if not an iron law—even in show biz. The great majority of performers earn meager sums, primarily because of the excessive supply of aspirants. For them, as Economics Professor Clair Vickery of the University of California's Institute of Industrial Relations in Berkeley puts it, a performing job is like "buying a ticket in a lottery." It mainly feeds the dream of that legendary Big Break that could bring them the juicy tax problems of a star.

In the end, a certain dream underlies the whole scheme of compensation. Its helter-skelter character, after all, is an expression of one overriding national value: the libertarian ideal. It is the intentional absence of central control that produces the unevenness of the final result. The very elasticity that Americans seem to value most produces the disparities that most annoy them: it is at the root of the social and economic mobility that is the very essence of the American scheme.

There will continue to be amazement at glaring inequalities, and of course there should be indignation over the plight of the millions of Americans who are either unemployed or existing in poverty. But even if the situation of these worst-off is ameliorated, as it should be, it is likely that the whole system of who makes what and why in America will always seem a puzzle.

Frank Trippett

GRAY: $1.66 M

BRANDO: $2.25 M

MURPHY: $950,000

ALI: $5 M

CARSON: $3 M

CARTER: $200,000

DENNIS BRACK—BLACK STAR

Lcy

NATIONAL AFFAIRS

hands with well-wishers. "It was the best thing you've ever done ... Congratulations," said one woman. "Well, thank you. Thank you very much," Nixon replied.

His aides were also pleased with Nixon's TV performance, which they saw as a long overdue public exposure of the private Nixon. But they were still fighting rear-guard actions in the ex-President's behalf. The Nixon aides strenuously objected to publication the week before of excerpts from a White House tape transcript that showed Nixon and Colson discussing "hush money" to the Watergate burglars as early as Jan. 8, 1973. They claimed that a later version of the transcript did not refer to hush money. The hush-money transcript does exist, but former Watergate prosecutor Neal explained that the incriminating words were left out in a revised version because "some members of the [Watergate trial] task force could hear 'hush money' and some couldn't ... We just did not feel comfortable going into the jury and saying it was there when everyone could not hear it."

## TALES OF THE K

If Richard Nixon's first television encounter with David Frost displayed him on his worst ground, the second reveals him on his best: a world of big-power diplomacy far distant from the tangle of scandal called Watergate. In round two, scheduled for broadcast this week, Frost is no longer the relentless prosecutor or Nixon the harried defendant. Instead, the former President ranges with expansive ease over the triumphs of foreign policy he hopes will finally retrieve his reputation: the opening to China, the thaw with the Soviets, the inch-meal progress from war toward peace in the Middle East—and, in what one preview spectator describes as “pixieish” detail, the care and feeding of his diplomatic superstar, Henry Kissinger.

There is, by advance billing, fresh material aplenty for the history books: Nixon's view from the summit of Leonid Brezhnev and Mao Tse-tung,* for example, and his discontent with the quality of the intelligence he got on the eve of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. But it is his tales out of school on Kissinger that will set Washington's gossip circuit humming—how as national-security adviser he contrived to exclude Secretary of State William Rogers from some key decisions, and how he would occasionally threaten his

Inside the Frost camp, the atmosphere was even more heady than in San Clemente. On the night of the broadcast, Frost donned the same tie, shirt and jacket he had worn throughout the taping and threw a party in the Chestnut Room of Chasen's restaurant in Los Angeles, where celebrities such as Joseph Cotten, Deborah Raffin and Hugh Hefner dined on cracked crab and shrimp. There were snickers and laughs as Nixon argued his case on four big color sets, but hushed silence in the emotional final minutes of the interview.

### A LONG WAY TO GO

Next day, Frost called a press conference to joke about the 90-second-gap—"I've called [former Nixon aide Alexander] Haig, and he said it was a sinister force. Thank God it wasn't eighteen and a half minutes." He also contradicted one of his own researchers, James Reston Jr., who said that Frost had agreed to take

a break in his staccato questioning of Nixon toward the end of last week's show after Nixon's aides said that the ex-President wanted to be "as forthcoming as possible."

It was in that final stretch that Nixon did get the opportunity to make his most emotional personal accounting to date. But while his performance riveted viewers and won him a measure of new sympathy, it clearly did not alter the public's verdict on his involvement with the Watergate scandal or his inability—even now—to come to grips with it fully and candidly. Future broadcasts on Nixon's controversial policy in Southeast Asia and on the agony of his final days may reveal an even more sympathetic figure. Yet, judging by last week's reactions, Richard Nixon was still a long way from gaining even the limited public redemption that he so earnestly seeks.

—DAVID M. ALPERN with JOHN J. LINDSAY in San Clemente, MARTIN KASINDORF in Los Angeles, and bureau reports

AP

Happy times: Toasting Chou En-lai and the opening to China, 1972

own resignation. How often? "Oh, to me, he would hint it on occasion," Nixon answers. "Ah—not many, not often... [but] he would come in and say, 'Well, I just wonder if my usefulness—'"

**Chilled Feet:** At another juncture, Nixon dryly recounts an attack of chilled feet suffered by Kissinger in the wake of the U.S. incursions into Cambodia in 1970. Kissinger, in Nixon's telling, "was for going in"—though with some disquiet over the scale of the operation ordered by the President. "Then came Kent State, which was a terrible emotional shock to me—ah—and a very great shock to Kissinger," Nixon says. "And of course a torrent of abuse, because the implication was that because we did Cambodia, three students [actually four] were killed in Kent State ... Right after that, Henry came in one day and said, 'You know, I'm not sure that we should have gone into

this Cambodian thing, and perhaps now has come the time when we should ... get out a little sooner'."

Kissinger didn't really mean it, Nixon guessed—"but he says, '... I must warn you, Mr. President, that the situation that I hear from my colleagues from the colleges and the universities is very, very serious and—ah—Cambodia is—it could have been a mistake.' And I said, 'Henry ... we've done it.' I said, 'Remember Lot's wife. Never look back.' I don't know whether Henry had read the Old Testament or not, but I had, and he got the point... Henry and I had a little joke with each other after that. Whenever he would come in and say, 'Well, I'm not sure we should have done this or that or the other thing,' I would say, 'Henry, remember Lot's wife'—and that would end the conversation."

—PETER GOLDMAN with HAL BRUNO in Los Angeles

* Previewers were struck by Nixon's eye for petit-point detail. At one point, he remarks on Brezhnev's cuff links; at another, he waves his own hands in imitation of Mao's, which struck him as surprisingly young, smooth and gentle of gesture.

Newsweek, May 16, 1977

43

Carter unveiling welfare program: For dismayed Democrats, a new math of restraint

AP

Jimmy vs. the Liberals

"How many times did Jimmy Carter say during the campaign he was a fiscal conservative—50,000 times? That's the mistake people have made all along—not believing he means what the hell he says."

—White House press secretary

Jody Powell

Jimmy Carter said it again last week—and immediately set off liberal wrath in Congress. At a two-hour White House breakfast meeting with Democratic Congressional leaders the President announced that any new social programs would have to take a back seat to his own top priority: balancing the Federal budget by 1981. Later that day, Carter showed that he meant it: he outlined some guidelines for welfare reform that contemplated a four-year, go-slow revision with a stiff proviso limiting funding to present levels. Carter argued that because of the threat of inflation and a big Federal deficit there was simply no money to do more—for welfare or just about anything else. The argument struck at the heart of traditional Democratic economics and politics and touched off the first real ideological dispute between the President and his own party in Congress.

'Trickle-Down': The meeting, ironically enough, was supposed to be a fence-mending session between Carter and the leaders of the House and Senate. The President first apologized graciously for some "bad communications" in recent weeks—particularly over the way he had so abruptly dropped his $50 tax rebate plan when many of the leaders had so loyally supported it. Then, with Arthur Burns, the very Republican chairman of

the Federal Reserve Board, nodding his approval, Carter noted that the only way to curb inflation, cut unemployment and balance the budget was to abandon big, new government spending programs—and stimulate the private sector instead. “I want to learn from Dr. Burns and others here,” said Carter. “It was pure Republican ‘trickle-down theory’,” said one astonished House liberal.

Privately, Carter's own economic brain-trusters argue that there is no other choice. For decades, they note, Democrats relied upon a “fiscal dividend”—the higher tax revenues produced by a growing economy—to bankroll the programs of the New Frontier and Great Society without significant tax increases. But the fiscal dividend has all but disappeared, swallowed up by existing programs that automatically grow every year. Cutting the defense budget is no longer prudent, they say. And deficit financing, the traditional resort of liberal politics, is already at its limit. “The Federal Reserve would have to pump out so much money that we would get a wild inflation,” says one Carter economist. “So the choice, basically and pragmatically, is to go back to double-digit inflation—or balance the budget.”

The job of selling this unconventional wisdom to some of the Democrats' oldest power brokers on the Hill fell to Charles Schultze, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Picking up a long wooden pointer and unfurling a set of charts, he did the best he could to project a rosy future. Schultze predicted that by 1981, the nation's gross national product, growing at an annual rate of 5.2 percent, would produce nearly 10 million new jobs. He

NATIONAL AFFAIRS

said the surge would reduce the unemployment rate to about 4.75 per cent (vs. 7 per cent last month) and generate an inflation rate of less than 4 per cent annually (vs. the current rate of about 7 per cent). But Schultze conceded that to attain those goals, business investment would have to grow by 10 per cent each year and the Federal government would have to limit the real growth of its own spending to a meager 1 per cent annually. After Schultze sat down, Burns rose to praise the projections and goals. The bottom line was then added by Bert Lance, head of the Office of Management and Budget: “No new programs if we are going to be able to get a balanced budget by 1981.”

The next day a deputation of Congressional leaders returned in force for a second encounter session, and this time they were ready with their rebuttal. “Mr. President,” said House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill, “when Arther Burns praises Charlie Schultze for his economic analysis, something has changed around here—and it isn't me.” O'Neill chided Carter for looking “kind of unmindful” that the Democratic Party usually casts itself as the party of the liberal, the poor and the needy. And Sen. Hubert Humphrey, citing the traditional Democratic coalition of blacks, labor, cities and farmers, said, “We have to represent what is here.”

'No Way': The President stuck to his math, but he did concede that he might have been "excessively emphasizing" fiscal restraint: he said he didn't want his Administration to look "callous," and he contended that his "undiminished commitment" to jobs distinguished him from the Republicans. But when he delicately suggested that the leadership might try in turn to accentuate the positive a bit, Humphrey, looking healthier than he has for months, said flatly: "Mr. President, there is no way to balance the budget by 1981."

No one, however, seemed eager for an open—and destructive—showdown. On leaving, O'Neill shook Carter's hand and said: "Mr. President, the family that prays together and dialogues together pretty well stays together." To head off further trouble, Carter ordered his issues-and-answers man, Stuart Eizenstat, to put together an eight-page memo detailing the President's liberal stands on issues ranging from environmental protection to jobs and HEW's immunization program for low-income children. "The liberals are going to have a hell of a time telling him that he's not a good liberal," said one top White House lieutenant. As a precaution, some of the President's men made plans for Carter to sign the new public-works and tax-cut bills this week in a highly visible White House ceremony. But whatever his public rhetoric this week, there is no longer much doubt that on economic matters Jimmy Carter and Arthur Burns have a lot in common.

—TOM MATHEWS with HENRY W. HUBBARD, ELEANOR CLIFT and RICH THOMAS in Washington

o Newsweek, May 16, 1977

THE NATION

needs access to Western technology and markets, and it badly needs a cap on the arms race in order to devote more of its economic potential to improving the standard of living of its own people. These needs are so acute that despite its threats and protestations, the Kremlin will live with the new outspoken U.S. policy once it becomes convinced that the Carter Administration is irrevocably committed to that policy—and cannot be intimidated into backing down.

4) SALT must ultimately entail arms reduction rather than just arms control, since the arsenals have already grown dangerously. While the Soviets find the idea of deep cuts hard to swallow, substantial reductions require at least as much of a sacrifice by the U.S., if not more. Thus there is nothing inherently unacceptable to Moscow about the main Carter package.

An obvious novice at dealing with the Russians, Carter has taken certain risks—some of them possibly unnecessary—in carrying out that policy. In light of cynical Soviet votes at the United Nations and other forums against alleged repression in other countries, the President has ample reason for attacking human rights violations in the Soviet Union. Still, it is one thing to state principles in a speech, and quite another to challenge Brezhnev directly by writing a letter to Andrei Sakharov. Carter should know if he plays tough, he must be prepared for the Russians to do the same. In the long run, there is also the danger that if all the rhetoric about human rights fails to change anything, disillusionment will set in.

Another continuing question concerns Carter's open diplomacy, his public offers and proposals on highly delicate issues. Are they, as many think, a bracing shock that will force movement on long-stalled problems? Or will they make it harder for Soviet leaders and others to compromise and thus lead to more deeply entrenched positions? The latter danger is a real one, but it is too soon to tell how serious. Some observers pointed out that even Gromyko paid oblique tribute to Vance's open and detailed presentation of the U.S. proposals—a departure from tradition in arms negotiations.

The President is not about to back down or away; indeed, it is he who seems to be testing Brezhnev, not vice versa. He told last week's press conference that he would consider "the development and deployment of additional weapons" if a SALT II agreement is not reached. If he gives the green light to the cruise missile, the M-X missile and the B-1 bomber, U.S. defense spending could increase by about $2 billion annually. For their part, the Soviets would probably continue the rapid pace of arms buildup they have maintained for the past few years. This would not mean the two powers would be on the verge of war. But it would certainly lead to a grave increase in tensions and spell the end of détente.

MIKE PETERS—DAYTON DAILY NEWS

Vance v. Kissinger: A Matter of Style

When Henry Kissinger talked with reporters on a diplomatic shuttle, he was like a wise, witty potentate holding a leee for his courtiers. When Cyrus Vance unbends with newsmen on a mission abroad, it is more like a corporation lawyer at a court recess commenting discreetly on the intricacies of an antitrust case sub judice. TIME Correspondent Christopher Ogden, who has traveled with both Secretaries of State, last week cabled this commentary on their differing styles:

Whenever he traveled, Henry Kissinger took the State Department with him. When he went to Latin America last year, he took along an expert on the Middle East just in case something happened in that area. Although the Middle East was expected to be one of the major topics of Vance's talks in Moscow, the new Secretary did not have a specialist along.

**Long Hours.** Virtually all the major State Department cable traffic went to the touring Kissinger, creating an enormous logistical burden for his staffs. Vance lets Deputy Secretary Warren Christopher run the department while he is away. As a result, he gets only about one-fifth of the messages demanded by Kissinger, who usually asked for several days, each running about five to six pages. After two days of getting roughly the same number, Vance sent out an order restricting them to no more than a page and a half.

Like Kissinger, Vance has no problem making decisions, but he does not like to be flooded with them. "He is very methodical and prefers focusing on one issue at a time," says a State Department Soviet specialist. He works hard, putting in long hours, but is not as tireless as Kissinger was. Vance will take naps when he can. Kissinger would regularly give an aide a fistful of memos for action at 2 a.m. and ask that they be returned—with completed action—at 6 a.m. When Kissinger traveled, secre-

taries and aides scurried constantly, taking dictation, typing, reproducing material. Some aides who traveled with him to a city three or four times never got outside their hotel. With Vance, some of these assistants were startled at the amount of free time they had.

Vance appreciates good work and thanks assistants when they produce well. Kissinger was never satisfied with the best efforts of his aides. He would throw back speech drafts two or three times, calling them "junk" or worse. Kissinger was notorious for his tantrums. Vance is even-tempered.

On the road, Vance has so far been content to use Kissinger's back-up Boeing 707. It is less comfortable than the plane regularly used by his predecessor, which is now part of the Administration's fleet. Kissinger spent a good deal of time in the rear of the plane talking off the record to reporters, even as the jet rocketed down the runway. He would return two or three times during a trip to chat, quip, tell jokes and stories about foreign leaders or spin out grand stratagems while nibbling peanuts or candy. Vance is more reserved and is still feeling his way. He rarely comes back to chat, but he invites the press forward for regular news conferences.

According to some who have seen both men in action, Kissinger was far more expansive in talks with heads of government. As with reporters, he would tell stories, crack jokes—often at the expense of his aides—and spin out involved arguments to prove a point. Vance sits and listens. He is less lively, but also more straightforward.

Is Vance too nice for the job? Some think so. "He really may be too much of a gentleman," insists a Middle East expert in Washington. "He may not be able to survive the cutthroat atmosphere." But gentlemen can be tough, as well as patient; Vance may yet demonstrate that he has both these qualities, along with his undoubted intelligence.

TIME, APRIL 11, 1977

THE NATION

TV NEWSMAN WILLEM OLTMANS

UPI

THE DE MOHRENSCHILDTS IN 1974

CONGRESS

Assassination: Now a Suicide Talks

"Let's face it. I only made up the story [about Lee Harvey Oswald] because everybody makes a million dollars off the Kennedy assassination, and I haven't made anything. So now it's my time."

—George de Mohrenscchildt, quoted
by Willem Oltmans

That grotesque confession should be
sufficient to discredit the man who made
it, a Russian-born teacher and friend of
Lee Harvey Oswald's named George de
Mohrenscchildt. But nothing ever seems
sufficient to still Kennedy assassination
stories; time and events merely compli-
cate them. Last week—only an hour
after a congressional investigator asked
to meet with him in Manalapan, Fla.
—De Mohrenscchildt apparently com-
mitted suicide by putting a 20-gauge
shotgun in his mouth and pulling the
trigger. Suddenly there was intense in-
terest in what he might have told the in-
vestigator. Sure enough, within 48 hours,
a world-traveling Dutch TV newsman,
Willem Oltmans, showed up to reveal
to a closed session of the House Se-
lect Committee on Assassinations—plus
ABC, NBC and CBS—what De Mohren-
schildt had been telling him during the
several years of their acquaintance.

Oltmans' testimony—given under
oath—was sensational stuff. De Mohr-
enschildt, said Oltmans, claimed he had
been the middleman in a conspiracy of
rich Texas oilmen, headed by the late
H.L. Hunt, and anti-Castro Cubans to

kill Kennedy. Oswald was one gunman,
but supposedly several Cubans were also
assigned to shoot the President. One
could even be identified. Oltmans pro-
vided the committee with a picture of
a Cuban whom he said fired shots at
Kennedy. But apart from the dramatic
backdrop provided by De Mohren-
schildt's suicide, the story was just an-
other series of rumors that could not
be corroborated.

At the time of the Kennedy assas-
sination, De Mohrenscchildt was an oil
geologist employed by the U.S. State De-
partment in Haiti. He had known Os-
wald for a year (they were members of
a Russian-speaking group in Dallas),
and he told the Warren Commission in
1964 that he knew nothing of Oswald's
role in the Kennedy killing. But during
a series of meetings with Oltmans be-
ginning in 1966, De Mohrenscchildt
began to remember things differently.
By 1975, during an interview with Olt-
mans on Dutch television, he insisted
that Oswald was led by others. Oltmans
told colleagues, "De Mohrenscchildt
knows a lot more than he is willing to
say right now." Later De Mohrenscchildt
was to go so far as to say he felt "re-
sponsible" for Oswald's behavior.

In February of this year, De Mohr-
enschildt told Oltmans he was ready to
disclose more but only outside the U.S.
—he feared for his life in America. By
now De Mohrenscchildt seemed de-
pressed. He had been hospitalized as a

psychiatric patient for two months at the
end of last year, and he had twice at-
tempted suicide. Said Patrick Russell,
his Dallas attorney: "He began to have
bizarre hallucinations and distortions.
He believed people were following him."

According to Oltmans, De Mohren-
schildt would vacillate between claiming
his conspiracy tale was a hoax and as-
serting it was true. In addition to De
Mohrenscchildt's instability, doubts are
thrown on his story by a review of War-
ren Commission testimony that shows
De Mohrenscchildt last saw Oswald six
months before the assassination. "It is
absolutely out of the question that De
Mohrenscchildt had anything to do with
Kennedy's death," fumes Chicago At-
torney Albert Jenner, who interviewed
De Mohrenscchildt for the Warren Com-
mission. Adds Jenner of the House Al-
sassination Committee's entire perfo-
mance: "Utterly disgusting."

The committee members who heard
Oltmans' testimony took a wait-and-see
attitude. "I think he is telling the truth
as he perceives it," said D.C. Delegate
Walter Fauntroy. Oltmans himself cited
an obviously disturbing aspect of his
charges. Asked a tough question during
a television interview, he replied, "Well,
I'm quoting Mr. De Mohrenscchildt, so
that makes it very easy"—De Mohren-
schildt being in no position to amend
the record.

Oltmans' testimony was only the cli-
max in a hectic week during which the
House Select Committee on Assassina-
tions barely escaped its own death by
sacrificing its controversial counsel,
Richard Sprague. The outspoken ex-
district attorney from Philadelphia had
angered too many Congressmen with his
demands for a $13 million budget and a
staff of 175 for the two-year investigation
(TIME, Jan. 10).

**Too Raw.** With Sprague out of the
way, the House was willing to vote 230
to 181 to continue the investigations on
a reduced annual budget of $2.8 mil-
lion. But Sprague's departure left the
committee staff demoralized and com-
mittee members full of praise for their
former counsel. Gushed Illinois Repub-
lican John Anderson: "He laid himself
on the altar of sacrifice."

To date, no firm fruits of Sprague's
early work have reached the public.
Nevertheless, a rush of rumor, innuendo
and unconfirmed leads has blared from
the committee. The latest concerns a let-
ter the FBI is investigating said to have
been written by Oswald to a "Mr. Hunt"
asking about "my position." It is dated
14 days before the Kennedy assassina-
tion. The committee's operation has
outraged many Congressmen. Snarled
Michigan's John Dingell: "They tell us
they have persuasive evidence! What
they have is a lot of crap!"

Even Richard Sprague hit a cautious
note before resigning: "The only things
that [the staff] can say of significance
are things that are too raw and uncor-
roborated for us to be stating publicly."

TIME, APRIL 11, 1977

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

[Lc]

A Question of Survival

Whether private business can
survive an ever-expanding inter-
vention in its affairs by govern-
ment would seem to be one of the
burning questions of our time.

A Conference Board study says intervention has reached a "danger point" in many parts of the world. Chicago banker A. Robert Abboud cites government estimates that regulation is costing U.S. consumers $130 billion a year. William H. Manly of Southern Co. Services likens running a pension fund today under the 1974 ERISA law to driving a car with the Labor Department foot on the gas pedal, the Treasury's hand on the emergency brake, etc. Businessmen are storming to their Congressmen about OSHA and EPA rules. Economists demonstrate how the combination of regulation and inflation is seriously distorting capital investment decisions in favor of short-term gains that do not square with the economy's real needs.

There is a great temptation, particularly among businessmen themselves, to attribute these problems to the tendencies of politicians and bureaucrats to grasp for more power. There also are counsels of despair that argue that the world is gripped by an inexorable drift towards socialism because of its seductive promises to take wealth from the relatively small numbers of haves and distribute it to the great masses of have-nots.

Both assertions are disturb-
ingly plausible, but both are sim-
plistic and not very useful to any-
one who would prefer to seek posi-
tive solutions. It should be kept in
mind, for example, that govern-
ment's goals—worker safety, a
clean environment, reliable pen-
sions, etc.—are often worthy ones,
however clumsy the execution.
And the inevitability of socialism
is by no means a certain outcome
of the pursuit by a democratically
elected government of worthy
goals.

But it is true that there are dy-
namics at work in the business-
government relationship that
could lead towards more ineffec-
tual and demoralizing government
market intervention if they are not
somehow reversed. Separate in-
sights into those dynamics were
offered by Henry Kissinger and
the Fed's Henry C. Wallich in a
seminar at Georgetown's Center
for Strategic and International
Studies last week.

Dr. Kissinger, in remarks that
did not endear him to his largely
business audience — perhaps be-
cause they had the sting of truth.

accused businessmen of too often
running to government for help
when they get into trouble. He was
referring to his own experiences
as Secretary of State with busi-
nessmen operating abroad, but he
might have included all the differ-
ent ways that happens at home as
well—the steel industry's current
demands for import protections,
for example.

Dr. Wallich offered a somewhat
more sophisticated analysis,
largely devoid of any suggestion
that businessmen, on the one hand,
are more shortsighted or venal
than anyone else, or on the other
hand that politicians and bureau-
crats are necessarily power-hun-
gry. He described a cycle in which
perceptions of an economic prob-
lem (quite possibly seen by gov-
ernment and business in the same
light) leads to government inter-
vention in the market process. The
resulting interference with the
market's natural capacities to
bring about adaptation leads to
further complications and eco-
nomic inefficiencies, which in turn
lead to demands for yet more gov-
ernment intervention, etc., etc.

We have seen Dr. Wallich's cycle working with a vengeance in the "energy crisis." Government interventions dating back many years have finally led to the prospect the country now faces of a permanent federal bureaucracy taking over the job, once handled efficiently by millions of market participants, of trying to make decisions on prices, logistics, capital investments and research and development in a vital economic resource. Implicated in this effort are not a few businessmen who see their companies as beneficiaries of the decisions to be made through this artificial and inefficient process.

Can this trend be reversed? The question would seem to be best directed at businessmen themselves. Despite the blows they have suffered in the political arena they still have the capacity to be highly influential in the political sphere. But they will not bring about such a reversal unless they are able to put aside short-term concepts of gain in favor of those longer-term considerations Dr. Kissinger was talking about.

We may be reaching the point where American businessmen will have to decide whether they really believe in the market system. If they don't, it is hard to see who will muster the political forces to defend it against its very real and often intensely committed en-

ergy.

WALL STREET
JOURNAL
JULY 6 1977

WEST 7677

[LC]

MY & BUSINESS

I leader who states proudly: "I
and being called a lefty. We're
entered to death." And in par-
allel openly advises Meany, who
step down as AFL-CIO president
the federation convenes in Los
in December. Says Winpising-
ve immense respect for George
but there comes a time when
it passes the apex of his ca-
d it's all downhill after that.
The polls rate labor just behind
Nixon and just ahead of used-
smen, you know something
be changed."

ny may not take the advice;
he does retire in December, his
as AFL-CIO president would
Lane Kirkland, 55, the fed-
secretary-treasurer and also a

Legislatively, Winpisinger would
have the AFL-CIO lobby for broad social
goals, like national health insurance,
rather than concentrate on parochial
measures like the common-situs pick-
eting bill. He also would blunt Meany's
hard anti-Communist line in foreign
policy. Further Winpisinger wants to
start a drive to organize blacks and oth-
er minorities (I.A.M. membership has
dropped 100,000 in the past ten years).
In general, says Wimpy, union members
are not so conservative as they are be-
lieved to be: "They are not comfortable
with the idea that they're supposed to
hate people on welfare."

Winpisinger also would take a soft-
er line on defense. Though the matter
is somewhat academic after President
Carter's decision last week, Winpisinger's
own union is on record as favoring
the B-1 bomber. But, he says, "personally
and morally I'm absolutely opposed
to the B-1." In almost any other country,
Winpisinger's agenda would scarcely
seem all that far left. That it seems
radical in the U.S. is a true measure of
the labor conservatism that Wimpy intends
to change.

BENKLER PRESS

JEF WILLIAM WINPISINGER
ind being called a lefty."

nservative. But either Meany
and may find the executive
something other than the rub-
rip that it has become; Winpi-
expected to be a catalyst for
At least four members are like-
able with him to reform AFL-CIO
Murray Finley, president of the
nated Clothing Workers; Sol
president of the Ladies Gar-
rkers; Glenn Watts, chief of the
lications Workers, and Jerry
ad of the American Federation
County and Municipal Employ-
more possible recruits for a lib-
ition are Lloyd McBride, new
of the United Steelworkers,
glas Fraser, who is expected to
United Auto Workers back into
IO.

OPINION

Kissinger's Complaint

As Secretary of State in a generally
pro-business Republican Administra-
tion, Henry Kissinger had an unusual
opportunity to observe how American
corporations operate abroad. Last week
Kissinger, now a professor at Georg-
town University, had some unflattering
comments on the subject. Speaking be-
fore a blue-ribbon panel of businessmen
at a seminar staged by Georgetown's
Center for Strategic and International
Studies, Kissinger dismissed as an "ab-
surdity" the Marxist contention that
American executives use the U.S. Gov-
ernment to help them impose economic
imperialism on foreign countries. His
reason: businessmen are too shortsight-
ed to be so Machiavellian—indeed, too
myopic to call on the American Gov-
ernment for legitimate help.

In what seemed like a sweeping gen-
eralization, Kissinger said, "Business
has no perception of its long-range in-
terests." Most corporations, he insisted,
"never have a strategy to affect the over-
all political environment abroad"; in-
stead, their executives think "it is smart
politics to placate at almost any cost"
the governments of foreign countries.
Moreover, he said, when multinationals
do get into trouble overseas—for exam-
ple, when they are threatened with ex-
propriation by other countries—they
wait until the eleventh hour before seek-
ing State Department help. "They come
to us in their extremity, usually when
they have been taken over. If we [the
State Department] did do something
and the host government started nego-
tiations, business usually took the first

windfall that came along and ran. And
if you said anything to them, they would
give you a great lecture about free
enterprise."

In general, said Kissinger, in a com-
ment that seemed to apply to U.S. cor-
porate dealings at home as well as
abroad, "businessmen's conception of
how to influence Government is that
when they are in deep trouble they send
some lobbyist around to promote some
limited specific objective that pays off
very rapidly. Labor is far more intel-
ligent. I know of no business that has a
long-term research organization and a
long-term ability to work with Congress
and the Executive Branch when there
is no pressure."

**Long-Range Strategy.** Business-
men attending the seminar were quick
to issue rebuttals. PepsiCo Chairman
Donald Kendall noted that Kissinger
has confessed that economics is not ex-
actly his forte and suggested that com-
menting on how U.S. corporations con-
duct themselves abroad is not either. On
the point of long-range strategy, Ken-
dall pointed out that he began negoti-
ating with the Soviet government in
1969, about when Kissinger himself did,
and is still at it (PepsiCo has developed
a lucrative business bottling soft drinks
in Russia). Nathaniel Samuels, a direc-
tor of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., asserted that
one reason businessmen do not call on
the U.S. Government for help abroad is
that such a request often is "an invi-
tation to trouble."

Arthur Stupay, a Cleveland broker and former multinational executive who was not at the seminar, offers a fuller defense. Says he: "American businessmen in some ways are more sophisticated in managing foreign operations than the State Department. U.S. businessmen live longer in a country and know the customs and culture more intimately than State Department people." If businessmen do not ask the Government for help when they get into trouble abroad, Stupay adds, it is because "they have contacts that they think are better informed."

INVESTMENT

Equitable Alchemy

Few organizations in American so-
ciety are endowed with such a comple-
ment of criminals, confidence men,
rogues and ruffians as the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters. And no-
where within that fraternity was rapac-
ity more apparent than in the manage-
ment—most people would call it
mismanagement—of the union's $1.4
billion Central States, Southeast and
Southwest pension fund. Under the
guidance of both icy Jimmy Hoffa and
shuffling Frank Fitzsimmons, trustees
treated the fund as a pot of honey to be
ladled liberally to friends and acquaint-
ances. Now, after a two-year investiga-

TIME
7/1/77

Packing
in alu
and s

What
can't id-
your law-
(Wor-
bit? she-
Bes-
body wh-
tify your-
Sco-
weed id-
Just
pesky u-

TIME, JULY 11, 1977

PEOPLE

GLOBETROTTING HENRY HOLDS COURT FOR TEAMMATES

"I've been called for traveling and will be out of the game for a while," quipped **Henry Kissinger** as the Harlem Globetrotters made him an honorary member last week. The slapstick-basketball players presented the outgoing Secretary of State with a team uniform, playing shoes, warmup jacket and an autographed basketball. Standing on an eight-inch-high platform to measure up to his guests, Kissinger approvingly noted that his new uniform bore the number 1. Said Henry: "The numeral accords with my estimate of myself."

When British Colonialist **Cecil Rhodes** died in 1902, he left the world two legacies: a South African mining empire to keep the women of the world in diamonds and a bequest to use the profits therefrom to educate at Oxford University, "the best men for the world's fight." But times change. And this year, to conform with a 1975 act by the British Parliament, Rhodes scholarships are being awarded for the first time to women. Among the 32 American winners named last week, 13 are female. One, Yale's Sarah Deutsch, concedes her image of a Rhodes scholar is a man, Los Angeles Ram Quarterback **Pat Haden**, currently on leave from Oxford. But, adds Deutsch, "I can throw a spiral too."

After making a bad bet on the horses in the London of 1820, a reckless dandy named Scrope Berdmore Davies crammed his personal papers into a trunk, stashed it in a bank vault and skipped the country. Doing a spot of housecleaning at the Pall Mall branch of Barclays Bank the other day, officials opened the unclaimed trunk and turned up one of the literary finds of the century. Among the treasures: an original copy of the third canto of *Childe Harold's Pilgrimage*, by Davies' pal **Lord Byron**; early manuscripts of *Hymn to Intellectual Beauty* and *Mont Blanc* by

**Percy Bysshe Shelley**; and two possibly unpublished poems by Shelley. Also scattered in the trunk were some 14 letters from Byron, including a complaint that he had picked up another dose of gonorrhea.

Never especially known for what covered her body, **Brigitte Bardot**, 42, is now into fashion. BB has lent her approval—and signature in shocking pink and black—to a spring collection of dresses, blouses, shirts and short shorts created by her friend, Designer **Arlette Nastat**. The threads, which go on sale next month in stores in Manhattan and Dallas, are clingy, transparent and décolleté. The market for the collection, however, may be limited. The former sex kitten sees potential customers as "women who have my allure, my look."

That head in the sand waiting for a *nouvelle vague* belongs to Film Director **Roman Polanski**. Playing guest editor for the year-end issue of the French *Vogue*, Roman wanted the shot, taken by his friend Harry Benson, for the cover. But *Vogue's* regular editors overruled him. "They told me," he says, "that the ladies who buy *Vogue* would run away from my cover." But Polanski still managed to express himself inimitably across 53 pages. Among his features: an annotated gallery of his leading ladies (*Faye Dunaway* is "the grande dame of the screen") and six pages on his idols, Icelandic Painter **Erro**, the late **Bertrand Russell** and the late Kung Fu movie star **Bruce Lee**. All in all, Polanski was pleased: "There's a certain thrill to seeing my work on a page. It's the thrill of novelty, like having a new affair."

DE RAENY—SYGMA

BARDOT MODELS HER FILMY FASHIONS

HARRY BENSON

TIME, JANUARY 3, 1977

POLANSKI AWAITS VAGUE FOR VOGUE

CINEMA

Barbra, a One-Woman Hippodrome

A STAR IS BORN

Directed by FRANK PIERSON
Screenplay by JOHN GREGORY DUNNE,
JOAN DIDION and FRANK PIERSON

Rock 'n' roll is not the only problem with *A Star Is Born*, nor even the basic one. Still, it is a fair place to start.

The trouble with rock 'n' roll in *A Star Is Born* is that there isn't any. The soundtrack is filled with homogenized harmonics passing for rock, but not a single song is good enough even to be counterfeit. There are whimpy ballads and, on occasion, an up-tempo number that might make the Peter Duchin Orchestra restless. No recognizable rock, however, which is a distinct handicap in a movie that deals with two pop superstars who are supposed to be singing it, playing it and living it.

William Wellman's wonderful original *A Star Is Born* (1937) and George Cukor's superb musical reworking (1954) both shared the same sure-shot story (written originally by Wellman and Robert Carson). Norman Maine, an actor at the apex of stardom and about to slide into an alcoholic decline, meets, loves and marries a young woman named Esther Blodgett, whose fame gradually surpasses his own. Less out of bitterness than from shame, Maine commits suicide by walking into the surf at Malibu.

Now John Gregory Dunne and Joan Didion had the clever notion of resetting this story in the rock world, where heady glamour and careening careers furnish the closest contemporary equivalent of the Hollywood flush years. Barbra Streisand and her inamorato Jon Peters weighed into the project as

Dunne and Didion drifted away. Batteries of writers and directors were exhausted before the present version was put together under—or perhaps around—Director Frank Pierson (*The Looking Glass War*). Yet, what the serious quartierlies call “the authorship” of *A Star Is Born* is unclear. Responsibility must surely rest with Streisand and Peters, who kept hold of the creative clout.

**Hostile Audience.** Streisand appears as Esther (here surnamed Hoffman), an overnight rock sensation. This is a reckless casting choice. Streisand is a showboat, a sort of one-woman Hippodrome whose roots are in the brassiest tradition of the American musical theater. Hearing her light into a rock song is like listening to Al Jolson singing Leadbelly. In partial anticipation of this problem, Streisand, who gives herself a credit for “Musical Concepts,” has laid on a score that is only supposed to give the impression of rock 'n' roll. Instead, it will probably put off her fans and cause undue mirth among audience members who know the difference between Paul Williams and Phil Spector. If Streisand and Peters condescend to the music, they graciously allow rock audiences the chance to cheer for true genius. A concert sequence, where the debuting Barbra brings a hostile rocker audience to their feet with the wonder of her funkiness, is a milestone of piquant absurdity, equivalent, perhaps, to having Kate Smith conquer Woodstock.

At least Kris Kristofferson, affable and shambling, his pupils spinning like pinwheels, has a good few minutes at the beginning of the movie. So does Director Pierson, as he captures the schizy, druggy, enclosed, exploding tension of rock superstardom. After that, Kristofferson—playing the Norman Maine surrogate, John Norman Howard—is required to freak for Esther and explain his love by comparing the experience to fishing for marlin. It is the rendering of the romance that lays the movie low for good. John Norman (both names, please) is suicidal apparently because, like the film makers, he cannot make up his mind whether to be Jim Morrison or Bob Dylan. His audience, he says, keeps looking for answers. “But,” he declares soberly, “I don’t even know the questions.”

Well, at least Esther and John Norman get to put up an adobe house in the Arizona desert together before the sad end. They do it with the aid of a tractor and a cement mixer, in about half the screen time it takes Streisand to get through her everlasting final song. It must be said that, for all concerned, the song is harder work.

SELLERS & DOWN IN PANTHER

Pale Pussycat

THE PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN

Directed by BLAKE EDWARDS
Screenplay by FRANK WALDMAN
and BLAKE EDWARDS

You will recall that the last we saw of Inspector Clouseau he had succeeded in 1) solving the jewel theft that was the central issue in *The Return of the Pink Panther* and 2) driving his immediate superior, Chief Inspector Dreyfus, completely, totally, padded-cell mad.

As *The Pink Panther Strikes Again* opens we find poor Dreyfus (Herbert Lom) recovering very nicely. Indeed, on this very day he is about to be released from the sanitarium. Alas for his hopes, but good for the movie, Clouseau has picked this moment to make a courtesy call on his old colleague. This results in repeated dunkings in a lake for poor Lom, a suspicion on the part of passers-by that he may be a homosexual—and, finally, total relapse.

How does a certified loony find gainful occupation? The answer is as obvious as the plot of an antique B movie: he rents a remote and gloomy castle and sets up shop as a master criminal, abducting the professor-proprietor of a doomsday machine and forcing him—he has this beautiful daughter, you see—to employ the weapon as an instrument with which to blackmail the world. It is a measure of his madness that all he wants in return for not using the machine is Clouseau's life.

For some reason quite a bit of this basic action is rather lamely executed. One suspects that the film makers were so busy devising good stuff for Peter Sellers to do in his fourth impersonation of the serenely incompetent Clouseau that they neglected the long periods when he is not on-screen. One feels for Lom and the rest of the cast, working sweetly to be funny with not much help from the creative talents. On the other hand, Sellers is amply provided for. Once again, he is well served by

STREISAND & KRISTOFFERSON IN STAR
Like fishing for marlin.

Jay Cocks

TIME, JANUARY 3, 1977

DIPLOMACY

His Legacy: Realism and Allure

Since 1970, TIME Diplomatic Editor Jerrold Schecter has been covering the world of Henry Kissinger. His assessment of the man who reshaped U.S. foreign policy:

After all the years of high drama,
the secret missions overseas, the ex-
hausting negotiations when everything
depended upon him, it seems hard to be-
lieve that Henry Kissinger will no long-
er be the U.S. Secretary of State. There
will never be another like him—a pros-
pect that pleases his enemies as much
as it saddens his admirers. The debate
on Henry the K's legacy is just starting
and promises to grow—and grow. He
is, as Psychohistorian Bruce Mazlish ex-
plains, “one of those figures, like a
Churchill or a De Gaulle, who bestride

them, apparently, are real enough.
Members of a right-wing extremist
group in Israel are said to have put up
$150,000 for his assassination.

Discussing his record, Kissinger compares the world of 1968 with that of 1976. When he came to the White House, Berlin was a flash point for World War III, and there were 500,000 American troops in Viet Nam. There was little American presence or influence in the Middle East outside of Israel, no relations with Communist China, and cold-war jargon dominated any dialogue with Moscow.

All this has changed. He leaves with
the U.S. poised for new initiatives
throughout the world. The damage of
the Viet Nam War and Watergate has
been contained. Despite the buildup of

meant playing the Russians against the
Chinese while never admitting he was
engaging in such a dangerous game.

The high point for Kissinger was the opening to China. He was elated with the secret trip to Peking in July 1971—the first of nine he was to make. Later, leafing through his massive blue briefing book, Kissinger explained how his talks with Chou En-lai had produced a “conceptual overview” resulting in the Shanghai communiqué and a new beginning. The Secretary leaves office convinced that the Chinese hope the U.S. will preserve world order by acting as a counterweight to the Soviet Union.

Détente, oversold by Nixon in his ef-
forts to survive, has languished. Yet the
framework is there, ready to be used by
the Carter Administration in more re-
alistic fashion. The new U.S. President
can make threats or promises—and car-
ry them out—to strengthen what Nixon
and Kissinger began.

One of Kissinger's bitterest disappointments was President Ford's decision not to press for a SALT agreement in 1976, which the Secretary believed was possible and would have been a political asset. But Ford, in the midst of his fight for nomination, was not willing to make the decisions and face the danger that Ronald Reagan would accuse him of bowing to the Soviets.

Kissinger leaves a SALT II package that has Soviet agreement—in principle —on a 10% reduction in the overall ceiling on nuclear weapons, from 2,400 to 2,200, plus a series of trade-offs limiting the range of Soviet Backfire bombers and American cruise missiles.

**Standing Alone.** Although he has been accused of being soft on the Soviet Union, Kissinger's Middle East policy drove the Russians from Egypt (20,000 advisers in 1968) and weakened their influence in Syria. In November 1973, when Kissinger stood alone staring at the Sphinx on his first visit to Egypt, there were no U.S. diplomatic relations with Cairo. Soon the first Jewish American Secretary of State was being hailed by President Anwar Sadat as "my dear friend Henry." Kissinger offered Sadat the opportunity for peace and economic development with Western backing. As Kissinger was fond of saying, "All the Russians can offer is war, but we can bring the peace." Syria also realizes that only the U.S. can influence Israel toward a Golan Heights settlement.

While brokering Israel's disengage-
ment from Egypt and Syria, and press-
ing for a Sinai agreement, Kissinger in-
augurated shuttle diplomacy (a total of
99 days) and established a new magic-
carpet style of personalized negotiations.
His step-by-step approach has been the
only successful pattern for Middle East
talks since the troop-withdrawal agree-
ments of 1948 and 1956.

As his triumphs multiplied, Kissin-
ger became his own worst enemy. Al-
though veiled by his wit ("There can-
not be a crisis next week. My schedule

KISSINGER LOOKING OUT OVER JERUSALEM FROM KING DAVID HOTEL (1975)

Leaving with the U.S. poised for new initiatives.

their eras and dominate by the sheer
weight of their character. Such figures
take on mythical, as well as historical at-
tributes, even in their own time.”

The Secretary's secret diplomacy and his secret-swinger life-style energized the Nixon years and turned them into the Kissinger era. To critics, such as a former Cabinet rival, "most of Kissinger's performance was theater and the rest was fiction." His "balance of power" approach has been attacked as reflecting a static view of the world that overemphasized superpower relationships and squandered American assets without deriving strategic benefits. New York Times Columnist Anthony Lewis has accused him of conducting foreign policy with "cynical brutality." Kissinger shrugs off attacks with a quip: "Even a paranoid can have enemies." Some of

Soviet conventional forces, the outbreak
of a major war seems remote.

How much did Kissinger contribute
to these changes? Was he simply a brill-\liant tactical negotiator, or did he begin
building the “structure of peace” he
sought and lay the foundations for a
“permanent foreign policy”? In his be-
half, Kissinger can mount an impressive
case. His design for a global foreign pol-
icy included a comprehensive economic,
political and military approach with
long-term goals. He has sought to ex-
plain the new reality that although
America is still the world’s greatest eco-
nomic power and possesses massive mil-
itary strength, “we no longer enjoy
meaningful nuclear supremacy.” For
Kissinger, this has meant the imperative
of survival: building a process of nego-
tiation and the policy of détente. It has

THE NATION

16

TIME, JANUARY 24, 1977

BROWN-BLACKSTAR

HARRIS REPLYING TO SENATORS

## Sparks on the Hill

however, that he would carry out laws under which about 300,000 abortions a year are financed by the Medicaid program.

The only serious controversy revolved around the nomination of Carter's fellow Georgian and longtime friend, Federal Judge Griffin Bell, to be Attorney General. The N.A.A.C.P., the Congressional Black Caucus and some liberal Democrats all assailed Bell. Joseph Rauh, vice chairman of Americans for Democratic Action, charged that Bell had given "aid and comfort to segregationists" while an Atlanta attorney, chief of staff to Georgia's segregationist Governor Ernest Vandiver and a member of the federal bench. Black Caucus Chairman Parren Mitchell accused Bell of being "the mastermind of Georgia's massive resistance" to school desegregation when he advised Vandiver from 1959 to 1961.

Bell and his defenders insisted that he had, in fact, been a "moderate" on integration matters in the years when such a role was unpopular in the South. His aim in advising Vandiver, he said, was to keep the public schools open, rather than abandoned ("Open on a segregated basis," scoffed the N.A.A.C.P.'s Clarence Mitchell). Bell won a resounding endorsement as being professionally qualified from former Watergate Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Some Southern blacks also came to his defense.

Bell admitted he had made some mistakes as a judge. But times have changed, he said, "and we do have redemption in this country."

TIME, JANUARY 24, 1977

## The Quiet Revolutionaries

Jimmy Carter's palace guard is now official: it is mainly Georgian, mainly young and mainly unfamiliar with Washington. When the names were announced, some old hands in the nation's capital wondered—as is customary with every changeover to a new Administration—if the new White House staff really had the talent and the experience to live up to the job. Certainly the transition has not been smooth, despite Carter's avowals that it would be the best-planned in history. But the incoming President's men are bright, dedicated and diligent, and even their critics must admit that they have already pulled off one startling surprise: getting their mentor elected in the first place.

**Free Access.** Carter chose Hamilton Jordan, 32, his shrewd and affable campaign manager, to be his chief political adviser. Jordan has been a loyalist since 1966, when Carter was running his losing race for the Georgia governorship. Another key role will be played by Press Secretary Jody Powell, 33, who began working for Carter as his chauffeur in his 1970 gubernatorial contest.

Issues Coordinator Stuart Eizenstat, 34, a Harvard Law graduate who helped shape the Democratic platform for Carter, will become domestic affairs adviser. Frank Moore, 41, who irritated many politicians during the campaign by failing to return phone calls, will nonetheless handle congressional relations. Jack Watson, 38, a former Marine who graduated from Harvard Law School and later helped Carter as governor, will direct relations between the White House and the Cabinet. Campaign Treasurer Robert Lipshutz will take over as White House counsel. A senior partner in a successful Atlanta law firm, Lipshutz has advised Carter for almost ten years and,

at 55, is the grand old man of the staff.

Carter had earlier dropped plans to name Greg Schneiders, 29, as his presidential appointments secretary because of reports that he had improperly collected unemployment benefits while running a Washington restaurant consulting firm. However, Schneiders was cleared last week by U.S. Attorney Earl J. Silbert of any wrongdoing and is expected to get another job. Meantime, Carter named Tim Kraft, 35, to handle his appointments. Kraft impressed his boss by engineering the key victories in the Iowa caucus and the Pennsylvania primary.

Carter's problems, if any, may be less with his people than the way he proposes to use them. Instead of naming a chief of staff and creating a well-defined pecking order, Carter plans to give his top half-dozen assistants free access to the Oval Office. If that proves to be too inefficient, the betting is that Jordan or Lipshutz will emerge as the head man. In his favor, Lipshutz has his years, his avuncular manner and his legal savvy. He will preside over the morning staff meetings.

**New Breed.** Carter plans to cut the size of the present White House staff of 485 by about 30%. Jody Powell, for example, will have nine fewer aides than Ford's press office. Powell already has a reputation for being disorganized; yet with a diminished staff, he will be expected to oversee speechwriting as well as the news operation.

For all the concern about the incoming staff, Jordan insists that the new breed in the White House will conduct a quiet revolution. The emphasis is on the word quiet. "Before we start tearing things apart," he says, "we're going to see what really needs to be torn apart."

INCOMING WHITE HOUSE STAFFERS LIPSHUTZ, JORDAN & KRAFT DINING IN PLAINS

KEN HAWKINS

["THE NATION", "is already full"), his fascination with\npower often seemed to his critics far re-\nmoved from the lofty goals he espoused.\nMore important, his role in the wire-\ntapping of newsmen and Government\nofficials and his demands for vindication\nat an emotional press conference in Salz-\nburg eroded his credibility.", "Those who worked most closely with him believe that he will be best remembered for his role in limiting the impact of Watergate on U.S. foreign policy by performing as the \"President for foreign policy.\" He maintained negotiations with the Soviet Union and in the Middle East. After Nixon resigned, Congress reasserted its authority over the Executive and curbed the Secretary's power to act on his own. Says Indiana's Democratic Congressman John Bradeemas, who opposed Kissinger on aid to Turkey: \"Personally Kissinger is charming and witty, but he does not understand the American system of separation of powers.\"", "**Destroyed Dreams.** Kissinger's\ndreams of building the structure of peace\nin the second Nixon term were de-\nstroied. Instead, he conducted damage-\nlimiting operations. On dark days he\nwould confide, \"I just hope I can hold\nthings together for my successor.\"", "He quickly realized, however, that\na continued display of Spenglerian pes-\nsimism would only further hamper his\nactions. In his final year, he sought to\nmove into southern Africa, an area he\nhad long neglected, and tried to create\na policy for dealing equitably with the\ndeveloping nations.", "Kissinger, who has never forgotten\nthat 13 members of his family died in\nNazi concentration camps, stressed the\nimportance of human rights in Chile,\nas if to compensate for his earlier role\nin the \"destabilization\" of Salvador\nAllende. Those who sat with him in\nclosed staff meetings describe \"an in-\ntellectualized approach to moral val-\nues.\" The Secretary would argue, \"Why\nberate our friends? We cannot choose\nour allies, we must make the best of\nthem.\" He justified the use of secret\nmeans for what he believed to be high-\ner moral ends, \"not abstract principles\nbut elements of national survival.\"", "As he writes his memoirs, Kissinger undoubtedly will tell his story with vision and wit, although the Viet Nam and Cambodia chapters may be difficult to compose. Interviewing Kissinger was always a jousting match in which he often spoke for history. Indeed, with his vitality and drive, he sought as Secretary of State to overpower the forces of history. The challenge fascinated him and gave diplomacy a new allure for millions. He is only half joking when he says he will be back in 1981, the year another presidential term will begin. Henry Kissinger had his failures, but his imagination—and often brutal, brilliant analysis of problems—established a new realism in American foreign policy.", "FORMER CHAIRMAN MARY LOUISE SMITH CONGRATULATES NEWLY ELECTED WILLIAM BROCK", "19", "REPUBLICANS", "Everyone's Second Choice", "\"There's going to be a battle royal,\" predicted one Republican official nine weeks ago when Mary Louise Smith quit as the G.O.P.'s national chairman. A wise forecast: the Republicans promptly began a raucous free-for-all—in the best brawling style of the Democrats—to decide who should get the job. Last week 161 members of the National Committee finally convened in Washington's Hilton Hotel and, after three ballots, settled on a compromise candidate: former U.S. Senator William Brock III of Tennessee.", "As the fray developed, President\nFord's choice was his efficient and low-\nkeyed campaign manager, James Baker\nof Texas. Early in January, Ford en-\ndorsed Baker, but he was opposed by\nRonald Reagan, and John Connally was\nindifferent. Baker had some other prob-\nlems as well. Word got out that he had\n$1.8 million left in the campaign kitty\nlast fall and failed to spend it during\nFord's come-from-behind stretch drive.\nThat money could have paid for adver-\ntising in Hawaii and Ohio, where a\nswitch of some 18,000 votes would have\ngiven Ford a full term in the White\nHouse. In his defense, Baker claimed\nthat the funds had been allocated to the\nstate chairmen, who failed to use all of\nthem. Still, a political realist, Baker\ndropped out of the race early last week.\nSaid he: \"I didn't have the fire in my\ngut to go through with it.\"", "That left Utah National Commit-\nteeman Richard Richards, Reagan's\nman, to fight strenuously to the end for\nthe job. To woo the moderates, Rich-\nards downplayed his Reagan connection\nby promising, if elected, to \"favor any\ncandidate of any political philosophy.\"\nBut his lack of national recognition\nhandicapped him, as did his concession", "to committee members: \"I'm a techni-\ncian.\" Managed by longtime Reagan\nOperative Lyn Nofziger, Richards got\nonly 48 out of the 81 votes required to\nwin on the first two ballots—coming in\nsecond both times—but he could not\nbuild on his conservative base.", "Brock engineered his victory by pre-\nsenting himself as everyone's second\nchoice. He was plagued by a loser's im-\nage after James Sasser, a former chair-\nman of Tennessee's Democratic Party,\ntook away his Senate seat in Novem-\nber. But the handsome Brock, heir to a\ncandymaking fortune, is a good nuts-\nand-bolts organizer who is conservative\nenough for Reagan's people though he\nbacked Ford for the presidency last year.\nHe has opposed foreign aid and hand-\ngun licensing, but did vote with the lib-\nerals against no-knock legislation.", "**Warring Wings.** Early on, Brock\nhelped defuse fears that he would use\nthe chairmanship as a launching pad for\na try at becoming Governor of Tennes-\nsee in 1978. Promising to serve as party\nleader through 1980, Brock maintained:\n\"You can't take this job if you are in-\nterested in your own candidacy.\" Even\nso, only Baker's withdrawal sealed the\nvictory for Brock. The winner promptly\ndeclared that he would strive to bridge\nthe ideological split between the two\nwarring wings of the Republicans. He\ngot some strong support from Richards,\nwho confessed that he had been getting\nready to vote for the Tennessean him-\nself. Added Nofziger: \"We have no prob-\nlems with Brock. He's a good conser-\nvative, and we'll work hard with him.\"\nThe new chairman promised to try to re-\nbuild the G.O.P. from \"the bottom up\"\n—a vow often made, and forgotten, by\nRepublicans—as the party starts to get\nready for the 1978 elections.", "TIME, JANUARY 24, 1977"]

Europeans' predicament. Authorities in Jerusalem insisted that the French-Israeli extradition treaty would have permitted the transfer of Abu Daoud to Israeli custody, if only the court in Paris hadn't rushed to judgment. And when they got word of the Mirage deal—which includes the construction of an assembly plant for the planes in Egypt—the Israelis were incensed. Ambassador Gazit was recalled from Paris, and Foreign Minister Yigal Allon fumed that “the French Government has not stood the elementary test it was facing ... the choice between minimal courage and shaking knees.” Later, however, Allon added that a break in diplomatic relations with France was not imminent.

The release of Abu Daoud left bitter feelings almost everywhere. France had been shamed by its hasty efforts to stay out of the terrorist cross fire, and West Germany had little to be proud of. Israel had been tormented by the spectacle of another terrorist getting off scot-free. Only in the Arab world was Daoud's narrow escape greeted with jubilation. And even there, many moderates had already concluded that pampering terrorists was no way to win a lasting peace.

—ANGUS DEMING with CHARLES MITCHELMORE in Paris, MILAN J. KUBIC in Jerusalem, SCOTT SULLIVAN in Washington and bureau reports

## A Contract on Henry?

The story sounded incredible. The New York Daily News reported last week that a group of right-wing extremists in Israel had paid a team of assassins $150,000 to kill Henry Kissinger. Their alleged motive: revenge for the Secretary of State's pressure on Israel to give up Arab territory. Last November, Kissinger's Secret Service bodyguard was suddenly beefed up. The reason, NEWSWEEK learned, was that just before the Presidential election, Kissinger had received an intelligence report warning of the purported plot against his life.

A Kissinger aide passed the story to several congressmen and the Daily News in the midst of efforts to get the Secretary's Secret Service protection extended when he leaves office this week. Late last week, the Senate passed a measure offering protection for the next six months to Kissinger, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and Treasury Secretary William Simon. The House is expected to give its approval this week.

Abbas-Gamma-Liaison

Saudi workers turn on the oil: As production rose, the big loser was Iran

## The Strain on OPEC

For the world's oil-exporting nations, the past month has brought a painful reminder of the bad old days when consumers could still shop for bargains. Saudi Arabia, which raised prices only 5 per cent last month as part of an effort to promote a Mideast peace settlement, is taking business away from its higher-priced allies in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). And as Saudi Arabia steps up production, nations like Iran are being forced to cut back (chart) at a painful cost in oil revenues. Emotions are running high. Iranian newspapers denounce Saudi Oil Minister Sheik Ahmad Zaki Yamani as a “stooge of capitalism,” while Iraqi officials talk of toppling a Saudi regime that

acts “in the service of imperialism and Zionism.” Saudi leaders, for their part, worry about the growing military might of Iran just across the Persian Gulf.

No one is predicting the cartel's demise. “OPEC definitely has not been destroyed,” James Akins, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said last week. “The only debate by OPEC on long-range planning is how fast the transition to higher prices should go.” Over the short term, however, there are signs of severe political and economic strain. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have stuck to their 5 per cent increase. But some of the eleven countries that voted for a 10 per cent boost are rumored to be shaving prices. Indonesia

already has rolled back to 6 per cent. And last week, Iraq and Venezuela called for an emergency OPEC meeting to put an end to the two-tier system.

**Blacklist:** So far, the big loser is Iran, which has reduced its production by 35 per cent—at a cost of $23 million a day—and may have to cut still further. “We shall suffer a great deal if it continues this way,” Shah Muhammad Reza Pahlavi told NEWSWEEK'S William E. Schmidt in an exclusive interview (opposite). Iran has threatened to blacklist foreign oil companies that back out of their purchase contracts, and the cash crunch has forced

Ron Bracco

The crude facts: Will a hard winter restore demand?

46

Newsweek

INTERNATIONAL

THE MIND OF ABU DAoud

In headlines around the world, the man code-named Abu Daoud was portrayed last week as the “mastermind” of the Munich massacre. The truth was more prosaic. The conspicuously tall (6 feet 4 inches) and blue-eyed Palestinian was an experienced terrorist, but one who had not always excelled at his calling. Certainly, he was no mastermind.

In a telephone interview with *NEWSWEEK'S* Charles Mitchelmore, the 39-year-old Abu Daoud (whose real name is Muhammad Daoud Audeh) denied that he had taken any part in the Olympic tragedy or that he had ever been in Munich. "I am ready to take an airplane and go to Germany in order to stand before the courts," he insisted in heavily accented English. "I am a revolutionary, not a terrorist." But West German authorities promised that he would be arrested should he ever set foot in their country.

**Defeat:** The son of a laborer in a town outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, Abu Daoud became a Communist as a young teacher and then switched his allegiance to Al Fatah, now part of the Palestine Liberation Organization, after the humiliating Arab defeat in 1967. An educated man (he obtained a law degree by correspondence from Damascus University), he rose to a position on the PLO's Revolutionary Council. He visited Peking with a PLO delegation and then was recruited for Black September.

According to the West Ger-

mans, Abu Daoud definitely was in Munich at the time of the massacre and played an important role in its planning. He allegedly mapped the layout of Building 31 where the Israeli athletes lived and may have supplied the killers with guns and passports. But Abu Daoud sat out the attack in a Munich hotel and then fled the country one step ahead of the West German police.

**Pistol:** His next mission took him to Jordan, where he had been wounded fighting King Hussein's troops in 1970. Dressed as a Bedouin sheik and accompanied by a 15-year-old

Palestinian commando girl posing as his wife, Abu Daoud and a band of accomplices planned to attack the Prime Minister's office and the U.S. Embassy in Amman. The plan went awry. Daoud was stopped by police, and as he recalled later, "My Saudi passport included the name of the wife and six children. The fact is that my 'wife' was a child, only 15 years old." Then, as he talked to the police, Daoud's pistol fell onto the floor of his car. "This complicated matters," he said. After being interrogated, Daoud made a remarkable televised confession in which he implicated many of his colleagues.

Far from treating him as a traitor, Black September seized hostages and tried to bargain for Abu Daoud's release. During one operation in the Sudan, they murdered the U.S. Ambassador and two other diplomats when their demands were not met. Eventually, King Hussein released Abu Daoud and 763 other Palestinians as a "goodwill gesture." Daoud went back to work for the PLO, and later he surfaced again as a commander of the PLO militia in Beirut during the Lebanese civil war. In his talk with Mitchelmore last week, Abu Daoud boasted that he would now go anywhere in the world to further the Palestinian cause. "If there is a need to come to New York," he said, "I will come to New York." Bravado aside, it seemed far more likely that Abu Daoud would lie low in the Arab world for the time being. Whatever his shortcomings, he was a prime target for Israeli retribution.

AP

Munich gunman: Building 31 was all mapped out

—RAYMOND CARROLL with bureau reports

own. But when Daoud picked up his French visa in Beirut, he may have been identified by agents of other countries. According to a high French official, Mosad tipped off the West Germans, who in turn notified the French; another report said U.S. intelligence also had alerted Paris. The French police moved quickly, apparently without warning their own diplomats. Daoud was arrested on suspicion of traveling under a false name and was locked up in La Santé prison where, he complained later, he was obliged to share a cell with "two hash smokers and a Belgian petty thief."

Israel was never optimistic about getting its hands on Abu Daoud. "I'll give you my scenario," a high official in Jerusalem said as Israel filed for extradition. "First, we'll ask for Abu Daoud. Second, Bonn will do the same. And third, the French will let him go." After a snarl of legal arguments and nit-picking, that is precisely what happened. In Munich,

Bavarian prosecutors made a conscientious effort to fulfill the requirements for extradition, while West German Interior Minister Werner Maihofer called his opposite number in Paris, Michel Poniarowski, to endorse the request. But for whatever reason, the Bonn government never sent the formal diplomatic note that is required under the extradition treaty between the two countries.

**Hearing:** France announced that a court hearing would be held on Abu Daoud's case this week. Then, six days early, the Paris tribunal that hears extradition cases was convened in a special, secret session. Israel learned about the hearing only through a news broadcast. Its ambassador to France, Mordechai Gazit, placed frantic phone calls, asking the court to declare a lunch break so that the embassy could send a representative and arrange for the wife of one of the Munich victims to hire a lawyer and enter the case. The request was denied.

Adhering rigorously to the letter of France's extradition treaties with West Germany and Israel, the court took just twenty minutes to rule that neither Bonn nor Jerusalem had satisfied the preliminary requirements of a case for extradition and that Abu Daoud should therefore go free. Within minutes, the Black September leader was driven under heavy police escort to Orly Airport where he was given a first-class seat aboard an Air Algérie jet.

Privately, officials in both France and Germany admitted that Daoud's departure had been a blessing. If he had remained in custody in either country, there might have been acts of terror to win his freedom. "This is a European embarrassment," conceded a source close to West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. "But transferring Abu Daoud from France to West Germany would have been a risky operation."

Israel did not sympathize with the

Newsweek, January 24, 1977

45

DIPLOMACY

THE NATION

Thoughts from the Lone Cowboy

By the time he returns fromACA-
pulco's sun next week, Henry Kissinger
should have a fully operational office
awaiting him. Surrounded by crates
loaded with personal papers, the former
Secretary of State's six aides are setting
up shop in a corner suite atop a down-
town Washington office building. The
space was made available by George-
town's Center for Strategic and Inter-
national Studies. Kissinger will lecture
at Georgetown for six months at a sal-
ary of about $15,000.

That is only pin money for Henry
these days. Last week it was disclosed
that he had made a five-year deal with
NBC to serve as a special consultant and
commentator on world affairs for a sum

neglect or nostalgia, the date he relin-
quished the post has yet to be inscribed.

Clearly, Kissinger's impact will be
felt for a long time to come. During his
final days in office, he shared some
thoughts about his stewardship of U.S.
foreign policy with TIME Washington
Bureau Chief Hugh Sidey. They are
worth considering as the nation sets off
in new diplomatic directions.

No apologies for his flair, he insist-
ed. It had all been intentional. "I rarely
did anything impetuously. The steps
were prepared over a long period of
time," he said. "But then things
were done dramatically. We had to have
drama to focus the attention of the
American people . . . I think that most

nity. While one group of intellectuals is
totally alienated from Government and
will not serve, a second group has be-
come so power-oriented that its mem-
bers do what the politicians want them
to do rather than decide what is right
and should be done. "Giving power to
intellectuals was debilitating to their ef-
fort in some respects," he said. Today
fewer foreign affairs experts on quiet
campuses are willing to sit back to de-
velop new thought about international
affairs.

**Long Ride.** As Kissinger pondered
himself and the world, he would occa-
sionally chuckle, seemingly still unable
to believe who he was and where he had
been, but still relishing his long ride at
the top. "How in the world would a mid-
dle-aged Jewish professor find this rap-
port with the American people?" he
asked, and then answered his own ques-
tion. "There is a basic goodness in the

MCCNIELY-RICHMOND NEWS LEADER

that—according to some reports—might
top $3 million. A week earlier Kissin-
ger signed a contract with Little, Brown
for his memoirs—the first of several U.S.
and foreign deals that are likely to bring
him several million dollars more.

In his new office, Kissinger will be
working principally on his memoirs. But
the suite is also emerging as a kind of
shadow State Department, as Kissin-
ger's staffers stuff manila folders with ar-
ticles on the new Administration's for-
eign policy (one is labeled "Vance
Middle East Trip"). Plainly, Kissinger
will keep close tabs on his successor. But
he has also vowed to keep closemouthed
about how the new team is doing—at
least for six months or so.

**Brass Plaque.** Kissinger's own of-
fice is roomy but still bare. The only dec-
oration—a farewell gift from the State
Department's Policy Planning Staff—is
a poster of a glowering orangutan, cap-
tioned: IF I WANT YOUR OPINION, I'LL
BEAT IT OUT OF YOU. At the end of a
small conference table is Kissinger's
brown leather Cabinet chair with a brass
plaque affixed to the back that reads:
SECRETARY OF STATE, 1973—
Out of

CARL MYDANS

KISSINGER DURING FINAL DAYS IN HIS OFFICE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT

*Keeping tabs and a closed mouth—for now—on his successor.*

Americans liked shuttle diplomacy.”

His luck all through his life had been
phenomenal, Kissinger admitted. "My
career was an accident. You cannot aim
for it. It cannot be duplicated by de-
sign. Most people who come to power
in Washington have aggressively sought
it. I thought that I would be a staff aide
to the President and nothing more."

There were currents of change in
American foreign policy during Kissin-
ger's days in Washington, and Nixon
could not make the American people
feel entirely comfortable about them. "It
was a time to generate and focus people's
hopes." Then came Watergate and the
isolation of Nixon, and the Secretary of
State was forced into a near-presidential
role that would have been "unthinkable
under any other circumstances."

His own success, Kissinger said, has
probably accentuated a problem that
troubles America's intellectual commu-

American people . . . In all my time there
was never one letter asking, 'Why should
an s.o.b. with a German accent tell us
what to do?' In no question period did
anybody get up and ask, 'What the hell
do you know about America?'"

Maybe he did know some things
about America that others had over-
looked, Kissinger went on, as old mem-
ories crowded back. He talked about
growing up under the Nazis, of coming
to America scared, of living in a seamy
crevice on Manhattan's West Side, but
then of writing an essay in high school
on what it meant to be able to walk down
a street with his head up. "There is this
magnificent pluralism in America," he
said. "You are never in a position where
there is not some group that will listen
to you. It is one of the ironies that what
finally sustained me was the support of
the common people, not the elite."

The basic precepts formed during

20

TIME, FEBRUARY 28, 1977

THE NATION

CONGRESS

## Campaign Funds: Who Gave, Who Got

Setting a double standard of ethics, Congress provided federal campaign funds for the 1976 presidential election —but refused to do the same for Senate and House campaigns. With the White House doors shut, special-interest groups simply poured their money through the still open gates on Capitol Hill. Common Cause reported last week that such groups showered a record $22.6 million on candidates for Congress in 1976—nearly double the amount given in 1974. Herewith the top givers and recipients in Senate and House races:

DONORS

<table><tr><td>Medical associations</td><td>$1,790,879</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy committees</td><td>1,362,159</td></tr><tr><td>AFL-CIO committees</td><td>996,910</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Maritime unions</td><td>979,691</td></tr><tr><td>United Auto Workers</td><td>845,939</td></tr><tr><td>Energy interests</td><td>809,508</td></tr><tr><td>Education associations</td><td>752,272</td></tr><tr><td>Realtors</td><td>605,973</td></tr><tr><td>Financial institutions</td><td>529,193</td></tr><tr><td>Machinists</td><td>519,157</td></tr></table>

SENATE CANDIDATES

<table><tr><td>Vance Hartke (D., Ind.)</td><td>$245,700</td></tr><tr><td>Harrison Williams (D., N.J.)</td><td>244,373</td></tr><tr><td>Lloyd Bentsen (D., Texas)</td><td>229,299</td></tr><tr><td>John Tunney (D., Calif.)</td><td>219,419</td></tr><tr><td>William Green (D., Pa.)</td><td>216,660</td></tr></table>

HOUSE CANDIDATES

<table><tr><td>John Rhodes (R., Ariz.)</td><td>$98,620</td></tr><tr><td>Jim Mattox (D., Texas)</td><td>85,310</td></tr><tr><td>Mark Hannaford (D., Calif.)</td><td>81,368</td></tr><tr><td>Lloyd Meeds (D., Wash.)</td><td>80,078</td></tr><tr><td>Thomas L. Ashley (D., Ohio)</td><td>76,337</td></tr></table>

One notable trend in the 1976 donations was that business and professional groups nearly tripled their 1974

giving. But Big Labor still led those groups in total spending, $8.2 million to $7.1 million. In the past two years, some 370 new committees were created by corporations to channel political donations from officers and employees. Common Cause hopes to see Congress cut itself out of the influence game this year by providing tax money for congressional campaigns. Such a move would serve as a farewell present to Common Cause Founder John Gardner, who is retiring as chairman in April. Incumbents have been reluctant to approve such a kitty: Why help challengers? But Congress is about to collect a pay raise and is caught up in an influence-buying scandal with South Korean lobbyists. So pressures to reform Capitol Hill's own campaign financing may prove too strong to resist. Besides, big money does not always guarantee success. Of the top five recipients of private money among Senate candidates, three were defeated —Hartke, Tunney and Green.

THE PRESIDENCY/HUGH SIDEY

## A White House Workaholic?

In legend, men are crushed physically and emotionally by the burden of the presidency. In real life, their cheeks get pinker, their stomachs more relaxed, their spirits higher and their pocketbooks fatter. They go around telling people how good they feel and how much they enjoy the work. They find after years of nomadic campaigning they can sit down and eat dinner (Carter calls it supper) rather regularly with their families. Some Presidents were not all that thrilled at domestic reunification. But Carter indicates he is.

It may not always be so smooth for him as in these first weeks. The burden may get a little more weighty down the line. But the greater worry is that Carter, like others before him, will become uncomfortable in leisure.

For more years than one cares to calculate, the inhabitants of the Oval Office have gloried in the myth of superhuman exertion. The more meetings, the more phone calls, the more crises, the longer the hours, the better it got. Lyndon Johnson, for instance, worked an early shift of eight hours, took a two-hour nap in the late afternoon, then stepped into a cold shower that pummeled him back to consciousness, after which he worked eight more hours. Richard Nixon by that measure was rather lazy, but he was so intimidated by his predecessor that his staff strove frantically to cover up the time he spent resting or brooding.

In our workaholic society Harry Truman would have been a flake. Right in the middle of rebuilding the world after World War II, he used to insist on interludes with his neighbors from Independence, Mo., poker games on his yacht on the Potomac and hours of inexpert splashing around in the warm waters of Key West. He was a successful President.

It has been a half-joke in Washington that the longer a President stayed at his desk the worse our troubles became. In capital lore, late-night lights were synonymous with devotion—waiting for the boys to come home from their bombing runs over North Viet Nam; pondering the strategy for the opening to China; massaging recalcitrant Congressmen.

For a few days there it looked like Jimmy Carter would restore balance. He went to work at the good country hour of 7:30 a.m. and got back home to dinner regularly at 6:30 p.m. He wrote his staff a memo saying that they needed rest and

time with their families. Carter even opened up a little spare time in the mornings to think by himself. He went to the opera one Sunday afternoon and returned to Plains on a weekend to stroll along the main street.

This week came discouraging news. Carter's appointments secretary Tim Kraft disclosed that Carter had been getting up at 5:30 a.m. to cram in more study time, then going back to the office after supper to work on accumulated papers. He has divided the "users of the President's time" into nine categories (examples: Cabinet, political leaders, Congress, staff) to try to achieve more efficiency. But somebody who saw Carter said he looked tired. He talked only about the fun he was having. Another workaholic?

The 20-hour day, the seven-day week, may be necessary at times. But the challenge to a President is one of limiting himself to critical issues. The tragedy wrought by Presidents who felt they must listen to every voice, address every complaint has never been calculated. Surely it is immense.

Still, the evidence is not all in. Carter went off to the Kennedy Center one night last week to see Hal Holbrook perform as Mark Twain, a man who punctured self-important politicians. And the President planned to get over to the National Theater later to watch James Whitmore in *Bully!* a roaring portrayal of Teddy Roosevelt. It might help when he gets there if Carter recalls that sometimes, when the sun was up and his juices were flowing, Roosevelt would knock off work at noon and take his family for a picnic down along the Potomac River. It might not be quite as good as a tax cut, but the therapeutic value to the national soul has been underestimated since about 1909.

TEDDY ROOSEVELT & CHILDREN ROMP ON SAGAMORE HILL (CIRCA 1900)

AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

TIME, FEBRUARY 28, 1977

19

THE NATION

the contemplative years at Harvard were never altered as he went about the job of conducting foreign policy, Kis-singer said. Once on the job, a man does not learn much other than tech-nique—he does not get new wisdom. "You are an athlete. Even if decisions call for reflection, you must depend on your instincts ... Sometimes it feels as if you were in one of those movies, sitting on the track in front of an ex-press train. The train is bearing down on you. You know what to do if you did not have ten other things that need-ed doing first. You are praying that the train somehow will miss and you will not get hit. Such a situation oc-curred in Cyprus. If I had ever had twelve hours and been able to pick out an intelligence report, I would have seen that the situation needed attention."

What had saved him from disaster so many times, what had rescued him from public wrath, what had prevented his self-destructive urges from consum-ing him, was his humor. Humor had meant so much, he said. "You need de-tachment from yourself. You are only a small pebble on a sand of infinite ex-panse. You need to understand the sense of fragility of human aspirations."

CRIME

Season of Savagery and Rage

Does violence beget violence? Can one lurid crime flashed instantly across TV screens and explored in the pages of newspapers and magazines inspire other crimes? Those were questions for policemen, psychiatrists and journalists to ponder last week as a rash of savagery —a kind of season of rage—erupted across the U.S. Items:

► In the western Indiana hamlet of Hollandsburg, four young robbers bran-dishing shotguns broke into a mobile home where a mother, her son and three stepsons were watching early morning television. As the climax to a robbery that netted only $30, the bandits ordered the boys, ranging in age from 14 to 22, to lie face down on the floor, then sys-tematically shot all four in the head. The mother, Mrs. Betty Spencer, 43, survived only because her wig was blown off by a fifth shotgun blast and the robbers mis-took it for the back of her head.

► In Detroit, pot-smoking Jesse Coulter, 42, was so overcome by the combination of grass and the televised version of *Roots* that he picked up a

sawed-off shotgun and ordered Wife Rita to drive with him 260 miles to Cin-cinnati. There the two took eight hos-tages in a home for unwed mothers and held them for twelve hours, demanding to see the son they had given up at the same home 20 years earlier. Coulter finally surrendered after a young detec-tive, pretending to be his long-lost son, persuaded him to end the siege.

► In New Rochelle, N.Y., a hulk-ing 250-lb. furniture mover and Nazi cultist named Frederick W. Cowan, 33, returned to his job after a two-week sus-pension and exploded in a St. Valen-tine's Day massacre. Packing five guns, he burst into his moving company's warehouse, shot to death four co-work-ers and a policeman, wounded five other people, then put one of his guns to his head and blew his brains out.

Was there a single trigger that touched off all these violent outbursts? Probably not. Yet a number of psychi-atrists speculated that a powerful influ-ence might have been the episode that occurred two weeks ago in Indianapo-

Maiden Flight of the Mated Birds

Inevitably, the strange sight of the two ungainly aircraft, one on top of the other, inspired a steady stream of barn-yard jokes. In the Los Angeles *Times*, Cartoonist Paul Conrad sketched the interwined pair perched on a runway and captioned his drawing: "Not tonight, Dear, I have a headache..."

Yet the odd couple last week marked another milestone in the space age. For the first time, a vehicle designed to or-bit the earth, land and fly again was flight-tested—but not alone. As 10,000 people watched, the U.S. space-shuttle orbiter *Enterprise* soared off a runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California while locked tenaciously atop a huge and expensively modified Boeing 747 jumbo jet. The combined load of 293 tons (72 of them in the 122-ft.-long *Enterprise*) not only rose smoothly ("No tail shake at all," reported 747 Pilot Fitzhugh Fulton Jr.) but maneuvered as gracefully as two such ponderous mat-ing birds could. The vital 2-hr. 5-min. test was declared a complete success.

The coupled craft lifted to 16,000 ft., banked both left and right at 300 m.p.h. to test the ability of the 747 to carry its historic passenger in a stable fashion. At 10,000 ft., Pilot Fulton ran through other tests, including shutting off one engine and lowering the landing gear. Fulton's only unusual sensation was "a slight buffeting" caused by the bird perched on his plane's back. The touch-

down looked every bit as smooth as a commercial 747 landing at New York's J.F.K. Airport.

The next crucial phase comes in July, when the *Enterprise*, while aloft, will fire charges to release itself from the three pylons that hold it to the 747. The orbiter will then glide to earth to

test a landing on its own. If all goes well, the *Enterprise* will be rocketed into space from Kennedy Space Center in 1979 (*TIME*, Feb. 14). It will land at Edwards, then be shuttled back to Florida atop the 747 for more launchings. Eventually the *Enterprise* and its successive sister ships should be able to wing their own way back to runways near their launching pads.

THE ENTERPRISE & ITS 747 CARRIER IN INITIAL FLIGHT OVER CALIFORNIA

TIME, FEBRUARY 28, 1977

FBI AGENTS, JOINING GUN BATTLE AFTER POLICEMAN'S DEATH, TAKE UP POSITIONS

What happens in the streets is on the tube with a flip of the switch.

There, a 44-year-old auto salesman named Anthony Kiritsis wired the muz- zle of a 12-gauge shotgun to the neck of a mortgage executive and held him hos- tage for 63 terror-filled hours (TIME, Feb. 21). When Indianapolis TV stations acceded to his demand that he be put on the air, Kiritsis crowed: "I'm a god- dam national hero." He was scarcely that—and Indianapolis authorities quickly made him a goat by reneging on their promise of immunity and slap- ping him in jail. Yet Kiritsis may have served as a model for a demented few.

**Brigade of Bigots.** Certainly, Fred Cowan showed disturbing similarities to Kiritsis. Both were lifelong losers. The balding Cowan was unable to make friendships with girls, contented himself instead with gun collecting and muscle building. Cowan's attic bedroom was jammed with rifles, pistols, bayonets, hand grenades and a collection of Nazi memorabilia. The muscle-bound six- footer had his arms tattooed with iron

crosses and Nazi eagles. He joined the National States Rights Party, a Georgia- based brigade of bigots (see box following page). "There is nothing lower than blacks and Jews unless it's the police who protect them," Cowan had noted in a book found among his weapons last week. Once he kicked to death a tail- wagging black Labrador puppy because its color offended him.

**Where Is Bing?** One of Cowan's particular dislikes was Norman Bing, traffic manager at the Neptune World Wide Moving Co. Bing, who is Jewish, had suspended Cowan, a $6.11-an-hour helper, for refusing to move a refriger- ator. "What would you think," Cowan said to a companion after one quarrel, "if I went into the office with my guns on, looking for Norman Bing?"

Leaving his home early last week, the hulking Cowan did exactly that. He carefully loaded the trunk of his red '71 Pontiac GTO with a Sako .308 rifle, four pistols and bandoleers of ammunition.

Then he drove to the Nep- tune terminal two blocks away and parked outside the main entrance. "Somebody said that Freddie was outside putting on guns," a Neptune worker recalled later. "We thought it was a joke."

Some joke. Wearing brown pants, a khaki shirt and a black beret with skull and crossbones decorating it, Cowan entered the building and confronted 20 men lounging inside. He shot two black employees, Frederick Holmes, 54, and Joseph Hicks, 59, through the chest at pointblank range—from a distance of only 2 ft. "Where is Bing?" Cowan demanded, as he strode into an adjoining drivers' room. There, James Green, 44, another black, tried to run and was gunned

## THE NATION

down. An Indian immigrant, Pariyara- thu Varghese, 33, came running down a flight of steps and was murdered. Cow- an put a pistol to the head of another black driver, Charles Haskett, with whom he worked and for whom he had once even bought lunch. Then he relent- ed and turned away.

Bing had seen Cowan coming in time to duck under a desk. He and most of the 50 other Neptune employees in the building were able to escape when police arrived. The first cop on the scene, Allen McLeod, 33, was picked off by the Sako rifle from a distance of about 30 ft. Three more policemen responding to the shooting calls were wounded.

For the next ten hours the New Ro- chelle freight terminal was a battle- ground. Twenty sharpshooters spread out into houses and onto nearby roofs waiting for a shot at Cowan, and police helicopters whirled overhead. By mid- afternoon, police got inside the building and moved cautiously from office to of- fice, looking for Cowan. They finally found him, dead by his own gun, as dark- ness descended.

With New York's vast TV, radio and press forces so close, the massacre was not merely covered—it was smothered. As in the Kiritsis incident a week ear- lier, such publicity stirred critics.

Says University of Southern Cal- ifornia Psychiatrist Frederick Hacker: "The media claim to be holding a mir- ror up to society. But the recent rash of hostage crimes indicates that the me- dia have actually been promoting crim- inal behavior." Crime reporting has be- come more pervasive, and viewers appear to like that. As Chicago Psy- chiatrist Marvin Ziporyn observes sadly: "All you need to do today to see vi- olent crime is to turn on a switch." But he absolves the press—"It merely reflects what is happening on the streets"—and blames instead the grow- ing assertiveness of the individual. "We are moving from a time of restraints back to total liberty."

**Principal Offender.** Within the press and broadcasting, some feel that coverage—especially on TV—has per- haps gone too far. Chris Duffy, general manager of Indianapolis' WTHR-TV, yanked Kiritsis' demented monologue off the air two weeks ago. Said Duffy: "That man might have pulled the trig- ger, and that wouldn't have been a pic- ture for a TV audience."

Some critics who consider television news the principal offender suggest that news show ratings be scrapped so as to reduce the competition for sheer sensa- tionalism. That is scarcely likely to hap- pen. U.S.C.'s Hacker (author of a new study, Crusaders, Criminals, Crazies) suggests that news executives, sociolo- gists and police set up "media action teams" to establish ground rules for sen- sational news breaks. That could be al- most as difficult to accomplish; the boundary between restraint and sup- pression is obscure and hazardous.

SLAIN OFFICER'S WIDOW MOURNS BESIDE COFFIN

TIME, FEBRUARY 28, 1977

THE NICK THIMMESCH COLUMN

RELEASE DATE: Thursday, July 14, 1977

THE MUSINGS OF HENRY KISSINGER

by Nick Thimmesch

(c) 1977, Los Angeles Times Syndicate

WASHINGTON--Henry A. Kissinger has been out of power six months now, doesn't seem restless, makes a lot of money, and still broods over the way the world turns.

Removed from the pit where public officials alternately hunker down or receive extravagant plaudits, Kissinger is able to occasionally express candid views in public, and even stronger ones privately. He doesn't have to worry much these days about hostile senators, left-liberals or Reaganites.

Kissinger is essentially a hard-liner, a man who believes in the respect paid to willful strength, and the sensibility of the balance of power. So some call him a pessimist, though he describes himself as a realist.

He is not happy with the trendy thinking on ''Eurocommunism'' which assumes that the entry of, or

Page Two...NICK THIMMESCH...July 14...entry of, or

dominance by, Communists in Western European governments
won't be so bad, really. This school of thought holds
that communism in Western Europe will ''infect'' Eastern
Europe's Communist states to the detriment of the Soviet
Union.

In other words, by losing, we eventually win.

Kissinger can ruefully compare this with the Carthaginians
who thought that by letting the Romans conquer them, they
would cause the Romans to disintegrate. It was indeed a long
wait. And if communism dominates in France or Italy, the
U.S. will not only have a long wait but it will have to
live with a weakened NATO and perhaps the collapse of the
Common Market which kept Europe unified lo these many years.

Lack of will and decline of authority in the West
combine to make the shrinking free world a weak sister, the
way Kissinger sees it. The Soviets readily sense this and
dutifully note how the U.S. withdraws from South Korea and
the Indian Ocean.

By showing weakness and also injecting the Human
Rights issue into Soviet internal affairs, the U.S. suffers
a consequent deterioration in relations with the U.S.S.R.

Page Three...NICK THIMMESCH...July 14...U.S.S.R.

The best relations, Kissinger would argue, are when the
Soviets respect our power and acquiesce privately to our
demands.

On the question of Soviet Jewish emigration, for
example, Nixon-Kissinger, by firmly negotiating in private,
got the Soviets to increase the number of emigrees from 400
in 1971, to 38,000 in 1973. Once the Senate, through the
insistence of Henry A. Jackson, went public on the issue
through the foreign trade bill, the Soviets toughened. The
result: far less emigration and far more trouble for
dissidents.

To talk tough on Human Rights is easier than to show
strength. Kissinger feels that by pulling land forces out of
Korea, the U.S. risks not only losing more respect from the
Soviets and other Communist regimes but belief in the U.S.
by other non-Communist nations in the Far East, especially
Japan.

American withdrawal from Southeast Asia did not
improve the region. Kissinger can muse that if the U.S.
had cruelly evacuated the populations of Phnom Penh and
Saigon, as the Communists have, we would undoubtedly be

Page Four...NICK THIMMESCH...July 14...undoubtedly be

condemned as barbarians.

But few voices of protest are raised about the
millions of Indochinese killed or put in concentration
camps by Communist regimes. And where are the moralistic
anti-war figures, Kissinger could ask, now that the
Communists systematically execute more people in months
than were accidentally killed in ten years of war in
Indochina?

All this still occupies Kissinger's thoughts as he
meets occasionally with his successor, Cyrus Vance, or other
State Department officials. Whether he influences them is
another matter. Certainly they don't share his harsh thoughts
about Cuba, whom he believes should have been stopped by the
U.S. in Africa a long time ago.

His days still run to 12 hours, and he has a fair
-sized staff, including bodyguards, in his suite of offices
in downtown Washington. Kissinger recently renewed his one-
year teaching contract with Georgetown University. His book,
commitments to NBC, and speaking engagements keep him public
enough.

Page Five...NICK THIMMESCH...July 14...public enough.

By remaining a public figure, Kissinger also draws threats on his life and letters and phone calls from kooks. This week, a woman pounded on Kissinger's door at 5:30 in the morning to report hearing voices from outer space.

Small matter. What makes Kissinger brood is the realization that Watergate, the assault on President Ford from the Right, and the decline of Western strength have undone much of what he and the exile in San Clemente thought they had accomplished.

LOS ANGELES TIMES SYNDICATE/Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles, Calif. 90053

History of Harry S. Truman."

In his letters, Eisenhower repeatedly refers to his wife as "my darling" and "my sweetheart."

Denver Post Staff Writer

The Colorado Legislature finished its 1977 session → after 19 hours of intermit- tent work — at 5:15 a.m. Wednesday

After passing compromise versions of the two most important bills of the year, a property tax-relief measure and changes in the Colorado Labor Peace Act.

Gov. Dick Lamm is expected to allow

both measures to become law.

The property tax bill, HB 1726, would let homeowners take 10 per cent of their property taxes as a state income tax credit.

FAMILIAR FACES—UNFAMILIAR SMALL TALK

Denver Post Photo by Kenn Biso

Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger conferred pool- side Tuesday night at Littleton estate of oilman Marvin Davis, but the subject wasn't the course

of world events. Six months ago, when the two were world's most powerful men, it might have been, but both now are private citizens. And the

topic? Ford was overheard reporting to Kissinger, "I talked to my book publisher last week." Former secretary of state nodded gravely. (STORY, PG. 4)

But renters, who would have been eligible for relief under an earlier House version of the bill, will get nothing now. The House agreed to remove them from the program after Senate Republicans refused to include renters in the measure.

Another tax measure, a long-simmering proposal to increase the state's 7-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax, also died in the waning hours of the session Wednesday.

The House, which earlier this year approved a 1-cent increase, Wednesday refused either to reaffirm that increase or to approve a half-cent increase proposed as a compromise. Lamm had said earlier he would veto any increase.

Despite persistent pleas from House members and some Republican senators, opposition from a few GOP senators doomed the renters provision because that opposition prevented the GOP caucus from obtaining the unanimous 18 votes it wanted to have on any version of the property tax measure.

Much of the rest of the marathon final session was taken up by consideration of Lamm's 24 vetoes, but majority Republicans couldn't muster enough votes to override any of them.

The session ended with the usual ami-

VISIT IN AUGUST

Vance to Cultivate
Ties With Chinese

WASHINGTON — (AP) — Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance will visit China Aug. 22-26 in hopes of making progress toward normalized diplomatic relations between the two countries, the State Department said Wednesday.

Department spokesman Hodding Carter refused to speculate on whether Vance expects his trip to result in establishment of diplomatic relations.

THE ONLY OTHER stop Vance plans is a one- or two-day visit to Japan after his stay in China, Carter said.

The purpose of the China trip is to "continue our conversations in light of the Shanghai communiqué toward normalizing relations," he said.

cable congratulations of one party other, but there had been some civil

One of the worst of those focused on the property tax, which the question first in the minds of legislators when they convened 165 ago, on Jan. 5.

A CONFERENCE committee of senators and three representatives agreed during the 17-day recess preceded the final meeting to prop- er income tax credit for renters, equi- to 1.5 per cent of rents paid the pr-

The lone dissenter on the conf- committee, Sen. Joe Schieffelin, R- wood, said he wouldn't agree to an treating renters the same as home- They don't have the same legal-

Without Schieffelin's cooperation, was no way the 18 Senate Repub-lican could get a unanimous caucus posi- tion any renter-relief plan, even thou-

Continued on page 17.

Other legislature reports
on pages 3 and 24.

The communique was signed in- but achievement of that goal has e past administrations.

Six weeks ago, President Carter firmed his commitment to the objec- but added, "the one obstacle—the obstacle, obviously — is the relatio- we've always had with Taiwan.

"We don't want the Taiwanese punished or attacked, and if we can solve that major difficulty I would expeditiously to normalizing rel- with China," the President said.

THIS STATEMENT drew an an- action three days later from Chinese

(Continued from page 5)

tary effectiveness of their super-sophisticated
hardware.

Yet, he said, we "have an obligation to save
mankind from the catastrophe of nuclear war."

The former statesman, who is now on the
faculty of Georgetown University, said our suc-
cess or failure at maintaining this balancing act
will have direct consequences in such far-flung
places as Rome, Tokyo and Peking.

In Europe, he maintained, a key question now
facing our State Department has to do with the
role which Communist parties are likely to play
in the governments of Italy and elsewhere.

Noting that there is "a good possibility"
Communists will assume leadership in Western
Europe, he said Washington now must decide
whether to accept them comfortably as "social-
ists with Leninist terminology" or to regard this
trend as yet another step toward Communist
domination of previously democratic govern-
ments.

KISSINGER SAID HE HOPES the resolution of this question will be "a watershed in relations between the United States and Europe" in coming years. And he said much will hinge on whether we let democratic forces in Europe know that we are prepared to back them if they make a strong stand for their principles.

Likewise, he contended, China is eager to know
how strong our posture is toward Moscow. In
fact, he declared, the future of our belatedly
opened relations with Peking will turn directly
on whether the Chinese believe we know what we
are doing in our dealings with the Soviets.

He said any Chinese decision about whether to
remain cordial to the United States will be made
"cold-bloodedly, unsentimentally and unemo-
tionally" on the basis of that perception.

In turn, Kissinger told his Denver audience,
Japan is watching closely to see how our words
and actions change in relation to China and other
Pacific nations. And he warned that it would be a
mistake to rule out the possibility that the Japa-
nese might someday return to a posture of mili-
tant nationalism.

TOUCHING ON JAPAN at two different times
in his remarks – once during his speech and
again during a question-and-answer session –
Kissinger said that Asian country has suffered
many harsh blows at American hands in recent
years.

One of them, he acknowledged, was the open-
ing to China. Still others were the Lockheed scan-
dal and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South

Korea.

And, when an audience member asked his feel-
ings about this country's recent imposition of
heavy tariffs on Japanese electronic products,
Kissinger said there was a danger that such ac-
tions would drive Japan further toward total
alienation with this country.

In still other comments, Kissinger said:

- He never had held much faith in the United Nations, before, during or since his eight-year stint in the government. He said the U.N. "can be helpful" in limited ways, but said he had never believed it could solve problems, either for major powers or those smaller nations whose affairs were closely intertwined with the major powers.

KISSINGER SAID BLOC VOTING on the part
of many nations in the U.N. has rendered it inef-
fective as a potential government.

"Conditions for progress" toward peace in the Middle East have existed since early this year, but the potential for disaster, should Washington miscalculate, is great.

"It things go wrong, they will go very wrong," he said.

- His memories of what it is like to be in the
  inner circle of power are still too great for him to
  begin assuming the role of critic toward the ac-
  tions of Carter and Vance. He repeatedly
  stressed that it's much harder to make the deci-
  sions than it is to criticize them.

"I believe that the new administration should be given an opportunity to develop its own foreign policy without constant harassment by those who preceded it," he said.

KISSINGER, WHO BAD a brief reunion
Tuesday night with former President Gerald
Ford, didn't miss the opportunity to praise Ford
– and himself – for the foreign policy achieve-
ments of the Ford administration.

Saying his own eight years in office had occur-
red under "conditions that at times approached
civil war," Kissinger said this era concluded
with a "disintegration of civil authority that was
arrested only under the humane and distin-
guished leadership of President Ford."

Later he commented that, "with the humility
for which I've become world famous, I am of the
opinion . . . that we handed over a more peaceful
world than had existed in any previous transition
of the post-war period."

His facious reference to his own humility
brought laughter, but the audience applauded
vigorously when Kissinger completed his assess-
ment of his own performance.

[LC]

Appreciate
the
Appreciation

SUPER
SAVINGS

Thurs., Fri., Sat.

JUNE 23, 24, 25

MINUTES FROM
ANYWHERE
Exit 62 on I-70

EZRA
BROOKS

759

1.75
LITER

SEAGRAMS
7 CROWN

799

1.5
LITRE

KAMCHATKA
VODKA

599
1.5
LITRE

DRURY'S
SCOTCH

399
FULL
QUART

WINS
CANS

GORE
G

BACAR
RUG

MUIR
SCOT

PAUL MASSON
BRANDY

1974 NIERI

Silver State Sewing Center

Denver's Only Authorized White Dealer.

Introduces

The New White First Lady

ONLY

26 BUILT IN
STITCHES

TRUE ONE
STEP BUTTON HOLE

[LC]

Thurs., June 23, 1979

# Kissinger says world peace rests with U.S. leadership

(Continued from page 5)

The former statesman, who is now on the faculty of Georgetown University, said our success or failure at maintaining this balancing act will have direct consequences in such far-flung places as Rome, Tokyo and Peking.

Noting that there is "a good possibility" Communists will assume leadership in Western Europe, he said Washington now must decide whether to accept them comfortably as "socialists with Leninist terminology" or to regard this trend as yet another step toward Communist domination of previously democratic governments.

He said any Chinese decision about whether to remain cordial to the United States will be made "cold-bloodedly, unsentimentally and unemotional" on the basis of that perception.

In turn, Kissinger told his Denver audience, Japan is watching closely to see how our words and actions change in relation to China and other Pacific nations. And he warned that it would be a mistake to rule out the possibility that the Japanese might someday return to a posture of militant nationalism.

TOUCHING ON JAPAN at two different times in his remarks — once during his speech and again during a question-and-answer session — Kissinger said that Asian country has suffered many harsh blows at American hands in recent years.

One of them, he acknowledged, was the opening to China. Still others were the Lockheed scandal and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South

Korea.

And, when an audience member asked his feelings about this country's recent imposition of heavy tariffs on Japanese electronic products, Kissinger said there was a danger that such actions would drive Japan further toward total alienation with this country.

KISSINGER SAID BLOC VOTING on the part of many nations in the U.N. has rendered it ineffective as a potential government.

- "Conditions for progress" toward peace in the Middle East have existed since early this year, but the potential for disaster, should Washington miscalculate, is great.

- His memories of what it is like to be in the inner circle of power are still too great for him to begin assuming the role of critic toward the actions of Carter and Vance. He repeatedly stressed that it's much harder to make the decisions than it is to criticize them.

KISSINGER, WHO HAD a brief reunion Tuesday night with former President Gerald Ford, didn't miss the opportunity to praise Ford — and himself — for the foreign policy achievements of the Ford administration.

Saying his own eight years in office had occurred under "conditions that at times approached civil war," Kissinger said this era concluded with a "disintegration of civil authority that was arrested only under the humane and distinguished leadership of President Ford."

His facetious reference to his own humility brought laughter, but the audience applauded vigorously when Kissinger completed his assessment of his own performance.