Saturday, August 29, 2015


Inside the KGB’s Super Power Division

Casey Michel The Daily Beast

Boris Ratnikov says he’s used telepathy to save Russia from foreign—and mostly American—aggression. His crackpot theories are back in fashion.

Boris Ratnikov looks the part of a retired KGB general. The septuagenarian, having served both the Soviet and Russian states, fits an expected mold: flagging jowls, small-bore eyes, clipped speech. Much like the current iteration of the Kremlin, Ratnikov boasts an image of stern resolve and state-centric piety.

Push past the lapels, though, and Ratnikov morphs from a Brezhnev blue-blood to something closer to a kook, a crank, a Rasputin minus the heinous facial hair. According to the former KGB general, as the USSR reached the height of the Cold War, the regime enlisted the country’s supernaturals, its Leninist X-Men, to the Soviet cause. “Almost all the people with supernatural powers were controlled by the KGB,” Ratnikov said. “You can’t even imagine the war of brains that unfolded in the first half of the last century. I’m hardly exaggerating when I say that sometimes there were astral battles.” Following the USSR’s collapse, enemies who would “practice magic” were sought by the “hundreds of millions” to fight via “remote influence [for] the psyche of our country.” As the years wound, Ratnikov came to be known as the Kremlin’s Merlin, one of the few able to access the “single information field” extant—one of the few to see that “the war in Kosovo… was considered only a first step to establish control over Russia.”

As Russia struggled in the ’90s, Ratnikov says he used his telepathic prowess to prevent a border war with China, to stave off the handover of the Kurile Islands to Japan, and to prevent foreign psychics from accessing President Boris Yeltsin’s pickled brain. (Ratnikov also warned about the rise of “psychotronic weapons,” more menacing than nuclear arms, which would be “used to take over the minds of millions, making them zombies.”) But when NATO threatened a bombing campaign against Russia’s traditional Serbian ally, Ratnikov realized he and his team needed to add to their arsenal. As such, a few weeks before the bombing began in earnest, Georgy Rogozin, a deputy to the former head of presidential security—a man who claimed to resuscitate souls of the dead, no less—studied a photo of U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and fell into a deep, hypnotic sleep. While riding the parapsychological waves, Rogozin, according to Ratnikov, communed with Albright’s consciousness. “By tuning in on her image, our specialists were able to glean [information],” Ratnikov said. “We found a pathological hatred of Slavs. [Albright] resented the fact that Russia has the world’s largest reserves of minerals. In her opinion, the future of Russian reserves should not be disposed to a single country but all of humanity under the supervision, of course, of the United States.”

Why Rogozin didn’t bother to access, say, NATO’s bombing schematics, or the deepest secrets of Albright’s statecraft, Ratnikov didn’t say. But the Kremlin’s Merlin had come away with another fact just as perturbing: The U.S. wanted Siberia, and wouldn’t rest until it owned Russia’s grandest mineral deposits.

To be sure, Ratnikov wasn’t the only who tapped into the U.S.’s secret desires. “In the late ’90s there was a similar flurry of claims that [former National Security Advisor] Zbigniew Brzezinski was an advocate of breaking up Russia,” Steve Sestanovich, the U.S.’s former ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union, told me. “In that case, of course, there was a little more to go on—some silly map-diagrams in one of his books.” Ratnikov, however, had something firmer: the thoughts of the secretary of state herself. Siberia would be Washington’s. The astral plane had spoken.

***

Of course, in the late ’90s, Ratnikov’s conspiracy was just the latest in the line of insanities coursing through Russia. Claims that the U.S. was secretly backing Chechen separatists, ideas that the CIA secretly manipulated oil prices to crash the Soviet economy, gurus claiming healing powers if you left jars of water on your television—all of it, part and parcel, swirled a reeling Russia, reinforcing the other surrounding inanities. Conspiracy as comfort. Mind-reading as a means to putting off responsibility for the situation, for understanding how a Soviet world could disappear overnight.

For most of the 21st century, such conspiracies—at least, those as baseless as Ratnikov’s allegations—remained a historical hiccup, as much a queer part of the ’90s as bread-lines or debt defaulted. Conspiracies never strayed too far from the official Kremlin line—see the various explanations for the Color Revolutions that rocked Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan—but those could generally be brushed off as geopoliticking, as empty rhetoric shared with a wink and a nudge. With the end of the ’90s, notions of mind-reading, astral planes, and psychotronic zombies fell to the side. Russia marched toward modernity, and while Ratnikov’s claims flared from time to time, they seemed to have lost what teeth it once knew.

In 2007, a mechanic named Alexander Sibert told Russian President Vladimir Putin about Albright’s apparent thoughts. Putin waved off the notion: “Such ideas are a sort of political erotica. Perhaps they give somebody pleasure, but they are unlikely to lead to anything positive.” Putin did cater to notions that certain foreigners had designs—those who had “just lost it” in their “fevered brains”—on Russian wealth. But the specifics of Ratnikov’s visions faded into historical oddity.

And then, a few years ago, Putin was elected for a third term as president-cum-czar. And Ukraine’s population, dying by the dozen under European Union flags, ousted Putin’s favored son, former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, for a second time. Crimea held a referendum as legitimate as anything this side of Pyongyang; Russian troops, those “little green men,” stormed through Ukraine’s south and east, making a mountain of rebellion out of a molehill of discontent; sanctions and collapsed oil prices cut a top-heavy Russian economy at its knees.

In the 18 months since Ukraine toppled its kleptocracy, Russia has morphed from an emerging market with a vocal opposition to a crumbling economy drowning in dictatorship. Like a schoolchild who forgot his homework, the Kremlin has cast about far and wide to assign blame for its ails. Fascists in Kiev. CIA operatives manipulating wayward Ukrainians. Collusion between Washington and Riyadh, bottoming oil prices. (Putin had never heard of the hydrocarbon backbones of Texas or North Dakota, apparently.)

All the while, Ratnikov’s visions came roaring back into official rhetoric. Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin set the pace in 2012, noting that “Madame Albright wishes to direct the riches of Siberia. And Madame [Hillary] Clinton will be delighted.” Pravda, that stalwart Kremlin mouthpiece, soon followed suit, noting that Albright—“Russia’s foe”—is “credited with a desire to take Siberia away from Russia.” Late last year, Putin revisited the topic, tossing aside any disinterest he carried earlier: “We have heard it even from high-level officials that it is unfair that the whole of Siberia with its immense resources belongs to Russia in its entirety,” Putin snarled. “Why exactly is it unfair? So it is fair to snatch Texas from Mexico, but it is unfair that we are working on our own land—no, we have to share.”

Putin didn’t specify the “high-level officials” in question, but just a few weeks ago Nikolai Patrushev, Russia’s Security Council secretary and one of Putin’s closest confidantes, helped offer some clarification. In an interview with Kommersant, Patrushev claimed: “[The U.S.] would much rather that Russia did not exist at all. As a country… We possess great resources. The Americans believe that we control them illegally and undeservedly because, in their view, we do not use them as they ought to be used. You surely remember ex-U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s claim that neither the Far East nor Siberia belong to Russia.”

To be fair, Patrushev is no stranger to cobbling conspiracy, whether in claiming the CIA provoked the Soviet Union’s disintegration, or that the Peace Corps helped spear Ukraine’s EuroMaidan movement. (As a former Peace Corps volunteer in the post-Soviet space, it’s no stretch to say we could barely organize a lesson-plan, let alone a revolution.) But Patrushev isn’t simply repeating worn-out conspiracy. The Kremlin is apparently no longer satisfied with random officials citing hypothetical fractures. No matter that a Russian crack-up remains one of Washington’s nightmares; Patrushev, one of the few who still maintains Putin’s ear, believes the U.S. is actively working toward the fragmentation of the Russian Federation.

“What is undoubtedly [Ratnikov’s] particularly lunatic take on the issue ought to be considered as the most extreme strand of a substantial body of opinion,” Mark Galeotti, a professor at NYU and noted Russia commentator, told me. “I think it is possible to overplay the conspiracy line… but undoubtedly the current Russian regime—and Putin personally—does tend towards seeing plots and plans where none are truly to be found. In particular, they have a flatteringly exaggerated notion of the extent to which the West could develop, agree, and implement any subtle scheme against Russia. At present, let’s face it, you can’t go far wrong in Moscow by claiming there is some dark Western conspiracy against Russia.”

It’s one thing to say it, though. It’s another to believe it. “There are some people in Russia who say this sort of thing all the time—especially Patrushev—and it squares well enough with other completely absurd things he says that I think one should assume he believes it,” Sestanovich said. “[Russia’s] nationalist hysteria makes it possible to get away with saying just about anything. The internal checks come off.”

***
Wish though the West may, Patrushev’s—and Rogozin’s, and Putin’s—comments don’t arise in a vacuum. Conspiracy, grand and ubiquitous, has taken root under Putin; recent polling attests to as much. For instance, 28 percent of Russians, per the Levada Center, believe the Soviet Union collapsed not through a gerontocracy and tottering economics, but through foreign conspiracy. A 2014 poll struck an even more concerning note, showing that nearly half of Russians believe a supranational government, a secret cabal, pulls the strings beyond the Russian Federation’s borders. “In recent years, there has been a proliferation of conspiracy theories in Russia,” a study in The Russian Review recently found.” And in Russia especially, conspiracy theories “operate… in the official discourses of state power.” As such, and given the phantom-limb syndrome still coursing a post-empire Russia, the idea that Siberia would be the next to break off strikes a broad, conspiratorial chord.

Those fears aren’t necessarily without merit—although any concerns about Western involvement remain laughable. Siberia, after all, “has seen an uptick in nationalism” recently, Quartz’s Bradley Jardine found last month. The nationalism, the push for autonomy, stems as much from the Crimean precedent as it does from Siberia’s status as a quasi-colony within Russia. The region provides some 90 percent of Russian natural gas and more than 70 percent of Russia’s oil, supplying Moscow with far more material wealth than it sees in tax returns. With 77 percent of Russia’s total land mass, and with a grand total of 3.1 people per square kilometer, Siberia stands a world apart, as much an idea as a known entity. “There is a distinct and understandable discomfort in Moscow about the extent to which so much of its wealth is on the other side of the Urals, in thinly-populated, sometimes-unruly, and geographically and even psychologically distant lands,” Galeotti said.

Over the past few years, the desires of the Kremlin and local leaders have only grown more strained. Tensions boiled over last August, when Moscow banned the “March for the Federalization of Siberia” in Novosibirsk, Siberia’s largest city. In keeping with its trend of throttling any internal separatist sentiment, authorities arrested numerous organizers and imposed a media blackout. Moscow even threatened to block BBC’s Russian service for its coverage.

While the Kremlin has helped smother those calling for Siberian autonomy, its media outlets have had no problem slamming anyone commenting on the push. Responding to Jardine’s analysis, Sputnik cited his “histrionic tone” and “headache-inducing semantics.” Screeds aside, Siberia looks set to carry an even greater burden in propping Moscow’s wilting economic model, seeing even less return on investment than prior.

All the while, the Kremlin and its advisers continue to sound the alarm about the stealth desires inside Washington. “[Patrushev] in fact speaks the truth,” Sergei Markov, an adviser to the Kremlin, wrote a few weeks ago. “It’s clear that the desire of the aggressive part of the Anglosphere’s political class is to inflict the strategic defeat of Russia and take control of its natural resources. … Is there anyone that doubts that they have been coveting Siberia with its oil, gas, and rockets? No, everyone knows it.” No matter that this covetousness, this envy, strings back to an acid-trip analysis from psychics in the mid-’90s. No matter that Ratnikov isn’t actually a trained telepath, a poor man’s Miss Cleo. Why bother letting the facts get in the way of a good geopolitical conspiracy?

But these conspiracies carry implications, and fall-out. And figuring out the line between laughing off the loons and realizing that Kremlin officials have jumped down the rabbit-hole, tin-foil hat and all, is a thin one. Just as Washington and Brussels have experienced elsewhere during the Ukraine crisis, dealing with a Kremlin that lives in another world—myths as fact, rumor as reality—presents a challenge heretofore untested. And it’s a challenge that shows no signs of slowing anytime soon.

Cooperation wanes. Consilience vanishes. Even opportunities for dialog, just a good-faith back-and-forth, falters, disintegrated under the Kremlin’s insistences on the words of mind-readers and misanthropes. “When Patrushev says something like this in Russia, does it discredit him?” asks Sestanovich. “Does it create a storm of tut-tutting and claims that this is one gaffe too many? Does anybody even disagree? We don’t expect that anymore. The reason is, we have gotten used to the idea that Russia is experiencing a different kind of national political consciousness.

“Dealing with Russia these days, we all just cross to the other side of the street when we see them coming,” he continued. “And it’s not so much fear—it’s that we increasingly discover that dialogue is pointless and exhausting. This is sad, but it’s where we are.”

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Larry King Is Preparing for the Final Cancellation

Five years after CNN pulled the plug on his show, the TV host is thinking about whom he’ll book for his funeral.

By MARK LEIBOVICH NY Times

“Bring me a plate of radishes.’’

‘‘Yes, Mr. King.’’

‘‘I don’t eat radishes, except when I’m at the Palm. It’s one of my rituals. Rituals are important.’’

We sat at Larry King’s table at the Palm steakhouse in Washington, a city the cable talk impresario has not lived in since 1997. Yet King, now 81, remained central to the restaurant’s scenery. Caricatures of him hung on the walls, depicting various stages of his perpetual middle age. People walked by and said hello and told him they always watched his show, even though King left CNN four and a half years ago. ‘‘It’s the ageless Larry King,’’ said one well-wisher, shaking his hand. Every celebrity over 80 gets to be called ‘‘ageless.’’

When he is not interviewing anyone, just eating lunch, King tends to slump in his chair. On TV, you experienced him mainly as sharp angles, arched shoulders and pointed elbows, and a collection of features and accouterments (suspenders, saucer glasses). King’s once-black hair has now assumed, or been assumed with, a coppery orange color. The beige of his unmade face lacks the glow that radiated when King was at his peak and framed by the edges of a screen.

Continue reading the main story
The New York Times Magazine Newsletter
Sign up to get the best of the Magazine delivered to your inbox every week, including exclusive feature stories, photography, columns and more.

When you grow older, routines become important, King told me. Even to someone as emphatically nonreligious as he is, they can lend a measure of sanctity: the morning bagel quorum King leads with his old friends at the Original Brooklyn Water Bagel Co. near his home in Beverly Hills; his daily hairstyling appointment at the JosephMartin Salon (near the bagel place); his bowl of Honey Nut Cheerios with blueberries; his pills, parceled out by dosage (Lipitor, Plavix, fish oil, multivitamin tablets and human growth hormone). ‘‘I like the stability,’’ King said. ‘‘Don’t give me a surprise birthday party.’’

Like all old people, or so King claims, he likes to read the obituaries first thing every morning. God’s box scores. He can’t turn away. People might learn about someone who died at the age of 88, or 89, and say, ‘‘Oh, he lived a long life.’’ But that’s not how King views it. ‘‘I think, That’s only seven or eight years off for me,’’ he said. There were some 78s and 79s in the paper that morning. He shook his head. Negative math is terrifying.

King is fixated on dying. Everyone is, to some degree, but not like him. Shawn King, his seventh wife, told me that Larry talks so much about his demise that he started to upset their teenage sons, and she had to tell him to knock it off. ‘‘He kept saying, ‘Listen, I’m not going to be around much longer, boys,’ ’’ Shawn said. ‘‘ ‘Whatever you do, don’t let your mother put me in a home.’ ’’ Recently, Larry and Shawn met with some insurance and lawyer types to go over their family trust. They were talking about his will and who got what and the tax ramifications. ‘‘After about 20 minutes, I said, ‘Wait a minute,’ ’’ Larry told me. ‘‘I won’t be here when this happens. I won’t exist. Everything in that conversation had nothing to do with me.’’

King’s father died of a heart attack when King was 9. That, he says, is what probably initiated his own death obsession. ‘‘I took that as my father abandoning me,’’ he said. ‘‘I had a psychologist explain that to me once.’’ Not a psychologist King ever saw professionally, but a guest on his show — his kind of therapist.

Over the quarter-century that he hosted ‘‘Larry King Live,’’ King was always asking his guests, ‘‘What do you think happens when we die?’’ I saw him ask that of the ageless guitarist Carlos Santana. Santana said that upon expiration, he expected to merely enter a different room and then receive a standing ovation from the likes of John Coltrane and John Lee Hooker. ‘‘So you believe they’re somewhere?’’ King asked. Yes, Santana was certain. ‘‘What makes you believe that?’’ King wondered. ‘‘You can’t prove it.’’ Santana suggested that faith ‘‘is acceptance of things not seen.’’ This is a story we’ll be following.

Luminary deaths accounted for some of King’s best-rated programs. He would host remembrance panels. He spent five hours receiving mourners via phone on his radio show on the night John Lennon was killed (‘‘Milton Berle called in’’). ‘‘Who elected Larry King America’s grief counselor?’’ James Wolcott of Vanity Fair asked in 2009, during a summer when King was convening nightly shiva on CNN for Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett.

‘‘At Richard Nixon’s library, the day after he was taken to the hospital, if you look at his calendar, it says ‘Larry King Live,’ ’’ King told me. ‘‘He was going to be on my show, but he died.’’ The same thing happened with Bart Giamatti, the commissioner of baseball, in 1989: ‘‘He was supposed to come on my show a few days after he had his heart attack.’’

King had planned to have one of his all-time favorite guests, Mario Cuomo, speak at his funeral. But then Cuomo went and abandoned him, too, last January, at just 82. Maybe Bill Clinton would be willing to speak instead, King wondered. He likes Clinton. ‘‘I bet he’d do it.’’ King flashed a satisfied smile, but then his face suddenly went blank. He tends to do this, as if savoring an image (a president at his funeral — such a tribute!) and then being slapped back to his default reality (‘‘But I won’t be there to see it!’’). He lingers on the unimaginable.

‘‘I can’t get my head around one minute being there and another minute absent,’’ King said.

Larry King died in 2010. Not for real, but when CNN pulled the plug on King’s show after 25 years, it felt like a dress rehearsal for the real cancellation.

King was 77 when his run ended at the network. He told me he could see it coming. Cable news had changed. It had become all about shouting, the left-versus-right paradigm and ‘‘good TV’’ — meaning spectacles. Fox News had gone right, and MSNBC had lurched left, and somewhere in the shrinking American middle was the once-dominant CNN, adrift in a loud new century. King’s bosses kept pushing him toward shorter segments, not the long-form interviews he always did while hunched over a bulbous RCA microphone with a pointillist map of the world behind him. CNN made him read viewers’ tweets on the air.

At the peak of his run, in the late 1990s, ‘‘Larry King Live’’ regularly reached more than 1.5 million viewers a night in the United States. That was a much smaller audience than network prime time, but King’s novelty was in his global reach. While international TV ratings are difficult to measure, King was the big rounded face of the network at a time when CNN was becoming the country’s signature media export. He was as recognizable abroad as Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, and largely without the geopolitical baggage. His trademark eccentricities were borderless. Mikhail Gorbachev met him for dinner wearing suspenders. Paul Newman said that whenever he landed abroad, the first thing he did was turn on CNN and look for King. He was Newman’s own connection to home. King could be a cultural touchstone as well as a familiar background noise. Stephen Colbert told him he lost his virginity while listening to King’s radio show.

King was a broadcast pioneer who bridged the solemn authority figures of yesteryear, like Walter Cronkite, with today’s ‘‘good TV’’ yellers. He would talk about whatever the story of the day was, highbrow or low (presidents and movie stars and JonBenets). His style, endurance and presence became a form of American confidence. Conspicuously, King’s replacement, the British host Piers Morgan, was seen as a critic of his adopted country. He would use the ‘‘you people’’ construction, as if to signal that any confidence — America’s, television’s and certainly CNN’s — was no longer warranted.

Washington’s media-political fancies always viewed King with both respect and derision. The latter arose from King’s refusal to play the tough-guy inquisitor that had become the pose of so many ‘‘TV journalist’’ types. My colleague Maureen Dowd once called King ‘‘the resort area of American journalism.’’ King had an unabashed interest in celebrity and scandal, devoured the trial of his old pal O.J. Simpson and spoke at the funeral of his dear friend Tammy Faye Messner (formerly Bakker). Yet the famous and powerful coveted King’s audience and appreciated his unthreatening style. His questions were short, basic and often open-ended (‘‘Never been in the hotel? Never?’’ he asked Nixon, referring to the Watergate Hotel); solicitous (‘‘How did you emotionally hold up?’’ he asked Clinton); and at times slyly provocative (Why do you keep saying if the Holocaust happened? he asked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran). He asked Ronald Reagan what it was like to be shot.

King let his guests talk until he became bored, which tended to happen quickly. ‘‘Larry had terrible A.D.D. issues,’’ says his brother, Marty Zeiger. ‘‘If there had been those drugs back then, he might never have learned to compensate and never would have become Larry King.’’

There is an old Vaudeville saying: ‘‘If you’re not appearing, you’re disappearing.’’ King appeared five times a week; he was the quirky uncle who kept showing up for dessert until you found yourself setting a place for him in the den out of habit. He appeared in 22 movies, playing (of course) himself. No one was appearing more than Larry King, until he wasn’t.

King’s friends wondered if losing his CNN platform and vanishing from nightly view would kill him, as a heart attack, quintuple bypass, prostate cancer and diabetes had not. They worried about him in the same way that people worry about older people falling into death spirals after their spouses of many years die. The analogy is imperfect in the case of King, who has survived quite well through the dissolution of seven previous marriages (he married the same woman twice). But the parallel still came up a lot during my conversations with his friends and family. ‘‘It’s like the camera was Larry’s lover,’’ Zeiger told me. King speaks of being transformed the second he went on the air. On his first day, his boss demanded that he jettison ‘‘Zeiger’’ (‘‘too ethnic’’), so he went from being Lawrence Harvey Zeiger, a poor kid from Brooklyn who in 1957 took a job as a fill-in host at a Miami radio station, to being Larry King. A revamped and royal identity was born the second the red light went on.

Television can be a brutally seductive business for those who become personalities. ‘‘Appearing’’ becomes their oxygen. Maybe that’s why they call it being on ‘‘the air.’’ As in: the air that King filled for decades and might as well have breathed. But then suddenly there was no air, no ‘‘Larry King Live’’ — was he now Larry King dead?

I asked King if he was ready to leave CNN or if the network fired him. It was closer to the latter, he said. He always received three- and four-year contracts. They offered one year. ‘‘I saw it as writing on the wall,’’ King said. CNN aired its last ‘‘Larry King Live’’ on Dec. 18, 2010. The low point for King came a few months after that, when he was watching TV at home on a Sunday night and learned that Osama bin Laden had been killed. King jumped to his feet. ‘‘I needed a car to come pick me up and take me somewhere,’’ King told me. ‘‘I needed to be on the air. I needed a red light to go on. But I had nowhere to go.’’


By MARK C. ROE 1:08
Larry King Tweets Aloud
Larry King Tweets Aloud
The television host on fruit, evolution, frozen yogurt and more in 140 characters or less. By MARK C. ROE on Publish Date August 26, 2015. 
It was 2013 when I first discovered Larry King in his broadcast afterlife. I had written a book, and someone called and invited me to go on King’s show. Larry King? I thought he was long ago hauled off to the curb like an old Zenith. That was how most people responded when I shared — bragged — that I would be going on with Larry King. ‘‘Larry King still has a show?’’ they would say. ‘‘Is Larry King still alive?’’ It can be easy to lose track sometimes, especially of those aging, sick and canceled celebrities who reside in that purgatory between the where-are-they-nows and the obits. Did we miss King’s exit somewhere among the deaths of Roger Ebert and Jonathan Winters and Annette Funicello?

King had landed at an online production outfit called Ora TV, which was started by the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim. Slim was a longtime fan of King’s and wanted him to remain on the air. He funded the production company to keep King’s franchise alive, essentially, and even let King pick the name: ‘‘Ora’’ is Shawn King’s middle name.

Of course I would go on with King. It felt like a visit to the cultural grave: the suspendered icon sitting in Los Angeles and visible again on a monitor, while I sat in a remote studio in Washington. King closed the interview by asking me, ‘‘Is the Palm still the place to go in Washington?’’ Sure, I said. He asked: ‘‘Next time I come to Washington, can we have lunch together at the Palm?’’

We met at the Palm last March. I took an immediate liking to King, beyond the camp novelty of the encounter itself. (It’s a bit unsettling to sit in the flesh with someone whose image so wholly resides in a pixelated nether-dust.) We started talking a lot on the phone after that — a kind of ‘‘Tuesdays With Morrie’’ tradition, only with Larry.

King was thrilled for my interest. ‘‘I’m being followed by The New York Times,’’ he told everyone when I was nearby. ‘‘I must be somebody again. Go figure.’’

No topic between King and me was off-limits except one: Piers Morgan. King’s publicist, Jen Hobbs, requested that I refrain from asking King anything about the host who succeeded him on CNN. Things had become ornery between King and Morgan, whose own show was canceled last year. King said in an interview with Howard Stern that watching Morgan flame out in his slot was like when ‘‘your mother-in-law goes over the cliff in your new car.’’ Morgan then called King a ‘‘poisonous twerp’’ and a ‘‘graceless, petty little man’’ on Twitter. I agreed not to bring up Morgan with King. That was fine, because King brought Morgan up himself, almost immediately (‘‘What I didn’t like about Piers is that he made that show all about him’’). Shawn King, a self-described ‘‘good Mormon girl,’’ later weighed in, too — and in language hardly befitting a good Mormon girl.

King really wanted me to know how busy he was. He is now the host of three shows, on various outlets, including one about baseball (‘‘Larry King at Bat’’) on the Los Angeles Dodgers’ cable network. He does a lot of paid speaking gigs (‘‘white-collar crime’’). He endorsed a line of suspenders. On this trip to Washington, King told me he would sit for interviews with The Washington Post, The Washington Examiner, WTOP radio and podcasts, among other media engagements.

He invited me to join him at the Ritz Carlton for breakfast with David Theall and Jason Rovou, ex-CNNers who followed him to Ora. Everyone but King ordered eggs, which he found offensive. ‘‘I despise eggs,’’ he told me, and added, by the way, that ‘‘Jews like things very well cooked. Did you know that?’’ (I did not.) Other diners stared as King walked out after breakfast. ‘‘I don’t think people would recognize the governor of Wisconsin if he walked in here,’’ King said, referring to Scott Walker, the presidential candidate. A dark-skinned man approached and asked King if he would pose for a photo.

‘‘Where are you from?’’ King asked.

‘‘Saudi Arabia,’’ the man said.

‘‘I’m a Jew!’’ King informed him. ‘‘You sure it’s O.K. to get your picture taken with a Jew back in Saudi Arabia?’’

The man assured him that indeed Larry King had many fans in Saudi Arabia. They smiled for the picture. ‘‘Thank you, Mr. King,’’ the man said. They shook hands, and King looked him in the eye. ‘‘Now,’’ he said, ‘‘please, go fight ISIS!’’

That night, King would be appearing at the Newseum, a cutesy-named gallery of American journalism history on Pennsylvania Avenue. The event was billed as ‘‘A Life in Broadcasting: A Conversation With Larry King,’’ and he was interviewed onstage by the former CNN anchor Leon Harris. ‘‘A black and a Jew!’’ King said, referring to Harris and himself. King then took it further and asked Harris, ‘‘Why did you want to eat at Woolworth?’’ Nervous laughs and a few gasps: Uncle Larry had arrived at the Seder.

King removed his jacket to reveal purple suspenders, and Harris listed career credits. He called King ‘‘an innovator’’ for nearly seven decades and ‘‘cable’s version of Walter Cronkite.’’ They talked about King’s old USA Today column, a weekly hodgepodge of one-note items, opinions and plugs, as ‘‘a forerunner to Twitter.’’

‘‘I never thought I would be a forerunner,’’ King said. The column was widely read, and mocked, notably by the comedian Norm Macdonald in a ‘‘Saturday Night Live’’ skit from the late 1990s. Macdonald would look into the camera and shout proclamations in King’s voice. He nailed its energetic banality. (‘‘Here is the dirty truth, gang: Poland Spring water does not come from Poland!’’)

Jerry Seinfeld credits King with inventing the random spirit of Twitter years before the technology enabled it. ‘‘Larry King didn’t invent drivel, but he certainly created the business model for drivel, which was the column in USA Today,’’ Seinfeld told me. No disrespect to drivel: ‘‘I’ve made a pretty nice living off of drivel myself,’’ he said.

King’s Twitter feed, @kingsthings, has become a cult-camp sensation, with 2.6 million followers. He dictates his projectiles into a dedicated voice-mail box. From there, an assistant transcribes them onto Twitter. The result is an exuberant self-parody, or a social-media burlesque, or (if you prefer) art. It’s somewhat indistinguishable from the verbal crawl I had been observing in person.

‘‘I rarely use lip balm.’’

‘‘Kiev is a hell of a town.’’
‘‘The fear of a colonoscopy is unwarranted.’’

He mostly produces them in binges, late on Sunday nights. They are best consumed in binges too, one after another, as if you’re speed-eating M&Ms one at a time. Seinfeld told me that King translates so well to Twitter because he understands portion size. ‘‘Sometimes we just want to experience verbiage but nothing that requires any mental digestion,’’ Seinfeld said. ‘‘The question is: Is he going to get even better when he enters dementia?’’

‘‘The rat is perfectly named.’’

‘‘It’s strange, but I just thought about my tricycle.’’

‘‘I love to scratch an itch.’’

The tweets convey wistfulness at times. There are notes of longing, nostalgia and mourning.

‘‘I can’t stop thinking about the late Mario Cuomo… I miss him so much.’’

‘‘Do you funeral homes ever have a bad year?’’

‘‘I love the sound of little kids in a schoolyard.’’

The Newseum conversation eventually veered to the specter of King’s final episode, his death. How can a story end well if he winds up in the ground? He is planning to avoid that, he told Harris. King takes four human growth hormone pills every day. People think H.G.H. is illegal because athletes are suspended for using it. It is not, King says, and he feels great. But in case of death, King wants the Ted Williams treatment. He has arranged to have his body frozen and then thawed out when researchers discover a cure for whatever killed him — the so-called cryonics approach. (Unlike Williams, King does not wish to have his dead head cut off.) King told me later that the people behind cryonics are ‘‘all nuts,’’ but at least if he knows he will be frozen he will die with a shred of hope. ‘‘Other people have no hope,’’ King said.

In May, I turned 50. The milestone came and went and left no great psychic toll. But I found myself doing more mortality math in my head than I ever had — how many more years did I have with my kids and in my job and on this earth? I was checking the relevance clock and wondering how long before I’d be ‘‘aged out’’ myself. It occurred to me that I no longer belonged to the 18-49 demographic that TV people refer to as the ‘‘key demo.’’

I visited King at the Ora studio in Glendale, Calif. The office resembled an Internet start-up: young staff members, snacks in the waiting room. Covering the walls were photos of the octogenarian maestro posing with world leaders, the Dalai Lama and Betty White. King took a seat on a couch and grabbed his powder blue suspenders with both hands, as if he were strapping in for a ride. Over his left shoulder was a photo of him standing between Evander Holyfield and Mike Tyson while Tyson pretended to take a bite out of King’s ear.

King was getting ready to tape ‘‘Larry King Now.’’ It was a long way from CNN, but there was still a red light. King’s show is also available on Hulu and RT, the Russian state-funded television network. King is defensive about the latter. ‘‘I do not work for the Russian government!’’ he mentioned more than once. The broadcast is not subject to any approval or censorship by the Russians, as far as he knows.
The big ‘‘get’’ for that day’s show was the rapper known as Bow Wow (formerly Lil Bow Wow). Before Bow Wow arrived, King dispatched with preliminary interviews that included the author of a book called ‘‘The Rise of ISIS,’’ which King mistakenly called ‘‘The Rise of Iris.’’ This was not the first time King had called the terror brigade ‘‘Iris.’’ He has history with an Iris — Iris Siegel, a long-ago teenage crush. ‘‘Iris Siegel was every boy at Lafayette High School’s masturbatory fantasy,’’ King told me, and then for some reason felt that this required elaboration. ‘‘We all masturbated to Iris Siegel!’’

Between segments, King joined me in the waiting area while a makeup woman touched up his forehead. His flip phone vibrated. Shawn was calling. ‘‘I’m sitting here with a big admirer of yours,’’ King said. ‘‘You know, he works for The New York Times, so we both work for Carlos Slim’’ — King was always reminding me about how Slim owned a big chunk of the newspaper. A cluster of people entered the office. ‘‘And Bow Wow has arrived,’’ King announced, hanging up on Shawn.

Bow Wow, whose real name is Shad Moss, enlisted King in a selfie. He called King ‘‘iconic’’ and appeared slightly nervous. ‘‘Larry is huge with rappers,’’ David Theall explained to me. I sat in the control room while King walked Bow Wow onto the set. The interview started, and King's questions were awesome:

‘‘What makes a good rapper?’’

‘‘Is it singing?’’

‘‘You can hum a rap song?’’
In response to a query about his upbringing, Bow Wow told King that his father was never in the picture, which inspired this declaration from the host: ‘‘The strongest individual in America is the black single mother!’’ King closed with a lightning round in which he asked, If you could have one superpower, what would it be? Bow Wow answered that he would like to be invisible.

‘‘Me, too!’’ King exploded.

Later, I mentioned to King that I was surprised by his dream of invisibility. It was the opposite of what I expected from someone who relished being so present and seen. ‘‘Oh, but think about it,’’ King said. ‘‘If I could be invisible, I could walk on a plane, I wouldn’t need a ticket and I could sit with the pilot.’’ He would reap such a bonanza of consequence-free mischief and information. But if he were invisible, then how would he disseminate what he learned? No one would see him on TV. King made an adjustment: He told me he would like the ability to go back and forth between visible and invisible. He could still have dinner with friends. And then he could make himself invisible and follow them home. ‘‘Would I like to see my friends having sex? Yes.’’

He added the caveat that his friends wouldn’t be at their current ages. ‘‘Unless they have pretty wives.’’

Shawn King, who is 55, can be both protective and contemptuous of her husband. Wife No. 7 has been the current Mrs. King for nearly 18 years. They met outside Tiffany’s in Beverly Hills, in a chance encounter that inspired the name of their first son, Chance, now 16. Their second son, Cannon, 15, was named after the street he was conceived on, North Canon Drive. (King clarified that the event actually transpired in a house, not on the pavement.) King’s marriage to Shawn, an actress, singer and former homecoming queen at North Hollywood High School, is the only one of his eight that has lasted into double digits. King has three grown children with his previous wives; some of the women from his past have spoken most uncharitably about King in various forums — recurring themes being infidelity, immaturity, self-absorption and deception.

But he’s capable of great charm when pursuing women, and they often marvel at King’s wizardry in this regard. ‘‘When he was trying to woo me, he kept sending me over boxes of Hot Tamales,’’ Shawn told me. ‘‘He knew I loved them — the candies. It was very sweet.’’ He lured prospective dates to dinner with famous friends. ‘‘I love the chase!’’ King told me, and his eyes — gray slits behind glasses — suddenly bulged with life. (‘‘I love to scratch an itch.’’)

‘‘Let me tell you the story about the first night I spent with Angie,’’ King told me, referring to the actress Angie Dickinson, the star of ‘‘Police Woman.’’ King loves telling people, including me (three times), that he used to go out with her. Dickinson would seem the pinnacle of the former Larry Zeiger’s ‘‘look how far I’ve come’’ routine.

The morning after his ‘‘night with Angie,’’ King called his best friend from growing up, Herb Cohen. ‘‘Guess where the hell I am, Herbie?’’ King said. ‘‘I’m at Angie Dickinson’s house!’’ That’s the whole story.

‘‘This wouldn’t be for print,’’ King told me. ‘‘Or, I don’t know, maybe it would be for print. You tell me?’’

Inevitably the chase would end — with a warded-off advance, or lunge, or surrender, or wedding. And then King stopped trying. Shawn told me about an evening shortly after they were married. They were in the back of a limo, and King raised his left buttock and expelled a thunderous fart. Shawn was appalled. King merely shrugged. ‘‘What, do you want me to be uncomfortable?’’ said King, the incurable romantic. Shawn told me, laughing, that at that point she knew the courtship was officially over.

I asked King when we were eating at the Palm how he and Shawn had managed to stay together. They were separated for about two months in 2010. It was an unfortunate time. Shawn believed King was having an affair with her younger sister, Shannon. ‘‘It was just a flirtation,’’ King insisted. ‘‘I never made love to her.’’ He and Shawn reunited for the sake of the boys, and, King said, because they missed each other. He was being treated for prostate cancer at the time. ‘‘I’m still sorry I did it,’’ King said. I assumed he was talking about Shannon, but he was referring to the prostate surgery. The doctors were split on how to proceed, and King chose the more aggressive treatments. ‘‘Now I can’t get it up,’’ he said. He quoted the former Yankees manager Joe Torre, another prostate-cancer survivor — King is always name-dropping wisdom through his celebrity friends. ‘‘What would you rather do, have sex or die?’’ he said. The waiter arrived with more radishes, just in time.

The day after the Bow Wow interview, King was driving me around Beverly Hills in his black Lincoln. The car smelled new and was perfectly uncluttered except for a tube of Polident on the dashboard. A handicap-parking pass hung from the rearview mirror even though King can walk perfectly well (his father-in-law, who was not with us, suffers from neuropathy in his feet and walks with a cane). King leases a new Lincoln every two years, and I made a crack about his doing the same with wives. He did not laugh.

‘‘I understand the impulse to always be looking for something else,’’ King told me. That extends to the culture, and especially television viewers, who are seeking the next thing and leaving behind the old standbys. I asked King if, for the sake of changing with the medium, he ever considered becoming more combative on CNN. Never. ‘‘If you’re combative, you never learn,’’ he told me. He would always want to make his guests feel welcome. ‘‘Oh, I would love to interview Hitler,’’ King said. Ideally, it would be several years after World War II, had Hitler lived. King might prepare a little bit (‘‘maybe I’d skim ‘Mein Kampf’ or something’’) but would mostly improvise. ‘‘Hitler had a mother,’’ King said, and he would want her to come on his show too. He chuckled at the thought. ‘‘I’d ask her, ‘Why didn’t you have an abortion?’ ’’

We stopped back at the Kings’ house to pick up Karl Engemann, Shawn’s 85-year-old father. He is a sweet and gentle man, and an observant Mormon. King introduced me to his father-in-law and started in on one of his riffs about how religion is a big delusion. ‘‘Karl thinks he’s going somewhere after he dies,’’ King said, and his voice assumed a slightly baiting tone. ‘‘Don’t you, Karl?’’ Karl nodded, and King smirked.

I asked King how he’s so certain that the afterlife is not a portal to some glorious dimension. There was silence for a few blocks. This is a topic he has surveyed deeply: ‘‘Martin Short says people die every night when we sleep,’’ King told me. Sleep is like a nightly preview. I mentioned that people find sleep pleasant, so why shouldn’t death be?

‘‘I don’t know what I’m doing when I’m sleeping,’’ King replied. ‘‘I’m not anything.’’

It was early evening when we returned to the King house. Shawn was out getting her nails done. King disappeared upstairs and returned with a bottle of human growth hormone, which he presented to me as if he were handing over a cherished stash of gold pellets. ‘‘Here, some H.G.H. for the road,’’ he said. ‘‘I’ll send you home healthy.’’ He showed me the items in his den, or ‘‘trophy room’’ — the cardboard cutout of Sinatra wearing Jewish payos, the portrait of King made entirely of jelly beans, his Emmy for Lifetime Achievement. ‘‘Try lifting this thing,’’ King told me. ‘‘It’s heavier than the usual Emmy.’’ He mentioned that George Washington University has tapes of his old radio show, in case his kids ever want to listen. On the wall above the front door, he pointed to two bright paintings that his sons made in an art class when they were toddlers. ‘‘Carlos Slim told me these were works of genius,’’ he boasted. ‘‘You never know where you might find genius.’’

He kept walking me into new rooms, showing off various accolades and telling me of others. ‘‘You know I was nominated for a Shorty Award,’’ King said. ‘‘That’s for social-media excellence — for the tweets.’’ What happens to his tweets after he dies? Could they offer a few stray pixels of Larry immortality? Or will they just fade away and be forgotten? ‘‘I won’t be here anyway,’’ King concluded, ‘‘so what does it matter?’’

Everything was dark around him when I left except the glow of the TV.
‘‘If my wife is late for my funeral, I will be very angry.’’
King would love to attend his own funeral. He would watch invisibly over the proceedings and laugh. ‘‘I would like the ceremony to begin, ‘Today we are honoring a 160-year-old man who was caught in bed by an irate husband,’ ’’ King said. ‘‘ ‘And the funeral is late because it took six days to wipe the smile off his face.’ ’’

The service would be at a synagogue, out of respect for his mother. It is unclear what would then happen to his body, how it would be frozen and where it would be housed, to say nothing of his soul. But he wants a rabbi to say the Mourner’s Kaddish. Rituals are important. ‘‘I think Clinton might speak,’’ King mentioned, again.

Life May Have Spread Through the Galaxy Like a Plague

If alien life is distributed in a pattern that mirrors epidemics, it could be strong support for the theory of panspermia


Does this look infected? (Harvard-Smithsonian CfA)

By Jesse Emspak SMITHSONIAN

Finding alien life, be it microbes or Vulcans, would revolutionize our understanding of our place in the universe, not only because we would no longer be alone in the galaxy, but also because it may help us figure out the origins of life on Earth.
Panspermia is the theory that the seeds of life somehow came to our planet from another world. The idea is controversial at best—most biologists would tell you that it just pushes the problem back a step, because we still wouldn't know what sparked life in the first place. And so far, there’s little reason to think life on other planets should be anything like what we see on Earth.

Now Henry Lin and Abraham Loeb of Harvard University say that if we do see evidence of alien life, the distribution of inhabited planets would be a “smoking gun” for panspermia. According to their model, if life arises on a few planets and spreads through space to others, inhabited planets ought to form a clumpy pattern around the galaxy, with voids between roughly spherical regions. This bubble pattern appears no matter how the distribution happens, whether its aliens traveling by spaceship or comets carrying life’s building blocks.

“It’s not that different from an epidemic,” says Lin, an undergraduate with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and lead author of the study, which was accepted by the Astrophysical Journal. “If there’s a virus, you have a good idea that one of your neighbors will have  a virus too. If the Earth is seeding life, or vice versa, there’s a good chance immediate neighbors will also have signs of life.”

We've already found almost 2,000 exoplanets, and the next generation of planet-hunting telescopes should be able to search their atmospheres for telltale signs of life. That's when Lin and Loeb's model would come into play.

In an ideal case, Earth is sitting near the edge of a bubble of inhabited worlds. Astronomers looking at life-bearing planets from Earth should then see the nearest living worlds concentrated on one side of the sky. It wouldn’t take that many exoplanets to confirm the distribution—only about 25 will do, Lin and Loeb say. 

One of the more popular ways to check whether panspermia is valid has been to look for the building blocks of life—or something actually living—on comets. But the sheer number of comets in our solar system alone means that life-bearing ones could be lost in the crowd, making it hard to definitively test the notion. With this new model, if inhabited planets are randomly distributed, then scientists can be far more confident that panspermia doesn’t work, Lin says.

But while the statistical argument is an elegant one, the visibility of the bubbles depends in part on how fast life spreads. Our Milky Way galaxy is billions of years old, and stars have had a lot of time to move around. The sun, for example, takes a quarter of a billion years to complete an orbit around the galactic center, and it’s made some 20 such orbits over the last five billion years. If it was surrounded by a cluster of other star systems when life started here, they’ve long since scattered.

If panspermia happens relatively fast, on time scales of 100 million years or so, then the bubbles would grow quickly and be dispersed as the stars on the outer edges fell behind those closer to the galactic center. The broken-up bubbles would form new ones, and while they’d be smaller, they would still be detectable, Lin and Loeb write. If life spreads very slowly, then the bubbles will be much harder to see.

Lin also acknowledges that alien life doesn’t need to resemble anything like that on Earth, and that could be another strike against panspermia. We only have one example of a biosphere, and our bias is to look for creatures that also breathe oxygen, for example, and live in the habitable zones of stars. But scientists can think of possible life-forms based on radically different chemistries.

For his part, Lin says astrobiology is an exciting field precisely because it allows for this kind of speculation. “Most of the papers like this are going to be wrong,” he says.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Jimmy Carter’s Unheralded Legacy

By STUART E. EIZENSTAT NY TIMES

WASHINGTON — AS Jimmy Carter moves into the twilight of his life, it is enormously frustrating for those of us who worked closely with him in the White House to witness his presidency caricatured as a failure, and to see how he has been marginalized, even by his fellow Democrats, since he left office in 1981.

His defining characteristic was confronting intractable problems regardless of their political cost. His closest aide and confidant, Hamilton Jordan, ruefully joked that the worst argument to make to President Carter to dissuade him from action was that it would hurt him politically.

A former one-term governor of Georgia, Mr. Carter won with a colorblind campaign, and in office he stayed faithful to his message of uplifting the poor of all races at the risk of losing his white Southern base.

Mr. Carter understood that, after Watergate, trust in government needed to be restored. He imposed gift limits and financial disclosure rules on his appointees; slowed the revolving door of officials departing to lobby their former departments; and appointed inspectors general to root out fraud and mismanagement.

Mr. Carter established the Department of Education and increased college tuition grants for needy students. He ended federal price regulation of trucking, interstate buses, railroads and airlines.

America’s energy outlook would not be as bright as it is today were it not for his dogged determination to awaken the American public and Congress to the dangers of our growing dependence on foreign oil. He broke a quarter-century impasse and began to phase out federal price controls for natural gas, and then crude oil; created the Department of Energy; and began tax incentives for home insulation and for solar energy.

He created the modern vice presidency, making Walter F. Mondale a full partner, and giving him an office close to his own, access to classified documents and involvement in every major decision.

Mr. Carter’s greatest achievements lay in foreign policy, in the humbling aftermath of Vietnam. In an extraordinary act of diplomatic negotiation that he personally conducted at Camp David, Md., Mr. Carter produced the first Middle East peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. It remains a touchstone of United States security policy in the region.

In Asia, he took on the Taiwan lobby to establish full diplomatic relations with China, completing the opening begun by Richard M. Nixon. In Latin America, he began a new era of mutual respect by turning over the Panama Canal to local control, and limiting arms sales to military dictatorships. His administration began the unraveling of the Soviet Union by embracing human rights and introducing intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

Given these lasting achievements, why is the Carter presidency viewed with such disdain by so many? The answers lie in two areas, one in his style of governing and his unbending character, and the other in external events. Losing a fight for a second term in a landslide automatically casts a cloud. President Ronald Reagan’s positive, hopeful approach also contrasted with Mr. Carter’s penchant to be the bearer of unpleasant truths, to ask for sacrifice in a way that shaded into the image of a public scold. Trained as an engineer, he sought comprehensive solutions to fundamental challenges through a political system designed for incremental change; his significant successes never quite seemed to match the ambition of his proposals.

Early in his presidency, when he was trying to manage the White House on his own, without a chief of staff, Mr. Carter sent Congress a blizzard of controversial legislative proposals. By his own admission, this overloaded the congressional circuits with too many competing initiatives. What came back paled in contrast to his excessively broad goals and confused the public. Some presidents have an indefinable quality of making half a loaf seem like a victory, but Mr. Carter did not really recognize politics as the art of the possible. When he won, he looked as if accepting compromise was a loss. Mr. Carter did what he considered “the right thing” for his country, and let the political chips fall where they may.
The fruit of some of Mr. Carter’s greatest achievements came only after he left office. The most painful example was his reining in the ruinous inflation that had bedeviled his predecessors even before the first oil shock of 1973. Over the objection of almost all his advisers, Mr. Carter appointed Paul A. Volcker chairman of the Federal Reserve, knowing he would raise interest rates to squeeze inflation out of the system. He told us that he had tried two anti-inflation czars, jawboning, voluntary wage and price guidelines, and an austere budget policy; that nothing had worked, and that he would rather lose the 1980 election than leave ingrained inflation to the next generation.
To this day, there is a myth — which Mr. Carter himself has not tried to dispute — that if only he had dispatched more helicopters, our attempt to rescue the American hostages held at our embassy in Iran would have succeeded. (Military commanders, in fact, argued that additional helicopters would have compromised the secrecy of the mission.)

For many it became a metaphor for a failed presidency. The withdrawal of Iranian oil from the world market meanwhile sent oil prices soaring, produced double-digit inflation, and left millions angrily waiting in lines at the gas pump, just as Mr. Carter sought re-election. The American public saw the entire country held hostage by a second-rate power in the agonizing 444 days that our diplomats and employees were held captive.

After almost 40 years, these failures — and all presidents suffer from them — should be weighed against this good man’s major accomplishments. Another Democratic president who left office widely unpopular, but who in the cold light of history is seen as a paragon of honesty, decisiveness and achievement is Harry S. Truman. He was an idol of Mr. Carter, who put a plaque with Truman’s slogan on his Oval Office desk: “The Buck Stops Here.” Their plain-spoken decency, integrity and courage are too often lacking among political leaders today.

Stuart E. Eizenstat was the chief White House domestic policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter and served in the State, Commerce and Treasury Departments under President Bill Clinton.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Another Drama in Harper Lee’s Hometown

By SERGE F. KOVALESKI and ALEXANDRA ALTER NY TIMES

Tonja B. Carter, the lawyer, spokeswoman and trustee of the estate of Harper Lee.

MONROEVILLE, Ala. — It’s been just over a month since the release of “Go Set a Watchman,” the long-awaited second novel from Harper Lee. The book has been the publishing sensation of the year, but the literary world has largely moved on now, focused on new releases for the fall and winter.

But in Ms. Lee’s hometown here, the effects of publishing “Watchman” linger, like debris from a departing county fair. Even as life returns to its slow rhythms, many residents are adjusting to a new order of things when it comes to Ms. Lee, one firmly under the direction of Tonja B. Carter.

Ms. Carter is Ms. Lee’s lawyer, and over the last several years she has consolidated an unusual amount of control over the author’s affairs. In recent months she has extended her reach, sometimes to the most minute of details.
About seven weeks ago, for instance, on the day of a luncheon here to celebrate the imminent publication of “Watchman,” Ms. Carter learned about a recipe book, “To Fill a Mockingbird,” being sold by the small museum inside the old courthouse at the center of town. The courthouse had been the fictional setting for Ms. Lee’s 1960 classic, “To Kill a Mockingbird.”
Two years earlier, Ms. Lee had sued the museum for selling too many items that used her “Mockingbird” trademark. Ms. Carter thought the cookbook violated the settlement in that case.
So she complained to Greg Norris, a Monroe County probate judge and one of the most powerful officials in the county. That afternoon, Judge Norris went to the museum, collected all 282 copies in a cart and wheeled them over to her law office.
“I don’t want any more litigation,” Judge Norris, the president of the Monroe County Commission, later explained. “So, let’s remove them just in case.”

In ways big and small, Ms. Carter, 50, is shaping the legacy of one of the country’s most revered authors.

She is Ms. Lee’s lawyer, spokeswoman and the trustee of her estate. She holds power of attorney over Ms. Lee, who is 89 and infirm, and she has had a role in a trust that the author established around 2011. She says she is the one who rediscovered the long forgotten manuscript for “Watchman” and negotiated the deal with HarperCollins for publication rights. And lately, she’s taken the reins of a nonprofit organization that Ms. Lee created, and she gained control of the play based on “Mockingbird” that is performed each spring inside the courthouse.

“This level of involvement is highly unusual,” said Sallie Randolph, a lawyer who represents authors.
Ms. Carter’s control of Ms. Lee’s affairs has become a polarizing issue that hangs over this town of about 6,300 residents. Praised by some as the dutiful protector of an aging friend, she is derided by others as a spiteful person who wields too much influence over a vulnerable client.

Critics accuse her of pushing Ms. Lee, known as Nelle, into publishing “Watchman.” They believe she encouraged Ms. Lee to sue the museum. They chafe at the dwindling guest list she maintains that designates who gets in to see Ms. Lee at the assisted living facility here. They suspect she had some role in the county commission’s decision this year to fire the Monroe County Heritage Museum’s executive director, who had a tense relationship with Ms. Carter.

“I just find Tonja abrasive and frightening, unnecessarily so,” said Kathryn Taylor, who was on the board of the museum from 2008 until last year. “Tonja is a rupture with the past, when Alice and Nelle would handle things differently,” Ms. Taylor said, referring to Ms. Lee’s older sister.

Others defend her actions, and her motivations.

“There has been a lot of talk around Monroeville that maligned Tonja, that Tonja was some kind of Machiavellian figure in charge of an elderly and infirm author who was being manipulated,” said Connie Baggett, a friend of Ms. Carter’s. “It did damage to her business and damaged her reputation in town. But all Tonja has done is try to defend the interests of Nelle Harper Lee.”

Ms. Carter’s restaurant, the Prop and Gavel, which she owns with her husband, Patrick, was shut down for a year in the midst of an informal boycott by residents upset that the museum was being sued. The restaurant, which said it closed because of renovations in the building next door, recently reopened.

Pete Black, who managed a local pulp mill and is a close friend of the Carters, lamented the rancor that has accompanied Monroeville’s moment in the spotlight. “I don’t remember anything of this magnitude, anything so divisive, happening in this town,” he said “It’s a shame. It has painted to the outside world that this is a divided, mean little town when it is not.”

Ms. Carter did not respond to questions or a request for an interview. State investigators have reviewed whether Ms. Lee was pressured into publishing “Watchman,” and decided she was not.

Ms. Carter’s ties to the Lee family stretch back 30 years. Raised in Ohio, she moved as a teenager to Alabama, where her father found work at a pulp mill.
In the mid-1980s she was hired as a secretary at the law firm where Alice Lee worked. Alice became her mentor, encouraging her to attend law school at the University of Alabama. Ms. Carter graduated in 2006 and shortly afterward was made a partner at what is now Barnett, Bugg, Lee & Carter.

As Alice’s health declined — she died last year at 103 — Ms. Carter assumed more responsibility for the firm and for Harper Lee.

It was in her role as Ms. Lee’s lawyer that Ms. Carter said she came upon the “Watchman” manuscript while rummaging through Ms. Lee’s bank safe deposit box last August. There is a conflicting account that the manuscript might have been found years earlier by an appraiser for Sotheby’s. Ms. Carter has disputed that version of events.

She has acknowledged, though, that she has never prepared a detailed inventory of Ms. Lee’s archives. Some scholars were stunned by Ms. Carter’s statement last month in The Wall Street Journal that it wasn’t until this July, in at least her third trip to the safe deposit box, that she had located the original “Mockingbird” manuscript, a document likely worth more than $1 million. During that same visit, she said, she found pages of what could be a third novel by Ms. Lee.

“I don’t think that her literary estate is being professionally managed very well,” said Charles J. Shields, the author of “Mockingbird: A Portrait of Harper Lee.”

It is unclear how much money Ms. Carter earns working for Ms. Lee or in her wider capacity as a lawyer who has focused on estate and family law, and has handled some cases in other areas. Some lawyers who act as literary agents receive a 15 percent commission on a book’s advance.

Ms. Carter can now rely on an outside consultant to help her navigate the many media and business matters she faces. Steven Hofman, whose client list has included Citicorp and The Washington Post, was hired to represent Ms. Lee around the time “Watchman” was released.

In Monroeville, Ms. Carter’s frayed relationship with the museum has caused the most commotion. The 2013 lawsuit against the museum even drew the attention of Alabama Gov. Robert J. Bentley at one point, according to George Landegger, 78, an industrialist, philanthropist and friend of Patrick Carter, who has worked as Mr. Landegger’s pilot.

Mr. Landegger, who pleaded guilty this year to hiding money in Swiss bank accounts and was sentenced to two months in prison, said in an interview that he had been asked by the governor to broker a settlement to the dispute. “Everybody was asking me, ‘What the hell is going on in Monroeville?’ “ said Mr. Landegger, who is trying to spur investment in the region.

Mr. Landegger said he told the museum board to stand down in the fight. “I told them that you have pulled the tiger’s tail,” he said. The settlement was reached last year.

As part of the terms, an accounting firm can audit the gift shop to see if Ms. Lee is receiving the correct percentage of profits from items like T-shirts and mugs. Judge Norris, who carted away the cookbooks — he first said there were only 53, but the invoice lists 282 — said it was not clear how the museum would be reimbursed for the books.

The museum now faces a different threat. Dramatic Publishing, which licenses production rights for the “Mockingbird” play, did not renew the museum’s license to perform it. The museum, using a cast of volunteers, has staged the play for 26 years.

Dramatic Publishing licensed the production instead to a new nonprofit, Mockingbird Company, that Ms. Lee created this spring. She is the nonprofit’s president and director, and Ms. Carter is the vice president.

The play will still be performed at the museum, to which the nonprofit plans to pay rent. But the rest of the ticket revenue is supposed to go to the nonprofit for charitable distribution to Alabama communities. The museum had derived about half of its operating revenue from the play.

“I don’t see how it is going to make it,” said Francine Grider, the museum’s former bookkeeper.

Ms. Grider resigned in protest last month after the county commission fired the museum’s executive director, Stephanie Rogers. Both Ms. Rogers and Ms. Grider said they were each told that Ms. Carter’s husband, who joined the museum board a few months ago, had lobbied for Ms. Rogers’s resignation.

Judge Norris, who appointed Mr. Carter to the board, said Ms. Carter had never asked him to fire Ms. Rogers. “I never heard that from her mouth,” he said.

Jennifer Crossley Howard contributed reporting from Monroeville, Ala., and Susan Beachy and Alain Delaquérière provided research from New York.

Rosewood