Whose Life Is It? By George McGovern WASHINGTON reedom of choice in our everyday lives is a treasured right in America. That free- dom should, of course, 7 be balanced with a sense of responsibility for our per- sonal well-being and that of others. Two high-profile lawsuits that hinged on the issue of choice were decided in early May. In the first case, a Florida jury decided that the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company did not have to pay damages to the fam- ily of Jean Connor, who died of lung cancer at 49 after smoking for 34 years._A day later, a North Carolina man, Thomas Richard Jones, was given a life sentence for killing two people while driving under the influ- ence of alcohol and drugs. Mrs- Connor chose to smoke. Mil- lions of Americans have quit smok- ing, and Mrs. Connor admitted in a videotape made during the last stages of her illness that she could have quit puffing had she cared enough. I know too well the ravages of alcoholism, having lost my daughter to her addiction. But I also know that people are able to make choices. In the case of Mr. Jones, he was aware of the lethal effect of combining pre- scription drugs with alcohol. One can argue that as an alcoholic, Mr. Jones had a disease and therefore had no choice but to drink. But he had the choice to ?take public or other trans- portation. Instead he decided to drive while drunk, and now has to accept the consequences. Despite the death of my daughter, I still appreciate the differences be- tween use and abuse. I still enjoy a glass of wine with friends. I also would not have denied Mrs. Connor her cigarettes. Nor do I condemn the current trend in cigars. As the former owner of a Connecticut inn, I always allowed my adult guests wide latitude in their habits. Scotch was available at dinner, and there were convenient designated areas for smokers. Today, however, there are those who would deny others the choice to eat meat, wear fur, drink coffee or simply eat extra-large portions of food, to give a few examples. Wearing George McGovern, the Democratic nominee for President in 1972, is the author of ?Terry: My Daughter?s Life-and?Death Struggle with Alco- holism." perfume in public raises the ire of certain organized interest groups. While on any day each of us may identify with the restrictive nature of a given campaign, there is a much larger issue here. Where do we draw the line on dictating to each other? How many of these battles can we stand? Whose values should prevail? Life in America has remained rel- atively peaceful compared with that in other societies. But we are becom- ing less tolerant and more mean- spirited in everyday social interac- tions. We have become less forgiv- ing. Suing institutions as well as each other for perceived harms has be- come a ruinous sport. It was reported in June that a 61? year?old man, Norman Mayo, is su- ing Safeway and the Washington State dairy industry for failing to warn about the dangers of drinking The new paternalism threatens our freedom to make our own choices. whole milk. A self-described ?milk- aholic,? Mr. Mayo wants warning labels on all milk cartons to protect others. Where does this end? Some issues, like the proper treat- ment of animals, deserve public de? bate. But that doesn?t mean activists should assault peOple who wear furs, destroy animal research laborato- ries or firebomb restaurants that serve meat. These actions transform differences of opinion into dangerous intolerance and intimidation. On other issues, like gambling, the messages can be confusing. Is casino gambling a moralistic issue when state lotteries and horse racing are socially acceptable? Is the stock market different, or is it just a hard- er game to understand? New attempts to regulate behavior are coming from both the right and the left, depending only on the cause. But there are those of us who don't want the tyranny of the majority (or the outspoken minority) to stop us from leading our lives in ways that have little impact on others. While the choices we make may be foolish or self-destructive bungee THE NEW YORK TIMES OP-ED THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 1997 jumping is my favorite example of insanity there is still the overrid- ing principle that we cannot allow the micromanaging of each other?s lives. When is the thrill too risky? How many drinks are too many? When is secondhand smoke too thick? All of these questions need to be considered with some measure of tolerance for the choices of others. We are witnessing a new age in this country: the fragmentation of society along lines that do not break on typical demographics like race, Clinton?s Great and Timid Step By Dan Coats WASHINGTON resident Clinton?s use of the line item veto this week was a timid act of great importance. The cuts themselves two tax breaks and a spe- cial Medicaid provision for New York were on the margin of a margin, about 0.002 percent of the total budget. But they were sufficient to clarify an important principle. This principle concerns the often misunderstood constitutional bal- ance of power between the legisla- tive and executive branches on budg- etary matters. The President has the line item veto because Congress was shamed last year into renouncing a power it had grabbed and clearly abused. It used to be that a President could simply refuse to write checks for spending approved by Congress; the precedent for such action, known as impoundment, goes as far back as Thomas Jefferson. But in 1974 Con- gress made impoundment illegal and required the President to accept or reject appropriation bills in full. The Dan Coats is a Republican Senator from Indiana. The line item veto controls Congress. result was an outbreak of bipartisan self-indulgence (mollusk research, pointless museums and the like), which made even those who benefit- ed from it feel guilty. The line item veto is a stripped- down version of impoundment. It al- lows the President to cut specific items from the budget, yet permits Congress to reinstate them by a two? thirds vote. It is not, as some critics contend, a violation of constitutional principle. It is the redress of an im? balance in power that had been cre- ated, enjoyed and misused by Con? gress. President Clinton?s use of the line item veto will provide an impor- tant test case for the Supreme Court. Could a petty President abuse this authority, holding the pet project of some member of Congress hostage to gain agreement on another issue? Well, yes. Could a bitter President use the veto over and over again to wage war against a Congressional agenda? I suppose. But these scenar- ios exaggerate the influence of the line item veto an influence that is substantial, but not revolutionary. Even with the line item veto, Con- gress remains the lead player in the budget process. A President who wants particular legislation passed cannot risk angering Congress by repeatedly using this power as a weapon. Senator John McCain of Ari- zona and I designed the line item veto law so that there is every incen- tive for a President to use it judi- ciously, in only the most egregious cases of excess. If a President, whatever his mo- tives, eliminates some foolish budget item or tax policy that two-thirds of Congress cannot justify, good rid- dance. If the President is being arbi- trary or punitive, Congress can man- age quite well, thank you as it did for 198 years under the stronger threat of impoundment. I would prefer the line item veto in the hands of a Republican President, but it would be unprincipled to op- pose it in the hands of a Democratic one. So it falls to conservatives who championed this measure for many years to defend President Clinton. Some Republican leaders may ob- ject that the fine print on their budg- et agreement with the President has been smudgcd. But the line item veto Ronald Reagan's chief budgetary priority is a more substantive development than the oversold budg? et deal they have been promoting. Cl Vindication, Not Vengeance By Olivia Goldsmith or a domestic dispute. the ?alienation of af- fection" case of Doro- thy l?lutelmyer vs. Margie Cox l-lutel- myer has attracted a lot of national attention. But this is not a story of greed or vengeance, as the press would have it. It?s about the need for vindication. As almost everyone now knows, a jury in North Carolina ordered the second Mrs. Hutelmyer Margie to pay the first Mrs. Hutelmyer Dorothy $1 million for stealing away her husband. Do you think she's going to get $1 million?? Margie Hutelmyer said af- ter the jury's judgment. own no property. I have no savings.? She just doesn?t get it. The lawsuit was not about money. Nor was it Dorothy Hutelmyer's aim to blame Olivia Goldsmith is the author or ?The First Wives Club" and ?The Bestseller." I A lawsuit defends first Wives everywhere. ?the other woman? for her ex-hus- band?s behavior. The lawsuit was about honor and loyalty; it was about the marriage contract. The lawsuit was simply a way for the first Mrs. Hutelmyer to send a message: What happened to her was neither fair nor appropriate. In our society, it is difficult to get anyone to admit to anything. Margie Hutelmyer appears to feel no respon- sibility. In fact, she blames the first Mrs. Hutelmyer for the whole mess. ?Until she can acknowledge that she shares in the responsibility in the breakdown of that marriage,? Margie Hutelmyer said, "she can never get on with her life." Thank you. Dr. Ruth. But we are not talking about a failed marriage where two people agree they are growing apart and decide to separate. We're talking about betrayal and deception. Joseph Hutelmyer and Margie Hutelmyer have admitted they had an affair while he was married. He is respon- sible for his actions, certainly, but isn't she also culpable? The disastrous changes in divorce laws over the last two decades have not only failed to protect many wives financially, but also given them no emotional succor. Since the antiquat- ed ?alienation of affection" law is still on the books in the state where she lives, why shouldn't Dorothy Hu- telmyer press her case in the courts? The decision is not a victory for conservative family values, as some politicians have said. It's not even a practical solution for most women in her situation. After all, only 12 states still have the ?alienation of affec- tion" law on the books. The jury?s decision is a vindica- tion. What the resourceful Dorothy Hutelmyer did was ask a jury of her peers if her anger was justified. ln less than three hours they came in with a decision supporting her. What's wrong with that? Cl I a rm' attirm a: Paul Corio age or income. These new divisions are based on paternalism what we believe is best for each other. The beauty of choice is that it al- lows some people to drive a high- pOWered car to dinner, allows others to have a drink with dinner and allows a cigarette to be smoked after dinner. In all cases, we require individuals to make certain their behavior does not have an impact on others. To the degree that it does, they will be held responsible for their choices. But when we no longer allow those choices, both civility and common sense will have been diminished. El 3+ A351: In America BOB HERBERT One More Police Vic At what point will Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Police Commissioner Howard Safir decide that things have gone too far, that it is time to put a stop to the barbaric behavior of so many New York City police officers? The latest outrage occurred early Saturday morning in the 70th Pre- cinct station house in Brooklyn. At least two uniformed officers are said to have tortured and humiliated a man named Abner Louima by yank- ing down his trousers and driving the wooden handle of a toilet plunger so far into his rectum it punctured his small intestine and damaged his bladder. The filthy handle was then driven into Mr. Louima?s mouth with enough force to break his teeth. One officer, Justin Volpe, was ar- rested last night and charged with assault and aggravated sexual abuse. Lawyers for Mr. Louima, who is Haitian, said the cops called him a nigger and shouted other slurs while they abused him. And they said the officers threatened to kill him if he filed a complaint. Mayor Giuliani professed to be shocked by the attack. Perhaps he was. But the only thing shocking to most close observers of the Police Department was the grotesque psy- chosexual nature of the assault. The fact that police officers would brutal- ize a civilian is not shocking at all. Many other attacks by police officers in recent years have been more vio- lent, including several that have been fatal. These include: The killing of Nathaniel Gaines a 25-year-old Navy veteran, on a Bronx subway platform in July 1996. Mr. Gaines was shot in the back by Police Officer Paolo Colecchia, who was convicted last month of man- slaughter. . The killing of Anthony Baez, who was locked in an illegal choke hold by Officer Francis X. Livoti after a dis- pute erupted over a touch football game. Mr. Livoti was dismissed from the police force but was acquit- ted of criminal charges. 0 The killing of Charles C. Camp- bell, who was beaten and shot in a Dobbs Ferry parking lot by an off- duty New York City police officer who didn?t like where Mr. Campbell had parked. The officer, Richard D. DiGuglielmo, has been charged with second-degree murder. 0 The near-fatal attack on Lebert Folkes, a 29-year-old Queens man who was dragged from his sister's car by police officers and shot in the face at point-blank range. The cops When facts ?4 said they thought the car was stol?'rl. It was not. The next day police offi- cials apologized for the shooting. There are many, many cases of savage abuse of civilians by police officers. Seldom are the officers charged with a crime and in most cases they are not even disciplined. Thousands upon thousands of law- suits alleging police brutality are filed against the city and millions of dol- lars each year are paid to settle such Will Giuliani ever rein in the cops?? gas! suits. But little is done to prevent these hideous miscarriages from oc- . curring. Only in the most extreme cases will the public hear critiCal comments from the Mayor or Police Commissioner about the behavior? of the police. And the vast majority of the cases are ignored by the media?.? The message that is picked up by? the average police officer is clear:- Brutal behavior will be tolerated. if not encouraged. That is an affront to, the majority of officers who do their jobs legally, courageously and well. More important, it undermines the]. 1 faith of New Yorkers in the Police: Department as a whole. Most impor- tant, this tendency to give a wink and a nod to most instances of brutality' results in the grievous harm and . sometimes the death of human be~ ings who have done nothing to war. rant such vicious treatment. A great deal is being made of .the. . fact that Mayor Giuliani has not rushed to the defense of the officer?s, accused of attacking Mr. Louima. His usual inclination is to support th?ef police no matter what, and whenever possible to draw an impenetrable curtain between evidence of police misconduct and the curious eyesgof.? the public. . . Maybe this case is sensational enough to result in a sustained and honest look by the Mayor and the Commissioner at the extent of police brutality in the city. They could stop a great deal of it, thus saving lives. Denunciations after the fact are not enough. Cops who cannot or will not control their violent impulses are kin-o: a menace. And so are public officials who have the power to do something? about those officers, but choose not to. [3 don?t square with the theory, throw out the facts That seems to Characterize the admin? istration's attitude on two of its own studies which show that international efforts to curb global warming could spark a big run?up in energy prices. For months, the administration?playing its cards close to the vest??has promised to provide details of the emission reduction plan it will put on the table at the climate change meeting in Kyoto, Japan, later this year. It also promised to evaluate the economics of that policy and measure its impact. Those results are important because the proposals submitted by other countries thus far would be disruptive and costly to the US. economy. Yet, when the results from its own eco- nomic models were ?nally generated, the admin? istration started distancing itself from the findings and models that produced them. The administra- tion?s top economic advisor said that economic models can't provide a ?de?nitive answer" on the impact of controlling emissions. The effort. she said, was "futile." At best. the models can only provide a ?range of potential impacts." Frankly, we're puzzled. The White House has promised to lay the economic facts before the public. Yet, the administration's top advisor said such an analysis won't be based on models and it will ?preclude. . .detailed numbers.? If you don't provide numbers and don 't rely on models. what kind of rigorous economic examination can Congress and the public expect? We're also puzzled by ambivalence over models. The administration downplays the utility of economic models to forecast cost impacts 10?15 years from now. yet its negotiators accept as gospel the 50?100?year predictions of global warming that have been generated by climate models?many of which have been criticized as seriously flawed. The second study. conducted by Argonne National Laboratory under a contract with the Energy Department, examined what would happen if the US. had to commit to higher energy prices under the emission reduction plans that several nations had advanced last year. Such increases. the report concluded, would result in "significant reductions in output and employment" in six industries~aluminum. cement. chemical, paper and pulp, petroleum re?ning and steel. Hit hardest, the study noted, would be the chemical industry, with estimates that up to 30 percent of US. chemical manufacturing capacity would move offshore to developing countries. - Job losses could amount to some 200,000 in that industry, with another 100,000 in the steel sector. And despite the substantial loss of U.S. jobs and manufacturing capacity, the net emis- sion reduction could be insignificant since de- veloping countries will not be bound by the emission targets of a global warming treaty. Downplaying Argonne's findings, the? Energy Department noted that the study used outdated energy prices (mid-1996), didn?t reflect the gains that would come from international emissions trading and failed to factor in the benefits of accelerated deveIOpments in energy efficiency and low?carbon technologies. What it failed to mention is just what these new technologies are and when we can expect their benefits to kick in. As for emissions trading, many economists have theorized about the role they could play in reducing emissions. but few have grappled with the practicality of implement- ing and policing such a scheme. We applaud the goals the U8. wants to achieve in these upcoming negotiations?namely, that a final agreement must be "flexible. cost- effective, realistic, achievable and ultimately global in scope." Eb; until we see the details of the administration's policy. we are concerned that plans are being developed in the absence of rigorous economic analysis. Too much is at stake to simply ignore facts that don?t square with preconceived theories. . . The energy Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to make a difference, GIQQT Mobil Corporation not"