Month: September 2010

by Patrick Appel

Researchers at Dartmouth College have created a phone that picks up on EEG signals.  Nick Carr reacts:

I've always thought that the big problem with existing realtime social networking systems, such as Facebook and Twitter, is that they require active and deliberate participation on the part of individual human nodes (or "beings") – ie, typing out messages on keypads or other input devices – which not only introduces systemic delays incompatible with true realtime communication but also entails the possibility of the subjective distortion of status updates. NeuroPhones promise, by obviating the need for conscious human agency in the processing and transmission of updates, to bring us much closer to fulfilling the true realtime ideal, opening up enormous new opportunities not only in "human behavior modeling" but also in marketing.

Today on the Dish, we eyed Iowa for Palin; even the Vanity Fair writer who liked her couldn't believe how much she lied; and on top of all that, she ruined Alaska's quirkiness for the rest of the state. Chris drew on the Glenn Beck-Howard Beale connection; and the Tea Party defense and dissent of the day is here.

Yossi Klein Halevi asked Imam Rauf to modify the mosque, not move it. Israeli-Palestinian talks, amazingly, continued; and nation-building in Iraq, unsuprisingly, didn't work that well. We compared what worked in Haiti versus what hasn't in Pakistan; heard China's opinion on Iraq; and tracked deaths by drones. Sweatshops might not be as bad as we think but American Taliban still seemed to rub most the wrong way.

Savage savaged Democrats for not doing anything on gay rights; and Mazzone got impatient for a DADT repeal. Hitchens shut down his detractors; Sabato placed bets for November; and there's an ode to E.D. Kain and reformers on the right here. Conor called for less federal government under an overburdened presidency; we graded teachers' grades; and outed the flaws of an imperfect meritocracy.

We got the Dish from an indologist, a businessman, a scientist, and a Y2K programmer; is it me or does this sound like an awesome remake of the Breakfast Club? Cannibis went commercial; McWhorter advocated for the end of the war on drugs; and panhandlers sometimes buy booze and other times just deoderant. VFYW here; Yglesias award here; FOTD here; and MHB here. Twitter pwned old media on the Discovery gunman; we learned about "real" Americans; and we got the spectrum of romances both big and small from Dish readers on engagements. Jan Brewer was as bad as a BBC satire of a politician and this internet star sold out for a pot of gold at the end of his double rainbows.

–Z.P.

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Twitter was an invaluable resource during yesterday's hostage crisis at 1 Discovery Place.  We in the building, and our co-workers all around (it began during the lunch hour) as well as our co-workers worldwide were communicating by text, tweet, and e-mail.  And after the evacuation, I relied on Twitter as much as our local news media did, in order to watch the conclusion of the event.

But not all tweeted facts are real facts.  The photo you reprinted is not the gunman, but rather a plainclothes officer, one of the very first to respond to the scene.  I watched him approaching the lobby from my floor, where many of us watched his approach, as well as the approach of many other uniformed and plainclothes officers, from our windows.  By the time this photo was taken (the officer with the rifle is shown walking along the long leg of the "L" that is the building; the lobby where the incident took place is on the end of the short leg), the gunman was already stuck in the lobby.

Please feel free to post my comments, but leave my name off (I'm including it only so you know that I'm for real); we are not authorized to talk to any media outlet, including blogs.

The photo I reprinted was taken from the embedded link in the WaPo piece, which reads:

Within minutes, there were photos, including an astonishing one of a man clad in shorts, carrying a rifle and stalking through what looked like an office courtyard.

No other information was provided about the identity of the man, and the context surrounding the sentence suggested that he was the gunman. But clearly he wasn't, based on our reader's firsthand account. In fact, the caption supplied by the linked-to source reads, "pic my colleague sent of the discovery discovery gunman." So the photo came from a secondhand source to begin with.

Sounds like another win for the blogosphere over the mainstream press. And particularly ironic given the WaPo's closing paragraph:

But as rich as Wednesday's Twitter feed was, it was merely a starting point for reporters. "The initial information may have come to us through these tools, but we have to apply the old-media skills of vetting and serving as a filter" for what's accurate, said Allan Horlick, president and general manager of WUSA-TV. "We can't let raw info to go out over air. The front end is new, but we still have to do our work on the back end."

by Chris Bodenner

A reader writes:

Repeal of DADT is the keystone in the arch towards homosexual equality in America. The country is fragmented and polarized: politically, economically, socially, and culturally.  The pillar we have left for "One America" are the service men and women in the US armed forces.  This is not new.  This is not a surprise. 

We, Americans, are overwhelmingly unified in support of our service men and women.  Again and again, they are held up as an example for the rest of us.  As an example of what we can be if we act as one.  When a D-Day veteran stretcher-bearer in Maine argues for equality for his son, we see he is right, even if the politicians and courts do not.  When Obama defends the right to build a mosque, he does so by saying he was speaking to an audience that included muslim veterans who had served for years – and we know he is right.  Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin hold a rally to honor our service men and women. 

Women, Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Japanese Americans all served gallantly in WWII.  Although their service was not immediately translated into equality and freedom at home, it planted the undeniable and unstoppable seed.  The tree upon which the fruit of freedom and equality ripened.

Right or wrong, fair or not, in the era of Vietnam we lost the pillar that service men and women once were.  Since 9/11, we Americans have re-built this pillar.  This is very fortunate, because so many other pillars have crumbled. 

When we say "service men and women," we mean service for our equality and freedom.  It is not only on the battlefield.  It has been, and will continue to be, serving as an example of what equality, liberty and freedom can mean, and what potential America has to be a great nation.  When homosexuals serve openly in the armed forces there will be only one direction for the rest of America to go.  We will follow their lead.

The photo was taken by my father in 1972, when he was a recon platoon leader in Vietnam. Of the three men in the photo, two were his dual pointmen, two were gay, and one was a super-conservative country boy from Georgia (as were the majority of the men in the platoon). Go here to find out who is who. You may be surprised.

by Patrick Appel

After Obama's Iraq speech, David Brooks wrote a column titled, "Nation Building Works." Joel Wing begs to differ:

There are several problems with Brooks’ argument. First, the Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction considers the rebuilding of Iraq a failure. The Bush administration did not adequately plan, nor coordinate its post-war program. The lack of security undermined the entire effort causing huge cost overruns, the abandonment of some projects, and led to a huge transfer of funds to building the country’s security forces rather than the economy and services. Iraqis were also rarely consulted, bad contracts and mismanagement led to huge amounts of waste, and there was a lack of unity of command and coordination between the different U.S. agencies involved. Its hard for Brooks to say that Iraq is a success if the main U.S. agency tasked with reviewing the reconstruction of the country does not feel that it worked.

Second, as Brooks himself writes, all of Iraq’s economic growth is based upon oil.

Petroleum accounts for 70% of the GDP, but only 1-2% of the workforce. It provides 90% of the government’s revenue, but Baghdad doesn’t have the capacity to invest most of that money into infrastructure. The growth in the economy is also largely due to oil prices recovering from the world recession rather than any increase in production or exports. Iraq, like many oil dependent countries, has huge natural wealth that simply does not trickle down to the average citizen, so numbers on economic growth, etc. are misleading. Third, Brooks’ selection of topics for living standards is a bit odd, but is caused by his reliance upon the Iraq Index that does not really cover humanitarian issues well. While telephone land lines are obviously important, cell phone and internet access seem to be an indicator of consumer spending more than anything else. If Brooks had taken the time to consult the United Nations he would’ve found that Iraq is towards the bottom of the region in many humanitarian categories such as literacy, infant mortality, and maternal deaths. Its education system has fallen apart, and it has high poverty rates, and youth unemployment. That makes Iraq a rather typical Third World nation.

by Conor Friedersdorf

A reader writes:

I work for one of the world's largest multinationals, in a position that makes my job description basically "business" – I work on issues touching finance, marketing, logistics, etc. I am also someone who spent most of their working life outside of the business world. So I would like to give some examples of things about business that I have found surprising.

1. Business is much more about being organized and managing people than it is about ideas. Past a certain scale, ideas don't seem to matter much (unless you are a once-in-a-lifetime Steve Jobs type visionary). You and your competitors all have a basic concept of what to do. The areas that seem to offer the most scope for creativity are actually the areas where not enough data exists to formulate good ideas, and random guesses are worth as much as multi-million-dollar consultant reports. Much of the time spent discussing "ideas" in a business context is actually time spent slowly maneuvering large groups of managers into a compatible mind-space so that they can work together effectively – the results of the discussion in terms of ideas is worth nothing, whereas the result in terms of bonding, organizing, and motivating can be very valuable.

2. There are two pay shockers in business: the pay of middle managers and the pay of CEOs. Everyone talks about CEOs so I'll talk about middle managers – people who often have graduate degrees, who have some staff, who are smart and capable but do not have the rare and usually unhealthy levels of motivation it takes to make a run at senior office in a large business. These people make a TON of money. For me, your level of compensation should be commensurate with how badly you have to warp your life to achieve said level. Senior execs are like the immigrant laborers cited in some arguments as "doing the jobs Americans won't do". Senior execs (and mid-level workers in high-compensation industries such as consulting (finance is another kettle of fish and not something I know enough about to comment on)) do things most people would never want to do – they often sacrifice family, a well-balanced intellectual life, and so on, on the altar of career. And I have no problem with their pay (below the stupid levels that CEO-level pay often reaches); although I would prefer higher taxes to balance the effects of that pay. To return to middle managers however, these are people who typically have the same life-style as, say, teachers. Same rough hours, same rough level of necessary effort at the average level of performance. But they make much, much more money (and you can't just look at salary – perks of various kinds – at least in my office – often at least double on-paper salary). I didn't realize how big the disparity was until I went into business, and it still surprises me.

3. Business is fascinating at the organizational and logistical level. I'm more interested in books and music than I am in business. But that is just my personal preference. People who act as if their interest in, say, indie rock is intrinsically more deep than an interest in org charts are simply misinformed. Referencing point 1, the world of abstract ideas in business is often arid, silly, and pretentious while at the same time overly cutesy. But the world of how things get done in business – the world of factory floors, imports/exports, incentives, distributors and retailers etc. is mind-blowing, and only becoming more so as more and more markets are knit together. If you go to Dubai you can see Nigerians selling generators made in China to a mix of Urdu and Persian speakers who captain wooden boats down the Dubai Creek to Al Ain. That is interesting, no matter what your leaning.

by Chris Bodenner

A Dish reader compares Jan Brewer's debate meltdown to this scene from "The Thick Of It":

by Patrick Appel

Yglesias's understanding of American Taliban mirrors mine and Conor's:

This stuff doesn’t win votes anyone because, after all, it’s a form of preaching to the choir. Which is fine—the choir needs some sermons. But there’s no real upside in lying to the choir. Political movements need to adapt to the actual situation, and that means having an accurate understanding of your foes. You need to see them as they actually are so that you know the right way to respond. Either underestimating or overestimating their level of viciousness and evil can lead to serious miscalculations. Which is just to say that getting this stuff right is more important than coming up with funny put-downs.

Ta-Nehisi's view:

As is often the case, with arguments that lead with analogy, the point isn't to clarify anything, it's to turn heads. Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not think you claim that Glenn Beck is the white Malcolm X because you think it's a particularly astute analysis; you do it because it will get you on the Atlantic Wire. I don't believe you claim that the American right's tactics are "almost indistinguishable" from the Taliban because you think it's adroit and original. You do it to elbow your way up the best-seller list.

That's fine–it's an accepted strategy. But speaking only for me, if your committment is to making me look, as opposed to making me think, expect that I will only look once. Everything you say afterward is compromised in my eyes.

by Conor Friedersdorf A reader writes:

Science is one of the most misunderstood professions in America.  There are several reasons for this:

1. No one really understands the science itself.  Science is hard and unless someone is a dedicated science enthusiast (nerd), they're not going to take the time to understand the subtleties of emerging scientific discoveries. This leads to a lot of sketchy reporting on science by the media (see my favorite comic on this topic) and complete misinterpretation by a large part of society.

2. Science is not a serious focus in American public schools.  Since it's hard to test science on standardized tests, it's not tested. Since "No Child Left Behind," the focus on standardized test results has left serious scientific education in the dust.  Moreover, serious scientific education is time consuming and difficult.  It requires giving students freedom to test theories, play with experiments, use critical thinking skills that are difficult to both teach and develop, and is often expensive.

3. No one knows how scientific research is done.  We don't really use the scientific method you learned in 7th grade science (if you learned it at all…).  You think a topic is interesting/problematic/could cure cancer/is generally cool, you do a literature search to see if other people have had the same thoughts and then you design an experiment/model/equation/computer program to test it out.  Next comes some stabbing around in the dark, formulation of ideas, writing of papers, peer review, and general discussion of the topic in your field. It's a messy and highly iterative process that most people don't ever get to experience.

4. No one knows who does scientific research.  There are two issues here.  First, the American media/public/zeitgeist has such a disdain for the "elites" that they don't care who does science because they must be overly-educated jackasses whose mission it is to subjugate the "average American" with their liberal policies and scientific "baloney" (see: reaction to pretty much anything climate scientists say, those guys have it rough).  Second, most of the scientific workforce is invisible.  I guess this is where I come in, I'm a 5th year PhD student at a Tier 1 research university studying fundamental fluid mechanics in Aerospace Engineering.  I'm not sure the "average American" knows what a graduate student does, how much we work, how little we get paid, but how badly we must love science (or whatever you're studying) to make it through this and come out with a PhD on the other end.  We have no crazy liberal agenda, we are some of the hardest working Americans who are the constantly running engine of scientific research.  Sure, our advisers get to go on the Today show or testify before Congress or write books, but we're the ones in the background doing the daily science, training to become professors/researchers/professionals someday.

People's eyes glaze over when my peers and I talk about what we do because we're mired in the details of scientific enterprise, but without people like us, the overly-educated "elites" who do science, the 21st Century way of life would be just a dream.  And if you don't like us and think we're a bunch of commies trying to trample on "real America," I'd like your cellphone and everything you own with Velcro back, because those were our ideas that you obviously don't appreciate.