Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1004

Hotels Are the Country Clubs For the Not Quite One Percent

Faced with the prospect of empty pools and still reeling over our saggy economy, luxury hotels have found another way to make money while avoiding cuts to their rates: by opening their pools and exercise facilities to locals who don't have quite enough money to get their way into elite country clubs but do have an extra $1,000 per month to burn.

The trend is a spin on the idea of a staycation, The Wall Street Journal's Andrea Petersen explains, as guests can fork over a lot of money to use the hotel's facilities without actually staying there. Petersen cites one Anne Leahy Jones of Menlo Park, and her "membership" at the Rosewood Sandal Hill Resort:

Ms. Jones is one of Rosewood's 75 "lifestyle members," a $1,000-a-month club for locals ($1,500 for couples) that gives them access to the hotel's gym, spa and pool, discounts on meals and drinks and other perks.

The average home in Menlo Park starts at about $1.49 million, according to Trulia, so you can understand how Jones, a 62-year-old retiree, has some money to spend (sort of?). The Rosewood Sandal Hill Resort charges about $450 a night (based on dates starting August 9), so Jones might be (?) snagging herself a pretty nice deal if she's taking full advantage of all the hotel's amenities. But it seems like Jones may be paying what's more than some people spend on rent, just because she likes being waited on: "I do have a swimming pool in my backyard, but no one comes through and offers me water and cleans my lounge chair," Jones told Peterson. 

Jones may not have Mitt Romney's kind of money—the kind that can get you a cabana boy in your backyard. But she does have more money than a lot of Americans, and she's exactly whom luxury hotels are after with their "membership" offers. "We build these beautiful pools and there will be two people in them," Peter C. Borer, the chief operating officer of Peninsula Hotels, told The Journal, which notes that Peninsula hotels have memberships at six of their branches. But instead of say, knocking down the price of a room at the Peninsula in Manhattan, which starts at $545 per night ( that is, August 9), they target people like Jones instead. 

The impetus behind these hotel memberships is obvious—hotels need money. The poor economy of the past several years hit the travel industry hard, keeping people home. That, after all, is how the "staycation" was born. And though, according to the Census's 2012 abstract, the amount spent on traveler accommodations is growing, it's not growing as rapidly as it was in the early 2000s.  Petersen, gleaning information from an expert, explains, "hotel occupancy rates and room prices have rebounded since the economic downturn, other revenues, particularly from meetings, restaurants and other services, such as spa, golf and retail, are still depressed." Which is why locals like Jones are very important—they can bolster the services that guests either can't afford or choose to neglect without diminishing the hotel's reputation. 

Not that there aren't problems with this model. Peterson describes how the Mandarin Oriental in Bangkok withdrew its gym memberships to locals after guests complained. And apparently last summer, the Four Seasons in Baltimore became a (sort of) public pool: 

Last summer, the new Four Seasons Hotel Baltimore allowed locals to use its elegant waterfront infinity pool for $75 a day ($50 for children). It was very busy and staff were overwhelmed, says general manager Julien Carralero. People "would bring five kids. They'd bring their kids and the neighbor's kids," he says. This summer, the hotel no longer offers day passes. Instead, memberships for area residents, which give access to the fitness center, spa and pool, and certain discounts, now cost $3,500 a year, plus a $1,000 enrollment fee.

Paying thousands of dollars to swim in a pool at a hotel where you aren't staying? Um, we'll skip that, thanks.

       

House Passes a Food Stamp-Free Farm Bill

By a vote of 216-208, House Republicans passed a farm bill on Thursday that splits the two traditional pieces of the legislation into separate bills, effectively leaving further discussion of food stamp funding for another day. Their move, driven by an effort to get votes from the conservative wing of the party, removes the part of the bill that usually brings legislators from more liberal or urban districts on board. Aside from the House Republican leaders who were looking to avoid further embarrassment on the subject, it's not really clear if anyone else is particularly pleased with the move, which was met with opposition from Democrats, farm groups, and even some conservatives. 

Last month, the House failed to pass a version of the farm bill after a bipartisan vote in the Senate pushed forward a measure including food stamp cuts. That failure prompted House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to scold several Republican committee chairmen for not voting for the bill — calling their votes "unacceptable" — in a meeting on Monday. Apparently, the GOP in the House couldn't agree on how much more to cut from the food stamp program: The Senate version included $4 billion in cuts over 10 years, while one House version of the bill upped those cuts to $20 billion. In order to get something passed this week, the GOP decided to drop the most politically problematic issue for their party from the bill, leaving it until later. And it looks like it worked, at least in the short term: just 11 Republicans voted against the bill, while no Democrats supported it. 

In the long term, however, the delay on food stamps could pose problems for Republican representatives: as The Atlantic Wire's Philip Bump explained, residents of GOP-heavy states are overall more likely to be enrolled in the food assistance program. And there's another sticking point for conservatives in the part of the farm bill that did pass: the bill would make make farm commodity programs permanent, something conservatives oppose because it limits their ability to reform them later.  

In any case, the House and Senate will now have to find a compromise on the new farm bill, one that, the House GOP is hoping, won't include adding back the food stamp program funding, i.e. the provision that made the original bill a bipartisan compromise in the first place. 

       

Five Best Thursday Columns

Bruce Ackerman in The New York Times on an Egyptian parliamentary government "The presidency is a winner-take-all office," the Yale law professor writes, and this "is a recipe for tyranny in places like Egypt." Framers of the new Egypt should look to the European parliamentary system, and not the United States, for their new set-up. "Even if Islamist parties won a substantial share of the vote, they would not be able to monopolize power." Finally, a sensible idea," tweets Joe Lauria, The Wall Street Journal's U.N. reporter. Tara Todras-Whitehill, a former Associated Press photographer now stationed in Cairo, notes that in future times of turmoil, this system "means a vote of no confidence instead of taking to the streets."

Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal on Obamacare and government's demise Between the delay of a major Obamacare provision, the Edward Snowden leaks, the mismanagement of the Arab Spring, and the failure to protect the Mexico-U.S. border, "important parts of the federal government are breaking down almost simultaneously," Henninger writes, particularly because legislation is getting too complex. The problem, perhaps, is that those geniuses must not be communicating with the White House very well, and Ed Rosen, a political blogger for The Washington Post, notes "how disconnected Barack Obama is from what his government is doing."

Jon Favreau in The Daily Beast on Republicans' irrational fear of Obamacare Why are conservatives like the Koch brothers now increasing their opposition to Obamacare these past few days? "Because Republicans are terrified that Obamacare could actually work," Obama's former speechwriter claims. The legislation is complicated, sure, perhaps overly so, but that doesn't discount the fact that it provides 54 million previously-uninsured Americans access to basic health care. "But today, the antigovernment zealots who have taken over the once-proud Republican Party feel they must burn our village to save it." When — not if — it does succeed, Republicans will "regret labeling it Obamacare," writes former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe, and Jon Lovett, another former Obama speechwriter (sensing a trend?), tweets to "Read this, it's good."

Tom Cotton in The Wall Street Journal on the House immigration bill or nothing The Republican congressman from Arkansas states his party's case against the Senate immigration, calling it "legalization first, enforcement later … maybe," and lays down a deadline: "If the Senate insists on the legalization-first approach, then no bill will be enacted." Washington Monthly's Ed Kilgore writes Cotton "may have laid out the path for the future today," and Washington Examiner senior writer Conn Carroll tweets "good for The Journal for printing this."

Marc Polite in Time on the racial fear mongering of anti-Zimmerman riots The Broward County calls for Trayvon Martin supporters not to riot is a form of race-mongering, and "recapitulate what this case is all about—the assumption of violence on the part of the black community, and of black men," Polite argues. The fear comes from the race riots 21 years ago after the Rodney King case, but "The black community has become more sophisticated in protesting injustice," such as the peaceful protests that pressured Zimmerman's arrest on murder charges in the first place. BuzzFeed breaking news reporter Adrian Carrasquillo tweets that Polite "assumes many aren't more invested in Trayvon" — but judging by the almost 200 comments below the story, many are.

       

A Debacle at Amherst College and the Future of the New York Public Library

The fate of the magisterial Main Branch of the New York Public Library, guarded by two lions who watch over Fifth Avenue, could be related to that of an unbuilt science center at Amherst College.

NYPL President Tony Marx – who was Amherst’s president until 2011 – is staking his reputation on an ambitious plan that will replace seven floors of cast iron stacks in the landmarked 1911 building with a fully circulating library. Meanwhile, two million research volumes will move under adjacent Bryant Park. The plan has been highly contested both for its alleged tampering with an architectural gem and what many perceive will be increased difficulty in retrieving books indispensable to scholars.

Opponents of Marx’s plan – some of whom have filed lawsuits – may find ammunition in a Boston Globe story published yesterday. It is the tale of a gleaming $245 million science center that would, presumably, make Amherst a more competitive research institution.

The problem is that, after $19 million, Amherst has abandoned the project. Apparently, poor planning had not led to a proper estimation of what it would cost to build the center partly underground. Nor had college administrators realized that construction near the student center would cause a major annoyance. Both of these factors have led current Amherst officials to determine that the project, as is, should not move forward.

The Boston Globe reports:

Amherst, [President Carolyn A. “Biddy”] Martin said, would still build a new science center, but it was going back to the drawing board to come up with a new site and a new design. “Fiscal responsibility demands that we pivot to a less difficult site,” Martin wrote to the Amherst community.

[image error]Of course, the science center disaster is not Marx’s fault. But he was the one who ultimately green-lighted the project; in a 2010 letter announcing his departure for the NYPL, Marx mentions the science center as one of his accomplishments.

The Globe says that the debacle holds “a lesson to the many other academic institutions grappling with how to build bold science facilities.” But it might also be a lesson about ambitions and the difficulty of realizing them. A lesson that the renovation plan’s detractors will surely want to stick to Marx. They could argue that the library consolidation/stack removal – which will cost $350  million – is just the Amherst science center writ large, a disaster in the making.

For all its merits – and there are many, without a doubt – Marx’s plan is tampering with one of New York’s most beloved buildings and cultural institutions. What happened in Amherst cannot be repeated on Fifth Avenue.

Images: Behnisch Architects; New York Public Library.

       

Pennsylvania's AG Might Not Even Defend Their Gay Marriage Ban in Court

Facing a lawsuit from the ACLU, it looks like Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane is going to refuse to defend the state government's ban on gay marriage. Pennsylvania, the only state in the northeast without provisions for same-sex civil unions or marriages, was one of the first states with gay marriage bans targeted by a suit in the wake of the Supreme Court's partial striking of the Defense of Marriage Act. 

If it's true, the news, reported by the Philadelphia Daily News, based on multiple anonymous sources, isn't entirely surprising. Earlier today, the AP noted that Kane, a Democrat, supports gay marriage, and that Pennsylvania law includes a provision allowing the governor's legal team to defend state law in her place, should it be more "efficient," or in the state's interest to play it that way. Pennsylvania governor Tom Corbett opposes gay marriage, so it's unlikely that he'd decline to defend the law as well. The complaint, filed late Tuesday, names both Corbett and Kane as defendants. Kane is scheduled to speak to reporters on Thursday afternoon, when, apparently, she'll announce her decision regarding the suit. 

Currently, state law defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and bars recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. Like many of the other suits filed in the Windsor decision's wake, the ACLU suit, representing 10 couples and one widow, argues against state law restrictions on same-sex marriage by citing due process and equal protection law. The complaint reads: 

"Neither tradition nor moral disapproval of same-sex relationships or marriage for lesbian and gay couples is a legitimate basis for unequal treatment of same-sex couples under the law." 

The suit asks for two things: first, for the state to recognize gay marriages from other states. And second, to allow gay couples to marry in Pennsylvania. We ranked Pennsylvania the eighth most likely state to legalize gay marriage in the wake of the DOMA decision. Polling in the state indicates that a slight majority of residents favor legalization. 

       

The Washington Post (Finally) Corrects Their Error-Riddled Snowden Column

Even Walter Pincus, the author of a controversial column posted to the Washington Post on Monday, acknowledged that there was at least one factual error in his attempt to connect Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald to Wikileaks as collaborating schemers in the series of leaks on NSA data collection from Edward Snowden. But even after that acknowledgement, which was limited to a clarification on where an article of Greenwald's was originally posted, it took hours for the Post to get the correction up on their piece. On Wednesday night, that correction finally appeared: 

CORRECTION: This Fine Print column (also published in the July 9 A-section print edition of The Washington Post) incorrectly said that an article by journalist Glenn Greenwald was written for the WikiLeaks Press blog. The article, about filmmaker Laura Poitras and WikiLeaks being targeted by U.S. officials, was written for the online publication Salon and first appeared April 8, 2012. Its appearance on the WikiLeaks Press blog two days later was a reposting.

The Fine Print column also asserted that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, during a May 29 interview with Democracy Now, “previewed” the story that Greenwald wrote for the Guardian newspaper about the Obama administration’s involvement in the collection of Americans’ phone records. There is no evidence that Assange had advance knowledge of the story; the assertion was based on a previously published interview in which Assange discussed an earlier surveillance project involving the collection of phone records.

The column also did not mention Snowden’s past work in the intelligence community. The lack of this context may have created the impression that Snowden’s work for Booz Allen Hamilton gave him his first access to classified surveillance programs.

Pincus's column drew a lengthly response from Greenwald, who asserted that Pincus's article amounted to a "frenzied and inane conspiracy theory." Pincus's argument asserts that Wikileaks, with Greenwald and Laura Poitras in collusion, basically prompted Snowden to take the Booz Allen job that got him the documents in the first place. It's a dangerous argument to let stand, because it implies that the journalists who reported the story could be prosecuted for their actions. With that in mind, and from the thoroughness of the correction, you can probably see why Greenwald spent time trying to correct that particular record. 

Can someone tell me how WashPost can publish a claim it *admits is false, vows correction, but then just leaves it up? How can that happen?

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) July 10, 2013

The column even drew questions from the Washington Post itself, after Erik Wemple dug into Pincus's argument. Acknowledging that it's good practice to ask questions, and that the Snowden saga certainly raises quite a few, Wemple wrote that "at some point, however, facts and findings about Greenwald & Co. are going to have to catch up with these various curiosities." That distinction seems to get at the heart of the divisive discussion surrounding the role of journalism, and the journalists involved in the NSA story in particular, in transmitting classified information to the public. 

       

Target Sued Over their Pretty Offensive Training Document

Three former employees of Target have filed suit against the company, alleging that their management, among other things, distributed a training document clarifying that not every Hispanic "wears a sombrero." 

The, frankly, embarrassing memo, which Target has acknowledged (with the caveat that it was only used informally at one distribution center), reads (via Courthouse News): 

"This document instructs managers to note differences among Hispanic employees, and states the following:
     "a. Food: not everyone eats tacos and burritos;
     "b. Music: not everyone dances to salsa;
     "c. Dress: not everyone wears a sombrero;
     "d. Mexicans (lower education level, some may be undocumented);
     "e. Cubans (Political refugees, legal status, higher education level); and
     "f. They may say 'OK, OK' and pretend to understand, when they do not, just to save face."

The suit goes on to note that most of the management at the center were white, and that they used racial slurs against their Hispanic employees. The three ex-employees allege that they were fired after complaining about their treatment. 

For what it's worth, here is Target's official statement on the incident, via Consumerist:

It is never Target’s intent to offend our team members or guests and we apologize. The content of the document referenced is not representative of who Target is. We strive at all times to be a place where our team and guests feel welcome, valued and respected. This document, which was used during conversations at one distribution center, was never part of any formal or company-wide training. We take accountability for its contents and are truly sorry. 

       

Malcolm Gladwell's Cockpit Culture Theory and the Asiana Crash

When, on Wednesday, a reporter asked National Transportation Safety Board chairman Deborah Hersman about the role of pilot "deference" in the Asiana 214 plane crash, the conversation turned to a media speculation meme that's been bubbling about the deadly incident for about 24 hours: could the fact that the pilots were Korean have anything to do with their behavior leading up to the crash? 

Hersman, as you might expect, refused to throw any weight behind that speculation today. For one thing, that leap assumes that the pilots are at fault, and the NTSB is still on-site, conducting an investigation to determine probable cause that won't be finished for months. But there's a reason the theory came to mind so quickly for many: it's based on an essay by Malcolm Gladwell, which itself is based on data from Korean Air crashes in the '80s and '90s. Here's Gladwell, summarizing his theory from Outliers with Fortune: 

F: You share a fascinating story about culture and airline safety.

G: Korean Air had more plane crashes than almost any other airline in the world for a period at the end of the 1990s. When we think of airline crashes, we think, Oh, they must have had old planes. They must have had badly trained pilots. No. What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical. You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.

But Boeing and Airbus design modern, complex airplanes to be flown by two equals. That works beautifully in low-power-distance cultures [like the U.S., where hierarchies aren't as relevant]. But in cultures that have high power distance, it's very difficult.

We asked Malcolm Gladwell for his thoughts on the use of his essay in the particular context of the Asiana crash. "I can understand why my Outliers chapter has been of interest, given how central cockpit communication issues are in plane crashes," Gladwell told The Atlantic Wire in an email, adding, "My sense is that we should wait for the full report on the crash before drawing any conclusions about its cause." As for the applicability of his work to the recent Asiana crash, Gladwell noted that his essay was specific to the problems (and solutions) of one airline — Korean Air, "which I think did an extraordinary job of addressing the cultural issues involved in pilot communication. This was a crash involving a completely different airline," he said. 

On Wednesday, CNN re-aired part of a 2009 interview with Gladwell about his essay, as part of their "just raising questions" approach to using the essay to explain the Asiana crash. The argument has been popular among many outlets since the slow trickle of details from the NTSB on their investigation began. Among the evidence cited?     

What It Looks Like When Joan Didion Accepts an Award as Big as She Is

[image error]President Obama awarded Joan Didion, George Lucas, Tony Kushner, and 21 other writers, academics, performers and artists with the National Medal of Arts and the National Humanities Medal on Wednesday. While many of the people honored have been celebrated for decades, tiny Joan Didion stole the show. "I’m surprised she hasn’t already gotten this award," Obama said. The photos of the tall president and the diminutive writer were striking. "Didion and Obama together dyinggggggggggggg over here," New York's Michael Connelly tweeted. "Watching the ceremony live, I worried that the medal was going to be too heavy for her," Mark Athitakis tweeted. "She's so frail. I couldn't believe it," the Washingtonian's Sophie Gilbert responded. Gilbert tweeted this photo:

[image error]

BuzzFeed's Chris Geidner tweeted the hug:

[image error]

But the ceremony wasn't just about cute photo ops. While many of those who made the list are hardly controversial—we can all [image error]agree Lucas has contributed to the arts in a big way, and you can see a "proud George Lucas" in the photo at right—the Obama administration also honored several writers known for works that comment on, and criticize, U.S. foreign and domestic policy. As the Washington Post argues, a President's selections for the medals can be seen as a political statement. The supposed liberalism of some of his nominees, however long ago they demonstrated it, shows the president is taking "a stand in the nation’s continuing culture wars." It comes as Obama has announced a few new policies to appeal to liberals as they criticize his current foreign policy.

Playwright Tony Kushner, who received a National Medal of Arts, might be considered a statement-maker if focus on his earlier plays. His 1993 Pulitzer Prize-winning Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes explored AIDS during the Reagan administration. More recently he wrote the screenplays for Munich, and a somewhat well received little biopic called Lincoln. Robert Silvers, the New York Review of Books editor receiving a National Humanities Medal, has been known to run the publication as an showcase for policy criticism. In 1967 the Review sent Mary McCarthy to Vietnam and the piece she wrote on her return was "intensely critical of the American presence in Vietnam."

[image error]The early works of Joan Didion questioned the motives of U.S. foreign policy in Central America with equal vigor. (The famously tiny Didion with Obama, above and at left.) Her book Salvador chronicled her two weeks in El Salvador in June of 1982, during the Salvadoran Civil War. In the book, she noted the discrepancy between the U.S. goals and what was best for El Salvador:

It was not until late in a lunch with Deane R. Hinton, the United States Ambassador, "that it occurred to me that we were talking exclusively about the appearance of things, about how the situation might be made to look better, about trying to get the Salvadoran Government to 'appear' to do what the American Government needed done in order to make it 'appear' that the American aid was justified." 

Thankfully, not every award had possibly political undertones. Author and Pulitzer Prize winner Marilynne Robinson was awarded, as was actress/playwright/MacArthur fellow Anna Deveare Smith. Herb Alpert's A&M records brought mariachi and Brazillian music to the American masses and Tijuana Brass gave us groovy instrumentals like this:

(Top photo from the White House live stream via Michael Connelly; photo at left via Associated Press.)

       

That Poll Showing Spitzer Ahead? It Has a Lot of Bad News, Too

A poll released late Wednesday offers a bit of good news for former New York governor Eliot Spitzer. He leads the former frontrunner, Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer by nine percentage points. But there are a number of reasons his political resurrection is far from complete.

The good news — and it is good news — is that he's leading. Conducted by the Wall Street Journal and NBC 4 New York, the poll suggests that Spitzer's three-day-old campaign got a head start. As the graph at right shows, Spitzer (light blue) gets 42 percent of support. Stringer pulls in only 33 percent.

"My policies and approach to this election will not be determined by polls," Spitzer tweeted. "I am, however, gratified by these numbers..." He would indeed be well-advised not to put too much stock in the poll.

A lot of people haven't made up their minds.

A quarter of respondents haven't yet decided which candidate they support. Which is unsurprising, given that the position is comptroller, one of the more esoteric civic positions.

While The Journal notes that Spitzer's voters are more solidly behind their candidate than Stringer's backers, Spitzer is still basically trailing "someone else" by a 58 to 42 margin. Stringer's not a complete unknown, having held elected office for a long time. But few New Yorkers pay much attention to their borough president. When the campaign gets underway and people begin paying more attention, they might decide that this guy they're just discovering is preferable to the one they've heard so much about.

Spitzer has much higher unfavorable ratings.

The corollary to that argument is below. This graph shows the favorable / unfavorable ratings for each candidate.

Two things jump out. The first is that a full one-third of voters have an unfavorable view of Spitzer — twice the value for Stringer.

But the second is that gray region, the number of people who have no opinion. Usually this means that they're not familiar with the candidate. If Spitzer and Stringer do end up going head-to-head (see caveat below), Spitzer will do everything he can to undermine Stringer's candidacy. But Stringer has a lot of opportunity to introduce himself to voters without the words "hooker" and "socks" involved.

Spitzer trails badly with whites.

New York is a tremendously diverse city. But even so, half the voter turnout in the 2009 election was whites. And that's a group with which Spitzer is doing particularly poorly.

You'll also note that Spitzer is leading with women — but not as much as he is with men.

There's a huge margin of error.

The poll surveyed 1,213 New Yorkers. Of those, only 947 were registered voters. Of those, only 546 were Democrats. That's a surprisingly small sample size for a political poll regardless of jurisdiction, one that results in a margin of error topping 4 percentage points.

Spitzer may not get on the ballot at all.

This, of course, is Spitzer's overarching concern. As we noted this morning, the candidate is scrambling to get the petitions he needs in order to be a candidate at all. Stringer, meanwhile, has racked up 26 times the number he needs — having started the process significantly earlier.

According to reporter Matt Taylor, Spitzer's team celebrated when they heard the poll numbers.

Spitzer folks high-fiving over WSJ poll numbers at Sprig petition party in midtown.

— Matt Taylor (@matthewt_ny) July 10, 2013

For the candidate's sake, one hopes that the high-five break from petition-gathering was short.