Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1016

Bert and Ernie's New Yorker Cover Is a Picture Perfect Symbol for Gay Marriage

[image error]Even though Bert and Ernie officially aren't gay, next week's cover of The New Yorker features Sesame Street's not-gay gay cultural icons celebrating this week's Supreme Court rulings, which is sweet if you don't overthink it: America's most famous men in love finally have the official acceptance of America. Of course, Sesame Street and the company of founder Jim Henson has insisted many times that the orange and yellow pals are neither straight nor gay nor transgender or anything else: "They remain puppets, and do not have a sexual orientation," or so goes public television's party line. As in, Muppets can't have sex or aren't supposed to be overtly human, and despite the new legal recognition of it all, these two probably won't be having that big gay TV marriage everyone wants. But it's still very cute to see the icons cuddling in front of their television set.  

The cover comes by way of an unsolicited image submitted to Tumblr by artist Jack Hunter, according to the magazine. "It's amazing to witness how attitudes on gay rights have evolved in my lifetime," he said. Bert and Ernie, if they were gay and wanted to and if Sesame Street was in New York, could have gotten married in the state two years ago, and could now have it recognized by the federal government. But the artist insists that the message isn't specific so much as a symbol to help keep teaching children about gay rights. "This is great for our kids, a moment we can all celebrate." So let's not over-analyze this wonderful cover, but it should be noted that you can't yet watch the justices on TV — though not for lack of trying — and why are Bert and Ernie watching in the dark anyway? Okay, enough. Now let's all have a good cuddle.

       

China Is Debating Whether 'Happy Ending' Massages Should Be Legal

There's a remarkably national debate going on in China which has reached the front pages of the country' papers: should "happy endings" at massage parlors count as prostitution? Currently, due to loopholes in the country's penal code, they are not, even though China has a strict policy against the oldest profession in the world.

"Various places have different standards for whether masturbation services are a crime; judicial interpretation urgently needed," reads a headline of the People’s Daily newspaper, which was picked up and translated by the AP. First off, "masturbation services" might be the politest way to phrase the act in question, though according to the AP, the purveyors of such services have more colorful terms to lure in customers like "hitting the airplane" and "breast massage." Whatever floats your—umm, hits your airplane. 

[image error]But back to the national debate, the fact that it's reached the People's Daily, a newspaper run by China's ruling communist party, sort of indicates that the conversation is bubbling up. As the AP notes, the People's Daily dalliance into happy endings is a departure from its M.O. of "lecturing party members about discipline." 

The reason they're talking about this is because law officials in the city of Foshan (a local news report appears on the right) had a hard time convicting a massage parlor owner whose employees were giving out the services. The massage owner was acquitted because manual stimulation does not fit into the strict definition of prostitution—which involves intercourse. "After further investigation, the defendants were found 'not criminally responsible' and were subsequently acquitted due to 'unclear facts and improper application of the law'. The court said manual stimulation did not belong in the realm of prostitution," the South China Morning Post explained, basing its information on a local report.

It may not be so simple. According to the AP, the law varies: "The high court in eastern Zhejiang reportedly concurs that if there is no intercourse, there’s no prostitution, but police in the capital Beijing, southern Guiyang and elsewhere disagree." Further, the SCMP cites a 2001 decree by the Ministry of Public Security which classifies masturbation, sodomy, and oral sex as prostitution—but again, that's just a decree. Essentially, "hitting the airplane" in China is all about the fine print. 

Of course there are chuckles to be had, because well, it's sex and in part because of the unshakable stereotype that Asian massage parlors are dens full of happy endings. But Anthony Tao, over at the Beijing Cream blog, explains through the magic of math and statistics why China will never fully shake this "problem." Mathematically, Tao facetiously points out, men will always outnumber women in China, leading to some very lonely nights of hitting the airplane. Tao writes: 

The world’s oldest profession will never go away, especially not in China, where there are approximately 120 boys for every 100 girls. Assuming (generously and for convenience) that 10 percent are gay, that means there are 108 heterosexual boys for every 90 available girls, i.e. 18 out of 108 men who will never find a mate, which is 16.7 percent. Multiplied by China’s current population of men, about 733 million, that means 122 million men aren’t getting it on. Mercy. 

       

Edward Snowden's Father Tries to Bargain for His Son's Return the U.S.

Edward Snowden's father defend his wanted son on Friday, and even suggested that his son could return voluntarily to the United States, if certain (highly unlikely) conditions are met. In an interview with NBC News today, Lonnie Snowden says he wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder saying that if the Justice Department agreed to make some particular promises about how they handled Edward's prosecution, then his son would "probably" return to the face trial. We wouldn't hold our breath on that score.

Among the conditions that the elder Snowden asked for: To allow his son to choose the venue for trial; that he not be subjected to a gag order; and that he be allowed to remain free until the trial begins. So he's basically asking that his son be allowed to keep doing the very things that he's wanted for in the first place: Talking to the press and running from police custody.

Even if the government did agree to those terms (which they never would), it doesn't really matter because Edward Snowden hasn't done so himself. Father and son haven't spoken since April, so he's not really speaking on Edward's behalf. We don't really know what it would take get him to come back to America, but he's obviously smart enough to know that he'll never get it. The government wants him behind bars, and if they ever get their hands on him, that's exactly where he'll stay.

Snowden Sr. also tried to defend his son from charges that he betrayed America or committed treason. While admitting that Edward broke the law, his dad says he's not a traitor to his country and added that he actually believes that Julian Assange and his WikiLeaks lawyers might be manipulating him. Lonnie Snowden said, "I am concerned about those who surround him. I think WikiLeaks, if you've looked at past history, you know, their focus isn't necessarily the Constitution of the United States. It's simply to release as much information as possible." Of course, the U.S. would love to get their hands on Assange too, 

Check out a portion of the interview that appeared on Today this morning.

       

The Met's Museum Buttons Will Rest in Nostalgic Peace

The Metropolitan Museum of Art's multicolored admissions buttons were perhaps always overly nostalgic, evocative of days left behind at one of the world's greatest places, but now the world of art lovers and New Yorks suddenly couldn't be any sadder that they'll be gone after this weekend.

The Met is doing away with the clip-on buttons, so long a signal of hours spent getting cultured, or at least a cool free tourist knick-knack, and is opting to replace them with paper tickets that includee detachable stickers, the New York Times' Michael Silverberg and Randy Kennedy report. The museum's change—which came about because of the cost of the tin pieces—will begin on Monday, as the museum switches over to a seven-day schedule. Of course, New York is always changing, but New Yorkers covet their nostalgia, so they've taken to Twitter to express their disappointment, and you can bet there will be a run on buttons during a rainy Manhattan weekend—and throughout history on eBay. Bon Appétit art director Elizabeth Spiridakis expressed the feeling of loss pretty perfectly for little tin circles that became such collector's items: 

my grandma took me to the Met most saturdays of my young life.she had a jillion Met buttons in a huge glass bowl.

Newt Gingrich Wearing Google Glass Means Google Glass Has Arrived (Really)

[image error]Newt Gingrich just got Google Glass and, if the grand history of Newt Gingrich knowing the future is any indication, this techno-politician's endorsement means the wearable face computer will go from niche Glasshole hobby to product of the masses. No, seriously. Gingrich is one of the great early adopters in Washington history. The former Speaker of the House and presidential candidate (and future Crossfire host!) won himself a pair of Google glasses, telling the company he would "take it on tours of zoos and museums to share the animals and fossils" in Google's #ifihadaglass competition. Newt, of course, is a noted animal lover, so his Glass #dream makes sense, as pedestrian as his official purposes may seem.

[image error]The whole thing might sound like a publicity stunt on behalf of both parties, but, despite being an old person and a politician, Gingrich has a knack for envisioning what will take off, from cellphones and the Internet to face helmets (left) and now Google Glass, as The Atlantic Wire's Elspeth Reeve has noted in-depth. This can only mean good things for Google and its newfangled face machine's reputation, which has so far been set mostly by an inaugural class of so-called "Glassholes." (Dorks, creeps, and freaks who got the glasses before everyone else.) There is one catch, though: Newt's acceptance means Glass is still way on the fringe. The Speaker anticipated Netflix streaming... in 1998. The DVD delivery company didn't go digital until 2008. 

       

You'll Never Know if the NSA Is Breaking the Law — or Keeping You Safe

What if the NSA's surveillance isn't legal? What if its collection of phone records and its electronic surveillance of foreigners and Americans violates the letter of the laws that the agency cite as its newfound authority, the Patriot Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act? We'd be where we are now, with the government relying on unprovable arguments for efficacy instead of demonstrable legal rationalization.

We know that in at least two moments the NSA programs likely violated federal law. In a secret ruling, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the body tasked with approving the government's surveillance requests, determined that the NSA's data collection violated the Fourth Amendment. Then, of course, there was the period before the passage of the amendments to FISA in 2008. As documents released by the Guardian Thursday make clear, the NSA's surveillance at least in some ways pre-dates its explicit legal authority to do so.

In an opinion piece in The New York Times today, two legal experts argue that even that expansion may not have been enough. The two, Jennifer Stisa Granick of Stanford and Christopher Sprigman from the University of Virginia, first argue that the bulk collection of phone records under the Patriot Act exceeds the legal boundaries. "[A]ny data might be 'relevant' to an investigation eventually," they write, "if by 'eventually' you mean 'sometime before the end of time.'" But their stronger critique is of the PRISM / electronic data surveillance under FISA. The 2008 amendments state that the NSA can't "intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States."

How could vacuuming up Americans’ communications conform with this legal limitation? Well, as James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, told Andrea Mitchell of NBC, the N.S.A. uses the word “acquire” only when it pulls information out of its gigantic database of communications and not when it first intercepts and stores the information.

If there’s a law against torturing the English language, James Clapper is in real trouble.

Prior to the passage of the amendments, the government relied on its own legal interpretations of existing mandates to justify its actions. As Thursday's leaks made clear, the push for more data collection in the wake of September 11th preceded the legal rationales used to justify them. Once the NSA began partnering with domestic law enforcement in 2004, even the NSA balked at the government's shaky legal analysis. Granick and Sprigman note that the primary justification came then and comes now from "select Supreme Court cases, decided before the era of the public Internet and cellphones."

The FISA court seems to be taking steps to drop the wall of privacy behind which it acts, however minimally. Earlier this month, it ruled that that it wouldn't block release to advocacy groups of that secret ruling on the Fourth Amendment violations. On Wednesday, CNet reported that it was also willing to allow tech companies to provide more information about government requests for user data.

[Reggie] Walton, the FISC's presiding judge, gave the Justice Department until July 9 to respond to the requests from Google and Microsoft to disclose summary statistics about orders received under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which became [law] in 2008. The pair of companies have until July 16 to submit their replies.

Allowing these companies to reveal the extent of request form the government would provide a very limited amount of information about the government's activity — but it would at least offer some.

The NSA either can't or won't crack the door in that way. Its response to critique has instead been to argue that its surveillance systems are essential to keeping Americans safe, an argument that relies heavily on secret data concerning disrupted terror activity. And, worse, that revealing information about its activity strengthens terrorists.

As documented in an exceptional piece by Jack Shafer at Reuters, the agency did a brief tour of major media outlets earlier this week, arguing that the leaks by Edward Snowden and the reporting by the Guardian prompted terrorists to change their behavior.

The media tour included Reuters, which had a similar conversation with “two U.S. national security sources.” Its piece, time-stamped two hours after CNN’s, reported that “militants have begun responding by altering methods of communication.” Like CNN, Reuters learned from the intel officials that both Sunni and Shi’ite groups had changed communications methods and that those changes might leave the U.S. blind to future attacks.

We've noted before that this cannot be proven, one way or the other. It's possible that the inability to prove those shifts plays to the NSA's detriment, making it hard for the agency to make its case that its tools are necessary to protect us, legal or not. But a skeptic is warranted in assuming that the inability to share information on the tools' efficacy plays to the NSA's advantage. That argument was made very eloquently and directly by Chris Hayes on his MSNBC program last night.

"There is a vast and growing web of secret government in this country," Hayes concluded. "And it simply cannot be the case — it is not acceptable — that the only things we know about it are the things the members of that secret government want us to know."

So much happens in government on an hourly basis that we tend to give it the benefit of the doubt. Even those who are skeptical of the federal government — or who are openly hostile to it — don't spend extended time worrying about all of the various behaviors of the government on our collective behalf. We ask our legislators and elected officials to represent our will and protect our needs. In this case, those legislators are largely complicit in the authorization of the NSA's activity — and are also dependent on the secret government agencies for information on what's happening.

So, what if the NSA's surveillance isn't legal? For now, the only answer seems to be: Trust us. And, sorry, but you can't verify.

Photo: NSA head Keith Alexander meets the press. (AP)

       

Jon Stewart May or May Not Be with Edward Snowden Right Now

A bearded Jon Stewart joined John Oliver on Skype to start off The Daily Show last night to congratulate Oliver and reveal that he may or may not be "hanging out with Edward Snowden in an underground bunker." 

Stewart is, of course, in the Middle East to make his debut film, Rosewater. Initially the ratings for Oliver, his correspondent turned summer hosting replacement, remained steady, but Stewart's check-in also served as a reminder to fans not to abandon their show. 

While Stewart said Oliver is doing a "phenomenal" job, he added that he doesn't always watch because "it's too weird, it's like watching someone have sex with your wife's desk." But he really started to get homesick when Oliver mentioned that back in America, The Daily Show team was playing softball with the Mets, and getting concerts from Bruce Springsteen and checkups from a doctor. "I wanna come home," Stewart shrieked.
 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,The Daily Show on Facebook

 

       

Alec Baldwin's Homophobic Twitter Rant Is Worse Than His Wife's Funeral Tweet

[image error]After The Daily Mail, England's most trusted source on Kim Kardashian's psoriasis, reported that Alec Baldwin's wife, Hilaria, allegedly tweeted during James Gandolfini's funeral, the actor went absolutely ballistic in defending his wife's honor by, umm, tweeting out threats of violence and anal stimulation at the reporter — a sterling example of choosing battles wisely. Today, there's just blank Internet space where Baldwin's Twitter account used to be (see inset), but before Baldwin's account was deleted, he up and fired off this round of threats against The Daily Mail's George Stark on Thursday night:

[image error]

Bonkers, right? All that violence, all that weird stuff with feet, organizing a 140-character army from his million-plus followers — you would have thought this reporter stepped on Baldwin's dog or, considering Baldwin's past, interrupted his Words with Friends game. But Stark, whose beat seems to revolve around James Franco's stained pants and the comings and going sof Tish Cyrus, just reported that Hilaria Baldwin had been busy tweeting next to her husband from inside the Cathedral of St. John the Divine during the otherwise very moving funeral for the Sopranos actor on Thursday morning.  

"Hilaria posted tweets at 9.53am, 10.17am and 11.09am," Stark wrote. If you look on Hilaria Baldwin's Twitter feed, some of the tweets Stark cites actually show that they were posted after the funeral let out, around 1 p.m. This is the 10:17 a.m. tweet Stark cites, presumably the one that led launched the homophobic rant: 

[image error]

So that sort of looks like Baldwin is somewhat right. But when you've got a history of airplane altercation, angry voicemails for your daughter, a racial epithet for a photographer, and Twitter fights with the likes of Dean Skelos, well, let's just say nobody wins in a Twitter war about Twitter, and sometimes it's best to leave the attention on those resting in peace.

       

Vatican Bank Official Arrested In Corruption Probe

A high-ranking official at the troubled Vatican bank (who was already under investigation for a possible money laundering scheme) was arrested on Friday for trying to bring 20 million euros in to the country illegally. Monsignor Nunzio Scarano was detained along with two others for the failed plot that involved bringing the cash from Switzerland to Italy on an Italian government plane, presumably so they could avoid customs checks, and therefore, taxes.

Scarano's lawyer denies all the charges and says his client "can explain," though he did not elaborate on how. The new charges follow a separate investigation of Scarano that stemmed from a series of shady transactions he made back in 2009, transferring money between his personal accounts in The Vatican and in Italy.

On a personal scale, Scarano's crimes are not that disastrous, but they come at a very difficult time for the Church and the new pope. Just two days ago, Pope Francis created an inquiry commission to investigate corruption and mismanagement at the Vatican bank. The bank, which operates under different laws than the rest of the European Union, has been accused of failing to meet the more rigorous standards of the world financial community and an excess of secrecy. Scarano's alleged crimes appear to be exactly the kind of behavior the Pope is trying to put a stop to.

This also comes on top of all the other scandals and accusations of corruption that have been dogging the Church in recent years. Pope Francis has been on the job just a few short months, but he's already got his hands full trying to "clean up" the ancient institution. Another black eye for the Vatican is last thing he needs.

       

Jimmy Wales Is Only Worth $1 Million

A million dollars is a lot of money for a normal person, but that's pretty low if you founded the fifth most visited website on the planet, and only pretty good if you were a CEO in 1965. Nonetheless, Wikipedia chief Jimmy Wales just barely cracks six figures in total net worth, despite the 20 billion page views behind his 12-and-a-half-year-old do-gooder website, according to Amy Chozik's big new profile in The New York Times Magazine. Wales makes less than "car dealers in Ohio," he admits in interview. But he's okay with that: "Their jobs are much, much less interesting than mine," he added. "Can you imagine Howard Roark saying, 'I just want to make as much money as possible?'" asked Wales, a libertarian Ayn Rand fan — like any good Internet tycoon. 

This 46-year-old entrepreneur has a higher purpose, apparently. Wales pulls in his real money by way of $70,000 in speaking engagement fees and the stock options in his for-profit arm, Wikia. Wikipedia, however, is a non-profit and part of a larger movement that Wales evangelizes in his many talks about "Internet rights." But maybe the whole doing-good thing happened more by accident: "Like many Internet entrepreneurs of the early aughts, Wales aimed to create something cool first and worry about a business model later," writes Chozik. But the bubble had popped by the time he got around to thinking about money and now it's too late to slap ads on the site. "Were Wikipedia to accept banner and video ads, it could, by most estimates, be worth as much as $5 billion," reports Chozik. "But that kind of commercial sellout would probably cause the members of the community, who are not paid for their contributions, to revolt."

So, Wales has run with an entrepreneur image that doesn't include dollar signs and has transformed himself into a kind of benevolent pseudo-celebrity. "I used to be just a guy. Now I'm Jimmy Wales," he said in an interview once. Jimmy Wales sure is famous, but he's famous for being the guy who puts his face on top of the Internet encyclopedia and asks us for money. He gets to be on Stephen Colbert's show and have the likes of Bono in his cellphone, which by the way is a cheap $85 Huawei. But he'll always be "the guy who made the sum of the world's information free without making a penny himself."