Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1071

Israel Bombed Syria Because of Alleged Weapons Shipment to Hezbollah

Reports came out late Saturday night that Israel made the curious decision to attack Syria, potentially entering the armed conflict, but as more information came out it was clear Israel was trying to protect its own interests. 

Officials from the U.S. and Israel have leaked details to Reuters, the Associated Press and CNN detailing what happened. Israeli warplanes were detected flying over Lebanese airspace around late Thursday night or early Friday morning. A Syrian weapons warehouse that stocked advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles that were to be delivered to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah was reportedly attacked. It's believed, but not confirmed, that the planes detected over Lebanon carried out the attack. None of the countries involved are confirming what took place. 

So these were not Syria's much talked about stockpile of chemical weapons, but an Israeli official told the AP they were "game-changing" none the less. Israel have warned they would attack Syria if they believed Bashar al-Assad's army was delivering weapons to the militant group. They're worried about Syria passing along their chemical weapon stockpile to Hezbollah if things get too hairy, sure, but normal weapons are a concern, too. An Israeli official went into more detail with The New York Times: "Chemicals maybe get a lot of press and attention, but one of the clear things worrying us is advanced conventional weapons." (It's also believed Israel carried out a similar attack in January though it's never been confirmed.) Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, went on a tirade earlier this week mentioning something about "dangerous retribution" and possibly entering the fray in Syria. 

This is, of course, coming at the same time that the Obama administration is debating not so much if they should enter the Syrian conflict with some kind of military force, but when and how. The New York Times reports the options on the table include, "attacking Syria’s antiaircraft systems, military aircraft and some of its missile fleet," and that attacking Syria's chemical weapons stockpile has been "all but ruled out." Bombing chemical weapons potentially creates the big kind of disaster Syria's detractors are trying to avoid. Until then, almost all other options are being considered. 

       

Tamerlan Tsarnaev Cause of Death Released

Suspected Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev's remains were released to his family on Thursday and his cause of death was released Friday. Peter Stefan, the owner of the Worcester, Mass. funeral home that will handle the arrangements, read Tsarnaev's death certificate to the press. The time of death was 1:35 a.m. on April 19 and the cause was gunshot wounds and blunt trauma, the result of a shootout with police and his brother running him over.

Tsarnaev's body was picked up by his sisters and uncle Ruslan, then sent to the Dyer-Lake funeral home in North Attleborough. After protestors set up outside, the body was moved to the Worcester location. Protestors have lined up outside that home, now, too. Stefan sounds resolute in his stance that everyone deserves a proper burial, even telling the Telegram & Gazette that he "would pay for whatever expenses the family couldn't cover."

Though it's been two weeks since Tsarnaev died, he may stay unburied for quite some time yet. Stefan has not been able to find cemetery willing to accept him. Cemeteries in at least three states -- Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey -- turned him down, according to WBZ. As Stefan explained, the cemeteries are afraid that people will "be upset that somebody who's a terrorist will be buried next to their Uncle Freddy."

 

       

Rappers Keep Getting Mountain Dew in Trouble

Mountain Dew has had a bad week in advertising.

First, there was the Tyler, the Creator-made "Most Racist Ad Ever," in which a white woman tries to identify the person who beat her from a police line up consisting of black men and a goat. As a dignified British publication attempted to explain:

 

The talking goat, named Felicia, threatens to beat the woman if she identifies him to police, saying: "Ya better not snitch on a playa." The woman then runs away screaming: "I can't do this, no no no."

Charming. The ad has since been pulled.

And then, waaaaay back in February, Lil Wayne wrote this lyric: "Beat that pussy up like Emmett Till." For those who don't know what he means there, allow me to clarify: Lil Wayne is comparing the sex he hopes to have to the fatal beating a 14-year-old kid sustained in 1955 because he was black.

For some reason, this upset a lot of people (including Till's surviving family members), and the record label responsible for track apologized and pulled it. Wayne said nothing until this week, when a letter of "apology" he wrote to the Till family appeared online. (Wayne can be partially excused for taking 75 days to respond; after all, he spent part of that time being possibly dead.)

It wasn't good enough for Till's family, and it's not good enough for PepsiCo, which has now dropped Lil Wayne from its year-old "DEWeezy" promotion deal, saying in a statement that his "offensive reference to a revered civil rights icon does not reflect the values of our brand." Funny how it took PepsiCo 75 days to come to that conclusion. 

Lil Wayne's publicist said the split was an "amicable parting" due to "creative differences."

       

Sorry, Pundits: Obama Is Not a Superhero

We've been hearing a lot about the Green Lantern lately. No, not that Green Lantern; he's just a guy who plays for the Celtics. And no, this isn't about a sequel to the 2011 Ryan Reynolds film, because in what universe does that seem like a good idea to a studio that wants to make money? 

This is about the so-called "Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power," and the term's been thrown about a lot recently. To wit:

Greg Sargent, The Washington Post:

The Times piece, which comes after Maureen Dowd made a similar argument over the weekend, traffics heavily in what a lot of folks like to describe as the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power. The thesis appears to be that Toomey-Manchin failed because Obama failed to put enough pressure on red state Democratic Senators like Mark Begich, and that this bodes ill for the rest of his presidency.

Ezra Klein, The Washington Post:

Fournier and other adherents of the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency are caught between a question they can’t answer and an answer they can’t abide. They don’t know exactly what Obama — or any other president — could do to overcome the structural polarization that’s cracking Congress.

Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog:

Why does anyone in professional political commentary believe this child-like Green Lantern Theory? I honestly have no idea, but the number of pundits fully embracing the bizarre idea appears to be growing.

The term isn't new -- I believe it was coined by Matthew Yglesias back in 2006, and Brendan Nyhan wrote a bit more about it in 2009. Basically, it's the tendency of pundits to blame everything that happens (or doesn't happen) in the government on whether or not the President had the willpower to make it so.

As Jonathan Chait explains, getting laws passed is a numbers game. Republicans tend to vote one way and Democrats, the other. Whoever has the majority will win the vote, regardless of how many times Obama reads The Secret. But many pundits would rather turn Washington's happenings into a narrative arc, with all the familiar tropes and motifs. Joseph Campbell would love it; people looking for a deep understanding of how the government works (or doesn't) find it lacking. Obama's probably not much of a fan, either. But they're much simpler and more familiar for pundits to use than, as Benen writes, "Party, ideology, policy, elections, history, legislative procedures." 

Maybe that'll change now that there's been an outpouring of Green Lantern-shaming this week. Or maybe we can will it to happen?

       

Sorry, Pundits: Obama is Not a Superhero

We've been hearing a lot about the Green Lantern lately. No, not that Green Lantern; he's just a guy who plays for the Celtics. And no, this isn't about a sequel to the 2011 Ryan Reynolds film, because in what universe does that seem like a good idea to a studio that wants to make money? 

This is about the so-called "Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power," and the term's been thrown about a lot recently. To wit:

Greg Sargent, The Washington Post:

The Times piece, which comes after Maureen Dowd made a similar argument over the weekend, traffics heavily in what a lot of folks like to describe as the Green Lantern Theory of Presidential Power. The thesis appears to be that Toomey-Manchin failed because Obama failed to put enough pressure on red state Democratic Senators like Mark Begich, and that this bodes ill for the rest of his presidency.

Ezra Klein, The Washington Post:

Fournier and other adherents of the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency are caught between a question they can’t answer and an answer they can’t abide. They don’t know exactly what Obama — or any other president — could do to overcome the structural polarization that’s cracking Congress.

Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog:

Why does anyone in professional political commentary believe this child-like Green Lantern Theory? I honestly have no idea, but the number of pundits fully embracing the bizarre idea appears to be growing.

The term isn't new -- I believe it was coined by Matthew Yglesias back in 2006, and Brendan Nyhan wrote a bit more about it in 2009. Basically, it's the tendency of pundits to blame everything that happens (or doesn't happen) in the government on whether or not the President had the willpower to make it so.

As Jonathan Chait explains, getting laws passed is a numbers game. Republicans tend to vote one way and Democrats, the other. Whoever has the majority will win the vote, regardless of how many times Obama reads The Secret. But many pundits would rather turn Washington's happenings into a narrative arc, with all the familiar tropes and motifs. Joseph Campbell would love it; people looking for a deep understanding of how the government works (or doesn't) find it lacking. Obama's probably not much of a fan, either. But they're much simpler and more familiar for pundits to use than, as Benen writes, "Party, ideology, policy, elections, history, legislative procedures." 

Maybe that'll change now that there's been an outpouring of Green Lantern-shaming this week. Or maybe we can will it to happen?

       

The NRA Convention Is Packed with Heat, Dip, and Sore Winners

The National Rifle Association just had an amazing victory in defeating a bill to require universal background checks on gun purchases — something it endorsed 15 years ago — and yet the speakers at its 142nd annual convention in Houston sounded awfully bitter. Several speakers devoted part of their speeches to media criticism, saying the big bad MSM had been mean to them. "Those in the media — yeah, you know who I'm talking about — they think they know better than we do, they think they're msarter than us," said Wayne LaPierre, the gun lobby's executive vice president. "Some in the media try to turn us into the bad guys," said Rick Perry, the gun toting Texas governor. "Acronyms," Sarah Palin said, like MSNBC, CBS, ABC, "one day they will think themselves accursed that they were not in this fight with us."

[image error]On Friday, the convention felt like a mini-CPAC, in that several potential presidential candidates took turns on the stage — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Perry — or appeared in video form, as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan did. Perhaps that explains the feeling of doom amid glorious triumph, because the gun legislation victory came just a few months after devastating electoral defeat. And so there were many displays of masculine swagger, enough to show that all these tough young guns could take on all of the week young gun-grabbers currently occupying the White House. Perry was introduced with a comically over-the-top video of himself showing great manliness while shooting at targets and wearing safety equipment. There's that GIF above, but you need the Ted Nugent soundtrack for full effect:

[image error]Cruz dared Vice President Joe Biden to debate the cause of crime. Referring to Biden's statement in February — "If you want to protect yourself get a double barrel shotgun, you don't need an AR-15" — Cruz responded that would be "very useful if it so happens you're being attacked by a flock of geese." (OK, just to be jerky in exactly the same way Cruz is, a shotgun is a very powerful weapon. And not just when birds are involved! Here's a discussion on an AR-15 fan site message board: "Self defense against bears. Shotgun vs rifle?") Cruz also had a George Costanza-esque weeks-late comeback to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said, "I am not a sixth-grader" when Cruz lectured her on the Bill of Rights. "Well, you know what? I'm not a sixth-grader, either." Zing.

[image error]Sarah Palin, as you might expect, was the sorest loser of them all. "We have a mainstream media that tore apart another president for using fleeting images of the 9/11 attacks in campaign ads" who claimed he was "exploiting tragedy for political gain," Palin said. And now? It's a "reliable poodle-skirted cheerleader for the president who writes the book on exploding tragedy." Yes, Aurora and Newtown were terrible tragedies. But, she said, "We could use a bit more emotion, by the way, about what goes on on the streets of cities like Chicago and New York!" (In 2012, there were 419 murders in New York City, which has a population of 8.2 million. The murder rate dropped again in the first quarter of 2013.) But Palin's big theme was that we are "letting freedom destroy itself." We must guard against forces against freedom, like New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who tried to limit soda sizes. Palin took a shot at this at CPAC, and on Friday, she said Bloomberg was trying take on tobacco in public places. She brandished a can of Copenhagen, but did not actually dip, perhaps because first-time dippers often barf. Freedom defended.

       

'Men in Black 4' Is Happening

Today in show business  news: Universal is making a "fourquel," Michael Caine is in the new Christopher Nolan movie, and a not-so-encouraging look at White House Down.

It may seem impossible, but there is going to be another Men in Black. I guess aliens will never stop attacking us. And, y'know, Men In Black III, which wasn't all that bad, made the most money in the franchise's history. So Universal has hired a screenwriter. It's unclear if Will Smith will be back, expensive as he is (and probably bored?), but something in the larger MiB world is on its way. Probably far off, but on its way. Which, fine, whatever. There are far more offensive movie franchises to get upset about. Transformers comes to mind. Or Percy Jackson. Or that hideous Up Series. That Michael Apted. What a hack. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Michael Caine has joined the cast of Christopher Nolan's Interstellar, because Michael Caine is always in Christopher Nolan movies. They're basically best friends at this point. Caine joins Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, and the just-announced Jessica Chastain. Yup. Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain in the same movie. Can you imagine? That's going to be pretty, pretty intense. Imagine them at the press junket together. Sitting in director's chairs all day in the same small, dark room. That will not end well! But hopefully the movie will at least be good. All we know about the plot right now is that it concerns "a heroic interstellar voyage to the farthest borders of our scientific understanding," so that could be anything. That could be a wacky comedy for all we know! I mean, it won't be, but it could be. Anyway. Michael Caine. Welcome to the club. [Deadline]

Disney Channel star Bella Thorne (she's on some show about dancing, I believe) has been cast in the new Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore romantic comedy Blended. She will play the blender. No no, she's going to play Adam Sandler's daughter. That's a big break for her, at all of 15 years old. I'm sure the Disney lot is going to be an intense place for the next few weeks, as she walks around all puffed up, referring to "Adam" and "Drew" all the time with practiced ease, not noticing of course the posters of Miley Cyrus and Hilary Duff fading and yellowing on the walls. [Deadline]

Here's a new, more plot-heavy trailer for Roland Emmerich's White House siege actioner White House Down. The teaser made the movie look kind of exciting, all jittery and newsy (I mean, in a ridiculous made-up way) and paranoid. But this trailer... Yikes. This thing looks straight-up corny, from the imperiled child actress to Jamie Foxx's True Lies-esque thing about dropping the rocket launcher. I don't know. I guess I shouldn't have expected much, this being a Roland Emmerich movie and everything, but I surprisingly liked Anonymous so much that I was hoping he'd maybe turned a directing corner. But, nope. Seemingly not. Ah well.

       

Your 'International Star Wars Day' Episode VII Talking Points

This Saturday is International Star Wars Day, so named because, you know, "May the 4th Be With You." And while you may or may not encounter rabid fans actually honoring this punny fake holiday, you may actually want to make a point of bringing it up in conversation because, you know, the Star Wars news is out there, what with Disney buying up Lucasfilm and J.J. Abrams directing the first installment of the new trilogy. Indeed, there are almost too many half-baked rumors floating out there, crawling around in not quite aligned yellow text. Here's how to argue your way through the attack of the nerds.

So John Williams is coming back?

Yes, the man who created those themes, the orchestral memories forever implanted in millions of minds, is probably coming back to score Episode VII for 2015. Why do we say that? Because Abrams, who has been frustratingly quiet about the whole thing, said so at a Star Trek Into Darkness press conference. 

A counterargument for your "holiday" dinner party, perhaps: "But     

The One Drunk Joke You'll Like If You're Sober

We realize there's only so much time one can spend in a day watching new trailers, viral video clips, and shaky cellphone footage of people arguing on live television. This is why every day The Atlantic Wire highlights the videos that truly earn your five minutes (or less) of attention. Today:

If we were this hilarious while drunk, we'd probably get invited out more often: 

So we have a while to go before The Walking Dead starts again this fall, when Michonne snarls and we get much less Andrea. In the mean time, enjoy this teaser from the team over at Bad Lipreading:

We're not even going to pretend that we know the mythology of Iron Man. But we do like the movies, and people liked Iron Man 3. So watch this if you need a refresher course on what happened to Tony Stark before he got all Avengers-ey:

And finally, this duckling, like us, is ready for a nap.

       

Don't Hate the Dorks, Hate the Glass

White Men Wearing Google Glass is a Tumblr that perfectly encapsulates Google Glass, that doomed-at-early-adoption device about which we learned so much this week, by way of a bunch of huge dorks trying out the face computer of the future, and telling us all about it in selfies, in winks, and in the shower. But it's not the multiple white males looking like idiots that will make Google's pet project such a tough sell to the masses; it's the design of Google Glass itself — in form, and the function inspired by something that, well, makes everyone who puts on a pair look weird. Consider the other first-round of begoggled Googlers: non-white, non-dude, non-dorks, none of whom look any cooler than the stream of white nerds on that there Tumblr:

[image error]

Okay, at least one of these people is a big white male nerdface, but even celebrities — people who can pull off all of those fashion experiments we civilians can't — end up looking, in Google Glass, like they were cast in some dystopian romantic comedy of the future:

[image error]

To be sure, part of the aesthetic turn-off is the familiarity of Google Glass's bionic eye design. That straight-across bar doesn't look like a pair of designer eyeglasses mirroring the curve of your eye sockets; it is a harsh aluminum bar straight across the eyebrows. This would-be innovation is more robot than human, more Star Trek than star-studded, and therein lies the problem:

[image error]

Of course, there's more to Google Glass being over before it begins than looking weird. This is not just the aesthetics of the Bluetooth headset, or the Segway, or the pocket protector, as Wired's Marcus Wohlsen suggested this week. Sergey Brin's bad form is reflected in the function of his creation, too. Google Glass, because of the way it's constructed, has led to the rise of the Glasshole, a term now used to describe someone not so much for getting their face on a headset as the way it makes an early adopter act.

[image error]

Bluetooth headsets had a similar problem, and not just because they looked ugly. The ear bugs  looked "dorky," of course, but they also facilitated off-putting social behavior. People walking down the street muttering to themselves. "My least favorite people in the world are the people with the little bluetooth headset who have loud conversations in public places," wrote one of our commenters. "Yes sir, you are super important and the entire world is your office." Bluetooth gave the self-important office worker permission to have loud, annoying conversations in public. Sure, hands-free conversations are important to a lot of busy people, and a safe way to talk and drive. But, at some point between early adoption and over-before-it's-cool promulgation, those little blue ear pieces became a damning signal of an inconsiderate, work-obsessed person whom nobody wants to be around. The rise of the Glassholes is similar.

Some argue that Google's technological capabilities can overcome the inherent dorky look, and the behavior it inspires. But in today's consumer tech world, success hinges on design. Just look at the iPhone, which succeeded because of both software and hardware design elements. When Apple released its long awaited phone in 2007, a Computer World reviewer wrote this of the design:

While none of these features is by itself revolutionary, what is revolutionary is the interface that links them all together. Apple has long been seen as leader when it comes to making difficult computing tasks easy to do. Never is that user interface design more obvious than in the multitouch functions that make the iPhone, well, the iPhone

But the iPhone also succeeded because Apple's hardware used the highest quality materials and had a simple, fashionable look that people didn't mind toting around. It was curved. It was cool. It was simple.

Not all popular products have to look gorgeous — especially if they're useful enough. But something that we wear on our faces is such a blatant statement about our identity that the aesthetics matter. Some have compared Google Glass to the Segway, which didn't just attract dorks so much as it made normal people look "smug," as the venture capitalist Paul Graham explained:

Someone riding a motorcycle isn't working any harder. But because he's sitting astride it, he seems to be making an effort. When you're riding a Segway you're just standing there. And someone who's being whisked along while seeming to do no work—someone in a sedan chair, for example—can't help but look smug.

That smugness mattered so much because people generally buy cars or motorcycles to reflect a certain aspect of their being, usually having to do with manliness. The Segway didn't exactly exude man power. The same goes for eyewear and Google. Because they are on our faces, they reflect our aspirational personalities. (Remember how big of a deal it was when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney donned "hipster" glasses? Notice how big a deal NBA commentators still make about the injured guys on the bench in theirs?) Brin, the Google co-founder and ultimate Glass evangelist, might have seen this coming when he emphasized the "manliness" of his favorite revolutionary hardware. Calling something manly, however, does not make it so.