Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1108

Mexican Drug Murders May Never Be Bad Enough to Deter Tourists

Stories about drug-related violence in Mexico are so commonplace that even ever-more-gruesome details seem to get little more than a glance from Americans. A look at tourism data suggests that it's also not keeping them from visiting.

CNN's splashy, front-page headline this afternoon read: "Mexico's Bloody Struggle." It's a horrible story: seven bullet-perforated bodies left sitting in plastic chairs in the town square, messages around their necks. Next to that story is another story about tens of thousands of Mexicans missing since the outbreak of drug violence in 2007. And next to that, a story about how even Acapulco — destination of thousands of American tourists a year — is not protected from violent crime.

Last March, CNN noted that even constant reports of crime weren't dissuading visitors. We took a look at crime and travel data from 2007 to 2011, and it appears that this is indeed the case.

Here's what Mexico's surge in violent deaths has looked like, using data compiled from the Mexican government. January 2011 is the last month for which data is available. Most occurred in the municipalities that line the border with the United States, the gateways for trafficking.

When we add in air travel data from the U.S. government, we can see that the overall effect is small. There was a large drop in late 2010, but that largely correlates to the end of summer, a pattern that is repeated each year.

If we look at the 12-month average, the picture becomes a little clearer. Air travel to Mexico has dropped slightly, but not a huge amount, even as crime has increased.

There's one data point that shines a little more light. William Robert Johnston compiled data on the number of U.S. citizens killed by violent crime in Mexico on an annual basis. There are fewer data points, but it shows much more of the relationship you might expect: more U.S. deaths corresponding to fewer U.S. visitors.

Of course, the odds of anyone in Mexico being killed — citizen of the country or American tourist — are very small. Given the role that the tourism industry plays in the country, it's for the best that Americans aren't discouraged from making the trip. There'd be no problem at all if we could only be dissuaded from so enthusiastically supporting that other key Mexican industry: drugs.

Lana Del Rey Visits the Chelsea Hotel

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:

Elizabeth Woolridge Grant (a.k.a. Lana Del Rey) has returned, and she has decided to cover Leonard Cohen's "Chelsea Hotel No. 2." We're not lying:

Justin Timberlake's media onslaught is over. (We think?) And that's probably why he's exponentially more likable while surprising his biggest fans: 

Contrary to the wise words of Cher Horowitz, not everywhere you go has valet. This is solid proof: 

Finally, this parakeet has the right idea:

Florida Gulf Coast Is the Best Argument Against Paying College Athletes

The biggest story of the NCAA tournament so far is the shocking run to the Sweet 16 pulled off by little-known Florida Gulf Coast University. Everybody loves when a plucky David comes out of nowhere to take down an overhyped Goliath. But if some fans had their way, they'd change college sports so dramatically that we might never see the likes of the Eagles this deep into March ever again.

It's become a popular notion, particularly around this time of year, to argue that college basketball players should be paid just like pro athletes. There's so much money swirling around the Men's Basketball Championship that it's easy to think the players (who don't get paychecks) are being taken advantage of. That temptation should be avoided, however, to keep college sports from ruining the thing that makes college sports so great.

Before I go any further, let's get a couple things off the table: The NCAA is a flawed organization; scholarships usually don't cover the full cost of going to college; many of the adults in college sports are exploitative monsters skimming perks of the top. I'm definitely open to reform ideas, including a way for the top athletes to earn some sort of compensation beyond free room and board. But for the moment, I'm not really interested in the fairness of amateurism. I am more concerned about the product it creates. Playing "for the love of the game" is not just a crazy ideal—it's at the very heart of what makes college sports so much more fun and engaging than the pro game. (More money is bet on NCAA games in March than is bet on the Super Bowl. Yes, there are more games, but that's also part of the fun.) Take away the amateur spirt from March Madness, and it wouldn't be quite so mad anymore.

There are other complications that arise from allowing schools to pay their players. The main one being that most schools can't afford to pay them. The most recent survey of public university athletic departments found that only 22 out 227 schools made a profit at the end of the year. The rest broke even or had to borrow money from the school's general fund. Yes, the major football and basketball powers, like Alabama and Michigan and Duke, earn tens of millions of dollars a year in sports revenue—that also has to support the school's other non-money making sports. But for the vast majority of universities, athletics are a money-loser.

They're good for advertising and keeping alumni happy, but athletic departments cost their schools a lot of money, and if in-kind scholarships had to be turned into (or supplemented with) cash payments, they simply couldn't exist. Sports teams would either fold up shop, or pay nothing and watch all of the top talent go to those programs that can pay.

Even if every college did start paying its student-athletes, the Florida Gulf Coasts of the world would never be able to match what even a mid-level ACC school could pay, never mind a football behemoth like Texas or USC. North Carolina's basketball team could pay the 15th man on their bench more money than Creighton could pay their the leading scorer. And just like we've seen in the pros, salaries and biddings war can escalate pretty quickly. Even with a pro-style salary cap, the little guys charging $10 a game for tickets (and not selling out), would simply lose too much money to keep up.

The most likely outcome would be a further fracturing of the NCAA's divisional system, with poorer programs (like most of FCGU's Atlantic Sun rivals) slipping down a division or two, or the riches (like the SEC and Big 10 powerhouses) breaking off into a whole new for-profit league. Either way you look at it, adding more money into the mix would only widen the gap between the rich schools and the poor. And we're not just talking about the bottom line, we're talking about the games themselves.

Which brings me back to my original point—the greatness of the NCAA tournament comes from it unique competitiveness. There are 347 teams in Division I basketball teams and every single one begins the season with a realistic belief that this is their year. Maybe not to win it all, but to get to the tournament; to get the shot at Kentucky or Kansas and maybe make a run at immortality. All it takes is that "one shining moment." Yes, big, traditional powerhouses still win most of the games and most of the championships. (Ten of this year's Sweet 16 teams already have at least one NCAA title and only one team seeded eight or lower has ever won it all.) But the gap between Team No. 1 and Team No. 68 is just small enough to make the tournament the most thrilling sports event of the year. A 16-seed has never beaten a 1-seed. But they've come real close. It almost happened this year. Heck, there have only been seven No. 15 seeds that even won a single game. But every year, people keep tuning in hoping they'll get to see a miracle.

That's the element the men's tournament has that no other playoff anywhere can match. The unique structure—including all conference champions, no matter how lousy the conference—gives hope to everyone. A new Division I football team could never dream of playing in BCS game after just four years of existence. But Florida Gulf Coast can enjoy the best week in school history, just for showing up.

The NCAA needs its underdogs as much as its champions. If NCAA Division I consisted only of 30 or 40 of the best schools in the country, that would be more competitive and still pretty exciting. But what makes college sports so captivating—and specifically the men's basketball tournament—are the glorious unexpected moments that come from surprise victories. Those victories only come when the LaSalles and Wichita States of the world get a clean shot at the big boys. 

(There is a counter-argument, of course. Since it's always been easier to buy a contender than to build one, some rich alumni could turn a joke of a program into a Duke-killer almost overnight by offering the biggest payouts. But would fans really get behind a 15-seeded "underdog" if they knew their "upset" wins were paid for wholesale? That when being a real "student-athlete" matters.)

The beauty of the college basketball tournament is that it doesn't discriminate by size or location or wealth. It's the one place where an Ivy League school (that doesn't even give scholarships to basketball players) can knock off the defending champion with an old-school backdoor cut. Where the coach's son (who is now a tourney coach himself) can still be a household name because of one shot he took 15 years ago. Where an unknown Canadian freshman can launch a Hall of Fame career with just one amazing win. 

These are the moments that make the tournament what they are, and if schools like VCU and LIU lose what little chance they have to make those moments happen, then the whole thing stops being interesting. The deck is already stacked against the small schools. They don't need more cards taken away from them.

BlackBerry's Not Selling Enough New Phones Yet

The first earnings report from BlackBerry since its new phone launched is mostly good news—the company reported $94 million in profit and $1.2 billion in revenue—but there is one alarming figure: the 3 million customers the company has lost over the last three months. Even with a million Z10 devices sold, the company "lost about a million more subscribers" than analysts were expecting, according to analyst Jefferies analyst Peter Misek. Now that they see the numbers, their theory is that loyal BlackBerry subscribers with old devices didn't upgrade to new BlackBerry ones, instead ditching the Canadian phone company for competitors—even though BlackBerry launched a new gadget just for those people this quarter. In other words, the phone that was supposed to save BlackBerry, the Z10, hasn't done so yet.

To be fair, the catch-up gadget was only announced at the end of January, and there's been a slow roll out since then, debuting first in the United Kingdom around February 4. So, this quarter's earnings, which ended March 2, only represent about a month of phone sales. But even so, a reported 1 million Z10 devices sold in one month doesn't look too promising for the wannabe comeback story—especially since the former keyboarded phone king launched in some of its strongest markets first. Say the phone maker kept up those sales for three months in a row, it would only break even, adding as many customers as it lost, which is better than shrinking and dying forever, but not quite good enough. "1m BB10 sales in 1-2 months isn't terrible. Not out of the woods by a long way though," tweeted mobile analyst Benedict Evans. 

Though, some analysts are more optimistic that the new device additions could counterbalance the losses. "The numbers suggest that they're on a recovery path," Misek added. "Obviously the bigger issue is BlackBerry 10 sales going forward, but if you do look back at the February quarter, I think you had more positives than negatives," said another analyst. The Z10 just launched in some markets and because of its very different operating system could take some getting used to. This report does not include U.S. sales, for example. (Though, it saw a "tepid" U.S. launch, if store lines are any metric.) The number also show that 55 percent of Z10 owners came from a rival carrier, which shows renewed interest from the non-loyalist crowd. Also, BlackBerry hasn't released its other new phone: The Q10. It's possible that people haven't lined up for the keyboardless iPhone-ish clone because they're holding out for a more familiar looking device. The Q10, which doesn't come out until April or May, looks more like BlackBerry best-sellers of yore with its physical keys. So, there's still hope. 

 

The U.S. Flew a Couple B-2 Bombers Over Korea Because It Can

So we know North Korea has a habit of puffing its chest and it feels like Kim Jong-Un's country declares the annihilation of its enemies seemingly every other day now. But with the U.S. announcing that they're practicing stealth bombing runs over the Korean peninsula, it's a sign that the U.S. is taking those threats seriously.

"The two B-2 Spirit bombers made a nonstop round trip from Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo.," reports The New York Times's Choe Sang-Hun. "It was the first time the U.S. military publicly confirmed a B-2 mission over the Korean Peninsula." According to reports the B-2s flew over South Korea's west coast. 

Obviously, the test run demonstrates that the U.S. has the capability of flying that far without actually crossing into North Korea and it appears to be meant to send a message that the U.S. is willing to defend South Korea against the North. There's also probably some historical symbolism thrown in. Hun adds, "After suffering from the American carpet-bombing during the 1950-53 Korean War, North Korea remains particularly sensitive about U.S. bombers." 

The run came on the heels of North Korea, stating through its state-run news agency on Wednesday, that it would "remove Anderson [sic] air force base [on Guam] off Earth" because "the U.S. imperialist aggressors let their B-52 formation fly again in the sky above south Korea and announced an operational plan targeting the dignity of the DPRK supreme leadership." The bombing run also comes days after North Korea released this digitally-manipulated picture of its wondrous hovercraft army: 

North Korea probably won't be happy about the B-2 run. Does this mean we'll be getting more hovercraft pictures? "The announcement will likely draw a strong response from Pyongyang," reports the AP. It's unclear what a "strong response" means though, considering this is a country that's already threatened nuclear war. 

Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court Again?

This week, the news cycles has been consumed by the Supreme Court's oral arguments on two closely-watched legal battles in recent history, but unlike virtually every other news story on the planet these days, there were no images or videos because cameras are not allowed in Supreme Court proceedings. Here's why.

The History

The reason why cameras are prohibited in the courtroom goes back to 1946 when the court put into place Federal Rule 53. It states:

Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

In 1972, the rule was expanded to include television cameras.

Then, in 1999, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley introduced legislation that would have allowed cameras into Supreme Court proceedings. As a response, the Court began to release audio of oral arguments, but only after arguments concluded.

To state the obvious, the Supreme Court last year makes history on a regular basis, whether by ending racial segregation in schools or legalizing both interracial marriage and abortion. In 2000, the Supreme Court essentially picked the President. The Constitution gives a tremendous amount of power to grant a group of nine judges who aren't elected and are given lifetime appointments. Adding a little more transparency into the mix certainly wouldn't hurt anyone.

In Their Own Words

It is Supreme Court Justices themselves who have been the most vocal opponents of allowing cameras into their courtroom. However, there are several members of the current Court who have expressed either a desire to allow cameras in the proceedings or at least some interest in entertaining the idea. C-SPAN has compiled a conclusive list of instances where justices have spoken either for or against cameras in the courtroom. Going by their past statements, the Court is currently split 4-3 towards not allowing cameras, but those two undecided votes could swing the majority in favor of allowing them.

Chief Justice John Roberts; July, 2006, speaking against cameras:

"There's a concern [among justices] about the impact of television on the functioning of the institution. We're going to be very careful before we do anything that might have an adverse impact."

Justice Antonin Scalia; April, 2005, speaking against because he doesn't trust the media:

"I wouldn't mind having the proceedings of the court, not just audioed, but televised, if I thought it would only go out on a channel that everyone would watch gavel to gavel. But if you send it out on C-SPAN, what will happen is for every one person who sees it on C-SPAN gavel to gavel so they can really understand what the court is about, what the whole process is, 10,000 will see 15-second takeouts on the network news, which, I guarantee you, will be uncharacteristic of what the court does. So I have come to the conclusion that it will misinform the public rather than inform the public to have our proceedings televised."

Justice Anthony Kennedy; March 2007, speaking against because he doesn't trust his colleagues:

"... But I don't think it's in the best interest of our institution ... Our dynamic works. The discussions that the justices have with the attorneys during oral arguments is a splendid dynamic. If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite. Please don't introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court. Our court works...We teach, by having no cameras, that we are different. We are judged by what we write. We are judged over a much longer term. We're not judged by what we say. But, all in all, I think it would destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one and I don't think we should take that chance."

Justice Clarence Thomas; April 2006, speaking against:

"It runs the risk of undermining the manner in which we consider the cases. Certainly it will change our proceedings. And I don't think for the better."

Justice Stephen Breyer; December 2005, without an opinion:

"I think there are good reasons for it and good reasons against it. ... I hope eventually the answer will become clear, that either those who are concerned about the negative effects are shown wrong, or they're shown right. But at the moment I think it's quite uncertain what the answer is."

Justice Samuel Alito; January 2006, without an opinion but leaning towards cameras:

"I had the opportunity to deal with this issue actually in relation to my own court a number of years ago. All the courts of appeals were given the authority to allow their oral arguments to be televised if it wanted. We had a debate within our court about whether we would or should allow television cameras in our courtroom. I argued that we should do it ... The issue is a little different in the Supreme Court. It would be presumptuous for me to talk about it right now ... I will keep an open mind despite the decision I took in the third circuit."

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; November 1993, speaking in favor:

"I don't see any problem with having proceedings televised. I think it would be good for the public."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor; July 2009, speaking in favor:

"I have had positive experiences with cameras. When I have been asked to join experiments of using cameras in the courtroom, I have participated. I have volunteered. "

Justice Elena Kagan; August 2011, speaking in favor:

"I do think it would be a good idea ... If everybody could see this, it would make people feel so good about this branch of government and how it's operating ... it's such a shame actually that only 200 people a day can get to see it and then a bunch of other people can read about it. Because reading about it is not the same experience as actually seeing..."

***

Many arguments against recording Supreme Court proceedings, including one published Wednesday in USA Today, revolve around the idea that, were they televised, these proceedings would turn into some Congressional hearing with each justice fighting to deliver the snappiest soundbite. However, they are neither cable news pundits, nor are they politicians running for re-election and looking to generate publicity, so it's not like they have the same incentives to play for the cameras. Or, rather, they wouldn't have any more incentives than they currently do.

All Is Calm As Cyprus Banks Re-Open After 12 Days

Banks in Cyprus re-opened today for the first time in nearly two weeks, but the only "bank run" that has developed is the crush of reporters hoping to document the (non-existent) chaos. For many citizens, the opening of the banks means the first time since March 16 that they've had access to their money or any financial transaction too complicated for an ATM. Yet, despite that long closure, lines were calm and (reasonably) short and any fears of a bank panic quickly subsided.

For journalists covering the bailout news from Cyprus, however, it quickly became a cliché that the crowds of photographers trying taking pictures of the lines far outnumbered the people actually waiting in line.

I know it's early, but so far this 'bank run' has something of the Monty Python about it... twitter.com/JoeWSJ/status/…

— Joe Parkinson (@JoeWSJ) March 28, 2013

Don't be fooled. There's only 13 people in line at this #Cyprus bank The rest are pack animals...I mean journalists. twitter.com/MCaruso_Cabrer…

— M. Caruso-Cabrera (@MCaruso_Cabrera) March 28, 2013

Media on one side, banks and calm line of people on the other, a tour group right smack in the middle #Cyprus twitter.com/Tesa_RT/status…

— Tesa Arcilla (@Tesa_RT) March 28, 2013

Part of the reason for calm is the strict capitol controls that were put in place earlier this week to prevent customers from emptying their accounts out of panic. Customers have been given daily withdrawal limit of €300 (about $385). For the next week, Depositors are not allowed to cash checks. If you leave Cyprus, you can't take more than 1,000 euros with you. Most onerous of all, any transaction of more than 5,000 euros, must be approved by central bank committee that was just created today. That's an obnoxious set of caveats, but it does appear to have had its intended effect.

Another reason for the lack of riots in the streets is that old adage, that no one goes to banks anymore, because they're too crowded. People were expecting long lines, so they stayed home ... which means there's no lines. As one Cypriot told AFP, "There's going to be queues so I'm not going to spend so many hours there to get 300 euros."

Will Learning Adam Lanza's Motive Make Us Feel Any Better?

Since the morning of Dec. 14 last year authorities have kept a tight lid on how much information was made public during the investigation into the Sandy Hook massacre. Thursday morning that will change. A court order to seal several documents related to the case is set to expire and when it does, the documents will be released.

Thursday morning at 9:01 a.m., applications, affidavits and returns for five search warrants will be made public via email. Those search warrants cover both the home in Sandy Hook where alleged shooter Adam Lanza lived with his mother and the black Honda Civic police say Lanza left parked outside the school while he shot and killed 26 people, before taking his own life. Many media outlets are speculating these documents could answer some lingering questions about the second-deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, namely what Lanza's motive was for the massacre.

However, the search warrants will not be released to the public in full. Wednesday afternoon Connecticut Superior Court Judge John F. Blawie granted the state attorney's motion to redact several portions of the search warrants, a witness name, a credit card number, telephone numbers and several paragraphs from one particular document.

Authorities have already told us they believe Lanza shot his 52-year-old mother Nancy -- who, contrary to initial reports, did not have any connection to Sandy Hook Elementary -- then drove to the school where he killed 20 first-graders and six teachers, as well as injuring two other teachers, then killed himself. We have already learned that all the weapons used during the attack were legally owned by Nancy Lanza, that Adam Lanza was fascinated with other mass killers and that he  liked to play video games, many of them violent. Much has been made of Lanza's mental state and that he may or may not have fallen somewhere on the autism spectrum.

All of this is to say, we may learn a great deal from the documents released Thursday morning or we may not. But the question remains, will anything we learn make us feel any better about what happened that morning? 

Chances are search warrant documents will not give the public a clear picture of why Lanza allegedly killed 27 people that morning. In fact, Lt. Paul Vance, spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told NBC News last month that investigators "are a long way" from determining Lanza's motive.

But even if we someday learn exactly what drove Lanza to kill, it probably won't take away any of the pain associated with the Sandy Hook massacre and it certainly won't keep it from ever happening again. Recent setbacks have seen Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid removing the assault weapons ban from proposed gun legislation and the NRA and Vice President Biden's gun control task force failing to see eye-to-eye; an agreement could have secured more support for legislation aimed at keeping schools safe from both sides of the aisle. The way to heal and to move on is to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

Nelson Mandela Hospitalized for a Lung Infection

The 94-year-old former president of South Africa was admitted to the hospital for the third time in four months late Wednesday night after suffering a recurrence of a lung infection which had the Nobel Peace Prize winner in the hospital for nearly three weeks this past December. "A presidential spokesman told the BBC that Mr. Mandela was conscious and was receiving the best possible medical treatment," reads the BBC report while NBC News says he was admitted just before midnight local time (around 6 p.m. EST).

The reason people are worried is, obviously, because you worry any time a 94-year-old is hospitalized. But, it's also because back in December, Mandela spent 18 days in the hospital for what was then a recurrence of a previous lung infection. His lungs, the BBC notes, were apparently damaged during his time working in a prison quarry and Mandela, in his autobiography, said that he contracted tuberculosis—a disease which can cause permanent lung damage."This was his longest time he had been hospitalized since being released from captivity as a political prisoner in 1990," adds NBC News, which adds that he was hospitalized earlier this month as well. 

Details are slim of just how bad this illness might be, though there's some good news as it sounds like Mandela's team caught the bug early. "They prefer to act on the side of caution, and the moment they felt there was a recurrence of the lung infection, they felt that it warranted immediate hospitalisation given his age and given his history, " presidential spokesman Mac Maharaj is quoted as saying in the BBC report. 

Oscar Pistorius Can Leave South Africa Again

Lawyers for Oscar Pistorius have successfully lobbied an appeals judge to relax the sprinter's bail conditions so that he can travel abroad while awaiting his murder trial. At his original bail hearing back in February, Pistorius—who shot and killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, on Valentine's Day—had been ordered to surrender his passport and check in at a local police station every week, essentially restricting his ability to travel anywhere outside his own home. However, on Thursday a judge lifted those travel restrictions and will give Pistorius access to his passport so that he can once again travel internationally.

Despite the seriousness of his crime and considerable wealth that could allow him to flee to almost anywhere, Pistorius can make a legitimate argument that he needs to be able to travel abroad. As a world-class sprinter, his "job" requires him to attend track and field events all over the world (and make public appearances for sponsors) so confining him to South Africa makes it almost impossible for him to earn money. Judge Bert Bam ruled today that Pistorius must provide authorities with his detailed travel itineraries and he the court will hold onto his passport when he's not traveling, kl but he can leave the country if invited to compete abroad.

Pistorius was released on $112,000 bail last month and did not appear at today's appeal hearing. His trial on first-degree murder charges is expected to start later this summer.