Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 1126

Alcohol Boosts the Human Brain — if You Drink a Lot

Discovered: Alcohol helps accelerate the brains of heavy drinkers; Self-image affects self-expression; Antarctic lake hid evidence of never-before-seen life forms; Ancient humans liked to hike.

Alcohol helps accelerate the brains of heavy drinkers. How we experience alcohol — that is, as a depressant which disinhibits us — tends to inform the way we view long-term binge drinking. But according to a group of Yale University researches, alcohol affects the brains of heavy drinkers differently than the brains of more moderate imbibers. Specifically, alcohol increases the capacity of their brains to burn acetate, a chemical released when the body metabolizes alcohol. "Heavy drinkers transported more acetate to their brains and burned the chemical about twice as fast as light drinkers," Science News notes. "Like a car that can switch to ethanol when it runs out of gasoline, heavy drinkers' brains could tap energy from an alternate fuel source." [Science News]

Self-image affects self-expression. Does the way you think you look bear on the way you act? "There's no easy way to test this in the real world," the New Scientist acknowledges. That didn't stop a group of Russian researchers from trying an outre method on several volunteers, who the group placed before a drum set and equipped with a virtual-reality headset. "Volunteers' drumming patterns became more intricate when they were represented by a more casually dressed, dark-skinned avatar, as compared to a formally dressed white-skinned character," the researchers discovered. The verdict portends a slightly scary virtual future: "This body-ownership illusion can lead to behavioural and cognitive changes that depend on the appearance of the virtual body." [New Scientist]

Antarctic lake hid evidence of never-before-seen life forms. It's not very often that scientists encounter evidence of new life forms, much less in subglacial lake in Antartica. Russian scientists studying Lake Vostok, in central Antarctica, took materials from the lake and, after cleaning it, discovered "unclassified" DNA. "After excluding all known contaminants, we discovered bacterial DNA that does not match any known species listed in global databanks," on of the scientists told a Russian news organization. According to CBS, the discovery places Russia in competition with a few other countries: "The United States took a sample from the shallower Lake Whillans earlier this year and is attempting to prove the same thing, while Great Brittan's attempt to drill at Lake Ellsworth was called off due to technical problems with drilling." [CBS]

Ancient humans liked to hike. To what degree did ancient humans, you know, move around? To answer that question, biological anthropologists at the University of Cambridge studied fossils dated to the Stone Age, looking for signs of stress in bone fragments. "The Stone Age crowd moved around considerably more than southern Africans from a few thousand years ago who hunted over an area of 5,200 to 7,800 square kilometers," according to Science News, in comparison to modern athletes who run a few hundred kilometers over an entire week. Such mobility is thought to have shortened the lifespans of both humans and Neanderthals, even though it's unclear why, exactly, they moved around so much: "Anthropologists don’t know what kept ancient people and Neandertals in constant motion." [Science News]

Elisabeth Hasselbeck to Hassle Us No More

Not to be upstaged by her coworker Joy Behar, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, scourge of morning television, shame of Boston College, has announced that she, too, will be leaving The View after this season. The token conservative on the morning gabfest, Hasselbeck has mellowed out in recent years, though most still remember her as the hectoring enemy of Rosie O'Donnell. One of their famous on-air fights led to O'Donnell's eventual ouster. Hard to believe that was six years ago. We haven't heard much from Hasselbeck since those dark days, so maybe it's unfair to call her "scourge" and "shame." Everyone on The View is a nightmare in their own special way, so we should cut Hasselbeck some slack. But yeah, she's outtie five thousand by this fall, though ABC won't confirm. I'm sure someone will miss her, just as someone will miss Joy. And the rest of us will trudge on with the business of living, as we always do. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Don't worry, guys. That Oz the Great and Powerful sequel you've been clamoring for is in the works. It's been ages since the first one came out, like hours and hours, so some were beginning to think it would never happen. But it is! Disney has hired a scriptwriter who will draw from L. Frank Baum's public-domain books to craft a new tale, possibly involving Dorothy. They can't use ruby red slippers or anything like that, though, because that stuff is owned by Warner Bros. Yeah, Dorothy's slippers would have to be silver, as they are in the book. But that's OK, right? People will accept that, won't they? I mean this franchise is so beloved, people have been enraptured with it since this morning after all, that I think they'll follow it anywhere. I can't wait. When does it come out?? [Vulture]

The horror film All the Boys Love Mandy Lane will finally be getting a U.S. release after it was the toast of the Toronto Film Festival all the way back in 2006. Back then the Weinsteins bought the movie after a big bidding war, but when it tested badly they sold it to a company that went under shortly after. So it never saw the light of day in America, lost to the ages while its director went on to do 50/50 and Warm Bodies. The film's star, Amber Heard, had The Playboy Club and The Rum Diaries. Babies were born. People died. The sun streaked across the sky. And now, here in the future, it's finally been resurrected. It will be getting a simultaneous On Demand/limited theatrical release in the States sometime in the near future. Finally we get to watch these young people be brutally murdered. At long last. [Deadline]

Robb Stark from Game of Thrones has been cast in a Discovery Channel miniseries called Klondike, about the Gold Rush. He won't be playing Robb Stark, but that's who he'll always be regardless. He'll be joined by Ali from About a Boy and, um... Abbie Cornish from... Abbie Cornish. [Deadline]

Patty Chase alert. Patty Chase alert. The actress Bess Armstrong, best known and most beloved for playing Claire Danes's mom on My So-Called Life, has been cast in a new pilot. She'll be on Reckless, about Patrick Fugit doing intrigue in Washington D.C., playing someone else's mom. Hello again, Patty! (Yes, I realize she's been on House of Lies recently, but not even Patty Chase can get me to watch that show.) [Deadline]

Here is the first full-length trailer for After Earth, the Will Smith/Jaden Smith sci-fi adventure directed by M. Night Shyamalan. In it we get to see lots of silly special effects and hear some really strange accents that everyone's doing. I guess because it's the future they talk differently, but I dunno, it mostly just sounds like Jamaican-Irish. It's upsetting. This whole movie is upsetting and feels like propaganda for something. For what I'm not quite sure, but there's a distinct coded message vibe to the whole thing. It's a little eerie.

To cleanse you from that, here is the trailer for Louis C.K.'s upcoming HBO comedy special. Ahh, that's better.

The Ban on Cellphone Unlocking Has Gone Too Far

In one of the industry's first effort to allay customer concerns since regulations went into effect six weeks ago that make it illegal to unlock your cellphone, AT&T is telling you to relax, they'll unlock it for you. As long as you do exactly what they say. Indeed, the newly clarified policy only reinforces how much power cell carriers wield with the new unlocking law: AT&T can still deny its customers the freedom of truly owning a phone they bought through another company — and that's why Senators are now saying it's "common sense" to overturn it.  

In a blog post on Friday, AT&T regulatory executive Joan Walsh insisted that customers' phones won't remain trapped under AT&T contract forever, as long as they play along: "I want to be completely clear that AT&T's policy is to unlock our customers' devices if they've met the terms of their service agreements and we have the unlock code." Walsh insiste that it was "a straightforward policy, and we aim to make the unlocking process as easy as possible," despite an immediate backlash from users that it was extremely not easy at all. AT&T pointed readers to this jargon filled-legal document, part of which explains the company's policy as straightforward, sure — straightforward and complex:

 AT&T will provide the Unlock Code upon request, provided that you meet certain criteria including, but not limited to the following: (a) your account has been active for at least sixty days and is in good standing (i.e. it has no past due amount or unpaid balance owed AT&T); (b) you have fulfilled your Service Commitment by expiration of any contractual term, upgrading to a new Device under AT&T’s standard or early upgrade policies, or payment of any applicable ETF; (c) your Device has not been reported lost or stolen; and (d) AT&T has the Unlock Code or can reasonably obtain it from the manufacturer. AT&T will unlock a maximum of five phones per account, per year. For Devices sold with a Prepaid Plan, AT&T will provide you with the Unlock Code upon request if you provide a detailed receipt or other proof of purchase of the phone and AT&T has the Unlock Code or can reasonably obtain it from the manufacturer.

As you can see, under AT&T's thumb, you can really only get a legal unlock code if you're the perfect phone customer. And even then, it's not so easy, as commenters on the company blog post were quick to point out:

That’s the first time I’ve ever heard of this policy. You guys refused to unlock my Captivate for 13 months, and you refused it for my Galaxy S III even now, saying I must wait 18 months.

When I bought my iPhone 5 at full retail, it took me three weeks to get you guys to do it, because you required faxing at specific moments, and all sorts of weird stuff. You guys refused to unlock my iPhone 4 until after my contract term expired, and even then, it took four tries to get someone who actually didn’t tell me that you can’t unlock it.

Another user pointed to this lengthy blog post describing a painful, 15-step AT&T unlocking process, the ultimate conclusion of which was straightforward in its frustration: 

Perhaps we were guilty of having expected some responsiveness, but the fact is, AT&T and Apple could make the unlocking process far more efficient and pleasant. We've paid for these products and carried them through multiple-year contracts. We ought to be treated better.

So, yeah, leaving the legal unlocking to the carriers in the days of illegal unlocking for users doesn't exactly solve the thousands of complaints since the provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act went into effect in late January.

But even if AT&T had a decent policy, it might not suffice: "The problem isn't simply whether or not carriers have a reasonable unlocking policy, but the right for people to use software to change the firmware on their phones and use them as they wish," Sina Khanifar, who started a White House petition to overturn the unlocking ban, told CNET's Roger Cheng. Worst of all, in its post on Friday, AT&T admits it agrees with the initial ban: "We think the Librarian’s careful decision was reasonable," Marsh writes, emphasis ours. She's referencing the Librarians of Congress's decision to make unlocking illegal under DMCA. But, of course AT&T would agree with the ruling. It's in the best interests of these wireless companies to hook people into their services — and seemingly neverending contracts — with locked phones. 

As much as AT&T and other carriers want to keep the upper hand with the new regulation, the rest of Washington may be pushing back. After support for reform from the White House and the FCC,  Senators Amy Klobuchar, Richard Blumenthal  and Mike Lee introduced the Wireless Consumer Choice Act on Thursday afternoon, which hopes to rescind the new ban on unlocking phones rule. Senator Ron Wyden introduced similar legislation, and there was more movement in the House. Blumenthal said overturning the unlocking ban was "common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring healthy competition in the market."

John Brennan Sworn in on Constitution Without a Bill of Rights

New CIA director John Brennan was sworn into office Friday on the original draft of the Constitution — as in, the one drafted in 1787, four years before it included the Bill of Rights. It is a symbolic thing, but the White House got the symbolism wrong. Brennan has been criticized for being involved in, or at least aware of, various CIA policies that trouble civil libertarians. Brennan said he knew of, but did nothing to stop, the torture of war-on-terror detainess under the Bush administration. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul filibustered Brennan's nomination on Wednesday and into Thursday, demanding the Obama administration say whether it believed it had the power to use a drone to kill and American citizen not engaged in combat on American soil. (Attorney General Eric Holder said the answer was no.)

As Marcy Wheeler notes, what's funny about this is that the White House thought it was getting the symbolism right. White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Brennan requested the 1787 copy of the Constitution from the National Archives to show the U.S. is a nation of laws, according to Yahoo. Earnest explained, "Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA."

Brett Ratner Gets GLAAD's Seal of Approval

Brett Ratner's gay slur cost him the a shot of producing the Oscars, but now that he's been certified homophobia free by GLAAD, he can perhaps rest easy knowing that Seth MacFarlane will be the name most often associated with offensiveness and the Oscars. Yes, The Hollywood Reporter reports that Ratner is going to receive GLAAD's "inaugural Ally Award." 

If you don't remember the incidents of late 2011, here's what happened: Ratner, who had been picked to produce the Oscars, said "rehearsal is for fags" at a Q&A for his movie Tower Heist. The Internet erupted in outrage over the comment, which was complemented by a number of other gross things he said, and before he could be fired, Ratner resigned. 

GLAAD was involved throughout the entire incident and began Ratner's rehabilitation campaign by teaming with him "to convene a series of public discussions on LGBT images in Hollywood." Ratner since has helmed a PSA campaign for GLAAD, one that FilmDrunk points out "wasn’t even his idea." GLAAD president Hernon Graddick praised Ratner to The Hollywood Reporter on occasion of the award: "Out of anybody I've ever worked with, Brett has been the most humble and willing to put his money and actions where his mouth is." (GLAAD, let us not forget, has gotten in trouble for praising their donors on the corporate level.) 

During the whole Ratner debacle our Richard Lawson wrote that the incident served to "highlight what a weird, ill-matched choice Ratner was in the first place" for the Oscar ceremony, an example of how the Academy was making bad choices in the name of "demo-baiting."  Ratner was replaced by Brian Grazer and the ceremony was fairly same-old same-old with Billy Crystal. And yet this year—after the Academy avoided the Brett Ratner Oscars a year earlier—the Academy basically got the Brett Ratner Oscars that weren't with Seth MacFarlane as host.

So the Academy now has a ceremony on its hands that's widely regarded as offensive, and Ratner's getting honored for being an ally. What a weird world this is. 

Jon Stewart Has Some Advice for Donald Rumsfeld

No, Jon Stewart didn't deliver one of his signature rants against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Rather, the Daily Show host's advice is set to appear in Rumsfeld's forthcoming tome of wisdom, Rumsfeld's Rules, according to the Washington Examiner, which was briefed by individuals who nabbed advance reading copies of the 352-page book that's set to be published in May. Rumsfeld's Rules is the second installment in its author's surprisingly prolific book career and, given Stewart's contribution, seems to carry a lighter touch than his massive, best-selling 2011 memoir, Known and Unknown. 

None of that makes Stewart's inclusion any less strange, however. It might be a little difficult to remember now, but a brief dive into The Daily Show's video archives is enough to remind us how Stewart constantly criticized Rumsfeld for his planning and execution of the Iraq War, for which he eventually resigned in 2006 at the vocal behest of several flag officers. Here's Stewart flaying Rumsfeld for delivering a classified memo to President Bush just before he resigned:

And here's Stewart mocking Rumsfeld's delivery during a press conference in which he defends the Bush administration's Iraq strategy:

Or watch Stewart laugh with glee as he discusses Rumsfeld's resignation:

 

"Love him or hate him, you gotta admit ... a lotta people hate him," opens Stewart. (There's much, much more where that came from.)

So why would Stewart cooperate with Rumsfeld's book? Well, the two men did sit down for an unusually lengthy interview in 2011, for the Known and Unknown book tour, so it's not as if they've never met before. (During the interview, Rumsfeld refused to apologize for Iraq War, after Jon Stewart said that he would accept such an apology.) And, of course, this is a book of advice, not a serious work of political philosophy. In that light, Stewart's inclusion makes a bit more sense. Maybe Rumsfeld solicited Stewart's advice because, in the end, he ended up taking it for himself.

One Meal to Rule Them All

President Obama is finally having the dinner parties that Washington is so obsessed with in an attempt to get some Republicans to support a deal to replace the sequester that includes more tax revenue. He has dinner with a dozen Republican senators, and lunch with Paul Ryan, and Politico reveals Obama even had a third meal -- a secret dinner with Bill and Hillary Clinton last week. These dinners have been getting rave reviews! Politico's Mike Allen even taunted The Washington Post Friday for not being quick enough on the dinner-as-gridlock-buster beat:

WASHPOST ON IT! Front page TODAY (also leads homepage, in case ya missed everyone else's stories the past couple days): "Obama turns on charm to reach Republicans: Face-to-face contacts, he hopes, will break gridlock and hostility."

But The New York Times' Jeremy W. Peters reports Friday that it's possible that dinners won't fix everything. "Lawmakers in both parties say the president’s efforts may make him a few new friends, but he is not going to change ideologies," Peters writes. This will come as a shock to many pundits. We have been led to believe one dinner will fix everything.

That's a stunning conclusion, given that every few weeks, someone writes a story about Obama's schmooze deficit and how it's hurting his ability to cut a deal with Republicans. Politico argued this in February. Newsweek argued it in January. So did the Times' Maureen Dowd. So did National Journal. This idea has been around for years. Take, for example, The New York Times' Helene Cooper's December 28, 2011 report, "Bipartisan Agreement: Obama Isn’t Schmoozing." The Times said then:

To many in Washington — including those, of course, who crave presidential face time — Mr. Obama’s seeming aloofness is risky. He is the nation’s politician in chief, and the presidency has always been first and foremost about politics.

"It’s about building relationships," said Gerald Rafshoon, a television producer who was President Jimmy Carter’s communications director.

The Times says now:

Those who have studied the relationship between presidents and Congress doubt seriously whether Mr. Obama’s latest outreach will yield much.

"It’s a rather shallow notion," said George Edwards, a political scientist at Texas A & M University... "You’re not going to get committed conservatives to change their long-held ideological commitments because you play a round of golf or invite them to the White House."

Why is this shallow notion been so popular? The Washington Post's Ezra Klein offered a clue earlier this week, writing of congressional complaints about Obama's lack of schmoozing, "It would be easy to discount these complaints, but as any reporter who deals often with Congress will tell you, they’re constant, and they come from both sides of the aisle." Maybe these stories are so popular because it's easier to relay these complaints about party manners than to analyze real policy like whether it's a good idea to change how cost of living adjustments for Social Security are calculated. An no one is going to call you the liberal media if you critique dinner parties instead of policies. (Klein does focus on those tricky policy issues.) But the warm glow of dinner parties eventually crashes into the reality that the real reason Obama and House Republicans haven't made a deal is that they sincerely believe different policies are best for the country. There's a hint of that even in the Times pro-schmoozing piece from 2011:

"When you have relationships with individual members, you can call them up and ask a favor, and a lot of times, if it’s not objectionable, you can get things done," said Representative Dennis A. Cardoza, Democrat of California.

If it's not objectionable! Of course politicians are willing to do things for their friends if they don't find them objectionable. The problem is, for Republicans, tax increases are very objectionable. For Obama, so are a variety of cuts Republicans have proposed, such as delaying Obamacare to pay for the sequester. One of Obama's concessions on entitlements -- using "chained CPI" to calculate Social Security cost of living adjustments, meaning lower payments over time -- has been ruled out by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. House Speaker John Boehner was refreshingly honest on this point. "After being in office for four years, he’s actually going to try to talk to members," Boehner said, cheering the presidential dinner plans. But if Obama wants more taxes, "I don’t think we’re going to get very far."

The Department Store Is Watching You

It's one thing for e-commerce stores to track your behavior as you shop online, but now real-world stores are following your every move through your cellphone. That's right: It's not quite that scene at the Gap in Minority Report, but the next time you leave your iPhone's WiFi signal on in public, expect to have a digital trail.

As The New York Times's Quentin Hardy reports, over 100 brick-and-mortar stores — including big ones like Home Depot and Nordstrom — have paired up with the shopping behavior watchers at Euclid Analytics, who can learn a lot just by following your wireless connection:

Using the information, retailers can tell whether someone walked by the store, whether a customer came in and how long the visit lasted. If it is a big store, with a couple of Wi-Fi antennas, the owner can start to see where in the store someone went.

If you think about it, this in-store transition really isn't that different from Amazon dropping some cookies on a user's browser history and tracking their only shopping and browsing habits. Following shoppers down the aisle, by way of phone, doesn't differ too much than seeing where someone clicks around on, say, the Urban Outfitters website. It may ultimately be less invasive, but you're not signing up for it either.

Expectations and discomfort can trigger privacy violations, even if it's in the fine print of an Apple end user agreement. Being watched by random marketers as you walk into their stores, whether it makes your shopping experience better or not, is not something cellphone users expect. Similarly, when Facebook bought Datalogix in order to better understand its users offline buying habits, it surprised many users because it was taking their expected privacy concerns where they least expected to have to worry about them. The same goes for this new offline tracking innovation in retail: Stores aren't supposed to be doing that.

There's also the very legitimate concern that Euclid Analytics has a lot of information on its hands. "Euclid has more data than it gives to customers," explains Hardy, alluding to the trove of data inside each phone — not so much your files as the GPS tracker everyone with a smartphone has unwittingly put in his pocket. "It gives its customers only anonymous data in a collected form, so individuals won't be targeted." Euclid also requires stores offer an opt-out feature for customers, but when was the last time you noticed that while cruising racks at Nordstrom?

In the future, these might change from opt-out to opt-in, which sounds a lot less threatening. People who want the perks of an "efficient" location-based marketing service can let stores watch them beeline to the tampon aisle. Until then, however, if this kind of thing weirds you out, it might be a good idea to turn Wi-Fi off each time you head to the mall. Or else it's hello Mr. Yamamoto, indeed:

For International Women's Day, How the World Caught Up on Women's Suffrage

It's International Women's Day today, so let's take a look at this map from Lizzie Malcolm and LUSTlab via The Guardian which demonstrates how women's voting rights and roles in the political process of countries around the world have changed over time. 

For instance, this is the (bleak) state of the world regarding women's right to vote in 1892:

By 1950 women had the right to vote in far more countries, though not in a large swath of Africa:

And in 2012 women's suffrage is still not universal, but it's a lot better: 

Explore the rest of the map, which also examines when female politicians got the right to stand for election and when the first women were elected, here. Clicking on each country also reveals more data: 

The Fight for Chris Dorner's $1.2 Million Reward Is Sweeping California, Too

The case of L.A.-cop-turned-L.A.-cop-killer Christopher Dorner may have closed with his fiery death, but now authorities have to figure out who, if anyone, should get the $1.2-millon cash reward for cracking the case on the once and former most wanted man in California. Richard Winton of the Los Angeles Times looks at the leading candidates, starting with a Boy Scout camp ranger who was "lucky" enough to get carjacked by Dorner shortly before his location was discovered. Rick Heltebrake (pictured at right) has filed a claim for the reward, based on the fact that he called 9-1-1 after the carjacking and told police what had happened. Dorner ditched the car shortly after stealing it and then fled to the nearby cabin, where police eventually surrounded him.

That was a pretty good tip, but it wasn't the only one out of hundreds of suggestions that police received  Most were bogus, and a few actually threw police off track, even though still others actually aided in the investigation — and those callers could all get a stake of the claim.

Take this nice retired couple, Jim and Karen Reynolds. They were some of the last people to actually speak to Dorner while he was alive, after he broke into their house, tied them up, and stole their car. They also called 9-1-1 on Dorner, which helped narrow the search to the area around Big Bear. The couple was almost giddy when telling their story to the media later, but there's no way to know if it was because they were happy to be alive, to be a part of history, or if someone had just told them about the big payday.

There's another issue that has to be taken into consideration. The $1.2 million is not just one reward—it's a combination of several offerings that were donated by various organizations, including several different police departments. Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck has said that "Our personal hope is that the reward will be distributed," but each of those groups could have a say in how the money is distributed—or if it should be distributed at all. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who first publicly floated the idea of a million-dollar reward as a statewide manhunt overtook pretty much every freeway sign in Southern California, has said that "at least three people could qualify." (Our emphasis.) But some have already argued that Villaraigosa, who's on his way out of office, intentionally left a loophole in his offer, by stating that Dorner had to be "captured." Since he was dead before police could arrest him, that technically didn't happen.

Heltebrake, a park ranger at a Boy Scouts-owned camp near Big bear, already has a response:

When you're captured you're not free to leave," he said. "Well he was in the cabin and he wasn't free to leave."

Considering the bureaucracy of a place as big as Los Angeles (it was part of Dorner's manifesto), and the fact that Heltebrake has already lawyered up, finding out who gets what — if anything at all — could take much, much longer than it did to find Dorner.