Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 825

The Pubic Hair Renaissance Is Here

The Birth of Venus

LADIES: Throw out your wax passes. The Pubic Hair Renaissance is here. This week, American Apparel, arbiter of all things cool and also hot, displayed a naked mannequin sans Brazilian in its Houston Street storefront. 

American Apparel Mannequins Now Sporting Full Bush http://t.co/YeXZSwz9BX pic.twitter.com/IhzDlBpoKw

— Veronica de Souza (@HeyVeronica) January 16, 2014

While this isn't the best advertisement for underwear (totally see-through?), it is the latest piece of evidence to suggest that the J Sisters' reign of terror is coming to an end. If Rich Creep Dov Charney thinks a full bush trendy, it's trendy. But you don't have to take his word for it. The writing has been on the wall for a months now. Here's how a radical idea became a bona fide trend:

The Wacky GOOP Idea

It is usually a good idea to chuckle at whatever Gwyneth Paltrow says and move on, but this time, your favorite Lifestyle Guru was on to something. In an April 2013 appearance on Ellen Degeneres' talk show, GOOP herself confessed, "I work a ’70s vibe. You know what I mean?" Everyone did. And suddenly, the wind changed. 

The Cosmo Mention

Months later, the Ladies' Bible, Cosmopolitan, weighed in. In an October post titled "11 Differences Between On-Camera Porn Actresses and Real Women," Anna Breslaw notes how real ladies feel about waxing:

I do not enjoy lying in a freezing cold room with my legs in the air while an Eastern European woman with dead eyes rips my pubic hair off. Deal with it.

When Cosmo notes the insanity of a specific beauty standard, you know said standard is about to be shot into outer space.

The European Study 

Then, in November, the British pharmacy UK Medix released a rigorously researched study (online poll) about women's grooming habits. The results show that a full 51 percent of U.K. women don't "style or groom their pubic hair." And 62 percent revealed that their partners "prefer the natural look." Now we have the jumping-off point for a doctoral thesis. 

The New York Times Essay 

A mention in the Times Style section is usually a good indication that a trend has already come and gone. But in December, Amanda Hess wrote in the decidedly hipper T magazine, "There’s something refreshingly retro, delightfully expressive and confidently grown-up in getting back to nature." She also noted that certain porn stars are embracing the natural look. 

The Official Celebrity Endorsement

You could argue that Gwyneth was the first celeb to officially endorse pubic hair for the modern woman, but Cameron Diaz devoted 367 words to the subject in her new book, out this month. Under the heading "In Praise of Pubes," she writes:

Do you really want a hairless vagina for the rest of your life? ... It’s a personal decision, but I’m just putting it out there: Consider leaving your vagina fully dressed, ladies. Twenty years from now, you will still want to be presenting it to someone special, and it would be nice to let him or her unwrap it like the gift that it is.

Women who haven't even been born yet will be able to read these words in libraries decades from now, and remember January 2014 as the special time everyone agreed Brazilian waxes are dumb. The culture has, as it were, moved on.  

       

Quit the Misplaced Freakout Over Cellphone Reception on Planes and Subways

It was "Texts from Hillary," not "Calls from Hillary." (REUTERS/KEVIN LAMARQUE)

“The Shactman Family wishes to inform that we will fly no airline that has unlimited cell phone access,” wrote Alan Shactman in a letter (pdf) to the Federal Communications Commission in November. “We have timesharing in the Caribbean and in anticipation of such a decision, we would sell the timesharing and stay within the U.S.”

Among those protesting a proposal to allow cellphone use on flights in the United States, the Shactmans are perhaps the most extreme. But their sentiment is widely shared: 59% of Americans said they opposed the plan in a recent poll.

Yet the freakout over in-flight calling—and similar anxiety over cellphone reception in urban subway systems—is misplaced.

First of all, two major airlines, Delta and Southwest, have already signaled that they won’t allow passengers to make calls from the sky. Their rivals will undoubtedly follow suit if the FCC goes forward. No one wants a cabin full of gabbing. It’s not going to happen.

More to the point, the proposed new rules aren’t really about making phone calls. They’re about data.

Smartphone owners are making fewer calls while data usage explodes. They are using their phones to browse the web, stream music or movies, and swap messages and selfies with their friends. This trend was already obvious in 2010, when a New York Times feature declared, “Cellphones Now Used More for Data Than for Calls.” (Yet today, the Times suggests that cellphone use on the New York City subways would break “the relative peace of a subway ride.”)

More From Quartz Three Simple Things People Forget to Do in Job Interviews Way More Americans Read Books Than You Think Showrooming Spoiled Best Buy’s Christmas

To get a sense of what connected transit would really be like, just visit Seoul, which is a bit like visiting the future: The entire subway system is outfitted with Wi-Fi and cellular reception. (You can even pick up TV signals on specially equipped phones.) The Seoul subway is as tranquil as any in the world: Lots of passengers are immersed in their phablets, but on a visit last year, I didn’t hear a single person making a call.

If the FCC or New York’s transit agency open up to cellular, allowing more people to get even more lost in their phones, the result will, if anything, be quieter trips. Just like the good old days…

 

       

Your Latest Update on Who the Real Racists Are from Allen West and Ted Nugent

Associated Press

Good news, white people. You, as you suspected, are not racist. Instead, you are victims of racism, unless you're Democrat, in which case you are a slave driver.

In a better world, we would not need to point out the horrible things said by former Rep. Allen West and Ted Nugent. In that better place, there actually isn't racism and there aren't people who say really remarkably horrible things because they want our attention. But that world is not this one and it seems unlikely that the Internet is going to do a whole lot to get us there. In our world, Ted Nugent — a man who is famous for producing terrible songs in the 1970s and then killing animals for fun thereafter — writes things like this:

Look at that combination of words. Then, read on.

A truly disturbing and disgusting profanity-laced video of a 2-year-old little boy made national headlines recently after the Omaha Police Union posted the video on its website.

The street thugs who made the video and the little boy are black. This is important to note as the nation gets ready to celebrate the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on Jan. 20.

It is important, Ted Nugent argues, that as we celebrate Dr. King's life — a celebration of great solemnity at the Nugent house, we're sure — we also remember that as small a subset of the black population as it is possible to carve out acts in a reprehensible way. Nugent adds to his legacy of terrible riffs by extrapolating from that Omaha incident out to the "culture rot" and "destruction of black America." (There's this wonderful bit of obtuseness in which Nugent cites the rate of black incarceration as evidence of the flaws of the black population. This isn't a new argument, but it's always fresh in its complete failure to understand the nature of racism.)

Nugent concludes: "To honestly celebrate the legacy of Dr. King, black America would have to admit to the self-inflicted destructo-derby they are waging and begin to tell their liberal Democratic slave drivers to take a hike."

Among those slave drivers, Allen West — again, once a member of Congress — would add President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, were West to compare Democrats to slave drivers which we assume is even beyond the pale for Allen West (but maybe not). Instead, as he wrote in a blog post earlier this week, he would more modestly note that those prominent Democrats are racist. "This is my clear and succinct message to white Americans," he writes.

How long will it be before “you people” realize you have elevated someone to the office of president who abjectly despises you — not to mention his henchman Holder. Combined they are the most vile and disgusting racists — not you.

As a white man, let me first say: whew! That is a relief. And then let me say hahahaha, no, I don't think so.

West's argument is actually pretty similar to Nugent's. Both argue that liberals foster an environment in which black Americans are doomed to fail. But while Nugent only really says this as a shield for saying horrible things about black people, Allen actually tries to show how.

Earlier this week, the attorney general announced a plan to reduce the number of times infractions in schools end up with young people being arrested — an escalation that is more likely to happen to a black kid. West thinks this is bad. Like Nugent, he uses anecdotal examples of black people behaving badly to ping-pong quickly from how a kid tried to punch him once at a school to how liberals undermine family structures to the dangers of the Common Core curriculum. Oh, and then to how Eric Holder sympathizes with Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Holder is actually trying to reduce the number of black people being incarcerated, which, in that better world, Nugent would appreciate. The attorney general's goal is to create better long-term prospects for young people that make mistakes by not making the repercussions for those mistakes one that last for decades. He's hoping to allow young people to avoid felony convictions when possible, hopefully assuring that they won't be horrible anecdotes cited by partisan jerks and instead become part of the vast, vast majority of the African-American population that has a job and a family and watches terrible TV on weeknights.

As Dr. King's birthday approaches, please celebrate the fact that white men and black men can join together in blaming black people and Democrats for long-standing institutional racism. And that, at the very least, no more inappropriate things could possibly be said at this moment beyond what West and Nugent have offered.

Oh, except this:

 

       

Jared Leto Is Sure to Mention AIDS in his Nomination Reaction Statement

Associated Press

After facing criticism for a glib acceptance speech at the Golden Globes that was deemed offensive, Jared Leto was sure to make mention of the tragic topic his movie Dallas Buyers Club deals with: the AIDS crisis. 

In addition to the regular old "thank you"s, Leto said: "Today you not only honor me but also all those around the world living with AIDS and all those we have lost to this disease. Thank you for recognizing them and recognizing their struggle through DALLAS BUYERS CLUB." 

It seems that Leto or—as the Huffington Post's Mike Ryan pointed out on twitter, his publicist—engaged in some damage control. During Leto's Globes acceptance speech, he talked about how he didn't wear any prosthetics for his role as a trans woman suffering from AIDS. He also talked about waxing his "entire body." In Salon, Dan D'Addario wrote that Leto (and Michael Douglas, who won for playing Liberace) "managed to, purposely or not, insult the very communities they were representing on film." D'Addario wrote that he'd "point to the fact that neither Leto nor his fellow winner Matthew McConaughey mentioned AIDS once in their respective speeches. These two men devoted months of their lives to a project specifically about the AIDS crisis, and then went off on tangents when accepting awards for their work about how goofy and weird it is to make your body like a transgender person’s (Leto’s speech) or about how your wife calls you 'king' (McConaughey’s)." J. Bryan Lowder at Slate called Leto's speech "self-centered and juvenile acceptance." 

As Leto starts his road to ascending the Oscar podium—he likely will win—the statement is an indication he (and in all likelihood) his team are working hard to make people forget his careless Globes outing. 

 

       

Was the Drone that Feinstein Encountered at Her House This Tiny Pink Helicopter?

An artist's rendition. (ASSOCIATED PRESS / AMAZON)

To reinforce her concerns about the use of commercial drones, California Senator Dianne Feinstein told her peers on Wednesday about an encounter she had with a drone at her house. Quite probably, it was a small toy helicopter flown by protesters from Code Pink — in which case it may not be the nightmare scenario one might fear.

Politico reported on her comments before the Senate Commerce Committee. Feinstein "used the episode to implore lawmakers to 'proceed with caution,'" the site reports. After all, here's what happened to her:

Feinstein said she encountered the flying robot while a demonstration was taking place outside her house. She said she went to the window to peek out — and “there was a drone right there at the window looking out at me.”

Looking at her! This is a terrifying new world, indeed.

The Wire spoke by phone with Feinstein's spokesman Brian Weiss, who confirmed that the incident happened at the senator's house in San Francisco several months ago. At about the time, it seems, that Code Pink showed up to protest Feinstein's support for the NSA.

On June 15, the anti-war group held a protest focused on Feinstein, which included activists in disguises and, yes, two remote-controlled helicopters, which might creatively be described as drones. Here's video of the event.

Amazon

If you skip ahead to the one-minute mark you can see the two helicopters that were at the scene, including one very similar to the small pink helicopter at right. Photos taken that day show the helicopter more clearly. Steve Rhodes, who took the photos, confirmed to The Wire that the helicopters flying around outside Feinstein's home didn't have any cameras, so they weren't "looking in" anywhere.

Code Pink's Tighe Barry, coordinator for the group in D.C., told The Wire that flying these toy helicopters is common at their protests. He participated in one such protest in San Diego at the home of the president of General Atomics, makers of the much-more-scary Predator and Reaper drones. The toy helicopter, Barry said, was purchased on Amazon, as this one might be. And Feinstein is a regular target for the group. "We've held many, many, many vigils there over the years," he said.

So was this the drone that frightened Feinstein so much? Weiss, the senator's spokesman, didn't know what kind of drone the senator was describing. But if it was a blind one the size of a crow, the Senate Commerce Committee can sleep a bit easier tonight.

       

New Hampshire Wants, but Probably Won't Get, Legal Weed

A protestor hits a fat splif at a protest in front of the Statehouse in Concord, New Hampshire, in 2010. (AP)

New Hampshire wants to become the next state to join pot-smoking havens like Washington and Colorado by legalizing the green stuff, but the governor has other ideas. 

The state House voted 170-162 Wednesday to approve House Bill 492, which would legalize carrying up to one ounce of marijuana if you're 21 years old and over, while also establishing restrictions on the production and sale. You can read over the bill here. This is the first time a state legislature has ever passed a bill that legalizes and regulates the sale of marijuana. The House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee suggested the House not pass the bill, but the House told the committee to chill out. New Hampshire's liquor distribution laws are among the most restrictive in the nation, so it's not surprising the state might not open to the idea of readily available weed: 

If you want liquor in New Hamsphire, you gotta go to a state store. Yet legislature just passed bill allowing *private* marijuana retailers!

— Clint Hendler (@clinthendler) January 15, 2014

Legalizing marijuana is the hot new trend and if the New Hampshire House of Representatives had its way, the state would on the cutting edge. Next the bill heads to the state's tax committee for an economic evaluation. Then, the bill goes for more debate in the Senate. Whether or not it passes there is up in unclear. But it doesn't matter, anyway, because New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan already promised to veto your buzz, and the bill, if it makes her desk.

New Hampshire, or should we say New Hempshire, would tax all sales at a rate of about $30 per ounce under Bill 492, reaping an estimated $30 million in tax benefits per year. Marijuana in other states has been so far a lucrative racket where supply can barely keep up with demand. In other words, money is on the table. If only someone would take it.

       

America, You Are Sexist and It's Making You Poorer

Image by iofoto via Shutterstock. (IOFOTO/SHUTTERSTOCK)

Hedge funds headed up by women yield higher returns than those led by men, according to a recent study, but investors won't reconsider how they handle their finances because they're clingy and emotional and probably on their periods or something. 

According to a study conducted by Rothstein Kass, a business consulting firm, hedge funds led by female executives have consistently outperformed ones run by their male-counterparts, as well as the overall industry benchmark, for the past several years. Rothstein Kass writes in a press release: 

For the six and a half years ending June 2013, the Rothstein Kass Women in Alternative Investments (WAI) Hedge Fund Index returned 6 percent, while the S&P 500 gained 4.2 percent and the HFRX Global Hedge Fund Index dropped -1.1 percent during the same period. Although performance comparisons are more difficult in the private equity space, a small sample of women-owned or-managed private equity funds reported net returns of 14.8 percent in 2012, topping the Cambridge Associates LLC private equity fund index number of 13.8 percent. 

The firm's report, “Women in Alternative Investments: A Marathon, Not a Sprint” surveyed 440 senior female hedge fund managers, investors and service providers over the course of five weeks and analyzed their responses. The authors analyzed 82 hedge funds altogether. 

According to the New York Times, the report shows that even though women are better hedge fund leaders than men, more men get the job: 

Of the women surveyed, only 15.5 percent said their firm was owned or managed by a woman. Among hedge funds in particular, 21.4 percent were owned or managed by women. About 42 percent of the respondents said their firm had no general partners who were women. And nearly 40 percent of the firms included in the survey had no women on their investment committees.

You'd think that savvy, sophisticated hedge funds seekers would jump at the opportunity to invest in rare, successful firms. "What?" you'd think they'd say, "I can safely bet that this fund will grow my many dollars, and nobody else seems to know about it, and it's not any riskier than normal hedge funds? Sign me up, butler!" You'd think that the best-kept secret in alternative finance would soon not be a secret at all, to the point where smart, competent, attractive young b-school grads would have to work so much harder than their female counterparts just to be considered for jobs they're equally, if not more, qualified for. But even though survey respondents said they expect more female finance executives to break into the industry in the coming years, it sounds like these sophisticated investors aren't interested, according to the report: 

The lion’s share of investors percent, 73.5 percent, anticipates that their allocations to women-owned or -managed funds will remain the same in 2014. However, 24.5 percent expect allocations to increase somewhat, and 2 percent expect allocations to women-owned or -managed funds to increase significantly.

But why wouldn't investors jump at this golden financial opportunity? 

Roughly 93 percent of the investors polled have no specified mandate to invest in women-owned or -managed funds.

Oh, that explains it. Investors don't have a specific mandate to invest in women-owned or -managed funds. But, they do have another mandate, right? A "use this money to make more money" mandate? You'd think that according to that mandate, investors would be interested in investing in women-owned or -managed funds even though nobody told them to do it, specifically. 

The investors further explained that: 

“Lack of supply” of women-owned or -managed funds was cited as one of the most common reasons why investors do not have specific women-owned or -managed fund investment mandates.

Oh, so there just aren't enough women who are operating or managing funds to warrant a mandate to invest in these (rare! lucrative!) operations. That's weird, because last we checked supply rises to meet demand, so if demand is lacking — perhaps for irrational reasons like entrenched sexism and a boys-club economics — supply won't change. 

Maybe the investors don't trust female hedge fund managers because they read this part of a CNBC article called "Are Women Worse Investors Than Men?":

Women's reluctance to take risks, and the potential shortfall they face in retirement, have been a growing concern among policymakers and women's advocates. An opinion survey from Prudential insurance company last year found that while some 70 percent of men are willing to take financial risks, fewer than half of women were.

But forgot to read this part: 

But the new report, released by the online rewards program for savings and debt-management SaveUp.com, is based on actual account balances entered by 20,000 of the site's users during the past month, and provides a remarkably clear and up-to-date snapshot of men's and women's financial habits. The figures are stark and startling. The average man with a savings account had a balance of nearly twice as much as the average woman, and is taking an even greater advantage of high-yield tax-deferred instruments: Men's average IRA balance was 72 percent more than the average woman's, and they have 30 percent more in taxable investments.

"Risk-averse" may be kind of a reductive way to think about the investing practices of a woman with half the savings and a fraction of the prospect of post-retirement stability of her male counterpart, who knows that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and that female executives, when they do break through the glass ceiling, are vilified and harassed and questioned in a way no man would be.

Women have been earning more college degrees than men for years, but are still underrepresented in business graduate programs. So until women overrepresent in academic settings to correct a problem of underrepresentation in the working world, we recommend you patronize hedge funds run by women. We have a feeling they'll be underutilized for a long time.

       

AOL Found Someone to Take Patch Off Its Hands

Associated Press

There's finally a bit of good news in Patch's future — AOL announced today that it has taken on a partner to share the cost of managing the struggling network of hyperlocal sites. Hale Global, an investment firm that turns struggling sites into "industry leaders," will take over operation of the site, according to AOL.

AOL will spin Patch into a limited liability company run, and mostly owned, by Hale. The deal takes the financial burden away from AOL, which has seen Patch lose $200 million to $300 million dollars over the years, but promises a financial return if things go well.

The deal also brings things full circle for AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, who helped found Patch while still working at Google, then convinced AOL to buy it when he took the top job there. He promised to make Patch profitable for his company, but hasn't been able deliver on that dream. "As an AOL investor, you should think about Patch 2014 and beyond as an asset with optionality for AOL. Most likely in a partnership scenario," he said during a conference call on December 11. At the time he mentioned that Patch's revenues were up, though not profitable by the end of the year like he'd promised.  He also skipped over two high profile departures, his vice president of editorial Anthony Duignan-Cabrera, and his co-founder Jon Brod.

Armstrong convinced AOL to buy the site in 2009. That was, to say the least, an awful idea. Though traffic has been building, the disjointed and decentralized nature of the hundreds of local Patch sites has made it difficult to manage and monetize.  This summer Patch laid off 350 employees, about 40 percent of its overall staff. Armstrong even fired one of those employees personally during the conference call announcing the layoffs. (When Armstrong says no pictures he's dead serious). AOL's stock has also taken a few hits over Patch, but as Business Insider put it, Patch "isn't AOL CEO Tim Armstrong's problem anymore." 

       

Are the Networks Going to Change the Way TV Is Made?

Fox

At the Television Critics Association press tour this week, Fox's chairman rocked the boat by declaring that his network is doing away with tradition of pilot season. But is broadcast TV really on the precipice of change? 

Fox entertainment chairman Kevin Reilly announced proudly on Monday that Fox will "bypass" pilot season—the yearly process by which networks order new shows—in favor of a model more akin to the cable system, whereby new series are developed year round. "I think these shows in this day and age, we can't be in the one-size-fits-all business," he said, per The Hollywood Reporter. "There shouldn't be a set order pattern. There shouldn't be a set time when we launch things. The audience doesn't watch midseason and fall season. They don't know about pilot season. They just want to watch a great show at the right time of year that's marketed to them, that they can be aware of. There are so many things, thousands of original shows competing for their attention right now, we just can't do it all at once." Reilly's idea isn't to look at a clump of single episodes, but rather entire shows, Lacey Rose and Lesley Goldberg explained, picking up series orders—like, say Gracepoint, the U.S. version of Broadchurch—throughout the year. 

It's clear to any television fan that while there is still plenty to watch on broadcast television, cable is where people go for quality, and by doing away with pilot season—a period where a lot of ideas are dealt with in a very short amount of time—is helpful.  As Tim Goodman wrote in THR: "But as far as a revolution in the pilot process—dismantling it—the ultimate benefit is time. And time means patience, which can translate to better quality." Reilly quoted Damon Lindelof, the Lost creator who has headed over to HBO for his The Leftovers, saying: "When you slow down the conveyor belt, the quality goes up." 

Among Reilly's other plans? Have shorter, more cable-like seasons for dramas—which the network has already done to great success with Sleepy Hollow—and schedule scripted programming into summer months. "As those words wafted out into the ballroom, even the most jaded among us must have perked up," Goodman wrote. "It certainly felt like change—positive change—wasn't just afoot, but already in motion. It was, in some ways, thrilling to hear."  

Of course, that's not sitting too well with CBS, the network that's still doing very well off the traditional "pilot season + 13-episode order + back-nine" model. At their TCA panel today CBS's entertainment president Nina Tassler defended the old way. Per Lacey Rose and Marisa Guthrie of THR, Tassler affirmed that "pilot season does work" for her network, and that she still believes in the 22-episode season. She also took a shot at Lindelof. "I want to hear Damon Lindelof complain about broadcast when he goes to the bank to cash his Lost checks," she said. (James Hibberd at Entertainment Weekly points out that Lost perhaps isn't the best example considering that Lindelof and executive producer Carlton Cuse wanted shorter orders.)

Fox has always been an outlier amongst its broadcast compatriots. It's not one of the Big Three.  But TV is changing, and Reilly seems to be aware of it. 

 

       

Actually, Stoners Weren't Too Afraid or High To Challenge David Brooks

These Coloradans are too busy to rebut David Brooks. (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

There are four ridiculous things about Dylan Byers' confused piece at Politico about why there are more columns in opposition to marijuana legalization than in support. Allow me to walk through them if you are not too stoned.

Basically, if you asked anyone on the street why conservatives are writing pieces in opposition to marijuana legalization, that person would be able to give you an answer and would probably tilt his or her head to the side quizzically. (I'm not sure if a small child could answer the question, but probably.) Byers couldn't. Not even the most obvious reason. 

1. The trend is toward liberalization, so of course conservatives are more compelled by the topic.

Byers predicates his piece on Politico's two-tiered look at the issue on its front page on Wednesday. The site's homepage "has gone to pot," he yuks, taking advantage of the fact that "pot" is also a term used for "marijuana." But really, he wonders why the response to new laws in Colorado and Washington has come mostly from pundits "of a moderate conservative bent." He is so stunned they'd come out in opposition that he italicizes the word "against." David Brooks came out against legalization? Wha—??

The answer, as the man-on-the-street could tell you, is that the political trend is against conservatives. The Times' David Brooks and Joe Scarborough are criticizing marijuana legalization because conservatives traditionally oppose marijuana legalization. While the line is blurry post-drug war and with the GOP's new libertarian strain, it is because a progressive policy is moving forward that the reaction has been opponents of progressive policies.

2. Prominent conservatives started the conversation, so it's natural you'd see them more.

When Brooks published his column at the beginning of the month (shortly after Colorado's law kicked in), it came at the same time as one from The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus. Tina Brown, who Byers cites, responded to Brooks, as did Scarborough on MSNBC. Brooks' piece, with its unexpected admission that he used to smoke marijuana, spread through social media for a solid 24 hours.

Half of what Byers cites was already just a response to Brooks. Other responses, then, were bound to pale in comparison. The Wire wrote about the topic several times, from a more progressive viewpoint, but they of course didn't get the traction of the original. Responses countering Brooks' argument (which was basically that states should instead encourage art) were much more likely to get buried.

Byers, who hadn't made it this far in the argument, could only think of one reason that people weren't defending legalization.

3. It isn't only stoners that defend legalization.

Here's Byers:

Perhaps because outside of Colorado and Washington State, it's hard to come to marijuana's defense without outing yourself as a pothead -- or at least an occasional practitioner. That shouldn't be the case. The pros and cons of marijuana legalization can be covered as sober-mindedly as any policy issue, from gay marriage to health insurance to unemployment benefits.

This is a remarkable set of sentences. People won't write defenses of legalization because they are worried about being outed as stoners, not that there's anything wrong with that. It's maybe the squarest contribution to the public conversation since Family Ties went off the air. People who defend use of marijuana must be marijuana cigarette addicts, but we should open up a conversation circle about it anyway.

I don't smoke marijuana, and I wrote a response to Brooks. Slate's Dave Weigel wrote a response, too, one that got a lot of attention. And he admitted smoking marijuana. So how do we fit into this?

The writer Anna Holmes points to Byers' recent debate with The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, in which Coates called out Byers for dismissing praise of Melissa Harris-Perry without knowing about her background. "Dylan Byers knows nothing of your work, and therefore your work must not exist," Coates summarized. 

And Byers didn't know about my work or Weigel's I guess. Fine. But each of us came to the defense of relaxing drug laws because those drug laws are racist and stupid. Our use of marijuana was irrelevant in both cases.

But all of this is an aside to the most ridiculous aspect to Byers' piece.

4. So Byers had to add an update.

To Coates' point.

Links to those pieces are below. Read them! They offer a good counterpoint to the arguments of Brooks, et. al., and it seems some people in positions of influence may have missed them.

Hayes Lovett Harris-Perry Patton Leonard Taylor