Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 920

Neil deGrasse Tyson Fact Checks 'Gravity'

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has some feedback for Gravity, the film apparently everyone saw this weekend. His criticism of the film, gifted to the world on Twitter this Sunday, is kind of the genius version of what happens when journalists start nitpicking "Newsroom." Facing a dramatized version of his specialist subject, it looks like Tyson saw the film in a way that most weekend viewers didn't. And he doesn't seem to be particularly impressed: 

[image error][image error]

Overall, critics seem to really like Alfonso Cuarón's latest film — our own Richard Lawson approaches the imperative tense in his recommendation to see Gravity. But the film doesn't quite hold together scientifically, even as it's scarily realistic enough to provoke some interesting questions. While, as Tyson noted, Gravity "depicts a scenario of catastrophic satellite destruction that can actually happen," it's impossible for astronauts to travel from Hubble to the International Space Station, as is the goal Sandra Bullock and George Clooney's characters in the film. Speaking to the Atlantic, Gravity's science advisor Dr. Kevin Grazier, an astrophysicist, put it this way: 

"Often a story worth telling can fall apart if there is a complete dedication to perfect science. The goal is to make everything seem grounded enough in the physical world that it seems real. So story trumps science every time." 

[image error]

The imagined possibility of getting between Hubble and ISS, despite their different orbits, is one of those scientific sacrifices to story in a film that, in Grazier's mind, has otherwise done its homework. Judging by the overall positive reaction to the film, that imaginative leap is more than justified for most viewers of the film. But the problem hasn't gone unnoticed: the New York Times also honed in on the "plot hole" of vastly different orbits between origin and destination for the stranded characters in the film. Tyson noticed the problem too — not only is travel between the two impossible, but the film also depicts them as in sight lines of each other. Here are some other errors Tyson spotted: 

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

[image error]

Gravity entered the box office at kind of an awkward time for some space lovers. NASA, which celebrated its 55th anniversary on Tuesday, is all but completely closed for business during the government shutdown (its latest Mars mission, however, will go ahead as scheduled). The shutdown has hit the agency especially hard, too. Ninety-seven percent of NASA's workers, about 18,000 people, are furloughed, and even the interns are getting kicked out of the Ames Lodge dormitories until the shutdown is over. And while it's not up to us to determine the context of Tyson's concluding tweet of his Gravity review, the juxtaposition of the film (however excellent) and the shutdown does raise the following question for many: 

[image error]

       

The Navy SEALs Raid on an al-Shabab Leader Didn't Go as Planned

A group of Navy SEALs carried out a raid on a house in Baraawe, Somalia with the intention of killing or seizing an unidentified al-Shabab leader as a response to the attack on a Nairobi mall. Unfortunately U.S. offiicals aren't sure whether or not the attack succeeded. The New York Times reports Navy SEALs descended on the house, a known Shabab hangout, just before dawn Saturday morning, targeting one of the group's leaders. U.S. officials initially said they seized their target after an hour long firefight, but now they've changed their story: 

The Shabab leader was believed to have been killed in the firefight, but the SEALS were forced to withdraw before that could be confirmed, a senior American official said. Such operations by American forces are rare because they carry a high risk, and indicate that the target was considered a high priority. Baraawe, a small port town south of Mogadishu, the Somali capital, is known as a gathering place for the Shabab’s foreign fighters.

Officials from the U.S. and Kenya confirmed the raid took place. Al Shabab confirmed one member was killed but didn't say who. The group claimed their fighters "had beaten back the assault," according to the Times. So the operation wasn't the smashing success the SEALs were hoping for.

FBI officials have been aiding local authorities ever since al-Shabab militants attacked Nairobi's Westgate mall, killing 67 people and engaging in a multiple day standoff with the Kenyan military. The attack on the mall was the largest operation carried out by the al-Qaeda linked group, and the possibility of a similar attack on American soil worried the intelligence community. The Baraawe raid "was prompted by the Westgate attack," an American security official told the Times.

Earlier Saturday, Kenya offered new details about the raid on the Nairobi mall, including a revised estimate on the number of militants who carried out the attack. The Kenyan military identified four Shabab militants killed during the attack: Abu Baara al-Sudani, Omar Nabhan, Khattab al-Kene and Umayr. They now believe the group who attacked the mall consisted of about four to six people, contrary to earlier estimates of around 10 to 15 people. The military also said the "white widow," a British woman named Samantha Lewthwaite who joined al-Shabab,
    

Yes, There Will Be a Miley Cyrus-Sinead O'Connor Sketch on 'SNL'

It was inevitable, right? With Miley hosting and performing on Saturday Night Live this week, and Sinead O'Connor's storied history with the show, the beef between the two singers will be addressed at some point during the episode. 

The New York Post reports Miley's very strange feud with O'Connor has her "creative juices flowing," ahead of tonight's episode. So she's coming up with really interesting and original ideas to blow us all away, right? Maybe not. The feud will be used as material for a sketch, or during her monologue, because that's too obvious. But the show is still figuring out who will play O'Connor:

We’re told the cast members have been jockeying to play O’Connor, who famously tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II on “SNL” in 1992. (We think Bobby Moynihan is perfect.) But another TV source said, “The biggest coup would be to get Sinead herself.”

The two singers started firing shots at each other earlier this week. Cyrus told Rolling Stone that O'Connor was an influence on her, so the Irish singer responded with an open letter urging her not to let the music industry exploit her. Cyrus responded on Twitter and it was all so, so strange.

But the odds of O'Connor showing up are slim to none. During an infamous performance of Bob Marley's "War" during a 1992 hosting gig, O'Connor tore a picture of Pope John Paul II in half as protest against child abuse in the Catholic Church. NBC was furious and O'Connor was banned from the show by Lorne Michaels. 

So that's what you have to look forward to tonight. There's going to be a sketch with Cyrus and O'Connor doing who knows what together at some point and odds are it will air early so no one falls asleep and misses it. 

       

Ted Yoho Thinks Not Raising the Debt Ceiling Is a Great Idea

Everyone who knows anything about economics agrees: not raising the debt ceiling is a horrible idea. But Ted Yoho, a Republican Congressman from Florida who used to work as a veterinarian, thinks the debt ceiling should stay where it is. Forever.

"I’m not going to raise the debt ceiling," Yoho, a member of the Republican block who pushed for the government shutdown, told the Washington Post's David Farenthold. The 58-year-old House freshman has decided, against the better judgement of economic experts and both Republican and Democratic leaders, that not raising will not lead to the catastrophic economic effects we've been warned about. In fact, not raising the debt ceiling will be beneficial for the world's economy, Yoho has decided:

“I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we’re] going broke,” Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. “I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,” since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.

This is not what most people expect will happen if the U.S. does decide not to raise the debt ceiling before October 17. If action isn't taken, the country will effectively default on its loans. The Treasury Department recently released a report detailing the potential consequences of a default. "In the event that a debt limit impasse were to lead to a default, it could have a catastrophic effect on not just financial markets but also on job creation, consumer spending and economic growth — with many private-sector analysts believing that it would lead to events of the magnitude of late 2008 or worse, and the result then was a recession more severe than any seen since the Great Depression,” the report said. So those are the stakes if the debt ceiling isn't raised.

Pretty much everyone agrees this cannot happen. House Speaker John Boehner has promised not to let the country default. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid doesn't want a default. The private sector agrees, too: CEOs from all the major American banks met with the President this week to warn him about defaulting on the country's debt. The country will be like "a deadbeat," if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the President told the Associated Press over the weekend. 

       

Alex Rodriguez Is All Alone

There is not a bridge left in baseball that Alex Rodriguez has not burned. From the league, to his team, to the player's association -- in the fight over his steroid suspension, the Yankees slugger doesn't have any friends left. The New York Times' Serge Kovaleski and the Steve Eder report Rodriguez's team of lawyers wrote a letter requesting the player's union step aside as Rodriguez's first line of defense in his appeal against Major League Baseball's 211 game suspension for steroid use: Rodriguez wanted to pick who would represent him on the three-person arbitration panel that will ultimately decide his fate. (Or at least leave the decision up to his impressive, immense, highly paid team of lawyers.) Rodriguez said the union was, in his mind, not doing an adequate job defending him from the league's steroid investigation:

The letter argued that the players association had missed opportunities to challenge baseball officials’ aggressive investigative tactics; that the union had not strongly enough condemned baseball’s “gratuitous leaks” to the news media; and, most pointedly, that Michael Weiner, the union’s executive director, had publicly compromised Rodriguez’s position in a radio interview when he signaled that Rodriguez should have accepted some type of suspension “based on the evidence we saw.” Rodriguez and his personal lawyers have steadfastly maintained that Rodriguez should not have been suspended.

But Rodriguez's effort didn't work: the player's union chose David Prouty, their general counsel, to represent Rodriguez during the appeal process, which began Monday. The letter Rodriguez sent to the player's union was addressed to Prouty. He surely appreciated it. 

And so, the 38-year-old Yankees shortstop has very few friends left inside the game he has dominated (when healthy) over the last decade. The league wants to suspend him for more than a full season, setting up a potential comeback when the slugger is pushing 40, for allegedly using steroids. On Friday, he filed a lawsuit agains the league and commissioner Bud Selig accusing them of, among other things, destroying "the reputation and career of Alex Rodriguez, one of the most accomplished Major League Baseball players of all time." (His words.) He has also publicly feuded with Yankees executives this year, who he accused of trying to get out from under the remaining $82 million on his contract. (The suspension, if it holds, will save the team $32 million and get them under the luxury tax for the 2014 season.) It's not that Rodriguez is sticking to a "no new friends" policy: he doesn't want any friends at all. 

       

The Man Who Set Himself on Fire at the National Mall Has Died

Ending an odd, deadly week in the nation's capital, the man who set himself on fire at the National Mall in Washington on Friday has died, Washington police announced Saturday.

Per the Associated Press, D.C. police spokesperson Araz Alali confirmed the unknown man died at the MedStar Washington Hospital Center Friday evening because of injuries related to the fire. On Friday, multiple eyewitnesses said the man doused himself with gasoline before lighting himself on fire in the middle of Washington's National Mall. People jogging nearby rushed to put out the fire with their shirts. Officials rushed the man to a local MedStar Washington Hospital Center, saying he had "life threatening" injuries. 

Police still have no idea who the man is or why he did what he did. Alali said his injuries were so bad police were going to use DNA and dental samples to determine his identity. Lt. Pamela Smith of the U.S. Park Police also said they don't know the man's possible motive yet, but confirmed they were investigating.

       

Obama Has Advice for Ted Cruz and Dan Snyder

The Associated Press finally unveiled its big interview with President Obama. The best parts of the conversation came when Obama criticized two of the most controversial people in Washington: one who works in politics, and one who owns a football team. 

Obama talked plenty of things with the AP's Julie Pace: people frustrated with Obamacare sign ups ("Well, they definitely shouldn't give up"); how close Iran is to building a nuclear bomb ("a year or more away"); and possibly keeping some troops in Afghanistan beyond the planned 2014 pull out ("if... we can get an agreement that makes sure that U.S. troops are protected, makes sure that we can operate in a way that is good for our national security, then I'll certainly consider that"). But the juiciest quotes were saved for two of Washington's most controversial figures. 

The President's first target: first year Republican rep. Ted Cruz. Obama never mentions Cruz by name, but it's clear to who his comments are directed. Pace asked Obama for his thoughts on Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio: three young lawmakers making waves in Washington. "Well, if you recall, when I came into the Senate, my attitude was I should just keep a pretty low profile in the Senate and just do the work," Obama said initially. Pace pointed out that media didn't let him keep a low profile, really. And then Obama unleashed a scathing criticism of, well, it's fairly obvious: 

The media may not have, but I didn't go around courting the media, and I certainly didn't go around trying to shut down the government. And so I recognize that in today's media age, being controversial, taking controversial positions, rallying the most extreme parts of your base -- whether it's left or right -- is a lot of times the fastest way to get attention or raise money, but it's not good for government. It's not good for the people we're supposed to be serving.

Cruz has never shied away from media opportunities. He's never met an invitation to Sunday talk show he didn't like. He's also credited with leading the Republican effort to shutdown the government. "You really have to call Cruz, I’m not even joking," Republican Representative Devin Nunes said recently when asked about the party's plan going forward. It's not hard to figure out who the President is talking about.

The other target of the President's subliminal criticism was Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder. Over the last year, there has been an overwhelming rise in calls for the Redskins to finally change their team name. Snyder refuses to budge on the issue. The President, though, thinks it's perhaps a good idea for the team to consider rebranding. "I've got to say that if I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team -- even if it had a storied history -- that was offending a sizeable group of people, I'd think about changing it," Obama said. The feelings of Native Americans who find your team name offensive should trump your decades long sports franchise, the President said. "I don't know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things."

But Obama acknowledged he doesn't own a sports team so it's not his biggest concern. Maybe one day, after this fiscal battle, after he finally moves out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. "I'd probably look at a basketball team before I looked at a football team," though, the President said.

       

Boehner Doesn't Know How to Win His 'Epic Battle'

The government shutdown is four days old and shows no sign of concluding anytime soon. This is partially because one of the shutdown's main players, Speaker of the House John Boehner, has only a loose plan to end this conflict.

"We are locked in an epic battle," Boehner told Republicans during a closed door meeting Friday morning, according to The New York Times' Jonathan Weisman and Ashley Parker. He was trying to rally the troops, or at least put a bandage on morale that's very publicly plummeting. "Hang tough," he said, channelling a high school sports coach getting his team through a game in which they are clearly outmatched. 

Because, really, this shutdown is going to last at least until the U.S. is about to reach the debt limit, and that's when Boehner plans to strike: 

They are only trying to survive another day, Republican strategists say, hoping to maintain unity as long as possible so that when the Republican position collapses, they can capitulate on two issues at once — financing the government and raising the debt ceiling — and head off any internal party backlash. Republican lawmakers say Mr. Boehner has assured them privately that he will not permit a default.

The Times reports Boehner has refused to bring a clean spending bill to the floor because internal party backlash might lead to certain party members not voting to raise the debt ceiling. That result would be catastrophic for the country, not just Congressional Republicans. Boehner knows he's in a losing fight so he's trying to sustain as little damage as possible. "It’s common-sense strategy," one GOP strategist told the Times. "If you’re going to take a bullet, you want to take just one."

So, this fight isn't going to wrap up with a weekend agreement over brunch, is the message here. We're in it for the long haul. The shutdown will likely roll into the debt limit fight. The likely deal Republicans will put forward isn't quite as ridiculous as their ridiculous first offer, but it's still pretty demanding, The National Review's Robert Costa reported Friday afternoon: 

There will be a “mechanism” for revenue-neutral tax reform, ushered by Ryan and Michigan’s Dave Camp, that will encourage deeper congressional talks in the coming year. There will be entitlement-reform proposals, most likely chained CPI and means testing Medicare; there will also be some health-care provisions, such as a repeal of the medical-device tax, which has bipartisan support in both chambers.

Whether this deal will pass in unclear. Republicans are still debating whether or not they should include even more demands, like approving the Keystone pipeline, to the deal. That strategy -- give us everything or we'll push the country or the cliff -- didn't win very much support when they debuted it the first time. 

       

Apple Fights to Keep Its Price-Fixing E-Book Agreements

In July, a U.S. federal judge ruled that Apple violated antitrust laws by collaborating with major publishers to set artificially high e-book prices and knock out competition. Intended to be a means of "breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry," Apple's actions were labeled a conspiracy by Judge Denise Cote.

Now it turns out Apple won't be paying the cost without a fight. CNET reports that the company has filed to appeal the decision, which—if upheld—would require some drastic changes in how Apple does business in the e-book sphere: 

A "notice of appeal" document was filed by Apple attorney Orin Snyder Thursday to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and it posted in a public electronic records system Friday. The appeal seeks to overturn Judge Denise Cote's ruling in the Southern District of New York, as well as an injunction that requires Apple to modify its agreements with book publishers and hire an external monitor for two years.

The appeal isn't such a surprise, since Apple already filed a letter to Cote in August, revealing just the arguments that it plans to make; among others, it claims the court "disregarded serious credibility issues with the Google and Amazon witnesses." (Indeed, we noted that Amazon, perhaps, is the true victor in the ruling.)

But it does indicate that the case could drag on for months or more, since, as Gigaom points out, Apple doesn't have to file its formal arguments until next year. In the meantime, Simon & Schuster is appealing the injunction on its own.

       

Apple Fights to Keep its Price-Fixing E-Book Agreements

In July, a U.S. federal judge ruled that Apple violated antitrust laws by collaborating with major publishers to set artificially high e-book prices and knock out competition. Intended to be a means of "breaking Amazon's monopolistic grip on the publishing industry," Apple's actions were labeled a conspiracy by Judge Denise Cote.

Now it turns out Apple won't be paying the cost without a fight. CNET reports that the company has filed to appeal the decision, which—if upheld—would require some drastic changes in how Apple does business in the e-book sphere: 

A "notice of appeal" document was filed by Apple attorney Orin Snyder Thursday to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and it posted in a public electronic records system Friday. The appeal seeks to overturn Judge Denise Cote's ruling in the Southern District of New York, as well as an injunction that requires Apple to modify its agreements with book publishers and hire an external monitor for two years.

The appeal isn't such a surprise, since Apple already filed a letter to Cote in August, revealing just the arguments that it plans to make; among others, it claims the court "disregarded serious credibility issues with the Google and Amazon witnesses." (Indeed, we noted that Amazon, perhaps, is the true victor in the ruling.)

But it does indicate that the case could drag on for months or more, since, as Gigaom points out, Apple doesn't have to file its formal arguments until next year. In the meantime, Simon & Schuster is appealing the injunction on its own.