Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 951

Who Wrote the Rules of '12-Dimensional Chess'?

[image error]The White House's handling of the politics of Syria has looked so clumsy that many people have said facetiously that President Obama is playing "12-dimensional chess."  Obama is thinking so many steps ahead, contemplating all possible outcomes, that his moves are inscrutable to the rest of us dummies — the joke being that no such lofty thinking is actually happening. So many smart writers have used the term that it got us wondering, What is 12-dimensional chess? Humans experience three dimensions. Spacetime is the fourth dimension. Even string theorists only say there could be up to 11 dimensions. Is it an obscure political reference? A literary term non-nerds missed out on in high school? A long-lost piece of pop culture? Few people know.

On Wednesday, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein reported, "Privately, Hill aides joke that everything is going exactly to President Obama’s plan. It’s just that that plan is to stay far, far away from Syria. This is the (tongue-in-cheek) 12-dimensional chess interpretation of the Obama administration’s Syria strategy." Last Friday, The Atlantic's James Fallows wrote that Obama needed to ask Congress for authorization to use military force, even if it risked losing the vote. (Obama later surprised everyone, including his own advisers, by deciding to do just that.) Fallows wrote:

I write the list above in full confidence that Barack Obama, 12-dimensional chess player, has already thought through every move far more quickly and thoroughly than I have. Thus I am left with this puzzle. Why is he doing this? The leaking of the counter-attack plans, the hemming himself in with the "red line," the "who cares about the Congress, I'm going ahead!" all suggest a recklessness and, frankly, a foolishness that I don't associate with Barack Obama even in his least effective phases...

This is not the first time the term has been applied to Obama. In July, Talking Points Memo editor Josh Marshall tweeted, "So Obama 2009 visit, 12 dimensional chess, #winning right?" (By the timing, this appears to be a reference to his Cairo speech and the post-coup violence there.) A Huffington Post blogger used it to describe Obama's budget strategy in April. Liberal tweeters used it to describe fiscal cliff negotiations in December — except this time it was true! A gay-rights blogger used it to describe Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal negotiations in 2010. That year, Shakesville defined it as "A reference to what political operatives are said to be playing when they assert a strategy is too sophisticated for critics, feminist or otherwise, to understand." During Obamacare negotiations in 2009, Melissa McEwan wrote for The Guardian that "progressives are meant to trust in the ubiquitously referenced 12-dimensional chess game they're allegedly playing, to which they've given none of their supporters the playbook or rules." Commenters on both liberal and conservative blogs use it. 

[image error]So where does it come from? I asked our colleague James Fallows, who replied, "I can't remember when I first heard this, or what its existence was before Obama." Though he was "never a Star Trek guy," he thought it could be a reference to Dr. Spock's playing three-dimensional chess. I asked the Post's Klein, too. "There's some joking quote from an early admin profile but it'd take some time to track down," Klein said. We asked other reporters at Gawker and The Atlantic and The New Yorker. They had "no clue," as one emailed.

I turned to Klein's colleague Brad Plumer, who noted that TalkLeft claimed credit for coining "11-dimensional chess" in reference to Obama's negotiations over the public option in 2009. The liberal blog said in September 2009 that it was being used incorrectly. 11D chess did not mean Obama was without strategy. Instead, it meant that there was nothing deeper than what we could see:

Indeed, those of us who use the phrase mean something entirely different - to wit, the rhyme or reason of Obama's actions are the evident ones, not the secret coded ones attributed to them by true believers. In the health care reform context, we use the phrase to refer to the unthinking acceptance that Obama's political strategy is what will get us a public option. This is best captured by that irritating picture we always used to see of Obama with the caption "Don't Worry, He's Got it." The reality is that Obama has not "got it" at all on the public option.

But the idea was around long before 2009. In fact, the first reference in Nexis is dated November 28, 1991, in The Guardian. British Prime Minister John Major was in negotiations over the treaty that created the European Union. The Germans wanted a clear timetable for the U.K. to join. 

[Major's] officials echoed the upbeat mood, saying they were optimistic that a settlement was possible, although they admitted they were playing in 'a game of 12-dimensional chess'.

The comment appears to have gone viral in the British press, or as viral as things could go before the Internet. On December 8, 1991, The Observer referenced "what a Downing Street source memorably described as 12-dimensional chess." At least 11 newspaper articles referenced the quote. It had sticking power: "Last year the metaphor of choice was 12-dimensional chess," The Independent said on December 11, 1992. 

[image error]But even that had to come from somewhere. Slate's Dave Weigel also suggested it came from Star Trek. In the original show, which ran from 1966 to 1969, Dr. Spock and Captain Kirk can be seen playing on a chessboard with multiple levels. Most references online come after that. The Christian Science Monitor said world politics was like "three-dimensional chess" in 1969. In 1970, Miami's police chief said planning security for the Democratic and Republican conventions was like "three-dimensional chess." In 1975, syndicated columnist John P. Roche said the politics of the European Economic Community was like "five-dimensional chess." None of these mentioned Star Trek, however.

[image error]Perhaps that's because 3D "Space Chess" was invented in Germany in 1907. The St. Petersburg Times reported students would present a "three-dimensional chess board, composed of eight plastic levels held in a vertical stack by brass reds and spacers" at the Florida state science fair in 1958. And in 1936, The New York Times reported that it was a myth that Albert Einstein was a 3D chess player. The scientist did not play multi-dimensional chess, or any kind of chess. "I have seen pictures of the game in rotogravures," Einstein said, "but as yet I have not played it." Further, he said, " I do not play any games, you see… When I relax I want something that does not tax the mind. When the reporter described Monopoly to him, Einstein chucked and said, "A very American game."

(Top right photo of "A 3D projection of a four-dimensional hypercube performing a simple rotation about a plane which bisects the figure from front-left to back-right and top to bottom" via Wikimedia Commons, middle right and middle left GIF via YouTube.)

       

Rodale CEO Thinks Assad's Poison Gas Deaths Are No Worse Than Weed Killer

[image error]We have found the worst possible reaction to hundreds of Syrians being gassed to death. In an near parodic level of moral equivalence, Rodale CEO Maria Rodale has argued that while it might look like Syrian civilians experienced a horrific death when their government killed them with poison gas, Americans experience pretty much the same thing every day when they have to eat produce that was grown with pesticides. In an open letter on The Huffington Post on Wednesday, Rodale writes:

Yes, Syria has undoubtedly used chemical weapons on its own people. Maybe it was the government; maybe it was the opposition; maybe you know for sure. But here's what I know for sure: We are no better. We have been using chemical weapons on our own children -- and ourselves -- for decades, the chemical weapons we use in agriculture to win the war on pests, weeds, and the false need for ever greater yields.

Sure, the debate between those who want to intervene and those who want to stay out has gotten heated. And some people have made inflammatory comments, like Ron Paul's suggestion that the poison gas attack was a "false flag" — actually done by al Qaeda, not the Syrian government — or Rush Limbaugh's suggestion that the rebels gassed themselves, and Syrian President Bashar al Assad was "framed." Some said Congress should use the war resolution to extract partisan concessions on stuff like Obamacare and gun control. But Rodale goes above and beyond in suggesting that eating non-organic veggies is just as bad as being forced to inhale sarin gas. 

And, sure, you could make the case that pesticides (or smoking cigarettes or living too close to industrial waste or driving in cars) will kill more people than Bashar al-Assad ever will with chemical weapons. But there's a huge moral difference between unintended consequences of technologies (even when they're deadly) and intentionally launching poison gas into the suburbs.  

In case you think we are exaggerating the level of moral equivalence Rodale draws between the two things, here are some more key passages. The publishing executive demands Obama take action on the real problem: 

While the effects of these "legal" chemical weapons might not be immediate and direct, they are no less deadly. And you, Mr. President, have had an unprecedented opportunity to stop it, but you haven't. You haven't. In fact, you have encouraged it.

She says death from pesticides is just slower than death from chemical weapons:

We've been trying to tell you for years that chemical companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, DuPont, Bayer Crops Sciences, and others are poisoning our children and our environment with your support and even, it seems, your encouragement. Just because their bodies aren't lined up wrapped in sheets on the front pages of the newspapers around the world doesn't mean it's not true.

Rodale thinks this Facebook meme shown above really nails it. ("I know you probably don't hang out on Facebook much, but it's getting a lot of 'shares' among my friends.") She's certainly right that isolation from what normal people think can skew your perspective.

       

The New York Times and A.P. Will Keep Using the Washington NFL Team's Name

The drive to shame the Washington Redskins into changing its offensive moniker took a big blow Wednesday when The New York Times and Associated Press confirmed they would continue calling the team by its given name. 

While publications that rarely cover the NFL like Slate, Mother Jones, The New Republic have made it policy to drop the name, the movement to force a name change will need a bigger outlet to have a real effect. If The Times or the A.P. chose to join the fight, something might break. "Those are the two organizations whose usage standards, more than any others, are used as the model for newsrooms across the country," 
    

Ariel Castro, Convicted Cleveland Kidnapper, Found Dead in His Cell

According to multiple reports, Ariel Castro, convicted in August of kidnapping and repeatedly raping Amanda Berry, Michelle Knight and Gina DeJesus, was found dead in his cell on Tuesday night. He was found at about 9:20 p.m local time, hanging in his cell. The reports cite confirmation from Ohio Rehabilitation and Correction officials. 

BREAKING: Cleveland Kidnapper Ariel Castro found hanging inside his jail cell. Dead.

— Jeff Rossen (@jeffrossen) September 4, 2013

Castro, 53, was held in isolation from the general prison population because of his high profile. He was serving a sentence for life in prison plus 1,000 years. In a statement to WOIO, JoEllen Smith of the Ohio Department of Corrections said the following: 

Inmate Ariel Castro was found hanging in his cell this evening at 9:20 pm at the Correctional Reception Center in Orient. He was housed in protective custody which means he was in a cell by himself and rounds are required every 30 minutes at staggered intervals.  Upon finding inmate Castro, prison medical staff began performing life saving measures. Shortly after he was transported to OSUMC where he was pronounced dead at 10:52 pm. A thorough review of this incident is underway and more information can be provided as it becomes available pending the status of the investigation.

 

       

Internal Benghazi Report Details State Department Security Flaws

So, remember the (small) part of the Benghazi conspiracy theory where "they" ignored repeated warnings of security failures at the high-risk facility in Libya? Well, it turns out that, according to an internal government report, the State Department failed to address a series of security issues at America's most vulnerable embassies for decades. But conservative Benghazi theorists who'd like to take the major scoop and run with it will face some cognitive dissonance: the documents were obtained by Al Jazeera America. 

The report is a result of a recommendation by the State Department's Accountability Review Board investigation into the Benghazi attacks. That report also found security failures by the State Department in the case of Benghazi. The internal panel, whose report is cited by Al Jazeera America, was chaired by former U.S. Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan. That report, which mentions 273 "significant attacks" on U.S. diplomatic facilities between 1998 and 2012, concluded: 

— The State Department has an endemic lack of accountability on security issues. AJA explains:

the undersecretary for management oversees security issues while also handling many other responsibilities. A newly created undersecretary for diplomatic security would allow the State Department to better focus on security issues affecting diplomatic posts around the world.

— There's a serious lack of review processes for the bureau responsible for embassy security:

The  Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the State Department security arm created following the 1983 bombings of the U.S. Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, does not have a review process in place to learn from previous security failures.

— The survivors of Benghazi were never debriefed. 

— Risk assessments of embassies and consulates in dangerous areas are determined by "experience and intuition." At least some high-risk facilities lack an intelligence analyst on-site, and there's no designated facility to train agents entering high-risk posts. 

Al Jazeera, citing the report, calls the security at the Benghazi facility "porous" at best. So why did it stay open? They explain: 

State Department officials effectively waived the security requirements. For years, the State Department has fostered a culture of waiving such requirements when officials choose not to meet them. "Waivers for not meeting security standards have become commonplace in the Department; however, without a risk management process to identify and implement alternate mitigating measures after a waiver has been given, Department employees, particularly those in high threat areas, could be exposed to an unacceptable level of risk," Sullivan's panel wrote. 

The results indicate that the findings of the Benghazi agency apply broadly, and go back far. Meanwhile, Benghazi enthusiasts
    

The Senate's Compromise Syria Plan Comes With a Time Limit

A compromise plan between members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations would limit Obama's military action in Syria to 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension. That effectively sidelines the administration's draft legislation for military action — seen as too broad by both parties, including many members of the committee — in favor of a more narrow window of scope and opportunity. 

Senator Bob Corker, the Republican ranking member, supports a limited Syrian intervention, as does the committee Chair Bob Menendez. After a hearing today with Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, it looks like the committee members would like to get some potentially vote-getting details and limitations down on paper. The new draft legislation reflects that. In a statement, Corker said: 

“Our negotiations have led to a much narrower authorization that provides for the appropriate use of force while limiting the scope and duration of military action, prohibiting boots on the ground, and requiring the Obama administration to submit their broader plan for Syria... This is one of the most serious matters that comes before the Congress, so as we proceed to a potentially defining vote next week, the president and his administration must continue to vigorously make their case to the American people.” 

The resolution gives Obama limited power "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in a limited and tailored manner against legitimate military targets in Syria, only," in order to "deter" and "degrade" Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's capacity to use chemical weapons in the future. It goes on, after barring the president from using military force to try and topple al-Assad, to require the U.S. to report on efforts to aid "vetted" opposition groups in the country.

And, while it doesn't totally shut it down, the resolution also addresses a loophole opened up (hypothetically) by Secretary of State John Kerry this afternoon concerning the use of "boots on the ground" in Syria in some situations: "The authority granted in section 2 does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations," it reads. Politico notes that this could allow the president to authorize special forces or rescue operations on the ground. 

Of course, the president believes, and his administration has repeatedly argued, that he has the authority to use force in Syria even without a congressional authorization. 

Here's the full draft resolution: 

Syria Joint Resolution1

       

Here's How Al-Qaeda Tried to Sabotage American Drones

Since at least 2010, Al Qaeda has recruited engineers and technicians with knowledge of drones and missiles in an effort to develop a "counterdrone" strategy against U.S. attacks. That's according to intelligence documents obtained by the Washington Post from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. 

America's drone policy has long been a contradictory, controversial beast with, among other things, a disturbing tendency to kill innocent and misidentified people. But it is also effective at killing Al Qaeda leaders. And the terrorist organization knows this, as evidenced by their substantial efforts to figure out a way to stop, or hijack, the attacks. The CIA learned about their counterdrone ambitions in 2010, and have apparently been tracking it ever since. 

In that year, the Post explains, Al Qaeda made a huge push to recruit members who might have some specialist drone knowledge. Then Al Qaeda operations chief  Atiyah Abd al-Rahman told a jihadist site that year that the group wasn't really looking for "ordinary fighters" at the moment. It was focusing on specialists. Later that year, Turkey arrested an Al Qaeda member — a mathematics student — who was researching methods to shoot down small NATO drones. The program isn't even secret. The Post quotes a jihadist magazine, Azan, which called in March for those with "abilities" to stop drones: 

[image error]

In 2011, the U.S. detected the test of a GPS jamming device. But it was doomed to failure. The Post explains that "whoever was beaming the mysterious signal mistakenly believed that jamming ground-based GPS receivers would interfere with drones’ ability to aim missiles or munitions at fixed targets." U.S. intelligence officials also discovered plans to shoot down drones with shoulder-held rockets, to develop ways to detect lasers from laser-guided strikes. As far as the Post's documents are concerned, al Qaeda is still waiting for the technological know-how to hack or down American drones, even though the weaknesses of the devices are widely known. The Post explains: 

U.S. spy agencies have concluded that al-Qaeda faces “substantial” challenges in devising an effective way to attack drones, according to the top-secret report disclosed by Snowden. Still, U.S. officials and aviation experts acknowledge that unmanned aircraft have a weak spot: the satellite links and remote controls that enable pilots to fly them from thousands of miles away.

The government outlined those weaknesses in a report two years ago. Because the necessary parts to implement a drone sabotage are relatively inexpensive, the report explains, the expertise needed to actually do it is really the only obstacle. 

The Post's piece has an interesting coda of sorts: as the U.S. intelligence officials assessed the threat to drones from insurgents in the Middle East, they were increasingly aware of a publicity war back home: 

Analysts also questioned whether they were losing the rhetorical battle in the media, the courts and even among “citizens with legitimate social agendas.” One 2010 report predicted that drone operations “could be brought under increased scrutiny, perceived to be illegitimate, openly resisted or undermined.” In response, intelligence agencies floated their own ideas to influence public perceptions. One unclassified report said the phrase “drone strike” should never be uttered, calling it “a loaded term.”

Instead, officials recommended the use of "lethal UAV operations" as a replacement term. But it's not the term "drone strike" that's been at the center of criticism of the program — its how the targets are actually chosen, and at what cost. 

       

Susan Rice: The Administration Has 'No Expectation' of Losing Syria Vote

Following up on a long, over 3 hour Senate committee hearing on Syria, National Security Adviser Susan Rice believes the administration will get the congressional authorization it's seeking over a limited Syrian intervention. Speaking to NBC Nightly News, Rice, who'd been involved in crafting the administration's policy towards Syria, said she was "quite confident" of the administration's chances in Congress, adding, "We have no expectation of losing the vote." Rice continued:

"We think that the Congress of the United States and the American people understand that we have compelling national interests at stake here." 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rice's answer — at what's apparently her first television appearance since taking her current post — also bypasses a question that's come up again and again for the administration: what happens if Congress fails to pass something giving the administration authorization to use force? Given that President Obama has made it clear that he believes he has the authority to go ahead and authorize a strike without Congress's backing, he could just go ahead with what he's decided already, But he, and his administration, have stopped short of addressing what would come next either way. That question came up at the hearing today, as well. Kerry, like Rice, refused to provide a next step. 

And while even anti-Syrian action leader Senator Rand Paul thinks the administration will get authorization from Congress, the case is far from sold to the American public. Just 6 out of 10 Americans support a solo military intervention by the U.S. in Syria, for instance, even after a week of repeated pitches from the administration, including President Obama himself. On the other hand, the president is getting some key support from the leadership of both parties. 

Earlier today, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Republican leader Rep. Eric Cantor said they'd support the president's plan for military intervention. This might bode well for the administration's chances to pass an authorization through the Republican-led House, though the GOP's House leadership doesn't have a perfect record of wrangling their own party — and the third in command, Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, hasn't said he's on board with the plan. Neither has Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Meanwhile, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is drafting a resolution to give Obama authority for a Syria strike. They'll probably debate the language of that draft bill tomorrow afternoon. 

       

Some People Really Don't Like '50 Shades' Casting Charlie Hunnam as Christian Grey

Following E.L. James announcement yesterday that Dakota Johnson and Charlie Hunnam would be engaging in some steamy sex in the film version of Fifty Shades of Grey, outraged fans have started a petition to get rid of them, revealing a particularly nasty strain of fan culture. 

Not being dedicated fans of Fifty Shades, we were surprised by the outrage. Johnson and Hunnam don't come with a lot of baggage. Johnson, who will play Anastasia Steele, is probably best known for a very brief role in The Social Network and the very short-lived Fox series Ben & Kate. Hunnam, who before his turn as the bondage-loving Christian Grey was best known as a Sons of Anarchy regular, is only just beginning his road to movie star fame. 

Alas, some fans are pissed. A petition on Change.org demanded that Johnson and Hunnam be replaced with Alexis Bledel (of Gilmore Girls) and Matt Bomer (of White Collar). As of this afternoon 9,000 people have signed the petition. "All readers believe Matt is Christian. It would be a dream to see him in the movie," the petition reads. (The demand for change makes no mention of the fact that Bledel who at 31 seems a little old to play the 21-year-old Anastasia. Gilmore Girls ended six years ago; Johnson is 23) 

The Internet has emboldened fans to believe that they can cast a film better than professionals. And while "all readers" may believe that Bomer should play Christian Grey, the petitioner(s) don't stop to consider that perhaps the character's creator didn't even want that. If we are to believe the ramblings of Bret Easton Ellis on Twitter, Bomer wasn't a consideration: "Talked to E.L. James at a party over the summer: her first choice for Christian was Rob Pattinson and Matt Bomer was never in the running."  

Of course, these petitions are nothing new. As Matt Singer points out at The Dissolve, one of multiple petitions to remove Ben Affleck in his role as Batman in the Man of Steel sequel now has upwards of 90,000 supporters. Unlike some campaigns that have helped save television shows like Friday Night Lights from early deaths, the Fifty Shades and Batman campaigns are born out of negativity. Only, Singer argues that don't have their intended effect. "All they really prove is the passion of a fan base, one that’s also hungry for product," Singer writes. "If you’re crazy enough about a movie to sign a petition over who plays a critical role, odds are you’re passionate enough to go see the finished product no matter who gets cast in it." 

That's true for the most part, but there is reason to be worried when fans go astray. Last month Rebecca Ford explained in The Hollywood Reporter that "insiders" credit the failure of the adaptation of beloved Y.A. novel Beautiful Creatures, out earlier this year, to the fact that the movie "was significantly different from the book, which alienated the series' extremely rabid fanbase. Some fan sites even told people to boycott the film." 

Fifty Shades is a very different beast than Beautiful Creatures, with a big hype machine already in the works, but fan ire is something with which to be reckoned with these days, a catalyst for a negative headline at every turn. Producer Dana Brunetti, at least, is striking back as The Hollywood Reporter pointed out. He tweeted: "There is a lot that goes into casting that isn't just looks. Talent, availability, their desire to do it, chemistry with other actor, etc."

       

'40 Days of Dating' Is About to Get the Climax It Deserves

It's been a long month or so for fans of "40 Days of Dating," the painfully touching relationship experiment-turned-blog phenomenon that so resembles a Hollywood rom-com it may very well turn into one.

But Judgment Week has arrived. Like any reality show, "40 Days" is finally rolling out its big reveal.

The premise is simple—and as complex as any real-life relationship. Jessica Walsh and Timothy Goodman, chronically single graphic designers in New York, had been friends for years, and struggling romantics for longer. Goodman has commitment problems. Walsh is "a hopeless romantic who jumps into relationships very quickly." So they decided to try dating each other for 40 days. As in, actually dating: they saw each other every day, went on dates, remained exclusive, attended couples therapy, and—yes—eventually had sex. They also blogged each step of the way. 

They knew it would be sort of maybe weird. They did not know it would garner them an international audience, a steady flow of fan mail, and a very possible movie or TV adaptation. But if that pitch seems like a juicy rom-con to you, is it any surprise a Hollywood executive would have the same thought? And if you're already living out your love life for a rapt Internet audience, why not go the extra mile? 

The catch is, we still don't know what happened to our heroes, romantically speaking. Are they still together? Their When Harry Met Sally-style stunt took place last spring. They began publishing their day-by-day journals in July. And they've been withholding the last four entries ever since. This week, that changes.

Slate's Hanna Rosin got a hold of Goodman for a quick Q&A about what's to come:

Slate: When did you last see each other?

Goodman: We see each other way too much.

Slate: Will you say in your final entries if you're still together?

Goodman: Yes, more or less. It will be obvious.

Slate: Was it different operating without accountability, that is, after day 41, knowing you could act and wouldn't have to write about it, did you act differently?

Goodman: Yes, it was very different. And it was weird. Documenting our experience allowed life to slow down. It allowed us to be more mindful and more considerate with each other. The idea that this would be shared on the Internet held us accountable.

Asked about the coolest moment of the project, Goodman's answer is surprising. He doesn't point to specific anecdote or brag about being recognized on the street. He just points out the strange normalcy of the relationship that ensued:

Our relationship issues seem to be common with many other people, so we wanted to learn more about love and relationships in an attempt to figure out why. Our individual stories, issues, and approaches aren't much different from a lot of folks

And that's just the thing. Scrolling through Goodman and Walsh's entries, it's surprisingly easy to set aside the novelty of the stunt and realize that their relationship problems are as routine and familiar as anyone's relationship problems, just with a heightened dramatic pitch.

Which means, fame aside, they're just like us. The Guardian's Hannah Slapper goes one further in suggesting that Walsh and Goodman's little project could offer a romantic solution for the desparately lonely urbanite: you've got platonic friends with whom you get along well, and chances are there's one or two you wouldn't mind getting to know a little, ahem, better. Why not test the waters? (Read: you don't need to blog the experience for the virtual world to see.)

Walsh has outright said that her favorite fan mail hailed from "readers inspired to make a move on a special someone who had been stuck in the 'friend zone.'" And with the recent success of Bang With Friends, it's not altogether unfeasible to imagine an app aiming to bring together friends and acquaintances seeking more than a one-time meet-up without having to go the OkCupid route.

We'll find out this week if "40 Days of Dating" succeeded or not, in the most simplistic sense. But even if Goodman and Walsh are no longer together, can you really call it a failure? Forty days of dating is, after all, better than one hundred years of solitude.