Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 970

NASA's Planet-Hunting Telescope Will Never Hunt Planets Again

On Thursday, NASA announced that they'd given up on repair attempts to the Kepler Space Telescope, after a second navigational wheel critical to the spacecraft's mission (there are four in total) stopped working in May. That officially ends the Kepler's mission to find new, possibly habitable planets around other stars. Instead, NASA's in the middle of collecting ideas for what else they can do with their otherwise perfectly-functional telescope orbiting the sun.

But don't worry: NASA will probably still discover more promising planets. Analysts haven't yet worked through all the data collected by Kepler before it went down for the count. That data has given researchers a lot to work with: they've found 135 potentially habitable exoplanets, and identified over 3,500 candidates. According to William Borucki at NASA’s Ames Research Laboratory, researchers are still pretty pumped about the work ahead of them (via the New York Times):

“The most exciting discoveries are going to come in next few years as we search through this data. In the next few years we’re going to be able to answer the questions that inspired Kepler: are Earthlike planets common or rare in the galaxy?”

NASA still has two-years worth of data left from Kepler to analyze.

While Kepler's future mission is up in the air, any future use of the telescope will have to do without the craft's former precision. To collect data on possible planets, researchers needed incredible control over Kepler's movements — it looked for slight drops in brightness from stars, with the amount of light blocked indicating the size of the planet. And because it orbits the sun, NASA won't send a team out to repair or modify it. So far, the mission — launched in 2009, has cost $600 million. NASA's currently studying the best use of the telescope going forward (for instance, using it to hunt for asteroids), and whether the money allotted to the mission for the rest of 2013 could be better spent elsewhere. They've also put out a call for papers with "two-wheel" Kepler ideas. So definitely send your thoughts to NASA.

       

The Government Now Admits There's an 'Area 51'

Newly declassified documents, obtained by George Washington University's National Security Archive, appear to for the first time acknowledge the existence of Area 51. Hundreds of pages describe the genesis of the Nevada site that was home to the government's spy plane program for decades. The documents do not, however, mention aliens.

The project started humbly. In the pre-drone era about a decade after the end of World War II, President Eisenhower signed off on a project aimed at building a high-altitude, long-range, manned aircraft that could photograph remote targets. Working together, the Air Force and Lockheed developed a craft that could hold the high-resolution cameras required for the images, a craft that became the U-2. Why "U-2"?

They decided that they could not call the project aircraft a bomber, fighter, or transport plane, and they did not want anyone to know that the new plane was for reconnaissance, so [Air Force officers] Geary and Culbertson decided that it should come under the utility aircraft category. At the time, there were only two utility aircraft on the books, a U-1 and a U-3. told Culbertson that the Lockheed CL-282 was going to be known officially as the U-2.

The next step was to find a place from which the top-secret aircraft could be flown.

[image error]

On 12 April 1955 [CIA officer] Richard Bissell and Col. Osmund Ritland (the senior Air Force officer on the project staff) flew over Nevada with [Lockheed's] Kelly Johnson in a small Beechcraft plane piloted by Lockheed's chief test pilot, Tony LeVier. They spotted what appeared to be an airstrip by a salt flat known as Groom Lake, near the northeast corner of the Atomic Energy Commission's (AEC) Nevada Proving Ground. After debating about landing on the old airstrip, LeVier set the plane down on the lakebed, and all four walked over to examine the strip. The facility had been used during World War II as an aerial gunnery range for Army Air Corps pilots. From the air the strip appeared to be paved, but on closer inspection it turned out to have originally been fashioned from compacted earth that had turned into ankle-deep dust after more than a decade of disuse. If LeVier had atrempted to land on the airstrip, the plane would probably have nosed over when the wheels sank into the loose soil, killing or injuring all of the key figures in the U-2 project.

That's the first acknowledged mention of the Groom Lake site, according to Chris Pocock, a British author who's written extensively about the program and provided his thoughts to the GWU archive. Nor, it seems, has the low-contrast image that accompanies that section (below) been seen. 

[image error]

The name "Area 51," so evocative, was an accident of circumstance.

After consulting with [the CIA's] Dulles, Bissell and Miller asked the Atomic Energy Commission to add the Groom Lake area to its real estate holdings in Nevada. AEC Chairman Adm. Lewis Strauss readily agreed, and President Eisenhower also approved the addition of this strip of wasteland, known by its map designation as Area 51, to the Nevada Test Site. The outlines of Area 51 are shown on current unclassified maps as a small rectangular area adjoining the northeast corner of the much larger Nevada Test Site.

Recognizing that people might not be excited about moving to a place called "Area 51" in the middle of the desert, a new name was offered: "Paradise Ranch, which was soon shortened to the Ranch." It was less appealing, however, in popular culture.

[image error]The National Security Archive outlines other new revelations in the documents (all 407 pages of which can be downloaded from the site). Three new details:

More than three pages (pp. 153-157, previously deleted in their entirety) on British participation in the U-2 program. The authors note that President Dwight Eisenhower viewed British participation "as a way to confuse the Soviets as to sponsorship of particular overflights" as well to spread the risk of failure. An account (pp. 231-233, previously redacted in its entirety) of U-2 operations from India, between 1962 and 1967, triggered by the 1962 Sino-Indian war. An account (pp. 222-230 ff., almost entirely deleted in the previous release) of U.S.-sponsored Chinese Nationalist U-2 operations, including tables of the number of overflight and peripheral missions each year.

It also includes a notation regarding the most famous U-2 flight: The May 1, 1960, flight of Francis Gary Powers which ended when Powers' craft was downed by a Soviet surface-to-air missile. In another bit of overlap with modern surveillance, Powers' flight left from an airfield in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.

[image error]

We're still going through the document, so take a look for yourself. If you see anything interesting, leave it in the comments, below.

Hat-tip: Ryan Reilly. Photo: A U-2.(AP)

       

'40 Days of Dating' Is the Latest Internet Project to Be Co-opted by Hollywood

An Internet project that seems tailor made to be turned into a romantic comedy may actually become one. Jessica Walsh and Timothy Goodman—who created the popular site "40 Days of Dating"—have signed with CAA, The Wrap's Jeff Sneider reports. 

Walsh and Goodman were two friends with differing relationship problems who decided, as something of an experiment, to date each other for 40 days and record their experiences. The site, which has been updating Monday through Friday starting July 10, chronicles each day of their project via a questionnaire that they filled out. The two learn about one another, fight, deal with health problems, have sex. 

In the about section of the site they write: "It’s been said that it takes 40 days to change a bad habit. In an attempt to explore and hopefully overcome their fears and inadequacies, Tim and Jessica will go through the motions of a relationship for the next 40 days: the commitment, time, companionship, joys and frustrations. " The two also set rules for themselves which include that they will go on at least three dates a week and see a couples therapist. 

The site happens to also be beautifully executed. It helps that both of the participants are designers and have friends who are artists. (Both Jessica and Tim also happen to look like indie movie stars already—Jessica a combo between Zooey Deschanel and Aubrey Plaza—so that helps up the Hollywood factor too.) 

The aesthetics have paid off. The word "obsessed" tends to come up on on Twitter when the project is mentioned, and cultishly beloved actress Kristen Bell has revealed herself to be a fan. What ends up being so engaging about the project is that readers start to actually wonder what will happen to Jessica and Tim—who completed the project back in the Spring (though they've only updated the site to day 35 and will finish chronicling the 40 days on August 22)—as if they were characters in a movie or novel. It helps that the conceit also echoes some already established romantic comedy tropes involving friends who then become lovers. (See: When Harry Met Sally and the sort of indistinguishable Friends with Benefits and No Strings Attached. Actually, maybe don't see those.) We'll see if, and how, their story translates and how it ends. 

 

       

'In It to Win' Christie Implies Paul and Jindal Are Losers

[image error]Chris Christie said he wants to win things, unlike certain other Republicans, at the Republican National Committee meeting in Boston on Thursday. "See I’m in this business to win… I’m in it to win. I think we have some folks who believe that our job is to be college professors," Christie said. This was interpreted to be a shot at Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a likely rival for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination. "Now college professors are fine I guess. Being a college professor, they basically spout out ideas that nobody does anything about. For our ideas to matter we have to win. Because if we don’t win, we don’t govern. And if we don’t govern all we do is shout to the wind. And so I am going to do anything I need to do to win."

Christie first became nationally famous by being rude to people in town halls. (He still does it from time to time.) But Christie thinks you've got to pick and choose who you're rude to. "I'm not going to be one of these people who goes and calls our party stupid," Christie said on Thursday. This was interpreted to be a shot at Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who said the GOP needed to avoid being the "stupid party" after the 2012 election. 

The New Jersey governor's speech was technically closed to the press, but the comments were obviously meant to get attention. Obviously, Christie is not unique among potential 2016 candidates in wanting to win. All of these people — Paul, Jindal, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker — want to win. That is how they got into elected office in the first place: by winning things. The real fight is over how Republicans can win. Christie thinks it's by being more moderate. Cruz thinks it's by being more conservative. The National Review's Robert Costa tweets, "Just like Cruz is filling a vacuum on right, Christie is doing the same on center-right. Romney donors/RNC types looking for new spokesman." 

"It was impressive. I forgot about the Obama bear hug," said Tennessee GOP Chairman Chris Devaney told CNN's Peter Hamby in a self-contradictory statement. (The hug he almost forgot was the one Christie gave President Obama after Hurricane Sandy.) "The emphasis was on electability," Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri told Time's Zeke Miller. "And he made the case that he is electable, so I think you saw a foreshadowing of 2016."

Iowa GOP chair A.J. Spiker, who once backed Ron Paul — the father of the 2016er Christie is so publicly beefing with! — told Time that Christie's speech was "really great." And Spiker told Business Insider's Brett Logiurato that he expected Christie to travel to Iowa to help the reelection campaign of Gov. Terry Brandstad.  "As far as him running in Iowa, Iowa's going to be wide open," Spiker said. "And I expect we'll see him a lot, possibly next year in Iowa." 

       

Americans See Abortion, But Not Stem Cell Research, as a Moral Issue

A new Pew poll found that Americans view abortion as a moral issue, even compared to other scientific and medical procedures that involve the use of fertilized human eggs. In the poll, 49 percent of Americans thought abortion was morally wrong, while 15 percent thought it was morally acceptable. 23 percent of Americans thought it wasn't a moral issue at all. But compare that to the other issues Pew queried:

[image error]

Like abortion, embryonic stem cell research terminates the embryo. But only 22 percent of Americans think embryonic stem cell research is morally wrong — a plurality aren't convinced it's even a moral issue at all. While there's a correlation in Pew's results between those who oppose abortion on moral grounds and those who oppose embryonic research, that gap could speak to the stark differences in how the two issues are discussed and legislated. Both are opposed by, say, Lifenews, an anti-abortion site that put Pew's poll on their homepage today. Here's how they approached the findings, with some frustration about the inconsistency:

A new Pew research poll finds Americans say abortion is morally wrong by a 3-1 margin. However, Americas are still divided on the issue of embryonic stem cell research — even though it destroys human life and still has not helped any patients.

To be sure, there's plenty of discussion on the ethics of using embryonic stem cells for research, both within the core anti-abortion community and among the scientists engaging in the research. (some researchers are looking into ways to mimic embryonic cells). But the issue of abortion in the U.S., unlike stem cell research, is as much a legislative issue as it is anything else these days. As our Allie Jones broke down earlier, Pew data demonstrates stark regional differences and trends on Americans' views on whether abortion should be legal or not, and under what circumstances.

While the issue is currently framed in "momentum" language familiar to any election horse race aficionado, our views on its legalization overall have stayed pretty steady since Roe v. Wade. A plurality, and sometimes a majority, of Americans consistently believe that abortion should be legal under some circumstances. And with few exceptions over the years, slightly more Americans have agreed that abortion should be legal under all circumstances (currently, that number is 26 percent), than those who believe it should be completely illegal (20 percent, by Gallup's most recent numbers). So what's momentum got to do with it?

For starters, the far-right legislative push to pass a series of abortion-restricting laws is bringing a cornucopia of moral associations with it, ones that resonate with conservative-leaning politics. And those associations are dominating the discussion of the issue, stripping it of its ethical complications in favor of a series of moral judgements on the types of women who decide to undergo an abortion, who might get their contraceptives (or use them at all) from Planned Parenthood, or who might oppose laws that would limit access to either. That's backed up by the effects of the latest round of legislation, which, instead of simply proposing that the U.S. make abortion completely illegal — presumably what one would go for if one believed abortion was morally wrong — attempts to dismantle the infrastructure that provides the service, along with countless other women's health procedures and resources including contraception, to women who wouldn't be able to access or afford it otherwise. So it shouldn't be a huge surprise that abortion stands out as an issue that most Americans see in moral terms: it's much more visible, and loaded politically, than any other comparable subject.

       

John Sexton Will Officially Leave NYU in 2016

In a campus-wide email today, the NYU Board of Trustees formally announced that current University President John Sexton will retire from his post in 2016, something that most people following Sexton's career at NYU more or less expected. In formalizing the end of his time at the university, the Board makes it clear that the end of his tenure in the job is Sexton's decision, adding that the board is “extremely satisfied with the direction and leadership of the University.” But his plans to step out of the role are, for many, inseparable from the increasing scrutiny levied at the university under Sexton, even as he thoroughly fulfilled his promise to increase the university's profile internationally.

For instance, a New York Times story earlier this year outlined the university's loan program to star faculty (including Sexton), enabling them to finance summer homes — something that today, the Board recommended the university end. According to an emailed statement from Martin Lipton, chairman of the NYU Board of Trustees, those loans will now only be available for primary residences. While NYU has preivously argued that the perk, which is not unique to NYU, is necessary to attract top talent, many bristled at its juxtaposition with the university's soaring tuition cost — over $64,000 for tuition, room, and board for the upcoming year — and deep borrowing by its students to pay those costs. Excluding for-profit colleges, the university's 2010 class of students owes more than any other graduating class at any other university, $659 million. That juxtaposition, along with rising discontent from the faculty of the university itself, prompted a series of votes of no confidence against Sexton from the different NYU schools earlier this year (the results were mixed, school by school). Those voices are unlikely to be quieted by the details what's reportedly in Sexton's retirement package. Here's what he's been promised, according to a New York Times: 

The rapid change has won Dr. Sexton many admirers, both at N.Y.U. and throughout higher education. The board of trustees has raised his salary to nearly $1.5 million, with a $2.5 million “length of service” bonus to come in 2015, and has guaranteed him retirement benefits of $800,000 a year. The university also provides him an apartment by Washington Square.

But NYU points to Sexton's accomplishments in response to criticism of his compensation as president. University spokesperson John Beckman, in an email to the Wire, said that "NYU raised more than $1 million/day during John’s presidency, more than doubled the endowment, been appointed to major leadership posts in higher education" and the university's rise in ranking and applicants. Possibly to address criticism of the university's administration, the board email also contained an indication that the university would seek increased faculty and student involvement in the selection process, which will get going within the next three years. In a statement, Lipton said that the board's recommendations include "proposals to establish a new committee to improve communications between faculty and board members and to formalize the role of faculty and students in NYU’s future presidential selection process." 

       

A Portrait of the Mind of Bradley Manning

Bradley Manning said he was sorry for hurting the United States during his sentencing hearing at Fort Meade on Wednesday, saying, "I only wanted to help people, not hurt people." But hours of testimony presented earlier by his defense team showed that wasn't Manning's only reason for downloading thousands of classified documents and giving them to WikiLeaks. Manning, they said, felt isolated, and showed signs of mental instability, suffered from gender identity disorder, had a mild type of Asperger's, and showed symptoms of slight fetal alcohol syndrome. Capt. David Moulton, a Navy psychiatrist, said Manning was in a "post-adolescent idealistic phase," which is a line from Clueless.

The goal of the defense testimony, of course, is to evoke sympathy in the military judge, Col. Denise Lind, in order to get a lighter sentence. Some of the testimony seemed more likely to do the trick than others. Nevertheless, it offered a fascinating portrait of who Manning was before his leak. The defense suggested there were three things affecting his mental state that influenced his decision: that he was a naive idealistic kid, that he had biological mental disorders, that he was that he was transgender.

The last produced the most arresting evidence. In an April 24, 2010 email to his supervisor at the time, Master Sgt. Paul Adkins, Manning confessed he was transgender, and that he joined the Army, basically, to "get rid of it." He included this selfie, in which he's dressed as a female with long blonde hair. The subject line was "My Problem." The email said,

This is my problem. I’ve had signs of it for a very long time. It’s caused problems within my family. I thought a career in the military would get rid of it. It’s not something I seek out for attention, and I’ve been trying very, very hard to get rid of it by placing myself in situations where it would be impossible. But, it’s not going away; it’s haunting me more and more as I get older. Now, the consequences of it are dire, at a time when it’s causing me great pain it itself…

I don't know what to do anymore, and the only "help" that seems available is severe punishment and/or getting rid of me.

Adkins had written memos in December 2009, April 2010, and May 2010 about Manning's instability. In an April 26 memo, Adkins wrote, "SPC Manning seems to create internal pressure due to unnamed conflicts he seems unwilling to discuss, and incapable of handling by himself." Manning had been unstable — prone to distant stares, reporting "an altered or dissociated state of consciousness" — and he suggested Manning see the chaplain.

In May, Adkins found Manning on the floor of a storage room, in the fetal position, near a knife and shreds of seat cushion foam. Manning had carved "I WANT" into the cushion. He couldn't say why. Manning "fluctuated during the conversation between a calm individual and one in pain." Eventually, Adkins decided to send him back to work for the last four hours of his shift.

Capt. Michael Worsley, a clinical psychologist who treated Manning over the time the memos cover, testified, "Obviously I was a therapist, but he was still guarded with me. It was one of those things where you go: who can this guy share with? Who does he have?" Worsley also said:

"Being in the military and having a gender identity issue does not go hand in hand… At this time, the military was not exactly friendly to the gay community, or anyone who held views as such. I don't know that it is friendly now, either, but it seems to be getting toward that point.

You put him in this environment — this kind of hyper-masculine environment, if you will, and with the little support and few coping skills, the pressure would have been difficult to say the least. It would have been incredible."

As Courthouse News explains, the military does not allow people who show "exhibitionism, transvestitism, voyeurism and other paraphilias" to enlist.

Worlsey is right that being in the Army before the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell was not easy for people like Manning. (Imagine being in a homophobic environment — 52 percent of Army soldiers opposed gays openly serving in a 2010 poll — in which everyone has guns.) But it's not obvious that a military judge would necessarily feel empathy for him because of that. The Army culture is all about self-control, and overcoming your personal problems to serve like everyone else.

But that wasn't the only thing affecting Manning's mental state. Moulton offered another analysis that, again, doesn't necessarily seem like it would play well with a military audience: Manning was like a dumb college kid. He said there was a "transition period" in which people hold on to the idealism of their youth. That "drives a lot of activism on college campuses, and the riots that eventually throughout history happened on campuses," he said. One tends to not find much appreciation in the military for the value or motivation of the campus activism during the Vietnam era.

It was Manning's statement itself that seemed most likely to go over well. "How on earth could I, a junior analyst, believe I could change the world for the better?" he said, showing total respect for the chain of command. "I should have worked more aggressively within the system," he said, suggesting the Army works just fine as it is. 

       

The 'Pitch Perfect' Gang Is Doing a Christmas Album

Today in show business news: Get ready for an a cappella Christmas from the cast of Pitch Perfect, Darren Aronofsky wants to tell a spy story, and Nicholas Sparks teams up with Lifetime.

Last fall's college a cappella comedy Pitch Perfect was such a success — mostly in that it finally allowed Anna Kendrick to follow her true passion, playing cups — that the cast of silly singing misfits has decided to reconvene and, well yes make a sequel, but also record a Christmas album. And I'm sure it was all their decision, one made out of the goodness of their hearts. They're probably not even being paid. The album will probably be entirely a cappella, which is good because if it wasn't what would be the point, to sound like goddang Glee? No. A cappella is the way to go. And hey, it can't be worse than N' Sync's Christmas album. (Don't tell my sister I said that.) [Vulture]

Darren Aronofsky might be directing a spy movie next. He's in talks to adapt a novel called Red Sparrow, which Deadline describes in length. Want it? Here it is:

The book is set in contemporary Russia, and state intelligence officer Dominika Egorova struggles to survive in the cast-iron bureaucracy of post-Soviet intelligence. Drafted against her will to become a “Sparrow,” a trained seductress in the service, Dominika is assigned to operate against Nathaniel Nash, a first-tour CIA officer who handles the agency’s most sensitive penetration of Russian intelligence. The two young intelligence officers collide in a charged atmosphere of trade craft, deception, and inevitably, a sexual attraction that threatens their careers and the security of America’s valuable mole in Moscow. Dominika winds up seeking revenge against her soulless masters, and living a fatal double life after she is recruited by the CIA to ferret out a high-level traitor in Washington. She also hunts down a Russian illegal buried deep in the U.S. military and, against all odds, to return to Moscow as the new-generation penetration of Vladimir Putin’s intelligence service.

Which, OK, sounds exciting enough, but why is it always that the lady spy has to sleep with a guy or be put in some other sort of sexual danger in these kinds of things? (Think: Hunted.) It's sorta tirrrred, isn't it? Just a little? Oh well. I'm sure it'll be interesting. He makes interesting movies. Right? [Deadline]

Half of this The Hollywood Reporter headline is: "Vin Diesel Teams with 'Grace of Monaco'." And that's all we need. We don't need the rest, do we? I like this just fine. Vin Diesel and Grace of Monaco, or the quotes would suggest that it's someone pretending to be Grace of Monaco, are teaming up and that's all. We do not care that he's teaming with the Grace of Monaco writer for some fool movie. Nope. Vin Diesel and Grace of Monaco, or an imposter pretending to be Grace of Monaco, are finally together and that's that. [The Hollywood Reporter]

Lifetime: Television for Darkened Living Rooms Where the Only Person Home Has Passed Out on the Couch with a Bottle of Wine in Their Hand has greenlit a backdoor pilot from schlockmeister Nicholas Sparks that's a romance set during the Civil War. Oh that'll be great. Lifetime and Nicholas Sparks teaming up to tell a story about the Civil War, a two-hour movie that could become a series? That ought to be great. Terrific. Full steam ahead, Lifetime! (Also, the first sentence from Vulture is: "Lifetime has green-lit a backdoor pilot from tear-jerking romance overlord Nicholas Sparks, the network announced." Which if you shortened, quote-style, could say "backdoor...jerking...romance overlord Nicholas Sparks." Just saying.) [Vulture]

       

The U.S. Still Isn't Ready To Cut Its Aid to Egypt

Secretary of State John Kerry provided the administration's most thorough response so far to Wednesday's bloodshed in Egypt. The clashes, the result of the military's violent crackdown on pro-Morsi protesters, killed at least 278 and injured 2,000, by the military's count, and the country is now under emergency law for one month, reminding many of the decades the country spent under emergency law during the reign of Hosni Mubarak. For weeks, the U.S. has stepped up the strength of language in its response to the Egypt crisis, but it doesn't look like its ready to put on the table the $1 billion in annual aid the U.S. gives to Egypt, at least not yet. Instead, the U.S., via Kerry, "strongly condemns" the violence in the country. The issue of aid is under "review." Some, however, are wondering what the U.S. could possibly be waiting for. 

Kerry's remarks focused on "constructive" interventions from the U.S., which is pretty similar to the administration's earlier efforts to quietly promote a transition to democracy in the wake of the latest unrest: 

The United States strongly supports the Egyptian people's hope for a prompt and sustainable transition to an inclusive, tolerant, civilian-led democracy. Deputy Secretary of State Burns, together with our EU colleagues, provided constructive ideas and left them on the table during our talks in Cairo last week. From my many phone calls with many Egyptians, I believe they know full well what a constructive process would look like. The interim government and the military, which together possess the preponderance of power in this confrontation, have a unique responsibility to prevent further violence and to offer constructive options for an inclusive, peaceful process across the entire political spectrum. This includes amending the constitution, holding parliamentary and presidential elections, which the interim government itself has called for.

(Kerry was effectively speaking for Obama today — the president is on vacation)

But the deaths today represent an escalation by the military in their crackdown on the former Muslim Brotherhood government majority. So the U.S. is thinking about another possible rebuke towards the country: 

Breaking: U.S. considers scrapping military exercises with Egypt after crackdown. http://t.co/tYCeELTJqc

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) August 14, 2013

Those exercises are the Bright Star exercises planned for next month, and it would be the second military penalty to the country since the uprising — the U.S. previously halted the delivery of four F-16 aircraft. An unnamed official told CNN that "The situation in Egypt is prompting these discussions about how to proceed." But criticism of the U.S.'s stance on Egypt remains, for many, focused on aid. Marc Lynch at Foreign Policy, for example, argued that the U.S. should immediately suspend aid and shutter its embassy in Cairo. Lynch writes: 

The hard truth is that the United States has no real influence to lose right now anyway, and immediate impact isn't the point. Taking a (much belated) stand is the only way for the United States to regain any credibility -- with Cairo, with the region, and with its own tattered democratic rhetoric.

Similarly, Human Rights First argues that the U.S. should make its aid conditional on a transition to an elected government in Egypt, citing failed diplomatic efforts to move the country away from the interim government of the military. At Businessweek, Romesh Ratnesar said that the U.S.'s refusal to cut off aid means that the U.S. is "effectively propping up a regime "that openly disdains basic democratic principles and human rights." Ali Gharib at The Daily Beast wrote that "America funds an army that today carried out a massacre of its own citizens." Meanwhile, Amy Davidson at The New Yorker synthesizes the series of questions from today's pairing of U.S. rhetoric and Egypt's military crackdown: 

Every side blames the United States for something—talking to Morsi, abandoning Morsi, being too involved or abdicating. But the Egyptian military is the one most responsible for staging a battle on the streets of Cairo today. It is also the one funded, in part, by a billion dollars in American aid every year. Does that money get us a hearing? And does Obama even know what, specifically, he would ask for?

The issue of Egypt's aid has come up before: while Egypt's military overthrow of a democratically-elected president had the backing of a popular uprising, the outline of the events still looks quite a lot like a coup to many. And the Foreign Assistance Act requires the U.S. to cut aid to any country whose elected leadership is overthrown by military force. But the U.S. decided not to decide whether to call it a "coup" or not at all, leaving the door to aid to Egypt propped securely open. The U.S.'s stance on the issue was confused  a bit during Lindsey Graham and John McCain's (unsuccessful) trip earlier this month to fix the Egypt crisis on behalf of the Obama administration, when Senator McCain referred to the overthrow as a "coup." That confusion, Jonathan Tepperman argued in the New York Times, has resulted in a situation where "all sides in Egypt now hate the United States, which they’re convinced backs their enemies." 

Today's events were not without consequential political action from those condemning the military violence: it prompted the resignation of Egypt's interim Vice President Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Prize winner. In a statement, the official said, "It has become difficult for me to hold responsibility for decisions that I do not agree with, whose consequences I fear." He added, "I cannot be responsible for one drop of blood in front of God, and then in front of my conscience, especially with my faith that we could have avoided it."

       

Harper's Misses the Point on Unpaid Internships

Shortly after The Nation announced it would soon begin paying interns minimum wage, journalist Jim Romenesko spotted a listing for an unpaid internship in the latest issue of Harper's. He wondered if the magazine would follow suit (and, debatably, the law). So he asked. Here's what a spokesperson told him:

No. We’re very proud of our record of intern placement (former Harper’s interns appear all over the mastheads of the finest publications in the country) and many of them are hired here. One even rose to be editor of the magazine

When The Atlantic Wire contacted the venerable literary publication, a publicist repeated the argument in slightly different terms. "We honestly consider the Harper's Magazine internship to be a learning experience that is the equal of J-school," she wrote via email, "and our placements (including at Harper's itself, which uses the internship as a job-training program) reflect that."

It's simple logic: Harper's interns do well. One became the editor! Thus, who needs pay?

But it misses much of the point on why unpaid internships have become such a contentious issue to begin with. Of course, scores of former Harper's interns have done well for themselves. They could afford to live and work in New York City for a summer or two months in the first place; many, presumably, arrived from a position of privilege to begin with. But what of the hundreds or thousands of talented candidates who couldn't afford that? What of those too busy paying off student loans?

As The Guardian's David Dennis argued in May, the system merely reproduces a "privilege-based upward mobility."

Then there's the question of legality. Harper's spokesperson is right to point to the educational nature of the internship. Were it purely educational, it would be legal by the Department of Justice's criteria.

But to fulfill this test, the internship must be "for the benefit of the intern." The employer must receive "no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded." According to the magazine's own online listing, Harper's interns are put to work in the area of "critical reading and analysis, research, fact checking, and the general workings of a national magazine"; according to one recent intern, they also take turns answering the office phone, a task that proved less onerous when that intern happened to field a call from one Don DeLillo.

Doubtlessly, these tasks are educational for the aspiring writer or journalist. But they also provide an immediate advantage for the magazine itself. Presumably, Harper's operations aren't being "impeded."

Apparently unsatisfied by the answer he received, Romenesko also glanced at compensation packages for various other Harper's employees to explain the lack of intern pay:

* Associate publisher/sales Peter Kendall – $242,479
* Treasurer, VP/general manager Lynn Carlson – $227,309
* Editor Ellen Rosenbush – $177,916
* Former literary editor Benjamin Metcalf – $109,799
* Secretary Barbara Andreasson – $79,689

At press time, we're still awaiting Walmart's commentary on Harper's labor practices.