Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 995

Why an Angry Man Set off a Bomb at a Beijing Airport

A handicapped man was shouting inside a Beijing airport on Saturday and no one bothered to pay attention to him. And then he pulled out a bomb, and still no one noticed. The bomb went off, injured no one, and then finally a crowd gathered. 

This is what we     

Here's the First Trailer for the 'Veronica Mars' Movie

You knew the first clip was coming at some point this weekend, with Comic-Con happening and all, and now it's here in all of its emotional conflicting glory. Rob Thomas unveiled the first real footage of the Veronica Mars movie late Friday night in an email to his Kickstarter backers. 

The new five minute video starts with a mini-documentary that follows Thomas through the beginning of the crowd-funding project to the actual movie set. There are a bunch of clips of the old cast working, goofing around, and generally being great pals. If you're an old fan of the show, this will make you emotional very early on a Saturday morning. So consider that your fair warning before going in. The real fun starts around the three minute mark when the honest-to-goodness trailer actually starts. 

Veronica Mars is a hot-shot lawyer now, trading in the sandy shores of Neptune for that concrete jungle where dreams are crushed and spit into the gutter, New York City. Most of the trailer's action takes place at a ten-year Neptune High reunion party where, of course, things go horribly awry. The sprinklers go off, punches are thrown, and it's generally a great party. We get a quick check-in with your old pals: Dick is still an dick, Logan is still dreamy and rich, Mac got a new haircut and Weevil is a married man now. It's all a lot to take in, I know.

There's not a lot about the new plot, but there's a Jamie Lee Curtis cameo, which is pretty cool. For any remaining die-hard fans not convinced this is a good idea, the trailer is designed to pull at the last few feeling you may have dwelling deep inside you. If you were skeptical before, this is supposed to jump start your nostalgia brain waves once and for all. The characters you know and love are grown up and all look fantastic under the bright lights and shiny movie cameras you always wanted for them. 

       

Nate Silver, Star Statistician, Leaves The New York Times for ESPN

Nate Silver, famous for his eerily accurate election predictions, is dumping the Gray Lady for the network of Keith Olbermann. The math wizard is taking his FiveThirtyEight blog — which was a must-read during the 2012 presidential election — and jumping ship to ESPN, reports his former co-worker Brian Stelter in The Times. Silver will now write and crunch numbers for the sports network while also "most likely" contributing to Keith Olbermann's new show, according to the Times report. In what is a classic Times-ian understatement,  Stelter writes, "[Silver's] departure will most likely be interpreted as a blow to the company."

To which one might say: ya think?

Rarely does a free agent transaction in media garner this much attention. But we are talking about the University of Chicago-trained number-cruncher who nailed the last two presidential elections (not to mention down-ticket contests). His ability to bring eyeballs to the site was enormous, as TechCrunch reports:

At one point during the fall election news cycle, Silver’s Five Thirty Eight blog accounted for more than 20 percent of all visits to the entire New York Times website and 71 percent of all politics visits to the Times’ site.

Most expected him to stay within the Gray Lady's walls, building a franchise akin to Andrew Ross Sorkin's Dealbook empire. Executive editor Jill Abramson joked that Silver "has his own tower now," at the Times, while speaking at Business Insider's Ignite conference last November, practically issuing him a blank check upon his return. 

And he seems to have been generally content at the paper. He said as much in emails from late last year to The Atlantic Wire: "There are many wonderful things about The Times, including Jill, and I appreciate her kind words," he told us back then (Silver was unavailable for comment this evening). Silver's contract was up in August, and he had reportedly been in the midst of negotiations.

But don't worry, it's not like Silver completely abandoning his political affiliation now that he's living in the land of Baseball Tonight and Monday Night Football: Stelter reports Silver will contribute to ABC News' election coverage, too. Considering that he first gained attention as a young wizard of baseball statistics, it's not surprising that he wants to leave politics for the playing fields of professional sport. Stelter says as much in his report: "At public events recently, he has expressed interest in covering sports more frequently, so the ESPN deal is a logical next step."

The FiveThirtyEight blog existed before the Times started paying a "licensing" fee in 2010. Founded in 2008, FiveThirtyEight previously found its home at the Daily Kos and the Baseball Prospectus. So, clearly, this isn't the first time Silver has published under a sports related umbrella. But Silver's name has become so synonymous with political predictions since he got his start working with the mathematicians who turned baseball on its head that some find it hard to believe he'll continue writing about politics at all. 

But signing with the Times gave Silver's little blogging operation the flint and fuel to grow the operations into the date-crunching behemoth you know today. What this move means for the greater FiveThirtyEight staff, and writers like Micah Cohen and John Sides who contribute regularly, remains unclear at this time. 

Silver's relationship with the paper was "tense at times," as Stelter acknowledges. Foremost in that category was almost certainly a paid position as a consultant that created a potential conflict of interest. Silver severed that arrangement after it was reported by Gawker. 

His book The Signal and the Noise was well-received, with The Times offering it restrained praise, though it noted that "though some conservatives have been critical of his methods during this election cycle." Now they can pick on him for his baseball predictions, too.

       

Comic-Con Liked What It Saw of the 'Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.' Pilot

ABC's highly-anticipated Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. gave Comic-Con attendees a big treat when they showed the entire pilot of Marvel's foray into TV at their panel. So what did people think of Avengers-director and general fan-god Joss Whedon's return and ABC and Marvel's big hope? Well, the crowd liked it, but question remain about whether it can click with a mainstream audience.

Reporters in the room tweeted about the positive response in the room:

#AgentsOfSHIELD just played like total gangbusters at #SDCC. Humor, action, humanity. Very Whedonesque.

— Adam B. Vary (@adambvary) July 19, 2013

#sdcc crowd responds enthusiastically to #AgentsOfSHIELD pilot, with many on their feet.

— Bill Keveney (@billkev) July 19, 2013

Many fans responded individually with their cheers of approval: 

Just watched the @AgentsofSHIELD pilot! AMAZING. #sdcc #agentsofshield

— Girls Reading Comics (@girlsreadcomics) July 19, 2013

#AgentsOfSHIELD pilot was totally awesome! Will be watching it again!

— Kirk Landon Staley (@kauthor) July 19, 2013

ALL THE EXCITING. First episode is amazing!!! #marvelsdcc #sdcc #agentsofshield http://t.co/EDhEuuX8jy

— Judy (@OMG_Dj_Judy) July 19, 2013

Holy crap holy crap holy crap!! The whole pilot for #AgentsofSHIELD Joss...action...Coulson...Brear McCreary...Lola...I can't even!!! #SDCC

— Nerd Truth (@NerdTruth) July 19, 2013

The Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Twitter account took the chance to retweet many of them. 

In his liveblog at SuperHeroHype.com Blake Wright  wrote on their live blog (after powering down by order of the Marvel powers-that-be): " Wow! That was excellent." He added that it was "Pitch perfect Joss." (Wright also gave away the spoiler that explains Clark Gregg's Agent Coulson returning from the dead. We won't do that, but it sounds relatively simple.) James Hibberd of Entertainment Weekly—in what he noted was not the publication's official review—admitted that naturally the show was going to gain fans at Comic-Con. He wondered if the show was "show accessible enough to be a hit," considering the pilot apparently plays to its audience with references to geek-culture. However, he concluded that even if you "forget The Avengers, ignore that it’s Marvel, and somehow delete from your brain this is Joss Whedon’s TV return" the show "still works." 

Not everyone, of course, was overly enthused. Peter Sciretta of /FILM wrote on Twitter: "The S.H.I.E.L.D. pilot is at times cooler than I expected, but with moments of silliness and over the top network tv-style action." HitFix's Daniel Fienberg teased a longer response and added that the show is "fine. It's not great, though. Endless potential." Charlie Jane Anders of io9 was also tempered, explaining that the stakes were lacking in the episode, and that Gregg is "clearly the best thing about the series, and he's the only character in the pilot who actually feels fully fleshed out." 

Of course success at Comic-Con does not mean success in the real-world, especially on a network like ABC. The show, after all, has Avengers director Whedon on board. Whedon created great shows like the long running Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which The Hollywood Reporter's Graeme McMillan had ratings that weren't necessarily successful by ABC's standards, and Firefly, which was quickly canceled on Fox but lives on with an army of fans. We shall see if the Marvel world can live on a network. The show premieres September 24. 

       

Fox Tried Seven Ways to Get the Brother of Zimmerman to Bash Obama (He Didn't)

Seven times, Fox News anchor Jamie Colby tried to get George Zimmerman's brother to criticize the president and his speech about Trayvon Martin. And seven times, he declined to do so.

Robert Zimmerman has earned a reputation for his outspoken interviews. After the verdict, for example, he went on CNN and suggested that Martin was looking to get a gun and grow marijuana. During the case, he was a font of unswerving on-air support.

So, when Fox spoke with him by phone shortly after the president's speech today, they likely expected something other than what they got. In question after question, Colby tried to elicit some combativeness, some critique of the speech. And in answer after answer, he didn't rise to the bait.

Zimmerman's take: It was good the president spoke, and what he said was important. He agreed with the president — he didn't even object to the government's on-going investigation of possible civil rights charges. But most of all, he agreed that kids needed mentors. He kept coming back to this, turning Colby's leading questions into ways of advocating for mentorship.

We walked through each of Colby's seven questions to Zimmerman, excerpting it and the response. No need to take our word for it; you can watch the full interaction for yourself. But we also did a quick bit of translation: What Colby asked almost always had a subtext aimed at heightening the tension between Zimmerman's family and the White House. It never worked.

[image error]1. Describe your emotional response to what the president said.

Colby: Were you surprised by the president's remarks?

Zimmerman: I think the president took his time with his remarks and it was about time they heard from him. ... I'm glad he spoke out today.

2. You really think the president should have spoken?

Colby: Why would you expect the American people to want to hear from the president, with everything else going on in the world, on this case?

Zimmerman: No matter what your opinion of the verdict is, there have to be things that bring us together. ... We have some kind of a game plan going forward for what's going to help youth, in particular, is what struck me about the president's speech. ... The president talked about encouraging African-American youth, but I would say also youth of all colors.

3.  Did the president insult your brother who — remember, viewers — had good traits?

Colby: Your brother did mentor minority teens as part of his work. The president also said one of the initiatives he'd like to see is training of law enforcement. Do you think he was talking about your brother?

Zimmerman: I'm not sure. ... I think mentoring all children of all colors is one of the ways we break the cycle ... sometimes the right encouragement and the right role models and sort of the right shoulder to lean on in very difficult times in life can prevent any kind of engagement with law enforcement or the criminal justice system whatsoever. ...

I'm not a person who has mentored children of any race or color. Perhaps I could do better in that regard.

4. Do you agree with the president's racial characterization?

Colby: One of the things the president said ... [if] Trayvon Martin would have been white and your brother not, that the outcome and the aftermath of this case white have been different. Is that part of the soul searching your brother is doing now?

Zimmerman: I don't know. ... We can speculate a lot about what would have been or could have been. ... There's youth in all different situations affected by poverty ... affected by having a lack of resources generally, even access to food that the first lady's been very positive force behind getting access to food and nutrition. ... I think it should be about promoting a colorblind America.

5. Wasn't the president being racist himself?

Colby: You're going a step further than the president did; he only talked about the African-American youth. ... [S]hould he have broadened it out to say that he would like us to soul search about all kids in America and the opportunities they may not be getting?

Zimmerman: I think the president was speaking off-the-cuff and I think he was very sincere in his remarks. ... No matter what any child's race is or creed or whatever political stripe they come from or we come from, it should be beyond politics to stand united in the sense we can organize ourselves to better address the needs of children. ... That person was George specifically, for African-Americans.

6. Does Obama only care about Trayvon's family? Isn't race playing a role?

Colby: (Interrupting) This is a very noble idea we can all reach out to the youth of America. ... I'm curious if your family has had any contact with the president or any from the White House or administration. Do you feel that the reaction to the verdict is divided among racial lines?

Zimmerman: We haven't had any contact from the president or the administration that I know of. But I think, you know, moving anything along racial lines is just a disservice to our country. ...  [We should] do everything we can for children who are having difficulty. I really see eye-to-eye with the president on that.

7. Obama is still trying to go after your brother. Defend him. Tell us how you really feel. Speak clearly into the microphone.

Colby: The Department of Justice will look to see if civil rights charges can be filed, any other actions against your brother in this case. You've been fiercely defensive of your brother and outspoken as well. What's your message to the justice department about whether or not they should pursue any other action against your brother? Let's get it out there!

Zimmerman: I have defended my brother when he was a defendant. He is no longer a defendant. ... If the Justice Department is within their rights to investigate then they are within their rights to investigate. ... I'm not sure that necessarily an investigation is a bad thing. I'm a little bit concerned sometimes that our leaders are responding to pressure. ... I think the American people need to have some time to digest what really happened ...  hopefully, the answer will be that we can all do more to support our youth throughout our communities.

And with that, the interview ended.

       

FAA Asks: Please Don't Shoot Down the Drones

Earlier this week, one Colorado town floated the idea of letting its residents buy hunting permits for drones. Now, the FAA has responded to the proposal by telling Americans to please stop thinking about shooting down drones. 

The proposal itself sounds more like a clever way to get Rand Paul-type libertarians to donate to a local government budget than a viable way to protect a town from federal drones. According to the draft of the proposed ordinance, residents of Deer Trail, Colorado could pay $25 a year for a drone hunting permit. And there's a $100 reward for any successful downed drone, providing the unmanned aerial vehicle's "markings and configuration are consistent with those used on any similar craft known to be owned or operated by the United States federal government." 

The man behind the Deer Trail proposal, who seems to be one of the few people in the town taking it seriously, knows the idea is against the law, but doesn't really care. Phillip Steel, speaking to CNN, said "Is it illegal? Of course it is. But it's also illegal to spy on American citizens...If they fly in town, we will shoot them down."

The FAA, too, is taking the idea very, very seriously, it seems. The agency, which is already behind schedule to meet a 2015 deadline for new regulations governing drone use in the U.S., released a statement reminding Deer Trail that the federal agency is responsible for regulating the air space over the town, and indicating that they'd enforce existing laws to punish any enterprising drone hunters in Colorado or anywhere else. Here's the AP, quoting from the statement: 

A drone "hit by gunfire could crash, causing damage to persons or property on the ground, or it could collide with other objects in the air," the statement said. "Shooting at an unmanned aircraft could result in criminal or civil liability, just as would firing at a manned airplane."

But until the FAA integrates drones into the national airspace, however, the residents of Deer Trail won't have very much "game" out there to shoot down. The FAA hasn't been terribly transparent about the number of unmanned aircraft flights they've authorized in the U.S., but we do know of a few government agencies who do, or who have in the past, used drones to patrol American soil. The Customs and Border Protection, for instance, have stepped up their drone game dramatically recently, even conducting drone missions on behalf of other agencies. And a North Dakota town apparently used a drone on loan from the Department of Homeland Security to catch a cattle thief in 2012. 

       

Instagram Wants to Teach Politicians How to Instagram

Instagram thinks politicians don't know how to use Instagram, so they're sending someone to D.C. to teach them. Facebook, which owns the app, posted a job description for "an experienced leader to manage and execute relationships with governments, politicians and political influencers on how to best use Instagram." The person hired would work as a liaison between the company and "political public figures and their teams, focusing on connecting influencers to the global community in innovative ways." Possible topics to cover may include proper hash tagging and which filters work best for photos of Capitol Hill. 

This isn't the first time a social media site has made a big push in D.C. Both Twitter and Facebook have people on the ground outreaching to the nation's leaders. And with the 2014 midterm elections coming up, members of Congress could use some help sharing endearing selfies with their constituents. 

How do politicians use Instagram now? Surprisingly, a lot like the rest of us. Whereas Twitter and Facebook pages are used for promoting ideas and agendas, Instagram is more personal.

Speaker John Boehner joined last November and while most of his pictures consist of him meeting with important people in suits, there are a few personal photos. Here's an adorable photo of Boehner (left) with his older brother Bob: 

[image error]

Mayor Cory Booker, has over 27,000 followers, which is a lot for a politician. Still, he's like that health nut friend who started working out and posting pictures of kale salads. He has a hashtag devoted to him running (#RunWithCory) and he even remembers to pose with kids: 

[image error]

Chris Christie's Social Media person should get a raise. Even though he only has 18 photos, they're all stellar and any one of them could go viral. Christie's well versed in the art of the throwback pic—he's also the person you follow who always tries way too hard to get the perfect profile photo: 

[image error]

House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy might have one of the least political profiles of this bunch. A good chunk of his photos are of his family and dog. He's like your friend's dad, who sometimes posts photos from back in the day just to remind you he and his wife were hot once:

[image error]

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is a little too serious when it comes to using Instagram as a promotion tool. It's all political rallies this, meeting with my constituents that. Then there are some pretty wonderful pictures of Oliver:

[image error]

Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago's hip thrusting mayor, also mainly posts photos from work, but he makes being a politician seem much cooler. He bumps shoulders with celebrities, chills with the president and has the best photo-ops with kids:

[image error]

And John McCain posts way too many photos of his family vacations:

[image error]

       

Warning, Residents of New York and Greenwich: You're Paying Too Much for Sushi

Apparently it is expensive to eat sushi in New York City and Greenwich, Conn. Ditty for Los Angeles and San Francisco. Huh. We know, right?

The news comes via Bloomberg Rankings, whose "Sushinomics Cost-of-Living Index" finds that the cost of a basic roll in New York—namely, spicy tuna and California rolls—is about 26 percent higher than the national average and 3.3 percent higher than the second-place winner, Los Angeles, but still probably preferred among the people-who-have-uttered-the-term-"Sushinomics"-aloud demographic.

Here's that index, where 100 represents the national average from 2011:

New York 135.58 Los Angeles 131.28 San Francisco 120.12 Dallas 118.17 Austin 117.10 Seattle 115.06 Sacramento 113.65 Miami 111.55 Boston 109.61 Minneapolis/St.Paul 109.53 Denver 109.33 St. Louis 108.84 Orlando 107.44 Phoenix/Tempe 106.66 Philadelphia 105.78 District of Columbia 104.29 Atlanta 103.89 Wilmington/Dover 102.95 Houston 102.93 Chicago 101.20 Charlotte 97.85 San Jose 95.11 Portland 93.10 Columbus 89.44 New Orleans 82.71 National Average 107.73

But, really, if you live in New York or Los Angeles and have bothered to read this far, you don't care about a sushi restaurant's "basic rolls," which is why Bloomberg has added a new, classier index. Behold: the Sushinomics Premium Price Index. This one ranks cities by the average price of their sushi restaurants' priciest two rolls, and Greenwich, Conn.—home, at one point or another, to Glenn Close, Mel Gibson, and Pedro Martinez—comes out on top. (In fact, other wealthy people live in Greenwich, too.) Here's the full index:

Greenwich $17.59 Los Angeles $17.11 Houston $16.80 Boston $16.45 Dallas $16.36 Miami $16.21 Chicago $16.17 Atlanta $16.16 New York $16.06 Sacramento $15.83 Minneapolis/St.Paul $15.82 Denver $15.49 Philadelphia $15.26 Wilmington/Dover $15.21 San Francisco $14.91 Orlando $14.89 Austin $14.85 St. Louis $14.81 Stamford $14.55 District of Columbia $14.35 San Jose $14.32 Charlotte $14.27 Columbus $14.19 Seattle $14.08 New Orleans $13.96 Phoenix/Tempe $13.35 Portland $13.26

The kicker is that many of those restaurants likely aren't even serving real sushi, but whatever. We're expecting The New York Times to have a trend piece on it by early next week.

Especially if pesky college kids are doing it.

       

Even the Creator of 'Veronica Mars' Is Kind of Over Kickstarter

Today at Comic-Con was the big Veronica Mars movie panel. It was a chance for the cast to get fans all riled up once again about the Veronica-Logan-Piz love triangle and make Dick jokes. (Dick is a character in the show.) Of course it makes sense; this insider-y fan obsession is what allowed them to make the movie through a somewhat controversial Kickstarter campaign. But if creator Rob Thomas' franchise dreams were to be realized, he doesn't want to use Kickstarter again. 

At the panel, per The Hollywood Reporter's Michael O'Connell, Thomas revealed his big dreams for his private investigator character, making her into a "James Bond" type with multiple films. He already has a deal for two follow-up books. "I want this to be a franchise," he said. "I hope we make a ton of money on this movie, and we get to do it through the normal channels. If we're a huge hit, I'm not sure Kickstarter is meant to fund huge hits." 

The Veronica Mars movie set the, what some might call unfortunate, trend of famous people using Kickstarter to help fund their projects. In the case of Veronica Mars, famous person Kristen Bell was asking non-famous people to help her make a movie that will be put out by big-movie-studio Warner Bros. Richard Lawson wrote at the time: "If this was some little indie movie it'd be different, but again Warner Bros. will be the ones distributing it and, theoretically, pocketing any extra money that comes in. Basically you're donating money to a movie studio. Is that something anyone should be asking you to do?" Thomas is now backing away from Kickstarter with the hope that his movie will be a hit. If not? Well, that's the problem. 

It might not be that easy for the Veronica Mars franchise to become financially independent. It's really not clear yet how non-fans will respond to the reboot, which is planning some starring cameos. Jamie Lee Curtis appeared in the footage shown at Comic-Con. As Michael Cantrell tweeted from the panel: "Veronica Mars fans will most likely love the movie (which will be out early 2014). I'm still not sure it will do well in theaters." While Thomas said (per HitFix's Alan Sepinwall) that he kept references to the big mysteries of the television show like the Lilly Kane murder out of the movie for the benefit of "people who are coming fresh," the endeavor is still very much for the fans. The question is whether those fans will let go if the movie doesn't have wide appeal or whether Thomas will revert to his kickstarting ways. 

       

Government Update: We're Still Collecting All Your Phone Data

At 5 p.m. Eastern time today, the only publicly-seen request from the FBI to collect metadata on phone records — the one published by The Guardian after being leaked by Edward Snowden — was set to expire. In case there was any doubt as to whether or not that expiration meant the end of such data collection, the office of the Director of National Intelligence made it clear: The FBI sought renewal, and it was granted.

Over the course of the Snowden revelations, details about the order have leaked out. Renewed every ninety days, there was little question that the request — filed by the FBI for the NSA to scoop up information about phone calls — was not a unique document. Initial speculation that the order might be specific to the Boston bombings, it having been filed shortly after the incident, rapidly dissipated. It quickly became clear instead that the data collection was rote and pervasive. The time limit was more of an alarm clock than a countdown.

[image error]
Section of the leaked court order.

The DNI made that clear in a statement shortly before the alarm clock rang. When the first order leaked, the Director James Clapper declassified some details of the data collection. The Friday afternoon announcement was a continuation of that.

Consistent with his prior declassification decision and in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program, the DNI has decided to declassify and disclose publicly that the Government filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and that the Court renewed that authority.

The statement was unexpected. It was released, the DNI suggested, "in order to provide the public with a more thorough and balanced understanding of the program." The statement also indicated that the office was assessing "whether and to what extent additional information or documents pertaining to this program may be declassified."

There are three ways to read this, none of which is mutually exclusive. The first is to be impressed with the DNI's forthrightness on the subject. The second is to consider the extent to which the release of information about the existence of the program actually harmed national security. After all, the DNI could just as easily have suggested that the program may or may not still be in existence, perhaps affording to it some of the anonymity once so critical to its successful operation. The third is to simply accept that the pervasive collection of information about every call you make and receive will sit on a server for the next five years.

Earlier this week, the DNI's Robert Litt was asked during Congressional testimony if his office really thought it could hide the expansive program. "Well," he replied, "we tried." They've now officially given up trying.

Photo: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. (AP)