Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 999

How Venture Capital Money Is Linked to SXSW Panels and Buzzwords

This idea that the social media bubble is "quietly deflating" because venture capital money has gone elsewhere has not taken much account of why venture capitalists invest in certain companies. From 2010 to 2012 social-related start-ups got 6 percent of VC funding, while this year that has dropped to 2 percent. To Bloomberg Businessweek's Joshua Brustein, that indicates the end of the social media craze. But, that theory treats the interests of venture capitalists as real, substantial shifts in the economy, when really they have more to do with buzzwords at conferences than anything else. 

To attempt to illustrate that point, we looked at how South by Southwest Interactive panel titles in all their buzzwordy goodness correlate with this trend in venture capital spending on social. The height of the social media craze came back in 2011, according to Brustein, during the "social media money boom." That also happens to match up with the use of social-related terms in panel names at South by Southwest, as our graph below shows. 

As you can see, the percentage of panel names with words like "Twitter," "Facebook," and "Social" was much higher in 2011 than this year, which might explain the drop in VC funds—a trend the media also noticed, declaring 2013 the year that the terrible SoMoLo (social, mobile, local) era finally ended. Similarly, as start-up funding has continued apace, so have the panels about start-ups.

To be sure, SXSW is just one of the many tech conferences throughout the year. But, it's certainly one of the most influential, known for making apps, like Foursquare, famous. Also, similarly notable conferences, such as the ones put on by AllThingsD and TechCrunch, have less buzz-wordy panel names like "Chat with Tim Cook," which does little to illuminate the content of the session. 

So by that  crude calculation, where VC money goes has more to do with words investors hear at events than actual economic trends. And Brustein admits as much in his piece, when he says "New buzzwords have arrived: Big data and cloud companies are grabbing the imaginations of venture capitalists." 

       

New Talking Point: Trayvon Was the Bigot, As He Thought Zimmerman Was Gay

You might have thought the Trayvon Martin case was about race—that George Zimmerman thought the unarmed teenager was a criminal because he was black. Today, in certain corners of the Internet, you are wrong. It's Martin who was the true bigot. As Rush Limbaugh told listeners Tuesday, "Zimmerman got beat up because Trayvon thought he was gay."

In an interview with CNN's Piers Morgan on Monday night, Rachel Jeantel said she told Martin to run from George Zimmerman because he might be a rapist, during their phone call in the last minutes of Martin's life. "For every boy or every man who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creeped out?" she said. This is not new. When Jeantel said the same thing in court in June, it didn't make much news—people were focused on her "creepy-ass cracker" description of Zimmerman instead of the rape angle. But now, it's the main story on the Drudge Report. Limbaugh spent a good part of his radio show talking about it. Lots of conservative blogs picked it up.

"JEANTEL WARNED ZIMMERMAN COULD BE GAY RAPIST" Drudge declared. "Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation. She explained to CNN's Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman—could be a gay rapist!" Drudge headlined Limbaugh's afternoon commentary. Limbaugh said:

RUSH:  Do you understand, ladies and gentlemen, what she just said?  Let me spell it out for you.  When Trayvon described Zimmerman to her, "creepy ass cracka," she began to fear that Zimmerman was gay. A rapist. She then told Trayvon to run, run, run...

"For every boys, or every man, every who's not that kinda way," meaning everybody who's straight, "see a grown man following them, would they be creep out?"  She's telling us the reason Trayvon Martin descended on Zimmerman and started pummeling him was because he was offended. He thought, because what she said to him, that Zimmerman was gay. Zimmerman got beat up because Trayvon thought he was gay.

Remarkably, the rape comment wasn't new to Limbaugh. In fact, he discussed it on his June 27 show —as evidence Jeantel was a liar. (Video of Jeantel's testimony at right.)

RUSH:  ...[S]he said that she thought that the "creepy ass cracker" was going to rape Trayvon Martin.  That's what she thought when this happened. She said, "That creepy ass cracker was gonna rape Trayvon Martin."

She's really having some problems with the truth on the witness stand. But it's impossible, folks, to say any more with juries after the OJ trial and so forth.

Get it? Only dummies like the O.J. Simpson jurors would believe such a thing. Of course, way back when, Martin was the true bigot for another reason. The headline on that June 27 segment? "Prosecution's Star Witness Says Trayvon Martin Called George Zimmerman a 'Creepy-Ass Cracker.'"

That Martin was the true bigot was the lesson many took from Tuesday's comments. "Trayvon didn’t run and instead attacked Zimmerman which means he was a homophobe or gay basher," the Right Scoop said. A sampling from Twitter:

So Trayvon was worried Zimmerman was a "gay rapist"? That's homophobia and profiling! http://t.co/rX700OOM4f

— Taylor_NY (@NYPolJunkie) July 16, 2013

Wow. So according to Rachel Jenteal, Trayvon Martin was a violent homophobe who beat Zimmerman to send a message. Wow wow wow.

— Matthew Vadum (@vadum) July 16, 2013

I wonder if @BarackObama had a son, he'd be as homophobic as #TrayvonMartin was?

— Bruce Carroll (@GayPatriot) July 16, 2013

This is a fascinating example of how America has changed when it comes to talking about race. Almost everyone agrees that being a bigot is bad—except for, maybe, The Washington Post's Richard Cohen— and no one wants their "side" tagged as the bigoted one. Perhaps someday Rush Limbaugh will be a fully committed gay rights advocate! Not as part of his recurring argument that black people are always on the verge of violence, but because it's the right thing to do. Today is not that day.

       

How Dominique Ansel Became the Paula Deen of SoHo

The success of Dominique Ansel and his cronuts is simple. The formula is part Paula Deen, part McRib and distinctly geared toward American food culture: make something really bad that combines what people already love and make sure that it's almost impossible to get a hold of.

Over the weekend, Ansel announced the next flavor of his donut-croissant hybrids — coconut cream-filled with coconut frosting — which will only be available in August (his flavors change monthly; this month's flavor is blackberry). To get the so-called croconut, you will have to get yourself in line around 6:00 a.m., wait around for two hours and be one of the first 200 people in the door — and then be willing to pay $5 per pastry (a maximum of two).

Yes, even though we're knee deep in July (cronuts debuted in May) people are still lining up around the block for cronuts. But despite what Ansel will tell you about his French technique and the mastery of getting croissant dough just right, the success of his cronut can be traced to a tried-and-true formula of preying on American grease-loving tendencies. And he just might have Paula Deen to thank:

Dominique Ansel Is Like Paula Deen and KFC

[image error]What made Paula Deen successful (at least for a while) was that shamelessly trumpeted the most artery-clogging, deep-fried aspects of Southern food. This is a woman who once fried lasagna and was okay with serving a hamburger in-between a split glazed donut. And though her food could consign small children to a life of diabetes, that did not deter anyone from falling in love with the butter goddess — that is, until she turned out to be a crazy racist.

That's because Americans love food that might kill them. During the height of Deen's reign as one of the Food Network's stars, KFC introduced the artery-killing Double Down sandwich, which featured bacon and melted cheese pressed between two deep fried chicken cutlet slabs. As had been the case with Deen's dishes, people rushed out to try out the fat-laden sandwich, diabetes be damned.

Ansel's cronut is in that same vein. He, like Deen, is redefining a cuisine — in this case, the breakfast pastry — by upping the fat content and calories of a food people already love. The actual nutritional value of a cronut is undefined, but when you take into consideration that he's using deep-fried croissant dough, cream filling, and frosting, you can ballpark the cronut into the "not good" range of the spectrum. People, on some level, know this. And they just don't care.

[image error]Dominique Ansel Is Like McDonald's 

One of the things that defines American food culture is the desire of American eaters to consume something that's fleeting (see: how people go bonkers over ramps) or a novelty. Perhaps the greatest corporate example of this is McDonald's and its boneless pork sandwich, known as the McRib. For a few weeks each year, it seems like McDonald's introduces this weird little sandwich onto its menus for a limited time. And that move brings McDonald's success—in 2010, the company said the sandwich's limited run helped boost its November sales by around 5 percent. 

That's pretty good for a sandwich that no one really likes when its available regularly. In its first stint on the Mickey D's menu, the sandwich lasted a scant four years. People like the McRib better when it's scarce.

Well, Ansel's cronuts are scarcer than McRibs. He only makes 200-250 per day and limits purchases to two cronuts per person. Such rationing makes it very hard to procure a cronut for your average person. Would cronuts suffer the same fate if they were available at all times of the day? I have two words: Krispy Kreme. 

Dominique Ansel Knows He's Created a Monster

"My team has tried to please everybody and be very sweet to customers, but people forget that we’re not a cronut shop. We are a French bakery, and our specialty is French baked items," Ansel told First We Feast, an online magazine focused on food and. He's totally right. To a food zombie who must have cronuts, Ansel is a one-stop means to an end. But if you go by his bakery at any other time (I pass it each day to and from work), it never gets as busy as it does in the early morning hours. "We have almost 100 different items on the menu. And with all the beautiful pastries that we have, it’s very important for me to keep our roots," he adds. 

But if Ansel really wanted people to remember his roots, instead of just treating him as the guy who invented cronuts, he could easily stop selling the cronut. Of course, he'd had to be as crazy as Paula Deen to do something like that.

       

Bachmann Aide, Arrested in Hidden Camera Theft Probe, Has Lost His Job

Javier Sanchez, the Michele Bachmann aide arrested last week in connection to a series of thefts at a congressional office building, was identified as the suspect in the theft investigation after the U.S. Capitol Police installed a hidden security camera and placed "bait" money in Bachmann's Rayburn House office.  

He's denying the second degree theft charge against him in connection to the thefts. But it looks like the investigation has already cost Sanchez his job: NBC News reports that he was fired after his arrest. Second-degree theft, which means that the stolen goods were worth $1,000 or less, is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 180 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. 

Earlier reports, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune notes, indicated that Sanchez had been arrested in connection to a series of thefts at various offices in Rayburn House, which holds the offices of over 160 members of the House of Representatives. But the affidavit mentions only a series of thefts from the offices of Bachmann herself in February and March of this year. According to their report, here's how investigators zeroed in on Sanchez as the main suspect: 

U.S. Capitol Police responding to earlier theft reports installed a hidden camera in Bachmann’s congressional office on April 4. They also left bait money in two envelopes, one containing $80, marked “petty cash,” and another with $120 marked “Birthday Money.” The money was discovered missing on June 25, and a subsequent check of the surveillance footage determined that the cash from at least one of the envelopes was taken two weeks earlier...Footage taken at about 6:30 p.m. on June 14, just after office hours, shows a man opening the desk drawer of Bachmann chief of staff Robert Boland. That’s where the $80 “petty cash” envelope was stashed. According to the affidavit, the suspect “removed the envelope, counted the money, and took both the cash and the envelope.” 

Other staffers in Bachmann's offices subsequently identified the man seen in the footage as Sanchez. When questioned by police, Sanchez said that he "may have taken a quarter once and a while, but I would pay it back." Sanchez started working for Bachmann in January. Before that, he worked for Rep. Virginia Foxx. 

       

The New Puritan Parent

From Berkeley to Brooklyn, our country's most left-leaning parents are taking on decidedly conservative child rearing traits. At least that's what Mark Oppenheimer is arguing in his latest Fatherland column for The New Republic. The same writer who recommended (reasonably) that kids be allowed to watch more TV and (questionably) that it might be a good idea to pick up a late-night pot habit, is back to combat what he sees as the left's "Puritan" childrearing style. 

Also known as helicopter parents—or that couple from the PTA meeting that gasped when you admitted to buying Lunchables for your kid—these moms and dads monitor everything their children eat, watch and read. Their parenting habits are as illiberal as their politics are liberal. After all, it wasn't conservatives who shot down Portland's fluoridation efforts for the fourth time, even though water fluoridation helps prevent tooth decay. And these are, by and large, the same parents who might think that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's effort to limit poor people's ability to buy sugary drinks with food stamps is onerous and paternalistic — even if they would never let their own children touch something that wasn't organic.

While, in Oppenheimer's telling, in the past, "only right-wingers would sacrifice children’s health to their own psycho-political neuroses," now liberals are letting fear govern their parenting techniques. And whereas the right-wing parents fear the government, these left-wing parents fear a lack of purity: 

On the right, these mental illnesses stem from fear of government. On the left, their origins are a bit harder to pin down, but as I see it, they stem from an old mix of righteousness and the fear of contamination—from what we might recognize as Puritanism.

Generally, one might expect liberals who become parents to remain open-minded and flexible. After all, the very notion of liberality is bound up with freedom, while conservatism is ostensibly concerned with keeping things from breaking apart. But as Oppenheimer notes, it's today's liberal parent who has come to fear freedom:

One mother was trying to keep her daughter from eating a cupcake, because of all the sugar in cupcakes. Another was trying to limit her son to one juice box, because of all the sugar in juice. A father was panicking because there was no place, in this outdoor barn-like space at some nature center or farm or wildlife preserve, where his daughter could wash her hands before eating [...]

Like any moral panic, nobody was immune to its contagion. Soon, I was fretting—but for different reasons. For all I knew, some of these kids weren’t immunized, and they were fed only unpasteurized milk. The other parents were worried about germs and microbes and genetically modified apricots—I was worried about the parents. I was surrounded by the new Puritans: self-righteous, aspiring toward a utopian perfectionism, therefore condemned to perpetual anxiety—and in their anxiety, a threat to me and my children.

At the same time, conservative parents have generally become relatively more open-minded. Lenore Skenazy was famously called the worst mom in America after admitting that she let her 9-year-old ride New York's subway home alone. But really, she's just instilling her kids with self reliance and pull-yourself-up- by-your-bootstraps-grit. Skenazy's Free Range Kids movement supports events like "Take Our Children to the Park and Leave Them There Day," which is both self-explanatory and (potentially) horrifying. And yet none of her children has gone missing or been taken away by the authorities. 

All those liberal worries about about obesity, high blood pressure, germs, autism and industrial chemicals, is leading to a lot of stress, which may in the end be more harmful than anything. Your bickering about the virtues of antibacterial hand lotion might give your kid a complex. Oppenheimer writes:

We know from research—which I have read—that stress increases the risk of various ailments, including cardiovascular disease. And sociologists have shown that children thrive best when they live with two parents in a low-conflict marriage. So it follows that if concerns about our children’s health cause the children stress, or if they become a source of conflict between the parents, they may actually be counterproductive.

And while Oppenheimer's solution is simplistic—basically, calm down—it might be a good place to start. "Between the heyday of Progressive reform and our current Puritan moment, there was another possibility on the left: the hippie ethos of not worrying so much," Oppenheimer writes. So maybe just chill out, okay?

       

You Have Better Odds With the Lottery Than McDonald's Monopoly Jackpot

It's Monopoly season at McDonald's again, one of the absolute best times of the year, but the long odds will have you questioning your choice to upsize that combo. The game is simple enough. When you purchase certain items on the menu, the packaging will come with little collectable pull tabs that will either have a Monopoly property or an instant prize on them. If you get all of a single color's properties—the same benchmark for buying hotels in the game—you win a specific prize. It's usually a car, or money, or burgers for a year. That kind of stuff. The game pieces are weighted so that some properties are more common than others. You can always find a New York Avenue, but never a Tennessee Avenue. 

Of course, you can win the biggest prize by collecting Boardwalk and Park Place: $1 million. 

I cannot stress how much I love the McDonald's Monopoly. It combines two of my favorite things: hopeless gambling and burgers. Winning a free burger or an apple pie is easy enough, but when you actually look at the probability of winning Monopoly's biggest prize, as Business Insider's Walter Hickey did, you realize the odds are just shy of winning the actual lottery:

The odds of winning Powerball: 1 in 175 million.  The odds of winning Mega Millions: 1 in 176 million.  The odds of finding a Boardwalk: 1 in 600 million. 

That number doesn't even include the odds of finding a Park Place. When you factor in those numbers, your chances of winning $1 million from McDonald's Monopoly surges to 1 in 3 billion. 

       

The NSA Faces a New Threat: Religious, Gun, and Pot Groups

A coalition of activist and advocacy groups have joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation in a lawsuit against the National Security Agency and FBI, alleging that the government's collection of phone metadata is a violation of their First Amendment rights. The most pervasive, technologically advanced surveillance system in the world could end up hobbled by a Los Angeles church, some gunsellers, and a few marijuana advocates. As was prophesied.

The lawsuit (which can be read in full at the bottom of this post) focuses on the First Amendment right to assembly. A post at the EFF's blog explains why the collection of metadata on phone records—collection revealed by Edward Snowden and reported last month—infringes on that right.

"People who hold controversial views – whether it's about gun ownership policies, drug legalization, or immigration – often must express views as a group in order to act and advocate effectively," said [EFF legal director Cindy] Cohn. "But fear of individual exposure when participating in political debates over high-stakes issues can dissuade people from taking part. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1958 that membership lists of groups have strong First Amendment protection. Telephone records, especially complete records collected over many years, are even more invasive than membership lists, since they show casual or repeated inquiries as well as full membership."

Should there be any question about the government's willingness to investigate participants in such groups, you don't have to look very far back in history to see examples. (The ACLU, in fact, has a database of such instances.) During the Iraq War, the FBI infiltrated peace groups with the goal of investigating their activities.

Which explains the motley group the EFF has assembled to join its lawsuit. In the lawsuit, each explains its advocacy activity. The First Unitarian Church of Los Angeles works for social justice. NORML works to decriminalize marijuana. The Council on American Islamic Relations does what you'd expect. The California Association of Federal Firearm Licensees represents gun manufacturers and sellers. Human Rights Watch watches human rights—including those of whistleblowers. Each of these groups has joined the suit as a plaintiff, each seeing how the collection of data could make it easier for the government to observe their activism.

The ACLU filed a lawsuit shortly after the Snowden revelations became public that differs in at least one significant ways. Its lawsuit was predicated on the fact that it as an organization was a customer of Verizon's Business Services section—the only phone company division for which an order to collect metadata is public. The EFF (and its co-plaintiffs) argues persuasively that the program is understood to be broader than just affecting Verizon, citing the words of Director of National Intelligence (and suit co-defendant) James Clapper to that end. The point is important because the plaintiffs must have standing for the suit. The Supreme Court has already rejected one argument against surveillance on standing grounds. (The ACLU also employed the First Amendment argument, however.)

Few organizations can match the EFF's recent legal success against government surveillance. Earlier this month, it won a ruling determining that the government could wave off critique by claiming revelations would harm national security. Last month, the EFF was told that a key filing from the government's secret surveillance court should be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

A chapter in the history of the government's domestic surveillance, then, could end with religious groups and Greenpeace (did we not mention Greenpeace?) and pro-marijuana groups and gun rights advocates standing outside the Supreme Court, telling assembled news crews about how the day was a victory for the protection of the First Amendment. Dibs on the movie rights.

       

How Likely Is Death by iPhone Electrocution?

Horrifying news reports suggest that an iPhone electrocuted a Chinese woman—though it's very unclear if that happened at all and if the rest of the iPhone-owning public should worry about death by smartphone electrocution. The details from various media reports are murky, making it hard to reach any firm conclusions about the dangers of iPhones. It's unclear what model of Apple's popular cell phone the victim, Ma Ailun, used, or if it even came from a legitimate Apple retailer or China's gray market. Her family insists that she used genuine Apple parts and that the phone was under warranty still. Apple is investigating the situation. Given how little we know about the incident, however, here are some possible ways she might have put herself in contact with a deadly electronic charge. 

Did She Have Counterfeit Charger? The Wall Street Journal suggests she could have had an uncertified power charger, which may have contributed to the problem. In May, the Chinese Consumer Association warned of a "flood" of uncertified chargers hitting the market that could turn an iPhone into a "pocket grenade." Counterfeit chargers, in general, present a safety hazard because they don't have to meet safety standards, according to a software engineer who tested dozens of phone chargers. While the family insists Ma Ailun had a genuine iPhone, the phone charger might have come from elsewhere. Third-party chargers, particularly, can get too hot, which may also have contributed to the electrocution. 

Was She in the Bathtub? The family said she had left the bath to answer the phone. Generally, your body has enough resistance such that an iPhone charger, which has a current of 1 amp and also a voltage of 5 volts, will not electrocute a person. But, as Mythbusters showed, a bath lowers a person's resistance and can indeed zap a person. The lethal amount of electricity is 7 milliamps for three seconds, which, depending on the electronic and the consistency of the bath—salts increase the water's conductivity a ton—can kill a person. Ma Ailun, however, had gotten out of the bath. She would have had to be soaking-wet to get electrocuted. Also, more modern ground-fault circuit interrupter outlets should protect from this sort of thing. 

Is There Faulty Wiring in the House? It's possible that this had little to do with the iPhone, but more the wiring in the house, which could have caused a short circuit. It's also possible that some transient voltage from high-voltage wires nearby could have cause the shock. A Yahoo news post, though, says that's highly unlikely. 

As you can see, the likelihood of electrocution by iPhone is very, very low. It takes a lot of very particular circumstances that unfortunately transpired for Ma Ailun, which probably is why this is the first news report of this ever happening. iPhones have spontaneously exploded before,  but death by iPhone electrocution is a first. 

       

Jay-Z Is Already Cashing in on His Sports Agency

Jay-Z sold his stake in the Brookyln Nets so he could start a sports marketing agency. Tired of just partying with top athletes from the booths of his 40/40 club, Jay wanted to represent these guys, to make money off their friendship in ways that only he could. According to a New York look at his business exploits and a link with Pepsi, we already know he's maximizing his own profit margins. 

New York's Andrew Rice did a sprawling examination of Jay-Z's business ventures, from the block to the boardroom, from his time as a young hustler in the Marcy projects to running Roc Nation Sports, the sports agency he launched in April with CAA and "    

See Every Copy of the Magna Carta in Existence

For the first time in history, and for only three days, the four surviving original copies of the Magna Carta will be reunited in the British Library during the document's 800th birthday, which will be celebrated in 2015. The document was first introduced by British nobles in 1215—800 years ago—which also explains why only 1215 select members of the public will be able to see it.

As you were surely told in your junior high history class, the Magna Carta is essentially the precursor of documents like the U.S. Constitution, putting as it does checks and balances on people in power. It is also, somewhat less relevantly, in the title of a middling Jay-Z album.

In 1215, baron pushed this document onto King John in hopes of protecting their own rights and property from royal power. At the time, King John was gaming the feudal system through a series of loopholes and abusing the reach of the crown—15 chapters of the Magna Carta were focused on that, the BBC explains. The next ten chapters had to do with finances and people's rights under Common Law. "It is these latter that have been seen as crucial, as they subjected the king to the law of the land for the first time in Britain's history," the BBC adds. 

As with that Jay-Z album, the critical reception of the Magna Carta was not a good one. King John had signed it as a bargaining chip to quell a growing rebellion against him and boost his image. He had every intention of trying to diminish the document's power. "It was only valid for less than 10 weeks," Clair Breay, the British Library's lead curator of medieval manuscripts, told reporters, explaining that King John had the Magna Carta annulled by Pope Innocent III. 

And despite its rocky start—after it was annulled, it was re-issued multiple times post-John—the Magna Carta's basic tenets still have staying power today. The Associated Press cites the document's most significant quote: 

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, nor will we proceed with force against him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

That's the 800-year-old basis of what we now know as a trial by jury. And, as the AP notes, its commentary on "extortionate taxes" certainly resound with the Tea Party movement today. 

"Bringing the four surviving manuscripts together for the first time will create a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for researchers and members of the public to see them in one place, and will be a fantastic start to a year of celebrations," said Breay, which will allow a group of researchers along with those lucky 1215 members of the public to research the pieces.