Skip Navigation
James Fallows

James Fallows

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic. A 25-year veteran of the magazine and former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, he is also an instrument-rated pilot and a onetime program designer at Microsoft.  For the next few weeks while he is on book leave, guest bloggers are appearing in this space.  For information on this week's guests, click here

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for the Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and has won a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His two most recent books, Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards from Tomorrow Square (2009) are based his writings for The Atlantic; he is at work on another book about China He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Another Kind of American History in Chongqing, 1: Prologue

by Xujun Eberlein

In the summer of 1987, my future husband, Bob, cycled across China -- I think he was the first American who did that -- as he came to meet me in Chongqing. As a yet-to-be-betrothed daughter, I lived with my parents, because an unmarried person was ineligible for an apartment. My parents, who had both been underground Communists in the late 1940s and active protesters against America in the post-WWII years, were shocked to see an American with a bike on his shoulder walking through the door of our 4th floor apartment. At the time, either a bike or a foreigner was a rare sight in Chongqing the inland mountain city. Across China, Westerners had only recently -- and guardedly -- been allowed to travel about, provided that they did not break the country's often invisible rules or court its untainted women.

My parents, temporarily held back by their traditional hospitality for guests (I told them Bob was my teacher at graduate school), tolerated Bob the American visitor for one day. The second day, my father could no longer bear his discomfort and ordered Bob to depart. Before laying down the law, he suggested Bob visit SACO - 中美合作所 (Zhong-Mei hezuosuo), on Gele Mountain in the western part of Chonqging.

"What is SACO?" Bob asked. I was very surprised. Having never set foot outside China, I thought every American knew the name SACO ("Sino-American Cooperative Organization"), just as every Chinese knew the name "Zhong-Mei hezuosuo."

I told Bob what I had known since elementary school: SACO was an American-operated concentration camp that tortured and killed underground Communists in the 1940s. It had two prisons, one called Refuse Pit, another Bai Mansion. The name of SACO's American co-director was Milton Miles, a US Navy official, and its Chinese director was Dai Li, the head of the Nationalist secret services (called euphemistically the Military Statistics Bureau, or "Juntong"). Dai Li was known to my parents and their Communist comrades as "China's Himmler."

Bob, largely apolitical, was hardly interested. If anything, he dismissed the notion of an "American-run concentration camp" as a myth. MIT-educated, he had done some reading on Sino-American history before traveling to China in early 1987, but had never heard of such a thing.

Though I had no desire to have Bob visit the SACO site, and was unhappy about my father's intent to instill guilt in an American, Bob's dismissal put me in a mood to argue. "This one is real," I said. I had seen, in the SACO museum, handcuffs marked "Made in USA," and pictures of the dead bodies wearing them. My statement was not ideologically based (in fact, I had gotten into political trouble for my dissident thoughts and writing in the early 1980s), but history is history, or so I thought. Bob barely shrugged, unconvinced yet with no desire to argue.

In retrospect, Bob was the first person I know to counter the mainland Chinese notion of SACO's history, albeit intuitively (and with an American bias). He did later speculate that, if there were actually such a graphic concentration camp in China operated by Americans, the ubiquitous US journalists wouldn't have foregone a Pulitzer-winning opportunity to expose it, ergo SACO would already have been public knowledge in the US.

But things are not always that straightforward.



***

This much was well known in China: on November 27, 1949, at the cusp of regime change, a massacre took place at Chongqing's Refuse Pit and Bai Mansion, two prisons in walking distance of one another. Over 200 people were slaughtered that day. At Bai Mansion, the executions were carried out in batches, still not quite finished by the evening, at which point the remaining twenty prisoners, with the help of a sympathetic guard, fled. In Refuse Pit, the jailers cut down over 140 prisoners with submachine guns, poured gasoline on the bodies, and burned them, but a handful escaped in the fire and chaos. Days later, on the hill next to the massacre sites, a pit was found full of bodies bound with handcuffs made in Springfield, Massachusetts, USA.BaiMansion.JPG

The burial pit, like the two prisons, was on the grounds of SACO's headquarters. SACO ("Sino-American Cooperative Organization") was founded in 1943, during WWII, under an agreement co-signed by President Roosevelt and Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. (Only after moving to the US did I learn that the stated purpose in the agreement was to fight the two countries' "common enemy," i.e., Japan.)

Left: Bai Mansion (Baigongguan) prison

The majority of the prisoners were Chongqing's underground Communists. One of the escaped, Luo Guangbing, was an acquaintance of my parents. Twelve years after the massacre, in 1961, Luo and a co-author published the hugely successful novel Red Crag, eulogizing the Communists' heroic struggles in the Refuse Pit and Bai Mansion prisons. Most of the characters in the novel are based on real people. In fact, the authors had first published a smaller nonfiction book titled (in translation) Live Eternally in Raging Flames before adapting and expanding it to a novel.

Right: Refuse Pit (Zhazidong) prison RefusePit.JPG

In the years that followed, a long-lasting Red Crag fever swept all of New China. In the 1960s and '70s the novel was far more effective than any textbook for educating school children in both "revolutionary heroism" and anti-Americanism. It was the very first novel I ever read, when I was in the 2nd grade. Every Chinese I know from my age, to those ten years younger, has read it, and some are still fond of it today. The novel has lots of graphic torture scenes, and the shadow of a high-ranking American adviser representing SACO was often behind the torturers. But, with an upbeat heroic theme and sensational plot of underground struggles, I have to say the story was gripping to a young mind. I savored it then; only in retrospect do I realize how sentimental and propagandizing its language was.

Movies, operas and plays alike were adapted from the novel, and earned abundant tears from their audiences. Diary books bound with the novel's cover image became the most popular kind in Chongqing. From 1963 to the early 1970s, all the diary books my mother and an older sister used showed the novel's cover -- a tall pine standing against the wind on a red-colored cliff. (You can actually find this image on Amazon.com. A writer friend told me there is an English translation of Red Crag, but I have never read it.)

In my childhood, a poem in the novel recited by a hero rejecting the torturers' request for a confession moved me deeply. I still remember the lines (my translation):

Heavy shackles clang below my feet; no matter
Leather whips swing against my face; no matter
In your confession I will take no part
Even with bloody bayonet piercing my heart

The poem had also appeared in the earlier nonfiction book. We were told that the poem was the work of the martyr Chen Ran. Two decades later, in the 1980s, the truth surfaced that it was composed by the novel's authors "according to the martyr's thoughts." Chen Ran was a real person, but the poem isn't his. Nonetheless, as late as 2002, the poem continued to appear in textbooks and poetry anthologies under the name "martyr Chen Ran," as noted by He Shu, a Chongqing-based historian.

The novel played a critical role in the heroism culture of the Mao era. Its romanticized heroism had a huge and decisive impact on the young people who grew up with New China. I wouldn't be surprised if, during the warfare between Red Guard factions in 1967-68 that killed thousands in Chongqing alone, the young men and women valiantly charging into the battlefields regarded themselves like those heroes in Red Crag, looking upon death as homecoming for their lofty belief. Fortunately I was too young at the time; otherwise I might well have been one of the factional fighters. We are all products of our time, and we only have hindsight.

(To be continued tomorrow)

Xujun Eberlein is the author of Apologies Forthcoming, a story collection set in China, and Inside-out China, a cultural criticism blog. She also writes reviews of China-themed books, for example this one.

Sputnik Moments

by Bruce J. Holmes

In President Obama's recent State of the Union Address, he made the assertion that "this is our generation's Sputnik moment." Therefore, we need "to reach a level of research and development we haven't seen since the height of the Space Race." By doing so, "we will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people." I ask myself: Is the idea of a "Sputnik moment" a timely one?

For me, the context for the answer to this question includes my recollections from the 1957 Sputnik event. I remember, as a youth living in the Chicagoland suburbs, saving the front page of the Chicago Tribune when the headline read something like "Russian Satellite Orbits Earth." At the time, I was an aspiring pilot with, as yet, no clear aspirations for aerospace engineering, aeronautics and space research, which would later become my career. I was just a pre-teen already passionate about the liberty afforded by access to an airplane and a local airport. My reason for saving the newspaper was not all that clear in my young mind. I also saved the issues of National Geographic with stories and pictures of the X-15 rocket plane and Mad Magazine, which had nothing to do with aeronautics. But the Sputnik event seemed compelling in ways that would have meaning later in life.

Looking back, I realize that my reaction to Sputnik was something to the effect of "...how cool is that!" The "that" being the concept of flight beyond what I understood from my own experience, and the gadgetry of the whole idea -- radios far exceeding the capabilities of my home-built crystal sets, and propulsion chemistry beyond the comprehension afforded by my home chemistry lab set and match-head-powered aluminum foil rockets.

Between then and now (marriage, family raised, parents and friends passed, careers started, ended, and restarted), my adult mind developed an understanding of the Sputnik Event effect on the world of politics, cold war, technology trajectories, educational system directions, and national motivations. For me, the act of creating NASA in1959 (on the shoulders of the NACA giants of the previous five decades), was clearly government at its best: the nurturing of the commons in such a way as to stimulate the emergence of a new industrial capacity, new markets and consumers, and new products and services -- a new economic identity. The result virally catalyzed the entrepreneurial spirit among the nation's innovators in ways that fomented the transformation from the agricultural and industrial ages into the age of space and computers and the Internet. And, along the way, we went to the Moon.

In an op-ed piece in the New York Times last November 9 ("Crossroads Nation"), David Brooks shared a thought that "...nobody is clear about what sort of country America is going to be in 2030 or 2050. Nobody has quite defined America's coming economic identity." What we can know is that catalytic (Sputnik) moments can motivate us to make the investments and take the kinds of risks that create the foundations for the next epoch, for a new economic identity. Certainly, the field of my passion, aeronautics, aviation and aerospace, is vitally in need of "Sputnik-moment-inspired" transformation in ways that contribute to our nation's next economic identity. We are a society slowing down and serving fewer cities, in spite of faster airplanes and better navigation technology. The current air transportation enterprise, made up of airports, airspace, aircraft, regulation, finance, and business models developed for the 20th century markets, is vital to our economic system. However, the current enterprise and infrastructure, developed for 20th century markets, will not be the likely source of a new life cycle of game-changing innovations in air mobility for the 21st century.

The time-tested lessons from Clayton Christensen's The Innovators Dilemma (Harvard Business School Press, 1997) teach the reasons for that reality and illuminate the strategic framework needed to stimulate new innovation life cycles. The lost opportunities in quality of life and economic opportunity, from diminished mobility or mobility not realized, need to be understood as a threat to our future standard of living. Faster, more predictable, economical air access to more communities seems a logical part of the way forward. More on that in another blog. It seems to me that one of the features of our economic-political system is that it is most effective in making big changes only in response to big impetus. So, do we need a big change? Looking forward to a future of a nation moving slower to fewer places by air makes me think so. Can the President's Sputnik moment claim do the trick? I for one -- cheering from the aviation bleachers -- hope the idea goes viral.

Bruce J. Holmes, retired from his NASA career in public sector entrepreneurialism, is now practicing the art in the private sector as CEO, NextGen AeroSciences

The Latest Huntsman 2012 News

I feel compelled to step in and briefly say something about this. Previously here and here.

HuntsmanD.pngVarious sources -- notably Jake Tapper here, and Politico here -- are reporting that "White House officials" expect Jon Huntsman (right, with one of his daughters) to leave his job as ambassador to China "in the coming months," to consider running against Barack Obama next year.

The "in the coming months" part strikes me as non-news. I believe it was generally understood that the Huntsmans had made a two-year commitment to the job, which would take them through this summer.

The "assumed to be considering a run" part is quite different. I really like Jon Huntsman personally and respect him politically. I continue to think that he was an inspired choice for the job in Beijing. I believe he represents a tenable national future for the Republicans when they are past the Tea Party stage.

But these reports, which he now quite notably has not knocked down, create an impossible situation. If he is seriously planning a run to take the White House away from Obama, how can he continue to serve in the Administration?* How can Obama keep him? Unless, for clever sandbagging purposes, Obama is driving home his closeness to Huntsman, and also delaying the (already late) start to his campaign, to handicap him in the Republican primaries.

When the reports first came up, I laughed them off. But it's striking now that Huntsman has failed to do the same. What I'd like to see -- for the nation's interest, and (in my view, but what do I know?) for Huntsman's -- is for him clearly to put them to rest. Say that of course he's a Republican, and of course he'll support the GOP ticket in 2012. But he's doing the nation's business now in Beijing, and doesn't want to complicate that with all this political gossip. To me as armchair strategist, staying out of the 2012 fray would seem to save him a lot of heartache. Avoiding a primary fight in this bitter season, when he's fresh off Team Obama; and, if he survived that, avoiding a general election battle when  -- one assumes -- the economic cycle should be improving. If that economic assumption is wrong, everything else changes. But if that were the case and Obama seemed gravely weakened, I am not sure that makes a moderate, rather than a red-meat conservative, the most likely Republican candidate.

If Huntsman can't say that, how can he stay? How is the Administration supposed to view the cables they get from him these "next few months"? Or the talks they have with him about Chinese policy on North Korea, the RMB, trade? It would be nice to hear Huntsman himself say, "This is all very flattering, and at the right time, but for now, we have important business here in China...."   Just a thought.
___
* No, an ambassador is usually not a central part of the policy-making apparatus for an administration. As many ambassadors point out, to their annoyance! But China is a special case, given its importance, and Huntsman's prominence there as a Mandarin speaker and political star, and the huge scale of the Beijing embassy, and the range and complexity of issues on which people there operate. It's not like an Honorary Consul job someplace.

Student Life: Still More Views

By John Tierney


Many thanks to the many readers who wrote in response to my recent post about contemporary student life and my plea for help sorting out the messages we're getting from assorted media about it.  Some of you wrote at surprising and gratifying length; you were especially kind to take the time to share your carefully considered thoughts.

As this is my last post here as a guest this week on Jim's blog, I want to thank him for this great opportunity.  He has an outstanding readership, if the many fine folks who were kind enough to respond to me on various items are any indication. 

Most of what I received after the first wave of replies was from current college students and recent graduates.  I am not happy to report that, to a person, they agreed with the overall contours of the picture painted by the media reports I aggregated.  This is depressing. (There is one reply, at the very bottom of this post, from someone who has been a tenured college professor for over two decades.  Her view, unfortunately, is no more encouraging.)

Interestingly, however, some of the students argued, essentially, that college life may be decadent "education-free zones," but, gosh, hasn't that always been the case?  Others offered some amusing, and appropriate, push-back on the whole wasted-time issue:  Every cohort of high-school students and collegians wastes time!  How did YOUR generation do it?  (Hmmmmm . . .  Gee, unfortunately, my time here expires soon and there's no time to get into that now.   Let's move on.)

More »

Reagan and Obama: Pragmatism Ascendant

By John Tierney

The cover article in the most recent issue of Time magazine asserts that President Obama sees Ronald Reagan as a role model.  In their article, Michael Scherer and Michael Duffy examine how and why Obama finds Reagan's presidency instructive. 

Over on The Atlantic Wire, Alex Eichler responded to this latest contribution to Reagan-Obama mania by putting the whole preoccupation under the "Cliché Watch" category -- a move that any sentient observer would have to agree with.  (Type "Obama and Reagan" into "search our site" bar at the top of The Atlantic's site, and you'll see how common such comparisons on The Atlantic site alone.)

Still, as someone who regularly yields to the magnetic pull of a good cliché, I can't resist adding to the pile. To me, looking back at the Reagan presidency is a good reminder of what happens to both liberals and conservatives when they come to power.  As much as the two camps may be divided from each other while campaigning for office, it's once in office that the interesting splits occur.

More »

One More Note About Integrative Thinking

By Lane Wallace

A reader sent me the following note in response to my post on innovation not being about math, but about more flexible, "integrative" thinking:

Most schools where I live seem to tout their 'integrated' curricula. It's certainly the case at every public and private school I've visited in the last few months (our son is entering kindergarten next year). Usually this integration takes the form of choosing a theme (fall harvest, civil rights, sea life, etc) and weaving it into project for each subject (art, science, history, etc). While far better than the old silo approach to class work, this integration trend strikes me as stopping short of truly encouraging integrative thinking. Perhaps the structure of the classes alone isn't enough to foster the type of innovation our country now requires. It seems like the methodology of integrated teaching ... might be just as important.

Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto (whom I mentioned in the post) would agree. Some of his thoughts on the subject, from an interview I did with him last year:

Where I don't agree entirely with lots of the efforts to be multi-disciplinary is that I think you have to build a basic science of multi-disciplinarity. I've come to believe from my work on this, and on this issue in business, that we have a flawed, implicit theory about interdisciplinarity. That you can be interdisciplinary by being taught multiple disciplines and being taught critical thinking. And I think that's an excellent start, but it's not enough. 

Critical thinking is still much more based on which is the better model. I don't think you're taught to tear apart a model of marketing that's based on the basic science of psychology and a finance model that's based on the science of economics. I think it is an absolute fantasy that if you teach people critical thinking, they'll be able to think productively across models. I think [thinking across models] in and of itself is a discipline you have to learn, that's separate from what you're taught in critical thinking. I think there's a discipline, a basic science of interdisciplinarity, that's as much a discipline as neuroscience, as biology, as chemistry, as literature, as law. And I believe it can be built, and we're building it.

Obviously, there's far more on this subject that could be said, and should be discussed, but just thought I'd add a little more information/clarification about what the difference is -- at least how Martin sees it--between multidisciplinary studies and true interdisciplinarity, and critical thinking versus integrative thinking. Food for thought, as I sign off from Jim's blog on this site, and return to my own.

Did Obama's Promise Trigger the Arab Revolt?

This is the first post by a member of the coming week's guest team, Chuck Spinney. More background on him and the others here.

A word more about Chuck before turning the floor back to him and other guests. In the thirty-plus years that I've known him, I've never heard a partisan statement out of Chuck. He is hard on most politicians --as he is here on Obama for what he argues is a squandered / betrayed promise to bring real "change" to America's dealings with the world. But he has been if anything harder on Obama's opponents and predecessors, including in what became a wildly-popular chart showing Democrats' and Republicans' comparative records in balancing budgets. This is for context about one of the most detached and relentlessly logical observers I have known. Over to him -- and through the coming week, his colleagues. JF.
__

Did Obama's Promise Trigger the Arab Revolt?

By Chuck Spinney

During his brilliantly run campaign of 2008, Barack Obama electrified the world with vague promises of change in foreign policy as well as domestic policy. (My take on his campaign strategy can be found here.) Two and a half years later, those promises are ashes. Nowhere is that clearer in foreign policy than in the Arab world.

In contrast to the euphoria surrounding the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Arab Revolt of 2011 leaves one with a disquieting sense that we may be standing on the wrong side of history. People power and the promise of democracy worked spectacularly well for the United States when the tyrants in Eastern Europe collapsed twenty years ago, but I think it may be working against us in the Arab world of 2011.

Clearly, the explosion of people power in Tunisia and Egypt caught the U.S. flat footed, and to date, has triggered only embarrassingly incoherent responses by our political leadership. If you doubt this, I urge you to watch this video of Shihab Rattansi's interview of State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley on Al Jazeera, or read this report describing Obama's empty platitudes on about the crisis in Egypt.

The revolt shows signs of spreading. America's "friends" in Tunisia and Lebanon have already fallen to democratic pressures; as I write this, Hosni Mubarak teeters on the brink of collapse in Egypt, and there is potential for a collapse in Yemen as well as in the Palestinian Authority.

Are we witnessing a chain reaction, where each collapse begets more collapses? Will the Arab revolt spread to Jordan, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere, or will it peter out?

Of course, no one can reliably predict how an ongoing interplay of chance with necessity will unfold over the coming days and months. But a question's unanswerability does not mean one should not think about its ramifications.

Many of the problems are the same from country to country: grossly unequal distributions of income and conspicuous consumption by rich elites; masses of undereducated poor; high unemployment, especially among the young (including college graduates); rising food prices; corrupt autocracy, official nepotism etc. The forces for a spreading revolt are in place across the region and will not go away, even if tyrants like Mubarak manage to retain their grips on power in the short term.

Mr. Obama did not create the forces driving the Arab revolt. Indeed, the seeds were planted long ago, when myopic Cold War foreign policies began to oppose the democratic/nationalist aspirations of Mohammad Mossadegh in Iran and Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt in the early 1950s, and when we began to prop up reactionary regimes in the oil states, while winking at Israel's illegal colonization schemes after the 1967 War.

But I do not think President Obama is blameless.

Obama did surprisingly little to fulfill the hopes and dreams he unleashed worldwide during the election of 2008. Moreover, he deliberately magnified them in the Arab world with his 2009 Cairo speech. But coupled with his continuation of America's cynical policies to prop up tyrannical Arab regimes, and particularly his spectacular failure to rein in the illegal Israeli settlements in the so-called Arab-Israeli Peace Process in 2010, Mr. Obama may have inadvertently exacerbated the explosive combination of frustrated expectations and business-as-usual that pressurized the current eruption of resentment, anger, and alienation among the Arab people in 2011.

It is difficult today to appreciate the expectations he unleashed. I witnessed firsthand how his promises of change pumped up Europeans, Turks, and Arabs during 2008.

I am retired and have been living with my wife Alison on a sailboat in the Mediterranean for nine months out of each year, since we crossed the Atlantic in 2005. (FYI, this is a link to her travelblog of our adventures.) During the summer and fall of 2008, we cruised the coasts of southern Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. We spent time in harbors and took inland tours, including a side trip into southern Jordan.

I try to chat up our many European sailor friends as well as locals I meet to learn about their conditions, lives, politics, culture, etc. Just about every one I talk to is an 'average joe,' living somewhere along the lower two-thirds of the food chain. Conversations may be in pidgin and sign language, but I generally connect. Despite this microscopic point of view, I am confident Obama's promise electrified people in Europe, Turkey, and the Arab world during his 2008 campaign.

In fact, the impression he created boggled my mind. Once in a small shop in Syria, for example, a man of about 20, asked me in French, Syria's second language, if I was French or English. I responded, pointing to my chest, saying slowly, "Aameerikaa." He broke into a huge grin, put his arm around me, and started chanting "Obama, Obama, Obama," while pumping a "thumbs up" with his other hand, ending with a "high five." While this was an extreme example of the attitude, it was also typical in one sense: as soon as you said you were from the U.S., Europeans, Turks, or Arabs would start talking enthusiastically about Obama.

To be sure, I am only one guy, but I can say without exaggeration, this kind of enthusiasm was exhibited by at least ninety per cent of the people I saw (Israel excepted). Europeans, Turks, and Arabs really wanted Obama to win the election. More importantly, they were excited about the prospect of America moving onto a positive trajectory.

That enthusiasm is now a faded memory, but the frustration between the rising expectations he triggered and a stagnant reality is not.

Consider how far those hopes have fallen: Israel just humiliated President Obama by scuppering his belated attempts to revive the peace process (which even included an offer to buy off the Israelis with 20 more Joint Strike Fighters in return for a settlement freeze of only 90 days). Coming after his 2009 Cairo speech, the humiliation by the Israelis demonstrated either his helplessness or hypocrisy to the Arab world. The publication of the Palestinian Papers delegitimized Mahmoud Abbas and other leaders of the Palestinian Authority by revealing them to be Quislings and the peace process sponsored by the United States to be a fraud. The message could not be clearer: If Arab people want change, they must do it themselves.

So, while Obama did not create the inequalities at the root of discord, I think his empty rhetoric sharply widened the expectation-reality gap that is fueling the Arab Revolt of 2011. (For the record, Obama's candidacy and election made me feel proud to be an American and he is the only politician my wife and I have ever given money to.)

Welcome to the New Team: Eberlein, Holmes, Spinney, and Sprung

We're nearing the end of the first week's shift of guest bloggers. Not rushing them off the stage: I believe that they may have a few entries still to come today.

I couldn't be more grateful to this initial group: Phil Baker, who wrote about technology, perseverance and excellence, Apple's corporate culture, and US-China manufacturing links; Paola and Jorge Guajardo, who reported from Beijing about an underappreciated bond in US-Chinese relations, the "hey, wait a minute!" factor when US legislators lecture the Chinese, and prevailing Chinese skepticism about the (preposterous) "Chinese mom" fad in the US; John Tierney, who covered politics, the postal service, and academic culture in various aspects, plus tussling with the readers, plus bringing us Pomplamoose; and Lane Wallace, who wrote about sacrifice, daring, security and security theater, and courage and achievement in fields from swimming to schoolwork to space flight, while like the other writers showing an amazing range. I feel fortunate to have these people as friends.

Appearing soon will be their successors for the coming week, another impressively varied group. We will hear from:

Xujun Eberlein, who grew up in Chongqing, in central China, where she was a child during the Cultural Revolution, and came to Boston to earn a PhD at MIT more than 20 years ago. She has worked in a tech startup and published an acclaimed collection of short stories, Apologies Forthcoming. She writes about Chinese and American literature and culture at her site Inside-Out China; more background on her here.

Bruce Holmes, who for many years was an "entrepreneurial bureaucrat" inside NASA. Bruce was one of the heroes of my book Free Flight, a decade ago, and of this story in the Atlantic more recently. He paid his way through college flying crop dusters and other planes in Kansas, and is still involved in promoting some of the most innovative steps in aviation. More about him and his new company, NextGen AeroServices, here.

Chuck Spinney, who was on the cover of Time magazine in the Reagan era for his attempts to bring sanity to the defense budget, and who was a central figure in my book National Defense in 1981, along with colleagues like John Boyd and Pierre Sprey. Chuck has retired from the Pentagon and has spent much of the past five years on a small sailboat in the Mediterranean with his wife, Alison, and their small dog, Zoey. He writes about American strategy and solvency at his site 'The Blaster.' I have cited Chuck and his views often, including here, here, here, and in a very high-traffic post here.

Andrew Sprung, who writes about politics, culture, language, and democracy at his site Xpostfactoid, and in his day job is a media consultant. I became aware of him through his frequent interesting examinations of a favorite topic of my own: the language, style, and unstated messages in the rhetoric of national leaders. Sprung says that interest may have come from his academic work toward a Ph.D. in medieval English literature: "I wrote a dissertation on the remarkably humane and subtle medieval English anchorite Julian of Norwich, a mystic nun whose knack of squaring circles and framing paradoxes reminds me a little of our current President."

I hope you enjoy their posts. If you have comments pro or con, the "Email Fallows" button, above, will send your messages to the respective authors. Thanks and greetings to all. 

Student Life: More Views

By John Tierney

I knew that my earlier post on contemporary student life would provoke comment, even outrage.  And it came -- some of it predictable and expected, some of it a surprise.
 
From the "expected" pool:

My daughter is a freshman at Barnard, and is bursting with excitement about all she is learning. When she came home for break, I had to physically stop her from listing the states and counties in India. More substantively, she gave me a long and thoughtful review of the long-term trauma inflicted on India and Pakistan by partition, with particular
emphasis on the effects on women.

As the parent of a college student, and as someone who has been deeply engaged with her friends and their families over the years, I strongly disagree with Tierney and would be happy to rebut. Quite frankly, I think these kids are way more educated than I was at that age, way more thoughtful about what they want to learn and how they want to learn it,
and way more willing to seek out extracurricular education
I expected that lots of readers would write in with some version of this comment.  Yes, of course, there are many hundreds of thousands of very bright, eager, hard-working students out there who are learning an incredible amount and who can put their parents to shame.   

I suppose the question is whether Barnard students -- or the brightest, most diligent students on any campus -- are the norm.  What is the norm?  Will we hear from the parents who feel the tuition dollars they pay are wasted on their kid, who sits in his dorm room all day playing video games and who drinks himself into a dither every night?  They're not the parents who  boast to their friends about their offspring's intellectual excitement -- nor, probably, have they ever had the pleasure of engaging with their kid in a discussion about partition of the Indian subcontinent. 
 
From the "unexpected-but-unsurprising" pile, this response from a reader who thought my earlier post was insufficiently balanced and scrupulous, and who starts his reply by mocking my loose assessment of the situation:

"It rings true." That's the sort of analytical rigor I've come to expect from elite girls private schools. Really, Dr. Tierney, that entire post was a horror show of overly credulous reading, research from dubious and deliberately provoking books, and a total absence of consideration of provisos, qualifications, and alternate opinion which are the mark of quality social science. You owe your readership, James Fallows, and the academy so much more. I'm genuinely disappointed.
Two points in response:

(1) I'm pretty sure I made it clear at the top of the post that I wasn't aiming even to write a coherent essay, much less one that would make any pretense at "analytical rigor" or "quality social science."  Rather, I was simply pulling together articles about contemporary collegiate life and asking for reactions to them.  Calm down.

(2) Frankly, I don't owe "the academy" anything.  What a preposterous notion!  As for Jim Fallows: I owe him many things, including my sincere thanks for letting me into this space for the week.  But it's not clear to me that I owe him the particular model of blog post you envision. And as for the readership: I'm sorry, but I cannot control your expectations or your disappointment.  Go read something you consider measured and balanced until your blood pressure settles down!

Also, from another "expected" pile.  A widely beloved and prominent professor at a small liberal-arts college in New England writes in, saying that the view of college life presented in the earlier post rings true with him, too.  He then adds:
 
You know, I have a special place in my heart for our [Asian] students, who exhibit few of the troublesome traits you lament. The American students are nice kids, and I like them, but I don't respect them. I guess that's the thing.
I laughed when his reply went on to give me useful advice on blogging:

Here's a tip: you are way too honest. Three times in your piece you say that you have not read a book or something like that. Never make such an admission. Lie. That's what they all do. Do you really believe that Krugman, Will, Krauthammer, Noonan, et al., have really read all the books they cite in their rants? Why should you be the honest one?
. . .
Often students preface a comment or question with an apologetic "this may be wrong, but..." or  even "this may be stupid, but...."  I come down hard on them when they do that. "Never apologize," I tell them, "it makes you sound weak. You've lost the argument before you even try to make it.  Most of intellectual life is bluffing," I tell them, "so start right now. You don't know more than I do, but I want you to act like you do. You must try to intimidate me; not give me the upper hand with the first wimpy words out of your mouth."
Clearly, here's a professor who is intent on educating the "whole person," not simply instructing on course material.  (All should their kids are lucky enough to end up in the classroom of such an educator.)  Incidentally, his timely advice is responsible for the stuckthrough word of apology to the "genuinely disappointed" reader above.  This professor is right: there's no traction in being a milksop.  (Future respondents, consider yourselves warned. No more "Mr. Almost-Nice Guy.")
 
Finally, under the "delightful surprise" category of responses comes this, from a professor at a distinguished Canadian university:

For a fresh perspective on the education debate, I highly recommend this short YouTube video by Sir Ken Robinson.
This turns out to be a video of a lecture by Robinson, animated by RSA (the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce).  It is, quite simply, one of the most instructive and enlightening video-lectures I've ever seen. It's also enormously entertaining. Even if I learned nothing else from this week of blogging here (though, thanks to readers, I learned much), being exposed to this video would alone have made it completely worthwhile. 

Take time to watch it here.  And you might check out some of the other videos RSA has posted on YouTube and/or go to the RSA's own website for more.



Challenger, 25 Years Later

By Lane Wallace

Friday marked the 25th anniversary of the explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger--an event that itself marked the end of a new generation's innocence about the wonders and safety of space travel. I say "new generation" because the Apollo generation had already had one of those moments, when Apollo 1 caught fire on the launch pad during a test, and its three crew members--Guss Grissom, Edward White and Roger Chafee--burned to death before rescue crews could get to them.

In some ways, however, the Challenger shock was greater, because the shuttle program had been sold to Congress and America not as a space exploration mission, but as a safe, reliable "Space Transportation System" (hence the numbering of shuttles STS-6, STS-82, etc.). Recall that promoters promised that the new, reusable space vehicles would be able to launch every two weeks--a promise that never even came close to coming true; indeed, never had a realistic chance of coming true. Even today, we are not at the point of having safe, reliable space transport at our disposal. And Challenger is still a valid, cautionary tale about how we view NASA's role in research and innovation, and the expectations we put on the agency. 

In my mind, what makes the Challenger story so tragic isn't that there was a civilian teacher on board. It was the disconnect between what insiders knew at the time and what the public was being told, or sold. Yesterday, the NPR program All Things Considered aired a piece of an interview that Christa McAuliffe, the "teacher in space" who was killed in the Challenger explosion, gave a few days before the launch. In the interview, McAuliffe said she believed that the shuttles were safe. It's jarring to hear her voice, so chipper and cheery, asserting what we all know now to be dreadfully untrue. 

But if the public thought the shuttles were safe, the shuttle commanders never had any such illusion. Every shuttle commander I've ever interviewed has underscored, vehemently, the uncertainty and risks shuttle flights entailed. And Commander Dick Scobee, Challenger's commander, apparently knew the risks, as well. Barbara Morgan, the back-up teacher for McAuliffe, was also interviewed on the All Things Considered segment. Morgan had trained with the crew, just like McAuliffe, and the NPR host asked her if she had thought about the risks. Morgan answered that she'd thought mostly about the excitement about going into space, and what it would mean. But, she added, Commander Scobee had sat her and McAuliffe down at the beginning of the training and talked to them about the risks. 

I got a little more specific answer when I met Barbara Morgan at a NASA event a number of years ago. Scobee, she told me then, told the crew down at the beginning of training that they should consider the Space Shuttle a one-way ticket. They might return home again, but the risks involved were so high, they shouldn't expect that. And if they weren't okay with that notion, they shouldn't go.  

Regardless of how they were sold to the public, the truth is that the space shuttles were experiments in exploration, every time they launched. And if they'd been positioned that way, the pressure to launch on schedule might not have been so great, on that cold January day, 25 years ago. And the Challenger accident might not have happened. 

But the dangers of selling NASA as an agency that manages successful space flights--regardless of whether the vehicles are carrying humans to near-space or robotic missions to Mars--go beyond increased risk of accidents. It also keeps NASA from doing the very thing that NASA was created to do; namely, to take on the cutting-edge, high-risk challenges of aeronautics and space exploration that nobody else can, or has the incentive, to do. 

We look back fondly on the audacity and innovative, explorer's spirit that energized the early days of the U.S. space program--and which led to so many kinds of innovation and discovery. But part of the reason those breakthroughs happened was that NASA's work back then was a) less public and b) more tolerant of failure. Getting to the moon was an astronomical target, after all. Failure was expected, along the way to success--if success was even a plausible or attainable goal. 

Apollo 1 was the one early space program failure that became highly visible, because human astronauts were lost in the process. But fully one-half of the Atlas rockets used in the Mercury program blew up or malfunctioned. The ones that blew up just didn't happen to have humans on board. And the people involved accepted the risks that came with exploring this new territory.

Scott Crossfield, a NASA test pilot who was the first pilot to fly the X-15 rocket plane (an early idea for a "reusable launch vehicle" that eventually flew six times the speed of sound and above 300,000 feet) told me once that when he discovered the X-15 was being equipped with a $5 million ejection/escape system, he told the designers he'd fly it sitting on a tomato can if they'd give him the $5 million. 

"I fully expected to die flying one of those airplanes I was testing, one day," he said with a shrug. 

The point isn't how cavalier or macho the early test pilots or astronauts were. It's that all of the folks working on NASA projects back then were painfully aware that they were working at the risky and unpredictable edge of knowledge. Yes, amazing advancements were made. But not without cost. Aside from the many rocket, system and technical failures along the way, no fewer than eight American astronauts died in training accidents during the 1960s: five while flying jets and the three men in Apollo 1. Not to mention the number of test pilots who were killed advancing aeronautical technology during that same era. 

And yet, despite the failures and the deaths, there were no cries to shut the space program down. Part of the reason may have been fear of Russian dominance in space, which was more intolerable than the loss of a few astronauts. The accidents and failures also didn't play out on television, in real-time, in front of an audience of millions. But part of it was also an acceptance--not only on NASA's part, but on legislators' and the public's part, as well--that we were pushing into the unknown. Success or results could not be predicted with certainty. Surprises were going to ambush us. And just as with previous generations of explorers, there were going to be losses along the way. That acceptance gave NASA room to maneuver. To experiment, try higher-risk approaches and, in the process, push the boundaries of knowledge outward in ways we still admire. 

Today, on the other hand, NASA's efforts are all very public, and they are expected to succeed. Not after a string of failures, but right out of the gate. Just like the shuttles were expected to deliver so well that they could be forced onto a launch schedule more suitable for a production aircraft than an experimental space vehicle. And so--at least in the human space flight program--we get missions with negligible scientific benefit that make us wonder what our investment is really getting us, instead of bold discoveries and innovative advancements. What's more, we still get failures and accidents, because even timid space flight and exploration is still a journey into the unknown. We may have learned how to get satellites to distant locations and a space vehicle to low earth orbit, but that's not the same as really knowing or understanding those realms. (And yes, this has implications for commercial space flight, but that's a topic for another day.) 

There are other problems that NASA has and faces, of course (See this post I wrote earlier this year on the subject). But the issue of risk and failure is worth thinking about, because successful innovation, exploration and discovery don't happen in a vacuum of sunshine. "We choose to go to the moon and do the other things," President John F. Kennedy said in his famous space speech in 1961, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard." 

The death of the Challenger astronauts, like the death of the Apollo 1 astronauts, was a heartbreaking tragedy. But the legacy of Challenger shouldn't be to make NASA so safe that nothing ever goes wrong. It should be to recognize and respect the scope of the challenges still posed by exploration off the planet, and to shift our expectations and demands of NASA accordingly. It should also be to encourage the agency to take on more of the hard and risky problems that only a willingness to endure failure ever allows you to solve. 

Contemporary Student Life

by John Tierney

It may be that, like me, you don't quite know what to make of articles that have appeared recently about the state of contemporary secondary and post-secondary education. But maybe you can!  If so, help me sort through it. I've spent my entire professional life as a teacher -- for over twenty years at the college level, and for the last nine years at a high school.  Despite all that, I still don't know what to make of all this.

So, I'm just going to call your attention here to some disparate things I've read in recent months, without trying to weave them together in a coherent essay.  If you have thoughts, please let me hear them.

More »

Innovation Isn't About Math

by Lane Wallace

President Obama's State of the Union speech this week was -- among other things -- a call to action for strengthening innovation in America. "The first step in winning the future," he said, "is encouraging American innovation.... We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world." And then, "if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas -- then we also have to win the race to educate our kids." 

Without question, there is a link between education and innovation. But the link that typically gets made after that by people speaking about education and innovation -- which President Obama made, as well -- is that in order to get more innovation, we need to focus more on math and science education.  

To be clear: Math and science education are important. But the assumptions underlying the focus on math and science, in relation to innovation, are: that innovation is a technical process, or at least takes place most importantly in technical fields; and, that the first step (math and science education) will automatically lead to the second (innovation). Neither of which is necessarily true.

First of all, while scientific and technical innovation is certainly important -- inventing a better solar cell, cancer drug, or information-sorting software -- many of the problems facing the world go beyond the technical sphere. The innovations that led to Seoul being named the "Design Capital of the World" in 2010 had more to do making the city far more "livable," from creating better traffic flow, signage, and even the kind of automatic phone "tree" answering systems citizens encountered when they called city agencies, than it did about any technological innovation. And while a better solar cell would be a huge asset in our search for an alternative to fossil fuels, the problems behind the health-care system mess in the U.S. aren't going to be solved by math or science. Like many of the "sticky problems" in the world, it's a complex, system problem requiring a broader kind of innovative thinking. 

Which is, in a way, the point. Innovation experts and consultants stress repeatedly that innovation isn't a matter of subject knowledge. It's about thinking in flexible, integrative, and multidisciplinary ways, across many fields and types of knowledge. It's about being able to synthesize and integrate different perspectives and models; of understanding and taking into account different human, cultural and economic needs, desires, values, and factors and, from all that, glimpsing a new way forward that nobody else managed to see. 

And while it's absolutely true that core knowledge in various disciplines is an important piece of that process, a number of educators are beginning to realize that the problem isn't a need for greater focus on math and science. It's a need for better integration among all subject areas, and a need to foster the kind of "integrative" thinking required to make good use of all that knowledge.  

Randy Swearer, the current Provost of Philadelphia University, and the former Dean of the Parsons School of Design at The New School in New York, put the challenge this way, in a recent email: 

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that you can't teach innovation effectively in the silo structure that is pervasive in academia. The departmental system, process of tenure and promotion, and even physical organization of campuses have traditionally been about specialization in both research and teaching. The liberal arts have been viewed as the 'anti-venom' for this specialization. But this approach compartmentalizes both disciplinary and professional specializations on the one hand, and the liberal arts, on the other. It has also erected a kind of conceptual firewall between these kinds of knowledge. In my view, the dichotomy between specialized studies and general studies is anachronistic, lazy, and intellectually bankrupt. It might have had some basis in an industrial economy, but certainly not now.

Innovation fuses these two modes of knowing and learning. True innovators are adept at taking very specific areas of knowledge (technologies, scientific discoveries, social phenomena, etc.) and constantly reframing them in broader social, cultural, or political contexts. Innovation thinkers also know that in order to find opportunities to act, to make a difference in the world, they must collaborate--and be damn good at it. Higher education has failed miserably at teaching students to deeply and effectively collaborate in order to innovate. Obama's call for innovation, at least in the realm of higher education, implies that the world I work in must radically change--fast.
This point -- that it's the specialization of subject matter, from English and History to math and Engineering, that impedes innovation, more than a lack in any particular subject area -- is made in even greater and stronger detail in an article by William M. Sullivan, a former senior scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 

Another advocate of the need for teaching "integrative" thinking in order to foster innovation is Roger Martin, dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto. The main web page of the school now touts Rotman as "redesigning business education for the 21st century with a curriculum built around Integrative Thinking." (For a better idea of what "Integrative Thinking" is, at least as Martin describes it, see this short interview he gave on the subject in 2008.) 

Fostering innovation, in other words, isn't just a matter of improving the quantity or quality of math and science education. It's a matter of restructuring how we approach and teach all our subjects, from the liberal arts to math, science and engineering. And it means focusing as much on teaching how to combine those fields of knowledge and think in flexible, integrative, and creative ways, as we do on the subject matter itself. 

That focus flies in the face of subject-knowledge test scores as a gauge of educational excellence, of course. But that is the Sputnik-level challenge we face, if we really want our talent for innovation to match the increasingly complex, "sticky" problems we need to solve in the century to come. 

The China Daily's Take on Test Scores and Tiger Moms

by Jorge and Paola Guajardo

With all the talk in the U.S. about Tiger moms, Sputnik moments, and snowstorm-braving Chinese solving differential equations on their way to the stadium, you would think the Chinese press would enjoy its chance to gloat a little and sing the praises of a Chinese education.  Not the China Daily.  James Fallows's favorite newspaper is decidedly unimpressed, playing down the PISA scores that put Shanghai teenagers ahead of the rest of the world in reading, science and math and dismissing the view that Chinese-style parenting is superior.

In side-by-side articles this week, the official English-language mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party seems to refute the panicked notion that China's star students will soon be taking over the world, citing the usual concerns about the Chinese educational system's focus on rote learning to the detriment of critical and creative thinking. ''Chinese educators are hardly triumphant and say different skills are needed to compete in a global knowledge economy,'' says one of the articles, which does not neglect to mention that cosmopolitan Shanghai is not representative of the rest of China, where most schools don't perform nearly as well.

China Daily.jpg

This kind of coverage is all the more surprising given the increasing confidence (some would say arrogance) with which China presents itself to the world and the surge in national pride since the 2008 Beijing Olympics.  It would be easy to ride the wave of American skittishness about perceived Chinese superiority with a few feel-good headlines (Shanghai students best in world!  U.S. falling behind in math!), but the ones above seem more in tune with Deng Xiaoping's old maxim about ''hiding your strength and biding your time."

As James Fallows has pointed out many times in this space, the Chinese media tend to have a curiously earnest way of reporting news, so that you are often left wondering whether things are really so earnest, and what the intended message is.  With a state-controlled press, you assume that nothing is there by coincidence, but it's hard to know sometimes if there is calculation behind a story or if, as Western readers, we are too cynical to take anything at face value.

Chinese officials evidently acknowledge the shortcomings of their educational system and that China's extraordinary economic growth has had little to do with its students' test scores; they have no interest in promoting the myth of the Chinese super-worker, impervious to hardship and ready to replace his lazy U.S. counterpart in any job.  They know, of course, that people can be equally fazed by a snowstorm in Beijing and Philadelphia, and that even if the Chinese had American football, they would talk about whatever sports fans talk about on their way to the stadium (usually not calculus).  They realize that Chinese students could benefit from aspects of the Western approach to education. And even if they do believe that the Amy Chua school of parenting is the key to rearing a successful child, the ultimate sign of that success is borrowed from the Western model: getting into Harvard. That's where Chinese Vice President (and Hu Jintao's heir apparent) Xi Jinping sent his daughter, though we probably won't read about that in the China Daily .

My Favorite Things: A Product Designer's Top Tech Gadgets

by Phil Baker

As a gadget person and technology columnist for the San Diego Transcript I try out dozens of new tech gadgets each month that range from clever to what were they thinking? With my experience in product design, I'm pretty skeptical about many of the products that seem to be created just because they can be, not because they fill a need. Yet out of those that I evaluate, some exceptional ones emerge.

For my final column in this guest role I thought I'd note some of my current favorites. What makes them special? They bring a little joy and pleasure, satisfy a real need, or just make things simpler.

Novatel MiFi Card ($40-$50/month) -- I recently returned from Tokyo where I used an international version of the Novate MiFi Card that I for $15/day. It saved me hundreds of dollars in voice and data charges compared to using my AT&T iPhone. This credit card-sized device created a WiFi hotspot wherever I went. I used it to make calls back to the U.S. for two cents a minute using the iPhone Skype app and sent and received email while riding the trains. In the U.S. I carry the Sprint version of the MiFi card with me everywhere. It's available from most U.S. carriers for $50 plus a monthly charge. Currently Virgin Mobile has the best deal at $40/month.

TripIt Pro ($49/year) -- This service is like having a travel assistant wherever you go. Forward your confirmations for air, hotel, and car reservations in any order, at any time, and it figures out your itineraries, adds all of the information to your calendar, and lets you access them from your iPhone or Android using their free app. While on a trip, it sends you reminders to check-in, alerts of flight delays, gate changes and cancellations. It suggests alternative flights and even monitors your ticket pricing, should lower fares become available.

SugarSync ($10/month) -- This clever software keeps your files synced between multiple computers. Never again do you need you worry where the latest revision of a document or presentation is located. Just note which files or folders you want to keep synced and it works in the background without any intervention. It also works as a backup, as well as giving you access to your documents from your iPhone, BlackBerry, or Android phone.

Jawbone ERA Bluetooth Headset  ($130) -- The brand new ERA improves on Jawbone's previous models with better sound, a longer-lasting battery and a built-in motion sensor that lets you answer a call with a tap of your finger. It streams Internet radio, podcasts, and music between calls, and lets you add apps that personalize it with different voices, languages, and even your favorite number for making a one-touch call. And its new shadow grill styling is stunning.

Livescribe Echo Smartpen ($170) -- This note-taking system consists of an electronic pen and notebook with special paper. It's the biggest advance to note taking since the spiral notebook. You can use it to take both written and audio notes of meetings, lectures, and interviews. Then connect the pen to your computer, and your notes are saved. You can play them back or email them to others. It displays your notes just as you wrote them, including drawings and graphs.

Canon PowerShot S95 Camera ($399) -- This tiny Elph-sized camera takes superb images that rival those made with those huge digital SLR models. It has a 4-to-1 zoom, a high-speed f/2 lens for low-light shooting, a simple all black exterior, and enough manual controls to satisfy a pro. It's simply the perfect camera to carry with you wherever you go.

Pentax K-5 DSLR Camera (About $1500) -- Speaking of DSLRs, the K-5 is a wonderful new camera that's more compact than most, yet is extremely robust with its metal structure and weatherproof design. It uses Sony's new 16-megapixel sensor that captures incredible images, even at ISO speeds of 3200.

ProClipUSA ($50 - $70) -- This Swedish-based company solves the problem of mounting your phone or other devices to the dashboard of your car. You purchase a car bracket designed specifically for your year, make, and model, along with a device holder designed for your specific model phone. The bracket snaps onto your car's dashboard without marring it. Screw the device holder to the car bracket and you have a custom installation. What's so clever is how this Swedish company is able to make and inventory over 2000 different parts to fit every nearly phone and automobile, and to have new solutions within days of the release of new cars and phones.

11-inch MacBook Air ($1200 for the 128GB model) -- This is by far the best travel notebook I've ever used, and I've used dozens of makes and models over the years, including ThinkPads, Vaios, and other MacBooks. Despite its small size, about that of a magazine, there are few sacrifices. It has a great full-size keyboard, a gorgeous display, and weighs just 2.2 pounds. The solid-state drive and machined aluminum housing make the product as travel-proof as anything available. In fact, it recently survived a scary 30-inch drop onto a marble floor at CES with the display opened. Damage? A tiny nick in the case.

Finally, a thank you to Jim Fallows and the Atlantic blogging team. It has been an honor to fill in for someone I've admired for so many years.

Phil Baker is a product development consultant, author of "From Concept to Consumer", and the technology correspondent for The San Diego Daily Transcript. His website is www.techspertsinc.com, and his email is pbaker@gmail.com.

What Is More Annoying Than a Pepco Map Saying Power Will Be Out For at Least 100 Hours?

Well, this is more annoying -- what the Pepco "outage map" has shown about electric supply in the nation's capital for the past eight twelve hours now:
______
Pepco2.png
______
I can see the map, or see that there's no map, because I've left our house in DC to check into a hotel in Arlington, so I have electricity -- and heat! -- to finish an article.

I know this storm is an Act of God, I know it is force majeure, I know a warmer climate overall is making for colder and harsher winters in the US Northeast, I know that DC has a lot of lush and beautiful trees that cause hellacious problems during storms because they drape over power lines, I know that brave and beleaguered crews are out there in the cold and dark. I know that weather in some place you aren't is inherently boring. And I know that people have problems 1000x worse than this. But -- not even the outage map? This is a version of another "here's how to make people feel out of control and anxious" strategy: the Amtrak policy, in NYC's Penn Station, of making everyone stand around in a big herd and stare at the departure board, waiting for the last-minute announcement of which track a train will be on so they can all rush toward it, rather than announcing it earlier and letting people form a line. 

Earlier Pepco showed a shrewder PR approach with the map. It gave an estimated outage time of about 100 hours for much of DC and suburban Maryland -- and then improved it to 48 hours for a number of areas, making two nights without lights or heat seem like reason to rejoice.

Back to work. But, c'mon. Even a phony map would give us some little illusion of control. And I won't even get into my "collapsing American infrastructure" riff.

Update: Maps are back up, after only 16 hours of downtime. Showing that after two nights with no heat or power, much of Maryland and DC can expect two and a half nights more -- estimated on time is 11pm Sunday. Hmmm.

Update-update: Lights back on along our street and at our house after 45 hours. In the circumstances, expecting twice that long, I'm conditioned to say, "not that bad." Especially since I see, from the now-functioning service map, that there are scores of outages very close by. Solidarity with the 66,000 households in the DC area still in the dark and cold.

Visual SOTU Analysis, via 'Infomous'

(In the spirit of Guest Blogger week, and as part of our ongoing State of the Union festivities, here is a bonus entry by Eric Bonabeau, a theoretical physicist who is the founder and CEO of the Icosystem company. He is originally from France and is now based in Santa Fe, NM.)

By Eric Bonabeau

The more avid readers of TheAtlantic.com may have noticed that a strange "Trending on the Site" box appeared last September on the right hand side of the page. It uses a tool called Infomous to provide a visual summary of the most recent topics added to the site across all the channels.

I am partial to Infomous not just because it has been developed by my colleagues at Icosystem, but also because I have become addicted to it for visualizing complex topics. Unlike the great-looking Wordle (www.wordle.net, or see the NPR poll results), Infomous provides some semantic context by connecting words that represent concepts which appear together in a document, a set of documents, or a speech. Consider for example  the following snapshot, comparing the SOTU addresses from 2010 and 2011 (you can play with it yourself and change the number of words, and more, here.) The little "bubbles" you see are clusters of words that appeared together in the address. Frankly, the tone may have changed, but the content is quite stable.
SOTUs.jpg

A more subtle analysis, I am sure, will reveal all the differences -that is, if Jim Fallows finds his annotations. [They finally appeared -- here!] But contrast this with the obvious and substantial differences you can see between Obama's speech in Tucson two weeks ago and Palin's statement. So, go ahead, visualize and make your own opinion.

Obama Palin.jpg

Postal Policymaking: A Political Laboratory

By John Tierney

Curiously, at a time when the thoughts of most people in the United States have been focused -- properly and understandably! -- on Michele Bachmann, some folks have been thinking about postal policy.  Go figure. 

Monday's Wall Street Journal carried a front-page article chronicling some of the financial problems of the Postal Service and the rural residents who risk losing their little local post offices as the USPS tries to cut costs. The next day, Uri Friedman posted an article on The Atlantic Wire, titled "How to Save the Postal Service." Friedman usefully pulled together a few ideas from disparate sources about how postal policy should (and shouldn't) be fixed. 

This is all to the good. Apart from the fact that the Postal Service is in big trouble and needs fixing, here's why it's useful to think about postal policy: the Postal Service is one of the few governmental organizations in the United States that directly touches the lives of most of us on an almost daily basis. As such, it provides a perfect "laboratory" (but not necessarily a very safe one) for seeing if our lab technicians -- members of Congress -- have the nerve to stand there and throw large grains of fiscal austerity into a big vat of human wants.  As any student of political chemistry knows, that's a formula for serious pyrotechnics! 

More »

Of Airplanes, Fences, and National Security

By Lane Wallace

Although I've written about aviation for over 20 years now, I rarely write about it on The Atlantic's site because Jim Fallows already does such an excellent job of covering the topic here. But I do want to add a few words to what Jim's already said (all of which I wholeheartedly agree with) in response to Jeffrey Goldberg's "Private Plane, Public Menace" dispatch piece that ran in this month's Atlantic

After getting a ride in a friend's corporate jet, Goldberg concludes that privileged "general aviation" airplanes threaten national security because their passengers aren't subject to the same TSA security that airline passengers are, and he argues that we need to impose that kind of security at general aviation facilities and airports. 

I disagree with Goldberg's position on a couple of different levels. First, his description of what constitutes "general aviation" is skewed. And second, attempts to impose TSA-type security at small airports are not only, as Jim said, "wrongheaded" -- akin to attacking a fly with a clumsy and ineffective sledgehammer -- but they are also destroying one of the most valuable resources that airports offer America.

To understand why I agree with Jim that TSA-style security measures are neither required in the world of general aviation, nor the best approach to what security risk does exist in that world, it helps to understand, first, what "general aviation" really is. From there, it's easier to understand why the risk is not what many people imagine, as well as what's wrong with taking a TSA approach to security for every airplane and every airport across America. 

So, what is "general aviation"? The way Goldberg describes the world of non-airline flying: "'general' being a euphemism for 'private,'" and private, in Goldberg's eyes, being a euphemism for "toys of the spoiled rich" -- is not uncommon among non-pilots. It describes a segment of aviation that is very visible, and which surely does exist. But that segment is also a very small piece of the picture. 

Corporate or individually-owned jets constitute only 4 percent of privately owned aircraft. (Another 3 percent are jet engine-powered propeller planes, akin to the smallest of commuter planes.) The overwhelming majority of private aircraft are less-expensive and less-powerful piston-engine airplanes, and a whopping 68 percent of all private airplanes are single-engine piston aircraft. 

In addition, most of those piston-powered, single-engine airplanes are not the shiny new models pictured in the magazines. Almost 90 percent of general aviation aircraft are more than 20 years old. Every airplane has to go through a thorough mechanical inspection every year, and essential parts (like engines) are replaced at set times. So the age of most planes isn't a safety issue. But it is reflected in their cost and value. 

A brand-new Cirrus might carry a price tag of a half a million dollars, but my first airplane -- a 1946 two-seat Cessna that I bought in 1986 for only $5,000, could still be bought today for under $15,000. And my current airplane, 1977 Grumman Cheetah, which has a larger piston engine and four seats, has a current market value of around $30,000. Or about the price of a new Saab sedan.  

What's more, many of those piston-powered single engines aren't the performance machines people imagine them to be. To fly coast to coast in my own single-engine airplane, for example, takes -- west to east, when the winds are predominantly at my back -- 30 flight hours. Which generally equates to six days, given that I don't fly in bad weather and limit my "pilot-in-command" time to about six hours a day, because I don't have an autopilot. In other words, you could drive the distance in less time. 

There are also pilots like Jim, who have faster airplanes and "instrument" pilot ratings that permit them to fly in bad weather, allowing them to get a lot more utility out of their airplanes. But only 15 percent of licensed pilots have a current instrument rating. For the rest of us, flying isn't something we do for utility's sake.  

So why do pilots sacrifice and scrape together the money to fly, if not for a useful purpose? The reasons vary, of course. But for many, many pilots, it has to do with remembering something we all used to know, back when we were still young enough to believe that anything was possible and dreams could come true. "Three year olds," I once wrote in an essay on the subject, "may not know much about physics, investment banking, literature, or even the meaning of life, but they understand something very important about living.... [They understand] that life is in the ever-changing moment of the present, that joy is more important than possessions, and that dreams are the lifeblood of a heart and soul." 

Unfortunately, as we grow older many of us find, or are told so many times that we start to believe it, that anything is not possible and dreams are for dreamers; irresponsible luxuries not related to putting food on the table. We live long enough to know the demons of disappointment and the restrictions of life's boundaries. Little by little, we lose that three-year-old belief in magic, dreams, and possibilities. And little by little, an important piece of our hearts dies. 

And that is why many pilots fly. The exact incidents that draw future pilots to airports differ widely. But for many of them, the reason they stay is that in some way they can't even quite articulate, airplanes and flight bring that piece of their heart back to life. After all, flight itself a metaphor for freedom and possibility. A couple thousand feet up in the air, all the limits and disappointments of daily life fade away beneath an endless horizon and the thought, remembered again, of how unbelievably beautiful and vast the world is; how full of possibilities and roads still untraveled. 

It's why airports are -- or can be -- such magical places. On a practical level, they're all a valuable part of our national transportation system. But they are also community resources; places where anyone can go, watch, sense, and perhaps recapture a little of that childhood belief in dreams, freedom, and possibilities. 

Why does that matter in a discussion of national security? Because when we fence small airports off behind 14-foot barbed-wire barriers and rigid TSA procedures, we separate them from the communities they were built to serve, and separate communities from a resource that might offer them something even more valuable than transportation. We also kill the magic itself. It's hard to imagine someone wandering out to the airport pictured below and seeing it as a place full of dreams and possibilities. And yet, post-9/11 Homeland Security funding is leading to far more fences like this one: 

IMG_0291.JPG

Now maybe, if those fences and measures were really necessary, and actually worked, and worked better than other approaches, their collateral cost might be acceptable, even if unfortunate. But they are none of those things, for several reasons:  

1. It's a rare airport fence that can't be gotten around, if you know your way around. The high fences and intimidating signs make airports seem unapproachable by community people, but they tend to fall more into the realm of "security theater" (which Jim has talked about many times) than a real deterrent for someone intent on getting access to an airport or airplane for nefarious reasons.

2. Despite the public's fears of a rogue pilot with terrorist intentions, most general aviation airplanes are extremely limited in the damage they can inflict. There's a reason the 9/11 attackers chose 767 airliners filled to the brim with fuel for transcontinental flights for their weapons. Something smaller wouldn't have been effective. Recall that in the same week as a van driven by an elderly man went out of control in Herald Square, New York, killing half a dozen people, a small airplane flown by a suicidal teenager crashed into an office building in Tampa, Florida, doing serious damage to a desk.

3. The power of human connections. Aviation is a small community, and individual airports are like very small towns. Strangers stand out. And pilots look after each other. A private plane is also a different environment than an airliner. Airliners carry a large number of people who don't know each other. So the risk of a lone terrorist making their way on board is real. That's not the case on a private plane. You know your fellow passengers. What's more, if you blow up an airliner, you kill a lot of innocent people who are on board with you. That's not the case with a private plane--which is another reason they're less attractive as a target. 

But what about Goldberg's fear that a group of terrorists could charter an aircraft large enough to do some amount of damage on the ground, if they incapacitated the pilots? It could happen, of course -- with or without TSA procedures. But here I think Jim Fallows is correct in arguing for the power of internal HUMINT (HUMan INTelligence) over TSA robo-screeners. Charter operators I've talked to say they take a number of measures to make sure their customers aren't going to turn out to be nightmares: they don't take cash, they do background credit checks, and they also pay a lot of attention to their gut when it comes to accepting potential customers. After all, the operators have a multi-million dollar asset to protect. If something about a potential customer, or their behavior, doesn't smell right, they don't take the job.  

The bottom line is that there's some level of risk in a lot of places (see my earlier post on this subject). But by overreacting with a sledgehammer to the relatively small risk that general aviation airplanes pose, we lose something that is perhaps even more important to preserve, in this post-9/11 world: a connection and access to places that have the ability to remind us that fears and limits can be overcome, and dreams and possibilities are still worth believing in.

American Ingenuity at Work

by Phil Baker

There's often a fascinating story behind the development of a new product, sometimes more interesting than the product itself. Some products are the result of happenstance, an accident, or the results of an expert learning by chance of a need to be filled. Here's a story of one product recently created that's likely to have a big impact on the health of our military forces.

More than 30 percent of the returning troops from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from hearing problems, including perforated eardrums, permanent hearing loss and tinnitus, a persistent ringing in the ears. It's estimated that $1.2 billion a year is being spent by the government in treating these hearing-related issues of our returning military. It's a problem that's been with us for decades, going back to World War II. These injuries are a result of being exposed to deafening noises in the battlefield, including exploding IEDs along the roadside and in booby-trapped buildings and the sound of nearby gunfire.

While the military issues specially constructed earplugs to those in combat to protect them from these noises, about 90 percent decline to use them when on patrol or entering a building. While the earplugs protect from the danger of loud noise, they also reduce the ability to hear very soft sounds such as an enemy soldier cocking his rifle or the rustling of branches. 

While on a really quiet night, it's possible for the ear to hear an AK-47 magazine being loaded and the rifle being cocked more than a quarter-mile away, wearing the earplugs reduces that distance to just 400-500 feet.

Another solution tried by the Armed Forces, an ear muff-like device with microphones on the outside, addresses this problem, but has the side effect of preventing the soldier from accurately determining the direction that a sound is coming from, a property called localization. That's not a good trait when the enemy could be nearby.

In 2009, Dr. Mead Killion, a noted expert in audiology and founder of Etymotic Research, a company that makes products for the hearing aid and consumer electronics industries, was attending a meeting of the National Hearing Conservation Association, where these hearing injuries were being reported. The problem was not a lack of availability of good hearing protection, but that it just wasn't being used.

Killion's company had developed a chip twenty years ago for the hearing aid industry, that was designed to amplify soft sounds, but have no effect on loud sounds, as long as they didn't exceed 105 dB of loudness (a tolerable level equal to the sounds that an orchestra can sometimes produce).  

Another property of the chip was it didn't amplify sounds louder than this level, and, in fact, limited them. Killion thought that these characteristics could be adapted to a new product he referred to as a blast plug, something that might eliminate all of these injuries.

He next married this circuit with an eartip design, originally perfected for Etymotic's consumer headphones, which fit almost everyone. While the eartip seals the ear, the electronics inside compensates by amplifying the soft sounds, thus raising the sound level to what it would be for an open ear.  

At the same time, sudden intense sounds -- such as from firearms and IEDs -- are reduced to safe levels by the sealed earplug. Thus, this new invention, named the BlastPLG Earplug, solves the problem: the ability to detect the soft sounds while blocking out the loud sounds.

Realistic field tests were conducted by John Casali, Ph.D. of Virginia Tech, an authority in human factors design, for their effectiveness in allowing soft sounds to be heard (detection) and for their directionality (which permits accurate localization).  

The results of the tests proved that the devices provide the same ability to discern soft sounds as though wearing no earplugs at all. And, the localization tests proved they worked nearly as well as the open ear. For most listeners, it seemed as if nothing was in their ears.

Currently the military is testing the product. Drill sergeants are being fitted with the electronic earplugs at two U.S. military bases.  While there's no question that they work, what's being evaluated is whether the troops will be willing to use them. If not, it's just another good idea without a market.

The BlastPLG Earplugs was just awarded the 2011 Design and Engineering Innovations Award at this year's CES.

'When You Speak ... Angels Sing From Above'

by John Tierney

No, I'm not thinking of Barack Obama with that headline.

I'm not even thinking of Michele Bachmann! How can my heart continue to throb for her when she won't even look into the camera at me once during her six-minute speech?

Recognize the song lyric from the subject title?  It's from "La Vie en Rose," perhaps Edith Piaf's most famous love song.

Why bring this up? Well, in Jim Fallows's honor, I think we need a little Pomplamoose!  Don't you? I really like Pomplamoose. I'd treat you to one of my favorites (their cover of "Mr. Sandman"), but Jim has used it already. I don't recall seeing "La Vie en Rose" here. So, carpe diem


View All Correspondents

Subscribe Now

SAVE 59%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Newsletters

Sign up to receive our three free newsletters

This Week on TheAtlantic.com (sample)

This Month in The Atlantic (sample)

5 Best Columns from The Atlantic Wire (sample)

I want to receive updates from our partners and sponsors

James Fallows
from the Magazine

Dirty Coal, Clean Future

To environmentalists, “clean coal” is an insulting oxymoron. But for now, the only way…

Japan Surrenders

The author returns to his old Tokyo neighborhood and finds an inward-looking country that has lost…

The Pen Gets Mightier

One entrepreneur’s latest effort to revolutionize how we think, learn, play music, and order…