The Wrong Man

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

When the anthrax attacks hit, soon after 9/11, Dr. Steven Hatfill — a boisterous, eccentric fellow who had served with the Selous Scouts in Africa and who had once worked at the Army’s elite Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) — found himself the victim of detective myopia:

He’d been in Britain and Florida, respectively, when two letters with fake anthrax were mailed from those locations. His girlfriend was Malaysian-born — and a hoax package had been sent from Malaysia to a Microsoft office in Nevada. He’d been in Africa during a major anthrax outbreak in the late 1970s. Rhodesia’s capital city has that suburb called Greendale — and, as noted, “Greendale School” was the return address on the anthrax letters sent to Daschle and Leahy. He’d written that unpublished novel, which Don Foster had unearthed, about a bioterror attack on Washington. He was close to Bill Patrick, widely recognized as the father of America’s bioweapons program, whom he’d met at a conference on bioterror some years earlier. And, of course, he’d taken Cipro just before the anthrax attacks.

He’d taken Cipro, by the way, because he’d finally had a long-broken nose fixed, and the surgeon had prescribed it.

He was treated as a murderer they couldn’t quite put away, because they hadn’t collected the evidence yet — and he was treated that way not just by the myopic FBI, who ignored other suspects, but by the local police, who pulled him over every few blocks, and by the media, which kept repeating the non-news that he was the FBI’s prime suspect.

This went on for six years:

“I was a guy who trusted the government,” he says. “Now, I don’t trust a damn thing they do.” He trusts reporters even less, dismissing them as little more than lapdogs for law enforcement.

The media’s general willingness to report what was spoon-fed to them, in an effort to reassure a frightened public that an arrest was not far off, is somewhat understandable considering the level of fear that gripped the nation following 9/11. But that doesn’t “justify the sliming of Steven Hatfill,” says Edward Wasserman, who is the Knight Professor of Journalism Ethics at Washington and Lee University, in Virginia. “If anything, it’s a reminder that an unquestioning media serves as a potential lever of power to be activated by the government, almost at will.”

In February 2008, Reggie B. Walton, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over Hatfill’s case against the government, announced that he had reviewed secret internal memos on the status of the FBI’s investigation and could find “not a scintilla of evidence that would indicate that Dr. Hatfill had anything to do with” the anthrax attacks.

Four months later, the Justice Department quietly settled with Hatfill for $5.82 million. “It allowed Doc to start over,” Connolly, his lawyer, says.

For Hatfill, rebuilding remains painful and slow. He enters post offices only if he absolutely must, careful to show his face to surveillance cameras so that he can’t be accused of mailing letters surreptitiously. He tries to document his whereabouts at all times, in case he should ever need an alibi. He is permanently damaged, Hatfill says. Yet he still professes to love America. “My country didn’t do this to me,” he is quick to point out. “A bloated, incompetent bureaucracy and a broken press did. I wouldn’t be doing what I’m doing today if I didn’t still love my country.”

Much of Hatfill’s time these days is devoted to teaching life-saving medical techniques to military personnel bound for combat. They are his “band of brothers,” and the hours he spends with them, Hatfill says, are among his happiest. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University.

Then there is his boat.

Hatfill has committed $1.5 million to building his floating genetic laboratory, a futuristic-looking vessel replete with a helicopter, an operating room to treat rural indigenous peoples, and a Cordon Bleu–trained chef. Hatfill intends to assemble a scientific team and cruise the Amazon for undiscovered or little-known plants and animals. From these organisms, he hopes to develop new medications for leukemia, and for tuberculosis and other diseases that have been growing increasingly resistant to existing antibiotics. Any useful treatments, he says, will be licensed to pharmaceutical companies on the condition that developing nations receive them at cost. Hatfill hopes to christen the boat within two years. Scientists at USAMRIID, where the FBI once suspected him of stealing anthrax, have expressed tentative interest in helping him mount his expedition.

(Maybe Aretae‘s right about my recent anti-authoritarian shift.)

An Alternative to the NFL Draft

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

Three HBS researchers — who studied under Alvin Roth, a pioneer in market-design theory — have proposed an alternative to the NFL draft:

Under their plan, all 32 teams would be given seven picks. They would have to abide by a spending cap that would go higher to lower — with the worst team (based on its record the previous season) having the most money to spend. When the bidding opened, the most sought-after players would draw multiple bids. Teams could then raise their bid as high as they’d like for a player they coveted.

Theoretically, a team could get any player it wanted — so long as it was prepared to pinch pennies on everyone else. Meanwhile, a team that didn’t want to break the bank on any particular player could pick up lots of useful parts by spreading its money around evenly. Teams could also thrive by focusing on the bidding and looking for bargains.

“I think that it would significantly help teams get the right guys,” said Lucas Coffman, one of the study’s authors. If nothing else, Mr. Coffman said, the auction format might be more exciting than the draft, which allows for long gaps between picks.

In any case, there’s some evidence the draft could be the next fix for a league that fixes everything. One NFL executive said patience is running thin. “There’s a huge trail littered with guys who got the big dollars but were a bust,” this person said.

Being Brainwashed

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

Miss Snuffleupagus talks about her fellow inner-city London school teachers being brainwashed, which comes out during a visit to India:

We are standing in the middle of an Indian slum. There is no running water. Houses are shacks made out of tin foil and paper. There is no electricity. A rotting smell permeates the air and the flies are a constant bother. Little 3-year-olds sing us their ABCs proudly and when we leave they wave madly, screaming ‘Bye bye! Bye bye!’ I want to stuff them in my bag and take them home with me.

One of the Indians with us asks me about poverty in England. I reply that we have poverty but that it is nothing on this scale. The young white teacher standing next to me screws up his face, pointing his finger.

‘That’s not true! We have the same kind of divide between the rich and the poor!’

I frown. ‘Well I’m not saying we don’t have a poor-rich divide. But we don’t have people living in these conditions.’

Mr Brainwashed shakes his head. ‘Do you know how much it costs to get a house in my area? At least 500 thousand pounds! But in the district next door, you can buy one for about 150!’

‘Yeah, I know. But we don’t have people who are living without running water and electricity.’

Mr Brainwashed growls. ‘But that’s not the point! He [the Indian] wants to know whether we have a poor-rich divide and the point is that we do. Things in India are just the same as they are in England!’

Can someone please tell me why some of us are obsessed with everyone and everything being the same? Even when it is blatantly obvious that poverty is not the same in these two countries, somehow this young man has persuaded himself that it is.

Swap to another conversation with my white English colleagues and some Indians. The Indians are describing their schools and the expectations of the students. These are slum schools: where children come from families who exist on less than a dollar a day. One of the issues is getting these children to remain in school. With their families so poor, often they are used to go out to work and bring home an extra 20 rupees for the day’s work. Given that the father might earn some 50 rupees per day if lucky, a child’s income can be very useful.

So various NGOs work with these families, trying to support them with government schemes, to allow the child to attend school. Unfortunately some 100 million children are forced into work, sometimes from the age of 3 or 4.

One of my colleagues pipes up.

‘Well maybe they don’t attend because the quality of the teaching isn’t very high!’

Our Indian host looks confused. ‘No, no, our teachers are trained and very experienced. And they have good salaries.’

‘No, but maybe they aren’t very good at inspiring. Maybe they aren’t very talented in the classroom!’

Our Indian host is frowning. Blame the teacher? He’s never heard of such a thing. Blame the teacher for the student’s failings? The very concept is baffling. But my colleague is like a dog with a bone.

The question is why. Why, when she has been presented with a perfectly reasonable explanation for why these children do not attend school, does she latch on to the quality of teaching? And why does our young man mentioned earlier insist that Britain has a larger-than-is-true divide between rich and poor?

Because this is precisely the nonsense that is shoved down our throats in British schools everyday.

Autism and Marijuana

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Marie Myung-Ok Lee gives her autistic son pot:

Last summer, we reached the six-month mark in our cannabis experiment. We’d been using medical marijuana to help quell our autistic son’s gut pain and anxiety, and we were seeing some huge changes in his behavior and, presumably, his happiness. J was smiling, interacting (one of home-based therapists said she’d never encountered such an affectionate autistic child), even putting his dirty dishes in the dishwasher — rinsing and everything! — not only without being told, but without ever having been asked to do such a thing. The more I’d been reading, along with J’s doctor, about the effects of cannabis — analgesic, anti-anxiety, safe — the more it seemed a logical choice.

When their grower moved away for the summer, and they were using a grab-bag of his leftovers, they learned that they couldn’t give their son just any pot:

In the meantime, cracks started to appear in J’s cannabis-aided serenity. One day, his frustration boiled over into a tantrum. Next, hits. An occasional bite. Then the fabric-ripping screaming, sitting with toes pointing down at the floor — his clearest pain sign. Next, he woke up at night, crying and screaming when he had to go to the bathroom. One day, I noticed — could it be? — toothmarks on the neckline of his pajama top (pre-cannabis, he used to chew and eat his shirts and bedding).

I went over his diet with a fine-tooth comb, looking for possible allergens I’d overlooked. I even upped his cannabis dose a bit by adding one more pot cookie. It only made him alternately a bit silly and belligerent. The number of reports he brought home for acting aggressive at school started to tick upward. For Karl and me, this backslide was awful, like when J was 2 years old and started to lose his words. I couldn’t believe it was happening.

I called Organic Guy, to see if he had any ideas.

“It could be because he’s not getting any White Russian,” he said. “The stuff you have is, well, a mix of all the stuff I had left.”

If it weren’t so tragic, it would sound like a bad 1970s comedy sketch. Anyway, there are apparently two major types of marijuana:

Sativas are the leggy plant with the five-pointed leaves, the cover girls of cannabis — they can make you feel more social. Indicas are squat and bushy with gigantic resinous buds that sparkle like Christmas ornaments and tend to induce pain relief and sleepiness. Organic Guy had started J on a variety of both sativas and indicas.

We hit the magic combination with White Russian, a hybrid of two strains: AK-47, a sativa that’s peaceful despite its aggressive name, and White Widow, an indica/sativa hybrid. This seemed to be a perfect balance, giving J pain relief and making him more social without sedating him. The boy who used to push us away had begun to cuddle!

Eventually they got hold of something comparable to White Russian:

Gardening Girl, let’s call her, was licensed. But she had only seedlings in her nursery so far. And she was not growing White Russian.

But Gardening Girl did have a giant resinous ball of an exotic Afghani strain called Kush, an indica with such effective pain-relief properties that it was chosen by a British pharmaceutical company making a medical cannabis product. (Meanwhile, in the United States, a Republican congressman introduced legislation to increase the penalties for selling Kush, tagged as “super pot.”) Gardening Girl had procured the Kush for a patient who’d changed her mind about wanting it, and so she donated it to us, with the license numbers neatly typed out.

I didn’t want to waste a molecule of the Kush, so I divided it between a batch of olive oil and glycerin (a favorite way to extract herbal properties into a naturally sweet, gluten-free base). This filled the house with the smell of pot while I stirred the simmering brews for hours, heating it enough to get the materials to react without making it burn, which would ruin everything. J loved the sweet stuff, which he took from a dropper, and I used the oil for his cookies. But after a week, the results were spotty. J was somewhat happier and in less pain, but he was still irritable and violent, mixed with unending laughing fits. The Kush wasn’t organic, so I didn’t know if J was reacting to the difference between it and the White Russian or to pesticides or other contaminants.

Salvation came in late October when Organic Guy managed to score some White Russian from a protégé. We bought a baggie of dried leaves, which Organic Guy did me the favor of making into an extra-strong batch of olive oil for J’s cookies. Within two weeks, the number of times J was marked for behaving aggressively at school dropped back to the single digits, even zero on some days. This was all the scientific evidence we needed. We’d learned an object lesson: helping J manage his pain, and the aggression it caused, wasn’t as simple as merely giving him some pot, any pot.

Just a Carpetbagger

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

In Dubai, Keith Yost says, if you’re not an Emirati, you’re just a carpetbagger:

The most accurate way to describe UAE society is to say that it is stratified into a caste-like structure, with Emiratis at the top, western expats beneath them, and eastern expats at the bottom. There is little interaction between the rungs — each member is expected to socialize with his or her own group, and even western expats, who presumably participated in a more egalitarian society in their country of origin, accept the division as natural and desirable.

I enjoyed meeting and talking to other westerners. But it was difficult to shrug off the insidious effects of the caste system. Some of the nicest people I met displayed an almost sociopathic disregard for the eastern expat workers who served them. It was commonplace to verbally abuse cab drivers, make outrageous demands of waitstaff, and generally treat those on the lower rung as mere peons to be ordered about.
[...]
The downside of being in a caste system is that as a westerner, I didn’t occupy the topmost rung. A month after I arrived, the government tapped my cell phone. When I tried to leave, immigration services barred me from leaving the country. For such injustices, there is no explanation, no apology. If the monarch wishes to tap your phone, he needs no justification. If you miss your expensive international flight because a bureaucrat decides at the last minute you cannot leave, tough cookie. You’re not a citizen. You’re a hired hand, a temporary servant brought in to fill a gap until a superior Emirati learns how to do your job. I was never treated with malice by an Emirati — they wouldn’t consider me worth the effort. But it was clear that the system — the laws, the government, the society — was not set up for my benefit. I had no rights that they were bound to respect.

Are we to blame?

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Miss Snuffleupagus finds herself in India with her fellow inner-city London school teachers, where she compares irresponsible Indian youths to those back home and asks of the London kids, Are we to blame?

The man who is hosting us for the morning in his business offices is a great success: rich, powerful and philanthropic. But he thinks that young people no longer have values. His experience of hiring youngsters just out of university has shown him this. They think of themselves as individuals, not part of a community. They have lost their sense of religion, of making their parents proud, of wanting to do something well for the sake of simply doing it well.

I look around the room. My colleagues are all nodding vigorously.

‘Wow! We have the same issues in England!’

‘Yes! Isn’t it incredible? We fly thousands of miles and we find that children are the same all over the world!’

‘Children in both the West and the East have the wrong attitudes! That’s why we need to stop teaching them subjects and start teaching them how to learn!’

Everyone is smiling, congratulating each other with their eyes. One teacher yelps with delight.

‘Imagine! All this time I had the impression that Indian children were interested in education, when actually they aren’t any different from anyone else!’

Everyone nods in her direction, including all the Indians in the room. I, of course, just look at the ground. All I’m thinking is, something doesn’t quite fit here. I mean, I know what Indian kids are like in England. And so do all my fellow teachers, but somehow for the simplicity of today’s argument, they’ve conveniently forgotten what they know to be FACT. And then I also know, as do all my colleagues, that all of the Indians we’ve met over the last few days, in shops, at organized events, in schools, have been remarkably polite and well-brought up. What this man is saying, simply doesn’t make sense.

So later on, I catch him on his own, determined to find the missing card.

‘What you said about young people in India today was really interesting.’ I giggle. ‘You know sir, I love to hear the horror stories. Of all the ‘bad’ things you’ve seen some of your young new employees do, I would love for you to tell me one of the worst.’

This man is in his late forties. His face is weathered and his funny mustache looks as if someone had painted on his lip. His eyes open wide at my suggestion and he winces as he leans in to whisper the terrible atrocity.

‘Well, you see, once I hired this young man, and he came to his first day of work, and well, he was wearing this pair of trousers which had several pockets on the outside!’

I pull back. ‘Several pockets?’

‘Yes! At least sixteen of them!’

I laugh. He laughs too. ‘Yes! Can you imagine! So I shouted at him and told him to go home and get changed!’

I smile. So there you have it: there’s the missing card. What this man means by ‘having no values’ is something entirely different to what we mean when we say our kids have lost their way. As this man and I laugh together at his experience with this young man, I think about our three boys at school who currently wear ankle tags, put there by the police to keep them in check because they violently attacked a man on the street without any provocation whatsoever.

GBH vs trousers with lots of pockets: yeah, I can see how they’re similar. I can see how my fellow teachers might easily have misunderstood this situation. And you know what’s funny? Not only do my colleagues now believe that Indian children are really badly behaved, but these Indians now think that our children are the same as theirs!

But I cannot blame the Indians. How would they know differently? But my colleagues… not only SHOULD they know better, they DO know better. But for some reason, they’d rather come to conclusions which are patently false. And then I have to ask myself… whose fault is this? Is the government always to blame? Is the government in the room with us now? Is the government making us forcibly blind? Have they removed our powers of analysis? Or are our accusers right? Are we teachers to blame after all?

Volcanic Lightning

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

The recent eruption of Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano is not unique in displaying volcanic lightning that both originates and ends in the spewed volcanic ash — but the exact process isn’t quite nailed down yet:

If particles in a cloud exchange charge but remain close to each other, the cloud as a whole is still neutral. So there must be some process that separates the particles with positive charge from those with negative charge. This can happen if the particles have different aerodynamic properties.

For example, if positive charge tended to be concentrated in larger particles, those might fall faster than smaller particles. Gradually the positively and negatively charged particles would separate, with the larger particles lower in the cloud or toward the outsides of large eddies. This could create the charge separation that makes lightning possible.

The specific mechanism by which particles of differing charge are separated is unknown. This idea of particle size segregation is just one possibility. It seems likely that other processes are involved.

Natural Disaster History

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

The current eruption in Iceland reminds me that it may not have been an asteroid that took out the dinosaurs; it could have been a series of massive volcanic eruptions.

Also, people seem oblivious to most history from before their own childhood — especially if that history took place before color film and video. What would happen if we had a 21st century full of 19th-century disasters?

A geologically calamitous 21st century might start in December 2011 when along the Mississippi river in the center of the United States an earthquake equivalent to the December 16, 1811 New Madrid earthquake would begin a series 8.1 and 8.2 earthquakes over a period of a few months that would cause rivers to run backward, the Mississippi to change course (with far more calamitous results given much higher population densities) and church bells would again ring as far away as Boston. Picture bridges across the Mississippi collapsing with freight trains halted and river freight shipping blocked. A repeat of the New Madrid Missouri earthquakes would cause far more devastating damage than they when when that area was sparsely populated and the Mississippi was not used to move huge amounts of agricultural and other freight.

Of course, the most massive devastating earthquake of the 21st century might hit New York City or Tokyo or perhaps some other densely populated region (and the world has many more densely populated regions than it did in the 19th century). Even a repeat of the August 10, 1884 magnitude 5.5 quake near NYC would cause a lot of damage. A Big One will hit Los Angeles in the 21st century. The city of angels is overdue for The Big One. We are overdue for an earthquake that could go to near 8.0 similar to the 1857 SoCal quake which was about 7.9 on the Richter scale. But we’ll also witness earthquakes in places where they occur less often. Perhaps Shanghai? Hong Kong? Jakarta? Or how about New Zealand and with a volcanic eruption thrown in that requires lots of people to evacuate?

What next? A VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index) 7 volcano. Likely location: Indonesia. Now the 4th most populated country in the world. On April 10th 1815 Mount Tambora erupted with VEI 7 intensity.. The eruption so reduced solar radiation reaching the surface that snow fell in New England and the Canadian Maritime provinces in June. You can imagine what that did to crop yields. People went hungry, causing the biggest famine of the 19th century. And get this: 1816 had even worse cold weather and bigger crop failures. So imagine 2015 and 2016 with worldwide crop failures in a world with 7 billion people, all due to a very plausible VEI 7 volcanic eruption.

What would 2016 be like? Food prices would be very high, too high for the poorest to afford. We’d see civil unrest and rioting in many nations. Revolutions would be likely. The cold weather would increase demand for heating oil, natural gas, coal, and wood for heating. So energy commodity prices would soar along with agricultural commodities. Many countries (possibly including the United States) would ban the export of grains.

No doubt 1815 and 1816 were difficult years for many other mammalian species as well. But a VEI 7 eruption in the early 21st century would cause much bigger problems for orangutans, gorillas, big cats, and other threatened species for a couple of reasons. First off, their numbers have already fallen in the last couple of centuries by orders of magnitude. So they already are living close to the edge of extinction. Pretty small disruptions to their food supply run much greater risks of wiping them out. Second, with much larger numbers of humans living near them now they face much greater risk of being hunted to extinction by hungry humans.

So at least one big earthquake and a pretty big volcano with two lost growing seasons. The century is still young. What’s next? On September 2, 1859 an unusually large coronal mass ejection by the Sun cause intense magnetic fields on Earth which if they happened today would cause a large fraction of the big electric power transformers to fail in large electric grids. Large areas of industrialized countries would be without electric power for months. Picture cities evacuated due to lack of power to operate water pumps. Picture massive computer server farms sitting dark. Banks would fail.

The 19th century also featured a VEI 6 volcano, the well known Krakatoa eruption in 1883. This wasn’t as severe as the 1815 eruption. But it would cause a global cooling and crop losses.

The 20th century was a relatively mild, wet, and calm century as compared to the 19th century. We would make a mistake to expect the 21st century will be as calm as the 20th. The current low level of sun spot activity could continue and we could go thru a cooler period in spite of our CO2 emissions. Or we could have severe cooling periods caused by large volcanic eruptions. Also, earthquakes could hit major cities or cause tsunami damage. Do not be shocked if a severe turn of events happens. Even the early 20th century had a dramatic event in 1908 with the Tunguska asteroid explosion over a large swath of Siberia.

How do you type in Japanese?

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

The Japanese language is infamous for using thousands of Chinese pictographs, or kanji, combined with two separate phonetic systems, or kana — along with plenty of Latin characters, or romaji. So, how do you type in Japanese?

Because of the large number of characters in languages such as Japanese and Chinese (Japanese education standards define around 2000 characters for high school students and JIS standards define more than 6000 characters), characters cannot be entered directly, but instead need to be entered via some kind of conversion process. Modern computers and electronic equipment therefore employ a system whereby words are entered phonetically, and then converted into kanji through an interactive conversion process. I’m going to describe this process by using the Japanese IME included in Microsoft Windows XP.

Romaji-kana conversion is the process of converting Roman alphabetic key presses into Japanese phonetic characters. This is a relatively straightforward process in which the IME looks up Romaji character sequences in a simple table, and replaces sequences with the corresponding kana as soon as they are matched.

Now that the target word is spelled out phonetically in the composition string, the next step is to enter the kana-kanji stage of the process. This is achieved by simply hitting the space bar. What actually goes on inside the IME at this point is actually quite sophisticated and largely beyond the scope of this article. However, the basics are that the IME analyzes the grammar of our text, attempts to identify the separate words in the text (a process known as segmentation that is necessary because there are no spaces in Japanese), and then perform a context-sensitive look up of each of those words in its built-in dictionaries. The IME then picks the best matches for each segment, and displays them like so:

In this case, we’ve used such a common phrase that the IME has no trouble identifying the segmentation and the best candidates for each word. At this point, the IME has still not accepted our input, but is waiting for our approval of the suggested candidate characters. At this point we can either hit enter to accept, escape to return to the kana composition string, look through the other candidates that the IME has dug out of its dictionary and choose alternatives if necessary, or even adjust the location of the break between the two words.

The Disturbing City of Tomorrow

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

There are several words that can be used to describe Dubai, which seemed like the city of tomorrow when Keith Yost took a consulting job there, fresh out of MIT in June, 2009:

It is magnificent, mundane, interesting, diverse, conflicted, and hot. But if I were limited to only one, it was disturbing.

If there is an urban analogue to shock and awe military campaigns, Yost says, Dubai is it:

Giant malls, grand hotels, towering skyscrapers, indoor ski slopes, islands shaped like palm trees; to be poetic about it, what the mind imagines, the Emiratis built. The skyline is amazing. The food is wonderful. The elevator close door buttons actually close the doors when you press them. Nothing is old, everything is new. After a life of living exclusively in buildings several decades older than myself, I was finally in the city of the future.

Within a couple weeks, the favorable first impressions faded into a less attractive picture. While the winter is cooler, summer temperatures commonly reach to 110 degrees and, factoring in the high humidity, feel closer to 140 degrees. The ocean is like bath water and provides no respite from the heat. There are no names for the streets, no up-to-date maps online, and the cabbies, themselves fresh expats from less developed countries, do not know their way around. The commercial banking system is terrible. The laws are strange and the bureaucracy inept. There is silt and dust everywhere. English is common, but not as common as Bad English (Bad English is a language very similar to English, but with the added grammatical rule that speakers must repeat every sentence three times). If one is determined to do so, it is not hard to have a terrible time in Dubai.

As a city, the novelty of Dubai fades quickly. Outside of one or two unique attractions, like wadi bashing or the gold souk, Dubai does not have much to offer in the way of touristy things. One quickly bores of roaming the countless malls, each filled with the same stores and sights as the last. Despite its headline-stealing architectural accomplishments, after a few hours of exploration one gets the feeling that Dubai is not so much a city as a giant sprawling suburb, an insipid tessellation of apartment buildings, shopping centers, restaurants, and office parks, plopped unceremoniously into a barren desert.

As a culture, Dubai’s novelty is more durable. The city is a melting pot, borrowing heavily from British, Arab, and South Asian influences, but also adding in pieces from elsewhere around the world. The cultural plenty affords an opportunity to cherry pick the best bits (like chicken tikka masala) and avoid the mediocre elements (like watching cricket). But along with this diversity comes a curious sort of contradiction, as if one were viewing the frayed edges where two cultures failed to mesh. The posted signs plaintively urging western women to wear more modest clothing and the advertisements on the sides of mass-produced soda cups at franchised fast food joints (one such cup suggesting, in the ultimate of anatopisms, that hen-pecked Emirati men should relax from their female-dominated households by indulging in a snack on their bike ride to work), imply that on some level, the mixing cultures failed to find common ground.

At one restaurant I found, the managers had put up a flat screen TV that played, on loop, the concert of some teen idol boy band I’d never heard of. Emirati women, bundled up head to toe in their black burkas, would walk by, giggle, and goggle at the hip gyrations of these half-naked, off-key westerners. If you had a taste for irony and were lucky, you might eat lunch during one of the five daily calls to prayer, and could listen bemusedly as the tinny adhan fought to be heard over the sex-filled pop music. Were these merely growing pains, or a battle for the city’s soul?

Ultimately, my most enduring impression of Dubai is not what it has accomplished, but what it failed to accomplish. Caught offguard by the global recession, Dubai’s haphazard expansion has been frozen in mid-stride for all the world to gawk at, like rubberneckers at a traffic accident. Its unfinished metro system, a patch-work solution to an awkward, poorly planned network of roads, connects partially built apartments to idle construction sites. What had been a miraculous boom story now looks like a particularly ugly form of “hurry up and wait.”

Underground Achitecture

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

Underground achitecture requires a bit more effort than a wood-frame house:

Bill hired family members to begin constructing the steel domes, and hired earth moving equipment to remove the top of the hill. The domes were created by erecting a number of vertical steel trusses in a circle and connecting them with 3/8 steel rod spaced at 8 inch intervals. Vertical rods were then welded between the trusses to form a grid of 8 inch squares. The next summer a concrete pad was poured with rubber tubing laid throughout for in-floor heating. The steel frames were moved into position, connected together and covered in expanded metal lath.

Once the metal frame was completely covered, Gunnite concrete was sprayed over the entire interior surface, and trawled smooth. The inside layer was concrete mixed with marble powder to form a smooth white surface . The exterior of the house was covered in a waterproof tar, buried in dry sand and a membrane layer of rubber sheeting was placed over the entire area to act as an umbrella to keep the sand mass dry. The sand mass is crisscrossed with air ducts that circulate warm air from the solariums located at either end of the house. Topsoil was then replaced over top of the membrane, covered with grass seed and gardens and now must be mowed on a regular basis.

This involves some “challenges”:

The design must be well thought out in advance because any changes would be difficult or impossible once the earth was replaced. Upgrades for things like phone, cable and power must be in place at the time of building. Square furniture and appliances do not fit in a round room, there are no corners to stick lamps, and hanging pictures is tricky.

All of these obstacles were overcome with ingenuity and creativity. Each room has buried conduit, through which which wires can be passed, connecting it to the other rooms and the utility room. The arched doors were all hand made by Richard VanHeuvelan, as well as the cupboards, desks and countertops to fit in with the curved walls. Four Seasons Solariums originally used on either end of the house have been replaced with energy efficient stud and drywall rooms with large bay windows. Funiture for the living room was created by Wolf Meuller of Curved Space in Toronto and fits in perfectly with the eliptical architecture. Even the Refrigerator is round, it rises from the countertop at the touch of a button, like the one in Fly Away Home.

None of this is cheap:

A word of caution if you wish to pursue building a house such as this the costs are higher than building conventionally because it involves moving tons of earth and a great deal of work by skilled artisans.

Al Fin suggests waiting out the apocalypse underground:

Underground houses are better suited for survival of massive nuclear, biological, or chemical catastrophes — if advanced preparations are made. Proper air and water filtering and recycling are critical. If residents must stay underground for longer than a few months, the ability to grow food underground becomes more important.

Heating and cooling loads are minimal when living underground, but fuel and power needs for cooking and hot water must be planned for.

A Latifundium of Terror

Monday, April 19th, 2010

In 1884, the Daily Telegraph described the Congo Free State with these words:

Leopold II…has knit adventurers, traders and missionaries of many races into one band of men, under the most illustrious of modern travellers (H.M. Stanley) to carry into the interior of Africa new ideas of law, order, humanity, and protection of the natives.

Looking back, J.F. Gjersø instead calls it a latifundium of terror — which, I suppose, makes more sense when you know that latifundium is Latin for plantation:

The excessive force exacted by the capitas were manifested through the severed hands, noses or ears they would have to exhibit to the officials for each spent cartridge, proving that they had not squandered the ammunition.

In case the men of the village fled, compliance would be enforced through hostage taking of the village chief, women or children. Making them susceptible to rape, starvation or disease and not released until a ransom of rubber or ivory was paid.

Also the methods of collection that had to be undertaken by the natives produced a significant death toll, as collectors would be required to travel farther as the local sources of rubber were depleted owing to the fragility of the Landolphia genus. This would make villagers susceptible to attacks from wild animals, starvation and disease or merely from the act of extracting the rubber itself from tall trees.

In The Predictioneer’s Game — and in his EconTalk podcast on The Political Economy of Power — Bruce Bueno de Mesquita makes the point that Leopold II of Belgium was, if anything, quite progressive back in Belgium, where he had to answer to his people.

On Being America’s Red-Headed Stepchild

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Clyde Wilson writes on being America’s red-headed stepchild:

The current fad is to treat everything good that Southerners say about the Confederacy as part of a “Lost Cause Myth” that Southerners made up after the fact to rationalize their failure and their evilly motivated attempt to destroy the “greatest government on earth.” Robert E. Lee was not really a great general, Confederate soldiers were not really brave and out-numbered, the people really did not support the Confederacy, a distinct Southern culture was merely a pretense to defend slavery, etc., etc., etc. In the face of vast contradictory evidence, it is simply declared that everything Southerners said about themselves was a lie they made up and told after the fact. A catalog I picked up just a few days ago reported new books: The Myth of Jefferson Davis and The Myth of Bedford Forrest. You see, Southerners always make up flattering stories about themselves while Northerners just tell the true facts.

Southerners are intrinsically evil and Northerners intrinsically good. The South is not to be understood for itself, as it is and was, as something with its own life and identity. It exists only as the bad side of America. Casting us in the villain’s role is not in the least affected by the facts—that the South is now the only part of the country where a majority of black people say they feel at home, and that racial tension and hatred is more prevalent today in the big liberal states than in the South. It leads the Southerner to suspect that all the furor about imposed equality in the last half century is motivated by something less seemly than the pure thirst for justice.

(Hat tip to Foseti.)

Paying for Channels You Never Watch

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Erick Schonfeld shares an estimate from the hardly disinterested Convergence Consulting Group that 800,000 US households have abandoned their TVs — or, rather, their cable and satellite TV subscriptions — for Net-based options, like Hulu, Netflix, etc.

He introduces the idea with a common complaint:

Have you had enough of paying your cable company through the nose for 800 channels, when all you really watch is maybe 20 or 30?

MG Siegler shares a similar sentiment:

Most people pay in excess of $50 a month (and some much more) to the cable companies. For what? Mostly for a bunch of crap they don’t want and will never watch (nor would they even have time to). The problem is that the cable companies have refused to move towards an a-la-carte offering, even though there is a clear demand for it.

I hate to break this to everyone, but, no, you’re not paying for hundreds of cable channels you never watch. Yes, you are paying for a package that includes hundreds of cable channels, and, yes, you rarely if ever watch most of them, but, no, that does not mean that you’re paying for hundreds of cable channels you never watch.

Confused? I’ll explain.

Most of us have a very strong instinct that if, say, we’re paying $40 a month for 400 channels, then we really should only have to pay that $0.10 per channel for the dozen or so channels we really watch — maybe a bit more. Heck, even $1 per channel we really watch would seem like a bargain.

Wait, what just happened there? Did you notice? We assumed that one channel would cost one-four-hundredth as much as 400 channels — and that the cable company should pass along the savings to us, the consumers. But there are no savings.

If the cable company could send you just the dozen channels you want — or even just the dozen specific shows you watch — it wouldn’t save them a dime. It wouldn’t save the networks creating the shows a dime either. It doesn’t cost your provider money for you to watch a show the networks have already created and that they’re already broadcasting over their cable or satellite network.

Was it expensive to create the show? Yes, very. Was it expensive to lay cable or to shoot satellites into space? Yes, very. Is it less expensive if you decide not to watch Bravo, ever? No.

Ordinary people’s economic intuitions assume that a product is a commodity like grain. It should cost the consumer just a bit more than it costs the middle-man, to cover some small amount of overhead. But the networks and the cable and satellite providers are running enterprises with enormous up-front sunk costs that they need to recoup and very low variable costs that give them the high margins to make that possible. They’re all overhead.

How does a producer charge for a product that costs an enormous amount to develop but a negligible amount to share? That’s hard to do. He can’t typically charge the first guy $100 million, to cover his costs, and then charge everyone else a penny, or give it away, or whatever — although that’s not too far from the Renaissance Italian model for commissioning great works of art.

The cable company might ask you which one channel you really, really like and then charge you $40 per month for that one channel — or more realistically just $30, or $20, or $10, or whatever. How much they can get depends how much you like ESPN, or SyFy, or whatever.

But then they have (a) less revenue and (b) a bunch of channels — and all that cable bandwidth — they’ve paid for going to waste, earning nothing.

They’d be happy to sell you a second channel. In fact, they more or less have to, because they can’t support their business on $10 per month from die-hard ESPN fans, plus $10 per month from die-hard SyFy fans, etc. But what price do they charge?  If they go à la carte and charge $8 per channel, they lose $2 per die-hard fan who would have happily paid $10, but they presumably sell more subscriptions. If they charge $5 per channel, they have to sell twice as many channel subscriptions as at $10 per channel — and they’re still missing out on all the sales they could make to people who wouldn’t mind getting Animal Planet for $1 per month.

So what do they do? They give you a bundle of channels — which is like charging you $10 for your favorite channel, $8 for your second-favorite, $5 for your third-favorite, and so on, down to pennies for the channels you watch when “nothing’s on”. And the dozens of channels you never watch are in fact free.

And they never had to figure out which channels were whose favorites, so they didn’t have to charge different people different amounts for the same channels, which would really upset them — if it were explicit.

Test Your Awareness

Monday, April 19th, 2010

I mentioned a similar test before. Hat tip to Miss Snuffeupagus.