The Breaking Time

The Age of Metropolis

Kuala Lumpur by night

"The test of civilization is the power of drawing the most benefit out of its cities."

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

In 2008, humanity crossed an unspoken milestone. For the first time in history, the majority of the human population lives in cities. While this trend had been brewing since the industrial revolution, its seeds extend all the way back to Catal Huyuk, Ur and Mohenjo-Daro. Now, more than ever, we're in an Age of Metropolis.

I've always found cities fascinating. Perhaps that's because, growing up far away from them, they held a certain magic. Living rural idyll, by contrast, was never, well, idyllic, for all its beauty and charm.

But the fascination has held. I enjoy a city's vibrance and history; the way density is a rich breeding ground for hybrids of all kinds. I've found people to be no more or less noble there than anywhere else.

Cities get a lot of crap, routinely blasted for being unnatural sores upon the planet for reasons environmental and societal. However, as a species we've been building them seemingly since we knew how. If they're unnatural, then so are we.

One thing I've learned is that the stereotypes city and country dwellers hold about each other tend to have a kernel of truth. Yeah, cities can be vicious and the country narrow-minded. Small-town values, a term the vile often appropriate as a cover for their own prejudice, aren't a lie; I witnessed some beautiful examples of generosity and community growing up. But just as true are the amazing opportunities to forge your own life in a city. As with many things, once the bullshit's torn away, it's all real.

And we'd better learn to live with it. I predict that humans becoming a truly urban species may well have as huge an impact on our evolution as any kind of intelligence enhancer the labs are going to cook up. 

The political implications could also be stunning. Cities are far more prone to insurrection and chaos, so we're probably going to face plenty of both, especially as today's political structures are forced to adapt to a rapidly changed world.

They can also be an environmental problem, a major one even. However, less of that damage seems to come from classical, extremely dense cities than from the sprawling (and now rapidly declining) suburbs that have combined the worst aspects of both rural and urban living without any of the benefits.

Hell, we may yet get the best of both worlds, with a retreat from the suburbs saving both cities and countryside from sprawl.

Still, much of the urban growth outside the industrialized world is in mega slums, which make suburbia's worst look positively grand by just about any measure.

We're also running into a "bell the cat" moment. Everyone agrees that a more balanced form of city living is desperately needed, yet witness the fractious -- even in a small, compact city like Asheville -- over the height of buildings, truck noise and development. 

Right now, most of the debate focuses just on building design and traffic flow. Necessary leaps in truly considering the culture and politics of the city haven't yet been made, and there remains a tendency to shy away from aesthetic discomfort or necessary sacrifices. Comfort zones and profit margins may end up being the worst enemies of tomorrow's cities.

Still, Metropolis seems to be the future, as billions continue to vote with their feet. Whether it ends up glittering towers or smoldering ruins is up to us.

Eugenics -- still a really dumb idea

xkcd hits the nail on the head.

This is an extremely useful service. While Idiocracy was an damn funny movie with some sharp satire, it's stunning how many otherwise intelligent people still take bad ideas like eugenics seriously. 

Usually, this is done as a way of distinguishing oneself as supposedly superior from the rest of humanity, adding a pseudo-scientific gloss to feelings of insecurity or prejudice ("I know! I'm not getting laid because of a negative evolutionary trend!" Yeah, that's the ticket.)

I hope to do a larger piece on this soon, time allowing. Until then, read about the Flynn Effect, some actual fascinating science involving intelligence, culture and genetics.

Old media vs. New: the knives come out

Now it gets vicious.

Oh my, so many dynamics of interest here. 

First off, Nico Pitney, along with the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, has pulled off an excellent journalistic feat over the past few week in covering the Green Revolution. Namely, they managed to quickly get knee-deep into breaking raw info. While they put the necessary caveats to the tide pouring in, they have also done their best to verify much of the information and add needed context and analysis to an extremely complicated event. Both have also used their own contacts inside Iran to help make sense of the situation on the ground.

In short, they did journalism. Pitney has never hid his leftist views (nor Sullivan his conservative ones), but he's done good work by just about any standard. Any budding journalist should be studying both bloggers for a small primer in how to blend new methods with old school contact-working. While I've written about the value of journalistic objectivity, writers like Pitney and Sullivan do excellent work, even if their affiliation is known ahead of time.

Then comes in Dana Milbank and the guard-dogs of tradition, who went apoplectic when Pitney got the second question from President Obama at a recent press conference. All of a sudden, Pitney gets accused of collusion, even though the question was solicited from Iranians and was a good, razor-sharp one. On top of all that, Pitney later characterized Obama's response as dodging the question -- hardly the views of a plant.

Look at the video above. The first item mentioned is that calling upon Pitney violated the established pecking order of White House Press conferences. Not the "collusion" that's later shifted to as his main sin. That crossing of privilege, I think, is really the issue here. Milbank's disgust is blatant, and hard to understand in any other light. 

Doubly interesting is that Milbank is essentially a glorified gossip-columnist who occasionally dabbles in reporting; he's got much more in common with stereotypical off-the-cuff blogger than a Murrow-style truth hound. However, he works for the Washington Post, not some johnny-come-lately blog, dammit. He has a tie! That used to count for something!

Of course, Pitney could have conducted himself in a more dignified manner, but his ire is understandable. The guy's just poured his heart and soul into some great reporting about Iran, and gets clucked at by a national media establishment that's fallen flat on its face time after time. At some point, it's worth bluntly calling bullshit.

At its core, this is a turf fight. What's changed is that this time Pitney is at the table too, instead of the usual media inner circle doing the sniping at a distant target. That, in itself, is an acknowledgment of how the landscape's changing.

Of course, as interesting as all of this is to those of us in media land, at some point the general public (in all its various fragments) will say Jesus, why won't you all shut the fuck up already and get us the goddamn news. They'll be right.

Poems for Friday: Olokun

I stumbled upon this beautifully sumptuous poem by J.P. Clark earlier this week. It's worth reading this for context.

I love to pass my fingers,

As tide through weeds of the sea

And wind the tall fern-fronds

Through the strands of your hair

Dark as night that screens the naked moon:

I am jealous and passionate

Like Jehovah, God of the Jews,

And I would that you realize

No greater love had woman

From man than the one I have for you!

But what wakeful eyes of man,

Made of the mud of this earth,

Can stare at the touch of sleep

The sable vehicle of dream

Which indeed is the look in your eyes?

So drunken, like ancient walls

We crumble in heaps at your feet;

And as the good maid of the sea,

Full of rich bounties for men,

You lift us all beggars to your breast.

The Rundown: Amazon blockades, Tehran dispatches and fetish's return

Occasionally on The Breaking Time, I'll run into important or interesting items but lack the time to properly comment on them in a longer post. Thus, for your benefit, dear reader, I occasionally do the Rundown, because you should have the same terrible things bouncing around in your head too.

* Amazon natives vs. Oil Companies Earlier this year, Peru gave a bunch of massive resource concessions to some international oil companies. Native tribes in the Amazon were not pleased, and fought back with wooden weapons and blockades in a situation that almost amounted to civil war. Johann Hari has the surprising story of what happened next.

* Tehran Dispatches Salon, as per usual, has had excellent reporting on the ongoing uprising. But these dispatches from an anonymous Iranian writer have exceeded even their usual high standards. By turns funny, tragic and beautiful, they're a must-read.

* New Bacardi ad campaign: Get an ugly girlfriend to make yourself look better Yeah, major botch, ya sexist bastards. This is a good time to remember that there are many, many better rums than Bacardi. Cruzan, Sailor Jerry's, Orinoco, Meyer's and 10Cane all come to mind. Just another reason to drink something else. 

* "The fetish trend in mainstream fashion seems to be back in force" So sayeth Haute Macabre. Maybe there's hope for the future yet.

Pitchfork Days: Wall Street braces for "populist overreaction"

That's right. In their spires and their yachts, the barons of Wall Street are preparing a public relations blast to fight off the torch-wielding mobs. Quoth Bloomberg: 

Wall Street’s largest trade group has started a campaign to counter the “populist” backlash against bankers, enlisting two former aides to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to spearhead the effort.

In memos of confidential meetings with top financial executives, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association said it began this month the “execution phase” of the operation, which pledges to “embrace change” and accountability. The plan targets policy makers and the media in New York, London, Washington and Brussels and calls for a “city-by-city, grass roots” approach.

The securities industry “must be perceived as part of the solution, which will allow it to better defend against populist overreaction,” the documents, prepared for a June 17 meeting of SIFMA’s board, said.

The board meeting minutes and staff-written papers, obtained by Bloomberg News, outline the program crafted by polling, lobbying and public relations companies paid at least $85,000 a month. The memos provide a glimpse, in often candid language, into how Wall Street is grappling with its pariah status.

“It is imperative that in this historic period of reform, the industry be recognized as playing a positive role in seeking change and providing solutions to the problems we face,” one of the documents said. “There is currently widespread skepticism about the industry’s commitment to this needed change.”

Gee, I wonder why that might be. I've pointed to this mentality before, but it's worth repeating. Wall Street and the financial companies were deeply involved in separating the financial system from reasonable, small-risk investments and actual economic value. The same bloc pushed for the loosening of regulations that made this possible, and they enjoyed the ridiculous level of profits only possible in a financial bubble.

Now it's blown up in their faces and the industry dubs it a "populist overreaction" and wonders what slick ad might get them out of the hole. In more prosperous times, that might work. Now, however, I doubt the recently unemployed or homeless will give two shits.

The anger won't go away until the underlying causes do. The larger question is where it will be directed, who will take advantage of it and what the results will be.

For what it's worth, I think Matt Taibbi's Howard Beale-style rant in Rolling Stone is a lot closer to the public pulse than anything a highly paid lobbying firm could produce. There's a certain obliviousness fostered by the increasingly isolated upper classes that will result in a lot of these appeals having all the cluelessness of "let them eat cake."

All Tomorrows: The Book of the New Sun

We believe that we invent symbols. The truth is that they invent us; we are their creatures, shaped by their hard, defining edges.

-From The Shadow of the Torturer

The newest installment of my column on the glories of Sci-fi's Deviant Age is up at Coilhouse. This time, I focus on what might well be my favorite epic, Gene Wolfe's stunning The Book of the New Sun:

Severian is a hero, cast with objects of great power (including a badass sword, natch) upon a path that will take him to great heights and strange places. He may even save his world. Cue swelling music.

But wait; Severian is a torturer. His world is Urth to its inhabitants. The moon is green, the sun old and dying. There are rumors that the great citadels of his ancient city once moved between the stars. What, then, are the angels and holy relics that fill the land?

Such is the setup of Gene Wolfe’s masterpiece The Book of the New Sun, a genre-bending four book epic equal parts philosophical treatise, rich allegory and Romantic odyssey.

Wolfe was one of the leading lights of sci-fi’s Deviant Age; that blazing era from 1965 to 1985 when no concept seemed out of bounds. As with Tanith Lee, he did so much brilliant work throughout that time (and after) that any number would be excellent topics for their own column.

The Book of the New Sun comes at the end of that period, and in it Wolfe melds the shocking innovation of his earlier career with a deep undrerstanding the power of old tales well-told.

With multi-volume works, I usually prefer to pick out the strongest entry. Here, I’ll make an exception. The entirety of Wolfe’s opus is so damn good that I found myself unable to choose a single part. It is, like the best epics, one tale.

Ann Arbor Blues -- dailies fade, media rolls on

Committed. Connected. Completely in trouble.

Ann Arbor, Michigan has wracked up a cringing media first. The connected, young liberal city of about 100,000 will soon be the first sizable American city to be completely without a daily newspaper, as the venerable Ann Arbor News becomes AnnArbor.com, moving only to a Sunday and Thursday print edition. 

The much-touted death of print? I don't know about that. Media analyst Rick Edmonds fleshes out the situation: 

Ann Arbor? Home to the huge University of Michigan, birthplace and headquarters of the Borders book chain and a pocket of relative prosperity with only light collateral damage from the auto industry, a literate place, population around 100,000, one might expect to be appreciative of what print newspapers offer.

 

But some of those apparent strengths seem instead to have proven drawbacks -- a curious state of affairs that may provide an unexpected window into what kinds of newspapers are most vulnerable in the brutal business climate of 2009.

 --

Tony Dearing, who is joining AnnArbor.com as content director, expanded on the point in an interview with blogger Jim Carty: "What people don't understand is that, yes, Ann Arbor is a dynamic, vital market... But there are a lot of things about Ann Arbor that make it harder to succeed as a print daily paper. Print papers do a little better with an older audience, and Ann Arbor is a little younger. We do better where there is a high level of home ownership, and there's a lower level of home ownership. We do a little better where there is a higher level of longtime residents. Ann Arbor is much more transitory."

--

I don't think it is a stretch to extrapolate the Ann Arbor problem to metro markets in the worst trouble -- San Francisco, Boston, Minneapolis, Seattle, San Jose. Youngish, upscale, hip, high-tech , a big artistic community -- those may all be economic engines for the city but a business negative for the one-size-fits-all traditional newspaper. 

Conversely, rankings of newspaper household penetration are always led by such relatively traditional and stable cities as Rochester, Richmond and Milwaukee.

Interestingly, the trend seems to be going in two directions. While newspapers (along with about everyone else in the economy) are hurting, many alt-weeklies -- such as my own employer, the Mountain Xpress -- have been expanding into daily-style news coverage online, with the print version being a handy digest of events and a place for the more in-depth kind or reporting many dailies have sadly abandoned.

While the Ann Arbor News, by most accounts, had fairly good reporting, it also seemed to be trying to rely on a fairly outdated perch. 

The basic problem with dailies is that they've gotten complacent in just about all areas. They jacked advertising rates through the roof because they were often the only major print outlet. They turned papers into publicly traded companies, where their steady but lower profit margins spurred share holders to gut them so they could get an extra private island.

Lastly they failed to realize that while print isn't dying, it is going through a radical transformation, and daily news will most likely have a home online. 

That complacency isolated them from their readers and turned the figure of a journalist from a slightly seedy but determined cynic/go-getter to just another class of middle class professional; fat and happy. In turn the dailies lost their reader's attention and worst of all, their trust.

Media will survive, because the news still happens and people, perhaps more than ever, want their dose of the world around them, crave analysis and perspective to help them comprehend a chaotic world.

 The dailies made the same mistake of the railroad barons of yesteryear, they failed to see that their business lay not in preserving their particular industry forevermore, but in figuring out how to perform the same role, no matter what happens.

Ann Arbor News won't be the last.

A Green Revolution reality check

Iranian riot police flee from protesters. June 20, 2009

I took a break from blogging over the weekend for several reasons. Most of them were personal, but I also wanted to gain some perspective. Like many, I'd been giving a lot of space and attention to the ongoing Green Revolution in Iran. 

Not without cause either. It's a momentous and important event that has the potential to change the lives of millions of people -- and the politics of a tumultuous region -- for the better.

But it's also important for those of us outside of Iran to keep perspective.

This is their revolution. It is not ours.

For the small help and support any of us can give, typing away at our computers, setting up proxy servers or re-tweeting, this will not be decided by us. Not at all. 

This will be decided in Tehran, in Qom, in Isfahan. It will be decided by people for whom this is not simply an admirable cause but a matter of life and death. 

Whatever we do, ain't none of us facing bullets.

Remember that, because it is extremely easy to get carried away -- and I include myself in this -- in the rush of witnessing larger events. It's natural to cheer at footage like that above, but it's all the easier from a distance, removed from the dust and truncheon blows.

That's one reason why I've trying to turn some attention to how we can learn from this to better influence our own politics, to call the bullshit to worldviews that have been highly detrimental to people in Iran and elsewhere. 

That's where a lot of the focus should be. If everyone involved now acts and votes accordingly for the next 20 years, that will do a lot more good for the Iranian people than shading every profile in the world green.

Yes, everything is connected, and I think the knee-jerk "just do what you can locally, the globe will fix itself by magic" view of the world is both foolish and doomed. But everyone over here who has poured energy into this cause needs to increase that tenfold the next time elections roll around. 

The same level of drive should also be put into building tomorrow's political coalitions, stopping rape, revealing corruption and getting us out of our knee-deep societal shitpile.

Actions speak louder than words. Always. And with that, I've said enough.

Taking a break

I'll be taking a break from blogging here for the weekend, and possibly through Monday or Tuesday. 

For most of the last week I've been pretty focused on analyzing the momentous events in Iran. Those are still going full tilt, and I recommend both Andrew Sullivan and Nico Pitney's blogs for their excellent combination of raw information and analysis.

But there's a lot of other things happening too. I regret I'm not always able to write as much, in as much detail or as sharply edited, as I would often like. 

I'm also knee-deep in journalism and freelance work, with a Solstice, a wedding and Father's Day (always a difficult holiday for me) all happening this weekend.

Readership here has shot up dramatically over the last two weeks. Welcome to all of you. I'm thankful for every last reader here and consistently impressed by the level of intelligence and knowledge y'all bring to the table. Be well and enjoy yourselves. I'll be back soon.