James Fallows

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

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. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

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 a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.
  • Bing-vs-Google experiment report (updated)

    I mentioned a week ago that, in the name of science, I would rely strictly on Bing while reporting an article I'm writing now. (Note to my editors: almost done, really! No, I'm serious this time!) I have a precis of the results on a segment of "All Tech Considered" with Michele Norris this evening -- link herewhen it's available -- but here are the significant results:

    1) In a sane world, we'd recognize that all search engines are great.... On most queries, I found via Bing more or less what I would have expected to find on Google. Same for Ask.com. In a way, carping about the differences is like carping about the differences between a Mercedes and a BMW, when ten years ago you were riding an ox.

    2) ... and we'd also recognize that no search engine is perfect. An obvious point, and one I've addressed before (in the NYT, here), but still worth remembering. For reasons I won't go into, I was trying to find a list of all the senators who voted for and against ratifying the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978. So far, no dice -- with Bing, Google, Ask, Yahoo, etc. I have complete faith that ten minutes after I post this, I'll get a note from someone saying, "You idiot, they're right here.." with the relevant link. I'm saying, I played around long enough to think that the list was "not easily findable" via search engines, so for practical purposes it doesn't exist. Though the search turned up some nuggets like this (memo to Jimmy Carter about how to sweet-talk certain senators during phone calls about the treaty), which I found via Ask.com.

    3) Bing has many winsome touches. I don't mean its most heavily promoted feature: its service as a "decision engine" for buying things. I wasn't really shopping this week, so I didn't care. Rather I mean that, for instance, when I was looking for info on the French novel La Disparition, the first hit was the French Wikipedia site for the book. (Though when I run the search again just now, English Wikipedia comes up first. These results are dynamic things.) Its way for presenting image-results is more attractive and convenient than Google's. And... lots of other carefully thought-out touches. As a whole the site looks nice, starting with its splash-screen picture of the day. Today's, below:


    4) And, no doubt there's a big "you like what you're used to" factor at play. If I'd been using Bing for years and had never heard of Google, I might find Google's austere look and style "unusual."

    5) But overall, sigh, Bing seemed to leave too much out. At least too much of what I wanted to find. I mentioned this last summer, when Bing first came out. It still seems to be the case -- for my purposes, in day by day use this week.

    Before giving some illustrations, I need to explain a change in my Experimental Technique. After several days' worth of looking for things only on Bing, I had a nagging feeling that I wasn't getting the whole story. So rather than just give up and go to Google, I turned to the inspired site Bing-vs-Google.com, which gives you side-by-side results for the same search. The illustrations below rely on that comparison:

      - I was looking for Gene Weingarten's incredibly wrenching Washington Post magazine story about infants who died when left in overheated cars. It was the number-one hit when I did a search in Google; it was not on the first page of results with Bing. See the comparison here.

    - I wanted to provide background for Francois Villon's Ballade des dames du temps jadis. The Google results of a search on "Mais ou sont les neiges d'antan" were just what I was looking for; not so with Bing. See here.

    - I wanted to identify the music in a very brief Chrysler Town and Country ad I'd just seen on TV. Google had it, as the #1 hit; on Bing, it was down below a lot of chaff. See here. Something similar when I was looking for the music from a Palm Pixi ad, here.

    - I was looking -- online shopping! -- for a case for my invaluable LiveScribe Pulse magic pen. This is what Bing is supposed to be made for, but the first non-sponsored hit is for a site that looks pretty fishy to me. Its intro says: "We at livescribepen.net gathered a range of stylish high tech pen now a day; here you can search all kinds of livescribe pen. You can use it either your in meeting, school, training and at the office, it's a unique pen that you can count on. If you use the smartpen your life running smooth to write what you heard." That site -- again, #1 for Bing -- seems to be filtered out of the first few pages of Google. See the comparison here.

    Note: if you click on these Bing-vs-Google links, you may see something different from what I'm reporting here, since the site runs real-time searches of ever-changing content. (I've saved some of the screen shots from my searches but am not posting them here.)

    6) Moral of the story? I mentioned earlier that after my experiment in writing an article with voice-recognition software only, I returned happily to the keyboard. I will return happily to Google -- and, no kidding, to Bing-vs-Google.com (or other sites that do the same, like this and this). (UPDATE: and this one, GoogaWho?, which lets you easily compare results from Google, Bing, Ask, Yahoo, InfoSpace, Lycos, AltaVista, and Dogpile.) You never know what you might have missed! There's always more to prowl around for, including that elusive Panama Canal vote.   

    [Routine disclaimer: I have good friends and a variety of connections at both Microsoft and Google.]
  • Filibuster roundup, including a defense of it

    Following this and this:

    -- Useful to have Paul Krugman on the case, today.

    -- A friend who is a lawyer and has worked in politics provides this extra bit of evidence-hidden-in-plain-sight. As we all know, the Constitution allows the Vice President to cast a vote in the Senate in only one circumstance: to break a tie. Or, as Article I, section 3, puts it, "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided." My friend adds:

    "The fact that the founders expected the possibility of "equally divided" votes where the VP would break a tie is another piece of textual evidence for majority rule except where expressly provided elsewhere.  The VP cannot break a tie if the decisive vote is 60."

    -- The dysfunctional and distorting nature of the modern reliance on the filibuster is on top of a different dysfunctional and distorting aspect of the Senate: that the 36+ million people of California, and the 500,000+ people of Wyoming, are each represented by two Senate votes. I go into the combined effect of these factors in my upcoming Atlantic article.

    -- On why the current plague of filibusters makes it hard to govern, a reader makes the apt comparison to California:

    "The same problem exists in California regarding closing the budget deficit, since there is a  supermajority requirement to raise certain taxes.  In general, the Democrats would raise taxes and the Republicans would cut services. 

    "Given the Democrats' modest majority and the votes required to pass tax legislation, the legislature is at an impasse. More important, there is no one for the voters to blame.  Since no party can implement its program, no individual or party is responsible for the result.  My conclusion -- supermajority rules are inconsistent with a functional democracy."

    -- Charles Stevenson, a veteran of the Senate staff, gives a (measured) defense of the arrangement, and specific suggestions for repair:

    "As a longtime Senate observer and a staffer for 22 years, I am less troubled than you about the filibuster. I've seen it used by supporters and opponents of measures I felt strongly about, so it's an important part of the legislative toolkit. I do agree that the tactic has been overly used in recent years and would like to see some restraint. Drawing on your suggestion that David Axelrod [and others] read some history, here are some historical points.

    "1. What forced the adoption of the first rule to cut off debate was press, public, and even Senatorial outrage at the filibuster used in February-March 1917 to block passage of the bill to arm U.S. merchant ships just after Germany announced unrestricted submarine warfare against even then-neutral U.S. ships.

    More »

  • David Axelrod: Go read your history!

    Good for David Gregory. Just now, on Meet the Press, he asked David Axelrod whether the Senate's " 'majority' equals 60 votes" current operating rules made sense.

    Not so good for David Axelrod. He immediately says, "These are time-honored rules."

    Unt-uh. They are "time-honored" only in the sense of having been adopted awaaaaayyy-back at the dawn of time in 1975; and they have been of practical importance only really since the time of Bill Clinton -- and with a sharp increase in the last three or four years.

    Can the chief political advisor at the White House really not know this about the filibuster? And if he knows the real story, why would he stick with this "time-honored" line? Either explanation is unsettling.

    To round out your morning anti-filibuster ruling, below and after the jump a note from a reader in Maine:

    "Right now, feels like we're all sitting at the racetrack, handicapping horses instead of governing our country. (Note disclaimer below.)We're treating the management of our national household like a sporting event. And I think the filibuster is at least partly to blame.

    "Consider that 50% point -- the tipping point -- of making public policy in our democracy. It's shifted from the Senate to publicopinion polling. Look at how often the country sits there; evenly divided on the edge, in most recent elections and on many issues; how often we poll nearly 50/50 policy issues. It seems that the need for a supermajority in the Senate continually pulls the public to the tipping point.

    More »

  • The filibuster: let's talk about it

    In a discussion with Guy Raz this afternoon on Weekend All Things Considered, after he evoked a chagrining personal admission*, we touched on a point that I think needs to be elevated from a background/insider's issue to absolutely first-tier consideration in mainstream political discourse. It has to do with the distorting and destructive effect of the Senate's modern "60 votes to get anything done" system of operation.

    I say "modern" because, contrary to the tone of most day-by-day political reportage, this is not some timeless feature of American constitutional design. In newspaper accounts, you read things like this -- the second paragraph of an (otherwise very good) NYT story today on the struggles over health care reform:

    "To get the 60 votes needed to pass their bill, Democrats scrapped the idea of a government-run public insurance plan, cherished by liberals, and replaced it with a proposal for nationwide health plans, which would be offered by private insurers under contract with the government."

    Of course, the number of votes the Democrats need to pass their bill is a simple majority -- 51 votes at most. ("At most" because a 50-50 tie would be broken by the Vice President, who of course is now a Democrat.) The reason we talk and act as if "majority" = "60 votes" is that in the past 25 years, something that was an exceptional, last-ditch measure has turned into a damaging routine.

    The history here is well known to everyone interested in politics but worth summarizing. For most of the first 190 years of the country's operation, U.S. Senators would, in unusual circumstances, try to delay a vote on measures they opposed by "filibustering" -- talking without limit or using other stalling techniques. For most of those years, the Senate could cut off the filibuster and force a vote by imposing "cloture," which took a two-thirds majority of those voting (at most 67 of 100 Senators). In 1975, the Senate adopted a rules change to allow cloture with 60 votes, and those are the rules that still prevail.

    The significant thing about filibusters through most of U.S. history is that they hardly ever happened. But since roughly the early Clinton years, the threat of filibuster has gone from exception to routine, for legislation and appointments alike, with the result that doing practically anything takes not 51 but 60 votes. So taken for granted is the change that the nation's leading paper can offhandedly say that 60 votes are "needed to pass their bill." In practice that's correct, but the aberrational nature of this change should not be overlooked. (The Washington Post's comparable story is more precise: "A bloc of 60 votes is the exact number required to choke off the filibuster, the Senate minority's primary source of power, and the GOP's best hope of defeating the bill.")

    More »

  • I will say this for the WaPo! (updated)

    Somehow they managed to get a newspaper to our house in DC this morning.


    Yeah, yeah, I know this would be nothing in Chicago, Duluth, Buffalo. etc. But this is quasi-Dixieish DC. I also realize that the NYT might be under there somewhere, to be discovered come the springtime thaw.


    Update: it's now 4:30, and too dark to take a picture, but snow about a foot 9" deeper than shown above.

    Update 2: My friend CK reminds me that I have found the answer to my rhetorical Mais où sont les neiges question posed recently. Les neiges, elles sont arrivées.

  • You too can have the glamorous life of a journalist (updated)

    Sample message from today's email inbox:

    Dear James,

    Hope all is well, I wanted to follow up and see what you were working on and if you would be interested in speaking with Dr. Irwin Smigel, the "Father of Aesthetic Dentistry" and the 1st and only dentist to be inducted into the Smithsonian.

    Dr. Smigel has always been at the forefront of cosmetic dentistry and has put the field on the map, changing the face of dentistry forever with his inventions of bonding and veneers. It wasn't until June 2009 when he was officially recognized by the National Museum of Dentistry, an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution, in a permanent installation called "The Smile Experience", a two floor exhibit which pays homage to his contributions to the field. Along with being honored, Dr. Smigel received a plaque bearing his likeliness, which will be affixed to one of the soaring pillars in the museum's atrium.

    Visitors can take a digital snapshot of their unique smile and instantly upload it to a monitor in the gallery. Visitors will also be presented with a multimedia experience on the evolution of the smile, including a video presentation that shows how people have enhanced their smiles throughout history, from the ancient Mayans who decorated their teeth with jade to Dr. Irwin Smigel's introduction of tooth bonding to the American public on the popular TV show "That's Incredible," which marked the beginning of the modern age of cosmetic dentistry.

    Dr. Smigel maintains a cosmetic dentistry practice on Madison Avenue in New York City, which has become a multi-million dollar company with revenue reaching an estimate of $20 million in sales each year! Dr. Smigel also treats some of the most recognizable smiles in the nation including; Jimmy Fallon, Kelly Ripa, Johnny Depp, Diane Von Furstenberg, Elizabeth Taylor, Justin Timberlake, Adam Sandler, Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony, and Calvin Klein.

    No larger point here, just in the "world is full of wonders" category. The Smithsonian angle is the intriguing part.

    Update. The world is full of additional wonders. From a reader just now:

    "The Father of Cosmetic Dentistry is also the Father of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.  That is, Irwin Smigel is the father of Robert Smigel, arguably the funniest comedy writer alive. 

    "It's a unique name, and I remember hearing that Robert Smigel quit dentist school before turning to comedy.  I googled him and sure enough that's him.  By "sure enough" I mean "possibly, since that's what Wikipedia says."

    I don't know that I've ever seen a picture of Robert Smigel's smile...

  • Mais où sont les bureaux d'antan?

    This morning I went to interview an Administration Official in what used to be known as the Old Executive Office Building, was known in the 19th century as the State, War, and Navy Building, and is now known as the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. It is this familiar, ornate, French Second Empire-style structure, called by Mark Twain "the ugliest building in the world," which is immediately to the west side of the White House. (Wikipedia photo - with West Wing of White House barely visible on left side of shot):


    One happy surprise is that the security arrangements were less onerous than I expected, and less obviously heavy-handed than around the modern, embunkered U.S. Capitol complex. Check in with name and photo-ID at a Secret Service guard house; run bags through an airport-style screen (but leaving your shoes on!); then you're on your own.

    Personal surprise: en route to the appointment, I took a glance into what had been... my own office, back in the Jimmy Carter era. The speechwriters didn't have much influence in those
    days, but we had great offices! The colonnade in the photo below (from The American Interest - corresponds to farthest right-side corner of building in photo above) surrounds the balcony outside what was then the speechwriters' suite. Now, it belongs to a big shot from OMB.


    The big shot turns out to be Jeffrey Zients (whom I know, but didn't know was in this office), the first-ever Chief Performance Officer of the United States and a genuine business-world hotshot whose presence in the administration should be a reassuring sign of professional acumen in public service. This is probably a better use of such palatial quarters than the production of presidential rhetoric. Mixture of pride and wistfulness in seeing the same physical structure in such different times.
    (I have learned to be explicit about these things: if you're curious, Mais où sont is based on this ballade.)
  • NW flight 188: the pilots speak

    If you're still curious about NW 188, the flight whose pilots "missed" Minneapolis and realized their error halfway across the next state (background here and here), via AVweb here is the NTSB's extensive full docket of info on the case, including interview summaries with the two pilots, the airline's dispatchers, and others.

    Chronicles of aviation mishaps can be very gripping, as my former Atlantic colleague William Langewiesche has demonstrated many times. In this case (as with the "miracle on the Hudson, subject of Langewiesche's latest book) the fascination is guilt-free, since there were no fatal consequences. Sample detail from this new info: whatever the root of the problem here, it certainly wasn't lack of experience. The Captain had 20,000 hours of flight time (a lot), and the First Officer began flying at age 14 and had been an F-111 pilot in the Air Force. Reading the comments of these very, very experienced people who realize they have done something .... inexplicable is surprisingly absorbing.*

    Also several graphics, including the one below plotting info from the Flight Data Recorder ("black box"). The original, as a PDF, is here, and you can click on the image below for a larger version. What's we're seeing here: the two vertical, magenta-purplish text boxes mark the last radio transmission before the roughly 80-minute period of being out of touch with controllers, and the first radio transmission afterwards. In between that time, we see: autopilot turned on (steady red line at top); unchanging horizontal and vertical guidance from the autopilot (steady black line at the top and steady green line); stable altitude (steady blue line); slight variations in aircraft heading (lower black line), because of wind or other factors; and apparently no attempts for 80+ minutes to make outbound radio contact (orange "Key VHF" line at bottom of screen). You could write a real-life aviation drama based on this chart.

    After the jump: Since a previous colloquy, here and here, about the legal implications of the terms "frolic" and "detour" also arose from NW 188, two final reader dispatches on the legal semantics of the question.

    * Speaking of gripping and inexplicable: this story, by Gene Weingarten in the Washington Post magazine, recounts the horror and living hell of parents who... somehow... forgot that they had left an infant in the back seat of the car on a broiling hot day. I read it when it came out early this year and can't get it out of my mind. By comparison, the NW 188 story is light comedy.

    More »

  • Felica Naskotago, Dro. Zamenhof!

    For experimental purposes I'm sticking with Bing this week, but a friend said I really had to see the Google home page before December 15 had passed.  Indeed! I look at it just now and see an unusual green and white flag over the logo. And not just any flag:  Estas la Esperanto flago!  150 years ago today, in the town of Bialystock (then in Russia, now in Poland), L.L. Zamenhof was born -- the idealist and linguist who invented the language of Esperanto and preached it as a means to fraternity and harmony all around the world.

    My wife and I and our small sons cram-learned Esperanto in several weeks in 1986, as a way of getting a visa into China to attend the World Esperanto Congress in Beijing and then travel around the country. We had many adventures, including when kids played with a young girl with English-speaking parents who had decided to raise her as one of the world's few native speakers of Esperanto. "Cu vi volas ludi pupojn kun mi?" she would ask our sons, only to hear "Mi volas jeti pilkon."  ("Do you want to play dolls with me?" "No, let's throw a ball.") If you want to read more seriously about Zamenhof's achievement, you can start here and with some quizzical views here and here. For myself and my family I simply say, Felica Naskotago Dro. Zamenhof!

  • Raymond Haight Jr. (updated)

    In the public schools of Redlands, California, I had a number of truly outstanding teachers. I think they would have been seen as such in any setting, but of course I can't compare. Mathilda Phillips, in English; Jack Nagasaki, in chemistry; William Cunningham, in physics;  Gertrude Baccus, in speech and debate -- and that's just a few from high school. (Update: How could I have forgotten Lois Gregory, in French?) This was back during what seems in retrospect California's golden age, the time of big ideas, big ambitions, big possibilities, and of course big budgets, for the state's schools, parks, universities, and freeways. Now....
    One of the most memorable was Raymond Haight, the history and social-studies teacher who was really my first contact with the world of politics and public affairs. I was sitting in his 10th-grade world history class when news came of John F. Kennedy's assassination; he talked about what that would mean, in ways that stood up very well over the years -- including what might become of the early commitments Kennedy had made in Laos and Vietnam. I learned long afterwards that "Mr. Haight" -- in his early 40s then -- represented a strain of California culture that was unusual in our very conservative small town in California's southern "Inland Empire." During the 1964 election, he raised questions about the locally-popular "Proposition 14," designed to overturn a "Fair Housing" act and, in effect, legalize racial discrimination in real estate sales and rentals. (Prop 14 passed but was then declared unconstitutional by the California supreme court. Too bad the disastrous Prop 13 never met the same fate.) Barry Goldwater was also locally very popular, and Mr. Haight had a few of us read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative analytically (rather than as a holy text) and debate its strengths and weaknesses. The point is not that he was more liberal than the surrounding community, though that was so; rather, that he urged teenagers to think their way toward independent conclusions.

    Most students at the high school had at best one generation of college attendance behind them. (Ie, many but not most of my classmates had a parent who had gone to college. Very few had college-grad grandparents.) Raymond Haight's great-grandfather, Henry Haight, had gone to Yale before the Civil War and became one of California's first governors. He signed the act creating the University of California and helped establish Golden Gate Park; the Haight district of San Francisco is named for their family. Soon after I went away to college, Mr. Haight and his family moved back to central and then northern California. He launched a quixotic campaign for governor in 1970, running as an anti-Vietnam War candidate. He came in well down the list for the Democratic nomination; the nominee, Jesse Unruh, went on to lose big to Ronald Reagan, running for reelection.

    Because he'd moved away, I didn't see him on my visits to my home town, but I have often reflected on how much difference he made in my life. I learned just recently that he and his wife, the writer Mary Ellen Jordan Haight, had died this fall, within weeks of each other, at 88 and 82 respectively. I mention them to honor their memory, achievements, and influence; as testimony to what the public schools meant at that time; and as a counterpoint to the news this week of another round of teacher layoffs in my hometown's school system, as a result of California's budget disaster.  His life made a difference. The picture below is from the high school yearbook, the Makio, when he was chosen "Teacher of the Year" in his late 30s, via the Redlands Daily Facts obit.

  • More on frolics and other language points

    I mentioned recently the odd use of the term "frolic" in the FAA's complaint about the pilots who "forgot" to land in Minneapolis, and also my friend Cullen Murphy's exercise in writing an entire article in "E-Prime," a form of English that excludes "is," "are," or any other form of the verb "to be."

    Illuminating comments from readers on both points below: one in derogation of the skills of the FAA letter-writers, the other in praise of a writer who underwent a discipline much more demanding than E-Prime's.
    About "frolic" in the FAA complaint:

    "A comment about your discussion of the legal significance of the word "frolic":  The legal term is "frolic and detour,"  which refers to a case where an employee stops doing what he is being paid to do and goes somewhere (detour) to do something for himself (frolic).  A bus driver who turns off his route onto the street where his girlfriend lives would be committing a "frolic and detour."  The legal significance of this is that the employer would not be responsible for an accident caused by the bus driver while on the frolic and detour.  Ordinarily an employer is responsible for the negligence of an employee happening during the course of employment.  This is an exception to that rule, or, more precisely, it shows that the negligence did not happen during the course of employment in the first place.

    "I do not believe that the concept of frolic and detour has any relevance to this case [of the pilots who "forgot" to land].  The pilot simply made a mistake and overflew his objective.  He did not intend to land elsewhere to visit his bookie or girlfriend.

    "In my estimation, the FAA letter was written by a non-lawyer who had heard the legal phrase but did not really know what it meant.  The letter was neither unusually colorful, nor employing legal terms of art, but merely badly written."

    And, about E-Prime and its variants, a pastiche of several emails I received from well-informed readers:

    "I was interested to see your and Mr. Murphy's experiments with e-prime...  This is nothing when compared to Georges Perec who wrote a novel, "La Disparition" without using the letter "e." The novel was translated into English as "A Void" also without an "e." Perec was probably the most renowned member of the French literary group. Oulipo, which emphasized writing under artificial constraints - although Perec took the idea further than others. It is not as if he was a minor writer showing off to gain notoriety. His novel, "La Vie Mode D'Emploi", is one of the great works of 20th Century European literature. An updated translation of which has recently been released as "Life A Users Manual."

    A picture of M. Perec below. After the jump, an extract of his e-less novel.

    More »

  • More on those crazy 44% of Americans

    I mentioned several days ago that, according to a recent Pew poll, 44% of the U.S. public thinks that China is the "world's leading economic power." OK, I can understand why some people might think so -- what with the trillions of dollars of U.S. debt to our Chinese overlords, the ubiquity of "Made in China" products wherever you shop, and the precision and scale of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. Still, people who think this are wrong.

    When reading the Pew poll, I immediately thought of a scene, from Gansu province, that gives an idea of how hundreds of millions of people get by in today's "all-conquering" modern China:


    And of the view from our apartment window in Beijing a few weeks before the opening of the Olympic games. The point of this one, of course, is that en route to industrial development, all countries have gone through their blacken-the-skies dirty industry stage. That is where China is now, though with serious efforts to get out of it:


    For readers in China, let me be 100% explicit and clear that the point is not to put down China's people or its system for the things the country has not yet achieved and the gaps not yet closed. Those achievements are phenomenal. But some people outside China have evidently developed a wholly unrealistic, fantasy-world concept of a China that has no remaining problems and is surging effortlessly ahead. A more realistic view -- of a country that is advancing dramatically, but from a very low level of average wealth -- is better for all concerned.

    Below and after the jump, a note from an American financial-industry expert who has returned from a trip to China. He shares my wonderment at the views of the 44%:

    "I am just back from a whirlwind eight day business trip to BJ and SH where I am doing work for an American financial services company. I wanted to let you know a few things:

    "I used Postcards from Tomorrow Square as part of my trip preparation and it was terrific help on a number of fronts. [Forgive the self-promotional inclusion of this note; relevant in context - JF.] Coincidentally I found myself having a 5 star gourmet lunch at the Tomorrow Square hotel restaurant, where after some uncomfortable formalities with my Chinese hosts we ended up having a remarkably open and lively conversation about the realities of being a Shanghai businessperson, among other things... (some hopefully pertinent points below).

    More »

  • Weeklong experiment: Bing vs Google

    In the interests of science, I've undertaken various first-hand user testing experiments over the years. I haven't gone as far as did Cullen Murphy, then the Atlantic's managing editor, when he demonstrated that one could write an entire article without using the words "is," "are," or any other form of the verb to be.* But, as a similar experimental stunt, I once wrote an article without touching a keyboard, relying strictly on voice recognition software to see how well it worked. (The software worked fine; unfortunately, I discovered that I couldn't think without using my fingers.) And I let Air Force pilots wring me out in a deliberately-nausea-inducing mock-combat drill in an F-15, just for the hell of it.

    Results of the experiments: Cullen still uses "is"; I still use my fingers; and I have stayed far away from F-15s.

    Spurred by this report on the Atlantic's site about a new Bing-vs-Google flap (previously here), I have resolved to try another experiment. I will spend the next week, during which I must finish a "real" article, using only Microsoft's Bing to track down facts online, rather than my usual Google. After-action reports will appear here once I've turned in the "real" article. Necessary disclaimer: I have close friends at and various entanglements with both companies. Watch this space.

    *Actually, now I have, at least on mini-scale.

  • Fair and balanced bug reporting

    I've loved every one of the 40 or 50 computers I've owned through the decades, starting with the Processor Technology SOL-20 I got in 1978. Actually, all of them but one. I won't rub it in, but the Vista-burdened Lenovo ThinkPad T60 I bought in 2006 caused me so much grief, for so long, for hardware and software reasons alike, that starting 18 months ago it switched me from career ThinkPad allegiance over to the Mac side.

    Having aired my grievances about that benighted machine month by month, for equal-time purposes I should record the first significant hardware problem with any of the three Macs I now own: an sudden intense whine from my three-month-old MacBook Pro's fan, so loud and piercing that I can't stand to use the machine any more until it's fixed. I put on my active-noise-reduction headset while making sure all its files were safely backed up in The Cloud.

    Apparently this is an all too well-known issue, but one of the established solutions (deleting any queued item from the printer device - go figure) didn't help, and I don't feel like opening up the system's housing to re-seat the fan myself (another recommended fix). On to the Apple store for my first repair experience there. Just for the record.

    And for antiquarian purposes: how the SOL-20, still looking quite sprightly in our basement, appeared in its youth. Only known computer with rich walnut-wood case! No, it didn't come with a "monitor." People were tough in those days.



How to Cook Spaghetti Squash (and Why)

Cooking for yourself is one of the surest ways to eat well.


Before Tinder, a Tree

Looking for your soulmate? Write a letter to the "Bridegroom's Oak" in Germany.


The Health Benefits of Going Outside

People spend too much time indoors. One solution: ecotherapy.


Where High Tech Meets the 1950s

Why did Green Bank, West Virginia, ban wireless signals? For science.


Yes, Quidditch Is Real

How J.K. Rowling's magical sport spread from Hogwarts to college campuses


Would You Live in a Treehouse?

A treehouse can be an ideal office space, vacation rental, and way of reconnecting with your youth.



From This Author

Just In