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, China Airborne, was published in early May. 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 US 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 two most recent books, Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009), are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book, China Airborne, was published in early May. 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.

Ten Years Ago: The al-Dura Case

Global Apr 7 2013, 7:45 PM ET

I've been running a series of "Ten Years After" items on the political, financial, strategic, and moral ramifications of the American invasion of Iraq, which was in its early stages in April, 2003.

As for me ten years ago, when the war began I was in Israel rather than Iraq. I was there to do interviews for a story that ran in our June, 2003, issue about the controversial and inflammatory Mohammed al-Dura case. He was the 12-year-old Palestinian boy who, according to widespread international news coverage, had been shot to death in 2000 by Israeli Defense Force soldiers, even as he huddled in terror behind the father who was trying to protect him. The picture of the doomed boy and his frantic father became a notorious symbol of Israeli cruelty; the image above is from a Tunisian postage stamp issued in commemoration of the killing.

My story ten years ago said that exactly what happened to Mohammed al-Dura might never be known -- but that the prevailing story, that IDF soldiers had shot him to death, was very likely not true, since it was so hard to square with known forensic and physical evidence. The details are too elaborate to go through now, but you can follow them in the original article.

The controversy over the case has continued to rage, but I'll let you explore it on your own. If you search for the names Charles Enderlin, Philippe Karsenty, or Richard Landes, you'll be on your way; I'm not getting back into this. My 2003 article has come to occupy an awkward "false equivalence" middle ground in the dispute. Many people who believe the original story say that I've been duped by Israeli propaganda to exonerate the IDF. Many people who challenge the original story scoff at me for resisting their claim that the entire episode was faked for "Pallywood" propaganda purposes and that the boy was never shot. [Update To illustrate this point, and to give you a chance for full exposure to the argument and evidence in support of the "staged" hypothesis, you can read this response by Richard Landes.]

Often, as I've argued in the false-equivalence chronicles, taking the middle ground is a way to evade the hard work of finding the real truth. In this case, my agnosticism comes from the murkiness of the evidence and the asymmetrical burdens of proof and disproof. It is much easier to establish that one hypothesis is false -- for instance, that IDF soldiers were in the wrong place to do the reported shooting -- than to prove that some other one is true. Similarly: I find it hard to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely on his own in killing John F. Kennedy, but I have no idea what the "real" story is.

I mention all this because there is an interesting new update in the Times of Israel on one of the people I spent time with ten years ago in Tel Aviv. He is Nahum Shahaf, and you will learn about him from the story. For the record, this new account refers to my own article in positive rather than the now-familiar derogatory terms, but I'm mentioning the story because Shahaf was one of the genuinely engrossing figures I have met along the way. (Another, whom I should regularly thank, was professor Gabriel Weimann of the University of Haifa, who helped me in many ways with this story -- but bears no responsibility for what I concluded or didn't.) See what you think.

Stamp image from here.

From the Director of the Film That Made a Pilot Divert a Plane

National Apr 6 2013, 2:52 PM ET

On re-entering Internet land after 24 hours, I see a zillion responses to the mysterious case of United flight 638. This is the one on which parents traveling with young children complained about a movie they considered too violent and risque being played on the overhead projectors. The flight was headed from Denver to Baltimore, but the pilot made an unscheduled landing at Chicago O'Hare so police could remove the family from the plane. The three background installments are here, here, and here. To put it mildly, at face value this is a strange episode, and there must be some further backstory on how and why it happened. After I sort through the latest responses from pilots, flight attendants, regulators, etc. I'll put some up.

For now, here is a message from the man who directed the movie in question. His name is Rob Cohen, and the movie was called Alex Cross. I turn the floor over to him:

>>I'm the director of "ALEX CROSS' and I'm writing to you to add my perspective to this United Airline matter should you care to know it.

The film is rated PG-13 due to the level of violence and some very intense content. By definition, it is not meant to be shown to people under thirteen unless accompanied by an adult. To me, this clearly defines a box office situation where you are voluntarily purchasing tickets to view something that has been clearly rated as not kid-friendly. It does not, however, really accurately cover the airplane experience.

An airline showing on all the cabin monitors is clearly no longer a voluntary situation but one where the content is being shown indiscriminately to those who wish to view it or those who don't. It's impossible to avoid the images, even if you are not using the headphones in such a situation.

There is something unfair and, in my opinion, unwise about such a policy. I did NOT do an airline edit although I did a TV version. My assumption was that the film would be either further edited from that by the airlines or shown only on systems where a passenger can select specific films for his or her seat.

When I read your piece this morning, I felt extremely sympathetic to the family involved and, in some ways, quite apologetic. I never made the film to cause anyone this kind of discomfort. It seems to me they (the family) were well within their rights to request some control as to what their two young children were exposed. As a father of five year old triplets, I, too, would not want them to absorb some of the images we created for my film. It's a thriller based on the work of James Patterson and accurately captures the milieu, content, and characters of his many "Alex Cross" books.

These books are not for young people, either.

I cannot comment on the Captain's decision as I don't know all the facts but I do know this: there should be another standard of judgement or set of editing guidelines for airline consumption. PG-13 should mean what it does at the box office, at the very least meaning no one under 13 should be exposed to it. If the airlines cannot accommodate a more flexible presentation giving seats the option of viewing or not, they shouldn't show the film unless it meets what we could call "general cabin" suitability.

If the film cannot be edited back to a more general audience presentation, then it shouldn't be shown on the cabin monitors. If that means the loss of air line revenue, so be it. Protecting children from things they were never meant to see should take priority.

Rob Cohen <<

And FWIW, here is a sample from a large number of similar notes I've received, about this movie:

>>I just read your article about the family being kicked off the United Airlines flight that was airing the Alex Cross moving throughout the cabin. It reminded me that on our last flight from SFO to Chicago (February 23rd or 24th, not sure if it was the flight going or coming back) they were playing the same film and I was very put out that they were showing it in cabin. I had a two year old with me that was thankfully too busy with her crayons to notice the screen, but if she had I would have probably raised my concerns as well. I just wanted to highlight that the Alex Cross showing was not an isolated incident, even if the removal of the family was.<<

Ta-Nehisi Coates and Michael Kelly

National Apr 6 2013, 1:15 PM ET

I have been in transit or otherwise offline since early yesterday, and so I am seeing only now the item that Ta-Nehisi Coates posted about the Atlantic's Michael Kelly, who was killed ten years ago this week while serving as an embedded reporter during the invasion of Iraq.

On the tenth anniversary of Michael Kelly's death I wrote that it had been a tragedy and a loss, which of course it was, most of all for his family. The many thousands of other deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan these past ten years have also been losses and tragedies, but we naturally feel most strongly about the ones that come closest to us. The item I wrote was in observance of a loss that directly affected our magazine, and initially thought I should leave it at that. In light of what Ta-Nehisi has written, I think I should say something more.

As many people have noted (including Tom Scocca, and a large number of TNC's commenters), there is a sharp divide in assessments of Kelly's legacy, depending on whether people knew him personally or not. For most people who knew or worked with Michael Kelly, the personal fondness and memories outweigh the disagreements on politics or other matters.

This was true also for me. I disagreed with Michael Kelly on most political topics that came up in the decade before his death. He was all in favor of impeaching Bill Clinton: "He must be impeached not merely because he is a pig and a cad and a selfish brute ... He must be impeached because we are a nation of laws, not liars." I thought that impeachment was a travesty. He viewed the Whitewater and Paula Jones cases as genuine scandals. I thought the greater scandal lay in the prosecutorial excesses of Kenneth Starr. And of course there was Iraq, which he saw as a huge moral necessity for the United States and I saw as a huge mistake.

Still I felt loyal to Michael Kelly as our editor, and truly grieved his death, because of the care and devotion he put into being the leader of our staff. I think that many of Michael's passions were essentially tribal -- he would fearlessly defend people he liked or felt were "his" people, and mercilessly attack people he didn't -- and he earned a similar kind of loyalty and affection in return. I might as well be fully honest about this: When he and I were working at different publications, I was one of the people Michael would sometimes go out of his way to criticize. Once we were on the same team, he couldn't have been more gracious or considerate. I didn't expect to become a friend and supporter of his, but that is what happened.

For people who live essentially private lives, this would be the end of the assessment: How did they treat family, friends, strangers they met? But as Ta-Nehisi Coates points out, we judge public figures by their effects on people they don't know personally. Many members of the reading public benefited from the humor, insight, and honesty of Michael Kelly's best reportorial achievements -- including his excellent book about the 1991 Gulf War, Martyrs' Day. But many were harmed by his greatest failing as a public figure, which was his tendency to ridicule, bully, and personally savage those with whom he disagreed. Ta-Nehisi gives some examples, and Robert Vare, in his compilation of Michael's writings, gives more. Here is one I bitterly complained about to Michael when it happened:

In September, 2002, Al Gore gave a speech arguing against the impending invasion of Iraq. I considered it brave and sensible at the time, and I think it only looks better in retrospect. This was Michael Kelly's response in his Washington Post column:

>>[The speech] distinguished Gore, now and forever, as someone who cannot be considered a responsible aspirant to power. Politics are allowed in politics, but there are limits, and there is a pale, and Gore has now shown himself to be ignorant of those limits, and he has now placed himself beyond that pale.

Gore's speech was one no decent politician could have delivered. It was dishonest, cheap, low. It was hollow. It was bereft of policy, of solutions, of constructive ideas, very nearly of facts -- bereft of anything other than taunts and jibes and embarrassingly obvious lies. It was breathtakingly hypocritical, a naked political assault delivered in tones of moral condescension from a man pretending to be superior to mere politics. It was wretched. It was vile. It was contemptible. But I understate.<<

Michael's judgment was not merely wrong. It was "dishonest, cheap, low." And it had impact. It is hard now to convey the drumbeat of arguments for the war and also of ridicule and impatience for anyone who lacked war fever. That is what you see in Michael's contemptuous dismissal of Gore. The buildup to the war was probably Christopher Hitchens's worst moment, too, when he was dead-set on the moral rightness of the invasion and intent on demolishing people who disagreed. The two of them, Michael and Christopher, were not the only ones striking this tone, but they were very influential.

Now, the complication. At just the time Michael was writing those words about Al Gore, he was supporting and trying to improve my cover story, in his own magazine, arguing that we would regret the consequences of invasion for many years to come. None of us is simple. I genuinely mourn Michael Kelly's death. But Ta-Nehisi Coates is right to clarify the part of his record that was damaging. And I actually do believe, as opposed to just saying it for closing-the-loop rhetorical purposes, that Michael Kelly would have respected and supported the forthrightness of his doing so within the Atlantic's own (electronic) pages.

World Is Getting Better, Canned Beer Dept.

National Apr 5 2013, 7:44 AM ET

This is what I saw one minute away from my house in DC yesterday morning.

Good news: Excellent craft beer in cans! Click on the photo for a beer-pornish enlarged and highly detailed view. And, that same excellent beer making its way from its Colorado homeland to my closest Kwik-E-Mart. You would not have seen this in any imagined golden-age American period of yesteryear.

Bad news: the bare-limbed look of that gingko tree tells you about the weather in DC as of early April. Also, sadly, the truck was not stopping right outside my house.

United Airlines Replies, About That Diverted Flight

National Apr 4 2013, 4:53 PM ET

OK, I want to wrap this up as much as you do. But I said that if I received any statement from United Airlines about a flight that was diverted to Chicago because of an onboard dispute, I would give prominent display to whatever the company said. Background on the dispute, from the family that was removed from the plane, is here. I've just received a reply from United, which I now pass along without comment and in full:

Hi James,

Megan [McCarthy, United's managing director for external communications] mentioned that you reached out to us earlier this week for a statement. Here's what I can offer you on this matter. Again, apologies for missing your initial request. Response below:

United flight 638 from Denver to Baltimore diverted to Chicago O'Hare after the crew reported a disturbance involving a passenger. The flight landed without incident and the customers were removed from the flight. We reaccommodated the customers on the next flight to Baltimore and have since conducted a full review of our inflight entertainment.

Many thanks,

Charles Hobart
Spokesman, Public Relations

Airline Captains, Judgment Calls, Corporate Culture

National Apr 4 2013, 12:01 PM ET

I really intended to let this subject sit for a while, but I have seen two things that I think are worth passing on. They make this a long item, so consider "classic view."

The two items do not include a response from United to the stranger-the-longer-you-think-about-it case of a pilot who diverted his whole planeload of passengers to Chicago, on a trip from Denver to Baltimore, so that police could board the plane and remove a mother and father and their two young sons. The parents' offense was to have complained about what they considered an overly violent and salacious movie being shown on the overhead screens. ~~I've heard nothing back from the United press office, not even "message received" or "no comment," and at this point I'll be surprised if I do get a response~~. [UPDATE 12:10pm I have just now heard from Megan McCarthy, Managing Director for External Communications at United. She said she would look into the episodes I've been describing and provide a response. I told her that when she did I would put it up promptly and call attention to it. UPDATE-UPDATE 5:00 pm You can read the United statement here.]

Instead the two items are contrasting accounts of the judgment calls that go with any position of responsibility and that collectively create and express a "corporate culture."

The first is from Chris Manno, an American Airlines captain who blogs under the name JetHead. In "Airline Pilot Confidential: The Teddy Bear Incident" he describes a decision he made, in violation of corporate incentives/pressures and perhaps even rules, because he thought it was the right thing to do. It was "right," he thought, not simply on its specific merits but also for its general representation of corporate and personal values.

This is truly a remarkable tale, and I thank reader ER for alerting me to it. By the end of it you'll understand the power of what Manno means when he says, Not on my watch. This captain has the same job as the one who diverted to Chicago, but not the same profession.

The second is an account from a reader in Australia. It is very long but has a payoff. Also, it includes an on-the-job picture of an airline employee, which I have obviously altered. I've blanked out the employee's face, but in the original you would see that his eyes are closed and he is in blissful repose. Now, the reader:

>>I'm 58 years old, a 2 million mile flyer with United, at the 1K level for 10+ years. Although we live in Australia now, my wife and I are both Chicagoans originally and we still have a condo there.

I've stuck with United thru the bankruptcies, merger with Continental (which actually helped us as CO and now United fly into [the city in Australia] where we live). What you've described is employee malfeasance - a problem that all the airlines struggle to address.

And it should be noted that most frequent flyers have, since 9/11, severely moderated their personalities WHEN ONBOARD THE FLIGHT. I had routinely seen passengers chastising flight attendants and even arguing with them prior to 9/11. After? Pilots and flight attendants have clearly formed a "pact" where the pilots are used (willingly and unwillingly) to "get square" with passengers. As a result passengers have become meek as sheep onboard. And I would anecdotally opine that the ground agents are getting more abuse than before, because of this and other capacity-related issues.

In October of 2010, I boarded a UA flight from Geneva, Switzerland to Dulles. I had been upgraded to business class (along with two other colleagues who had been at the same engineering conference). As is my custom, I changed from my business casual clothing to dark, knee-length shorts and a t-shirt. This was, for any frequent traveler, a "sleeping" flight.

Shortly after I had changed my wardrobe (in the lavatory), a pilot came up to me and said "you can't travel dressed that way". I turned to him with a stunned look and of course asked "why not?". He said it was inappropriate and walked away. A flight attendant came up shortly afterward and said "you'd better change back because the pilot isn't going to let you travel that way". I asked her why that was, and she just rolled her eyes - which told me this pilot might be trouble. There were what looked like elderly Europeans in business class, dressed for travel like it was 1960. They may have lodged the complaint, I don't know. I sat down in my seat, used my blanket to cover my legs, and waited.

The pilot returned, and was clearly agitated. During his diatribe he poked me, which I considered assault. But what does one do about this kind of incident in a foreign country? Should I stand my ground and likely be ejected from the flight at a port where United had no employees (only contract staff)? Even my colleagues witnessing this incident were cowed into silence. I was unsurprised.

I changed back into my boarding clothing.

I toyed with returning to my shorts after departure, because I thought it would be much harder for the pilot to explain a diversion disrupting 250 passengers. And I'm a "Type-A" person, who worked on film production as a sound engineer for 20+ years, where my tactlessness was honed to a knife edge. I'm usually not loathe to speak-out, even on behalf of others.

When we arrived at Dulles I used my express card to race thru immigration, and found a police officer. I explained briefly what had happened onboard the plane, and said I wanted the pilot identified and perhaps a report filed for assault. As the pilot came out of immigration, three police officers stopped him and ID'd him for me. (His name is XX). He saw me standing with another officer 20 feet away and shouted "you'll never fly on United again".

I of course notified United Airlines via the "1K Voice" email address, and as I would be staying in Chicago for a week or so I drove out to their headquarters building in Schaumburg. I eventually told the story to both the customer service rep that I had been in contact with previously, as well as the chief pilot. United also interviewed my colleagues, so they were clearly satisfied that the story I told was accurate and even more importantly, I DIDN'T CAUSE A RUCKUS. And subsequently I was provided with upgrade and discount certificates. But of course I never was told what happened, if anything, to this pilot or why he had acted so irrationally.

So why are these things happening?

Let's use as an example Singapore Airlines, who's onboard staff are among the best in the world. These flight attendants are given one five year contract, and then except for a handful who move up to management, they're out. They are paid much less than US legacy carrier flight attendants, can be fired easily, and more importantly aren't there to make a career.

The US legacy carriers in particular are saddled with many long-serving flight attendants. These (mostly) women were sold on the idea that this job was a career, and a "glamorous" one at that, with long layovers in exotic places, traveling with intelligent, wealthy people. But this idea flies in the face of what the job actually is. A job that requires no education, not even any computer skillls, and has little pathway for advancement. And a job that is protected by still powerful unions. I've spoken to hundreds of flight attendants over the years, and have a good understanding of their thinking. A great many are angry - angry at themselves for thinking this was going to be a career, angry at the airline for going bankrupt and stripping them of wages and benefits. This anger manifests itself exactly as you've described - telling white lies to avoid any further work, reporting passengers as "disruptive" to the pilot, and even more egregious behavior. Many flight attendants refer to vacation-destination flights as "the flying Clampetts". If they hate their job and their passengers, they should go. But they can't, or don't.

If you look at what was Continental Micronesia, a separate company owned by Continental prior to the merger, and their labor situation it's like night and day. This company was based in Guam, which while ostensibly the USA is more akin to the Philippines. The Continental (and now United) flight attendants based in Guam are largely Chamorro or Filipino, and look at these jobs as a tremendous opportunity given their low educational level. I've never heard a cross word or seen a scowl from these flight attendants. They weren't sold a "dream" to be a "flight attendant" and see the world! They were offered a great job, provided with the skills to do it, and pay that is much above what their fellow Guamians would receive under similar circumstances.

The legacy carriers; United and American especially, have a difficult situation. They have a large number of angry flight attendants - the worst of which, because of seniority rules, get the longest, most profitable international routes where UA has to compete with happy flight attendants. For the first time after the merger however I am sensing that UA management is now working to weed out the real troublemakers, something I can't recall them doing at all the last ten years.

This photo, UA 483 on October 23, 2012 from LAX/SFO had a purser who sat in this position the entire 80 minute flight, leaving only one of his colleagues to serve the full business class section. I reported this incident (with photo) to UA, who for the first time in many years seemed generally concerned about fixing this problem.

As for the inappropriate programming on the video. I was successful in getting the "survival in the wild" show with Bear Grylls removed from the entertainment system - the bug eating during meal time was I thought a bit over the top. However I know who to lodge a complaint with. I'm quite convinced that a complaint to the general email complaint line gets barely a look, and usually a "pat on the ass" response. This more than anything is something that United should consider fixing. Jeff Smisek would discover a lot about his employees if they actually read and processed the complaints properly.<<

That really is it for a while, unless I do hear from United.

Today's United Report: 5 Ways of Thinking About an Airline

National Apr 4 2013, 2:15 AM ET

This is a long item; for "classic view" click here.

1) On Tuesday morning I wrote to United Airlines' media relations office about the incredible but apparently true story of a pilot who made an unscheduled landing at Chicago's O'Hare airport, on a flight from Denver to Baltimore, so that police could come aboard and take away parents who had complained about what they considered a risque and violent movie being shown on the overhead screens in front of their two small sons.

In my note I identified myself as a reporter; sent them the item I had done; gave them the real names of the complainants and the reported real name of the pilot; gave my phone and email contact info; and said I would give equal prominence to whatever they said in reply.

It is now the wee hours of Thursday morning, and ... so far nothing. I'll let you know if I ever hear back. Maybe United's CEO Jeff Smisek will address it in one of the promotional videos by him that all passengers get to see before take-off.

2) My wife and I flew from LAX to Dulles today, and thanks to our palmy Global Services status we got upgrades out of economy -- but with seats in separate rows.

We decided to be content with our good fortune and not to ask other people to switch so we could sit together. You will get the joke it you check here.

3) Illustrating that there are exceptions to every rule, the cabin crew who dealt with us today were friendly, relaxed, and with a sense of humor and adaptability, rather than seeming officious and put-upon. To anyone at United if you ever see this: I am talking about UA 653, LAX-IAD, on April 3, 2013.

On the other hand: the plane landed at 9:09, and the first bags appeared at 9:52, but ... this is travel.

4) In the pre-roll house-ad video that United inserts before its safety instructions, there was a change from the now-familiar "let's hear from Jeff Smisek" feature. Instead it was a little tone-poem about how everyone at United knows that customer service comes first, that the impression they leave on customers determines the future of the airline, how nothing matters more than being caring and considerate, and so on. My main reaction was, Maybe they realize they have a problem, since it is the absence of precisely this attitude that, in my now-very-long experience, has distinguished United.

To be more precise, while the ground and flight crew of many Asian airlines act excited to be in the glamorous air-travel industry -- something not possible or credible in the North America industry; and while Southwest has its own jokey culture; and while Alaska Airlines has a small and attentive feel; and so on; my strong impression of United is that most of its employees don't seem very happy to be working there. They come across as beset by their twin enemies: management on one side and the surly traveling public on the other.

Here is an episode that crystallized this impression for me. Last year I was at Dulles for an early-morning flight to San Diego, which was delayed and then an hour after scheduled departure time was finally cancelled outright, for mechanical reasons. These things happen. A hundred people surged to the customer service desk to figure out options. (The auto- rebooking note I got from United rescheduled me for a flight nine hours later.) The woman at the desk saw the horde coming and began packing up. "I'm on break!" she said. "I've been here since six-thirty this morning!" Which of course is when the rest of us had arrived. Considerately, before leaving she did call to see if someone could replace her, as someone eventually did. I promise you, this happened just the way I am describing.

5) But maybe points #3 and #4 are signs of a culture change. America is the land of constant renewal and second and third chances, so I will hold that thought in mind about the new United. While also wondering if I'll ever hear about point #1 -- the pilot who decided that parents who complained about movies should be turned over to the police, and another 100-plus people on the plane should be delayed and diverted at the same time.

4 Things to Read About China

China Apr 3 2013, 12:17 PM ET

1) Yan Lianke, in the NYT, on "China's State-Sponsored Amnesia." Sample:

[Widespread Chinese ignorance of the "June 4 1989 episode"] reminded me of something another teacher told me. She had asked her students from China if they had heard about the death by starvation of 30 to 40 million people during the so-called "three years of natural disasters" in the early 1960s. Her students responded with stunned silence, as if she, a teacher in Hong Kong, was brazenly fabricating history to attack their mother country.

2) Christina Larson, in Bloomberg Businessweek, about new evidence on the birth-defect epidemic being caused by pollution in China. Sample:

In the U.S., for every 10,000 live births, there are 7.5 infants with neural tube defects. In Shanxi province, that number is 18 times higher: 140 infants....

Over a 10-year period, the researchers gathered placentas from 80 stillborn or newborn infants in Shanxi with the disorder. Based on their analysis, they confirmed that those infants had been exposed in utero to significant levels of pesticides, industrial solvents, and especially polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are released into the air when fossil fuels are burned.

3) A Chinese language report saying that as many as 15 percent of overall recent deaths in China may be due to pollution; to similar effect in the NYT.

4) A Xinhua report saying that March in Beijing -- when we were there -- was the smoggiest in modern history.

And this is without even getting into the dead pigs, the new cases of "bird flu," etc. China is a big, exciting country. But it has very serious problems, and different problems from those in the Western world just now.

Bonus, these are not about China but among the offerings not to miss from the Atlantic recently:

A) Matt O'Brien on why David Stockman's "sky is falling" recent piece was so wrong-headed;

B) Robert Vare with an extended appreciation of Michael Kelly;

C) John Gould on why the return of Hannibal Lecter is more interesting than you might expect; and

D) - Z) Ta-Nehisi Coates's reports from Europe and Conor Friedersdorf's reports from all over , both too numerous to itemize with links right now but worth seeking out.

And many others ...

Michael Kelly

National Apr 3 2013, 7:34 AM ET

Ten years ago today Michael Kelly, then the editor of the Atlantic, was killed while serving as an embedded reporter with the Third Infantry Division during the early stages of the invasion of Iraq.

He and I disagreed about many things, notably including the war in Iraq, of which he was a passionate supporter. His advocacy of that war was based on what he had seen Saddam Hussein do in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, which Michael chronicled in his book Martyrs' Day. As all the elegies and commemorations noted after his death, Michael was a powerful, very talented, enormously big-hearted figure, whose death in Iraq was an almost unimaginable tragedy. He was a wonderful editor of this magazine. Like everyone at the Atlantic and many other people in journalism, I remember exactly where I was -- in my case, on an Amtrak train back from New York to Washington, the morning after I'd done some anti-war TV program -- at the moment I heard this news.

I don't have the heart to include this among the "Ten Years After" reckonings of the decision to go to war in Iraq. His colleagues -- and readers -- reflect on what they lost, the loss being greatest for his wife and sons.

A Little Outliner, Named 'Little Outliner'

Technology Apr 2 2013, 4:22 PM ET

Three years ago I mentioned an intriguing, easy, collaborative cloud-based outliner named Thinklinkr. It doesn't seem to be around any more, and its official blogsite doesn't appear to have any entries since 2011, so ... the wheel turns. Following today's earlier note about memento mori, this is probably a useful reminder that the concept applies in the tech world too, and even to cloud products that aren't made by Google.

Thus we have a natural intro to "Little Outliner," shown above. It is an extremely simple online outlining tool designed by Dave Winer, creator of a long string of influential programs and applications (including those wonderful early outliners ThinkTank and MORE). Here Winer has collaborated with a young developer named Kyle Shank. A difference between Little Outliner and, say, the seemingly departed Thinklinkr is that Winer's and Shank's new product stores its info locally on your own computer, so it wouldn't vanish if the program or company does.

You can read a nice Gigaom interview with Winer about the program here. While we're at it, Workflowy is another interesting, light, cloud-based outliner that unlike Thinklinkr is still around. And you can never go wrong with a look at Dave Winer's history of great outliners, at Outliners.com. I also examined this historical theme a while back, in my homage to the greatest outliner of them all, the late and lamented GrandView.

'Watching the Lights Go Out'

Health Apr 2 2013, 12:50 PM ET

In school many students have been exposed to Daniel Keyes's book Flowers for Algernon. It came out in 1966, when the author was in his late 30s; it has sold millions of copies and remains in print; and Keyes himself is still active in his mid 80s.

The narrative concept of the Algernon book, and of the Cliff Robertson movie Charly based on it, is to present the self-chronicles of a mentally disabled man, Charlie Gordon, as he is artificially raised to super-intelligent status -- and then goes back down again. The power of the book comes from the changing tone and sophistication of Charlie's observations as he is rising in intelligence, and more poignantly his awareness of what is happening to him as he declines.

I don't want to make too much of the comparison, but I couldn't help thinking of Algernon when, thanks to a tip by David Grann, I came across David Hilfiker's account of his own ongoing experience with Alzheimer's disease. Hilfiker's back story is of course completely different: he was an outstanding student at Yale who went on to become a doctor. He has spent most of his career in poor rural and big-city communities and has written books on questions of personal and social justice. For instance, his Healing the Wounds was about the ethical complications of working as a doctor. That's a picture of him at the top of this item, from the Joseph's House organization for sick and dying homeless people where he has worked in Washington.

Hilfiker is 68, and he was diagnosed a few years ago with "progressive cognitive impairment" in the form of Alzheimer's disease. He has been carefully chronicling the things he can do, and remember, as he notices the things he can't. He gives the big picture in a brief autobiographical essay called "Watching the Lights Go Out," and he has been providing ongoing diaries the most recent of which are here. These self-examinations are exceptionally brave, honest, and clearly written. Among their most striking parts is Hilfiker's confronting the certainty of the unintended ways in which he will reveal his impairments, and his awareness that as a person who had largely defined himself through his intelligence, including his ability to write, he will watch those things go away. An example of his sensibility:

>>Garrison Keillor said recently, "Nothing bad ever happens to writers; it's all material." So, at least for a time, this Alzheimer's disease will become material for my website and for a blog. I want to write about what Alzheimer's is like from the inside. What is the experience of losing one's mind? Do I still experience myself as the same "self"? Obviously, I don't know how long I can do this, although my good friend Carol Marsh has volunteered to keep it going with interviews when I can no longer write. We'll have to see.<<

Hilfiker deserves great respect and careful attention for the memento mori he is creating.

The Way We Live Now: United Airlines and 'Disruptive' Passengers

National Apr 2 2013, 7:01 AM ET

This is a long item; to read it in "classic view" click here. The messages below were some of those that came in over the weekend, after I mentioned my intention to say more about United Airlines.

First, on the economics behind United's current attitude. A reader writes:

>>I am an economics graduate student, and my partner has family working for Delta. She is thus able to fly standby for free, and me for a discount (and the economist part perhaps induces a certain line of thinking..). I'm in Los Angeles; our families are in Colorado and the Chicago suburbs. To get between LA and Denver, we have to fly via the Delta hubs of Salt Lake City or Minneapolis. To get to Chicago from LA, we have to fly from LA to Salt Lake or Minneapolis and then onward... On a bad day, it might involve Atlanta, Memphis, or Detroit--Delta's other hubs.

Now, this is partially just due to having family in Delta-inconvenient places, but look at the list of major United hubs: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Chicago, Houston, Dulles, and Newark. [JF note: And don't forget its international connections through Seattle.] Newark is probably the least-awesome of these, but United has hubs in the 4 largest American cities, two of the richest metropolitan areas that are also hubs of technology and government, and the largest city in the middle of the Mississippi and the Pacific. It's hard to beat, and the odds of United having the most (and most direct) options for a wide range of long-distance flights seems quite high for a quite large fraction of Americans, and especially for Americans in wealthy and travel-heavy metropolitan regions.

As to the customer service angle: if your business has a particular advantage that induces a great number of customers to default to it, then skimping on customer service won't cost you much, and investing in it won't gain you as much. I'm not sure how plausible this is as the fully story, but it seems plausibly part of it.<<

This post does describe my situation as a customer. The places I have mainly wanted to go over the past decades-- DC, SF, LA, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, and via the West Coast to China or Japan or Australia -- are exactly the routes United specializes in. So I end up with millions of miles and super-elite status, but also with a sense that the airline knows that no matter what I will generally end up traveling with them.

Next, from the passenger who lodged the original "Bartleby the Scrivener Goes Airborne" report last week, and who was criticized by many other readers:

>>I must have been unclear in my note to you. My wife and I had booked our seats in January, and we were seated together. We checked in two hours before the flight and got our boarding passes, for our seats - together. They split us up as we were walking on the plane. I guess the comments show how far we have come in ceding control of our travel experience that the readers felt that *I* was the one being unreasonable.

On our return flight to Houston, the service on the plane reflects the "don't bother me" attitude that I usually see on United.

As you know, they pass out small bottles of water in business class, and the seats even had a little indentation to hold them. Both my wife and I were sleeping when these were passed out. After we woke up, my wife asked if the water had been distributed. Yes, she was told, but they "ran out" so we wouldn't get any. Another FA overheard, and said that wasn't the case, walked away and brought us our water.

Later in the flight, my wife asked for some sparkling water from the first FA. She said they "ran out" of sparkling water as well.

You will not be surprised when we did not believe her.<<

For compare-and-contrast purposes, a reader in Juneau describes another airline's approach. His account matches my own, more limited expertience with Alaska Airlines:

>>Just read your blog about lousy treatment by airline staff and I have to stand up for Alaska Airlines outstanding flight attendants and staff.

Having flown on many other airlines, no one else I have flown with has such courteous, customer-oriented staff, (with the possible exception of my experience on Air France). Even when there was tension over contract negotiations, attendants never let their frustrations affect their service to passengers. I can grouse about management of Alaska Air, and hate getting stuck on Delta when making connections now that they are partners, but pilots and employees of Alaska Air are The Best and merit not getting lumped together with United or Delta.<<

A stroll down memory lane. Another reader reminds us of the conditions that may have produced today's workforce attitude at UAL:

>>I'd been a lifelong United fan. Not just a flyer, but a proud shareholder back to the days of three shares bought with teenage summer job earnings (actual paper shares! was ever there such a thing?). For me, a Chicagoan, they were the home team, always buying and flying Boeing's latest and greatest. Delta may have been the grand old dame, but United was the courteous valet.

Then came the bankruptcy. Not ever a good thing, but there are ways to go about it that are less bad. To those of us who were paying attention, it had become the most likely outcome a few years prior when the board capitulated to the pilots union.

I was in the Red Carpet Room at DIA the day of the filing. Went up to the desk for help with changing plans. There was weather (when isn't there?) making for system-wide complications, so figuring things out took some time. And talent, which I was lucky enough to have found with the 23-year-service employee I had helping me. As he keyed, we talked, and I learned about his wife, cabin crew with 28-years under her belt. 51 years of service between the two of them. The filing came up (how could it not?), and the tears in his eyes told me everything I needed to know: any modern corporation willing to shred that kind of loyalty on the inside wasn't likely to bat an eye when it got around to "rationalizing" customer relations.

Not long after, made the switch to American. Not always a good thing, but certainly less bad.<<

Now, the passenger report. I know the real names of the family, in Baltimore, lodging the complaint below. For now I am not using their names, although on my inquiry they said they would be willing to be identified if necessary. I am also not naming the specific pilot they refer to in their complaint, though I have found his name and particulars in various United rosters. For the time being the point is the general "this is how we live now" observation. Here goes:

>>We trust you will find the following narrative interesting and relevant to your frequent essays on air travel in general, and United in particular.

On February 2, 2013 we travelled with our two young boys (4 and 8 years old) aboard United 638 from Denver to Baltimore's BWI airport. The inflight entertainment was the movie Alex Cross, which United's own inflight magazine rated as 'T', or, "Adult Themes". It includes extreme, graphic violence and sexually explicit content. On our plane, an A320, the movie was projected on drop-down screens above the seats, such that we could not shield our young children from this inappropriate content. Alarmed by the opening scenes, we asked two flight attendants if they could turn off the monitor; both claimed it was not possible.

The first flight attendant also claimed that the screen could not be folded up independently (which it clearly could) and that even if it could, she would still not authorize closing it because of the passengers sitting behind us. At this point, the passengers behind us spoke up and agreed the content was inappropriate for children and announced it would not bother them at all to switch it off. Both flight attendants, and later the purser, claimed that they have no authority or ability to change or turn off the movie. The purser did, however, agree with us, as did many more of the passengers around us, that it is patently inappropriate to expose children to such content.

We asked if the captain has the authority to address this issue, but received no response. A few minutes later we asked for the captain's name (I failed to make note when he welcomed us on the PA system), and was told, by the purser, that we will have to ask him ourselves when we disembark.

Throughout these interactions the atmosphere was collegial, no voices were raised and no threats, implicit or explicit, of any kind were made. The flight continued without incident, while my wife and I engaged our children to divert their attention from the horrific scenes on the movie screens.

More than an hour later the captain, [name withheld for now], announced that due to "security concerns", our flight was being diverted to Chicago's ORD. Although this sounded ominous, all passengers, us included, were calm. After landing a Chicago police officer boarded the plane and, to our disbelief, approached us and asked that we collect our belongings, and follow her to disembark. The captain, apparently, felt that our complaint constituted grave danger to the aircraft, crew and the other passengers, and that this danger justified inconveniencing his crew, a few of whom "timed out" during the diversion, and a full plane of your customers, causing dozens of them to miss their connections, wasting time, precious jet fuel, and adding to United's carbon footprint. Not to mention unnecessarily involving several of Chicago's finest, two Border Protection officers and several United and ORD managers, and an FBI agent, who all met us at the gate. After we were interviewed (for less than 5 minutes), our identities and backgrounds checked, we were booked on the next flight to BWI, and had to linger in the terminal for hours with our exhausted and terrified little boys.

Everyone involved: The FBI agent, the police officers, United employees, the passengers around us and (we were told) some of the crew, were incredulous, and explicit in their condemnation of Captain [XX]'s actions. However, even United's Area Supervisor, although cordial and helpful, was powerless to override the Captain's decision that we be removed from the plane.

To us, this incident raises two grave issues. First, the abuse of power by Captain [XX]. We understand that airline captains can and should have complete authority. However, when this authority is used for senseless, vindictive acts, it must be addressed.

Second, and of even greater concern is United's decision to inflict upon minors grossly inappropriate cinematic content, without parents or guardians having the ability to opt out. Had this been in a cinema or a restaurant, we would have simply left if the content were too violent, or too sexual, for a preschooler and a 2nd grader. Cruising at 30,000 feet, leaving was not an option.

To this date, our appeals to United to address these issues remain unanswered. We wrote to their Customer Service, and directly to their CEO, but received no responses.<<

More to come. Update I have asked United's press operation about this episode and will report back if I hear from them.

Easter Egg Roll Rorschach Test: Obama Reading to Kids

Politics Apr 1 2013, 3:45 PM ET

Here's a quick and easy way to tell people's political orientation without going into all these tiresome "sequester"-type details. Have them watch a little bit of this video, shot earlier today at the White House Easter Egg Roll, and see if they find it charming and relatable, or instead maddening and show-off-y. I bet there is a very close correlation between those reactions and the presidential vote last year and general Republican/Democratic sympathies. That is all. Source here.

Two Appreciations: Neal Conan, Timothy Noah

National Apr 1 2013, 2:51 PM ET

The journalism world is a scene of unending flux, but I was particularly sorry to hear of upheaval that affects two of my DC-based colleagues, Neal Conan and Timothy Noah.

For the past 11-plus years, Neal Conan has been the urbane, omni-informed, unflappable, approachable host of NPR's show Talk of the Nation. The TOTN program had been running for a decade before that, with a range of skilled hosts including John Hockenberry (now of The Takeaway) and Ray Suarez (now of the PBS NewsHour). But Conan really made the show his own through what turns out to be its final run. NPR announced last week that it would replace the show with "Here and Now," out of WBUR in Boston. I like that show a lot too, but it is worth noting how good a job, and over a sustained period, Conan and his team have done. My thanks to them -- for the handful of times I was on the show as a guest, and the many many times I enjoyed it as a listener.

Since 2011, Timothy Noah has written the TRB column at the New Republic. Before that he was a stalwart at Slate, the Wall Street Journal, the NYT, and at US News when I worked there (and when we became good friends). Last year he published an excellent book, The Great Divergence, on attempts to explain -- and offset -- the ever-growing economic polarization that underlies our other political problems. Last week he learned that his column no longer "fit" the emerging direction of the New Republic under its new owner. You can get a look at his final TRB column here. It is a typically clear-headed essay that explains why one fast-spreading political catch-phrase, the idea that "welfare" costs are driving everything else in federal spending, is wrong.

Another part of the endless-flux, itinerant-labor nature of the journalistic life is that people find new outlets for their work. I look forward to that stage for both Conan and Noah, so as to keep hearing and reading their interpretations of what matters in the world. (Photo sources: Conan, Noah.)

Easter Weekend Special: A Reason to Worry Less About the North Korean Threat

Global Apr 1 2013, 12:22 AM ET

Many world news agencies carried this wonderful map, via NKNews.org, of the strike plan Kim Jong Un is preparing so as to make good on his threat to engulf U.S. cities like Austin and Washington D.C. in "a sea of fire." Note the paths shown for missile-strike assaults on North American cities.

A natural-sciences professor at an East Coast university sent me this note just now:

>>Take a close look at the North Korea war room photos. The maps showing the ballistic missile trajectories use a flat earth projection- straight in over the Pacific Ocean. I haven't seen comment on this.<<

Indeed! Here is what the actual path for a missile going from Pyongyang (or thereabouts) to Austin would look like, courtesy of the wonderful Great Circle Mapper site. "FNJ" is the code for the airport in Pyongyang -- there is one.

And the path from Pyongyang to downtown Washington is so different from a straight-line trans-Pacific route that Great Circle Mapper has to show it from a polar perspective:

This doesn't mean there's no reason to worry about current tensions on the Korean peninsula. But it might mean that Kim Jong Un has some "Hey, wait a minute... " questions to ask his strategic planners. Or perhaps he should buy them a globe. I should probably add that I didn't manage to get this posted before March 31 had ended and April 1 began, but it very definitely is not an April Fool's Day item. The straight-line map was real. Or "real."

To see this item in "classic" view, as I very much recommend you do, please click here.

UPDATE BuzzFeed has essentially re-done this item, with a tiny "h/t The Atlantic" note, this morning. Maybe it's their April Fool's Day entry.

A Note on Formatting, Plus More on Bartleby of the Skies

National Mar 30 2013, 5:18 PM ET

As mentioned earlier this week, the Atlantic has introduced a new layout for its online "article pages." You get the new look if you click on any headline for a specific post or article, including the link in the previous sentence. For now you can see the old look if you click on names in what was previously the "Voices" column -- for instance, Alexis Madrigal's or Ta-Nehisi Coates's, or Derek Thompson's, mine, etc.

The new look has bigger fonts, more white space between lines ("leading"), wider margins on each side of the screen, and a narrower column of item-text in the middle. Together these changes mean that you see fewer words per line of text; fewer lines of text per viewable screen; and thus (fewer words x fewer lines) many fewer words on the screen at a time. The changes are meant to make any given passage of text seem more approachable and less encyclopedia-looking. Also, moving the author-bios from the top to the bottom of each post makes more space for words or pictures in the very first screenful. [Note: these old/new changes are much more apparent on desktop or laptop web-browser versions, rather than on mobile devices.]

The changes have two other effects I've been thinking about.

One, it seems, is to reduce the visual cueing as to what is "normal" text and what is a quoted or excerpted passage. Two days ago, I quoted a long note from a reader (in the "Bartleby the Scrivener Joins the Air Marshals" item). The overwhelming majority of people who wrote back to me missed the fact that it was a quote, rather than a story I was telling about myself. Ideally, excerpts would always stand out because of their background shading and indented margins. But enough people are now missing the cues to make me think I should add new signals. Rather, I should return to a signaling system I used before a previous redesign, when the same problem kept cropping up -- and people thought I was speaking for myself when I was quoting Dick Cheney, etc.

Thus, from now on I will signal the beginning and end of excerpted passages with double marks like this: >> and <<. ~~And, to err on the side of clarity, I'll mark each new paragraph within an except with its own single > mark.~~ [Nah, on reflection that would be overkill.] I can work out a macro to handle this, and it's better than the risk of confusion. For instance, a reader writes about the new formatting:

>> I think confusion about who is speaking in your blog entries [may]... result from continuing formatting imperfections. There may also be some difference in the clarity of formatting between the version that arrives via RSS feed and the version one sees when one gets to it by clicking on the link.

In any event, despite some improvements, it is still not always possible to tell with immediate certainty whose words one is reading. Most often, in my case, it is the boundary between your words and those you are quoting that sometime seems unclear. <<

And on the other hand, another reader writes:

>>I too thought the "Bartleby" story was about you and your wife. Looking at it again, you clearly introduced it as sent in by a reader, and it was offset in grey as well (I of course trust implicitly that you haven't subsequently edited in those elements).

I can't begin to comprehend why I and so many other people misread it that way; it's a fascinating little accidental psych experiment you happened to conduct there.<<

The other effect of the new-look presentation may be to make individual paragraphs seem more approachable -- but to make medium-length-or-longer posts seem less so, since it now takes many more screen-scrolls to get through them. I'll try to use this as discipline to make things shorter, more often -- and also to provide a link and reminder on longer posts to "Try reading this one in 'Classic' view."

OK, now for some closing info that bridges the purely procedural and the at-least-semi-substantive, here is one of the (several hundred!) replies that have arrived on the Bartleby-of-the-air question. I've set it off with the new coding. And you could consider looking at this in Classic view. A reader writes:

>>You must have been distracted by so many people mistaking you for your original correspondent, but the responses suggest a staggering inability to read.

The original report was clear. Your correspondent arrived early to the airport and had book the two seats, "but we checked in about two hours before the flight, and received our tickets. Two seats in the middle of the plane (I like that because in business the configuration is 2-2-2, and either of us can get up without disturbing the other) as we had booked."

I am more mystified by the responses,

1) "I get your desire to be together, but why should that trump the desire of someone else to sit where he selected? Would it have been nice? Sure. But it was still his choice. Not one that you are entitled to make for him." [JF note: these quoted passages are from a previous reader.] The alleged air marshall didn't reserve that seat, they did. A reservation is an entitlement.

2) "I like to get there early to get the seat I want, not only on an airplane, but a tour bus, or sightseeing excursion, or a table or stool at a bar. You'd be surprised at how often I am asked to inconvenience myself and move to a less desirable seat in order to accommodate some guy who wants to sit by his wife or vice versa. Sometimes I don't mind. But a lot of times it is a great inconvenience to have to hoist up all the bags et cetera just to accommodate some guy or his wife who may have come in late and feels entitled to preempt any lower person who is traveling alone." Agreed. The couple had a reservation and had arrived early. They in exactly the position of this female traveller. They are being asked to sit somewhere else for his convenience.

3) "But I always do so understanding that I'm asking a favor, and if they "prefer not to" -- for whatever reason, or for no reason at all -- then to me, that's that. In my view, no one has any social obligation to trade seats." Exactly. The air marshall was not asking, but demanding a favor from them.

I could go on, but I think that those responding to the original article either are not reading the details correctly, or they are just being too obsequious to the air marshall and the airlines some-people-we-just-can't-move security theater.<<

And, from another reader:

>>I think the emails you posted yesterday miss the mark in a couple of ways.

1)The man and his wife purchased seats together, confirmed they were sitting together, and only didn't know the wouldn't be sitting together until they boarded the plan. It's only at that point did they try to shuffle the seating in the cabin. It's not like the had separate seats and started badgering other passengers so they could sit together.

2) While I certainly empathize with the woman who feels the pressure from the tyranny of couples, her shrill response misses a key point. People (mates, friends, spouses, business companions) who travel together do so mostly because they want to be TOGETHER.These folks are trying to have a shared experience, and I think it's fair to ask a single traveler to move if there are other single seats available.. Single travelers certainly have the right to sit where they want, but understanding and empathy go a long way.<<

And why not, one more. Another reader writes:

>>First on air marshals:

[My wife] and I heading to Seattle from PHL. Big Birthday trip. Booked months in advance. Paid up for first class. Selected good seats. She hates to fly. Sitting together helps with her fears. They are real to her.

We are boarding the plane, and we are pulled aside. "we are sorry but your seats have been reassigned and we have selected other seats for you". They weren't together. I raised quite a fuss. USair. They 'found' seats together.

The marshals slept the whole way back. WTF. They were off duty. No follow up questioning was replied to.

Second:

I travel for work: (GA 250 hrs+; 700 mile legs and less) and USairways 50k miles per year (long haul). Almost every trip is for 'work' Why is it that when I am going to work I have to make way (while in the TSA line) for those who work at the airport/airlines? Frustrates the shit out of me (and most everyone around me). We are all going to work. As my kids emote: "just sayin".

P.S. TSA Pre-check is wonderful, but when they randomly force you through the regular lines it costs 30 mins. So much for 'planned' time saving.<<

More to come.

People. Who. Prefer. Not. To. Be. Moved. (Cont.)

National Mar 29 2013, 4:30 PM ET

Yesterday I relayed the story of an airline passenger who asked a fellow business-class traveler to switch seats, so that the first passenger could be next to his wife (as he'd originally been booked) on a long international flight. The person he asked declined to move and turned out to be an air marshal. Reactions:

1) Please read these items more carefully! A reader writes, addressing me:

Interesting that both you and your wife seem to feel entitled to make someone else move to accommodate your needs.

I get your desire to be together, but why should that trump the desire of someone else to sit where he selected? Would it have been nice? Sure. But it was still his choice. Not one that you are entitled to make for him.

There are all sorts of reasons why people select the seats they do.

In response to this and a slew of other similar messages: I was not reporting my own experience. I was quoting someone else. Here's the line that would have been the giveaway, for those familiar with the realities of modern journalism: "We both had business class seats. Mine, because I paid for them (well, the company did) ..." Just for the record.

2) Why one might "prefer" not to move. A female reader -- as you'll see, there is a reason I mention her gender -- writes:

May I give you another perspective on the travel seat merry-go-round, having nothing to do with *those* passengers that they just. can't. move.

I am a single traveler. Like you [JF tip: see note #1], I like to get there early to get the seat I want, not only on an airplane, but a tour bus, or sightseeing excursion, or a table or stool at a bar. You'd be surprised at how often I am asked to inconvenience myself and move to a less desirable seat in order to accommodate some guy who wants to sit by his wife or vice versa. Sometimes I don't mind. But a lot of times it is a great inconvenience to have to hoist up all the bags et cetera just to accommodate some guy or his wife who may have come in late and feels entitled to preempt any lower person who is traveling alone.

Yes, I really got the evil eye that time I got early to the Hell's Canyon Jet Boat tour and scored the front window seat right behind the driver. Some older guy plopped himself down on the aisle seat next to me and asked me to relocate so his wife could sit with him. No, I politely declined. He went and got the tour operator to ask me to move. No, I prefer not to. Evil eye and a lot of harrumphing ensued. He could have, of course, chosen a seat farther back which had an open row if he just HAD to sit by his wife. But he thought he was entitled to claim his seat and then my seat and make me move.

Or, how many times have I been shuffled off to the little tiny table right by the kitchen as a woman eating alone. Or be asked to move myself and my drink down to the end of the bar to accommodate some lady who was late meeting the husband when the bar, where I might have been sitting for several drinks, was now full. No. I prefer not to.

What? Are these people joined at the hip that they have to sit right next to the wife everywhere they go? They can't separate themselves for two or three hours sitting on a plane? If so, some advance planning might be in order.

Like I said, a lot of times I don't mind moving to accommodate someone when asked. But yes, sometimes it is an imposition and an inconvenience. Please think about that. What makes me less willing to accommodate people like that is getting called asshole with a lot of evil eye and harrumphing. Which happens a lot, not only by the aggrieved party, but by the staff, who invariably take the aggrieved couple's side.

Please know that you are inconveniencing someone when you ask them to move. Maybe it doesn't happen as much to you as a man when you travel, but women put up with this kind of crap everywhere they go, as though we are lesser human beings.

3) One more in this vein. Another representative note:

The air marshal issue -- which was an interesting twist, I admit it didn't occur to me until revealed -- aside, I'm wondering if any other of your readers were as appalled by your correspondent's behavior as I was. I have certainly asked people to change seats before, and usually they are happy to. But I always do so understanding that I'm asking a favor, and if they "prefer not to" -- for whatever reason, or for no reason at all -- then to me, that's that. In my view, no one has any social obligation to trade seats. It would certainly never remotely occur to me to even ask a second time, much less call them an asshole! Maybe your correspondent has spent so much time in the upper-class sections that he has become just a bit entitled.

4) Similarly:

Interesting air marshal anecdote. I am not too thrilled though of the self-entitlement attitude and action (name calling) exemplified by the reader who submitted the story. We all like to sit together with our spouse, friends or loved ones when we travel, but we must respect the wishes of others if an inconvenience, big or small, is to be put on them. At least that's the way I was taught growing up. I have a friend who has a fear of flying and only does so when it is his last resort; once his travel arrangements are made, i.e. flights are booked, seats are assigned, his wife said he would become notably nervous and antsy if any part of his itinerary is changed. In the context of your anecdote, I can also think of a person not wanting to be moved because he/she has a friend sitting on the other side of the aisle and they couldn't get to sit together either. I usually travel in cattle class and would certainly prefer not to move to the front cabin if my carry-on luggage is in the back.

Somewhat disappointed to read that a person in business class could go from Mr. Polite to Name Calling in no time because he didn't get his way.

5) On the other hand. A reader says:

I'm with you on this one [Ahem! See note #1] . I just don't get it. What's so magical about that seat that the air marshal (assuming you got it right) couldn't move. I could understand that he needs to be in an aisle seat. With a little more stretch I can imagine he even needs to be in the center section of the 2-2-2. With an even greater stretch, I can see that he has to be on the right side aisle because that's his shooting hand or some such fantasy. But he couldn't be one row forward or back? Give me a break.

And as to United - they knew you were a couple traveling together. Why didn't they move the two of you to the row with the empty seat and move the passenger who was originally next to the empty seat next to the air marshal? The answer is pretty obvious - in spite of your very frequent flyer status, they just didn't give a shit. It's that simple.

5A) Also on the other hand. Update message:

I understand that it inconveniences people, sure, but the other day I was on a plane and I politely asked if anyone could move so I could sit by my 8-months pregnant wife. No one would. I get that it's an inconvenience, and I certainly have no right to it, but geez - is that really who we are? Courtesy is by definition an inconvenience.

6) Non-aviation security theater. From another reader:

The story about the passenger who could not be moved, who turned out to be an air marshal, reminds me of my first visit to Catoctin Mountain Park soon after i moved to Maryland. I was going for a day hike, and had done my homework and picked out the trail I wanted to take. I drove to the visitor center and asked for directions to the trail head. The staff very nicely told me that I couldn't do that hike, as that trail was closed that day.

This surprised me. I have had trails closed due to rock slides and forest fires and the like, but none of these seemed to apply here. So I asked why it was closed. They very nicely declined to answer the question, but repeated that it was closed. We went around in circles a bit, until it dawned on me that this is where Camp David is, and the President or some other important person was there that day. I asked if this was the case, and they very nicely refused to answer this while nodding. So I hiked a different trail.

I had always known that Camp David was in Maryland, but never thought about exactly where. The silly thing is that I also had a topographical map of the area. Once I knew what to look for, it was immediately obvious that the oddly shaped blank area was Camp David. Once I got home I checked it out on Google Maps satellite view, and there it was, perfectly obvious.

The moral I take away from this is that there is a lot of theatrical faux secrecy out there. Like the air marshal, the idea that this is an actual secret is BS. There are ample clues for anyone to figure it out, and once they suss out the secret it is easily confirmed. I imagine that the government agencies involved are happier imagining it is a genuine secret, while the low-level employees enjoy the thrill of being in on it, but they also enjoy showing random passersby that they are in on it, which rather removes any actual secrecy. But everyone has a good time.

7) Segueing to United. I am going to think carefully about how to explain my evolving theory of United Airlines -- on which I have millions upon millions of accumulated miles, and super-elite status that makes it foolish not to go on United when I have a choice, but on which I still am regularly amazed by the "not my job / not my problem / I don't really like working here so leave me alone as I try to get through this shift" culture that radiates from employees to customers. I'll ease into it by a contrasting account about another airline. A reader in the tech industry writes:

Apropos of your coming blog series of the woes of the United traveller:

I'm in the American camp. After 9/11, it became imperative to have elite status on some US airline if only to save hours of waiting in line. At that moment, I happened to have some status on American, and I've been in their orbit since. (I'm not a huge traveller, alas, but do manage to edge over the lowest elite-status bar each year. If I don't stick to one network, though, I'd lose my status.)

Now, all the US carrier have fairly poor service reputations, travel is inherently frustrating, and there's not very much an airline can do to make a trip memorably good while all sorts of things can make it memorably terrible. This makes customer-facing jobs in airlines especially tricky. Actually doing special services for passengers disrupts your work ands risks annoying everyone, yet the essence of service is that special, unexpected thing the passenger wants or needs.

To make it worse: the TSA ensures that most flights start with barrage of tedious annoyances. The airline can't do much about that. (If I were them, I'd be tempted to experiment with strolling entertainers or standup comics -- anything to make it less horrible. But that might not square with security theater.)

You would think that American -- with financial trouble, labor trouble, and trouble digesting the remains of TWA -- would suffer from especially serious service problems in recent years. If you're a customer-facing veteran and you're not sure that the airline will be there next year, or that you'll be there, or that your boss will be your boss, it's tempting to stop caring and to cut corners. And yes, you see this sometimes.

But I've also seen indications that people care -- that they sometimes care more than they should. A couple of years ago, my wife and I and boarded in coach and were happy enough. Then -- good news! -- there were seats in business class for us! So we moved. But then the no-show couple arrived. We prepared to pack up and return to our old seats, but were told to hold on. The flight attendant and the gate agent discussed, and discussed some more, and eventually got into a real rhubarb over the question of who should get these seats. It was spectacular. And it was odd, too, because neither had a stake here. Someone would sit in each pair of seats; it wasn't going to make a difference in anyone's work load. We hadn't made any fuss at all, nor had the other couple, so there was no fear of a disgruntled, angry customer. The plane would be out of the gate agent's hair in seconds, the flight would be over in a couple of hours. It was a pure debate on user experience; is it better to disappoint someone whose expectations you raised, or to deprive someone of an upgrade because they arrived late?

On the whole, I've been impressed with the operation. There's lots that people can do better, but it's not half bad.

We all recognize that in modern airline culture, not half bad is fairly high praise. More to come.

Paying the Costs of Iraq, for Decades to Come

Politics Mar 29 2013, 2:55 AM ET

A little over 10 years ago, George W. Bush fired his economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for saying that the total cost of invading Iraq might come to as much as $200 billion. Bush instead stood by such advisers as Paul Wolfowitz, who said that the invasion would be largely "self-financing" via Iraq's oil, and Andrew Natsios, who told an incredulous Ted Koppel that the war's total cost to the American taxpayer would be no more than $1.7 billion.

As it turns out, Lawrence Lindsey's estimate was indeed off -- by a factor of 10 or more, on the low side. A new research paper by Linda Bilmes, of the Kennedy School at Harvard, begins this way:

The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history -- totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion.

The most powerful and disturbing part of Bilmes's analysis is the explanation of why, even though American combat deaths and military exposure in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming to their ends, covering the costs has just begun. In the introduction she says:

One of the most significant challenges to future US national security policy will not originate from any external threat. Rather it is simply coping with the legacy of the conflicts we have already fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As the paper lays out, a surprisingly large fraction of the long-term costs comes from the disability payments and medical obligations to people who served. People who were 18 or 20 years old when the war began, and who were injured or disabled (but survived), may need public help until very late in this century. The argument is too detailed to convey fully here, but here is an example:

The majority of these costly measures - including supplementary pay increases, expansion of TRICARE [military health program] subsidies, upgrades to the VA system and increases in eligibility for veterans benefits - were adopted, at least in part, because the US was facing the first big test of the all-volunteer force (AVF). The AVF depends on pipeline of recruits, and research has shown that the recruiting pool to the AVF is sensitive to economic inducements, including veterans' benefits.

But from a budgetary standpoint, these have been hidden costs of the war, in which cumulatively hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on expanding military health care, pay, recruitment, and service and retirement benefits, without any discussion about how to pay for them. Most of these costs were not covered by war appropriations. And when the topic of pensions is examined in the coming years, it is likely that any reforms that benefit the current generation of veterans will require additional long-term expenditures for the Defense department.

Read it, and reflect on the people who have never been called to account for these and other misjudgments of what launching the invasion would mean.

'Some. Passengers. We. Just. Can't. Move.'

National Mar 28 2013, 3:24 PM ET

One more chronicle of the Way We Live Now. There is no enormous policy point in this reader's account, but it is an interesting look at several interlacing aspects of modern public life. A reader writes:

My wife and I recently had an interesting experience on a flight from Houston to London on United flight 4.

The plane was a 777, (though when I bought the tickets back in January, it was supposed to be a 787) and we both had business class seats. Mine, because I paid for them (well, the company did) and my wife's because we used the SystemWide Upgrades that United provides. (I am a 1K flyer this year, was Global Services last year)

I am always like to get to the airport early, a characteristic that drives my wife a little crazy. But we checked in about two hours before the flight, and received our tickets. Two seats in the middle of the plane (I like that because in business the configuration is 2-2-2, and either of us can get up without disturbing the other) as we had booked. We went up to check e-mail one last time before heading to the gate.

At the designated boarding time, we walked to the gate and waited just a little. (yes, I confess to being sort of a "gate louse") We were in the first group to load, and when we got to the attendant, my wife's ticket beeped three times and they told her that her seat had been reassigned. Still in business class, but now we were not sitting together.

I asked the gate person what was going on, and she said, "Oh, there are some passengers we can't move". I said I would just ask him to swap, and she said OK.

We got to our seats, (row 5, I think) and the fellow was sitting in the seat and had gotten spread out as you do for a long flight.

I asked him politely if he would move, so my wife and I could sit together.

He said, "I would prefer not to"

Like Bartleby the Scrivener!

I asked again, politely, and he replied again: "I would prefer not to"

I got a little hot. I asked him if he was really going to be such an asshole (I am embarrassed by this comment. In all honesty I usually don't talk like that) and he said nothing at all.

I went to the flight attendants, and they were all in a state of confusion. They took our tickets, (not his) and went out of the plane, and said they would take care of it.

I walked back to where my wife had been moved, so I could try and do a "domino move" with her seatmate. My wife stayed in our original row, glaring at this fellow.

A friend happened to be on the same flight, one row in front of us on the starboard side of the plane. He agreed to move, and then I was able to get HIS seat partner (nobody he knew) to move as well.

So we were sitting together again.

My wife, bless her soul, would not give up. She asked the flight attendant again, how could they give up our seat in a 1 ½ hour time period? She replied, "some passengers, we just can't move"

That made no sense, so we asked again, perhaps a little more forcefully. Now she replied (in a very nice tone of voice, by the way) "Listen to me very carefully. Some. Passengers. We. Just. Can't. Move."

Then it hit me.

Air marshal!

I asked and she nodded.

You can imagine that I felt like an idiot.

I kept my eye on this guy, though. Just to make sure he never fell asleep.

Of course, I can't prove that he didn't sleep at all, but at least he was never asleep when I was watching him.

Other than that, it was a peaceful flight.

I am storing up for my Unified Field Theory -- maybe I should say United Field Theory -- on why United Airlines, on which I too now have attained the super-enviable "Global Services" standing, is so consistently unpleasant. That's not really the point of this account, in which the United staff appears to have been trying its best, but I mention it as a segue.(Bartleby illustration from here.)

The Rationale Behind Those 'Caution: Immigrant Crossing' Signs

National Mar 28 2013, 7:32 AM ET

Recently I mentioned a Baja California-brewed "Runaway IPA" whose label cheekily mocked the famous "immigrants crossing" sign on I-5 and other roads just north of the U.S.-Mexican border. A reader in Southern California says that the signs weren't really so preposterous:

I don't want to "harsh your mellow", as Charles Pierce is fond of saying, but having driven that stretch on and off (mostly on) for 15 years commuting to Santa Ana I've seen my share of people darting across the road, almost hitting one. I also saw a man stretched out in the middle of the highway one night coming home from work who appeared dead when I passed by (he was already being attended to). So yes, I laugh at the sign too but it was put there for a serious reason.

Actually, once they built the fence down the middle median most of the pedestrian crossing attempts stopped. I think the major reason for the crossings was when drivers, seeing the Border Patrol checkpoint open ahead, stopped to kick out their passengers. ...

That wasn't the only dangerous behavior I witnessed over the years. Once getting off the Amtrak in Santa Ana, I saw two men standing on the outside ladder rungs between two cars. This was during a period when the Border Patrol would board in Oceanside and check passengers as we headed north.

Offered for the record.

UPDATE Another reader writes in to say:

I agree with your correspondent [above]. I did my grad work at Irvine in the late 80s and then lived in San Diego for a couple of years in the early 90s. I had a good friend in SD so I drove I-5 with some frequency. At this point, I can't say how many deaths there were in that period, but certainly more than a few, and between he possibility for setting off a chain of accidents in reaction to people dashing out into traffic (which I certainly did see more than once) and the trauma of running someone over, even if it's not your fault, the warning was reasonable.

The image, on the other hand, is something I'd like to see explained.

« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 … 206 Next »

More at the Atlantic

Writers

Alexis C. Madrigal
The National Weather Service's Last Pre-Tornado…
1:12 AM ET
James Fallows
The Impossibility of Being Barack Obama
12:29 AM ET
Garance Franke-Ruta
If a Senate Candidate Chops a Watermelon with an…
12:28 AM ET
Derek Thompson
A Marriage Mystery: Why Aren't More Wives…
May 20, 2013
Jeffrey Goldberg
Signing Off
May 20, 2013
Ta-Nehisi Coates
How the Obama Administration Talks to Black…
May 20, 2013
Steve Clemons
McCain's Benghazi Fishing Trip Lands Gregory Hicks
May 8, 2013

The Biggest Story in Photos

Photos of Tornado Damage in Moore, Oklahoma

May 21, 2013

Afghanistan	Air taxi
Airline	Airlines
al-Dura	Appreciations
Archives	Art
Articles	Atlantic Monthly
Atlas Shrugged	Audio
Aviation	Beer
Blind into Baghdad	Boiled-frog
Book List	Books
Brave little USB	Budget
Burma	Campaign 2012
Censorship	China
China Airborne	China Daily
China Menace	China Today
Copenhagen	Crisis of the press
Debates	Design
Disasters	Dispatches
Doing Business in China	Dreaming in Chinese
Drinking	Dylan
Economics	Education
Election 2012	Environment
Ethnicity	Europe
Events	False Equivalence
Featured	Filibuster
Flu	Foxconn
France	Free Flight
Gehry	Glamorous Life
Going to hell	Google
Green	Guest Bloggers
Guns	Health care
Healthcare	Huntsman
Ideas 2009	Ideas 2011
Immigration	Inauguration
India	Indonesia
Interviews	Iran
Iraq	Islamophobia
Japan	Kindle
Language	Law
Libya	Life
Mac	Maps
Mexico	Military
Mormons	Murdoch
Music	NPR
Obama	Obama in Asia
Obesity	Occupy Movement
Occupy Wall Street	Olympics
Pandas	Philippines
Politics	Postcards
Public health	Reader comment
Reviews	Rhetorical devices
RMB	Romney
ROTC	Running
Security Sanity	Security Theater
Self-pity and its discontents	Small Business
Speeches	Sports
Technology	Terrorism/Security
The Press	Tibet
Tiger Jim	TSA
United Airlines	Universities
Values	Video
Vietnam	Violence
Volcano	Walk like an American
Wine	Year end pensee

James Fallows

More at the Atlantic

James Fallows's Archive

Writers

The Biggest Story in Photos

Subscribe Now

SAVE 65%! 10 issues JUST $2.45 PER COPY

Newsletters

From this Author

Categories

James Fallowsfrom the Magazine

ATLANTIC MEDIA

James Fallows
from the Magazine