The Politics & Power blog. Work for you?

-----------------
Michael Hogan
Executive Online Editor
Vanity Fair
http://www.vanityfair.com

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent:	Wednesday, February 18, 2009 09:24 PM Eastern Standard Time
To:	Hogan, Michael
Subject:	Re: Query from Barrett Brown

Okay, I'll have it in to you soon. Under what section will the story be
located on the site?

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Hogan, Michael <Michael_Hogan@condenast.com

wrote:

Not a bad idea. Let's do it that way. Thanks.


-----Original Message-----
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Wed 2/18/2009 7:36 PM
To: Hogan, Michael
Subject: Re: Query from Barrett Brown

Mike-

Sounds good, although if it's only to be 500 words, perhaps it would be
better for me to just cover five of his predictions instead of ten so that
there's enough room for context. Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Michael Hogan
<Michael_Hogan@condenast.com>wrote:

 Hi Barrett,

Sorry for the delay. Can we say 500 words at $250? Due 3/1?

Best,
Mike



On 2/13/09 7:34 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay; do you need anything else from me at this point or should I wait

for

you to get back to me first?

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Hogan, Michael <
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com> wrote:


That's good! Let's finalize tomorrow.

-----Original Message-----
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]<barriticus@gmail.com

%5D>

Sent: Thu 2/12/2009 5:21 PM
To: Hogan, Michael
Subject: Re: Query from Barrett Brown

Perhaps, for instance, Thomas Friedman's Ten Worst Predictions of the

21st

Century?

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>
wrote:

Mike-

Okay, sounds good. But could it be ten of his bad predictions in

general,

and not just of 2003? Several of the most significantly foolish

predictions

are from other years, particularly 2001 and 2002. Let me know what you
think.

Thanks,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Michael Hogan <
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com> wrote:

 Barrett,

What about a shortish piece titled something like Thomas Friedman's

Ten

Worst Predictions from 2003?

Best,
Mike


On 2/11/09 12:04 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Mike-

Thanks for getting back to me. Off the bat, would you be interested in
taking a look at a piece I'm about write on Thomas Friedman and how

he's

emblematic of the failures of American punditry in general? The bulk

of

the

article would be a critique of his 2003 book *Longitudes and

Attitudes*,

which is itself drawn from his NYT columns from 2000 to 2002, and

which

is

filled with a great number of failed predictions, weird

contradictions,

and

vapid observations in general. For instance, he asserts in 2001 that

Putin

will be a great reformer for whom Americans should be "rootin',"

claims

in

2002 that the "bubble" of ethical lapses among corporate

administrators

has

recently burst, claims in the same column that the terrorism "bubble"

has

burst as well, claims in 2003 that the very threat of a U.S. attack on

Iraq

 " has already prompted Hezbollah to be on its best behavior in

Lebanon

(for

fear of being next)," predicts in 2001 that many households will have

dozens

of web addresses for such things as refrigerators by 2005, and claims
several times in 2001 and 2002 that the war in Afghanistan is over,

that

Afghanis do not really object to civilian casualties as long as the

Taliban

is overthrown, and that worries to the contrary constitute

"hand-wringing"

(and in the same column, he worries that the Bush Administration is

not

sufficiently concerned with public relations and asserts that "I have

no

doubt, for now, that the Bush team has a military strategy for winning

a

long war."  In his more recent columns, of course, he criticizes those

who

held the exact opinions that he himself held.

Let me know if this interests you, and if so I'll send it along to you
first. The piece would be moderately humorous along the lines of the

clip I

sent you the other day.

Thanks again,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302




On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Michael Hogan <
Michael_Hogan@condenast.com> wrote:

Hi Barrett,

Nice to hear from you and thanks for sending the clip. By all means,

pitch

away. We occasionally do get to assign stories on a freelance basis.

Best,
Mike



On 2/9/09 12:43 PM, "Barrett Brown" <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, Mike-

I understand that you're currently the online editor of *Vanity Fair*,
and I wanted to get in touch to see if you'd be interesting in

receiving

some queries from me or perhaps have something you'd like to assign.

I'm a Brooklyn-based freelance writer and author, and my work has

appeared

in *National Lampoon*, *Skeptic*, *McSweeney's*, *The Onion A.V.

Club*,

*

Nerve*, and dozens of other publications, including trade, literary,
regional, and policy journals. My first book, *Flock of Dodos: Behind
Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Easter Bunny*, was
released in 2007 to praise from Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School,

Matt

Taibbi of *Rolling Stone*, Cenk Uyger of *Air America Radio, *Bob

Cesca

of *The Huffington Post*, and other sources. I've also served as a
copywriter for outlets like America Online.

I've pasted a recent sample below; it's an article that will be

appearing

in the next issue of *Skeptic*.



Thanks,



Barrett Brown

Brooklyn, NY

512-560-2302



*Adventures in Math and Marriage
*
*by Barrett Brown
*


Does the legalization of gay marriage really contribute to the decline

of

heterosexual marriage? A good portion of our fair republic's cultural
conservatives seem to believe that it does, which is to say that it

probably

doesn't. But perhaps we should check anyway.

"[I]n the Netherlands and places where they have tried to define

marriage

[to include gay couples], what happens is that people just don't get
married," evangelical kingpin James Dobson told a typically credulous

Larry

King in November of 2006. "It's not that the homosexuals are marrying

in

greater numbers," he continued, although obviously homosexuals are

indeed

marrying in greater numbers since that number used to be zero and is

now

something greater than zero, "it's that when you confuse what marriage

is,

young people just don't get married."



If what James Dobson says is true, New Jersey is going to be in huge
trouble, and Massachusetts, which legalized gay marriage in 2004, must
already be. Of course, James Dobson is wrong. But whereas James Dobson
generally contents himself with simply being wrong in his priorities,
sensibilities, instincts, historical perspective, theology, and

manners

-

which is to say, wrong in a mystical, cloudy sort of way - he has here
managed to be wrong in such a blatant sense that his wrongness can be
demonstrated with mathematical exactitude. In fact, we should go ahead

and

do that. It'll be like an adventure - a math adventure.



First, let's prepare our variables. *X *is any country "where they

have

tried to define marriage [to include gay couples]," as Dobson manages

to

term these nations with just a little clarification from us. *Y *is

the

all-important marriage rate among heterosexuals before country *X* has
"tried to define marriage [to include gay couples]," and *Z *is the
all-important and allegedly damning heterosexual marriage rate that

exists

after ten years of gay civil unions. Now, the Dobson Theorem, as we

shall

call it, plainly states that "if *X, *then *Y *must be greater than

*Z.*" Or,

to re-translate it into English, "if a nation allows for civil unions,

the

marriage rate among heterosexuals at the time that this occurs will be
higher than it is ten years later," because the marriage rate among
heterosexuals will of course decline for some reason.



Let us now test this Grand Unified Dobson Theorem, as I re-named it

just

a

second ago when you weren't looking. Now, like most things with

variables,

the Grand Unified Christological Dobson Super-Theorem of Niftiness

(which

needed more pizazz) requires that *X *be substituted for various

things

that meet the parameters of *X -* in this case, northern European
countries. Luckily, Dr. Dobson himself has provided us with some.

During

the

Larry King interview, Dobson mentioned Norway and "other Scandinavian
countries" as fitting the description. We'll also need values to punch

in

for *Y *and *Z.* These may be obtained from all of the countries in
question, which have famously nosy, busy-body governments.



Conveniently enough, these numbers may also be obtained from the

October

26th edition of the *Wall Street Journal *op-ed page. It seems that
William N. Eskridge, Jr., the John A. Garver professor of

jurisprudence

at

Yale University, and Darren Spedale, a New York investment banker, had
recently written a book called *Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse?
What We've Learned From the Evidence*, and had chosen to present the
thrust of their findings in op-ed form.



Denmark, the authors noted, began allowing for gay civil unions in

1989.

Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 10.7
percent. Norway did the same in 1993. Ten years later, the

heterosexual

marriage rate had increased by 12.7 percent. Sweden followed suite in

1995.

Ten years later, the heterosexual marriage rate had increased by 28.7
percent. And these marriages were actually lasting. During the same

time

frame, the divorce rate dropped 13.9 percent in Denmark, 6 percent in
Norway, and 13.7 percent in Sweden.



As the Reader will no doubt have determined at this point, the Dobson
Theorem or whatever it is that we've decided to call it is obviously

bunk,

since it stated that countries which allow gay civil unions will see a
decline in the marriage rate among homosexuals, when in fact the

opposite is

true. But since we've already gone to the trouble of expressing

Dobson's

goofy utterances in the form of a theorem (or rather, since *I've*

gone

to the trouble - you were no help at all), we might as well punch in

these

figures just to make absolutely sure:



*if X, then Y will be greater than Z
*


We punch in Denmark for *X, *Denmark's marriage rate in 1989 (*n*) for

*Y

*, and Denmark's marriage rate in 1999 (n + n(10.7)) for *Z*:



*If Denmark, then n will be greater than n + n(10.7)
*


Well, that's obviously wrong, since *n *is not a greater number than

*n

*plus

any other positive number*.* It is, in fact, a smaller number. If
Denmark's policies reduce marriage, the residents of Denmark have yet

to

realize this and act accordingly.



Where is Dobson getting his information from this time? The culprit in
this case may be *Weekly Standard *and *National Review *gadfly

Stanley

Kurtz, who took issue with Garver and Eskridge's preliminary findings

back

in 2004, before they were published (in fact, Kurtz weirdly dismisses

them

as "unpublished" not once but twice in the course of his article; now

that

they have appeared more formally, Kurtz will no doubt praise them as
"published"). Confronted with statistics indicating that marriage in
Scandinavia is in fine shape, Kurtz instead proclaimed that

"Scandinavian

marriage is now so weak that statistics on marriage and divorce no

longer

mean what they used to."



Brushing aside numbers showing that Danish marriage was up ten percent
from 1990 to 1996, Kurtz countered that "just-released marriage rates

for

2001 show declines in Sweden and Denmark." He failed to note that they

were

down in 2001 for quite a few places, including the United States,

which

of

course had no civil unions anywhere in 2001. And having not yet had

access

to the figures, he couldn't have known that both American and

Scandinavian

rates went back up in 2002. As for Norway, he says, the higher

marriage

rate

"has more to do with the institution's decline than with any

renaissance.

Much of the increase in Norway's marriage rate is driven by older

couples

'catching up.'" It's unclear exactly how old these "older couples" may

be,

but at any rate, Kurtz thinks their marriages simply don't count, and

in

fact constitute a sign of "the institution's decline." So Kurtz's
position is that Norwegian marriage is in decline because not only are
younger people getting married at a higher rate, but older people are

as

well. I don't know what Kurtz's salary is, but I'm sure it would piss

me

off

to find out.



Kurtz also wanted us to take divorce. "Take divorce," Kurtz wrote.

"It's

true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers

looked

better in the nineties. But that's because the pool of married people

has

been shrinking for some time. You can't divorce without first getting
married." This is true. It's also true that Denmark has a much lower

divorce

rate than the United States as a percentage of married couples, a

method

of

calculation that makes the size of the married people pool irrelevant.
Denmark's percentage is 44.5, while the United States is at 54.8.
Incidentally, those numbers come from the Heritage Foundation, which

also

sponsors reports on the danger that gay marriage poses to the

heterosexual

marriage rate.



Still, Kurtz is upset that many Scandinavian children are born out of
wedlock. "About 60 percent of first-born children in Denmark now have
unmarried parents," he says. He doesn't give us the percentage of
second-born children who have unmarried parents, because that

percentage

is

lower and would thus indicate that Scandinavian parents often marry

after

having their first child, as Kurtz himself later notes in the course

of

predicting that this will no longer be the case as gay civil unions

continue

to take their non-existent toll on Scandinavian marriage.



Since the rate by which Scandinavian couples have children before

getting

married has been rising for decades, it's hard to see what this has to

do

with gay marriage - unless, of course, you happen to be Stanley Kurtz.
"Scandinavia's out-of-wedlock birthrates may have risen more rapidly

in

the

seventies, when marriage began its slide. But the push of that rate

past

the

50 percent mark during the nineties was in many ways more disturbing."

Of

course it was more disturbing to Kurtz. By the mid-'90s, the

Scandinavians

had all instituted civil unions, and thus even the clear,

long-established

trajectory of such a trend as premature baby-bearing can be laid at

the

feet

of the homos simply by establishing some arbitrary numerical benchmark

that

was obviously going to be reached anyway, calling this milestone "in

many

ways more disturbing," and hinting that all of this is somehow the

fault

of

the gays. By the same token, I can prove that the establishment of the

*Weekly

Standard* in 1995 has contributed to rampant world population growth.
Sure, that population growth has been increasing steadily for decades,

but

the push of that number past the 6 billion mark in 2000 was "in many

ways

more disturbing" to me for some weird reason that I can't quite pin

down. Of

course, this is faulty reasoning - by virtue of its unparalleled

support

for

the invasion of Iraq, the *Weekly Standard* has actually done its part

to

keep world population down.



Why is Kurtz so disturbed about out-of-wedlock rates? Personally, I

think

it would be preferable for a couple to have a child and then get

married, as

is more often the case in Scandinavia, rather than for a couple to

have

a

child and then get divorced, as is more often the case in the United

States.

Kurtz doesn't seem to feel this way, though, as it isn't convenient to

feel

this way at this particular time. Here are all of these couples, he

tells

us, having babies without first filling out the proper baby-making

paperwork

with the proper federal agencies. What will become of the babies?

Perhaps

they'll all die. Or perhaps they'll continue to outperform their

American

counterparts in math and science, as they've been doing for quite a

while.