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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>