If Evgeny Morozov worked in a hospital

[Setting: A meeting room at a hospital where a bunch of doctors and tech critic Evgeny Morozov are trying to make sense of a patient who's come in with an unknown condition.]

Doctor: We’re not entirely sure what’s going on here. We can find major systemic issues — concentrated in the sensory and immune systems — but we’re not entirely sure how they’ll manifest themselves. For as long as I’ve worked in medicine, I’d say this will certainly be the most interesting patient we have ever seen.

Evgeny Morozov: A “PATIENT,” you idiot?! How self-absorbed can you be to use such a simple term? The “patient”, as you call him, is a complicated organism made up of hundreds of bones, millions of nerves, billions of cells and trillions of proteins and sugars.

Doctor: Yes. I know. We simply use that term to discuss the situation more efficiently. This patient, if you’ll pardon the term, has exhibited amazing improvements in some biological functions and then some very concerning regressions in others. We’re just trying to get a handle on the problems.

Evgeny Morozov: “PROBLEMS,” you idiot?! Sounds more like you’re hunting around his body with a hammer, looking for nails. Or —  a way to make a buck.

Doctor: The patient came to us. He was asking questions about his rapidly changing health. We’re trying to answer them. For instance, while his vision and memory has vastly improved, his ability to listen has greatly declined. We want to understand if things will stay that way or if his hearing may once again return to normal. If not, however, we will need to figure out the best treatment. We just don’t know what it is.

Evgeny Morozov: “TREATMENT,” you idiot?! You think that just because you have identified a so-called problem, we need to have a treatment for it? Maybe it’s okay that he doesn’t hear as well now.

Doctor: Well, some people enjoy listening. We’re also fascinated by the sight and memory improvements. Even if his hearing doesn’t come back, his life could have taken some kind of turn for the better.

Evgeny Morozov: “BETTER,” you idiot?! What does that word even mean? How disingenuous and harmful to make a diagnosis like that — when you don’t even know all the consequences of having better sight and memory.

Doctor: None of us, and no good scientist, would say he “knows.” We’ve done an array of tests — genetics, hormones, blood-sugar, white blood cell counts — and scans — CT, MRI, X-ray — as much as we can do, and have a better sense of what we think will happen. The purpose of this meeting is to start getting a better handle on that answer by parsing through all that data.

Evgeny Morozov: “DATA,” you idiot?! Now, you’re not only hunting for a problem with a hammer, you’re building new hammers! How can you know this “data” will be helpful to your “treatment?” How can you put all your faith in such flimflamery? You purport to be a doctor and yet you make your diagnosis based on all sorts of unproven theories.

Doctor: We acknowledge that this is an entirely new case. We’re simply using the best tools at our disposal.

Evgeny Morozov: “TOOLS,” you idiot?! Sounds more like you’re putting faith in cheap buzzwords.

Doctor: We’re just trying to have a discussion about the patient. What exactly is your diagnosis?

Evgeny Morozov: …stop solutionism.

Become Simple Minded About Gun Control

This country is filled with insanely complicated issues: taxes, healthcare, defense, trade, climate change, etc. All of them deserve lots and lots of discussion and data because there is no “right” answer on how best to move forward.

A couple issues, however, don’t deserve such treatment. To me, that list consists of gay rights and creationism’s place in our education system. These are not complicated debates. There is nothing to “hear out” or “considerations to make”. Anyone who believes gays don’t deserve the same rights as other humans or believes that a supernatural being created the world 6,000 years ago is just wrong. Like, it really is that simple. They are wrong.

The gun control debate is not as open-and-shut as gay rights and creationism — but it is close. Plenty of folks, including myself, enjoy an afternoon on the shooting range. Others love and, in some cases, depend on hunting. Guns do save lives each year. Even though, in 2009, there were 31 murders that used a gun daily – or, “a Sandy Hook” each day – people do protect their homes and families with guns. Though how often this occurs or actually incited increased violence is not known. (There are a handful of studies on the subject that draw different conclusions.)

But otherwise, we allow people to buy a machine whose only purpose is to kill. Guns don’t do other things. They are made to kill. Bombs are a type of “arms”; wouldn’t it be insane if someone defended their legality?

Gun control advocates should take a page out of the playbook of gun control opponents: simple dogma.

Reset the range of discussion for Biden’s commission. Adam Lanza used two handguns to kill those children and the most promising discussion out of Washington, so far, is a vague reference to banning military grade assault rifles and large bullet holders.

Counter “Don’t take my guns” with “Take all the guns.”

There.

That simple.

Start with that. All of them. The solution will end up somewhere in the middle.* But start with the hardline. And reset that middle of the political negotiations. Be a “gun control extremist”. Entertaining the non sequiturs and nonsense, or spinning wheels trying to vet every bit of nuance to the debate, as we’ve learned, means nothing impactful will ever happen.

It’s not as if the talking points have any mileage or relevancy.

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” By this logic, arsenic and the atomic bomb should be legal too.

“Why aren’t we talking about banning cars, knives and baseball bats?” Cars, knives and baseball bats have other purposes than killing. Guns don’t.

“We don’t know that tighter gun laws will reduce violence!” They have in Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Finland, Spain, Germany and Canada. Let’s take a chance.

“Drugs are illegal and people still do drugs!” By that logic we should not have laws against murder.

“Just arm the teachers!” This only treats a symptom of the–OhMyGodICantFinishMySentenceYouAreFuckingInsane

“We need better mental health programs and regulation of violent video games!” Agreed. But that’s called changing the subject.

“We need to be able to defend ourselves from the government!” The Pentagon spent 664.84 billion dollars in 2011. But seriously, tell me about your assault rifles.

“Firearm deaths are WAY far down the list of causes of death in America!” So is breast cancer. Should we stop searching for a cure?

“But…it’s in the Constitution!” So was slavery.

“Legislation won’t solve the root of the problem!” When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill, it’s not as if suddenly there were no racists. But 50 years later we have a black president. Laws don’t change societies, they shape them. Maybe in another 50, after effective gun legislation, we go 12 months without a school shooting.

—–

—–

(*Say, one single shot rifle allowed per American after a 30 day wait period and background check. Hunters and home defenders keep on keepin’ on.)

Actually, We Should Be Pissed Obama Cried

When I watched President Obama talk about the Connecticut elementary school massacre, I posted to Facebook “Obama is crying at the press conference.”

I wrote it because I was startled to see a president cry. I had never heard of that happening, in history.

But, upon a little reflection, his tears and the rest of his words during the press conference today were actually disappointing — and maybe even infuriating. Because they distracted an opportunity to make a change. I wanted him to be a fucking leader.

The nation is supposed to mourn. The president is supposed to act.

We’d like to say today’s political silence is “for respect”. But respect for who?

The children? They can’t hear you.

The families? They’re not paying attention to you.

Silence starts to look like convenient cover for not dealing with the problem. The best measure of respect for those slain children and their families is doing everything to prevent this from happening again. And that includes starting the conversation while you can still taste the tears.

That is what addressing the nation is for. The president is talking to millions of sad and angry Americans. We elect him to channel those emotions — not mimic them. And he knows that, at least within his party, he has a mandate to change this country’s gun laws.

Condolences and tears — while 100% appropriate — only address the disease’s symptoms. That is not why we voted for him. The great psychology question “Which candidate would you rather have a beer with?” is at play here. The president should be smarter than us, more worldly, calmer, able to talk circles around us — and stronger, emotionally.

That we can’t remember seeing a president cry is not necessarily a historical precedent to celebrate. Thinking back to our stalwart leaders — from Lincoln, to FDR, to Kennedy — it’s just not presidential. Leaders are rocks. There is absolutely nothing wrong with crying, but there’s a time and place for it. (No doubt all of them, rightfully, had very tender moments out of the public eye.)

Imagine if President Obama steps to that pulpit, offers his condolences (which he did) — but then looks into the camera and says that he’s sending a bill to Congress next week. It will clamp down on fire arms. He doesn’t have to mention anything about parties or politics. The bill is about keeping American’s safe. No more looking over our shoulders in malls and schools.

He honors the dead by trying to prevent more of them.

If he does that, will anything happen? Who knows. Does he give up any precious “political capital”? No — the Right already hates him and he’s talking to a bereaved nation. Does it do much needed damage to the NRA and the psychotic gun lobby, and shift the debate in the correct direction? Absolutely.

But now, we’re staring at the prospect of another terrible tragedy passing without action. We’ll sign online petitions; next week, we’ll read profiles on the killer and the victims; we’ll hug our family a little tighter over the holidays. Then we’ll be into the new year and this terrible thing will be one more point on the line. Columbine seems so long ago.

Like most of us today, I let tears flow — in public.

But the president doesn’t get to. Until later, when he closes the door to his bedroom and collapses in Michelle’s arms.

Let’s hope for that fucking leader next week.

The Problem With Broad Editorials That Everyone Reads

As it is known to do, the New Yorks Times recently published an eloquent opinion piece. The topic was “the busy trap”. Those who run around lamenting (bragging) how much they have to do in their cluttered little days, the argument went, are more often than not just dealing with self-imposed schedules and would do themselves a favor if they recognized this and shut up about it and took the proper steps to create some Me Time.

“Busyness serves as a kind of existential reassurance, a hedge against emptiness; obviously your life cannot possibly be silly or trivial or meaningless if you are so busy, completely booked, in demand every hour of the day,” writes Tim Kreider. (He, of course, makes an exception for people with three jobs fighting to make ends meet.)

This is the hammer meeting the nail and categorizing busyness as “a hedge against emptiness” no doubt gave a lot of folks a big fat pause and will make them hesitate before lamenting (bragging) in the future — and perhaps drop a few items from their schedule. It’s a point that probably resonated most on the coasts (and with Times readers) and, predictably, the piece caught fire on the wires, clogging Facebook, Twitter and inboxes, along with drawing hundreds comments on the article itself.

But in a lot of ways, I think that this actually doesn’t foster a healthy discussion, but hijacks it. The opinion pieces that go viral across the demographic matrix, as this piece did, cover the ideas everyone already ponders or discusses. They examine the obvious gears of society. It’s not like he made an argument on the nuances of the capital gains tax. He talked about work-life balance. Fairness, internet addiction, acknowledging death, cell phone etiquette, the beauty of life, all resonate for obvious reasons. When a writer finds the words (and soapbox) we’d always wanted, we want to propagate the message because we feel like we own a little part of the piece. Language — not recognition — had limited our expression and now someone unchained those words.

But how hard is it to see that someone’s — or your own — stress and “busyness” is self-induced? It’s an important topic, but what did we actually learn? Nothing new came to the table. Kreider argues something that any hard-working person knows and feels. He just does so extremely well and under the banner of the New York Times. So we read it and say, “Yes! Thank you, Grey Lady! To the Facebook-mobile!”

The greatest influence on someone is their peers. People change because of a friend’s advice or behavior. But when someone does not want to change their ways — as most of are wont to do — they’ll look for a loophole. And here’s the catch. With other op-eds with embedded personal advice, the next time you point out to a friend that their suffocating schedule is self-imposed, they’ll just roll their eyes and give a retort all too familiar with Times readers:

“Yeah, I read that article too.”

And the discussion ends. Your opinion has been sourced. Because its followed with an implicit,

“So be quiet. It’s not your opinion you’re preaching, it’s some other dude’s (– and I’m going to keep right on with my busy schedule).”

Trying Again: Firing Up Garling Files

Okay.

I’m going to fire up Garling Files again.

[Disclosure: I just had tea that I thought was decaf. It wasn't. There's a chance I'm wasting your time and I'll write a post like this one again in 7 months, apologizing that I broke your heart for not delivering, while you shake your head and mutter, "Didn't even notice, jerkoff."]

Yet I have been wanting to fire this sucker up again. I absolutely love writing for Wired but like any scribe, you start to get a hankering to write 413 words — and then publish those exact 413 words. That said, I’m going to steer clear of tech nitty gritty, unless there’s a bigger picture at play. Plenty of other stuff going on these days.

Also, it’s not going to work like last time where every Friday I have a crisp post or short story for you. The release cadence will change. Let’s just call it “erratic” for now. And unless I’ve got a real head of steam, posts will be shorter.

Alright. Less talk, more walk. You get the picture. See you in a post soon. Or in 7 months.

(PS: I’m also doing this so my most recent post — for the last 9 months — isn’t about Steve Jobs dying anymore.)

Why Wouldn’t We Care As Much If Bill Gates Had Died?

Sadness is probably the most fortified of our emotions. So my point here is not to adjust it in anyone. Like many, I was somewhat surprised by how Steve Jobs’ passing moved me. Yet, considering this country’s current mood towards powerful CEO’s, I did find the general outpouring a little strange. I don’t say this to tear down Steve Jobs, disrespect those who knew him or even make a statement about business ethics. I’m just pointing out that while we’re occupying Wall Street, we’re also holding iPhone vigils.

One of Jobs’ first moves as CEO of Apple (the second time) was to abolish Apple’s charity programs. Even when he died, with a net worth of about $8 billion, he was still known for being tight-fisted. Then COO, now CEO, Tim Cook made over $59 million in 2010 and much of Apple’s senior management makes well over $10 million just in salary. Apple is the world’s richest company that doesn’t deal oil, and I don’t have to tell you that its products are slightly, shall we say, expensive. In any other industry, Apple and Jobs would be skewered for these practices.

To think of it another way, would we have shown such an outpouring for Jeff Bezos of Amazon or even Bill Gates. Obviously not. Bezos founded and navigated Amazon with the same steady ruthless vision everyone loved Jobs for. Gates has impacted – granted, arguably – the modern computing world as much as Jobs. Except image-wise, Gates sat in the front of the classroom, Jobs sat in the back.

In Steve Jobs’ own word’s, his “devices don’t change the world.” Yet Gates has set up one of the largest foundations in history whose stated goal is to do just that. And seems to be. Do we care less about Gates simply because his devices aren’t “cool” – and infuriate us sometimes?

Again, I’m not trying to adjust anyone’s sadness – just put it in perspective. Except for a couple of very touching stories, I honestly couldn’t put my finger on a pulse of the grief other than, “The guy who made my ridiculously slick phone/music player/computer just died.” If Jobs had ridden around the world tossing them out in town squares, this would make a little more sense. But you paid for that sucker. In fact, compared to their competitors, you really paid for that sucker. By most accounts, Jobs “wasn’t in it for the money” and by just eyeballing the guy, I believe that; he didn’t prance around on yachts or buy islands. But Apple shareholders sure were and the sole job of any CEO in America is to increase the company’s stock price. That’s why the board brought him back in. They knew he could do it. Call it vision, call it inspiration, call it dogged determination, Steve Jobs did that job better than any in history. But for all our capitalist leanings, that’s never been a reason to publicly mourn someone.

My first computer was a Apple IIGS. I practically had my first iPod installed in my eardrum. I’m going to get an iPhone 4S. I type this on a MacBook. I love Apple devices and I loved and was awe-struck by the way Jobs methodically changed computing. But yesterday, I finally had to stand back and ask myself whether if perhaps, almost unconsciously, the greatest product Steve Jobs ever marketed was himself.

Garling Files Update

As many of you know, I accepted a full time position at Wired.com last week. (I had been an occasional contributor before.) This was my first week on the job and it’s been great. I can’t internetly discuss what the position will entail yet. But Wired will be expanding into new areas of coverage and I’ll be one of the journalists helping lead that charge. The new site/blog/whatever you want to call it will launch in late September.

In other Garling news, that is way way cooler, I got to interview Joe Montana briefly earlier this week. Click here for that.

If you want to keep tabs on the other sports columns/interviews that I write/record, click here, then click “Become a Fan” next to my name. (You may have to sign up to the site) You’ll get an email each time I publish something.

Garling Files should be back in action next week. If you missed last week’s, click here.