Saturday, May 21, 2016

Are You Sure You Want to Unsubscribe From This Relationship?

Please select your reason for unsubscribing:

❏ This is temporary. I’ll be back!
❏ It’s not you; it’s me.
❏ I never signed up for this level of commitment.
❏ I met someone else.

If you chose ANY OF THESE, please explain in as many words as possible:

____________________________________________

____________________________________________.

Would you like to continue to receive calls and texts?

❏ Yes. We are both going to need some time to get closure.
❏ Only on my birthday/other major holidays.
❏ Not from you.
❏ Who is this? New phone.

What about our plans to go to Cabo?

❏ I’m sure as hell not going.
❏ You can still go, if you want to.
❏ I was drunk when we talked about that.

Was quitting smoking not good enough?


❏ No.
❏ It was only a start.
❏ It was never about the smoking, Alan.

Did you block me on Facebook or is there something wrong with my account?


❏ I blocked you.

Can I continue to use your Netflix log-in?

❏ No, that privilege has been revoked.
❏ Wait, I never said you could use my log-in.
❏ Fuck it. All right.

by Nick Bateman and Hallie Bateman, New Yorker |  Read more:
Image: Tim Robberts, Getty

Friday, May 20, 2016

Stevie Wonder

All LinkedIn with Nowhere to Go

In a jobs economy that has become something of a grim joke, nothing seems quite so bleak as the digital job seeker’s all-but-obligatory LinkedIn account. In the decade since the site launched publicly with a mission “to connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful,” the glorified résumé-distribution service has become an essential stop for the professionally dissatisfied masses. The networking site burrows its way into users’ inboxes with updates spinning the gossamer dream of successful and frictionless advancement up the career ladder. Just add one crucial contact who’s only a few degrees removed from you (users are the perpetual Kevin Bacons in this party game), or update your skill set in a more market-friendly fashion, and one of the site’s 187 million or so users will pluck you from a stalled career and offer professional redemption. LinkedIn promises to harness everything that’s great about a digital economy that so far has done more to limit than expand the professional prospects of its user-citizens.

In reality, though, the job seeker tends to experience the insular world of LinkedIn connectivity as an irksome ritual of digital badgering. Instead of facing the prospect of interfacing professionally with a nine-figure user base with a renewed spring in their step, harried victims of economic redundancy are more likely to greet their latest LinkedIn updates with a muttered variation of, “Oh shit, I’d better send out some more résumés.” At which point, they’ll typically mark the noisome email nudge as “read” and relegate it to the trash folder.

Which is why it’s always been a little tough to figure out what LinkedIn is for. The site’s initial appeal was as a sort of self-updating Rolodex—a way to keep track of ex-coworkers and friends-of-friends you met at networking happy hours. There’s the appearance of openness—you can “connect” with anyone!—but when users try to add a professional contact from whom they’re more than one degree removed, a warning pops up. “Connecting to someone on LinkedIn implies that you know them well,” the site chides, as though you’re a stalker in the making. It asks you to indicate how you know this person. Former coworker? Former classmate? Fine. “LinkedIn lets you invite colleagues, classmates, friends and business partners without entering their email addresses,” the site says. “However, recipients can indicate that they don’t know you. If they do, you’ll be asked to enter an email address with each future invitation.”

You can try to lie your way through this firewall by indicating you’ve worked with someone when you haven’t—the equivalent of name-dropping someone you’ve only read about in management magazines. But odds are, you’ll be found out. I’d been confused, for instance, about numerous LinkedIn requests from publicists saying we’d “worked together” at a particular magazine. But when I clicked through to their profiles, I realized why they’d confidently asserted this professional alliance into being: the way to get to the next rung is to pretend you’re already there. If you don’t already know the person you’re trying to meet, you’re pretty much out of luck.

This frenetic networking-by-vague-association has bred a mordant skepticism among some users of the site. Scott Monty, head of social media for the Ford Motor Company, includes a disclaimer in the first line of his LinkedIn bio that, in any other context, would be a hilarious redundancy: “Note: I make connections only with people whom I have met.” It’s an Escher staircase masquerading as a career ladder.

On one level, of course, this world of aspirational business affiliation is nothing new. LinkedIn merely digitizes the core, and frequently cruel, paradox of networking events and conferences. You show up at such gatherings because you want to know more important people in your line of work—but the only people mingling are those who, like you, don’t seem to know anyone important. You just end up talking to the sad sacks you already know. From this crushing realization, the paradoxes multiply on up through the social food chain: those who are at the top of the field are at this event only to entice paying attendees, soak up the speaking fees, and slip out the back door after politely declining the modest swag bag. They’re not standing around on garish hotel ballroom carpet with a plastic cup of cheap chardonnay in one hand and a stack of business cards in the other.

LinkedIn does have some advantages over the sad old world of the perennially striving, sweating minor characters in Glengarry Glen Ross. After all, it doesn’t require a registration fee or travel to a conference center. Sometimes there are recruiters trolling the profiles on the site. It’s a kinder, gentler experience for the underemployed. It distills the emotionally fraught process of collapsing years of professional experience onto a single 8½ x 11 sheet of paper into the seemingly more manageable format of the online questionnaire. In the past year, the site has made the protocols of networking even more rote, allowing users to select from a list of “skills” and, with a few clicks, declare their proficiency. “You can add up to 50 relevant skills and areas of expertise (like ballet, iPhone and global business development),” chirps an infobox on the site.

A century or so ago, critics worried that the rise of scientific management in the industrial workplace would deskill the American worker; now, in the postindustrial order of social-media-enabled employment, skills (or, you know, quasi-skills) multiply while jobs stagnate. Sure, you probably won’t get hired at most places on the basis of your proficiency in ballet—but if you’re so inclined, you can spend some of your ample downtime on LinkedIn endorsing the iPhone skills of select colleagues and acquaintances.

by Ann Friedman, The Baffler |  Read more:
Image: J.D. King

Thursday, May 19, 2016

The Jefferson Bible

[ed. Things to do in retirement. See also: How Thomas Jefferson Created His Own Bible.]

The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the later years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine. (...)

Using a razor and glue, Jefferson cut and pasted his arrangement of selected verses from the King James Version of the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in chronological order, putting together excerpts from one text to those of another in order to create a single narrative. Thus he begins with Luke 2 and Luke 3, then follows with Mark 1 and Matthew 3. He provides a record of which verses he selected and of the order in which he arranged them in his "Table of the Texts from the Evangelists employed in this Narrative and of the order of their arrangement".

Consistent with his naturalistic outlook and intent, most supernatural events are not included in Jefferson's heavily edited compilation. Paul K. Conkin states that "For the teachings of Jesus he concentrated on his milder admonitions (the Sermon on the Mount) and his most memorable parables. What resulted is a reasonably coherent, but at places oddly truncated, biography. If necessary to exclude the miraculous, Jefferson would cut the text even in mid-verse." Historian Edwin Scott Gaustad explains, "If a moral lesson was embedded in a miracle, the lesson survived in Jeffersonian scripture, but the miracle did not. Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor, Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus' role as a great moral teacher, not as ashaman or faith healer."

Therefore, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth begins with an account of Jesus’s birth without references to angels (at that time), genealogy, or prophecy. Miracles, references to the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, and Jesus' resurrection are also absent from his collection.

No supernatural acts of Christ are included at all in this regard, while the few things of a supernatural nature include receiving of the Holy Spirit, angels, Noah's Ark and the Great Flood, the Tribulation, the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, a future kingdom, and eternal life, Heaven, Hell and punishment in everlasting fire, the Devil, and the soldiers falling backwards to the ground in response to Jesus stating, "I am he."

Rejecting the resurrection of Jesus, the work ends with the words: "Now, in the place where He was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus. And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed." These words correspond to the ending of John 19 in the Bible.

Purpose

It is understood by some historians that Jefferson composed it for his own satisfaction, supporting the Christian faith as he saw it. Gaustad states, "The retired President did not produce his small book to shock or offend a somnolent world; he composed it for himself, for his devotion, for his assurance, for a more restful sleep at nights and a more confident greeting of the mornings."

There is no record of this or its successor being for "the Use of the Indians," despite the stated intent of the 1804 version being that purpose. Although the government long supported Christian activity among Indians, and in Notes on the State of Virginia Jefferson supported "a perpetual mission among the Indian tribes," at least in the interest of anthropology, and as President sanctioned financial support for a priest and church for the Kaskaskia Indians, Jefferson did not make these works public. Instead, he acknowledged the existence of The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth to only a few friends, saying that he read it before retiring at night, as he found this project intensely personal and private.

Ainsworth Rand Spofford, Librarian of Congress (1864 –1894) stated: "His original idea was to have the life and teachings of the Saviour, told in similar excerpts, prepared for the Indians, thinking this simple form would suit them best. But, abandoning this, the formal execution of his plan took the shape above described, which was for his individual use. He used the four languages that he might have the texts in them side by side, convenient for comparison. In the book he pasted a map of the ancient world and the Holy Land, with which he studied the New Testament."

Some speculate that the reference to "Indians" in the 1804 title may have been an allusion to Jefferson's Federalist opponents, as he likewise used this indirect tactic against them at least once before, that being in his second inaugural address. Or that he was providing himself a cover story in case this work became public.

Also referring to the 1804 version, Jefferson wrote, "A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."

Jefferson's claim to be a Christian was made in response to those who accused him of being otherwise, due to his unorthodox view of the Bible and conception of Christ. Recognizing his rather unusual views, Jefferson stated in a letter (1819) to Ezra Stiles Ely, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

by Wikipedia |  Read more:
Image: Hugh Talman, Smithsonian Institute

Marc Ribot

Why We Fight About Music

Art isn’t a competition, but one arises nevertheless when two fans on opposite sides of the aisle let loose with the world’s evergreen battle cry: My shit is better than your shit. Music, especially, is filled with warring fanbases trying to assert supremacy. Did anyone really love the Beatles if they didn’t insist, at one point, that they were definitely better than the Rolling Stones? The same goes for Tupac and Biggie, Oasis and Blur, Pavement and the Smashing Pumpkins, and so forth.

It’s always a little silly, this competition: No one can scientifically prove that “Gold Soundz” goes harder than “1979,” and any reasonable person would admit the difference comes down to our individual biases. If you’re the type to sit around and shoot the shit about pop culture, thinking about the those biases is where the fun starts. That's the subject of Steven Hyden's new book, Your Favorite Band Is Killing Me, which traces those biases through 16 music rivalries. When Hyden (formerly of Grantland, The A.V. Club, and yes, Pitchfork) first thought about writing about music rivalries, he knew he didn’t just want to write about music. Starting with the Beatles vs. Stones or Kanye West vs. Taylor Swift was a way to discuss everything, not just whose shit is better.

“Artists often take on characteristics of larger ideas, like how the Cold War was a way for the U.S. and USSR to have a war without actually shooting each other,” he says, over the phone. “Rivalries are a way for people to have arguments about bigger ideas in a fairly harmless form.” Hyden is an effortless writer, and he draws clever connections between artists and cultural phenomena spanning decades. Nirvana and Pearl Jam isn’t just about Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder, for example; it’s about Chris Christie. Neil Young and Lynyrd Skynyrd started a North vs. South conversation that can be read in 2014’s #CancelColbert movement, the White Stripes and Black Keys have just as much to do with male friendship as they do revivalist two-piece blues-rock, and Billy Corgan acted a lot more like Richard Nixon than any Siamese Dream fan would think at first listen.

There’s a lot going on, but the read is illuminating and often hilarious. (Nor does he lapse into the modern, web 3.0 trap of glibly suggesting that this is like that—the web is organically woven, and the bar-room tone is just right.) The book’s breezy style pairs well with the intrinsically low stakes: Hyden is wise enough to know that declaring a winner is pointless (and so the book never does), but smart enough to discuss everything that might come with “winning.” In that regard, it doesn’t matter if he never definitively comes down for one side, because exploring the hypothetical is fun enough.

Pitchfork: What was the first rivalry that you had to include?

Steven Hyden: The first thing I wrote was the White Stripes/Black Keys chapter. You know, it's just sort of funny that the two most famous two-person blues-rock bands ended up in this pissing match in the media. It's inevitable that that happened, in a way. But as I started thinking about it, it really became a way for me to talk about friendship. To me, the dynamic between Jack White and Dan Auerbach just reminded me of the dynamic between a lot of men—when they are trying to relate to each other, and they should be able to relate to each other, and they can't, it turns into this competition. Even if you don't care about the White Stripes and the Black Keys, you can still read this and relate to this thing that a lot of men can relate to, which is the weirdness of talking to other men. That was the first one I had to write about, but certainly there are other rivalries that I had to put in the book, like the Beatles and Stones, and Tupac and Biggie. With those, I was a little reluctant to write about them, because they had been so discussed in so many different places that I wasn't sure if I could come up with anything. But at the same time, when you're writing a rivalries book, if you don't talk about those two rivalries in particular, people are going to throw their book in the garbage immediately.

The Tupac/Biggie chapter is interesting, because you avoid drawing some greater cultural lesson from it. It concludes on a more human note of, “This is a tragic death that didn’t need to happen.”

With those guys, it's the same thing that's happened with Kurt Cobain, where everything that they do in their careers now is viewed as a prelude to their death. When we talk about Kurt Cobain, it's like all the music is just as a precursor to his suicide. It's especially true of that "Unplugged" special; you can't hear that now without thinking about how he died. With Biggie and Tupac, I think the same thing is true. With their music, it seems like it's framed through the prism of how they died, which is unfortunate. I think that probably happens with every iconic musician who died young. But if you can remove that filter and just imagine how Biggie and Tupac’s records would sound like now if they hadn't died, I think the messianic aspects that people project wouldn't necessarily be there. That's always hard to figure out: Does that make the music more resonant because of the backstory? Or does it take something away?

I always wished I could listen to Nirvana without the baggage of Kurt Cobain's death. Nevermind is a really fun record. But there's this sort of gloomy thing that's attached to it now that you can't really shake off, which is too bad. When Montage of Heck came out, I just remember thinking, "I wish I could listen to Nevermind as the record that some people didn't think was as good as Teenage Fanclub's Bandwagonesque," you know what I mean? [Ed. note: Bandwagonesque memorably beat out Nevermind on Spin’s 1991 year-end list.]

But, you know, the narrative of records—that becomes overwhelming even for new records. The reaction to Beyoncé's Lemonade—do people really listen to that as a record? Or is the ginormousness of what Beyoncé is—does that just overwhelm everything that she puts out now? The narrative that gets patched in records—I don't know if that's stronger now than it was before the internet. That's always hard to judge. But with the sheer quantity of media that exists, it really is overwhelming. With the cult of personality that exists around huge pop stars right now, it just creates this centripetal force of discussion that just sucks people in. I just don't know if it's even possible to hear what that record sounds like now. Maybe that record should be reviewed ten years from now by a person who wasn't reading any media at this moment. Maybe they can more accurately assess it than we're capable of in the present time.

by Jeremy Gordon, Pitchfork |  Read more:
Image: uncredited

Bill Clinton’s Big Moment: His Health, His Battle Plan for Trump, and What He’ll Do if Hillary Wins

At 69, Bill Clinton is helping Hillary Clinton run her 2016 presidential campaign with the goal of becoming...what, exactly? A kind of über-veep? A chaotic meddler-in-chief? On the trail and across Washington, already there is whispering and wondering: Who is Bill Clinton these days? And who does he intend to be if he—er, if his wife—wins the White House?

To be an ex-president is to live forever in the past. You write books and build museums to preserve your great moments, to commemorate a time when you led the free world. Crowds still gather and men in dark suits still hover protectively nearby. But mostly these are vestiges. You're a historic figure now, and that makes living in the present—or making the case for the future—a bit tricky. Bill Clinton knows this better than anyone.

On a cool spring morning, the 42nd president, almost 16 years removed from the White House, was standing on the blacktop outside a school in a blighted section of Oakland. It was the third and final day of the annual conference he hosts for college students, a powwow for the world's young thought-leaders-in-training held under the auspices of his Clinton Global Initiative. A few hundred of the students had gathered now to prettify some playgrounds, and Clinton—dressed in the politician's community-service-casual uniform of a blue pullover and stiff jeans—walked among them. Mostly, he posed for pictures. As he did, I watched one especially assertive student wade into the scrum and stride up to the former president.

“Hi, my name's Emma,” she said, and then explained that she had a question about the Middle East. Clinton's smile dimmed a bit, as if he were bracing for something. But Emma, it turned out, wasn't there for a debate—just a photo, albeit of a certain kind. “There's a really cool picture of you standing behind Rabin and Arafat,” she said, referring to the famous shot of Clinton pushing the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to shake on the Oslo Accords in 1993, “and I was wondering, Could my boyfriend and I re-create that picture with you?”

For a moment there, Clinton seemed almost let down, as if, having readied himself to consider the intractable dilemmas of the world, he was reduced to a prop—a wax figure in a historical re-enactment. Quickly, however, his grin returned as they struck the pose. Though Emma and her boyfriend didn't ask for one, he proffered a memory, shoehorned into a joke: “It was a lot harder to convince Rabin and Arafat to shake hands than it was to convince you two.”

Moments later, I approached Clinton with a question of my own—an actual one, about the politics of 2016, about his wife's fight to win his old job. I wanted to know what he made of the kids he was hanging out with that day—and if, considering Hillary's notorious struggles with young voters, he thought they were likely to support her over Bernie Sanders. “I don't know,” he told me, betraying no great affection for the question. “It hasn't occurred to me.”

I offered that most of the students I spoke with were pulling for Sanders. That seemed to goad the former president into an answer, and suddenly a stew of frustrations—about his wife's difficulty reaching young people, about Sanders's attacks on her—seemed to simmer over. “The thing that I believe is that unlike in many places, if we had a debate here, they would listen to both of them,” Clinton told me, his words quick and measured. “Most of these students are here because they believe that the best change comes about when people work together and actually do something. So I think they're much more likely to have their eyes and ears open to everybody and every possibility, which is all I would like for everyone.”

I pressed him about what he meant. Was he angry, I wondered, that people had seemingly long ago made up their minds about Hillary? About him, too? Was that fair? He looked at me, his eyes resolute. “I've already told you enough to read between the lines.”

A few weeks earlier, the good people of Bluffton, South Carolina—their minds open to the Clintons or not—were hustling down to a local gym on a Friday afternoon. A woman in medical scrubs led her little girl by the arm, hurrying her toward the doors before the space grew too crowded. They were there, the mother explained to her daughter, who had been dressed in her Sunday best, to glimpse a piece of “living history.”

Inside, the space was festooned with VOTE FOR HILLARY signs, but candidate Clinton would not be in attendance. It was late February, the day before South Carolina's Democratic primary, and her time was better spent elsewhere in the state, in bigger cities with more voters and greater numbers of TV cameras. Instead, the piece of living history that a few hundred of Bluffton's 15,000 citizens had come to see was her husband, the former president of the United States, who now was ambling to the podium.

People craned their necks and held their phones aloft, and Bill Clinton leaned into the microphone. But when he opened his mouth, words failed to tumble forth. Rather, his vocal cords produced a shivers-inducing rattle. He gathered himself. “I apologize for being hoarse,” he finally croaked. “I have lost my voice in the service of my candidate.”

That seemed the least of his maladies. Up close, his appearance was a shock. The imposing frame had shrunk, so that his blue blazer slipped from his shoulders, as if from a dry cleaner's hanger, and the collar of his shirt was like a loose shoelace around his neck. His hair, which long ago had gone white, was now as thin and downy as a gosling's feathers, and his eyes, no longer cornflower blue but now a dull gray, were anchored by bags so dark it looked like he'd been in a fight. He is not a young man anymore—he'll turn 70 in August—but on this afternoon, he looked ancient.

This is Bill Clinton, on the stump circa 2016. The extravagant, manic, globe-trotting nature of a post-presidency lived large—the $500,000 speeches, the trips aboard his billionaire buddies' private planes to his foundation's medical clinics across Africa—has given way to a more quotidian life spent trying to get his wife into the White House. And this time around, more so than in 2008, Clinton is cast in what even he regards as a supporting role. “He's able to go campaign in the places that, because of the schedule and the pressures on her, she can't get to,” John Podesta, Hillary's campaign chairman, told me.

And so Clinton travels to places like Bluffton on small, chartered planes—or takes the occasional commercial flight (albeit in first class with an aide always booked next to him to avoid chatty seatmates). More often than not, the ex-president finds himself staying in hotels with nothing resembling a presidential suite; he typically overnights in Holiday Inn Expresses and Quality Inns. His aides say he's the least prissy member of his small traveling party—caring only that his shower has good water pressure and that the TV has premium cable so that he might watch San Andreas or one of the Fast & Furious movies before he drifts off to sleep. When he wakes, he often makes coffee for himself in his room.

Of course, he still turns out crowds—especially in these hamlets unaccustomed to political royalty. But on that day in Bluffton, as Clinton began to talk, there wasn't much of the old oratorical genius on display. He recalled his college roommate, a Marine who had been stationed nearby; but what seemed like a quick geographical touch point soon spun into a rambling tale about the man's sister-in-law, who had a disabled daughter who now lives in Virginia. “I watched her grow up,” Clinton told the puzzled crowd. His attempts at eloquence—“We don't need to build walls; we need to build ladders of opportunity”—weren't his best, and when he delved into politically relevant topics, like terrorism, he sounded less like a man who used to receive daily intelligence briefings than like an elderly relative at the holiday table. “The people who did San Bernardino,” Clinton explained, “were converted over the social media.” All the while, his hands—those (with apologies to Donald Trump) truly giant instruments that he once used to punctuate his points—now shook with a tremor that he could control only by shoving them into his pants pockets or gripping the lectern as if riding a roller coaster. For more than half an hour, Clinton went on like this, losing more of the crowd's attention as each minute passed, until a few people actually got up from their chairs and tiptoed toward the exits.

Then a young man abruptly stood up, not to leave but to make his own speech. He wore a dark suit and sported a high-and-tight haircut, and, interrupting Clinton mid-sentence, he told the president that he was a Marine, “just like your college friend.” With that, the man began a lecture about buddies lost in Iraq and his concerns about the Department of Veterans Affairs. Clinton looked startled and unsure of himself but soon poked his way into the exchange. “What do you think should be done with the VA?” he asked, seemingly trying to coax the man to a better place. But Clinton's question sailed past, ignored. “... And the thing is,” the man continued, his voice rising, “we had four lives in Benghazi that were killed, and your wife tried to cover it up!” That's when a line was tripped and Clinton, meek and muted until now, suddenly sprang to life.

“Can I answer?” Clinton asked icily. The man raised his voice, but Clinton was now almost shouting and had the advantage of a microphone.

“This is America—I get to answer,” Clinton said, his shoulders thrown back and his eyes now alive. “I heard your speech. They heard your speech. You listen to me. I'm not your commander-in-chief anymore, but if I were, I'd tell you to be more polite and sit down!” As two sheriff's deputies began to hustle the disrupter out, Clinton beseeched the cops to wait. “Do you have the courage to listen to my answer?” he said to the man. “Don't throw him out! If he'll shut up and listen to my answer, I'll answer him.”

But it was too late: The guy was gone, and so Clinton gave his reply to the people who remained. It was a tour de force, a careful explanation not only of what had happened that night in Benghazi but also of the multiple investigations that had absolved his wife of any wrongdoing, as well as a history of past congressional investigations into similar attacks. With precision and clarity, Clinton pressed his case and won the crowd as only Clinton could. It felt as if 30 years had fallen away, and the people of Bluffton—who had come to see a star—roared louder and longer than they had all afternoon.

“You know,” Clinton said, a smile spreading across his face and his voice now honeyed with satisfaction, “I'm really sorry that young man didn't stay.”

Of course, there are flashes of greatness—moments that validate the notion that the supreme politician of his generation has still got it. But in many ways, Clinton's routine these days might be regarded as humbling—an epic comedown not just from his presidency but also from the global celebrity he's enjoyed in the decade and a half since it ended. Making matters worse, there's the sense, even among some friends and supporters, that Clinton's own capabilities have diminished, that the secondary role he now finds himself playing in his wife's campaign is perhaps the only role to which he's now suited. But for Clinton, whose life story is one of suffering and then overcoming (often self-inflicted) setbacks, the current presidential campaign offers him the chance—perhaps the final chance—at a form of redemption: to atone for past mistakes, to prove his doubters wrong, to return to the White House, and, above all else, to be of service. More than anything, Clinton, as his biographer David Maraniss has written, “loves to be needed as much as he needs to be loved.”

by Jason Zengerle, GQ |  Read more:
Image: Dina Litovsky

Eagles of Death Metal

The Puzzling Plummet of RGIII

Oct. 25, 2015. The final seconds tick down for a Washington Redskins 31-30 victory over the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. The Skins had overcome a 24-point first-half deficit — the biggest comeback in franchise history — and it was time for one of the longest postgame celebrations in recent memory at FedEx Field. Coaches hug team executives. Players hug trainers. Fans hug anyone they can find. Only Robert Griffin III stands alone. Just three years ago, the quarterback would have been at the center of the exhilaration. Despite being injury-free, Griffin had spent his time in this game as he had during all of the games last fall: standing along the sideline or seated on the bench in Redskins’ workout gear without even a clipboard to shield his irrelevancy. He smiles sheepishly, high-fives a few players who rush past him but mostly he just watches the fun alone. This is Kirk Cousins’ day, the backup who now has Griffin’s job. The Redskins are Cousins’ team now. The once unthinkable is ineluctable. After one of the most spectacular rookie seasons in NFL history, Griffin is on his way out. Less than four months later, he will be released.

The Cleveland Browns are just going through the motions — it’s still April — but the team’s newest quarterback is attacking his drills like a drowning man determined to stay afloat. As he drops back, Robert Griffin III has never displayed better footwork. Over and over again, he sets the correct depth on his drive step. He’s equally precise on his crossover and balance steps. From a textbook throwing position, Griffin squares his shoulders correctly toward his targets and whips the ball around the practice field, hitting receivers in stride. Comeback routes, out routes, dig routes — Griffin hasn’t thrown the ball this well in practice in years. His teammates are impressed. After several strong throws, many are smiling. Maybe the Browns have found the quarterback they’ve needed for so long. Once again, Griffin is in a place where he’s wanted.

“You love to do something so much,” Griffin said in his first news conference after signing with the Browns. “And when that is stripped away from you, one of two things can happen: You can either tank it and allow it to break you — or let it build you up.”

A stunning fall from the highest heights of the NFL has left Griffin scrambling to rebuild a career that began like the opening act of a blockbuster. You have to remember: Back in 2012, Griffin had the greatest season statistically for a rookie quarterback in NFL history. He set NFL rookie records for passer rating (and for percentage of passes intercepted). Griffin accounted for 27 touchdowns and led the league in yards-per attempt. As a runner, he topped the NFL in yards per carry. He also led Washington to its first division title in 13 years. And if there was a better corporate pitchman that year, we never saw him. Griffin wasn’t merely an exciting player. He was the total package. He was RG3 — the Next Big Thing.

“Man, there are a lot of good quarterbacks out there who can do stuff,” former Washington running back Clinton Portis said. “The difference was, for a quarterback, Robert did stuff we ain’t never seen before.” (...)

So what happened?

The popular narrative is that the Redskins ruined Griffin. The team showed no regard for Griffin’s health. Washington’s receivers weren’t good enough. The offensive line was horrible. The defense was worse. Management didn’t do enough to improve the roster. Coaches sabotaged Griffin because they wanted Cousins to start. It was racism. The list is as long as the lines that used to form during Griffin’s public appearances. Griffin acknowledges he holds a grudge against Washington. “I’m not trying to let any baggage hold me down,” Griffin said, “but I have a massive chip on my shoulder.”

When viewed from that lens, Griffin does appear to be a victim. However, the story of Griffin’s exit from Washington is much more complicated than the they-had-it-out-for-him thinking that has pervaded the team’s fan base. “It’s not a single-sided issue of victimization of RG3,” said sociologist Harry Edwards, who has spent decades advising the San Francisco 49ers and observing the NFL. “It’s a much more complicated and complex issue, some of which he created himself, some of which is imbedded in the very fact that he’s a black man playing the quarterback position in this society.”

Talk to people who worked with Griffin in Washington, and most will tell you he had chances — too many — to salvage his starting position and that many of his problems started with him. Griffin was too focused on his endorsements. He overindulged in social media. He alienated teammates by deflecting blame for his poor performances and ran his mouth too much in interviews. He should have spent more time in the film room and less on enhancing the cult of RG3.

The truth is Griffin, who declined to participate in this story, was oblivious to the crumbling of his career and has never accepted responsibility for his role in his failure. But the African-American pioneers at his position did recognize what was happening. They saw a young, talented brother going under and tried to help. Griffin, however, didn’t think he needed saving. Now, at only 26, the former star is back to auditioning to stay in the game. (...)

Griffin was part of a celebrated rookie quarterback class that also included Indianapolis’ Andrew Luck and Seattle’s Russell Wilson. Luck and Wilson had great seasons. Griffin’s was better; he has the 2012 NFL offensive rookie-of-the-year award to prove it.

At a time when partisan rancor in D.C. had never been worse, politicians were united in their excitement about the most important player on the region’s most popular professional sports team. “Around here that first year, man, Robert was a rock star,” former Washington wide receiver Santana Moss said. “You had to be here to understand how big he was.”

Outside the Beltway, Griffin also had a large following. At one point, he was wearing the league’s top-selling jersey. Whenever he sent out a tweet, he sent Twitter abuzz. You couldn’t turn on a television without seeing Griffin hawking top brands. Adidas, EA Sports, Gatorade, Nissan, Subway — companies raced to partner with him. Adidas created both a personal logo and signature-training shoe for him. (...)

But let’s call it like it is: Besides Griffin’s big performances, a big part of his appeal was that white people considered him to be “safe.” Raised in a military household by two now-retired Army sergeants, Griffin was reserved. On the field, he wasn’t prone to look-at-me celebrations. Off it, he didn’t seem standoffish. Basically, he wasn’t Cam Newton.

“If you’re a company in 2012, you see he’s a Heisman Trophy winner with the pedigree of military parents, so that’s a great start,” longtime marketing executive Larry Lundy said. “You add to it that he took a school like Baylor from mediocrity to the center of the college football world, what he was doing for the Redskins, his performance on the field and his persona off it. For advertisers, it was a perfect storm.”

by Jason Reid, ESPN/The Undefeated |  Read more:
Image: John McDonnell/The Washington Post via Getty Images

The Hard-on on Trial

At face value, René de Cordouan was a lucky man: born into French nobility as the Marquis de Langey, rich without effort, pleasant to look at. By generic, century-spanning sort of standards he was a catch, as endearing to unwed Catholics of the early 1600s (those seeking a deep-pocketed partner with bucolic property to share) as to manicured women with manicured nails browsing EliteSingles.com. The actual minutiae of the Marquis de Langey’s appearance remains a mystery—the size of his feet, the straightness of teeth, the presence or absence of dimples—but one part of his anatomy was so meticulously discussed it secured him a minor place in European history. Inside the nobleman’s underpants, between his upper thighs, was an intromittent organ that would be leered at and prodded before a court of law. To put it plainly, in 1657 the Marquis’s penis was subject to public trial.

In Roman Catholic France, long before the revolution, human bodies were not quite considered private property. Intimate parts of the citizenry’s flesh could be policed and questioned, limbs and organs regulated by external forces. The procreative couple—married, of course—were required, not just or even to love each other, but to perform their conjugal duty by law, each submitting to intercourse at the other’s request. For the sexually impotent, it was an impossible task. In fact, the impotent husband, even if he’d entered into marriage unaware of his condition, was considered to have committed a larcenous act.

By most accounts, divorce was not permitted in France from the early twelfth century. And yet, in 1426, a strange thing appeared in the departmental archives of the Aube region, a quick note concerning a marriage dissolved on account of an “impotent.” (That impotent, according to the historian Pierre Darmon, later took a second wife who bore several children.) It was an anomalous thing, but there it was, in ink or stone or whatever: a divorce willingly and legally granted for an unconsummated union.

It’s hard to know exactly how the impotence trials developed from here, but by the sixteenth century they had reached a kind of carnivalesque zenith, had hardened into a real and rather labyrinthine process that was, even in its attempts to be restorative, very humiliating. The legal process was messy and unreliable, medically dubious at best (no one quite knew the difference between impotence and sterility). It was funny and sad. It was lamentably public. With the release of private medical records, the infirmity of strangers quickly spread beyond the court, their reputations dissected in noisy salons.

Proceedings almost always began with a disgruntled wife. She approached the ecclesiastical court for myriad reasons—both sincere and disingenuous—requesting an annulment of her marriage via the only means possible: clear evidence of her partner’s debilitated loins. She was likely to be wealthy. Trials in themselves were not expensive, but decent lawyers were, and whichever partner was “proved” impotent bore full legal costs of the proceedings. One-fifth of recorded annulment requests originated from the nobility, who represented only 3 percent of the population. (This is drawn from the research of Darmon, whose 1979 book, Trial by Impotence: Virility and Marriage in pre-Revolutionary France, has the aesthetic trappings of a cheap romance pulp. The cover of its English translation sports a genre painting by Dutch Jacob, and on the spine, the title appears in salmon-colored serif.)

The unhappy couple would then be subject to separate examinations—to speculative groping by surgeons, physicians, and midwives. A husband’s natural parts were scrutinized for color, shape, and number—the best thing he could hope for were inspectors of delicate demeanor. Various hypotheses were tested. Could he muster an erection? Expel reproductive fluids on demand? Was he capable of healthy performance, or had he been forcing his partner into lascivious positions without the promise of coming children?

As could be expected, many wilted under pressure.

by Laura Bannister , Paris Review | Read more:
Image: Jörg Bittner Unna.

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

O'Keefe Music Foundation


[ed. Nice to see the next generation blossom (especially the drummer and bass player in this video... killer!). 46 & 2 by Tool.]

Why Apple Music is So Bad When the iPhone is So Good

On April 28, 2003, Apple launched the iTunes Music Store, saving the music industry from the scourge of piracy while creating a large and steady source of revenue for Apple. Thirteen years later, however, what started as a simple and intuitive way to find music has become a cluttered festoonery of features. As Apple begins competing with focussed streaming services like Spotify, the company’s strategy of tacking new services, like Apple Music, which became available last year, onto already bloated software has made the experience of using the application more and more unpleasant. “It’s yet another major feature added to iTunes on Mac and Windows—an app that everyone seems to agree already has too many features and responsibilities,” John Gruber, a prominent Apple observer, wrote. Just last week, Apple acknowledged users’ complaints about a bug that was deleting music files on personal computers, and promised a quick software update. Many Apple Music customers took to the Internet to warn their fellow-users to back their stuff up. So when Apple said that it would release a new streamlined version of Apple Music at its developers’ conference next month, it seemed as though the company was finally reckoning with the confusion in its music services.

Apple may, in fact, clear up some of the mess and present a simpler solution, but its struggles in the delivery of music are merely a symptom of a deeper problem: how to provide Internet services. Just this week, Apple introduced a smaller visual refresh to the iTunes software, and almost immediately complaints arose about that change, too. As I pointed out when Apple acquired Beats Audio for $3.2 billion, two years ago, the company’s corporate genes are not encoded for exploiting the cloud and user data, which is, like it or not, the realm in which it now competes.

Apple has always been, and always will be, a hardware-first company. It produces beautiful devices with elegant designs and humane operating-system software. It sets the industry standard with its chips and innovative uses of materials. Its engineers design manufacturing processes to make lighter, thinner, and more desirable devices. These efforts take time, which is perhaps a reason the company likes to make a big splash when it announces new devices a handful of times each year. This hardware-centric approach is extended to software, with big-bang releases once or twice a year. Such a schedule works when the software is a desktop operating system, say, or a mobile iOS, both of which get minor updates whenever necessary. But when it comes to Internet services, a yearly release cycle feels dated. To perform well, these services need constant tinkering based on how people are actually using them.

By now, we all know that our every move online can be tracked and traced, and that, ideally, services learn from and adapt to customers based on an artful deployment of that data. Spotify, while not perfect, feels more personalized than Apple Music. Spotify’s Discover Weekly feature is a good example: it takes the music I’ve listened to in the past, and clusters it into microgenres. It also analyzes some two billion playlists created by other users and algorithmically compares my preferences with those playlists, creating a weekly playlist that feels extremely intimate. Every time I skip a track, it learns, adapts, and makes sure that my Discover channel continues to appeal to me for maximum engagement. Facebook does something similar with its News Feed. Instagram does it with its photo streams. Google does it with Google Now and other services. Constantly updated data defines the service, almost in real time.

Apple, by comparison, designs and builds products with a very distinct vision of what a product will do and how its customers will want to engage with it. This works well for hardware, just as it did for pre-Internet software. But it doesn’t serve to capture the unexpected or mundane behavior of people on the Internet, and it certainly doesn’t allow the company to learn or adapt as quickly as others.

Apple is phenomenally successful, but like Microsoft, which stumbled when Google’s Internet-only, advertising-based businesses took off, it may find it difficult to adapt success to new terrain. A former Apple executive told me that, because Apple’s power structure is built around hardware, no one really wants to work on its services business, even though they generate more than Facebook’s annual revenues. In other words, good product people view services as a place where careers go to stagnate.

by Om Malik, New Yorker |  Read more:
Image: Chris Ratcliffe, Bloomberg via Getty

How Blac Chyna Beat The Kardashians At Their Own Game

[ed. A handy guide/summary for those of us who've studiously avoided knowing anything about the Kardashians (except what can't be avoided on the tabloid covers at supermarket checkout lines). Now I can go happily into the future knowing ignorance truly is bliss. But, wait! What about Ciara, Future, and Russell Wilson?! Oh no...!]

Warriors’ Home Games Are a Show Befitting the Team

The third quarter ended, and the Warriors and the Thunder huddled to plot strategy for the fourth. Between them, seated at midcourt behind the scorer’s table, a man named Brett Yamaguchi had a game plan of his own.

“O.K.,” he said into the microphone attached to his headset. “Let’s drop.”

Hidden in the rafters of Oracle Arena, 12 workers on the catwalks began releasing 100 small parachutes, each holding a McDonald’s gift card. In a dark booth at suite level, someone clicked a computer to change the graphics on the video scoreboards to reflect the sponsor. Nearby, a man at a control board set the 66 moving spotlights in the ceiling in motion. Someone else triggered the nearly 20,000 light-up bracelets that had been given to fans to blink red and yellow. The in-house D.J. played the Gap Band’s “You Dropped a Bomb on Me.”

Most of the fans stood, looking and reaching skyward for the gifts as they slowly descended. A small digital clock on each basket, below the shot clock, counted down the seconds to the end of the timeout. The last parachute was caught, the fans still standing, just before the ball was inbounded to start the fourth quarter.

“There was still a lot of hope at that point,” Yamaguchi said later, minutes after Oklahoma City had upset Golden State, 108-102. Around him, fans shuffled quietly out of the arena and the dozen workers in the catwalks made their way down. They had stayed up there for the fourth quarter, intending to drop 50 pounds of confetti to celebrate a victory.

That is the way it usually ends. A Warriors game at Oracle Arena has been called the best show in sports, with Stephen Curry and his teammates leading a high-energy, high-scoring team working toward another N.B.A. championship.

But most of the show is not basketball. Game 1 lasted 2 hours 33 minutes. Basketball was played for 48 of those minutes. The other 105 minutes — 1:45 — was something else.

What Yamaguchi oversees each night, orchestrating every nonbasketball bit of entertainment from the moment the doors open hours before the game to the rooftop fireworks that send fans home after a victory, might be more complicated than anything Warriors Coach Steve Kerr draws up.

“The stars are on the court, and we know that,” said Yamaguchi, whose title is director of game experience. “It’s Steph Curry 1,000 percent. And we feed off that energy as much as we can. But there is a lot of time between that we try to keep the fans engaged.”

He has a full-time staff of three: the assistants Alicia Smith and Marco Nicola, and the dance team director Sabrina Ellison. But on game nights, Yamaguchi employs more than 100 others, from anthem singers to halftime acts, dancers to D.J.s, pyrotechnicians to scoreboard controllers, roving M.C.s to camera operators, T-shirt throwers to confetti droppers. They are the people who take over the show when the basketball players step away.

by John Branch, NY Times |  Read more:
Image: Jim Wilson

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Disappearing Act

[ed. The dog keeps eating the reports.]

The CIA inspector general’s office — the spy agency’s internal watchdog — has acknowledged it “mistakenly” destroyed its only copy of a mammoth Senate torture report at the same time lawyers for the Justice Department were assuring a federal judge that copies of the document were being preserved, Yahoo News has learned.

While another copy of the report exists elsewhere at the CIA, the erasure of the controversial document by the office charged with policing agency conduct has alarmed the U.S. senator who oversaw the torture investigation and reignited a behind-the-scenes battle over whether the full unabridged report should ever be released, according to multiple intelligence community sources familiar with the incident.

The deletion of the document has been portrayed by agency officials to Senate investigators as an “inadvertent” foul-up by the inspector general. In what one intelligence community source described as a series of errors straight “out of the Keystone Cops,” CIA inspector general officials deleted an uploaded computer file with the report and then accidentally destroyed a disk that also contained the document, filled with thousands of secret files about the CIA’s use of “enhanced” interrogation methods.

“It’s breathtaking that this could have happened, especially in the inspector general’s office — they’re the ones that are supposed to be providing accountability within the agency itself,” said Douglas Cox, a City University of New York School of Law professor who specializes in tracking the preservation of federal records. “It makes you wonder what was going on over there?”

The incident was privately disclosed to the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Justice Department last summer, the sources said. But the destruction of a copy of the sensitive report has never been made public. Nor was it reported to the federal judge who, at the time, was overseeing a lawsuit seeking access to the still classified document under the Freedom of Information Act, according to a review of court files in the case.

A CIA spokesman, while not publicly commenting on the circumstances of the erasure, emphasized that another unopened computer disk with the full report has been, and still is, locked in a vault at agency headquarters. “I can assure you that the CIA has retained a copy,” wrote Dean Boyd, the agency’s chief of public affairs, in an email.

The 6,700-page report, the product of years of work by the Senate Intelligence Committee, contains meticulous details, including original CIA cables and memos, on the agency’s use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other aggressive interrogation methods at “black site” prisons overseas. A 500-page executive summary was released in December 2014 by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the committee’s outgoing chair. It concluded that the CIA’s interrogations were far more brutal than the agency had publicly acknowledged and produced often unreliable intelligence. The findings drew sharp dissents from Republicans on the panel and from four former CIA directors.

But the full three-volume report, which formed the basis for the executive summary, has never been released. In light of a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling last week that the document is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, there are new questions about whether it will ever be made public, or even be preserved.

After receiving inquiries from Yahoo News, Feinstein, now the vice chair of the committee,wrote CIA Director John Brennan last Friday night asking him to “immediately” provide a new copy of the full report to the inspector general’s office.

“Your prompt response will allay my concern that this was more than an ‘accident,’” Feinstein wrote, adding that the full report includes “extensive information directly related to the IG’s ongoing oversight of the CIA.” (CIA spokesman Boyd declined to comment.) (...)

Ironically in light of the inspector general’s actions, the intelligence committee’s investigation was triggered by the CIA’s admission in 2007 that it had destroyed another key piece of evidence — hours of videotapes of the waterboarding of two “high value” detainees, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

According to a brief by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which is seeking release of the full report under the Freedom of Information Act, the document “describes widespread and horrific human rights abuses by the CIA” and details the agency’s “evasions and misrepresentations” to Congress, the courts and the public.

To ensure the document was circulated widely within the government, and to preserve it for future declassification, Feinstein, in her closing days as chair, instructed that computer disks containing the full report be sent to the CIA and its inspector general, as well as the other U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Aides said Feinstein specifically included a separate copy for the CIA inspector general because she wanted the office to undertake a full review. Her goal, as she wrote at the time, was to ensure “that the system of detention and interrogation described in this report is never repeated.” (...)

But last August, a chagrined Christopher R. Sharpley, the CIA’s acting inspector general, alerted the Senate intelligence panel that his office’s copy of the report had vanished. According to sources familiar with Sharpley’s account, he explained it this way: When it received its disk, the inspector general’s office uploaded the contents onto its internal classified computer system and destroyed the disk in what Sharpley described as “the normal course of business.” Meanwhile someone in the IG office interpreted the Justice Department’s instructions not to open the file to mean it should be deleted from the server — so that both the original and the copy were gone.

At some point, it is not clear when, after being informed by CIA general counsel Caroline Krass that the Justice Department wanted all copies of the document preserved, officials in the inspector general’s office undertook a search to find its copy of the report. They discovered, “S***, we don’t have one,” said one of the sources briefed on Sharpley’s account.

by Michael Isikoff, Yahoo News | Read more:
Image: Senate TV/Reuters

Monday, May 16, 2016

How Typography Can Save Your Life


After decades of silently shouting at the top of its lungs, the National Weather Service recently announced that it’s going to stop publishing its forecasts and weather warnings in ALL CAPS. Beginning May 11, for the first time ever, we’ll start seeing mixed-case letters.

The weather service’s caps-lock habit didn’t happen entirely by choice. Old equipment left over from early weather service days of the late 1800s could only handle capital letters. Unfortunately, people have since learned to recognize those capital letters AS YELLING. It’s taken a long time for the weather service (and its customers) to update all their hardware and software, but now they’re finally ready to enter the 20th Century.

For type nerds everywhere, this is a triumphant typographic victory the likes of which we haven’t seen since Massimo Vignelli re-designed the New York City subway sign system. Ok, maybe that’s a stretch, but type choices are a big deal — and can, in fact, have life or death consequences.

In the case of the weather service’s all-caps type, it’s the font version of the boy who cried wolf. Using ALL CAPS for everything — from severe hurricanes to a slight chance of showers — means that EVERYTHING LOOKS THE SAME AND EVERYTHING LOOKS IMPORTANT. Once people realize that most of the time it’s not, they may become desensitized to warnings. When nothing stands out, people are likely to miss real emergencies.

Now that the weather service can use ALL CAPS sparingly — as a tool to highlight real danger — the public is more likely to pay attention.

“We realized we could still use ALL CAPS within products to add emphasis, such as ‘TORNADO WARNING. TAKE COVER NOW!’" said Art Thomas, the weather service meteorologist in charge of the project. “We hope that using all caps for emphasis will get people’s attention when it matters and encourage people to take action to protect their safety.”

A light touch on the caps-lock key is not just a good strategy for emphasizing the right things, but also just generally for making text easier to read. Because we see words as shapes, big rectangular blocks of all caps take us much longer to process. In an emergency, that extra time to decipher an urgent message may come at a cost.

Of course, if you’re trying to make something hard to read, then all caps is the perfect choice. Companies that set safety warnings in all caps may, intentionally or not, veil important information from consumers. (...)

Companies can (and do) claim that they are trying to “emphasize” the important stuff by putting it in all caps. This is actually the reason so many legal documents and contracts have sections that seem to be shouting. You can blame U.S. law for this one (specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code) which requires that certain sections of a contract be "conspicuous.”

Usually those guidelines apply to the parts of the contract that sound something like: “COMPANY X DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT WE’LL KEEP ANY OF OUR PROMISES AND EVERYTHING IS AT YOUR OWN RISK.” Makes sense that those sections should be hard to miss.

Except that in this case, making text “conspicuous,” also makes it harder to read. And that’s because of a historical quirk. Technically the law defines conspicuous as:
“(A) a heading in capitals equal to or greater in size than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same or lesser size; and 
(B) language in the body of a record or display in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.”
So why do we use all caps instead of bold or italic or even highlighted? Because back when lawyers used typewriters, the only simple way to emphasize anything was to use ALL CAPS. And while today our fancy post-typewriter machines could certainly render the text in other “conspicuous” ways, tradition is hard to break. Just ask the weather service.

But let’s look beyond all caps, to perhaps the most famous place where typeface choices might save lives: on the road.

U.S. road signs have been set in a typeface called Highway Gothic since the 1950’s, and it was the dominant typeface in use until the early 2000’s. But it had problems. Whether people noticed it or not, it was hard to read in rainy weather, from a distance, and at night. When light hit the words, they appeared to blend together in a glowing, blurry mess, something known as halation. This may be annoying to an average person, but if you’re an elderly person driving at 70 miles an hour with bad vision, it can be deadly.

So highway engineers struggled to find a solution. They thought maybe making the letters 20 percent bigger would solve it, but bigger letters would require bigger signs and end up costing billions of dollars. So they turned to two designers: an environmental graphic designer and a type designer. Those designers created Clearview, a new typeface that was designed to take up the same space as Highway Gothic but be much easier to read.


One of the most important changes was widening the tiny shapes inside letters called counter spaces (like the hole inside the O or P). But the designers also adjusted the height of the ascenders in characters like b, d, f, h, as well as spacing between letters. And all these changes, taken together, seemed to work! After a bunch of tests in bad weather and different conditions, Clearview was found to improve drivers’ reading accuracy, reaction time, and recognition distance. Soon, highways across the country began to adopt Clearview.

However, they won’t for much longer. The Federal Highway Administration announced this year that it’s not going to require new signs to be in Clearview, due to “significant confusion and inconsistency in highway sign design, fabrication processes, and application.” The administration also cites some evidence that Clearview doesn’t improve nighttime legibility that much. And so it’s throwing in the towel on font innovation, saying it “does not intend to pursue further consideration, development, or support of an alternative letter style.”

But elsewhere, life-saving typefaces are still making notable appearances on the road — this time inside the car.

by Lena Groeger, Pro Publica |  Read more:
Images: Rob Weychert and National Weather Service