Month: February 2012

  • The New French Hacker-Artist Underground

    The New French Hacker-Artist Underground

    Photography: UX

    A mysterious band of hacker-artists is prowling the network of tunnels below Paris,
    secretly refurbishing the city’s neglected treasures.
    Photo: UX

    Thirty years ago, in the dead of night, a group of six Parisian teenagers pulled off what would prove to be a fateful theft. They met up at a small café near the Eiffel Tower to review their plans—again—before heading out into the dark. Lifting a grate from the street, they descended a ladder to a tunnel, an unlit concrete passageway carrying a cable off into the void. They followed the cable to its source: the basement of the ministry of telecommunications. Horizontal bars blocked their way, but the skinny teens all managed to wedge themselves through and ascend to the building’s ground floor. There they found three key rings in the security office and a logbook indicating that the guards were on their rounds.

    But the guards were nowhere to be seen. The six interlopers combed the building for hours, encountering no one, until they found what they were looking for at the bottom of a desk drawer—maps of the ministry’s citywide network of tunnels. They took one copy of each map, then returned the keys to the security office. Heaving the ministry’s grand front door ajar, they peeked outside; no police, no passersby, no problem. They exited onto the empty Avenue de Ségur and walked home as the sun rose. The mission had been so easy that one of the youths, Natacha, seriously asked herself if she had dreamed it. No, she concluded: “In a dream, it would have been more complicated.”

    This stealthy undertaking was not an act of robbery or espionage but rather a crucial operation in what would become an association called UX, for “Urban eXperiment.” UX is sort of like an artist’s collective, but far from being avant-garde—confronting audiences by pushing the boundaries of the new—its only audience is itself. More surprising still, its work is often radically conservative, intemperate in its devotion to the old. Through meticulous infiltration, UX members have carried out shocking acts of cultural preservation and repair, with an ethos of “restoring those invisible parts of our patrimony that the government has abandoned or doesn’t have the means to maintain.” The group claims to have conducted 15 such covert restorations, often in centuries-old spaces, all over Paris.

    What has made much of this work possible is UX’s mastery, established 30 years ago and refined since, of the city’s network of underground passageways—hundreds of miles of interconnected telecom, electricity, and water tunnels, sewers, catacombs, subways, and centuries-old quarries. Like computer hackers who crack digital networks and surreptitiously take control of key machines, members of UX carry out clandestine missions throughout Paris’ supposedly secure underground tunnels and rooms. The group routinely uses the tunnels to access restoration sites and stage film festivals, for example, in the disused basements of government buildings.

    UX’s most sensational caper (to be revealed so far, at least) was completed in 2006. A cadre spent months infiltrating the Pantheon, the grand structure in Paris that houses the remains of France’s most cherished citizens. Eight restorers built their own secret workshop in a storeroom, which they wired for electricity and Internet access and outfitted with armchairs, tools, a fridge, and a hot plate. During the course of a year, they painstakingly restored the Pantheon’s 19th- century clock, which had not chimed since the 1960s. Those in the neighborhood must have been shocked to hear the clock sound for the first time in decades: the hour, the half hour, the quarter hour.

    Eight years ago, the French government didn’t know UX existed. When their exploits first trickled out into the press, the group’s members were deemed by some to be dangerous outlaws, thieves, even potential inspiration for terrorists. Still, a few officials can’t conceal their admiration. Mention UX to Sylvie Gautron of the Paris police—her specialty is monitoring the city’s old quarries—and she breaks into a wide smile. In an era when ubiquitous GPS and microprecise mapping threaten to squeeze all the mystery from our great world cities, UX seems to know, and indeed to own, a whole other, deeper, hidden layer of Paris. It claims the entire city, above- and belowground, as its canvas; its members say they can access every last government building, every narrow telecom tunnel. Does Gautron believe this? “It’s possible,” she says. “Everything they do is very intense.”

    It is not at all hard to steal a Picasso, Lazar Kunstmann tells me. One of UX’s early members and the group’s unofficial spokesman, Kunstmann—the name is almost certainly a pseudonym, given its superhero-like German meaning, “Art-man”—is fortyish, bald, black-clad, warm, and witty. We’re sitting in the back room of a student café, downing espressos and discussing the spectacular theft in May 2010 of 100 million euros’ worth of paintings from the Museum of Modern Art of the City of Paris. He disputes the contention of a police spokesperson that this was a sophisticated operation. According to an article published in Le Monde, a solitary individual unscrewed a window frame at 3:50 am, cut a padlock from a gate, and strode through the galleries lifting one work each by Léger, Braque, Matisse, Modigliani, and Picasso. “The thief was perfectly informed,” the officer told the newspaper. If he hadn’t known the window had a vibration detector, he would’ve just broken it. If he hadn’t known the alarm and part of the security system were broken, he wouldn’t have wandered throughout the museum. If he hadn’t known the schedule of night rounds, he wouldn’t have arrived in the middle of the longest quiet period.

    Impressive, right? No, Kunstmann says. “He ascertained that nothing was working,” Kunstmann sighs, knowing full well the shoddy security of the museum in question. “The exterior is full of graffiti artists, the homeless, and crack smokers,” he goes on. This would have made it easy for the thief to blend in and surreptitiously watch the windows all night, observing how the guards circulated.

     

    Photo: UX

    UX members restored the Pantheon’s 19th-century clock.
    Photo: UX

    A serious thief, Kunstmann says, would have taken an entirely different approach. In the same building, a sprawling and grand old structure called the Palais de Tokyo, is a restaurant that stays open until midnight. An intelligent thief would order a coffee there and then wander off through the building. “Lots of things have alarms,” Kunstmann goes on. “But you try to set them off and they don’t sound! Why? Because they don’t get turned on until 2 am.” (The museum claims that the alarms work 24 hours a day.) Moreover, there are whole stretches of wall where all that separates the museum from the rest of the building is a flimsy drywall partition. “You just—” Kunstmann makes a punching motion with his hand. “If the guy had been at all professional, that’s what he would have done.”

    UX has made a study of museum security, in keeping with its concern for Paris’ vulnerable treasures—a concern not always shared by the city’s major cultural institutions. Once, after a UX member discovered appalling security lapses in a major museum, she wrote a memo detailing them—and left it, in the middle of the night, on the desk of the security director. Rather than fix the problems, the director went to the police, demanding they press charges against the perpetrators. (The police declined, though they did tell UX to cool it.) Kunstmann feels sure that nothing has changed since the break-in at the Museum of Modern Art; the security remains just as subpar as ever, he says.

    Kunstmann has a gloomy view of contemporary civilization, and in his eyes this affair illustrates many of its worst faults—its fatalism, complacency, ignorance, parochialism, and negligence. French officials, he says, bother to protect and restore only the patrimony adored by millions—the Louvre, for example. Lesser-known sites are neglected, and if they happen to be out of public view—underground, say—they disintegrate totally, even when all that’s needed is a hundred-dollar leak repair. UX tends the black sheep: the odd, the unloved, the forgotten artifacts of French civilization.

    It’s difficult, though, to give an accounting of just how extensive those labors of love have been: The group cherishes its secrecy, and its known successes have been revealed only inadvertently. The public learned of the group’s underground cinema after a member’s bitter ex-girlfriend told the police. Reporters caught wind of the Pantheon operation because UX members erred in supposing they could safely invite the building’s director to maintain his newly fixed clock (more on that later). In general, UX sees communicating with outsiders as perilous and unrewarding. Kunstmann does tell me a story from a recent job, but even that is shrouded in misdirection. Some members had just infiltrated a public building when they noticed kids horsing around on the scaffolding at a construction site across the street, climbing through open windows, and doing dangerous stunts on the roof. Pretending to be a neighbor, one member phoned the foreman to warn him but was chagrined at the response: “Instead of saying, ‘Thanks, I guess I’ll close the windows,’ the guy says, ‘What the fuck do I care?’”

    Photograph: UX

    They also hosted an underground art show featuring replicas of paintings stolen in a 2010 heist.
    Photo: UX

    An outsider might wonder whether the teens who founded UX were really so different from those thrill seekers across the street today. Would they rat out their former selves? But when UX members risk arrest, they do so with a rigorous, almost scientific attitude toward the various crafts they aim to preserve and extend. Their approach is to explore and experiment all through the city. Based on members’ interests, UX has developed a cellular structure, with subgroups specializing in cartography, infiltration, tunneling, masonry, internal communications, archiving, restoration, and cultural programming. Its 100-odd members are free to change roles and are given access to all tools at the group’s disposal. There is no manifesto, no charter, no bylaws—save that all members preserve its secrecy. Membership is by invitation only; when the group notices people already engaged in UX-like activities, it initiates a discussion about joining forces. While there is no membership fee, members contribute what they can to projects.

    I can’t help but ask: Did UX steal the paintings from the Museum of Modern Art? Wouldn’t that be the perfect way to alert the French to the appalling job their government does protecting national treasures? Kunstmann denies it with a convincing curtness. “That,” he says, “is not our style.”

    The first experiment by UX, in September 1981, was an accidental one. A Parisian middle schooler named Andrei was trying to impress a couple of older classmates, boasting that he and his friend Peter often snuck into places and were about to hit the Pantheon, an enormous former church that towers over the fifth arrondissement. Andrei got in so deep with his boast that to save face he had to follow through—with his new friends in tow. Like Claudia and Jamie in that famous children’s book From the Mixed-Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, they hid out inside the building until it closed. Their nocturnal occupation turned out to be shockingly easy—they encountered no guards or alarms—and the experience electrified them. They thought: What else could we do?

    Kunstmann, a classmate of Andrei and Peter’s, joined the group early on. They quickly branched out from mere infiltration. Obtaining the tunnel maps from the ministry of telecommunications and other sources greatly expanded their access. Many Parisian buildings connect to these passages through their basements, which are as badly secured as the tunnels themselves. Most officials, Kunstmann says, act as if they believe in this absurd principle: Tunnel access is forbidden, thus people don’t go there. This, he adds sardonically, is “a flawless conclusion—and what’s more, a very practical one, because if people don’t go there, then it’s unnecessary to do more than lock the entrances.”

     

    Photograph: UX

    The unauthorized cinema that UX built beneath the Palais De Chaillot.
    Photo: UX

    It wasn’t until I went down into the tunnels myself—which is illegal and punishable by a fine of up to 60 euros, though explorers rarely get caught—that I understood why French officials are so complacent. Finding an unlocked entrance, without UX’s know-how, required a 45-minute walk from the nearest subway. UX has access to dry and spacious tunnel networks, but the more easily entered ones that I traveled that day were often tiny and half-flooded. By the time I’d retraced my steps, I was exhausted, filthy, and bleeding all over from scrapes.

    In some places, UX has been able to create covert connections between networks, using (among other tricks) an invention they call the rolling basin. This is a passage in the bottom of a tunnel that appears to be a grate with water under it; in fact, both grate and water are part of a movable tray on rollers. Voilà—a trapdoor to another tunnel in a different network. The tray itself is made of concrete, so even if someone raps it with a stick, it sounds solid. Kunstmann says UX has a certain weakness for such contrivances but will never possess enough time and cash to build them as extensively as he’d like. “If tomorrow everyone in UX became billionaires, we’d set dues at a billion euros,” he jokes. (But, he adds, “we’ll never be billionaires, because we’re working as little as possible so we can spend as much time as possible on UX.”)

    So what does the group do with all this access? Among other things, it has mounted numerous clandestine theater productions and film festivals. On a typical festival evening, they screen at least two films that they feel share a nonobvious yet provocative connection. They don’t explain the connection, leaving it up to the audience to try to discover it. One summer, the group mounted a film festival devoted to the theme of “urban deserts”—the forgotten and underutilized spaces in a city. They naturally decided the ideal venue for such a festival would be in just such an abandoned site. They chose a room beneath the Palais de Chaillot they’d long known of and enjoyed unlimited access to. The building was then home to Paris’ famous Cinémathèque Française, making it doubly appropriate. They set up a bar, a dining room, a series of salons, and a small screening room that accommodated 20 viewers, and they held festivals there every summer for years. “Every neighborhood cinema should look like that,” Kunstmann says.

    The restoration of the Pantheon clock was carried out by a UX subgroup called Untergunther, whose members are devoted specifically to restoration. The Pantheon was a particularly resonant choice of site, since it’s where UX began, and the group had surreptitiously screened films, exhibited art, and mounted plays there. During one such event in 2005, UX cofounder Jean-Baptiste Viot (one of the few members who uses his real name) took a close look at the building’s defunct Wagner clock—an engineering marvel from the 19th century that replaced an earlier timepiece. (Records indicate the building had a clock as far back as 1790.)

    Viot had admired the Wagner ever since he first visited the building. He had meanwhile become a professional horologist working for the elite firm Breguet. That September, Viot persuaded seven other UX members to join him in repairing the clock. They’d been contemplating the project for years, but now it seemed urgent: Oxidation had so crippled the works that they would soon become impossible to fix without re-creating, rather than restoring, almost every part. “That wouldn’t be a restored clock, but a facsimile,” Kunstmann says. As the project began, it took on an almost mystical significance for the team. Paris, as they saw it, was the center of France and was once the center of Western civilization; the Latin Quarter was Paris’ historic intellectual center; the Pantheon stands in the Latin Quarter and is dedicated to the great men of French history, many of whose remains are housed within; and in its interior lay a clock, beating like a heart, until it suddenly was silenced. Untergunther wanted to restart the heart of the world. The eight shifted all their free time to the project.

    They first established a workshop high up in the building, just below its dome, on a floor where no one (including guards) ever went anymore—”a sort of floating space,” as Kunstmann describes the room, punctuated by narrow slits for windows. “It looked down on all of Paris from a height of 15 stories. From the outside it resembled a kind of flying saucer; from the inside, a bunker.” The workshop was outfitted with eight overstuffed armchairs, a table, bookshelves, a minibar, and red velvet drapes to moderate the ambient temperature. “Every element had been conceived to fold up into wooden crates, like the ones visible throughout the monument,” Kunstmann says. In the dead of night, they climbed endless stairs, hauling up the lumber, drills, saws, clock repair equipment, and everything else required. They updated the workshop’s outdated electrical wiring. They spent 4,000 euros on materials, in all, out of their own pockets. On the terrace outside they set up a vegetable garden.

     

    Photo: UX

    A mechanism that UX uses to pick locks.
    Photo: UX

    Like at the Museum of Modern Art, where a thief made off with millions in precious art with shocking ease, security at the Pantheon was slipshod. “No one, neither police nor passersby, worried over people entering and leaving the Pantheon by the front door,” Kunstmann says. Nevertheless, the eight equipped themselves with official-looking fake badges. Each had a photograph, a microchip, a hologram of the monument, and a barcode that was “totally useless but impressive,” Kunstmann says. Only very rarely did passing policemen ask questions. At most, it went something like this:

    “You’re working at night? Can we see your badges?”

    “Here.”

    “OK, thanks.”

    Once the workshop was complete and thoroughly cleaned, the eight got to work. The first step was to understand how the clock had gotten so degraded—”a sort of autopsy,” Kunstmann says. What they discovered looked like sabotage. It appeared that someone, presumably a Pantheon employee tired of winding the clock once a week, had bludgeoned the escape wheel with an iron bar.

    They brought the clock’s mechanism up to the workshop. Viot trained the group in clock repair. First, they cleaned it with what’s called the clockmaker’s bath. This started with 3 liters of water carried up from the public bathrooms on the ground floor. To that was added 500 grams of soft, highly soluble soap, 25 centiliters of ammonia, and 1 tablespoon of oxalic acid—all mixed at a temperature of more than 280 degrees Fahrenheit. With this solution, the group scrubbed and polished every surface. Then they repaired the mechanism’s glass cabinet, replaced broken pulleys and cables, and re-created from scratch the sabotaged escape wheel (a toothed wheel that manages the clock’s rotation) and missing parts like the pendulum bob.

    As soon as it was done, in late summer 2006, UX told the Pantheon about the successful operation. They figured the administration would happily take credit for the restoration itself and that the staff would take over the job of maintaining the clock. They notified the director, Bernard Jeannot, by phone, then offered to elaborate in person. Four of them came—two men and two women, including Kunstmann and the restoration group’s leader, a woman in her forties who works as a photographer—and were startled when Jeannot refused to believe their story. They were even more shocked when, after they showed him their workshop (“I think I need to sit down,” he murmured), the administration later decided to sue UX, at one point seeking up to a year of jail time and 48,300 euros in damages. Jeannot’s then-deputy, Pascal Monnet, is now the Pantheon’s director, and he has gone so far as to hire a clockmaker to restore the clock to its previous condition by resabotaging it. But the clockmaker refused to do more than disengage a part—the escape wheel, the very part that had been sabotaged the first time. UX slipped in shortly thereafter to take the wheel into its own possession, for safekeeping, in the hope that someday a more enlightened administration will welcome its return.

    Meanwhile, the government lost its lawsuit. It filed another, which it also lost. There is no law in France, it turns out, against the improvement of clocks. In court, one prosecutor characterized her own government’s charges against Untergunther as “stupid.” But the clock is still immobile today, its hands frozen at 10:51.

    The members of UX are not rebels, subversives, guerrillas, or freedom fighters, let alone terrorists. They didn’t repair the clock to embarrass the state, nor do they entertain dreams of overthrowing it. Everything they do is intended for their own consumption; indeed, if they can be accused of anything, it’s narcissism. The group is partly responsible for the fact that it is misunderstood. Its members acknowledge that most of its external communications are intended as misdirection—a way to discourage public officials or others from meddling in its operations. They try to hide themselves within the larger mass of Parisians who venture into the city’s recesses simply as partiers or tourists.

    Why do they care about these places? Kunstmann answers this question with questions of his own. “Do you have plants in your home?” he asks impatiently. “Do you water them every day? Why do you water them? Because,” he goes on, “otherwise they’re ratty little dead things.” That’s why these forgotten cultural icons are important—”because we have access to them, we see them.” Their goal, he says, isn’t necessarily to make all these things function once again. “If we restore a bomb shelter, we’re certainly not hoping for new bombardments so people can go use it again. If we restore an early 20th-century subway station, we don’t imagine Electricité de France will ask us to transform 200,000 volts to 20,000. No, we just want to get as close as possible to a functioning state.”

    UX has a simple reason for keeping the sites a secret even after it has finished restoring them: The same anonymity that originally deprived them of caretakers “is paradoxically what’s going to protect them afterward” from looters and graffiti, Kunstmann says. They know they’ll never get to the vast majority of interesting sites that need restoration. Yet, “despite all that, the satisfaction of knowing that some, maybe a tiny fraction, won’t disappear because we’ll have been able to restore them is an extremely great satisfaction.”

    I ask him to elaborate on their choice of projects. “We can say very little,” he replies, “because to describe the sites even a bit can give away their location.” That said, one site is “belowground, in the south of Paris, not very far from here. It was discovered relatively recently but elicited very strong interest. It totally contradicts the history of the building above it. In examining what’s belowground, one notices that it doesn’t correspond to the information one can obtain about the history of the site. It’s history in reverse, in a way; the site was dedicated to an activity, structures were placed there, but in fact the site had been dedicated to this activity for quite a long time.”

    Walking across the Latin Quarter alone on a balmy evening, I try to guess what site Kunstmann is describing, and the city transforms before my eyes, below my feet. Did counterfeiters once operate out of the basement of the Paris Mint? Was the Saint-Sulpice church founded on the site of an underground pagan temple? Suddenly, all of Paris seems ripe with possibility: Every keyhole a peephole, every tunnel a passageway, every darkened building a theater.

    But it’s also clear that UX retains its love affair with its first and best canvas, the Pantheon. While this story was closing, a colleague needed to reach Kunstmann about a fact-checking question. Kunstmann had told her to call “any time,” so even though it was 1 am in Paris, she rang. When he picked up the phone, he was panting—from moving a couch, he said. She asked her question: When the clock had stopped chiming after the repair, what time remained frozen on its face? As it happened, Kunstmann was in the Pantheon at that very moment. “Hold on,” he said. “I’ll look.”

    Jon Lackman (jonlackman.com) is a journalist and art historian

     

     

    Copyright. 2012. Wired Magazine.com All Rights Reserved

  • Susan Credle, chief creative officer of Leo Burnett USA,Don’t Compete With Colleagues. Embrace

    Ruth Fremson/The New York Times

    Susan Credle, the chief creative officer of the advertising agency Leo Burnett USA, says that no one in an organization should be selfish about pursuing a great idea. “If you’re confident in who you are,” she says, “you will be generous.

     

    Don’t Compete With Colleagues. Embrace Them.

    By ADAM BRYANT

    This interview with Susan Credle, chief creative officer of Leo Burnett USA, was conducted and condensed by Adam Bryant.

     

    Q. Do you remember the first time you were somebody’s boss?

    A. It was with my brother.

    Q. Tell me about that.

    A. He’s three years younger than I am. My parents divorced when I was 5 or 6, and my brother and I had to travel back and forth alone on a plane between our two parents. So we kind of had to run our own little company within the family. And I think I was a bad boss.

    Q. Why do you say that?

    A. Because I used threats and I manipulated him to do things. And there were many times he really hated me. So I learned early on that leading people through manipulation is probably not the best way. The sibling lesson has lasted a long time.

    But it is interesting how growing up in a divorced family really helped me learn how to deal with people. My dad is married for the third time, and there are children of all ages. We all love each other; we all get along. It hasn’t been easy, and we’ve all had to make sacrifices, check egos at the door and make it more about the thing we’re trying to create than what we do in creating it. It’s difficult, it’s complex, but that’s probably been one of the best things that ever happened to me when it comes to working with people.

    Q. Talk more about how that plays into your role as a manager and leader.

    A. Because I have a family of stepbrothers and stepsisters and a younger stepmom, I now really look at people in terms of more than just what they do at the company. They come with history. They come with outside lives. I think that trying to understand them as human beings versus workers has really helped, and understanding that different people fit in different ways. I don’t know who I would have been if I’d had the white-picket-fence upbringing.  As difficult as my childhood was at times, I think that the texture it added to my life was worth it.

    Q. And then, in the professional world, when were you somebody’s boss?

    A. I was a writer, and I started getting a lot more work. Some of it, I realized, I didn’t have the talent to do as well as others, such as a certain kind of comedy where I’m not as strong as some people. But instead of being greedy and keeping the project to myself, I started going to people who were younger than I was, and I would say: “Look at this brief. I think you’re better at this.  I promise I won’t take credit for your idea. I’ll protect it. I’ll get you in and you’ll start producing work if you want to.”

    So the question was, do I compete with my colleagues or do I embrace them?  I decided that embracing was much better. I get frustrated when people are caught up in titles. I think people who are really successful don’t ask about things like that. At least I never did. Finding the opportunities was more important to me.

    Q. Tell me about the culture that you try to create and foster at your agency.

    A. My first-day speech was: “Take out your business card and look at it. That business card will have more value if any one of you succeeds here, even if you’re not remotely a part of that success. You are not competing with each other in here.  If you think you win when your idea wins out over your neighbor’s, that’s a pretty small gain. In fact, I would suggest that you help your neighbor’s ideas get better.

    “I would suggest that if you look at something and you have a better idea, that you generously give that idea to someone and make them better. Because if we all do that, we all win. The minute you’re the only good thing at this company, we’re done.  So can you do it?  Can you be that generous?”

    I also said that generosity has a lot to do with confidence. If you’re confident in who you are, you will be generous.  If you’re scared, if you’re nervous, if you think you’re a fraud, you won’t be generous.

    Q. What else can you tell me about the culture you try to create?

    A. I work pretty long hours. Around 7 or 8 when I’m thinking about leaving, I walk the halls, sit down and visit with the people who are working late and say: “What are you doing?  Are you O.K.?”  I actually find a lot of opportunities. Because if someone’s working late, they either have an opportunity or a problem, which probably is also an opportunity. I learn things about, say, projects that we could take up to the next level with more people. We also do an internal awards show every year, and we set it up like Cannes. We invite every employee to come and vote on the work.  This year, they had three days to vote, and we had over 1,000 employees vote. It’s a great experience, because half of our employees didn’t know about everything we do. But then, all of a sudden, once they realized it, they started walking with a little more swagger. I would say to them:  “You’re a part of it all.  Because whether you say something inspiring on the elevator or you’re just nice or you put some positive energy into this office, that’s all helping us make that work.”

    Q. How did you get that idea?

    A. We started it the first year I arrived, because I was supposed to put a reel together of the work and I wasn’t thrilled with it. I thought, “If I stand up there and go, ‘Here’s what you did this year,’ then I’m actually accepting it and saying this is fine.” So I decided if that we all voted on the work, then it’s everybody saying this is what we did this year, and this is what we think is the best.  So it took it off of me, and became a companywide process of commenting on our work. We realized the benefit was phenomenal.  The other thing is that we broadened who we recognized for the work. Traditionally, it’s usually the copywriter and the art director, and maybe the creative director, who are recognized.  But we recognized everybody on the team, including who does the budgets, who does the financing, and they all get listed.

    Q. Let’s shift to hiring. How does that conversation go?  What questions are you going to ask me?

    A. I definitely hire people I find interesting — curious people, if they’ve lived interesting lives, or if they’ve worked for companies I admire. So I’m looking for culture and life experience. I’ll ask them questions like: “What do you want to do?  What makes you happy?”  We talk about the philosophy of the industry, such as, “Why do you do this?”  One guy I hired had left a company after being there only seven months or so. I asked him, “Why did you leave?”  And he said, “Because they were all about tactics and I want to be about ideas.”

    Hiring is also like putting together an orchestra, I think, especially in the creative department.  Phil Dusenberry had a saying, “Make room for the crazy ones,” which has meant a lot to me. One of the common mistakes of hiring is that people just want to hire people they’re comfortable with. I often come to the defense of difficult people. 

    Somebody might come to my office and say: “That guy is such a jerk.  He’s making it so hard and he’s so weird.”  And I’ll say: “Let’s talk about what he’s doing that’s jerky.  Is it personal or is it about the work?” 

    “Well, it’s about the work,” they’ll say. Then I’ll say,  “Well, then, we’ve got to talk about it, because, see, that’s his job.”

    I remember when I used to fight over a conjunction in an ad, because I felt that taking it out affected the whole rhythm of the copy. After a while, I lightened up a bit, but I have a lot of time for that kind of caring. I love perfectionists. I’ll say to them: “Come sit with me and let’s talk about what you’re pushing up against.  And is this the right thing to focus on? Is it really going to make or break your idea? And let’s be sincere about it, because you are not going to survive in this industry if you can’t let some of these things go.”

    I know it’s a terrible thing to say to a perfectionist, but it’s going to help. And I want those people who push. I’d rather be saying, “You can let it go,” instead of, “Why did you let it go?”

     

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • Sergei Ilnitsky/European Pressphoto Agency

     

     

     

    February 26, 2012
     

    Thousands Join Anti-Kremlin Protest in Moscow

    By 

    MOSCOW — Thousands of anti-Kremlin protesters donned white ribbons and held hands along downtown Moscow’s 10-mile ring highway on Sunday, demonstrating the resilience of the protest movement and the continued dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin a week before he is to run in a crucial presidential election.

    The Kremlin has been shaken by the recent emergence of the protest movement among middle-class Muscovites, who only a few months ago were considered to be largely politically indifferent. But tens of thousands have braved subzero temperatures, occasional arrests and the loss of weekend shopping time to attend boisterous protests against Mr. Putin’s rule.

    On Sunday, amid slush-clogged streets and a steady snow, a carnival atmosphere prevailed, with vendors handing out free hot tea and pancakes to mark the last day before the beginning of Orthodox Lent. The protest was called the Big White Circle, and demonstrators arrived decked out in full-length white furs and huge white hats. Long lines of people unfurled rolls of paper towels and waved them while cars drove along the road, the Garden Ring, honking furiously and displaying their own white flags and banners.

    Yet despite the upbeat mood, few had any illusions about the results of the vote next Sunday.

    “I’m afraid that the results of the election have already been determined and Putin will win,” said Olga Abashkina, 54, a teacher. “This will be the official result, though it is not clear if it will actually be the case.”

    That eventuality has hung over the protest movement almost since it began in December over allegations of fraud in the parliamentary elections. Though dissatisfaction with Mr. Putin in Moscow and several other large cities is high, he enjoys broad support among rural and blue-collar voters. Most polls suggest that Mr. Putin could win over 50 percent of the vote even without blatant fraud.

    Most demonstrators on Sunday could offer only vague speculation about the protest movement’s future in a new Putin government. Few said they believed recent promises by Mr. Putin to push for more democratic reform.

    “A chef who has cooked meat his whole life will not suddenly become a vegetarian,” said Aleksei Yalyshev, 28 an economist.

    Despite a few sparse patches, protesters filled most of the length of the 10-mile ring highway, suggesting that enthusiasm for the movement was not on the wane, as Kremlin officials and Mr. Putin’s supporters had insisted. The police said that 11,000 people attended the event, though that number was impossible to confirm independently. Protest organizers said they needed over 30,000 people to create a human chain around the highway.

    The police said they had detained several protesters for trying to hold another rally near the Kremlin, though no other disturbances were reported.

    Most demonstrators expressed optimism that demonstrations would continue to clog Moscow’s streets and squares to register voters’ dissatisfaction should Mr. Putin win next week.

    “We expect for Putin to win, but it will be his last victory,” said Vakhtan Dzhariani, 52, a businessman. “I don’t think he will last out his next term because the situation in the country will develop quickly, and not to his advantage. The country has woken up.”

    Mr. Dzhariani and others were less sure, however, about what it would take for Mr. Putin to leave power.

     

     

    Copyright 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

  • Will Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘The Dictator’ Walk The Oscar Red Carpet?

    Will Sacha Baron Cohen’s ‘The Dictator’ Walk The Oscar Red Carpet?

    UPDATED 5:30 PM WITH MORE DETAILS
    EXCLUSIVE… BREAKING 3PM… The Academy Of Motion Picture Arts &Sciences has pulled actor Sacha Baron Cohen‘s tickets from the 84th Academy Awards. This means he is banned from attending the Oscars even though he is an Academy member and one of the stars from Hugo, Paramount’s 11-nominated movie and Best Picture contender. “Unless they’re assured that nothing entertaining is going to happen on the Red Carpet, the Academy is not admitting Sacha Baron Cohen to the show,”  Paramount just told me. The reason is that a proposal reached the Academy for Baron Cohen to strut the Red Carpet in full costume as his title character in the upcoming Paramount comedy The DictatorUPDATE AT 5:30 PM: Later today, faced with all the bad publicity resulting from its action, the Academy tried to parse what it did when questioned by some media outlets. But the fact is that, this morning, the Academy’s Managing Director Of Membership Kimberly Rouch phoned Paramont’s awards staff to say Baron Cohen’s tickets had been pulled unless he gives the Academy assurances ahead of time promising not to show up on the Red Carpet in costume and not to promote the movie on the Red Carpet. The Academy made it clear that, without those assurances, it would not issue him the tickets. So he’s banned.*

    Of course, the next best thing to that publicity stunt is all the media coverage which this ban is going to generate for Baron Cohen’s film. So the Academy has decided to act like dictators about the actor playing The DictatorUgh.

    Sancha Baron Cohen Today Show Video

    Loosen up, people. Frankly, the Academy looks like uptight wankers with this treatment of one of the globe’s funniest comedians. The Academy merely had to say no when that proposal was presented to it. Everyone involved in the ceremony was adamantly against it on the grounds that it makes a mockery of what Hollywood considers its most prestigious event. Instead, the Academy clearly wants another overly long, ridiculously reverential show about movies no one bothered to see where the best thing about the telecast will be the comeback of popular host Billy Crystal at age 63.

    UPDATE: Is Academy Blinking On Banning Sacha Baron Cohen From Oscars 2012?

    The Dictator is a spoof about the “heroic story of a Middle Eastern dictator who risks his life to ensure that democracy never comes to the country he so lovingly oppressed”. Whether the fact that the 84th Academy Awards will be beamed into 200 countries had anything to do with this ban is unclear. But it is highly unusual for the Academy to pull a member’s tickets. An Oscars spokesperson acknowledged to Deadline yesterday: ”We would hope that every studio knows that this is a bad idea. The Red Carpet is not about stunting.” Oh really? Then why did Trey Parker and Matt Stone of South Park crossdress down the Red Carpet as J-Lo and Gwyneth Paltrow in evening gowns in 2000? Or Ben Stiller appear as an Oscar presenter in full blue Avatar makeup and hair in 2010?

    Sacha Baron CohenDeadline reported yesterday that Baron Cohen’s plan was to come dressed asThe Dictator and then change into a tuxedo and attend the Oscars as planned. He wasn’t scheduled to present an award, but he was arriving at Kodak Theatre as part of the Paramount contingent. Now he can’t do even that. Paramount has a Best Picture nominee in the Martin Scorsese-directed Hugo in which Baron Cohen plays the train station inspector of the movie about an orphan in 1930s Paris.

    At the 2007 Oscars, Baron Cohen was asked to be a presenter and said he would do it only if he could be in character as Borat. And Oscars’ Powers That Be said, “No way.” He didn’t attend. But this is the first time he has been officially banned from the show.

    Purists feel that the Oscars is no place for such in your face promotion. The Academy hasn’t even allowed movies to be advertised during the Oscarcast, until this year. Then again, these Oscars have very little suspense because it’s a forgone conclusion that many of the winners of the marquee categories are already known and The Artist will win Best Picture. The prospect of Baron Cohen’s Red Carpet walk was the closest thing to drama.

    This would not have been Baron Cohen’s first time upstaging an awards show. To promote Bruno, he flew through the air at the MTV Movie Awards and landed with his crotch in the face of Eminem, who later admitted the stunt was rehearsed. And a trailer for The Dictator certainly was one of the raciest ever allowed by the MPAA during the Super Bowl, where Baron Cohen’s character was hilariously depicted running a competitive race while and leg-shooting rivals with a starter pistol as they got close to him.

     

    Copyright 2012. Hollywood Dateline.com All Rights Reserved.

  • Rick’s Religious Fanaticism. Rick Santorum.

    Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

    Maureen Dowd

     

    February 21, 2012
     

    Rick’s Religious Fanaticism

    By 

    WASHINGTON

    Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola.

    That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah.

    “Satan has his sights on the United States of America,” the conservative presidential candidate warned in 2008. “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”

    When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning Barry White.

    Santorum is not merely engaged in a culture war, but “a spiritual war,” as he called it four years ago. “The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country — the United States of America,” he told students at Ave Maria University in Florida. He added that mainline Protestantism in this country “is in shambles. It is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

    Satan strikes, a Catholic exorcist told me, when there are “soul wounds.” Santorum, who is considered “too Catholic” even by my über-Catholic brothers, clearly believes that America’s soul wounds include men and women having sex for reasons other than procreation, people involved in same-sex relationships, women using contraception or having prenatal testing, environmentalists who elevate “the Earth above man,” women working outside the home, “anachronistic” public schools, Mormonism (which he said is considered “a dangerous cult” by some Christians), and President Obama (whom he obliquely and oddly compared to Hitler and accused of having “some phony theology”).

    Santorum didn’t go as far as evangelist Franklin Graham, who heinously doubted the president’s Christianity on “Morning Joe.”

    Mullah Rick, who has turned prayer into a career move, told ABC News’s Jake Tapper that he disagreed with the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down a ban on contraception. And, in October, he insisted that contraception is “not O.K. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

    Senator Sanitarium, as he was once dubbed on “The Sopranos,” sometimes tries to temper his retrogressive sermons so as not to drive away independent and Republican women who like towork, see their kids taught by professionals and wear Victoria’s Secret.

    He told The Washington Post on Friday that, while he doesn’t want to fund contraception through Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t ban it: “The idea that I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case.”

    That doesn’t comfort me much. I’ve spent a career watching candidates deny that they would do things that they went on to do as president, and watching presidents let their personal beliefs, desires and insecurities shape policy decisions.

    Mullah Rick is casting doubt on issues of women’s health and safety that were settled a long time ago. We’re supposed to believe that if he got more power he’d drop his crusade?

    The Huffington Post reports that Santorum told Philadelphia Magazine in 1995 that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress.” Then, he said, he read the “scientific literature.”

    He seems to have decided that electoral gold lies in the ruthless exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues. Unlike the Bushes, he has no middle man to pander to prejudices; he turns the knife himself.

    Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?

    In a party always misty for bygone times bristling with ugly inequities, Santorum is successful because he’s not ashamed to admit that he wants to take the country backward.

    Virginia’s Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, touted as a vice-presidential prospect, also wants to drag women back into a cave.

    This week, public outrage forced the Virginia legislature to pause on its way to passing a creepy bill forcing women seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound, which, for early procedures, would require a wand being inserted into the vagina — an invasion that anti-abortion groups hope would shame some women into changing their minds once they saw or heard about traits of the fetus.

    Democratic Delegate Lionell Spruill hotly argued that the bill would force “legal rape.” “I cannot believe that you would disrespect women and mothers in such a way,” he chided colleagues. “This legislation is simply mean-spirited, and it is bullying, bullying women simply because you can.”

    While the Democrat-controlled Maryland House of Delegates just passed a bill that would allow same-sex marriage, the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature passed a bill allowing private adoption agencies to discriminate against gays who want to be parents.

    The Potomac River dividing those states seems to be getting wider by the day.

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

     

     

  • Two Western Journalists Killed in Syria Shelling

     

    Left, Sunday Times; right, Julien De Rosa

    Marie Colvin, left, an American reporter working for The Sunday Times of London, and Rémi Ochlik, a French photographer, were killed in Syria on Wednesday.

     

     

    Multimedia

    TimesCast | Journalists Die In Syria

     

    February 22, 2012
     

    Two Western Journalists Killed in Syria Shelling

    By  and 

    CAIRO — Syrian security forces shelled the central city of Homs on Wednesday, the 19th day of a bombardment that activists say has claimed the lives of hundreds of trapped civilians in one of the deadliest campaigns in nearly a year of violent repression by the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

    Among the scores of people that activist groups reported killed by rockets and bombs through the day, two were Western journalists, the veteran American war correspondent Marie Colvin, who had been working for The Sunday Times of London, and a young French photographer, Rémi Ochlik. The two had been working in a makeshift media center that was destroyed in the assault, raising suspicions that Syrian security forces might have identified its location by tracing satellite signals. Experts say that such tracking is possible with sophisticated equipment.

    Activists, civilian journalists and foreign correspondents who have snuck into Syria have infuriated the authorities and foiled the government’s efforts to control the coverage of clashes, which have claimed thousands of Syrian lives in the last year and which Mr. Assad portrays as caused by an armed insurgency.

    Quoting a witness reached from neighboring Jordan, Reuters said the two journalists died after shells hit the house in which they were staying and a rocket hit them when they were trying to escape.

    Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corporation and the owner of The Sunday Times, saluted Ms. Colvin as “one of the most outstanding foreign correspondents of her generation,” and said in an e-mail to the paper’s staff she “was a victim of a shell attack by the Syrian Army on a building that had been turned into an impromptu press center by the rebels.

    “Our photographer, Paul Conroy, was with her and is believed to have been injured,” he said. “We are doing all we can in the face of shelling and sniper fire to get him to safety and to recover Marie’s body.”

    Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain paid tribute to Ms. Colvin on Wednesday, saying her death was a reminder of the perils facing reporters covering “dreadful events” in Syria. A longtime war correspondent, she lost an eye covering the Sri Lankan civil war and wore a distinctive black eye patch.

    Video posted online showed what appeared to be the foreign journalists’ bodies lying face down in rubble. Three other Western journalists were injured in the attack, activists said. The French prime minister, François Fillon, indentified one as Edith Bouvier, a 31-year-old freelancer for the daily newspaper, Le Figaro. Video on YouTube showed her and Mr. Conroy, an Irishfreelance photographer who had been working with Ms. Colvin, lying in what appeared to be a makeshift clinic with bandages on their legs.

    Reuters quoted a member of the advocacy group Avaaz as saying that Ms. Bouvier’s condition was precarious. “There is a high risk she will bleed to death without urgent medical attention,” the advocate said. “We are desperately trying to get her out, doing all we can in extremely perilous circumstances.”

    A day earlier, a well-known video blogger in the Sunni Arab neighborhood of Baba Amr, Rami el-Sayed, was killed. Other citizen journalists in Homs have been killed recently in what activists interpret as part of a deliberate campaign to choke off news of the opposition.

    The Syrian authorities rarely grant visas for foreign reporters to enter the country and seek to control those who are given permission to do so. Those controls have combined to make the Syrian revolt difficult to observe firsthand and reporters who do so run great risks of being caught in fighting, often in isolated pockets of rebel resistance.

    Last week, Anthony Shadid, a correspondent for The New York Times, died of an apparent asthma attack in Syria on Thursday after spending nearly a week reporting covertly in the northern area of Idlib, near the Turkish border.

    On Wednesday, another activist group said that 27 young men had been killed the day before in that area. Reuters cited a statement from the Syrian Network for Human Rights as saying that most of the men, who were civilians, had been shot in the head or chest on Tuesday in several villages: Idita, Iblin and Balshon in Idlib province near the border with Turkey.

    “Military forces chased civilians in these villages, arrested them and killed them without hesitation,” Reuters quoted the organization said in a statement. “They concentrated on male youths and whoever did not manage to escape was to be killed.”

    Overall, the United Nations stopped tallying the death toll in the 11-month uprising after it passed 5,400 in January, because it could no longer verify the numbers. Efforts by the Arab League and United Nations to stem the violence have so far had little traction, with Syria’s remaining allies — China, Iran and Russia — continuing to stand by it.

    But the latest deaths of journalists, on top of the agonizing civilian toll, focused a new wave of international revulsion and anger on Mr. Assad and the Syria government. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said the killings showed that “enough is enough, this regime must go. There is no reason why Syrians should not have the right to live their lives, to freely choose their destiny.”

    The French foreign minister, Alain Juppé also said in a statement that he had called on the Syrian government to order an immediate halt to the attacks on Homs and to respect its “humanitarian obligations.” He also said he was asking the French ambassador in Damascus to urge the Syrian authorities to open a secure access route into Homs to help victims of the bombardment with the support of the Red Cross.

    Last Wednesday, the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, discussed the mounting violence with his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, agreeing that the crisis must be resolved without foreign interference, the Kremlin announced on its Web site. The two called for an immediate ceasefire and the initiation of dialogue between the government and opposition without preconditions.

    The statement said that the two leaders agreed that “the main task now, including for international organizations, particularly the United Nations, is to avert a civil war that could destabilize the entire region. Along these lines it is important to mobilize the efforts of all who are interested in ending the bloodshed and confrontation, and returning peace and stability to Syria.”

    Mr. Medvedev also emphasized the inadmissibility of foreign intervention in Syria with Iraq’s president, Nuri al-Maliki.

    The United Nations’ top relief coordinator, Valerie Amos, plans to visit Syria shortly to negotiate access for aid workers in the most devastated areas, the United Nations said, according to Reuters. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been trying to secure a brief cease-fire from the government in order to deliver food and medicine to trapped civilians, but so far, no agreement has been announced.

    According to his Web site, Mr. Ochlik, in his late 20s, had covered wars and upheaval in Haiti, Congo and the Middle East. Ms. Colvin, 55, was a veteran of many conflicts from the Middle East to Chechnya and from the Balkans to Iraq and Sri Lanka. Both had won awards for their work.

    Jon Snow, an anchor for Channel 4 News in Britain, which interviewed Ms. Colvin from Homs on Tuesday evening, called her “the most courageous journalist I ever knew and a wonderful reporter and writer.”

    She was also interviewed by the BBC, recounting how she had watched a child die in Homs. “ I watched a little baby die today,” she said. “Absolutely horrific, just a 2-year-old.”

    In an article published on Feb. 19 in The Sunday Times, Ms. Colvin described how she entered Homs “on a smugglers’ route, which I promised not to reveal, climbing over walls in the dark and slipping into muddy trenches.”

    “Arriving in the darkened city in the early hours, I was met by a welcoming party keen for foreign journalists to reveal the city’s plight to the world,” she wrote. “So desperate were they that they bundled me into an open truck and drove at speed with the headlights on, everyone standing in the back shouting Allahu akbar — God is the greatest. Inevitably, the Syrian army opened fire.

    “When everyone had calmed down I was driven in a small car, its lights off, along dark empty streets, the danger palpable. As we passed an open stretch of road, a Syrian Army unit fired on the car again with machine guns and launched a rocket-propelled grenade.

    “The scale of human tragedy in the city is immense. The inhabitants are living in terror. Almost every family seems to have suffered the death or injury of a loved one.”

    Ms. Colvin left Beirut, Lebanon, for Syria on Feb. 14, according to Neil MacFarquhar, a New York Times correspondent she dined with the night before her departure. Over dinner, she said: “I cannot remember any story where the security situation was potentially this bad, except maybe Chechnya.”

    “Before I was apprehensive, but now I’m restless,” Mr. MacFarquhar recalled her saying, once details of her journey had been finalized. “I just want to get in there and get it over with and get out.”

    Ms. Colvin was raised on Long Island but had been based in England for many years. In a speech in 2010, Britain’s Press Association news agency reported, she spoke of the work of combat reporters, saying, “Our mission is to report these horrors of war with accuracy and without prejudice.”

    “We always have to ask ourselves whether the level of risk is worth the story. What is bravery, and what is bravado?”

    She added: “Journalists covering combat shoulder great responsibilities and face difficult choices. Sometimes they pay the ultimate price.”

    Other journalists who have been killed in Syria include a freelance cameraman, Ferzat Jarban, who was found dead in early November. Another freelance cameraman, Basil al-Sayed, died at the end of December. A French television reporter, Gilles Jacquier, died in January during a government-sponsored trip to Homs, and Mazhar Tayyara, a freelance reporter for Agence France-Presse, The Guardian and other publications, died in Homs in early February.

    Rod Nordland reported from Cairo, and Alan Cowell from London. Reporting was contributed by Neil MacFarquhar and Hwaida Saad from Beirut, Lebanon, Fares Akram from Gaza; John F. Burns from London; Steven Erlanger, Maïa de la Baume and Scott Sayare from Paris; and Ellen Barry from Moscow.

     

    Copyright. 2012. The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

     

  • In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo

    Newsha Tavakolian/Polaris, for The New York Times

    Iranians at a rally this month in Tehran were promised “great nuclear news” by their president.

    Johannes Eisele/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

    American soldiers protected their faces as a medevac helicopter lifted off with their wounded comrades last year in Afghanistan.

     

    February 21, 2012
     

    In Din Over Iran, Rattling Sabers Echo

    By 

    WASHINGTON — The United States has now endured what by some measures is the longest period of war in its history, with more than 6,300 American troops killed and 46,000 wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan and the ultimate costs estimated at $3 trillion. Both wars lasted far longer than predicted. The outcomes seem disappointing and uncertain.

    So why is there already a new whiff of gunpowder in the air?

    Talk of war over Iran’s nuclear program has reached a strident pitch in recent weeks, as Israel has escalated threats of a possible strike, the oratory of American politicians has become more bellicose and Iran has responded for the most part defiantly. With Israel and Iran exchanging accusations of assassination plots, some analysts see a danger of blundering into a war that would inevitably involve the United States.

    Echoes of the period leading up to the Iraq war in 2003 are unmistakable, igniting a familiar debate over whether journalists are overstating Iran’s progress toward a bomb. Yet there is one significant difference: by contrast with 2003, when the Bush administration portrayed Iraq as an imminent threat, Obama administration officials and intelligence professionals seem eager to calm the feverish language.

    Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a CNN interview on Sunday that the United States had advised Israel that a strike now would be “destabilizing,” adding that Iran had not yet decided whether to build a weapon. And American officials are weighing an Iranian offer to renew nuclear talks as a stream of threats from Tehran continued on Tuesday and international nuclear inspectors reported their mission to Iran had failed.

    Still, unforeseen events can create their own momentum. Graham Allison, a leading expert on nuclear strategy at Harvard University, has long compared the evolving conflict over Iran’s nuclear program to a “slow-motion Cuban missile crisis,” in which each side has only murky intelligence, tempers run high and there is the danger of a devastating outcome.

    “As a student of history, I’m certainly conscious that when you have heated politics and incomplete control of events, it’s possible to stumble into a war,” Mr. Allison said. Watching Iran, Israel and the United States, he said, “you can see the parties, slowly but almost inexorably, moving to a collision.”

    Another critical difference from the prewar discussion in 2003 is the central role of Israel, which views the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to its very existence and has warned that Iran’s nuclear facilities may soon be buried too deep for foreign bombers to reach.

    Israel’s stance has played out politically in the United States. With the notable exception of Representative Ron Paul of Texas, Republican presidential candidates have kept up a competition in threatening Iran and portraying themselves as protectors of Israel. A bipartisan group of senators on Tuesday released a letter to President Obama saying that new talks could prove a “dangerous distraction,” allowing Iran to buy time to move closer to developing a weapon.

    Despite a decade of war, most Americans seem to endorse the politicians’ martial spirit. In a Pew Research Center poll this month, 58 percent of those surveyed said the United States should use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Only 30 percent said no.

    “I find it puzzling,” said Richard K. Betts of Columbia University, who has studied security threats since the cold war. “You’d think there would be an instinctive reason to hold back after two bloody noses in Iraq and Afghanistan.”

    In the same survey, 75 percent of respondents said that Mr. Obama was withdrawing troops from Afghanistan at the right pace or not quickly enough, a finding in keeping with many indications of war weariness.

    Micah Zenko, who studies conflict prevention at the Council on Foreign Relations, sees an old pattern. “It’s true throughout history: there’s always the belief that the next war will go much better than the last war,” he said.

    Faced with an intractable security challenge, both politicians and ordinary people “want to ‘do something,’ ” Mr. Zenko said. “And nothing ‘does something’ like military force.”

    Yet it is the military and intelligence establishment that has quietly sought to counter politicians’ bold language about Iran’s nuclear program, which the Iranians contend is solely for peaceful purposes. At a hearing last week, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, pressed James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence.

    “Do you have doubt about the Iranians’ intention when it comes to making a nuclear weapon?” Mr. Graham asked.

    “I do,” Mr. Clapper replied.

    “You doubt whether or not they’re trying to create a nuclear bomb?” Mr. Graham persisted.

    “I think they are keeping themselves in a position to make that decision,” Mr. Clapper replied. “But there are certain things they have not yet done and have not done for some time,” he added, apparently a reference to specific steps to prepare a nuclear device. Haunting such discussions is the memory of the Iraq war. The intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, which was one of the Bush administration’s main rationales for the invasion, proved to be devastatingly wrong. And the news media, including The New York Times, which ultimately apologized to readers for some of its coverage of claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, are again under scrutiny by critics wary of exaggerated threats.

    Both the ombudsman of The Washington Post and the public editor of The New York Times in his online blog have scolded their newspapers since December for overstating the current evidence against Iran in particular headlines and stories. Amid the daily drumbeat about a possible war, the hazard of an assassination or a bombing setting off a conflict inadvertently worries some analysts. After a series of killings of Iranian scientists widely believed to be the work of Israel, Israeli diplomats in three countries were the targets last week of bombs suspected to have been planted by Iranians.

    In October, an Iranian American was charged in what American authorities assert was an Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the United States, possibly by bombing a Washington restaurant. Mr. Clapper, the intelligence director, told Congress in January that the accusation demonstrated that Iranian officials “are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States in response to real or perceived U.S. actions that threaten the regime.”

    An actual Iranian attack inside the United States — possibly following an Israeli strike on Iran — would inevitably result in calls for an American military retaliation.

    Peter Feaver of Duke University, who has long studied public opinion about war and worked in the administration of President George W. Bush, said the Obama administration’s policy was now “in the exact middle of American public opinion on Iran” — taking a hard line against a nuclear-armed Iran, yet opposing military action for now and escalating sanctions. But as the November election approaches, Mr. Feaver said, inflammatory oratory is likely to increase, even if it is unsuited to a problem as complicated as Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    “This is the standard danger of talking about foreign policy crises in a campaign,” he said. “If you try to explain a complex position, you sound hopelessly vague.”

     

    Copyright. 2012 The New York Times Company. All Rights Reserved

     

     

  • Vintage Soviet space propaganda posters

     

    Posted about 21 hours ago by Photo_booth-7_thumb Annie Colbert to Holy Kaw!

    Like this post 1

     

    Media_httpcdn1retrona_iziuq

     

    “Glory to the Soviet people – the pioneer of space!”

     

    Media_httpcdn3retrona_jhujl

     

    “Fatherland! You lighted the star of progress and peace. Glory to the science, glory to the labor! Glory to the Soviet regime!”

     

    Media_httpcdn2retrona_gquve

     

    “In 20th century the rockets race to the stars, the trains are going to the lands of achievements!”

     

    Media_httpcdn2retrona_exalc

     

    “Our triumph in space is the hymn to Soviet country!”

     

    Media_httpcdn3retrona_tosfw

     

    “Socialism is our launching pad”

     

    Media_httpcdn2retrona_nadau

     

    “We will open distant worlds”

    As the Space Race heated up between the Soviet Union and the United States in the late 1950s, the Soviets ramped up the citizen support with a series of colorful propaganda posters.

    Full collection at retronaut.

    Blast off to space.

     

    Copyright. 2012. 

    Photo_booth-7_thumb Annie Colbert to Holy Kaw!  All Rights Reserved

     

  • It’s Not Social If You’re Not Engaging

     
     

     

     

    Sunday, February 19, 2012


    It’s Not Social If You’re Not Engaging

     

    What does it mean to “be social” or to participate with people online, including family, closest friends and colleagues, but strangers as well? Is sharing a link social? Is telling somebody where you are or what you ate social? Is showing a photo of your kid social? It can be – and it can also not be. An action becomes social when you engage with others and provide value through your sharing and interacting beyond the action itself. This is something that’s often missed.

    Google+ was designed to aid you online doing what you already do offline – sharing stories, swapping jokes and links, hanging out, sharing photos and videos, with different groups of people. Of course, you can always share publicly if you like as well, giving everyone who runs into your content the option to see it and engage.

    As communities grow, both offline and online, cliques and factions emerge. You can see it in small groups, like family reunions or church events, or notoriously high school. Google+ is no different. As people post fast and engage fast, it’s possible that feelings get hurt, people misinterpret what you meant, assume something untrue, or label you based on one comment alone. It takes effort to move past that and not let those perceived slights take hold. It also takes effort to make sure you’re contributing beyond your initial share. 

    Unsurprisingly, I often get questions about what it takes to “be social” and to get visible or, at least, not feel ignored, on a network like Google+ or a blog. I wrote about some of those ways in 10 Great Ways to Get Discovered on Google+ (http://goo.gl/LyzJ1) and in July’s The Secret 10 Step Guide to Giving Good Social (http://goo.gl/12drA), but the most critical part of being social is to be yourself and do what comes naturally.

    My Social Contract With You Is As Follows:

    1. I will always share content I think you will find interesting.

    Not every share is for everyone, and if you’re not using circles, instead sharing publicly, there’s no doubt that not everybody shares your interests. I share what I think is interesting to a good chunk of you, which probably hasn’t already entered your view.

    2. I will always give you the benefit of the doubt – at least twice. :)

    Sometimes, people are out to be trolls. But just because you don’t always agree with me doesn’t put you on my bad list. Even if you say something cross to me or someone I know well, I’ll do my best to figure out why that is and I’ll engage with you to see if the problem can be cracked. But if you keep going, that negative experience isn’t something I’ll want to make part of my life.

    3. I will make every attempt to engage with you – no matter your visibility.

    You’ll find people on Google+ (and elsewhere) who don’t do a great job of responding in comments, following mentions or acting elsewhere in the network. If anything, I may over-engage. I always participate in comment streams, well beyond my own feed, and I try my best to find when you’re addressing me, no matter if you’ve got 1 million followers or 1.

    4. I am always smiling, just like my avatar.

    Take yourself too seriously and you lose. I have fun, and that means hanging out with people around the world, sharing music that I enjoy, posting pictures of my kids, and being sarcastic or humorous. When I stop having fun here, I should quit.

    5. I will not get pigeonholed.

    If you catch me posting too many Google+ centric posts in a row, apologies in advance. We’re just updating so frequently, it’s practically a necessity just to stay on top of things. But I haven’t changed from the same guy who many of you have known for years. I still care about baseball and electronic music, and obscure trivia, TV and tech outside the Googleplex. So if you follow me, expect more.

    Hitting 100,000 people having me in circles is pretty cool. It’s a big number, and probably my last big number for a long time. After all, I’m not on the recommended users list – and that means you’re finding me through word of mouth or through the content I bring here. It’s almost 500% what I’ve seen from Twitter over 4 years and more than 600% the subscribers I had onFriendFeed. But just think, we’ve only been here just under 240 days, so this place is growing pretty fast. What’s next for Google+ and for all of us? You’ll have to wait and see, but now you have more of a hint of what you’ll get from me.

    To the next 100,000.

    /via My Google+ Profile.

    Copyright. 2012. Louisgray.com All Rights Reserved

  • Google Bypassing User Privacy Settings

    IEBlog

    Windows Internet Explorer Engineering Team Blog

     

    Search

     

     

    Translate this page

     

     

    Google Bypassing User Privacy Settings

    Monday, February 20, 2012 10:31 AM

    When the IE team heard that Google had bypassed user privacy settings on Safari, we asked ourselves a simple question: is Google circumventing the privacy preferences of Internet Explorer users too? We’ve discovered the answer is yes: Google is employing similar methods to get around the default privacy protections in IE and track IE users with cookies. Below we spell out in more detail what we’ve discovered, as well as recommendations to IE users on how to protect their privacy from Google with the use of IE9′s Tracking Protection feature. We’ve also contacted Google and asked them to commit to honoring P3P privacy settings for users of all browsers.

    We’ve found that Google bypasses the P3P Privacy Protection feature in IE. The result is similar to the recent reports of Google’s circumvention of privacy protections in Apple’s Safari Web browser, even though the actual bypass mechanism Google uses is different.

    Internet Explorer 9 has an additional privacy feature called Tracking Protection which is not susceptible to this type of bypass. Microsoft recommends that customers who want to protect themselves from Google’s bypass of P3P Privacy Protection use Internet Explorer 9 and click here to add a Tracking Protection List. Customers can find additional lists and information on this page.

    Background: Google Bypassing Apple’s Privacy Settings

    A recent front page Wall Street Journal article described how Google “bypassed Apple browser settings for guarding privacy.” The editor and CEO of Business Insider, a business news and analysis site, summarized the situation:

    Google secretly developed a way to circumvent default privacy settings established by a… competitor, Apple… [and] Google then used the workaround to drop ad-tracking cookies on the Safari users, which is exactly the sort of practice that Apple was trying to prevent.

    Third-party cookies are a common mechanism used to track what people do online.  Safari protects its users from being tracked this way by a default user setting that blocks third-party cookies.  Here’s Business Insider’s summary:

    What Safari does NOT allow, by default, is for third-party … cookies on users’ computers without their permission. It is these ad-tracking cookies that cause lots of Internet users to freak out that their privacy is being violated, so it’s understandable that Apple decided to block them by default.

    But these default settings have created a problem for Google, at least with respect to its goals for its advertising business.

    Google’s approach to third-party cookies seems to have the side effect of Safari believing they are first-party cookies.

    What Happens in IE

    By default, IE blocks third-party cookies unless the site presents a P3P Compact Policy Statement indicating how the site will use the cookie and that the site’s use does not include tracking the user. Google’s P3P policy causes Internet Explorer to accept Google’s cookies even though the policy does not state Google’s intent.

    P3P, an official recommendation of the W3C Web standards body, is a Web technology that all browsers and sites can support. Sites use P3P to describe how they intend to use cookies and user information. By supporting P3P, browsers can block or allow cookies to honor user privacy preferences with respect to the site’s stated intentions.

    It’s worth noting that users cannot easily access P3P policies. Web sites send these policies directly to Web browsers using HTTP headers. The only people who see P3P descriptions are technically skilled and use special tools, like the Cookie inspector in the Fiddler tool. For example, here is the P3P Compact Policy (CP) statement from Microsoft.com:

    P3P: CP=”ALL IND DSP COR ADM CONo CUR CUSo IVAo IVDo PSA PSD TAI TELo OUR SAMo CNT COM INT NAV ONL PHY PRE PUR UNI”

    Each token (e.g. ALL, IND) has a specific meaning for a P3P-compliant Web browser. For example, ‘SAMo’ indicates that ‘We [the site] share information with Legal entities following our practices,’ and ‘TAI’ indicates ‘Information may be used to tailor or modify content or design of the site where the information is used only for a single visit to the site and not used for any kind of future customization.’ The details of privacy are complex, and the P3P standard is complex as well. You can read more about P3P here.

    Technically, Google utilizes a nuance in the P3P specification that has the effect of bypassing user preferences about cookies. The P3P specification (in an attempt to leave room for future advances in privacy policies) states that browsers should ignore any undefined policies they encounter. Google sends a P3P policy that fails to inform the browser about Google’s use of cookies and user information. Google’s P3P policy is actually a statement that it is not a P3P policy. It’s intended for humans to read even though P3P policies are designed for browsers to “read”: 

    P3P: CP=”This is not a P3P policy! See http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=151657 for more info.”

    P3P-compliant browsers interpret Google’s policy as indicating that the cookie will not be used for any tracking purpose or any purpose at all. By sending this text, Google bypasses the cookie protection and enables its third-party cookies to be allowed rather than blocked. The P3P specification (“4.2 Compact Policy Vocabulary”) calls for IE’s implemented behavior when handling unknown tokens: “If an unrecognized token appears in a compact policy, the compact policy has the same semantics as if that token was not present.”

    Similarly, it’s worth noting section “3.2 Policies” from the P3P specification:

    3.2 Policies

    In cases where the P3P vocabulary is not precise enough to describe a Web site’s practices, sites should use the vocabulary terms that most closely match their practices and provide further explanation in theCONSEQUENCE field and/or their human-readable policy. However, policies MUST NOT make false or misleading statements.

    P3P is designed to support sites that convey their privacy intentions. Google’s use of P3P does not convey those intentions in a manner consistent with the technology. 

    Because of the issues noted above, and the ongoing development of new mechanisms to track users that do not involve cookies, our focus is on the new Tracking Protection technology.

    Next Steps

    After investigating what Google sends to IE, we confirmed what we describe above. We have made a Tracking Protection List available that IE9 users can add by clicking here as a protection in the event that Google continues this practice. Customers can find additional lists and information on this page.

    The premise of Tracking Protection in IE9 is that tracking servers never have the opportunity to use cookies or any other mechanism to track the user if the user never sends anything to a tracking server. This logic underlies why Tracking Protection blocks network requestsentirely. This new technology approach is currently undergoing the standardization process at the W3C.

    This blog post has additional information about IE’s cookie controls, and shows how you can block all cookies from a given site (e.g. *.google.com) regardless of whether they are first- or third-party. This method of blocking cookies would not be subject to the methods Google used. We recommend that users not yet running IE9 take steps described in this post.

    Given this real-world behavior, we are investigating what additional changes to make to our products. The P3P specification says that browsers should ignore unknown tokens. Privacy advocates involved in the original specification have recently suggested that IE ignore the specification and block cookies with unrecognized tokens. We are actively investigating that course of action.

    ―Dean Hachamovitch, Corporate Vice President, Internet Explorer