Let's (Not) Have A National Conversation.

The age of the Internet has given us many things. Cats adorned with hilariously misspelled captions. Videos of large groups of people doing things in places. But for the intelligentsia (Internetelligentsia?), perhaps the most important gift of the Internet has been The Conversation.

The Conversation is the stream of thought that dominates the blogs, magazines, and social media feeds that well-educated peeps with literary leanings go to for their constant word-fix.

The structure of The Conversation is simple:

1. Event happens / thing is written. (We’ll call this Item #1).
2. Witty response / “thinkpiece” on Item #1 is written.
3. Everyone who deems themselves a “thought leader” is compelled to spend the next week pushing out their incredibly important thoughts about Item #1, regardless of whether or not Item #1 matters to them.
4. Item #1 is then promptly discarded in favor of a newer Item, but will later be an important bullet point on a list of yearly things that were important during the year.

This isn’t an entirely new phenomenon. Literary-types have been engaging in back-and-forth on a variety of topics for centuries. What the Internet has really done is to crank up the speed, and add a heaping measure of absurdity. The absurdity, in most cases, is a direct result of the speed. Because The Conversation picks up momentum so quickly, no one really has time to ponder whether or not it has a speck of importance. And in a world where the barriers between high and low culture have been rent asunder, it’s increasingly common for the stuff of tabloid gossip to become important topics in the pages of The New Yorker.

Thus, when Miley Cyrus does something icky, we must endure “responses” to it from every possible political and cultural angle. Want to learn about the gender politics / racial politics / theology of a mildly-talented singer doing something mildly offensive? Then congratulations: the Internet shall embrace you to its scantily-clad bosom.

Of course, The Conversation can be about many things. It can be about a political “scandal” that many people don’t believe is significant in any way, but who will kindly contribute lengthy pages about what it means that other people consider it significant, and how significant this is. It can be about a crime that is deemed far worse than a hundred identical crimes that occurred on the same day, and is believed to say something about society. (And race. And gender. And man’s relationship with the Divine Unknown.)

It can even be about something that is deep, or troubling, or of great political importance. But that’s not the point; The Conversation’s appeal has little do with the current Item's significance.

People join The Conversation because other people have already joined The Conversation. That’s it. It can be about something of vital importance. It can be about something so idiotic that most people would simply shrug it off. But shrugging off The Conversation is something that simply isn’t done in nicer circles. To be outside The Conversation is to be irrelevant. If you’re a writer who writes on a regular basis, and you refuse to write something about that thing that other people are writing about, it’s like you don’t even exist. You might as well toss your ambitions out the window, and resign yourself to a life of cheap beer, televised sports, and crippling depression.

My suspicion is that many people don’t enjoy staying afloat in the ceaseless tide of The Conversation. Maybe they’re just looking for some way out. Some kind of permission to leave, and explore the world at their own pace.

Very well then:

If you’re someone who writes things, and you’re looking for a way out of this endless cycle of meaningless paragraphs, I’ll offer one. Go forth with my blessing, child. Ignore The Conversation, unless it’s a conversation you actually want to have. Unless it’s a conversation you need to have. If it isn’t worth responding to, don’t respond to it. Don’t be afraid to look for meaning in the quiet nooks that other people are ignoring while they attempt to listen in on what other people are already talking about.

Free thyself, O blogosphere. And ye, O Twitterverse, fly far into lands yet unseen. And this peace I offer even unto the realm of Google +, though I know it not.

Go forth.

Welcoming Our New Algorithmic Overlords.

The Atlantic recently published a great piece on the increasing role of data analytics in human resources. You should read the whole thing.

In summary: American corporations are developing algorithms that can uncannily predict a potential employee’s performance based on data they’ve generated. Think Moneyball, but applied to waiters, programmers, and even corporate management. Old metrics like previous experience and education are starting to give way to fine-grained data analysis that probes into extremely specific factors that can make an individual right for a job. And for employees who are already on the job, additional analytics can provide objective performance metrics in real time. If these practices continue to spread, it could change almost everything about the way companies and their employees interact.

The author of the piece expresses a hopeful view of the data-driven job market. Sure, there’s something unsettling about your future being largely determined by machines, but on the balance, the system will be untainted by human bias.

On its face, this seems like a fair assessment. Many of the things that currently affect the success of job applicants are beyond their control, and at times, utterly discriminatory. Things like age, height, looks, and race are undeniably factors in the world of gut-level hiring decisions. When oh-so-fallible human beings are given the reigns, they tend to pick people who are a lot like themselves, or fit into their mental image of what a certain kind of employee should be.

Maybe it’s time to trust the machine.

And yet, trusting the machine is hard. Even if dumb ol’ Homo Sapiens are biased and inefficient, there’s something that’s nearly impossible to accept about ceding so much control to a meticulously-researched piece of code. Once you read up on the data, it’s easy to see why computerized hiring could be great for a lot of people, but it almost doesn’t matter. It seems wrong.

This feeling is probably due to the fact that hiring based on impartial data analysis involves a shift in our entire perception of what it means to be human. Even if we don’t have a life that fulfills us, it’s always nice to think that in some sense, we’re free to change, and do whatever we want. The person across from the desk during your job interview may toss your application out because he doesn’t think you have enough hair, but he could also accept you for an equally irrational reason. That human element gives us the hope that there’s always a chance. Even if, in reality, that chance is virtually non-existent. Meanwhile, when an algorithm chews up your personal data and spits out a LOW POTENTIAL message, you don't even have a fool's hope to cling to.

The idea of having your behavior constantly monitored for performance clues is even harder to swallow. As with the previous case, there are plenty of good things advocates can point to. Analytics-enabled employees will always know where they stand, and can be given clear instruction on how to improve. Without hard data, performance reviews can be laden with human error. Bad employees can evade detection, while good employees can be maligned, based on faulty perceptions. The computer, on the other hand, only sees the facts. And once it shares those facts, you can improve! Everything works smoother than a greased wombat.

However, this raises a question: how much are we willing to give up for a fully optimized career? Constant data analysis could result in more productive, happier workers, and more profitable companies. But once again, it also involves completely altering our perception of human life. Once we view ourselves and others as sets of metrics, things start to change. Like pro athletes or Pokémon, we'll have to become obsessed with getting our stats up if we want to stay relevant. The fact that personal factors can have a huge impact on our job performance further complicates the picture. It's not a stretch to assume that data-driven optimization at work will require data-driven optimization at home.

(“Sorry kids... you’re really cutting into my weekly numbers.”)

At a certain point, it might be worth considering how much we should really value absolute economic efficiency. If the dreams of data scientists come true, and every company is full of employees who are able to generate the maximum amount of revenue-per-hour, what then? In some ways, people might be happier. In other ways, they might be less happy. And eventually, everyone will have to grapple with the meaning of life in ways that no piece of software can comprehend. Big changes in the future are almost inevitable. Whether those big changes are also big improvements in the long run remains to be seen.

The Pope's Words: I Don't Think They Mean What You Think They Mean.

If you want to start thinking critically about the news you consume, there’s one important thing to remember: journalists are biased. Just not in the way you might think.

Yes, journalists tend to identify themselves on the liberal side of the political spectrum. But when it comes to what they actually write, the bias that skews their coverage is a bias toward cohesive narratives. Journalists are storytellers -- their job is based around taking people and events, and fitting them into a narrative structure that’s easy to understand. Often, this is useful. Often, this is necessary. But just as often, it distorts the truth.

In the case of Pope Francis, the distorting effects of a devotion to clear-cut narrative have been on display for the world to see.

Journalists began their coverage of the new papacy with a simple narrative about the Catholic church already fixed in their brain. In short: the Catholic church is locked in a battle between conservatives and liberals, and the primary importance of any new pope is which of these two camps he’ll end up siding with. The first flaw of this narrative is the assumption that all religious conflicts are battles between liberals and conservatives, groups that mirror their counterparts in secular politics. For journalists, this makes sense, because they have a pretty good grasp of politics, and little to no grasp of theology. But while this conservative / liberal divide does exist in a certain form, most of the issues that any given religion deals with don’t fit into this political dichotomy. (See, most of the church schisms and divisions that have taken place over the past few millenia).

Due to this ready-made narrative, journalists have one goal when the Pope opens his mouth: find bits of information they can plug into the story they've already decided to tell. Because Pope Francis is a nice guy, doesn’t look like Emperor Palpatine, and sometimes takes selfies, journalists have largely decided that Pope Francis will tilt the church in a "liberal" direction. When the Pope talks to the public, only things that fit into this story will make the headlines.

Thus, after the Pope gave a complicated and nuanced interview to a Catholic paper, it’s not surprising that American journalists only noticed a few sentences. The sentences that happened to fit into their narrative.

You’ve probably already seen the headlines. The Pope wants to find “new balance” when it comes to social issues! The Pope says the church doesn’t need to talk about abortion and homosexuality “all the time”! In other words: THE POPE IS A LIBERAL AND HE LIKES GAYS AND STUFF.

Which would be fine, if those headlines were an accurate assessment of the Pope’s own words. If you read the full interview, which is incredibly fascinating, you’ll find it isn’t primarily a statement about how the church has become too conservative, and must adopt the cultural values of modernity. Much of the interview centers around the Pope’s influences from Catholic history, and meditations on the nature of Christian spirituality. Translation for journalists: boring religious stuff. He does talk about the way he wants to shift his papacy's focus -- but he doesn’t speak in a way that adheres to liberal / conservative thinking. What the Pope seems to be communicating is that he wants the Catholic church to become more focused on evangelism, which means proclaiming God’s offer of salvation before all else. All the moral teachings of the church on social issues -- which Francis affirms as “clear” -- are important, but they’re useless when they’re not paired with the message of the gospel.

(It’s important to note that if journalists wanted a completely different narrative, they could also back it up with another out-of-context quote from Francis: Pope Francis: Church Teaching on Homosexuality “Clear.”)

For most Christians, this isn’t groundbreaking material, but it's refreshing to hear it expressed in an articulate way. As an evangelical protestant, I was impressed by the Pope’s richly textured expression of faith. It's true that Francis doesn’t go on an angry screed against gays and nonbelievers, but then again, neither do the vast majority of Christian leaders, regardless of how "conservative" they are. The press's breathless reaction to the Pope's interview is reminiscent of the awful coverage of “hip” evangelical churches that largely consists of ignorant statements along the lines of, “Pastor Coolface believes in the bible, but on a recent Sunday, he didn’t even mention gays!” Journalists have a narrative about “conservative” Christianity in their heads -- that all churches care about is gay marriage and abortion -- and they’re not sure what to do when they encounter an authentic statement of faith that defies this narrative.

I don’t expect that coverage of Christianity in general -- and Catholicism specifically -- will improve in the near future. Religion is hard, and journalists have to pump out stories with click-ready headlines as fast as their underpaid fingers can manage. Even if fitting facts into simplified narratives is frustrating to me as a consumer of news, I understand it. And since he’s such a swell guy, I’m sure Pope Francis forgives journalists for it.

But as fellow consumers of news, it’s your responsibility to dig deeper, and question the narratives. Sometimes they’re right. Sometimes they’re not.

In other words: Do journalists get caught up in artificial narratives? Is the Pope Catholic? Contrary to what you might have heard recently, the answer to both is yes.

Fragments: 2012 - 2013

I don’t post on this blog a lot. But, that doesn’t mean I’m not writing. I love writing, and do it often. I just don’t finish what I write. My Google Drive is chock full of large, complicated pieces that I’ve had ideas for, began writing, and then abandoned. Which is a shame, because some of them are fairly promising. Theoretically, I’d like to finish most of these pieces. But, it seems wasteful to just let the words go stale in my digital pantry. So, I’m releasing them. At least, some of them.

What follows are fragments. Bits and pieces of unfinished writing, exploring a whole lot of topics. If anyone is interested in me completing any particular piece, feel free to let me know. Otherwise, I’ll just get to them whenever I get to them. Or, maybe just keep them in the pantry, while I spend my time looking at pictures of cute animals on the Internet.

---

Part of an in-depth series on the built environment: 
In this great land, there are lots of things we like to question and critique. We are, after all, Americans. If our fries don’t deliver the combination of deep-fried crunch and lightly salted flavor we crave, we shame the local greasy spoon with a one-star rating on Yelp. If a Pakistani has the gall to answer our tech-support questions, we vent our anger on talk radio. But one thing -- an absolutely inescapable and essential part of life -- seems to avoid this treatment on a regular basis. We largely take it for granted, despite the fact that it defines most aspects of our existence.

I’m talking about the built environment. The spaces we live in, work in, and travel through. The physical reality behind almost every experience in our lives. The elevated highways, parking lots, lawns, drive-throughs, elevators, and living rooms that contain us every hour of every day.

The whole kaboodle.

Criticism of “suburbia,” the most dominant form of built environment in America, isn’t new. Academics have generated volumes of detailed criticism of every element of suburban life since the post-war age began. Even a few suburbanites occasionally voice misgivings about their own way of life.

In some ways, I’ll be continuing this grand tradition of sophisticated suburban criticism*. My thinking on this subject has been shaped by a number of other writers, and I won’t pretend like my ideas emerged from a vacuum. But I think the issues go much deeper than a simple dichotomy between the city and the suburb. Given that the population of almost every metropolitan area in America is overwhelmingly suburban, scoffing at single family homes and wondering why everyone doesn’t want to live in Manhattan is unproductive and silly.

What I’m really attempting to do is to convey two simple ideas: the built environment matters, and it isn’t static. Most of the spaces we inhabit are very new, and the way Americans live and work have been radically transformed in a relatively short period of time. Things can, and will, change again. And because the built environment is such a key part of our lives, the way we organize human existence in the physical realm has moral and spiritual components. This isn’t a subject that should be pushed the periphery. Whether we acknowledge it or not, the question of where we choose to live has massive implications for how we live.

Part of a related essay on the effect the pattern of suburban development has had on our conception of the church:
 For individual congregants, there are certainly benefits to choice and competition. Separating church from any physical community allows modern Christians to select congregations that fit their preferences for worship, theology, preaching, and fellowship. The problem is that this choice inherently subverts our conception of what church is. Choosing a church the way you might choose a grocery store or a dry-cleaner leads to a consumer mentality among churchgoers. Rather than being a people who belong to the church, we are people who go to a church. Young pastors talk in the capitalist language of growth, and even congregations with similar theological persuasions often have no meaningful communion with one another. What was established as a unified body has become something more like the competition between Burger King and McDonalds.

There are no easy answers to the challenges the church will continue to face in the age of urban sprawl. But perhaps the best lesson to learn is that place matters. The physical organization of life in America has been almost entirely transformed in the last century. Changes like this come at a price. But the story is far from over. Unlike many other countries, America is still growing. The form of our cities and towns will likely change, in one direction or another. During the transformation of American in the 20th century, the church was a largely absent player in the conversation. (Although, to be fair, the conversation itself was often absent, outside of left-wing intellectual circles). Recognizing that the form our cities take have implications for our spiritual lives is a good first step to avoiding these mistakes.

Part of an essay on how modern conservatism doesn’t seem that interested in conserving anything in particular: 
Conservatives have long held that many things that are theoretically legal are nonetheless bad, and should be discouraged, and vice-versa  -- albeit not necessarily at the level of government. For example, it isn’t a legal requirement for parents to spend quality time with their children, and pass on their values, but it's a good thing. But in the brave new world of modern conservatism, bad choices are celebrated, and common sense is derided as elitism. Are big boxes stores transforming small towns into homogenous wastelands, and erasing centuries of tradition and history? It’s legal, so it must be awesome!

The problem is that if conservatives wish to shrink government, they must be far more vigilant when it comes to their choices. Federal regulation can be a pain, but most are borne out of neccesity. The EPA didn’t come into existence because some “environmental wackos” wanted to control our lives -- it was created because America was so polluted that a freakin’ river was on fire.

Thoughts on the smartphone wars: 
When Android first came out, it was a laggy, incoherent mess compared to iOS’s sparkly polish. Today, Android is a much smoother experience. Bugs remain, but it’s clear that things are progressing at an exponential clip. In the long run, it’s a pretty safe bet that Android will end up more than a match for iOS’s speed and polish.

That doesn’t mean the iPhone will somehow die out, as rabid fandroids would hope. Apple makes excellent products, and millions will continue to buy them. In the end, both sides bring a lot to the table, and push each other to excellence. The iPhone was an incredibly well-designed product from day one, and it’s perfection continues to inspire other phone makers to reach a higher level of polish. Meanwhile, the sheer diversity of the rapidly innovating Android ecosystem is a huge playground for new features and form factors, giving people choices that open up new possibilities.

And ultimately, these are just phones. They are tools for communication, and not holy relics to be worshipped. If you think the kind of phone you have makes you a better person, get over yourself.

Part of a critique of the “food movement”: 
Ethical considerations should, of course, come into play in practical decisions. In the case of industrial farming, the most common complaints surround the manner in which meat-producing animals are grown. I, like most good white people, have watched Food Inc., and seen all the the terrors of coops practically bursting with obese hens. These are then contrasted with the proud, free-range chickens, which strut their stuff through glorious meadows. They are, we are meant to believe, happy chickens.

But, to be honest, those free-range chickens don’t really seem any happier than other chickens. They just seem like... chickens. Chickens who will be killed once they become delicious enough.

(Sidenote: chickens are mean, and I don’t really like them on a personal level. So, I guess that’s probably why I wrote this whole thing. Just a personal chicken vendetta).

The big problem with the fight between locavores and big ag is the either/or assumptions. Big farms aren’t very nice to animals, and grow too much corn, therefore, everyone should buy kale from some bearded guy who lives 30 miles away. What if, for example, big farms still raised lots of chickens in big barns, but gave them a little more space? Or if we subsidized corn less, and encouraged more diverse, healthy crops, taking into account their effects on long-term soil quality? What if instead of getting rid of big farms, food activists focused on making big farms better? Like it or not, little farms aren’t that efficient, and most people dont want to be farmers. Big farms will continue to produce most of our food. Making the perfect the enemy of the good isn’t a recipe for positive changes in agriculture.

Part of a complicated foreign policy piece: 
More than any other president in recent history, Obama seems to lack any sort of clearly articulated vision for America’s role in the world. On the balance, this is probably a good thing. I’d much rather have a lack of vision than a destructive one. But unfortunately, Obama seems to be bent on continuing the worst of the Bush years (rampantly overrunning the sovereignty of other nations to fight an objective-less war against shadowy terrorist organizations), without any sort of comprehensive rationale behind it.

All of this brings us to a single question. It’s a question that our leaders don’t seem interested in answering. But it deserves to be considered.

(It’s also kind of a long question. Deal.)

What is America’s obligation to the citizens of other states, specifically regarding violations of what we believe to be human rights and the resolution of violent conflict? Here’s the crux of the issue: the world is a big, messy place. America is one medium-sized (but powerful) slice of it. Bad things are happening all over the place, all the time. There are tyrants, and terrorists, and warlords. Our response to these issues has been all over the map. We’ve tried to establish democracies, while simultaneously partnering with dictators. We’ve allied ourselves with terrorists when it suited our interests, and then declared war on them later. We’ve insisted on staying out of foreign conflicts, but then mourned when we failed to prevent genocide. We support international justice for war criminals, unless they happen to be American. We’re damned when we do, and damned when we don’t.

Part of a bulleted list of things I like about living in Lincoln, Nebraska: 
- It’s cheap. This is actually kind of a big deal. If you’re a poor kid who is in college, or just got out of college, you can afford your own place. Elsewhere in the United States, living in your mom’s basement is basically your only option until you start making a six-figure income. That would suck.

- It’s safe. Even if you live in a sub-$400 apartment in a sketchy neighborhood, you will likely not be murdered. I’ve never been crime-ed in any way. Crime-ed is totally a word.

- The people are pretty okay. Generally, I reject the whole “people are friendly” description people tack onto cities they like, as there are friendly people and jerks everywhere. But, there are good people here, and I know some of them.

- It isn’t too big for its britches. Neighboring Omaha exists under the delusion that it is the Next Big Thing in the midwest. Unfortunately, every other similarly-sized city in America believes it also the Next Big Thing. Eventually, they will probably battle to the death, before realizing that they are still medium-sized cities whose importance will always be regional, rather than national. Lincoln, as a whole, seems to be more content to be Lincoln. Anyway. Moving on.

- It’s kind of cool. No, really. Local coffee shops are abundant, the music scene is diverse, and if getting drunk on the cheap is your thing, Lincoln is your place. The fact that Lincoln is a college town keeps it from being too conservative, and the fact that Lincoln is in Nebraska keeps it from being too liberal. It’s the perfect balance between redneck and pretentious.

---

So, there you have it. Many written things. All of them unfinished. Perhaps someday, I’ll develop the attention span to finish stuff.

How To Understand Every Internet Discussion About Health Or Food

THEY SAY:

“I did some research on (common activity and/or food) and found (some shocking discovery about how this thing is secretly killing everyone)! People need to educate themselves!”

TRANSLATION:

I did a Google search, clicked on the top results, and did not weigh the information I found against opposing viewpoints, or research the credentials of the information sources. I am now an expert on this topic!

Vinyl, Cities, And Why Smart People Are Often Wrong.

A few weeks ago, I was at an educational technology conference, listening to a presentation on the evolution of consumer tech. The speaker used props extensively, showing off relics like 5” floppy disks, and 8-track tapes.

At one point, she held up an LP, and firmly stated, “if you’re under 30, you have no idea what this is.”

Of course, if you’re someone under 30, you know this is crazy talk. While vinyl records aren’t the mass medium they once were, they’ve become extremely popular with a large crowd of young, mostly well-educated people who enjoy the sound of analog music. In many cases, young people are dusting off their parents’ unused record heaps, and giving them a second life.

This may turn out to be a fad. At the very least, it doesn’t mean that digital music is declining, or that the traditional record industry will suddenly be the titan it was in the ‘70s. But it’s an interesting phenomenon nonetheless.

It’s interesting because there’s not really a quantifiable reason for the resurgence of vinyl. Massive, physical records are no practical match for the millions of songs Spotify can magically stream to your laptop. The fact that the revival of a seemingly-ancient format has occurred in tandem with the continued growth of digital music is a delightful paradox that cuts against the linear march O’ technology narrative the speaker was trying to present.

And it’s a testament to the power of the intangible.

We live in an age of data, enthralled by technocrats who can gaze into the future through massive sets of numbers. We’re meant to believe that anything significant about human behavior can be reduced to spreadsheets assembled by economists and statisticians.

One of the most immediate consequences of this laser-focus on data is a continuity bias.The purpose of most data analysis is to identify patterns, like historical trends and correlations between data sets. So, when we discover these little gems, we can only rationally assume that these patterns will hold. And, viola! We have a little portal to the future --  and for writers, a harvest of click-ready headlines:

The End Of _____ !

The Future Of _____ !

The New ______ !

Why What You Think About _______ Is Wrong!

The Upcoming ______ Disaster!

For a while, these predictions seem correct. But then, shifts take place. And the roots of these shifts can usually be found in different realms: the realms of preference, belief, and other mental constructs that can defy numerical analysis.

Take the state of the American city: 40 years ago, any number of experts in the field of urban policy would tell you that the American city was dead. The suburbs were rapidly growing, inner-cities were zones of hopelessness, and the streets of downtown areas were empty. Rationally, this made sense. People wanted space, privacy, and personal mobility. The suburbs offered all those things, and the old city cores didn’t. Their death was a necessary, but inevitable, tragedy.

Today, things have changed. The suburbs are still large, and in some places, still growing. But dense urban cores have replaced suburban areas as the center of the elite class's aspirations. Neighborhoods in and close to downtown areas have experienced massive influxes of wealthy, mostly white, residents. The very people who were expected to continue to seek out more space in the leafy-green sprawl around the edges.

The changes that made this possible were changes in the ideals of the affluent generation that had been raised in the space, homogeneity, and safety of the suburbs. The qualities that had such a great pull on their parents and grandparents no longer held the same appeal for them. New qualities -- authenticity, walkability, excitement -- became their touchstones.

Urban economists can point to an increasing amount of data that shows that density is correlated with a number of positive goods, like the amount of economic innovation, but the fact that these benefits exist is besides the point. The educated people who make up the burgeoning urban class aren’t moving downtown because of metrics that show that patent applications increase based on the amount of people per square mile. They’re searching for a “vibe,” or a “community,” or maybe just some really good coffee.

Numbers are useful, but, they have their limits. There’s a lot that numbers can tell us about a place, a group of people, or a certain trend. But all these things are made of more than just measurable metrics.

Another case in point: every year, certain magazines compile lists of the “best” places/towns/cities, which provide another form of headline fodder for over-worked journalists. Interestingly enough, the places that fill the top of these lists are almost never the cities where millions of people actually choose to move. Inevitably, it’s a string of relatively obscure burgs that look fantastic on paper.

The small Nebraskan city I live in, Lincoln, was recently rated the happiest city in America. Now, I can attest to the fact that Lincoln is a pleasant place. And yet, there aren’t millions of people rushing to the Great Plains to experience the marvelous happiness therein.

In the real world, the places tourists flock to, and ambitious youngsters leave their hometowns for, are often pretty poor based on a number of metrics. Things like unemployment rates, and commute times are an important part of the urban puzzle, but so are things like the “feel” of a street, the “energy” a business community, or the way the sunset looks in a certain park. If you ask a newly-minted New Yorker about why he chose to live there, he probably won’t tell you that he ditched everyone he knew and decided to share a studio apartment with five strangers because Once Prestigious Magazine told him it was #45.5 on a list of places for recent college graduates.

Ultimately, the problem isn’t with the data itself. The trouble lies in the conceit that numbers can provide us with an objective and complete view of the world, detached from interpretation and human experiences. In truth, the widespread availability of data about our lives has provided us with incredible tools. But the usefulness of any tool depends on the hands that wield it.

So, go ahead: use numbers. If you must, make predictions, and lists. Numbers are interesting, and can tell you a lot. But at the same time, be human. Listen to people, and search for the interesting cultural events that happen around the edges, where others aren’t looking. And maybe, when reality capsizes the conventional wisdom, you won’t be so surprised.

Share This With All The Early-But-Not-Quite-Mid-Twenty-Somethings In Your Life!

According to recent studies, all the most important decisions of your life are made before you turn 23.8. But sadly, few people know how to navigate this vital period of life. Fortunately, having recently turned 23.8 myself, I can help.

9 Things You Absolutely Must Do Before Turning 23.8

1. DON’T SETTLE FOR SOME DUMB, BORING, NORMAL-PERSON JOB. 
Jobs in offices are for the elderly, and mole people. You’re young, which means you’re more awesome, free-spirited, and intelligent than everyone else. Don’t settle for any job that isn’t related to "creative" things in some way. Ideally, this job will have “creative” in the title. If you can’t find a job like that, starting an Internet company is a good thing to do. Also, anything involving “community,” “typography,” or “outreach.” Starting a community-based Internet company specializing in typography outreach will allow you to attain +5 Wizard Powers automatically. If you fail to do any of these things, your life will be a bleak, lonely dune in the vast desert of existence.

2. ALSO, DON’T SETTLE FOR ANYTHING ELSE.
Let’s say you have a friend who you like. A lot. But, there are some things about him / her that get on your nerves. For example, his or her attitude toward returning library books in a timely fashion is surprisingly blasé. Red flag much? Yes, as you may have guessed, people like this are toxic to your future. Treat them like a cub-bereft mother bear, and run away. Life is too short to hang with  people who aren’t as incredible and ambitious as you. And it’s not just people. Is the bread on your PB&J a little dry? Toss that loaftrap to a squirrel. Do your legs get fatigued while walking up the stairs? Rip out those dead-weights, and find appendages that actually fit your lifestyle. Because if you’re not careful, all that mediocrity will drag you down, like a millstone around the neck of your rapidly diminishing chances of fulfillment.

3. READ SOME BOOKS THAT I’VE READ. 

•  Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, by Lord Kinross
•  Bossypants, by Tina Fey 
•  Perelandra, by C.S. Lewis 

Those are three books I’ve read at various points during my life. Everyone who wants to be successful has to read them as well. If you don’t read those exact books, in that order, your life will be a withered corn husk resting on the cold, tiled floor of life.

4. GET INVOLVED IN A CAUSE OF GREAT IMPORTANCE. 
Everyone likes to talk about social justice, but how many of us actually take the next step? And no, “liking” a page on Facebook isn’t enough. To truly make a difference, you have to actually share posts from those pages. Of course, you can't just support any supposedly "good" cause. The best causes are ones that involve gays, micro-loans  and human trafficking. Best case scenario: sharing a post from a charity that gives micro-loans to married gay couples involved in fighting human trafficking in Africa. Staying silent isn’t an option, and if you don’t speak up now, your life will be a fetid banana peel covered in coffee grounds at the bottom of the cosmic trash bag.

5. FOLLOW MY CONFUSING, CONTRADICTORY ADVICE ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS. 
Since you were a wee tot, you've been filled with lies about relationships. You've been told there’s only one magical person out there who’s right for you, and that romance is all about experiencing an emotional high. But the hard truth of the matter is that to truly love anyone involves effort, and deliberate choice. At the same time, don’t be afraid to drop your significant other like a sack of flour  if they’re weighing you down from achieving your professional goals, or if you feel like you’re somehow settling for him or her. (Never settle!) You see, the true success of any relationship comes down to a combination of followings gut feelings, and ignoring gut feelings. Discovering this balance will be hard, but if you don’t figure it out, your life will be a bleached antelope skeleton on the side of a refreshingly well-paved -- but still quite dangerous* -- interstate highway ramp.

6. GAIN AN APPRECIATION FOR WINE. 
Since the dawn of man, men have enjoyed crafting tools and gathering food. Shortly after, they began appreciating wine. Later, women joined in the fun. You should learn to appreciate wine. Otherwise, you’ll be that 23.8 year-old who doesn’t appreciate wine. Which is bad.

7. REMEMBER THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN LIFE IS AN INTANGIBLE SENSE OF BEING A LITTLE BIT COOLER THAN OTHER PEOPLE.
By the time your 24th birthday rolls around, and the best years of your life have come to an end, the most important things won’t be the people and places you've invested your time in. In the end, it’s all about looking back on your early 20s, and being able to think, “well, I’ve been a pretty cool person.” Take a complete assessment of your life. Compared to most people you know, how would you rate your taste in music? When people hear about your job, do they envision you rocking a sweet modern-cut suit jacket + skinny jean combo, or wearing pleated, relaxed-fit khakis? Virtually the entire meaning of your life rests in the mental image other people have of you. Keep this in mind, and you can avoid the shame of being yet another fiddlercrab of sorrow, doing a solemn dance across the mangrove swamp of broken dreams.

8. TRAVEL TO A LOT OF PLACES. ESPECIALLY EUROPE, AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE NETHERLANDS 
Did you know there are other countries? It’s true! And travelling to any number of them will give you insights on life so deep that other Americans will seem like ignorant-but-affectionate muskrats. Europe is an excellent group of countries to visit, because the Europeans have already advanced to the next stage of evolution, and will soon be able to hover at will, using the power of their enlarged cerebral cortexes. There’s really no excuse for not spending at least a month in Europe, travelling across its many countries, and appreciating its many wines. But if you’re a hobo or recently-released convict who can only afford a short trip to a single country, you should definitely go to The Netherlands. Visiting the sophisticated Lands of Nether will allow you to constantly interject meaningful statements about America’s backward puritanism during almost any conversation.

Example: “You know, when I was in Amsterdam, everyone did pot -- but they could still miraculously hover a few inches off the ground using only the power of their enlarged cerebral cortexes!”

Staying locked away in the cupboard of America’s close-minded empire of repression is a terrible choice. You’re young, and it’s time to go to magical places. Otherwise, your life will be a cat-sized toilet in a cats-only restroom designed for cats who are trained to use cat-sized toilets instead of litter boxes for their personal biz.

9. MAKE SURE YOU READ LOTS OF OTHER NUMBERED LISTS ABOUT WHAT TO DO BEFORE AN ARBITRARY POINT IN YOUR TWENTIES. 
Would Alexander the Great have truly been “great,” if he hadn't followed Aristotle’s “An Assortment of Activities You Must Engage in Before Attaining the Age of Twenty and Five Years?” Prolly not. Through the ages, all great men and women have followed checklists of milestones provided to them by people on the Internet. Seeking out these lists, and taking them to heart, is perhaps the most important skill to master in the first 39% of your twenties. If you refuse to seek out this wisdom, your life will become a cautionary pop-up book, read to future moon-babies for millennia to come.

---

 *For antelope, that is.

A Glass House.

Are you ever saddened by the fact that you’re unable to share every waking moment of your life with other people? Sure, your fancy phone is all right when you want to share pictures of cats, or carefully arranged lunches, but all of that taking-it-out-of-your-pocket-and-touching-the-screen business can really weigh you down.

Enter Google Glass -- a computer thing you wear on your face, all the time!

The existence of Google Glass -- Google’s foray into wearable computing -- isn’t exactly news. But Google just released a new video under the heading “How it Feels,” to convey, well, how it feels to use Glass. It’s an inspirational montage of footage, presumably taken by Glass wearers, that demonstrates just how much this technology will enrich your life.

Please, check it out:


Oddly enough, Google Glass is the least interesting thing about this video. The images are captivating -- tumbling through the air on a flying trapeze, jumping on trampolines, riding in hot air balloons, drifting down a canal in Thailand. At best, the little floating Glass display in the corner seems like an irritating distraction. And the functionality of the device isn’t exactly revolutionary either. If Google is trying to convey what Glass is capable of, the answer is clear: the same stuff your smartphone does. The difference is that Glass, in theory, is always on. Always a part of you.

The goal is to take you less out of experiences than your phone does. Instead of pulling out a little device, and staring at its screen, capturing your everyday existence will be as natural as breathing.

At least, in Google’s mind.

In reality, the concept falls short. If you’re eating lunch with your friends, is turning toward your plate of Pad Thai and saying, “Okay, Glass. Take a picture. Share with friends,” really more natural than pulling out your phone and snapping an old-fashioned, pretentious mealstagram? And if you really want to be more immersed in an experience, wouldn’t a better solution be to just experience something without worrying about documenting it?

In the age of social media evangelists and their gospel of an evermore-connected-world-in-which-personal-stuff-is-shared, this is blasphemy. The idea that perhaps someone would prefer not to take pictures and videos of everything they do is never considered. The inherent message of the Glass promo is that all the fantastic things the Glass users are doing are made more significant, and more magical, simply because they’re doing them while connected to the digital universe. Social media users already fall into the mindset that the things they do are meaningless unless they’re shared with others. Google Glass takes that concept, and puts it on steroids.

I’m not sure that’s what anyone needs.

However, philosophical objections probably won’t be what sinks Google Glass. The sheer, shall we say, dorkiness of Google’s product, paired with a lack of compelling functionality, make it unlikely to succeed. Visions of the future, even ones dreamed up by very intelligent people, are often remarkably wrong. Glass is a product that seems designed to evoke a sense of being futuristic, without actually filling a human need. This isn’t the best recipe for success in the marketplace.

I mean, am I the only one who immediately thought of this after seeing the first pics of Glass?

I rest my case.

The Distant Future. The Year 2016.

In honor of Obama’s second inauguration, I humbly present my predictions for the next four years of our nation’s history. The predictions are in a bulleted list, because those are easy to read. And fun. Bulleted lists are fun!

DURING THE NEXT FOUR YEARS:

• Republican in congress will oppose several bills Obama supports.
• Charges of “political posturing” will be made.
• Marco Rubio will continue to be Hispanic, and Republicans will continue to be excited about that.
• If you have guns right now, you will continue to own them.
• Obama will say, “let me be clear,” in various contexts.
• He will be accused of not actually being clear, in various contexts.
• You won’t have to worry about obeying "Sharia law."
• You still won’t know what "Sharia law" actually entails.
• You might still be kind of worried about obeying "Sharia law" at some point in the future.
• America will still be killing people we don’t like, and people who happen to be near them, using deadly robots.
•  We probably won’t care that much about the robot thing.
• Corn syrup will still be in stuff. Because it’s frickin’ delicious.
• Ever had pecan pie? It’s not delicious because of the pecans.
•  (It’s because of the corn syrup).
• (Pecan pie is basically all corn syrup).
• Michele Obama will remain a controversial figure, due to her insistence on talking to kids about eating right and exercise.
• The nerve! Also, she has muscles!
• That makes some people uncomfortable!
• Rush Limbaugh will say something that some people will interpret as racism.
• Some people will continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
• Cupcakes will no longer be a thing. 
• Conservative cupcake lovers, if there are any, will blame Michele Obama.
• Others will just acknowledge that cupcakes were always just normal cakes, but smaller, and move on.
•  I will still make cupcakes, though.
• Obama will scarf down some type of classic American food on camera.
• (Perhaps a burger.)
•  Conservatives will refer to this burger-scarfing as “liberal hypocrisy." 
• Obama will pose with some type of adorable animal on camera.
• (Perhaps a koala.)
• Conservatives will refer to this koala-hugging as "liberal hypocrisy."
• Global warming will continue to wreck havoc on the globe, while simultaneously not existing.
• This will continue to be super confusing. 
• Network morning shows will go for an entire week without a special report on "sexting."
• A day of feasting will be proclaimed.   
• The feasting will be short-lived.

A Lack of Control.

After the unspeakable tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, many Americans finally got the conversation on gun control they’d been waiting for. For a while, it seemed like it would never happen. As the last few years rolled by, the dark list of high-profile shootings kept stacking up. And every time, the call for tighter restrictions on guns was met with deafening silence from law-makers.

Now, the silence has been broken. Shortly after the slaughter, ideas for curbing gun violence were being openly discussed on Capitol Hill, from closing the “gun show loophole,” to banning high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons. Yesterday, president Obama gave a speech endorsing a set of policies that would put many of these restrictions in place. Even some Republicans have squirmed out of the grip of the gun lobby to offer support.

For some, this is a hopeful moment in the wake of tragedy. But I’m not so sure.

None of the proposed policies are bad in and of themselves. They might do a little good, and they certainly wouldn’t destroy legitimate gun-ownership in this country. If you’re looking for someone to call for a revolt against the gun-snatching tyranny of Obama, look elsewhere.

There’s only one thing that bothers me: any new regulations on guns are highly unlikely to prevent the horrific mass shootings that inspired them in the first place. Support the regulations, if you like. Just don’t pretend that the president’s signature can stop tragedies like Sandy Hook from occurring.

I don’t doubt that laws can create positive changes in society. But public policy is most effective when it targets a broad problem. Changes in laws, and their enforcement, can alter general patterns of behavior in a population for the better. In recent memory, massive policy overhauls in cities like New York have helped to radically reduce crime rates. But in the case of mass shootings, policy-makers are setting out to combat what are still rare, highly individualized events. In the overall landscape of crime in America, these massacres are unusual exceptions, not the rule. Which makes it a lot harder for new rules to put an end to them.

Mass shootings are well-publicized, so it makes sense that Americans feel like they’re facing an “epidemic of violence.” This is true, in the sense that every murdered child is one too many. But from a purely statistical point of view, things are more complicated. Murder rates across the country have been dropping for decades. It’s likely that the America your children inhabit today is far safer than the one you or your parents grew up in.

Seen in this context, mass shootings aren’t a sign of a violent culture spinning out of control. Instead, they’re strange outliers that mask a long-term trend of declining violence. In raw numbers, mass shooters make up a microscopic slice of the violent criminals who take innocent lives every year. And the monsters behind most mass shootings aren’t your garden-variety murderers. They tend to have few or no past offenses, and come from middle-class, white families. Many acquire their weapons through legal means. Mass shooters also tend to be highly intelligent, and plan their massacres over long periods of time.

To prevent another Sandy Hook in any given year, a new gun law would have to change the behavior of fewer than a dozen extremely determined individuals in a country of 300 million. Needless to say, that’s an extremely narrow problem for a broad set of regulations to solve.

I don’t want to be a cynic when it comes to protecting our nation’s children. However, it’s important to recognize that there are limits to what our laws can save us from. Even if that’s something we’d rather not see.

After all, no one wants to face the nagging thought that we might just be helpless. That we might just have to accept the risk that terrible things can happen to us, or our children.

Which is strange, considering that we do this all the time.

Every second of every day, your life is at risk. There are an infinite number of opportunities for others to commit acts of violence against you. There are thousands of little things that could go wrong, with fatal results. You’re far more likely to die in a car accident than at the barrel of a gun, but that probably doesn’t stop you from stepping behind the wheel every morning.

If new restrictions on firearms are passed, I hope that some lives are saved as a result. Even one fewer murder would be a cause for celebration. But I’m also aware that we live in a broken world, where tragedy can always come when you least expect it. If you want to find something that can give you hope for a future without violence, legislation isn't the place to look for it.