Stephen Baker

The Boost
Confederate copies, and the joys of recyling
August 20, 2017General


In the late 1800s, the Metropolitan Bronze Co. in Bridgeport, Conn., had a steady business making statues of Civil War soldiers. As Marc Fisher writes in the Washington Post, many of the statues featured the same moustachioed Northern soldier wearing a greatcoats and holding a rifle to his chest. Towns throughout the north and midwest bought copies of this soldier to plant in front of the post office, or on the village green.

Then someone at the company saw another market opportunity. They could sell the very same statue as a Confederate soldier in the south. All they had to do was change the insignia on his belt from US to CS, for Confederate States. Pretty soon, they were shipping scores of the same statue to towns across the Mason-Dixon line.

It wasn’t too long before Confederate veterans in a Georgia town noticed that the soldier was wearing a Northern greatcoat and a union cap, not the shorter southern jacket and “slouch” hat of the south. They angrily buried the Yankee statue face down. (photo from Washington Post, above)

This forced Metropolitan Bronze to add a bit of customization for their Southern customers. But the bare minimum. It was the same guy, but with a different hat and jacket.

This got me thinking about how all of us re-use content in our lives and our jobs. If the subject of hitchhiking comes up at a dinner party, for example, I immediately look around the table and try to remember if anyone seated there has heard my story about hitching in Argentina during the Dirty War in 1978. If the answer is no, I’m liable to recycle my old story, replaying some of the sentences almost verbatim. Like most people, I have hundreds of my “greatest hits” cued up and ready to roll. Just like Metropolitan Bronze, I’ll edit a few of the details for each audience. (If my wife is there, I’m more likely to keep it short, since these re-runs test her patience.)

It’s so much easier to re-use content, whether it’s statues or stories, than to come up with something fresh. When President Trump heads out to Arizona this week for one of his mass rallies, you can bet he’ll replay about 100 of his favorite lines, adding just the thinnest veneer of Southwest customization (and maybe a pardon for Joe Arpaio). Trump is a replay machine.



 

When my parents died, I inherited a portrait of a 19th century ancestor of mine named Matthias Ludwig. When we looked at the back of the canvas, we saw a name scrawled in pen: Thomas Sully. This was a famous painter! He wasn’t on the level of his American contemporaries, like Gilbert Stuart, the portraitist of George Washington. But still, I’d seen paintings by Sully in the leading museums. And we had one.

Then I did some research. Like most artists, Sully had high artistic ambitions, and he also had to make money. So while he labored for months on his artistic projects, including the paintings I’d seen at the Metropolitan Art Museum, he made money by painting Philadelphia’s bourgeoisie, including Matthias Ludwig, for $50 a pop.

Here’s one of Sully's ambitious paintings, A Mother and Her Son:



See the detail in the sky and the fabric, the relationship between the mother and the boy? That took some work. Every detail was fresh, or at least most of them were.

Now look at Matthias Ludwig.



I’m guessing that this came from a template. Sully probably used the same coat and shirt, and the same dark background, and he would plop a face into it. He recycled content. Everyone does.


link to post share:

Scenario planning for Trump White House
May 16, 2017General


I like to look at the Trump administration as a series on Netflix or Amazon (which one day soon it will be). For me, the template is Wolf Hall. A king is surrounded by courtiers and flatterers, and they engage in endless (and lethal) power plays. Henry VIII wasn’t anywhere near as incompetent as Trump, but the basic scheme still works.

One frightening future episode is coming into focus for me. I would hope that the adults surrounding Trump, people like his national security advisor McMaster and Defense Secretary Mattis, have taken steps to protect the world from an Oval Office tantrum that goes nuclear. They must have pieced together some sort of circuit breakers so that if Trump gives the order to launch nuclear missiles, someone has the opportunity to countermand him. (If they don’t have these circuit-breakers in place by now, yesterday’s news that Trump revealed classified information to the Russians should mobilize their efforts.)

So one morning Steve Bannon walks into the Oval Office and whispers to the president that the two most senior members of his national security team have taken away his nukes. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s "fake news." How does Trump respond?

For starters, he gets very mad, very quickly. That’s his power! And they’ve taken it away (or at least might have done so, which for Trump is pretty much the same thing). Bannon reminds him that their behavior undermines the Constitution. It’s criminal, even treasonous.

Should the president call McMaster and Mattis, and confront them with Bannon’s charge? He could, but what does he say when they deny it? He has no proof, only Bannon’s words. As he deliberates, the seeds of treachery and grievance are already sprouting in his mind, and leafing out. 

He sits down and composes a series of angry tweets. One of them charges that powerful people inside and outside his administration are hatching plots, and he will have them sent to Ft. Leavenworth! Another reminds his followers that they elected him, and only him, as commander in chief! A third mentions outlines the tremendous power of the commander in chief, including NUKES! 

A Constitutional crisis is upon us. Practically everyone in Washington, with the notable exceptions of Trump and Steve Bannon, wants those nuclear circuit-breakers in place. But they do represent a quiet coup d’etat. 

Trump is beside himself with righteous rage. He asks Bannon if Mike Pence is part of the plot. Bannon nods gravely.

Trump is so mad he’s shaking. How does he assuage this burning grievance? How does he assert, for once and for all, his absolute power over the nuclear arsenal? And how can members of his own party in Congress stop him?

 

 

 


link to post share:

As Franco Died
April 1, 2017General


I continue to write fiction, though I haven't published any of since The Boost, in 2014. One novel manuscript is making the tours of the publishing houses, but it hasn't sold it yet. In mid-March, I was walking through the snow in Montclair and trying to think of new stories to write. And then it occurred to me that I wrote several stories in the '90s. No one bought them. And back then, self-publishing was extravagantly expensive, and known derisively as "vanity press." Unthinkable. So my stories just moved, digitally, from one computer to the next, and hung out by themselves in the cloud.

Since then all of us have been granted free rights to publish anything we want, globally. We may not have readers, but that's not the point. At least it's out there, with a shareable URL, and if it finds a few readers, so much the better. 

When I wrote these stories, in the '90s, I was living in Pittsburgh and working for BusinessWeek. And, no offense to Pittsburgh, but I wanted out of there in my head, mostly to exotic places I'd lived in my 20s. I wrote this one, As Franco Died, to put myself back in my junior year in Madrid. Another one takes place in Quito, Ecuador, where I taught English briefly in the late '70s, and the (unpublished) novel, Donkey Show, plays out on the El Paso/Juarez border, where I met my wife and got married in the mid-80s. 

 I was thinking about Arianna Huffington as I wrote this story. At that point this glamorous Greek immigrant was guiding her rich Republican husband, Michael, toward the Senate in California. She established her stardom there, even though she ended up losing in that race). She was on my mind as I wrote about Paloma.

Later, in 2005, Heather Green and I had written a BusinessWeek cover story on how blogs were going to shake up everything. We used it to launch the blogspotting.net. blog. And strange as it seems now, Arianna met with me for an hour one afternoon in the lobby of the Four Seasons Hotel. She wanted me to write in Blogspotting about her new venture, The Huffington Post. Her venture grew quite large. Mine folded when Heather and I left a collapsing Businessweek, four years later. I told Arianna at the time that she'd inspired this short story. I sent it to her, but never heard back, though she gave me a very nice blurb for The Numerati.

Here's the link to As Franco Died, on Medium.

 


I went through several photos to illustrate the piece on Medium. None was quite right, but I sprinkled them in anyway. 



I saw that woman in a plaza in Aranda del Duero (I think). We were riding our bikes through there a few years ago. It was just about to start pouring. 



This is a wall in Caceres, Spain. It's an homage to Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera, a charismatic Fascist in Spain before the Civil War ('36-'39). The Republicans executed him in the early months of the war, and he became a martyr to Franco's cause. You used to see his name on churches, streets and plazas all over Spain.



This is a wall near Merida, which was a large Roman city. We biked through there a couple of years ago, en route to Seville. 


link to post share:

Can we blame the NYTimes for our ignorance?
January 3, 2017General


An antiwar demonstration in NYC, before the Iraq invasion


It seems that every time we’re surprised by something, whether it’s the emergence of Isis or rising anger from white middle America, people blame the press, and especially the New York Times. Why weren’t they covering it?!


People rail against the Times.. And one of their prized examples is botched coverage of the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war. The Times sold us on Iraq’s alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, the line goes, and led us like millions of lemmings into the Iraq war.


I was reading the New York Times then, and it just isn’t true. The coverage included different points of view. The arms inspector, Hans Blix, and his Egyptian colleague who oversaw nukes, Mohamed ElBaradei were both highly skeptical, and begged for the inspectors to be given time to do their job. I read their arguments in the Times.


The French, of course, opposed the war, and while their foreign secretary, Dominique de Villepin, preened and strutted way too much, his message was included in Times coverage. The case on WMD, he argued, was far from clear, and war not necessary, especially with inspection teams at work on the ground in Iraq. He predicted presciently that Iraq, like the old Yugoslavia, would break into vicious tribal and ethnic violence following an invasion. This was all known. And at least a few people suggested in Times articles that the Bush administration was using fears of WMDs to fight a war they wanted.


On a Feb. 15, 2003, I went with my kids to a massive antiwar demonstration on Second Ave in Manhattan. Hundreds of thousands of people were there, and millions of others protested in cities around the world. Now some of them were simply anti-war, or anti-Bush. But loads of them were like me, convinced that this was not a war to fight, at least not yet. And most of them got a lot of their ideas from the Times. Even for those who didn’t read it directly, Times coverage worked its way onto NPR and throughout mainstream news (One interesting note: In 2003, blogs and social networks were still in infancy. Mainstream still ran the show, along with cable TV.)


So I'd argue that much of the Times’ coverage was OK. It was the weighing and placement of the articles that bent the paper toward subservience to the Bush-Cheney administration, and to war. Pro-war articles by people like Judith Miller, fueled by lying and exaggerating “sources,” ran on A1, and the skeptical ones quoting Hans Blix appeared under much smaller headlines inside. What’s more, editors let France’s opposition morph into a political story, one in which France curried favor in the Arab world by sticking its thumb in Uncle Sam’s eye. They should have paid more front-page attention to the gist of the French argument.


Still, plenty of people had reason to be skeptical, and they could fuel this from reading the Times. So it bothers me to hear politicians and others defend themselves by claiming ignorance, in this case and others, and blaming the press for it.


link to post share:

Screwed as workers, pampered as customers
December 13, 2016General


The piazza at Marzamemi, a fishing town in Sicily

  

A friend of mine is convinced that the entire world is built for the extreme rich. I would argue, instead, that they get an obscene share of the wealth, but that they don’t benefit from it as much as they’d like, or he believes.


The tech world has eliminated many of our jobs, but in doing so has provided aspects of luxury living for the vast rest of us. We can afford limos on demand, even if the chauffeurs can’t make a living wage. We can afford TVs the size of a wall with a thousand channels. It used to cost a lot of money to build up a huge music collection and wire a house with stereo. Now it takes just a few hundred dollars to hitch every room to a Sonos system. For a $10 monthly streaming subscription, we get all the music we could ever want.


Here, the rich people have a point to make. The quality of that streamed music, they might say, isn’t really that great. If you had a decent stereo, you’d practically hear the space between the bits.


True, but that makes my point. The person streaming the Four Tops on Spotify, as I am at this moment, thinks the quality is just fine. So the rich person, as if to justify his money, spends thousands of dollars for a top-end stereo. And yes, the quality is higher. But the difference is subtle. A ton of money for a small improvement. If you look at it that way, the rich are getting ripped off. 


I think about the 11-day trip my wife and I took to Italy in late October. We had what most people in my town would consider a fairly economical vacation, at least for our graying generation. It cost about $6,000 for the two of us, maybe a tad more. From a class perspective, we traveled mid-bourgeois. We paid an extra $100 each way for Economy Plus, rented the cheapest little car (and paid for insurance, which I don’t do in America). In Sicily, we stayed in hotels for less than $100 a night, and also spent less than $100 for the best dinners we could find, with wine.

 
Now what if we had loads of money and were willing to spend $50,000 for that week, would our experience have been superior? I’m trying to imagine. Maybe instead of hanging out on the Piazza in Siracusa, we’d have spent an afternoon on a yacht. Our hotel room would have been bigger, and with a view (we had only a skylight) and maybe we’d have champagne or prosecco on ice.

But at some point, we’d walk down to that Piazza, where the kids are playing football on the smooth stone, and the baroque Catholic cathedral sits like an intruder atop the sturdiest imaginable Greek temple to Diana. (It was built around 500 BC, and it looks to me as though those massive Ionic columns will still be standing for centuries after the church has crumbled.)

 
The money they spend is on the edge of the experience. Maybe they find better restaurants to eat at. (We didn't find the food as special as we'd expected.)  I’m sure they'd spend more on wine. But we had some very nice bottles for between $10 and $20 in restaurants. You could have convinced me that a couple of them were $100+.


My point isn’t that the middle class is winning in this economy. And the trends, from politics to automation, are not good for many of us who have to work for a living. But the same companies that are screwing us as workers are busy pampering us as customers.


link to post share:

Remembering Joe Old
July 24, 2016General


This photo accompanied our special report on sentencing. Joe Old is on the right.

Thirty years ago, when I was starting out as a reporter at the afternoon paper in El Paso, the Herald-Post, I got an assignment that sounded ominously like a term paper. The job was to analyze the sentencing patterns of the district judges in El Paso, and see if any of them gave tougher sentences for certain crimes, or were less than even-handed. My partner for this job was a reporter named Joe Old.

I barely knew Joe at that point. But I could see he was different. Most of the other reporters had a touch of cynicism, which serves as an insurance policy against looking dumb. Joe was older than us, and didn't have time for such silliness. And while most of us were focused on getting good clips, so that we could climb the ladder, to jobs in Dallas, LA, or in my case, Mexico, Joe’s ambition was simply to do great work in El Paso. He believed in the promise of journalism, and in himself. He was shameless in his idealism, which is rare in a newsroom.

We were both single and footloose that year. We had plenty of time, both to work on our project and to laze around talking about books and history, to drink beer and eat Mexican food on one side of the border or the other. Within a year, I got a job at BusinessWeek and moved to Mexico and got married. Joe remarried the same month. Our lives moved apart

All these years later, I’m so sad to see on Facebook that Joe died last week. Last time I saw him was in 2008.

Joe found life endlessly interesting, and took the bumps with good humor. He already had three ex-wives when I met him, and he was great friends with all of them (though, in the spirit of journalistic rigor, I should note that I have only Joe’s word on that). He had served in the Air Force as a helicopter mechanic in Taiwan and returned with a passion for China. He was well into a PhD program in Chinese history at the University of Illinois when he decided to make a switch, and to write history while it was happening. So he plunged into journalism. First he covered crime at the City News Service in Chicago. Then he went down to El Paso, arriving about a year before I did.

As we started the criminal justice project, Joe hoisted a few huge boxes onto his desk. This was a goldmine, he said. In the boxes were thousands of papers, each one the disposition of a criminal trial in the El Paso courts. It had the name of the defendant, the charge against him or her, the attorney, the judge, and the sentence. What we had to do, he explained, was code these papers for those various data points, and then enter them into the brand new tool we had, the newsroom’s first IBM personal computer.

I didn’t know what to call it then, but Joe and I were launched into data journalism. We spent long evenings punching the numbers and letters into the computer, and then backing them all up onto floppy disks. As we went along, Joe, who read widely, explained to me the principles of Boolean logic. We were going to be able to use it to formulate queries, and the computer would reveal the judges’ patterns.

It took a long time, but we crunched all the numbers. By culling out Spanish names, we got a glimpse into how Hispanics and Anglos were sentenced for similar crimes. One Hispanic judge, for example, seemed to treat his own people much more harshly. Another judge sent prisoners away for twice as long as the average. We couldn’t read too much into our study, however, because the numbers were relatively small. One or two life sentences could move a single judge’s numbers.

What we had to do, we agreed, was take our charts and graphs to the judges, all nine of them, and get their insights. So we started a series of interviews. If I had been working alone, I would have taken the relevant studies to each judge and spent maybe 20 minutes getting the necessary insights and caveats for the story.

Joe didn’t work that way. For him, each interview was a priceless opportunity to sit down at length with the judges, and to discuss not only our study, but also the American judicial system, the judges’ backgrounds, philosophies, what they’d studied in law school, their work as lawyers, their feelings about crime and punishment and the state of American society. We sat in the judges’ chambers, the tape recorder whirring away, and the interviews went go on and on. Most of them took more than two hours.

Back in the newsroom, we spent hours and hours transcribing the interviews. For Joe, this process was a chance to catch important points that he’d missed. He would come by my desk, excited,  and show me underlined quotes from one judge or another. “We have to get this in there,” he said. “This is great.” Then he’d laugh, and tell one of the other reporters just how great our stories were going to be.

Finally it came time to write our report. This was a concern for me, because I was convinced that Joe would push to get every single detail into the stories, and that he’d water down our revelations with too much context. The thing couldn’t read like a law journal, I said. He agreed, but said it also couldn’t scream its conclusions like the New York Post.

We found a middle way. I’m not sure how much impact the report had. But it highlighted the discrepancies, and it was fair. Even a few of the judges said as much. Later it won a Silver Gavel award from the Texas Bar Association. By that point, I was working in Mexico. I think the paper was too cheap to send Joe to Austin to receive the award. I’m not sure about that. I wish he were around to ask. He’d remember. He always did.

---

My condolences to Joe's widow, Monica Wong, and to all the students whose lives he touched at El Paso Community College

 


link to post share:

"To Catch a Cat" by Heather Green
July 15, 2016General


I have this habit when I'm writing. I call it a paragraph stroll. When I finish a paragraph, and sometimes even when I don't, I get up from my disorganized and disgusting desk and make my way toward friendlier climes. Sometimes, when I was at BusinessWeek, it was to the snack bar, which really wasn't a whole lot less gross than my desk, but at least provided a chatting potential. Sometimes I took strolls down the long hallways, with the big posters of old BW covers (none by me). I'd occasionally wander to the windows by the copy machines and gaze down from the 43rd floor to midtown Manhattan. I had lots of places to stroll.

But my most common landing spot was Heather Green's office. It was only five or six steps from mine and was as neat as mine was messy. She had framed photographs on the walls, a spotless desk and a fairly comfortable chair for me to sit in. Heather worked far more consistently than I did. She was usually busy with something. But she was nice enough to take a few minutes to chat. Sometimes it was about work, since we did a number of projects together and were co-bloggers. But more often it was about books we were reading, movies, French, her life, my life.

These interactions with colleagues were what I liked most about the job. Heather and I were (and are) friends.

And yet, here's what's really weird. While Heather and I were talking about all sorts of things, I had only the slightest notion of what she was up to across the river, in Union City, NJ. I knew she had a boyfriend named Matt, and I seem to remember hearing once that they'd rescued a stray cat. (She asked me one time if we wanted to adopt a kitten. I caucused briefly with our two cats and came back with a negative.) In any case, she and Matt were running an entire cottage industry out of Matt's house in Union City. She and her future husband were coaxing strays, jury-rigging traps to catch them, and networking with loads of fellow cat rescuers, both in North Jersey and online. It was like a second career, full of mystery and adventure, and I had virtually no idea.

The other strange thing is this. Heather and I wrote together. That's what we did. We edited each other's stories, we collaborated on cover stories, we even shared a blog. Our business, if you boil it down, was coming up with words, sentences and paragraphs. And yet I had no idea that Heather had the writing skills--the scene-setting, dialog and characterizations--of an excellent novelist. That part of her was lost to me.

I got an email from her a few months ago asking if I'd give her manuscript a preliminary read. Naturally I said yes. And that's when I encountered this wonderful book. It's lively and funny and, at points, disarmingly honest. It introduced me to a good friend who, it turned out, lived a life I knew next to nothing about.


link to post share:

Are we at our best in airplanes?
June 7, 2016General

There are lots of reasons to think we're tragically awful drivers, each of us a menace on the roadways. I write about this whenever I'm extolling the advantages of the coming driverless cars. Some 30,000 of us are killed on U.S. roads and highways every year, and about 1.25 million globally.


The reason is that we behave like human beings. We argue, fall asleep, overrate our reflexes, answer the phone, scream at the kids, spill coffee. The list goes on, and it’s easy to conclude that we’re death at the wheel.



Look at all those great drivers


But when I drive here in New Jersey, or anywhere else, for that matter, I’m always impressed at how well the vast majority of us drives. I exit and enter streams of traffic heading down the Garden State Highway, or onto the George Washington Bridge. People, for the most part, are doing their part. Sure, there are a few wise guys shifting lanes, and an occasionally distracted driver leaks into the neighboring lane. But the others adapt to them, for the most part. They swing clear of them (sometimes adding a honk) and drive responsibly.


The trouble is that the occasional fender bender will jam up traffic for a half hour of crawling and rubber-necking. This leads thousands of frustrated commuters to the conclusion that we, as a people, are bad drivers.


I disagree.


And this disagreement extends to the air. I’m struck by how civilized people are. They smile at other people’s noisy kids, switch seats to let a couple sit together, and help each other heave outrageously heavy carry-on luggage into tiny overhead bins. They’re as diverse as America itself, and seem accepting of others, and considerate. They wait patiently for what seems like hours while the plane unloads. I’m almost always impressed, and appreciative.


Yet in this Washington Post story by Caitlin Gibson, the unquestioned premise is that we’re at our worst in the air: Rude, bullying, drunk, racist, paranoid, you name it. Of course, she has no trouble citing examples of all of the above.


But I would venture to guess that we behave better in the air than on the ground. In the air, after all, we’re under the surveillance of the entire security apparatus as well as that of our fellow passengers. We’re being watched. And I would also argue that most of us are decent and, without sacrificing too much, mean well.


Think about the numbers. There are some 28,000 flights a day in the United States alone. They carry 1.7 million people, about equal to the population of Philadelphia. Gibson reports that in the entire calendar year of 2015, the FAA recorded 99 incidents of unruly passengers. That means that on many days, 28,000 flights took off, flew and landed without a single reported incident. And yet we’re supposed to believe that we behave badly in the air?


Just imagine if those 1.7 million people spent their flying hours lazing around the house, down here on earth. I think they’d get into a lot more trouble. But that doesn’t fit the narrative of her story.


When confronted with outrageous conclusions drawn from anecdote, my mind automatically turns Trumpward.


Donald Trump is an expert of feeding myths, and his followers promptly hunt down examples to document them. It's not hard. Take any population of 11 million on earth, and you'll find certain numbers of criminals. Immigrants are no different. Yet single cases appear to justify Trump’s charges--even if, in fact, immigrants break the law less often than the rest of us. (After all, the consequences of a run-in can be ruinous for them. Indeed, President Obama, who voices sympathy for them as human beings, has been quietly jailing and deporting thousands, including women and children, as my son Jack Craver reported in the Progressive.)


Trump spins his ugly myths into perceived reality. And they’ll endure, long after he flies off for the last time in his 757.


Millions of Americans will no doubt continue to believe the most poisonous points of his message: that the American system of justice is rigged, that Mexico sends its criminals north, and that at least certain types of Americans invariably favor their particular clan over the law.


These points should not even be in discussion. But a insurgent set of beliefs is taking shape. It’s built on anecdotes masquerading as facts. It’s punishing our democracy.


link to post share:

WMD: Weapons of Math Destruction
May 4, 2016General


For three feverish months late last year, I worked with a extraordinary mathematician and person, Cathy O'Neil, on her book Weapons of Math Destruction. It's coming out this September, just in time for the political season, and I think it could have an impact on the debate. More details on the Amazon page, where it's available for pre-order. 

When friends asked me about Cathy's book, I described it as the dark side of the Numerati. I think that's apt. I made a point in my book, released in time for the 2008 presidential election (and crash), that the mathematicians were fallible and that the results would often be unfair. But I focused more on how they were reading us, and how their power was increasing, than on the negative implications. (One reviewer, Roger Lowenstein, went so far as to call me a "cheerleader for Big Brother.")

Cathy's book looks not only at what the Numerati get wrong, but how poisonous algorithms gain immense scale, become accepted as "truth," and generate destructive feedback loops. I had great fun working with her and recommend her book.

***

One of the reasons I haven't been posting recently is that I've been working on different book projects. I'll discuss the most recent one, another novel, in another post. 



link to post share:

The annual storm
January 26, 2016General


As nearly everyone in the entire world knows by now, we had some snow over the weekend. A lot of snow fell, it was windy, most people stayed indoors, and a few ventured out to make good on their investments in 4x4 trucks.

Maybe this storm brought a few more inches of snow than in previous years, but it was basically the same experience. I walked into a deserted Upper Montclair and took a few pictures, which look identical to pictures from past years (except for the movies showing at the Bellevue Theater) Yet the media made a huge deal about the storm, as always.

Storms are like annual exams. Mayors and governors get a chance to show that they have their act together, or not, and we all grade them. Aside from that, nothing changes.

link to post share:




©2017 Stephen Baker Media, All rights reserved.     Site by Infinet Design







Kirkus Reviews - https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/stephen-baker/the-boost/

LibraryJournal - Library Journal

Booklist Reviews - David Pitt

Locus - Paul di Filippo

read more reviews



Prequel to The Boost: Dark Site
- December 3, 2014


The Boost: an excerpt
- April 15, 2014


My horrible Superbowl weekend, in perspective
- February 3, 2014


My coming novel: Boosting human cognition
- May 30, 2013


Why Nate Silver is never wrong
- November 8, 2012


The psychology behind bankers' hatred for Obama
- September 10, 2012


"Corporations are People": an op-ed
- August 16, 2011


Wall Street Journal excerpt: Final Jeopardy
- February 4, 2011


Why IBM's Watson is Smarter than Google
- January 9, 2011


Rethinking books
- October 3, 2010


The coming privacy boom
- August 17, 2010


The appeal of virtual
- May 18, 2010