TIME

In the Latest Issue

Never Offline
The Apple Watch is just the start. How wearable tech will change your life—like it or not

Apple’s Watch Will Make People and Computers More Intimate
The new device will bring us one step closer to human-machine symbiosis

Missed Chance on Immigration
Obama had an opportunity to do something great. Instead, he hid behind the politics

The Artful Dodgers
Companies that flee the U.S. to avoid taxes have forgotten how they got so big in the first place

Disruptive Technology Is Changing How Kids Learn
Research show new tools can make kids more engaged and more creative

Kansas Makes a Race
Democrats quit a Senate battle in hopes of winning the war

Brutal Ray Rice Video Exposes Failures of a National Obsession
Football is not a game anymore

Chris Kluwe: NFL Would Rather Sell Women Pink Jerseys Than Protect Them
In football, and in the case of Ray Rice, the tape never lies. But the NFL sure has

Ray Rice’s Abuse Video: Seeing is Believing a Crime Really Happened
In many horrific contexts, images have the power to wake up our outrage to abstract wrongs

Robin Givens on Domestic Violence: ‘Why I Stayed’
The actress and activist on how video and social media are changing the way we treat women struggling with abusive relationships

Kirsten Gillibrand: ‘The Way the NFL Handled This Was Disgraceful’

Changing The Culture

The Never-Ending War
The setting remains the same, but new enemies and allies have emerged

The Power of Sleep
New research shows a good night’s rest isn’t a luxury–it’s critical for your brain and for your health

The Culture

Pop Chart

Henry Kissinger Reminds Us Why Realism Matters
In his new book, the 91-year-old statesman strikes a note of humility

Terry Crews Won’t Hit the Brakes
What makes Hollywood’s most driven overachiever run

Almost Everybody’s Got Talent
Simon Cowell’s improbable shows sweep the globe

Tana French’s Relentless Mystery
What makes the Irish author’s novels so singular

New Show Charts Highs and Lows of Heels
Fashion historians celebrate foot wear at museum exhibition

Working From $9 to $5
Thanks to the new economy’s outsourcing websites, even my “job” just got easier

10 Questions with Sheryl Sandberg
The Facebook executive talks about young love, big mistakes and why she wants college students to Lean In

Remembering Joan Rivers, Comedy Diva
Comedy diva

World

Briefing

The Highest Sacrifice

A Day In The Life
Apple wants consumers to connect with its watch from morning to night with these apps

Birth Control Curveball

TIME Apple

Apple’s Watch Will Make People and Computers More Intimate

Apple
The Apple Watch is shown during a product release in Cupertino, Calif., on Sept. 9, 2014 Marcio Jose Sanchez—AP

The new device will bring us one step closer to human-machine symbiosis

A fundamental quest of the digital age has been to make our devices more personal. Steve Jobs was the Zen master of this, and he ingrained it into the DNA of Apple. That was reflected in the Apple Watch that current Apple CEO Tim Cook and his team launched this week, the latest leap toward creating a more intimate connection between people and computers.

The great pioneer of computer personalization was Vannevar Bush, an MIT engineering dean who oversaw scientific research for the U.S. government during World War II. In 1945 he wrote a seminal article titled “As We May Think” for the Atlantic that envisioned a personal information device that he called a memex. A person would be able to store all of his communications and information in it, and it would serve as “an enlarged intimate supplement to his memory.” The word intimate was key, and it was one that Cook used when describing the Apple Watch.

Other ingenious innovators enhanced the intimacy between computers and humans. J. C. R. Licklider, an MIT psychologist and engineer who best deserves the title of father of the Internet, helped design a massive U.S. air defense system that involved networked computers in twenty-three tracking centers. He created easy and intuitive graphic displays, since the nation’s fate might depend on the ability of a console jockey to assess data correctly and respond instantly. He called his approach “man-computer symbiosis.” As he explained, “human brains and computing machines will be coupled together very tightly.” Douglas Engelbart, an acolyte of Bush and Licklider, invented the mouse as part of his mission to make the connection between humans and computers more personal, and at Xerox PARC, Alan Kay and others came up with friendly screen displays with folders and icons that users could point to and click.

For the Macintosh that he launched at the Flint Center thirty years ago, Jobs famously appropriated the graphical user interface from Xerox PARC, quoting Picasso as saying that “great artists steal.” He had an intuitive genius for making devices that established an intimate connection with the user. The iPod, for example, performed the simple but magical task of putting a thousand songs in your pocket. It harkened back to another great triumph of personalization. In 1954, Pat Haggerty of Texas Instruments was looking for a way to create a mass market for transistors. He came up with the idea of a pocket radio. The radio no longer would be a living-room appliance to be shared; it became a personal device that allowed you to listen to your own music where and when you wished—even if it was music that your parents wanted to ban.

Indeed, there was a symbiotic relationship between the advent of the transistor radio and the rise of rock and roll. The rebellious new music made every kid want a radio. And the fact that the radios could be taken to the beach or the basement, away from the disapproving ears and dial-controlling fingers of parents, allowed the music to flourish. Its plastic case came, iPod-like, in four colors: black, ivory, Mandarin Red, and Cloud Gray. Within a year, 100,000 had been sold, making it one of the most popular new products in history.

In the decades since Bush envisioned the intimate and personal memex, a competing school of computer science has set its sights on artificial intelligence, repeatedly predicting the arrival of machines that could think without us, perhaps even make us irrelevant. That goal has been elusive, a mirage always a few decades away. The Apple Watch, designed to touch our wrists and beat with our hearts, again shows the greater power of the approach that Bush and Licklider proposed, that of seeking an intimate symbiosis and deeply personal partnership between humans and machines.

Walter Isaacson’s history of the digital age, The Innovators, will be published in October.

TIME nation

Missed Chance on Immigration

Obama had an opportunity to do something great. Instead, he hid behind the politics

A few weeks ago, I was accosted by a guy who said, contemptuously, “I know why you still have your job.” I asked him why, stupidly. Turned out, he didn’t really want to tell me–although he insisted he knew–because he said I’d just deny it. But in the midst of his splutter, other facts emerged. I was part of the liberal media establishment, working in clandestine fashion with President Obama. Our secret mission was to stage an ethnic revolution by allowing all sorts of immigrants through the border and getting them to vote. “People like me tell the truth,” the man said, “and people like you call us racists.” An interesting rhetorical ploy, since it did appear by all the evidence that he was one, although I didn’t mention that … because he’d just deny it.

I report this decidedly unpleasant incident because it is pure distillate of the latest stage of anti-Obama paranoia. The first was that the President was not an American and was quite probably a secret Muslim. The second was that he was a socialist, trying to have the government take over everything–like health care–so that money could be transferred to the deadbeats. Now he’s trying to undermine American democracy by having all these furriners fake their way into our voting booths. The real news here, I think, is that immigration–not Obamacare–will be the hottest of buttons in the November elections. According to a recent Gallup poll, immigration is now the No. 1 issue for Republicans. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that only 3% of Republicans and 2% of Democrats thought Obamacare was the biggest problem.

For the first 190 years of U.S. history, opposition to immigration was mostly about religion–Catholicism and Judaism. For the past 50 or so, it’s been mostly about race–Mexicans and other Latinos. Nativists have always existed in both parties, and they’ve gotten particularly noisy over this ugly summer, as terrified Central American refugees flowed toward the border–which is really why the President decided to postpone his plans to expand immigration rights until after the November elections. The fate of several moderate Democrats, in states where aversion to illegal immigrants is fierce, will determine whether the Senate goes Republican. Nativists have won temporary victories in the past, but it has become clear that there are no limits to the basic American principle: the things we have in common are more important than the things that divide us. Most academic studies show that immigration is a net plus for the economy (unless there is an illegal deluge, which there hasn’t been, despite the recent refugees). “Give us … your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” has been at the heart of the American exception, along with democracy and freedom.

The President has eloquently spoken of this basic principle in the past. With a mom from Kansas and a dad from Kenya, he embodies it. But he has abandoned the high ground and seems a bit panicky now, dodging immigration reform even though he believes in it, thereby offending all sides. There are various explanations, none of them very noble, for Obama’s diminishing ability to convince anyone of anything. I think the problem has been there from the start: he is not a natural politician and, consequently, places too much faith in those who are alleged experts in the art. He buys their discombobulated, amoral strategies. He uses their language: he talks about “optics” when he plays golf instead of spending a vacation day in quiet reflection after an American journalist is beheaded. He sounds cynical. He almost never makes a straight-ahead moral argument. That was true on health care, where he never mentioned the fact that the program was a matter of simple fairness: the poor had medical coverage through Medicaid; the working poor and many self-employed were stuck.

On immigration, he announced his prevarication by telling Chuck Todd, “And I’m being honest now, about the politics of it,” while insisting politics had nothing to do with his delayed action. A working politician should never use the words honest and politics in the same sentence. In this case, the President’s disingenuous claim led to a cascade of rhetorical malarkey. Disappointed Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell blasted Obama for not going through with his Executive Order even though he and most Republicans thought it was illegal. Why would he do that? Because he thought unilateral action by Obama on immigration would help Republicans in November.

There has always been politics. Some of us love its primal intricacy and elegance. But politics without moral content becomes an exercise in competing cynicisms, with progress an occasional, almost accidental, consequence. And in such an atmosphere you have to wonder why Barack Obama is playing games with one of the core issues that define who we are as a country.

TO READ JOE’S BLOG POSTS, GO TO time.com/swampland

TIME Tax

The Artful Dodgers

Companies that flee the U.S. to avoid taxes have forgotten how they got so big in the first place

If income inequality and the wealth share of the “1%” were the room-clearing economic issues of the past few years, corporate tax dodging is shaping up to be a focus of the next few.

President Obama recently used the word deserters to describe firms that have attempted to lower their tax rate by acquiring foreign firms, chiefly in order to switch to lower-tax jurisdictions. A few days ago, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew upped the ante by pushing Congress to take legislative action against such firms, as well as hinting that the Administration itself might try to regulate away inversions.

The stakes are high. Corporations in the U.S. today are hoarding about $2 trillion in profits overseas, arguing that the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35% makes it too difficult to bring this cash home and invest it here–better to keep the money abroad and pay lower taxes in other countries. Yet the truth is that legions of tax lawyers make sure that most big American corporations never pay anywhere close to that rate. FORTUNE 500 companies on average pay more like 19.4%, and a third pay less than 10%, chiefly because of all the generous loopholes Congress has afforded corporations over the years. Partly as a result, U.S. firms are enjoying record profit margins, making more money than ever before yet paying a lower share of the overall U.S. tax pie than they have in decades.

While there are plenty of creative ways for corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes by stashing money in Ireland, the Netherlands or the Cayman Islands, inversions go a step further: those companies are more or less renouncing their corporate citizenship to avoid taxes. They want the benefits of U.S. talent and markets but not the responsibilities. This strikes many as grossly unfair, particularly given that taxpayer-funded, early-stage investments in areas like the Internet, transportation and health care research are the reason many of the largest U.S. companies got so big and successful to begin with. That’s a leg up–call it corporate welfare–that most firms conveniently forget when they start looking for places to hide their profits. As the academic Mariana Mazzucato argues in her excellent book The Entrepreneurial State, many of the most lauded corporate innovations, including the parts of smartphones that make them smart (Internet, GPS, touchscreen display and voice recognition), came out of state-funded research. Ditto any number of pharmaceutical, biotech and cybersecurity innovations. “In so many cases, public investments have become business giveaways, making individuals and their companies rich but providing little return to the economy or the state,” says Mazzucato.

Tax inversions that expatriate the gains of American corporations to enrich a tiny managerial caste symbolize a whole new genre of selfish capitalism. Globalization allows firms to fly 35,000 feet over the problems of both nations and workers, who are all too familiar with the reality on the ground–an economy in which wages still aren’t rising, good middle-class jobs remain hard to come by and public deficits remain large, since the private sector won’t spend to fill the void. Economics 101 tells us that when one sector saves, another must spend, but the textbooks didn’t anticipate this.

As a recent Harvard Business School alumni survey summed up the problem, we’re stuck in an economy that’s “doing only half its job.” Says Michael E. Porter, an author of the study, “The United States is competitive to the extent that firms operating here do two things–win in global markets and lift the living standards of the average American.” We’re doing the first but failing at the second. “Business leaders and policymakers need a strategy to get our country on a path toward broadly shared prosperity.”

Pressed on their overseas tax dodging, corporations say they’ll stop looking for better deals abroad only if the corporate rate shrinks. (They also want a tax holiday to repatriate foreign earnings.) While we should cut and simplify our tax code to put it in line with those of other developed countries (25% would be fine), the last time the U.S. offered a tax holiday, back in 2004, most of the repatriated money went to stock buybacks and dividends–not investments in factories and workers.

A new relationship between corporations and the U.S. Treasury is what’s really needed. Treasury’s Lew should push for changes to the tax code that would reduce the appeal of inversions to companies that pursue them. That would mean taking on corporate lobbyists and the money culture that has turned the tax code into Swiss cheese. As the inversion debate makes so clear, it’s about time.

TIME Solutions for America

Disruptive Technology Is Changing How Kids Learn

Research show new tools can make kids more engaged and more creative

In a few weeks, the halls of a school in Nanuet, N.Y., will teem with mini race cars. The vehicles will sport custom-designed wheels, each set carefully tuned in diameter and thickness to achieve maximum speed.

But the cars’ makers aren’t college-level engineers; they’re middle-school students attempting to learn about physics and technology by using a device that combines both–the school’s 3-D printer. “It’s rewriting what’s possible” in education, says Vinny Garrison, the teacher who organizes the races.

It’s not the only innovation doing so. Nearly three-fourths of U.S. teachers use technology to motivate students to learn, according to a survey by PBS LearningMedia. And that tech is getting smarter: students can now virtually tour ancient worlds to learn history, take quizzes via smartphone and more.

Most of the changes are designed to better prepare U.S. students for careers in fast-growing fields like science and engineering. But they can come at a cost–and not just financially. A $500 million plan to supply Los Angeles students with iPads was recently suspended after students bypassed content filters and some parents complained that the initiative was pulling focus from much needed building repairs.

So far, however, research shows that using next-gen tech in the right ways can make students smarter, more engaged and more creative. Here is a look at six new technologies that are shaping the classrooms of the future.

TO SEE MORE SOLUTIONS, GO TO time.com/solutionsforamerica

TIME Sports

Chris Kluwe: NFL Would Rather Sell Women Pink Jerseys Than Protect Them

Roger Goodell
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell speaks at a press conference at the NFL's spring meeting in Atlanta on May 20, 2014. David Goldman—AP

In football, and in the case of Ray Rice, the tape never lies. But the NFL sure has

“The tape never lies.” It’s an all too familiar saying in the NFL, an admonishment to players that no matter how well you think you did, no matter what excuses you make, the truth is always there for anyone to see. Game tape is who you are, the signature of your work, and it is one of the most highly rated metrics that scouts, coaches, and general managers use to evaluate you. If someone in football personnel doesn’t watch the tape, then they literally do not know how to do their job.

In the case of Ray Rice, Roger Goodell is claiming that he never saw the tape. Not the tape of Ray Rice’s on field performance, where he’s consistently been a star running back for the Baltimore Ravens, but the tape of an elevator in Atlantic City, where Rice unleashed a brutal left hook into Janay Palmer’s face, slamming her head into the elevator wall and railing, knocking her out.

Roger Goodell — a man who spared no expense going after the New Orleans Saints during the Bountygate scandal, a man who has appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner time and time again in cases of player discipline, a man known predominately for his willingness to find and examine all forms of evidence in cases of perceived misconduct — now wants us to believe, in this particular instance, after months of reporting by trusted League sources that the NFL factored what was on that elevator tape into its decision to suspend Ray Rice a mere two games, that he did not, actually, see the tape, and is just as flabbergasted as the rest of us that this horrific act of violence took place. Oh lawdy, bring the fainting couch.

Based on everything I know from nine years of experience in the league, this is a lie.

Those same media outlets, the ones that so trustingly reported what their League sources told them to report, are furious, claiming that their sources are now trying to backtrack and prevaricate in the face of unrelentingly hostile public opinion at a decision that treats the abuse of a woman so cavalierly.

The public at large is furious at the decision to try and sweep under the rug an incident that occurs all too frequently in this country: a partner abusing someone who loves them. Nearly everyone is furious at the “business as usual” attitude of one of the most profitable sports leagues in the world, a business willing to blame the victim and make her apologize on national television in order to protect its brand.

We should be furious. This charade of accountability has been perpetrated for too long, let too many players skate by with no real consequences for their violence against others.

Ray Rice. Greg Hardy. Ray McDonald. Terrell Suggs. Perrish Cox. Chris Cook. Ahmad Brooks. Brandon Marshall. A.J. Jefferson. Name after name after name — a few who were cut by their teams, but most of whom were given a green light to continue playing in a league urging women to purchase pink clothing and apparel in order to drive viewership numbers up. It’s a league failing those same women when it comes time to do something that matters, to actually address the issue of domestic violence.

Of course, I believe, the NFL, and by extension, Roger Goodell, watched that video. The tape never lies; that’s the mantra of the League, at every level. The NFL employs many people, who are very good at their jobs, to make sure they have access to that information, to get that tape, and the truly chilling part of all of this, is that the people in charge, almost exclusively men, saw that video and made a conscious decision to do nothing about it until their hand was forced by public opinion.

Those in charge felt that this was just one more incident to be pushed to the side, ignored by both the front office and the team itself in pursuit of ratings and money. Those in charge felt that a woman being beaten into unconsciousness, right in front of them, did not matter as much as the perceived value of Ray Rice on the football field, scoring touchdowns and selling jerseys. Those in charge chose convenience over ethics, profit over a person. All the evidence was there, clearly on tape, but the will to act, to force change in a culture that desperately needs it, was not; not until public outrage grew so large that the NFL felt compelled to try and salvage some shreds of morality.

The tape never lies. The signature of the NFL is one of enabling abusers, batterers, and worse, caught on police records all across the country, still employed by their teams because the NFL doesn’t think you care about wives, sisters, daughters and mothers, but only about your entertainment.

The tape never lies. Numerous reporters went on record with information from trusted league sources, information that was nothing but public relations and smears, an attempt to minimize the shocking events the NFL thought we would never see.

The tape never lies, but apparently the NFL does, and it is past time we held them accountable for their actions.

Chris Kluwe is a retired NFL player who played for eight seasons with the Minnesota Vikings.

TIME

Ray Rice’s Abuse Video: Seeing is Believing a Crime Really Happened

Ronald Martinez—Getty Images Before the second video surfaced, Rice played in an Aug. 14 preseason game

In many horrific contexts, images have the power to wake up our outrage to abstract wrongs

The vehicle through which the Ray Rice drama unfolds is not a woman’s voice, nor an impartial justice system, nor the consistent, preemptive ruling of a major sports organization, but through a piece of technology that happened to be switched on. Video of Rice’s violent attack on his wife changed everything, even though the fact of the assault itself was always the same. Why should the footage matter at all?

It is human nature to have our outrage to many kinds of abstract wrongs waked up by vivid imagery. This has been the case from the impact of photographs of children fleeing the bombing in Japan at the end of the Second World War, to shots of the victims of the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam, to the iconic image of the hooded victim torture at Abu Ghraib. The power of images to awaken conscience has lead governments, institutions, and individuals to manage, limit, or even block their dissemination during times of conflict. Photographers are forbidden, for instance, from many areas of Guantanamo, even though documentation might simply convey the sadness of eternal imprisonment rather than pose any security threat; shocking images of civilian suffering during the conflict in Gaza were recently flagged on Facebook and removed.

The video of the Rice assault is a rare document. Domestic abuse is seldom captured, just as rape almost never is (despite a sick market for such images). Yet you can bet that seeing women who have been beaten or raped is a lot more significant and a lot less sexy than the normalizing discourse around of these kinds of assault.

Violent torment, laid plain to see, cannot be justified or downplayed. The intimate suffering that afflicts women (and men) in the context of domestic violence usually has no witnesses except the perpetrator, the victim, and, too often, their children. Without seeing what horror transpired, it is easy for the culture to erase the seriousness of such assaults—to diminish them as a private matter, a lover’s quarrel, an argument that got out of hand, but one that is essentially up to the couple to sort out.

But since domestic violence is still disproportionately men beating up women, this laissez-faire attitude to a crime that is usually hidden simply reinforces traditional male ownership of women, and excuses their relating to women as people they in some way own interpersonally. Accepting it as part of a man’s regrettable but not serious misbehavior in domestic life, as the NFL as well as both Ray and Janay Rice sought to do initially, also gets the police and judicial system off the hook.

The fact that the graphic video has finally shocked everyone enough for a meaningful penalty to come down on the assailant rather horribly confirms women’s worst fears. The abuse that comes our way most often—almost a third of women have reported physical violence at some time in their lives from an intimate partner; one in five college women has been a victim of rape—is nearly invisible, easy to trivialize, and all too often impossible to get justice for. Unless an audience happens to witness it live.

Naomi Wolf is the author of several books, including The Beauty Myth and Vagina, and is a co-founder of DailyCloudt.com, a citizen’s journalism startup now in beta.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser