Sherlock Holmes

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 26, 2009 at 5:36 pm

File-Sherlock_holmes_ver5

Sherlock Holmes delivers on what I think was missing from an awful lot of the fun, silly movies of 2009—actual fun. This summer I sat through an awful lot of blockbuster spectacles that turned out to be simply boring. Think Wolverine or Transformers 2. Robert Downer, Jr and Jude Law are consistently charming and funny as Holmes and Watson, Guy Ritchie’s speed-up/slow-down gimmicks are applied sufficiently sparingly to be interesting, and the story keeps trudging along. Crucially when they get to plot points that don’t make sense (how on earth is the bad guy going to conquer the United States?) the holes are skipped over breezily rather than made all the more glaring by additional tedious exposition that fails to resolve the problem.

Some people feel that this action-oriented version of Holmes is untrue to the original. I think this is wrong. The print Holmes is clearly described as an expert singlestick fighter and accomplished barenuckle boxer. He gets into fisticuffs and always wins. Hand-to-hand combat is never the feature of Conan Doyle’s stories because it wouldn’t be interesting to read a detailed account of beating a guy up with a walking stick. But bringing more emphasis to this kind of thing is exactly what a screen adaptation of a well-known print character should be for—elements of the character that are de-emphasized by the print medium are rightly brought into sharper focus for a movei.

()

Yglesias

Subsidies in Health Reform

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 26, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Via Paul Krugman, a nice chart from the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator showing federal subsidies as a percentage of premium costs for families at different income levels:

This is in some ways not as generous as maybe it should be to families in the 300-400 percent of federal poverty line range. But you’re looking at very large subsidies for poor and working class families in this legislation, financed by taxes whose incidence will fall overwhelmingly and those with more means than most.

()

Politics

Fox Nation places Obama race story above 1991 photo of beaten Rodney King, Jr.

By Victor Zapanta on Dec 26, 2009 at 4:00 pm

The Fox Nation website is currently featuring a 182-word article on President Obama addressing criticism that he isn’t doing enough for the African American community above the 1991 photo of a beaten Rodney King, Jr. Fox News’ excuse to place the nearly 20 year old image on its homepage next to the President? Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) referenced Rodney King’s “can we all get along” quote four days ago during the healthcare debate.

The beating of Rodney King, Jr. eventually led to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, among the most violent and divisive events in recent American history, in which more than 50 lives were taken. From its broadcasts to its website, the Fox Network has a long history of racializing just about everything it possibly can.

()

Yglesias

Pete Hoekstra Leaping to Ignorant, Politicized Conclusions

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 26, 2009 at 2:58 pm

hoekstra

It’s important, I think, to try to combat the sense of glamor and romance that some attach to senseless acts of murder. If you’re really determined to try to kill some American civilians, you might succeed. But if you’re really determined to break the back of American power through by more-or-less randomly murdering people, then you’re doomed to fail. But unfortunately, certain people are addicted, politically speaking, to the juice that anti-terrorist posturing gives them. Two great examples come from posts by my boss Faiz Shakir on the response of Rep Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) to the Christmas airplane incident.

First he says “People have got to start connecting the dots here and maybe this is the thing that will connect the dots for the Obama administration.” Then he tweets out the following trenchant critique:

Really? That’s his beef? Then he comes up with the idea that the problem is that the Obama administration needs to pay more attention to Yemen. But Faiz points out they’ve been playing plenty of attention to Yemen:

Yemeni security forces carried out airstrikes and ground raids against suspected al Qaeda hide-outs over the past two weeks “with what American officials described as ‘intelligence and firepower’ supplied by the United States. The assaults were Yemen’s widest offensive against jihadists in years.” President Obama reportedly personally approved the use of “military hardware, intelligence and other support to Yemeni forces” in their assault on al Qaeda.

What’s the beef here? Al-Qaeda’s ideological support appears to be on the wane. The logistical capabilities displayed by things like this attempted airplane explosion are unimpressive. Military campaigns are underway against their hideouts in Yemen and Pakistan. Things are basically going fine.

()

Politics

Catholic Hospitals Endorse Senate Abortion Compromise

By Igor Volsky on Dec 26, 2009 at 2:00 pm

catholichosp The Catholic Health Association — which represents hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country said in a statement that it was ‘encouraged’ and ‘increasingly confident‘ that the abortion compromise in the Senate health care bill “can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion.’” The announcement represents a break from the the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ strong opposition to the Senate’s less stringent restrictions and provides critical political cover for pro-life Democrats who are hesitant to vote for a bill opposed by Catholic organizations. Under the Senate measure, women are required to purchase abortion services with private premiums and pay for the care with a separate transaction. States could also prohibit insurers in the exchange from offering abortion services.

The NYT explains the theological underpinnings of the endorsement:

“The Catholic Health Association seems to be using traditional principles of cooperation with evil,” said Prof. M. Cathleen Kaveny of the Notre Dame University Law School. Such principles, she said, could permit support for “imperfect legislation,” as long as one’s intent was not to “further abortion,” one made every effort to “minimize the harm,” and one achieved “an extremely important good that can’t be achieved any other way.”

In contrast, she said, “some bishops have adopted a prophetic stand against abortion that wants to eliminate any form of cooperation with evil no matter how remote.”

Catholic hospitals (like any hospital) hope to minimize the number of uninsured patients who receive uncompensated care and achieve the “extremely important good” of expanding health care coverage to everyone. Earlier this month, Ellen-Marie Whelan and Jessica Arons analyzed the Catholic Bishop’s criteria “that they set as priorities to be included in health reform legislation” and concluded that health care reform meets these self-imposed goals:

As our analysis shows, there are a number of ways both bills would achieve the Bishops’ “pro-life” goals: they would save the lives of thousands each year, reduce the suffering of millions, and increase the dignity with which people are treated when ill. Moreover, providing quality health care to women and families in need is a much more effective and humane way to reduce the number of abortions than restrictions on funding ever have been. In the United States, as throughout the world, restrictions on abortion make the procedure more expensive and less safe; they do not make it less common.

The question before any pro-life Catholic organization is this: “Is it worth jeopardizing legislation that would provide nearly universal access to health care, improve quality, be much more affordable, assist the poor and low income, reduce fraud and waste, protect the conscience of providers, and so much more simply because it would preserve the status quo on public funding for abortion but not impose new restrictions on private coverage?” Fortunately, the Catholic hospitals have decided that it is not.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), meanwhile, has responded to the hospitals’ endorsement by reiterating his opposition to the Senate language, arguing that he has commitments from at least 10 Democrats who voted for House health care bill to oppose the final bill if it doesn not reflect the House bill’s compromise.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

()

Yglesias

The Rise of the Filibuster

By Matthew Yglesias on Dec 26, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Something that I don’t really understand about the filibuster is how it is that the perception is so widespread that constant filibustering is a longstanding tradition. I used to think that was the case, but that’s because filibustermania has existed throughout the entirety of my relatively brief political consciousness. But surely lots of people remember the Carter and Reagan administrations? As UCLA political scientist Barbara Sinclair tells Ezra Klein:

And is there a particular moment where the filibusters accelerate? Or is the rise gradual?

It’s gradual, to some extent. But in terms of its impact on legislation, it really has a big impact from the first Clinton Congress on. If one can say there’s a break point, that’s where filibusters become a regularly used partisan tool.

Previously, the filibuster frequently had some partisan element, but you’d have a lot of cases where individuals or small groups would hold them. But now it’s much more a tool of the minority party. And the minority party is organized and relatively large, even when it’s small by our standards. Forty Republicans is as small as it’s been in a long, long time. That still means if you really get the minority to hang together, everyone on the other side becomes key.

Was anyone really sitting around in 1990 or so and saying to themselves “the big problem with the American government is that if you have majority support for something in the House and the Senate and the relevant Congressional committees and the President supports it and it passes muster with the Supreme Court, then that thing just might get done?” If they were, shifting to a 60-vote threshold for Senate action solves the problem. But what could the problem have possibly been?

()

Climate Progress

Global warming is already speeding up insect breeding

By Joe Romm on Dec 26, 2009 at 12:27 pm

“From a pest perspective it’s an important issue.”

Two butterfly species, the small heath (left) and common blue (right), have become more likely since 1980 to have multiple generations in Central Europe in the same year, as a long-term warming trend has picked up pace:

Ecologist Florian Altermatt of the University of California, Davis has studied 44 species of moths and butterflies in Central Europe. He published the results December 22 in the science journal, Proceedings of the Royal Society B article, “Climatic warming increases voltinism in European butterflies and moths” (which is available online for free for a few more days). “Voltinism” refers to the number of breeding cycles in a year.

As the region has warmed since the 1980s, some of these species have added an extra generation during the summer for the first time on record in that location. Among the 263 species already known to have a second or third generation there during toasty times, 190 have grown more likely to do so since 1980.

Since the journal article is a tough read, I’m excerpting the Science News story (which is also the source of the pictures):

(11)

Security

Connecting The Dots For Pete Hoekstra: Obama Administration Has Been Focused On Yemen

By Faiz Shakir on Dec 26, 2009 at 12:00 pm

In his effort to politicize yesterday’s failed attempted terrorist attack, Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) suggested the Obama administration has thus far failed to “connect the dots.” In a tweet last night, Hoekstra seemed to say that the Obama administration hasn’t paid enough attention to Yemen:

The suspect — 23 year old Nigerian Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab — claimed to be given orders from al Qaeda in Yemen and was given an explosive device by Yemeni operatives. Hoekstra is woefully uninformed if he thinks the Obama administration hasn’t “connected the dots” to Yemen.

Yemeni security forces carried out airstrikes and ground raids against suspected al Qaeda hide-outs over the past two weeks “with what American officials described as ‘intelligence and firepower’ supplied by the United States. The assaults were Yemen’s widest offensive against jihadists in years.” President Obama reportedly personally approved the use of “military hardware, intelligence and other support to Yemeni forces” in their assault on al Qaeda.

Moreover, both Obama and his homeland security adviser, John Brennan, have cited Yemen as a key concern. After a terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen last September, Obama said:

OBAMA: We must do more to strengthen the military, police, and intelligence capability in nations like Yemen that are on the front lines in the fight against terrorism. We need a Shared Security Partnership Program to build the infrastructure to deliver effective counter-terrorism training, and to create a strong foundation for coordinated action against Al Qaeda and its affiliates. [9/17/09]

In his speech on the Afghanistan surge to West Point cadets earlier this month, Obama highlighted Yemen again:

OBAMA: We will have to be nimble and precise in our use of military power. Where al Qaeda and its allies attempt to establish a foothold — whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere — they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships. [12/1/09]

Similarly, Brennan noted Yemen in August as a place from which the terrorist threat is emanating:

BRENNAN: Even as the President takes a more focused view of the threat, his approach includes a third element: a broader, more accurate understanding of the causes and conditions that help fuel violent extremism, be they in Pakistan and Afghanistan or Somalia and Yemen. [8/6/09]

Despite Hoekstra’s desire to make a political issue of the terrorist attack, the evidence is clear that the terrorist threat emanating from Yemen has been a focal point for the Obama administration.

()

Health

Catholic Hospitals Endorse Senate Abortion Compromise

By Igor Volsky on Dec 26, 2009 at 10:40 am

The Catholic Health Association — which represents hundreds of Catholic hospitals across the country — said said in a statement that it was ‘encouraged’ and ‘increasingly confident‘ that the abortion compromise in the Senate health care bill “can achieve the objective of no federal funding for abortion.’” The announcement represents a break from the the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ strong opposition to the Senate’s less stringent restrictions and provides critical political cover for pro-life Democrats who are hesitant to vote for a bill opposed by Catholic organizations. Under the Senate measure, women are required to purchase abortion services with private premiums and pay for the care with a separate transaction. States could also prohibit insurers in the exchange from offering abortion services.

The NYT explains the theological underpinnings of the endorsement:

“The Catholic Health Association seems to be using traditional principles of cooperation with evil,” said Prof. M. Cathleen Kaveny of the Notre Dame University Law School. Such principles, she said, could permit support for “imperfect legislation,” as long as one’s intent was not to “further abortion,” one made every effort to “minimize the harm,” and one achieved “an extremely important good that can’t be achieved any other way.”

In contrast, she said, “some bishops have adopted a prophetic stand against abortion that wants to eliminate any form of cooperation with evil no matter how remote.”

Catholic hospitals (like any hospitals) hope to minimize the number of uninsured patients who receive uncompensated care and achieve the “extremely important good” of expanding health care coverage to everyone. Earlier this month, Ellen-Marie Whelan and Jessica Arons analyzed the Catholic Bishop’s criteria “that they set as priorities to be included in health reform legislation” and concluded that health care reform meets these self-imposed goals:

As our analysis shows, there are a number of ways both bills would achieve the Bishops’ “pro-life” goals: they would save the lives of thousands each year, reduce the suffering of millions, and increase the dignity with which people are treated when ill. Moreover, providing quality health care to women and families in need is a much more effective and humane way to reduce the number of abortions than restrictions on funding ever have been. In the United States, as throughout the world, restrictions on abortion make the procedure more expensive and less safe; they do not make it less common.