ThinkProgress Logo

Alyssa

"Across The Sea": Lost

I don’t write about it often–mostly because I’m afraid I’ll spiral into endless nerdy analysis–but I’m a fiend for Lost.  I’ve watched it from the first episode and I’ve been confused, fascinated, and excited by the story and the path it’s taking to its conclusion. The final season has offered viewers the answers they crave–but, in traditional Lost fashion, these last episodes have placed more questions in front of us. And tonight’s episode, “Across The Sea,” was maddening.

Let me say this now: here be spoilers. If you haven’t watched tonight’s episode, skip this post until you have. That way, you can come back and tell me if you came away with the same answers–and questions–I did. Also, I’m writing this for folks who are up to speed on what’s happening this season. Honestly, if you’re walking into things now, you’ll never catch up. Get the first five seasons from Netflix, take a weekend off and watch them in a marathon, then come back here.

Quick episode rundown: a pregnant woman washes up on The Island’s shore. A woman finds her, nurses her wounds, midwifes her twin babies…then kills her. Newborn Jacob and his nameless brother, the Man in Black (their mother only chose one name, and apparently never named her dark haired son), are raised by The Woman–played with creepy maternal majesty by Allison Janney–in complete isolation. She does show the boys what looks like a tunnel full of light, and tells them while they must protect the tunnel, they must never go in themselves. When he gets a little older, the Man in Black (MIB) is led into the jungle by the spirit of his dead mother, discovers other people living on the island and–just like a certain kid who caused lots of trouble on the island years later–runs away to live among the strangers. When MIB becomes a man, The Woman thwarts his escape and keeps him from building what must be the donkey wheel we saw Ben turn at the end of season four. Then, she seriously wounds MIB and wipes out his village. MIB survives his mother’s attack; he’s a little upset when he discovers his village is nothing but ashes and dead bodies, and he kills the woman who raised him. Jacob discovers MIB’s matricide and carries out his own type of justice: he forces his brother into the tunnel of light, something his adoptive mother told him was a “fate worse than death.” The tunnel goes dark and Clicky Smoke Devil flies from the mouth of the tunnel, which appears to frighten Jacob. Later, Jacob finds the body of his brother and, grieving, lays him next to the body of his dead mother. Jacob places a black stone and a white stone (pieces from a game The Woman made for her sons) in her hand.

The answers: we finally know who Jacob and MIB are! Kinda. And, with so few hours left in the series, I wonder if the identity and origin of the men’s mother will ever be revealed. Throughout the season, “Locke” (the Man in Black, posing as Locke) has talked about going home. But it appears as if he never knew where “home” is, and might not know now. Perhaps that’s another mystery we’ll be left with (like how an olive skinned woman bore such a Nordic looking child. Seriously, how does Jacob’s pale ass get by without sunscreen?).

And we know who “Adam and Eve” are: the Man in Black and The Woman. Way back in season one, the skeletons were a curiosity to Jack and Kate. Finally, we have an answer that, for the most part, makes sense.

We also know what–or, more accurately, who–created the Smoke Monster. It was Jacob! Have to admit that I did not see that coming. How does Jacob feel knowing he created a monster–and that the monster is his brother? And was that their mother’s intention all along? Did she know that one of her sons would eventually give in to temptation and crawl into the light-filled tunnel?

Which brings me to my new questions: Who is The Woman? How did she get to the island? Who was there before her? And why did she kill the twins’ biological mother–and why is it that MIB saw he ghostr, but Jacob couldn’t? How did the wine ritual ensure that Jacob would live for so long? And did the way The Woman raised the boys influence their future paths? The blonde hair and dark hair are pretty blatant symbols, but both brothers gave in to their dark sides as they grew to become men. Can we still call Jacob good and MIB evil after seeing how they came to become what they are now?

And, finally, the biggest question of all: How did I come away from this episode still asking more questions?

I won’t indulge my crackpot theories here–maybe I’ll nerd all the way out over in my other blog. But, if any of you folks are Lost junkies, tell me if you think you have answers to some of my questions. Share some of your own questions. Give me your wild theories.

We’re down to the wire, and Lost is still giving us puzzles to solve. I wonder if we’ll have time to find all the pieces. But even if we don’t, the search has been a blast.

Justice

Sen. Carl Levin Promises To Defy Gates And Attach DADT Repeal To Defense Authorization Bill ‘If We Can’

GatesLevinRoll Call is reporting that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) will defy Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ request to delay legislative action on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell until the Pentagon Study Group complete its year-long review of the policy and could possibly attach repeal to this year’s defense authorization bill. Levin’s statement comes just days after he asked Gates to clarify that the intent of the Pentagon study was to determine how, rather than whether to repeal the ban:

What we ought to do is repeal it but make the effective date after the report,” Levin said. The Michigan Democrat said he’s not sure yet if he has the votes to repeal the law, however. He said he will move forward “if we can.” Levin said he hopes to add the repeal to the Defense authorization bill but will delay the implementation of the repeal until 90 days after the review is completed, which is expected by the end of the year.

Levin pointed to Gates’ letter to him last week saying the review was on how to implement the repeal, not whether to do so. “He’s reached a conclusion on whether it ought to be repealed; he’s already judged this issue,” Levin said. “He favors the repeal. So have I.”

While it’s unclear if Levin will have enough votes on the committee to attach the repeal, the Chairman’s support for a delayed implementation strategy could be a significant victory for LGBT groups who have been struggling to win support for the measure. Levin’s decision also comes on the day that gay veterans, organized by the Human Rights Campaign and Servicemembers United, lobbied Congress to repeal the ban. The veterans met “with Gen. Carter Ham and Jeh Johnson – the co-chairs of the working group – to discuss the implementation of a repeal of the policy” and key Congressional leaders like Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA), Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Mark Warner (D-VA).

It’s still unclear if House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO), who does not support repeal, will follow the delay-implementation approach. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) would not commit to “allowing a vote on the amendment,” saying that “We’ll be talking to the chairman of the committee about how he wants to proceed with his bill, but we are committed to repealing ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.” “We are counting on that happening at the end of this year when we see the report on how they intend to repeal it, but not a question of whether they will.”

Americans support ending Dont’ Ask, Don’t Tell by overwhelming majorities, however. Yesterday, Gallup released a poll showing that “a large majority of Americans (70%) continue to favor allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military, with continued majority support from every key demographic subgroup.”

Politics

McCain’s new ‘Complete the Danged Fence’ ad features the wrong sheriff.

In his attempt to portray himself as more right-wing than his far-right senatorial competitor J.D. Hayworth, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) put out a new ad this past weekend called “Complete The Danged Fence.” In it the ad, McCain is walking along the border in the southern Arizona town of Nogales, telling Sheriff Paul Babeu about his 10-point border security plan:

BABEU: We’re out-manned. Of all the illegals in America, more than half come through Arizona.

MCCAIN: Do we have the right plan?

BABEU: Plan’s perfect. You bring troops, state, county, and local law enforcement together.

MCCAIN: And complete the danged fence.

BABEU: It’ll work this time. Senator, you’re one of us.

Watch it:

There’s something wrong with McCain’s video: Nogales is in Santa Cruz County. Babeu, however, is from Pinal County, which is 115 miles north in central Arizona:

As Andrea Nill explains on the Wonk Room, “Chances are McCain didn’t feature a local border town police chief because that person probably would’ve told him his ten-point plan is a waste of manpower and resources.” Indeed, the assistant police chief in Nogales has said that they have not “witnessed any spillover violence from Mexico.” The Santa Cruz County sheriff has also said that the state’s new anti-immigration law — which McCain called a “good tool” — is downright racist.

Alyssa

How I Met Your Macguffin

Without taking this too deep into the HIMYM weeds, I’d like to offer a counterpoint to Kate’s post. I agree with her sentiment toward the frame story — I certainly don’t care how Ted met the mother of his children, and I only really care about Ted himself because the rest of the main ensemble does. (This is largely because the writers have mined Ted’s puppy-dog romanticism for too many plots and made it harder to show him growing as an adult over the seasons.) The writers seem to have been calling more attention to it over this season than in the past, but I suspect that’s because the show has gotten more episodic and “sitcom-y” over the second half of this season as the main characters appear to have gotten more or less settled in their lives. (There’s one major exception to this — fellow fans will probably know what I’m talking about here — but the writers seem to change their minds from week to week about what they want to do with it.) But I don’t share Kate’s distress that there’s nothing the writers could do short of dismantling the frame story that would keep it from robbing the show of all momentum.

It’s been clear from the very first episode of the show that the moment Ted met the mother was a classic television Macguffin — the object of the pursuit that drives the story. When Ted ended the pilot by telling his kids “And that’s how I met…” (dramatic pause) “…your Aunt Robin,” it became clear that he was using the offhand question they’d asked — “So how did you meet Mom, anyway?” — as an excuse to tell them all the yarns he’d been saving for years. This has been a lot of my enjoyment of the series — I like that Ted’s an unreliable narrator, and I wish the writers did more to show him caught up in the embellishments and lies that all the characters on the show engage in for the sake of a good story.
The great thing about a Macguffin, of course, is that the audience knows that the journey will turn out to be more rewarding than the destination, and the storyteller knows they know. So the storyteller’s bought a little goodwill to spend a little longer telling the story and delaying the reveal, knowing that his audience is more amused than impatient. In this case, that means that the writers don’t have to tell the audience how Ted met his childrens’ mother in order to introduce the mother as a character; they can skip, say, at the beginning of next season to a point a month into their relationship, and move forward from there. They’d still have to remind viewers that the moment they met was important, but I don’t think that should be too hard — we know Ted’s a romantic, after all. And it would introduce new narrative possibilities: I’d love to see the episode where the kids, or even a voiceover of the mother herself, constantly correct Ted’s telling of a particular story a la “Summer Nights.”
From week to week, this probably doesn’t look too different from Kate’s suggestion of doing away with the pretense that Ted’s stories lead directly to the moment he met the mother of his children. But I think the frame story, when used properly, gives the writers some room to play that they might not have in a more straightforward sitcom, and tinkering with that might lose what’s left of what makes this show better than the average sitcom.

Climate Progress

Leaked Overview Of Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act

Tomorrow, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will unveil their long-awaited American Power Act, comprehensive climate and energy legislation designed to achieve President Obama’s commitment to addressing the threats of our fossil-fuel dependence.

Draft summaries of the legislation have been leaked to the press. At Climate Progress, Joe Romm has published his initial analysis of the legislation, finding that it will “create millions of clean energy jobs, slash pollution and oil use, while boosting U.S. farmers and manufacturers.”

Below is the text of the short summary, exclusively transcribed by the Wonk Room from the scanned document acquired by the National Journal, which notes that the bill would give neighboring states veto power over any expansion of offshore drilling.

Download the short summary as a readable PDF.


AMERICAN POWER ACT


**FOR STAFF USE ONLY**

**NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION OR PUBLICATION**

DRAFT SHORT SUMMARY

The American Power Act will transform our economy, set us on the path toward energy independence and improve the quality of the air we breathe. It will create millions of good jobs that cannot be shipped abroad and it will launch America into a position of leadership in the global clean energy economy.

Our approach sets an achievable national pollution reduction target and refunds the money raised right back to American consumers and American businesses. This is not a plan that enriches Wall Street speculators. And this is certainly not a plan to grow the government. It is a plan that creates jobs and sets us on a course toward energy independence and economic resurgence. It is time for Democrats, Republicans and Independents to come together to pass legislation that will create American jobs and achieve energy security, while reducing carbon pollution by 17 percent in 2020 and by over 80 percent in 2050. Our plan is based on five simple principles:

First: Consumers will come out on top. The American Power Act sends two-thirds of all revenues not dedicated to reducing our nation’s deficit back to consumers from day one. The rest is spent ensuring a smooth transition—for American businesses and investing in projects and technologies to reduce emissions and advance our energy security. In the later years of the program, every penny not spent to reduce the deficit will go directly back to consumers.

Second: We need energy made in America. Today we spend almost one billion dollars every day on foreign oil, much of which is sent to regimes that are hostile to our nation and our interests. That is money we should be investing here at home. The American Power Act invests in technology to harness domestic power supplies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Third: America needs to regain its competitive edge and lead the global clean energy economy. America enjoys an abundance of home-grown energy sources: coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables. Each will play a critical role in our clean energy future. By investing in innovation across all energy sources, we will create millions of jobs rebuilding our energy infrastructure as we reinvigorate our manufacturing base, which will be called upon to produce the clean energy technologies of tomorrow.

Fourth: We need a new approach to reducing emissions that recognizes the different needs of our different industries. The American Power Act includes separate, targeted mechanisms for the three major emitting sectors: power plants, heavy industry and transportation. Each approach is tailor-made to ensure a smooth transition into our collective clean energy future.

Fifth: The system must be simple, stable and secure. We only address the largest sources of carbon pollution and we provide predictability to businesses and consumers through a hard price collar and the creation of a single, clear set of rules. Our carbon market structure eliminates the possibility of manipulation, which will mean a secure, well-functioning market system.

Read more

Climate Progress

American Power Act to create millions of clean energy jobs, slash pollution and oil use, while boosting U.S. farmers and manufacturers

Bill “eliminates the possibility of market manipulation” and “from day one, two-thirds of revenues not dedicated to reducing our deficit are rebated back to consumers”

Kerry and Lieberman have apparently been waiting for a sign from above to release their climate and clean energy jobs bill, the American Power Act.  Instead, the unmistakable message that we need to get off of dirty, unsafe fossil fuels came from an undersea volcano of oil unleashed by the hubris, recklessness, and arrogance of Big Oil.

You can read the leaked 21-page draft Section-by-Section description of the American Power Act here (big PDF).  You can read the leaked 4-page “draft short summary” by clicking here.

Before offering my thoughts on individual sections, here’s Dan Weiss, CAPAF’s Director of Climate Strategy:

Read more

Economy

Govs. Pawlenty and Sanford Veto Common Sense Tax Increases On The Wealthy And Cigarettes

Due to the effects of the Great Recession, states across the country are facing severe budget shortfalls for the next few years. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, cumulative state budget shortfalls will total $180 billion in fiscal year 2011 and another $120 billion in 2012.

As my ThinkProgress colleague Zaid Jilani wrote, states have reacted to their fiscal deterioration in a couple of ways. Conservative-led governments are “refusing to responsibly raise revenues and instead slashing their states’ social and infrastructure spending,” while “progressive-led state governments are asking their states’ most prosperous citizens to sacrifice a little so that spending on the most vital programs can be protected.”

This week, two states — Minnesota and South Carolina — tried to act responsibly by raising revenues in ways that won’t damage the economic recovery. Minnesota attempted to increase its income tax on its wealthiest residents, while South Carolina attempted to boost its cigarette tax, which is the lowest in the nation. But both measures were vetoed today by each state’s respective Republican governor:

Gov. Tim Pawlenty made good Tuesday on his threat to veto a Democratic plan to repair Minnesota’s budget because the bill includes a tax increase…”It is nonsensical to increase taxes on job providers merely weeks after I signed a bill to provide tax incentives for Minnesota businesses to grow jobs,” Pawlenty wrote to lawmakers.

Gov. Mark Sanford announced his veto Tuesday afternoon of raising the state’s cigarette tax to 57 cents from 7 cents per pack…”In these difficult economic times, we believe it would be sheer folly to impose the largest tax increase since 1985,” he said.

Minnesota is facing a $2.9 billion deficit, while South Carolina’s lawmakers were caught “flat-footed” last week by a $213 million unanticipated shortfall. Yet both Republican governors saw fit to veto common sense revenue raisers, which could foist the effects of budget cuts onto vulnerable residents who need social services and students who have already seen education budgets slashed to ribbons.

In fact, both states have already cut education funding in response to the economic crisis. Minnesota’s proposed income tax increase would have raised $395 million, helping the state avert a “cash crunch” that could result from a recent court ruling that Pawlenty overstepped his bounds in cutting money for schools. Meanwhile, the cigarette tax increase in South Carolina — where the cigarette tax is ten cents lower than anywhere else in the country — would have gone towards placing $125 million in the state’s Medicaid trust fund.

“The question is: Are we going to be leaders who stand up and protect people who don’t need our protection, or are we going to make the choice to be leaders who stand up and vote to protect people who need us?” asked Minnesota State Rep. Ryan Winkler (D). From their actions, it’s very clear where Pawlenty and Sanford stand.

Politics

REPORT: Kagan’s Experience Involved Handling More Than 23,000 One Thousand Cases

Note: A correction has been appended below.

As ThinkProgress previously reported, many of Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s right-wing opponents now claim that her lack of prior judicial experience disqualifies her for the bench — in many cases despite their previous willingness to embrace conservative nominees who also have not served on the bench. The right’s attack on Kagan’s record does far more than expose its hypocrisy, however. It ignores how fully General Kagan’s prior experience prepares her for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Presently, Kagan serves as Solicitor General of the United States, a burdensome job which supervises tens of thousands of cases every year across a wide-range of legal issues and jurisdictions. General Kagan’s most well-known duty is also the most high-profile aspect of her job: Kagan serves as the United States’ chief litigator before the Supreme Court, where she argued six cases this past Term.

General Kagan’s second duty is to advise the Justices on which of the over 8,000 parties seeking Supreme Court review should receive a rare hearing before the high Court. The Supreme Court commonly calls for the views of the Solicitor General with respect to whether a particular petition for review should be granted, a request lawyers refer to as a “CVSG.” Moreover, the SG’s views are taken very seriously by the Justices, who agree with the SG’s recommendation approximately 80% of the time. In this sense, the job of SG prepares Kagan for one the most important tasks of a Supreme Court justice: culling through the thousands of petitions seeking Supreme Court review to identify the handful of petitions that should be granted.

As former SG Seth Waxman explains, however, handling the Supreme Court is the least of Kagan’s duty. Indeed, the SG is responsible for more cases than any other lawyer in the United States.

Representing a client that is a party in approximately one-half of all cases pending in the federal courts, the Solicitor General is responsible both for determining what position the United States will take on many important questions of federal law and often for choosing the specific cases in which to advance that position. No other lawyer superintends thousands of cases at a time, and none other has the authority to decline to pursue cases solely because doing so would not promote the orderly development of the law. These two facts carry the potential to mean a great deal.

To clarify, the SG supervises every single appeal in which the United States is a party — about half the cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeal. According to the Administrative Office of the US Courts’ annual report on “Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics,” federal appeals courts heard just under 46,000 cases in one year. Slightly more than half of these cases — over 23,000 cases — were overseen by the Solicitor General.

Moreover, this figure underestimates the extent of General Kagan’s workload. The 23,000 cases discussed in this report represent cases which are actually appealed to a Court of Appeals. The Solicitor General, however, also has final authority over whether the United States will appeal a case that it lost at the trial level, which means thousands more cases that the SG considers and ultimately decides not to appeal.

In this sense, the SG oversees far more cases than even a Justice of the United States Supreme Court; and the SG has another, final duty. As part of their supervisory role, the SG is responsible for designing the appellate litigation strategy of the United States — deciding which issues to emphasize, which arguments to advance and which cases to set aside. As General Kagan is President Obama’s first Solicitor General, this final duty is particularly intensive. The Obama Administration’s view of the law is, simply put, very different from that of the Bush Administration, so Kagan needed to delve deep into the federal government’s entire litigation docket to root out Bush-era priorities that needed to be revised.

In other words, Kagan currently performs what may be the single most demanding job in the American legal profession, and she performs it with distinction. By comparison, her new role as a Supreme Court Justice should be less strenuous.

Update

CORRECTION: A reliable source informs ThinkProgress that the Solicitor General is responsible only for supervising Court of Appeals cases where the United States lost in the court below, not all cases involving the United States that are appealed, as the original post states. This means that the actual number of cases supervised by the SG’s office is closer to 1500 per year, not 23,000 as originally stated. We apologize for the error.

Yglesias

Endgame

Men with the maybe looking for endings:

— Sometimes you get scoops by looking really closely at photographs.

— Emily Bazelon further debunks the conservative/Beinart hit on Elena Kagan’s military recruiter stance.

— Spencer Ackerman describes covering a trial at Guantanamo Bay.

— At a minimum, Kagan’s liberal critics seem to have succeeded in dampening enthusiasm for her.

— Nevada homeowners are unbelievably screwed.

— Baucus reveals his support for a bank tax.

“Metro Status”.

New Broken Social Scene album dropped last week. Here’s “World Sick”

Justice

Rep. Steve King: Gays Shouldn’t Wear Their Sexuality ‘On Their Sleeve’

Over at Good As You, Jeremy Hooper catches Rep. Steve King (R-IA) saying that employers only discriminate against gay and lesbian people because “they wear their sexuality on their sleeve.”

During a conversation with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), King re-called a story of how his colleague State Senator Jerry Behn would tempt gay activists to guess his sexual orientation to prove that one can’t easily identify orientation, all the while cracking a joke that Behn was obviously straight:

KING: And he said, ‘let me ask you a question.’ ‘Am I heterosexual or am I homosexual?’ And they looked him up and down, actually they should have know, but they said, ‘we don’t know.’ And he said, ‘exactly, my point. If you don’t project it, if you don’t advertise it, how would anyone know to discriminate against you?’ And that’s at the basis of this. So if people wear their sexuality on their sleeve and then they want to bring litigation against someone that they would point their finger at and say ‘ you discriminate.‘ …This is the homosexual lobby taking it out on the rest of society and they are demanding affirmation for their lifestyle, that’s at the bottom of this.

Listen:

Of course, far from affirming “their lifestyle,” as King calls it, ENDA would simply prohibit public and private employers from using an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity “as the basis for employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, promotion or compensation.” As Hooper put it, “What the far-right refuses to admit is that ENDA protects everyone, not just LGBT people! Everyone has a sexual orientation. Everyone has a gender identity. Every employer, including LGBT ones, have the capacity to unfairly discriminate on the basis of gender/sexuality. So therefore, everyone benefits from a world where education and training and experience and viewpoints (which very well might include contrasting ideas about work related to causes, even LGBT/anti-LGBT ones) and merit are the qualities of job consideration.”

Iowa is one of 12 states that already protects its citizens from “discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, credit, public accommodations and education” on the basis of race, color, creed, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, physical disability, mental disability, retaliation, age , familial status, or marital status.

Transcript: Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up