ThinkProgress Logo

Alyssa

Mending Bones (For emilisha and Leee)

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Incognita Nom de Plume.

At the beginning of this television season, while I was curious about what would happen with 30 Rock, and excited for Glee, I had one truly major concern: the fate of Bones.  I wrote, in a paen to and critique of the show back in September:

And so Bones faces substantial challenges in plot and execution this season. There are two major potential romances that need to develop in a plausible, sincere way. One character needs to deal with her still-new role as a mother, while another needs to cope with her desire to have a child. Last season, the show relied on a rotation of guest actors to fill a vacant slot in the laboratory, but it’s a gimmick with an expiration date. As a related issue, Zach’s character, and the consequences of his downfall, were at best marginally addressed last season, and substantial questions about that downfall really need to be resolved. That’s a lot of plot to deal with, and to fit in around the rotting bodies.

But much more importantly, Bones needs to restore its credibility. The show pushes its fans, and that’s a good thing. But it shows no respect for your fans to feed them something poorly written and to call it a gift to them, and it shows no respect for your characters to leave them with a lot of raveled threads, and to abruptly make them behave in ways that have little to do with the personas you’ve established for them. The show has had an unpleasant history of odd inconsistencies, whether making Booth and Bones smooch only to never mention it again; dropping a gripping story about a serial kidnapper for a season and a half only to pick it up again and subvert it to a dopey plot device; implying that a character convicted of a heinous crime is innocent and inexplicably failing to follow up on it. Doing this once or twice might be all right, but as a repeat problem, it feels like sloppiness. I’d hate to think the show is irretrievably broken.

 On almost all of those counts, Bones‘ fifth season is succeeding utterly. Let’s take the little stuff first.  When The Wire‘s Wallace showed up as the slightly older boyfriend of Michelle, the teenage girl scientist boss-lady Cam adopted in the fourth season, my fangirling self lost it.  But the plot thread, about whether Michelle is having sex with her boyfriend, and if she is, what Cam ought to say to her about it, was beautifully handled.  The fight between mother and daughter, and the reconciliation that followed, felt genuine: teenagers fight with their parents as a way to reassure themselves about their own limits-testing, especially when they’re feeling anxious about a potentially momentous decision.  And it wasn’t a one-character plotline.  Booth stepping into the father role, and reading Wallace (I don’t care what his character’s actual name is) the riot act was a lovely bit of team-bonding.  Booth may not be romantically involved with Cam any more, but when she needs a man in her life, he stepped effortlessly into that role, and she was able to accept it without trying to reassert any tie on him. 

The show’s also done a nice job with the interns.  Making Wendell’s job a potential casualty of the recession was a nice touch (as was leaving it anonymous who saved his job), though I’m uncertain how I feel about his hookup with Angela–dude’s probably going to get burned.  I thought last season the lab’s bigoted reaction to the Iranian intern was the show’s ugliest, most uncharacteristic moment, so I’m glad they’ve rescued his character a bit, and done it in a funny way.  And I never, never thought that the show could rescue Daisy, a hyperverbal and socially awkward intern (and it did burn me a bit that the one female intern was such a total pain), but they worked her into an episode about Egyptologist in a role that was hilarious and charming, and did a fair amount to advance Sweets’ character.

Third, the show is back to doing the subculture exploration that’s always made it strong.  Cyndi Lauper’s role as a psychic former cult member was a bit stunt-casty, but worked out anyway.  The little-people wrestling ring was a good frame.  Even the episode about the CIA analyst, which started out a bit cheesy, I thought, developed into a strong testament to personal character and organizational culture.  And the episode about an Amish musical prodigy was beautiful: really, one of the best episodes of the series I think, and a lovely testament to the power of art.

Speaking of emotion-tugging, the show’s done an absolutely terrific job moving Brennan and Booth’s relationship forward, pacing it appropriately while still deepening the characterizations.  Booth’s aborted profession of love in the season premiere made the issue at hand explicit while preventing it from resolving too quickly.  I’m thrilled that the show brought back Stephen Fry to work with John Francis Daly in last week’s episode, both because I think the tension between them as colleagues is a dynamic that’s developed really well, and because they were able to draw out a coherent explanation from Booth about why he hasn’t pursued a relationship with Brennan.  The upping-the-ante subplots, of Brennan going on a date with Booth’s boss, and of Booth’s son Parker demanding that he get a girlfriend, have been well-done, and I think it makes sense that as the characters are more powerfully drawn to each other, that incidents like these would acquire an added significance.

But most of all, David Boreanaz and Emily Deschanel just have wonderful physical chemistry together, and they’re finally getting a chance to express it through a straightened tie, a clasped hand, a lot of smoldering gazes.  And they’re balancing the initiation of physical interaction between Booth and Brennan, so it’s clear they’re being drawn closer together.  It’s been a bit obvious sometimes, but I think that kind of casual-but-not touch works.  Someone as logical as Brennan would have to fully rationalize the situation for her to be comfortable discussing intiating a relationship with Booth.  She doesn’t have to rationalize touching him, because it doesn’t actually change the formal relationship with him, so she gets part of what she wants without having to either construct a rationalization or acknowledge that what she wants is operating outside of logic.

I have caveats of course.  The show hasn’t done nearly as good a job with Angela and Hodgins, in part because I think Angela’s character may be headed down an irredeemably vexing path.  Her stupid fight with Brennan over the pig she was insisting everyone pony up to adopt (and how classless was it of her to hit up Wendell for money after he almost lost his job?) made her seem astonishingly flaky, sentimental, and self-centered.  And her hookup with Wendell can only end in tears when she inevitably goes back to Hodgins.  Which I don’t want to happen anymore, actually.  I was surprised and gratified when Hodgins said he wouldn’t end Angela’s celibacy.  And I wish the show wold spend more time with him.  I thought his arc last season when he was dealing with his breakup with Angela and Zach’s incarceration was one of the few redeeming notes in that set of episodes.  I’m a bit annoyed that they’re slipping him back into conspiracy theory mode too.

That seems to me to be one of a few loose ends that hasn’t been resolved, with the most significant one being Zach.  I’m sure contractual and scheduling issues make the fate of the anthropologist-turned-serial-killer’s-apprentice a complicated thing to fit in.  But it simply must be dealt with.  It shattered the team at the end of Season 3, and the revelation that Sweets knows Zach is innocent would shatter them again.  It would be a brave plot decision.  I hope Hart Hanson and Co. are bold enough to go there.

Health

The Case For Recommending Mammograms To Women Over 50

breast_cancer_ribbonLawmakers and some doctor and patient groups are criticizing the “new guidelines from a government task force that recommends against routine mammograms for women under 50.” The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force advises doctors against routinely providing the service to women under 50, but notes that “there may be considerations that support providing the service in an individual patient.”

For the average female population, mammograms cause more harm than good:

The harms resulting from screening for breast cancer include psychological harms, unnecessary imaging tests and biopsies in women without cancer, and inconvenience due to false-positive screening results. Furthermore, one must also consider the harms associated with treatment of cancer that would not become clinically apparent during a woman’s lifetime (overdiagnosis), as well as the harms of unnecessary earlier treatment of breast cancer that would have become clinically apparent but would not have shortened a woman’s life. Radiation exposure (from radiologic tests), although a minor concern, is also a consideration.

The debate underscores the complexity surrounding public health care management and raises new challenges for comparative effectiveness research. More immediately, the new guidelines create a political dilemma: clinical trials suggest that mammograms don’t work very well for younger women with thicker breast tissue. The test yields more false positives, anxiety, and over treatment (that itself can lead to more serious health problems) than saved lives. It also drives up health care costs.

Undoubtedly for some women, the mammogram is a life saver, and lawmakers fear that insurance companies will seize the new guidelines to deny coverage for mammograms for younger women. But the Prevention Services Task force had a choice. It could have issued a recommendation that would have 1) hurt the majority of the under 50 population, 2) helped a small number of women, but 3) added to skyrocketing health care costs. Or it could have issued a recommendation that would have 1) benefited the majority of the under 50 population, 2) didn’t create more waste in the system and 3) harmed a small percentage of women. Only in the world of political rhetoric can one test everyone and improve all health outcomes.

At the end of the day, health care providers need to follow scientific protocols. The system can’t accommodate a situation in which doctors order CAT scans for simple headaches or complicated surgeries for problems that can be solved with a regimen of medication. Policy makers must balance risk and benefit because a free-market approach creates the kind of health care costs that price millions out of the health insurance market. It produces a situation where 46 million Americans are uninsured, 45,000 die every single year because they don’t have health insurance, while the nation spends 16% of it’s GDP on health care and $800 billion/year on health procedures that actually worsen health outcomes.

In a situation with no good answers, scientific research should inform the best answer.

Security

Mukasey: Rep. Moran Has ‘Lost Touch With Reality’ And Should ‘Get Professional Help’ From Major Nidal Hasan

Michael Mukasey Last week, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) came out in strong support of Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute the five 9/11 defendants in U.S. federal court and sharply criticized Republicans who were attacking the decision. “They will seize on any opportunity to [demagogue], and that means they’ll even take a stand that’s un-American. It’s un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial. It’s against our principles as a nation.”

Former Bush attorney general Michael Mukasey is one of the Republicans who has been speaking out against Holder. Last week at a Federalist Society conference, Mukasey said that holding the trial in Manhattan increased the risk of a terrorist attack on the city.

In an interview with Washington Times radio this morning, the hosts asked Mukasey about Moran’s comments. Mukasey responded by suggesting that the congressman “get professional help” from Maj. Nidal Hasan:

Q: Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia says anybody that questions KSM coming to New York City for a civilian trial — that they’re un-American. What is your reaction to that?

MUKASEY: I think he’s lost touch with reality. He ought to get professional help, perhaps from Maj. Nidal.

The segment then ends with the hosts laughing over Mukasey’s “joke.” Listen here:

Nidal, of course, is the Army psychiatrist suspected of going on a brutal rampage at Fort Hood and killing 13 people.

Asked for a response to Mukasey’s comments, Moran’s spokesperson Emily Blout said, “Leading conservative activists and scholars agree with Mr. Moran’s position, which is based on this nation’s long history of upholding its most fundamental values- even in the face of horrific crimes.”

Update

In a similar bit of rhetoric, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) went on the House floor last night and personally went after New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg for supporting having the 9/11 trial in Manhattan. “I saw the Mayor of New York said today, ‘We’re tough. We can do it,’” said Shadegg. “Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it’s your daughter that’s kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it’s some clerk — some innocent clerk of the court — whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer’s little brother or little sister? This is political correctness run amok.”


Update

,Shadegg has apologized for his remarks.

Climate Progress

Jim Webb Joins Party Of No, Jay Rockefeller Joins Party Of Slow

Webb and AlexanderYesterday, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) disparaged President Barack Obama’s efforts to fight global warming and build a green economy. The Senate, bogged down by Republicans and conservative Democrats, has become the key impediment to the passage of an international climate treaty and clean energy legislation. Unveiling a $100 billion nuclear-industry subsidy plan with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Webb disparaged the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733) drafted by Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), saying he “would not vote for it“:

In its present form, I would not vote for it. I have some real questions about the real complexities on cap and trade.

Last year, Webb asserted that “we can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.” Webb seems to be aligning himself strongly with Republicans who believe that climate change is not a real threat that requires significant reductions in emissions. Perhaps the veterans and military leaders that have mobilized in Operation Free should give him a few briefings.

The Alexander-Webb Clean Energy Act, by providing taxpayer subsidies for nuclear energy but no economic incentive to shift from carbon power or keep costs down, “could pave the way for the same kind of industry-wide meltdown that happened in the 1970s and 1980s.” Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School, has found that “even with climate change policy looming, nuclear power cannot compete in the marketplace, so its advocates are forced to seek to prop it up by shifting costs and risks to ratepayers and taxpayers.”

The federal government has long played a prominent and productive role in the research and development of advanced new technologies, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission deserves increased funding. There are elements of the Webb-Alexander bill that would make sense as part of the Clean Energy Jobs Act. But the aging, capital-intensive, increasingly expensive nuclear industry is not ever going to be a driving source for new jobs. As standalone policy, this bill would simply raise economic and security risks for Americans for the benefit of bankers and polluters.

Meanwhile, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is trapped by the toxic coal-dominated politics of his struggling state. He seems to be hoping global warming will simply disappear over time, like Republicans who have called for delay after delay in action. “I’m totally unconcerned about Copenhagen,” Rockefeller told Politico, justifying his own calls for delay. “I’m concerned about West Virginia.”

Because of the dilatory tactics of Webb, Rockefeller, and other Democrats, Kerry and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) are struggling to keep the consideration of green economy legislation on track. Kerry is now backing off his commitment to “providing the ‘framework’ of legislation before the Copenhagen meeting.” Reid has placed financial reform on the calendar before the Clean Energy Jobs Act, and is now calling for a “jobs creation bill” as well.

Unfortunately for unemployed Americans, the Senate continues to ignore the obvious — that strong climate legislation would reward companies for creating jobs instead of pollution.

Politics

Hoffman un-unconcedes the NY-23 special election.

Doug Hoffman Yesterday, ThinkProgress reported that Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman had rescinded his concession to Democrat Bill Owens in the special congressional election in New York’s 23rd district. Hoffman went on Glenn Beck’s radio show and said he was feeling “hopeful” about the fact that Owens’ lead over him was narrowing with the counting of the district’s absentee ballots. “[I]f I knew this information at the election night, I would not have conceded,” said Hoffman. When Beck asked, “So are you un-conceding?” Hoffman replied, “If that’s possible, yes.” However, today Hoffman’s spokesman told the Syracuse Post-Standard that he is un-unconceding:

Hoffman is not “un-conceding” the race, contrary to what he said Monday when pressed by Glenn Beck on his national talk radio show.

“What really matters is the count that is taking place today,” Rob Ryan, Hoffman’s spokesman told The Post-Standard. “When we see the direction that is taking, we will make the decision.”

Ryan added, “There has been no formal action to contest the vote, and depending on how the absentee count turns out we will decide how to proceed.”

As Gawker’s Alex Pareene wrote yesterday, it looks like upstate New York may have its own Norm Coleman.

Yglesias

The AIG Counterparty Negotiations

180px-AIG_New_York_building_at_dusk

A lot of the coverage of the new SIGTARP report on the handling of the AIG payouts—and, indeed, the report itself to an extent—seems a bit misleading.

Stepping back, this all began when banks made various risky loans. In order to reduce the risks, they essentially bought insurance from AIG. But AIG itself didn’t manage its own risk-profile well. So when the loans started going bad, it turned out that AIG couldn’t cover its contracts. Consequently, AIG’s poor risk-management was going to undermine the risk-management at every firm that managed risk through contracts with AIG. That would have led to a wave of bank failures. So the government stepped in and took over AIG. At which point it paid out the contracts in full.

The accusation of the report is basically that the government could and should have gotten a better deal than that for taxpayers. Paying out 80 cents on the dollar or whatever. But one big question is how would that have worked. If AIG were a firm going bankrupt, what you would do is call everyone up and say “uh…we screwed up…we can pay everyone 80% of what we owe you or else we can declare bankruptcy and you guys can roll the dice and see what you get in the end.” That’s a good strategy. But once AIG had been taken over by the government, the government couldn’t really threaten to default on AIG’s contracts. The government could have threatened to use its regulatory authority in a punitive way unless AIG counterparties agreed to a quasi-voluntary haircut. I can see the case for doing that, but I can also see the case for not doing it.

The crux of the matter is that once AIG goes from being an on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy company to a government-owned company, there’s really no more leverage that’s 100 percent legitimate. You could have said, pre-takeover, “hey guys, we’ll take over AIG but only if you all promise to take a haircut on your obligations.” But then you’re setting up a game of chicken. Are you really going to cause an economy-killing wave of bank failures unless the banksters agree to take a haircut? Well, no you’re not. So even when you seem to have leverage you actually don’t.

What’s really wanted here is for the United States to be a different kind of country with a more public-spirited business class wherein the bank executives could be persuaded to “do the right thing” in light of all the crap that taxpayers were doing on their behalf. But we live in the United States of America.

Fundamentally, though, as with a lot of this stuff I think what’s being implicated is much less America’s financial crisis emergency response policies than our background conditions of social justice. The very rich people in the top 0.5 percent of the income distribution who’ve garnered such a large share of the economic gains of the past thirty years should pay higher taxes, and in return there should be more and better public services. The Federal Reserve shouldn’t be so complacent about ten percent unemployment.

Climate Progress

U.S. and China announce positive, cooperative and comprehensive plan for collaboration on clean energy and climate change

“Very exciting day here in Beijing.  There’s enormous interest in both governments in working together to fight climate change.  The package announced today is far-reaching and can make a real difference in cutting emissions.”

That’s an exclusive quote from David Sandalow, DOE’s Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy and International Affairs, who just emailed me from China about the newly announced U.S.-China cooperation plan.  Sandalow is going to be in Copenhagen, so I hope to have a real interview with him then.  For details on this plan (with links) and what it means, here is analysis by Andrew Light and Julian L. Wong of the Center for American Progress.  Note that the deal goes beyond “obvious” areas like efficiency and renewables to include things like shale gas, which appears to exist in abundance in China and could allow repowering of existing Chinese coal plants and more rapid medium-term reductions than people have thought possible.

This morning, a comprehensive plan for U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy and climate change was announced in Beijing by President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao. The overall plan is much more ambitious in scope and depth than we had anticipated and contains directives to create various institutions and programs addressing a wide array of cooperation on clean-energy technologies and capacity building, including very important efforts on helping China build a robust, transparent and accurate inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions.

These efforts include cooperation in the following areas:

Read more

Security

The Fruits Of ‘Dithering’ In Afghanistan

karzaiGiven that the charge that President Obama is “dithering” on Afghanistan originated with former Vice President Dick Cheney, one can and should dismiss it out of hand as a transparent attempt to distract Americans from the fact that the Bush-Cheney administration vastly under-resourced the U.S.-led effort there for the last five years. But it’s also worth pointing out that, as it has conducted its deep review of options in Afghanistan, the president and his team haven’t simply been sitting around talking. They’ve been working with and encouraging and cajoling our partners in the Pakistan and Afghanistan government to step up and play a more positive role. And they’ve made it clear to both governments that a demonstrated willingness to do that will influence the president’s decision on U.S. troop and resource commitments to the effort.

On Sunday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again made it clear that Hamid Karzai’s government must do more to eliminate corruption if he wanted continued civilian aid from Washington. Government corruption at all levels has been a huge problem in Afghanistan, preventing the state from establishing any genuine legitimacy and powering the resentment that feeds the Taliban insurgency.

Yesterday, the government of Afghanistan “announced new anticorruption measures in response to pressure from Washington and its allies, unveiling a special task force that will investigate graft by senior officials”:

“This force will make sure no high-ranking official who is involved in corruption will go unpunished,” said Interior Minister Hanif Atmar, accompanied by the U.S. and British ambassadors to Kabul. The new body will get training and support from the European Union and the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, officials said.

The task force, which began operating in recent days, has netted three high-ranking government officials and charged them with stealing money meant for the families of policemen killed in the line of duty, said Amrullah Saleh, chief of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security. He didn’t identify the detained men beyond saying that one of them was a general.

Obviously, simply creating a new anti-corruption unit and making some arrests isn’t the same as actually “fighting corruption,” but it’s a positive step. As with the Pakistan Army’s move against Taliban redoubts in Waziristan, a sustained commitment on the part of the Afghanistan will significantly impact the ability of the U.S.-led coalition to roll back the Taliban and stabilize the country. Karzai’s move is a welcome one, though, and should be recognized as the result of the successful use of American leverage by the Obama administration to elicit a positive change in behavior — as well as proof that the administration’s hawkish critics continue to be best ignored.

Politics

SPLC president tells Bill O’Reilly to pay up $10,000 Dobbs bet.

Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) President J. Richard Cohen appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show this past summer and called on CNN to fire Lou Dobbs over his inaccurate immigration reporting. O’Reilly advised Cohen to stop wasting his time. O’Reilly was so sure Dobbs would never be fired from CNN that he seemed willing to bet Cohen $10,000:

O’REILLY: CNN is never going to fire him, you know that…

COHEN: I’m not quite as cynical as you are Bill. I think that if enough people speak out, CNN will listen and be more responsible in the future.

O’REILLY: You wanna bet?…I’ve got ten grand for Habitat for Humanity on the table if you wanna bet me.

COHEN: How about ten grand for the Southern Poverty Law Center?

O’REILLY: But I’m not going to take your money. There’s no real bet there — he’s not going to get fired.

Watch it:

In an open letter addressed to O’Reilly that was posted yesterday, Cohen states “You lost the bet. Time to pay up!” Granted, O’Reilly’s commitment to the bet was tepid, at best — but Cohen points out that “in the court of public opinion, you lose.” In an interview with Dobbs on his show last night, O’Reilly suggested that Dobbs’ departure had nothing to do with responsible journalism, and more to do with CNN not wanting to offend the President. O’Reilly also urged Dobbs to “come back on a semi-regular basis.”

Yglesias

I Wanna Hold Your Nominee

I have a new piece for Newsweek Online about the pernicious “hold” trend that’s preventing us from having a properly staffed administration:

There is a forum in which these policy disputes are supposed to be resolved—the ballot box. After an election, the country needs a well-staffed executive branch. Putting the squeeze on an administration by holding up its appointees is a way of holding the interests of the whole country hostage to a petty agenda. When Regina Benjamin’s nomination to be surgeon general was held up through the end of October it wasn’t primarily Obama or Benjamin herself who suffered, it was the government’s ability to inform people about how to deal with the swine-flu epidemic.

If the rules allowing these holds didn’t exist, nobody would be crazy enough to suggest implementing them. So they ought to be done away with. Senators of both parties like the power it gives them, but it’s power that’s acquired not so much at the expense of the president as at the expense of effective government and common sense. The days when norms of courtesy could be counted on to prevent holding from getting out of control. Appointees confirmed by the relevant committee should be voted on by the full Senate.

I’ll probably be waiting a long time for this to happen, but it’s still true….

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up