Quote For The Day

“I think [Edward] Snowden might end up being the John Brown of the 21st Century—reviled and unpopular but unleashing a debate that led to the rebirth of freedom. Republicans like John Boehner and John McCain are with Barack Obama against Snowden. But let’s face it, [Snowden’s] perspective is more consistent with rugged individualism and privacy and everything that comes along with traditional conservatism. Isn’t it interesting that the more invectives are hurled at Snowden (by the establishment), the more the numbers rise in his favor?” – Craig Shirley, GOP consultant and Reagan biographer.

Daniel McCarthy compiles an impressive roster of right-wing support for Snowden.

Hollywood’s Summer Hangover

Isaac Chotiner notes the dismal performance of this summer’s blockbuster season and wonders what studios will learn from it:

The most sanguine possibility is that you look over this roster of dreck and decide to make fewer derivative and dumb movies. (Oblivion, After Earth, and Elysium all have a similar plot; White House Down was nearly identical to this spring’s hit Olympus Has Fallen).

Still, it’s easy to imagine Hollywood studios learning precisely the opposite lesson. The problem isn’t derivative movies, the thinking might go; in fact, the most derivative movies sell. Superheroes sell. Enough of these new and risky products like R.I.P.D. and Lone Ranger: just look at where quirkiness gets you. Instead of taking a bet on an original (albeit not very good) movie like Elysium, why not make Grown-Ups 3, even if no one is exactly begging for it? Instead of White House Down, how about paying Robert Downey Jr. an extra $15 million above-and-beyond his already otherwordly salary for another Iron Man? It’s true that every studio needs to keep creating franchises as well as nurturing its existing ones. But who is to say that an extra sequel can’t be made, and that the new projects cannot just be reboots. No, the real lesson of the summer might very well be that audiences want what they already know. Don’t expect much to change.

Alex Mayyasi suggests Hollywood take a page from Silicon Valley’s book:

Despite their similarities … Silicon Valley and Hollywood have similar failure rates for opposite reasons. Silicon Valley doesn’t know what a future success looks like – every investor has a story about passing on a company like Facebook, Google, or Pinterest because it seemed unlikely to succeed or even stupid – so it accepts risk and celebrates it.

Hollywood knows what success usually looks like (it’s a sequel and tends to wear a cape). But pure repetition is not a sure thing (see the recent flop The Lone Ranger – a reboot of a classic story that was also Pirates of the Caribbean retreated as a Western) and it will miss out on surprise hits like Forest Gump.

Catherine Rampell investigates which movies pull in the most money, under the assumption that the answer would be low-budget horror films:

The genre with the biggest box office R.O.I. was actually documentary, with domestic box office economix-09ROIbygenre-blog480returns averaging 12 times the original production budget, and global returns at nearly 27 times the original budget. Of course, documentaries are generally much cheaper to make than other genres, averaging about $2.6 million in production budget versus $95 million for action films (unadjusted for inflation). So it makes sense that for the small subset of documentaries that do well (remember, these averages include only those films with domestic grosses above $2 million), the R.O.I. can be enormous.

How Border Enforcement Backfired

A 2007 paper by Douglas Massey argued that undocumented immigrants have responded to increased border security “by hunkering down and staying once they had run the gauntlet at the border and made it to their final destination.” Ezra finds that the “data support Massey’s thesis”:

In 1980, 46 percent of undocumented Mexican migrants returned to Mexico within 12 months. By 2007, that was down to 7 percent. As a result, the permanent undocumented population exploded.

The militarization also had another unintended consequence: It dispersed the undocumented population. Prior to 1986, about 85 percent of Mexicans who entered the U.S. settled in California, Texas or Illinois, and more than two-thirds entered through either the San Diego-Tijuana entry point or the El Paso-Juarez entry point. As the U.S. blockaded those areas, undocumented migrants found new ways in — and new places to settle. By 2002, two-thirds of undocumented migrants were entering at a non-San Diego/El Paso entry point and settling in a “nontraditional” state.

Steven Taylor adds:

I will say that I think that dispersal of migrants is also attributable to increasing demands for labor in agriculture across the country (such as working in poultry in Alabama or in labor-intensive crop-picking jobs across the southeast).  However, the hypothesis makes sense:  if one cannot return home without risking trouble with la migra, then it is best to look stay put (not to mention to get away from places where border enforcement is being intensely focused).

Ask Kate Bolick Anything: What If You’re Single And Get Sick?

In our first video from Kate, she explains how getting married isn’t the only way to ensure you have someone to take care of you when you face health challenges or get older:

Last week, PBS took a look at the seniors organization Kate refers to in the video:

[Beacon Hill Village] is a nonprofit membership organization that provides free or low-cost services to seniors who have chosen to live in their own homes. The services include social clubs, weekly exercise classes and lectures, transportation to doctors’ offices and grocery stores and access to reduced-fee home medical care and home repair services.

[The organization] now boasts 400 members and the concept has spread to other communities across the country. There are about 100 “villages” to date, with another 200 in development, according to the national organization that helps establish these networks. Each one is formed and governed locally, tailored to the specific needs of that community.

Kate is currently working on her first book, Among the Suitors: On Being a Woman, Alone, to be published next year by Crown/Random House. She is also a contributing editor for The Atlantic and writes regularly for ElleThe New York TimesThe Wall Street Journal, and Slate. Her 2011 Atlantic cover story, “All the Single Ladies”, addressed why more and more women are choosing, as she did, not to get married. The Dish debated the piece here and here. Our full AA archive is here.

Introducing The Snowden Prize!

Balko believes that, if “we really value whistleblowers, we need to provide them with a bit more incentive” to come forward:

A series of prizes for government employees who risk their livelihoods to shed light on government abuse might be one way to provide an incentive for more whistleblowing. It needn’t just be one big prize. Think about a foundation that might give out multiple prizes, at all levels of government.

Yes, it would need to be pretty well funded. The idea here would be to give out prizes significant enough to compensate for the losses of income, the foregoing of careers, and potential legal expenses. But it seems to me that there are enough people — and enough affluent people — concerned about NSA spying, police abuse, and government waste to make something like this happen. In fact, there needn’t even be just one foundation, or one series of prizes. Perhaps conservatives aren’t eager to reward someone like Edward Snowden, or have no interest in compensating a cop who exposes racial profiling or spying on protest groups. Fair enough. A conservative-oriented whistleblower prize, then, could reward government employees who expose waste, fraud, and politically-motivated regulation or application of the tax laws. Perhaps the foundations themselves could eventually be staffed and run by whistleblowers — a way to provide them with continued meaningful employment in public service.

Is Driving With A Cell Phone Really That Dangerous? Ctd

A reader is encouraged by this study:

At last! If cell phone use and texting were such great risks to safety, there would be carnage in the streets. But there’s not. No statistical correlation that I’ve seen.

Am I a shill for the cell phone companies? No. The reason for the lack of carnage is that the specific distraction of communicating (by whatever means) is offset by an overall increase in attentiveness. Think of doing a long-distance drive. It’s easy to be sleepy or inattentive. Your senses are at a low. But if you have a task – practically any task – you are more generally aware. Your mind is functioning at a higher level. So that’s why the streets aren’t littered with bodies. For every bus driver who plows into the back of someone’s car while texting, I’d suggest that there are several who understand the risks of what they’re doing and are concentrating hard to counteract the distraction.

Which raises the question: How could we raise everyone’s overall attentiveness without the negatives inherent to cell phones? That’s what we should be asking.

Another points out:

The study you link to only studied voice calls while driving, not texting.  Further down in the link it reads:

Our study focused solely on talking on one’s cellphone. We did not, for example, analyze the effects of texting or Internet browsing, which has become much more popular in recent years. It is certainly possible that these activities pose a real hazard.

And, to answer your question, texting while driving is dangerous.

Another elaborates:

What the LSE study totally misses is how consumers are using their phones today. From 2002 – 2005, I bet the primary usage of mobile phones was still to talk to somebody, so the only time somebody should look away from the road is while dialing or answering their phone. Today people are texting, tweeting, and reading emails etc.; smartphone technology has provided a huge increase in the visual experience of using a phone, which means more reasons and more time looking away from the road.

I used to ride a motorcycle to work. Cyclists and motorcyclists are extremely aware of driver behavior because we’re so much more vulnerable than drivers if we crash. I can tell you from personal experience that the amount of distracted driving going on now has just become too much; its gotten much worse in the past five years as mobile technology has become more advanced and more engaging. If I saw a distracted driver, 95% of the time if I would also see that little bright phone screen being held and read. I had one too many close calls even as a very defensive rider, so I just stopped and today I take the bus.

Obama Begins To Undo The Drug War?

It couldn’t be true, could it? Nicole Flatow summarizes Holder’s announcement:

Holder will order all federal prosecutors to avert drug charges that carry mandatory minimum sentences for low-level offenders, by omitting the quantity of drugs when charges are filed, according to excerpts of the speech obtained by the New York Times. The measure, which would avert harsh sentences that start at five or ten years in prison regardless of an individual’s role in a drug offense and cannot be reduced by judges, is one of several Holder may announce today at an address to the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco.

Ambers sees this as only a first step:

Of a million things President Obama could use his second term in office to fix, he has maybe 10 slots — 10 real chances to advance the debate about a topic, even to advance policy, even while Washington is at its sclerotic worst. Drug law reform has always been on the president’s to-do list. This I know from a series of conversations with some of his senior policy advisers during the first term.

Matt Welch thinks that “this has the makings of a key moment in beginning to undo the disastrous war on drugs”:

An important test going forward will be public opinion in the next couple of days, particularly from quarters that have historically been “tough on crime.” My prediction, and fervent hope, is that there won’t be much opposition at all. Then the real work of drug-war reform—including, hopefully, an announcement from Holder that the administration will no longer be raiding state-legal marijuana operations—can begin.

Dana Liebelson expects the reforms to save taxpayers money:

Based on how Republicans have reacted to sentencing reform efforts in the past; it shouldn’t take long for conservative lawmakers to start spreading the word that the sky is falling. But as we reported last week, sentence reductions have already been retroactively applied to crack cocaine offenders—and  the US Sentencing Commission has found the program to be a success. At least 7,300 prisoners sentenced under mandatory minimums have had their sentences reduced by an average of 29 months, saving taxpayers an estimated $530 million. Given that the Associated Press found that US federal prisons are 40 percent over capacity, advocates say reform can’t come soon enough.

But Joyner is uncomfortable with the way these reforms are being implemented:

Holder and I are in fundamental agreement on what our policy should be. If anything, I’d like to go further, decriminalizing whole categories of behavior and shifting into a treatment and education rather than criminal justice approach. But it should be accomplished by the president taking his case to the public and getting the law changed, not an imperial executive deciding it doesn’t have to enforce the law.

“Imperial” is not an adjective I’d attach to an administration refusing to keep nonviolent drug-offenders in jail for ever. But, yes, this would be better done legislatively. But if that means it will not get done at all because of the opposition’s unprecedented obstruction of a re-elected president, a president will consult his legal, executive branch options. Prosecutorial discretion is an exercize of legitimate power, not a new power-grab.