Tag: Premium

An eager reader writes:

I hope you’re going to publish some emails on this subject. I love movies. I love lists. And I love the contributions from Dish readers. If I may, I’d like to get the ball rolling:

1999 gave us Fight Club; South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut; Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (in retrospect a terrible film, but at the time I was jonesing for some new Star Wars); The Matrix; The Sixth Sense; The Insider; Office Space; Election; and a personal favorite: The 13th Warrior.

A more cynical contributor:

This of course is the sort of post designed to unleash a tsunami of comments, so whenever you need some time to perfect the latest think piece, you can turn out a quick “Ctd” to keep the masses engaged until it’s done.

OK, I’ll bite.

I’ve always (well, for 17 years, anyway) been partial to 1996. Any year that produces both the perfect Fargo and the equally perfect Lone Star has a good head start, but throw in Swingers, Bottle Rocket, Branagh’s Hamlet, Sling Blade, Trainspotting, Mars Attacks!, Beautiful Girls, and Big Night – plus the docs Looking for Richard and When We Were Kings – and it’s hard to think of a better 12-month run. Even the big studio productions seem have at least sipped from the same water source as the indies, with Jerry Maguire, Twister, and The People vs Larry Flynt.

The English Patient won best picture … some folks liked that one, too.

Another looks further back:

I’m sure you’ll get plenty of emails picking this year, but 1939 still gets my vote for GYIF. Just take a look at the Best Picture nominees: Dark Victory; Gone With The Wind; Goodbye, Mr. Chips; Love Affair; Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (one of my all-time favorites); Ninotchka; Of Mice And Men; Stagecoach; The Wizard Of Oz; and Wuthering Heights. 

Other great movies that year include The Rules of the Game, Gunga Din, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Destry Rides Again, Son of Frankenstein, Young Mr. Lincoln, and The Women. I have a hard time believing that any other year can top that.

Another recalls working as an usher in 1982:

I was hired Tuesday, June 8, on the spot. They were desperate for help, and with good reason. I started work that Friday night, June 11: the opening night of E.T. Here’s what I remember about the six auditoriums, my first night on the job:

Screen #1:  Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan

Screen #2:  Poltergeist

Screen #3:  E.T., the Extra-Terrestrial

Screen #4:  Grease 2

Screen #5:  Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Screen #6:  The Road Warrior

The lobby, that first night, was jam-packed. Stuffed. The line, four or five people across, stretched out of the front of the theater, into the mall, circling around the corner, going back at least 50 yards, maybe more like 60. The vast majority of that was for E.T.

In the above list, those first three screens were the big rooms, capacity somewhere between 350 and 400. E.T. would remain on screen #3 until the following January. It left the Ingram 6 exactly 52 weeks later. Remember: There was no home video market at this time. If you had home movie library, it’s because you were using your VCR to record movies of HBO (using blank tapes that probably set you back $6 to $10 each).

I remember one particular scene, towards the end of Poltergeist, that always caught people off guard. The on-screen action was punctuated by a music punch, and the whole room screamed. The people in the lobby, waiting with their tickets and popcorn, were maybe 20 feet from the doors. They could hear the screaming, and a few of them got bug-eyed. “I have tickets to see that?!”

Update from a reader:

For me, the answer is clearly 1994. It has my favorite film of the 1990s (Pulp Fiction), the top-rated film in IMDb (The Shawshank Redemption), the apex of the Disney Renaissance (The Lion King), and that doesn’t even include the Academy Award winner for Best Picture (Forrest Gump).

Plus, just as a bonus, what a monster year for Jim Carrey. Ace Ventura, The Mask, and Dumb and Dumber all came out in 1994.

There’s a Youtube for that:

(Top video: 1976)

Nate Cohn parses a poll showing Democrats leading in Southern Senate races:

[Arkansas Sen.] Mark Pryor has a 10-point lead, according to the poll, but 16 percent of Mr. Pryor’s supporters — or 8 nearly percent of all voters — oppose the Affordable Care Act and say they could not vote for a candidate who disagrees with their stance on the issue. Mr. Pryor, of course, voted for the Affordable Care Act. If those voters flip, his opponent, Representative Tom Cotton, will have the advantage.

Other Democrats face a similar challenge: In every contest, at least 10 percent of Democratic supporters oppose the Affordable Care Act and say they wouldn’t vote for a candidate who disagrees with their stance. All four Democratic Senate candidates in these states support the law.

Beutler thinks “the GOP’s Obamacare obsession is going to start looking more and more strained and untenable”:

We’re already seeing signs of that in Senate races in Arkansas, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. But I don’t think Republicans are going to switch scripts any time soon, both because conservatives won’t let them, and for the more fundamental reason that they don’t have any other scripts lying around.

And they may not need to. Their map is good! But if Obamacare recedes as an issue, and the projections start looking less auspicious for them, they might start wishing that they hadn’t staked everything on a single issue, the success or failure of which rests largely outside of their control.

Drum gives Democrats free advice:

Electorates in red states know that these Democrats voted for Obamacare. Their opponents are going to hammer away at it relentlessly. It’s just impossible to run away away from it, and doing so only makes them look craven and unprincipled. The only way to turn this around is not to distance yourself from Obamacare, but to try and convince a piece of the electorate that Obamacare isn’t such a bad deal after all. You won’t convince everyone, but you don’t need to. You just need to persuade the 5 or 10 percent who are mildly opposed to Obamacare that it’s working better than they think.

Finally, Douthat fears that the GOP will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory:

The best reason to bet on the Democrats doing somewhat better than expected in these races … isn’t current polling (we’re too far out, still), and nor is it merely the general pattern in which savvy incumbent senators eke out re-election in races that the red-blue map suggests that they should lose. Rather, it’s the more specific phenomenon of a Republican Party that, in the age of Obama, has proven remarkably adept at squandering winnable Senate seats and underperforming in Senate races, with all sorts of candidates, in red and purple states alike.

In part, this has happened because of primary fights that have produced freakishly bad nominees, like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell and Todd Akin. But it’s also happened in slow-motion, under-the-radar ways, sometimes with establishment candidates and sometimes with Tea Partiers, in races that are close and winnable and then just … slipped … away.

Emily Badger and Christopher Ingraham map how much it costs to rent a one-bedroom residence in every US county (interactive version here):

No single county in America has a one-bedroom housing wage below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (several counties in Arkansas come in at $7.98).

Coastal and urban counties are among the most expensive. The entire Boston-New York-Washington corridor includes little respite from high housing wages. Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo counties in California rank as the least affordable in the country (scroll over each county in the interactive version for rankings; click to zoom). In each of those counties, a one-bedroom hourly housing wage is $29.83, or the equivalent of 3.7 full-time jobs at the actual minimum wage (or an annual salary of about $62,000). Move inland in California, and housing grows less expensive.

But renting is often a better deal than buying. Catherine Rampell is shocked that we still consider home buying a great investment:

“People forget that housing deteriorates over time. It goes out of style. There are new innovations that people want, different layouts of rooms,” [Robert Shiller] told me. “And technological progress keeps bringing the cost of construction down.” Meaning your worn, old-fashioned home is competing with new, relatively inexpensive ones.

Over the past century, housing prices have grown at a compound annual rate of just 0.3 percent once one adjusts for inflation, according to my calculations using Shiller’s historical housing data. Over the same period, the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index has had comparable annual returns of about 6.5 percent.

Yet Americans still think it’s financially savvy to dump all their savings into a single, large, highly illiquid asset.

She follows up with concrete numbers:

Let’s imagine you bought the country’s median-priced house in 1982 for $69,000. I, on the other hand, rented a home for $400 (that’s actually much higher than what the Labor Department estimates the monthly rental value of an owned home was around that time, but I’m trying to be conservative about how expensive it is to rent vs. buy). I also invested $69,000 in the S&P 500.

To keep the example simple, let’s also assume you paid cash for the house –interest rates were about 16% in 1982, after all — and I am paying my rent out of my stock market account each year. Thirty years later, given national housing price changes, you’d be left with a house worth about $213,000, which is a little bit less than today’s national median new home sales price. (Your house is 30 years old after all, and today’s homes are bigger.) On the other hand, looking at how much rents have risen over the same period nationwide and how much the S&P 500 has grown, I’d have about $719,000 in my Vanguard account. And we both had somewhere to live.

But Rampell acknowledges that houses aren’t simply investments:

Fannie Mae, in its National Housing Survey, asks Americans about “the best reason to buy a house,” giving them two options: “financial benefits” (like investment, wealth building, and tax benefits), or ”the broader security and lifestyle benefits of homeownership” (like providing a good and secure place for your family, control to make renovations, etc.) In the March survey, 43 percent of respondents choose the  ”financial benefits,” while 55 percent chose “the broader security and lifestyle benefits.” So yes, the psychic benefits of ownership appear to be a bigger driver for buying a house than the financial ones.

But here’s the part that’s irksome: The same survey also asked people to rate different kinds of investments as a “safe investment with a lot of potential,” “safe investment with very little potential,” “risky investment with very little potential,” or “risky investment with a lot of potential.” Buying a home is almost always the option with the highest share of respondents calling it a “safe investment with a lot of potential.”

Yesterday, the DOJ announced changes to the clemency process. Philip Bump lists the new criteria inmates must meet:

• Be federal inmates who would have received a substantially lower sentence if convicted of the same offense today,
• Be non-violent offenders without ties to criminal organizations or gangs,
• Have served at least 10 years of their prison sentence,
• Have no significant criminal history,
• Have demonstrated good conduct in prison, and
• Have no history of violence prior to prison.

Nicole Flatow further unpacks the news:

There are some 23,000 inmates who have served more than ten years for a non-violent crime, according to the Justice Department. Another estimate cited by CNN put the number of those who likely meet all six criteria at 2,000, and that number may likely get pared down hundreds once inmates are reviewed by the DOJ’s Pardon Attorney.

This is a small fraction of the some 200,000 inmates in federal prisons, and it won’t account for any of those individuals sentenced to five or ten-year minimums for minor crimes. But it should take on some of the longest, and would be an astronomical increase over the number of commutations Obama has granted thus far throughout his entire presidency: ten.

Sullum hopes the administration is serious:

Even if the number of prisoners freed under the new policy is only in the hundreds, Obama will look much better than any of his recent predecessors. No president has broken the double digits with commutations since Lyndon Johnson, who issued 226 over 62 months. Since then total commutations have ranged from a low of three under George H.W. Bush to a high of 61 under Bill Clinton (followed closely by Richard Nixon with 60). George W. Bush issued just 11. “The doors of the Office of the Pardon Attorney have been closed to petitioners for too long,” says FAMM General Counsel Mary Price. “This announcement signals a truly welcome change; the culture of ‘no’ that has dominated that office is being transformed.” If Obama follows through on his promises to ameliorate some of the appalling injustices committed in the name of the war on drugs, it will be one of his most admirable legacies.

But Tim Lynch fears that few inmates will be released:

The administration is really hyping this initiative and raising expectations about dramatic moves by Obama as this gets underway. I remain skeptical for a few reasons.  First, I question the narrative that it has only recently occurred to Obama that there ought to be more meritorious clemency petitions on his desk.

Second, I note that the administration is expecting to receive thousands of petitions and applications.  That language is important.  Later on, Obama’s people may say, “As expected, we received thousands of applications! We never said there would be hundreds or thousands of commutations.”

Third, there’s just no way of telling how the criteria are going to applied.  What are “significant ties” to gangs?  “Significant” criminal history?  A “history” of violence?

Amanda Petrusich theorizes about why young people are more attracted to astrology than their elders:

While [Millennials are] hardly the first group to feel the draw of the unknown, it also makes sense that a generation that came of age with the whole of human knowledge in its pockets might find the ambiguity of astrology a little welcome sometimes. For people born with the web, information has always been instantly accessible, so astrology’s abstruseness – and, ironically, its promises of clarity regarding the only real unknowable: the future – becomes appealing. This generation’s predicament, as I understand it, has always felt Dickensian: “We have everything before us, we have nothing before us.”

But then I’m reminded, again, that inaccuracy, or, at least, a belief in the fluidity of truth, is at the heart of the present-day zeitgeist: Our news is often hasty and unverified, our photos are filtered and retouched, our songs are pitch-corrected, our unscripted television programs are storyboarded into oblivion, and most everyone shrugs it all off. Astrology might not offer the most accurate or verifiable information, but at least it offers information – arguably the only currency that makes sense in 2014.

Previous Dish on astrology here, here, and here.

Zack Beauchamp explains the Palestinian reconciliation agreement signed in Gaza yesterday:

According to the new deal, the two Palestinian factions would form a shared interim government within five weeks, and hold elections for Palestinian Authority President, PA legislative council, and Palestinian Liberation Organization council within six months. If implemented, the Palestinians would have a unified government for the first time since 2007. The Palestinian split had made peace negotiations extremely difficult, as Israel couldn’t make two separate deals with two separate Palestinian groups.

There’s some reason to believe the deal won’t hold. Hamas and Fatah came to similar agreements in both 2011 and 2012, but both of those fell apart. This deal doesn’t resolve underlying issues between the two groups, such as whether Palestinians should agree to a permanent peace deal with Israel or whether Palestine should be governed according to Islamic law. Those are pretty significant disputes.

Israel immediately cut off talks and announced reprisals:

The top-level inner cabinet of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government “decided unanimously that it will not negotiate with a Palestinian government that incorporates Hamas, a terrorist organization that seeks the destruction of Israel,” a statement said after an emergency meeting that lasted throughout Thursday afternoon. Israel also said it plans to introduce economic sanctions against the PA — which will reportedly include withholding tax revenues collected by Israel on behalf of the PA.

Noting that past attempts at reconciliation have failed, Karl Vick thinks this announcement could be a tactical play:

The timing of the announcement, six days before the April 29 deadline for U.S.-sponsored peace talks, suggests Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who heads Fatah, may have chosen to push back against pressure from Israel and the U.S., which Palestinians see as insisting on new concessions. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was angered by the latest announcement, declaring, as he did after the previous pacts, that Abbas “must choose. Does he want reconciliation with Hamas, or peace with Israel?”

By appearing to choose Hamas, Abbas wins points with the Palestinian public (which strongly opposes the factional rift), while perhaps also driving a wedge between the Americans and Netanyahu. “Is he hoping this will raise alarm bells in Washington, and they’ll go back to the Israelis and say, ‘We’ve got to offer him something’?” asks Mouin Rabbani, a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies. “Yes, the timing is suspicious.”

Jacob Eriksson exposes the cynicism of Netanyahu’s position:

Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has said the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), can have peace with Israel or peace with Hamas – but not both. But this logic is inherently problematic; an oft-heard criticism during the seven-year rift between Fatah and Hamas has been that the Palestinian Authority does not represent all Palestinians and so any agreement reached would not be able to be implemented.

But when the Palestinians do move to create a unified, democratically elected leadership that represents all their people and can negotiate meaningfully if it chooses to do so, Israel considers this a non-starter.

This is a convenient excuse for Netanyahu to disengage from negotiations that he was never seriously committed to in the first place.

Juan Cole piles on:

[T]he hostility of Israel and the US to a Palestinian internal reconciliation also derives from their desire to divide and rule. A united Palestinian front would make that strategy much less salient. If the 4.4 million Palestinians in the Occupied territories could speak with a single voice, they would nearly have the weight of the 5.5 million Israeli Jews.

The US spokesperson said that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a party that does not believe it has a right to exist. The hypocrisy and irony is thick. Israel doesn’t recognize the right of Palestine to exist. As for the demand that Hamas renounce violence, likewise, Israel has not renounced violent aggression toward the Palestinians, something it and its settler surrogates engage in daily. The fact is that parties to negotiations are often engaged in violence against one another (hence the negotiations) and often don’t recognize each other’s legitimacy at the start.

The same Pew survey that showed the French to be so accepting of extramarital affairs also offered a fascinating overview of global attitudes toward homosexuality. One reader’s take-away is that public support for gay people doesn’t always translate into gay rights:

Only 8 percent of respondents in Germany, my home country, find homosexuality “morally unacceptable,” while 37 percent of Americans hold that view. I would have guessed that there was a significant difference between Western European countries and the US, but I would not have expected the difference to be so stark.

So considering those numbers, you’d think we’d have marriage equality in Germany. We don’t. We have registered partnerships, a form of civil unions, and most rights coming with them had to be fought for in the courts in recent years. The political left is for marriage equality. Standing in the way of enacting it in parliament are Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats. Before last year’s elections, Merkel was put on the spot by a gay voter in a televised town hall forum asking for adoption rights for gay couples. Merkel had to explain her opposition and she was clearly uncomfortable having to do so . One wonders if her opposition is heartfelt or merely a nod to her party’s religiously conservative wing.

The fact that whether homosexuality is viewed as morally acceptable or not does not necessarily go hand in hand with marriage equality is quite evident when looking at other countries.

Spain has marriage equality (6 percent believe homosexuality to be morally unacceptable); Italy does not (19 percent). Parts of Britain have marriage equality (17 percent); Australia does not (18 percent). Indeed, South Africa has had marriage equality (mandated by the country’s supreme court), and still 62 percent find homosexuality morally unacceptable.

Apart from marriage equality, these numbers could be an explanation for why it’s so easy to stir up anti-gay feelings in some countries such as Uganda. In Uganda, homosexuality (93 percent) trumps abortion (88 percent), extramarital affairs and gambling (80 percent each), premarital sex (77 percent), and divorce (76 percent) as the most morally unacceptable. Looking at some other African countries such as Kenya (88 percent) and Nigeria (85 percent), where this is also the case, it’s not at all surprising that politicians in some of these countries are using anti-gay laws in an apparent effort to redirect any animus away from them to a vulnerable minority.

That negative feelings about homosexuality don’t automatically have to lead to an anti-gay witch hunt is apparent when you look at the country where homosexuality is almost universally seen as morally unacceptable (98 percent): Ghana. Of the four countries (Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria and Ghana), Ghana is far and away the most democratic. While homosexual acts are still illegal there and it’s unlikely to change in the coming years, there don’t seem to be any measures on the horizon like those enacted in Uganda and Nigeria. Quite to the contrary, according to this report.

We learn something new from readers every day:

I enjoyed that link on the gynosome, but I think that your coverage of sexual orientation and biology focusing on things like bug penises miss issues about sexual orientation that genuinely fascinate biologists. The concept of “natural law” doesn’t really carry much weight with actual biologists, and it’s not all that surprising that there is an insect in which the female has a penis.

There are hundreds of species with these sorts of reproductive role reversals, including males who incubate eggs internally or even in their mouths, and in which female parental investment is limited. At this point, it’s almost trivial to point out that same-sex behavior and even same-sex parenting is common in nature, or that every possible variation on genitalia occurs somewhere in nature. Even in mammals, there are females with “penises.” Female hyenas have pseudo-penises bigger than those owned by males, and they swing their dicks with more élan and pride than the males do!

This is all entertaining, but it misses the deeper and more interesting question evolutionary biologists ask about homosexuality:

“Why does a trait that appears to reduce reproductive fitness persist?” There’s no moralizing about right or wrong in this question, just curiosity about how same-sex sexual attraction makes sense from the standpoint of natural selection, when it appears to lead to reduced reproduction on the part of those who have this trait. All of the unusual traits discussed above really do result in increased reproductive fitness. But same-sex sexual attraction itself? Now that’s a different and more interesting issue than the gender role differences and odd anatomy described above.

Biological speculation on this issue is based on a few assumptions. First, there is a strong indication that being gay is an inherent biological trait mediated by genes rather than a cultural variable or something that is socially constructed, given its apparent occurrence in roughly the same percentage across human populations at all times.

Second, it must not be maladaptive or it would not persist. I’d like to refer you to an older Scientific American blog post by a gay evolutionary biologist that outlines some of the thinking on this issue. I do hope you get a chance to read it, because one of my very few complaints about the Dish is that I wish you discussed science with more of the subtlety and depth of understanding with which you discuss faith.

(Image of a not-male hyena by Christine Drea)

Nate Cohn highlights the increasing political uniformity of Southern whites:

While white Southerners have been voting Republican for decades, the hugeness of the gap was new. Mr. Obama often lost more than 40 percent of Al Gore’s support among white voters south of the historically significant line of the Missouri Compromise. Two centuries later, Southern politics are deeply polarized along racial lines. It is no exaggeration to suggest that in these states the Democrats have become the party of African Americans and that the Republicans are the party of whites.

The collapse in Democratic support among white Southerners has been obscured by the rise of the Obama coalition. Higher black turnout allowed the Democrats to win nearly 44 percent of the vote in states like Mississippi, where 37 percent of voters were black. But the white shift is nearly as important to contemporary electoral politics as the Obama coalition. It represents an end, at least temporarily, to the South’s assimilation into the American political and cultural mainstream.

This all intensified under Obama. And none of this is really disputed. Those who see no racial aspect to this have to explain a huge fucking coincidence, do they not? Aaron Blake thinks black voters could decide who gets the Senate:

Six of the 16 states with the highest black populations are holding key Senate contests in 2014. A seventh — the most African American state in the country, Mississippi — is holding a contest that could get interesting if there’s a tea party upset in the GOP primary.

This is a highly unusual set of circumstances, especially when you consider that most states with large numbers of African American voters generally don’t hold competitive Senate races because they are safely red (in the South, generally) or blue (in the Northeast).

What’s more, black voters don’t just matter to a lot of races; they also matter to the most important races.