January 6th, 2012

Director Jacques Tourneur didn’t make many movies and is largely forgotten today, but he has a cult following of which I am a part. He made horror films such as “I Walked with a Zombie”, film noirs such as “Out of the Past” and films that exist somewhere in between, such as 1957′s suspensful and scary “Curse of the Demon”.

The plot of the film pits hard-headed American psychologist Dr. John Holden (Dana Andrews) against sinister British cult leader Dr. Julian Karswell (a deliciously malevolent yet courtly Niall McGinnis), who claims to have magical powers. Holden is investigating the mysterious death of a colleague who, like himself, was trying to debunk Karswell’s claims. Karswell tells him calmly that his colleague was destroyed by the curse of the demon, and that a similar curse has been placed on Holden and will end his life in just a few days. Holden at first laughs this threat off, but then begins to experience a series of unnerving events that cause him (and the audience) to becoming increasingly scared that the curse of the demon is real.

Handsome, broad shouldered Dana Andrews looked like he had decades of stardom ahead of him in the 1940s, but unfortunately he developed a serious alcohol problem that drove his career southward before he finally got into stable recovery in the 1970s. In some of his scenes here, he looks a little shaky and pale and one wonders if that is acting or not, but in either case, it works perfectly as Dr. Holden begins to unravel psychologically. Peggy Cummins, so unforgettable in Gun Crazy, is pretty bland here as Holden’s fellow investigator and love interest, so the real sparks come in the scenes between Andrews and McGinnis. Their debates about science versus superstition are among the highlights of this film (This photo is from my favorite such scene, which Tourneur brilliantly set at a children’s party in which Karswell is wearing a clownish magician’s costume).

As you would expect for Tourneur, there are lots of noirish visual touches, including abundant shadows and deep focus shots of people walking alone down empty corridors and streets. It all works perfectly to maximize emotional tension in this classic chiller.

N.B. This film is sometimes entitled “Night of the Demon” and sometimes “Curse of the Demon” depending on whether you’ve got hold of a US or UK print. In any event, the thing to ensure is that you have the full 95 minute version and not one of the chopped up shorter prints that are around.

After the jump, I will discuss a dispute that arose during the making of this film and what it means for the interpretation of the story. SPOILER ALERT: Don’t read the material after the jump if you haven’t seen the movie. Read the rest of this entry »

January 6th, 2012

Drug policy research is at best a modestly sized field. Nonetheless, its findings have significant potential to help societies develop more effective public policies regarding marijuana, heroin, cocaine, nicotine and other psychoactive drugs. I am therefore very glad to announce that an extension of the international drug policy research integration conducted for the book Drug Policy and the Public Good appears today in The Lancet. A generation ago, a reviewer of the world’s drug policy research findings would have been pressed to fill even one article in such a prestigious scientific outlet; the field has clearly matured since.

The three review papers have different foci:

*Louisa Degenhardt and Wayne Hall integrate the international evidence on the contribution of illicit drug use and addiction to the global burden of disease.

*Peter Reuter and Robin Room make their case that the international drug conventions succeed neither in providing medications (e.g., opiates) where they are needed nor in preventing the availability of widely abused drugs

*John Strang, Tom Babor, Benedikt Fischer, David Foxcroft, Jonathan Caulkins and I discuss “what works” in drug policy, reviewing the evidence on source country control, interdiction, policing, prevention and health and social services for drug addicted individuals.

Lancet has made the articles available with a free registration here.

A shorter take on some of the key conclusions in the third paper is also available for free in an op-ed by Jon Caulkins and me in The Guardian (UK) today.

I have spent too much time in public policy circles to be starry-eyed about the likelihood that scientific evidence will be always be heeded in a policy area that is often dominated by demagogues of various stripes. Yet I also see many positive signs in Europe and the U.S. of openness to information in quarters that had previously been a mix of loud voices and closed ears. Scientists cannot and should not control drug policy (that would be grossly undemocratic), but they certainly can contribute systematic and reliable findings to the policy debate and insist that serious research be given more weight than wishes, hunches and anecdotes. The reviews of the drug policy research knowledge base in The Lancet today are offered to policymakers and the public in that spirit.

Please consider this an open thread to debate and discuss anything in The Lancet papers if you are so led.

UPDATE: Here is a short interview with Dr. John Strang about the evidence for effective drug policy interventions

January 5th, 2012

I missed the chance to chime in on the Ron Paul controversy during the Iowa caucuses. Congressman Paul’s unfortunate newsletters should not blind us to the deeper message of his candidacy. I find this deeper message is almost as objectionable as the various bigotries published under Paul’s name in is cheesy newsletter.

Not that one should ignore these newsletters. A surprising number of moderates and progressives find Ron Paul’s mix of views morally, politically, and politically complex. It’s not. The man is a charmingly eccentric bigoted crackpot who deserves the coolest of civilities. He’s interesting because of the many people who find him so, not because of what he actually says. That he holds the occasionally progressive issue position is really beside the point. Read the rest of this entry »

January 5th, 2012

Mark has proposed (and, for a second time practiced) calling Mitt Romney “Willard” from here on in. Harold disagrees. I’ll start by saying I’m on Harold’s side. But the reasons for that are, on reflection, kind of complicated.

First, let’s dispose of a piece of silliness: the idea that it’s respectful to call him Willard because it’s his “real” first name. With due respect to Joel Hanes, who put forth this argument in a comment, J. Michael Neal has it right: “To treat someone with respect, you cal[l] them what they wish to be called, whether it is their first name, their middle name or something that doesn’t appear on their birth certificate at all.” My birth-certificate first name, like Ross Perot’s, is “Henry,” and there’s nothing objectively wrong with it. But since neither of us likes that name, it would be disrespectful to hang it on either one of us. Nor does anyone think that one would have shown maximal respect for Tip O’Neill or Woodrow Wilson by calling either one of them “Thomas.”

But that doesn’t settle the issue. As Mark explicitly said, the point of calling Romney Willard would be “to needle him”: i.e. to show him deliberate disrespect. The hope would be to weaken him politically by making others disrespect him too. (James’ comment, learned as usual, noted the long history of doing that.) This isn’t inherently absurd, but it goes to the question of what kind of politics we favor and what kind of blog we’re trying to be.  And it’s not just a matter of “respectable” vs. “populist” or similar labels.

Read the rest of this entry »

January 5th, 2012

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush both ran on a platform of reducing the size and scope of government, yet federal spending — including social welfare spending — grew substantially during their presidencies. Cognizant of those historical examples, some political observers scoff at the notion that a Republican Presidential victory in 2012 will change very much of anything. Washington will still be business-as-usual Washington, the argument runs, no matter who is in the White House.

Commentators in the new issue of Washington Monthly (on newstands today) argue forcefully that this jaded view is profoundly misguided. Harold Pollack, Norm Ornstein and Jonathan Bernstein are among the many luminaries of wonkdom who provide perspective on “What if Obama loses?”. A key theme running through the essays is that past performance in this case definitely does not predict future performance: Because the Republican Party is different, the Congress is different and the country is different and the changes that would follow a Republican takeover of the White House would be far more dramatic than in prior eras.

It’s a great read — check it out.

January 4th, 2012

Now that Rick Santorum has explained that the bad reputation of the Crusades is the result of a plot by leftists who hate Christendom, is he going to endorse the Inquisition next, and expose Voltaire as an undercover jihadist and proto-Marxist?

No doubt the Crusaders were, indeed, fighting for the “Judeo-Christian concept of the person,” and the massacre of Jews when the Crusaders took Jerusalem (and many other massacres and forced conversions of Jews by Crusdaders before and after that event) merely reflected an excess of Judeo-Christian zeal, or the fog of war, or something.

Yes, I know making fun of Santorum is too easy to be any real fun, and that he’s not going to be the Republican nominee. But his campaign remains as a monument to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the contemporary GOP. And you can bet your bottom dinar Mitt Romney won’t dare criticize Santorum’s praise of one of the most foolish and immoral movements in all of world history. What’s worse, no reporter will even dare ask Romney the question.

January 4th, 2012

It continually annoys me that Maureen Dowd calls President Obama “Barry.” I find that usage superficial, uncreative, and disrespectful.

In a similar spirit, though, I submit that progressives shouldn’t call Mitt Romney “Willard.” What say others?

January 4th, 2012

Steve Benen at Washington Monthly, writing about the GOP caucus winner at midnight last night

Tonight’s big winner is obvious: his name is Barack Obama.

Woo-hoo! Remember ladies and gentlemen, you heard it here first.

January 4th, 2012

As predicted over two weeks ago by your fearless correspondent, this was an unprecedented victory. The chart below summarizes the performance of the winning candidate for both parties in every contested Iowa caucus in history. Romney’s 2008 performance is also included for comparison with his 2012 results.

Romney “surpassed” Bob Dole to earn the distinction of having the lowest winning share of the vote in the history of the Iowa caucuses. Never has support in a political party been so tepid for its “favorite”. Romney not only set a record by being the first Iowa winner to convince more than three quarters of voters to choose someone else, but also managed to do even worse than he himself did last time around despite four intervening years of hard, expensive campaigning.

There is an African proverb that runs “When mighty elephants fight, it is the humble grass that suffers”. The situation in Iowa was more just: a bunch of second-rate elephants fought, and they themselves suffered, all looking diminished by the process. To quote John Harris and Alexander Burns, “This big moment on history’s stage is being filled by politicians who so far have looked way too small for the occasion”.

 
Note: Chart Data available here. The GOP did not release vote proportions prior to 1980.

January 3rd, 2012

A frenemy just sent me this unearthed video of the 2004 latke-Hamentaschen debate. Caveat emptor.