May 11th, 2012

Sidney Lumet‘s brutal, gripping 1965 movie “The Hill” opens with a solitary figure laboring up the man-made torture device that gives the film its title. In one of Oswald Morris’ many mesmerizing crane shots, the man collapses in the North African heat and then the camera begins to move slowly away, off into the distance, abandoning the man and the compound in which he is forced to live. As in the rest of the film, no music is heard, which lets the hopelessness and isolation of the people we are watching sink in.

The story begins with five British soldiers arriving at a military prison. Four of them are privates who have committed various crimes (including Ossie Davis as a West Indian soldier and Roy Kinnear as a fat spiv), but the fifth is something different. Joe Roberts (Sean Connery) was a heroic sergeant major who has been busted down for beating up his commanding officer. Connery, given his first chance as a star to do something different from James Bond, plays the part well, showing how Roberts can be callous in some respects yet gentle in others. He is in emotional agony, for reasons that become clear as the film progresses.

The most complex performance is given by Harry Andrews, as RSM Wilson, who runs the daily operations of the prison. It would have been easy to write and play the character of RSM Wilson as a heartless martinet. But Ray Rigby’s script and Andrews’ acting are much more sophisticated than that. Yes, the RSM can be tough, but he also shows compassion because he is committed to rebuilding the prisoners rather than simply destroying them. He’s a three dimensional person, unlike the newly arrived Sergeant Major Williams (Ian Hendry), who is uncomplicatedly nasty. Ian Hendry, who was by all accounts a piece of work in real life (sadly, he drank himself to death in his early 50s) is convincingly vicious as Williams. As Connery’s character says “Wilson wants to build toy soldiers and Williams wants to break them”.

The prisoners struggle against the harsh prison regime, and also among themselves. But as Williams gets more brutal, causing a tragic incident, they begin to unify in opposition to the screws. They are aided by a diffident medical officer (a solid as ever Michael Redgrave) and a staff sergeant whose motives are interesting to speculate about (Ian Bannen, if you want to engage in a dialogue about what drives his character, let’s do that in the comments section so as not to spoil the film).

Two complaints. The film would have benefited from some tightening in length and from dropping the final stages of evolution of Ossie Davis’ character. His behavior at the end seems a theatrical flourish to please a 1965 audience and not, like the rest of the film, a realistic take on WWII prison life. His performance though, like that of everyone else in the all-male cast, remains top-notch.

It would be an injustice to close on such cavils, however. Sidney Lumet’s “movie as play” style works perfectly in the claustrophobic setting of a prison. Cinematographer Oswald Morris and editor Thelma Connell do brilliant work throughout, particular during the scenes in which the prisoners are forced to climb the hill (In one case, while wearing a gas mask — horrifying). Given it’s subject matter and tone, this isn’t a date movie…but it’s a great movie.

Rather than embed a trailer or clip, I am including instead this featurette about the making of the film, which includes intriguing observations by Lumet and gives some perspective on the suffering the crew and actors went through themselves.

A closing note on Connery’s evolution: As the critically-acclaimed “The Hill” bombed at the box office he saw audiences line up world wide to munch popcorn and watch Thunderball, which began to disgust him with the James Bond franchise and the state of his career. But while he didn’t know it at the time, he had already made the wisest move possible, which was to link up with a great director who saw more to him as an actor than the Bond films revealed. Someday I will write about the other excellent films that resulted from the Lumet-Connery collaboration, and how they helped Connery escape Bondage.

May 11th, 2012

The Geothermal Energy Association (newsletter, page 9) has made a nice pair of maps from recent EIA data – sorry about the resolution:

A little while ago I posted some NREL maps of the distribution of renewable energy resources. The new maps bear out I think some of my speculations on the political implications.

Two obvious inferences:

  • State action or inaction makes a considerable difference; in this area at least, federalism is alive and well. Renewable resources vary widely across the entire USA, but not so much between neighbouring states. Nebraska gets as much wind as Iowa, Arizona more sun than California, and don’t use them. Utah and Ohio are also outliers on the down side. (Kentucky’s nil score is more understandable: apart from hydro, not in the map, it only has coal.) On the up outlier side, California and Maine have been overtaken by Iowa and South Dakota, and joined by a swathe of other Western states (Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Minnesota).
  • There is now a geographically broad national political base in the US for renewable energy. The map does not correlate well with Red and Blue state governance. The set of supporters is the union, not the intersection, of climate realists, energy-independence nationalists, objectors to local fossil fuel pollution, curmudgeons who don’t want to hand over money to deadbeats from out-of-state, and the rapidly growing body of people whose incomes depend on the industry – installers, maintenance workers, plant owners, and landlords. Of course, fossil fuels have a parallel base; but it’s in some ways thinner, as the ideological rationale is purely negative, as well as low on facts, and the businesses involved are often less local in character. The battle is more even than in Washington.

Clean energy supporters are thus a wider group than climate realists alone, and include many naturally conservative voters. And it’s a lobby with the sort of local roots that naturally bear state-level political fruit. The national GOP’s war on renewables, incited by national fossil fuels lobbyists, is not quite as suicidal as its war on women, but still strikes me as profoundly stupid. This may be why Obama, after a long period of passivity on green energy, and a depressing “all of the above” public stance, seems to have decided to make it an issue in the presidential campaign.

* * * * *

Wonkish footnote: the map overstates the swing to renewables in the national energy mix because it’s not weighted by population, which is concentrated on the coasts. (Population-weighted cartogram here: Saul Steinberg would have loved it). However, the underpopulated centre is over-represented politically through the Senate and the Electoral College, so those big empty Western states regain significance courtesy of Madison’s war on democracy.
And of course, that’s where the energy is. Eventually they will catch up with Paraguay, with a renewable energy ratio of 160% or so: the Paraguayans can’t use their share of the output of the colossal 14 GW (!) Itaipu dam, and sell a third of it to Brazil.

May 10th, 2012

Mitt Romney’s “pranks” seem to have had a common thread: picking on the vulnerable. Not just boys perceived as effeminate, but also the handicapped:

One venerable English teacher, Carl G. Wonnberger, nicknamed “the Bat” for his diminished eyesight, was known to walk into the trophy case and apologize … As an underclassman, Romney accompanied Wonnberger and Pierce Getsinger, another student, from the second floor of the main academic building to the library to retrieve a book the two boys needed. According to Getsinger, Romney opened a first set of doors for Wonnberger, but then at the next set, with other students around, he swept his hand forward, bidding the teacher into a closed door. Wonnberger walked right into it and Getsinger said Romney giggled hysterically as the teacher shrugged it off as another of life’s indignities.

This wouldn’t matter as much if Romney’s preferred public policies didn’t reflect the same theme: find someone helpless, and make that person’s life miserable.

No doubt all the folks who oppose equal rights for gays on Biblical grounds will be familiar with the relevant scripture (Lev. 19:14): “You shall not curse the deaf nor place a stumbling block before the blind.”

May 10th, 2012

My “Art and Despair” seminar came up on our last unit, on resignation and acceptance, last week with Brahms’ Requiem, and we got into a discussion of immortality as a comfort in the face of death.  I provoked them a little with Minsky’s question “Does the soul learn?” from The Society of Mind, and the vacuity of speculating on an eternity from which no-one has ever come back to report.  But whatever one wants to think about individual immortality in the conventional sense,  we agreed that we had been “meeting” and engaging with Brahms and lots of other dead artists all semester; something a lot like their souls were around and about, diffused through their disciples and audiences, and would be indefinitely. Even the guy who painted the bison on the walls at Lascaux is still with us, and not trivially.

Not just artists; teachers live forever through their students.  We get a lot of naches just doing the job, but I love hearing from former students after years (or decades) about what they are up to, and though it took me too long to realize I should be doing the same, I finally sent some thank you’s to former teachers and I’m glad I did.  So should you.  Do it now (your K-12 teachers are aging fast); at this time of year they will be happy to have an excuse to stop grading papers.  Whatever you’re doing, you couldn’t have done it without them. Let them know.

May 10th, 2012

I am happy to see the Economist covering the wave of criminal justice innovation in the UK. I worked with allies on the package of reforms that are now the law of the land. It includes 24/7 sobriety and other Kleiman-esque swift-and-certain consequence approaches to offenders serving “community sentences” (the rough parallel of probation and parole in the states).

The Economist article highlights Nick Herbert, MP, a smart and reform minded Tory minister whom I consider a rising star to watch. It is not mentioned in the article because it doesn’t – or rather shouldn’t– matter, but Herbert is openly gay.

Contrast the British Conservatives placing an openly gay man in an important government post with the Romney campaign not even allowing a different gay man to speak on a conference call that he himself arranged. Perhaps there was some short-term electoral advantage to Romney for treating Grenell so shabbily, but in the long term, British conservatives are in much healthier shape than their American counterparts: Only the Tories grasp that a certain proportion of the very smartest people in politics are gay or lesbian, and if you flush them down the drain you not only do them an injustice, you also shrink your own talent pool.

May 10th, 2012

I’d been feeling a little bit sorry for Mitt Romney, who doesn’t seem nearly as nasty as the party whose standard he now bears. But it turns out that leading a mob of bullies comes naturally to Romney.

John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it.

“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

The actual event is less appalling than Romney’s current reaction to it.

In a radio interview Thursday morning, Romney said he didn’t remember the incident but apologized for pranks he helped orchestrate that he said “might have gone too far.”

His campaign spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in a statement that “anyone who knows Mitt Romney knows that he doesn’t have a mean-spirited bone in his body. The stories of fifty years ago seem exaggerated and off base and Governor Romney has no memory of participating in these incidents.”

“Pranks”? “Pranks”?

That’s not the eighteen-year-old Romney speaking; that’s the man (loosely speaking) now running for President of the United States.  An actual man would say, “When I was a teenager, I did something horrible, and I’ve regretted it ever since. And I’ve tried to bring up my sons so none of them would ever do what I did.”

Instead he apologizes for nothing in particular and hides behind a flack to half-deny the story, which is supported by the testimony of five eyewitnesses, including a former Republican county chairman from Michigan. You have to listen to the interview Romney volunteered for with a tame Fox News personality to grasp the full depth of his shamelessness and moral idiocy. “Back in high school, I did some dumb things, and if anyone was hurt by that or offended obviously I apologize.” He laughingly denies remembering the mob hair-chopping incident, but then denies that “anyone thought the  fellow was homosexual.”

Seriously, now. Can you imagine doing that to someone and not remembering? If it’s a lie – as I assume it is – just how stupid does Romney think the voters are?

If it’s the truth, then Mitt Romney must be a true sociopath.

We tried having a cowardly bully as President from 2001-2009. How’d that work out?

Footnote The victim died in 2004. There seems to be no record of Romney’s ever having tried to apologize to him.

 

May 10th, 2012

Josh Barro notes that marriage cannot be an entirely state issue because of the way in which it impacts things like Social Security and Medicare eligibility. Below is the majority of a post I wrote in September, 2011 on the subsidy of marriage provided by Social Security…..

Gene Steurle and Stephanie Rennane have a nice policy brief put out by the National Institute for Health Care Management on the lifetime contributions and benefits of Social Security and Medicare. This is mostly familiar stuff, with lifetime Medicare benefits consistently being several times larger than contributions to the pay-as-you-go program, and Social Security lifetime contributions and benefits being more similar for singles and two-earner couples. However, one thing jumped out from this figure (circled):

Read the rest of this entry »

May 10th, 2012

The NY Times reports; “Installers, often working through big-box chains like Home Depot or Lowe’s, are taking advantage of hefty tax breaks, creative financing techniques and a glut of cheap, Chinese-made panels to make solar power accessible to the mass market for the first time. The number of residential and commercial installations more than doubled over the last two years to 213,957, according to Greentech Media, a research firm.”

In a NY Times Room for Debate piece from January 2011, I anticipated and celebrated this trend and received a lot of angry comments.  My debate piece was based on research that Aparna Sawhney and I have conducted on U.S import trends in renewable power equipment.  The rise of India and China as exporters of green tech to the U.S is impressive.

Folks were angry with me because they believe that U.S “green jobs” will be lost and nascent U.S green companies will lose out to China’s green juggernaut.   This is likely to be true for firms that produce a perfect substitute for a product that China can mass produce.    International trade lowers the price of goods. In a world where we haven’t priced carbon, we need renewable electricity generation equipment to be cheap.  Trade with China helps to make this a reality.

May 9th, 2012

I began my public health career on a Yale postdoc. One of my formative experiences there was to accompany colleagues on the Community Health Care Van, a needle exchange-based mobile clinic for street drug users.

Tagging along with the staff, I helped some patients complete basic paperwork. A weathered middle-aged guy stepped on. When I asked what brought him there, he pulled back his shirt to reveal a chalky-white oozing crater in his shoulder. That festering infection was my rude introduction to the life realities of injection drug users.

Most of these women and men suffered greatly with addiction and a variety of complex illnesses. Most were uninsured, yet still consumed enormous health system resources as they cycled through correctional facilities, became emergency department frequent-fliers, and required heavy use of other safety-net services.

The CHCV reduced patients’ emergency department use by about twenty percent. We could have done more if we could have provided reliable primary care, appropriate drug treatment, and other services requiring insurance coverage.

This won’t matter politically, but the Affordable Care Act will quietly improve public health by expanding coverage for hundreds of thousands of ex-prisoners and others under the control of the criminal justice system. Most of these men and women are on parole or probation. A nice Health Affairs paper by Alison Evans Cuellar and Jehanzeb Cheema runs the numbers. Roughly half of the 700,000 people released every year from correctional institutions will gain coverage or improved care under health reform.

More here, in my latest column for healthinsurance.org.

May 9th, 2012

Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents…But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

What’s your guess?
Read the rest of this entry »