Unclipping Hillary Clinton’s Hawkish Wings

Clinton-2016-tattoo-595x1056

Barack Obama recently described his views on the use of military force at West Point. E.J. Dionne pointed out that military “restraint makes us stronger” and praised “the more measured approach to military intervention practiced during the presidencies of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.” Obama said, “a strategy that involves invading every country that harbors terrorist networks is naïve and unsustainable.” This was described by Andy Borowitz as meaning”Obama Defends Controversial Policy of Not Invading Countries for No Reason.”

Conservative critics were taken aback by Obama’s speech, which was riddled with incendiary remarks about only using military force for a clearly identified and rational purpose.

Obama did not shy away from employing polarizing rhetoric, often using words such as “responsible” and “sensible” to underscore his message.

Harland Dorrinson, a fellow at the conservative think tank the Center for Global Intervention, said that he was “stunned” to see Obama “defend his failure to engage the United States in impulsive and random military adventures.”

“History tells us that the best way to earn respect around the world is by using your military in a totally unpredictable and reckless manner,” he said. “Today, President Obama showed once again that he doesn’t get it.”

Even beyond Borowitz’s satirical take on the speech, this is a clear change from past years. The apparently inevitable nomination of Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential nomination has some on the left concerned. An article on Clinton in The Wall Street Journal will not help to reassure anyone worried about Clinton’s more hawkish views. We must keep in mind the Republican bias of the source, which leads me to question some of the assessments in the article that Clinton was ineffective. I doubt that they would have reason to exaggerate Clinton’s hawkishness, and their assessment on this is consistent with the views of many others.

The article describes her as a “hawk with clipped wings.”  It argues that, “She was often more hawkish than the White House she served, and at some key moments was ineffectual at swinging policy her way.” Despite the article’s description of Clinton as someone who did not push her views, I often had the opinion that Clinton was one of the forces pulling Obama more to the right. Syria was given as an example where the two did disagree:

“… she was more comfortable than Mr. Obama with the use of military force and saw it as an important complement to diplomacy, present and former administration aides say.
“In the debates that we had, she generally was someone who came down in favor of military action,” says Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser. “She had a comfort with U.S. military action.”

Syria was a test case. The civil war exposed a divide in the administration, with Mr. Obama hesitant to commit military force and Mrs. Clinton pushing to arm secular rebels who might help oust Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.”

It would certainly be ironic if Rand Paul manages to win the Republican nomination, leaving the Democrats with the far more hawkish candidate who would take over without Barack Obama in the White House to counter her more hawkish tendencies.

NSA Increases Credibility Gap With Latest Claims About Edward Snowden

The documents released by Edward Snowden have already demonstrated that the government has lied to the American people, and to our representatives in Congress, regarding violations of the law and the Constitution in conducting surveillance of American citizens following 9/11. Just as the attack was used by the Bush administration to launch the war in Iraq based upon lies, the attack was also used to greatly expand government surveillance in an atmosphere where there was too little scrutiny of government actions. There have been a lot of side issues raised to try to distract from these real issues. The latest such side issue raised by the NSA actually casts even more doubt on their credibility.

The government is denying claims made by Edward Snowden since he first became known publicly that he had first tried unsuccessfully to complain about these abuses internally. They are doing this based upon releasing a  single email he had sent in April 2013 which did not raise major concerns. Here is a portion of Snowden’s response:

The NSA’s new discovery of written contact between me and its lawyers – after more than a year of denying any such contact existed – raises serious concerns. It reveals as false the NSA’s claim to Barton Gellman of the Washington Post in December of last year, that “after extensive investigation, including interviews with his former NSA supervisors and co-workers, we have not found any evidence to support Mr. Snowden’s contention that he brought these matters to anyone’s attention.”

Today’s release is incomplete, and does not include my correspondence with the Signals Intelligence Directorate’s Office of Compliance, which believed that a classified executive order could take precedence over an act of Congress, contradicting what was just published. It also did not include concerns about how indefensible collection activities – such as breaking into the back-haul communications of major US internet companies – are sometimes concealed under E.O. 12333 to avoid Congressional reporting requirements and regulations.

If the White House is interested in the whole truth, rather than the NSA’s clearly tailored and incomplete leak today for a political advantage, it will require the NSA to ask my former colleagues, management, and the senior leadership team about whether I, at any time, raised concerns about the NSA’s improper and at times unconstitutional surveillance activities. It will not take long to receive an answer.

Ultimately, whether my disclosures were justified does not depend on whether I raised these concerns previously. That’s because the system is designed to ensure that even the most valid concerns are suppressed and ignored, not acted upon. The fact that two powerful Democratic Senators – Ron Wyden and Mark Udall – knew of mass surveillance that they believed was abusive and felt constrained to do anything about it underscores how futile such internal action is — and will remain — until these processes are reformed.

Still, the fact is that I did raise such concerns both verbally and in writing, and on multiple, continuing occasions – as I have always said, and as NSA has always denied. Just as when the NSA claimed it followed German laws in Germany just weeks before it was revealed that they did not, or when NSA said they did not engage in economic espionage a few short months before it was revealed they actually did so on a regular and recurring basis, or even when they claimed they had “no domestic spying program” before we learned they collected the phone records of every American they could, so too are today’s claims that “this is only evidence we have of him reporting concerns” false.

Considering all the evidence that has been released of dishonesty on the part of the NSA and its defenders, I find Snowden’s statements that he had raised concerns about NSA activities to sound far more credible than the current NSA claim that this suddenly discovered email constitutes his sole complaint.

A Fact Checker Responds To Mitch McConnell’s Dishonesty On Obamacare

In response to the issue discussed yesterday where Mitch McConnell simultaneously opposed the Affordable Care Act and supported Kynect, the computer exchange set up in Kentucky as part of the Affordable Care Act, Glenn Kessler exchanged email with Jesse Benton, McConnell’s campaign manager. Benton made some absurd statements such as that,  “When Obamacare is repealed, Kentucky can choose to continue Kynect or alter it in a way that makes the best sense for Kentuckians.” As discussed yesterday, Kynect cannot exist without Obamacare.

Benton also tried to separate the benefits of the expanded Medicaid program from the Affordable Care Act:

Medicaid existed before Obamacare and will continue to exist after repeal. Kynect is not Medicaid. It is a state administered exchange that provides a marketplace for private insurance plans.  While some 300,000 Kentuckians discovered they were eligible for Medicaid through Kynect, they do not purchase private insurance through the exchange; they are enrolled in the state-administered program.

The expansion of Medicaid is another aspect of the Affordable Care Act, with the federal government paying the bulk of the cost of this expansion. If Obamacare is repealed, there would not be either Kynect or the expanded Medicaid program which many in Kentucky have benefited from.

Benton also claimed that people in Kentucky “would move back to HSA’s and other higher deductible plans they had pre-Obamacare to receive a higher quality of care.” However there were no previous plans for most of these people as 75 percent of the newly insured in both Medicaid and the exchange were previously uninsured. High deductible plans and HSA’s work well for upper income individuals, but they are not a good solution for those with lower incomes who cannot afford to pay high deductibles or place money in HSA’s.

Kessler concluded:

McConnell appears to have accepted the Medicaid expansion that has been so embraced by his state’s residents, while drawing a distinction with the Obamacare health plans sold on the statewide exchange. Given that three out of four of the newly insured in Kentucky ended up on Medicaid, that probably makes political sense—and also is newsworthy.

But the history of individual state exchanges shows it is not credible for McConnell to suggest that the state exchange would survive without the broad health-care system constructed by the Affordable Care Act, such as an individual mandate and subsidies to buy insurance. Given the popularity of the state exchange, McConnell appears to want to offer out hope it would continue even in the unlikely case the law was actually repealed. That’s likely not a tenable position, and we will pay close attention to McConnell’s phrasing on this issue in the future. The senator is clearly trying to straddle a political fence; when doing so, it’s easy to lose your balance.

I do find it strange that Kessler decided to review the exchange with the above conclusion “rather than a traditional fact check.” These statements from McConnell and his campaign manager are clearly dishonest. Kessler has declared statements which were far more ambiguous to be dishonest in the past. I do applaud his decision to concentrate on reviewing the facts as opposed to jumping to awarding Pinocchios, but hope that this new policy applies to both parties.

In related news, a new Wenzel Strategies poll (a Republican pollster with a reputation for a strong pro-Republican “house effect”) has Mitch McConnell leading Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes by 47 percent to 44 percent. The closeness of the race is encouraging but it is hard to see Kentucky voting in a Democratic senator.

Mitch McConnell Backs Kentucky State Exchange While Calling For Obamacare Repeal

McConnell

Now that people are experiencing the advantages of the Affordable Care Act it is becoming harder for Republicans to call for repeal. While people might tell pollsters they dislike Obamacare, they also oppose the consequences of repeal. In Kentucky, people might say they dislike Obamacare, but they certainly do like Kynect, their highly successful insurance exchange. This is resulting in problems for Mitch McConnell who has been calling for the repeal of Obamacare and is now up for reelection.

McConnell has been trying to express support for Kynect while continuing to oppose Obamacare. It is necessary for one to be either dishonest or quite ignorant about the Affordable Care Act to make claims such as the ones McConnell is making:

“If Obamacare is repealed, Kentucky should decide for itself whether to keep Kynect or set up a different marketplace,” McConnell campaign spokeswoman Allison Moore told WFPL.

“But Kentuckians shouldn’t have been forced to lose the plans they had and liked, shouldn’t have seen their premiums skyrocket, shouldn’t have had their Medicare cut, and shouldn’t have had their taxes raised because of President Obama and his friends in Washington forced it down their throats.”​

McConnell is being dishonest with his claims that premiums are skyrocking and Medicare is being cut. One reason people in Kentucky support Kynect is that it is allowing them to obtain health insurance at a lower cost. Republicans are resorting to scare tactics with claims of Medicare cuts.

The Kentucky Herald-Leader had this editorial criticizing McConnell for attempting this deception:

Nothing could be more connected — or should be more important to Kentucky’s senior senator — than the fates of the more than 400,000 Kentuckians who are getting health insurance, many for the first time, and the federal Affordable Care Act, which is making that possible.

Repeal the federal law, which McConnell calls “Obamacare,” and the state exchange would collapse.

Kynect could not survive without the ACA’s insurance reforms, including no longer allowing insurance companies to cancel policies when people get sick or deny them coverage because of pre-existing conditions, as well as the provision ending lifetime limits on benefit payments. (Kentucky tried to enact such reforms in the 1990s and found out we were too small a market to do it alone.)

Kentucky’s exchange also could not survive without the federal funding and tax credits that are helping 300,000 previously uninsured Kentuckians gain access to regular preventive medicine, including colonoscopies, mammograms and birth control without co-pays.

As a result of a law that McConnell wants to repeal, one in 10 of his constituents no longer have to worry that an illness or injury will drive them into personal bankruptcy or a premature grave.

Repealing the federal law would also end the Medicaid expansion that is enabling Kentucky to expand desperately needed drug treatment and mental health services.

Kynect is the Affordable Care Act is Obamacare — even if Kentuckians are confused about which is which.

The Louisville Eccentric Observer also responded to McConnell:

Just for the record, McConnell saying that Kynect can survive the repeal of Obamacare is like saying that the Oklahoma City Thunder can trade Kevin Durant, but keep his jump shot.

The Kynect website and call center was paid for with federal money from the ACA, specifically $252 million in federal grants. Without the ACA, Kentucky foots the bill for a website that is worthless.

Over 300,000 Kentuckians gained Medicaid coverage because the ACA expanded Medicaid eligibility and Kentucky did not opt out, and that coverage is 100 percent paid for by federal money under the ACA, until it becomes 90 percent after a few years. Without the ACA they are no longer eligible, unless Kentucky changes their state law and pays through nose to cover these new people (that is not happening).

Most of the 82,795 Kentuckians who bought private insurance through Kynect were able to do so with the help of federal subsidies only made possible by the ACA. Without the ACA, those plans that have strong consumer protections on preexisting conditions, not being dropped from coverage for getting sick, and spending caps are no longer mandatory, so they’re gone. Gone as well is the requirement that children must be covered under their parents plans through the age of 25. Without the ACA many of these people won’t find someone to insure them, and many are forced to go back to junk plans that are worthless when you have a medical emergency or plans that are unaffordable without federal ACA subsidies.

Without the ACA, Kynect is nothing but a worthless website that would soon go dark, and roughly 400,000 Kentuckians will lose their coverage and the consumer protections it provides, and will therefore be thrown back into the old healthcare system that had failed them beforehand.

What McConnell is hoping to do with this strategy is deceive Kentucky voters who like what Kynect is doing but have a negative perception of the Affordable Care Act, and hope that the media here will do lazy “He said, She said” reporting that does not explicitly point out that what McConnell is saying is flatly false. He might turn out to be successful on that front, but this might also be a good opportunity for Alison Lundergan Grimes to get off of the sidelines and actually talk about health care with the media and voters so they know exactly what McConnell is trying to do, and have an honest conversation about what she would do. Or, she can continue staying out of this fight, and just hope for the best. Your call, Alison.

This should make it easier for McConnell’s opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes, to defend Obamacare. Instead it looks like she is trying to play it safe. Greg Sargent discussed how Grimes is talking about the Affordable Care Act:

Now the Grimes campaign is finally hitting McConnell over his gyrations on the issue, accusing him of “voting to destroy Kynect.” From Grimes senior adviser Jonathan Hurst:

Mitch McConnell has been in the fantasyland that is Washington for so long that he cannot tell the difference between fact and fiction. McConnell has voted to destroy Kynect — and he has said he will do it again. In the U.S. Senate, Alison Lundergan Grimes will fix the law to ensure it is working for all Kentuckians.

This seems somewhat defensive. It again leans heavily on a vow to “fix” the law, and doesn’t state flatly that Kynect is a policy success. Some Dems, such as Rep. John Yarmuth and pollster Celinda Lake, have suggested Grimes go further. Lake told me the other day that her polling has showed that Kynect polls positively in Kentucky, even as the law known as “Obamacare” or the “Affordable Care Act” remains under water.

Lake suggests this to Grimes:  “She could say, `In Kentucky, we got it right. I’ll take Kentucky values to Washington.”

The idea would be to focus people on something they like — the state exchange — separating it from the hated Obummercare, localizing the contrast between the two candidates’ positions. Her statement today does not mention Obamacare, signaling again that Kynect is far more popular in the state, and that it’s now somewhat safe to make an issue at least out of the state exchange. Indeed, elsewhere Grimes has said: “I am not and will not be for taking away insurance that 400,000 Kentuckians just recently got access to.”

Still, given the tentativeness of Grimes’ statement, clearly she is still not prepared to cross over into seriously making an issue out of that contrast, and it just won’t be a central point she makes. As noted here before, I understand all the reasons for Grimes’ reluctance.

While it is understandable that Democrats would show some reluctance to being associated with Obamacare, failure to speak out probably guarantees their defeat. Democrats need to go on the offensive and take credit for the benefits of the law their party passed. Trying to distance themselves will not work. Everyone knows that this is a policy passed by the Democrats. Acting scared only reinforces the negative views and makes Democrats look weak. As long as Democrats remain afraid to forcibly speak out about the benefits of Obamacare and explain its benefits, voters will fall for the type of deception Mitch McConnell is practicing. Voters do want the benefits of Obamacare, and the popularity of Kynect gives Grimes the perfect opportunity to speak out in its defense.

Update: Glenn Kessler reviewed the facts regarding the above issue.

Medicaid Expansion Leading To Increased Care For Poor And Increased Revenue For Hospitals

After Medicaid was expanded in Oregon prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act there was an increase in Emergency Room visits from people using their new coverage. This was not surprising and the challenge was to get those with the new coverage both established with primary care physicians and to get the Medicaid patients in the habit of seeing a primary care physician as opposed to over-utilizing Emergency Rooms. This raised questions as to whether we would see a similar initial increase in Medicaid utilization of Emergency Rooms with the expansion of Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. So far there are optimistic reports regarding the effects of Medicaid expansion.

A recent survey conducted by the American College of Emergency Physicians found that 37 percent of ER physicians reported that patient volume had increased slightly, 9 percent reported that it had increased greatly, and 27 percent reported that the number of ER visits had remained the same.  Only 3 percent reported an increase in patients with private insurance  while 35 percent reported an increase in patients with Medicaid. This could be an indicator that those with Medicaid were having more difficulty than those with new private insurance in finding private primary care physicians. This might also be partially due to patients receiving Medicaid being poorer and sicker and in greater need of emergency services.

Kaiser Health News reported on more promising news for those receiving Medicaid. They found that safety-net hospitals were seeing more paying patients due to more poor patients receiving Medicaid, and these hospitals were therefore bringing in more money.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of the health law’s expansion of coverage to more than 13 million people this year has been the nation’s safety-net hospitals, which treat a disproportionate share of poor and uninsured people and therefore face billions of dollars in unpaid bills.

Such facilities had expected to see a drop in uninsured patients seeking treatment, but the change has been faster and deeper than most anticipated— at least in the 25 states that expanded Medicaid in January, according to interviews with safety-net hospital officials across the country.

“This is really phenomenal,” said Ellen Kugler, executive director of the National Association of Urban Hospitals, based in Sterling, Va., which represents inner-city safety net institutions. “It shows the Affordable Care Act is clearly working in these locations.”

Safety net hospitals, most of which are government-owned or nonprofit, have typically struggled financially because their urban locations mean they treat more uninsured patients who show up in emergency rooms and cannot be turned away.

An Urban Institute study published in the May edition of Health Affairs estimated the costs of uncompensated care to hospitals were as high as $45 billion in 2013. Government programs helped defray 65 percent of those costs, the study estimated.  That left providers billions of dollars in the hole.

They also found that more were receiving care from primary care physicians as opposed to from Emergency Rooms:

Hospital officials say the biggest impact of the change is on patients themselves. Rather than having to rely on emergency rooms, newly insured patients can see primary care doctors and get diagnostic tests and prescription drugs, among other services.

Some safety-net hospitals say they started to see their numbers of uninsured patients dropping almost immediately after the Medicaid expansion took effect in January.

“We have seen a steady decline in our uninsured visits,” said Roxane Townsend, CEO of UAMS. “We did not anticipate this big a drop this quickly.”

About 80 percent of the system’s new Medicaid patients had previously been seen by the hospital as uninsured patients, she said. Their enrollment in coverage means the hospital is paid more for their care and is able to direct them to outpatient services and preventive care.

She said that UAMS has also seen a drop in ER visits by uninsured patients — from 6,000 visits in first three months of 2013 to about 4,000 visits in first three months of this year, calling the decline “significant.”

While some emergency physicians have offered anecdotal reports of increased use of the ER since January, there is no documentation of the health law’s impact yet. Studies examining ER use in Massachusetts following that state’s expansion of coverage showed an initial surge followed by a decline in those numbers over several years.

Denver Health officials said the increase in insured patients since January — most of whom are enrolled in Medicaid – appears to be boosting the number of people seeking care at its primary care clinics, rather than through the emergency room.

Patient visits to Denver Health primary care offices are up 14 percent this year, while ER visits are down 2 percent. Patient visits for mental health and substance abuse services are also up nearly 50 percent.

“Patients are seeking care at better and more cost-effective and more appropriate settings,” said Peg Burnette, chief financial officer at Denver Health.

This trend was not limited to safety-net hospitals. For-profit hospitals are also benefiting from increased coverage:

Although safety-net hospitals may be experiencing the biggest impact from the expansion of coverage, the improvements are not limited to them.

Investor-owned hospital companies HCA, Tenet Healthcare Corp., Community Health Systems (some of which own safety-net hospitals) say they saw their rates of uninsured patients drop by as much as a third in the first quarter of 2014 in hospitals located in Medicaid-expansion states.  HCA said its hospitals in states that chose not to participate in the health law’s expansion of the program saw rates of uninsured patients rise by 6 percent.

LifePoint Hospitals, a Brentwood, Tenn.-based company that owns 60 hospitals nationwide, said the Medicaid expansion led to an average 26 percent reduction in uninsured patients at its facilities.

“It’s been a big financial help,” said Chief Financial Officer Leif Murphy, noting the reduction will help offset the health law’s Medicare funding cuts.

Converting patients from no cash to some cash “is a good thing,” said Sheryl Skolnick, a hospital analyst with CRT Capital Group in Stamford, Conn.

The exception to this trend is in states where Republicans have blocked Medicaid expansion. This is especially foolish as the federal government pays most of the cost, with states, along with hospitals, benefiting from the decrease in uninsured. Salon reported over the weekend on efforts in Georgia, also being seen in other Republican states, to make it more difficult to expand Medicaid in the future by requiring that the decision be made by the state legislature as opposed to by the governor. The conservatives Republicans don’t want to gamble on a Democrat, or even a rational Republican, becoming governor in the future and deciding to accept the federal funds to expand Medicaid.

Mad Men Concludes First Half Of Final Season With Personal Victories Coming Out Of Waterloo

Mad Men Moon Landing

The first half of the final season of Mad Men was often disappointing, but this turned around in Waterloo, which was actually a victory to hold us over until the final episodes are shown next year. The manner in which Mad Men has divided up the final season has led to comparisons to Breaking Bad, another AMC show to recently conclude. Prior to Waterloo, the comparison was often negative, with many fans feeling that while Breaking Bad had one of the strongest endings for a television series ever televised, Mad Men was having a disappointing season so far this year.

Both had one thing in common–the protagonist was on a downhill trajectory. However while the path towards destruction was what we anticipated for Walter White, we root for Don Draper to succeed despite his flaws. We want to see Don Draper as the great ad man and Creative Director at Sterling Cooper (regardless of which other names are attached to the firm at various times), and it was disappointing to see him out of work much of the season. Even when Don returned it was with stipulations which he should have never accepted and in a minor role he did not deserve.

We have also seen the negative sides of many other characters, including Roger getting high on LSD, Bert as a racist, and Peggy as rather unlikeable, and Joan almost appearing evil in her treatment of Don. This is not what fans wanted to see.

Waterloo quickly turned things around. Don was making a comeback with the Burger King account but there were plots to remove him in the background. The episode went from Don receiving a letter indicating he was being fired to a victory for Don when he quickly got the partners together, with only Joan supporting Jim Cutler. Then Bert died, leaving Don again in danger until the episode’s conclusion.

The episode also did a brilliant job of capturing the spirit of the era. How many shows could maintain the attention of viewers with multiple scenes of everyone watching television? The moon landing dominated the episode as it did America in 1969, providing a fitting historical backdrop for the concluding portions of the series to match the Cuban Missile Crisis and later the  Kennedy assassination at the beginning. In the past there has been a mixed reaction to technology on Mad Men with computers seen as both a modern wonder and as possibly a threat. There was no ambiguity with the moon landing. Bert summed it up with his final words before death with “Bravo,” showing appreciation for both the act and Neil Armstrong’s pitch. When Sally repeated the negative response of the kid she had a crush on to Don, her father quickly dismissed this.

By the end, Waterloo brought out the best in many of the characters. When Don feared he was out after Bert’s death, he could have used the Burger King account in his pocket to help secure a new job. Instead he turned the presentation over to Peggy, in an altruistic act to provide for her security in the firm if he was gone. This could have been an excellent conclusion of her arc, showing her old mentor what she could accomplish with Don accepting her as an equal. The episode also showed growth for Peggy in her personal life in the scenes with Julio.

Mad Men Finale Megan

Don also showed how he had grown from the womanizer of earlier seasons, turning down the advances of his secretary (who old Don would have slept with) and offering to care for Megan even after she made it clear that their marriage was over. Earlier in the season he had turned down a proposition from the woman sitting next to him on the airplane after visiting Megan, and he sure seemed uncomfortable in that three way.

Bert’s value to the firm was often questionable when viewing previous episodes, but he displayed leadership in Waterloo. This included sticking by Don, not because he necessarily still wanted Don around, but because Don was a member of his team. Just as importantly for the future of Sterling Cooper, Bert chastised Roger for his lack of leadership, and Roger wound up rising to the occasion after Bert’s death.

Sally Draper quickly learned to ignore the better looking but cynical older brother after being chastised by her father, and instead displayed interest in the dorkier younger brother who understood what the moon landing meant and had hope for the future. I wonder if Don would have had such influence on Sally before their conversation during the car ride on Valentine’s Day earlier in the season. Unfortunately Betty continued to show what an awful mother she is.

Ted went from a low point of wanting to leave advertising and considering going down in the plane to being persuaded by Don to remain in a creative role, as this was required for the deal to work. I saw this exchange as being even more important for the rehabilitation of Don, now showing a leadership role, than for Ted.

Despite failings in the past, Pete Campbell turned out to be worthwhile in his defense of Don, although he was hardly one to discuss marriage with. Harry Crane has replaced Pete as the punching bag, with Harry losing out on the big deal by not finalizing the partnership offer in time. Jim Cutler became the evil character. His evil deeds in attempting to fire Don weren’t enough. To truly portray him as evil there was the revelation that he was involved in the firebombing of Dresden. In the end, Jim went along with the deal as “It’s a lot of money!”

Mad Men Bert

Even after death, Bert returned for a big musical number, as every season of Mad Men needs one of these. Bert, previously displayed as a follower of Ayn Rand, was last seen contradicting this philosophy in singing, The Best Things In Life Are Free. This better portrayed Don’s viewpoint, as he made the scene work by looking on in disbelief. Don really just wanted the opportunity to create, but it was everyone else’s greed which allowed him to achieve this. Perhaps Bert will return to sing some more advice for Don in the future. I also suspect that the question as to whether Bert’s sister is still alive will have ramifications in the final episodes.

I was not thrilled with the development a few years ago of starting over with a new firm, but now this now makes sense in the grand scheme of things. The formation  of Sterling Cooper Draper Price and their subsequent development into a firm capable of taking a big account placed  Roger, now showing the leadership Bert wanted to see, in a position to negotiate a good deal for all of them. With a new five year contract the second half of the season should no longer be burdened with a weakened Don Draper. Hopefully we will have a truly independent subsidiary of McCann Erickson with Roger leading the business end and Don as the clear Creative Director.

SciFi Weekend: Hannibal, The Americans, Orphan Black

Hannibal Mizumono

The second season of Hannibal ended with Mizumono exactly as shown at the start of the season with a fight between Hannibal and Jack Crawford. The fight scene, which left four characters potentially bleeding to death, lasted eighteen minutes. It was preceded by a set up to attempt to make sense out of Jack  being in Hannibal’s home with no back up, along with plenty of dialog to raise questions about Will’s exact intentions.

Jack had intended to have people with guns pointing in every window when he accepted Hannibal dinner invitation, but Kade Purnell shut down his plan as entrapment. This left Jack with the choice of going in alone versus giving up on the plan. While I found it a little unrealistic when Jack went after Chilton alone earlier in the season, this provides some consistency with Jack deciding to go after Hannibal alone as opposed to giving up in the finale.

Jack summed up Will’s position in telling him, “Hannibal thinks you are his man. I think you are mine.” Except that Hannibal noticed the scent of Freddie Lounds on Will (an ability in Hannibal which we accept without question), tipping him off that she was still alive and that Will was deceiving him. In the end Will did call Hannibal to warn him, but was it because deep down he wanted Hannibal to escape or did he hope this would lead to Hannibal leaving before dinner, keeping Jack out of danger?

Freddie Lounds was one of three characters this season who appeared to be dead but turned out to be alive. This happened with Miriam Lass earlier this season and again with the unexpected appearance of Abigail in the finale. I imagine that this might have been predicted by her mention in a recent episode but the discussion seemed so natural that it did not raise suspicions. When I first saw her alive I wondered if the episode would end with Hannibal fleeing with Abigail, and this was originally considered by the writers, but instead we got an apparent on screen death for Abigail with Hannibal later flying off with Dr. Bedelia Du Maurier an a Marvel movie like final scene.

While the second season of Hannibal overall was excellent, there were some things happening off screen which ideally should have been shown. After Jack was first convinced that Will and then Chilton was the Chesapeake Ripper, we never did see how he was convinced to believe Will and set up a situation to trap Hannibal. It was necessary to keep the fact that Will was working with Jack to lead up to the surprise that Freddie was still alive, but a flashback might have been helpful at that point. Similarly, while we would expect to Alana to drop her suspicions about Will once seeing Freddie alive, it would have taken more to convince her that Hannibal was guilty. I also hope we get a good explanation as to why Dr. Du Maurier was with Hannibal in the final scene.

The next season will be dramatically different from the first two seasons. Going into the finale one question was whether next season would begin with Hannibal on the run versus Hannibal on trial. That much was answered. We don’t know the fate of Will, Jack, Alana, or Abigail, who I have listed in order of  my guess as to likelihood of survival.

Hannibal - Season 2

Bryan Fuller gave some clues as to these questions and where the next season is going in interviews. First from TV Guide (as usual, selected questions only from each of these interviews):

And yet, it seemed that Will tried to warn Hannibal that Jack was coming. Had Will truly betrayed Hannibal?
Fuller:
  Honestly, Will did not know what he was going to do next in terms of who he was going to betray and who he was going to save. I think he could see a world in which he allowed Hannibal to get away, and there’s a world where he could see him incarcerated. When Will calls Hannibal to say, “They know,” part of it was to bring the series full circle back to that very first episode and create moments to parallel that. But also for Will, it could mean two things, [which] we won’t really understand with absolute clarity until Season 3. On one level, it could be exactly as it appears with him calling his friend and warning him that trouble’s coming. Or it could be Will calling and telling Hannibal, “They know,” because he wants Hannibal to get out of there before Jack arrives because he’s worried about Jack’s safety. We really wanted to embrace the idea that the audience should not know at this stage what Will Graham’s intentions are because we have a few more punches to be pulled — and not pulled — in Season 3.

The first huge shock in the episode is the reveal that Abigail is still alive!
Fuller:
 Originally, we were going to have Hannibal flying away with Abigail Hobbs. When we started talking about it, we said, “Oh, gosh, we brought Miriam back and we’re brining Dr. Chilton back — does that seem like too much?” So we just thought, “Well, let’s just bring her back and kill her on-screen!” [Laughs]

Is this truly the end of the relationship between them? Will does see the stag die…
Fuller:
 The stag always represented the connection between Will Graham and Hannibal Lecter. He started seeing the stag after he was first exposed to Hannibal’s murder of Cassie Boyle impaled on the stag head in the field. It felt like, at that moment, the relationship that they had has died. Whatever comes next between them will be a fresh new hell. …  In any relationship, when you throw a fit and end a relationship in dramatic fashion, later you might be going, “Oh, I do sort of miss them.” [Laughs] The obsession is going to always work both ways between these two gentlemen.

That’s assuming that Will survives!
Fuller:
 We are staying very true to in the incident in the novel with Will and Hannibal and it’s very basic outcome.

What about the others? Will they make it as well?
Fuller:
 There’s going to be an impact from what’s happened here. It’s safe to say that not everybody survives. Everyone that’s laying their breathing could be breathing their last breaths. It doesn’t go well for all of them.

Meanwhile Hannibal escapes to France … with Dr. Du Maurier! Has she been in on this the whole time?
Fuller:
 The answers to exactly why Bedelia Du Maurier is on a plane to France with Hannibal Lecter is all part of the first episode of Season 3, which will essentially function as a new pilot for a new series because everything’s different.

Will we be seeing much more of Bedelia next season now that Gillian Anderson’s other NBC show was canceled?
Fuller:
 She’s a very busy lady. But if I had my druthers, she’d be a series regular in Season 3.

You said next season will be different. Does that mean you’re shifting the point of view to be more squarely about Hannibal?
Fuller:
 Season 3 is going to be a lot of fun because it’s going to be taking a lot of disparate elements from the novel Hannibal Rising and the novel Hannibal and mashing them up together as part of the thrust of the season. It’s going to be fun to bastardize two novels into one sort of Frankenstein season. I will brace everybody right now: We’re significantly changing the Hannibal origin story from Hannibal Rising.

You originally had mapped out certain seasons to follow certain books. Is that still your plan, or have you abandoned that timeline?
Fuller:
 The books won’t necessarily be in sequential order. We’ll be hitting elements of each of them except Silence of the Lambs in the next season. My hope is that not only do we have a completely different Hannibal Lecter story in Season 3, but we will meet some of those great characters like Francis Dolarhyde and  Lady Murasaki and weave them into the world in a unique way.

What parts of the structure will change the most? The setting? The case-of-the-week format?
Fuller:
 The basic structure revolving around the FBI will be less prominent in Season 3 — at least for the first half of the season.

That doesn’t sound good for Jack’s survival! And Laurence Fishburne does recur on a new ABC sitcom.
Fuller:
 Laurence is also a very busy man. One of the wonders of this season is: Will Alana survive and will Jack Crawford survive? Will Abigail Hobbs survive? Those are things that are going to be revealed very slowly at the beginning of Season 3.

So, when you said before that somebody doesn’t make it, you were including Abigail in that? I assumed she was already gone.
Fuller:
  I’m speaking of everybody in that house that was dying. And it doesn’t just mean that only one person could be dead.

Hanibal Finale Laurence-Fishburne

It does sound from this that most likely Will does survive and Abigail does not, with the fate of Jack and Alana more uncertain. Many similar questions were addressed in the weekly interview with AV Club, plus there was discussion regarding the surprise return of Abigail:

AVC: Are we supposed to believe that what Beverly saw in Hannibal’s basement that shocked her so much was Abigail?

BF: That was the idea that we had always talked about. Did she see this poor girl down in the basement, and was like, oh my God, he’s been holding her captive like an animal this entire time, and she turns around in a rage of “you monster!”? That was something we had talked about. What exactly did Beverly see? In my mind it was always Abigail Hobbs down there in some way, caught with her hand in the candy jar. That felt like it was the genuine surprise.

And also, we didn’t know, because we cut away, and we see the bullet go through the ceiling of the basement into the dining room, we didn’t necessarily know: Was that a dogpile on Beverly Katz with both Abigail and Hannibal? Although, I don’t think Abigail would have attacked Beverly in that moment. I think she was very reluctant to attack Alana, which is why she was so confused and upset when Will finally sees her, because she’s like, “This is not the plan that we had discussed.”

AVC: There’s a lot information thats being withheld from the audience this season. Were you, as writers, discussing that this is what Hannibal is doing with Abigail, this is what Will is talking about with Jack?

BF: Yes, absolutely. I think in those scenes, we wanted to make sure that there was someone present that couldn’t know the entire story in some way, so it made sense for the characters to not discuss certain aspects. And with Abigail and her resurfacing, there is something very intentional in all of the rebirthing—fatherhood thematics of eight and nine and 10 and 11 that were really all about setting up the Abigail reveal. We wanted to remind the audience of these paternal feelings that Will had for Abigail. We wanted to remind them of her place in the story, so when she steps out of the shadows, it feels like we prepared them for that eventuality and weren’t withholding all of the information. Because I felt like if we hadn’t reminded the audience of Abigail and her importance to Will Graham and she just stepped out of the shadows without any of that parenthood thematic exploration, then I felt like we would have been inappropriately withholding from the audience.

Later the discussion turned to Freddie Lounds and Bedelia:

AVC: This episode is almost heartbreaking in a way when the Hannibal and Will relationship finally ruptures at the end. How did you get that balance—of having these genuine emotional moments amid all the carnage—right ?

BF: For me, when Hannibal smells Freddie Lounds on Will Graham and realizes he’s been duped, the heartbreak of that is one thing. You see him sort of go quiet and interior after he gets a whiff of Freddie, and then that dinner scene afterward, where he essentially is telling Will, his best friend in the world that he has ever had, “I will forgive you if you come clean right now. All will be forgiven.” And Will doesn’t take it. Will continues to move forward with his betrayal, and it’s a very quiet, solemn, sad scene for me, watching Hannibal. And I did empathize with him, because regardless of what he’s done as a monster, we all relate to the intensity of a friendship that feels so unique, and when that falls apart, it is heartbreaking. Because that someone who once had the ability to understand you and accept you was all a falsehood is devastating. So I felt like we were doing our jobs and making it feel appropriately impactful for Hannibal to suffer this loss.

AVC: What did you see as Bedelia’s role in the story of the finale and the season as a whole?

BF: For me it was an interesting way to have this woman—who I would argue is the most intelligent person on the show—and she was the one who figured things out without the overwhelming evidence that Will Graham had. She was smart enough to get the hell out of Dodge, and then got scooped up by Jack Crawford later on, and when she’s telling him that Hannibal is in control of this situation, I think what is happening there is she really is actually embracing her awe of this man, who is unlike any other that she’s encountered as a specialist in the psychology of humankind.

That is part of her role in season three is what does she expect to be getting out of this situation that continues to keep her intelligent and not just a dummy that is going along with the sexy, serial killer for reasons that are carnal. That’s not what we want. This is an opportunity, actually, for her to study something so wholly unique in the lexicon of humanity out in the wild. Out in its natural environment. So I think those first episodes of season three will go a long way in rationalizing and explaining exactly what Bedelia wants and expects out of the situation and how she’s going to continue to be as smart, if not smarter, than Hannibal Lecter.

AVC: Where are you in the process on season three? With Hannibal and Bedelia escaping to Europe, are there any chances to film there?

BF: We are absolutely exploring it. That was one of the things that I said was very important to me. If we have to even get a unit that shoots somewhere abroad for exteriors to help us sell the Silence On The Lam through-line of season three. So yes, our plan is right now to shoot abroad anywhere from three to five weeks to help create that world of them on the run in a different environment, in a different country and right now we’re looking at what our tax incentives are in various countries to be able to pull that off.

So you were thrown by the Bedelia reveal?

AVC: You know, a little bit. I was trying to figure out who would be sitting next to Hannibal, and then, oh, it was Bedelia.

BF: Well, our original intention was for it to be Abigail sitting next to him. And then it felt like, with where we were going in the story with all of the parenthood thematics, that if Hannibal had plotted this escape for all three of them, and then Will had betrayed him, it’s basically like a violent breakup: This is where we were going, but you screwed it up, so I’m going to make sure that all of the happiness that was planned for us can never happen, because you betrayed me. And it is such a brutal, spiteful, vengeful, vicious act to spare this girl’s life, and then, everything that she meant to Hannibal was so intrinsically tied to Will Graham that he just had to raze the Earth of their relationship. Unfortunately, that included poor Abigail.

Hannibal Mizumono12

In an interview with IGN, Bryan Fuller did reveal that the first episode of season three will deal with Hannibal and Bedelia and we won’t know who survived the finale until the second episode. Fuller also spoke more on how his show is varying from the books it is based upon, and how he is condensing his planned seven season arc down to six.

IGN: Then of course, the Vergers were a big part of the second half of this season. We did get an ending to their story for now, but obviously anyone who knows the books and the mythos will be wondering when that might percolate back up. And that’s one of those things where it feels like it could be a couple of seasons from now, or it could be sooner.

Fuller: I would love to continue telling the Vergers’ story in Season 3, because we shifted the paradigm significantly from the books, in that, in the books, when Hannibal is fingered, as it were, he’s caught. He guts Will with a linoleum knife — which is exactly why the knife that we had him gut Will with is in the television show — and as he’s leaving, he’s caught. So he goes right into incarceration. We don’t have the fugitive stage. So, in, in some ways, we are doing the novel Hannibal mashed up with the novel Hannibal Rising for a big chunk of season 3.

IGN: As far as the long-term of the show, I’ve spoken to you in the past about your broader ideas for seven seasons, and where they might be as far as each of the books are concerned. Is that still in place in your mind, as the ideal?

Fuller: Well, as we’ve gotten further into this series, I’ve collapsed a couple of seasons in my mind now. As in, “I don’t think we would be able to sustain the 13 episodes for that arc that I thought we would have” and “perhaps it’s better to collapse this season and this season into one.” So, I’m really thinking a six-season arc, and that really keeps us from treading water.

IGN: As far as I know – and correct me if I’m wrong – but nothing’s really changed as far as the legal entanglements with Silence of the Lambs and those characters being at another studio, as we get a bit closer to that time period. Though you likely still have a couple of years, have you thought more about what you would do in place of Clarice Starling?

Fuller: Well, I think it would just be we would introduce a character that would probably be “Schmarice Schmarling” and do something very similar – that is a character in the FBI going through the trials and tribulations that we saw Clarice Starling go through. She probably wouldn’t be dealing with Buffalo Bill, but it would be someone as devastatingly creepy and hypnotic in their evil.

IGN: Schmuffalo Phil.

Fuller: Yeah, Schmuffalo Phil. [Laughs]

Hugh Dancy (Will Graham), in an interview with The Daily Beast, did confirm that he will be returning and Laurence Fishburne (Jack Crawford) will be back depending upon availability as he is involved in other projects next season. He also speculates that, with Hannibal on the run as at the end of Silence of the Lambs, the next season could involve both the FBI and people working for Mason Verger chasing after him. He also discussed the strange standards of network television where graphic violence can be shown but not nudity:

It is pretty nuts that you can show a guy getting sliced open but can’t show a hint of nudity.

My feeling at this point, and I think this is actually true, is that there are body parts—particularly female ones—that you can never show on TV, but if you show a corpse where those particular parts had been cut off, then that would be all right. Now that is mind-boggling to me.

the-americans-recap-echo-Keri-Russell-Margo-Martindale-Matthew-Rhys

Hannibal showed us where the season was heading in the first episode of the season. The first episode of The Americans began with the killing of Emmett and Leanne, but we didn’t know for certain where they were heading until major events of the season were tied together in the final moments of Echo. As we were no closer to discovering the identity of the killer last week, I had assumed that it would have to be a character we already knew, but never suspected that it would be Jared. That was far more satisfying than ending with a revelation that Larrick was lying in his previous denial.

We knew from the start that the season would be about family, with the death of Emmett and Leanne causing Philip and Elizabeth to consider the danger that their own children were placed in. They did not discover until the finale that the danger could be coming from the Russians they worked for. Supporting Communism in the abstract is one thing, but different when hearing from Claudia, “Paige is your daughter, but she’s not just yours. She belongs to the cause.”

Hannibal had to have some action take place off screen for the surprise that Jack and Will had faked Freddie Lounds’ death to work. Similarly, key events which occurred this season on The Americans were not revealed until Jared’s confession as he was dying. While his recruitment by Kate was off screen, we have seen enough of how Elizabeth works to easily imagine Kate seducing him, with Jared’s loyalty more likely to her than to the Communist cause, despite hearing Jared claim “it’s for something greater than ourselves.” The second big reveal, which by now was no surprise as it made perfect sense out of Paige’s storyline, was that she was the one who the Russians wanted to recruit next as a second generation spy, better able to fool the Americans and allow her to infiltrate deeper than plants such as Elizabeth and Philip ever could.

This leads to one of the big questions for the third season. While the immediate reaction was to protect Paige from becoming involved, the second season has shown that she just might make a good spy. She has also shown a need to do something great. Her protests against American policies might lead her to accept her parents’ views, although such protest (contrary to the views of many on the right) do not necessarily indicate a willingness to betray this country. Recruiting Paige as a spy could bring some satisfaction to her parents, who were frustrated by Paige’s respect for the church protests which were so insignificant compared to what they do. As Elizabeth pointed out, “She does need something. She’s looking for something in her life. What if this is it?” Phillip didn’t go along, fearing, “It would destroy her,” Elizabeth countered by asking, “To be like us?” Next season could be about Paige becoming more like them, or it could be about fighting the Russians to protect their daughter.

The second season of The Americans, along with Hannibal, rank amount the best-written television of all time. This includes not only how everything was so well tied together in the finale, but how well they handled the teenage daughter (often a weak point in may series) along with secondary characters, especially Stan and Nina. We could not be certain as to whether Stan would betray his country to save Nina until the end. His subconscious would not allow him to change from the comic book FBI hero he had envisioned himself as in a conversation with Henry Jennings to the man who betrayed his country. This was partially conveyed in a dream sequence which also showed that his subconscious mind realized that Martha was taking documents, although this was behind his back in the dream. Philip found that he must be more careful around Martha now that she has a gun. It might be unrealistic for Nina to survive, but we have already seen one suspected mole (framed by Nina on Stan’s instructions) be spared, and Oleg’s family connections, or that big envelope of money Oleg gave her, might be of value.

The Americans Echo Larrick

Vulture spoke about the finale with Joe Weisberg and Joel Fields:

How long have you had this idea of second-generation KGB spies in your back pocket? Have you always known you were going to make it a part of the story?
Weisberg: There were a couple different pieces to it. When we broke the story of that other [spy] family getting killed, we very quickly and immediately knew we wanted it to be their own son who did it. Thematically in so many ways it fit with the rest of our story. That came very early in the season, the idea that we wanted Jared’s motivation to be that he was being developed as a second-generation illegal [against his parents’ wishes]. It was a little bit later that we linked it to The Center wanting to recruit Paige, but all of this was brewed out of an actual history of the KGB being interested in having their kids be second-generation illegals. There are a couple of actual historical precedents of that that we worked from.
Fields: We’re lucky, in that we have child actors who can handle anything.

In response to other questions they addressed issues such as whether the dream sequence really means that Stan subconsciously knows what Martha is doing, and whether Nina and Claudia will return next season:

Having said that, we very clearly see Martha taking files. Does that mean that somewhere in Stan’s subconscious he senses something going on with Martha?
Weisberg: His subconscious knows! His subconscious knows! Everybody’s keeps saying, he’s such a good detective, and now that he’s in love he’s being a lousy detective. But that side of him doesn’t totally get turned off just because he’s in love.

Nina has been our main link to the Rezidentura, and presumably she is on her way to stand trial. Do we continue to follow her even if her story takes her to Russia? The story of Anton and Vasili took place there, so I’m assuming it’s not out of the question.
Weisberg: We are deeply invested in her story, and very interested in that character and what her future holds. Most of what you just said about her future does — that car seems to be heading to the airport!
Fields: That car is headed to the airport and we’re not done with her story.

It was great seeing Margo Martindale back for the finale. What kind of arrangement have you worked out with her going forward? Have you locked her down for a specific number of episodes?
Fields: We haven’t been that specific, but [The Millers executive producer] Greg Garcia, CBS, and Leslie Moonves were extremely generous this year. We hope they’ll continue to be. We love that character and we love Margo. We definitely want her back.

The Americans Nina

There was discussion on the second season and finale with TV Guide:

Phillip has already threatened the Rezidentura to stay away from Paige. The Americans started off with him considering leaving the KGB. Could this be the catalyst for him to once again consider that?
Weisberg:
We don’t want to tip what’s going to come, so I’m going to say that there are so many potential and possible extreme and intense emotional reactions to that storyline. Honestly, I don’t think we even know what they all could be.
Fields: I would just add that during the first season the show explored the sense of a fake marriage and how the people in the fake marriage were coming to terms with whether or not they wanted to have a real marriage. The second season has really been about how they chose a real marriage and dealing with family together. Going forward now, there’s an opportunity to explore what happens when there is genuine conflict between individuals who are truly married and want to be married. That’s a very universal story. As often is the case on this show, the stakes are much, much higher than they are for the average married person.

You’ve been building up to Paige really fighting for what she believes in, to the point where she often got annoying this season. Thank you for even having Phillip mention that he wanted to punch her in the face. Was this all so she could feasibly accept her parents being spies?
Fields:
Anything is possible.
Weisberg: Yeah, from the end of the first season in that laundry room scene, that was going to be a big part of the story moving forward with her getting more suspicious of them and questioning them. She has a combination of angst and anger at her parents that any teenager has, but with this very unusual twist that the secret that her parents are keeping from her is a one-in-a-billion secret, which she has no way of knowing. Where that’s going to go next season, [will we] take the further steps of her getting closer to the truth, or will [Philip and Elizabeth] get out of it? That’s now up for grabs in a way that we think is very exciting.

Over the last two seasons, the enemy has been an outside force, like the FBI or Larrick this season. Will next season be more about the inside force of the Rezidentura since they want Paige?
Weisberg:
Our way of looking at it is there has usually been both. There’s also been inside conflict in the marriage and the threat that you can bring the walls down by yourself in so many different ways, like when they split up in that first season. The relationship between internal and external threats is one of the interesting things in the life of spies.

The FBI seemed to get a little bit closer this season. How long can you feasibly keep them from discovering the truth about Phillip and Elizabeth?
Weisberg:
Well, they’re pretty well-hidden, so how could they possibly be found? That’s part of the genius of an illegal. They’re hidden in plain sight. There’s no reason to even look at them.

What challenges lie ahead for Phillip in this balancing act that he has with Martha (Allison Wright)?
Weisberg:
Now he has to not get shot by her. That’s new. It’s always scary when your wife gets a gun, but when you’re playing a long con on her, it’s really bad news. I’m a lot more worried about him now. It does seem like things have gotten a little harder for him to manage.

Nina (Annet Mahendru) was on the way to being taken back to Russia, but Oleg (Costa Ronin) had given her money, leaving open the possibility that she could escape. Is that a possibility? Are we going to see what ended up happening to her?
Fields:
We’re not letting go of Nina’s story. She’s really become an important part of the show. We will see what’s going to happen to her.
Weisberg: I think that was a very wordy yes. [Laughs]

There’s far more at AV Club, including this background on women in a position such as Martha who were fooled into marrying a Russian spy in order to get information:

AVC: Of all the characters on the show, she’s the one that’s treated the most poorly by Philip and Elizabeth. How far can you push that, without them pushing too far and making them too horrible to consider?

JW: [Laughs.] That’s a good question. If they haven’t crossed that line yet, I wonder if it’s crossable. I’m sure, Todd, I’ve probably said this to you. I’m positive I’ve said it to you a couple times. I may have said it to you a hundred times, but this is based on real cases where illegals married unsuspecting women. I think there’s three reported cases where we know about what happened at the end, when the truth finally came out, in each of these three cases after many years of marriage. In one of the cases, the woman absolutely refused to believe it. Even when the police were presenting her with irrefutable evidence, she was in denial. There was nothing you could say; she just never believed it. In another case, the woman got up from her chair, walked over to a window and jumped out the window. Just immediately killed herself within five seconds of being told. And in another case, the woman hung herself an hour later. So you have two out of three suicides. I’m not suggesting that’s where our story is going because who knows where our story will go. But how horrible what they’re doing is, to me, it’s already at peak horror. I don’t know. What twist could it take to get any worse?

Orphan Black Seestra Bonding

It was inevitable that the season finales of such excellent shows as Hannibal and The Americans would dominate discussion this week, and there is also at least one science fiction show currently running which is of comparable quality. Ipsa Scientia Potestas once again answered some questions on Orphan Black but raised others. The episode began with singing a mangled version of Sugar, Sugar and some seestra bonding. Unfortunately Sarah later left Helena alone, leading her to going into a bar, getting some action, getting into a fight, and ultimately going home with a different sister (in this case Gracie). It was also amusing to see Paul and Mark easily agree that each would take the clone they came for as opposed to the representatives of opposing factions battling it out between them. Besides, Paul has his own agenda, leaving him with no great desire to do more than what he is being ordered to do by his blackmailer.

Meanwhile Alison was having a tough time in rehab, and once again did a poor job of realizing it when someone (in this case Sarah’s old boyfriend Vic) is there to spy on her. Cosima was reunited with Scott, who knows that there are clones, but not that Cosima is one of them. Scott told Delphine that the stem cells are coming from a female relative, presumably Kira, with Delphine deciding it would be best to withhold this information from Cosima. So many secrets on this show.

Sarah made the big discovery of the week, meeting Rachel’s adoptive father Duncan. His story casts doubt on last week’s suggestion that maybe Leekie is a good guy after all. He also revealed that “we weren’t the only implant team.” There might be more clones, but could they ever find another actress who could do as great a job as Tatiana Maslany at portraying several of them? Mrs. S went outside to either blackmail or plot a new alliance with Paul, telling him that Dyad is a hydra. Calling agent Coulson?

Quote of the Day: Bill Maher on Karl Rove and Hillary Clinton

“Karl Rove thinks we shouldn’t have Hillary Clinton in the White House because she fell and hit her head a couple years ago, spent three days in the hospital, and maybe she has brain damage. You know, I don’t recall the Republicans being this concerned with mental fitness during the years when Reagan was talking to house plants in the White House.” –Bill Maher

Obama Responds To Myth That Both Parties Are Responsible For Current Gridlock

Obama Green Lantern

There has been a lot of back and forth on line recently regarding whether Obama deserves blame for the gridlock in Washington. Ezra Klein explained the fallacies once again in the Green Lantern view of the presidency as a character with near infinite powers.  Ron Fournier continues to play the false equivalency game in trying to blame both the left and right, ignoring the considerable differences between the two and the unprecedented levels of obstructionism since Obama was elected.  He seems to think that being a typical politician and promising more than he can deliver is somehow equivalent to the Republicans deciding to oppose anything proposed by Obama from day one.

Jason Linkins suggested a more realistic view of Obama. If he isn’t Green Lantern, he might be more like Agent Coulson: “team-assembler, favorable environment provider, manager of discrete tasks and outsized personalities, quick to adapt to changing circumstances, eminently mortal, and yet (spoiler alert) at times resurrectable.” Last year Linkins wondered if Fournier could read when he made the same mistakes.

I was happy to see Obama directly respond to this at a fund raiser:

“You’ll hear if you watch the nightly news or you read the newspapers that, well, there’s gridlock, Congress is broken, approval ratings for Congress are terrible.  And there’s a tendency to say, a plague on both your houses.  But the truth of the matter is that the problem in Congress is very specific.  We have a group of folks in the Republican Party who have taken over who are so ideologically rigid, who are so committed to an economic theory that says if folks at the top do very well then everybody else is somehow going to do well; who deny the science of climate change; who don’t think making investments in early childhood education makes sense; who have repeatedly blocked raising a minimum wage so if you work full-time in this country you’re not living in poverty; who scoff at the notion that we might have a problem with women not getting paid for doing the same work that men are doing.

“They, so far, at least, have refused to budge on bipartisan legislation to fix our immigration system, despite the fact that every economist who’s looked at it says it’s going to improve our economy, cut our deficits, help spawn entrepreneurship, and alleviate great pain from millions of families all across the country.

“So the problem…is not that the Democrats are overly ideological — because the truth of the matter is, is that the Democrats in Congress have consistently been willing to compromise and reach out to the other side.  There are no radical proposals coming out from the left.  When we talk about climate change, we talk about how do we incentivize through the market greater investment in clean energy.  When we talk about immigration reform there’s no wild-eyed romanticism.  We say we’re going to be tough on the borders, but let’s also make sure that the system works to allow families to stay together…

“When we talk about taxes we don’t say we’re going to have rates in the 70 percent or 90 percent when it comes to income like existed here 50, 60 years ago.  We say let’s just make sure that those of us who have been incredibly blessed by this country are giving back to kids so that they’re getting a good start in life, so that they get early childhood education…Health care — we didn’t suddenly impose some wild, crazy system.  All we said was let’s make sure everybody has insurance. And this made the other side go nuts — the simple idea that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, nobody should go bankrupt because somebody in their family gets sick, working within a private system.

“So when you hear a false equivalence that somehow, well, Congress is just broken, it’s not true.  What’s broken right now is a Republican Party that repeatedly says no to proven, time-tested strategies to grow the economy, create more jobs, ensure fairness, open up opportunity to all people.”

Ron Fournier has been one of the more prominent journalists attacking Obama from the center with arguments based upon drawing a false equivalency. This has led to some criticism of centrists, but not all centrists have fallen for this idea that both sides are mirror images of each other. Centrists Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein made it clear that Republicans are the problem in 2012:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

“Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around” are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization. Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post…

Today, thanks to the GOP, compromise has gone out the window in Washington. In the first two years of the Obama administration, nearly every presidential initiative met with vehement, rancorous and unanimous Republican opposition in the House and the Senate, followed by efforts to delegitimize the results and repeal the policies. The filibuster, once relegated to a handful of major national issues in a given Congress, became a routine weapon of obstruction, applied even to widely supported bills or presidential nominations. And Republicans in the Senate have abused the confirmation process to block any and every nominee to posts such as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, solely to keep laws that were legitimately enacted from being implemented.

In the third and now fourth years of the Obama presidency, divided government has produced something closer to complete gridlock than we have ever seen in our time in Washington, with partisan divides even leading last year to America’s first credit downgrade

Liberals Were Wrong About The VA, But Conservatives Remain Wrong About Health Care Coverage

James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal, today demonstrating what they say about a broken watch, is right on one point. His column carries the subheading of “Not long ago, the left raved about the VA.”  While this is widely true about the left, there was at least one exception (myself). A few years back, many on the left were exclaiming about the quality of the VA system based upon quality evaluations. Evaluations of quality in health care currently has many limitations, and was downright primitive a few years back.  I pointed out several times, such as here, that the indications being looked at were not a valid means of determining quality health care.

Now we are learning that there is an even more serious problem beyond the fallacy of accepting computerized data as truly indicating quality health care. If the allegations we are now hearing are true, there is also the danger that information entered into computer systems might not even be accurate.

Suddenly, with the recent revelations about the VA, the line from the left has changed to (more accurately) saying that The Veterans Affairs Scandal Was Decades in the Making.

Of course this doesn’t mean that that the right is correct in their interpretation of this scandal. Many are using this to attack the idea behind the Affordable Care Act. We are comparing two entirely different ideas here. The VA is a rare case of government actually providing health care while the ACA involves using private insurance (or in some cases Medicaid) to pay for private medical care. The ACA became necessary in order to provide necessary regulations to curb the abuses of the insurance industry, along with providing support for those who could not afford health care coverage.

If government has problems in providing health care, as with the VA system, the problems in the private insurance industry have been far worse. In the past most areas had one or a very small number of insurance plans dominating a market. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, we are having more insurance companies planning to enter many markets, which should lower prices. In the past, private insurance companies found it to be more profitable to deny coverage to many people with medical problems, including finding ways to terminate coverage should a policy holder develop a serious (and expensive) medical problem. Here is a report of just one example of an insurance company targeting women with breast cancer for recission of policies.

Obamacare provides needed reforms to encourage more market competition and eliminate this type of abuse from the insurance industry. It is an example of where government action is necessary and beneficial. We also have an example in providing coverage for medical care where government does a better job than the market. People on Medicare have a choice of the government program, which pays private physicians to provide medical care, or Medicare Advantage plans in which private companies handle the payment instead of the government. It costs from 13 to 19 percent less to over the same Medicare population under the government plan than with private insurance plans. The added money going to the private Medicare Advantage plans primarily goes towards increased profits for the insurance companies. Medicare might also be a better, and more cost effective, model to care for Veterans as opposed to the government attempting to maintain a parallel health system.

The lesson of the VA might be to question having the government actually provide health care, although Republicans certainly share the blame here considering their long history of opposing funding which Democrats have backed for the VA. Regardless of whether this is true, this has no bearing as to the benefits of the Affordable Care Act along with government programs such as Medicare which handle health care payments as opposed to directly providing health care.