Hasta La Gadget!

After you’ve watched season three of House of Cards, then what? You’ve already seen most of the big or good movies on Netflix, and watching their other movies is mostly an exercise in “This could have been okay with a rewrite or if the entire cast and crew had decided to make an entirely different movie.” And binge-watching old TV series makes me feel as if I’m not milking Netflix for maximum value.

Let me suggest trying some of Netflix’s selection of Bollywood movies. I’ve recently watched a bunch of these, and at the very least, they’re more compelling than some Nicholas Cage-paying-off-his-debt-to-the-IRS medieval action flick.

The Indian film industry grosses about a quarter of what the US film industry does, in a country where average income is a tenth of US average income. Which is to say, the Indian film industry isn’t just dicking around. Movies are a big deal in India, and their production values are high.

India has four times the population of the US, and out of that huge population, there are some really good-looking performers with awesome hair. In the dance numbers, the stars are blasted with wind machines for maximum hair action. Plots and dialogue can sometimes seem a little elementary, perhaps to appeal to the widest-possible swath of India’s huge population, but the average Indian film on Netflix is no more dumbed-down than the average American film.

Indian films on Netflix are in Hindi, with subtitles. But about a third of the dialogue is in English, switching back and forth from Hindi sometimes several times in a single sentence. It seems as if everyone in India is wildly bilingual. Makes you feel as if you almost understand Hindi (you don’t). The liberal sprinkling of English means you don’t have to pay as much attention to the subtitles as in most foreign movies.

The movies are long. Some run two-and-a-half hours – perfect for multitasking. Many of Netflix’s Indian movies are from Yash Raj Films, India’s largest film production company. Its productions are slick, expensive, and entertaining. Yash Raj films I’ve liked include Daawat-e-Ishq, Mardaani, Bewakoofiyaan, Band Baaja Baaraat, Dhoom 3, Ladies vs. Ricky Bahl, and Rocket Singh: Salesman of the Year.

A few observations based on Indian movies –
Walk-through metal detectors in public spaces are common, because of terrorists, I guess.
People ride motorcycles and scooters as regular transportation, rather than as some lifestyle statement, often riding double. (India has nearly 200,000 traffic deaths per year.)
Wealth, poverty and corruption are constantly lurking subtexts.
In Indian cop movies, the police are brutal.
Weddings are a big deal.
The India we sometimes see in American movies – crowded and dirt-poor, with skinny cows wandering everyplace – is not Indian movies’ India, which can be spacious, modern, and educated – a country which could eventually challenge us as a world superpower if we don’t get off our complacent, science-denying butts.

Also – if you haven’t yet watched BoJack Horseman on Netflix, c’mon already – it’s a little slice of dysfunctional Hollywood heaven.

The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell argue that federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”) are lawful only in states which have set up their own health care exchanges. This case is now pending before the United States Supreme Court, and the very survival of the ACA could be at stake. In the words of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled against the plaintiffs, “[w]ith only sixteen state-run Exchanges currently in place, the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble if the credits were unavailable on federal Exchanges.”

As I read plaintiffs’ argument, it primarily turns on the interaction of three provisions of the ACA. First, Section 1311 of the ACA provides that states “shall” set up Exchanges although Section 1321 recognizes that a state may elect not to do so. Second, Section 1321 provides that if a state does not elect to set up an Exchange, the Department of Health and Human Services “shall . . . establish and operate such Exchange within the State.” Third, Section 1401 of the ACA provides subsidies for coverage “enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311. . . .” Since no express mention is made of federal Exchanges in the last provision, plaintiffs argue that subsidies are available only for Exchanges set up by the states themselves.

This is not a strong argument. As Judge Davis points out in his Fourth Circuit concurring opinion, “[w]hen a state elects not to establish an Exchange, the contingency provision authorizes federal officials to establish and operate ‘such Exchange’ . . . .” In other words, federal officials are effectively acting on behalf of the state in creating “such Exchange.” Read in that full context, it’s hard to see why subsidies would not be available. Instead, if Congress had wanted to provide unsubsidized coverage for federal exchanges in an act purporting to make healthcare more affordable and available, wouldn’t one expect explicit language to that effect? As Judge Davis puts it, “If Congress wanted to limit . . . tax credits . . . to state-run Exchanges, it would have said so rather than tinkering with the formula in a subprovision governing how to calculate the amount of the credit.”

Plaintiffs have a further problem. Granting for the sake of argument that the statutory language is reasonably subject to different interpretations, the IRS has determined that credits are available for both federal and state Exchanges. Under the Chevron doctrine, where statutory language is reasonably subject to different interpretations courts have long deferred to agency interpretations that are not “arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute.” Such review “is highly deferential, with a presumption in favor of finding the agency action valid.” As the Fourth Circuit noted, “. . . widely available tax credits are essential to fulfilling the Act’s primary goals. . . .” Furthermore, again, the Fourth Circuit recognized that “the economic framework supporting the Act would crumble if the credits were unavailable on federal Exchanges.” Since the IRS interpretation both furthers essential goals of the ACA and prevents the very crumbling of the act itself, it’s hard to see how the interpretation could be arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to statute under any standard of review, especially a highly-deferential one.

Apart from the substantive problems with their case, plaintiffs must also convincingly address the practical absurdity of their argument. Given the clear purpose of the ACA to extend the reach of affordable healthcare, how can it not be absurd to choose a reading of the ACA which denies subsidies to federal exchanges? I deliberately use “choose” here since, as noted above, such a reading is not required. Plaintiffs have a hard task defending their choice in a legal tradition long averse to absurd practical results.

William Blackstone, for example, instructs us to avoid “a very absurd signification” resulting from “effects and consequence[s]” of a statute. One example he gives is a law of Bologna which provided “that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished with the utmost severity.” Though the Burwell plaintiffs would presumably disagree with the result, Blackstone notes that the law “was held after long debate not extend to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the street with a fit.”

In Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S., the Supreme Court also famously avoided statutory absurdity. Though a federal statute criminalized importing persons into the country for “labor or service of any kind,” the Court found it absurd to apply the statute to pastors brought in to serve a church. They noted that the act was titled “An act to prohibit the importation of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States . . . .” They also noted that “the thought expressed in this reaches only to the work of the manual laborer, as distinguished from that of the professional man.” They further looked at “contemporaneous events, the situation as it existed and as it was pressed upon the attention of the legislative body.” Doing so, the Court explored “the evil which [the act was] designed to remedy” and found that to be “cheap, unskilled labor” rather than “brain toilers.”

Context and purpose mattered in Holy Trinity and context and purpose matter here. The subsidy subsection of the ACA must be read in the context of the entire act and its goal of expanding not shrinking affordable healthcare. The title of the ACA (“Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”) leaves little doubt of its purpose which the Fourth Circuit noted is to “increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.” How do plaintiffs respond? They argue that Congress meant to limit subsidies to state exchanges as a means of “inducing states to take the desired action of establishing Exchanges.” In other words, they answer one absurdity with another. A Congress hoping to expand affordable healthcare withheld it in states refusing to set up exchanges.

Oddly enough, the weakness of plaintiffs’ case may be a blessing for Republicans. If plaintiffs succeed, Republicans may well be disproportionate first casualties. Many Republican-led states have refused to set up state exchanges. Their citizens would thus be among the first to feel the “victory” in this case. Not only would many Republicans lose their subsidies, might they have to pay them back as well? What happens if many lower-income and middle-class Republicans feel an awful sting of having voted against their own economic self-interest? What would Republicans leaders do then? Set up state exchanges they had previously condemned? Replace the ACA with concrete legislation that preserves things people like about the ACA such as coverage for pre-existing conditions? What are the odds of that happening any time soon if at all?

Perhaps the Supreme Court has taken this case not only to end spurious argument. Perhaps it would remind us of other things as well. Law is not a game of words played by taking parts out of their full context. Nor should the hammer rule the carpenter. Words are tools of life, not the reverse. Perhaps the Supreme Court will both reject plaintiffs’ weak statutory argument and expressly reaffirm Holy Trinity’s renunciation of the absurd.

While I was at university, I was preoccupied by the question of how political parties used foreign policy issues to influence domestic audiences. I even wrote my thesis, which I later published as a book, about how Greek leader Andreas Papandreou dealt with the issue of American military bases in Greece in the 1980s.

The dismantling of American military bases, with the slogan “Out with the bases of death,” was the flagship election proclamation of PASOK, the Panhellenic Socialist Movement, which led Greece in the 1970s and ’80s, and it found itself at the center of the particular type of national populism that Andreas successfully came to express. With PASOK’s rise to power, the party was asked to juggle its unrealistic election promises with the hard geopolitical realities that made removing those bases impossible. The eventual solution yielded to the political realities of the situation at hand. The military bases remained, but the wording of the agreement was phrased in such a way that Andreas could claim that they were leaving! All the negotiating weapons the government had at its disposal went into putting on this show, so that Andreas could sell the agreement to his political supporters. Complete control over the media, coupled with a public opinion desperate for a sense of national independence, made the management of this reversal all the easier.

Does this story sound familiar? SYRIZA used the write-down of the debt, the tearing up of the Memorandum and the ousting of the Troika as its main election slogans. All populist movements need a common enemy in order to be able to unite disparate audiences. For SYRIZA, the Memorandum and German dominance in Europe symbolized exactly what the military bases and American hegemony did for Andreas. The shift back to political reality came quickly for SYRIZA. Realizing that it was not possible for the country to move outside the EU framework without disastrous consequences, the government requested an extension to the existing program for four months, until the pending evaluation program is completed. This will be followed by the Greek government putting forth its own narrative regarding the strengths and viability of the Greek economy.

In these types of situations, words start to acquire their own special meanings. The “Troika” was renamed the “Institutions,” the “Memorandum” has been retitled the “Program,” and the “prerequisites” are now known as the “national reform plan.” The substance of these things, though, has not changed. Greece must implement specific actions that will be checked by its creditors so that it can get the money that it so badly needs. Only when these people are satisfied that the government’s actions are not jeopardizing the fiscal health of the country and are not undermining those reforms that have already been completed will they release the remaining tranches of the program.

The reality is that this government lost precious time and undermined the credibility of the country in the eyes of Europe, all in an attempt to justify its hard shift back to reality to its domestic audience. Wearing raised collars and untucked shirts is all fine and good, but trust is not built in the family of Europe by leaks and double-speak, all done just to show the domestic constituency how hard you are negotiating. Even the most experienced member of the Left, Manolis Glezos, immediately saw the government’s attempt to “rechristen the fish into meat.” Now that Lent is beginning, that phrase is quite appropriate.

The truth is that the government missed a great opportunity. Europe, now more than ever, needs a persuasive alternative to counter the German insistence on austerity. Mr. Tsipras would have been in a position to offer that alternative, had he not made himself so vulnerable in the campaign with rhetorical jabs or had he immediately requested an extension of the existing program. Instead, he decided to partake in some shadowboxing for the viewing pleasure of the Greek public.

Emphasis should have been given instead to a structured program with three pillars: the reduction of debt through guided changes, the reduction of excessively high primary surplus targets, and the implementation of a comprehensive program of reforms to improve the competitiveness of the real economy. The problem is that all of these are in direct conflict with the pre-election promises of SYRIZA and the expectations they stoked in the public. That is exactly what the first Papandreou government did, albeit with complete control over PASOK and a lot of money at its disposal.

Unfortunately, extreme campaign rhetoric will always continue to follow political parties, even when they rise to power. We in the opposition would also do well to remember this, so that we do not find ourselves one day in the unfortunate position of having to practice similar verbal gymnastics.

This post was originally published on HuffPost Greece and was translated into English.

See that wooden round thing above? That’s a smartphone — a real, working smartphone with a high-res screen and a camera, and not just a concept that will never come to life. Just imagining how to take calls on it without a headset or how to access w…

By Brendan O’Brien

MADISON, Wis., Feb 28 (Reuters) – Wisconsin unions bussed in thousands of workers from around the state on Saturday to demonstrate against the impending adoption of a law that would ban private sector workers from being required to join a union or pay dues.

The bill, which was approved by the Republican-led state Senate on Wednesday, would make Wisconsin the 25th state to adopt a so-called “right-to-work” law. It is supported by Governor Scott Walker, a potential Republican presidential candidate.

About 5,000 people gathered at the state capitol on Saturday, despite the frigid temperature of 16 degrees F (-9 C). The protesters waved U.S. flags, rang cow bells and chanted “This is what Democracy looks like.” Many held signs denouncing the bill.

Walker became a favorite of some in the Republican Party in 2011 when he pushed for a law to limit the power of public sector unions shortly after becoming governor. His support grew when he survived a union-backed recall election in 2012.

The Wisconsin AFL-CIO organized Saturday’s rally, which comes four years to the month after massive demonstrations at the state capitol by workers opposed to the limits then under consideration covering most unionized public sector workers.

Union members chanted “shame” as senators voted narrowly to approve a right to work law on Wednesday and moved it to the state Assembly, also controlled by Republicans, where a public hearing is scheduled for Monday.

Opponents cast the bill as an assault on organized labor and blue-collar workers that would limit union revenue and further erode the political power of organized labor. Supporters contend it could help to attract more jobs to Wisconsin.

The full Assembly is expected to vote on the measure within a week and Walker’s spokeswoman has indicated he will sign a bill if it gets to his desk. The measure as written would take effect upon the governor’s signature. (Reporting by Brendan O’Brien; Editing by Mary Wisniewski, Bill Trott and Bernard Orr)