Nov 212011
 

Severe depression can be debilitating, but in Melancholia, it also serves as a mechanism for coping with the end of the world. The movie’s opening chapter introduces us to Justine (Kirsten Dunst) as she and her new husband arrive at their wedding reception. The reception, held at an opulent golf resort owned by her brother-in-law (Kiefer Sutherland, what are you doing here?), serves as the venue for Justine’s latest struggle with what the movies hints is a long history of clinical depression. Over the course of a stressful evening plagued by familial sniping, Justine’s behavior becomes increasingly erratic. It soon become apparent to both Justine and her husband that their marriage is over before it could even begin.

By the movie’s second half, Justine’s depression has become so crippling that she is forced to move in with her sister and brother-in-law. Meanwhile, a newly discovered rogue planet dubbed Melancholia is on a course that may or may not destroy the Earth.

Melancholia, like Lars Von Trier’s other movies, is not kind to its characters. The sumptuous visuals in the movie’s prelude serve as one of the loveliest spoilers in cinematic history, informing the audience that things will not turn out well. But that knowledge detracts nothing from Dunst’s luminous performance or the moments of sheer beauty that Von Trier sprinkles through the rest of the movie. Dunst plays Justine not as a hero or a victim, but simply as a woman whose depression rips away her capacity for self-delusion.

Melancholia is playing in theaters and can also be downloaded from Amazon and iTunes. It looked great on my LCD TV and I’ll be curious to see whether the additional revenue from downloads prompts other studios to experiment with simultaneous theatrical and digital releases.

Nov 172011
 

Over at the Atlantic, constitutional scholar Garrett Epps hypothesizes that the expansion of Medicaid could be the real undoing of health care reform. States opposing the ACA will argue that they have become so dependent on federal Medicaid funding that it must comply with any new conditions attached to the funding (like the expansion of Medicaid to single adults living in poverty), no matter how sweeping or burdensome, or risk losing the funding entirely. According to the states, this amounts to an unconstitutional abuse of Congress’s spending powers. It’s a bit like the ungrateful trust fund kid objecting to his rich uncle’s recent edict that he must maintain a 3.0 GPA or the trust fund spigot gets turned off. And Epps seems to think there’s at least a chance that the conservative Court could buy the argument.

It’s an interesting theory, but I’m skeptical. I’m not aware of any precedent that questions Congress’s ability to attach conditions to the funding it doles out. To rule otherwise would cast doubt on nearly every other program that distributes money to states, whether it’s related to education, food safety, or just about any other realm of public concern. The Court would also have to set forth some fairly specific criteria defining reasonable and unreasonable exercises of Congressional spending powers. Such wading into the legislative weeds might give even the most right-leaning justices pause. My own guess (and it’s only a guess) is that the Medicaid expansion will stand regardless of how the Court rules on the individual mandate.

Nov 162011
 

My apologies for the lack of a post yesterday. The blog was having server issues, but everything seems fine now.

If you’re reading this while it’s still Wednesday evening, consider making a contribution to your favorite Minnesota charity by visiting the Give to the Max site before midnight. It’s an easy way to take care of those charitable contributions you’ve been meaning to make and it benefits wonderful organizations doing great work in the community. In fact, I’m heading there as soon as this is posted.

Nov 142011
 

Pity the poor Supreme Court law clerks who will have to absorb and summarize for their bosses the avalanche of briefs (from the litigants as well as a host of amici) that is sure to come now that the Court has agreed to hear a challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Of course, they will also have a front-row seat to one of the most significant legal battles to visit the Court in at least a decade, so any pity should be tempered with envy. And with the Court allotting five and a half hours for oral argument, NPR might as well plan on letting Nina Tottenberg host the entire day’s programming.

Over the next six months, law professors will be shoving themselves in front of any available camera to share their unique insight into how the Court will ultimately rule. My advice: treat it all like so much dinner party chatter. Nobody can say with any certainty whether the Court will rule one way or the other or by how wide of a margin. It’s all guesswork and opinion. Whatever the outcome, it will likely contain at least one surprise. But I’m relatively certain of one thing: the Court won’t strike down the law in total. Even if the insurance mandate is struck down, states will still be required to set up Exchanges and insures will still be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of health status. A Court ruling might not settle the issue so much as reframe it just in time for the 2012 election.

Nov 102011
 

I’ve been tough on Apple and the lack of accessibility in iOS for people with motor impairments. But today I learned about AssistiveTouch from the Times‘ David Pogue. AssistiveTouch is an on-screen interface that emulates physical gestures on iOS devices. Based on Pogue’s description, it seems that AssistiveTouch can emulate almost any gesture and users can program their own gesture macros. Users must still be able to tap the screen with a finger or stylus, so it may not be the ideal solution for everyone. Still, this is certainly a step in the right direction and Apple deserves kudos for improving iOS accessibility. I now feel a little sheepish for not digging deeper into my phone’s accessibility options.

Of course, I’m now wondering if I can rig up a lightweight headpointer that would allow me to use an iPad.

Nov 092011
 

Oregon is using iPads to help people with disabilities vote. It seems like a great idea. Ballots can be marked with a tap (or a puff) and the text can be enlarged or read aloud. iPads might be much more cost-effective than those clunky accessible voting machines that are collecting dust in precincts across the country. I’d still prefer true e-voting that allows voters to submit a secure ballot from any device and location, but that’s probably a pipe dream. But pilot projects like this might get us closer to that vision.

Nov 082011
 

Another appellate court ruled that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. And once again, a conservative judge wrote the majority opinion. Judge Laurence Silberman is decidedly conservative in his reasoning. He agrees that the ACA’s insurance mandate is a novel exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, but novelty doesn’t imply unconstitutionality. He defers to Congress in its choice of policy tools to address an issue of national concern.

These appellate rulings should give pause to anyone–myself included–attempting to make educated guesses about how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the law. Judicial thought may be influenced by political leanings, but those leanings aren’t determinative. The final ruling may not be the 5-4 affair many Court watchers expect.