Atlantic Monthly Contributors's Blog, page 254

The 2016 Oscar Nominations: From Mad Max to Room

A modestly odd year in film has begotten an odder-still awards season. In the run-up to this morning’s Oscar nominations, nearly every set of guild or critics awards had seemed to expand, rather than winnow, the field.

Now, however, the Academy has spoken. Let me offer a few general thoughts first, and then go through most of the major categories individually.

This is the second year in a row in which all 20 acting nominees have been white—particularly notable because the last time it happened was in 1996. Last year was egregious, with the shocking snub of Selma. (Thank you, noted film critic and historian Joseph Califano!) This year at least featured no such shocking oversights. Idris Elba was a deserving supporting actor in Beasts of No Nation, but that category was absurdly packed this year. And neither Will Smith (Concussion) nor Michael B. Jordan (Creed) ever got much critical momentum for lead performances in their respective films.

Last year, my former colleague Joe Reid noted that the Best Actress and Best Picture categories rarely coincide. But this was a relatively solid year for female-fronted movies, with both Brooklyn and an unexpectedly strong Room getting Best Picture nods. (Alas, the latter’s accolades may have come at the expense of Todd Haynes’s excellent Carol, which failed to get deserved nominations for picture and director.) If you’re inclined to think of Mad Max: Fury Road as a movie with a female lead—and I am—that makes the year even stronger in this respect.

Finally, it was, as anticipated, a year of rampant category fraud in the actress categories, with both Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) and Rooney Mara (Carol) lobbying successfully to have their lead performances relegated to the supporting category, with notable ripple effects.

With that, on to the specific categories …

Best Picture:

Bridge of Spies
Brooklyn
Mad Max: Fury Road
Room
Spotlight
The Big Short
The Martian
The Revenant

In a year in which many observers thought the Academy would nominate nine or even the maximum 10 movies for Best Picture, it instead honored only eight. The happiest surprise of the bunch is probably Room, which far overperformed expectations across categories. The omission of Carol is disappointing, and those of Inside Out, Straight Outta Compton, Beasts of No Nation, and Sicario might arguably be considered mild surprises, though none are shocking. Those who thought that critical momentum for Mad Max was flagging were clearly mistaken: George Miller’s film scored a remarkable 10 nominations. Perhaps the movie that least belongs on this list is Spielberg’s underwhelming Bridge of Spies, which felt more like a movie directed by a second-tier Spielberg cover band. (J.J. Abrams would probably have done better.)

Best Director:

George Miller, Mad Max: Fury Road
Lenny Abrahamson, Room
Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Adam McKay, The Big Short
Alejandro G. Iñárittu, The Revenant

Coming in, this looked like a category with four locks—Iñárritu, McCarthy, McKay, and Ridley Scott (The Martian)—with the fifth nomination going either to Miller or Todd Haynes (Carol). But Abrahamson’s unexpected nomination bumped Scott from the list. At least neither Spielberg nor David O. Russell (Joy) received a nomination based principally on reputation.

Best Actor:

Bryan Cranston, Trumbo
Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant
Matt Damon, The Martian
Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs

This category went almost exactly as anticipated, with DiCaprio—for the moment, at least—the runaway favorite to bring home the hardware on awards night. It’s a bit of a shame that Johnny Depp wasn’t recognized for (finally!) delivering a genuine acting performance again as Whitey Bulger in Black Mass. But the movie wasn’t great, and he never quite picked up the buzz many thought he would.

Best Actress:

Brie Larson, Room
Cate Blanchett, Carol
Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years
Jennifer Lawrence, Joy
Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn

In the real world, Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) and Rooney Mara (Carol) would both be nominated here, but as noted above both lobbied to go down to the minor leagues. Mara’s decision may mean that Blanchett has an outside chance to win, although Brie Larson remains the favorite. (Brief digression: If you liked her in Room, seize the earliest opportunity to see Short Term 12, one of the best small films of the last several years, featuring an absolutely stunning performance by the actress. Trust me.) It’s nice to see Charlotte Rampling here, but let’s face it: If Jennifer Lawrence weren’t named Jennifer Lawrence, she would never have been nominated for the intermittently interesting mess that was Joy. A heretical thought: Why not have nominated Daisy Ridley, who just anchored the top-grossing movie of all time, and did so with remarkable grace and assurance for a performer so unknown? If you’re going to empty out the category by pretending that Vikander and Mara gave supporting performances, why not celebrate some new blood, rather than offering further accolades to an actress like Lawrence who hardly needs them?

Best Supporting Actor:

Christian Bale, The Big Short
Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight
Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies
Sylvester Stallone, Creed
Tom Hardy, The Revenant

The deepest category by far this year. In addition to Elba, Michael Shannon (99 Homes), Paul Dano (Love and Mercy), and Jacob Tremblay (Room) all seemed to have legitimate shots here. The male-role-heavy Spotlight and The Big Short contributed to the year’s crazy depth, with Ruffalo and Bale elbowing out their respective co-stars Michael Keaton and Steve Carrell (who gave perhaps the best performance of his career in The Big Short). Heck, in a lesser year, Liev Schreiber (also Spotlight) and Brad Pitt (also The Big Short) might have had an outside shot at nominations. Rylance and Stallone were the only true locks here, but I was very gratified to see Hardy’s terrific work in The Revenant recognized.

Best Supporting Actress:

Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl
Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight
Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs
Rachel McAdams, Spotlight
Rooney Mara, Carol

More ripple effects from category fraud here, as Alicia Vikander’s nomination for The Danish Girl may well have prevented her from earning another deserved nomination for Ex Machina. McAdams’s nod is a mild but happy surprise. Leigh’s, by contrast, while no surprise, is nonetheless a disappointment. My profound distaste for The Hateful Eight has been duly recorded, but Leigh’s performance for Tarantino consisted almost exclusively of scowling, sneering, bleeding (lots of bleeding), and showing off her grotesque prosthetic dentition. She gave a far, far more interesting and nuanced (vocal) performance in Charlie Kaufman’s Anomalisa.

Best Original Screenplay:

Matt Charman, Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Bridge of Spies
Alex Garland, Ex Machina
Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley, Ronnie del Carmen, Inside Out
Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy, Spotlight
Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff, S. Leigh Savidge, Alan Wenkus, Straight Outta Compton

Original screenplay was a much less competitive category this year than adapted screenplay, with Spotlight and Inside Out the only real locks, and the former a heavy overall favorite. The biggest surprise is Straight Out of Compton sneaking in at the expense of Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight, which, again, I don’t feel the least bit bad about.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

Nick Hornby, Brooklyn
Phyllis Nagy, Carol
Emma Donoghue, Room
Charles Randolph and Adam McKay, The Big Short
Drew Goddard, The Martian

One of the rare shocks of the morning was Aaron Sorkin not getting a nomination for Steve Jobs. (If I could go back in time and place one counter-intuitive bet on the proceedings, this might be the one.) But the category is particularly strong this year, and the emergence of Room as an Academy favorite seems to have bumped Sorkin from consideration. At least Carol managed to pick up another (well-deserved) nomination here.

Best Cinematography:

Roger Deakins, Sicario
Edward Lachman, Carol
Emmanuel Lubezki, The Revenant
Robert Richardson, The Hateful Eight
John Seale, Mad Max: Fury Road

Even I can’t complain about Richardson getting a nod for his work in glorious 70mm on The Hateful Eight. It’s arguably a surprise that Janusz Kaminski (Bridge of Spies) and Dariusz Wolski (The Martian) weren’t nominated, but then there are only so many slots to go around. Sicario was largely ignored this awards season, but there’s no ignoring the camera work of the great Roger Deakins, who scores his 13th(!) nomination here. More remarkable still is that he’s never taken home the trophy—and, alas, almost certainly won’t again this year, as Lubezki is the heavy favorite to win his unprecedented third straight Oscar, following Gravity and Birdman. Perhaps someone can get to work on a script for The Revenant 2, in which Deakins spends hours crawling across a bitter, snowy landscape in search of revenge ...

As for the remaining categories, it was a disappointment that Going Clear didn’t earn a nod for documentary feature, where Amy and The Look of Silence remain the favorites. The “Pixar comeback” narrative was slightly undermined by the failure of The Good Dinosaur to get a nomination—honestly, it didn’t really deserve one—but that makes it still more likely that Inside Out will run away with the award. And nobody is beating Son of Saul for Best Foreign Language Film.

You can find a full list of the nominees in all categories here.

The Attack in Jakarta

ISIS has claimed responsibility for Thursday’s deadly attack on Jakarta—the capital of Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim state—that killed seven people, including five of the attackers.

In a statement released online, ISIS said the attack, which was centered on Thamrin Street, a major shopping and business district, was carried out by “soldiers of the Caliphate.” The target, it said, were “citizens of the Crusader coalition.” Tito Karnavian, the Jakarta police chief, had earlier said that Bahrun Naim, an Indonesian national who is with ISIS in Syria, had been “planning this for a while.” Up to 200 Indonesians—out of a population of 250 million—are believed to be fighting for ISIS.

Although it’s not immediately clear why the group chose to strike the capital of the world’s most populous Muslim country, Indonesia is not a stranger to attacks by militant groups professing Islam—in 2002 and 2009 to name but two—and, before that, other ideologies. But Indonesia, where most people practice a moderate form of Islam, cracked down on Islamist groups after the 2009 attacks, and Wednesday’s explosions and gun battles on Thamrin Street were the worst since then.

Security forces battled the attackers for hours. All five attackers were killed—two in suicide bombings and three in the gun battles, news reports said. In all seven people were killed, including an Indonesian and a Westerner, officials said. Twenty people were wounded, including five police officers.

Anton Charliyan, the national police spokesman, said the attackers had “imitated” the perpetrators of the deadly Paris attacks last November that killed 130 people.

President Joko Widodo urged his compatriots to stand tall—and, as NPR points out, the hashtag #KamiTidakTakut, “We are not afraid,” began trending on Twitter.

“This act is clearly aimed at disturbing public order and spreading terror among people,” the president said. “The state, nation and people should not be afraid of, and lose to, such terror acts.”

A Legionnaires' Disease Outbreak in Flint

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder announced Wednesday that Flint, Michigan, and the surrounding Genesse County have seen a spike in Legionnaires’ disease over the past year, killing 10 people and compounding the area’s growing water-supply crisis.

Dr. Edith Wells, the chief medical executive of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, told reporters that 87 cases of the disease had been reported between June 2014 and November 2015. Genesse County normally sees far fewer cases than that each year, according to the Detroit Free Press. Ten of the infected residents died from the disease.

Legionnaires’ disease is a form of pneumonia caused by the Legionella bacteria, which usually lives in warm, fresh water.

Epidemiologists first documented it after a mystery illness struck an American Legion convention in Philadelphia in 1976, killing 23 attendants. Investigators traced the bacteria to warm, stagnant water in air-conditioning units at the Legionnaires’ hotel. The bacterium can also thrive in cooling towers, hot tubs, humidifiers, swimming pools, and similar types of reservoirs with contaminated water. The CDC estimates that between 8,000 and 18,000 people are hospitalized with Legionnaire’s disease each year.

State officials stressed at the press conference that they had yet to establish a clear link between the outbreak and Flint’s troubled water supply, which began drawing water from the Flint River in April 2014, shortly before the outbreak began. As my colleague David Graham noted last week, that switch precipitated a public-health crisis for Flint residents:

The problem dates back to April 2014, when Flint was under the direction of an emergency manager appointed by the state to try to fix the broken city. (Michigan law provides for the governor to select managers, and the provision has been used in several places in recent years, most prominently Detroit.) To save money, the city began drawing its water from the Flint River, rather than from Detroit’s system, which was deemed too costly. But the river’s water was high in salt, which helped corrode Flint’s aging pipes, leaching lead into the water supply.

The move saved millions, but the problems started becoming apparent almost immediately. The water starting smelling like rotten eggs. Engineers responded to that problem by jacking up the chlorine level, leading to dangerous toxicity. GM discovered that city water was corroding engines at a Flint factory and switched sources. Then children and others started getting rashes and falling sick. Marc Edwards, a Virginia Tech environmental-engineering professor, found that the water had nearly 900 times the recommend EPA limit for lead particles.

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver declared a state of emergency over the city’s toxic drinking water on December 15, and Snyder, who publicly apologized for his slow response to the crisis, activated the National Guard on Tuesday to distribute water bottles and filters to city residents. At Wednesday’s press conference, Snyder acknowledged that the outbreak “just adds to the disaster we are all facing.”

Other cities could face similar disasters over the next few decades as the nation’s aging pipes and pumps start to deteriorate. As my colleague Alana Semuels wrote last July, dilapidated water infrastructure is a growing problem for local governments throughout the country.

Indeed, water scarcity in the parched West might be getting the most news coverage, but infrastructure delays and climate change are causing big problems for cities in the North and Midwest, too. Last summer, hundreds of thousands of people in Toledo were told not to drink tap water because tests showed abnormally high levels of microcystins, perhaps related to algae blooms in Lake Erie. Microcystins can cause fever, headaches, vomiting, and—in rare cases—seizures. Heavy rainfall has caused backups in the filtering process at overloaded water-treatment plants in Pennsylvania, and so residents are frequently finding themselves under advisories to boil water. And Chicago, which installed lead service lines in many areas in the 1980s, is now facing a spike in lead-contaminated tap water.

The Promising Case of a Non-White Nancy Drew

When the teenage detective Nancy Drew was created in 1930, America was a very different place. The Great Depression had just begun, women had only recently won the right to vote, and racial and gender discrimination was still legal. But after 85 years of Nancy Drew books (created by the publisher Edward Stratemeyer and ghostwritten by several authors under the name Carolyn Keene), spinoff series, movie remakes, and TV shows, the latest effort to revive the classic character highlights just how much the country has changed since her debut in The Secret of the Old Clock.

Glenn Geller, the president of CBS Entertainment, told The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday that the network is developing a new series starring Nancy Drew as a 30-something NYPD detective, with one major change to the strawberry-blonde, blue-eyed heroine: “She is diverse, that is the way she is written ... [She will] not [be] Caucasian. I’d be open to any ethnicity.”

There’s a lot to unpack in that brief, somewhat mysterious statement. For one thing, it’s the latest example of the TV industry taking concrete steps to put women and characters of color in major roles. For another—the awkward use of “diverse” aside—Geller implies that Nancy Drew’s ethnic background has already been written into her character and story somehow—and yet CBS hasn’t yet decided whether she’ll be black, Latina, Asian American, Native American, Pacific Islander, or multiracial. (Whatever the network decides, the show will hopefully take care not to treat any of these identities as casually interchangeable.)

The announcement will do little to quell fears that the future of entertainment will primarily be reboots, sequels, origin stories, prequels, and remakes; dooming audiences to year after year of studios excavating material from the past and trying to make it all feel new again. But the prospect of a non-white Nancy Drew points to one possible upside to the reboot/remake/revival madness: It opens up the chance for old, beloved stories to be told again with more diverse characters in the spotlight. This was somewhat the case with The Force Awakens, but it’s especially meaningful when iconic characters long since cemented in the public’s imagination as white are reimagined as people of color.

Reboots, sequels, and the rest offer a way to retroactively diversify the largely white canon of Western films, shows, and books. Like when a black actress, Noma Dumezweni, was cast to play a grown-up Hermione Granger in the new Harry Potter play. Or when Lucy Liu took on the role of Watson in the Sherlock Holmes drama series Elementary (also, it should be noted, a CBS show). Or when Idris Elba played the Norse god Heimdall in Marvel’s Thor. (It’s long been proposed that Elba be the next James Bond.) Or when Laverne Cox plays Dr. Frank-N-Furter in the upcoming Rocky Horror Picture Show remake. If writers can find a way to weave race (or gender, or sexual orientation, or gender identity) into the new stories, so much the better.

Lining up actors of color to play roles originated by white performers isn’t the magical solution to Hollywood’s ongoing diversity problems. But if a Latina Nancy Drew, or a black Hermione Granger, or an Asian American Watson can help young people of color feel closer to the characters they love—to feel part of a cultural history that once excluded them—then it’s a not a bad place to start.

The End of Al Jazeera America

Updated on January 13 at 5:41 p.m. ET

Al Jazeera America is shutting down in April less than three years after it began broadcasting in the United States, Al Anstey, its CEO, announced Wednesday.

Al Jazeera America will stop broadcasting on April 30, the company said in a statement, which added:

While Al Jazeera America built a loyal audience across the US and increasingly was recognized as an important new voice in television news, the economic landscape of the media environment has driven its strategic decision to wind down its operations and conclude its service.

“I know the closure of AJAM will be a massive disappointment for everyone here who has worked tirelessly for our long-term future,” Anstey said in a memo to staff. “The decision that has been made is in no way because AJAM has done anything but a great job. Our commitment to great journalism is unrivaled.”

But, he added in the memo, the decision was driven by the fact that “our business model is simply not sustainable in light of the economic challenges in the U.S. media marketplace.”

Al Jazeera America staffers also confirmed the news:

@petersagal Thanks Peter. Keep an ear out...somebody must want an experienced...BUT STILL YOUTHFUL guy!

— Ray Suarez (@RaySuarezNews) January 13, 2016

Even though it's over, working at @AJAM was the wildest most intense rollercoaster ride in media. I don't regret a moment.

— Paul Harris (@paulxharris) January 13, 2016

News of the channel’s closure was announced to workers at an unscheduled staff meeting on Wednesday. Al Jazeera America, the U.S. arm of the pan-Arab Arabic-language network financed by the government of Qatar, began broadcasting in the U.S. in 2013, after its parent company paid Al Gore and his partners $500 million for Current TV.  

CNN reported that as many as 700 staffers will lose their jobs as a result.

Despite its attempt to provide what it saw as sober current-affairs programming in a sea of often-rancorous cable news channels, and winning some top awards in journalism, Al Jazeera America was unable to build an audience—it reached about 60 million households, compared to 100 million for other cable broadcasters—or draw advertisers. And while the Qatari royal family financed the network, the precipitous decline in the price of oil has affected that country’s economy and, presumably, its ability to endlessly finance the U.S. operation.

The environment in the newsroom was also the subject of headlines—and lawsuits. The New York Times adds:

To make matters worse, the newsroom was hit with turmoil last year when staff members complained bitterly of a culture of fear. There was an exodus of top executives, along with a pair of lawsuits from former employees that included complaints about sexism and anti-Semitism at the news channel.

Al Jazeera’s statement on Wednesday said it would pursue a global strategy that would allow American viewers to watch its journalism “wherever and whenever they want.” Prior to Al Jazeera America’s launch in the U.S., viewers were able to watch the network’s English-language arm, which carries global programming, on their computers. That ability was taken away after the American-centric network’s launch in August 2013.  It’s unclear if the change announced Wednesday will allow that to resume, or whether the offerings will be limited to digital content, including video.

American Sailors Released

Update on January 13 at 12:40 p.m. ET

U.S. and Iranian officials are hailing the diplomacy that resulted in the release by Iran of 10 Navy sailors and their two boats that inadvertently strayed into Iranian waters.

“I want to express my gratitude to Iranian authorities for their cooperation ‎in swiftly resolving this matter,” John Kerry, the U.S. secretary of state, said in a statement. “That this issue was resolved peacefully and efficiently is a testament to the critical role diplomacy plays in keeping our country safe, secure, and strong.”

Mohammed Javad Zarif, his Iranian counterpart, tweeted:

Happy to see dialog and respect, not threats and impetuousness, swiftly resolved the #sailors episode. Let’s learn from this latest example.

— Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 13, 2016

Earlier Wednesday, Iranian and U.S. officials announced that Iran had freed the sailors and their vessels, which had been en route Tuesday to Kuwait from Bahrain on a routine exercise. A senior defense official said contact was lost with the boats Tuesday. Iran said they were detained and held at a base on Farsi Island.

A statement from Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps said “technical and operational examinations” of the vessels showed they had inadvertently entered Iranian waters and were released into international waters after an apology. Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, the commander of the IRGC Navy, said earlier Wednesday the U.S. vessels had developed technical problems with their navigation systems.  (You can watch them being released here, courtesy of the AP.)

The sailors left Farsi Island at 8:43 a.m. GMT aboard their two boats and were picked up by Navy aircraft. Their boats are being returned to Bahrain, home to the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

The U.S. Navy said the American sailors—nine men and a woman—had returned safely; there were no indications they had been harmed, the Navy said.

“The Navy will investigate the circumstances that led to the sailors’ presence in Iran,” the statement said.

Here’s more from the AP about the sailors and their vessels:

The sailors were part of Riverine Squadron 1 based in San Diego and were deployed to the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet in Bahrain. When the U.S. lost contact with the boats, ships attached to the USS Harry S Truman aircraft carrier strike group began searching the area, along with aircraft flying off the Truman.

The Riverine boats were not part of the carrier strike group, and were on a training mission, the officials said. The craft are not considered high-tech and don't contain any sensitive equipment, so there were no concerns about the Iranians gaining access to them, they added. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the sensitive incident publicly.

The incident was seen as a test case for newly improved U.S.-Iranian relations. Ties, long frozen after the 1979 Islamic revolution and the subsequent hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, have begun to slowly thaw. The U.S. and other world powers successfully negotiated with Iran on its nuclear program, and the Islamic Republic is just days away from implementing its end of the nuclear deal—for which it will get much-needed sanctions relief.

The detaining of the Americans could have derailed some of those efforts, but their relatively quick release points to the success of diplomacy. Indeed,

What If You Bought All 292 Million of the Possible Powerball Combinations?

At the time of this writing, the Powerball jackpot is up to $1.5 billion. The cash grand prize is estimated at $930 million.

In a Powerball draw, five white balls are drawn from a drum with 69 balls and one red ball is drawn from a drum with 26 balls. If you match all six numbers, you win the jackpot. If you match only some of the numbers, you win a smaller fixed prize.

There are 11,238,513 ways to draw five white balls from a drum of 69 balls. Multiply that by the 26 red balls, and there are a total of 292,201,338 possible Powerball tickets.

At $2 for each ticket, then, it would be possible to buy every possible ticket for $584,402,676. As a journalist, I don’t have that much money sitting around, but either a consortium of a few million Americans or a large and wealthy institution like a bank could conceivably assemble that level of cash.

With the sky-high jackpot in play, this actually at first glance guarantees a profit—at least before taxes. Since in this scenario we’ve bought every ticket exactly once, we can see how much we will win based on the jackpot and the smaller prizes:

The Powerball Drawing’s Possible Outcomes, and Prizes If You’ve Bought Every Ticket Combination

Andy Kiersz, Business Insider | Data: Powerball.com, Business Insider

Indeed, this is something of a conservative estimate. As we are buying another half-billion dollars’ worth of tickets, part of that money will be added into the jackpot pool.

Of course, there are a few complications to this project.

The first problem is the actual physical act of buying 292 million Powerball tickets and filling them out by hand. Since we need to very carefully and systematically make sure we get every possible ticket, using the computer-generated random quick draw will not work for us.

More From Our Partners Riding the Subway in Seoul Here's How Much People Earn 10 years After Attending the Most Expensive Colleges Stocks are Getting Crushed

According to Statista, JPMorgan Chase Bank has about 189,000 employees. That means that there are about 1,546 Powerball combinations for each employee. If each employee spent 10 hours a day buying and filling out Powerball tickets for three days, this would mean each employee would need to fill out about 50 tickets per hour. So while this would be extremely difficult to do and perhaps not the best use of a large organization’s resources, it seems that it might be physically possible, if somewhat grueling, to actually buy every Powerball ticket.

Similarly, a large, decentralized consortium of several thousand or a few million Americans connected over the Internet—something like an office Powerball pool on a mass scale—would be physically capable of buying 292 million lottery tickets. Of course, the logistical coordination of such a consortium would be a daunting task, and one could imagine various legal and practical difficulties with distributing the money after the drawing.

The second (and larger) problem with this Powerball scheme is the risk of there being multiple winning tickets. While the fixed prizes do provide about $93 million of our winnings, the bulk of the money comes from the big prize.

That would mean splitting the jackpot two or more ways with other players, which would be absolutely devastating to our plan. A  cash-prize jackpot split two ways would give us $465 million before taxes. Adding in the fixed prizes, we get a total of about $558 million in winnings, which is now less than the ticket costs of about $584 million, leaving us with a loss of nearly $26 million.

The likelihood of splitting the pot is determined by how many other tickets are sold. Business Insider looked at this after the January 6th drawing, in which there were no winners, paving the way to the current high jackpot. Following the logic from that post, we can estimate our odds of getting the jackpot alone based on a few guesses about ticket sales.

According to LottoReport.com, a site that tracks lottery sales and jackpots, 440,321,172 tickets were sold before Saturday’s drawing. With that many tickets sold, and under the assumption that everyone else playing Powerball is picking numbers more or less at random, and independently from each other, there's just a 22 percent chance that we would be the only winner.

We could also expect that, with the headline prize over a billion dollars, even more tickets will be sold before Wednesday's drawing, greatly hurting our chances of walking away with the full jackpot without having to share:

The Likelihood of Avoiding a Split Pot vs. Number of Tickets Sold

Andy Kiersz, Business Insider | Data: Powerball.com, Business Insider

The above analysis of our odds of splitting the pot assumed that all the other tickets sold were to normal people who would choose their numbers more or less at random. But seeing as we are going all in and buying every ticket, it's possible that someone else could be attempting this as well. There are, after all, several organizations in the U.S. that have the financial and personnel resources to theoretically go out and buy 292 million Powerball tickets.

Read Follow-Up Notes A reader rant: "The lottery is a scam perpetrated on the poorest and most gullible."

Of course, if two or more banks or consortia tried this plan, they would be certain to have to split the pot and thus lose a bunch of money. Banks or billionaires with thousands of employees that are considering buying every Powerball ticket need to make a similar consideration. If there's a low likelihood that a competitor is going to also mobilize a small army of people in a bid to win a historically high lottery jackpot, then perhaps that risk is worth taking. If, on the other hand, we think that there might be not just one but several other wealthy organizations or people that are making similar plans to our own, we should stay out of the fray.

This article appears courtesy of Business Insider .

The Aftermath of the Istanbul Attack

Updated on January 13 at 12:29 p.m. ET

Ten of the fatalities in Tuesday’s suicide bombing have been identified as German, and a Turkish official says one person has been arrested in connection with the attack.

Sawsan Chebli, the German foreign ministry spokeswoman who provided the number of fatalities on Wednesday, also said seven Germans were among the wounded; five of them were in intensive care, she said.

But Turkish Interior Minister Efkan Ala, at a news conference with his German counterpart in Istanbul, put the number of wounded at 11: nine Germans, a Norwegian and a Peruvian. He also said 11 people had been killed in the attack, that’s one more than the figure released Tuesday.  

The attack Tuesday struck Istanbul’s historic Sultanahmet district, which is popular with tourists. Thomas de Maiziere, the German interior minister, said it did not appear that Germans were deliberately targeted.

“In the current stage of the investigation, there is no indication that the attack was targeted against Germans,” he said. “I see no reason to refrain from trips to Turkey.”

On Tuesday, Turkish authorities identified the bomber as Nabil Fadli, who they said was an ISIS member. They initially said he was Syrian. Then, they said he was Saudi. On Wednesday, Turkish news reports said Fadli was a 28-year-old Saudi national who had applied for asylum in Turkey. They said he was identified by his fingertips at the site of the explosion.

Five people have been arrested in connection with the attack: Ala said one person has been arrested; later, Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said four others had been detained.

Ala said the bomber wasn’t on a list of suspected ISIS members in either Turkey or other countries.  Turkish authorities also arrested dozens of terrorism suspects, including three Russians, in raids across the country, the Anatolia News Agency reported.

The Rams Are Headed Back to L.A.

The Rams are returning to Los Angeles for the 2016 season, more than 20 years after they left the city to make St. Louis their home.

The decision was announced late Tuesday by the NFL after a 30-2 vote by team owners in Houston. The Rams will eventually play at a nearly $3 billion facility being developed by Stan Kroenke, the team’s owner, in nearby Inglewood that is projected to be completed in 2019.

“This has been the most difficult process of my professional career,” Kroenke said in a statement. “While we are excited about the prospect of building a new stadium in Inglewood, California, this is bitter sweet.”

But that’s not the only news for NFL fans in Los Angeles, the nation’s second-largest media market after New York. After having no NFL team for 21 years, it may suddenly have two. The San Diego Chargers have a one-year option to decide if they want to join the Rams. NFL.com reports they have until the end of the owners meeting (March 20-23) to decide on where they will play this year.

The Oakland Raiders, who had also looked to move to LA, withdrew their application Tuesday. Instead, they said, they will work with the NFL toward a solution for a new stadium. NFL.com adds they have a one-year option to join the Rams in Inglewood if the Chargers don’t.

Roger Goodell, the NFL commissioner, said Tuesday the league would give $100 million to the Chargers and Raiders if they stay in San Diego and Oakland, respectively.

“I will be working over the next several weeks to explore the options that we have now created for ourselves to determine the best path forward for the Chargers,” Dean Spanos, the team’s owner, said in a statement.

Negotiations with the city have been tense, as reflected by a statement from San Diego’s mayor:

A statement from @RonRobertsSD & I on the @NFL's @Chargers announcement: pic.twitter.com/0Kb9EB98pZ

— Kevin Faulconer (@Kevin_Faulconer) January 13, 2016

The Raiders, in their statement, said they “will now turn our attention to exploring all options to find a permanent stadium solution.” The reaction from the city was more positive, with Mayor Libby Schaaf tweeting:

1/6 Statement on the @RAIDERS and the #NFL Owners Meetings: We are pleased to have additional time to work with the Raiders ...

— Libby Schaaf (@LibbySchaaf) January 13, 2016

2/6 ... and the NFL to build a new home for the team in OAK. We recognize the Raiders have been understandably frustrated over the years...

— Libby Schaaf (@LibbySchaaf) January 13, 2016

3/6 so we're excited to have this chance to rededicate ourselves to getting a deal done that works for the team/NFL/our fans/our taxpayers.

— Libby Schaaf (@LibbySchaaf) January 13, 2016

4/6 We remain confident that the Raiders can build a new stadium in Oakland without a direct public subsidy...

— Libby Schaaf (@LibbySchaaf) January 13, 2016

5/6 We stand ready to work with the @Raiders and the #NFL to responsibly make that happen."

— Libby Schaaf (@LibbySchaaf) January 13, 2016

6/6 Goodnight #RaiderNation, members of the media, and all who are eagerly awaiting a resolution on this. Back to work tomorrow.

— Libby Schaaf (@LibbySchaaf) January 13, 2016

In Los Angeles, reaction was jubilant, with Mayor Eric Garcetti calling the decision“confirmation that this is a town that nobody can afford to pass up.”

In St. Louis, the mood was less cheerful.

“The NFL ignored the facts, the loyalty of St. Louis fans, who supported the team through far more downs than ups, and the NFL ignored a strong market and viable plan for a new stadium,” Mayor Francis Slay said in a statement.

The Rams are the second NFL team to leave the city. The Cardinals left for Phoenix in 1988.

Here’s more from the L.A. Times on what the Inglewood facility will look like:

The stadium will have identical locker rooms, offices and owner’s suites for two teams. There will be 70,240 seats and the capacity can be expanded to add 30,000 people in standing-room-only areas for large events.

The venue, set 100 feet into the ground and with a 175-foot above-ground profile, and developers hope to host such indoor events as college basketball’s Final Four, the NFL Pro Bowl and scouting combine in addition to conventions and award shows.

The design calls for a roof with metal borders and an area over the playing field made of a transparent material called ETFE, which is as clear as a car windshield and believed to be strong enough to support the weight of a vehicle.

The stadium would be open on the sides, allowing breezes to flow through and enhance the outdoor feel.

Until 2019, when the new stadium is projected to be completed, the Rams are expected to play at the L.A. Memorial Coliseum, the Times adds.

The Houston Oilers were the last NFL team to relocate; they moved to Nashville in 1997.

Why Is Bernie Sanders Overtaking Hillary?

A funny thing happened between mid-December and now. When everyone went into holiday slumber, Hillary Clinton was sailing high; Bernie Sanders, after shocking most observers with his impressive popularity, seemed to have plateaued around 30 percent. Now, in the homestretch as the Iowa caucuses (February 1) and New Hampshire primary (February 9) draw closer, the race is getting tighter.

As I wrote yesterday, Sanders has begun making an argument that he is the more electable candidate in the race, a surprising turn. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed him closing the gap in Iowa to three points and leading in New Hampshire. Two new polls on Tuesday bring more welcome news for the Sanders campaign. Monmouth University finds him opening up a whopping 14 point lead in New Hampshire. A Quinnipiac poll shows Sanders up five points among likely caucusgoers in Iowa, his first lead in months. And a CBS/New York Times poll shows her national lead dropping from 20 to 7. Nationally, Clinton retains a solid lead, but not nearly as large as a few weeks ago:

Momentum swings and lead changes are nothing new in a presidential race, but usually there’s a reason for them. Sometimes those reasons are clearer: Ben Carson’s numbers have softened after a series of verbal gaffes and campaign turmoil. Other times they’re somewhat more oblique, like Carly Fiorina’s tumble in the polls after she proved unable to attract attention when not on a debate stage. But there’s been no obvious turning point that’s led to the convergence in the Democratic race. There have been no additional Democratic debates. Clinton hasn’t committed any obviously huge errors. Sanders hasn’t significantly changed his style or positions on the trail.

What’s going on here? I’m not sure there’s a definitive answer, but here are a few theories.

It’s Natural Tightening

According to this theory, there’s no surprise that things are closer now. Voters are just starting to pay attention, and elections almost always get closer at the end. It happened in 2004, it happened in 2008 (with ultimately disastrous results for Clinton), and it’s happening again. This is the view of the Clinton campaign, which says it’s expected a close race all along. “Since the campaign started, we have said this race will be a competitive, tough race that would tighten and we’d have to earn the nomination,” says spokesman Jesse Ferguson. “We have built a tremendous grassroots organization in Iowa fueled by enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton and her record, that is set to compete and win.”

The Message Is Resonating

The Sanders campaign sees the same dynamic from a different perspective, which also relies on the idea that voters are just tuning in. They say that this is proof that Sanders’s electability and message about inequality are resonating with voters now. Another, less charitable view put forward by Sanders backers is that people are just sick of Clinton—though why would that would manifest itself only now, and not in (say) South Carolina?

The Ad Blitz

Relatedly, Sanders aired a ton of ads starting in December, and that may be pushing his numbers up.

The Polls Are Bad

Here are the last four polls included in RealClearPolitics’ Iowa average, all of them taken this month: Clinton +3; Sanders +3; Clinton +6; Sanders +5. Or take that Monmouth poll in New Hampshire, with the massive lead. The fact is, state-level polls are often unreliable at this stage, especially as they move to determine who’s a “likely voter/caucusgoer.” The Quinnipiac poll, in particular, has gotten some races badly wrong and irks many poll-watchers. But polling in general has been pretty rough recently. Maybe none of this is even happening in real life.

It’s All About Trump

Sanders has sharpened some of his rhetoric about the differences between himself and Clinton over time, but the candidate who’s really out bashing her (and even more pointedly, her husband) is Donald Trump, bringing up some uncomfortable questions about sexual assault and Bill Clinton’s past. A side effect of these attacks is that they remind voters of the ugly mudslinging of the 1990s. Even if they think it’s a Republican witch hunt, do they really want to go through all that again?

Sanders Hasn’t Faced Fierce Attacks

That’s a good reminder that Sanders hasn’t been attacked like Clinton has. He looks electable now because no one’s laying many blows on him—Clinton has jabbed at him on guns, but Martin O’Malley is MIA and the Republicans either don’t see him as a serious threat or are just as happy for Clinton to sweat. Put him through that grinder, and will his electability numbers still look so good?

There Haven’t Been Any Debates

Clinton has proven herself a deft debater, and she saw a bounce and/or Sanders a drop after the first three (though the last was short-lived). But there have been no debates ever since. Maybe limiting the number of debates wasn’t such a hot idea!

Sanders’s Data Gambit Worked

It was a bold move: Get caught looking at the other campaign's data, then portray the punishment as unfair discrimination. But maybe it worked for the Sanders campaign, which was able to reassert its antiestablishment bonafides and portray itself as a martyr (much to the outrage of the Clinton campaign, which felt violated by the Sanders campaign’s machinations—even if the staffers involved were pink-slipped). His numbers are all up since hitting a trough around the time of that flap, in mid-December.

Read Follow-Up Notes Readers show how Clinton flipped her gun rhetoric compared to '08 The case for a boring Clinton presidency over Sanders

None of these theories is especially persuasive on its own. Probably there’s a little truth in several of them—voters are starting to tune in, Clinton has had a mediocre month, Sanders’ electability might be overstated. Unless, of course, the polls are wrong. Then all bets are off.