Last Call For Damage, Limited

Yesterday's Hobby Lobby decision was ugly, and the right went out of their way to call critics of the ruling all kinds of names, with Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post calling the reaction "caterwauling", Sean Davis at The Federalist complaining of "stupid arguments by dumb liberals" and the braintrust at Power Line going so far as to call the decision "meaningless".

Only the funny part is, the liberal point that the decision means private, for-profit companies can now refuse to cover any birth control is actually 100% correct.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception. 

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices. 

Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case. 

Do we understand now what's going on?  If a "closely-held" business objects to any or all 20 forms of covered contraception under the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds, they no longer have to offer health insurance coverage for any of them.  This includes standard birth control methods like the pill.

Sure, that seems like freedom to me, right?

So yes, this decision is very much an attack on women, who now can be denied health insurance coverage because of their boss's religion.

Might want to keep that in mind when you vote in November.

Ethics Schmethics, We're Flying To Aruba

Republicans continue to respond very quickly to the needs of their real constituency: the corporate lobbyists who have bought and paid for our political system.

It's going to be a little more difficult to ferret out which members of Congress are lavished with all-expenses-paid trips around the world after the House has quietly stripped away the requirement that such privately sponsored travel be included on lawmakers' annual financial-disclosure forms. 

The move, made behind closed doors and without a public announcement by the House Ethics Committee, reverses more than three decades of precedent. Gifts of free travel to lawmakers have appeared on the yearly financial form dating back its creation in the late 1970s, after the Watergate scandal. National Journal uncovered the deleted disclosure requirement when analyzing the most recent batch of yearly filings. 

"This is such an obvious effort to avoid accountability," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "There's no legitimate reason. There's no good reason for it."

Free trips paid for by private groups must still be reported separately to the House's Office of the Clerk and disclosed there. But they will now be absent from the chief document that reporters, watchdogs, and members of the public have used for decades to scrutinize lawmakers' finances.

Now why would House Republicans suddenly want to start hiding  disclosures of which corporations are giving them free trips?  It's not like lobbyists are spending millions buying members of Congress in order to get billions in favorable legislative deals, right?

The change occurs as free travel, which critics have criticized as thinly veiled junkets, has come back into vogue. Last year, members of Congress and their aides took more free trips than in any year since the influence-peddling scandal that sent lobbyist Jack Abramoff to prison. There were nearly 1,900 trips at a cost of more than $6 million last year, according to Legistorm, which compiles travel records. 

Now none of those trips must be included on the annual disclosures of lawmakers or their aides.

But the real problem is Obama playing golf, right?

BREAKING: Federal Judge Overturns Kentucky's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

And another unconstitutional ban on marriage equality falls, this time right here in the Bluegrass State.

A federal judge today ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry in Kentucky. 

"In America, even sincere and long-hold religious beliefs do not trump the constitutional rights of those who happen to have been out-voted," U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II wrote to invalidate Kentucky's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. 

Heyburn in February had ruled that Kentucky must recognize gay marriages performed in other states. 

Heyburn upheld the right to marry today, but put his ruling on hold pending a decision by a higher court. Heyburn rejected the only justification offered by lawyers for Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear — that traditional marriages contribute to a stable birth rate and the state's long-term economic stability. 

"These arguments are not those of serious people," he said. 

Heyburn held that the ban on gay marriage within Kentucky violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law and that there is "no conceivable legitimate purpose for it." 

He held that the state's 2004 constitutional amendment and a similar statute enacted in 1998 deny gay couples lower income and estate taxes; leave from work under the Family and Medical Leave Act, family insurance coverage; and the ability to adopt children as a couple. 

"Perhaps most importantly," he added, the Kentucky law denies same-sex couples the "intangible and and emotional benefits of civil marriage." 

Heyburn stayed the ruling until the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decides gay-marriage cases from Kentucky and three other states. Oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 6.

Still a perfect record for overturning state same-sex marriage bans since last year's DOMA ruling by the Supreme Court.  Folks, if Kentucky has fallen, and we'll see about the 6th Circuit, I'd have to finally start believing that it's going to be up to SCOTUS, maybe this time next year.

Govern Mental Problems

The Age of Obama has also been the Age of Republicans Refusing To Govern, so it's no surprise that Gallup's annual poll on US confidence in the three branches of government has hit new lows.

Americans' confidence in all three branches of the U.S. government has fallen, reaching record lows for the Supreme Court (30%) and Congress (7%), and a six-year low for the presidency (29%). The presidency had the largest drop of the three branches this year, down seven percentage points from its previous rating of 36%.



These data come from a June 5-8 Gallup poll asking Americans about their confidence in 16 U.S. institutions -- within government, business, and society -- that they either read about or interact with.

While Gallup recently reported a historically low rating of Congress, Americans have always had less confidence in Congress than in the other two branches of government. The Supreme Court and the presidency have alternated being the most trusted branch of government since 1991, the first year Gallup began asking regularly about all three branches.

But on a relative basis, Americans' confidence in all three is eroding. Since June 2013, confidence has fallen seven points for the presidency, four points for the Supreme Court, and three points for Congress. Confidence in each of the three branches of government had already fallen from 2012 to 2013.

The Supreme Court took a nasty hit during the Dubya Years (Alito and Roberts will do that, along with the ridiculous nomination of Harriet Miers), recovered slightly with President Obama's election, and has dropped again.  Dubya still holds the record lows for the least trusted Executive Branch for now, but Congress has never been above 30% and is at 7% now.

The larger issue is Republicans are handily winning their war on the federal government, and dangerously so.  That's the entire point of modern Republicanism, after all.  Maybe we don't need
"united" states so much anymore.

StupidiNews!

• After the bodies of three missing Israeli teens were found near the West Bank early Monday, Israel has retaliated with dozens of air strikes on Hamas positions in Gaza.
• Arthur, the first named storm of the Atlantic hurricane season, is expected to form off the coast of the US this weekend, which could bring heavy rains to the East Coast for 4th of July.
• Iraq's new parliament met yesterday to try to form a new unity government and replace PH Nuri al-Maliki, but failed to reach any agreement after Sunni lawmakers walked out.
• Embattled Toronto Mayor Rob Ford says his recent stint in rehab for alcohol and drug abuse saved his life, and that he must work harder to earn the city's trust again.
• The sixth season of canceled NBC sitcom Community will be made after all, as the series goes to Yahoo's new online streaming service.

Last Call For Executive, Now With Action

President Obama, after finally being informed by Orange Julius that there will be no immigration vote in the House in 2014 because Republicans hate his guts and want him to die or something, has decided that it's time for some good old fashioned executive orders.

A clearly angry President Obama announced Monday that he plans to move forward with administrative action by the end of the summer on steps he can take without Congress, but within his existing authorities, to “fix as much of our broken immigration system as we can” because of Republican inaction on an immigration overhaul.

The announcement comes a week after Speaker John Boehner and Obama spoke before the PGA golf event where Boehner told him the House will not take a vote on immigration reform this year.

Remember, Boehner not doing his job is Obama's fault.  Because everything is Obama's fault.

“Today I’m beginning a new effort to fix as much of the immigration system as I can on my own without Congress,” he said, later adding that “it’s very rare that you get labor, business, evangelicals, law enforcement all agreeing on what needs to be done.”

The most important expected policy shift is “administrative relief,” which activists have been calling for for all of 2014, a plan that would reset enforcement priorities and lessen record deportations. The president previously directed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief Jeh Johnson to look at its policies to make sure they are “humane.”

So, looks like border policy and immigration and detention policy will get a major rewrite.  House Republicans will snivel and choose to not vote on the bill and it will die, just like Republicans killed immigration reform seven years ago under a Republican President.

So nothing will get done.  Remember which side is choosing to do nothing.

SCOTUS-Palooza

The final two rulings of this Supreme Court term were 5-4 decisions written by Justice Samuel Alito, and they're just as terrible as you'd expect.  First, in Harris v. Quinn,  the decision came down that public unions cannot force non-union members in a union shop to pay dues.

In a 5-4 decision by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to public sector unions on Monday, although the opinion fell short of the claim made by the anti-union litigation shop that argued that case, which sought to undermine the finances of all public sector unions. The plaintiffs in this case, and their anti-union attorneys, argued that non-union members cannot be required to reimburse unions that bargain on their behalf for the costs it incurred during that bargaining. Without those reimbursements, the financial viability of the unions is in jeopardy. 

Alito’s opinion in Harris v. Quinn recognizes a category of “partial public employees” who cannot be required to contribute funds to the collective bargaining that they benefit from. This case involved Medicaid home health workers who are paid by the state but who work directly for individual patients. Nevertheless, the case hints that the Court will deal additional blows to public sector unions in the future. Alito labels a seminal Supreme Court opinion allowing unions to collect reimbursements from nonmembers “questionable on several grounds.”

That case is 1977's Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which upheld that public employees could unionize.  Alito dropped several hints in his decision that an open challenge to that ruling would find fertile ground (or at least five votes to sink it.)

Alito then went on to blow a hole in 120+ years of established legal precedent involving the religious rights of corporate entities in the Hobby Lobby case.

If you’re one of the estimated 14,000 individuals who work at Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood — the companies who represented the two plaintiffs in the case — then you’re most immediately affected by Monday’s decision. Your employers no longer have to cover several types of birth control that they’re opposed to. 

Both companies object to covering emergency contraception, which they falsely claim is a type of abortion despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. Hobby Lobby’s owners also take issue with two forms of intrauterine devices (IUDs), long lasting forms of birth control inserted in the uterus, for the same unscientific reason. So the workers employed by those businesses won’t be able to use their insurance coverage for those types of birth control anymore. They’ll presumably be able to continue using their health plans for other methods, like hormonal birth control pills, that their bosses don’t have a problem with.

But even if you don’t work at Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood, there’s a chance that your birth control coverage may be put into question. More than 70 other companies also sued for the right to stop following Obamacare’s contraceptive provision. According to the National Women’s Law Center, 48 of those cases are still pending. Now that the Court has sided with Hobby Lobby, it will be much easier for some of those companies to win their suits and opt out of covering certain types of contraception.

And now that this decision has opened the door to "closely-held" corporations having the same religious freedoms as the family that owns them,, and being able to subject their employees to those beliefs, a whole lot more douchebaggery is coming down the pike.

In her epic dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the Senate blocked an amendment to the Affordable Care Act that would have given Hobby Lobby the religious exemption they later sued for.  In other words, this is a perfect example of real judicial overreach, and litigating from the bench.

But that's how SCOTUS works these days, slowly rolling back laws passed by Democrats.

The Darkest Of Waters

Remember our old Iraq War military contractor friend Blackwater (now the cryptic "Xe") and founder Erik Prince?  Turns out this awful bunch of mercenaries weren't just immoral, they liked to push our government around too with death threats against anyone investigating them.  TPM's Josh Marshall recounts the NY Times investigation:

Over the course of the last decade, Blackwater became a notorious symbol of military contracting run amok, with price-gouging, reckless behavior and your occasional atrocity. So it's hard to imagine anything coming out that would genuinely shock anyone. Until this.

According to documents reviewed by The New York Times, State Department investigator had already begun probing Blackwater a short time before the infamous Nisour Square shooting in 2007. But the probe broke down when Blackwater's top guy in Iraq threatened to kill the lead investigator, suggesting, not improbably, that amid the anarchy of Iraq it could be easily covered up as just another moment of sectarian violence or a terrorist attack.

Nice guys, huh.  Would be a shame if anything happened to your State Department investigation team, right?

Just weeks before Blackwater guards fatally shot 17 civilians at Baghdad’s Nisour Square in 2007, the State Department began investigating the security contractor’s operations in Iraq. But the inquiry was abandoned after Blackwater’s top manager there issued a threat: “that he could kill” the government’s chief investigator and “no one could or would do anything about it as we were in Iraq,” according to department reports. 

American Embassy officials in Baghdad sided with Blackwater rather than the State Department investigators as a dispute over the probe escalated in August 2007, the previously undisclosed documents show. The officials told the investigators that they had disrupted the embassy’s relationship with the security contractor and ordered them to leave the country, according to the reports.

Nobody was going to mess with these guys, and they probably got away with all kids of truly horrific if not criminal acts for years in Iraq.  And the American people paid them billions to do it.   Who in the Bush administration would ever question Blackwater about a dead US civilian sent to a war zone to poke around where they shouldn't be?

It's not like anything happens to these guys even if people do ask questions.

StupidiNews!

• The Supreme Court is expected to hand down the final two decisions of its term today, one involving the future of public unions, the other, religious objections by corporations to birth control.
• Evacuations due to massive flooding in southern Brazil has forced 50,000 out of their homes already in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul states, a week of torrential rainfall has flooded towns.
• President Obama is expected to formally nominate former Proctor & Gamble CEO Bob McDonald to replace Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki on Monday.
• California grocers wanting to charge fees for paper bags are teaming up with environmental groups to lobby for a statewide ban on plastic grocery bags.
• Scientists have discovered a new species of elephant shrew in Namibia's Namib desert, the smallest of the family of shrews with long, trunk-like snouts.

Last Call For The Bufferless Zone

With the Supreme Court having struck down the Massachusetts "Buffer Zone" law around abortion clinics to prevent violence (indeed the ruling of SCOTUS was unanimous in that the law was an arbitrary violation of the free speech rights of anti-choice protesters) the first Saturday without the 35-foot distance between protestors and clinic workers and patients at a Boston-area clinic got ugly and fast.

At its height, the protest drew about 70 people — three times more than the average Saturday morning crowd, typically the largest gathering of the week — a turnout inspired by Thursday’s US Supreme Court ruling that struck down the Massachusetts law that since 2007 had kept them outside the yellow line.

“I have a friend that had an abortion 45 years ago. I saw what she suffered, and that’s why I come,” said Mary O’Donnell, 82, of Arlington, clutching a handful of pamphlets, rosaries, and medals. “To let them know there’s another option.”

The Supreme Court ruling, she said, “just gives us the chance to be a little bit closer, to let them know that we care.”

Yes, show them your caring and compassionate side by intimidating and berating them.

Many of the young women entering the clinic, however, appeared upset by the crowd, and hustled through with their heads down, some clutching the hands of their partners.

“You have to walk through this circle of people staring at you and talking to you and judging you,” a young woman named Julie said after leaving the clinic. “It’s very intimidating.”

Julie, who was not at the clinic for an abortion and asked to be identified only by her first name to protect her privacy, said that as she walked in, one person tried to hand her pamphlets and another shouted to her: “Fetuses have fingernails and a heartbeat.”

To her, the Supreme Court’s ruling felt hateful to women.

“Sitting in there today, I was thinking about all these protesters outside, and what if somebody just threw a bomb in?” she said. “That’s what was going through my mind when I was getting my blood pressure taken.”

Not like it hasn't happened before, folks.  But in this new era, pro-choice Americans are adapting.

Marty Walz, president and CEO of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said the clinic will now need escorts to shepherd patients through the crowd every day it is open, not just on Saturdays.

“We know there’s horror at the court’s ruling,” Walz said. In anticipation of that ruling, Planned Parenthood received about 100 applications from people volunteering to work as escorts, she said. In the first 24 hours since the ruling, they were overwhelmed with nearly 200 more.

Since the ruling, said Walz, Planned Parenthood has received many complaints from patients about the protests, and more patients than usual have canceled appointments.

“Our patients and staff are subjected to this extreme, aggressive behavior, but that’s what the Supreme Court thinks is appropriate for the women of this country,” Walz said.

You have a constitutional right to harass women at abortion clinics, you know.  Unanimously decided by the highest court in the land.

You know, until all the clinics are gone.

Psychological Logic Kill

Reminder for folks out there: big social media companies like Facebook and Twitter pretty much completely own any data you enter into the system, and they can do whatever they want with it.

The latest way that Facebook has been peeking into its users’ personal lives may be the most surprising yet: Facebook researches have published a scientific paper that reveals the company has been conducting psychological experiments on its users to manipulate their emotions.

The experiments sought to prove the phenomenon of “emotional contagion” — as in, whether you’ll be more happy if those in your Facebook news feed are. They took place over the week of January 11th-18th, 2012, and targeted 689,003 English-speaking Facebook users.

The study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. was successful. It found that, indeed, manipulating the algorithm to show more “positive” posts in your news feed will actually inspire you to write more “positive” posts yourself. So, for example, if you see a lot of people happy about their jobs or excited to be seeing the concert of their favorite band, then you’re more likely to post that you are happy about something in your life, too.

While that little fact in itself may be interesting, there’s one disturbing aspect of the study: None of the people involved in the experiment were explicitly told that they would be a part of it.

Facebook does have terms of service — ones that every Facebook user has agreed to — thatspecify users’ data may be used “for internal operations, including troubleshooting, data analysis, testing, research and service improvement.” The researchers of this psychology experiment argue that their experiments fall under these terms of use because “no text was seen by the researchers.” Rather, a computer program scanned for words that were considered either “positive” or “negative.”

“As such,” the researchers write, “it was consistent with Facebook’s Data Use Policy, to which all users agree prior to creating an account on Facebook, constituting informed consent for this research.”

Something to remember when you're out there in the big world of social media.  Your data belongs to these companies 100% as far as they're concerned, and there's very few regulations for protecting your privacy from them, if any.

So,What Domestic Terrorism Problem Here In Cincy?

The best part about these open carry numbskulls in Texas is the copycat open carry guys hoping for their 15 minutes of YouTube fame by acting as terrible as possible while.  Turns out some of them live only a few miles away from me.

Police arrested one of four people who walked through a Cincinnati neighborhood while openly carrying AR-15 rifles and repeatedly using racial slurs and profanity. 

One of two men in the group, which included two women, filmed their open carry rally in the East Price Hill neighborhood, where they walked past District 3 police headquarters and marveled that they were exercising their constitutional rights. 

“Broad day, you see this? Walking down the street with a AR-15,” says the man filming the demonstration, who police later identified as Jesse Deboard.


The video, which was later posted on YouTube and shared on social media, shows the foursome encounter police officers, who question them on camera but let them go on their way, reported WKRC-TV. 

“Like you said, it’s your right to do that, it makes no sense to me I mean, unless you just want attention and us to stop you and ask you,” an officer says on camera. “I just don’t understand it, that’s all. I’ve seen enough of these YouTube videos where everybody just tries to get the cop to stop them.” 

The group then brags about openly carrying assault weapons on city streets. 

“Open carry in the state of Ohio, the cops can’t do nothing,” one of them men says on camera. 

Deboard can be heard asking if unidentified Facebook friends “still want that drama, though.” 

“This is going on YouTube, n*gga, world star,” Deboard says to a passing group of black men.

What a great bunch, walking through East Price Hill, with AR-15s, shouting the N-word at residents, daring them to do anything about it, and laughing that the cops can't do anything.

Only, the cops did something.

Police conducted a further investigation after the video was posted online, and the 23-year-old Deboard was arrested and charged with menacing by stalking and violation of a protection order. 

He remains jailed on $25,000 bond, and an April 16 Facebook post apparently announced his intention to buy the weapons seen in the video.

Was awfully nice of this assclown to post all that evidence on YouTube for the cops to analyze, wasn't it?

So, do we think open carry is a stupid idea yet?

Last Call For The Same Song And Dance

Republicans are getting sloppy.  It's taken then weeks to come up with this latest poutrage, that captured alleged Benghazi attack mastermind Ahmed Abu Khatallah can't possibly be tried in criminal court because, umm, superpowers or something.

“I have serious concerns that conducting a rushed interrogation onboard a ship and then turning Abu Khatallah over to our civilian courts risks losing critical intelligence that could lead us to other terrorists or prevent future attacks,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire, said in a statement Saturday. "I've asked the Defense and Justice Departments for an update on his status-including whether he has been told he has the right to remain silent." 

Shortly after the White House announced Abu Khatallah’s capture on July 17, Republicans like Florida Sen. Marco Rubio began to criticize President Barack Obama’s administration because they believed the alleged terrorist should go through a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay instead of being tried in a federal court. 

“If they bring him to the United States, they're going to Mirandize this guy and it would be a mistake for the ages to read this guy his Miranda rights,” said South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. 

But the White House has defended its decision, saying that they have successfully tried a number of terrorists domestically and that no new captives have gone to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in years. 

“We have not added a single person to the GITMO population since President Obama took office, and we have had substantial success delivering swift justice to terrorists through our federal court system,” National Security Council Spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement the day the capture was announced.

In other words, Republicans are going to call President Obama weak and a traitor for not torturing "intelligence" out of Abu Khatallah, if you can believe that nonsense.  But, that's where we're going to be after the Sunday shows tomorrow, because our idiot media will somehow take this seriously.

Maximum Wingnut Achieved

Republicans are delightfully insane, almost charming, aren't they?

On Tuesday, Timothy Ray Murray challenged longtime incumbent Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) for the Republican nomination in Oklahoma's 3rd Congressional district. Murray lost, but he did manage to pull in 3,442 votes, good for 5.2 percent of the total. Now Murray says he will contest the outcome of the election. Because, he says, Lucas is dead and has been replaced by a "look alike."

Wait, what?

"The election for U.S. House for Oklahoma’s 3rd District will be contested by the Candidate, Timothy Ray Murray," Murray wrote in a press release posted on his campaign website. "I will be stating that his votes are switched with Rep. Lucas votes, because it is widely known Rep. Frank D. Lucas is no longer alive and has been displayed by a look alike."

Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down and see an incumbent Congressman , Timothy. It's crawling toward you...

On the website, Murray claims that Lucas and "a few other Oklahoma and other States’ Congressional Members," were executed "on or about" Jan. 11, 2011 in southern Ukraine. 

"On television they were depicted as being executed by the hanging about the neck until death on a white stage and in front of witnesses," the website claims. "Other now current Members of Congress have shared those facts on television also. We know that it is possible to use look alike artificial or manmade replacements, however Rep. Lucas was not eligible to serve as a Congressional Member after that time."

Because he's a dead clone, or a replicant.  Or a pod person.

Rep Frank Lucas (R-Outer Space), apparently.

Remember when the worst thing about Republicans was that they would occasionally say something stupid or misspell "potato" or invade some crapass Central American country for a couple of weeks?  Those were good times.  Good time indeed.

Categorical Denial

The new Pew Research Center study on America's political ideology is a fascinating read, finding that the country is far from just a red/blue dynamic.  The Pew study finds eight different categories of American voters, ranging from Steadfast Conservatives to Solid Liberals to Bystanders who don't vote or care about politics at all (and a quiz to find out where you fit) based on responses to 23 questions.

Vox's Max Fisher discovered something rather depressing however.  One of those questions involves blacks and discrimination, and the numbers are pretty breathtaking: 63% of Americans believe that blacks who can't get ahead have only themselves to blame, including majorities of 6 of Pew's 7 categories of American voters.

A wide majority of Americans say that, if black people are struggling to advance in society, then it is primarily their fault and not because of discrimination. That's the majority view for some types of liberals but is far, far more common among conservatives. Over 80 percent of conservatives say they agree that "Blacks who can't get ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition," while just some seven percent say that "Racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can't get ahead these days." 

That's based on Pew pollsters asking Americans which of those two statements they agree with more. Nationally, 63 percent say "blacks who can't get ahead are mostly responsible for their own condition" versus 27 percent who say "racial discrimination is the main reason why many black people can't get ahead these days." That's more than two-to-one.

 Here's the chart:

Only Solid Liberals, which make up 15% of Americans, believe discrimination is still the main reason why African-Americans who can't get ahead are unable to do so. When it comes to the two groups of Millennial voters (libertarian-leaning Young Outsiders and socially liberal Next Generation Left) who together account for 26% of America, only about one in seven believe discrimination is more of a factor than lack of hard work.

Solid Liberals on the other hand overwhelmingly believe that discrimination is still a problem.  That's because, as Fisher points out, it still is.

The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, in his recent cover story "The Case for Reparations," wrote about the popular American fiction that the age of widespread discrimination against black people is over in American, as are its effects. Because, even though it is widely perceived as fact by American conservatives and even liberals, it is a fiction. 

In fact, not only does discrimination continue today, but the consequences of two centuries of slavery and one century of explicit white supremacy still directly impact and hold back black families.

The evidence is there, but of course talking about it remains taboo.